# RAC-Tonight-Springville



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I cant make it.
But would love to hear a report.
Thanks in advance..


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'd go if it wasn't a four hour drive.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I'd go if it wasn't a four hour drive.


Granted, I don't make the Grantsville to Springville trip ever, but 4 hours? Do you mean round trip? I guess if the traffic is bad that 86 mile drive could take about 2 hours one way...


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Meeting was poorly attended, probably due to the weather.

Draw application and taking big game rule amendments passed as presented, except with the addition of shotguns to the handgun-archery-muzzleloader hunts.

Big game permit number proposals passed as presented, with the following exceptions:

1. 45 additional general deer permits on Plateau, Thousand Lakes. The rationale was that this unit is well over age objective, and recently got an early rifle season (which spreads hunters out), so there can be more hunters without more crowding.

2. 500 more general deer permits on Zion (compared to 2018 numbers), the rationale being similar to #1.

3. 500 more general deer permits on Pine Valley (compared to 2018 numbers), the rational being similar to #1.

4. Two additional rifle ram tags on the Zion desert sheep hunt (one for each season). Troy Justensen (SFW president) commented asking the RAC to vote for this because the intent when they sold it to the wildlife board was not to reduce rifle tag numbers to provide archery tags. I've got to hand it to him for asking the board to follow through with this. The DWR responded that their tag recommendations were based on maintaining a pretty high level of quality, but the board voted in favor of more opportunity. I hope it passes.

The division said they assumed 50% success on the archery sheep tags when deciding on permit numbers.

Antlerless permit numbers passed as presented.

CWMU rule amendments and tag numbers passed as presented. All those who have been applying for a 2-doe CWMU deer tag should be pleased to know that 50 were approved this year.

Depredation rule amendments and conservation rule amendments passed as presented.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I'll also note that there was some discussion on age objective on some elk units, as well as a motion from the RAC to ask the wildlife board to reopen the elk management plan and explore changes to the age objectives on some units.

One example that was given was on the Nebo unit - it's never achieved its age objective, and some people suspect that's because it's right next to the Manti unit, which has a much lower objective, and there is probably some interchange between herds. They've cut tons of tags on the unit over the years, and it hasn't really affected the population or the age objective. The Deep Creek unit was another example of a unit which is chronically under objective.

The Wasatch was also discussed. Covy reported that they had a lot of good feedback from Wasatch hunters this year, many who thought it had improved compared to years past. It's also maintaining/exceeding age objectives. Apparently the DWR suspects that bulls migrate in from surrounding areas, including tribal lands, which is why it continues to support high harvest.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Granted, I don't make the Grantsville to Springville trip ever, but 4 hours? Do you mean round trip? I guess if the traffic is bad that 86 mile drive could take about 2 hours one way...


You've always been one to be obsessed with detail. The way people drive along the Wasatch Front, with wet roads and it being dark too. It would definitely take 4+ hours round trip. 
Since I have to be up for work at 5:00am and work to around 5:00pm, that's just a little to much right now.

Clarq, thanks for the update.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Clarq
AWESOME report!
Thank you.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Could the fires from the East help push all those elk into the Wasatch areas? I mean you hear guys talk that hunted up by strawberry that said it was the best its been for years. So maybe that is why. The thing is, some areas are doing better, but hobble creek and diamond fork, the elk are not there at all like they used to be.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Clarq said:


> I'll also note that there was some discussion on age objective on some elk units, as well as a motion from the RAC to ask the wildlife board to reopen the elk management plan and explore changes to the age objectives on some units.
> 
> One example that was given was on the Nebo unit - it's never achieved its age objective, and some people suspect that's because it's right next to the Manti unit, which has a much lower objective, and there is probably some interchange between herds. They've cut tons of tags on the unit over the years, and it hasn't really affected the population or the age objective. The Deep Creek unit was another example of a unit which is chronically under objective.
> 
> The Wasatch was also discussed. Covy reported that they had a lot of good feedback from Wasatch hunters this year, many who thought it had improved compared to years past. It's also maintaining/exceeding age objectives. Apparently the DWR suspects that bulls migrate in from surrounding areas, including tribal lands, which is why it continues to support high harvest.


Do they want the Nebo objective lowered, or the Manti increased?

Depending on who is taking, it can go either way.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Rob,
The largest factor contributing to the increase of elk around Strawberry is the giant DECREASE in anterless permits...
And Random,
In increase of age objectives on Manti would mean a 50% reduction on LE bull permits.
And Im ok with that, but alot of other hunters are not.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Clarq, Who's idea was it to increase GS permits on the PV and Zion unit?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> Do they want the Nebo objective lowered, or the Manti increased?
> 
> Depending on who is taking, it can go either way.


Those in the meeting were leaning toward a lower objective on the Nebo. The Central RAC as a whole seems heavily in favor of more opportunity.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

huntinfanatic said:


> Clarq, Who's idea was it to increase GS permits on the PV and Zion unit?


One of the RAC members.

He actually did the math and worked out how many permits the DWR could offer under the management plans on those units, and found that the amount of general deer tags the DWR is recommending is far less than it could be. On top of that, buck-to-doe ratios are well above management goals.

DWR personnel responded and essentially said that they have recommended permit increases on those units time and time again, but the locals always fight back so they can keep it how it is.

The RAC came to the conclusion that, if unit-by-unit deer management is going to work, we need to be consistent in the management of all units instead of playing favorites. Hence, the increase.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I hope they keep the age objective how it is on the Manti elk.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks for the detailed response Clarq.



When the new management plans are being created this coming year I hope they increase the b/d ratios on units like the Zion, Kamas, Nine Mile, Chalk Creek/East Canyon etc. that have a lot of private property. These units will always have high b/d ratios due to the private regardless of constant permit increases.

Starting in 2012, the first year of unit by unit management, they have added permits on the Zion unit every year. Regardless of those increases the b/d ratio has stayed the same all those years, just over 23 buck/100 does. Adding 500 more permits will not lower the b/d ratio significantly enough to get it down to 18-20 but it will for sure create more trespassing issues and lower hunter satisfaction for those hunting on what limited public land is available on the unit. 

According to the Zion management plan 71% of the summer range is private or park and 35% of the winter range is private or park. Where does that rac expect 500 more permit holders to hunt when all the deer seasons are in late summer or early fall? The unit plan also states that, "significant increases in buck permits will not increase harvest if hunters cannot gain access to hunt. It may only result in more trespass issues. Caution will be used when adjusting permits." 

I hope the southern rac and more importantly the Wildlife board go with the dwr recommendation or leave permit numbers the same as 2018 on the Zion unit(my prefered choice). It was only this past season that they split the rifle hunt into 2 seperate seasons due in part to complaints about overcrowding on what public land there is and now just one year later this bright idea to now bring back the same crowding issues.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

huntinfanatic said:


> Thanks for the detailed response Clarq.
> 
> When the new management plans are being created this coming year I hope they increase the b/d ratios on units like the Zion, Kamas, Nine Mile, Chalk Creek/East Canyon etc. that have a lot of private property. These units will always have high b/d ratios due to the private regardless of constant permit increases.
> 
> ...


That Summer range has over 60,000 acres of Forest Service land alone.

If that potential 1 hunter for every 120 acres causes someone to trespass, then at heart they already were a trespasser. The fact is on a unit that big, and adding the new early season rifle with NO permit increase, would be negligible.

I get what you are saying, the reality is most the guys pissed are weekend warriors. Those of us who live for the deer hunt and will take off during the week, and also hike away from roads, are happy to welcome the opportunity to hunt more frequently.

There likely isn't a unit in the state that you couldn't put boots to the ground and get away from people. Including some of the units that are 90% private. No one hikes to the very back of east canyon wma, or most wma's for that matter. And if they do... well it's usually not on a Tuesday.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ON most years, the deer on the Zion unit are exiting the high country and heading for the winter range by the time the rifle deer hunt starts. So, by then those extra hunters will be hunting land that is predominantly (65% according to huntinfanatic's numbers) public land.

If 500 more permits won't affect the buck/doe ratios, why in the hell shouldn't we be giving those permits out? Good grief, the crowding issues today pale in comparison to what they were in the 80s and nobody was complaining about them then.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> ON most years, the deer on the Zion unit are exiting the high country and heading for the winter range by the time the rifle deer hunt starts. So, by then those extra hunters will be hunting land that is predominantly (65% according to huntinfanatic's numbers) public land.
> 
> If 500 more permits won't affect the buck/doe ratios, why in the hell shouldn't we be giving those permits out? Good grief, the crowding issues today pale in comparison to what they were in the 80s and nobody was complaining about them then.


The predominantly public land (according to w2u) those rifle hunters will be hunting are the sands and east zion. You basically need to pack your own rock to sit on during the rifle hunt on east zion and the sands rifle hunt has turned into a side by side jamboree with non stop traffic on all the trails down every wash and along the top of every ridge including the wilderness areas that are supposed to be closed to motorized travel.

Like I said and the unit management plan states, "significant increases in buck permits will NOT increase harvest if hunters can not gain access to hunt. It may only result in MORE trespass issues. Note the words I highlighted, that is why in the hell I believe we shouldn't be giving those permits out. There is already a significant issue with trespassing on the unit and not enough f&g officers to deal with the issue. 500 more hunters will without a doubt only add to the problem. You didn't hear people complaining in the 80's because there was no internet then! If there had been I am sure you would have heard about the ****show also known as the Utah general season deer hunt.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

huntinfanatic said:


> The predominantly public land (according to w2u) those rifle hunters will be hunting are the sands and east zion. You basically need to pack your own rock to sit on during the rifle hunt on east zion and the sands rifle hunt has turned into a side by side jamboree with non stop traffic on all the trails down every wash and along the top of every ridge including the wilderness areas that are supposed to be closed to motorized travel.
> 
> Like I said and the unit management plan states, "significant increases in buck permits will NOT increase harvest if hunters can not gain access to hunt. It may only result in MORE trespass issues. Note the words I highlighted, that is why in the hell I believe we shouldn't be giving those permits out. There is already a significant issue with trespassing on the unit and not enough f&g officers to deal with the issue. 500 more hunters will without a doubt only add to the problem. You didn't hear people complaining in the 80's because there was no internet then! If there had been I am sure you would have heard about the ****show also known as the Utah general season deer hunt.


You are correlating two things that aren't related. Literally the same argument as getting rid of guns because then bad guys can't get them. Those trespassers are criminals. If an increase in tags drives that behavior, they were already prone to it. Choose a different unit. At the end of the day, you know what you get yourself into with a general hunt on public land. It's silly to ignore game management because a crime could occur that occurs no matter the number of tags.

The unit is big. Deer are in every part, some more than others but still, you can hunt every inch of public on that unit. Choosing the most crowded place is up to the hunter.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> In increase of age objectives on Manti would mean a 50% reduction on LE bull permits.
> And Im ok with that, but alot of other hunters are not.


Count me in the group for "nay" on that one Goof!


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> That Summer range has over 60,000 acres of Forest Service land alone.
> 
> If that potential 1 hunter for every 120 acres causes someone to trespass, then at heart they already were a trespasser. The fact is on a unit that big, and adding the new early season rifle with NO permit increase, would be negligible.
> 
> ...


 There are many "hunters" on the zion unit who just pound the roads going back and forth waiting to do a drive by shooting on private when they think nobody sees them. It is already a significant issue on Kolob, Kanarra Mtn., Websters Flat, North Fork Rd etc. during the hunts due to much of the private having public right of ways through them. I have no doubt the issue will worsen with 500 more permits. With each years tag increases the issue has grown right along with it. If 500 additional hunters put their boots to ground and get away as you suggest that would be great but the reality is most dont and take the easier route(road hunting) which in the case of the zion unit causes issues with the amount of private land on the unit.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> You are correlating two things that aren't related. Literally the same argument as getting rid of guns because then bad guys can't get them. Those trespassers are criminals. If an increase in tags drives that behavior, they were already prone to it. Choose a different unit. At the end of the day, you know what you get yourself into with a general hunt on public land. It's silly to ignore game management because a crime could occur that occurs no matter the number of tags.
> 
> The unit is big. Deer are in every part, some more than others but still, you can hunt every inch of public on that unit. Choosing the most crowded place is up to the hunter.


Your gun grabber analogy is a bit of a stretch. How does the old saying go, "analogies are like buttholes, we all have one and they all stink." 
I agree trespassers are criminals. I wish penalties were stiffer for it. I also agree that ignoring game management would be "silly". I do not believe the solution to high b/d ratios on units with lots of private is to just keep adding as many hunters as we will socially tolerate.

Back to my main point I was trying to make with my first post. Many of the bucks on the unit do not leave private or park until after the hunts yet we count them on the winter range to determine tag numbers. Using that method on units with lots of private is flawed IMO, b/d ratios will always be high resulting in constant increases in permits which can cause negative side effects on units with lots of private(excessive trespassing issues). I really hope the upcoming management plans make some adjustments to those units(raise the b/d ratio). Until then we'll just have to agree to disagree on the current recommendation to increase permits.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Why not just enforce the laws already on the books then? 

I get we have very few COs to go around, but that seems like a worthy use of limited resources if the issue is THAT bad.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Vanilla, I agree. I wish there was a CO that could focus on the issue. Unfortunately that is not the case and the trespassers know it. Very few CO's to go around is an understatement. Just way to much for an f&g officer to cover to justify patroling private properties all season. They did do one sting on the rifle hunt 2 years ago on kolob with a robo deer set up in the trees on properly posted private property. Busted guys all day long for multiple infractions, mostly firing from a roadway and trespassing.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Still doesn't sound like a tag issue to me. Sounds like a trespasser/poacher issue and a bit of lazy*** syndrome to me. 

I know it isn't you.. but we can't take away opportunity because some people can't follow simple rules. The fight isn't "don't increase tags" - it's "please increase patrol".


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Increase patrol?
I know for a fact that Kane and Washington county sheriff's have been involved in this problem and have been stretched to the limit during the general deer hunt there.......
Its deffenatly an issue....

Now.
Any RAC reports from Ogden last night?


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

So it sounds like to me, if you want to hunt Private land, head to Zion. No permission to hunt the land, and not enough law to enforce/arrest "criminals". Hmmmm…. Maybe next year. I'm joking of course.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

huntingfanatic -- where is your property?


Trespassing issues are not isolated to hunters, and enforcement is not solely the responsibility of the UDWR.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I have had people try to kick me off my own place on the Zion unit. 
" We are hunting here and we were here first "

It didn't work out well for them........

One guy told me that he had 600 acres on Kannarra mountain. 
I asked him if I could hunt his place ??? He said no. But he figured he had the right to hunt anywhere he wanted. After a few choice words from me, he left. 
I never saw him again for some reason. :mrgreen:

It's not all just road hunters cruising around.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Increase patrol?
> I know for a fact that Kane and Washington county sheriff's have been involved in this problem and have been stretched to the limit during the general deer hunt there.......
> Its deffenatly an issue....
> 
> ...


Deny tag increases?

I know for a fact we.....

I get it. People are stretched. I wasn't saying it was this thing that can magically be done. I was saying the true complaint here is that we don't have enough patrol resources (Which has been and will likely always be the case). Not that we don't have enough land. The land is there, people in Zion just want to hunt one area and not hike. That's a stupidity problem if we are being honest.

Here is a thought, use the $20,000 in additional money generated from those 500 tags to pay for extra patrol. Or.. instead of giving SFW and MDF a bunch of money every year to spend on BS, use that... There are solutions out there. the whole point is "additional opportunity" shouldn't be seen as the problem, imo.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

2full said:


> I have had people try to kick me off my own place on the Zion unit.
> " We are hunting here and we were here first "
> 
> It didn't work out well for them........
> ...


So is giving people tags the issue, or are ***holes the issue?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Im NOT abount denying additional permits.
But I dont think adding them to the GS rifle is the answer.

Here is were we ne a late season archery hunt....!
And maybe a shotgun/pistol season. Nov/Dec.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm trying to figure out what the point of having a managment plan is if the plan isn't followed. If the plan calls for more tags to be given out when buck/doe ratios are so high, more tags should be given out; end of story.

Then, if problems with the plan arise because of certain scenarios as in the one described, the next time a management plan is made these other scenarios should be considered. But, there is never any way we can tell whether a plan is working or not if it is not followed...

...give out more tags!

The thing that bugs me about the Zion unit is that every year the DWR asks for more tags to be given out because the unit is over objective population wise and buck/doe ratio wise and every year they get shut down. At what point does the WB need to follow the management plans put in place?


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

PBH, My property is in Oak Valley on Kolob. 

You say trespassing issues are not isolated to hunters and that enforcement is is not solely the responsibility of the UDWR. I disagree. The problem I am talking about is 100% isolated to hunters. The problem starts opening day of archery season and continues until the last cow hunt is over. Then the trespassing miraculously stops. Before option 2 was passed the issue still existed but was minimal(was usually local teens). Now that units are managed individually, the dwr keeps trying to squeeze in as many hunters as possible onto the unit and the trespassing issue only gets worse each year. I believe it should be the responisibility of the dwr to deal with the issue. They are the ones profiting off of and creating the problem by adding more and more hunters every single year to a unit that is mostly private land. Thankfully the local sheriffs departments respond and help out as much as possible but their department is not the one giving out permits to hunt a unit most that don't have legal access to. It is the DWR that does it.

I see that my viewpoint is different than many on the forum when it comes to the trespassing issues. I am OK with that, nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. The problem is real and the DWR just turns a blind eye and issues more and more tags every year simply because the b/d ratio is higher than 20 and ignores the reasoning for the high b/d ratio. I really hope for and will push for the new management plan to address the issue. They will never get the b/d ratio down to 18-20, to much private and park. They would have to kill every buck that lives on public land during the fall to even come close and I am not a fan of that idea.

My opinion is that the trespass issue would be dramatically reduced by simply raising the b/d ratio on units with tons of private land. Those units all have b/d ratios higher than 20 bucks per hundred does and stay that way regardless of the dwr contantly trying to squeeze in as many hunters as possible into the surrounding limited public land in hopes of getting ratios down to current management levels. If those mostly private land units had a 20-25 b/d ratio there wouldnt be the need to try and over harvest the public land herd to meet current management goals which IMO would result in a more pleasant experience for those who are hunting the public land and less of a headache for those wishing to enjoy their own property without having to be a security guard aug - jan.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

2full said:


> I have had people try to kick me off my own place on the Zion unit.
> " We are hunting here and we were here first "
> 
> It didn't work out well for them........


Funny. I was with my father-in-law down on the sands hunting where he owns pieces of land. We were opening our gate, when a truck came _flying_ up the road and skidded to a hault. A young kid jumped out of the truck and yelled to us "this is private property! Can't you read the sign??".

My father-in-law is a fairly large guy. He's known for being loud, stubborn, opinionated, and for speaking his mind. He is intimidating. He also has a temper.

He got out of the side-x-side, with fire in his eyes, and said, in an aggressive manner "piss on you! Who the hell are you?". The young kid immediately understood he'd made a mistake. In a shaky voice he explained that he "knew the owners of this piece of land, and that they have horses and don't want people on that land". My FIL demanded to know who the kid knew, and explained that those horses were _his_ horses, and that the land was in _his_ name.

Needless to say, we continued through the gate, and had a good laugh about the wet spot in the young mans britches. Good times.



2full said:


> It's not all just road hunters cruising around.


True, true. The ATV use on the Zion unit, from the top of Cedar Mountain, down to the barracks, and on to Short Creek, is incredible. Riding down on the desert is a year-round thing. When the hunts are going on, the hunters are easily out-numbered by recreational riders.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

2full, 
Haha, it must be a common theme up there. I have had people try to kick me off MY place as well. I've got a pile of stories about the crap Ive seen happen during the hunts up there. Its stunning to me how many "hunters" feel that they are entitled to hunt wherever they want regardless of who's land they are on.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

W2U,
What years did the Wildlife board shut down dwr recommendations and not raise permit numbers on the Zion unit?

When I looked for and compiled the data everything I found showed tag increases every year since 2012(when we started unit by unit management).


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntinfanatic, your idea may have merit...but, it also punishes private landowners at the same time. Because many of those same landowners will be the ones not getting tags to hunt available animals, and the animals are there.

Everybody wants their slice of heaven but don't like dealing with the problems associated with owning it. I wonder how different the trespass issues were in the 80s when there were much higher numbers of hunters...and why.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> I see that my viewpoint is different than many on the forum when it comes to the trespassing issues.


Not true. I think you'll find that the majority of us look at trespassing as a serious issue. Especially for those of us that enjoy fishing streams and have watched miles and miles of stream access disappear with the trespassing issue being the scapegoat. Trespassing is illegal, and should be enforced no matter whether it be during a hunt or when an angler decides to cut across private property to access a public stretch of river. We are with you on trespassing issues.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> W2U,
> What years did the Wildlife board shut down dwr recommendations and not raise permit numbers on the Zion unit?
> 
> When I looked for and compiled the data everything I found showed tag increases every year since 2012(when we started unit by unit management).


Yes, they increased tags but have never given as many as what the DWR has recommended...so, the DWR says, "WE need X number of tags to get the ratios back within the objective" and the WB gives them Y number which is lower and then the process repeats itself the next year and the year after that. This is the cycle we are on.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I wonder how different the trespass issues were in the 80s when there were much higher numbers of hunters...and why.


I was there, hunting ML in November several years in a row.
Funny thing, hardly anything was posted.
Property owners didnt mind let us hunt their ground.
And everyone got along!
Times have changed!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Goofy, that was the point I was getting at. Yes, times have changed as have the attitudes of many hunters and landowners (not that I blame those landowners).


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

huntinfanatic said:


> The problem starts opening day of archery season and continues until the last cow hunt is over. Then the trespassing miraculously stops. Before option 2 was passed the issue still existed but was minimal(was usually local teens).


I can't help but wonder if a lot of these offenders are folks that would have never thought about hunting down there before option 2 but see the statistics and put in without realizing how little public land is actually available? How many threads do we get here from dudes we've never heard of before asking where to go on "X" unit after they've thought they hit the jackpot with a successful draw and then get a rude awakening?

Yes, I think option 2 has reduced crowding on certain public units but there are increased problems on others.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

huntinfanatic said:


> PBH, My property is in Oak Valley on Kolob.
> 
> You say trespassing issues are not isolated to hunters and that enforcement is is not solely the responsibility of the UDWR. I disagree. The problem I am talking about is 100% isolated to hunters. The problem starts opening day of archery season and continues until the last cow hunt is over. Then the trespassing miraculously stops. Before option 2 was passed the issue still existed but was minimal(was usually local teens). Now that units are managed individually, the dwr keeps trying to squeeze in as many hunters as possible onto the unit and the trespassing issue only gets worse each year. I believe it should be the responisibility of the dwr to deal with the issue. They are the ones profiting off of and creating the problem by adding more and more hunters every single year to a unit that is mostly private land. Thankfully the local sheriffs departments respond and help out as much as possible but their department is not the one giving out permits to hunt a unit most that don't have legal access to. It is the DWR that does it.
> 
> ...


This is all a friendly debate. I am fine we disagree.

But when I get to your last sentence "less of a headache for those wishing to enjoy their own property without having to be a security guard aug - jan" I feel different. I don't want to yield to the private landowner (and I am one, and know what running security is like). Managing for crowds is not managing for wildlife. Landowners have had a duty to their own land since the beginning of time (and thus the basis of many wars lol).

Like W2U said, the plan says different. I fear if they change it, because managing for 25 b:d sets a dangerous precedent in my mind. That unit isn't even one of the ones like in northern Utah that are 90% private. Should we manage those for 30-40:1? Letting the Henry's set stupid age objections is one thing, there is really a handful of deer (comparatively) to pretty much ever other unit. But when we start messing with the general units that have significantly more deer - I feel the need to stand up. There is always a turning point. In 15 years I don't want to look back at the turning point that we decide to raise b:d just because and the idea spread.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

W2U, I may be wrong(wouldn't be the first time) but I dont believe raising b/d ratios on mostly private units would punish private landowners. They would get a tag regardless if they really wanted one. Lots of programs for the landowners to get a tag. They can apply in regular draw for buck tags, they can apply for either landowner appreciation buck tags or general landowner buck tags, and can also submit the app for mitigation permits. 
Thats another point that hasn't been mentioned. There are more buck permits issued for the zion unit than just the allocation from the regular draw. Lots of general landowner and landowner appreciation buck permits are issued on top of the regular draw allocation. 
Another factor on the unit no one ever mentions is that we count bucks on the sands for b/d ratios in November. Then some of those bucks we counted make the mistake of continuing south and jumping the fence and crossing into the reservation where they get hammered resulting in flawed b/d ratios. Last I heard each family on the rez is allowed 3 deer(someone correct me if that number has changed recently).


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Zion:

Population Objective
15500
Current Population Estimate
19000
Bucks per 100 Does Objective
*18-20*
Current Bucks per 100 Does (3-yr average)
*24.5*
Big Game Annual Report
For more detailed information on population and objective data please see the Big Game Annual Report Page.
Hunt specific information
General Information
This unit is a General Season hunt unit and is not managed to be a trophy unit but every year a few really nice bucks are taken. *Fifty percent of the deer habitat is public land*, but hunters should be aware of the private lands and learn the boundaries. Large Blocks of the best deer habitat on this unit are private lands.

Ogden:
This hunt is comprised mostly of private lands- 90%+
Harvest 28%

Chalk Creek/East Canyon:
This hunt is comprised mostly of private lands- 90%+
Harvest 41%

So a unit that has a 54% harvest percentage (pretty darn solid % if you look across the board), and it 50+% public, then it should be able to hit it's buck to doe in my mind.

Pine Valley was brought up:
The Pine Valley Unit is 90% public land. Harvest 54%. B/D 24.6 (18-20 objective) - INCREASE TAGS.

Some units have a high B/D but low population goals. I understand looking at those different when issuing tags. But we are talking about areas both over management plans, and over population objective. That's bad management.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

huntinfanatic said:


> W2U, I may be wrong(wouldn't be the first time) but I dont believe raising b/d ratios on mostly private units would punish private landowners. They would get a tag regardless


Again, cater to the private owners. Zion is a 1 in 3.5 draw. You had 0 people draw with 0 points, and 1 in 2.4 with 1 point. So if they are shelling out a bunch of extra tags to private landowners after the draw... well again, it's BS.



huntinfanatic said:


> Another factor on the unit no one ever mentions is that we count bucks on the sands for b/d ratios in November. Then some of those bucks we counted make the mistake of continuing south and jumping the fence and crossing into the reservation where they get hammered resulting in flawed b/d ratios. Last I heard each family on the rez is allowed 3 deer(someone correct me if that number has changed recently).


The population estimates are still massive. It's not like the Rez is mass slaughtering them. There isn't some 100,000 people there slamming deer.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Random, Your highlighted fifty percent public land is an average of summer and winter range which gives the false impression there is plenty of public land to hunt during the seasons. 71% of the summer range is private or park. The archery, muzzy and early rifle hunt are during the summer or early fall. The later gen rifle is during transition when deer are spread between that 71% private summer range and the 35% private winter range. So while 50% of the overall deer range is public and sound like plenty of room, the hunts take place during a time of year when the deer are on mostly private or park.

No arguement from me on PV. It's a mostly public land unit that is over objective and doesn't have a sanctuary like ZNP or vast tracts of private keeping b/d ratios high regardless of what the dwr does. I'm with you, raise permit numbers on PV. My issue is with the constant increases on mostly private land units that result in issues for the landowners and do nothing to lower the b/d ratio.

My comment on the rez has nothing to do with population. It was about b/d ratios and how I believe it contributes to flawed b/d ratio data.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

huntinfanatic said:


> Random, Your highlighted fifty percent public land is an average of summer and winter range


See below.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Follow up - I called the DWR. Fall and spring are actually "Transition" months and deer can be found throughout the entire unit, depending on their migration. That's why they don't label dates for "summer" and "winter".

I am fortunate to hunt all 3 seasons and witness deer change habits. Seems like Summer for me would include archery, once they go hard horned they start behaving very different and continue throughout ML being all over, then Rifle would seem to fit more of that "winter mold". -So mostly public land!

I think you are getting hung up on one specific area. And it's true that's where everyone goes. That doesn't mean it's the only option. Convenience, criminal activity, etc... should not be to the detriment of wildlife management.

EDIT: Maybe my most important question and confusion... Are you more concerned about public crowding and quality, or trespassing? Your land is in a place where deer pretty much hang out until winter if I am not mistaken, and some of the better hunting on the unit. So... how does this impact you except to shorten the timeframe for you to get a tag? Or are you pulling landowner tags every year so this doesn't impact you at all except potential trespass inconvenience? Sincere question.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I have a lifetime tag. But, my grandkids have to get their tags. We don't have a big place at all. So we don't get the landowner tags. So increasing the tags is a double edged sword. It means more tags, but also more pressure. 
We try to make the hunts a fun deal, not a super serious deal. So we try to teach them that a person has to take thier turn for a tag. It can still be a lot of fun even if everyone doesn't Have a tag. 
Trespassing is a problem at times. I have agreements with several people that they can play on mine, if I can play on theirs. That works pretty well. 
The real jack knives are usually only once in a while. 
The whole thing is a hard balance to figure out between quanity, public crowding, and quality for sure.

It's impossible to make everybody happy. Heck, it's hard to make anybody happy.

*** hey, top of the page. Very rare for me !!!


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> EDIT: Maybe my most important question and confusion... Are you more concerned about public crowding and quality, or trespassing? Your land is in a place where deer pretty much hang out until winter if I am not mistaken, and some of the better hunting on the unit. So... how does this impact you except to shorten the timeframe for you to get a tag? Or are you pulling landowner tags every year so this doesn't impact you at all except potential trespass inconvenience? Sincere question.


D. All of the above. The trespassing issue affects me personally on my place but not nearly as bad as some of my neighbors and other landowners with much larger properties on the unit. Im fortunate enough to have permission to hunt a few different properties on the mtn and trespassing is an issue on everyone of them. The quality of the hunt and public crowding go together for me. When I go to the east side or the sands each year for later gen hunt the constant theme is everyone talking(complaining) about, and when I hear reports from other locals after the hunts, is how many more people there are. The quality of the hunt for many of those isnt near what is was prior years. Adding more tags every year seems to compound those 3 issues.

Increasing or Decreasing permits will not effect whether or not I get a tag. I am entering my 9th year in the DH program on the zion unit. I love the unit and am more than willing to do service hours for the opportunity the program allows me. Im passionate about the deer herd on the entire unit and believe changes to the management plan can strike a better balance than the current plan does when it comes to managing the deer on the unit. I think its crazy to manage it for 18-20 b/d ratio. Not possible with ZNP and the private without an absolute slaughter on the public land. Also the pop objective is way to low or the computer model is flawed. No way the unit has 4,000 to many deer! The two main changes I hope to see in the new plan is raise the b/d ratio and dramatically increase the population objective if we are going to use the current model.


----------



## olibooger (Feb 13, 2019)

goofy elk said:


> Clarq
> AWESOME report!
> Thank you.


Amen


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wow
I hope someone can post a report from the Beaver meeting Tuesday.
The Southern RAC meeting could be interesting!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> When I go to the east side or the sands each year for later gen hunt the constant theme is everyone talking(complaining) about, how many more people there are. The quality of the hunt for many of those isnt near what is was prior years.


This is ironic.

My FIL and his dad talk about this all the time. We'll be sitting out on Bay Bill looking at Zion, and they'll talk about how when they were younger, they had it all to themselves. "Themselves" included grandpas 4 brothers, and their kids -- so, roughly a dozen or so of them hunted that area each year. During hunting season and outside of hunting season ("you've never heard the wolf howl" is a common comment from grandpa...).

Fast forward to today. Each of those brothers children are all now adults, and most of them have children of their own. When we meet up out there, instead of a dozen people, there are six / seven dozen?

Now, add in all the other people that aren't part of our family -- at least, we don't claim them to be.

Yep. us locals certainly do complain about how many more people there are.

My dad, whose just a fisherman, always said that it's hard to keep good fish a secret. It's true. When there is something good available, people find out. And they want to partake of that good thing. The Sands are an awesome place. It's truly a magnificent desert -- I mean, one of the most popular National Parks in the country is right there, and we're recreating in it's back yard. It isn't sloppy seconds either. It is remarkable. There is a very good reason why people are out there enjoying it. Are there more people out there today? Certainly. And I don't blame them.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

What once was two grew to six.










And today, it's 16 of us.


----------



## bow_hunter44 (Feb 3, 2019)

I have a somewhat different question. Where do the numbers come from? The reason I ask is that I have family that live in the Pine Valley unit. They scout and hunt the unit hard. They also see the deer on their property daily. The comment from them, after watching the deer herd (population, buck/doe ratio, and buck quality) year in and year out, is that the deer numbers on the unit (specifically the eastern/north eastern part of the unit) are on a *down turn*. The quality of the bucks is also on a down turn, and the buck/doe ratio is nowhere near 20/100. Thus, where do the numbers come from? From the perspective of people that live in the middle of the deer herd, the 'numbers' are BS.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Wow
> I hope someone can post a report from the Beaver meeting Tuesday.
> The Southern RAC meeting could be interesting!


I'll be there. It's the one rac meeting I try to attend every year.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

bow_hunter -- the north eastern part of the unit is clear out in Cedar Valley (Lund highway). i doubt that is where your family lives and is watching deer. I'm assuming you are speaking more about New Harmony / and Bumblebee?

The unit is fairly large, stretching all the way out to Enterprise, and the Nevada border. There is a lot of area out there that may explain the difference in what your family sees vs the numbers the DWR have.


----------



## bow_hunter44 (Feb 3, 2019)

Yes, the area from Leeds north to Bumblebee are where my family hunts. They do admit that they don't have any data on other parts of the unit....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Hey bow hunter44, if you want to know why the deer numbers are so low on that side of the unit. PM me sometime and I'll fill you in.


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

Ridgetop,
I would love to educate myself about the low deer numbers if you dont mind?


----------



## olibooger (Feb 13, 2019)

PBH said:


> What once was two grew to six.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is fantastic!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

shaner said:


> Ridgetop,
> I would love to educate myself about the low deer numbers if you dont mind?


I sent bowhunter 44 a PM explaining why but for some reason my PM system does not save my sent messages. 
I'm fine if bowhunter 44 wants to copy and paste my message to him explaining why and post it here.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I sent bowhunter 44 a PM explaining why but for some reason my PM system does not save my sent messages.
> I'm fine if bowhunter 44 wants to copy and paste my message to him explaining why and post it here.


I hope he does, I would like to see it as well.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I sent bowhunter 44 a PM explaining why but for some reason my PM system does not save my sent messages.
> I'm fine if bowhunter 44 wants to copy and paste my message to him explaining why and post it here.


Mr Ridgetop:

If you want to save a copy of your sent PM's all you need to do is to change the option.

Go to User CP

Edit Options on the left hand box

Then scroll down to the Private Messages box

Then check the Save A Copy In My Sent Items Folder

Then scroll down to the bottom and hit Save Changes


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> Mr Ridgetop:
> 
> If you want to save a copy of your sent PM's all you need to do is to change the option.
> 
> ...


Just changed it, thanks.


----------



## bow_hunter44 (Feb 3, 2019)

ridgetop said:


> I sent bowhunter 44 a PM explaining why but for some reason my PM system does not save my sent messages.
> I'm fine if bowhunter 44 wants to copy and paste my message to him explaining why and post it here.


Here ya go...

I'll give you a little history of the area first. I spent hundreds of hours scouting and filming giant bucks in the late 80s and early 90s between the Oak Grove campground road to the South and New Harmony to the North. It was a LE at the time and there was hundreds of deer to be seen on a daily basis. The buck/doe ratio was very high too but then in the early 90s within a two year period, almost all the deer died off. I read a report somewhere that confirmed it was a disease or virus that killed so many. During that time before the DWR built the high fences along I-15, a lot of deer crossed the freeway in the winter, migrating off the Zion unit. During that same timeframe, the deer on the West Zion also died off. I believed because they mixed together during that hard winter of 92-93. The herds in that area have never recovered since then. Those deer that live on the East side of Pine Valley mountain don't migrate out West like the deer do that live up on top. For some reason they stay right there all winter. I'm sure depredation and predators are big reasons why the herds are not recovering in those areas now days. Without getting too longwinded, that's the big reason why the East Pine Valley/West Zion crashed so hard in the early 90s and have never recovered like the West Pine Valley and East Zion have. Hope that makes some sense.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

bow_hunter44 said:


> Here ya go...
> 
> I'll give you a little history of the area first. I spent hundreds of hours scouting and filming giant bucks in the late 80s and early 90s between the Oak Grove campground road to the South and New Harmony to the North. It was a LE at the time and there was hundreds of deer to be seen on a daily basis. The buck/doe ratio was very high too but then in the early 90s within a two year period, almost all the deer died off. I read a report somewhere that confirmed it was a disease or virus that killed so many. During that time before the DWR built the high fences along I-15, a lot of deer crossed the freeway in the winter, migrating off the Zion unit. During that same timeframe, the deer on the West Zion also died off. I believed because they mixed together during that hard winter of 92-93. The herds in that area have never recovered since then. Those deer that live on the East side of Pine Valley mountain don't migrate out West like the deer do that live up on top. For some reason they stay right there all winter. I'm sure depredation and predators are big reasons why the herds are not recovering in those areas now days. Without getting too longwinded, that's the big reason why the East Pine Valley/West Zion crashed so hard in the early 90s and have never recovered like the West Pine Valley and East Zion have. Hope that makes some sense.


Not trying to start an argument, but I wasn't aware that west Zion crashed and never recovered. I hunt west Zion myself and I'd say from about 2011 to present the deer hunting has been spectacular. In the latter years of the time when the muzzleloader deer hunt was during the first week of November, my dad would always hunt up on top of the black ridge (the westernmost part of the Zion unit) and he said the hunting was amazing up there that time of the year.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bow_hunter44 said:


> Here ya go...
> 
> I'll give you a little history of the area first. I spent hundreds of hours scouting and filming giant bucks in the late 80s and early 90s between the Oak Grove campground road to the South and New Harmony to the North. It was a LE at the time and there was hundreds of deer to be seen on a daily basis. The buck/doe ratio was very high too but then in the early 90s within a two year period, almost all the deer died off. I read a report somewhere that confirmed it was a disease or virus that killed so many. During that time before the DWR built the high fences along I-15, a lot of deer crossed the freeway in the winter, migrating off the Zion unit. During that same timeframe, the deer on the West Zion also died off. I believed because they mixed together during that hard winter of 92-93. The herds in that area have never recovered since then. Those deer that live on the East side of Pine Valley mountain don't migrate out West like the deer do that live up on top. For some reason they stay right there all winter. I'm sure depredation and predators are big reasons why the herds are not recovering in those areas now days. Without getting too longwinded, that's the big reason why the East Pine Valley/West Zion crashed so hard in the early 90s and have never recovered like the West Pine Valley and East Zion have. Hope that makes some sense.


Add to that the ongoing 6 or 7 years of drought, several hot wildfires, the doubling (or more) of the human population of New Harmony, increased tourist traffic since adding Kolob Canyon to Zion National Park, the increasing number of homes in the rural areas next to I-15 and the newer Obama designated Wilderness Areas in both units which draw people all year long, it's no wonder the deer herds next to I-15 haven't recovered, if that's true. But that doesn't mean there's no call for more tags in each unit as a whole! If you don't like the pumpkin patch, there's plenty of room and deer away from the roads.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Add to that the ongoing 6 or 7 years of drought, several hot wildfires, the doubling (or more) of the human population of New Harmony, increased tourist traffic since adding Kolob Canyon to Zion National Park, the increasing number of homes in the rural areas next to I-15 and the newer Obama designated Wilderness Areas in both units which draw people all year long, it's no wonder the deer herds next to I-15 haven't recovered, if that's true. But that doesn't mean there's no call for more tags in each unit as a whole! If you don't like the pumpkin patch, there's plenty of room and deer away from the roads.


Hey elk, you may want to sit down for what I'm about to say. I completely agree with you.:shock:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Wow
> ...


Nice,
Maybe you could post up some of the highlights here?
That would be appreciated........!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bow_hunter44 said:


> The buck/doe ratio was very high too but then in the early 90s within a two year period, almost all the deer died off. I read a report somewhere that confirmed it was a disease or virus that killed so many. During that time before the DWR built the high fences along I-15, a lot of deer crossed the freeway in the winter, migrating off the Zion unit. During that same timeframe, the deer on the West Zion also died off. I believed because they mixed together during that hard winter of 92-93. The herds in that area have never recovered since then. Those deer that live on the East side of Pine Valley mountain don't migrate out West like the deer do that live up on top. For some reason they stay right there all winter. I'm sure depredation and predators are big reasons why the herds are not recovering in those areas now days. Without getting too longwinded, that's the big reason why the East Pine Valley/West Zion crashed so hard in the early 90s and have never recovered like the West Pine Valley and East Zion have. Hope that makes some sense.


Where is Lonetree when we need him?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Nice,
> Maybe you could post up some of the highlights here?
> That would be appreciated........!


+1. I'd really like to hear what happened.

I'll bet the southern RAC asks for 500 fewer deer tags each on Zion and Pine Valley. :mrgreen:


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Is the fewer tags a problem...…….:mrgreen:


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Clarq & Goofy, 
Sorry to disappoint. I was unable to make it up to the meeting. The rain storm threw a wrench in my plans for today and I ended up cleaning water damage on a job site instead. 

Best I could do was contact a few rac members before the meeting to let them know how I felt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

HF
Thanks anyway...
Appreciate your effort and feed back.

Hopefully some else made to the meeting.
Its happening as I type.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I may have missed a few things (stupid hearing aids and speakers who didn't talk into the mikes), but here's what I got. I'll address the issues per your questions and comments because it would take way too long to summarize a 5+ hour meeting.

Yes, there were proposals to reduce the number of tags proposed by the DWR on both the Pine Valley and Zion units. But only the Pine Valley proposal passed. It was 8 to 5 to keep the same number of tags as last year. A group called Southern Utah Deer Alliance had a dozen or so members who filled out comment cards on the Pine Valley numbers, but only a couple of them commented. Their reason for the reduction was primarily based on perceived bad count numbers from the DWR, and some of the RAC members weren't buying it, but it passed anyway.
The lower Zion tag numbers came from some residents who cited trespassing and overcrowding issues, but there were others who wanted the higher numbers and eventually, the proposal never came up in the vote.
With the death of the lower Zion numbers, their was a call for an action item to study adding another higher tier to the general unit Buck to Doe ratios. I didn't get the vote count, but I know it passed, so we may see it happen in a year or so.
What did surprise me was a proposal to reduce the tags on the Beaver unit by 150 fewer than the DWR reduction. So, instead of 350 fewer tags, they wanted 500 fewer tags. And they got it with a vote of 13 to 0! Even Gene and Brian voted for that one. Who would figure?

Now, I gotta get some sleep. I'll talk to you tomorrow afternoon unless somebody else fills in.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks for the info EFA!


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> I may have missed a few things (stupid hearing aids and speakers who didn't talk into the mikes), but here's what I got. I'll address the issues per your questions and comments because it would take way too long to summarize a 5+ hour meeting.
> 
> Yes, there were proposals to reduce the number of tags proposed by the DWR on both the Pine Valley and Zion units. But only the Pine Valley proposal passed. It was 8 to 5 to keep the same number of tags as last year. A group called Southern Utah Deer Alliance had a dozen or so members who filled out comment cards on the Pine Valley numbers, but only a couple of them commented. Their reason for the reduction was primarily based on perceived bad count numbers from the DWR, and some of the RAC members weren't buying it, but it passed anyway.
> The lower Zion tag numbers came from some residents who cited trespassing and overcrowding issues, but there were others who wanted the higher numbers and eventually, the proposal never came up in the vote.
> ...


Thank you.

Was there any discussion or vote on the number of sheep tags on the Zion unit?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Clarq said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Was there any discussion or vote on the number of sheep tags on the Zion unit?


Yes, it was part of the final OIL vote and the DWR numbers were accepted. There were some concerns about the increase being generated by the new archery hunts, but the biologist assured us that the increase was based on the 2018 population count (150), not the new archery hunts. The DWR numbers also considered the fact that the Sportsman's tag holder and the Statewide Conservation tag holder would also likely hunt the unit.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

*Other amendment items that passed: No particular order*

-Hunt Beaver antlerless elk on the north end, not the south. Aug 1 -Aug 11. Same tag numbers. 13 to 0

-Action item for study - Move application period after classifications/counts. 11 to 2

-Change text of item #11 (R657-41-8 (2b) DWR proposal to require an officer, agent, director or employee of a conservation permit organization to purchase a Conservation Permit voucher only at an auction. In other words, they would no longer be allowed to buy or redeem it directly from their conservation organization at any price. They (or the organization) now would have to bid on it like everyone else. 13 to 0.

*Amendment items that didn't pass: No particular order*

-Don't allow cows to be shot on archery elk tags - no vote.

-Rotate units for spike elk hunts - no vote.

-Remove 800 elk off of the Panguitch Lake unit - 5 to 8.

-Increase antlerless elk tags on Zion - no vote.

-No increase of antlerless elk tags on Beaver - no vote.

-There were several other proposals made by the public and RAC members that never even got to the discussion stage including my 3 suggestions, ie: adding shotguns to the list of weapons for the primitive/short range weapon hunts, allow the harvest of more than 1 antlerless deer per the proposed doe pronghorn arrangement, spreading out the increase in moose tags to units that have an odd number of tags in order to increase the number of maximum point tag holders moved through the system. There were others, but I didn't record everything. Sorry.

-There were also other issues, but most of it was just venting. (Overcrowding, road hunting, wild horses, Parker Mountain antelope, trespassing, elk eating too much grass, etc.)

It was a long and typically enthusiastic Southern RAC, But bottom line, with the exception of the stated passed amendments, everything else passed!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> -Change text of item #11 (R657-41-8 (2b) DWR proposal to require an officer, agent, director or employee of a conservation permit organization to purchase a Conservation Permit voucher only at an auction. In other words, they would no longer be allowed to buy or redeem it directly from their conservation organization at any price. They (or the organization) now would have to bid on it like everyone else. 13 to 0.


Can you explain what this means? Pretend I'm a 5 year old...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Can you explain what this means? Pretend I'm a 5 year old...


It means that they will now have to wait outside and be willing and able to pay the most money to get a fancy ice cream cone even though their daddy owns and drives the ice cream truck that is filled with all kinds of ice cream cones which are mostly owned by our daddies and mommies. Even their daddy would have to wait outside and make a bid. Until now they could stay in the truck and take it or buy it at a special price. And then they could eat it or sell it or give it to a friend, but they can't do it like that anymore.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

If them Southern RAC boys where ever too get total control over the WB,
This state would see drastic changes for hunting, and permit allocations!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> If them Southern RAC boys where ever too get total control over the WB,
> This state would see drastic changes for hunting, and permit allocations!
> And fishing would simply go down the drain.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

PBH said:


> Fixed it for you.


What's fishing?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Exactly.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Anybody go to the Vernal meeting last night?


----------



## Decoycarver24 (Aug 17, 2018)

Any word on the proposed Pilot mountain cow tags?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Decoycarver24 said:


> Any word on the proposed Pilot mountain cow tags?


Passed as presented.


----------



## Decoycarver24 (Aug 17, 2018)

Goofy elk,

Thank you!


----------

