# what does this mean?



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

so I've crunched the numbers that the DNR has posted in their annual big game reports up to 2012....according to that, 2/3's of the Wasatch's antlerless units have seen substantial declines in overall success rates. 

My question is what is the justification for it? Is it that they have just issued so many tags that more guys aren't successful? How can you see a decline for 3 years in row with more tags than ever before on a unit with more elk than its ever seen? 

Can anyone explain this logically for me? I only see 3 options, either #1 the hunters have gotten worse. Not likely with advances in tech. #2 The elk have gotten smarter, or gone subterranean. Or #3 they just aren't there.

Now I understand that my numbers are pretty rough and some units have been altered or added, but I think its clear that the overall trend on these hunts is down.

The unit that Goof keeps harping on has gone from a 60-80% success to 8-9%....that's hard to swallow...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nebo12000, Central region RAC member, explains it this way ...

All the preasure has moved large numbers of elk from public groung to private..

DWR claims fly counts still have herd objectives on the high end.(hard for me to buy)
BUT, anyway , Thats why the unbelievably high numebers of antlerless permits ..

The massive amount of hunting preasure on public lands is moving large herds 
onto private sections, and CWMUs on the Wasatch ...
Leaving lower numbers of elk on public ground. 

What do you think Blaster, Do you think he makes a valid point?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Yes^^^^ they are hunted non stop from August to January.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

3 years is hardly enough data.....


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Skally 3 years is all we have with the current population estimates which dictates tag #'s. And goof, no I don't think it's a valid argument


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

berrysblaster said:


> Can anyone explain this logically for me? I only see 3 options, either #1 the hunters have gotten worse. Not likely with advances in tech. #2 The elk have gotten smarter, or gone subterranean. Or #3 they just aren't there.


I'm going with #3. I have hunted elk there for years, and frankly they just aren't there in numbers like they were several years ago. I would also add that I don't road hunt, I put the leather on the ground.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

To answer your question- what does this mean? As a guide/outfitter your screwed


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Good thing it's not my day job eh pheaz??


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

That's what sucks Berry, such a great unit flushed down the toilet. 5 years ago 50-60 cows with a purdy herd bull. Now 5-9 cows with a raggy azz bull. Brings a tear to my eye. I feel as if I should thank the UWC for all the opportunity, but that would be just spreading rumors.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

LOL...you are still an uncouth bottom feeder pheaz, even after being gone for a while. Such is life in Darwin's world...


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Of course I forgot, you're the real expert aren't you?^^^

Berry #3 is the obvious answer here.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here are the numbers that were used last April when setting antlerless permits.

Link: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-04_rac_packet.pdf

The Wasatch spacificly ..( for the record, I believe the estimates are just a bit high )

Currant creek: Herd objective 1200, ---- herd estimate 3,750
Avintiquin : Herd objective 1600 ,------herd estimate 1,750
Wasatch central: Herd objective , 2,600 --herd estimate 3,400

This resulted into cow control permits, Unlimited cow permits,
And the option to fill them during any big game hunt with other permits.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Hahaha LMAO! Just a bit high my butt...that's f'in 8900 head of elk! What a joke the DNR is shoving it so far up the sportsmen of utah's butt right now it's coming out our mouth!


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

The elk are all but gone. I have hunted the last 6-7 years up diamond fork and Hobble creek for mature bulls with family and friends. The 1st year, I could not believe the amount of bulls and cows and big herds all over hells half acre. But, each year it got worse. To the point this last year, we had an archery tag and spent 4 days up there camping and hiking. I only saw 1 small group of elk just under strawberry ridge. We went else where for the archery hunt. Its sad to see such a FAST decimation of an elk herd.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Seems like when we increase permits, success rates go down. Decrease permits and success rates go up. 

Just my opinion, but I think everyone is somewhat correct. The UDWR counts are probably in the ballpark and Berry/Pheaz's observations are in the ballpark. The elk have been hammered in some areas-- mostly the Berry and Heber. The elk have moved or grown in other areas. 

No doubt elk are escaping public lands pressure and moving to private/municipalities in areas I am familiar with. I've spoken a lot with RAC members about this over the years (starting with the Nebo years ago and now on the Wasatch). Elk are also showing up and using public areas I have rarely seen them in before. Larger herds, not just 5-10. 

Looking at the numbers, I'd wager a lot of the Current Creek elk are coming out of the Unitas and being counted within the CC boundary during winter. 

The Wasatch numbers are over by 800, which may very well be true. Although they are down in some areas, other areas are seeing increases. And that is what I see with my own eyes.

Maybe, just maybe we all became spoiled by a growing elk herd which was allowed to surpass both the population objective and the age objective of bulls. Now they are trying to get back to the objectives, which means taking away what we came to expect as the norm.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

robiland said:


> The elk are all but gone. I have hunted the last 6-7 years up diamond fork and Hobble creek for mature bulls with family and friends. The 1st year, I could not believe the amount of bulls and cows and big herds all over hells half acre. But, each year it got worse. To the point this last year, we had an archery tag and spent 4 days up there camping and hiking. I only saw 1 small group of elk just under strawberry ridge. We went else where for the archery hunt. Its sad to see such a FAST decimation of an elk herd.


Robi I spent 20 + days in that area this year and between me and another couple guys I know we saw plenty of elk in that area. not saying it isn't different from 7 years ago but I had no problem finding elk in the few area I hunted with out working hard to find them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Alpine, If you would have seen what the elk herds looked like in those
areas 5-20 years ago,,,,, you'd know what we are talking about........


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Please understand, i'm not saying that there are NO elk. And the guys who are saying this are up in the night....The Wasatch has ALOT of elk on it, what I'm suggesting is that the divisions numbers are not adding up to what we are seeing. 

If I were to guess, I think that I saw around 1,000 head this year. So did I see elk? yes, less than in years past, yes for the area's I hunt. What we are being told here, is what I'm disputing and what the numbers, at least initially, are saying as well. 

I can do a basic supply and demand curve and equation, what we learn from the equation is that if given set of numbers IE, X=elk(supply) and Y=hunters(demand) and you get a negative answer (falling success rates) your supply is less than the demand.

To put this even more simply, when X=Y the population estimates remain the same. Meaning that the demand is equal to the supply. This is the optimum equation, it means there is balance.

When X>Y population grows elk are more plentiful then hunters can manage and they reproduce at a greater number than tags issued. This is what we are being told.

When X<Y population falls more hunters than elk can sustain. this is what the falling success rates suggest for the last 3 years yet the population estimates continue to grow exponentially. 

Packout, you are correct that when they issue more tags the success should fall, but that should also be reflected in population due to X<Y it is not in fact the numbers we are given go against this blatantly. However, in your assertion that you have seen more elk in some areas and less in others you make no sense. If population grows in one but falls in another then the overall is about the same. To be over objective by 3500 head there would have to be a substantial increase in elk everywhere....

So again, what does this all mean??? Mcfly, alpine, juddct, i'm sure you are seeing 'lots' of elk, but are you seeing 9,000 head? In the percentage of the unit that you have hunted or scouted did you see the numbers of elk that it would take to have 9000 head? 

Or if you start to really think about the math involved here do you wind up stumped like me? Albeit, I was educated in heber which means my math skills are less than stellar ;-)

All i'm saying guys is that something doesn't smell right here, the numbers don't add up, and a the consequences of this will be felt by the sportsmen of Utah.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Alpine, Yes i agree. There are elk there. Just not like it used to be. You used to be able to drive the roads and glass canyons and see hundreds of elk. We go now and see maybe 5-10 on a good day. It has changed alot. But where we used to hike in and glass, little to no activity. I wanted to go later this year, during the rut, to see if some had moved in, but did not have the chance. 
I know there are some there. I see the sign, but not like I used to see. **** wolves are getting them all;-)


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Berry- "However, in your assertion that you have seen more elk in some areas and less in others you make no sense. If population grows in one but falls in another then the overall is about the same." Not if the growth in some areas is higher than the decrease in others. There are herds today in areas where they were almost non-existent 5-8 years ago. I believe that some areas, especially the most accessible, most hunted areas have seen decreases, which would mean hunters aren't finding the elk to fill their tags. 

Per the numbers in the thread, the Wasatch and Avin portions of the "Wasatch" are over objective by 950. It is the Current Creek that is said to be over objective by 2,500. 

The problem to me is the Current Cr unit is over by 2,500. Are those elk coming from the Uintas and being counted on the winter range? I don't agree with the "special" cow tags which were hunted in Aug-Oct. Those tags didn't target the problem- which is a winter issue. And those tags targeted the whole "Wasatch" herd, not just the CC herd.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

These threads always crack me up....the guys that are putting boots on the ground aren't seeing as many elk as the guys in the airplanes. Does that really surprise you guys?

Personally, when it comes to estimating herd numbers, I would much rather trust the guys in airplanes than the guys on the ground...


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Yes I see thousands. Like goofy sees thousands.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^LOL, Jealous, want-to-be , school yard stuff..Price less Mcfly..^^^^^^


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Is it just me or does 1200 elk in the Current Creek area seems way low. Why would they want to only carry 1200 elk in this area? I am baffled!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> ^^^^^LOL, Jealous, want-to-be , school yard stuff..Price less Mcfly..^^^^^^


I'm hardly jealous of you goof. I was being sarcastic and making a joke. Maybe you should find your sense of humor. I know jokes are lost this site but I'll keep trying.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> These threads always crack me up....the guys that are putting boots on the ground aren't seeing as many elk as the guys in the airplanes. Does that really surprise you guys?
> 
> Personally, when it comes to estimating herd numbers, I would much rather trust the guys in airplanes than the guys on the ground...


People like you crack me up that can't ever admit that maybe your golden DWR, is wrong and money hungry. Your government wants your money, any way they can get it. Wildlife is a big money making renewable resource. If you don't believe that money plays a part in the management of your wildlife, you should probably look at the world you live in today. Money is what everything's about, and our wildlife are not immune to it. As long as there's a viable elk herd that can be used to bring in hundreds of thousands of revenue in every year and it keeps money flowing through pockets, the wildlife itself is going to take the back seat. Money will always be first and foremost, that's the world you live in. If you don't believe me get outside your bubble and look at the corruption and money hungry world around you. They'll keep hitting our cards and taking the money, whether there's anything left or not.

You think you can disregard hundreds of people who can see that numbers just don't add up, and our wildlife has taken a giant plunge over the last few decades, yet numbers are always up, and hunts should always be better. Believe the one guy in the air-plane getting paid to give you those numbers, and disregard the people who pay to do it. Sorry but the same people on this forum think that whatever the DWR says and their reports are like the word of God himself. The numbers are flawed and sometimes proved to be completely wrong, so NO I am not going to credit them for numbers they cannot prove.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

If money ruled over everything, then why did we lose the spike rifle hunt on the Monroe? Apparently in the roshambo game of management, napkins trump money.------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> If money ruled over everything, then why did we lose the spike rifle hunt on the Monroe? Apparently in the roshambo game of management, napkins trump money.------SS


They lost no money they didn't cut any tags , and you can still hunt the units. Look at there budgeting, right as deer tags were cut spike and anterless elk tags have sky rocketed. They know what they're doing and it's not losing money. Cut one tag they raise another. They know how to keep numbers where they want and by numbers I mean their income .


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

The answer is all three. Clearly, the numbers are down for Wasatch Central and Avintaquin compared to past years. When you have elk population numbers over objective, some herds are displaced into less than ideal areas (from an elk's perspective, those are areas near roads and marginal habitat). That helps make the hunting easier, when there are elk right by the road. Over time, as you get closer back to objective, the easier elk have been shot out.

As pointed out, only one unit is drastically over objective, Current Creek. In my years of consistently hunting that unit, I've noticed that most people don't hunt where most of the elk are, simply because it is hard work. Elk know where there is pressure and where there isn't. They avoid the high pressure areas and at the first sign of pressure, go to the deep, dark holes until winter forces them down onto private property lower down. There's still plenty of elk on the unit. Is it like it was 3-5 years ago, no. Also, Packout, to your question, yes, there are elk that come out of the western High Uintas into Current Creek, but DWR knows that a portion of their counts come from the High Uintas and accounts for that.

I think the bigger question is whether the objectives for these units are set at the appropriate level. Judging by the input and feedback from those that hunt the Central Wasatch and Avintaquin areas, I would say public input would lean towards higher pop. objectives. Personally, I think Current Creek is way too low as it currently stands and the objective numbers probably should be doubled. If you agree, let your voices be heard as the next elk management plan comes through.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Serious mtnbeer? Sorry but come on man 'it's not like it was 3-5 years ago???' Yet the entire unit is over objective according to the numbers??? So what you are saying is that we have more elk but should see less???

1deer hit it on the nose. It's money and those that hunt the Wasatch are gonna eat the results of a money based decision.


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

berrysblaster said:


> Serious mtnbeer? Sorry but come on man 'it's not like it was 3-5 years ago???' Yet the entire unit is over objective according to the numbers??? So what you are saying is that we have more elk but should see less???
> 
> 1deer hit it on the nose. It's money and those that hunt the Wasatch are gonna eat the results of a money based decision.


I was specifically talking about Current Creek when mentioning the 3-5 years, not Central or Avintaquin. In my experience on that unit, most people aren't hunting where the elk are, so yes, they will see less.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I'm watching a herd from my house right now that has quadrupled in 2-3 years. When I would only see 10-12 I'm watching at least 50 with 5 mature bulls right now. Not sure what it means but I'm happy to see the increase.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I'm sure it's a combination of all three, and I'm sure money is involved to some degree or another (when is it not)? I see no reason also, why the elk could not conceivably be moving to private tracts that the public hunter cannot access. Happens all the time and everywhere. Perhaps with all the extra pressure the unit has seen as of late, Betsy (the lead cow) has figured out that when the boom sticks start to sound off and her herd mates start dropping, the safest place is on the other side of the fence. Why could this not be a part of the problem??


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Private land always has something to do with it. Chasing elk from August to January is just plain stupid , let's run them ragged while they should be conserving energy, but screw the elk the DWR lined their pockets. Doesn't the division always release a story about not chasing animals this time of year? Yet they make it legal to do do...... Ya that makes so much sense. 

I would like to see them Video tape a few of the counts in full and prove how they're getting their numbers because I have no good reason to believe numbers they can't prove and from what I see don't believe. One word MONEY.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

We could do the counts like they do on Monroe. Have the locals use their fingers and toes. But that only works if you can find 5 people that haven't had a combine "accident".


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> We could do the counts like they do on Monroe. Have the locals use their fingers and toes. But that only works if you can find 5 people that haven't had a combine "accident".


Coming from somone who it only takes 1 or 2 DWR employees telling you numbers with no proof, for you to believe back in Gullableville. Maybe where people actually go worry about the wildlife rather than overkill opportunity, the DWR knows there wrong and adjust accordingly, so others don't start to realize they can do something about the bullsh** that they lay on the table. Looks like fingers and toes ruled out, because you won't be hunting with a rifle for a spike on that unit now will you? At the meeting the biologists and regional managers admitted their numbers were wrong, admitted many numbers could be a far cry from right, but their defense is they're doing a good job of catering to trophy hunters and to the guy who "just wants to hunt" which would be you. Guess what marty, we shouldn't be catering to any hunter, we should be catering to our wildlife to ensure healthy and sustainable herds now and in the future. There job is to manage our wildlife, not manage our hunters urges.

This year I've seen less bucks than I have ever seen. The entire winter I've seen about 7 mature bucks (which I consider 4+ old), usually I see 30-40 mature bucks where I look to shed hunt. There are 2 points and spikes, not many medium 3 or 4 points, but tiny little bucks that did almost all the breeding, and tiny little bucks that are on the winter range. Now from the time I've spent around the areas I look, there is not even a fraction of the total number of bucks counting spikes, 2 points, older bucks, medium aged bucks, whatever, there is not a fraction of what there normally is. Yet Vance is GROUND counting 25-30 bucks per 100 does. Weird because this unit sat at about 10:100 about 7 years ago and sat at 17:100 last year. They proposed more tags last year and failed, the unit has 1,000 tags for the last two years, this year hit it hard, but next year Vance is going to propose at least 1,300 tags, and if the board will approve 1,400 or 1,500 he would like to see that. F**** bulls***. I guess all those bucks must be hiding in the timber and he can see through trees because I haven't seen them. No he probably can't see through trees but, the division probably can see that there going to lose hundreds of cow tag sales this year because numbers are back "where they should be" because of their ever so accurate numbers. There losing cow tags now, so deer tags will go up. It's a an evening out game. If one number goes down, the other number goes up. You have to let the elk recover, then just slaughter the deer, then in a few years go for the elk. The money has to to be regained this year.

My prediction, you'll watch cow tags drop this year, and deer tags will go up, because the DWR has to find that money somewhere. I don't even have their new report yet and I can tell you that.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Sorry, that's too much to read. Can someone explain this 1 eye rant in 20 words or less?? I'll take a guess, blah blah blah Monroe elk/ deer massacre, napkin, evil DWR. Am I close??


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

martymcfly73 said:


> We could do the counts like they do on Monroe. Have the locals use their fingers and toes. But that only works if you can find 5 people that haven't had a combine "accident".


This won't work well either. I've been told that most of the knuckles on their fingers are callous or there are too many folks with 11 or more fingers or toes. Skews the counts somehow I guess.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

So beyond counting fingers and toes can anyone explain how a unit can have falling success rates on its antlerless hunts and exploding population estimates? Just wondering....

McFly the timp unit was one of the few that saw a modest increase in success if I remember right. That would reflect what you see out your back door.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> So beyond counting fingers and toes can anyone explain how a unit can have falling success rates on its antlerless hunts and exploding population estimates? Just wondering....
> .


Points directly toward inacurate herd estamates ..............................


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Points directly toward inacurate herd estamates ..............................


No, that could never be. They're to educated to be wrong , just ask Marty or klbzdad . They're gullible enough to believe the DWRs numbers are 100% accurate and there's no money making agenda behind that government agency. I believe there numbers are a far cry from 100% correct or even close, and believe every organization especially a government agency is out to do what's best for its bottom line. There's bills to pay, employees salaries to fill , facilities to run, and debt to pay off. Money is the one and only, your wildlife are not immune to that rule in our world today. They are $$$ to your state, tags can't be cut to a point those $$$$ aren't still rolling in. Counts are off. Believe the one guy in the helicopter that has no proof of his counts, adds animals he doesn't see, and those numbers are gods word . Yet hundreds and thousands of sportsmen who just don't see the same thing are discredited. If you don't believe that within specific units many sportsman spend more time than a DWR biologist could ever have time for , then your not out enough to weigh in.

Bottom line inaccurate numbers and the money hungry people of the world are why success rates plummet and population numbers continue to climb.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Points directly toward inacurate herd estamates ..............................


Nah that couldn't be. They wouldn't give inaccurate info.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

1-I - you sound like a Monday morning armchair quarterback. If you have the DWR so dialed in, why didn't you become a biologist? You could certainly teach them a few things (add sarcasm). 

Are the folks at the DWR perfect...no, but listening to your rants that they do absolutely nothing right, or something close to that, is for lack of a better word, childish. Game management is not a game of black and white. There are many shades of gray.

As an example - you see deer in a certain spot in the winter year in and year out. This year you don't see as many. Your answer - the DWR screwed it up, all the deer are shot, and quality is in the sh*tter. Is there any possibility that those deer are higher or in different locations because of the mild winter we're having? Why should the deer come down if snow levels are low...just because they do every year? Conditions change..wildlife and range management are not static. There could be any number of reasons those deer aren't there right now. You should consider that...not just point fingers at professionals just trying to do their job...a job that you evidently didn't think was important enough to get into.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> 1-I - you sound like a Monday morning armchair quarterback. If you have the DWR so dialed in, why didn't you become a biologist? You could certainly teach them a few things (add sarcasm).
> 
> Are the folks at the DWR perfect...no, but listening to your rants that they do absolutely nothing right, or something close to that, is for lack of a better word, childish. Game management is not a game of black and white. There are many shades of gray.
> 
> As an example - you see deer in a certain spot in the winter year in and year out. This year you don't see as many. Your answer - the DWR screwed it up, all the deer are shot, and quality is in the sh*tter. Is there any possibility that those deer are higher or in different locations because of the mild winter we're having? Why should the deer come down if snow levels are low...just because they do every year? Conditions change..wildlife and range management are not static. There could be any number of reasons those deer aren't there right now. You should consider that...not just point fingers at professionals just trying to do their job...a job that you evidently didn't think was important enough to get into.


Right because I've never seen a mild winter before and I only check one spot huh? No I have checked high and low, good spots, new spots, and places they have always been. There are no mature bucks, and very few bucks. Yes I am going to blame to professionals who overtag and overkill to line the divisions pockets, you can't say money is not a factor, money is ALWAYS a factor.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Time for another napkin meeting 1-I. I dont understand why you are bothering being so frusterated. Anyone who can sway the department to change the rules regarding a spike elk hunt, brag on the interweb and cry victory, and rub it in the faces of others can surely hold accountable the corrupt biologists who are padding the survey counts for financial gain. C'mon man, flex your influential muscles and show these derelicts who's boss. How dare they try to tell you something you already know everything about. Be sure to let us know when you get this taken care of. I'd help out but I'm busy shooting my bow.---------SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SS,
Here's the problem ...

There are some on this web site raising legit conncerns and throwing up red flags ...

And there are some on this web site that ridcule every thing!!!

Just Say'in ....


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> SS,
> Here's the problem ...
> 
> There are some on this web site raising legit conncerns and throwing up red flags ...
> ...


A legitimate concern without all the hoopla is that their numbers may not be correct and yet they determine the outcome of our wildlife . But our wildlife determine the DWRs income ,which is more pressing in our world, money or wildlife? The answer to that question should answer all the others.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Right because I've never seen a mild winter before and I only check one spot huh? No I have checked high and low, good spots, new spots, and places they have always been. There are no mature bucks, and very few bucks. Yes I am going to blame to professionals who overtag and overkill to line the divisions pockets, you can't say money is not a factor, money is ALWAYS a factor.


I never said that money was not a factor...to the contrary, I said that money will always come into play. Tell us how you live your life where money does not influence what you do. Then ask yourself if that influence w/r/t money is always in the negative. Then, apply that to your opinion of the DWR and try to draw some parallels. Your determination, as stated, is that because of money, everything the DWR does is selfish and corrupted. I think you're dead wrong...but then again, when it comes to YOUR money, maybe you too are selfish and corrupted which would help explain your train of thought/assertations w/r/t the DWR. What do you think?

SS - nice whitetail photo on your avatar! What state?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> I never said that money was not a factor...to the contrary, I said that money will always come into play. Tell us how you live your life where money does not influence what you do. Then ask yourself if that influence w/r/t money is always in the negative. Then, apply that to your opinion of the DWR and try to draw some parallels. Your determination, as stated, is that because of money, everything the DWR does is selfish and corrupted. I think you're dead wrong...but then again, when it comes to YOUR money, maybe you too are selfish and corrupted which would help explain your train of thought/assertations w/r/t the DWR. What do you think?
> 
> SS - nice whitetail photo on your avatar! What state?


I don't think either of us can make the conclusion. I believe they're corrupt and money hungry. You believe money comes into play but doesn't influence their decisions. I think your dead wrong. Money always influences decisions when it's involved.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

MWScott72 said:


> SS - nice whitetail photo on your avatar! What state?


Thanks! The buck is my daughters first, killed last year in Idaho. One of the best times of my life. He's a mid 130's 8 point with a huge body. I've hunted up there for decades and never taken one this good. So thankful that she got to take him.------SS

To Goofy and 1-I, I'm not refuting what is being said, just taking the opportunity to fling a little at 1-I since he muffed up my spike-o-Rama plans. We go way back. No offense intended.-------SS


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

1 - I - when did I ever say that money doesn't influence their decisions? I think I indicated otherwise. I just don't think it's all or nothing. Money has an influence in just about everything we do. You think it should be otherwise with the DWR. How do they or any other entity survive without it?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> 1 - I - when did I ever say that money doesn't influence their decisions? I think I indicated otherwise. I just don't think it's all or nothing. Money has an influence in just about everything we do. You think it should be otherwise with the DWR. How do they or any other entity survive without it?


There job is to properly manage and protect our wildlife for now and future generations to enjoy. That's what I want them to do. If money overwhelms or becomes more important than that goal then I don't think they need to survive.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Don't need to survive sounded creepy.--------SS


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Managing in the short term like the division is legislatively mandated to do is never a good thing, rather than looking to create a long term sustainable option, it's all about making next years budget demands so they don't have to ask for more money....


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I thought they managed for 5 year objectives? Is that not true? Or is it year to year?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Ah.....finally someone nails the money problem on the head. ^^^^ BOOM!


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Marty, I think that is partly true, but I still have issue with five year objective goals. a guy on this thread earlier said that 3 years of data is hardly enough. In the long run what good do five year management plans do? Do we run our retirements on five year objectives? Or are we looking for long term sustainable options? 

In the grand scheme of things 5 years is nothing, budgets are run from year to year and that's never a good thing especially when you have outside mandates. 

While the division is guilty of MANY MANY successful ventures, I think that they have just enough screw ups, to warrant a serious look at how they operate. The deer enigma alone should justify that opinion, they aren't perfect.

The problem with the potential screw up that this thread is pointing at, is that the sportsmen of Utah will feel a loss in opportunity in the short term future. If we are indeed correct, and the numbers are wrong, the unit will recover it will take a couple few years, but it will come back same as fish lake came back. I just hate to see guys loose opportunity in a state that already limits that in a big way.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Another factor here that has not been mentioned is how efficent todays
hunters are with modern equipment. High power magnifying scopes on
long range rifles, range finders , spotting scopes , ATV's , Razers , even
night vision devices being used ..

IMO, this is a major factor as to why we need hunter managment, 
Opt 2 and LE type control. 

The very second unlimited , uncapped permits like 'control antlerless permits" are
sold, and allowed to be used along with any other big game permit, it's trouble!

The only place this type managment should be used is were elk are trying to be
eliminted entirely----------Certainly, NOT the case on the Wasatch unit.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Another factor here that has not been mentioned is how efficent todays
> hunters are with modern equipment. High power magnifying scopes on
> long range rifles, range finders , spotting scopes , ATV's , Razers , even
> night vision devices being used ..
> ...


I agree with this post 100%.

As for the DWR and their capability of managing our wildlife. Look at whats still happening klbzdad and marty, deer transplants are still happening, coyote control. Yes SFW is pushing it, and that is for their economical gain. But the division is going along with it for good PR and economical gain as well. Things like this the division does without agreeing with shows how money sways them. Our wildlife are expendable, the money in their pockets is not. And this is why success rates remain the same or lower for hunters, but population number estimates by the division are always up. They have to make it look like they're doing a great job managing our wildlife.

As I said and in a few months quote me on it. Anterless elk tags will be dropped because people are unhappy with the cow slaughter they've allowed the last few year, and deer tag numbers will go back up. They'll go back up enough to compensate for the anterless tags they will have to cut this season. Gotta keep that budget even, screw our deer and elk.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Haha deer the current rumor is that there will be more cow tags than ever on the Wasatch...


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> Marty, I think that is partly true, but I still have issue with five year objective goals. a guy on this thread earlier said that 3 years of data is hardly enough. In the long run what good do five year management plans do? Do we run our retirements on five year objectives? Or are we looking for long term sustainable options?
> 
> In the grand scheme of things 5 years is nothing, budgets are run from year to year and that's never a good thing especially when you have outside mandates.
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know what the answer to this would be. It could take me 20 years to draw a rifle tag or do archery or muzzy the next year or two. Point creep is only getting worse. Wish I know the answer. I'd be rich.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I agree with this post 100%.
> 
> As for the DWR and their capability of managing our wildlife. Look at whats still happening klbzdad and marty, deer transplants are still happening, coyote control. Yes SFW is pushing it, and that is for their economical gain. But the division is going along with it for good PR and economical gain as well. Things like this the division does without agreeing with shows how money sways them. Our wildlife are expendable, the money in their pockets is not. And this is why success rates remain the same or lower for hunters, but population number estimates by the division are always up. They have to make it look like they're doing a great job managing our wildlife.
> 
> As I said and in a few months quote me on it. Anterless elk tags will be dropped because people are unhappy with the cow slaughter they've allowed the last few year, and deer tag numbers will go back up. They'll go back up enough to compensate for the anterless tags they will have to cut this season. Gotta keep that budget even, screw our deer and elk.


Or....The DWR has met it's population goals w/r/t elk numbers and the tags go away for that reason...not because 1-I says everyone is unhappy with their hunts.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I've put on my tinfoil hat. That is all.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> Or....The DWR has met it's population goals w/r/t elk numbers and the tags go away for that reason...not because 1-I says everyone is unhappy with their hunts.


Weird how if deer tags lower elk tags raise, or if elk tags lower deer tags raise. The numbers sure match up pretty well to keep the divisions money sitting in a pretty place.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1-Deer,

My question is how much does the Division actually 'make' off big game tags? Your posts make it sound like the DWR big wigs are getting rich off these tags. Do you know where the money actually goes?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

TS30 said:


> 1-Deer,
> 
> My question is how much does the Division actually 'make' off big game tags? Your posts make it sound like the DWR big wigs are getting rich off these tags. Do you know where the money actually goes?


They have to pay employees, run facilities, keep money rolling in to your state government, and function as a state entity. I'm not saying so much that people are getting rich as I'm saying that they are more inclined to fill the above things will currency income , than manage the wildlife outside that box , which in reality is their job, not make the state money. No one is rich over it , but tags are going to be given because the money for the state, employees, and facilities has to come from somewhere . I'm saying the somewhere it comes from is hunting tags from our wildlife , whether it be good for our wildlife or not . Money then the wildlife is how it runs, wildlife then money is their actual agency goal , so why is it opposite .


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> They have to pay employees, run facilities, keep money rolling in to your state government, and function as a state entity. I'm not saying so much that people are getting rich as I'm saying that they are more inclined to fill the above things will currency income , than manage the wildlife outside that box , which in reality is their job, not make the state money. No one is rich over it , but tags are going to be given because the money for the state, employees, and facilities has to come from somewhere . I'm saying the somewhere it comes from is hunting tags from our wildlife , whether it be good for our wildlife or not . Money then the wildlife is how it runs, wildlife then money is their actual agency goal , so why is it opposite .


How do they manage the wildlife without money?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Weird how if deer tags lower elk tags raise, or if elk tags lower deer tags raise. The numbers sure match up pretty well to keep the divisions money sitting in a pretty place.


Can you produce data that shows this going on in the last 10-15 years? 
I think your just starting to make things up. 
There's far more politics involved in these decisions than we will ever truly know. 
If you want change, start getting involved right now.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

ridgetop said:


> Can you produce data that shows this going on in the last 10-15 years?
> I think your just starting to make things up.
> There's far more politics involved in these decisions than we will ever truly know.
> If you want change, start getting involved right now.


Bingo! Hit it right on the nose, the amount of politic$$$$$ that's involved in this is staggering. I'm gonna pull a conspiracy theory out just for fun haha...

few years back a certain well known outfitter made a public hissy fit about not guiding a high profile tag anymore. The next year 5 southern LE units that he frequented saw tag cuts. two high population central utah units saw tag increases to the tune of what was cut off the 5 southern units. Justification? They were magically 'over' age and population objectives after several years of being right around where they should have been...

Coincidence? Probably, in all reality the current stink we are raising could be a product of faulty numbers from way back 5-7 years ago, we got used to having 7-8000 head on the Wasatch and now that they have trimmed it back down to size it seems different cause it is. Again that points to inaccurate counts and a need to look at the system!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I will never sit and claim the DWR's counts are infallible. However, if people are going to sit and say they don't work, give us a better system for it. 

And sampling a handful of hunters for their 'counts' on an Internet forum just ain't going to get it done. 

1-Deer, I ask again: Do you even know where the money from tags goes? You didn't answer the question.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS30 said:


> 1-Deer, I ask again: Do you even know where the money from tags goes? You didn't answer the question.


I'll be 1-I for this post .... (hope ya dont mined 1-I )

here ya go.....2013 Dwr finaces ...Permit $$$ info.

*Restricted funds:* The majority of DWR's revenue is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits. These funds are restricted for exclusive use by DWR and cannot be transferred to other state agencies. One hundred percent of the license dollars collected stay within the DWR to carry out the division's mission to conserve and protect the wildlife of Utah. Funding overages or shortages are managed through an interest-bearing account maintained by the State Treasurer. Other types of funding in this category are revenues from Certificates of Registration (CORs), donations, wildlife license plates and miscellaneous fees

http://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/191-financial-overview.html


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goofy, if you want to be 1-Deer, more power to ya! I feel bad for you a little bit, but more power to ya! 😄. Glad you posted that for him, because I know he had no clue.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'll be 1-I for this post .... (hope ya dont mined 1-I )
> 
> here ya go.....2013 Dwr finaces ...Permit $$$ info.
> 
> ...


Right, but out of $78.5+ million 2 million goes to habitat, and most goes to new vehicles, employees, and facilities. How often do you think they can afford to not hit that $78 million mark? I'm not saying the money doesn't stay within the DWR for the most part, I am saying that they year after year depend on that $78 million to come in, so they aren't going to cut tags to a point they loose millions just because numbers are struggling. They want and need the $78 million, and if you don't believe they'll get it one way or another, look at the raises of tag prices in the state, the fact you now have to buy a hunting license to apply for permits, more raises coming this year, and tag numbers staying about even with the level of income they need. One way or another they bow down to the almighty dollar, even if it means going along with senseless SFW things like deer transplants, or adding $5 to your license for SFW's publicity. Money is money, and money's what everyone wants, don't try to say that an agency as big as the DWR is immune to that.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I will never sit and claim the DWR's counts are infallible. However, if people are going to sit and say they don't work, give us a better system for it.
> 
> And sampling a handful of hunters for their 'counts' on an Internet forum just ain't going to get it done.


Right cause one guy in a helicopter has it all figured out.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

At least that's what you read in the National Enquirer....right?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Someone needs to learn how to do a GRAMA request and/or pull up agency financials from the auditor's website but if you like coloring books and simple explanations, put on your tin foil hat and go here:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/191-financial-overview.html

Apparently they didn't buy many new trucks last year. They must be reading this forum.

Oh, and if you decide to call Linda.....better be damned nice to her!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> Someone needs to learn how to do a GRAMA request and/or pull up agency financials from the auditor's website but if you like coloring books and simple explanations, put on your tin foil hat and go here:
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/191-financial-overview.html
> 
> ...


Someone needs to realize that $78 million has to come in some how . They aren't gonna cut tags and loose funding... Period. If they do they either raise prices or increase other tags, it's what they do.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Someone needs to realize that $78 million has to come in some how . They aren't gonna cut tags and loose funding... Period. If they do they either raise prices or increase other tags, it's what they do.


Thank you for stating the obvious.:shock: Just like Wal Mart or McDonalds or Home Depot will raise prices or increase sales in an effort to improve their budget. Would you prefer they cut their budget? If so what services would you like them to cut in order to reduce costs? Nobody here is ignorant of the fact that the DWR has to fund there budget. I appreciate the fact that they are the only government agency that doesn't use "tax" dollars to cover their costs. Unfortunately, it costs money to manage wildlife. If you are unhappy...please speak with your wallet and quick paying for their product. In the event that you think you are some how getting screwed take a look at some of the surrounding states budgets.

Colorado - $130 million
Idaho - $101 million
Montana - $87 million
Arizona - $101 million

As for Berry's original question. I believe that there are a couple of issues leading to increased tags (and I agree that numbers are down across the huntable unit).

First, as is understand it, the Wasatch has a signifacant number of elk that live exculsively on private property (think Park City, Wolf Creek, reservation, etc) I've heard numbers north of 2,000 although that seems high to me. Those elk are included in the overall population even though they will never be hunted. The easy solution would be not including those elk in counts.

Second, about 3 or 4 years ago, Utah adjusted age classification on most LE units. Some went up a year or 2 (think the southern part of the state) and some went down a year or more (think Wasatch). Bull tags were already increasing every year before that, but they have increased significantly since that time.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Dahlmer explains it perfectly !!

We have a LARGE number of UNHUNTABLE elk inculed in Wasatch elk estamates ....

Hmmmm, And some on the forum wonder why others queaston DWR herd estamates?

Well,, There's your answer .....


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

I don't buy it goof, I know a fair few property owners, and they are all reporting the same declining or no elk on their property...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> I don't buy it goof, I know a fair few property owners, and they are all reporting the same declining or no elk on their property...


Because numbers are probably low. If the division released that though, there would be big questioning if they kept releasing the same amount or more tags. But to some folks on this forum the DWRs numbers are as good as god himself. Of course numbers will be wherever the budget needs to be. THEY RELY ON THAT INCOME and population estimates and the number of tags being released has to fill that void. Along with that population numbers have to match up to warrant the release of tags, otherwise they can't do it. And to those of you who can't fathom inaccurate counts or questioning numbers that benefit them, as long as there's no questioning, then problems can never be uncovered and if they're not being accurate or truthful, are you okay with it continuing? I guess if you like living in a blind world you'll answer yes.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

berrysblaster said:


> I don't buy it goof, I know a fair few property owners, and they are all reporting the same declining or no elk on their property...


This. When ranch owners of Wolf Creek are seeing low numbers. Something is missing


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

pheaz said:


> This. When ranch owners of Wolf Creek are seeing low numbers. Something is missing


Ya but low numbers or not. The divisions gotta come up with that $78 mill.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

pheaz said:


> This. When ranch owners of Wolf Creek are seeing low numbers. Something is missing


Hmmm Again, Sounds like may-be WERE MISSING ELK ?????

These huge shifts were elk are gone off public ground,
Then (DWR estamates) claiming elk on on private boosting counts,
BUT private landowners saying elk numbers are down !!!

WOW, Red flags all over this mess ?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Hmmm Again, Sounds like may-be WERE MISSING ELK ?????
> 
> These huge shifts were elk are gone off public ground,
> Then (DWR estamates) claiming elk on on private boosting counts,
> ...


But again DWR will set population estimates where they can release tags at $50 a wack. That's the only flag flying .


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> But again DWR will set population estimates where they can release tags at $50 a wack. That's the only flag flying .


Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.


Just because you keep denying it doesn't mean it isn't true. $78 million credits my thoughts .... What exactly do you have to credit your side?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

pheaz said:


> That's what sucks Berry, such a great unit flushed down the toilet. 5 years ago 50-60 cows with a purdy herd bull. Now 5-9 cows with a raggy azz bull. Brings a tear to my eye. I feel as if I should thank the UWC for all the opportunity, but that would be just spreading rumors.


 Pheaz what the he11 does UWC have to do with this? I mean come on don't you know that we are a socailistic forum and we blame everything SFW! GET IT RIGHT....
Big


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Just because you keep denying it doesn't mean it isn't true. $78 million credits my thoughts .... What exactly do you have to credit your side?


Common sense. Something you seem to lack.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

It's neat to see how this thread has morphed, personally I think that deer is closer to the truth than any of us would like to believe. 

The politic$$$ that motivate our management strategies leave a good many sportsmen out in the cold. After the legislators, cattlemen, Feds, etc etc have their say in it the poor biologists are then asked to fulfill financial obligations that they had no say in...

We reap the consequences of this system good and bad. Most of the time the outcome is positive, but those few times it isn't is all that we focus on.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Sad thing, Same thing went down on Nebo starting back 5-6 years ago ..

I raised hell about that mess too, Nebo's LE elk permits were cut 50% ...
Antlerless only permits removed for 3 years..And Nebo has/was starting to recover.
THEN, 2013, the return of a 150 cow permits AND November LE bull permits ...
AND the herd is still UNDER OBJECTIVE---Back down hill again for the Nebo unit ...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Common sense. Something you seem to lack.


If it was really about the money, why wouldn't the DWR just sell off more OIL tags. If they gave out 20 more sheep tags, 20 goats and 10 bison. That right there would equal 5,000 cow elk tags.
But it's more about trying to keep as many people/hunters happy as possible, not just one guy obsessed with a one eyed buck.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

> Common sense. Something you seem to lack.


Common sense tells you no organization or agency forgets about money.



> If it was really about the money, why wouldn't the DWR just sell off more OIL tags. If they gave out 20 more sheep tags, 20 goats and 10 bison. That right there would cover 1/3 of your $78 million.
> But it's more about trying to keep as many people/hunters happy as possible, not just one guy obsessed with a one eyed buck.


Because that's not feasible, there are not enough OIL populations to severely over-hunt them. There are lots more deer and elk, and because of that their populations can be more easily taken advantage of. It's just as easy to give out 10,000+ more cow tags at $50 a ***. And if you think those tags add up to a 1/3 of $78 million, you need to recalculate.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Ya 50 more oial tags doesn't even come close...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> Ya 50 more oial tags doesn't even come close...


Ya, my bad. 
I was thinking of something else while I was typing.
Something I'm sure #1DEER can relate with.
I edited my post.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Common sense tells you no organization or agency forgets about money.
> 
> Because that's not feasible, there are not enough OIL populations to severely over-hunt them. QUOTE]
> 
> If that's the case, why not give out more tags?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Berry- I think you have some legitimate concerns and questions and I'm sure you're aware the answers are not simple nor are they 'black and white' in nature. I think some of the posters on this thread have given possible reasons why you are seeing what you are, but who knows for sure? I admire your passion to bring your concerns forward. It's your right and responsibility as a hunter and conservationist to question those that manage our herds when things don't seem to add up. This could be the right time for one of those 'napkin' meetings with the folks in charge, and I mean that with all sincerity. I'd be glad to go with...

That being said, I too have questioned the way counts have been done and the accuracy obtained therein. Not an easy thing to do, that's for sure. I have a hunch the division is fairly good at what they do and for the most part come pretty close most of the time. Are they infallible? Nope. Have mistakes been made? Yep. UDWR and all the other western states game agencies do things pretty similarly. And, as in this thread, hunters of those other states have questioned counts, blamed those divisions of padding their budgets with 'made up numbers' just to sell more tags, etc. It's never a good situation to be in. Just take a look at Wyoming and what happened when WYSFW pushed to hold back license/tag cost increases for the fish and game. It wasn't/isn't pretty. Anyway, as I mentioned above, now might be the time to have a heart to heart with those who are in charge... Maybe some semblance of satisfaction can be garnered, who knows?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Still 
I'd love to be in a forum where we could talk openly and intelligently with mr. Sheehan, John Fairchild, and most importantly the biologists on the ground. I think a lot of good can come from those 'napkin' meetings!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Berry, 

You made an astute observation earlier about the politics involved in all this. A lot of stake holders outside of hunters involved in this one. And unfortunately our elected officials know all too well that we as sportsman can't stop fighting amongst ourselves long enough to make a united front strong enough to make our voice matter as much as the others. You think the cattlemen have that issue? Farm Bureau members? Etc, etc, etc. 

My guess is multiple stakeholders would oppose an increase of elk on the Wasatch back to what many term the 'glory days.' Can sportsmen unite enough on that issue to make a difference? That is the $78 million dollar question.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Still not quite 'getting it' TS. the question is not can the sportsmen unite, it's can the sportsmen show that there is more of a financial incentive in increasing and maintaining an elk population? Will it make more money than the vested political influences stand to reap? 

Understand, money is at the root of everything. And this problem that we face is caused and solved by money. 

The other part to this equation as has been hinted at is the ethics and moral side, basically are we being lied to? That avenue can be pursued in a courtroom and has merit...but the easiest solution is to show that there is more of a financial future and gain in managing for a healthy sustainable elk herd on the Wasatch front.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think it would be a great idea to have an open house meeting to ask questions about the new proposals a few weeks before each RAC meeting. So the public is aware of why things are and can ask questions and also be a little more prepared to give rebuttal when needed.
As far as too many elk tags being handed out lately. For years now, the public has been crying about the declining deer herds and they believe it's because of the competing elk.
Then you have the cattlemen complaining about too many elk competing with their range lands.
And all the people that just want more opportunity to hunt elk of any kind.
Then you have people like #1DEER that just like to complain about everything.
I'm not surprised at all with the action the DWR has taken and really don't think it's all that bad.
Despite the numbers they come up with.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I think it would be a great idea to have an open house meeting to ask questions about the new proposals a few weeks before each RAC meeting. So the public is aware of why things are and can ask questions and also be a little more prepared to give rebuttal when needed.
> As far as too many elk tags being handed out lately. For years now, the public has been crying about the declining deer herds and they believe it's because of the competing elk.
> Then you have the cattlemen complaining about too many elk competing with their range lands.
> And all the people that just want more opportunity to hunt elk of any kind.
> ...


Then you're content with the world your given not with the world you want. Cattlemen of Utah grow more complaints than crops. They sit around b***ing at something all day it might as well be elk. Cattlemen should have to put up with some wildlife whether they b*** or not. The wildlife have to deal with thousands of cows every summer cattlemen can deal with elk and deer in the winter.

As for deer herds being effected by elk herds. It has never been proven to be so . So if the division is doing it for those reasons they are doing it on an unproven basis. So again they have no foot to stand on but money with excuses. Cut tags , stop over killing and make your estimates meet what's actually there, or prove the estimates then I'll stop complaining.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

For what its worth because a couple of you will instantly suggest that this group is made up of "worthless state game agency people", there is proof of a correlation in population fluctuations concerning a teeter totter like effect between populations of elk and deer. Not why the DWR in Utah is doing tag adjustments, but....decide for yourself.

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/online version/muledeerinthewest/elkandmuledeer.html

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WAFWA_MDWG_FACT40005224.pdf

And if you enjoy taking the time to do research about actual research, you'll find lots of answers without resorting to spoonfed talking points by going here:

www.muledeerworkinggroup.com

There you'll also find explanations for why population counts are done differently in each state, why estimates are used in those counts, and even why populations of "unhuntable" elk and deer on private property are also included.

Emotional solutions are almost always based on the human desire for immediate gratification. Decisions based on these types of desires almost always fail to one degree or another.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

my response to the original post is. I think a lot of the herd numbers that the dwr gets. are from elk that winter on public ground. but are actually PRIVATE PROPERTY elk that summer on places like wolf creek ranch little red creek, the two billionaires who own the mansions and personal airports up red creek and currant creek. and all of the other cwmu's surrounding the area. thus the average tag holder will never see all the elk that the dwr counts.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Berry, 

I think you're overlooking the fact that the DWR knows they can do anything they want to hunters because they know we won't get together long enough to fight against it. How do I know that? Well, DWR people (think high up) and members of the legislature that set their budget have told me that...personally. They know that no matter they do, the collective 'we' of sportsmen will never get together enough to fight against it. The divisions among us are great, and the chasm between different ideologies is only growing between the competing ideologies. 

If multiple groups of hunters are before the same group saying completely different things about the same elk herd...this will never be good enough. What you need is to convince a powerful ($$$) special interest group that too many elk are being shot on the Wasatch. That's your only chance to get your message beyond those other interested parties that carry clout and money that will ultimately oppose your feelings. Problem is going to be that they like raffling off those tags down south and this might cut into that some. 

I don't know if the DWR is 'lying' to us. Like I said before, their counts may not be totally accurate, but have yet to hear a single suggestion on how they should actually be done. Just whining by 1-Deer that they are wrong. What do you suggest?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

I really believe the system we have is 'good enough' my only thought is that it just needs some accountability within it...some independent entity that just checks the numbers. We are after all talking about public assets here. If that were to come to fruition I believe that most of us would be satisfied knowing we weren't being lied to....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So if I understand you correctly, continue the way they have been going, but have some non-DWR folk along for the ride to validate the counts? If so I would be totally fine with that. That is very reasonable.

FYI- I don't deny the loss of elk on the Wasatch. I helped my bro on his Wasatch muzzy tag this year and it is the first time I've ever been there. We saw what I would consider A LOT of elk, but I freely acknowledge I have nothing to compare it to, so it could be a fraction. I will say this, I've fished the Berry a fair amount in my day and from the early 2000's until about 2007-ish I never drove from Heber to Strawberry without seeing elk on the way up or back. Didn't matter time of year or time of day. Literally every single trip saw elk. That started slowing down about 5 years ago to seeing them sometimes, but not every time. I can say I haven't seen an elk on that drive for probably 3 years. Totally non-scientific, and may not mean anything as to the actual health of the herd, but an observation I've made, nonetheless. I'm all for more elk. People just need to understand there is MUCH more at play here than license revenue and hunting opportunity. Cutting tags will be an uphill battle. Need to build support and consensus if it's going to happen.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

TS haha none of what has been talked about on here is new to me, I've thought quite a bit on this and talked about it with a multiplicity of people. 

The easy answer is that there isn't an easy solution. 

IMHO there will never ever be a perfect system but we have to be open to improving the one we have as we can. 

My feeble mind can only come up with a few thoughts in improvement but that one I think is the most realistic...we have independent audits to track the appropriations of all public moneys, why not assets? Accountability is a good thing in business and the biologists have very little of it!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> TS haha none of what has been talked about on here is new to me, I've thought quite a bit on this and talked about it with a multiplicity of people.
> 
> The easy answer is that there isn't an easy solution.
> 
> ...


Not to hijack or anything, but we want the biologists to be "accountable" but when sportsmen cry for more accountability from MDF and SFW we are crazy? Interesting... FYI this is not directed at Berry, just a thought that crossed my feeble mind.

Who would the third party (independent) be? Who would you trust? It appears I tend to count high and Goofy and 1-eye count low. Who is the middle ground? I like the idea but it reminds me of a study in CO where the division invited sportsmen to come along for counts with them. They gathered the data and it was signed off by the sportsmen at the time. When the final numbers came in the sportsmen still didn't believe the herd estimates. I feel really bad for the biologists sometimes. They certainly can't please every JuddCT or berry blaster out there.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Nope they sure can't...and like I said there is no easy solution someone is always gonna believe something contrary to what they are told...I personally wouldn't care who went along with the counts as long as they were independent...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OK , Lets cut to the chase here ...
SFW has ponied up a bunch of $$$$ so helicopters could be used in counts ..
And Nebo and Wasatch were "flew counted' Last Winter ....

Heres the numbers:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-04_rac_packet.pdf

And here's, IMO, THE REAL PROBLEM......Last years numbers used to issue permits.

Wasatch, Avintiquin.
Herd objective---1,600
Herd estamate---1,750
Antlerless LE permits issued, 900-- PLUS unlimited over the counter control permits.

Wasatch, currant creek.
Herd objective---1,200
Herd estamate--3,750 ( large portion of this herd on private )
Antlerless LE permits issued, 2,000,,, PLUS OTC, unlimited control cow permits.

Nebo unit.
Herd objevtive---1,450
Herd estamate---1,200 ( under objective )
Issued 150 Le anterless permit !

On top of these numbers , Unlimited archery ethier sex archery permits sold ..
PLUS, OTC unlimited cow permits can be filled during ANY big game season!!

Come on now, There's the probblem!---And I could show the same ON MANY other units.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, do you know if the OTC control permits sold with buck and bull tags is happening again? Or was that a one-year deal to see what happened in herd numbers? TBD still?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

TS the rumor is more tags than ever before this year I'm specifically hearing the antlerless control permits will be used again. I hope that's wrong but that's the rumor


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Someone must REALLY have to Wildlife Board by the gonads on this one. Which interested party is pushing this?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Rough tho they may be, I'd tell you to refer to 1deers comments above I truly believe it's just a way for them to make budget....and since no one checks numbers they can do it on any unit at any time. Cut deer tags supplement budget by adding elk tags on another unit


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Not buying that the DWR is cutting off their nose to spite their face strictly for budget purposes here. I never underestimate the propensity of politicians to screw things up and do stupid things. However, there has to be something more here. 

And even if money is the driving factor...follow the money. Where is it coming from? Someone has to be pushing this. Who?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

A couple more units I personally witnessed in 2013.

Anthro,, ( I drew this LE elk tag in 2013 and surrenderd it after summer scouting )
Herd objective---700
Herd estamate---850
Antlerless permits issued--700 ( + Unlimited archery hunters choice permits sold )

Manti.
Herd objective--12,000
Herd estamate--12,700
Antlerless permits issued, 2,590 ( + Unlimited archery hunters choice permits sold )

Boulder.
Herd ojective--1,500
Herd estamate--1.600
Anterless permits issued, 700 ( + Unlimited archery hunters choice permits sold )


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, what is the success rate on the archery hunts? From what I understand it is VERY low. Do we have any way to gauge how many animals are being taken? If not, why not institute a mandatory harvest reporting scheme like for swan and other LE hunts? 

Obviously the straight math doesn't line up. But you do have to factor in that more elk will be born this year to replace many that were harvested. Not saying that they are right in the amount of tags issued. Just pointing out a huge omission from the numbers you're posting.


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

Question to goofy. Maybe this is obvious, but I'm new to all this,so bear with me. Suppose a unit has objective 100, and estimate 100, with 20 bulls. Say 60 of 80 calves make it through the winter, and you know there's a success rate of 30%. You'd need to issue 180 permits to keep the herd at a 100, or?? If that's not the way to count this.... How does it work?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Slchunter, the math is right they will issue enough tags to compensate for the influx of new elk. So what goof posted is accurate for the most part.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

The math looks in line to me. Taking into account average reproduction levels and harvest rates.

The unlimited archery tags become a moot point because the actual number of archers is limited (the DWR knows how many sell historically) and as stated before, the success rate is low.

In spite of what many may think the fly over method of counting is far more accurate than any other method available. Guys have been complaining all winter that the elk are not in the wintering grounds. Now some seem worried that if they are not there, they don't exist at all. 

The sky is falling I tell ya! The sky is falling!


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

berrysblaster said:


> Slchunter, the math is right they will issue enough tags to compensate for the influx of new elk. So what goof posted is accurate for the most part.


Does that then imply there's been overissue of tags on the units goofy elk mentioned? Or not?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

No assuming that the counts are accurate, which is the big discussion this thread is, then the math is correct. That is the proper amount of tags to issue to MAINTAIN current population estimates.

The question is are the estimates correct? If they are not then, like the Wasatch, success rates will suggest otherwise.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> The question is are the estimates correct? If they are not then, like the Wasatch, success rates will suggest otherwise.


Exactly why I'm pounding this issue to death !

I watched the success rates drop DRAMATICLY in some areas of the
Wasatch stating back in 2010/11 ...

And then the problem is compounded more by issueing even MORE
permits on a shrinking public ground elk herd.
CLEARLY this has been headed down the wrong road on the Wasatch
for a couple years now......

Once again, showing how Utah manages boom and bust cycles..


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

TS30 said:


> Not buying that the DWR is cutting off their nose to spite their face strictly for budget purposes here. I never underestimate the propensity of politicians to screw things up and do stupid things. However, there has to be something more here.
> 
> And even if money is the driving factor...follow the money. Where is it coming from? Someone has to be pushing this. Who?


I can't say definitively that division revenue doesn't play a role in these decisions, but we do know who is pushing the herd objectives that the DWR is basically forced to try and adhere to. The cattlemen, Farm Bureau, the Forest service, and their legislative allies all have pushed for low herd objectives. The main tool the DWR has to adhere to these guidelines is to issue lots of (antlerless) tags. Plus the uproar about the "low" deer herds have sent a message to some that the deer herd needs to be boosted at all cost, even if the science is far from certain that blasting the elk will help.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Plus the uproar about the "low" deer herds have sent a message to some that the deer herd needs to be boosted at all cost, even if the science is far from certain that blasting the elk will help.


Another GREAT point !
And another out come I fear..Lower herd numbers for elk...
AND Little, if any, increase with deer herds.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> I can't say definitively that division revenue doesn't play a role in these decisions, but we do know who is pushing the herd objectives that the DWR is basically forced to try and adhere to. The cattlemen, Farm Bureau, the Forest service, and their legislative allies all have pushed for low herd objectives. The main tool the DWR has to adhere to these guidelines is to issue lots of (antlerless) tags. Plus the uproar about the "low" deer herds have sent a message to some that the deer herd needs to be boosted at all cost, even if the science is far from certain that blasting the elk will help.


^^^This! This is what the simple approach of "The DWR is lying to us about population counts to pad their budget" claims going on here ignore. I know Berry and Goofy aren't making that exact claim, but that claim has been made by others on this thread multiple times. Like I said, if you are trying to reverse this trend you are up against it, because various special interest groups that actually unite and bring a single message will fight against us as hunters because we can't even agree who should count the freaking elk!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS30;707666 if you are trying to reverse this trend you are up against it said:


> The DWR had the same problem when they ran the big game draws ..
> Distrust ... Hired an indipendent company to run that.
> 
> This is NO different, May-be it's time to hire an indapendant group for
> ...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, I wouldn't care if they contracted out the herd counts. But then they'd just have to up the cow tags on the Wasatch to make up for the money they are losing to do that! 

Tooth data....they aged my Pauns buck at 3 years old. I got a chuckle out of that.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> This is NO different, May-be it's time to hire an indapendant group for
> herd counts...
> too.


Ahhh .........Pandora's Box

I couldn't imagine that amount of people that would like to have an influence on herd counts........SFW, PETA, The Humane Society, RMEF, MDF........the list goes on and on. I can't think of anybody off of the top of my head that wouldn't want a dog in that fight.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

We don't need people to count for us, just to verify that the counts are accurate...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> We don't need people to count for us, just to verify that the counts are accurate...


See, now the two biggest allies on the Wasatch elk herd don't even agree on this one. For the record, I like accountability in government. So I don't care how they do it, just make it transparent so their can be public trust.

But once it is transparent, what are people going to complain about if the herd counts come back the same and their units are still getting shot out?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Ahhh .........Pandora's Box
> 
> I couldn't imagine that amount of people that would like to have an influence on herd counts........SFW, PETA, The Humane Society, RMEF, MDF........the list goes on and on. I can't think of anybody off of the top of my head that wouldn't want a dog in that fight.


Hire a public accounting firm. That's what the the grammy's and stuff do. They hire a public accounting firm to count the ballots. I would love to ride in a helicopter and count elk. And I don't have a dog in the fight, other than I love the animals.  But people were right when they said better be prepared to pay more for permits. A third-party counting agency isn't going to come cheap.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

If that's the case then I'll be happy to say I'm a moron who can't find elk! 

No offense to goof TS but I don't agree with a lot of what he says. 

This goes to so many levels. And you are so correct that until the sportsmen can present a united message the other guys will win.

All I'm suggesting here is that we can do better with the management strategies that we are already dictated. The bigger battle is fighting those fellas to change how we manage.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Okay I found the abstract to the study I referred to earlier. Yes it is talking about mule deer, but I think it still applies. Enjoy.


How many mule deer are there? Challenges of credibility in Colorado



· Conflict resolution between stakeholder groups and management agencies is a problem in wildlife management. They evaluated their success in resolving a conflict between sportsmen and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). Sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer in Colorado and demanded validation surveys to verify numbers of deer.



· Some sportsmen believed mule deer in Colorado were in serious peril and alleged the CDOW was misleading the public and hunters on the status of deer by basing management actions on inflated estimates of deer population size (Freddy 2001).

· Sportsmen focused their concerns on the credibility of CDOW’s aerial-survey sampling methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer.



· Aerial counting of deer using random sample units provided estimates of deer population size that were suitably robust for herd management decisions, but costs prevented systems from being applied in most deer management units in western Colorado.



· Accordingly, intensive sample-based estimates of population size were limited to a few selected core populations representing ecologically distinct areas (White and Bartmann 1998, Bowden et al. 200). Trends of most deer populations were estimated yearly harvest and post-hunting-season herd sex and age ratios (Bartholow 2000, While and lubow 2002).



· Concerns of sportsmen regarding the validity of deer population estimates more accurately reflected issues with CDOW computer models than with aerial-survey estimates because only about 10% of Colorado’s deer populations were estimated using the aerial sampling system. Nevertheless, sportsmen focused on aerial sampling, and their inherent distrust of this system led them to request that CDOW use the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) mule deer sightability survey (Ackerman 1988, Unsworth et al. 1994) as an alternative estimation method on the premise that the Idaho system would provide more acceptable estimates of deer numbers.



· Resolving differences in perceived deer population status is difficult from both social and scientific outlooks. Viewpoints of sportsmen may reflect entrenched values that remain unchanged even when confronted by reliable scientific information to the contrary (Patterson et al. 2000).



· In 2000 and 2001, sportsmen and CDOW embarked on a conflict resolution process that implemented an aerial survey to estimate numbers of deer in a specific population. This process challenged the credibility of agencies, professional wildlife managers, and sportsmen; exposed contemporary issues of public acceptance of science in natural resource management; and revealed the importance of critically assessing the risks of potential outcomes as part of decision-making processes used by wildlife agencies.



Results:



· Vested stakeholders presented the best evidence supporting their respective viewpoints. The DW then facilitated compromises that were reasonably acceptable to vested stakeholders.



· Sportsmen and CDOW provided written tabulaton of estimated size for 32 populations of mule deer in Colorado west of the Continental Divide. This exercise revealed that CDOW estimates generally were 4 times greater than sportsmen estimates on statewide and individual herd scales. Sportsmen estimates were based on personal observations and casual surveys from horseback by outfitters and hunters while CDOW estimates primarily were based on existing computer-model simulations.



· CDOW personnel would conduct the survey with sportsmen consultants onboard helicopters to provide oversight. Survey data would be provided to vested stakeholders for independent analyses. IDFG personnel would use IDFG software to calculate sightability-corrected estimates of population size.



· Estimates of mule deer population size derived from aerial-survey systems indicated that sportsmen estimates of deer numbers represented equal or less than 26% of the likely true population size. Aerial-survey estimates supported population estimates derived from computer models, strengthening the concept that models based on reliable data could adequately guide decisions for managing deer.



· As understood a priori, the CDOW survey system provided lower estimates of deer number (6,782) than counts adjusted with the IDFG sightability model (11,052).The IDFG model increased estimates by 1.63 times compared to a correction factor of 1.51 times developed for aerial counts of mule deer in Colorado.



· Sportsmen did not accept the estimates of deer population size, even though the conflict resolution process implemented a survey following most of the constraints desired by sportsmen. They propose that sportmen failed to accept the results because of their inherent mistrust of CDOW and IDFG experts. When sportsmen failed to support the results of the validation, their credibility with other vested stakeholders, the Colorado Wildlife Commission, and outside interests plummeted while credibility of CDOW managers rose. This mistrust likely was founded in their belief that only they were truly concered about the plight of mule deer wheras CDOW was concered only about maintaining agency image and status-quo deer management programs. (This kind of sounds like hunters in Utah).



· The credibility on social trust than academic discipline, and that trust is garnered when scientists presenting the data appear sympathetic to concerns of stakeholders (Weeks and Packard 1997).For the most part, this conflict process was an adversarial debate over techniques of animal enumeration between sportsmen and agency experts and not an empathetic discourse about the status of deer. Information presented by agency experts explaining the details of systems used to estimate deer population size, limitations of those systems, and data resulting from the validating survey were probably not viewed from the validating survey were probably not viewed as objective scientific facts by sportsmen but rather seen as advocacy statements designed to protect the credibility of the agency (Rykiel 2001). Fundamentally, if the messenger is not trusted, the message will not be heard by the resource user (Weeks and Packard 1997).



· The survey was conducted in an area chosen by sportsmen where they were confident about their personal perceptions on numbers of deer present.



· When citizens wrestle with accepting or rejecting scientific information, local knowledge of a situation by non-experts can trump the finding of experts (Weeks and Packard 1997, Weber and Word 2001). Taken in this social context, accepting the validation results would have meant that sportsmen would have had to abdicate their personal status as local experts. This quandary was further demonstrated by their unwillingness to accept the opinions of their consultants, who did no reject the results of the survey.



· Citizens do not passively accept knowledge presented by scientific experts, and they tend to use of reconstruct science knowledge to fit their value system (Zimm 1991) within their social context, independently of the underlying science itself (Weber and Word 2001). Because of these personalized constraints, citizens can lose faith in science when scientific findings are perceived as being abused by advocacy groups (Pye-Smith 199). If sportsmen were indeed unwilling to alter their perceptions because they viewed agency scientists as biased advocates, then no amount of scientific facts demonstrating true numbers of deer likely would have altered sportsmen perceptions. If those facts supported the sportsmen viewpoint, then science would be good; otherwise, science would be inconclusive (Peyton 2000) and not worthy of acceptance.



· Both CDOW and IDFG had major financial and personnel investments over many years in developing, evaluating, and implementing aerial-survey sampling protocols to estimate numbers of mule deer that had passed limus tests of scientific peer review. These systems were expected to perform correctly on a “one-time-chance” basis around which the credibility of both agencies pivoted. For any given survye, both systems could statistically fail, in that calculated confidence intervals would not include the true population size in10% of such surveys. This error rate could occur when all underlying assumptions of the techniques were satisfied, with the probability of error increasing if assumptions were violated.



· What was important to sportsmen was not process or better scientific measurements of deer numbers but rather imposing their values and goals and changing how mule deer should be managed.



· They agree with Diefenbach and Palmer (1997) that aggressively marketing the science of deer management to the general public, and especially hunters, may be a successful agency strategy to build public trust in the value of applying scientific methods to public resource management issues (Weeks and Packard 1997) and reduce the impacts of critics pushing personalized agendas.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If I didn't know better I'd think that you made all this up. What do they say about learning from history?


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Seriously if I worked for the DNR and came on and read this crap I would absolutely lose my mind. You are calling them all liars and cheats. Short of spray painting numbers on each and every animal you can never have 100% accurate counts. What they do is sample the population and use formulas to compute the numbers. It's like flipping a coin, about 50% of the time it is heads and 50% of the time it is tails. Is it always 50/50? No but pretty darn close. With no animals there is no DNR. I am sure all DNR employees inflate the numbers, give out too many tags, and shoot out all the herds so in 5-10 years they are all unemployed. Makes sense to me.

Later,
Griff


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Griff, that's exactly right but not in that sense I'm saying that due to political pressure, budget constraints and in a few cases stupidity, the numbers may be altered to reflect what they want.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

From Judd's paper;

"When citizens wrestle with accepting or rejecting scientific information, local knowledge of a situation by non-experts can trump the finding of experts (Weeks and Packard 1997, Weber and Word 2001). Taken in this social context, *accepting the validation results would have meant that sportsmen would have had to abdicate their personal status as local experts.* This quandary was further demonstrated by their unwillingness to accept the opinions of their consultants, who did no reject the results of the survey."

This paragraph explains so much of the nonsense perpetually spouted on internet fishing and hunting message boards!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Experts make up this group and this is what they say concerning counts and counting (general form, there is research if you look for it):

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/online version/muledeerinthewest/countingtheherds.html

And then there's this which is updated on occasion:

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Methods_for_Monitoring_Mule_Deer_Populations.pdf

If you're so inclined to did and find the mounds of actual data and method examples from each participating state, go here. There are years and plenty of data to dive into:

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/index_files/Page577.htm


----------

