# Lost Opportunities



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I was looking at the number of elk harvested each year and the number of elk hunters in the field each year: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/bi ... report.pdf pg 65 shows a steady decrease in the number of bulls and cows harvested each year from 1989-2005. I also see a steady decrease in hunter numbers during the same timeframe. Is this a cause for concern, or is it just a by-product of 'modern living'? I see that deer numbers are similar in decline as well. Fewer deer/elk harvested and fewer deer/elk hunters does not bode well, IMHO, with the future of big game hunting. Small game hunting has suffered an even bigger decline. Will my 3 year old be able to be a hunter when he is 30, or is he doomed to be 'urbanized'?

PRO


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro,

I haven't got to the page that you mentioned yet but I was surprised that the Beaver, Monroe and Dutton are all in the 4-5 year old objective vs. the 5-6 on the Pahvant and the San Juan. These areas are putting out as many 400 + bulls as the others. (Except the Monroe) Any way that surprised me. 

I just went back to it to read what you were talking about. Man it reminds me of when I was in school. I was getting a headache trying to figure it out.


----------



## Hardwater (Sep 14, 2007)

Pro, I too wonder about this. My oldest is almost 13 and he loves hunting waterfowl and elk so far. I think big reason is I love to hunt, talk about it with him, and take him. I can't say the same for others my age (mid-thirties.)

Nearly everyone in my father's generation hunted, heck, schools shut down for the deer hunt and didn't try to call it "harvest holiday" or any other pc name. I wonder if my father's generation did not instill the love of hunting in my generation as strong as was instilled in theirs, like it was a watered down version or something.

I often read posts that blame the rising generation because they are addicted to video games, ipods, cell phones etc... but surely the parents contribute to the disconnect between young hunters and the outdoors because the buy the electronics and don't take their kids hunting anymore.

I'm not preaching or blaming, just thinking about the spiral in hunter #'s that I have also seen. I can't even get my old hunting buddies to go, "too busy" I'm told, or "The wife won't let that stinking animal in the house."

Will hunter #'s continue to decline? Probably so. 
Will they decline into oblivion until hunters do not have a voice? Not if I have anything to say/do about it. We'll all have a chance to holler about hunting this election season.


----------



## Deuce (Oct 18, 2007)

PRO, you may be onto something here... BUT. I didn't grow up hunting. My dad hunted until he got married, then Mom put an end to it, however that inane desire still grew within me. I never hunted until three years ago, I was 26. I didn't have a clue as to what I was doing and I was with two other friends that were in the same boat, but we had a great time "hiking with guns." After that first year I was HOOKED!! Now it's an obsession and I can't wait to take my little girl on her first hunt. I don't have high hopes that my wife will ever hunt, but I'll keep working on her.

I guess what I'm getting to is... there is still that little seed in a lot of people that didn't grow up hunting. Don't forget about us. Yes, hunter numbers may decrease, but will we disappear... I don't think so. My enthusiasm and lucky success has turned a lot of my friends on to the thought of getting into hunting. Right now I have a list of about a dozen "newbies" that want to go with me for the first time next year. Now my problem is whittling that number down to those that I trust on the mountain. You know, the whole "watching people through a scope thing." That doesn't float so well with me.

There is still hope, just take someone under your arm and help them out. That's, in part, why I'm still around. Thanks Ty and Larry!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good posts guys. harley, the point I am making is there are fewer tags ISSUED which leads to fewer hunters. We are losing hunters because the opportunities to hunt are dwindling. Fewer elk tags issued measn fewer elk hunters. I do NOT like were we are headed.

elkhunter22, you noticed what I did many months ago when I got researching data for I400. Everyone thinks that you need the *average* harvest age to be 7+ in order to harvest 400 class bulls, which simply is not true. Monroe has bulls a little smaller mainly because of easy access, IMHO. Bulls are not allowed to get to 400 class status before they are harvested. Yet look at the harvest age average on Monroe vs Dutton, Boulder, Beaver, and even Fish Lake. Survivabilty is a major factor in the size of bulls on a given unit. This also shows we are *way* underharvesting on all/most units. Excess bulls limits the number of cows that the unit can carry, fewer cows means fewer calves, fewer calves means fewer future bulls. We NEED to start getting these herds in line with objectives and INCREASE opportuinity for ALL hunters, not just a select few 'trophy' hunters. We need balance, and very few herds are balanced IMHO. Give out more primitive weapon tags, this is an under-utilized resource and opportunity to give more tags w/o hurting 'quality'.

PRO


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I hate to say it but I think it is due to the baby-boomer generation and hunting isn't the only thing affected, it society in general. I am in my mid-thirties and have seen massive changes in my life, however I believe it will bottom out and rebound. My generation will start coming into power and things will get better. My theory is sound, just look at Hollywood, Politics, Public Schools or any other aspect of society. Will hunting ever return to the way it was in the fifties and sixties? No, but I truly believe society will become more logically driven versus emotionally. Hunting is a good and wholesome activity; it may change a little, but will never go away as long as predators are no longer involved in wildlife's management. Think of the money that the states will have to come up with for the habitat, hunters pump in almost all that money. Even as rabid anti-hunting as California is they still fly in hunters to control mountain lions, their legislature is infested with anti-hunters and they won't last more than twenty more years. Just like harley I did not start hunting until I was over twenty and of course I am raising two kids that live to hunt so there is still hope. As for the game populations that is do to habitat loss and that can change also. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> As for the game populations that is do to habitat loss and that can change also


There are *more* elk now than 10 years ago, yet less tags issued today. Habitat is a factor for deer, but not for elk.

PRO


----------



## Deuce (Oct 18, 2007)

I'm a little bit slow sometimes, so I couldn't really see the road you were driving down before. With your clarification, I have one question. Why, with the elk population doing as well as it is, are there fewer tags now?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

harley said:


> I'm a little bit slow sometimes, so I couldn't really see the road you were driving down before. With your clarification, I have one question. Why, with the elk population doing as well as it is, are there fewer tags now?


IMHO, to much management geared toward antler size, and the myth that bulls need to average 7+ years old to be trophy caliber. This leads to excess bulls, too few cows/calves, which means fewer tags available to the public.

PRO


----------



## callofthewild (Sep 7, 2007)

i have been volunteering to take one of those bulls out of the herd for years now. but nobody seems to want to take me up on my offer. there is always this year though. 

seriously though for years i have talked with the fish and game officer who works the pahvant unit. for years he has made the recomendation to increase the bull tags off of that mountain. he is saying that year after year there have been countless "BIG" bulls that have died from old age. and with the managment tags that were implemented this year it kind of proves that what he has been telling me and the dwr has been true. in my opinion you could almost double the tags for the pahvant and still maintain one of the if not the countries best elk unit. there are elk all over the place it is almost impossible now to find an area that does not have elk sign in it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> in my opinion you could almost double the tags for the pahvant and still maintain one of the if not the countries best elk unit.


In truth, you could do the same on pert near every LE unit in the state and quality would not be affected much, if at all.

PRO


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Pro,
I think the National Geographic article that has been posted a couple of times on the forum supports your original thought of declining numbers.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> Will my 3 year old be able to be a hunter when he is 30, or is he doomed to be 'urbanized'?


Won't your boy be "Hunter" all of his life regardless?


----------



## 2-Fer (Oct 29, 2007)

Another reason elk numbers have increased is due to the change in range lands. Range lands for the past several years have gone from brush dominated ranges to grass dominated ranges. ( I dont know if that is how you spell dominated)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Good posts guys. harley, the point I am making is there are fewer tags ISSUED which leads to fewer hunters. We are losing hunters because the opportunities to hunt are dwindling. Fewer elk tags issued measn fewer elk hunters. I do NOT like were we are headed.


Bingo...I have been saying this for months! If you further limit opportunity, you will see these numbers dip even more. The biggest hit hunting took in Utah was when the general rifle deer hunt was changed from OTC to draw...this alone was the biggest factor, in my opinion, to dwindling hunter numbers in Utah (not that it wasn't necessary or avoidable).

As hunters we should be strongly advocating any possible increases in tag numbers and increases in opportunity.

As far as quality not decreasing if you dramatically increased LE tags on units goes...well, let's say there is some truth in the idea that quality won't decrease and there is some non-truth in that statement. Dramatically increasing LE tags will not totally eliminate all the high scoring bulls...however, it would reduce the number of high-scoring bulls and make it more difficult to find and kill them. As things are now, the number of large bulls is high and they are relatively easy to find and shoot...if you lowered the number of these bulls--and dramatically increasing the number of LE tags will do this--you will also lose quality in that the number of big bulls will decrease.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

and yet you fight against I400 which is all about MORE hunting opportunities :shock: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> and yet you fight against I400 which is all about MORE hunting opportunities :shock: :roll: :roll: :roll:


I am glad you brought this up...I am against I400 because other plans could be put into place that would offer much more opportunity than what I400 could. Such a plan is what I would support!

I adamantly oppose I400 because it could potentially eliminate spike tags altogether--and significantly reduce opportunity. And, currently, looks to displace hunters from some of the most popular units...a concept that has proven time and again to push hunters away from hunting altogether instead of recruiting them!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

A lot of what you just said is a bunch of crap. We arent eliminating spike tags. Wyo2ut after all the reading you have done and since you believe anything a biologist says then you might have come across the word "management" once or twice in your heavy reading.

I400 wants to use spike tags as a management tool like they should be used because right now we are only using them as a hunting opportunity so why not use spike tags as a management tool and hunting opportunity??? We want to move the spike tags to areas where they are needed to most: San Juan, SWD, Monroe, Pahvant because they have a problem with very high bull/cow ratios and if we harvest spikes then less bulls are recruited to the herd.

Next we want to maximize units to where people who would just love the opportunity to even kill a 320 class could do so on the 5 pilot units instead of being in the same pool as the trophy hunters.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

talk about spilling crap...I haven't read a worthwhile post from you in a long time!

You keep selling all this crap, but I ain't buying...1)spike hunting IS a management tool and the sole reason that LE units with spike hunting have lower bull/cow ratios than LE units without them...our former big game biologist called this a type of "thinning of the carrots"...a quick google search should yield you this information 2)you want to displace general season hunters from the largest/most popular areas...this loss of "opportunity" will decrease again total number of hunters and elk killed 3) if you truly wanted to "maximize" hunter opportunity, you would do more than just that...you would remove ALL hunts from the rut because this reduces total number of tags possbily given and you would come up with a statewide management plan that increase total tags without destroying quality...something very possible!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Have you ever had a worthwhile post because you are negative about everything and you talk in circles way to much. WHY? Because you have multiple personalities. Your poor students that is all i have to say.



> 1)spike hunting IS a management tool and the sole reason that LE units with spike hunting have lower bull/cow ratios than LE units without them..


Ding Ding Ding, you wrote it but yet you dont see the big picture. Wasatch, nebo, N. Cache etc have a bull cow ratio of 30/100 according to Anis because of spike tags. San Juan, SWD, Pahvant and Monroe have a bull/cow ratio of 60/100 or higher so which area needs spike tags more.



> 2)you want to displace general season hunters from the largest/most popular areas...this loss of "opportunity" will decrease again total number of hunters and elk killed


San Juan, Pahvant, SWD and Monroe will be popular spike hunting areas. We all know that Manti, Boulder and Beaver will still be popular.



> you would remove ALL hunts from the rut because this reduces total number of tags possbily given and you would come up with a statewide management plan that increase total tags without destroying quality...something very possible; I400 doesn't do that!


We want to have 5 units with the archery hunt in the rut and rifle out of the rut. The remaining 23 units will still be in the rut. 5 units ISNT all of them. Maybe after your english class then you can go see a math professor so he can teach you how to add.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!


See even Jahan is turning into a sheep over the whole debate. I always knew he was a little wooly


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I am from Carbon County! :wink: Do you have any velcro gloves and chaps I can borrow? :shock:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Ding Ding Ding, you wrote it but yet you dont see the big picture. Wasatch, nebo, N. Cache etc have a bull cow ratio of 30/100 according to Anis because of spike tags. San Juan, SWD, Pahvant and Monroe have a bull/cow ratio of 60/100 or higher so which area needs spike tags more.


The big picture? Are you kidding me? The big picture is that these units are in good shape BECAUSE of the additional bulls killed during the spike hunt and you want to take that away...Why mess with a good thing? Why fix what ain't broke? They ALL need spike tags to keep the carrots thinned and the bull/cow ratios low without hurting quality!



coyoteslayer said:


> San Juan, Pahvant, SWD and Monroe will be popular spike hunting areas. We all know that Manti, Boulder and Beaver will still be popular.


Are you telling me that these little units will be just as popular and will accomodate just as many hunters as the Wasatch and Fish Lake units? Honestly, how many of the displaced hunters are going to travel all the way to the Boulder or San Juan units? Sorry, but if you take spike hunting away from the Wasatch and Fish Lake units, you will take away a lot of revenue generated from spike tags, you will lose hunters, and you will see LESS elk shot in Utah.



coyoteslayer said:


> We want to have 5 units with the archery hunt in the rut and rifle out of the rut. The remaining 23 units will still be in the rut. 5 units ISNT all of them.


You "want" to have 5 units with archery hunt "in the rut"...so you don't "want" to "maximize" tags like you claim. If you really wanted to "maximize" opportunity and tags, you would move ALL hunts from the rut--not just the rifle hunts and even the 5 archery hunts. By having archery hunts during the rut, you will increase archery success rates and thus limit the tags that can be issued. ON the other hand, if you kept ALL hunts--even the archery hunts--out of the rut you could "maximize" the number of tags. And, at the same time, you would not tick off the rifle hunters by proposing such an archery-favored proposal.

This whole thread is about maximizing opportunity...I400 is a step towards reducing opportunity even more!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Are you telling me that these little units will be just as popular and will accomodate just as many hunters as the Wasatch and Fish Lake units? Honestly, how many of the displaced hunters are going to travel all the way to the Boulder or San Juan units? Sorry, but if you take spike hunting away from the Wasatch and Fish Lake units, you will take away a lot of revenue generated from spike tags, you will lose hunters, and you will see LESS elk shot in Utah.


I disagree, shocking as that may be. Why would there be a significant decrease in hunters and elk harvested? Why would a 'dedicated' spike hunter, someone like yourself, not buy a spike tag for the Monroe but would for the Fish Lake? You make reference to Boulder and San Juan, could you get a more drastic extreme for an example? There are SEVERAL spike units closer to the Wasatch unit than either. The hunters 'displaced' by the LaSal changes would have to travel how much further to hunt on the San Juan? Would someone from Blanding/Motecello be more or less likely to buy a spike tag on the San Juan vs the LaSals? Would someone from Venice/Elsinor be more or less likely to buy a spike tag for the Monroe vs the Fish Lake? Would someone from Meadow/Holden be more or less likely to buy a spike tag for the Pahvant vs Nebo? There are currently 15 LE units that issue spike tags, *you* keep saying there is a significant demand for spike tags, yet now you say there must not be, otherwise the 11,000 tags would STILL be all sold. If 11,000 tags are STILL issued, and MORE LE tags are issued, and MORE cow tags are issued, how does that compute into:


> you will take away a lot of revenue generated from spike tags, you will lose hunters, and you will see LESS elk shot in Utah


 :?:

Then you make this absurd comment:


> By having archery hunts during the rut, you will increase archery success rates and thus limit the tags that can be issued. ON the other hand, if you kept ALL hunts--even the archery hunts--out of the rut you could "maximize" the number of tags.


Archers enjoy between 30-35% success rates(on LE units, muchlower on units w/spike tags) right now, how much of an increase do *you* believe the SR would increase by allowing archers to hunt *ONE WEEK* further into September? Do *you* honestly believe the number of elk harvested by archers will drastically increase by this move? If so, can you site an example of this happening elsewhere?

I see I400 as a method to *INCREASE* opportunity, it will maintain OTC opportunities at current levels, it will *INCREASE* mature bull hunting opportunities, it will *INCREASE* cow hunting opportunities. Nowhere in this plan will there be a decrease in opportunities, but there will be a significant *INCREASE* in opportunities in atleast two demographics. I400 is the very type of management we need MORE of in Utah, it gives more opportunitiy while keeping quality at trophy class levels.

PRO


----------



## Deuce (Oct 18, 2007)

This all gives me a headache. I feel like you guys are running for president. My problem is I don't know who is right. Both have valid points, but 'i lean toward the thought process of wy2ut.



> The big picture? Are you kidding me? The big picture is that these units are in good shape BECAUSE of the additional bulls killed during the spike hunt and you want to take that away...Why mess with a good thing? Why fix what ain't broke? They ALL need spike tags to keep the carrots thinned and the bull/cow ratios low without hurting quality!


I like what PRO says about increasing numbers of LE tags, but I think that the spike hunts have a HUGE part in why the herds are as "trophy" as they are.

I think the managenent hunts are a step in the right direction... but that could have been solved with a continued spike hunt in those areas.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about hunting a trophy bull, but I get nervous at the thought of not being able to hunt every year with OTC spike tags that fall within 100 miles of home. I'm afraid that if you take convenience away we'll loose a lot of our anual hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I like what PRO says about increasing numbers of LE tags, but I think that the spike hunts have a HUGE part in why the herds are as "trophy" as they are.
> 
> I think the managenent hunts are a step in the right direction... but that could have been solved with a continued spike hunt in those areas.


Not running for president, just looking at ways to gain more opportunity(real lopportunity).

You say you believe that the spike hunts have a "HUGE" part in why herds are as "trophy" as they are. how is it then that the TOP-END "trophy" elk units do *NOT* issue spike tags at all?

They have NEVER issued spike tags on ANY of the LE units that now have 'management' tags issued, NEVER.

PRO


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I'm sorry, I have been reading this subject and participating here and there in this discussion since the old DWR forum. I have seen it go back and forth on Monster Muleys. I am one who sees I400 as being so clear, I have a hard time understanding why someone would be against it. Either you are so tunnel visioned and opinionated that you refuse to make sense of a great idea or you have 10 elk points and are afraid of change before you have a chance to hunt the Wasatch. I feel PRO does a great job of explaining the benefits of this plan and refuting whatever arguement you have, and yet you still try to argue the same points over and over. The way I see it, I400 IS more opportunity, a welcomed opportunity, and I am positive very few people will complain much about having to change spike units to a unit that likely holds more elk than what can be found on the propsed pilot units. And just as it has been said before, IT IS ONLY 5 OF THE 23, GET OVER IT.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's my proposal. I call it 400+. Let's just fence the San Juan unit, stuff those bulls with so much purina big rack feed that they can't walk, curry them twice a week, bar code their foreheads, give them cute names like "Old Mossback" and "Stinky Joe" and let the SFW boys have at 'em once their racks are "quality".

Then the rest of us can have our hunt back.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I can't believe Im gonna put my foot back in this fire!!! Pro you make a good argument for this plan, I will give you that. But from the beginning yall have not made it clear how you plan on dealing with the over crowding issues of hunters. The Monroe unit I believe is much smaller than the Fishlake. Also over harvesting, the first year will be a slaughter, nobody will convince me different. That many people on that unit leaves no place for the elk to hide. The Monroe is extremely accessible. The Fishlake is just a bit tougher and look what happened when hunters flocked there for the DWR'S screw up. There is a lot of spikes on Monroe, with it being a very easy area to hunt I see the same happening. The other units I think would be the same. Tags alloted would then be reduced, and we would have even less opportunity. If I-400 said you can only apply for a LE tag or I-400 permit, or a spike tag I would probably be in favor of it. That would cut down on applications for hunting big bulls, but also keep harvest and hunter numbers down on spike units. Giving more opportunity to hunt big bulls and do it more often. Those that are willing to wait to hunt a big bull won't mind missing a hunt for a few years. The LE hunters would cycle faster because of their choice to stick with it, and guys that just want to hunt every year can with a spike tag.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Greenhead2, maybe you missed where we said that spikes wont be perminant on the Monroe and other units because we will be using spike tags as management tool and once the bull/cow ratio is brought back inline and the spike tags have accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish then a unit like the Monroe will be shut down to spike hunting and we will issue spike tags on another unit.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

No, I just got tired of typing, I remember that. But if the units that already allow spike hunting already are in line or close to it in their numbers, it won't take long with hunters being concentrated to just a few areas to have all units below or close to their objective. Then when that happens you get less opportunity as a spike hunter right??? One good hunt or year where the weather does not produce calf numbers, opportunity is lost for spike hunters.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Greenhead2, not all units are like the Monroe. Terrain plays a big part in elk and deer survival. Pahvant kills some huge bulls every year because of the terrain. Spikes will survive on that unit to become branch antlered bulls. Mt. Dutton is another area that in the future you can issue spike tags.

Another thing is the that 11,000 spike tags isn't a perminant number. The DWR already has a goal to reduce spike tags like they have been doing. It doesnt say anywhere in the goal that they will stop at 11,000 spike tags. They could reduce it down to 8,000 to 7,000 in the future

*Recreation Objective 2: Increase opportunities for hunting of mature bulls on units with
limited entry permits without greatly reducing quality.
Implications: Implementation of the strategies listed below will result in increased hunting
opportunity without greatly reducing quality.
Strategies:
a. Reduce the cap on spike bull units and consider reducing season length to allow more
yearling bulls to advance to older age classes.*

When I was in Colorado the guys I hunted with couldn't believe that we still have a spike hunt. They said wouldn't most people perfer shooting a cow because its a meat hunt and that shooting a spike then you are taking out future mature bulls.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> I can't believe Im gonna put my foot back in this fire!!! Pro you make a good argument for this plan, I will give you that. But from the beginning yall have not made it clear how you plan on dealing with the over crowding issues of hunters. The Monroe unit I believe is much smaller than the Fishlake. Also over harvesting, the first year will be a slaughter, nobody will convince me different. That many people on that unit leaves no place for the elk to hide. The Monroe is extremely accessible. The Fishlake is just a bit tougher and look what happened when hunters flocked there for the DWR'S screw up. There is a lot of spikes on Monroe, with it being a very easy area to hunt I see the same happening. The other units I think would be the same. Tags alloted would then be reduced, and we would have even less opportunity. If I-400 said you can only apply for a LE tag or I-400 permit, or a spike tag I would probably be in favor of it. That would cut down on applications for hunting big bulls, but also keep harvest and hunter numbers down on spike units. Giving more opportunity to hunt big bulls and do it more often. Those that are willing to wait to hunt a big bull won't mind missing a hunt for a few years. The LE hunters would cycle faster because of their choice to stick with it, and guys that just want to hunt every year can with a spike tag.


Don't just put a foot in, jump head first. 

It is statisacally impossible to "over-harvest" spikes, and the tag numbers have NOT be set for ANY of the pilot units, so one can not say there will be "over-harvest" on them as this time either.

Let's pretend for humors sake that EVERY spike is killed on the Monroe the first year, what would that do to the bull/cow ratio? I believe it would HELP balance out that herd w/o affecting quality, perfect!



> If I-400 said you can only apply for a LE tag or I-400 permit, or a spike tag I would probably be in favor of it.


You better sit down gh2, because this is EXACTLY what I400 is proposing. _(O)_



> But if the units that already allow spike hunting already are in line or close to it in their numbers, it won't take long with hunters being concentrated to just a few areas to have all units below or close to their objective.


Nearly every LE unit, spike units included are still well ABOVE objectives, both for bull:cow ratios and harvest ages.



> One good hunt or year where the *weather does not produce calf numbers*, opportunity is lost for spike hunters


Would this not be the case with/without I400? I would say that under I400 this would be LESS likely since there will be more cows, which means more calves born each year. Under I400 there will be MORE spikes available to hunt, more mature bull tags issued, more cow tags issued, equaling MORE opportunity!

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Under I400 there will be MORE spikes available to hunt, more mature bull tags issued, more cow tags issued, equaling MORE opportunity!


Wow what a great plan. :shock:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, is probably the only one who argues the most about I400. If Pro, Hogan, Utfireman and I etc were Big Game biologists then he wouldn't argue with us, but one thing he fails (and since hes an English Teacher I would give him a D grade because I will be a little generous) to realize is the fact that we have gotten a lot of feedback from DWR biologists when we designed I400 and they are totally in favor of it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut, is probably the only one who argues the most about I400. If Pro, Hogan, Utfireman and I etc were Big Game biologists then he wouldn't argue with us, but one thing he fails (and since hes an English Teacher I would give him a D grade because I will be a little generous) to realize is the fact that we have gotten a lot of feedback from DWR biologists when we designed I400 and they are totally in favor of it.


That's painting a pretty rosie opicture there Justin. :lol:



> . If Pro, Hogan, Utfireman and I etc were Big Game biologists then he wouldn't argue with us,


True, and if viagra was an ingredient in chocolate, I'd have a serious problem.

Both are neither here nor there. :wink:

I've spoken with DWR officials and heard what they have to say and yes, they agree that something needs to be done. But to insinuate that they are jumping up and down about this is a stretch coyote, not that they don't like it, but keep it real.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have a degree in BS, does that count?

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey, I got the same degree cousin. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And, I slept at a Holiday Inn last night!

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Oooooh, got me on that one. I slept with a strange tattooed girl in a van down by the river.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Treehugger, Im glad you liked my rosie pretty picture. Yeah you better lay off the chocolate because I would hate to have you pass out from the lack of blood to your brain since it would all be somewhere else.

Treehug, I always try to keep it real as much as the next guy (wyo2ut) anyways


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Oooooh, got me on that one. I slept with a strange tattooed girl in a van down by the river.


That is AWWWWESOME. Farley rocked!

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Treehugnhuntr wrote:
> Oooooh, got me on that one. I slept with a strange tattooed girl in a van down by the river.


Let me guess Treehugger you went sneaking into a trailer park with a mullet and found a fat chick with a tattoo with a gap between her teeth wide enough to kick a field goal just for the mullet/outdoors/best story contest.

I think you might win first place, but its all up to the judges


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

That's exactly why he and others argue this with you!!!!!!! Yall ain't biologist!!!!! You are doing the same thing he is doing, stating your arguments for or against this. Criticism of his job and how he performs it has nothing to do with this or any other topic on these fourms. I don't see him pounding you for not being able to run a marathon. What would that have to do with this topic???? Absolutely nothing!!! Grow up!!!!! Pro I know the alloted tags are not set in stone, so I'll ask this. If I400 were implemented today, how many of those tags would be alloted on Monroe????


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Its good ole Greenhead2 is back on here woohoo. Please can you say *HeeeeeYaw* for me atleast one time


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> If I400 were implemented today, how many of those tags would be alloted on Monroe????


Monroe would be unaffected by I400 as far as mature tags go. It is NOT one of the pilot units. I do KNOW that the Monroe has a bull:cow ratio that is unhealthy and MUST be reduced for the health of the herd. Issuing spike tags every other year would be a great way to lower the ratio w/o affecting quality. Mature bull tags could remain/increase in number if under a I400 type management plan, while cow tags would do the same, plus the increased opportunity on this unit due to spike tags issued every other year.

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Treehugnhuntr wrote:
> > Oooooh, got me on that one. I slept with a strange tattooed girl in a van down by the river.
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. It was purely for the pleasure.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Sorry I ment Fishlake. CS I don't have time to play with a grown??? man???? If I wanted to play silly games, I call up my six year old. Pro why not work on the herds that really need balance like Monroe vs herds like Fishlake.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

You need to lighten up a little bit so just take it easy. Im sure you will be fine


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> Sorry I ment Fishlake. Pro why not work on the herds that really need balance like Monroe vs herds like Fishlake.


Fair enough on the mix-up. We selected the five pilot units based on several criteria, and went with the ones 'we' felt fit into what we were looking for best. Also, when we originally came up with I400, we intended it to be a statewide plan with 8-10 'premium' units, the Monroe was one of the 8-10 premium units, so we never seriously considered it. I also believe the opposition to doing this on the 'original' LE unit in Utah would face stern opposition. Look at the draw odds on this unit, they are among the worst in the state, yet this unit is maybe 9 or 10 on th elist of 'top-end' trophy units. We also keep hearing how the Division "screwed up" the Fish Lake unit, so we felt the Fish Lake unit was/is a perfect fit for I400. It also has areas of escapement, which will allow for more of the bigger bulls to survive year to year, keeping the age class diversified and at desired levels.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I disagree, shocking as that may be. Why would there be a significant decrease in hunters and elk harvested? Why would a 'dedicated' spike hunter, someone like yourself, not buy a spike tag for the Monroe but would for the Fish Lake? You make reference to Boulder and San Juan, could you get a more drastic extreme for an example? There are SEVERAL spike units closer to the Wasatch unit than either. The hunters 'displaced' by the LaSal changes would have to travel how much further to hunt on the San Juan? Would someone from Blanding/Motecello be more or less likely to buy a spike tag on the San Juan vs the LaSals? Would someone from Venice/Elsinor be more or less likely to buy a spike tag for the Monroe vs the Fish Lake? Would someone from Meadow/Holden be more or less likely to buy a spike tag for the Pahvant vs Nebo? There are currently 15 LE units that issue spike tags, *you* keep saying there is a significant demand for spike tags, yet now you say there must not be, otherwise the 11,000 tags would STILL be all sold. If 11,000 tags are STILL issued, and MORE LE tags are issued, and MORE cow tags are issued, how does that compute into:
> 
> 
> > you will take away a lot of revenue generated from spike tags, you will lose hunters, and you will see LESS elk shot in Utah
> ...


1) The DWR has good evidence that shows hunters typically hunt the same areas year in and year out...once they are no longer allowed to hunt these areas, they do NOT move--like you assume--but, instead, simply do not hunt!

2) I have NEVER said there is "significant" demand for spike tags...you keep trying to put those words in my mouth. I have repeatedly said, in thead after thread, that there IS demand for spike tags and because there IS demand for these tags, they sell out. There is a huge difference.

3) Regardless of how many tags may be issued, if you take away some of the MOST popular spike areas--like the Wasatch and the Fish Lake units--you will not sell as many tags because displaced hunters will not move. I see that in my own family; my in-laws refuse to hunt the Beaver Mountain (even though it is close) because they do not "know" it. Let's face it...where does the bulk of Utah's population live? If the bulk of Utah's population lives along the Wasatch front and that population can no longer buy spike tags for the Wasatch unit, how many will travel to keep hunting them? Displacing hunters IS taking away opportunity...



proutdoors said:


> Then you make this absurd comment:
> 
> 
> > By having archery hunts during the rut, you will increase archery success rates and thus limit the tags that can be issued. ON the other hand, if you kept ALL hunts--even the archery hunts--out of the rut you could "maximize" the number of tags.
> ...


1) absurd? If it is so absurd, why is it that you want to move the arcery hunt into the rut? Is it not to help archers enjoy an increased opportunity to shoot an elk? Are you arguing that archers won't see an increase in success by hunting during the rut? If archers won't see an increase in success, why should their hunt be moved into the rut? Again, archery hunters' success rates will increase if you move them more into the rut and, therefore, you are NOT maximizing tag numbers. Also, that ONE week is very important because it moves hunters further into the rut...as is, archers barely hit the tail end of the rut if at all; one week makes a huge difference that time of year.

2) Any increase at all would result in fewer possible tags given and thus not maximizing the potential...how much of an increase do you believe you will lower success rates by moving the rifle hunt out of the rut? I don't need an example; I am operating on the same premise you are operating on when you say that the rifle hunters success rates will drastically decline...i know, i know...your comeback will be that we can show decline rate differences when we look at Arizona and New Mexico. But, you can't show examples either because those states operate under drastically different systems with different bull/cow ratios (not to mention that you have significantly exaggerated the differences in their success rates).



proutdoors said:


> I see I400 as a method to *INCREASE* opportunity, it will maintain OTC opportunities at current levels, it will *INCREASE* mature bull hunting opportunities, it will *INCREASE* cow hunting opportunities. Nowhere in this plan will there be a decrease in opportunities, but there will be a significant *INCREASE* in opportunities in atleast two demographics. I400 is the very type of management we need MORE of in Utah, it gives more opportunitiy while keeping quality at trophy class levels.


 You see I400 as a method to increase opportunity to hunt mature bulls...how much of an increase? How many more tags could you give out...I want to see your best estimates; I want to see you break down the units and show me how many more tags you think you could give out. This is where I have the biggest problem with your plan...you are pimping your plan under the false premise that the rates at which people can draw a tag will be greatly increased--originally many people said that the rate would be every 3-5 years; you have since backed off that claim. If your plan were implemented in only 5 units, you could never increase the tags enough to move those 10,000 plus applicants through the system as quickly as you claim. And, other methods of doing the same things--increasing opportunity for both general season hunters and mature bull hunters without hurting quality--could be accomplished under different management strategies.

I see I400 as a feel-good plan that won't work at all like the people involved with it think it will...unless it is instituted statewide. And, a statewide I400 will only take opportunity away.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 1) The DWR has good evidence that shows hunters typically hunt the same areas year in and year out...once they are no longer allowed to hunt these areas, they do NOT move--like you assume--but, instead, simply do not hunt!
> 
> 2) I have NEVER said there is "significant" demand for spike tags...you keep trying to put those words in my mouth. I have repeatedly said, in thead after thread, that there IS demand for spike tags and because there IS demand for these tags, they sell out. There is a huge difference.
> 
> 3) Regardless of how many tags may be issued, if you take away some of the MOST popular spike areas--like the Wasatch and the Fish Lake units--you will not sell as many tags because displaced hunters will not move. I see that in my own family; my in-laws refuse to hunt the Beaver Mountain (even though it is close) because they do not "know" it. Let's face it...where does the bulk of Utah's population live? If the bulk of Utah's population lives along the Wasatch front and that population can no longer buy spike tags for the Wasatch unit, how many will travel to keep hunting them? Displacing hunters IS taking away opportunity...


Wyo2ut, I cant believe this but I have to disagree with you!!!

1) if they truly like to hunt then they adapt to changes. No one can stop change. Did people quit deer hunting because the Paunsguant was made a LE unit, NO!!! They adapted and learned new areas.

2) The spike tags arent a high demand tag because they dont sell out until the week before the hunt.

3) People will hunt other spike areas and people would have hunted the La sal mtns will hunt San Juan, People who hunt Wasatch can still drive to Manti, Pahvant, Monroe, which isnt a far drive. They can also hunt the anybull units or buy a cow tag. So if your families favorite hunting grounds burned up this summer they would throw their hands up in the air and quit hunting that year? We aren't stopping people from hunting that is just the choice they make and they're the ONLY ones who make that choice for themselves.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks to wyo2ut showing me the errors of my thinking, I no longer support I400 as currently drawn up. In order to *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, I propose we eliminate rifle/muzzy tags altogether and issue over the counter archery tags ONLY statewide, and have the hunt in August and November. This would *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, and would not 'displace' a single hunter in where he can hunt. I am assuming wyo2ut will be in support of this new plan, since he is the MAN that wants to maximize opportunity. I'll wait for your offer to write the proposal up to be presented at the next round of RAC's. :mrgreen:

You talk about displace hunter under I400 and say it will drive some away from hunting. How many deer hunters were driven out when the state went to regions?

I asked a very specific question that I would expect the resident 'expert' to be able to answer. If the archers are given an additional week for hunting mature bulls, with MORE hunters in the field, how much of an increase in success rates do you think will/would occur? Will it be has high or higher than the decrease in SR for rifle hunters by moving them out of the rut? With the new tag allotment percentages, and new season dates, would harvest numbers, both SR and kills increase/decrease overall?

Can you, with your vast knowledge, think of a single proposal/management plan that will not have a negative effect on a certain percentage of the hunting community? I can't, and I honestly would love to find such a deal.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, you also said that the DWR will lose revenue which I disagree with and here is why? With I400 there will be more LE tags sold, more cow tags sold, and spike hunters will still buy the spike tags avaliable, anybull tags will still sell so where will they be losing revenue? I see an *increase* in revenue not a decrease.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I no longer support I400 as currently drawn up


I knew it. Its about time.



> In order to MAXIMIZE opportunity, I propose we eliminate rifle/muzzy tags altogether and issue over the counter archery tags ONLY statewide, and have the hunt in August and November


I like it.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Thanks to wyo2ut showing me the errors of my thinking, I no longer support I400 as currently drawn up. In order to *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, I propose we eliminate rifle/muzzy tags altogether and issue over the counter archery tags ONLY statewide, and have the hunt in August and November. This would *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, and would not 'displace' a single hunter in where he can hunt. I am assuming wyo2ut will be in support of this new plan, since he is the MAN that wants to maximize opportunity. I'll wait for your offer to write the proposal up to be presented at the next round of RAC's. :mrgreen:
> 
> You talk about displace hunter under I400 and say it will drive some away from hunting. How many deer hunters were driven out when the state went to regions?
> 
> ...


But what about when we get too old and cannot pull our bows back anymore? That would do it! I would sign my name on that plan. But realistically the plan is done all ready so back to a small % of rifle tags. :lol:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Thanks to wyo2ut showing me the errors of my thinking, I no longer support I400 as currently drawn up. In order to *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, I propose we eliminate rifle/muzzy tags altogether and issue over the counter archery tags ONLY statewide, and have the hunt in August and November. This would *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, and would not 'displace' a single hunter in where he can hunt. I am assuming wyo2ut will be in support of this new plan, since he is the MAN that wants to maximize opportunity. I'll wait for your offer to write the proposal up to be presented at the next round of RAC's. :mrgreen:


1) So, instead of claiming to "maximize" opportunity like you keep saying, why not say it how it is? Why not just come out and say that you are throwing the archery hunters an extra bone and incentive by putting their hunt in to the rut? By way of fairness and by way of giving out more LE tags, why not keep ALL hunts out of the rut? You wonder why rifle hunters are opposing your plan...could it be that you throw these kinds of things into your plan on the guise of "maximizing" opportunity? Couldn't you offer more opportunity without the archery hunt moved at all?

2) I don't need to write up a "new" plan or proposal...I like the strategies the DWR is already taking. And, I especially don't like the idea of messing with units that don't have bull/cow ratio problems...as you are proposing!



proutdoors said:


> You talk about displace hunter under I400 and say it will drive some away from hunting. How many deer hunters were driven out when the state went to regions?


Many...this is also one of the things that restricted hunter opportunity; HOWEVER, it was a NECESSARY change unlike those you propose.



proutdoors said:


> I asked a very specific question that I would expect the resident 'expert' to be able to answer. If the archers are given an additional week for hunting mature bulls, with MORE hunters in the field, how much of an increase in success rates do you think will/would occur? Will it be has high or higher than the decrease in SR for rifle hunters by moving them out of the rut? With the new tag allotment percentages, and new season dates, would harvest numbers, both SR and kills increase/decrease overall?


I also asked some very specific questions that I would expect a hunter with such exceptionally vast knowledge and understanding of elk and elk hunting would know...if the rifle hunters are no longer allowed to hunt the rut, how much of a difference will that make in their success rates? How many tags are proposing to be able to increase your allotments by if you move the hunt dates? I have already shown the answers to your other questions in other threads...you greatly exaggerate the number of tags you could increase because you greatly exaggerate the difference moving these dates would have and the number of tags you would increase by changing the percentages of tag allotments.



proutdoors said:


> Can you, with your vast knowledge, think of a single proposal/management plan that will not have a negative effect on a certain percentage of the hunting community? I can't, and I honestly would love to find such a deal.


I don't need to...we don't need a new management plan. We are on the right track...the DWR understands the areas that need fixing and are taking steps to fix them.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 1) So, instead of claiming to "maximize" opportunity like you keep saying, why not say it how it is? Why not just come out and say that you are throwing the archery hunters an extra bone and incentive by putting their hunt in to the rut? By way of fairness and by way of giving out more LE tags, why not keep ALL hunts out of the rut? You wonder why rifle hunters are opposing your plan...could it be that you throw these kinds of things into your plan on the guise of "maximizing" opportunity? Couldn't you offer more opportunity without the archery hunt moved at all?


Wyo2ut, I think MORE rifle hunters would be opposed to your plan because you want to move ALL hunts out of the rut. Good luck with that. You might find yourself in a rough spot with a rope around your neck and even I wont be able to save you.

Archery hunters clog and backlog the rifle hunting pool because the LE hunting in Utah is a once in a lifetime opportunity so they want the best chance to kill a bull so most archery hunters arent willing to take the risk of not killing a bull since they have one shot.

The archery success wont increase hardly at all. Last year on the N. cache 14 hunters drew the archery tag and 0 bulls were killed. Maybe in the rut Hopefully some will harvest a bull instead of all of them going home empty-handed.



> I also asked some very specific questions that I would expect a hunter with such exceptionally vast knowledge and understanding of elk and elk hunting would know...if the rifle hunters are no longer allowed to hunt the rut, how much of a difference will that make in their success rates? How many tags are proposing to be able to increase your allotments by if you move the hunt dates? I have already shown the answers to your other questions in other threads...you greatly exaggerate the number of tags you could increase because you greatly exaggerate the difference moving these dates would have and the number of tags you would increase by changing the percentages of tag allotments.


Arizona and NM both have lower success rates with the rifle hunt out of the rut. The Youth hunters/disabled hunters have a higher success rate on the anybull units in sept and I bet they are killing older bulls than those hunters who hunt in October on the anybull units.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Last year on the N. cache 14 hunters drew the archery tag and 0 bulls were killed.


That is only becuse I did not have the tag. -()/- <<--O/ *(())* There was also a few wounded bulls from that uint that I know of. Of course I am all in favor of helping the archer's when even possable. With this unit though I do not think it will make a diffrance with the hunt more in the rut or not. It is such a tough hunt to start with. This hunt changes with the snow more so then the rut IMO. Dont get me wrong I would love the the hunt more in the rut (this happens to be the unit I will be putting in for) but do not think it will change the success rate much.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to wyo2ut showing me the errors of my thinking, I no longer support I400 as currently drawn up. In order to *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, I propose we eliminate rifle/muzzy tags altogether and issue over the counter archery tags ONLY statewide, and have the hunt in August and November. This would *MAXIMIZE* opportunity, and would not 'displace' a single hunter in where he can hunt. I am assuming wyo2ut will be in support of this new plan, since he is the MAN that wants to maximize opportunity. I'll wait for your offer to write the proposal up to be presented at the next round of RAC's. :mrgreen:
> ...


Just have your old saggy wife help you apply the draw lock before you leave the house.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I also asked some very specific questions that I would expect a hunter with such exceptionally vast knowledge and understanding of elk and elk hunting would know...if the rifle hunters are no longer allowed to hunt the rut, *how much of a difference will that make in their success rates*? How many tags are proposing to be able to increase your allotments by if you move the hunt dates? I have already shown the answers to your other questions in other threads...you greatly exaggerate the number of tags you could increase because you greatly exaggerate the difference moving these dates would have and the number of tags you would increase by changing the percentages of tag allotments.


I HAVE answered this dozens of times, but for giggles I will AGAIN. Initially it will remain close to where it is now, but as the bulls get used to being hunted, and the 'excess' bulls are "thinned out" (as you put it), the success rates will get closer to being in line with surrounding states mature bull rifle hunts, somewhere in the 50-60% success rate range. Archery hunters will initially see a SLIGHT increase as well, but once the bulls are "thinned out" the success rates will DECREASE to lower then where they are currently(I believe it will be less than 30%), this is due to added hunters in the field which DOES lower success rates for archers, and fewer 'excess' bulls in the herd. Muzzy hunters will once it is all squared away, most likely be in the 45-55% SR range.

Tag number increases are yet to be addressed, this will take place when we have the actual plan ironed out and set. It is hard to set numbers when we are still working on implementation, that would be akin to the cart in front of the mule.

The main reason, IMHO, that rifle hunters are supposedly against I400 is because people like you spin it as a "*pro*-archery" proposal. I hear the same WRONG arguement when people talk about how since rifle hunters are required to pick a region for deer, so should archers. When there is no logical reasons behind such. The mentality that if we can't hunt the rut neither should you, is childish and based on emotion not FACTS and DATA. FACTS and DATA show that archers do NOT kill enough animals, regardless of time of hunting dates, to impact quality/quanity. To 'force' archers out of the rut would be based on 'revenge', not on what is needed to 'maximize' opportunity. Truth be told, the DWR could basically give out OTC archery tags on LE units and have little negative impact on the herd quality/quanity. The ONLY reason to limit archery tags for deer/elk is to appease uneducated/biased hunters.



> I don't need to...we don't need a new management plan. We are on the right track...the DWR understands the areas that need fixing and are taking steps to fix them


.

What happened to you being for 'maximizing' opportunity? As long as the rifle huntis during the peak of the rut, you CANNOT 'maximize' opportunity.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I HAVE answered this dozens of times, but for giggles I will AGAIN. Initially it will remain close to where it is now, but as the bulls get used to being hunted, and the 'excess' bulls are "thinned out" (as you put it), the success rates will get closer to being in line with surrounding states mature bull rifle hunts, somewhere in the 50-60% success rate range. Archery hunters will initially see a SLIGHT increase as well, but once the bulls are "thinned out" the success rates will DECREASE to lower then where they are currently(I believe it will be less than 30%), this is due to added hunters in the field which DOES lower success rates for archers, and fewer 'excess' bulls in the herd. Muzzy hunters will once it is all squared away, most likely be in the 45-55% SR range.
> 
> What happened to you being for 'maximizing' opportunity? As long as the rifle huntis during the peak of the rut, you CANNOT 'maximize' opportunity.


So, as the "excess bulls are thinned out", the percentages will go down? But, until then the decreases or changes will only be "slight"? Can't the DWR accomplish these tasks simply by giving out more tags? Doesn't that also mean if the DWR were to lower bull/cow ratios without changing seasons and our tag allotments, that success rates would also go down?

What happened to you being for maximizing opportunity? As long as the archery hunt is during the peak of the rut, you CANNOT maximize opportunity? Again, why do you want the archers in the rut? The truth is that you want archers in the rut because it increases their chances/opportunity to kill a mature bull...this is not an emotional argument--I am a bowhunter. My argument is that you argue to remove the rifle hunt from the rut because it will lower success rates and then you argue to move the bow hunt into the rut on order to increase success rates...and do so in the guise of "maximizing" opportunity. That is totally hypocritical.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So, as the "excess bulls are thinned out", the percentages will go down? But, until then the decreases or changes will only be "slight"? Can't the DWR accomplish these tasks simply by giving out more tags? Doesn't that also mean if the DWR were to lower bull/cow ratios without changing seasons and our tag allotments, that success rates would also go down?
> 
> What happened to you being for maximizing opportunity? As long as the archery hunt is during the peak of the rut, you CANNOT maximize opportunity? Again, why do you want the archers in the rut?


1)Yes, as the 'excess bulls' are thinned out success rates WILL go down. Success rates will remain high as long as there are 'excess bulls' in the herd. Are you doubting this?

2)Yes, the DWR could accomplish this "simply by giving out more tags", we HAVE been down this road MANY times. What is your point this time?

3)The archery hunt would *NOT* be during "the peak of the rut". Mr Biology should know that. :roll: The archers kill at low rates and kill younger/smaller bulls in general, so leaving the archery hunt in the rut, along with the muzzy hunt you conviently omitted mentioning, makes MUCH more sense than having the rifle hunt during the elks most vulnerable time frame.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)Yes, as the 'excess bulls' are thinned out success rates WILL go down. Success rates will remain high as long as there are 'excess bulls' in the herd. Are you doubting this?
> 
> 2)Yes, the DWR could accomplish this "simply by giving out more tags", we HAVE been down this road MANY times. What is your point this time?
> 
> 3)The archery hunt would *NOT* be during "the peak of the rut". Mr Biology should know that. :roll: The archers kill at low rates and kill younger/smaller bulls in general, so leaving the archery hunt in the rut, along with the muzzy hunt you conviently omitted mentioning, makes MUCH more sense than having the rifle hunt during the elks most vulnerable time frame.


1)NO...I agree.

2) This is why I am for the current plan, as is, the DWR has been increasing LE tags every year...

3) Maybe not during the "peak" but moved close to the "peak"...why are you doing this? What is the reason for moving it into the rut more than it already is? If you are going to move one hunt from the rut in order to "maximize" opportunity, shouldn't you then also move the other hunts from the rut to "maximize" opportunity?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> 1)NO...I agree.
> 
> 2) This is why I am for the current plan, as is, the DWR has been increasing LE tags every year...
> 
> 3) Maybe not during the "peak" but moved close to the "peak"...why are you doing this? What is the reason for moving it into the rut more than it already is? If you are going to move one hunt from the rut in order to "maximize" opportunity, shouldn't you then also move the other hunts from the rut to "maximize" opportunity?


1) 8)

2)The increases are not enough to affect the bull:cow ratios in a positive way. In fact, many LE units are getting worse due to the 'excess' bulls on these units. The number of new mature bulls recruited into the herd is higher then the number of mature bulls harvested each year. That is why we see the harvest age averages continue to climb and the bull:cow ratios get worse yearly, even with the very small increases in tag numbers each year. I know you will come back with, then we should just increase tag numbers by larger amounts. As long as you try it statewide, it will NOT EVER be implemented, and as long as you leave the most effective weapon during the most vulnerable time, opportunity will be severely LIMITED.

3)Again, archers are very inefficient hunters as far as numer of animals harvested. Having the archery hunt "moved close to the "peak"..." allows those who desire to "rut hunt" have that option with little/no effect on herd quality/quanity. It still allows for MUCH HIGHER opportunity while lowering the overall success rate for the unit, and allows those who prefer to hunt with less effective weapons during the rut the opportunity to do so. I see this as balance and smart management of both the elk and the elk hunters.

4)If you are truly in favor of "maixmizing" opportunity you would be pushing archery only hunts statewide, this would be the epitomy of "maiximized" opportunity. If you do not advocate such, does that make you a hypocrite like you say I am? :?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

3


> )Again, archers are very inefficient hunters as far as numer of animals harvested. Having the archery hunt "moved close to the "peak"..." allows those who desire to "rut hunt" have that option with little/no effect on herd quality/quanity. It still allows for MUCH HIGHER opportunity while lowering the overall success rate for the unit, and allows those who prefer to hunt with less effective weapons during the rut the opportunity to do so. I see this as balance and smart management of both the elk and the elk hunters.


The archery deer hunters on the extended Wasatch Front dont even have a high success rate when they hunt the muleys in the rut


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Pro, what is the purpose of moving the archery hunt further into the rut?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Im not Pro, but I see moving the archery hunt further into the rut as a way to make archery hunting more appealing because right now many archers put in your rifle hunts because they arent willing to take the risk of not harvesting a bull with a bow and arrow. If MORE archers drop out of the rifle pool and are added to the archery pool then it will increase the rifle hunter's odds of drawing out.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Pro, what is the purpose of moving the archery hunt further into the rut?


I refer you to my last post: 


> 3)Again, archers are very inefficient hunters as far as numer of animals harvested. Having the archery hunt "moved close to the "peak"..." *allows those who desire to "rut hunt" have that option with little/no effect on herd quality/quanity. It still allows for MUCH HIGHER opportunity while lowering the overall success rate for the unit, and allows those who prefer to hunt with less effective weapons during the rut the opportunity to do so. I see this as balance and smart management of both the elk and the elk hunters*.


Next question please. 

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Why would hunters want to hunt during the rut? Would it have something to do with increasing their chances of killing something?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Why would hunters want to hunt during the rut? Would it have something to do with increasing their chances of killing something?

FWIW...even without changing the archery season, archers still get to hunt a portion of the rut!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Why would hunters want to hunt during the rut? Would it have something to do with increasing their chances of killing something?
> 
> FWIW...even without changing the archery season, archers still get to hunt a portion of the rut!


For some yes, for others it is because the rut is the most incredible event on the mountain, and to be a part of it with a bow in hand is an awesome experience, as you well know. I guide mostly so I get to chase elk during this time of year *every* year. the money is just a perk. The timing of the rut varies from year to year, even from ridge to ridge. To simply state that hunting from September 1-21 puts archers in the, or close to the peak of the rut is mis-leading. Name *ONE* surrounding state that does NOT allow archery rut hunts. Fact is, most if not all, allow archers to hunt *FURTHER* into September. I ask again, what makes Utah so unique that they should restrict archers in Utah from enjoying the same?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> For some yes, for others it is because the rut is the most incredible event on the mountain, and to be a part of it with a bow in hand is an awesome experience, as you well know. I guide mostly so I get to chase elk during this time of year *every* year. the money is just a perk. The timing of the rut varies from year to year, even from ridge to ridge. To simply state that hunting from September 1-21 puts archers in the, or close to the peak of the rut is mis-leading. Name *ONE* surrounding state that does NOT allow archery rut hunts. Fact is, most if not all, allow archers to hunt *FURTHER* into September. I ask again, what makes Utah so unique that they should restrict archers in Utah from enjoying the same?


Isn't the rut the most incredible event on the mountain for rifle hunters too? My point is that you have continually reasoned that taking the rifle hunt out of the rut would allow us to "maximize" tags. My point is that the same reasoning would also apply to muzzy and archery hunting...

I don't see any reason at all to move the archery LE elk hunt...it only gives the impression that you are building a pro-archery proposal at the expense of rifle hunters.

Also, FWIW, I don't see any reason at all why we should restrict rifle hunters and never allow them to hunt the rut. The majority of our elk hunters are rifle hunters...by your reasoning in other threads, shouldn't we appease their desires to hunt the rut?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Also, FWIW, I don't see any reason at all why we should restrict rifle hunters and never allow them to hunt the rut. The majority of our elk hunters are rifle hunters...by your reasoning in other threads, shouldn't we appease their desires to hunt the rut?


We are talking about *FIVE LIMITED ENTRY UNITS* out of TWENTY EIGHT LIMITED ENTRY UNITS. The other 23 will STILL have rifle hunts in SEPTEMBER! Give me a break. :roll:

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I don't see any reason at all to move the archery LE elk hunt...it only gives the impression that you are building a pro-archery proposal at the expense of rifle hunters.
> 
> Also, FWIW, I don't see any reason at all why we should restrict rifle hunters and never allow them to hunt the rut. The majority of our elk hunters are rifle hunters...by your reasoning in other threads, shouldn't we appease their desires to hunt the rut?


If we move the rifle hunt out of the rut on 5 units of the 28 units then we can give out way more tags because you lower the rifle success rate down as much as 20%. The archery hunters wont kill the largest bulls like the rifle hunters do now. More cows will be breed in the first cycle because they arent being harassed as much by rifle hunters.

Why should we have ALL the rifle hunts in the rut in the first place. The rifle hunters had the biggest voice when the season dates were set so they want a slam dunk hunt in the rut with the easiest weapon at the easiest time of year. Having the rifle hunt in the rut greatly reduces opportunity since the success rate is 85% or higher.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Now you crossed the line Pro, you are going to get this thread locked. Typing in blue letters, that is straight up craziness. 8)  :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Now you crossed the line Pro, you are going to get this thread locked. Typing in blue letters, that is straight up craziness. 8)  :wink:


Blue is good, red is *BAD*! :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

The so called rifle hunt is actually called an any weapon hunt. You archers can hunt during the rut just as often as guys hunting with a rifle, just put in for the any weapon hunt. I have been on LE units during the any weapon hunt and have been within bow range of some great bulls.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> The so called rifle hunt is actually called an any weapon hunt. You archers can hunt during the rut just as often as guys hunting with a rifle, just put in for the any weapon hunt. I have been on LE units during the any weapon hunt and have been within bow range of some great bulls.


Drawing a LE "any-weapon" tag is harder than drawing a LE archery tag, plus then you would be 'competing' with rifle hunters. The "any-weapon" LE tags have 89% success rates statewide, this is NOT a hunt, it is a shoot. I spend every September in the hills dang close to all 30 days, yes one could get into bow range during the "any-weapon" season, that is NOT the point. The point is, the RIFLE hunters KILL at nearly 100% rates, this LIMITS the number of tags that can be issued and maintain quality. Lowering the success rates allows the DWR to issue more tags, more tags equals more OPPORTUNITY, the purpose of this thread and I400!

PRO


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I understand what I400 is trying to accomplish, I was just responding to the statement that archers would love to hunt closer to the peak of the rut. My statement is that they can still do that under todays dates. And yes it is harder to draw the any weapon hunts because that is where most of the applicants are. I just have a hard time telling the majority of elk hunters that they can't hunt during the rut anymore and that their odds won't be that much better. By this I mean the rifle hunters will still be waiting 10 - 20 years to hunt LE elk. But now, with your proposal, the bowhunters could hunt the peak of the rut and with the increased tags would be hunting LE elk every 5 - 8. In one lifetime most rifle hunters will get the *OPPORTUNITY* to hunt LE elk once, maybe twice. But the archers would get the *OPPORTUNITY* to hunt LE elk 4 -5 times. This is why, in my opinion, that some people don't agree with your proposal.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34, you need to remember, I400 is only one FIVE of 28 units. The other 23 units will STILL have the "any-weapon" hunt during the SAME time it is now. Also, I strongly believe many who are currently applying for an "any-weapon" tag will 'switch' BACK to archery unider I400, thus IMPROVING the odds for rifle hunters and actually making archers odds WORSE! Not exactly what I as an archer consider 'perks'.

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I strongly believe many who are currently applying for an "any-weapon" tag will 'switch' BACK to archery under I400, thus IMPROVING the odds for rifle hunters and actually making archers odds WORSE! Not exactly what I as an archer consider 'perks'.


Pro; this is just a theory of yours, throwing ideas like this out to the public trying to sway them into believing everything will be OK.

You say switch back to archery; should we assume that you have the numbers for hunters that hunt both archery and rifle.

pulling numbers out of the air will not work.

For people to go out buy archery tackle to start archery will cost them an average of $1000.00 not a drop in the bucket for allot of folks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> You say switch back to archery; should we assume that you have the numbers for hunters that hunt both archery and rifle.


I have no 'real' numbers. But, I do know several people who apply for rifle tags instead of archery because it is a once in a lifetime hunt. I am fairly confident there are others out there in the same boat. In fact I know a few on this forum in that boat. If the archery hunt is more appealing and the odds of drawing a tag more than once or twice in a lifetime, many of these 'archers', who already own archery gear, will migrate back to archery hunting for mature bulls.

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

so in other words the odds will really stay the same.. with the added new hunters putting in for the rifle hunt. remember the hunting age has beeen decreased.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm not tyring to bulster PRO position or pride here. He needs no help with that. 

I am an avid archery hunter I have hunted archery for most of my hunting life. In the current system however I will put in for an any weapon hunt. It puts me in the best time frame to call in a big bull, it also gives me the option that when time is running out and I just couldn't put the shot together on that huge bull with the bow to pull out the rifle and reach out a little further. 
Being that I will probably only ever draw one or maybe two tags for a big bull in utah under the current system that is what I will do. If the archery hunt were during the rut that is the tag I would put in for. I'm not agreeing w/ I400 but, it has some very strong points for me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> so in other words the odds will really stay the same.. with the added new hunters putting in for the rifle hunt. *remember the hunting age has beeen decreased*.


Anyway you look at it, it would IMPROVE the odds for those staying in the rifle pool in comparision to leaving it as is. Spin it however you like.

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> sagebrush said:
> 
> 
> > so in other words the odds will really stay the same.. with the added new hunters putting in for the rifle hunt. *remember the hunting age has beeen decreased*.
> ...


 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: sugar coating it does not help


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sagebrush. have you already blessed this thread because you havent mentioned if this thread was a forbidden topic like the avatar thread. Do we have your blessing?


----------

