# Wildlife board meeting?



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

Does anyone have a link or know if they're doing the live feed of the wildlife board meeting again today?


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

I was told yesterday that they will provide a link....however how they will let us know is not known by me.... I have looked on the dwr website and nothing there...


----------



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

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1638-watch-the-wildlife-board-meeting-april-30.html

Here's the link they just posted it on their site


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

You can watch live video of today's Wildlife Board meeting. Here's the agenda for those who are interested.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Thanks Amy!!


----------



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

Thanks Amy


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Thanks to #1DEER 1-I — he beat me to it!


----------



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

Will they be doing this with most of them from now on?


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

We don't know right now. The last couple of meetings have been an experiment with the video-streaming format. There aren't usually a ton of viewers, so we're in the process of evaluating the best way to share these meetings with the public.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

Amy said:


> We don't know right now. The last couple of meetings have been an experiment with the video-streaming format. There aren't usually a ton of viewers, so we're in the process of evaluating the best way to share these meetings with the public.


The best way to share these meetings with the public is to not have the meeting mid-week during the day. That way people are able to attend, rather than just the professional "game-savers."


----------



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

Amy said:


> We don't know right now. The last couple of meetings have been an experiment with the video-streaming format. There aren't usually a ton of viewers, so we're in the process of evaluating the best way to share these meetings with the public.


I like this way or just a live audio feed would be fine.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Did everyone just hear Jon Larsen say that SFW would absolutely consider changing the cons tag program??? Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaa??? I'm flabbergasted!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> Did everyone just hear Jon Larsen say that SFW would absolutely consider changing the cons tag program??? Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaa??? I'm flabbergasted!


I'm sure he says many things in many different settings. but that's how the game is played.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> Did everyone just hear Jon Larsen say that SFW would absolutely consider changing the cons tag program??? Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaa??? I'm flabbergasted!


 Nope, haven't been able to listen/watch in on the meeting. SFW shouldn't have a **** thing to do with changing the cons tag program, the WB and DWR should make the changes if any, and SFW should then have to deal with it, not run the freaking thing! Haha, likes that's ever gonna happen...:shock:


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

It is absolutely amazing how unprepared some of these division folks are on their numbers. This is their job, they should have these numbers down exactly and prepared with them. If they can't even nail down the numbers they have, imagine how bad they are at actually counting these animals. I bet they have no clue.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

utahgolf said:


> It is absolutely amazing how unprepared some of these division folks are on their numbers. This is their job, they should have these numbers down exactly and prepared with them. If they can't even nail down the numbers they have, imagine how bad they are at actually counting these animals. I bet they have no clue.


Ahhhh! You are starting to see the light!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What DWR guys were present at the meeting? How many of them were regional biologists and how many were state guys like the director?

I ask because I haven't watched it and don't know....and because it is really hard to expect a state guy to know all the different numbers of all the different units for all the different species. I'd bet a bunch that none of you wise guys could do that without fumbling through all the data....;-)

Regional biologists usually don't go to the WB meetings because they submit their proposals/numbers/ideas whatever to the RACs and state guys...


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> What DWR guys were present at the meeting? How many of them were regional biologists and how many were state guys like the director?
> 
> I ask because I haven't watched it and don't know....and because it is really hard to expect a state guy to know all the different numbers of all the different units for all the different species. I'd bet a bunch that none of you wise guys could do that without fumbling through all the data....;-)
> 
> Regional biologists usually don't go to the WB meetings because they submit their proposals/numbers/ideas whatever to the RACs and state guys...


you would think they would know they were going to be asked these questions. At the very least, have those at the meeting contact the regional biologists beforehand and get the numbers ready for those in attendance. This is something that would take very little time and put it together on a simple excel spreadsheet. I mean this is their job. Would you show up to a meeting that is being watched by the public completely unprepared for questions you knew were going to be asked. It ain't that tough. Especially if they are going to be proposing new quotas and what not. It just seemed like apathy on the part of these division people.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> What DWR guys were present at the meeting? How many of them were regional biologists and how many were state guys like the director?
> 
> I ask because I haven't watched it and don't know....and because it is really hard to expect a state guy to know all the different numbers of all the different units for all the different species. I'd bet a bunch that none of you wise guys could do that without fumbling through all the data....;-)
> 
> Regional biologists usually don't go to the WB meetings because they submit their proposals/numbers/ideas whatever to the RACs and state guys...


I know that Dax and another bio guy were there for the discussion about the wasatch elk situation. Teresa was there with number for the manti and the antelope doe tag situation. They also had another regional guy there from the extreme north east area talking about the deer and elk situation up in three corners. So I thought it was a good representation from the division. I thought the board meeting was good... lots of good discussion points but I cringed with the elk tags allowed for sw desert... John Bair did a great Job bringing up all the HOT topics. Just feel horrible that Elk are getting the short end of the stick. But the States hands are tied when it comes to elk and public land and drought and the wild horses issue.

All in all it was good... Just wished there was more support for the points John was bringing up.


----------



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

tallbuck said:


> I know that Dax and another bio guy were there for the discussion about the wasatch elk situation. Teresa was there with number for the manti and the antelope doe tag situation. They also had another regional guy there from the extreme north east area talking about the deer and elk situation up in three corners. So I thought it was a good representation from the division. I thought the board meeting was good... lots of good discussion points but I cringed with the elk tags allowed for sw desert... John Bair did a great Job bringing up all the HOT topics. Just feel horrible that Elk are getting the short end of the stick. But the States hands are tied when it comes to elk and public land and drought and the wild horses issue.
> 
> All in all it was good... Just wished there was more support for the points John was bringing up.


Like he said the divisions numbers were already extremely aggressive and we should wait until August to see if we needed to issue more doe and cow tags. The farmers and ag guy on the board continued and here we are with a cow and antelope slaughter.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> What DWR guys were present at the meeting? How many of them were regional biologists and how many were state guys like the director?
> 
> I ask because I haven't watched it and don't know....and because it is really hard to expect a state guy to know all the different numbers of all the different units for all the different species. I'd bet a bunch that none of you wise guys could do that without fumbling through all the data....;-)
> 
> Regional biologists usually don't go to the WB meetings because they submit their proposals/numbers/ideas whatever to the RACs and state guys...


 Actually, All the Regional Directors and Regional Big Game Coordinators were at this meeting along with some of the regional biologists. But the way it works is that each biologist is given charge of a certain portion of the region and they report to the regional officers.

However, having said that, they all get (or can get) the info on the DWR website, just the same as you and me. They may be asked questions about processes or policies that they aren't prepared for, but the numbers are available to all of us.

In fact, John Bair had to ask me during my comment about the deer population numbers on the Zion unit when I said they were 6,000 over population objective. He apparently didn't believe me, but I gave him the numbers anyway and his only remark was that he wanted to know who was seeing 15,000 deer on that unit. So, I guess some Wildlife Board members don't read the data either, and even if they do, it doesn't seem to make any difference to them 'cause we all know it's flawed!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We're the final numbers set? If so, where do I find them? I've been on the Division's webpage and couldn't find this information.


----------



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

I'm sure they'll put something out soon. I think the biggest changes were 150 more cow tags on the southwest desert, 200 more on the Monroe/Plateu/Dutton hunt and 200 more doe antelope tags for the Parker. I think they may have cut back from the division recommendations on the Manti deer tags as well.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS30 said:


> We're the final numbers set? If so, where do I find them? I've been on the Division's webpage and couldn't find this information.


Here ya go ...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-04_board_packet.pdf

Look at the power points for permit numbers..


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, I had seen the proposed numbers. Did they pass them all as proposed except for 1-I stated?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pretty much . Yes they did..^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Even on the Wasatch elk, they (the board) went against the RAC recommendations...

There will be 760 LE bull permits AND cow control permits AGAIN this year....

John Bair on the board tryed hard to lower elk permits on the Wasatch.
He truly understands the situation, but was unsuccessful................


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Why has the DWR not posted the official numbers? You'd think they would do a major press release within 24 hours letting the public know what is going on with this. Why not put it in an easy to view report and get it out there? Are they trying to hide something? 

They do it with waterfowl when the season dates and bag limits are set...every year. Yet not with big game.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^^ Interesting as-well...:!:.....^^^^^^^^^^

Normally, They ( the DWR ) does a news release the day following this meeting..

NOT this year.........

Unusual things going on for sure.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Pretty much . Yes they did..^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Even on the Wasatch elk, they (the board) went against the RAC recommendations...
> 
> ...


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

EFA, Do you recall what the WB decided to do with the late muzzy permit numbers on the Zion unit(dwr recommendation or southern rac recommendation)?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^ 10 late muzz permits-----9 res , 1 nr on Zion...

Approved as proposed-----------I'll pretend to be EFA for this post...:mrgreen:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I can't wait to see how many points these late muzzy tags take to draw the next few years. I suspect they'll start out higher, and drop off when people realize they are not trophy hunts.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I can't wait to see how many points these late muzzy tags take to draw the next few years. I suspect they'll start out higher, and drop off when people realize they are not trophy hunts.


 It's good to see they didn't reduce the tags but what do you consider a trophy hunt?
I think they will be as good as the Vernon or Book Cliffs are for most hunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

TS30 said:


> We're the final numbers set? If so, where do I find them? I've been on the Division's webpage and couldn't find this information.


The numbers were set for now, BUT there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the drought and John kept reminding them that we could change the numbers, especially on the antlerless, in the next round of RAC and WB meetings when we usually set antlerless numbers. In fact, that's one of the reasons he gave for making his proposals. He wants to wait, and, frankly, I don't blame him! For the last few years, we've had significant summer rains that helped with the summer ranges (not so much for the winter ranges), but who knows how the weather will play out this year. Plus, we're all trying to figure out the feral mustang situation, and also whether or not we've got more resident deer and elk on the winter ranges. We classify deer and elk in the fall and winter, but, as you heard, according to most ranchers, some of those animals are year-round valley field munchkins.

I know that many of you tend to (or outright) discount the ranchers' concerns when it comes to wildlife (especially elk) on their fields and grazing lands, but it isn't just a matter of losing money (although that's about all we hear), it's also a matter of losing the lifestyle they've had for generations. Steve pointed that out! And, as we heard from several people, we can argue with numbers on sheets of paper about the loss of habitat and forage and what's eating what and what should be eating what, but when it comes to physics, chemistry and biology, there's only so many blades of grass and leaves to eat and then they're gone for a long while and something or someone has to give. The casual suggestion by Calvin that the sportsmen and ranchers go upstairs after the meeting and work some things out didn't happen because the ranchers left en-mass before the meeting ended and both groups missed an opportunity to solve their differences. I thought that unfortunate. I guess we'll get to see this circus again in a few weeks!

Edited: I remembered a short conversation I had with Kevin Bunnell, Southern Region Director, after the meeting when he told me he was sorry the sportsmen were given the shaft, especially on the antlerless elk with the added tags. Since UWC champions opportunity, I asked him to explain what he meant and his answer was that the added pressure will simply push the elk (not so much the deer) onto the private land where they can't be hunted and where the ranchers don't want them in the first place. And he's right! It looks like we have a PR job to do with the ranchers to allow hunting on their property, ie: "Hunting allowed with written permission" signs instead of "No Trespassing, Violators will be prosecuted" signs.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks much for the info Lee. I also appreciate YOU taking the time and making the effort to maintain constant visibility with information and the stances the UWC takes on issues. You're doing a fine job my friend! I find it 'telling' that the other two major wildlife groups don't do the same. Speaking of which: Do you know how the MDF stood on the tag numbers (deer and elk) proposals and such? Thanks!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> Thanks much for the info Lee. I also appreciate YOU taking the time and making the effort to maintain constant visibility with information and the stances the UWC takes on issues. You're doing a fine job my friend! I find it 'telling' that the other two major wildlife groups don't do the same. Speaking of which: Do you know how the MDF stood on the tag numbers (deer and elk) proposals and such? Thanks!


Sorry, I don't remember the separate stances of each organization. I guess that's something I'll need to note in the future. In any case, the MDF and RMEF reps left before the meeting ended and SFW spoke for them on the CWMU numbers. And they were supported as presented.

Also, the conversations get a lot muddier when the board makes final comments because they sometimes don't distinguish the differences between the proposals made by chapters at the RAC meetings and the proposals made by the state organizations at the Wildlife Board meetings. The discussions can cross lines! We'll hear a board members say "SFW wants "this" when it's only the Iron County SFW chapter at the Southern RAC that wants "this"!

Since I've been forced into playing politics which I hate doing, I've learned to pay closer attention to comments, but I certainly don't catch it all, especially at the time!

Edited: Now that I think about it, I'm not sure MDF was even represented! If I recall correctly, the two organizations represented by SFW on the final item were RMEF and UBA. I'd have to listen to the recording to be sure, but I don't have time. Sorry.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> In fact, John Bair had to ask me during my comment about the deer population numbers on the Zion unit when I said they were 6,000 over population objective. He apparently didn't believe me, but I gave him the numbers anyway and his only remark was that he wanted to know who was seeing 15,000 deer on that unit. So, I guess some Wildlife Board members don't read the data either, and even if they do, it doesn't seem to make any difference to them 'cause we all know it's flawed!


Do you believe the Zion unit has grown by about 30% to 15,000 deer in the last 4 years?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> It's good to see they didn't reduce the tags but what do you consider a trophy hunt?
> I think they will be as good as the Vernon or Book Cliffs are for most hunters.


I think these hunts could produce some real monsters if people know what they are doing. But overall, I think most hunters will end up shooting the first 4-pt they see when they aren't seeing big deer behind every tree like they may have expected during a 'rut hunt.' I think there will be some great bucks taken, but they aren't the Henrys or Pauns.

Books and Vernon might be apt comparisons. Think they'll take over 10 points to draw?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Why do we have to manage every le unit for monsters? To me that's a wasted resource. You can find big bucks on general units if you get off your lazy butt.

I think bookcliffs vernon tags are great tags.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Why do we have to manage every le unit for monsters? To me that's a wasted resource.


Who is saying we have to?



swbuckmaster said:


> I think bookcliffs vernon tags are great tags.


Me too. I'd love to hunt those units.

I'll reserve comment on your "lazy butt" assertion.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Why do we have to manage every le unit for monsters? To me that's a wasted resource. You can find big bucks on general units if you get off your lazy butt.
> 
> I think bookcliffs vernon tags are great tags.


Where in the world did that comment come from?
What are you referencing? 
Or are you just messing around by stirring the pot a little?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Really surpising there has NOT been a DWR news realease on the board meeting......

Very unusual!


----------



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

There was yesterday but it didn't go into specifics.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1640-more-deer-hunting-permits.html


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks 1-I,

Missed it yesterday.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Can someone help me understand the backgrounds and professions on the Wildlife Board Members? I know John Bair but what about Jake Albrecht, Calvin Crandall, Steve Dalton, Bill Fennimore, Michael King and Kirk Woodward? At the last meeting, it seemed that Bair and King were generally voting in favor of sportsmen and Crandall, Dalton and Fennimore were voting for the ranchers. Is this the norm?

Hawkeye


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The vote would have gone different had Kirk Woodard been present. I heard a different meeting than some here have portrayed-- interesting how we hear what we want to hear. 

The main changes seemed to come out of concern from populations which are over their population objectives. No sure what the Board passed was the best way to deal with the issues, but there are issues-- according the the agreed upon population objectives.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

hawkeye said:


> Can someone help me understand the backgrounds and professions on the Wildlife Board Members? I know John Bair but what about Jake Albrecht, Calvin Crandall, Steve Dalton, Bill Fennimore, Michael King and Kirk Woodward? At the last meeting, it seemed that Bair and King were generally voting in favor of sportsmen and Crandall, Dalton and Fennimore were voting for the ranchers. Is this the norm?
> 
> Hawkeye


I only know Mike King. He's a professor at USU Eastern. PhD in Wildlife. Studied desert sheep in the 80s. Way cool guy. Wildlife and hunting background.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> The vote would have gone different had Kirk Woodard been present. I heard a different meeting than some here have portrayed-- interesting how we hear what we want to hear.


So what was it that you heard, Packout? I didn't listen to the meeting, so it's good to get some different perspectives.


----------

