# wasatch cow tag debacle is ending



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Greg Sheehan finally got one too many phone calls and put the foot down, sound like the recommendation will have VERY limited antlerless permits for the next couple years....thank heavens


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I killed the last cow on the Wasatch this year so I guess it's about time :grin:


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

It's alright airborne the bulls are gay on this unit so they will adopt calves and raise them as their own!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*ABOUT TIME!*

*May-be it will start to recover over the next few years ..*

Why does it have to hit rock bottom before they pull their heads out?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

It's a management mindset goof too concrete to be fluid when needed


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> *ABOUT TIME!*
> 
> *May-be it will start to recover over the next few years ..*
> 
> Why does it have to hit rock bottom before they pull their heads out?


Not enough napkins I guess.------SS


----------



## morvlorv (Mar 30, 2012)

did they learn anything, or will there just be a different cow slaughter this year?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Don't be surprised to learn that the manti and or Nebo are suddenly 'over objective' next year and out of necessity they have to issue antlerless...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

And….Greg Sheehan has the power to control that? You guys are funny….or just goofy!


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

No ultimately it's the rac and wildlife boards that make the decisions but Greg can influence what recommendations the biologists put forward...and in my experience the rac approves what the biologists recommend with a few minor changes


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

berrysblaster said:


> No ultimately it's the rac and wildlife boards that make the decisions but Greg can influence what recommendations the biologists put forward...and in my experience the rac approves what the biologists recommend with a few minor changes


Unless the Farm Bureau, cattlemen, Forest service, or other stakeholders still desire to have lowered elk numbers and objectives.................................


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> No ultimately it's the rac and wildlife boards that make the decisions but Greg can influence what recommendations the biologists put forward...and in my experience the rac approves what the biologists recommend with a few minor changes


This is not even close to being true. See statement below.



Catherder said:


> Unless the Farm Bureau, cattlemen, Forest service, or other stakeholders still desire to have lowered elk numbers and objectives.................................


Also recall the "Option 2" fiasco. What were the biologists recommending on that one?

RAC's and the WB often don't follow the recommendations of biologists. Therein lies much of the beef that people have with the process. It's not based upon science, but upon money and political influence.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

While the politics play a huge role in it, the above stake holders have to be careful how they approach this. If they get the sportsmen upset as a whole they lose.

Science is not always right. The Biologists models don't always work, but the rac and WB usually take what they are given and approve it. In a few rare cases it is to the detriment of sportsmen.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> While the politics play a huge role in it, the above stake holders have to be careful how they approach this. If they get the sportsmen upset as a whole they lose.


I have to respectfully disagree. These groups you say must tread lightly are well organized money machines that have a lot of experience playing politics and lobbying. Sportsman, although they bring in huge amounts of money, can't figure out how to agree about what color of shoelaces to wear, let alone put together a united front in a way to scare politicians. (and the WB are a bunch of politicians)

How do I know this? Those in decision making positions and in the legislature have told me. Personally....to my face. Sportsmen don't scare them, because we can't get organized enough to be a detriment to them. Period.



berrysblaster said:


> Science is not always right. The Biologists models don't always work, but the rac and WB usually take what they are given and approve it. In a few rare cases it is to the detriment of sportsmen.


You are right that the biologists are not always correct. I agree with that 100%. However, this statement by you is a lot different than saying they do what the biologists tell them, as you said before. You're mostly right in that the RACs and WB usually approve what they are given. But I think you are mistaken on who it is that is giving it to them.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

TS is 100% correct. 

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Sounds like the state views these herds as a savings account. If they need to dip into some extra cash they have the mindset of oh well we can rebuild it. Kind of a coincidence the elk numbers where way over objective. At the exact same time they where going to lose money from all the deer tags they had to cut


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

That's why I said as a whole TS, there have been a couple times the the sportsmen have organized as a whole and made changes regardless, SFW at it's inception was one of those times. Not so much now but at one point they had the pull to buck the system.

Point being that in a super conservative state the politicians know what group will get them reelected an when push comes to shove they will side with the sportsmen of the state...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tell ya what blaster,

There's a large number of UWN members getting served crow soup about right now.;-)


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

catherder said:


> unless the farm bureau, cattlemen, forest service, or other stakeholders still desire to have lowered elk numbers and objectives.................................


yup!!!! ^^^^^this!!!!!!!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Tell ya what blaster,
> 
> There's a large number of UWN members getting served crow soup about right now.;-)


I don't see how. Has something changed already? All I hear is that somebody received more phone calls then they wanted to get mixed in with some hopeful prognastication.

Furthermore..........how many UWN members are there right now?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

They still need to kill more...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> Point being that in a super conservative state the politicians know what group will get them reelected an when push comes to shove they will side with the sportsmen of the state...


I'm really not trying to disagree to be a jerk, but I've fought these fights berry. No they won't! How do I know that? Because they've had the chance to do so and they haven't. When provided with the numbers that hunting and fishing specifically bring in to Utah alone (almost double what the ski industry does) the response is, "No matter what we do, people will still do it because that is a way of life. Nobody is giving up hunting or fishing because we adversely affect them." They honestly believe that. And for the most part, they are right.

Seriously, I've been told these things to my face. I have been dared to try and oppose the groups we talked about before (SFW, Farm Bureau, Cattlemen Assoc, Utah Assoc of Realtors, etc) because they are the ones that contribute to campaigns. And then they'll waive their deer tag and fishing license and claim to be 'sportsmen' too....then stab us in the back. Elected officials will do the same at the drop of a hat because they aren't scared of us in the least. Many of them have told me just that. It is the truth. The Utah legislature and governor as whole bodies couldn't care less about average sportsmen, because we don't scare them.

Edit: Back on topic.....it will be interesting to see what the perception of numbers looks like in 3+ years compared to now if this cow hunt is reduced like it's being said.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I don't see how. Has something changed already? All I hear is that somebody received more phone calls then they wanted to get mixed in with some hopeful prognastication.
> 
> Furthermore..........how many UWN members are there right now?


There are 7,288 UWN members ..

BUT , I'm thinking youu mean UWC menbers ?

I hoping , pushing they even close either sex general archery
to the taking of cows on the Wasatch for a year or two ...
Along with elimination of control cow tags/LE antlerless,,It needs it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> There are 7,288 UWN members ..
> 
> BUT , I'm thinking youu mean UWC menbers ?
> 
> ...


Yep missed that. My bad.

Do you hunt general archery Goofy? I tell you what........ I will support that if you are willing to shut down guided hunts in the same area for the same amount of time. It would seem realistic that somebody so concerned for the "diminishing" herd and lack of elk would give something up for such a noble cause.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Does this mean that a spike tag holder will only be able to shoot a spike and no longer be able to take a cow on the snatch unit? :shock:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Skinner,

I quit guiding LE Wasatch elk tags in 2011 .....

SOOOOOOO their 2 years late clousing off antlerless tags......

And, I havn't hunted general rifle elk in Utah for many years,
BUT, have had an occational archery permit, maybe 3 in the last 15 years or so..


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

tallbuck said:


> Does this mean that a spike tag holder will only be able to shoot a spike and no longer be able to take a cow on the snatch unit? :shock:


Possibly, have to wait and see how it plays out over the next few weeks ..


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

In reality it was all probably just lip service to get us to shut up pre rac, then they will shove the same old garbage down the tube and we will be stuck wondering WTF happened??? 😈😈


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

TS30 said:


> When provided with the numbers that hunting and fishing specifically bring in to Utah alone (almost double what the ski industry does) the response is, ...


TS30, that's a very interesting observation/claim. Do you have some data/link to support it? Thank you.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

berrysblaster said:


> Greg Sheehan finally got one too many phone calls and put the foot down, sound like the recommendation will have VERY limited antlerless permits for the next couple years....thank heavens


 And you know this from what source?


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Great news!!!! If it holds...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> In reality it was all probably just lip service to get us to shut up pre rac, then they will shove the same old garbage down the tube and we will be stuck wondering WTF happened???


^^^^ This! You are probably right there.

SLCHUNTER, I do not have the numbers personally. But they are out there. And they were given to the governor, committee members in the legislature, and other policy makers in the state.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

elkfromabove said:


> And you know this from what source?


We were invited to the closed door, napkin meeting on Monday at the Springville office. It was called by Mike Canning, in response to a butt ton of phone calls and disgruntled people that gave him an earful over the last month and a half or so. Those in attendance included: Derrick Ewell Dax Mangus Justin Shannon John Fairchild Don Peay Bill Bates Paul Phillips Mike Fowlks Jon Bair Covy Jones Dale Liechty Greg Sheehan. The point was just to figure out WTF is going on in this unit....or like I said above to appease a few groups just before the racs so that they don't cause problems...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

SFW, eeer, I mean...BGF, won't make money off the Wasatch. These groups will push to continue increasing tags there so the state can decrease tags on the premium units and still tell the public "We haven't decreased the number of tags at all!" All the while increasing the value of the expo/convention tags organizations get to auction and raffle for the premium units each year. 

Man...I'm not cynical at all about this...am I? 

I like elk. I'm not an experienced elk hunter at all. But the last few years have put elk in my blood. I'm all for doing anything that will help maintain a healthy herd and as much opportunity for us as hunters to chase these critters. If that is reducing the amount of cow tags on a unit, get er done!


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

it runs a bit deeper than that TS, Don and the crew were very much in support of tag cuts. I don't think their motivation was all to pure tho, IMHO SFW is dying for good publicity right now they will jump at any opportunity to do things that appeal to the masses and this is one of them.... anything that will help them bolster their membership and keep the checks coming in....of late they haven't had much good said about them and they are looking for ways to change that!

Once elk gets in the blood it doesn't leave, trust me!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

TS30 said:


> No they won't! How do I know that? Because they've had the chance to do so and they haven't. When provided with the numbers that hunting and fishing specifically bring in to Utah alone (almost double what the ski industry does) the response is, "No matter what we do, people will still do it because that is a way of life. Nobody is giving up hunting or fishing because we adversely affect them." They honestly believe that. And for the most part, they are right.
> 
> Seriously, I've been told these things to my face. I have been dared to try and oppose the groups we talked about before (SFW, Farm Bureau, Cattlemen Assoc, Utah Assoc of Realtors, etc) because they are the ones that contribute to campaigns. And then they'll waive their deer tag and fishing license and claim to be 'sportsmen' too....then stab us in the back. Elected officials will do the same at the drop of a hat because they aren't scared of us in the least. Many of them have told me just that. It is the truth. The Utah legislature and governor as whole bodies couldn't care less about average sportsmen, because we don't scare them.


A lot was learned from the stream access battles, wasn't it? I can vouch for everything said here because that was what was told/implied to me as well in talking to the reps.

Berry, I don't hunt elk on the Wasatch, so I don't have a dog in the fight or much knowledge in the overall question of overharvested cow elk there, but getting the attention of Sheehan and having these meetings will probably help you some, to a lot. You just may not get all you want if a big dog like the Farm Bureau still has other ideas.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

TS30 said:


> SLCHUNTER, I do not have the numbers personally. But they are out there. And they were given to the governor, committee members in the legislature, and other policy makers in the state.


And unfortunately most of those policy makers have ignored that report!

just out of curiosity -- what is the management objective number of elk that the DWR us mandated by law to manage for on the Wasatch unit?

Regardless of who wants what or how many, the DWR is required by law to keep the number of elk under a certain objective number. What is that number?
If that number is surpassed, the DWR must do something to reduce the number -- even if hunters and other groups are upset. If they don't, then other groups (FB, BLM, Forest, Cattlemen's Association, etc.) all have a legitimate case for legal action.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Yep missed that. My bad.
> 
> Do you hunt general archery Goofy? I tell you what........ I will support that if you are willing to shut down guided hunts in the same area for the same amount of time. It would seem realistic that somebody so concerned for the "diminishing" herd and lack of elk would give something up for such a noble cause.


I don't think goof hunts general anything here. He's too good for our lowly GS hunts.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH--here you go.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-05_elkplans_CRO.pdf


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> We were invited to the closed door, napkin meeting on Monday at the Springville office. It was called by Mike Canning, in response to a butt ton of phone calls and disgruntled people that gave him an earful over the last month and a half or so. Those in attendance included: Derrick Ewell Dax Mangus Justin Shannon John Fairchild Don Peay Bill Bates Paul Phillips Mike Fowlks Jon Bair Covy Jones Dale Liechty Greg Sheehan. The point was just to figure out WTF is going on in this unit....or like I said above to appease a few groups just before the racs so that they don't cause problems...


What kind of napkins? I hear napkin meetings are the in thing. I should have a wasatch muzzy tag this year so let's hope for a good outcome!


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Now that i'm in front of a computer and not my phone i'll attempt to explain what I think happened in some form of a cohesive reply. 

This whole deal started in January 2011 when the DNR flew the unit. We were in the midst of a monster winter the likes of which hadn't been seen since 1988. This is at the foundation of the problem that has escalated since then. 

#1 Due to the winter elk that do not reside on the unit were pushed on to it. Manti elk crossed HWY 6 for the south facing slopes of Spanish for canyon, and Uinta MTN elk were pushed down across the N. E. borders of the unit. This exaggerated the counts. 

#2 Sightablitity was at an all time high for the same reasons. Well above 80% IMHO I would venture to say they saw around 95% of the elk. The model said 80% so they added over a thousand more elk to the total. 6674x.2=1334.8 Bringing the grand total to 7700 head. This is 2200 head over objective. 

Because of these reasons, the initial population was grossly overestimated, and the models just snowballed it from there. In the first year the computers said issue X amount of antlerless to account for the excess. Then the success rates came back lower than expected. This bumped the population estimate up even more and prompted 'antlerless control permits' as a response. Those were issued and success rates again fell. Now our current population estimate is 8900 head, 4400 head over. More and more sportsmen are coming forward voicing concern over the lack of elk that they are seeing. We were repeatedly told that they were on private ground and there was nothing that could be done. So we started contacting landowners. Over and over and over we got the same response from CWMU to non consumptive, they reported less elk then they had ever had before. Please understand, I'm not attempting to say there are no elk. There's still ALOT of elk on this unit.

The elk that remain, have been trained due to the massive amount of pressure that they have faced the last 3 years to reside on private ground. The ones that don't are becoming scarce and the success rates reflect that story. 

My point being that it's not anyone's 'fault'. What I think happened is merely a matter of circumstance. The models are numerically sound, but can't account for extraordinary events. This is one of those times.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Berry,

Thanks for that post! Honestly, as I've seen the discussion about Wasatch elk (and other units) go on it has been hard to get behind those claiming reduced numbers, not because I didn't believe it, but because most of the tone has been about accusations of wrongdoing, conspiracy, ineptitude, and other emotional jargon towards the DWR that just didn't jive with me. I'm not a huge DWR fan myself in many ways, however I'm almost certain they aren't sitting around conspiring about how they can destroy one of the most popular units in the state. 

But your post here illustrates a plausible explanation that leaves conspiracy, accusations, and emotions completely out of it. Nicely done! Much easier to get on board with this than most of the other rants.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Berry, splain me this: How is that you know about the great Manti-Wasatch Migration but the DWR and biologists didn't.

Furthermore.....was there a coinciding reduction in tags on the Manti to support this theory? The DWR must have panicked with the lack of elk they saw. (not to mention that Goofy would be screaming since he know everything about the Manti unit as well).

Your theory should also conclude that the population on the Manti was severely underestimated. Are you pushing for tag increases there now?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Mule, it would not have been a large migration. And, The Manti is currently under objective 10,600 estimated pop compared to 12000 objective. So in fact YES it does line up.

Furthermore, with the manti on a current uptick as far as quality of hunt, one could say that yes the evidence does support the idea. 

You made an incorrect assumption that I insinuated that a LARGE portion of elk migrated. Really, to make the numbers add up it would have had to been a few hundred head.

Thanks for the concern tho....


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

fair enough. I did assume that grossly overestimated actually meant grossly overestimated.

What was the primary reason for increased "sightabiltiy"? Lots of elk, depth of snow or concentration of animals? Unless an actual head count could be established for the migration of elk that should not be where they were, it would seem that the worst assumption made was that the migration had any impact at all.

The "quality" of hunt that we had on the Wasatch was great last year. We actually met with you guys at the lodge for lunch and your group was trying to sell us on a guided hunt. Just have to say it's confusing to say the least......at least where true concerns lie.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

The depth of snow would have had the greatest impact. Elk were pushed lower and concentrated to a far greater extent than average. 

And no you assumed that grossly overestimated meant migration when really the big chunk of my rough number comes from the sightability side. 

I'm glad you had a great hunt! If I remember right you killed a great bull, can't fault people for trying to make a dollar haha... 

Our concern lies with antlerless populations. It isn't hard to understand that if the model was overestimated, like I believe it was, the herd has suffered due to excessive permit allocations. 

Again, I'm not saying there are no elk, I'm simply saying that in 20 years we have never seen fewer cows than we do now. That doesn't line up with a population estimate that is 4400 over, it does line up with falling success rates on antlerless hunts in the last 3 years. Which again supports the idea that the model failed.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Berry- nice to see some level headed input, if sides agree or not. I do have a couple questions--

-You said everyone agreed the unit needed a rest, but 2 biologists. Were those the biologists managing the unit? 

-Did they state the sight-ability ratio they used in their model? 

I was told the UDWR flew the Wasatch more thoroughly than they had in years and the actual count was what they based their recommendations. Not that I disagree with you, but it is a little frustrating for the public that a meeting between 3 parties (UDWR, SFW, SBOutfitters) can decide such an issue for the unit as a whole. 

Before you think I am completely against your stance on the Wasatch, you can read the RAC minutes from last April. I believe it is a two sided issue and both are correct. Some public/private lands herds have declined. But there are public lands herds which have increased and there are private lands herds which have increased. The elk are not using the same ranges in the same manner as they did a decade ago. 

It is time for all parties to think outside the box on how to kill surplus elk. We have hundreds of elk living in areas which will not or can not be hunted, but those elk are contributing to the herd objectives. How do we give an incentive to landowners, municipalities, and others regulating the take of the elk which are not available to the public as a whole?

In the end, I do not feel that stopping the antlerless hunts will benefit us in the long run. There should still be antlerless harvest-- just not in the same manner as we have done it over the past 3-5 years. Time to rest the accessible herds that are in decline. Time to figure out how to reduce or eliminate elk in other areas from the Population Objective. 

There are thousands of cow elk on the Wasatch that will have a thousand++ calves in 3 months. Those calves will increase the number of elk. There has to be some type of harvest of some elk.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Packout, they did in 2011. And yes the biologists were totally reliant on their model. That's part if the issue that we have with it. They haven't spent time in the field, and are relying totally on what the computer spit out based off of initial counts. 

While I totally agree with you about the shift of patterns of elk and areas, it doesn't lend credence to the overall population estimate. The entire unit would need to see an increase for that model to be correct. At least that's how my mind deals with that number. 

As far as the meeting goes, it isn't fair but if stuff like this doesn't happen then no one questions the system. At least we had the drive to make the calls and voice the concerns necessary to get that meeting to happen.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"The elk are not using the same ranges in the same manner as they did a decade ago"--Packout

Can you elaborate on the specifics of this? And do you know if there has been a shift in calving areas?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Until counts are reconfirmed I am good with leaving things as is. It drives me nuts to hear that biologists don't spend time in the field when I KNOW that is not the case.

I would fully expect success rates to decline when a substantial amount of cow tags are added. Lots of people switch from units they know to try to get an easy freezer full of meat only to find that they are now hunting an area that they don't know. Over the counter tags are often purchased last minute and on a whim.

Nothing against a guy making a buck at Berry. Would your stance remain the same if the only thing you were allowed to guide for on the Wasatch were mule deer?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

I can honestly say yes Mule, but that's cause I'm an elk guy right to the core. This has nothing to do with bulls, business or politics. It's an honest question that I believe deserves looking into, there is enough evidence to support it right now in terms of sportsmen concern and success rate decline.

If it were about bulls I'd be harping on higher age objectives and lower tags for some ridiculous reason :grin::grin:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> I can honestly say yes Mule, but that's cause I'm an elk guy right to the core. This has nothing to do with bulls, business or politics. It's an honest question that I believe deserves looking into, there is enough evidence to support it right now in terms of sportsmen concern and success rate decline.
> 
> If it were about bulls I'd be harping on higher age objectives and lower tags for some ridiculous reason :grin::grin:


I can appreciate your honesty. My side of the unit isn't getting hit as hard as yours so I don't see the big decline. Granted strawberry and the like get pounded. My area is also a lot steeper and not as easily accessible from roads. But I do see elk in larger numbers in areas they haven't typically been before. Pressure? Probably. Not too many people want to drag a cow out of a steep canyon in AF canyon two miles from the road.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Berry, I respect your point of view. First, I never said it was unfair that group met with UDWR. I said I didn't like them going about it in that fashion. I thought we had RACs, Elk Committees, etc for just these such purposes. It is more of the appearance rather than an issue of fairness. (This coming from someone who agrees with much of what you are saying).

Second, when the biologists flew the unit a couple years ago, they physically counted more elk than the Population Objective allows. No "model" was used at that time to come up with a number larger than the Population Objective. I personally can't see them lie about their count. Now, I am sure the biologists used models including harvest numbers, calf production, winterkill, etc... to base antlerless permits in subsequent years. 

I agree they counted elk in the Wasatch which come from other units. BUT if they come from other units and are spending time in the Wasatch, are they not kind of Wasatch Elk? I think we can agree that we shouldn't shoot elk in Oct on CC in hopes of reducing winter counts on Avin. It seems we should shoot elk within the Avin if we want to reduce elk on the Avin. 

Berry, you understand that your area gets pounded, but there are many areas which do not get the same pressure. I spend time in the Berry/CC area each Fall and see less elk each of the past few years. On the other hand, I have seen elk increase in areas where they have rarely been; elk herds which are increasing at a high rate. My non-biological opinion is that elk are hurting in the most popular areas and they are doing well in some of the less popular/access restricted areas. 

To ask that ALL Wasatch antlerless permits be suspended is not looking at the areas which should receive pressure/exclusion from the Population Objective. That is not taking into consideration the calves which will be born this spring and increase the population. Just some thoughts.....


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I appreciate the response and honesty as well Berry. I too am an elk guy at heart. If they are truly hurting, I like any other hunter would like to see the proper measures taken. I would only do so based upon a count and hard evidence not what people claim to see. Too many people have different agendas and while I am an elk guy I think deer need to be taken into high consideration. I don't have any real concerns about the overall health or population of the Wasatch elk herd.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Lonetree- When I said "The elk are not using the same ranges in the same manner as they did a decade ago" I meant the "Wasatch Herd"- not individuals within the herd or patterned movements of specific individuals or sub herds within the unit. 

There are very accessible areas I am familiar with that have seen declines in elk numbers. These are areas where many hunters hunt. There are less accessible areas- private lands, steep-and-deep, no motorized access, weapon restrictions, gov't lands not allowing hunting, etc... which I have seen large increases in elk numbers. Areas where I have hunted for decades, rarely seeing elk, which now have substantial numbers. Substantial being subjective, but numbers of 50-100+ in multiple areas. So if I can think of areas of the unit which are holding 400-500 more elk than they did 10+ years ago that equates to 20% of a sub-unit's herd objective. That is different use I referred to, based on my limited observations.

I have also seen calving area shifts on both the Wasatch and the Nebo. One herd I am familiar with once calved 80-100+ cows each summer. Now it is only 15-30. The nursery herd would grow to 200ish animals by late summer and now it only hits the 50-70 range. Cows and calves included. I am not sure why- feed, cover, pressure, etc. changes? Another area I am very familiar with never had a nursery herd and now the herd calving in there has grown to triple digits over the past decade-ish. Can "lead" cows relocate their calving areas?

I'm no biologist. Just a guy who has lived in the middle of this more than most and not as much as some.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Packout said:


> Lonetree- When I said "The elk are not using the same ranges in the same manner as they did a decade ago" I meant the "Wasatch Herd"- not individuals within the herd or patterned movements of specific individuals or sub herds within the unit.
> 
> There are very accessible areas I am familiar with that have seen declines in elk numbers. These are areas where many hunters hunt. There are less accessible areas- private lands, steep-and-deep, no motorized access, weapon restrictions, gov't lands not allowing hunting, etc... which I have seen large increases in elk numbers. Areas where I have hunted for decades, rarely seeing elk, which now have substantial numbers. Substantial being subjective, but numbers of 50-100+ in multiple areas. So if I can think of areas of the unit which are holding 400-500 more elk than they did 10+ years ago that equates to 20% of a sub-unit's herd objective. That is different use I referred to, based on my limited observations.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I was referring to herd shifts, not individual animals. I never set out to be a biologist, nor am I by training, but the last few years have taken me some places.

I am not familiar with the Wasatch, and I'm not really an elk guy for that matter either. But in the early '90s, just before, and after, everything crashed, there were big shifts in habitat use by deer and moose. And in Northern Utah after 1992, Elk were dropping calves on Mahogany ridge breaks, rather than in the sagebrush like they should have been.

I am not so sure that simple pressure, can drive these kinds of shifts. It was thought that pressure from wolves in YNP was driving riparian, and Aspen regeneration, via "trophic cascade". But in an attempt to verify this, trophic cascade is not really holding up. Elk do not change their patterns or habitat use because of pressure from predators. Unlike roads that become fixtures of the landscape, and have been shown to be avoided by elk. People and predators seem to be too transient to shift habitat use, at least not long term. If the accessibility is not new, I would think something else is at work.

The pattern that keeps arising up North, is that most resident elk herds seem to be doing just fine. But the common denominator of declining herds is that they are migratory.

Is there an East-West split to any of the increasing verses decreasing, with a rain shadow? In other words, are they increasing, generally, on Eastern aspects, verses Western aspects, of mountain ranges?


----------

