# Southern RAC Meeting



## elkfromabove

As usual with a heavy big game agenda it was 4 hours long. I missed the first 1/2 hour because of a family situation, but here's what happened on the action items per the printed agenda:

#5- R657-45 Wildlife License, Permit & COR Forms Rule amendment.
This is the amendment that allows us to purchase multi-year licenses at a possible discount. The numbers aren't yet determined per the Wildlife Board's approval, but it looks like the combo and hunting licenses are going up $6. This amendment would not only allow us to purchase a multi-year license (2 year to 5 year or possibly longer), but it would give us a discount per year for doing so. The number proposed was a $1 dollar per year discount. Passed 8 to 2.

#6- R657-67 Utah Hunter Mentoring Program Rule amendment.
This amendment would remove the 10 day time requirement prior to the hunt for the submission of the written notice to share the adult's tag with the youth. This would allow the mentor to take more than just one of his children or grandchildren on the shorter hunts though he'll still only be able to share with one at a time and only one animal may be taken per tag. Passed unanimously.

#7- R657-13-7 Fishing With More Than One Pole Rule amendment.
This amendment allows fishing with more than one pole without having to purchase a second pole permit. Passed unanimously. If passed by the Wildlife Board, it will be effective July 1st.

#8- R657-60 Aquatic Invasion Species Interdiction Rule amendment. 
I'm sorry I didn't get all the details, but this amendment had to do with the increased number of waters (Lake Powell) where quagga mussels are found and the difficulty the DWR is having doing the cleaning and inspecting of boats and other equipment. If you have a boat, you'll need to be aware of any increased responsibilities for cleaning and/or penalties for failure to do so. Passed unanimously.

#9- Bucks, Bulls, OIAL & Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2014.
There were actually 2 separate presentations and discussions on this item.

First, the Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL tags were discussed. There were several amendments proposed from the audience and most had to do with the number of bull elk tags. The large contingent of ranchers and the large contingent of sportsmen (SFW) (about 20 each) had a bit of a disagreement on the number of elk counted and thus the number of tags proposed. There were conflicting numbers coming from all quarters including the DWR, BLM, and Forest Service as well as the ranchers and SFW. It was a relatively calm discussion, and the final bull elk amendment that passed ended up being 10 more bull elk tags on the Southwest Desert.

Another amendment that passed was to keep the same number of buck tags as 2013 on the Paunsagunt and Henry Mountains instead of the proposed increase. The Friends of the Paunsagunt felt there hadn't been enough of a change in the trophy quality of the bucks per the management buck program to merit the increase.

The only other Bucks, Bulls, OIAL discussion had to do with the number of Desert Bighorn tags on the Zion unit. There was some concern about the "quality" (isolation) of the hunt with the tag increase, but it was pointed out by the division that with the latest count of 850 the herd was WAY over the initial objective and that the season is long enough to spread out the hunters and no actual proposal was made to change the presented numbers.

With the 2 passed amendments, the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL numbers as presented by the DWR passed, 6 to 4.

While the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL discussion was more casual, the Antlerless discussion took on quite a different flavor! Again, the numbers came from all directions, but since they all knew that the cows were critical to the ultimate numbers of elk in the hills and in the fields, we had a lot more questions and statements from the audience (Sometimes it was hard to tell where the questions ended and the statements begin.) Also, I was glad to hear the chair say that each group only got 5 minutes regardless of where they come from. (SFW Beaver, SFW Iron, SFW Sevier, SFW State etc. were all considered one group) and even if they claimed to speak for their chapter, once one of them got 5 minutes, the rest only got 3 minutes just like individuals.

Whenever a rancher (most of them were Yardleys) got up to talk about the elk (and deer) in his fields, Kevin tried to explain that the Division is more than willing to work something out with the rancher. However, most of them weren't buying it based on previous encounters and the fact that the numbers given by the DWR were above promised population objectives. There were even several thinly veiled promises that if the DWR didn't take care of the problem in the prescribed timely manner, the ranchers would. Also, several of them said that they had held their own separate meetings (napkin style) without the DWR, so that's why they all showed up and why they were in unison on the proposals to increase the antlerless elk tags. And, of course, the recent Nevada Bundy Ranch fiasco was also cited as an incentive to take on government agencies. Apparently, the local ranchers have had enough of government agencies trying to put them out of business per the endangered species act, hunting regulations and wild horse regulations (See below).

Bottom line, with a promise by the DWR to address any specific problems with an emergency hunt, the DWR's proposal passed 6 to 4. We'll have to see how the other RAC's and Wildlife Board respond.

FWIW, because the Panguitch Lake deer herd is 3,200 animals over population objective and also over buck to doe ratio, and because the winter range on the Parowan Front, where 80% of the herd winters, is being destroyed, United Wildlife Cooperative Southern Region proposed a 200 tag increase on the Parowan Front antlerless deer hunts which would go to youth and it was included in the amendment with the antlerless elk numbers. But the amendment didn't pass given the promise to hold emergency hunts. So, I guess we'll just kick the can (now a 5 gallon bucket) down the road another year and hope this drought or a fire or a hard winter doesn't deal that range a fatal blow. (However, maybe we'll make that same proposal at the Wildlife Board meeting.)

Edited: Sorry, I forgot #10- Antlerless CWMU Voucher/Permit Recommendations for 2014. Not much discussion, but feelings were still running high from the prior discussions and the vote showed that. Passed as proposed by the DWR 6 to 4

#11- Other business.
A letter was sent to DWR (and others) by the BLM regarding the wild horses indicating that they are unable to control the numbers of mustangs and wild burros in the SW desert and elsewhere in Utah under the current federal regulations and they have asked the local ranchers to voluntarily cut their grazing allotments as much as 50% in order to save the wild horses. They also have urged the DWR to manage wildlife in a manner that would allow the horses and burros to survive. RMEF, among others, has indorsed and sent a letter to the BLM, telling them to control the populations on their own as promised by doing sterilization, killing, moving them, changing laws or whatever else they need to do. After the letter was read, all of the groups at the RAC wholeheartedly supported it. That was good to see and the RAC ended on a great note!

Now, let's hear about the other RAC's!

Lee Tracy
United Wildlife Cooperative
Southern Region Chair


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

elkfromabove said:


> As usual with a heavy big game agenda it was 4 hours long. I missed the first 1/2 hour because of a family situation, but here's what happened on the action items per the printed agenda:
> 
> #5- R657-45 Wildlife License, Permit & COR Forms Rule amendment.
> This is the amendment that allows us to purchase multi-year licenses at a possible discount. The numbers aren't yet determined per the Wildlife Board's approval, but it looks like the combo and hunting licenses are going up $6. This amendment would not only allow us to purchase a multi-year license (2 year to 5 year or possibly longer), but it would give us a discount per year for doing so. The number proposed was a $1 dollar per year discount. Passed 8 to 2.
> 
> #6- R657-67 Utah Hunter Mentoring Program Rule amendment.
> This amendment would remove the 10 day time requirement prior to the hunt for the submission of the written notice to share the adult's tag with the youth. This would allow the mentor to take more than just one of his children or grandchildren on the shorter hunts though he'll still only be able to share with one at a time and only one animal may be taken per tag. Passed unanimously.
> 
> #7- R657-13-7 Fishing With More Than One Pole Rule amendment.
> This amendment allows fishing with more than one pole without having to purchase a second pole permit. Passed unanimously. If passed by the Wildlife Board, it will be effective July 1st.
> 
> #8- R657-60 Aquatic Invasion Species Interdiction Rule amendment.
> I'm sorry I didn't get all the details, but this amendment had to do with the increased number of waters (Lake Powell) where quagga mussels are found and the difficulty the DWR is having doing the cleaning and inspecting of boats and other equipment. If you have a boat, you'll need to be aware of any increased responsibilities for cleaning and/or penalties for failure to do so. Passed unanimously.
> 
> #9- Bucks, Bulls, OIAL & Antlerless Permit Recommendations for 2014.
> There were actually 2 separate presentations and discussions on this item.
> 
> First, the Bucks, Bulls, and OIAL tags were discussed. There were several amendments proposed from the audience and most had to do with the number of bull elk tags. The large contingent of ranchers and the large contingent of sportsmen (SFW) (about 20 each) had a bit of a disagreement on the number of elk counted and thus the number of tags proposed. There were conflicting numbers coming from all quarters including the DWR, BLM, and Forest Service as well as the ranchers and SFW. It was a relatively calm discussion, and the final bull elk amendment that passed ended up being 10 more bull elk tags on the Southwest Desert.
> 
> Another amendment that passed was to keep the same number of buck tags as 2013 on the Paunsagunt and Henry Mountains instead of the proposed increase. The Friends of the Paunsagunt felt there hadn't been enough of a change in the trophy quality of the bucks per the management buck program to merit the increase.
> 
> The only other Bucks, Bulls, OIAL discussion had to do with the number of Desert Bighorn tags on the Zion unit. There was some concern about the "quality" (isolation) of the hunt with the tag increase, but it was pointed out by the division that with the latest count of 850 the herd was WAY over the initial objective and that the season is long enough to spread out the hunters and no actual proposal was made to change the presented numbers.
> 
> With the 2 passed amendments, the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL numbers as presented by the DWR passed, 6 to 4.
> 
> While the Bucks, Bulls and OIAL discussion was more casual, the Antlerless discussion took on quite a different flavor! Again, the numbers came from all directions, but since they all knew that the cows were critical to the ultimate numbers of elk in the hills and in the fields, we had a lot more questions and statements from the audience (Sometimes it was hard to tell where the questions ended and the statements begin.) Also, I was glad to hear the chair say that each group only got 5 minutes regardless of where they come from. (SFW Beaver, SFW Iron, SFW Sevier, SFW State etc. were all considered one group) and even if they claimed to speak for their chapter, once one of them got 5 minutes, the rest only got 3 minutes just like individuals.
> 
> Whenever a rancher (most of them were Yardleys) got up to talk about the elk (and deer) in his fields, Kevin tried to explain that the Division is more than willing to work something out with the rancher. However, most of them weren't buying it based on previous encounters and the fact that the numbers given by the DWR were above promised population objectives. There were even several thinly veiled promises that if the DWR didn't take care of the problem in the prescribed timely manner, the ranchers would. Also, several of them said that they had held their own separate meetings (napkin style) without the DWR, so that's why they all showed up and why they were in unison on the proposals to increase the antlerless elk tags. And, of course, the recent Nevada Bundy Ranch fiasco was also cited as an incentive to take on government agencies. Apparently, the local ranchers have had enough of government agencies trying to put them out of business per the endangered species act, hunting regulations and wild horse regulations (See below).
> 
> Bottom line, with a promise by the DWR to address any specific problems with an emergency hunt, the DWR's proposal passed 6 to 4. We'll have to see how the other RAC's and Wildlife Board respond.
> 
> FWIW, because the Panguitch Lake deer herd is 3,200 animals over population objective and also over buck to doe ratio, and because the winter range on the Parowan Front, where 80% of the herd winters, is being destroyed, United Wildlife Cooperative Southern Region proposed a 200 tag increase on the Parowan Front antlerless deer hunts which would go to youth and it was included in the amendment with the antlerless elk numbers. But the amendment didn't pass given the promise to hold emergency hunts. So, I guess we'll just kick the can (now a 5 gallon bucket) down the road another year and hope this drought or a fire or a hard winter doesn't deal that range a fatal blow. (However, maybe we'll make that same proposal at the Wildlife Board meeting.)
> 
> #11- Other business.
> A letter was sent to DWR (and others) by the BLM regarding the wild horses indicating that they are unable to control the numbers of mustangs and wild burros in the SW desert and elsewhere in Utah under the current federal regulations and they have asked the local ranchers to voluntarily cut their grazing allotments as much as 50% in order to save the wild horses. They also have urged the DWR to manage wildlife in a manner that would allow the horses and burros to survive. RMEF, among others, has indorsed and sent a letter to the BLM, telling them to control the populations on their own as promised by doing sterilization, killing, moving them, changing laws or whatever else they need to do. After the letter was read, all of the groups at the RAC wholeheartedly supported it. That was good to see and the RAC ended on a great note!
> 
> Now, let's hear about the other RAC's!
> 
> Lee Tracy
> United Wildlife Cooperative
> Southern Region Chair


I've heard about the meeting's being held between forest service, BLM, and Ranchers. I am concerned about where this BS is going. Iron County threatening the BLM was a bad call, because as you see ^^ now others think that by threatening to take matters into their own hands is going to be a problem. I have listened to a few people upset with elk numbers because the forest service keeps cutting grazing permits, and one of them even said that they dragged out the paperwork till the end of last fall so that the rancher never got his cows on the mountain because the forest service "couldn't find his paperwork". There is a serious battle going on here and the Bundy thing just heated it the hell up. Personally I hate the ranchers thoughts on the subjects. Things change, I don't want to see all there permits cut, but they need to understand they have no more right to public land than a sportsmen or the rest of the public. Just because they feel like they once did it, and that means they get to forever in the same manner as a 100 years ago is asinine. Population objectives haven't even hit on many of the units there bitching about, so their uninformative BS is just throwing something against the wall and hoping it sticks. The DWR is doing what they can, they've given anterless permits on Monroe where it hasn't ever hit objective, and it's all because they're whiny asses can't figure out things change. Also I believe cattlemen and ranchers are reaping many benefits from DWR, RMEF, MDF, SFW, and other sportsmens groups dollars on the mountains by improving grasses and habitats on the mountain. Cattle destroy things, pollute water supplies, and are a harassment to wildlife and people trying to hunt or view wildlife or mountains. I don't really care if the deer and elk bother them for 4-5 months out of the year. Bottom line is I don't believe it should be legal or the DWR have to do anything by law during the months from October through May when there simply isn't any damage they are doing when crops aren't even growing yet.

Worse case scenario here I see landowners and cattlemen less willing to work with the DWR, Forest Service, and BLM, simply because they aren't getting what they want. Then the landowners will begin killing things on the winter range out of spite, which will spark unethical sportsmens to make stupid decisions by shooting cattle on the mountain. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Forest Service and BLM keep cutting more permits to sort of "show them whose boss," I wouldn't put that aside from the relationships between the cattle runners and BLM/Forest Service guys I've seen the past few weeks. The DWR is probably in the tightest spot here, I actually feel bad for Vance at this point. The DWR is working on this issue as best they can. I hope not to see a breaking point the next couple years where all sides begin to try and "show the other one". The BLM is in a tight spot too, I think wild horses need to be much better managed. How could a federal agency have the balls to ask permits be cut 50% and then on top of that ask our state to manage for less wildlife because they can't manage in any way, shape, or form, their useless wild horse population? To me it's ridiculous, we do need beef, I don't need a wild horse, and a ram is much more majestic than some useless wild horse. The BLM needs to take care of the problem and get back to the management goal of 300. If they can't bring 1,200 down to that my some means possible then cattlemen and the DWR have a right to say no or become distressed over it.

Anyway hope we don't see a breaking point but it's holding on by a thread at this point.


----------



## torowy

thanks for the update


----------



## RandomElk16

#6- R657-67 Utah Hunter Mentoring Program Rule amendment.
This amendment would remove the 10 day time requirement prior to the hunt for the submission of the written notice to share the adult's tag with the youth. This would allow the mentor to take more than just one of his children or grandchildren on the shorter hunts though he'll still only be able to share with one at a time and only one animal may be taken per tag. Passed unanimously.


- So now not only can you share your tag with one kid, you can share it with many!!


----------



## elkfromabove

RandomElk16 said:


> #6- R657-67 Utah Hunter Mentoring Program Rule amendment.
> This amendment would remove the 10 day time requirement prior to the hunt for the submission of the written notice to share the adult's tag with the youth. This would allow the mentor to take more than just one of his children or grandchildren on the shorter hunts though he'll still only be able to share with one at a time and only one animal may be taken per tag. Passed unanimously.
> 
> - So now not only can you share your tag with one kid, you can share it with many!!


 Yes, but only one per day as I understand it. And only until the tag is filled.


----------



## hondodawg

So am I reading this correct. BLM wants ranchers to cut grazing by 50%. DWR to reduce hunting permits. In wild horse/burros regions to protect them because they have no money to fix the over population problem. But how much money has BLM blown on the "Cow Gate" in Nevada?


----------



## elkfromabove

hondodawg said:


> So am I reading this correct. BLM wants ranchers to cut grazing by 50%. DWR to reduce hunting permits. In wild horse/burros regions to protect them because they have no money to fix the over population problem. But how much money has BLM blown on the "Cow Gate" in Nevada?


I don't know a lot about the mustangs, but I think it's not the money so much as it's the policy. The only way they have of controlling the populations under current policy is to capture, corral and then adopt out the critters, but there aren't enough people willing to adopt them and the corrals are already overcrowded. So there isn't any place to put them.

Also, it's my understanding that they actually want the DWR to INCREASE the elk (and deer and antelope) tags in order to remove the competition, especially during the drought periods. We were told that the horses tend to take over the waterholes and the wildlife have to move many more miles in order to find water. The horses also crop the native grasses so close to the ground that cheatgrass takes over before the native grasses have a chance to recover. They also eat about 3 times as much per animal as do elk. I don't know how this will turn out, but ultimately, somethin's gotta give!

As far as "Cowgate" goes, I personally think it's a different issue that can be resolved in a more civil manner.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

elkfromabove said:


> I don't know a lot about the mustangs, but I think it's not the money so much as it's the policy. The only way they have of controlling the populations under current policy is to capture, corral and then adopt out the critters, but there aren't enough people willing to adopt them and the corrals are already overcrowded. So there isn't any place to put them.
> 
> Also, it's my understanding that they actually want the DWR to INCREASE the elk (and deer and antelope) tags in order to remove the competition, especially during the drought periods. We were told that the horses tend to take over the waterholes and the wildlife have to move many more miles in order to find water. The horses also crop the native grasses so close to the ground that cheatgrass takes over before the native grasses have a chance to recover. They also eat about 3 times as much per animal as do elk. I don't know how this will turn out, but ultimately, somethin's gotta give!
> 
> As far as "Cowgate" goes, I personally think it's a different issue that can be resolved in a more civil manner.


The horses need to go , that is what solves the issue.


----------



## MWScott72

We manage wildlife via hunting, so let's get it done w/r/t wild horses. If they are destroying the range and are far o en objective, then let spare ourselves the political B'S and do what's right for the range and it's ecology. The horse lovers can batch all they want about the "removals" but until they pony up the cash and start adopting these things, they don't have a pot to pass in.

Not to hijack this thread, but anyone that sees government and the higher taxes it is bringing as the answer to our society's problems, need only look as far as this issue. Get government and it's bureaucratic non - sense and red tape out of our lives so that we can actually deal with the issues instead of punting every **** time!! Meanwhile, Rome continues to burn....


----------



## klbzdad

The horses are already being removed. Don't ask how I know, but they are. Iron County has obtained the cooperation of the State BLM Director to allow the local supervisors to assist and supervise the removal of feral and stray horses on private property. This will happen to protect critical grazing range land the supports both horses and wildlife. This has to be done carefully not to innadvertently damage the range by trying to protect it so they are using safe trapping methods such as water traps and fruit traps that lead animals in and then hold them in special corrals. The water traps take some time because the horses aren't stupid. The fruit makes them a little duhr but it will take time. Once the flowering / seeding season ends in mid to late June, off come the horses!!! Number will be dropped to the lower AML (acceptable management level) of animals and the horses will be disposed of by the county. There is more to this plan, but its coming and I think its same to say the division is now actively going to be involved in this effort. So, get ready for the horse lovers to come out of the woodwork on it but truth be told, if the range is ruined beyond recovery, EVERYTHING DIES. With or without the BLM's help, the horses will be removed.


----------

