# How do we mend this elk conflict?



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

After the wildlife board meeting it's obvious we need to have some deep discussion on elk. I as a sportsmen don't believe elk numbers are far out of hand, however it seems our hunts which just keep getting more and more pressure pushing them where we don't want them. So what is in order to fix this? Cutting tags for less pressure and greater success? Ways to somehow compensate them? Better access? A smaller CWMU program?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> After the wildlife board meeting it's obvious we need to have some deep discussion on elk. I as a sportsmen don't believe elk numbers are far out of hand, however it seems our hunts which just keep getting more and more pressure pushing them where we don't want them. So what is in order to fix this? Cutting tags for less pressure and greater success? Ways to somehow compensate them? Better access? A smaller CWMU program?


 Those are some good ideas thrown out and I have a few more. I especially like the greater access. Those elk are gonna be where they want to be regardless of where we want them to be. We just need to have access, somehow! And we as hunters need to fully appreciate that access by conducting ourselves in manners that are legal, respectful, and sensible.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

It starts with all parties having a clear understanding of what the actual problem is.

The problem is not the elk, the problem is that these guys are loosing AUM's to the Feds. The Fed is done with the Cliven bundy's of the world. To them these ranchers who rely on public grazing/water rights are Cliven bundy's. The permits they spoke of as constitutional rights are a thorn in big governments side.

Consider this hypothetical question, if we were to eliminate every single elk off the southwest desert, would the Yardleys get their AUM's back? I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar they wouldn't. 

So that being considered, it's not the elk, it's the BLM range guy using the elk as an excuse to take away their livelihood. 

Solutions? Here's a couple short term, and a long term.

#1 a $5 increase in all tags issued by the division, this money is specifically earmarked for agricultural damage. It cannot be used for anything else period.

#2 to qualify for the money the ag guys must enroll in a private land access program allowing sportsmen to come manage the game causing the issue. This is done with a LE draw program where sportsmen apply complete an ethics course and sign a waiver that states they will be responsible on the persons property and if not will suffer consequences.

When a complaint is received, local sportsmen's groups are contacted and hunters who have completed the program are given the opportunity to harvest some game.

Long term? Groups with political pull recognize that just like the wolf is a threat to wildlife, range management is as well. We are loosing animals and our hunting opportunity to this and it should be addressed at the federal level.


----------



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

I agree it's a BLM forest service problem , but it is the cattlemen causing it. If they wouldn't jump on the feds with their pitchforks and actually work with them in a civil manner things would go better.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Biggest problem with the public lands grazing program is it costs the government at least $2 to receive $1 back. The feds don't want to continue it but unless the Taylor Grazing Act is repealed their hands are tied.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

^^^^ this 1 eye this is why they are cutting AUM's


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

If you'd like 1eye I can send you the legal note I sent in for publication last month on the public land grazing. It is a brief but thorough over view of the problem.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Check your PM's johnnycake...


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

How about another option. Create a voucher system like Wyoming does. If a hunter kills an animal on private land (with permission) they detach the voucher off the tag and give it to the landowner who then gets a kick back for the access.


----------



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

johnnycake said:


> If you'd like 1eye I can send you the legal note I sent in for publication last month on the public land grazing. It is a brief but thorough over view of the problem.


Yeah send it


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

if you give me an email I can send it to you


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I agree it's a BLM forest service problem , but it is the cattlemen causing it. If they wouldn't jump on the feds with their pitchforks and actually work with them in a civil manner things would go better.


You don't think the cattlemen haven't been trying?
The problem is that many of the government workers/decision makers are always changing positions every couple years, so the cattlemen or land owners can and will never be able to develop any type of relationship with any of these government decision makers to work anything out.


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> You don't think the cattlemen haven't been trying?
> The problem is that many of the government workers/decision makers are always changing positions every couple years, so the cattlemen or land owners can and will never be able to develop any type of relationship with any of these government decision makers to work anything out.


I believe they've done a lot of whining down here over the last few years, I don't think I would call what I've seen working with them but more just bitching and moaning. I understand their frustration but if your constantly demeaning local officials for the Forest service and BLM I doubt they will be getting far. Sure policies they have can be an issue, but I've seen a situation where a cattlemen ran his cows in areas where they shouldn't have and a local official "couldn't find" their information to let them graze at all the next season and they never went on The mountain last year. It's butting heads between individuals locally that is partially causing these problems as well.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You make it sound so easy.


----------



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

ridgetop said:


> You make it sound so easy.


It's not easy, but it also is a lot more complicated than need be because everyone on 10 different sides have an agenda.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bottom line :

Utahs ' glorious ' elk days are gone.

Guys sitting on 10 plus elk points---------Life sucks.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Bottom line :
> 
> Utahs ' glorious ' elk days are gone.
> 
> Guys sitting on 10 plus elk points---------Life sucks.


Just curious, with all your doom and gloom why do you even get out of bed in the morning? With the end of life as we know it upon us.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I get out of bed in the moring to go hunting Mcfly...........

Been home for 3 hrs now since friday and headed back out now 
to sit in the turkey blind to see if my youngest boy can pull off a bird with his bow.

And you?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I don't think I want to get out of bed anymore. Nothing worth living for. No elk on the Wasatch, elk hunting is dead. There's no point anymore...


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

martymcfly73 said:


> I don't think I want to get out of bed anymore. Nothing worth living for. No elk on the Wasatch, elk hunting is dead. There's no point anymore...


There's little kitty emoji isn't that worth living for?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Barely...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's not easy, but it also is a lot more complicated than need be because everyone on 10 different sides have an agenda.


I thought that's what the elk committee was set up for. To bring all these issues to the table.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I thought that's what the elk committee was set up for. To bring all these issues to the table.


Now that is just crazy talk. Lets setup another committee to study the other committees.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

martymcfly73 said:


> Now that is just crazy talk. Lets setup another committee to study the other committees.


Kinda like having a meeting to plan a meeting?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Now that is just crazy talk. Lets setup another committee to study the other committees.


Am I missing something?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> Am I missing something?


I'll send you my napkin later


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> I'll send you my napkin later


So are all you guys saying that the original elk committee was just a waste of time?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> So are all you guys saying that the original elk committee was just a waste of time?


Isn't that what you're saying?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Isn't that what you're saying?


 I think that's what one eye is saying.
I'm just asking some questions.
I see your still jealous of ole goofy and his knowledge.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I think that's what one eye is saying.
> I'm just asking some questions.
> I see your still jealous of ole goofy and his knowledge.


 Sorry you lost me at one eye. He won't friend me on facebook so I'm shunning him. I always will be jealous of goof. I wish he would mentor me and show me how to become a man and a true hunter. Maybe one day...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Sorry you lost me at one eye. He won't friend me on facebook so I'm shunning him. I always will be jealous of goof. I wish he would mentor me and show me how to become a man and a true hunter. Maybe one day...


I've tried to get his "real" name with no luck.
He's not the most personable guy around. 
Maybe you can't find a good hacker and make him your friend on facebook.:mrgreen:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> So are all you guys saying that the original elk committee was just a waste of time?


Alls I'm doing is getting some popcorn ready, waiting to see charges pending on my account...


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I've tried to get his "real" name with no luck.
> He's not the most personable guy around.
> Maybe you can't find a good hacker and make him your friend on facebook.:mrgreen:


Good idea. I'll force him to be my friend. BFF's forever.


----------



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

Thanks for sending me that email ridgetop. It was an interesting read and it amazes me how much of a losing battle public land grazing is for the BLM, forest service, wildlife and te taxpayer. It also shows me how much more power our side has in the game and why these few people are so worried about the future of public land grazing. This is our countries problem, our government has to subsidize things that lose millions a year because of laws that were enacted so long ago. I wouldn't want to see grazing go completely away but yeah the system has to change or laws need to be changed to stop wasting money on such an insignificant and harmful industry that is public land grazing. If you could put a ton more wildlife on the land in Utah, with extra tag sells, extra high cost auction tags and more revenue for the DWR, the agency could more easily address private land compensation. 

I never realized how small of an amount of total livestock it actually affects and how much money or federal agencies lose on public land grazing. So not only are we compensating for them with wildlife we have paid big dividends to grow, millions of tax dollars are draining out of the bucket for cheap public land grazing so some can gain profit off of it. The current system really makes no sense, and honestly public land grazing makes no sense at it's current cost.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Thanks for sending me that email ridgetop. It was an interesting read and it amazes me how much of a losing battle public land grazing is for the BLM, forest service, wildlife and te taxpayer. It also shows me how much more power our side has in the game and why these few people are so worried about the future of public land grazing. This is our countries problem, our government has to subsidize things that lose millions a year because of laws that were enacted so long ago. I wouldn't want to see grazing go completely away but yeah the system has to change or laws need to be changed to stop wasting money on such an insignificant and harmful industry that is public land grazing. If you could put a ton more wildlife on the land in Utah, with extra tag sells, extra high cost auction tags and more revenue for the DWR, the agency could more easily address private land compensation.
> 
> I never realized how small of an amount of total livestock it actually affects and how much money or federal agencies lose on public land grazing. So not only are we compensating for them with wildlife we have paid big dividends to grow, millions of tax dollars are draining out of the bucket for cheap public land grazing so some can gain profit off of it. The current system really makes no sense, and honestly public land grazing makes no sense at it's current cost.


Sssshhhh 1eye now you are starting to get the picture. Don't tell anyone!


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

I usually don't stir the pot, but I am feel there is a need to recognize all the cattle and sheep ranchers have done to help wildlife on public land. I come fro a long, rich heritage of ranchers and hunters. We as hunters have to recognize that most of the water holes and troughs were paid for and installed by the different cattlemen associations. The Forest Service didnt put them there. Nor did the BLM. They were put there by ranchers to make sure their cattle had enough water. The ranchers are just kind enough to leave them open to the public for our use and benefit. Ranchers have also done a lot to improve variety and productivity of forage plants for both cattle and sheep. Coincidentally, these same plants helped elk and deer. Elk are a grazer like cattle and sheep are browsers like deer. 

Grazing, when left alone, can do a lot of damage. When done correctly, it does a lot of good for the forest and wildlife. Every year I look at a series of troughs and earthen dams my uncles and grandpas put in on public land through their cattlemen association and have a deep gratitude for what they did and all the deer and elk and grouse they support in an otherwise dry and barren hillside.

Good ranching practices and stewardship of the land is not the enemy like most people think it is. Public access to private to help control game populations sounds to be more of an issue. On that note, you cant blame land owners for being reluctant to allow the public on their land. Most people will treat it with respect. It is the few that ruin in for the rest of us. My family has had fences cut, cattle shot and property vandalized. It gets to be more of a hassle and work than it is worth. If we as sportsmen want to get access to private land to hunt the game our dollars pay to manage and propagate, we have to earn land owners trust back. Until then, it simply WONT happen. We need to respect all lands, public and private before opportunities will open up.

Sorry for the rant. Couldn't take any more bad mouthing of farmers and ranchers.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Just to be clear 1 eye, did ridge send you a paper or did you get us confused? 

Paddle, there definitely have been benefits historically from grazing. Currently, there still is a major benefit from fire risk reduction. However, the detrimental impacts on sensitive riparian areas in the west are well documented, as well as the invasive weeds introduced, and other problems. A huge chunk of the species on the endangered species list are there because of impacts of grazing. That plus the money losing scheme of public grazing today adds up for a need to stop it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Thanks for sending me that email ridgetop. It was an interesting read and it amazes me how much of a losing battle public land grazing is for the BLM, forest service, wildlife and te taxpayer. It also shows me how much more power our side has in the game and why these few people are so worried about the future of public land grazing. This is our countries problem, our government has to subsidize things that lose millions a year because of laws that were enacted so long ago. I wouldn't want to see grazing go completely away but yeah the system has to change or laws need to be changed to stop wasting money on such an insignificant and harmful industry that is public land grazing. If you could put a ton more wildlife on the land in Utah, with extra tag sells, extra high cost auction tags and more revenue for the DWR, the agency could more easily address private land compensation.
> 
> I never realized how small of an amount of total livestock it actually affects and how much money or federal agencies lose on public land grazing. So not only are we compensating for them with wildlife we have paid big dividends to grow, millions of tax dollars are draining out of the bucket for cheap public land grazing so some can gain profit off of it. The current system really makes no sense, and honestly public land grazing makes no sense at it's current cost.


The biggest cattle operation in the US is Deseret. They prefer to use their own private land. I'm willing to bet they might have a dog in this take back the land from the Feds you're so concerned about.


----------



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

johnnycake said:


> Just to be clear 1 eye, did ridge send you a paper or did you get us confused?
> 
> Paddle, there definitely have been benefits historically from grazing. Currently, there still is a major benefit from fire risk reduction. However, the detrimental impacts on sensitive riparian areas in the west are well documented, as well as the invasive weeds introduced, and other problems. A huge chunk of the species on the endangered species list are there because of impacts of grazing. That plus the money losing scheme of public grazing today adds up for a need to stop it.


Sorry I got you two confused, I thought it was him I had talked to, but thank you for sending it over.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> It starts with all parties having a clear understanding of what the actual problem is.
> 
> The problem is not the elk, the problem is that these guys are loosing AUM's to the Feds. The Fed is done with the Cliven bundy's of the world. To them these ranchers who rely on public grazing/water rights are Cliven bundy's. The permits they spoke of as constitutional rights are a thorn in big governments side.
> 
> ...


They basically offer that program already, it is called the "Walk-in-Access" and it serves the same purpose by compensating the landowner for allowing access to hunters for the purpose of taking wildlife off the property to mitigate or reduce their negative impact on cropland or other resources.

The problem is, if your two neighbors get together and have enough land to form a CWMU (5000 for deer, 10,000 for elk I believe), the incentive is MUCH greater to sell some ten tags to high bidders for say, $10,000 each, and allow one tag (10% of their total allotment, with very limited access and restricted dates) to a public drawing to appease the minimum state requirement, then they get to pick and choose how many, which animals, and what level of access there is on their property.

Now, if they had to disclose and pay taxes on funds received for those tags sold, and they then received a reduction in any State or Fed support dollars to their operations proportionate to their income from the State owned animals being harvested by auctioned tags, and equal number of tags were given to the public draw... then you might start to "encourage" open door hunting that would add pressure to redistribute those animals back to public ground. Just some thoughts.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Let the wolves in
Problem solved


----------



## paddlehead (May 30, 2014)

Johnny cake. All I am saying is that if we kick off all of the grazers from public land, say goodbye to all of these beloved watering holes and piped trough systems. The Forest Service sure as heck isnt going to maintain them, upgrade, or replace them. No water. No game. End of story. As far as riparian areas damaged. Yes there has been damage done i the past. However, in most areas, sensitive areas have been fenced off to restrict access to livestock, and troughs for the most part are piped to ridges, and away from riparian areas. This is the modern grazing practice. We humans learn through trial and error most of the time, and almost always through hard knocks. I have never seen a trough in the bottom of a draw near a creek or spring....


----------



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

paddlehead said:


> Johnny cake. All I am saying is that if we kick off all of the grazers from public land, say goodbye to all of these beloved watering holes and piped trough systems. The Forest Service sure as heck isnt going to maintain them, upgrade, or replace them. No water. No game. End of story. As far as riparian areas damaged. Yes there has been damage done i the past. However, in most areas, sensitive areas have been fenced off to restrict access to livestock, and troughs for the most part are piped to ridges, and away from riparian areas. This is the modern grazing practice. We humans learn through trial and error most of the time, and almost always through hard knocks. I have never seen a trough in the bottom of a draw near a creek or spring....


I hope you're kidding. Sportsmen would step up and do it like they've done for the past 2 decades. Water sources would be far less stretched if herds of cattle weren't emptying them. I've watched water holes hold water in areas until the cows get on the mountain and then it's empty within a few days. I'm not discrediting what they do but if public land grazing was ended te BLM and Forest Service wouldn't be losing $40 million a year off it. Wildlife AUMs could be increased and more revenue could be gained by sportsmen for water projects and more.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I have nothing against ranchers or public land grazing for that matter. What I do think needs to change is the status quo of the past 100+ years. Cheap AUMs should be phased out and issued at their real costs. The public should not have to subsidize someone else's chosen livelihood. If ranchers can make it without taxpayer subsidy, then I fully support them. If, on the other hand, a rancher has to depend on taxpayer subsidy to make ends meet, then that is wrong.

And just so no one accuses me of being callous to the plight of ranchers, I support the above philosophy in general across the board- ranching, energy production, etc. - it doesn't matter. Taxpayer funded subsidies need to end, but I'm a realist too, and don't expect subsidies to go away over night. They need to be phased out over time so that those that are impacted have time to cushion the blow and modify their work practices / expectations.


----------



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

MWScott72 said:


> I have nothing against ranchers or public land grazing for that matter. What I do think needs to change is the status quo of the past 100+ years. Cheap AUMs should be phased out and issued at their real costs. The public should not have to subsidize someone else's chosen livelihood. If ranchers can make it without taxpayer subsidy, then I fully support them. If, on the other hand, a rancher has to depend on taxpayer subsidy to make ends meet, then that is wrong.
> 
> And just so no one accuses me of being callous to the plight of ranchers, I support the above philosophy in general across the board- ranching, energy production, etc. - it doesn't matter. Taxpayer funded subsidies need to end, but I'm a realist too, and don't expect subsidies to go away over night. They need to be phased out over time so that those that are impacted have time to cushion the blow and modify their work practices / expectations.


Very well said. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing 40 million a year so a private industry can gain profit. The first service and BLM are already stretched for funding and a net loss of $40 million a year on public land grazing just doesn't work. Either raise razing fees where theyc. An support themselves and the land or get off. I don't pay thousands a year out of pocket on conservation and foot tax bills so a select few can raise their life's logos off of government welfare. If every business got that break no one would make money. I'm not against the lifestyle or the grazing but I also can't stand By and listen to complaint after complaint about elk from a way of life nickle and dining the all of us.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

We sure have had a lot of rain lately. Those wildlife board members that decided they needed to quickly rush to a decision to execute the elk on Indian Peaks due to a pending drought sure do look brilliant. I'm still not positive what the harm would have been in waiting it out until August before signing off on the extermination orders. Oh wait, it's because some ranchers overgraze their cattle out there needed something else to blame it on besides their poor stewardship of the land. Oh yeah and let's not forget the elephant in the room... the wild horses.


----------



## mtnrunner260 (Feb 15, 2010)

I've known and worked with both good and bad grazers. I'd say more good than bad.
We also need to thank the ranchers from the late 1800's / early 1900's for their overgrazing practices which gave the browse species deer depend on a competitive advantage over grasses thus giving us the "hayday" of deer.
Also late winter / early spring, high intensity / short duration grazing can help the fight against cheat grass and other non-native species.
My feeling are we could certainly do a better job of grazing management but the past and current contributions of farmers and ranches can't be overlooked.


----------

