# RAC Meetings



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Anyone attend the Springville meeting last night?

Any Insight on how the voting went?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Proposals were accepted as recommended


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I was out of the state and not able to attend. But I did reach out to every Central RAC member and share my opinion. Had really good dialogue with one. Glad sanity prevailed. 

What was the vote? Was it even close?


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

I was there. Everything went as planned except 1 thing. 

SFW asked for 800 youth any bull tags Vs 500 recommended. It was approved for 650 any bull tags.

They also asked for more deer youth tags, but it didnt pass, said it was too hard to allocate "X" amount of tags to youth after all the other splits they have top do. Over all, it went well. There was one guy that got up to ask a question that turned into a 10 minute rant. I was hoping I would hear you have 3 minute max time limits. Gees, some guys, it was so annoying, then he got back up and went off again on the antlerless tags. I about had it.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

I also attended. The votes on the tag increases received the most attention. Within this general discussion, the deer tag increases on the Manti/San Rafael and LE tag increases on the Wasatch received the most discussion.

Initially, a member of the RAC moved to accept the DWR's recommendations, but only increase the number of tags on Manti/San Rafael by half of the recommended number. That motion failed to pass (4-7). Another member of the RAC then proposed accepting the DWR's entire recommendations regarding mule deer tag increases as proposed. That motion passed unanimously.

As for elk, some of the attendees expressed concern regarding the LE tag increases on the Wasatch. However, the RAC did not appear to share these concerns and voted unanimously to approve the DWR's recommendations regarding LE elk.

The other issue that received some discussion was the new "Private Land Only" (PLO) antlerless elk tag program. The DWR explained the rationale behind this program and showed a series of fascinating slides that highlighted the problem on the Wasatch. Ultimately, the RAC voted unanimously to approve the DWR's recommendations regarding the PLO permits and other antlerless permits.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks for the detailed update guys.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Yes! Thank you for the details.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

So I've attended way too many RACs and Board meetings over the past 20 years and I have to say last night's meeting had one of the oddest moments I've ever seen......

There was some good discussion for most of the meeting. The slides showing the distribution of elk before, during and after the seasons should be seen by every person who cares about the Wasatch.

I was surprise no one at the RAC spoke out against the GS deer permit increases. After the call to arms, I went just to see how many would show up-- the answer was 0.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Packout said:


> There was some good discussion for most of the meeting. The slides showing the distribution of elk before, during and after the seasons should be seen by every person who cares about the Wasatch.


Are these slides available to the public? I'd love to take a look.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

Clarq said:


> Are these slides available to the public? I'd love to take a look.


I am not sure if the slides are currently available to the public, or will be made available to the public? The slides contained the location of GPS-collared elk. They are fairly detailed and it was very easy to identify (1) where the elk are pre-hunts and (2) where they are mid and post-hunts. I am not sure the DWR makes this level of information readily available to the public? However, I agree with Packout, these slides vividly illustrate the issue on the Wasatch and those interested in this issue should view these slides. Perhaps the DWR could remove the base maps from the slides and release the slides in that form?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

How about a brief explanation of what the slides show?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It was a series if 3 slides that showed where the GPS collared elk were found before the season, during the season and after the season. They showed how the elk left public lands during the season-- which is the whole point of issuing private lands only tags. Redistribute the elk through hunting pressure.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

The slides were presented and will be presented at public meetings so it should already be considered public information... I see no reason why they wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't make them available.

My bet is they will be included in the WB Meeting Packet and for those that didn't/couldn't/wouldn't attend a RAC meeting will be able to see them then.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> It was a series if 3 slides that showed where the GPS collared elk were found before the season, during the season and after the season. They showed how the elk left public lands during the season-- which is the whole point of issuing private lands only tags. Redistribute the elk through hunting pressure.


So, the elk were on public hunting grounds prior to the season and after the season but were pressured on to private lands during the season making them unavailable to hunters, right? And, the hope is that by issuing all of these PLO tags (or whatever they are) that the elk will be pressured off the private lands more and back to public lands, correct? Or, at least private landowners will hopefully be held more accountable for their complaints against elk--either allow access for elk hunting, or stop complaining so much about the elk. Is that right?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, the elk were on public hunting grounds prior to the season and after the season but were pressured on to private lands during the season making them unavailable to hunters, right? And, the hope is that by issuing all of these PLO tags (or whatever they are) that the elk will be pressured off the private lands more and back to public lands, correct? Or, at least private landowners will hopefully be held more accountable for their complaints against elk--either allow access for elk hunting, or stop complaining so much about the elk. Is that right?


The mission of these permits as they pertain to the Wasatch unit is three fold. At least this is as far as I understand

1- redistribute the elk through hunting pressure on private property

2- accountability of complaining land owners

3-give the public land elk a 'rest' while still meeting legal requirements for management given current population estimates


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

AWESOME report on the central RAC meeting guys! Thanks.

Anyone know what happened at the Northern region meeting last night?

I'm on Boulder for the rest of the week, LOVE getting these reports on my phone..:!:..8)..


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Don't ya think there should be some kinda refund to we poor bush beaters who hunt public land, only to find out that the majority of the elk read a No Tresspassing Sign and boggie out to a safer but much more expensive plot of land. Like Johnsons Ranch down Fishlake way.Would anyone think the Elk get help getting there? Do you think thats possible?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

No, no different than if a wildfire burns off the entire unit prior to a hunt. Permit is only to allow pursuit of an animal, no guarentee of harvest (or even seeing anything).

My question is how will these new private property only permits be worded? I mean does it say on the permit "good for all BUT public lands" or will it read "John Does Private Property" like the depredation tags? What about season dates?

-DallanC


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

I will say all private lands DallanC. They currently are not tied to any specific private property. If you can get access to it you can hunt it.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

alpinebowman said:


> I will say all private lands DallanC. They currently are not tied to any specific private property. If you can get access to it you can hunt it.


This is correct. The permits will only be valid on private land, but the permit is not tied to any specific private parcel. However, the permit holder must obtain written permission from the landowner to hunt on the private parcel. As for dates, someone more familiar with the program can correct me, but I believe the permits will be valid August through January?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the info. I'm thinking at least a couple of the landowners are going to get clobbered with phone calls, emails and strangers knocking at the door. Wondering how that sort of redirection of time and attention will set.

Maybe we've started this idea off on the wrong foot. Might have been smart to set up some sort of intermediary service.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Southern Region RAC meeting tonight, 5 pm Beaver high school...

I've been spending a little time in, and around Beaver the last week...

I'll be there again Fri/Sat/Sun, Unfortunately , wont be there tonight, or I would go.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Southern Region RAC meeting tonight, 5 pm Beaver high school...
> 
> I've been spending a little time in, and around Beaver the last week...
> 
> I'll be there again Fri/Sat/Sun, Unfortunately , wont be there tonight, or I would go.


I'd like to go just for the entertainment value


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

berrysblaster said:


> I'd like to go just for the entertainment value


Better than most shows in Vegas and it's free admission!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Only thing more entertaining than the RAC meeting tonight would be the turkey hunting.

We've got an extra large pile of birds found there!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

This could be really interesting to see how it works on the Wasatch. Berryblaster you have a card in this hand, what does it looking like for you? Interested to see how the Ford Property and Simmonson Property plays out with these tags...


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

TAK said:


> This could be really interesting to see how it works on the Wasatch. Berryblaster you have a card in this hand, what does it looking like for you? Interested to see how the Ford Property and Simmonson Property plays out with these tags...


These tags are a win win for sportsmen. If they work we have a solution to the problem, if they don't, then a stressed herd gets a rest for a year or more without opening up the division to a lawsuit for not issuing the tags to deal with an in place population.

They also give us time to work towards a higher objective, and longer term solutions if this doesn't work.

I'm all for them, it does open the door for more commercialization of hunting for landowners, but these tags are not permanent and if landowners do charge I'm pretty sure we'd be motivated to continue to give them permits while offering more permits on public ground once the elk are back in place.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Updates on the Southern and Southeastern?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Updates on the Southern and Southeastern?


It's pretty shocking time that they do not and are not required to post minutes from meetings within 24 hours. City and County Councils do this all around the state. Why is it so difficult to find out what happened at a RAC meeting and who voted which way?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Updates on the Southern and Southeastern?


I thought either you or one of your board members would have been there to fill us in.
Let's hear the report.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I thought either you or one of your board members would have been there to fill us in.
> Let's hear the report.


 None of the UWC officers in the Southern Region were able to be at the Southern RAC due to various reasons, but I'll stop by the DWR Office today to talk to Gianni or Stephanie whichever was the recorder.

And we don't have any officers in either the Southeastern nor the Northeastern Regions, but I'll call them on Friday if we don't hear from anyone on this forum.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Per Gianni's internet notes the following changes to the DWR presentations were proposed and passed:

1- General Buck Deer:
a- Beaver Unit - Increase by 75 permits instead of 150. 2016 permits=3,075
b- Southwest Desert - Decrease by 50 instead of remaining the same as 2015. 2016 permits=700.
c- Pine Valley - Split the additional 2016 permits (200) between Archery and Muzzleloaders with no increase in Any Weapon permits. (Overcrowding)
d - Zion - Split the additional 2016 permits (200) between Archery and Muzzleloaders with no increase in Any Weapon permits. (Overcrowding)

2- LE Bull Elk:
a - Mt Dutton - Increase by 25. Propose 90 total permits instead of 75. (I'm not sure of distribution.)
b - Panguitch Lake - Increase by 25. Propose 70 total permits instead of 55. (I'm not sure of distribution.)
(Oops! Sorry! Edited: I'm not sure whether I heard this wrong or Gianni got it wrong, but the numbers don't add up right. In any case, they wanted more bull elk tags than presented.)

3 - General Youth Bull Elk:
a - Add 300 permits to proposal. 2016 - 800 instead of 500.

4 - LE Buck Pronghorn Any Weapon:
a - San Rafael - Add 3 permits to proposal. 2016 - 12 instead of 9.

5 - Action Item:
a - Henry Mountains - Request for report regarding DWR plans for removing all elk from the Henry Mountains.

All other items were passed as presented.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Thanks for the info EFA.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Any word on how the NE RAC went last
night out in Vernal?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> c- Pine Valley - Split the additional 2016 permits (200) between Archery and Muzzleloaders with no increase in Any Weapon permits. (Overcrowding)
> d - Zion - Split the additional 2016 permits (200) between Archery and Muzzleloaders with no increase in Any Weapon permits. (Overcrowding)


Let me see if I have this correct:

rifle hunters show up and complain about proposed increases to tags, and play the "overcrowding" card. RAC then says "we understand and would like to help with the overcrowding issue". So they take the proposed additional 200 tags and say "we'll give them to the archery and muzzleloader group".

AWESOME.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Those weren't rifle hunters asking for that change. Those were trophy hunters asking for that change. And possibly trophy shed hunters and a
photographer or two.....


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

PBH said:


> Let me see if I have this correct:
> 
> rifle hunters show up and complain about proposed increases to tags, and play the "overcrowding" card. RAC then says "we understand and would like to help with the overcrowding issue". So they take the proposed additional 200 tags and say "we'll give them to the archery and muzzleloader group".
> 
> AWESOME.


 The overcrowding argument is mind boggling to me. We have gone from over 200,000 hunters in the 90's to under 90,000 and guys think its over crowded? We have taken the regions and divided them into smaller subunits and controlled hunter access to various areas and guys are complaining about over crowding.

I am tired of selfish, self aggrandizing trophy hunters continuing to push for less and less and less opportunity so that they can sit on the mountain by themselves and not have to worry that some other guy is going to beat them to one of the bucks they have on their hit list.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> The overcrowding argument is mind boggling to me. We have gone from over 200,000 hunters in the 90's to under 90,000 and guys think its over crowded? We have taken the regions and divided them into smaller subunits and controlled hunter access to various areas and guys are complaining about over crowding.
> 
> I am tired of selfish, self aggrandizing trophy hunters continuing to push for less and less and less opportunity so that they can sit on the mountain by themselves and not have to worry that some other guy is going to beat them to one of the bucks they have on their hit list.


It isn't just the "trophy hunters" that are complaining of overcrowding. The majority of hunters out there are doing it and complaining that there are no big bucks left as they are shooting a 2pt.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> The overcrowding argument is mind boggling to me. We have gone from over 200,000 hunters in the 90's to under 90,000 and guys think its over crowded? We have taken the regions and divided them into smaller subunits and controlled hunter access to various areas and guys are complaining about over crowding.
> 
> I am tired of selfish, self aggrandizing trophy hunters continuing to push for less and less and less opportunity so that they can sit on the mountain by themselves and not have to worry that some other guy is going to beat them to one of the bucks they have on their hit list.


 And a much higher percentage of those 200k were hunting North of I-70 too.
I'm willing to bet there is more hunting pressure on the Zion unit now than before Option 2.
I like the idea of giving more tags to the muzzy and archery guys down there on units 29 & 30. Maybe have a 20(archery)/30(muzzy)/50(rifle) percent ratio. Takes less pressure off some of those Pauns. bucks moving onto unit 29 around the second weekend.

About the N.E. region, everything passed as proposed, except for moving the cow hunts a couple weeks back.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I'm willing to bet there is more hunting pressure on the Zion unit now than before Option 2.


I don't hunt Zion, so the comparison may not be ideal, but we do regularly/historically hunt another southern unit. Option 2 notably *reduced* pressure on the general rifle season from what it was before.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

I have hunted Zion all my life. Im all for opportunity but the rifle hunt down here is getting dangerous. A good portion of the unit is private so everybody crowds onto the sands. We used to spread out over the Southern region now were limited . Archery / muzz tags will be really limited for public land also . If the buck to doe ratios call for increases they need to think outside of the box. Dare I say it, increase late muzz tags and maybe a Dec archery hunt when the bucks are available on public land.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

fin little said:


> I have hunted Zion all my life. Im all for opportunity but the rifle hunt down here is getting dangerous. A good portion of the unit is private so everybody crowds onto the sands. We used to spread out over the Southern region now were limited . Archery / muzz tags will be really limited for public land also . If the buck to doe ratios call for increases they need to think outside of the box. Dare I say it, increase late muzz tags and maybe a Dec archery hunt when the bucks are available on public land.


 Or make it (and Panguitch Lake) an Extended Archery Area with a closure during the rifle season. It would be good to have some more Extended Archery Areas in other parts of the state.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Packout said:


> Those weren't rifle hunters asking for that change. Those were trophy hunters asking for that change. And possibly trophy shed hunters and a
> photographer or two.....


The rifle hunt on PV really was an interesting experience. County dirt roads become temporary super highways which form large dust clouds seen for miles around, bringing the air quality of St. George into jeopardy of going over the EPA standards. Its like driving through thick fog while people pass you going 65 miles per hour on a 20' road washboarding dirt road to be the first to their spot. I'm not exagerating...well maybe a little but not much. It could happen on most any unit but PV only has so many water holes on the winter range.



Packout said:


> I was surprise no one at the RAC spoke out against the GS deer permit increases. After the call to arms, I went just to see how many would show up-- the answer was 0.


I just listened to the Southern RAC meeting. I think the Central RAC could take lessons from the Southern RAC on how to treat people that show up to RAC meetings. The last time I went to a central RAC it took some yelling from the crowd to wake the RAC up and acknowledge the existence of the people commenting and waiting for questions to be answered. I think that might have something to do with low Central RAC attendance in my opinion. I was really hoping you would have been one of the new central RAC members!


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

I listened to the Southern RAC minutes last night and am glad they were discussing the Zion unit. It's easy for guys who don't spend time on the unit to blame "trophy hunters" for not wanting to increase tags. That couldn't be further from the truth for most who oppose the increases. The naysayers like to say we had way more hunters in the good ol' days so get over it. The fact is ever since Option 2 was implemented crowding issues have got worse. 

According to DWR stats from the year 2000-2010 there was an average of 2,095 total hunters on the Zion unit each year. They are recommending 3,400 permits this year. That will be 2,040 rifle hunters with the vast majority hunting south of Hwy 9 and east of the NP/Kane,Washington county line. Same goes for the muzzleloader hunt, according to the DWR ever since the muzzy hunt was moved to September the unit averaged 225 muzzy hunters per year prior to Option 2. They are recommending 680 tags this year. That might not sound like much to those who don't know the unit but a 300% increase when 71% of the units summer range is N.P or private doesn't leave much area to put the majority of the tag holders who don't have access to private land. Trespassing issue have jumped dramatically on Websters Flat, Kannarra Mtn.,and Kolob since Option 2 because of guys getting fed up with being so crowded on public land so they say screw it and take their chance on private.

The Zion unit has it's own unique issues and should be managed accordingly(I thought that was the purpose of splitting the units up). Simply raising tag numbers on the 3 existing GS hunts to manage buck to doe ratios will NOT work on this unit. To get ratios down to 20 bucks per hundred does is almost impossible with vast amount of sanctuary and private land. To achieve the objective of 18-20 bucks with the current methods used would require packing public land hunters in like sardines to slaughter the vast majority of bucks on public land to make up for the high ratios on private and N.P.

Like fin little stated we need to think outside the box if getting buck to ratios down is necessary. Some options that could work that come to mind are more late muzzy tags, start an archery hunt that goes for two weeks after the late muzzy hunt ends, possibly splitting the rifle hunt into two seasons, etc..


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> I listened to the Southern RAC minutes last night and am glad they were discussing the Zion unit. It's easy for guys who don't spend time on the unit to blame "trophy hunters" for not wanting to increase tags. That couldn't be further from the truth for most who oppose the increases. The naysayers like to say we had way more hunters in the good ol' days so get over it. The fact is ever since Option 2 was implemented crowding issues have got worse.
> 
> According to DWR stats from the year 2000-2010 there was an average of 2,095 total hunters on the Zion unit each year. They are recommending 3,400 permits this year. That will be 2,040 rifle hunters with the vast majority hunting south of Hwy 9 and east of the NP/Kane,Washington county line. Same goes for the muzzleloader hunt, according to the DWR ever since the muzzy hunt was moved to September the unit averaged 225 muzzy hunters per year prior to Option 2. They are recommending 680 tags this year. That might not sound like much to those who don't know the unit but a 300% increase when 71% of the units summer range is N.P or private doesn't leave much area to put the majority of the tag holders who don't have access to private land. Trespassing issue have jumped dramatically on Websters Flat, Kannarra Mtn.,and Kolob since Option 2 because of guys getting fed up with being so crowded on public land so they say screw it and take their chance on private.
> 
> ...


Very well said!
I also think raising the buck/doe ratio on the Zion or unit 29 to a 22-24/100 ratio would be a good start.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I am no expert on the Zion. I hear the North end has a lot of private and there is a string of hunters on the South end during the rifle hunt hoping to find a Pauns buck. With the permit increases it means there are more hunters afield. 

The Zion has one of the highest success rates for Rifle at 54%. One of the highest archery success rates at 38%. One of the highest Muzzleloader success rates at 42%. One of the highest Dedicated Hunter Success rates at 56%. 

It has the highest Hunter Satisfaction rate for DH, and is within 0.1 of the highest satisfaction rate for all other weapon types.

Even with those high success rates, it is still almost 25% over its current buck to doe ratio.

I hear about crowding complaints on every unit. When the Micro-buck-management came into play, the unit I hunt had a 1,700 permit increase for just rifle hunters. 1,700 was the increase on top! I have heard complaints about crowding on the Deep Creeks and the Vernal and Strawberry and Current Creek and East Canyon, and Box Elder, and SW Des, and the Stansburys, and the Book Cliffs and the Vernon, and the Oak Creeks and the Boulders and the Beaver and the Pahvant, and the Monroe, and the......

Those complaints come after historic low rifle hunting permits. So it is hard to keep hearing that the "crowding" issue played as a way to hold hunting opportunity down. I am confident that the ML and archery will claim the same crowding issue if we start to push a high proportion of permits to those seasons. 

When I was on the Mule Deer Committee I recommended that some units have Unit Wide permits and Private Lands only permits to force pressure onto private lands. Funny enough that some of the same guys wanting permit cuts today were the ones against options to lessen pressure on public lands. 

I don't like the continued eroding of General Season rifle hunters to give it to other hunters-- LE or Archery or ML. It sure appears that the increase of deer numbers comes at a cost......


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Great thoights and comments Fin, Flinger, 
Huntinfanatic and Ridge..Spot on.

I've spent time on those units 
And agree 100%

We are looking at the Beaver unit
this weekend. Saw a few hundred 
deer this morning. 
Fawns looking good. 
The deer are loosing their winter coats now.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout, 
the Zion unit is truly one of the exceptions from the units you listed.
Maybe they can just keep raising tag numbers until the hunter satisfaction and success rates goes down and then start cutting tags but it wouldn't hurt to try and distribute the hunters a little more.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Packout said:


> When I was on the Mule Deer Committee I recommended that some units have Unit Wide permits and Private Lands only permits to force pressure onto private lands. Funny enough that some of the same guys wanting permit cuts today were the ones against options to lessen pressure on public lands.


Spot on observation Mike!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

flinger said:


> The rifle hunt on PV really was an interesting experience. County dirt roads become temporary super highways which form large dust clouds seen for miles around, bringing the air quality of St. George into jeopardy of going over the EPA standards. Its like driving through thick fog while people pass you going 65 miles per hour on a 20' road washboarding dirt road to be the first to their spot. I'm not exagerating...well maybe a little but not much. It could happen on most any unit but PV only has so many water holes on the winter range.


Flinger-- just be glad you havn't had to hunt Public Lands much. : )



ridgetop said:


> Packout,
> the Zion unit is truly one of the exceptions from the units you listed.
> Maybe they can just keep raising tag numbers until the hunter satisfaction and success rates goes down and then start cutting tags but it wouldn't hurt to try and distribute the hunters a little more.


I guess I disagree and agree. I already said I was trying/willing to redistribute pressure within the unit. Now somehow a 6% increase in tags is pushing the crowding over top? And those stats tell a different story than the one being told at the RACs.

We are already seeing the increases in tags get distributed away from the General Any Weapon season-- ie 1000 Lakes and South Slope. Now the Zion is asking for a lower Any Weapon Split. The Pine Valley wants the same. A similar "Zion" case could be made for the Box Elder, Morgan, Ogden, East Canyon, 9 Mile, etc units as they face similar access issues.

All these increases in bucks should equate to an increase in opportunity for every type of hunter, but some are boxing the increase up for only LE, Archery or ML hunters. Now we are growing deer it seems we can't increase permits for everyone.

As for the 22-24 buck/doe idea-- That bridge has been hammered to death through Committee, RAC and Board meetings. Going to 22-24 is essentially LE status. If that is what people want then by all means let's do it and just make it another LE at 25 bucks per 100 doe. That should cut tags from 3,200 to 600 and make all the crowded people feel less crowded when they get to hunt.

I just look at the precedent being set, take hunting opportunity away from one group (the largest group by far) and give it to another group, and see that becoming the norm one cut at a time. We are already giving 25% of the opportunity to 15% off the applicants. Now that is getting bumped up to 30% of the hunting opportunity to 15% of the applicants....


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Packout said:


> When I was on the Mule Deer Committee I recommended that some units have Unit Wide permits and Private Lands only permits to force pressure onto private lands.


That would have been a perfect tool for a few units in the state. It is interesting that people concerned about public land hunt pressure wouldn't go for this. I have no access to private on Zion, but I would think the hunting experience would be much better on the Zion unit as a public hunter if this tool were available and being used. If the Option 2 folks think about it a little more, it's like splitting the units up into even smaller subunits! Whats not to like about it? Even Colorado does this, why can't Utah?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

flinger said:


> That would have been a perfect tool for a few units in the state. It is interesting that people concerned about public land hunt pressure wouldn't go for this. I have no access to private on Zion, but I would think the hunting experience would be much better on the Zion unit as a public hunter if this tool were available and being used. If the Option 2 folks think about it a little more, it's like splitting the units up into even smaller subunits! Whats not to like about it? Even Colorado does this, why can't Utah?


This thread may shed some light on the private land tags and the misunderstanding on the subject. It will take a very good salesman.

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/148225-12k-private-cow-tags-question.html


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> Flinger-- just be glad you havn't had to hunt Public Lands much. : )
> 
> I guess I disagree and agree. I already said I was trying/willing to redistribute pressure within the unit. Now somehow a 6% increase in tags is pushing the crowding over top? And those stats tell a different story than the one being told at the RACs.
> 
> ...


Mike, your talking apples and oranges here.
The Zion units currently has a 24.7 three year average right now. Even with a 22-24/100 ratio, more tags could be given out because it's still over ratio this year. How you come up with cutting 2,600 tags and dropping it to 600, is beyond me.
Also, the current LE ratio's are 25-35/100, which is too wide of a range IMHO. You can be at a 26 ratio and increase to a 34 ratio with no increase in tags because it's still within ratio. I think LE ratio's could be tighten up to around 27-32/100. 
To keep the rifle hunter ratio at 60%. How about a split season, with 20% hunting the same time as the rifle elk hunt and 40% hunting the regular 3rd weekend in Oct.
I would think half of the elk hunters would try and get one of those deer tags during the same time period, which wouldn't cause that much more over crowding. 
Just trying to think outside the box a little.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- I am just expressing my opinion as it relates to the current management strategies in the current situation. 

I highly doubt you will see them implement a 22-24 BD number or a 27-32 LE BD number until this Plan runs out in 4 years. And after that I doubt you will see those numbers- based off the input I have seen over the past decade+ being involved with the process. I might be wrong-- but the input has always been that 22-24 was too close to LE and 25-35 was the desired window to protect the LE herd. (You might see 30-35 for LE if quality takes precedence) There is a history with all this and that is what I base my opinion on.

Now, next year there could be a push to place the Zion in LE (which has an avenue for such in the Plan). The UDWR numbers (what objectives and tags are based on) showed in 2014 the Zion had around 15,000 deer. Here is why the number I gave isn't beyond me. The South Slope Diamond Mtn had 12,000 deer and 125 permits. The Book Cliffs had 9,000 deer and 450 permits. So 600 is a possibility. Maybe 1,600. Either way it is a huge cut and you won't see 3,200 under that LE avenue. I'm just saying that if people want to push the Zion to 25+ bucks per 100 doe then the only way to do that is placing it in LE and comparable units show that hunting opportunity is reduced significantly. I know this isn't what you are wanting, but there are people out there who do want that.

A split season may be an option-- the BucksBull combo type split season was run on a limited hunter basis and wouldn't necessarily deal with the crowding issues unless they placed a larger portion of tags into that season. I know there is a lot of worry that the guys getting first crack at the bucks would get the best (that may be true for some higher country units, but probably not most units). 

Again, here is my worry about decisions made today. We are in a growth period and as such we can offer more permits. Now more permits can be offered we are seeing an attempt to erode the opportunity of some to hunt. Some are wanting no permit increases, some want to increase objectives to stagnate growth, some want to give the increase to a certain group. What happens when the growth stagnates or declines? I just don't like seeing a precedent set which can further complicate issues in the future. And right now "Crowding" is the card being played. 

Anyway, that is just my opinion. I'm not a product of the current political hate and arguing-- I can agree to disagree and my way isn't the only one. I just post here to help people think and be somewhat informed to different points of view. Thanks for the insight and discussion.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It will be interesting to see what 
the board approves next week.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> It will be interesting to see what
> the board approves next week.


It sure will, and since 2 of the current Board members (Steve and Byron) were on the Mule Deer Committee and both supported the plan as presented at that time, it'll tell us a lot about where we're headed with trophies AND opportunity.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm guessing general season deer tags get increased close to the DWR proposal, if not accepted as proposed.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> It will be interesting to see what
> the board approves next week.


I've got my money on approved as presented.

The only changes that might happen is the push to move some rifle permits to muzz since muzz now has the option of a variable scope. I'm ok with this. It gives 'rifle only' guys a viable option to shift methods and seasons. It also comes across to me as a way to better balance the pressure between seasons. Especially if success rates come back next year without a huge increase.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> It will be interesting to see what
> the board approves next week.


When is the WB meeting?


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Thursday, April 28th.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Who is planning on attending the WB meeting?


----------

