# I400



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Call me lame (maybe I should know this) but what is this I400 that everyone keeps mentioning?


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Since you're a bow hunter you'll like it. Seems a bunch of bow hunters are upset that the rifle hunters get to hunt bulls in the LE areas during the best time and want to change it so they get to hunt during that time.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

I400 is a reference to the management strategy of Utah's elk herds since the start of the spike-only units. This was an excellent path and has created the world's best trophy elk hunting in areas of Utah.

The problem is that managing most of the state's excellent elk areas for huge bulls has created a situation where a hunter who begins applying at age 14 has only a 50% chance of drawing a limited entry tag by age 65 on many units. In other words, for about half of the applicants it's a once in a lifetime draw. Many new hunters, the rising generation, will never be able to draw.

Many hunters feel that the average Joe isn't necessarily looking for a 380+ bull. Many LE tags are filled with mature 6x6 bulls in the younger age ranges. The thought behind Initiative 400 is to pilot a new management strategy on a few of the spike-only units. The general season spike tags would be eliminated in order to maintain a good population of bulls, and the units would be managed for mature bulls in the approximate 5 year old age class. In other words, the units would be managed for 320-350 class bulls instead of 370+, and tag numbers would be adjusted so that hunters could draw an LE tag every 3-5 years instead of once in a lifetime.

This is only proposed for some units, so that the elk management strategy would offer something for everyone more like deer hunting is currently. In other words, some units would be premium for 370+ bulls, some units would be standard LE for 320+ bulls, and other areas will remain general season. This will also allow more hunters to move through the system, decreasing the number of years it takes to draw other tags.

In other words, it's a proposal to allow more hunters to enjoy the state's excellent elk hunting for big bulls more than once (or possibly never) in their lives. It is also being driven by the fact that most of the spike-only units are suffering from bull to cow ratios that are too high, which endangers the health of the herds. These units have also proven to be currently exceeding the age objectives for mature bulls, so the concept of increasing the harvest of bulls is not only good for hunters that enjoy chasing bigger elk, but for the elk themselves.

The strategy does have some key benefits to bow hunters, as was mentioned. Since archery hunters have a lower success rate, the proposed number of archery tags on I400 units is high. Archers will have the best odds of quickly and repeatedly drawing LE tags, but rifle and muzzleloader hunters will also have greatly improved chances compared to the current system. Because today's strategy is once in a lifetime, many bow hunters apply for rifle LE tags to make sure they can harvest a bull. With I400, if you don't get one you'll be able to hunt again in a few years instead of in 20+.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

This is the meat of I400



threshershark said:


> The problem is that managing most of the state's excellent elk areas for huge bulls has created a situation where a hunter who begins applying at age 14 has only a 50% chance of drawing a limited entry tag by age 65 on many units. In other words, for about half of the applicants it's a once in a lifetime draw. Many new hunters, the rising generation, will never be able to draw.
> 
> Many hunters feel that the average Joe isn't necessarily looking for a 380+ bull. Many LE tags are filled with mature 6x6 bulls in the younger age ranges. The thought behind Initiative 400 is to pilot a new management strategy on a few of the spike-only units. The general season spike tags would be eliminated in order to maintain a good population of bulls, and the units would be managed for mature bulls in the approximate 5 year old age class. In other words, the units would be managed for 320-350 class bulls instead of 370+, and tag numbers would be adjusted so that hunters could draw an LE tag every 3-5 years instead of once in a lifetime.
> 
> ...


And this is the pork barrel



threshershark said:


> The strategy does have some key benefits to bow hunters, as was mentioned. Since archery hunters have a lower success rate, the proposed number of archery tags on I400 units is high. Archers will have the best odds of quickly and repeatedly drawing LE tags, but rifle and muzzleloader hunters will also have greatly improved chances compared to the current system. Because today's strategy is once in a lifetime, many bow hunters apply for rifle LE tags to make sure they can harvest a bull. With I400, if you don't get one you'll be able to hunt again in a few years instead of in 20+.


I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.


Please explain this assertion!

PRO


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.
> 
> 
> Please explain this assertion!
> ...


Are you really asking for an explanation because you don't understand or because you object to what I said? Because I'll explain it if you don't understand but I don't want to get into an argument if you simply object to what I said.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

marksman said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > > I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.
> ...


I honestly have no understanding of how I400 is/has thrown "extra junk" in to please certain contributors. I have no idea what "extra junk" you are talking about, and I have no idea who the "certain contributors" are.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Are you really asking for an explanation because you don't understand or because you object to what I said?


I would like to know what you are saying. I dont understand.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Ok then, I think the main idea of I400 is to remove spike tags to increase the number of tags that can be sold for hunting larger bulls, I think this is a good idea. However I400 also has this idea that we can sell more archery and fewer rifle tags. I think this idea is not directly releated to the idea of adjusting spike tags. I think it was thrown in as a perk to bow hunters because most of the main contributors to the plan are bow hunters. 

The government does this alot it's called "pork barrel" it's why you will see bills on the floor of congress that say they are highway bills but have funding for farm subsidies. The farm subsidy was added to the bill not because it was related but because one of the bills writers has agricutural constituants.

I think that the additional tags for archery hunters is in I400 not because it belongs but because alot of the proposal's advocates are archery hunters themselves.

I know you will disagree and as I said I don't want to get into a fight about it. So as long as you understand what I am saying then it's all I have to say.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I am not one of the "founders" of I-400, but my understanding is they want to issue more archery tags because of the much lower success rates. You can give out a lot more tags at 20% success rate vs. 85% success rates. More tags=more opportunity. I am not as knowledgeable as others in this regard, but I don't see how anyone could argue these simple numbers.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

To add to my last post, taking the rifle hunt out of the middle of the rut will decrease the success rates for rifle hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification Mark. While I will respect your desire to not "debate" this with you, I WILL clarify a few things for you and others.

I400 started based on a question asking how can we get more LE elk tags issued. The intial comment that started I400 stated there were *TWO* things that could be done.

1)Eliminate spike tags
2)Move the rifle hunt out of September(the peak of the rut).

From this we grew to where we are now. Those who have been involved from the beginning have learned tons about game managment, biology, Utah elk numbers, Utah hunter numbers, and many other stuff. What we soon discovered was that there was/is resistance to change, I know like I should be surprised. The ONLY motive we have ever had/discussed as to lowering the percentage of total tags to rifle and more to muzzy/archery was/is too lower the overall success rates which will enable MORE overall tags to be issued, even rifle hunters will see a major INCREASE in tag numbers under I400. So, I fail to see where we did ANYTHING to accomadate "certain contributors". I am as big of an archery advocate as any one out there, but I have continually gone on record to make sure we have not made this an archery driven proposal. It boils down to the FACT that the number ONE way to give out more tags w/o hurting quality and quanity is to issue more of the tags to primitive weapon hunters. That is cut and clear. Like HOGAN has said, many who currently apply for LE rifle will jump ship to one of the primitve seasons because it will no longer be basically a once in a lifetime hunt.

PRO


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

Sorry I said I was done but I guess I simply can't help myself. 

If you consider my highway bill example. I'm not saying that farm subsidies are bad but what are they doing in a bill about funding highway's? The idea is that the bill writer knows that highway funding is a necessity and it will pass so he throws the unpopular farm subsidy in hoping it will ride the highway fundings coat tails.

I personally disagree with the idea of removing tags from the majority and granting extra tags to the minority. However I don't want to argue that. What I am trying to say is the two are not intrinsically tied together. If you think the archery tag adjustment is a good idea make it into it's own proposal. Have I400 that removes spike tags, and I401 that grants a higher percentage of tags to archery. Why not let each idea stand on it's own?


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> I am not one of the "founders" of I-400, but my understanding is they want to issue more archery tags because of the much lower success rates. You can give out a lot more tags at 20% success rate vs. 85% success rates. More tags=more opportunity.


This is exactly right. There will be more muzzleloader tags, more rifle tags, and more archery tags with I400. The tag numbers for each were determined by harvest and herd objectives. Archery hunters have a lower success rate, which is why many hunters who prefer archery actually apply for rifle LE tags today. They don't want a 20 or 30% success rate on a once-in-a-lifetime tag. More archery tags is a function of the success rates with that weapon, and it creates fairness because by the odds bow hunters need an average of 3-4 hunts to harvest an animal. Today, that would take 100 years if you had some luck. Rifle and muzzleloader hunts have very high success rates, which by definition means the number of tags needs to be closer to the harvest objective.


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

OK, Maybe it is a good idea. Why not let it stand no it's own? If it's such a good idea it should be easier to pass if it's not tied to the less popular spike reduction idea.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

marksman said:


> OK, Maybe it is a good idea. Why not let it stand no it's own? If it's such a good idea it should be easier to pass if it's not tied to the less popular spike reduction idea.


There you go confusing me again.  I am at a loss as to why making two proposals would be 'better/easier' than one that encompasses bith as part of ONE plan. The two are tied together, it would be much less effective to do one w/o the other.

PRO


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

marksman said:


> If you think the archery tag adjustment is a good idea make it into it's own proposal. Have I400 that removes spike tags, and I401 that grants a higher percentage of tags to archery. Why not let each idea stand on it's own?


Your logic is very good here. To better understand why I400 is structured exactly the way it is, it might help to have the context.

I400 was developed with a bunch of objectives in mind, such as lowering bull to cow ratios. Many states have experimented with spike-only management and it is widely known at this point that it's not a wise long-term strategy. It did work for the intended purposes, but it's been in place so long that we are seeing some unintended consequences. Mainly however, the movement started because of a core concept: The LE system is broken, because it is being managed for world class trophy animals across the board. With supply and demand where they are, residents of Utah who would like to hunt mature bulls have such low odds of doing so that it will either never happen or may happen once in their lives. The initiative started around the concept that people should be able to hunt mature bulls every 3-5 years, if they are after a nice mature bull and don't necessarily want 370+ animals.

Tag numbers, for all weapons, were chosen around herd and harvest objectives but also around targets which will permit successful LE drawing odds every 3-5 years. The whole package, including the archery opportunities, are needed to make this happen.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...it is not posting everything I am writing...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I copied this information from a recent RAC meeting from a DWR biologist. The information was presented "to inform the public about how we manage deer and elk populations and why we manage them the way we do." 
*Utah Elk management *
o * We Manage elk in 4 ways *:
1)Any bull units
2)Limited entry only
3)Limited entry with spike bull hunt
4)Limited entry with management bull 
Distribution
1)Any bull--15
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--10
3)Limited entry only--15
4)Limited entry with management bull--4
Opportunity
1)Any bull--high
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--low/high
3)Limited entry only--low
4)Limited entry with management bull--low/medium
Quality
1)Any bull--medium
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--high/low
3)Limited entry only--high
4)Limited entry with management bull--high/medium
Bull:cow ratio
1)Any bull--low
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--low
3)Limited entry only--high
4)Limited entry with management bull--medium
Reproductive potential
1)Any bull--high
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--high
3)Limited entry only--Low
4)Limited entry with management bull--medium


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

I guess I disagree I think that having them tied together you run the risk of both ideas being rejected because the other is unpopular. If you belive they are both good ideas then splitting them will actaully double your chances of getting at least half of your ideas passed. Also it would make each individual change smaller and easier for a change resistant public easier to swallow. It would also allow you to focus your efforts into one smaller change at a time. Maybe it would ge easier for you to get them both through if you took smaller steps instead of trying to achive all your objective in one grand leap.

I'm not going to lie to you I think you should split them because I think one is a good idea and the other one not. But even if you think they are both good ideas I think you could get them passed easier if you split them.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

I like how I400 goes dormant for 3 months and then 2 threads take off like no other. Thanks Marksman for the thoughts. The way you present them and discuss the matter is respectable and will be taken to heart.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I like how I400 goes dormant for 3 months and then 2 threads take off like no other.


hunting season


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

1400 is one of the hottest topics and its great to see all the discussion about it


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

+1 Dang yote that is twice now I have agreed with you today. Got to stop a making habbit of that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

threshershark said:


> I400 was developed with a bunch of objectives in mind, such as lowering bull to cow ratios. Many states have experimented with spike-only management and it is widely known at this point that it's not a wise long-term strategy. It did work for the intended purposes, but it's been in place so long that we are seeing some unintended consequences. Mainly however, the movement started because of a core concept: The LE system is broken, because it is being managed for world class trophy animals across the board. With supply and demand where they are, residents of Utah who would like to hunt mature bulls have such low odds of doing so that it will either never happen or may happen once in their lives. The initiative started around the concept that people should be able to hunt mature bulls every 3-5 years, if they are after a nice mature bull and don't necessarily want 370+ animals.


sorry, Thresher, but much of what you are saying is simply not true. Many states have used spike only management and it has and continues to be an effective management strategy. If you look at our spike units you would see that they offer high amounts of opportunity while maintaining high quality. You said earlier that spike units have bull/cow ratios that are too high...this is NOT true. The units with bull/cow ratios that are too high are those that do NOT have spike hunts. Spike hunting has proven to be a method of mangement that protects some of the bulls and allows them to grow into mature bulls without eliminating general season opportunity. You mention "unintended" consequences of this type of mangement...what are they?

I disagree with the above quote totally....spike management is a good long-term strategy because it allows for a lot of general season opportunity without harming quality. It is a way of thinning the carrots and it has proven to be effective not only in Utah but in other states...

I400 was started because some hunters dislike the idea that more spikes are being killed on spike units than mature bulls...these hunters want to increase the opportunity of hunters to kill mature bulls. I have no problem with this desire; I too would like to increase the opportunity of hunters to shoot mature bulls. However, to state that spike management style does NOT work and is NOT working is false. As is, our current management of elk is not moving people through the system to appease everybody...but that has NOTHING to do with sound biology or effective elk management; that is people management.

The biology of our current elk management plan also does not attempt to manage for quality animals across the board; that is false. Utah manages elk under four different plans--as I posted earlier. These plans attempt to accomodate trophy hunters, meat hunters, and casual hunters alike. The problem that the DWR has been seeing and with Utah elk hunting right now is that hunters misunderstand the objectives and the consequences of certain problems. For example, the DWR's plan is to manage LE units with spike hunting to have low bull/cow ratios; however, the ratios on these units are comparitively higher than any bull units that also are managed for "low" bull/cow ratios. This, in turn, has resulted in other problems--higher bull/cow ratios has also meant a lower reproductive capability of the herd which has further reduced opportunity. I believe the DWR recognizes the problems associated with the elk herds and are attempting to educate people on needs and objectives of our elk plan...that is why they said: "Over the years, there has been some disagreement among the Divison of Wildlife Resources, RAC and Board members, and the public on how deer and elk should be managed in UTah. WE feel that this disagreement is largely because the Division of Wildlife Resources has not adequately provided information describing the purpose of different types of elk and deer management and what each type is designed to accomplish. As such, we will be presenting an informational item discussing deer and elk populations and why we manage them the way we do. Additonally, we will be discussing the advantages/disadvantages of different types of deer and elk management." I believe the DWR is doing what needs to be done to get the increases in LE tags that is needed and that many hunters want. I think continued efforts to educate the public will allow the DWR to continue increasing LE permits and will allow the DWR to reach management objectives. In other words, I believe strongly that we are already on the right track to accomplish the very things I400 wants to do...and we are doing it without revamping the system or making dramatic changes.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> As is, our current management of elk is not moving people through the system to appease everybody...but that has NOTHING to do with sound biology or effective elk management; that is people management.


I400 is "sound biology" and addresses the people managenet 'issues' MUCH better than what we have now!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > As is, our current management of elk is not moving people through the system to appease everybody...but that has NOTHING to do with sound biology or effective elk management; that is people management.
> 
> 
> I400 is "sound biology" and addresses the people managenet 'issues' MUCH better than what we have now!


Our current management of elk is not moving people through the system to appease everybody...I don't doubt that. But, it is not because of our management plan. We are not following the plan as closely as we should because the general public misunderstands the objectives and consequences of certain strategies. This is the exact reason why the DWR has been conducting informational presentations at RAC meetings. So that the current plan can address these problems better.

I400 may address the people problem from a plan standpoint, but like the current plan, will the public allow it to happen as you have outlined? What makes you believe that the public will allow so many more LE tags to be issued when they don't allow it now?

You are asking for changes to the current system...I am asking that the current system be followed down to its original intent. I believe the plan is not only sound but very good...but we have to allow the DWR to stick to it...or, it won't work!


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo,

No surprise, I've never seen you agree with anything I've said but I love ya anyway.

I'm not a full time biologist, and I haven't examined spike only reports for every state with elk populations. I know that this concept is and has been used in Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in addition to Utah. My admittedly small amount of exposure to research about the programs is that several are being phased out, having been considered temporary management tactics to increase trophy quality while still allowing general season hunting to take place. Washington has phased out several programs although they still have spike regulations in the Eastern part of the state. Spike-only management is a way to permit meat hunting while improving quality, which progresses towards maintaining bull to cow ratios via the correct numbers of LE tags.

Saying that any management strategy "works" can be supported depending simply on what the objectives are. Right now Utah's strategy is working great, if your objective is to have most of the mature bulls die of old age, while offering a small percentage of resident hunters 1 or fewer chances in their lifetimes to experience what elk hunting truely is: Hunting a mature, representative animal via fair chase on public land for a reasonable license fee. Yes, hunting is a great tradition and chances at spikes does provide the opportunity. My opinion is that no one stragety is universally applicable, and that units and herds should be managed to objectives which maximize benefit the animals and the hunting community. The hunting of mature bulls is far too great an experience to be offered only to the lucky few and the extravagant rich. Eliminating spike regs where it makes sense (and keeping or adding them where it makes sense) is sound management in my mind.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

threshershark said:


> Saying that any management strategy "works" can be supported depending simply on what the objectives are. Right now Utah's strategy is working great, if your objective is to have most of the mature bulls die of old age, while offering a small percentage of resident hunters 1 or fewer chances in their lifetimes to experience what elk hunting truely is: Hunting a mature, representative animal via fair chase on public land for a reasonable license fee. Yes, hunting is a great tradition and chances at spikes does provide the opportunity. My opinion is that no one stragety is universally applicable, and that units and herds should be managed to objectives which maximize benefit the animals and the hunting community. The hunting of mature bulls is far too great an experience to be offered only to the lucky few and the extravagant rich. Eliminating spike regs where it makes sense (and keeping or adding them where it makes sense) is sound management in my mind.


1) Again, Utah's strategy is NOT to allow old bulls to die without being hunted...that is NOT the plan. That is what happens because the RAC members, the Board, and the public misunderstand the consequences of certain actions. The problem is NOT the plan, the problem is the public. The plan calls for lower bull/cow ratios than what we have, but we are NOT following the plan. You cannot say that this is Utah's strategy; it is not.

2) I, too, want to increase mature bull hunting opportunity; the DWR wants to increase mature bull hunting opportunity. But, not at the expense of general season opportunity. We can and should do this under the current elk strategy, but the RACS and the Board is shutting this down.

3) Right now we are NOT managing elk the same across the board; again, that statement is false. We have 4 different management strategies, not one.

4) Where does eliminating spike tags make sense? To me, it doesn't anywhere because it eliminates opportunity and our bull/cow ratios are too high to not kill these bulls. This is true on all LE units. If anything, we should be adding spike hunting to premium units to help thin the carrots and reduce bull/cow ratios.

5) Again, instead of trying to change the system and inventing new problems, why not follow the current system how it is designed? Why not manage LE units with spike only general hunts with lower bull/cow ratios? Why not increase LE permits in these units to help move hunters through the system? Why not increase LE permits on premium units as well to lower bull/cow ratios and move hunters through the system? This is what our plan is calling for...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Where does eliminating spike tags make sense? To me, it doesn't anywhere because it eliminates opportunity and our bull/cow ratios are too high to not kill these bulls. This is true on all LE units. If anything, we should be adding spike hunting to premium units to help thin the carrots and reduce bull/cow ratios.


If the bull/cow ratios are "fine" on these five pilot units as YOU state, why do we NEED to continue issuing spikes as opposed to just issuing more mature tags w/o issuing spike tags to 'maintain the bull/cow ratios? We can then 'move' the spike tasg to those units with too high of bull/cow ratios. That way, those who desire to hunt spikes still can, but those who desire to huint mature bulls will have MORE opportunity to do so. I agree with your comments saying more tags could/should be increased across the board. That still is limited due to the EXTREMELY high success rates enjoyed by the rifle hunters. This MUST be addressed IMHO in order to address the 'people problem'. As long as success rates are this high, the number of tags available will be unnecassarily(sp) be 'limited'.

And, for the uptnth time, it WILL be easier to get this through on FIVE units than on ALL 28 units. That is obvious.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> ) Again, instead of trying to change the system and inventing new problems, why not follow the current system how it is designed? Why not manage LE units with spike only general hunts with lower bull/cow ratios? Why not increase LE permits in these units to help move hunters through the system? Why not increase LE permits on premium units as well to lower bull/cow ratios and move hunters through the system? This is what our plan is calling for


Wyo2ut, this statement you are talking about is a bandaid. If we simply increase LE permits across the board then sooner or later we will have to reduce the number of tags and we will be right back where we started from. WHY? Because the rifle hunt success rate is so high that it doesnt allow for a lot of escapment and if you are killing spikes at the same time then you run out of bulls twice as fast.

THIS IS FROM THE ELK MANAGMENT PLAN
*Recreation Objective 2: Increase opportunities for hunting of mature bulls on units with
limited entry permits without greatly reducing quality.
Implications: Implementation of the strategies listed below will result in increased hunting
opportunity without greatly reducing quality.
Strategies:
a. Reduce the cap on spike bull units and consider reducing season length to allow more
yearling bulls to advance to older age classes.
b. Maintain three categories of age class objectives and reduce the age class objective on the
middle and highest categories.
c. Provide a late season rifle elk hunting opportunity away from the rut that will reduce
harvest rates and thereby increase future hunting opportunity.
d. Continue to encourage primitive weapon opportunities that provide hunting opportunity
with reduced harvest rates.*


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Where does eliminating spike tags make sense?


IMO, it makes sense anywhere you want to harvest increased numbers of mature animals instead of yearlings. The spikes are allowed to mature, and provide the base for bigger increases in LE tag numbers than spike + LE in tandem. That's the drive of I400: Allow more bulls to mature and then harvest more mature bulls.

BTW I agree with your points about the RAC/Board tying the hands of wildlife management. You have a point there. I still strongly believe that there are many desires among sportsmen. Some want to hunt antlerless, others spikes, many mature bulls (as evidenced by the number of applicants for LE tags), and then there's a group that wants premium quality. I don't see solutions to that in what you've outlined. We need areas managed for each. Right now for deer you can apply for Henry Mts if you want incredibly low odds but a fantastic trophy hunt. You can throw your cards in on numerous LE units where quality is solid, but the odds are you can obtain a tag every 5 years or so. Then we have the general season areas.

Without the promotion of spikes, I don't see how sufficient numbers of mature bulls would be made available for harvest to impact LE drawing odds significantly. Do you have proposed numbers of LE tag increases which would result in successful draw in 3-5 years on average?


----------



## Goldtip (Oct 14, 2007)

*Why shoot the horse that is working for you.*

I have been in this game a long time, and as far as elk, sheep, moose, mnt goat and turkeys go, Utah hunters have never had it so good. Our deer herds are the real question mark in all of the cutting of the pie and where are they considered in I400?

It has been my experience that our elk herds have become world class due to the current management scheme. We are seeing increases in permits in all LE units for elk and what is more important is that the numbers are sustainable and increasing year to year. Managing wildlife is a fickle game, up one year and gone the next. Our elk are expanding into the open units and place we do not even allow elk hunting. In my opinion the elk management program is working with far superior results as compared to the cooperative wildlife management unit program, which was touted to give more hunter opportunity, and has just become an exclusive private club to harvest state owned animals at exorbitant prices. I have seen the catastrophic results when we decide to open up limited entry areas to un-limit permits. Blue Mountain, Range Creek and Fish Lake come to mind.

I do not have a problem if we take two units, say Wasatch and Fish lake, and giving I400 theories a chance to prove their worth. But I do not buy the argument that we throw out the baby with the bath-water, because little Billy did not get a limited entry bull elk tag on his sixteenth birthday. I also do not buy the argument that all hunters should be able to hunt a mature bull elk on a limited entry tag every three to five years.

The long term plan should be to give every hunter a chance at a quality hunt every five to seven years and that should include all of our big game animals. Deer, elk, antelope, bear cougar, moose etc. Lets look at all species and find ways to increase the resource, so that we can take the pressure of the deer and elk. There is no reason why Utah should not have more antelope than Wyoming and Montana combined.

Water is the most limiting factor in our wildlife dilemma. We cried about how bad the cattle and sheep men where to wildlife, but at least they improved the water resources in marginal habitat.

Again I ask, Why shoot the horse that brought you.......Goldtip


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> The long term plan should be to give every hunter a chance at a quality hunt every five to seven years


That is exactly what I400 is all about!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> If the bull/cow ratios are "fine" on these five pilot units as YOU state, why do we NEED to continue issuing spikes as opposed to just issuing more mature tags w/o issuing spike tags to 'maintain the bull/cow ratios?
> 
> We can then 'move' the spike tasg to those units with too high of bull/cow ratios. That way, those who desire to hunt spikes still can, but those who desire to huint mature bulls will have MORE opportunity to do so.
> 
> I agree with your comments saying more tags could/should be increased across the board. That still is limited due to the EXTREMELY high success rates enjoyed by the rifle hunters. This MUST be addressed IMHO in order to address the 'people problem'. As long as success rates are this high, the number of tags available will be unnecassarily(sp) be 'limited'.


1) That's easy...to allow more opportunity. We can offer far more spike tags than we could ever offer mature tags. It allows for more general season opportunity and allows for more people to enjoy the sport.

2) I have a bit of a problem with the idea of switching spike tags around every few years. One of the big pushes in game and fish management in Utah right now is for the simplification of regulations. Our wildlife officials feel that the increased complexity of fishing and hunting regulations have helped lead people away from the sport. By switching these regulations from unit to unit, you would be complicating a simple regulation. I don't believe you will ever get this to fly.

3) I agree with what you are saying and am personally don't care whether the hunt dates are changed. If you could reasonably lower success rates on the LE rifle hunts, you could give out more tags and move more people through the system...I agree with this concept. However, I think one of the big draws of our rifle hunt and one reason so many people like it is because it is a high success rut hunt. This is part of the hunt's appeal...again, you would be making and exceptionally unpopular proposal with this idea. But, I could live with this type of change...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

threshershark said:


> IMO, it makes sense anywhere you want to harvest increased numbers of mature animals instead of yearlings. The spikes are allowed to mature, and provide the base for bigger increases in LE tag numbers than spike + LE in tandem. That's the drive of I400: Allow more bulls to mature and then harvest more mature bulls.
> 
> BTW I agree with your points about the RAC/Board tying the hands of wildlife management. You have a point there. I still strongly believe that there are many desires among sportsmen. Some want to hunt antlerless, others spikes, many mature bulls (as evidenced by the number of applicants for LE tags), and then there's a group that wants premium quality. I don't see solutions to that in what you've outlined. We need areas managed for each. Right now for deer you can apply for Henry Mts if you want incredibly low odds but a fantastic trophy hunt. You can throw your cards in on numerous LE units where quality is solid, but the odds are you can obtain a tag every 5 years or so. Then we have the general season areas.
> 
> Without the promotion of spikes, I don't see how sufficient numbers of mature bulls would be made available for harvest to impact LE drawing odds significantly. Do you have proposed numbers of LE tag increases which would result in successful draw in 3-5 years on average?


1) The problem, though, is that by eliminating spike tags on a unit, you would be eliminating a lot of opportunity. I am 100% positive that the DWR is more interested in creating more opportunity instead of taking it away (I know that I400 doesn't look at decreasing spike tag numbers).

2) I believe that the original elk strategy accomplishes what I400 wants to without changing anything but tag numbes. LE units with spike only hunting should have a higher reproductive capablity than they currently do...if tag numbers were increased to where they should, more cows would be giving birth to more bulls, this should result in more opportunity for both spike hunting and LE hunting. The problem is that even these units have more bulls than they should...these units should not be "premium" trophy units but a sort of middle ground between the premium units and the general season units. To me, that does manage for each.

The problem is that the expectations of hunters increases all the time...it used to be that a 350 even a 320 bull were trophies in Utah. Not anymore. With these increased expectations and the desires of so many to shoot trophies, it becomes increasingly difficult to manage even the spike units to lower quality levels.

3) I don't believe that I400 is a proposal that can legitimately guarantee hunters the chance to hunt mature bulls every 3-5 years WITHOUT lowering the quality to levels similar of general season units. I don't believe we have enough elk to assure hunters to draw every 3-5 years...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Alright, who kidnapped wyo2ut? There is an imposter posting under wyo2ut's name.  All kidding aside, wyo2ut, I agree with most of the last couple of your posts. Minor disagreements between us is HUGE progress!

1)I believe as long as we issue spike tags on a 'as needed' basis, I have less objection to the issuing of them.

2)I don't see this as much of an issue, and no one from the Division has mentioned this concern when I have talked to them about this idea.

3)Wow, I am in shock! I agree with this whole paragraph. That is why we are only proposing changing season dates on FIVE of 28 units. That gives the bulk of the units 'rut' rifle hunts.



> I believe that the original elk strategy accomplishes what I400 wants to without changing anything but tag numbes. LE units with spike only hunting should have a higher reproductive capablity than they currently do...if tag numbers were increased to where they should, more cows would be giving birth to more bulls, this should result in more opportunity for both spike hunting and LE hunting. The problem is that even these units have more bulls than they should...these units should not be "premium" trophy units but a sort of middle ground between the premium units and the general season units. To me, that does manage for each.


I see I400 as the perfect avenue to get this accomplished!

I agree with only FIVE units being under I400, 3-5 years is a little optimistic, but it most certainly WILL move more people thru the system, which may mean more units being added due to hunter DEMAND.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> 3-5 years is a little optimistic


Is that not one of your big selling points of I400. If you not drawing in 3-5 years do you really think you will still have the support?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Since you're a bow hunter you'll like it. Seems a bunch of bow hunters are upset that the rifle hunters get to hunt bulls in the LE areas during the best time and want to change it so they get to hunt during that time.


I agree......I am upset about that.....I've never understood that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)I believe as long as we issue spike tags on a 'as needed' basis, I have less objection to the issuing of them.
> 
> 2)I don't see this as much of an issue, and no one from the Division has mentioned this concern when I have talked to them about this idea.
> 
> ...


1) Funny...I believe it could be argued that all of our LE units "need" spike hunting because all of them "need" a lower bull/cow ratio and more bulls killed.

2) I see this concern often with fishing regulations and at a RAC last summer this comment was made by Doug Messerly, a RAC member, in response to questions from the public about adding spike tags to premium elk units: "The problem is we discuss these things and other options is it continues to complicate our regulations. How many times have you heard people say it's very difficult to figure out how to hunt in Utah? Every time we add another layer, another scheme and another set of options that's one of the tradeoffs that I think has to be recognized and considered carefully by bodies that are making these decisions. So I just wanted to make that comment. The further we complicate it. It would be very interesting to try many of these things but we have to remember that the general public wants to be able to buy their license and go hunting without having a lawyer with them."

3) If the DWR received the tags they felt necessary to reach objectives, we would also move people throug the system better.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > 3-5 years is a little optimistic
> 
> 
> Is that not one of your big selling points of I400. If you not drawing in 3-5 years do you really think you will still have the support?


No! I believe the "big selling points" of I400 are more opportunity to hunt mature bulls for more people and more than once in their lifetime. To lock in a certain timeframe like 3-5 years would be a set-up for failure. There are way too many issues that are uncontrollable that affect how often one can draw a tag. Drought, severe winters, incredible amounts of applicants, are just a few that can limit the number of tags issued per number of applicants. I believe some of the hunts will be in the 3-5 year range, but others most likely be longer. If I400 proves popular, more units MAY have to be included to accomadate the number of applicants.

UZ-A-BOW, you need to realize that blackdog is bitter and I have yet to see a post from him that had anything positive to say, he prefers to attack w/o facts or data to support his stances. But, I am with you as well, why should the most effective weapon get the most effectgive days on the mountain? Nonsensical. It has, however, NOTHING to do with why we want to change season dates. It is because by lowering success rates, more tags can be issued, nothing more/less. This is NOT, nor should it be, a weapon choice issue. It is about how to maximize the number of tags that can be issued w/o hurting the herds.

wyo2ut wrote:


> 3) If the DWR received the tags they felt necessary to reach objectives, we would also move people throug the system better.


But, as long as the rifle hunt is in September with extremely high success rates, the number of tags that can/will be issued will be unduly 'limited'.

If hunters are that easily confused, do we want them in the hills with a high-powered rifle in tow?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> But, as long as the rifle hunt is in September with extremely high success rates, the number of tags that can/will be issued will be unduly 'limited'.
> 
> If hunters are that easily confused, do we want them in the hills with a high-powered rifle in tow?
> 
> PRO


1) I think you exaggerate a bit...let's look at the numbers.
2006 success rates for the 5 units you propose to change and see what would happen...
Number of LE tags during rut  Number of elk killed 
Fish Lake--38 34 89%
Nebo-- 43 34 79%
Wasatch-- 130 107 82%
La Sal-- 17 16 94%
N. Cache--21 13 62%
_____________________________________________
Totals--249 tags 204 bull elk killed
percentage of tags filled--82%

Comparitively, the total number of any weapon tags was 316 for these units and the total number of elk killed was 256 or a percentage of 81%. Realistically, I don't believe you can expect a huge percentage drop...I don't believe your success rates would change dramatically.

Let's look at the differences that would be accomplished considering slight changes...

If we wanted to kill the same number of elk for these units (204) at a 75% success rate, we could issue 272 tags or an increase of only 23 tags. If wanted to kill the same number of elk for these units (204) at a 70% success rate, we could issue 291 tags or 42 more.

Personally, I don't believe such a slight increase will change the rate of drawing from what you say is OIL to once every 3-5 years!

2) You are making this second argument to the wrong person; I am simply telling you what our RACS and Board are telling wildlife officials...you will face a much mroe difficult time passing your proposition if it complicates the regulations. The state of Utah is in the process of trying to simplify its regulations...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut,

1)You are forgetting that we will change the tag allotments as well as change season dates. This will LOWER the overall success rates much more than your figures. We also, like you, realize there are excess bulls on these units, ponce those excess bulls have been harvested, finding a 'shooter' bull will become more difficult. Instead of it being a 'turkey shoot', hunters will actually have to *HUNT*. :shock: By changing season dates, giving a higher percentage of tags to primitive hunters, get bull/cow ratios where they should be, success rates WILL decrease by a significant amount, allowing for a significant increazse in tags issued.

2)I don't believe I400 is any more complicated than what we have now. I don't see it as an issue, and like I said, no one at the Division has voiced this concern to me, which tells me it isn't much of an issue. Having said that, we obviosly wish to keep this as simple as we can, but that does NOT mean no changes can/should take place.

PRO


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

> Number of LE tags during rut Number of elk killed
> Fish Lake--38 34 89%
> Nebo-- 43 34 79%
> Wasatch-- 130 107 82%
> ...


If you look at the afore mentioned units / the proposed I-400 units, there is an explanation (Previously mentioned in the beginning of I-400). I will focus on the North Cache because that is the unit I know the best (these may be reasons for other units as well):

The reason for the lower success rate on the North Cache are:
1) More Remote access, You either have to use shanks pony to get to the top or use horses.
2) A large portion of the North Cache is bordered by Idaho where they are able to shoot any bull. The pressure by the LE hunters, the bowhunters, the regular season hunters etc... Push a fairly high number of the large bulls to the north. I believe that if you check south East Idaho has a significantly larger bull harvest than other areas of their state.

Back to PRO's point If you Change the season you can still offer more tags in this are than are currently available.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I think one of the more computer literate mods should dig up an emoticon that shows two little fat yellow dudes, chasing each other around in a circle.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I think one of the more computer literate mods should dig up an emoticon that shows two little fat yellow dudes, chasing each other around in a circle.


Are you calling me a little fat yellow dude? :evil: I am NOT some dude, that is offensive to me, take it back!

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Are you calling me a little fat yellow dude? I am NOT some dude, that is offensive to me, take it back!


Dude and tooele they go hand in hand.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Ok, ok....looks like I opened a can of worms....however, I'm not so highly informed as everyone around here seems to be on what would make the herds better etc etc. The thing I do know is that as a bow hunter #1 I would love to hunt Utah elk in more of a "prime" season. #2 I would love to have the opportunity to hunt 350+ bulls more often....all of this I'd want to do without ruining the herds so, anyway that can accomplish that effectivly I am all for it. I have yet to take a bull elk 350+, to do so with a bow would be awesome and then to pass that down to my sons and see them have that same opportunity would make my day. If this can all be done and not ruin good hunting for anyone else or ruin the herds....I'm all for it.....
HOPEFULLY THIS ALL MAKES SENSE.
In short, I just want more opportunities to hunt big bulls and be successfull.....

I guess another can of worms would be the deer management too huh?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)You are forgetting that we will change the tag allotments as well as change season dates. This will LOWER the overall success rates much more than your figures. We also, like you, realize there are excess bulls on these units, ponce those excess bulls have been harvested, finding a 'shooter' bull will become more difficult. Instead of it being a 'turkey shoot', hunters will actually have to *HUNT*. :shock: By changing season dates, giving a higher percentage of tags to primitive hunters, get bull/cow ratios where they should be, success rates WILL decrease by a significant amount, allowing for a significant increazse in tags issued.
> 
> 2)I don't believe I400 is any more complicated than what we have now. I don't see it as an issue, and like I said, no one at the Division has voiced this concern to me, which tells me it isn't much of an issue. Having said that, we obviosly wish to keep this as simple as we can, but that does NOT mean no changes can/should take place.


1) No, I am not forgetting...I was just showing how many more tags could be added just by decreasing success rates. My point was that you overestimate how many more tags can be given and you are exaggerating the harvest rates as is. If you were to add in the number of tags that could be given when allotment rates change according to your plan, you still are only adding an amount too low to change draw rates from OIL to every 3-5 years. Also, I don't believe success rates are going to take a huge dip...rifle hunters are still going to succeed at high percentages and bow hunters are still going to succeed at percentages similar to what they are now. I don't think that will change much.

Have you figured out how much of a difference your tag allotment changes would make?

2) It doesn't matter what you believe; it matters what the RAC members and the Board believe along with the general public. Rotating spike units will be complicating the issue...

3) Somebody mentioned reasons why the North Cache had relatively low harvest rates...the reasoning is inconsequential in terms of how many more tags can be given. The bottom line is that harvest rates aren't as high as some make out to be. A significant decrease in harvest rates will NOT occur if season dates are changed.

4) I don't believe I400 can give a significant number of tags higher than what the DWR could give if they just increased tag numbers to where they should be...and I400 would take tags away from rifle hunters during the rut.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

So in a nutshell, success rate will not change no matter what you do and it will not work. Giving out more tags will only result in more elk killed and it is not possible to give out very many more tags that are being given out currently any way. Unacceptable.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> So in a nutshell, success rate will not change no matter what you do and it will not work. Giving out more tags will only result in more elk killed and it is not possible to give out very many more tags that are being given out currently any way. Unacceptable.


No, in a nutshell, the amount success rates will be lowered and the number of tags changing season dates could add will not increase the rate at which people draw as significantly as some make it out to be. The possibility of drawing a mature bull tag every 3-5 years is only possible if enough tags are given out to decrease quality to levels similar to general season any-bull hunts.

The question is this: is the minimal increase in tags that could result from changing season dates and changing tag allotments worth it? For many people it won't be.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

It is impossible to tell what the odds will be. But one thing is not impossible to determine and that is more tags, more people get through the system.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

It may be impossible to see the odds, but it is not impossible to see that the odds won't improve as dramatically as claimed if the number of people applying continues to climb. One other thing will not be impossible to see: the consequences of changing season dates and tag allotments. By changing season dates and tag allotments, rifle hunters will lose tags and lose the chance to hunt in the rut. Many people will NOT like this trade-off. The big fight, though, is the trophy aspect of the consequences. The more tags given out, the more quality decreases...personally, I don't care. BUT, this is the main fight that prohibits the DWR from issuing the tag numbers they would like and also moving people through the system faster. I find it ironic that the I400 crowd believe that they can convince the general public the value of giving out more tags when the DWR hasn't been...


----------



## 4x4 Bronco (Sep 7, 2007)

I definately don't have any special numbers to add to this thread, but I do know that I love elk hunting! I have done the spike hunts and cow hunts. Honestly I hate the spike hunt. It is difficult to get a spike, and we're killing the babies before they turn into a nice bull. I still haven't drawn the cow tag I want, but maybe next year. I would much rather get rid of the spike tags all together and allow some of us to hunt more frequently. Even a 300 inch Bull would be a monster for me compared to my wimpy spike I shot two years back. Obviously they need to keep some of the units in the state to where there are less tags given out to appease those after a 400 inch bull, but I think for other areas an increase in tags would be nice so that I can get some more elk hunting in. Even if I only get a tag every 3-5 years, I would prefer that to the spike I "harvest" once out of every 5-7 years. I don't know all the specifics behind 1400, but I am all for a change in the current system.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut, I guess we didn't make any 'progress' yesterday. 

It seems we are right back to talking in circles AGAIN. I am done gone round and round on this. I will ask one last question to you. You say success rates will change very little regardless of the timing of the hunts and the percentage of tags going to primitive weapon hunters, so how do you explain the success rates in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Nevada that are considerably *LOWER* than what we see in Utah? I am confused why Utah is so unique. It must be one of two things; are elk are very stupid, or our hunters are smarter than hunters from ALL the surrounding states. :roll:

One last time, it WILL be easier to make changes on FIVE LE units than on ALL 28 LE units! This will minimize the number of 'trophy' hunters opposing I400. NONE of the five pilot units are considered 'top-end' trophy units, so the 'true trophy hunters' are more concerned about units like the Pahvant, SW Desert, San Juan, Boulder, Dutton, Monroe, not the N Cache, Nebo, LaSal, Wasatch, Fish Lake units!

Answer my one question please.

PRO


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Isn't this getting a little silly? THE DEVILS ADVOCATE BS IS GETTING OLD! Maybe pull your heals out of the ground a little bit and take a hard look at WHY you oppose this so vehemently Wyo2. I'm not saying you should agree with everything, but this whole thing sounds like a skipping record of a lousy government meeting. The right opposes the left, just because the left exists, not because of their beliefs and ideas. Throw that in with a healthy contrarian disposition and it's comes out looking like a school yard disagreement. 

Did you know my dad can beat up your dad? :lol:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> NONE of the five pilot units are considered 'top-end' trophy units, so the 'true trophy hunters' are more concerned about units like the Pahvant, SW Desert, San Juan, Boulder, Dutton, Monroe, not the N Cache, Nebo, LaSal, Wasatch, Fish Lake units!


Who decides what units is a top end unit? What makes a top end unit?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > NONE of the five pilot units are considered 'top-end' trophy units, so the 'true trophy hunters' are more concerned about units like the Pahvant, SW Desert, San Juan, Boulder, Dutton, Monroe, not the N Cache, Nebo, LaSal, Wasatch, Fish Lake units!
> 
> 
> Who decides what units is a top end unit? What makes a top end unit?


Well, You could start with "premium" units, those would obviously be top end. Also, current units with higher age objectives would seem likely.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > NONE of the five pilot units are considered 'top-end' trophy units, so the 'true trophy hunters' are more concerned about units like the Pahvant, SW Desert, San Juan, Boulder, Dutton, Monroe, not the N Cache, Nebo, LaSal, Wasatch, Fish Lake units!
> 
> 
> Who decides what units is a top end unit? What makes a top end unit?


I would say the 'trophy' hunters decide, and they decide which units based on trophies produced. I deem a unit top-end by the number of 380+ bulls and the number of 400+ bulls on the unit. If I were to apply for a tag looking for the best chance to take a 400+ bull, it would NOT be any of the I400 units, it WILL be one of the afore mentioned 'top-end' units.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You say success rates will change very little regardless of the timing of the hunts and the percentage of tags going to primitive weapon hunters, so how do you explain the success rates in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Nevada that are considerably *LOWER* than what we see in Utah? I am confused why Utah is so unique. It must be one of two things; are elk are very stupid, or our hunters are smarter than hunters from ALL the surrounding states. :roll:
> 
> One last time, it WILL be easier to make changes on FIVE LE units than on ALL 28 LE units! This will minimize the number of 'trophy' hunters opposing I400. NONE of the five pilot units are considered 'top-end' trophy units, so the 'true trophy hunters' are more concerned about units like the Pahvant, SW Desert, San Juan, Boulder, Dutton, Monroe, not the N Cache, Nebo, LaSal, Wasatch, Fish Lake units!
> 
> Answer my one question please.


1) You are proposing your I400 on 5 units--Fish Lake, North Cache, Wasatch, LaSal, and Nebo. These units had an average success rate of 82%. I believe you are greatly exaggerating the amount you could reduce these success rates. I just looked at Nevada's 2006 success rates for any weapon hunts...they, too, were near 80%. Again, If we wanted to kill the same number of elk for these units (204) at a 75% success rate, we could issue 272 tags or an increase of only 23 tags. If wanted to kill the same number of elk for these units (204) at a 70% success rate, we could issue 291 tags or 42 more. The increase is not only minimal, but isn't any more than what the DWR already should be giving out.

The proof is in the pudding...late hunts have only a slightly lower success rate than early hunts (82%-78%). Also, you are changing the percentage of tags to primitive weapons by a meager 10%. If you consider the fact that the majority of the tags are going to rifle hunters, you are not going to gain a considerable amount of tags by changing by such a small amount.

Also, I don't believe that changing these five units will go over any better than changing the whole state. Do you honestly think that there aren't many many hunters who want to hunt "trophy" bulls on these five units? The "top-end" trophy units change according to the hunter...what might be "top-end" to you is not "top-end" to others. What constitutes a "trophy" is highly variable among hunters. The DWR didn't have any easier of a time giving out more tags for these units than your "trophy" units...why would you?

Treehugnhuntr, I can go down a long list why I don't like your I400: 1) unnecessary...we already have a good plan 2) exaggerated claims by the supporters 3) goes against what many hunters wish--specifically the season dates for rifle hunting 4) it complicates what shouldn't be a complex solution to minor problems 5) proposed ways of increasing rate at which hunters move through the system and draw tags can only be slightly increased by changing season dates and tag allotments...have you done the math on these changes? I have.

Why should I agree with any of your proposal when I like what we are currently doing? Why change a good thing?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> weatherby25 said:
> 
> 
> > > NONE of the five pilot units are considered 'top-end' trophy units, so the 'true trophy hunters' are more concerned about units like the Pahvant, SW Desert, San Juan, Boulder, Dutton, Monroe, not the N Cache, Nebo, LaSal, Wasatch, Fish Lake units!
> ...


Ok I can see that. So is that how the DWR figures a "premium" unit? How did it start being a top end unit? What makes it so much better then other units?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

1)That's definitely an opinion and your entitled to it. But from my experience, most disagree or would atleast like to see some changes.

2)I'm not sure I can argue with you there, but is ommitting facts any different?

3)I'm not sure what "many" is. Many could mean 3% or 85%, kind of misleading. Of course they on both sides of this argument have used this term loosely.

4)Complicated? I don't see it. If the current regulations confuse you, then yes, you'll still be confused afterwards.

5)I personally see a fairly drastic change in opportunity if allowed to be imposed as PROposed. On the other hand, I am fearful that this could be reminiscent of an indian treaty, where what is proposed is passed, but what actually is implemented is a limited version of what we thought we were getting.

6)I agree that we should push for the elk committee to allow the DWR to actually manage to objective, regardless if I400 passes in any form.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> 1)That's definitely an opinion and your entitled to it. But from my experience, most disagree or would atleast like to see some changes.
> 
> 2)I'm not sure I can argue with you there, but is ommitting facts any different?
> 
> ...


1) From my experience, most wouldn't.

2) What "facts" am I ommitting?

3) "many" as opposed to "few". If you look at the boards or forums where this is brought up, there are people oppose this very part of I400.

4) I do. When you start rotating spike units every few years, that complicates where people can and can hunt. Also, if you change points systems and have two point systems for the state, that is very confusing IMO. When asked about adding spike tags to premium units, one RAC member replied that the state didn't want to further complicate the regulations (I posted his quote). Don't you think that this proposal is less complicated than I400?

5) How do you figure? Based on current harvest rates and numbers of tags given to each weapon, I don't see it at all. In fact, if the muzzleloader hunt or archery hunt is moved to the rut, this would even reduce the amount of tags you could increase further because these hunts would then have an increased success rate. If you moved the rifle hunt from the rut you may drop success rates slightly, but moving the other hunts to the rut would improve success rates...

Also, I fear, probably above all else, that you are right in saying that what is proposed could be different than what is passed. Again, I would never support any kind of reducing total tags...even for a short period of time because, in the long run, I don't believe they would ever be regained.

6) Instead of pushing for an entirely different set of ideas, why don't we start pushing for the DWR to actually be able to manage for the current objectives? I believe by doing so we can accomplish much if not all of what I400 wants to do...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut, I notice you have yet to answer my question. What gives? How does Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Nevada have much lower success rates for their rifle hunters? Arizona, which still produces the biggest of the big bulls, has MUCH lower success rates, same goes for New Mexico. These two states most closely resemble Utah in geography and elk numbers. What makes Utah so different is success rates? Just curious.

PRO


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo,

Also New Mexico is able to do all of this with 14,000 bull tags and a herd of 85,000. 
Arizona is able to do this with 9,000 bull tags and a herd of 28,000 elk.
Utah has a herd 65,000 elk, and we give out 2,800 tags.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

First of all, you are comparing apples to oranges. These other states have drastically different systems (besides Nevada which doesn't have much lower success rates as i already pointed out)--Arizona, for example, is a statewide draw (they don't sale over-the-counter tags). I am 100% against Utah moving to this type of system because it will drastically reduce opportunity. If we were in a statewide draw--like Arizona--our statewide harvest would be lower, and we would have less opportunity. Utah offers much much more opportunity than Arizona does statewide. Also, I just read through some of Arizona's harvest data...from what I can see, Arizona's statewide harvest data is similar to ours. 

Also, one thing you seem to miss is the fact that our bull/cow ratios are exceptionally high...higher than Arizona's. If bull/cow ratios were reduced on our LE units, this would also reduce success rates...we don't need to change season dates or tag allotments to do this!

If we changed our hunts for only five units, we wouldn't reduce harvest rate percentages very much...as our late hunt success rates show. Also, you didn't answer my questions either--Why do you think you can increase tag numbers on only 5 units when the DWR couldn't raise the tag numbers to what they wished on any of the units including your 5? Also, if you move the rifle hunt from the rut and put the archery hunt or muzzy hunt into the rut, wouldn't the harvest rates of these hunts increase? Wouldn't that, then, further reduce the total number of tags that could be given out? So, by your line of reasoning, shouldn't we, then, move ALL hunts out of the rut in order to maximize tags?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Okay wyo2ut, we get it, you don't like I400. MANY do, and based on responses from them, the DWR, the conservation groups, and our conviction to 'fix' the way elk are managed on these five units, we WILL continue to work toward the implementation of I400! Get on board, or continue to obstruct 'progress' and say, "I400 is stupid and a joke". Either way, I am DONE going in circles with you on this. 

Those who wish to help out, get a hold of me, HOGAN, utfireman, coyoteslayer, sauve300, mulepacker, firstarrow, threshershark, treehugnhunter, and all others I omitted, we will welcome you on board! We will be getting together sometime after the RAC's. We will post the time, date, and place as soon as we get it set!

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Wyo,
> 
> Also New Mexico is able to do all of this with 14,000 bull tags and a herd of 85,000.
> Arizona is able to do this with 9,000 bull tags and a herd of 28,000 elk.
> Utah has a herd 65,000 elk, and we give out 2,800 tags.


Talk about ommitting facts...Utah has a herd of 65,000 elk and gives out 20,000+ spike tags alone...this is not even counting the 11,000 general season any-bull tags. If you are going to throw out numbers, don't forget the truth. You can't omit all of the general season tags that Utah offers. The fact is that Utah offers the 2,800 LE tags alongside the 30,000+ general season tags. Yeah...sure, we can do what Arizona does...and, by doing so, we could drop the total number of elk tags in Utah from over 30,000 to about 20,000. I call that a significant loss of opportunity...

If Utah went to a statewide draw system and managed the whole state under one management plan, we would be offering far fewer tags like Arizona and New Mexico...and our LE hunts would have lower success rates. But, as is, Utah chooses to manage our state under 4 different strategies that allow for different success rates...statewide, however, our success rates are very comparable to both Arizona and New Mexico!

For the record, Utah's muzzleloader hunt has a significantly higher success rate--70% compared to 39%--than Arizona as well. And, Utah's archery hunt had a success rate of 34% compared to Arizona's 28%...What are the reasons for these significantly higher success rates?

The truth is, though, you can't compare the success rates of these states because they are managed totally different form one another...a better comparison would look at statewide harvest rates that included general season tags; that is what these states do.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > Wyo,
> ...


I was noticing that too.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo, can you please post up the link about the success rates in Arizona for archery and muzzleloader. In searching their DWr site, and calling them all I got was a statewide success on all three hunts. Which is around 43%. Can you please get me that link. Also does it have a report of success rates for years in the past or does it just show one year worth of stats. And does it include their anterless stats along with those number that you posted above?
Also if we are going to look at success rates lets look at season dates as well. Utah and Arizona have season dates that run at different times.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Our statewide average on general season is around 10%. That includes archery, muzzleloader and rifle and youth hunts. On the LE hunts the statewide average is in the 80%. 
If you take your 30,000 permits that equals 3,000 elk harvested. Add the 2,800 LE tags and that equals 2,240 elk taken for a total of 5,240 elk taken in the state as it stands now. Keep in mind that does not mean total bulls taken because the success rate for archery includes cows harvested. 

Now lets look at it once I400 is in place. We are still going to have those general season tags, since we are not eliminating those tag number but rather moving those tags to other areas. So we have 3,000 elk taken on general season area's. Now if we add in 9,000 I400 tags at a 40% success rate that equals 3,600 elk taken. Then, lets add in the other LE areas that are not in the I400 plan. For kicks lets just say they limit those tags at 1,000. And at a 80% success rates for those tags. We now have another 800 animals taken. For a total of 7,400 elk taken in the state. 

To me I see it as increased hunter harvest opportunity, as well as hunter opportinuty for a LE tag. I also see the general season hunter number's going down since you can not poses a general season tag, and a limited entry tag. Because of this, we just took out 6,000 plus people out of the general season pool now each year due to this law. And the hunter numbers in the past 5 years for general season have remained the same, both before and after the hunter cap on general season tags. So now we have reduced the pressure on general season hunts and those that would have had to hunt general season with their 10% success rate will now get a chance at a 40% success rate. 

So now you have both hunter harvest opportunity, as well as herd management opportunity. To me it's a win win situation/


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Our statewide average on general season is around 10%. That includes archery, muzzleloader and rifle and youth hunts. On the LE hunts the statewide average is in the 80%.
> If you take your 30,000 permits that equals 3,000 elk harvested. Add the 2,800 LE tags and that equals 2,240 elk taken for a total of 5,240 elk taken in the state as it stands now. Keep in mind that does not mean total bulls taken because the success rate for archery includes cows harvested.
> 
> Now lets look at it once I400 is in place. We are still going to have those general season tags, since we are not eliminating those tag number but rather moving those tags to other areas. So we have 3,000 elk taken on general season area's. Now if we add in 9,000 I400 tags at a 40% success rate that equals 3,600 elk taken. Then, lets add in the other LE areas that are not in the I400 plan. For kicks lets just say they limit those tags at 1,000. And at a 80% success rates for those tags. We now have another 800 animals taken. For a total of 7,400 elk taken in the state.
> ...


1) Our statewide average for bulls only is around 11%...but if you factor in our statewide success rates including cows, it jumps to around 23%. The numbers I have for Arizona are also including calves and cows...Arizona's statewide rifle success for bulls (including spikes) is about 18%. Granted, their rifle success rates are higher, but they offer much less opportunity. And, interestingly, Arizona's archery and muzzy success rates are measured including cows/calves as well. Arizona's success rate for archery hunters shooting bulls is 15% and their success rate for bulls on the muzzy hunt is 24%.

Also, in 2005 we harvested a total of 5035 bulls (I am assuming this number has risen slightly simply because of LE harvest increases). In Arizona during the 2006 hunting seasons, a total of 3097 bulls were taken. Considering our elk numbers compared to theirs, I would consider this fairly comparable...with Arizona having a small edge in harvest simply because we sacrifice some success for opportunity.

2) I am sorry, but you can't add 9,000 LE tags to those 5 pilot units. You simply don't have enough elk to do that...I mentioned tripling the tags once and Pro flipped; you are talking about increasing the total tags by about 30 times! If you are going to increase the LE tags by such a whopping amount, you must do it statewide...and, by doing so, you would lose a lot of general season opportunity.

3) Here is the biggest problem: the number of tags you are able to increase by is totally exaggerated. You are talking about 5 pilot units...the number of tags that changing season dates and changing tag allotments will make is so minimal that it will not make a significant difference in drawing rates. The drawing rates will increase at a similar rate if the DWR were just allowed to increase tags to levels that they want. The only way your plan will significantly change drawing rates is if it were instituted statewide...such a plan will undoubtedly significantly decrease total tags statewide. I am against such decreases in opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

O|* *\-\* *-HELP!-* 

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

W2U, Im suprised your are still arguing (not really)   . You talk about hunter opportunity and you dont want to see opportunity reduced and nor do we. I400 is giving out a lot of opportunity. There will still be 12,000 anybull tags available, 11,000 spike tags, archery spike tags unlimited, and in the LE units for all 28 units we could issue in the neighborhood of 5,000 tags. Thats an increase of 2,200 tags that we otherwise wouldnt have. Last year they increased the LE tags by a whopping 150 tags WOW :shock: I will be dead before these small increases hit 2,200 more tags. If we move the rifle hunt out the rut then you can issue more tags because the success rates will be lower and you will have more bull escapment and the yearling spikes are recruited into the herd to become future branch antlered bulls.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> W2U, Im suprised your are still arguing
> 
> There will still be 12,000 anybull tags available, 11,000 spike tags, archery spike tags unlimited, and in the LE units for all 28 units we could issue in the neighborhood of 5,000 tags. Thats an increase of 2,200 tags that we otherwise wouldnt have.


Now this is a laugher...I am arguing because guys like you keep spewing these kinds of nonsensical things. With the quote above you are claiming that I400 will magically be able to increase the LE tags by 2,200? How? Do you mean that I400 will be able to increase LE tags statewide when the DWR hasn't been able to? How do you figure you will able to do this?

By the way, I love your use of hyperbole and exaggeration...the DWR issued 255 more tags in 2007 than 2006. AT that rate, we would be issuing 2,200 tags more in 8.6 years. :wink:

Then you talk about moving the rifle hunt out of the rut...I have already shown you how few tags this will increase the numbers. Do I need to again? Are you planning moving all the hunts out of the rut? Or, just the rifle hunt? Because wouldn't moving the archery or muzzy hunt into the rut increase their success rates? Also, are you planning on changing the season dates for all hunts statewide...or just the pilot units?

By the way, I believe the DWR could increase LE tags by about 2,200 (without doing any math) and still maintain good quality. Why do we need I400 to do this?


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

coyote, you would probably still support pro if he slept with your wife. It was the same on the DWR forum. To follow so blindly seems crazy to me.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Then you talk about moving the rifle hunt out of the rut...I have already shown you how few tags this will increase the numbers. Do I need to again? Are you planning moving all the hunts out of the rut? Or, just the rifle hunt? Because wouldn't moving the archery or muzzy hunt into the rut increase their success rates? Also, are you planning on changing the season dates for all hunts statewide...or just the pilot units?


 Wyo2ut you need to learn to read. Pro has said many times its easier to increase permits on 5 units versus all 28 units. That is baby steps and that is why we are using these units as pilot units. You are also very guilty of using magical numbers.

Yep you might have to and you actually need to answer Pro's question this time. Wyo2ut, your statement was nothing but words that made up sentenances. So how do you have so much time on your hands to argue until you are blue in the face and still be an english teacher? I400 will give out more opportunity because utah right now isnt taking advantage of the resources we currently have and I400 is moving towards that direction. It follows the EMP perfectly. It gives the DWR better ways to help manage healthy elk herds.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe what we should really do is change our tag allotments and make them similar to Arizona's...they give about 27% of their tags to archery hunters, 5% to muzzy hunters, and 68% to rifle hunters. :wink:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> coyote, you would probably still support pro if he slept with your wife. It was the same on the DWR forum. To follow so blindly seems crazy to me.


Wiley, now thats a funny one. Your statement shows just how stupid you really are. Are you trying to get under my skin? because if you are then you are going to have to come up with something a lot better than that. Maybe you can think up a better one. Im sure you have that ability so please by all means try it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut you need to learn to read. Pro has said many times its easier to increase permits on 5 units versus all 28 units. That is baby steps and that is why we are using these units as pilot units. You are also very guilty of using magical numbers.


Learn to read? I read what you wrote. You said that we could increase our LE tags to 2,200 with I400...are you saying we should give out 2,200 more tags just for the pilot units? HMMM...you want to increase LE tags on these units by 15 times? Do you really think we have that many elk? Or, did you mean that you wanted to increae LE tags by 2,200 statewide?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapiti said:


> coyote, you would probably still support pro if he slept with your wife. It was the same on the DWR forum. To follow so blindly seems crazy to me.


Gordy! There is no reason for such a comment. That is WAY out of line. Not funny in the least. I expect better from you.

Justin, let it go and don't respond further to such nonsense!

PRO


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wileywapiti said:
> 
> 
> > coyote, you would probably still support pro if he slept with your wife. It was the same on the DWR forum. To follow so blindly seems crazy to me.
> ...


I am sorry, but I thought it was funny.  You just don't think it is funny because he is not agreeing with you. :shock:

How about you all call a truce? You all are getting nowhere and by ranting and getting personal like all of you have, you are not helping the cause of trying to get I400 implemented. You need to make friends not enemies. I think it is great you guys are trying to make a difference, but being the BIGGER man will do you better than name calling. Just my opinion and the best of luck to you all.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut Im talking about statewide because I hope they will increase tags on the other 23 units like they did last year. Again Wyo2ut these are just numbers and they could be realistic. We have a lot of excess in the number of bulls on each unit and since the spikes will be recruited into the herd then just think how many more bulls you will have recruited into the overall bull population which means more bulls to harvest.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You just don't think it is funny because he is not agreeing with you


I dont care if Gordy doesnt agree with I400, but that statement just came out of the blue. Maybe he has something against me. Oh well. I'm not going to stoop down to his level. He must be having a bad day and needed to get some frustration out on something.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut Im talking about statewide because I hope they will increase tags on the other 23 units like they did last year. Again Wyo2ut these are just numbers and they could be realistic. We have a lot of excess in the number of bulls on each unit and since the spikes will be recruited into the herd then just think how many more bulls you will have recruited into the overall bull population which means more bulls to harvest.


That's what I thought...you were talking about statewide. So, my question remains: if the DWR wasn't able to increase tag numbers by this many, how are you?

Also, since all the spikes are being recruited into the herd under your plan, you could offer more LE tags...I don't deny that. However, if you kept spike tags open on other units and added spike tags to new units--like San Juan and Monroe--you would be losing LE tags from these units. So, after all is said and done, how many LE tags would you have gained?

What I would like to see from the I400 crowd is some ballpark figures...show me your best estimates on how many tags you could give out for your pilot units. Crunch some numbers based on past data and show me what kinds of tag increases you could make with your plan...

We do have a lot of excess bulls...that is why we should be pushing RACs and the Board to allow the DWR to harvest these bulls. Instead of arguing over a new management plan, we should be combining forces to push the RACs and Board to allow the DWR to manage to the current plan!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapiti said:


> coyote, you would probably still support pro if he slept with your wife. It was the same on the DWR forum. To follow so blindly seems crazy to me.


 :rotfl:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

easy there Treehugger, you might get a hernia from laughing to hard, 

Wyo2ut right now the San Juan and the Monroe have very high bull/cow ratios so having spike tags on those units wont cause a decrease in the number of permits because of very few tags given on those units and many spikes will still be recruited to the herd to become branch antlered bulls.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I'm not Gordy; I apologize to whoever Gordy is. He shouldn't have his name tied to something that he isn't a part of.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Confirm that, gentleman. This smart elk ain't Gordy. There's a one letter difference in the spelling of their usernames.

Gordy would never blaspheme against the First Church of Bart. But then, nobody's perfect.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Confirm that, gentleman. This smart elk ain't Gordy. There's a one letter difference in the spelling of their usernames.
> 
> Gordy would never blaspheme against the First Church of Bart. But then, nobody's perfect.


I should have known better. Gordy has more class than that. Gordy I apologize. 

Finnegan, thanks for the heads up. First Church of Bart, now THAT is funny! :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well not to bad for your first post wileywapiti, I hope your next posts you use a little more brains and add something positive to the forum


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Wyo2ut right now the San Juan and the Monroe have very high bull/cow ratios so having spike tags on those units wont cause a decrease in the number of permits because of very few tags given on those units and many spikes will still be recruited to the herd to become branch antlered bulls.


If you didn't decrease the LE tags, bull/cow ratios would quickly be lowered--probably over the course of one year--and in subsequent years tags would have to be lowered or the population would swing the other way (bull/cow ratios that are too low).

Also, if you changed which units allow spike hunting and which don't, realistically you would have to adjust spike tag numbers; the reason is simple--pressure would shift from the units that you are taking the spike pressure from and shift to other units. This, in turn, would probably lead to more spikes being killed on other units. This, too, could affect the numbers of LE tags on units in a negative way.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I may have been a bit offensive in my post, but I did use my brain when I stated an opinion. I felt this way when I read the DWR forums and it looks like things haven't changed. But I guess you have your opinions too, they just always seem to be in line with pro's. Again, Gordy I apologize for having a name so close to yours; I will look at changing mine. Is this possible Finnegan?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> If you didn't decrease the LE tags, bull/cow ratios would quickly be lowered--probably over the course of one year--and in subsequent years tags would have to be lowered or the population would swing the other way (bull/cow ratios that are too low).


Are you kidding me? You are saying the bull/cow ratio could be brought in line on the San Juan and/or Pahvant in *ONE* year? How many spikes do you think are running alive RIGHT NOW on the San Juan? Give me YOUR 'educated' guess! What a joke, talk about hyperbole.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well since you are so famous at following I400 on the old forum then you probably realize that I was there with Pro when we started this whole proposal and that is why Pro and I are on the same page. So did you have a username on the old forum or were you just a guest and decided today you needed to say something.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

I had a username, but I was a very infrequent poster. I wasn't one of the good ole boys.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

OK the original is here!!! Straighten up fella's!!!

As Crusty as I am there are certain things that are out of bounds.
Wifes, children, religion. Just certain places ya don't go.

I still can't jump on the I-400 wagon with both feet yet but 
within the next year who knows what could happen.

DOWN WITH IMPOSTERS THE ORIGINAL ww


----------



## callofthewild (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapiti said:


> I had a username, but I was a very infrequent poster. I wasn't one of the good ole boys.


well feel free to join in and become one of the good new guys over here. you just picked a good topic to start in go for the gusto if you are going to do it anyways bro.

for the record i spent a week on the muzzy hunt on the pahvant and i saw elk every day. not once did i see any bull that was smaller than a 5x5. i honestly don't even think that there are spikes on the pahvant or the san juans. if there are they had been run off to the lower regions but, there is a real bull to cow ratio problem. after reading this post i have to say that i am in favor of more opportunity to hunt bigger bulls more frequently. spikes just don't do it for me to me and this is my opinion it is like a doe mule deer hunt whooooooohoooo.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe you two can have a brawl to see who keeps the name. hahaha just kiddin


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Thanks call; I guess we will have to see how it goes. wileywapati can have the name, he had it first, I will try to change my name if anyone knows how. And wileywapati and wileywapiti have more than one thing in common, I also can't fully support I400.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

callofthewild said:


> i have to say that i am in favor of more opportunity to hunt bigger bulls more frequently.


Yeah...me, too. We just don't need I400 to do that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Are you kidding me? You are saying the bull/cow ratio could be brought in line on the San Juan and/or Pahvant in *ONE* year? How many spikes do you think are running alive RIGHT NOW on the San Juan? Give me YOUR 'educated' guess! What a joke, talk about hyperbole.


Without any doubt the bull/cow ratios could be brought in line in one year's time...it would simply depend on the number of tags given. Right now, the San Juan unit probably has somewhere between 650-750 cows. Those cows probably give birth to about 450 that are recruited into the herd (some calves will not make it), so I would guess that at least 200 syearling bulls live on the San Juan right now. Of those 200, at least half are probably spikes. So, to put a dent in the bull/cow ratio, you would simply have to kill more than 200 bull elk.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut this year they only gave out 10 archery management tags to help correct the problem. But by killing spikes then you create more room for the big bulls and more calves. These 10 archery tags will do nothing to the bull/cow ratio because of all the spikes that recruited to the herd this year.

If you issued 200 management tags then only 200 extra hunters get to hunt but if you want 200 spikes killed then about 1000 hunters get the opportunity to hunt.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

*1) Our statewide average for bulls only is around 11%...but if you factor in our statewide success rates including cows, it jumps to around 23%. The numbers I have for Arizona are also including calves and cows...Arizona's statewide rifle success for bulls (including spikes) is about 18%. Granted, their rifle success rates are higher, but they offer much less opportunity. And, interestingly, Arizona's archery and muzzy success rates are measured including cows/calves as well. Arizona's success rate for archery hunters shooting bulls is 15% and their success rate for bulls on the muzzy hunt is 24%.

Also, in 2005 we harvested a total of 5035 bulls (I am assuming this number has risen slightly simply because of LE harvest increases). In Arizona during the 2006 hunting seasons, a total of 3097 bulls were taken. Considering our elk numbers compared to theirs, I would consider this fairly comparable...with Arizona having a small edge in harvest simply because we sacrifice some success for opportunity.

2) I am sorry, but you can't add 9,000 LE tags to those 5 pilot units. You simply don't have enough elk to do that...I mentioned tripling the tags once and Pro flipped; you are talking about increasing the total tags by about 30 times! If you are going to increase the LE tags by such a whopping amount, you must do it statewide...and, by doing so, you would lose a lot of general season opportunity.

3) Here is the biggest problem: the number of tags you are able to increase by is totally exaggerated. You are talking about 5 pilot units...the number of tags that changing season dates and changing tag allotments will make is so minimal that it will not make a significant difference in drawing rates. The drawing rates will increase at a similar rate if the DWR were just allowed to increase tags to levels that they want. The only way your plan will significantly change drawing rates is if it were instituted statewide...such a plan will undoubtedly significantly decrease total tags statewide. I am against such decreases in opportunity.wyoming2utah *

Wyo,
Can you please get me the link to the Arizona information. I have searched all over their website and even called them, and like I said earlier all that I have gotten out of them is the statewide harvest is at 43%. Also can you include the link to Utah's 2006 stats. All that is posted is the 2005 stats.

9,000 tags is a realistic goal. Is it the goal of the I400 founders right now. NO. But when Arizona has a herd of 28,000 elk and they give out 9,000 bull tags, and New Mexico has a herd of 85,000 and they give out 14,000 elk tags. There is no reason why Utah can't at least quadruple the LE tags. With our herd at 68,400. And increasing to 80,000 in the future.

In the number's I quoted I used them for easy math. But since your so anal when someone throws numbers out lets do a little number crunching. This is coming from the 2005 Big Game stats which are located on the DWR site.
General season success numbers
Rifle Spike/ 13.4 
Rifle Any/ 12.3
Muzzle Spike/ 14.5
Muzzle Any/ 7.7
Archery/ 10.5 Now this % includeds anterless harvest. Since we are talking about bull tags. we need to throw that rate out. So you had 412 bulls killed, with 7058 hunters. So we now have a 6% success rate on archery hunts. Also the youth hunt is at 27.2%. 
Statewide success is at 10.78, add in the youth hunt it is now at 13.51% success.

Limited entry success numbers
Rifle/ 85.8
Archery/ 45.3
Muzzle/ 69.5
Premium/ 93.8
For a statewide success rate of 73.6

I can't give you a break down of Arizona but like I said I have a statewide success of 43%. This is why I would like your info. I can give you New Mexico success rates.
Archery 27%
Rifle 44%
Muzzle 30%
Statewide success is 33.66%.

This just shows what will happen when we change the season dates and make it a hunt over a harvest. This can and will increase hunter success rates from 10% to 40%. I am willing to bet that is going to please people alot more. Now add in the fact that people will draw on a regular basis is going to make it more appealing.

Again your going to have a system which allows for general season, LE, and Premium LE. Which is part of the elk managment plan.

*C. Recreation Management Goal: Provide a diversity of high-quality hunting and
viewing opportunities for elk throughout the state.
Recreation Objective 1: Maintain a diverse hunting program for elk that allows for both
general season and limited entry hunting opportunities.
Implications: Utah currently has a diverse elk hunting program that provides for a variety of
hunting interests.
Strategies:
a. Continue to recommend "spike only" and "any bull" general seasons as well as limited
entry elk hunting opportunities.
b. Provide varied levels of quality by maintaining three categories of age class harvest
objectives.
c. Continue to support the cooperative wildlife management unit and landowner permit
programs that provides incentives for private landowners to manage for elk and their
habitat.
Recreation Objective 2: Increase opportunities for hunting of mature bulls on units with
limited entry permits without greatly reducing quality.
Implications: Implementation of the strategies listed below will result in increased hunting
opportunity without greatly reducing quality.
Strategies:a. Reduce the cap on spike bull units and consider reducing season length to allow more
yearling bulls to advance to older age classes.
b. Maintain three categories of age class objectives and reduce the age class objective on the
middle and highest categories.
c. Provide a late season rifle elk hunting opportunity away from the rut that will reduce
harvest rates and thereby increase future hunting opportunity.
d. Continue to encourage primitive weapon opportunities that provide hunting opportunity
with reduced harvest rates.
12
e. Provide a premium limited entry hunting opportunity that would allow a specified percent
of the limited entry rifle hunters to hunt all seasons for a premium fee.
f. Seek opportunities to expand youth hunting opportunities on any bull units.*


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I still can't jump on the I-400 wagon with both feet yet but
> within the next year who knows what could happen.


+1 I agree with this. I want to, but just dont have the warm fuzzies yet. Even if i do not ever completely agree with I 400 im very glad that hunters are taking a stand for what they want.


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

Ya know what...this is just fun watching the topic go round and round...NOT!! its all about politics if you ask me..."Politics is about 10% good ideas and motives and 90% getting backing for your program" (The Daybreakers, Louis L'amour) The time for arguing with W2Ut is over...he will talk circles with you all day and never really make a point...so, its time to move ahead and quit hashing out the same ol points over and over and over...etc


----------



## callofthewild (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> callofthewild said:
> 
> 
> > i have to say that i am in favor of more opportunity to hunt bigger bulls more frequently.
> ...


maybe not but at least it is something that will show the dwr that we would like to have more opportunities. right now it is the only thing that i can see that is trying to accomplish this.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Wapiti,

Send me a PM and tell me about your elk hunt, did you go in any of ther area's that we talked about. Also I need some info on the winter league. Is it a partner league like the summer one?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Honestly....I had no IDEA this was such a big issue....I just wanted a simple explanation of what I400 is...I guss SIMPLE is impossible with this topic. Anyway, I have a pretty good Idea of what it is now so we can all stop doing the hokey pokey and turning ourselves around...this is like the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going and going........anyway, if ya'll wanna continue feel free but I just wanted to thanks those that helped me understand this "I400" deal...PRO seems like he has his head on straight and knows what's going on.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

[quote="UZ-A-BOW".PRO seems like he has his head on straight and knows what's going on.[/quote]

Nice. Pro's ego needed that. :wink:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> [quote="UZ-A-BOW".PRO seems like he has his head on straight and knows what's going on.


Nice. Pro's ego needed that. :wink:[/quote]

Just call it as I see....I could tell Pro's ego was kinda in the dumps after getting kicked around on this topic.... :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Wyo,
> Can you please get me the link to the Arizona information. I have searched all over their website and even called them, and like I said earlier all that I have gotten out of them is the statewide harvest is at 43%. Also can you include the link to Utah's 2006 stats. All that is posted is the 2005 stats.
> 
> 9,000 tags is a realistic goal. Is it the goal of the I400 founders right now. NO. But when Arizona has a herd of 28,000 elk and they give out 9,000 bull tags, and New Mexico has a herd of 85,000 and they give out 14,000 elk tags. There is no reason why Utah can't at least quadruple the LE tags. With our herd at 68,400. And increasing to 80,000 in the future.
> ...


1) http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting.shtml 
Scroll to the bottom of the page and look in the right hand column; it is there. Sorry, I don't know how to post a link to Utah's 2006 stats...it is a pdf file.

2) The 9,000 tags you are talking about must be a statewide goal, though, right? I don't believe this is a bad goal as long as it is a goal for all LE units. But, again, Utah gives out far more tags than either Arizona or New Mexico because of our system. I don't think you can compare the amount of tags these states give to Utah because of their different systems. Arizona is a statewide draw; if we went to a system similar to their's, we would lose lots of general season tags. I, personally, don't want to give those tags up. We are sacrificing opportunity for harvest rates. To me, the slight increases Arizona sees statewide are not worth losing hunters in the field...and I bet the Board and RACs and DWR would agree. IN other words, Utah could quadruple their LE tags, but NOT without giving up general tags.

3) Arizona's numbers are comprehensive as well--they include cow and calf harvest. If you take away those numbers, their statewide success rates for rifle hunters drop to 23%, the rates drop to 28% for muzzleloader hunters, and 18% for archery hunters. Again, these are statewide numbers. I don't believe that comparing Arizona's statewide numbers to just our general season numbers or to just our LE numbers is a fair comparison. We need to compare Utah's statewide numbers to Arizona's statewide numbers.

4) Your New Mexico stats differ from the ones I downloaded from New Mexicos state site. According to what I have, New Mexico's harvest rates are:1) Rifle--30% 2) Archery--15% 3) muzzleloader--24%. Again, though, and like Arizona, these are NOT stats for just bulls...these success rates include cows and calves. The statewide success rate for bull harvest is much lower: 21%. For a statewide total, in the 2006-07 season, 5071 total bulls were taken on public hunts. By way of comparison, Utah shot 5035 bulls in 2005...and, although, I do not have the totals, I am sure Utah shot more than New Mexico in 2006 despite New Mexico having about 20,000 more elk!

5) I don't believe the only factor contributing to the slight difference in harvest rates to be season dates. Total numbers of hunters would also figure into these differences as well as bull/cow ratios. Also, general season rifle hunts, archery hunts, and muzzy hunts are NOT held during the rut...are you saying we should move them to the rut in order to increase harvest rates? The low success rates of general season hunts in Utah allows us to give much more opportunity than New Mexico or Arizona...this is the beauty of our system.

The goal of I400 is to allow more people the opportunity to hunt mature bulls...that is a good goal. I argue, though, how effective your plan would be. If you instituted your plan over only 5 units, you couldn't add 9,000 additional tags. There are NOT enough elk on those units to allow that much more LE harvest. Also, moving the hunts out of the rut and changing the tag allotments will NOT change the drawing rate as significantly as many claim...


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

2) The 9,000 tags you are talking about must be a statewide goal, though, right? I don't believe this is a bad goal as long as it is a goal for all LE units. But, again, Utah gives out far more tags than either Arizona or New Mexico because of our system. I don't think you can compare the amount of tags these states give to Utah because of their different systems. Arizona is a statewide draw; if we went to a system similar to their's, we would lose lots of general season tags. I, personally, don't want to give those tags up. We are sacrificing opportunity for harvest rates. To me, the slight increases Arizona sees statewide are not worth losing hunters in the field...and I bet the Board and RACs and DWR would agree. IN other words, Utah could quadruple their LE tags, but NOT without giving up general tags.


Maybe this is where the confusion falls? We do not want to do this statewide, just in a few units. Utah has good opportunity, but only for spikes. Take those units and give different opportunty. Opportunity that is not statewide but compliments the current system. So a guy or gal has the option to go shoot a 400 bull once in his life or shoot a 300 bull a few times. We can still use spike tags and not lose opportunity, not trying to reinvent the wheel but make it more sufficiant. The spike thing has it's place, and elliminating them would be an error, not everyone whom wanted to hunt would be able to. However, stick with the current system and not everyone will be able to hunt a mature bull, there are open bull areas, but lets face it, thats not hunting not even seeing an elk, either is a 90+% sucess rate with a high powered rifle in the middle of the rut!!! Just trying to take all these factors and make a plan that has room to grow, it will work.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Wapiti,
> 
> Send me a PM and tell me about your elk hunt, did you go in any of ther area's that we talked about. Also I need some info on the winter league. Is it a partner league like the summer one?


Winter league starts Nov 1st at 7:00 pm, you can shoot in the partner league or just for fun. All are invited, we set out 20 3-D targets 20-60 yards out. Lots of fun, and good practice.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> Maybe this is where the confusion falls? We do not want to do this statewide, just in a few units. Utah has good opportunity, but only for spikes. Take those units and give different opportunty. Opportunity that is not statewide but compliments the current system. So a guy or gal has the option to go shoot a 400 bull once in his life or shoot a 300 bull a few times. We can still use spike tags and not lose opportunity, not trying to reinvent the wheel but make it more sufficiant. The spike thing has it's place, and elliminating them would be an error, not everyone whom wanted to hunt would be able to. However, stick with the current system and not everyone will be able to hunt a mature bull, there are open bull areas, but lets face it, thats not hunting not even seeing an elk, either is a 90+% sucess rate with a high powered rifle in the middle of the rut!!! Just trying to take all these factors and make a plan that has room to grow, it will work.


I am not sure whether you are directing this towards me or not, but I don't think I am confused at all. I think I understand what I400 is wanting to do: eliminate spike tags on 5 units and move those spike tags to other units, change season dates to move rifle hunt from the rut, and change tag allotments.

My questions are these: 1) How many more LE tags do you think you could give for these five units? 2) How much of a difference tag-wise will moving the hunt from the rut make on just five units? 3) How much of a tag difference will changing tag allotments have on just five units? 4) Are you planning on moving just the rifle hunt from the rut or all of the hunts? 5) Are you planning on changing season dates for LE hunts on all LE units or just the five pilot units? 6) Do you EVER plan on incorporating I400 statewide? Isn't your ultimate goal for this I400 plant to be a statewide plan? 7) Why make a new plan when the current plan calls for more LE tags? Shouldn't we try to manage our elk how they are supposed to before changing things? 8) If we increase LE tags, lower bull/cow ratios, increase reproductive capability of individual herds, and manage for a difference in quality between spike units and premium units, won't we accomplish the same goal as I400--increased opportunity to hunt mature bulls?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> My questions are these: 1) How many more LE tags do you think you could give for these five units? 2) How much of a difference tag-wise will moving the hunt from the rut make on just five units? 3) How much of a tag difference will changing tag allotments have on just five units? 4) Are you planning on moving just the rifle hunt from the rut or all of the hunts? 5) Are you planning on changing season dates for LE hunts on all LE units or just the five pilot units? 6) Do you EVER plan on incorporating I400 statewide? Isn't your ultimate goal for this I400 plant to be a statewide plan? 7) Why make a new plan when the current plan calls for more LE tags? Shouldn't we try to manage our elk how they are supposed to before changing things? If we increase LE tags, lower bull/cow ratios, increase reproductive capability of individual herds, and manage for a difference in quality between spike units and premium units, won't we accomplish the same goal as I400--increased opportunity to hunt mature bulls?


1)ALOT more than issued now. 2)I believe a 20% increase right off the bat is very realistic, with much higher increases in future years. 3)That depends on how many over-all tags are issued. 4)I thought you were familiar with I400  , we have stated *MANY* times the season dates. 5) We are only looking at the FIVE pilot units. 6) Only if the public demand warrants such, remember under the 'original' I400, there would be 8-10 premium units left with season dates and tag allotments as is. 7) BECAUSE, the current plan is NOT being followed, thus I/we believe something needs to be done to get changes, AND the season date changes are a major part of I400!

Season date changes, tag allottment changes, and spike tag elimination on the five pilot units will allow for MORE opportunity for mature bull tags than the current plan, even *IF* the current plan were followed per your wishes. As long as overall success rates for LIMITED ENTRY unit mature bulls in as high as now, the opportunity to issue more tags is severely *LIMITED*, I dare say, unduly limited.

PRO


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

Thanks for answering Utfiremen for me...I just wasnt quick enough to get the answer...


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

As I have said before, elliminate spike tags for the first two or three years, then reintroduce a certain % to maintain the herd. The example I used before was Fishlake. So many bulls need to be shot say 800. As an example lets make 66% (528) Mature tags and 33% (272) spike tags. Put in the sucess rates for each weapon and you have your permit #'s. If success rate is 15% for spikes you could give out 1700 spike tags. 528 mature at a 60% overall sucess rate equals around 100 tags. This is just an example so my #'s are not perfect. Total herd #'s would be around 1000 mature bull elk.

1- We will work be working directly with the DNR to determine these #'s. I wish we knew them it may end a lot of arguments.

2-It will lower 30% on the rifle sucess rate alone. After researching other states, there is noe reason this would not happen.

3-See above, plus elk are smarter than you think, when they figure out they are being hunted you will see how easy of a hunt it will be. It will actually be a hunt, again.

4-Just the rifle. The most highly effective weapon should not be in prime season. That alone would help lower sucess rate. Lower sucess rate means more tags, move that line!

5-6-Just the 5 pilot units for now. We may want to add a few more, but NEVER run this statewide! The current system compliments this and gives hunters a choice to hunt 300 OR 400 class bulls.

7-Because not everyone wants to wait their entire life to shoot a one 300 class bull. Not everyone wants to hunt trophy bull elk, but they do want to be guaranteed a tag some time in their lives which the current plan, the way it is headed, will NOT guarantee this! Not everyone who applies will draw a tag it is mathmatically impossible!


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo,

Thanks for the link. Some of my thoughts and ideas are in no way those of I400. I feel like Utah can still give out 9,000 LE tags and still maintain some general season tags. But this is more then likely going to have to be a statewide thing. 

With the state wanting to increase it's elk herd to 80,000. There is no reason why we can't give out 9,000+ LE tags, as well as keep a fair amount of general season tags. Our state is managed in a two phase process. General season and trophy LE. There is no inbetween which in the elk managment plan, it is clear stated they want a three phase. General season area's, trophy area's, and hunter opportunity area's.

When the elk herd gets up to 80,000 and we are giving out 9,000 plus tags. Your going to have people forget all about any general season tags that they might have lost in the process of getting to those 9,000 LE tags. 

Now you have 9,000 people getting through the draw every year. I really like that idea. But we can not get to this goal if we are shooting both mature and yearling bulls ever year. We will also need to move the hunt dates around so that success rates will drop. But I feel 9,000 tags and the 11,000 general season any bull tags is a very realistic goal that we can achieve.

Me personally I feel like the only hunt that should be during the rut is the archery hunt. But I also feel that there should be a week for them to relax before we start going after them. Like I said not all of my idea's are those of I400. But the main concept of I400 is a awesome idea. My daughter will now be able to hunt a mature bull in her state, rather then doing it in another.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

HOGAN said:


> 1- We will work be working directly with the DNR to determine these #'s. I wish we knew them it may end a lot of arguments.
> 
> 2-It will lower 30% on the rifle sucess rate alone. After researching other states, there is noe reason this would not happen.
> 
> ...


1) I think many of you I400 supporters are operating on some serious assumptions...you assume that tags can be increased significantly by changing season dates. I believe many of you assume that the only reason our harvest precentages for LE hunts are because they are during the rut; I don't. I believe other factors have a major effect on hunters success: 1)bull/cow ratios--obviously the more bulls available to be shot, the higher the harvest rate for limited tags 2) hunter density and competition--low tag numbers means fewer hunters competing for available animals 3) accessibility of terrain/unit etc. How about you look at the current tag allotments, do some math, and show how many more tags would be added?

2) What states are you comparing? You cannot legitimately compare our harvest rates to Arizona's and New Mexicos because we operate under different systems which affect harvest rates differently. Our statewide harvest rates are very similar to both of these states...only our LE numbers differ. Again, reasons for these differences are numerous and may include several factors including: 1)bull/cow ratios and density of bulls 2) hunter numbers and competition for available animals 3) accessibility etc...

Interestingly, though, if you take the rifle hunt from the rut and expect to decrease it by 30% wouldn't adding the archery hunt to the rut result in an expected 30% increase in harvest rate...or, at least, a significant increase? Personally, I think if you want to make people "hunt" again, get rid of the guides...

Also, the five "pilot" units gave out a combined 249 LE tags...by moving these hunts out of the rut, your 30% increase would mean 75 tags! A 20% increase would mean 50 more tags, and a 10% (Which I think is more likely) would result in 25 more tags. My question, though, is by how much would we have to reduce these tag increases to compensate for the icnreased harvest rates of muzzy hunters and archery hunters, who, by your plan, would be hunting the rut?

3) I find you reasoning for the folowing season dates contradictory:
September 1-21 Limited Archery, any-bull
September 26-October 4 Limited Muzzleloader, any-bull
October 6-14 Limited Rifle any-bull on the North Cache, Wasatch, and Nebo units
November 10-16 Limited Rifle any-bull on the Fish Lake and LaSal units. If you are truly trying to maximize hunter opportunity for mature bulls, wouldn't you move ALL hunts from the rut? Wouldn't this maximize the number of tags available. Combine this change with your tag allotment changes and you look an awfully lot like a bunch of bowhunters trying to give themselves the best hunt.

4) Why shouldn't the most effective weapon be during the rut? Doesn't this assure for high success? I believe this helps make these LE hunts quality hunts...and, many people want to hunt the rut with a rifle.

5) You say this should NEVER be run statewide, but Pro thinks differently. He believes this could reasonably eventually turn to a statwide plan. Again, if this plan were to go statewide, a huge reduction in general season opportunity would result.

7) I don't believe I400 could guarantee this either because it only covers 5 units...there is no way you can increase the tags enough to compensate for the demand. However, I believe the state could/should increase tags on all LE units--especially spike units--to help move people through better.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

You say...I believe many of you assume that the only reason our harvest precentages for LE hunts are because they are during the rut; I don't.

And then go on to say 

Why shouldn't the most effective weapon be during the rut? Doesn't this assure for high success? I believe this helps make these LE hunts quality hunts...and, many people want to hunt the rut with a rifle. 

We both know sucess rat will go down by moving the rifle hunt out of the rut. By changing the season dates adding more hunters etc. it will allow for more tags. I have and will comtinue to do the math, but to start spouting out exact #'s is inane. Every unit is different and should be managed different. 

Arizona and New Mexico run under different systems. But if we changed our season dates, # of hunters in the field, etc. would that not be a different system? 

Archers sucess rate will not change much more than 5% no matter when you set their dates. The only way you could change their #'s is if you made archery last after the rifle and muzzy hunt then it would go down to next to nothing.

To each their own on guides, guides are the only option right now because it is an OIL hunt under the current system. A hunter wants to make sure he/she is sucessful. 

We never want this to go statewide. We have said from the beginning to leave 8-10 units. The only thing we are worried about are the 5. I400 would have to be a smashing success to even think of adding another. 

It cannot be guarateed that one would draw 4-5 years but very possible. If I400 is that popular where are these applicants coming from, the current draw system. So that would free something up.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

1) We do both agree that rifle hunters' success will go down by moving the hunt out of the rut...the question is how much. I am not asking you to tell me the exact amount that harvest percentages would increase or the exact numbers of tags that we could increase. But, what I am asking is for your best estimate. My best estimates show that the increase would be minimal, and I don't see how you can expect to move people through the system every 3-5 years (or even every 6-8) years with such a minimal increase.

2) Arizona and New Mexico have different statewide systems than we do...because their LE hunting is done on a statewide basis, they can move people through the system than what we can on the units we offer LE hunts. That does not mean we can't and shouldn't be moving people through quicker...BUT, to compare our hunts to their hunts is not a good comparison because they work totally differently. In order to change the rate at which people draw from OIL to every 3-5 years, you would have to change the entire system for the entire state...I don't see an alternative. Remember, you are only talking about 5 units...also, I don't believe we need to change the entire system. I believe our current system works...and would work better if we just gave out more LE tags.

3) I believe the rate at which archers success would increase would be higher than 5%...but who knows. My biggest concern is that on one hand you claim a desire to "maximize" LE tags and, on the other hand, you have a season date that doesn't allow a maximum number of tags. To some, this may look like archers trying to flower up their own hunt and make it better at the expense of rifle hunters.

4) Many Hunters do want to make sure they are successfull...that is why many of them do like a high success rate draw hunt. Guide or not.

5) I am not sure I believe the idea that all I400 supporters do NOT want it to go statewide. Perhaps my biggest concern with this change is the idea that it _could_ go statewide.

6) I don't see how it would be ever possible to move people through the system quick enough to draw every 4-5 years...if you are talking about just those 5 units, you are also talking about over 10,000 applicants. How will such minimal increases make that big of a difference?


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo, 
I would be tickled pink if this idea was to be put statewide. But those are my personal feelings. I do not get anything out of shooting spikes. And I would be excited to hunt a mature quality animal every 4-5 years. I see my friends down in Arizona who are able to do this. I then see the animals that they end up taking. And I say to myself, I sure wish I could do that here. Instead I settle for an open bull tag. 

I know many other hunter's feel the same way, because my hunting area is now getting over run by people who hate hunting spikes. 

There is no way to compare our stats to another's state at this time. That is a no brainer and I never was trying to. We have a totally different system then anyone else's. The reason I did post those stats is to show what our state could be doing if I400 is put into place. We would then be able to model our state after those two other states, who currently are giving their hunters both quality and quanity. 

We should look at these states a lot more. Which by the way, we do look at them some already. The DWR looks at these states because the state is making up our managment tables as they go. They DO not have one's right now. This was stated in the April RAC meeting in 2006.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Wyo,
> I would be tickled pink if this idea was to be put statewide. But those are my personal feelings. I do not get anything out of shooting spikes. And I would be excited to hunt a mature quality animal every 4-5 years. I see my friends down in Arizona who are able to do this. I then see the animals that they end up taking. And I say to myself, I sure wish I could do that here. Instead I settle for an open bull tag.
> 
> I know many other hunter's feel the same way, because my hunting area is now getting over run by people who hate hunting spikes.
> ...


1) I agree with what you are saying--I believe a lot of people think like you do. I don't disagree that some would be tickled pink with a system like Arizona's...some of us, however, would not. I believe what Utah is trying to do is find a happy medium between systems like Arizona's and systems like Colorado's. The good thing about Arizona's system is that it allows for more mature bull hunting opportunity; however, such a system has drawbacks as well...Arizona cannot offer as much general season opportunity as Utah can. It is all give and take...

2) I have been comparing the stats too...I also believe that our state agency and biologists look at what other states do too. My point was that we do things a little differently and because we do things differently our numbers are different; I believe many factors come into play in these differences. I don't believe we can say that since Arizona has lower harvest rates that their season dates are the sole reason...I think many factors come into play and such comparisons shouldn't be made.

3) I think I400 as a statewide plan has much more viability than I400 under 5 pilot units...but with such a plan, I want people to understand that by gaining more LE opportunity they will be losing a lot of general season opportunity--both in any-bull tags and in spike tags. I, personally, would be against any plan that reduces the total number of tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Bump


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> We do both agree that rifle hunters' success will go down by moving the hunt out of the rut...the question is how much. I am not asking you to tell me the exact amount that harvest percentages would increase or the exact numbers of tags that we could increase. But, what I am asking is for your best estimate. My best estimates show that the increase would be minimal, and I don't see how you can expect to move people through the system every 3-5 years (or even every 6-8) years with such a minimal increase.


This got me thinking, so I did a little research and number crunching. I found some good stuff out there. I also talked with a Arizona archer who gave me somethings to mull over. Here is what I say, the success rates will stay high UNTIL the 'excess' bulls are weeded out. The DWR and even wyo2ut agree there are 'excess' bulls on all/most LE units. As we lower the bull/cow ratios, get harvest age averages in line w/objectives, give a higher percentage of tags to primitive weapons, the success rates WILL go down by significant numbers. I did a few numbers for you to look over:

ARCHERY:
2004=342 tags issued, 169 bulls killed, 52.6% success rate
2005=423 tags issued, 180 bulls killed, 45.3% success rate
2006=477 tags issued, 161 bulls killed, 35.0% success rate
From 2004-2006 an increase of 135 tags resulted in 8 *fewer* bulls killed, success rate dropped from 52.6% to 35.0%.
ANY WEAPON:
2004=894 tags issued, 784 bulls killed, 89.6% success rate
2005=1053 tags issued, 879 bulls killed, 85.8% success rate
2006=1213 tags issued, 1063 bulls killed, 89.5% success rate
From 2004-2006 an increase of 319 tags resulted in 279 *more* bulls killed, success rate stayed basically the same.
MUZZLELOADER:
2004=203 tags issued, 153 bulls killed, 78.1% success rate
2005=241 tags issued, 166 bulls killed, 69.5% success rate
2006=277 tags issued, 195 bulls killed, 72.0% success rate
From 2004-2006 an increase of 74 tags resulted in 42 *more* bulls killed, success rate dropped from 78.1% to 72.0%.
TOTAL:
2004=1439 tags issued, 1106 bulls killed, 79.5% success rate
2005=1765 tags issued, 1270 bulls killed, 74.3% success rate
2006= 2018 tags issued,1466 bulls killed, 74.6% success rate
From 2004-2006 an increase of 579 tags resulted in 360 *more* bulls killed, success rate dropped from 79.5% to 74.6%.

This tells me as tags increase for primitive weapons the success rates *decrease*, archery by a big margin, yet rifle success rates stayed the same. During this time frame, bull/cow ratios got *worse*, harvest age averages statewide went *up*, even though both were above objective to begin with. So, an increase in tags could/should be significant w/o hurting quality, in fact, would *help* the herds be closer to objectives per the current EMP. Now, by moving a higher percentage of tags to primitive weapon hunters, the overall success rates WILL decrease, and as the excess bulls are thinned out, the overall success rates will decrease even more, allowing for an increase of tags large enough to make a major impact on peoples ability to draw a LE tag in Utah.

I have the numbers for the five pilot units during the 2004-2006 time frame as well if interested. I am curious to see 2007 numbers, this will enable us to see some patterns, and expose the bumps in the numbers over a four year period. 2004 was the first year archery LE tags were issued.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Great...these numbers are all fine and dandy. A couple of things, though: 1) post the numbers for the five pilot units...because these are the units you are talking about 2) again, though, you are planning on moving the archery season into the rut...this would also affect the success rates; I believe significantly. 3) If bull/cow ratios and harvest ages are decreased to the EMP levels, quality undoubtedly will decrease...4) simply lowering the bull/cow ratios and ages of harvested elk, you will lower success rates because fewer bulls will be available to be shot...there are many ways of doing this 5) you are still talking about moving well over 10,000 applicants through the system every 3-5 years...i don't see it happening.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

1)Here you go:

ARCHERY:
N Cache;
2004=11 tags issued, 2 bulls killed, 22.2% success rate
2005=11 tags issued, 1 bulls killed, 11.1% success rate
2006=13 tags issued, 0 bulls killed, 00.0% success rate

LaSal;
2004= 9 tags issued, 2 bulls killed, 22.2% success rate
2005= 12 tags issued, 6 bulls killed, 60.0% success rate
2006= 13 tags issued, 6 bulls killed, 46.0% success rate

Nebo;
2004= 13 tags issued, 4 bulls killed, 30.8% success rate
2005= 20 tags issued, 7 bulls killed, 35.0% success rate
2006= 27 tags issued, 5 bulls killed, 19.0% success rate

Wasatch;
2004= 41 tags issued, 17 bulls killed, 43.6% success rate
2005= 56 tags issued, 19 bulls killed, 33.9% success rate
2006= 63 tags issued, 20 bulls killed, 32.0% success rate

Fish Lake;
2004= 23 tags issued, 13 bulls killed, 61.9% success rate
2005= 23 tags issued, 11 bulls killed, 47.8% success rate
2006= 23 tags issued, 14 bulls killed, 61.0% success rate

Totals;
2004= 97 tags issued, 38 bulls killed, 41.8% success rate
2005= 122 tags issued, 44 bulls killed, 37.2& success rate
2006= 139 tags issued, 45 bulls killed, 32.3% success rate
From 2004-2006 tags were increased by 42 tags, with an increase of 7 bulls killed. Success rate *dropped* from 41.8% to 32.3%.

RIFLE:
N Cache;
2004=21 tags issued, 19 bulls killed, 90.5%% success rate
2005=24 tags issued, 16 bulls killed, 66.7% success rate
2006=30 tags issued, 19 bulls killed, 63.3% success rate

LaSal;
2004= 20 tags issued, 17 bulls killed, 89.5%% success rate
2005= 27 tags issued, 19 bulls killed, 76.0% success rate
2006= 28 tags issued, 23 bulls killed, 71.4% success rate

Nebo;
2004= 36 tags issued, 34 bulls killed, 100% success rate
2005= 48 tags issued, 42 bulls killed, 87.5% success rate
2006= 62 tags issued, 47 bulls killed, 81.0% success rate

Wasatch;
2004= 105 tags issued, 93 bulls killed, 90.3% success rate
2005= 133 tags issued, 112 bulls killed, 86.8% success rate
2006= 142 tags issued, 118 bulls killed, 81.0% success rate

Fish Lake;
2004= 57 tags issued, 52 bulls killed, 92.9% success rate
2005= 55 tags issued, 52 bulls killed, 94.5% success rate
2006= 54 tags issued, 52 bulls killed, 94.2% success rate

Totals;
2004= 239 tags issued, 215 bulls killed, 92.3% success rate
2005= 287 tags issued, 241 bulls killed, 85.8% success rate
2006= 316 tags issued, 256 bulls killed, 83.9% success rate
From 2004-2006 tags were increased by 77, bulls killed increased by 41, success rate *dropped *from 92.3% to 83.9%.

MUZZY:

N Cache;
2004=5 tags issued, 3 bulls killed, 60.0% success rate
2005=6 tags issued, 3 bulls killed, 50.0% success rate
2006=8 tags issued, 2 bulls killed, 25.0% success rate

LaSal;
2004= 5 tags issued, 3 bulls killed, 60.0% success rate
2005= 7 tags issued, 5 bulls killed, 71.4% success rate
2006= 7 tags issued, 5 bulls killed, 71.4% success rate

Nebo;
2004= 9 tags issued, 6 bulls killed, 75.0% success rate
2005= 11 tags issued, 6 bulls killed, 54.5% success rate
2006= 14 tags issued, 6 bulls killed, 46.0% success rate

Wasatch;
2004= 25 tags issued, 17 bulls killed, 70.8% success rate
2005= 33 tags issued, 19 bulls killed, 57.6% success rate
2006= 36 tags issued, 23 bulls killed, 68.0% success rate

Fish Lake;
2004= 13 tags issued, 12 bulls killed, 92.3% success rate
2005= 14 tags issued, 11 bulls killed, 78.6% success rate
2006= 14 tags issued, 13 bulls killed, 93.0% success rate

Totals;
2004= 57 tags issued, 41 bulls killed, 74.5% success rate
2005= 71 tags issued, 44 bulls killed, 62.0% success rate
2006= 79 tags issued, 49 bulls killed, 64.5% success rate
From 2004 tags were increased by 22, bulls killed increased by 8, success rates *dropped* from 74.5% to 64.5%

OVERALL TOTALS:
2004= 393 tags issued, 294 bulls killed, 77.6% success rate
2005= 480 tags issued, 329 bulls killed, 70.0% success rate
2006= 534 tags issued, 350 bulls killed, 67.8% success rate
From 2004 tags were increased by 141, bulls killed increased by 56, success rates *dropped* from 77.6% to 67.8%.

These numbers show a steady trend of success rate decreases(-10%) as the tag numbers increase.

2)You have NOTHING to support this assertion.

3)See #2.

4)Lower success rates for ALL weapon choices, including archery. I 400 is a great and effective way of accomplishing these objectives.

5)*You* are the one who keeps talking about 3-5 years, get over it. Regardless of how many years it will take to get 10,000+ applicants through the system, it will be *decreased* than under the current system. Even if it is ONLY decreased to 8-10 years (very realistic), that is a MAJOR improvement over the current system.

PRO


----------

