# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board will meet at 9 a.m. this morning to set big game hunts and season dates for 2017. There are also a variety of other topics on the agenda, including elk unit management plans, preference points and CWMUs.

We are streaming the meeting online via YouTube, and the meeting video will be available after the broadcast for those who can't watch it live.

Thanks,
Amy


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hopefully the increase for the elk herd objectives pass,
Critical for Wasatch elk..:!:..


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Goofy, I know alot of guys think you are crazy. But I agree 100% with you. To see what I used to see up Diamond fork 7-8 years ago to now is a desolate waste land. We could go out and see lots of elk in most every canyon. This year in 5 days of deer hunting, I saw 1 cow that was hanging with 3 bucks. She had been with them from the end of the archery hunt clear until the end of the deer hunt. IT NEEDS HELP AND NOW!!!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

So, what were the results?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I hear the point thing passed. If you draw any tag for any choice you lose your points.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

The cattlemen showed up wanting to kill every elk in the state


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

One of the cattle guys actually asked why they have not tried to bring the elk numbers down to meet objective on the wasatch. Wow


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Herd objective passed 5 to 1 I believe


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

hazmat said:


> The cattlemen showed up wanting to kill every elk in the state


There's a lot of truth to this statement.


----------



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

hazmat said:


> The cattlemen showed up wanting to kill every elk in the state


I used to see elk every trip on some of the very units these cattlemen complain about the elk on. Monroe I couldn't go a trip without seeing a lot. This year in places I've seen elk on every winter of my life doesn't have any. Elk numbers have been significantly hit on several of these units for several year and apparently it still isn't enough. They won't be happy till there's about 10 left on the mountain and they better not eat a blade of grass either. They're constant bitching and moaning is beginning to discredit them I hope.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Preferance point passed, north eastern deer objective passed, 2 new archery oil units passed, deer creek cwmu operator is getting put on blast for poor public hunter satisfaction. Sfw and rmef showed up for sportsman


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We can reduce PUBLIC elk numbers on PUBLIC land when we reduce their grazing allotments on PUBLIC land too!

Cattlemen, eating from the public teet and stabbing the public in the back at the same time.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> We can reduce PUBLIC elk numbers on PUBLIC land when we reduce their grazing allotments on PUBLIC land too!
> 
> Cattlemen, eating from the public test and stabbing the public in the back at the same time.


Most of these welfare ranchers wouldn't be satisfied unless we gave them the land. They drive me crazy.

Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative bill is in strong favor of grazing, just as an FYI to everyone (see Title XIII). It would not mean good things for wildlife, and bighorn sheep in particular.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

They were attacking the southwest desert and panguitch areas pretty hard. The one rancher had no clue what was going on with the wasatch. Paul Phillips of sbm wanted some common ground and was pretty level headed about the whole thing tell your dad thanks for showing up berry blaster. 
It was nice to see rmef and sfw fighting together for the same cause. How beautiful would it be if these to organizations worked together more often.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

If it wasn't for a few guys like Paul, the RMEF , and SFW fighting the ranchers
and other oppositions, our elk herds would be in even worse shape. Numbers wise.

Thanks to those folks that were at the board meeting in support of our hunting opportunity


----------



## TheHunted (Feb 22, 2016)

Can someone explain to me how adding archery only OIL hunts helps point creep? I'm assuming these archery tags are going to be pulled from the any weapon pool. I like that there is extra opportunity but I feel like that opportunity was already there. 

Also, this was the first board meeting I've had the chance to watch. I came away very unimpressed with the board members. There were a couple of guys that didn't say anything, all they did was raise their hands when there


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

It sounded like those oil tags were going to be extra tags. As they decided what herds could support it.
I think there philosophy is that a guy who is an avid archery guy will go after that tag and eliminate his 12 points or whatever from the any weapon draw.
Thus they plan on 20 to 30 of these guys taking their points our of the any weapon draw. Hopefully increasing better draw odds for archery and any weapon I like it. I just wish they would have done it with moose


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

Is there a web page with the meeting results?


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Karl said:


> Is there a web page with the meeting results?


 Here is a recording of the meeting. streaming the meeting online


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

hazmat said:


> It sounded like those oil tags were going to be extra tags. As they decided what herds could support it.


That just isn't true. There can't be "extra" tags because there are not "extra" animals to shoot. If a unit can support a harvest of 5 then they issue 5 tags. When they talk about archers shooting "sub-par specimens" that also may not be the case. Seems more likely an archer will shoot a trophy or a 2 year old that doesn't meet the unit objective than to shoot an old non-trophy.

The only way this idea works is if archers are unsuccessful. Then you can add more opportunity to hunt without taking tags from "Peter to pay Paul". Of course, how long will Paul take an unsuccessful payment?

I just figure we are all hunters. On these hunts with such low opportunity there should be one draw and the hunter uses the opportunity as he/she sees fit. I see no need to cut up the pie to benefit one faction of hunters.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Packout said:


> That just isn't true. There can't be "extra" tags because there are not "extra" animals to shoot. If a unit can support a harvest of 5 then they issue 5 tags. When they talk about archers shooting "sub-par specimens" that also may not be the case. Seems more likely an archer will shoot a trophy or a 2 year old that doesn't meet the unit objective than to shoot an old non-trophy.
> 
> The only way this idea works is if archers are unsuccessful. Then you can add more opportunity to hunt without taking tags from "Peter to pay Paul". Of course, how long will Paul take an unsuccessful payment?
> 
> I just figure we are all hunters. On these hunts with such low opportunity there should be one draw and the hunter uses the opportunity as he/she sees fit. I see no need to cut up the pie to benefit one faction of hunters.


 I respectfully disagree. Even if the number stays tge same as far as tags I have no problem if 50 guys take their 10 points out of the any weapon draw. It will increase my odds possibly of drawing a tag with 15 points. 
Archery Is a huge part of our sport going forward. it seams alot of youth prefer archery over rifle the sport is taking off as far as popularity. They should be accomodated.
I hunt all weapons and I am not biased to any of them.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

hazmat said:


> I respectfully disagree. Even if the number stays tge same as far as tags I have no problem if 50 guys take their 10 points out of the any weapon draw. It will increase my odds possibly of drawing a tag with 15 points.
> Archery Is a huge part of our sport going forward. it seams alot of youth prefer archery over rifle the sport is taking off as far as popularity. They should be accomodated.
> I hunt all weapons and I am not biased to any of them.


Do you disagree that the new archery tags are not extras? There can only be a harvest of X so they can only issue X tags. There are not extras.

Archers already are "accommodated". They are not forced to use a rifle. They can apply for a permit and use archery equipment if they see fit..... That is what I did with my OIL Moose tag-- I chose what to hunt with and killed a giant with my bow. Goofy did the same thing with his moose. ArcherBen did the same thing with his mtn goat. We all waited in line and took advantage of the opportunity how we wanted.

So lets dive into this-- The Central Unitas goat unit has 9 res tags and 256 applicants. That means 4 tags went to high point holders leaving 5 tags for 252 applicants or odds of 1 in 50.

If that hunt now has 8 tags then we'd have 4 tags for 252 applicants or odds of 1 in 63. So the new archery hunt would need to draw more than 50 applicants from the Central Goat unit just to break even on odds.

I will stand by the statement that we are all hunters-- and that by making some special then we lose unity. What is done is done.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Packout said:


> Do you disagree that the new archery tags are not extras? There can only be a harvest of X so they can only issue X tags. There are not extras.
> 
> Archers already are "accommodated". They are not forced to use a rifle. They can apply for a permit and use archery equipment if they see fit..... That is what I did with my OIL Moose tag-- I chose what to hunt with and killed a giant with my bow. Goofy did the same thing with his moose. ArcherBen did the same thing with his mtn goat. We all waited in line and took advantage of the opportunity how we wanted.
> 
> ...


First off I am not sure I really care who has killed what with x weapon congrats to you guys.
If they do decide that a specific unit is doing well and they want to add a tag to the overall tag numbers. I have no problem with an archery only tag showing up. like I said it will pull x amount of people from the already 4 tags they had. and increase odds of an archery guy getting lucky and drawing 
We will see when tag numbers Come out I guess.
I will keep putting in for my any weapon oil regardless.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Where are you guys seeing/hearing that there are designated archery-only permits for OIAL species on the table? Watching the meeting (at about 1:52:00) all I saw them recommend was adding a 7 day archery-only extension at the end of the OIAL season. That's not going to hurt or help anyone as far as point creep goes.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So what is the state of things? Are they just simply extending the season 7 days for anyone with the tag to hunt with archery equipment? Or are they creating an archery only tag? 

Yes, I'm too lazy too figure this out on my own.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Interesting meeting overall...

I had a really tough time listening to the cattlemen during the discussion about the unit elk plans. It seemed like they (the cattlemen) just would not understand that the increases in elk population objectives weren't even in their part of the state seeing that the vast majority of the increases are in the northern part of the state. I try to be understanding with the cattlemen because let's face it, if I felt that the way that I put bread on my table was in jeopardy I'd be pretty passionate about it myself. But listening to those guys and their public comment was difficult.

The BBIOL season dates discussion was interesting. Like Mr. Bair commented when everything was finally voted upon... "that went in a different direction than I thought it was going to go." The Northern RAC proposed that the archery only permits be tried only on the bighorn sheep (rocky and desert) because the DWR could essentially "create" additional tags. The number of tags is currently based off the number of Class 3 and 4 rams, with the sideboards being 30 to 40% of that count with the DWR currently being conservative and basing tags off 30%. So I guess the thought was that the DWR could instead be more aggressive and use the 40% number to come up with an additional tag or two for the archery only tags. Instead, because of an off the cuff comment made by Mr. Bair that we're "growing goats like crazy" the Board did a complete 180 on the bighorn sheep hunts and instead proposed and then approved an archery only mountain goat hunt (North Slope/South Slope, Uinta Mountains - Central unit) and a hunter's choice bison hunt (Henry Mountains) and the 7 day extension not being approved for any of the OIAL hunts. I'm not sure how I feel about it though, with so few tags being offered I'm not sure I like what could be perceived as "special treatment" for one group. I don't see how it will improve this point creep phenomenon that everyone is now so concerned with.
I didn't get to hear the last little bit of the preference point discussion, but for as quickly as it was motioned for a vote I just assumed there was little discussion about it and the Board approved it as it was presented. I think this change was one step too far in my opinion... a knee jerk overreaction. The drawing order was changed to consider all applicants first choice first AND lose your bonus points if you draw a tag regardless of which choice. I honestly think it should have been one or the other... consider first choice first but keep your point if you draw any of your other choices OR leave the drawing sequence as is but lose your points if you draw any tag. Either way, it is what it is and it's now the system that we'll need to live with for the next couple years until there's another group of people who feel that this system treats them unfairly.

I think I've watched all the WB meetings since they started streaming them on YouTube, and even listened to a handful of them when they only streamed the audio. I'm not impressed with this Board, guys trying to be funny be end up coming off as disrespectful. While other board members appear completely indifferent to the discussion and just raise their hands in favor. I thought it was great that the discussion about the BBOIAL took so many twists and turns... it showed at least that for this part of the meeting the board was actually engaged in some meaningful discussion.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Ok, thanks for the summary Derek. I just didn't listen far enough into the meeting to get to that part before posting.

I think success rates will be low enough that archery-only tags can probably be offered in sufficient numbers to move more guys through the system. I'll be very interested to see how they affect draw odds.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So if I'm reading that correctly, they approved a NEW archery only mountain goat hunt in the Uintas and a NEW hunters choice archery only bison hunt on the Henrys, but did NOT pass any 7 day archery only extension? 

And they are not increasing total tag numbers, but will have to take those out of the already existing tag numbers available?


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> So if I'm reading that correctly, they approved a NEW archery only mountain goat hunt in the Uintas and a NEW hunters choice archery only bison hunt on the Henrys, but did NOT pass any 7 day archery only extension?
> 
> And they are not increasing total tag numbers, but will have to take those out of the already existing tag numbers available?


We don't know for sure yet on the tag numbers. We'll need to wait until the May board meeting because they did not have any discussion about tag numbers during this meeting. The fact that they won't discuss tag numbers and allocations until May was brought up by the DWR presenter multiple times.
The DWRs recommendation with the additional archery tags and the 7 day archery extension was to do one or the other... not both. So when the board voted on and approved the two archery only hunts they went back and voted to follow the DWR recommendation and not extend the season for the other hunts by 7 days.

So yes to your first question... 2 new archery only hunts and no seven day extension. To your second question... we'll have to wait until May to know for sure.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

So I think I have it right. Help me out if I don't.. On the new archery once in a lifetime tags, the only way they can help out with odds is if additional tags are added to the species/hunt. For example, If you have 4 bison tags for an any legal weapon hunt and take one away to create an archery only hunt, than you have cut the tag numbers for any legal weapon by 25 percent and to adjust for that you would have to have 25 percent of the bison hunters leave the any legal weapon pool and switch to archery only, just to keep the odds numbers the exact same, not improve them.
Now if you have 4 any legal weapon tags and the biologists decide an extra tag is ok and add that to an archery only and you have people leave the any legal weapon pool for archery than you have improved odds for any legal weapon. If no tags are added though, than all that has happened is a "special" group of hunters got a special hunt and if not enough bison/goat hunters move over to that archery pool, you have worsened the any legal weapon odds. Is that all correct? Am I missing anything?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

utahgolf said:


> So I think I have it right. Help me out if I don't.. On the new archery once in a lifetime tags, the only way they can help out with odds is if additional tags are added to the species/hunt. For example, If you have 4 bison tags for an any legal weapon hunt and take one away to create an archery only hunt, than you have cut the tag numbers for any legal weapon by 25 percent and to adjust for that you would have to have 25 percent of the bison hunters leave the any legal weapon pool and switch to archery only, just to keep the odds numbers the exact same, not improve them.
> Now if you have 4 any legal weapon tags and the biologists decide an extra tag is ok and add that to an archery only and you have people leave the any legal weapon pool for archery than you have improved odds for any legal weapon. If no tags are added though, than all that has happened is a "special" group of hunters got a special hunt and if not enough bison/goat hunters move over to that archery pool, you have worsened the any legal weapon odds. Is that all correct? Am I missing anything?


 That sounds about right.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If they take these tags out of the any weapon hunts, they will have done the exact opposite for point creep than what people are hoping. 

That would be a huge mistake!


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

utahgolf said:


> So I think I have it right. Help me out if I don't.. On the new archery once in a lifetime tags, the only way they can help out with odds is if additional tags are added to the species/hunt. For example, If you have 4 bison tags for an any legal weapon hunt and take one away to create an archery only hunt, than you have cut the tag numbers for any legal weapon by 25 percent and to adjust for that you would have to have 25 percent of the bison hunters leave the any legal weapon pool and switch to archery only, just to keep the odds numbers the exact same, not improve them.
> Now if you have 4 any legal weapon tags and the biologists decide an extra tag is ok and add that to an archery only and you have people leave the any legal weapon pool for archery than you have improved odds for any legal weapon. If no tags are added though, than all that has happened is a "special" group of hunters got a special hunt and if not enough bison/goat hunters move over to that archery pool, you have worsened the any legal weapon odds. Is that all correct? Am I missing anything?


Sounds right to me. The potential advantage is that the archery hunts will probably have lower success. The DWR plans on almost 100% success for mountain goat rifle hunts. If archers only have about 50% success, though, the DWR could add two new extra archery tags rather than one extra rifle tag if there comes a time when permits can be increased. This moves more people through and reduces competition (although probably not very significantly).

The other thing worth noting is that if they take away a tag from the any weapon pool and move it to archery, they are only hurting odds _for that particular hunt_.

In the case of mountain goats, it may well be that the odds of drawing a High Uintas Central rifle tag (where the archery hunt will take place) get worse. But there will probably be a number of guys who were applying for other goat hunts across the state that would be willing to switch to the Uintas Central if it means they can apply for archery only. So it could be a case where you hurt one hunt unit's odds and help all of the others.

I'll be watching this closely when drawing odds are released for 2017.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

The other thing that needs to be considered is that they would need to allocate at least TWO tags for each of the archery only hunts to make any difference with point creep. If they only have one tag allocated for these hunts they will be drawn random, in order to have a bonus tag guaranteed to a high point holder there would need to be two tags. If they only have one tag there's no guarantee that a high point holder would draw the tag and be moved through the system.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

Overall I think they got things right. Would I have rather them do the 7 extended days for archery sure. But there is always something to complain about. I am just glad elk numbers are going up same with deer in alot of areas so kudos wildlife board job well done


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

So, the board voted to correct sportsman ignorance and add a special interest OIL hunt? 
Why am I not shocked that the board does not know nothing about how these special interest hunts will impact total tags or how the split between any weapon ( sounds like you can use archery) and the special ones..... . There are very few OIL tags and the say it "any weapon"! It is only a matter of time until ML OIL tags? Slippery slope the board has started


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

The news sounds good for archery-only tags.

And the correction on the rule for clearing your points after you get a tag makes sense too.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

300 Wby said:


> So, the board voted to correct sportsman ignorance and add a special interest OIL hunt?
> Why am I not shocked that the board does not know nothing about how these special interest hunts will impact total tags or how the split between any weapon ( sounds like you can use archery) and the special ones..... . There are very few OIL tags and the say it "any weapon"! It is only a matter of time until ML OIL tags? Slippery slope the board has started


They did say it would be a trial run to see if it would help point creep. I don't think it is set in stone that this will become the norm.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Maybe they should take 25 more premium LE and OIL tags out of the public draw and give them to the expo on a "trial run" to see if that helps with point creep as well? 

Crap, I shouldn't even jokingly say that. How sad is it that this has probably been proposed and discussed?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The members of the RAC's and Wildlife Board must listen to the public....but personally I think without increasing tags (via higher game populations, or changed objectives) there is no real answer to point creep. All we're doing is playing the game of slightly, if at all, improving a few hunters odds while making a few others slightly, if at all, worse. We can cap points, we can do archery only tags, insert a million ideas here but as long as you have X number of hunters going after X number of tags the end result will be pretty much the same.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> The members of the RAC's and Wildlife Board must listen to the public....but personally I think without increasing tags (via higher game populations, or changed objectives) there is no real answer to point creep. All we're doing is playing the game of slightly, if at all, improving a few hunters odds while making a few others slightly, if at all, worse. We can cap points, we can do archery only tags, insert a million ideas here but as long as you have X number of hunters going after X number of tags the end result will be pretty much the same.


While that is definitely true, I believe total tag numbers are based on a calculation of lethality rates among the types of tags offered. Archery has a lower success rate than any weapon, so theoretically you have to offer more tags in order to kill the same number of animals. That is where I think you will see these tags being an augmentation to the total tags offered.

For example, let's pretend that under any weapon regs they have 100% success rate on Bison and allocate 10 tags in order to kill 10 animals (the sustained management harvest goal). Let's say archery would only have a 50% mortality rate, and if all the tags were archery then they would have to offer 20 tags to kill 10 animals--but yes, that means 10 OIAL tagholder's will eat tag soup and possibly be upset. So to maximize hunter satisfaction, minimize point creep, and still maintain the harvest goal you could go with 9 any weapon tags and 2 archery tags and only kill 10 animals. This creates an additional 10% to help combat point creep.

As long as it ends up happening like ^^this, I'm all for it. But if it is still a 10 tags total scenario, then it is just catering to a specific special interest and is a zero sum game.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

SFW supported a move toward archery-only OIAL tags. A guy from SFW was there at the meeting and commented several times. Based on what he was saying, it sounded like their main goal behind supporting these tags was to combat point creep and get more people hunting.

SFW made recommendations for specific archery-only hunts. The guy at the meeting said that they specifically chose hunts and times of year that would produce low success rates and allow the DWR to offer more tags (I think that's why moose weren't considered). The board didn't accept the SFW recommendations because they didn't want to mess with the sheep tags.

I wonder what success rates the DWR will plan for when setting tag numbers for the 2017 seasons. 50% on the goats? And I don't really have a guess when it comes to the bison.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> For example, let's pretend that under any weapon regs they have 100% success rate on Bison and allocate 10 tags in order to kill 10 animals (the sustained management harvest goal). Let's say archery would only have a 50% mortality rate, and if all the tags were archery then they would have to offer 20 tags to kill 10 animals--but yes, that means 10 OIAL tagholder's will eat tag soup and possibly be upset. So to maximize hunter satisfaction, minimize point creep, and still maintain the harvest goal you could go with 9 any weapon tags and 2 archery tags and only kill 10 animals. This creates an additional 10% to help combat point creep.
> 
> As long as it ends up happening like ^^this, I'm all for it. But if it is still a 10 tags total scenario, then it is just catering to a specific special interest and is a zero sum game.


It is too bad but I doubt that this is the way that they are going to think on a OIL animal. From what I gathered on watching the meeting archery hunters will work harder to put their tag on a animal and when you have X amount of tags and the division plans for X-10% success rate then I doubt that they will raise tag numbers and figure that a couple extra tags just go to the archery hunters figuring that 50% will fill their tags.

I know for a fact that if I had a OIL archery tag I would bust my butt the whole season to tag out. But I would do the same thing if I could only draw a any weapon tag. But we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with during the May meeting.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

All you need to do is look at the success rates for each weapon. Both Any Weapon and Muzzy tags run around 90 + percent. Archery 30-50 percent.
Hard to increase tags without increased animals to hunt if every tag kills out.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Critter said:


> It is too bad but I doubt that this is the way that they are going to think on a OIL animal. From what I gathered on watching the meeting archery hunters will work harder to put their tag on a animal and when you have X amount of tags and the division plans for X-10% success rate then I doubt that they will raise tag numbers and figure that a couple extra tags just go to the archery hunters figuring that 50% will fill their tags.
> 
> I know for a fact that if I had a OIL archery tag I would bust my butt the whole season to tag out. But I would do the same thing if I could only draw a any weapon tag. But we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with during the May meeting.


I get that, but the reality is archery LE tags, even in awesome units, have a significantly lower mortality rate. I had some of the hard numbers and posted them up when we first talked about the proposal a few months ago. But even Henry Mountains archery deer tags have a big drop in success rate compared to any weapon. For most people, it doesn't matter how much you bust your butt getting within 60ish yards is just a lot more challenging than the 500 yard rifle shot. Yes, there are guys that do 100 yard archery and likely an even larger percentage of rifle hunters shooting past 500 yards, but overall they are the minority in the field. One can only hope the WB in setting tags has the good sense to recognize that too.

I'm really curious to see how muzzleloader success rates changed in 2016 with the scope change. Prior to this year there was still a consistent, significant reduction in success rates from any weapon to muzzies (and I still think it will be a good margin personally). I think breaking the OIAL hunts into weapon specific categories would allow for most species to greatly increase the number of tags. Unfortunately, I just don't think that would work with moose and it is the worst point creep offender of all.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

They mentioned success rates from Colorado, which offers archery-only tags for sheep and goat. It was around 60% for goats and 40% for sheep, if I remember right.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think that we can look at a LE hunt and compare it to a OIL hunt. I know of years that 100% of the bison hunters took one home with them. As you know a OIL tag is done and gone once the season is done. A LE tag you have a chance, however so slim of drawing it again. 

I do agree that I think that there should be a time that is set aside for archery only. I know one hunter that was hunting bison on the Henry Mountains that had his stalk screwed up by a rifle hunter. What really ticked me off was that the rifle hunter knew that the other hunter was putting on a stalk to get within range and couldn't just sit where he was and watch. He had to take a long shot to try to fill his tag.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> While that is definitely true, I believe total tag numbers are based on a calculation of lethality rates among the types of tags offered. Archery has a lower success rate than any weapon, so theoretically you have to offer more tags in order to kill the same number of animals. That is where I think you will see these tags being an augmentation to the total tags offered.


I agree with what you are saying. I think this principle works on hunts with more tags and can be drawn more often than OIL.

My concerns here are:

1 - Since these are once in a lifetime tags anybody drawing an archery tag is going to put in a tremendous amount of effort to be successful increasing traditional archery success rates. 
2 -It could also backfire and we could see some increased wounding rates (that result in game deaths) due to the tremendous amount of pressure that comes with a once in a lifetime tag with a bow. 
3 - Those that aren't successful will likely be unsatisfied and may report it on surveys resulting in tag cuts so there is more game for the archers. 
4 - Also there will be very few archery only tags offered relatively speaking. 
5 - The RAC's and WB are very reluctant to increase tags on these hunts even if the game numbers are there to justify it.

Combine all of these things and I believe it won't help increase tags and help point creep. If I'm wrong, which I hope I am, I'd be happy to admit that.

The public wants to see this program tried and therefore I support it. I'm just simply saying that IMHO this will not move the needle on point creep. We've been talking about point creep for years and I've come to the conclusion I have after talking about it for literally hundreds of hours.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> I agree with what you are saying. I think this principle works on hunts with more tags and can be drawn more often than OIL.
> 
> My concerns here are:
> 
> ...


I think that this type of move with OIAL is extremely comparable to your Henry's archery deer hunt. Do the Henry's archery tags help with total point creep for LE deer? Sure, even if only a little bit. I think drawing a Henry's deer tag is very comparable to a sheep, bison, or shiras moose hunt and way more "special" than a goat hunt to most hunters. You can do guided goat hunts for better goats for ~$5k in Canada on a cancellation list.

I think on such an extreme premium deer tag as the Henry Mountains the rationale and concerns are very relevant to OIAL hunts. I struggle to think that average hunter would put less effort into a henry's archery deer tag than they would an archery only goat hunt, or henry's bison hunt. 2015 saw an 87.5% success rate with Henry's Archery deer and approval of 4.6. That is well within the OIAL success rates that are targeted. For comparison, the rifle hunt had a 96% success rate on the Henry's.

Paunsaguant archery deer had a 58% success rate and approval at 4.2.

The Henry Mountains bison hunts in 2015 had success rates of 82.4 (any), 75 (any), 61.5(cow) and 100 (cow).

Simple math dictates that even a single tag increase results in less point creep (infinitely tiny to be sure, but a decrease nonetheless). Whether or not the WB actually increases total tags is another question. And for the record, if there is not a net increase in tags I do not support creating archery only hunts. That would be kowtowing to a particular interest group--and Utah DWR/WB _never_ would do that...:rotfl:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> I think that this type of move with OIAL is extremely comparable to your Henry's archery deer hunt. Do the Henry's archery tags help with total point creep for LE deer? Sure, even if only a little bit. I think drawing a Henry's deer tag is very comparable to a sheep, bison, or shiras moose hunt and way more "special" than a goat hunt to most hunters. You can do guided goat hunts for better goats for ~$5k in Canada on a cancellation list.
> 
> I think on such an extreme premium deer tag as the Henry Mountains the rationale and concerns are very relevant to OIAL hunts. I struggle to think that average hunter would put less effort into a henry's archery deer tag than they would an archery only goat hunt, or henry's bison hunt. 2015 saw an 87.5% success rate with Henry's Archery deer and approval of 4.6. That is well within the OIAL success rates that are targeted. For comparison, the rifle hunt had a 96% success rate on the Henry's.


You are right about 2015 but consider 2 things.

First don't get hung up in the success percentages. Look at the number of hunters. Only 2 archers have failed to harvest a deer between 2013 and 2015 on the Henry's. 2014 had 100% success. Two rifles hunters also did not report a harvest in that time frame while admittedly there were more rifle hunters. This equates to 2 extra deer on the mountain over 3 years due to the missed archery harvest. Two extra deer on the mountain over 3 years is not going to be enough to raise tags. It wouldn't even be noticeable by a biologist doing classifications. That in a nutshell is why I say the low number of archery tags doesn't even move the dial.

Second, and perhaps most important, is that the Henry Mountains has been due a tag increase for quite some time based on the management targets. I don't recall if it's happened already but I believe the WB will hear, or has heard and passed an increase in management targets to avoid raising tags. Every time it comes before the RAC's and WB to raise tags on hunts with low tag numbers and that are highly coveted the idea of increasing tags might as well be asking if we can test nuclear weapons on that unit.

There are exceptions and I'm sure somebody can find one but when we look at the system as a whole, I do not believe there is much we can do about point creep. Only other thing we haven't brought up is to discourage hunters from putting in the draw but this would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

EDIT: I almost forget to mention. In 2016 it took a point total of 18-21 points to draw a Henry's archery bonus tag. For Rifle it took 19-21 points. Yes, I was one lucky SOB! But point creep is not being helped by archery tags on that deer unit IMHO whatsoever.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I need to correct/clarify one thing. What I'm thinking of when I say that the WB is considering a change to management targets to the Henry's is the change to the most recent mule deer plan. We can no longer raise tags on the LE portion of the tags, we can keep the 2014 baseline numbers or reduce the number of tags.


----------

