# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board is meeting at 1 p.m. today, primarily to discuss the 2017 Book Cliffs - Wild Horse Bench/Nine Mile Bison Hunt.

If you're interested, please check out the agenda and either attend in person or watch the meeting online.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Thanks Amy! This one ought to be interesting.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Since I put in for the Wild Horse Bench bison hunt this year they will drop the tag numbers. Just watch. 

I did hear a rumor about the States bison moving onto the Indian Lands where we can't hunt them. I wonder if that is part of the meeting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If you applied for the unit, or are thinking about applying for the unit in the future, I would definitely tune in. 

This one seems to have been a giant cluster this last year.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The Indians are loving it.
Just shoot!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> Since I put in for the Wild Horse Bench bison hunt this year they will drop the tag numbers. Just watch.
> 
> I did hear a rumor about the States bison moving onto the Indian Lands where we can't hunt them. I wonder if that is part of the meeting.


Hope not, I put my boy in for that one as well.

-DallanC


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Critter said:


> I did hear a rumor about the States bison moving onto the Indian Lands where we can't hunt them. I wonder if that is part of the meeting.


That's interesting.

The Wildhorse Bench hunt is a winter hunt for bison that live on the Ute reservation, but migrate off to winter on public land. If that rumor is true, this would would affect the regular Book Cliff's bison hunt (where the public herd lives), not the Wildhorse Bench hunt.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The Wildhorse Bench hunt deals with hunting Tribal Lands bison that come North and East off the Reservation Lands. The UDWR included the 9 Mile into the unit last year to target Indian bison which had migrated South. The bison in this unit, for the most part, are not the "State" transplanted bison.

This year there were not many bison which migrated North East because of the mild winter. So that made it harder to hunt. The bison drive by helicopter on the 9 Mile probably contributed to some of the problems harvesting, but the mild winter was the main cause for the lower success. I heard it was a 60% or so success rate-- same ballpark of success my Dad had on the Henry Mtns bison hunt. Of course he didn't get a hunt extension......

And I hear the Tribal Association is planning on culling hundreds from their herd due to the issues. If that happens the Wild Horse Bench hunt this year will be tough because there will be fewer bison to move in even if we get snow.

Of course we will get some more info in a couple hours.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is just something that I heard and I took it for what it was worth at the time. But it does make me wonder why this hunt is the main part of the meeting. 

I do know that some of the Book Cliff herd has wandered over into Colorado where they can be hunted as a feral animal. A friend was out hunting rabbits when he ran into 3 or 4 of them about 2 miles inside of Colorado. 

It might be a interesting meeting.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Packout said:


> I heard it was a 60% or so success rate


Wow, that's a big drop off from previous years, it'll be interesting to get the actual numbers. I know of 8 bison that were taken in Range Creek and 2 from the Sand Wash area (as of late November). With 42 total tags, at least 23% were filled before December. That leaves 32 tags for the remainder of the hunt (December and January). I'd be willing to bet there were a few more taken out of Range Creek in December before the helicopter came in though.

I never made it back to the unit to get my trail cameras. When I get them next month, sounds like I might not see too many bison pictures.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If the DWR recommendation passes, the tags would go from 43 tags in the public draw last year for this unit, to just 4 this year. 

Yikes!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> If the DWR recommendation passes, the tags would go from 43 tags in the public draw last year for this unit, to just 4 this year.
> 
> Yikes!


Yeah...I thought that would be the case so when he answered saying they would recommend 20-22 hunters, with 18 tags returning if approved...ouch.

I just want somebody to ask how many people the DWR taxied into the University lands...and I had to laugh a bit when he was talking about diminishing returns of if they bring too many people in then chaos happens and the animals don't stick around....but wasn't that the whole idea in the beginning?!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

And there it is. 7 hunters were ferried in by the DWR and harvested bison, so 24 hunters managed to kill bison on the unit, 17 of them without the DWR assistance.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

j-cake, as you know I've been a bit torn on this issue. But after watching this board meeting and seeing the full info, I sure hope they don't extend these 18 permits. 

Point creep on the OIL hunts is bad enough as it is, now we're taking an entire hunt out of the equation for a year. Not a good policy, in my opinion.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm admittedly not watching. But are they suggesting that the 18 or whatever unsuccessful hunters be given another shot this upcoming year?

Can anyone post a quick breakdown of the situation and what they are proposing?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

And yet, unanimously they just voted to extend their season. 

That was garbage.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

All I can say is WOW

I know know where the rumor was that bison went back onto Indian Lands, when they pushed them out of Range Creek.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

KWALK - 

43 permits for this unit were issued last year. 

24 people filled their tag, 19 did not. 

About 275 bison had been hanging out in the 9 Mile Range Creek area, disrupting the cattle and agricultural folk in the area. The DWR worked out to get limited vehicle access to take some hunters (7 total) in to hunt those bison to see if that pressure would drive the bison out of the area for the agriculture interests. 

This did not work, and the ag-folk freaked out. They then worked with the Ute tribe to drive the remaining 275 bison off the unit back to Ute trust lands, where they were no longer on the unit and not huntable. 

The DWR proposed extending the season for 18 of the 19 unsuccessful hunters. (One person did not report their harvest survey. I bet they're kicking themselves!) 

Wildlife Board cut the Range Creek section out of the unit for 2018 entirely. So the DWR will be looking to recommend only ~22 tags next year for this hunt. 

The Board voted unanimously to extend the season for these 18 hunters, therefore if the tag number for this hunt is set at 22 in April, only 4 permits will be available in the public draw in 2018. There were about 1200 applicants. So crappy odds just got a whole lot crappier!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> That was garbage.


Agreed. The Board and Division were in a tough place on this one, but taking 18 permits out of a OIL draw pool is a *HUGE* thing. This decision will have a lasting ripple effect on the bison pool in Utah.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

This one has me rethinking my application is Utah for bison. Even if I have years invested in it I might not apply next year or the following years for bison. 

I'll take my money and find a ranch hunt somewhere. 


I can feel for those that didn't even see one but most of the herd that was pushed back to Indian Lands was in a area that couldn't be hunted or any access to begin with and last years applicants should of known this. 

I was hoping that they might increase the number of tags for this year instead of ramming it to those of us who applied for the hunt.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> KWALK -
> 
> 43 permits for this unit were issued last year.
> 
> ...


One little edit, the unreporting hunter may or may not have killed their bison. Also, don't forget that there may be a conservation permit for the this hunt auctioned somewhere so there probably won't be even 4 permits in the draw. And technically DWR said between 20-22 permits are likely to be recommended by the bios next month. If it is 20...and 1 goes to auction at a banquet...well, how'd you like them apples?

I really took issue with the complaint that these bison were "basically inaccessible" on the 9mile lands because they were 8-9 miles back (using a drivable road) in a non motorized area of basically private land (owned by the University of Utah) that doesn't allow overnight camping. That sucks, sure, but "inaccessible"? Not so much. Fat tire bikes with trailer rigs can cover 8-9 miles pretty easy and any of the tag holders could have theoretically done just that day in, day out. Horses, mules, lots of idiot friends and family. There were options. No worse that the non motorized areas on the Henry's in some respects.

But the end of the day, 17 people killed animals without the DWR taxi service on special lands...so I just can't see why the hunt wasn't "fair." I wish I had been able to go there in person to bring up the use of helicopters to transplant goats and sheep from units while an OIAL hunt is in progress. And to the gentleman and his wife claiming it wasn't stated anywhere that this was a migration hunt that was weather dependent...uhh....yeah it was specifically identified as such by the DWR prior to the application.

This just showed to me that the Wildlife Board and the DWR must not really be concerned about point creep. And that is a shame.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Thanks Vanilla and Johnnycake for the context. Sounds like a royal mess.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The most interesting part of that meeting was when Donnie Hunter tried talking about the permit splits and point creep..... 

Once the tribe gets their slaughter house up to speed we will see less buffalo migrating onto the unit. The 20 "possible" permits might be too many.

..


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Can we bookmark this for the next conversation when someone gets yelled at for calling out how terrible we are at wildlife management in Utah?

"umm, lets guess" "Uhh, trial and error" "Lets change the rules for one group" "lets change the law because its too hard to say mentored youth can't kill 2 antlered animals of a species each year"


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> Can we bookmark this for the next conversation when someone gets yelled at for calling out how terrible we are at wildlife management in Utah?


I guess I see this as UTDWR failing to manage hunters and not necessarily wildlife. They won't be issuing way too many or way too few tags for the hunt next year, but the method by which the tags are being issued is screwed up. Roughly the same # of animals will be killed regardless of if the WB had declined the proposal and kept the tags in the draw or what actually happened today.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Just out of curiosity: who was it that asked for the hunt to be extended for those 18 hunters?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I believe that it was the biologist out of Vernal that monitors the herd. Other than that I didn't hear it mentioned who suggested it first.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

There appear to have been rumors that some hunters were threatening to sue the DWR. The DWR sent out a letter to the 2017-2018 permit holders with a brief history of what happened that season, and informing them that the DWR intended to request an extension of the season for all unsuccessful 2017-2018 tag holders that timely submitted their hunt report. 

The DWR made the proposal to the Wildlife Board, and a handful of individuals submitted comments and questions. The commenters were unsuccessful tag holders (and spouse) and nobody brought up anything that would be considered as against the proposal.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

So how many of you (never mind those that are not on these forums) just got suckered into applying for a hunt that will only have 3-4 tags offered?

These tag numbers have to be determined prior to the hunt draws closing, this system is ridiculous.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> There appear to have been rumors that some hunters were threatening to sue the DWR.





johnnycake said:


> The DWR made the proposal to the Wildlife Board, and a handful of individuals submitted comments and questions. The commenters were unsuccessful tag holders (and spouse) and nobody brought up anything that would be considered as against the proposal.


So, the general public (tag holders) threw a fit. The DWR tries to fix it, and proposes to the WB to extend the hunt in order to appease the general public (tag holders). The general public (tag holders) support the change, with a couple (?) against. The motion passes in favor of the general public (tag holders).

did I get that right?

I'm not necessarily trying to side with the DWR. I don't like this any more than anyone else. But, heck...they're in a bad spot. Just like always. They can't please everyone.

If the area is bad for access, and animals only occasionally venture in to the area....why is anyone applying for that tag in the first place?

I'll just stick with the Henry's.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yep, the DOW pissed off the 1400 applicants for this year to appease 18 tag holders from last year.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> Yep, the DOW pissed off the 1400 applicants for this year to appease 18 tag holders from last year.


hmmmmm....



johnnycake said:


> The DWR made the proposal to the Wildlife Board, and a handful of individuals submitted comments and questions. The commenters were unsuccessful tag holders (and spouse) *and nobody brought up anything that would be considered as against the proposal.*


That's the problem with allowing management by the "majority". When the _other_ majority shows up and voices their opinion, the "loser" majority gets mad.

Where were these 1400 people that were opposed to this? Just sitting back watching it unfold on the internet?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

PBH said:


> So, the general public (tag holders) threw a fit. The DWR tries to fix it, and proposes to the WB to extend the hunt in order to appease the general public (tag holders). The general public (tag holders) support the change, with a couple (?) against. The motion passes in favor of the general public (tag holders).
> 
> did I get that right?
> 
> ...


I think conflating the general public with the 18 tag holders that didn't like their soup is a major stretch. And of course the DWR is in a tough spot as no matter what they did or do somebody is going to be pissed. But, why is it that these 18 twice-in-a-lifetime tag holders get their pissiness validated above the 18 people who just lost their chance to get their once-in-a-lifetime tag in May? Why is it that 18 people who had the opportunity to hunt, but didn't connect for reason X,Y,Z get to have a second bite at the apple when 17 other tag holders with the same opportunities (who also were not provided DWR taxi services) managed to fill their once-in-a-lifetime tag?

57% success rate (not counting the hunter who did not submit a report and may have killed one, and not counting the hunter that got a variance due to family illness and was already going to be given a permit to hunt 2018-19 and is one of the 18 permits mentioned).

79% of the 24 bison killed were bulls.

Those are not bad numbers for a weather dependent migratory hunt, with tough access, and rough country! The Henry's late cow hunt in 2017 had only a 60% success rate, largely because the weather was so warm and dry the majority of the bison stayed +30 miles down in no man's land on Tarantula Mesa.

Utah has a problem with a 100% harvest mentality on OIAL, and this is just one more of the fruits borne by that problem.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

PBH said:


> hmmmmm....
> 
> That's the problem with allowing management by the "majority". When the _other_ majority shows up and voices their opinion, the "loser" majority gets mad.
> 
> Where were these 1400 people that were opposed to this? Just sitting back watching it unfold on the internet?


I don't think that very many of those 1400 applicants even knew that there was going to be a wildlife board meeting to discuss this much less a WB meeting. Even when I saw that the WB was going to discuss the bison on the unit in a special meeting I had no idea of what they were going to discuss. I knew that the harvest in the 2017/2018 season was quite low but then they dropped the bombshell that they were going to extend the season for those that drew out last year.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

PBH said:


> Where were these 1400 people that were opposed to this? Just sitting back watching it unfold on the internet?


Likely unaware of the issue. I found out on MM a few weeks back and have been digging around ever since. I tried to get my dad or a brother to go attend and comment raising the parallels to goat/sheep helicopter transplant removals occurring during other OIAL hunts (my dad's 2013 beaver goat hunt for example removed ~40 goats during the early season 1 week prior to his hunt and pissed off a number of people). If I were in Utah I would have done everything I could to go voice my opinion and ask some other questions, but I am not.

Honestly, I don't have a personal stake in the outcome here. I am not a Utah resident anymore. I have already done my bison hunt and I was successful. My dad did his just last December on the same late cow hunt. We actually both got our tags, 5 yrs apart, by getting a random phone call in mid November offering a tag. Ideal? nope. But we took it how it was offered at the time. I have one sibling with bison points (a fair number truthfully) and he's going to do the Henry's cow hunt too in some future year, and isn't interested in the other areas. My wife has some bison points (2) but would only be up for an Antelope Island hunt--she likes the easy life! I don't have any friends that were/are applying for this hunt (other than a few guys on here I'd wager...but do internet friends count the same?). But I really do think bison are the bees knees and hunting truly wild bison is an incredible opportunity that I want as many people as possible to be able to take a part in. And now, 18 people get a second stab at it shoving 18 others further down the line. Of those 18, about 9 of them would have been drawn randomly and might not ever get another tag before they die.

But hey, some of those 18 TIAL tag holders maybe will get the oh-so-coveted and extremely rare double-reduced tag soup when next year the Ute tribe slaughters a few hundred additional bison, herds the rest to the center of the reservation, the snow doesn't fall all winter, and zero animals migrate onto the unit.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

18 unsuccessful OIL hunters now equal “the general public?”

Did you take up drinking when you switched your Sunday job?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> 18 unsuccessful OIL hunters now equal "the general public?"
> 
> Did you take up drinking when you switched your Sunday job?


*TIL


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Archery mountain goat hunt had zero success didn't see them throwing an olive branch to those guys. Knew I should of took my sure thing late cow tag while the getting was good. Feeling big time point creep coming to the Henry's pretty quick

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I didn't even know about the meeting until I saw the post on here. 

My Dad had a Henry Mtns bull bison tag which yielded a similar success rate. The Park Service closed some roads and the BLM did flights during the hunt. He did not harvest. He just pulled up his big boy pants and got on with his life......

Sounds like there will be 4 tags or less given in the draw and one of which will go to a non-resident. 

..


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Packout said:


> Sounds like there will be 4 tags or less given in the draw and one of which will go to a non-resident.
> 
> ..


I am very curious to see how the tag allocation in the draw gets carved out. 
If there are more than 20 tags, then by law 2 should go to nonresidents. What if none of the 18 twice-in-a-lifetimers are nonresidents? Does that then mean that there are really only 2 tags in the resident pool? And that is assuming there are 22 total permits offered in the draw.

What if there are 21 draw permits plus a conservation permit to reach the 22 total? In that scenario, assuming again no nonresidents in the 18 twofers, there would only be 1 resident tag in the draw, but there would have to be 2 non resident tags...that would cause a problem!

Or on the flip side, what if all 4 nonresidents from 2017-18 were unsuccessful? Now there will be a large number of nonresident applicants that applied for a hunt where a tag isn't even offered. And, that would create a ~20% NR allocation for the 2018-19 hunt.

And with this being an "extension" of their season, I would certainly hope that the DWR doesn't allow one of them to turn their tag back in before the 2018-19 season begins and regain their points. But I can absolutely see that happening.

This started out as a hot mess with the agricultural interests, tribe, and DWR playing with helicopters, no questions there. BUT, the DWR and the Wildlife Board just turned it into an absolute dumpster fire.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have a headache


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

This is why a call to the DWR before you submit your applications can pay big dividends. What a joke...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

From the opening remarks of the meeting I am guessing that everyone was not in the loop about what was going on with either extending the 18 hunters season or even when the meeting was going to take place. 

The chair mentioned that it was short notice and thanked everyone that showed up. it sounds like this meeting was just organized this week so talking to someone that doesn't know what is going on before the application period ended wouldn't of been much help.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Critter said:


> I have a headache


Sorry Critter. This really sucks for you. Like I said, 2019 is your year! :grin:


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

So which SFW member didn’t fill their bison tag last year?


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

johnnycake said:


> I really took issue with the complaint that these bison were "basically inaccessible" on the 9mile lands because they were 8-9 miles back (using a drivable road) in a non motorized area of basically private land (owned by the University of Utah) that doesn't allow overnight camping. That sucks, sure, but "inaccessible"? Not so much. Fat tire bikes with trailer rigs can cover 8-9 miles pretty easy and any of the tag holders could have theoretically done just that day in, day out. Horses, mules, lots of idiot friends and family. There were options.


They are specifically talking here about Range Creek Canyon. Yes, owned by the U of U Natural History Museum, but open to the public for hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. The access is restricted because of the following:


They only allow 25 visitors on the property every day, and you have to pull a permit for each person going in. When the permits are gone, nobody else is allowed in the canyon.
Motorized travel is prohibited. The canyon gate is locked.
Bicycle travel is prohibited. I asked the range officer if I could bring a mountain bike on a future visit to just ride on the road and he said it wasn't allowed.
It's foot and horse traffic only.
The road to reach the north end of Range Creek Canyon could be dangerous if there is snow and ice as there are steep drop-offs. It could be difficult just to get to Range Creek Canyon in the winter once the bison arrive.
All that said, I don't see why they couldn't bend the rules for this particular hunt. Instead of ferrying hunters in, why not open the gate and allow them to drive their trucks in? The road inside Range Creek Canyon itself is a great road although there are a few river crossings, but nothing a truck or suv can't easily handle.

A bison hunt is a big event. I brought 12 people with me on my hunt, and just my party alone took up half of the permits. Why not increase this?

The bicycle restriction doesn't make sense to me at all, but I guess they have their reasons.

I talked to one hunter that was there Thanksgiving week who hunted the canyon on horseback for 3 days and didn't tag out. He said he put well over 50 miles on the horses that week. They were camped right outside the gate. So yes, you can camp there, just not inside the protected area.

My point is, the access or "inaccessibility" into Range Creek Canyon is somewhat self-imposed and not necessary. They could have opened the road and made it more accessible. The museum doesn't want the bison there, so why not accommodate hunters driving in the canyon for this one-time special hunt? I doubt any artifacts would have been affected as they aren't right next to the road. Having 275 bison in the canyon will do more damage than a few trucks driving on an established road.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

brisket said:


> They are specifically talking here about Range Creek Canyon. Yes, owned by the U of U Natural History Museum, but open to the public for hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. The access is restricted because of the following:
> 
> 
> They only allow 25 visitors on the property every day, and you have to pull a permit for each person going in. When the permits are gone, nobody else is allowed in the canyon.
> ...


Thanks for the clarifications, and I agree that there could have probably been other ways to allow the access. But we could pretend this was a completely normal private
property, and then the access restrictions could have been absolute and boohoo to the tag holders if that was where the business decided to go. By contrast, even before the DWR managed some variances the limited access was still a possibility for people to do. Which as I understand your post is basically your point.

One thing is for sure, the DWR and Wildlife Board sure know how to stir a pot. "In the most dramatic season yet, you won't believe what happens next. Tune in this fall to find out"


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is going to be interesting to watch the WB meeting in April when they set the tag numbers and see how many people show up to the meeting to rag on them. 

I would also like to see the breakdown of the 18 that didn't tag out on how many were residents and non residents. Along with days afield. 

I know a couple got up and said that they were out there for a few. One said 12 days and I think that the other one said 20 total.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Critter said:


> I know a couple got up and said that they were out there for a few. One said 12 days and I think that the other one said 20 total.


The 12 day guy winded up saying at the end of his comment that those were on weekends, which sure is different than 12 days straight. The couple struck me as odd too. Initially the husband said ten days but after the 12 day guy went up, the husband made the off hand 20 day comment. So who knows?


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Clarq said:


> This is why a call to the DWR before you submit your applications can pay big dividends. What a joke...


I agree that's a good idea given the current system, but shouldn't be necessary under a system where the official tag numbers are released before the draw closes. This _really_ needs to be done.

I personally know 3 people that put in for the Wildhorse Bench unit that never would have knowing the tags have been reduced from 43 to less than 4. They are upset, to say the least.

Amy, what does it take to get a proposal to the board? Let's keep the draw open until the tags numbers are released. I've mentioned this a number of times on this forum as a major flaw in the system, but it's time to put those words into action. Let's get this changed for next year's draw.

Maybe I'm missing something but with the draw being automated with software, it can run pretty quick. If it's a money issue, they might even make more in application fees with people changing their minds, canceling their app, then reapplying. I can't think of a single reason why this can't be done.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

looks like my comments struck some nerves. That's a good thing.

I'm not siding with the DWR. I think this is a cluster, just like you guys do. But I have to try to look at it from a different perspective. Things didn't go the way that most of you (us) wanted on this issue, and it is upsetting. By why didn't? Because a group of hunters threw a fit. A few questions / comments:

A. What group do the 18 tag holders belong to, if not the general public? Are they DWR employees? SFW members? Guides? Or are they hunters that entered a draw, just like the rest of us?

B.  The 1400 applicants didn't know about the board meeting. But the 18 unsuccessful hunters did? Why? Why was everyone else unaware of the issue?

C. I stopped drinking after switching my Sunday job. ;-)

My whole point in this is that things certainly could have been just opposite, and it would be a different group complaining. That's what happens when the public is allowed a voice. It's not always the majority that gets their way -- what's the saying about the squeaky wheel getting the grease? We have to take the bad with the good. One day you win, one day you lose. This time we lost, at least for now. How do you fix / correct it?

I think most of us agree that tag numbers need to be released prior to entering / completing the application process. But that also comes problems:
* How are tag numbers determined? Based off spring counts?
* If application period is delayed to assure tag numbers are allocated properly, that shortens the amount of time available for dedicated hunters to complete work projects.

There certainly are areas for improvement, as noted by this current situation. I'm glad I have no vested interest in that hunt.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

PBH said:


> B.  The 1400 applicants didn't know about the board meeting. But the 18 unsuccessful hunters did? Why? Why was everyone else unaware of the issue?
> 
> I think most of us agree that tag numbers need to be released prior to entering / completing the application process. But that also comes problems:
> * How are tag numbers determined? Based off spring counts?
> * If application period is delayed to assure tag numbers are allocated properly, that shortens the amount of time available for dedicated hunters to complete work projects.


The 18 unsuccessful hunters received a letter from the DWR informing them of the proposal and the Wildlife Board Meeting. 









The 1400 applicants and the rest of the general public did not receive such a letter and the Agenda for the meeting only stated:


> 5. 2017 Book Cliffs - Wild Horse Bench Nine Mile Bison Hunt ACTION
> - Dax Mangus, Regional Wildlife Program Manager


I was only aware of it because of my obsessive online hunting forum activities led me to read a thread over on MM. I thought about bringing it up here, and in hindsight I should have, but didn't as the letter was not my picture nor did I have first-hand information of the issue prior to watching the Wildlife Board meeting. Hindsight, I guess.

The draw occurs over about a 1 week period in May, after tag numbers have been allocated in April. From the time tag numbers are approved by the Wildlife Board until the company in Fallon, NV begins to run the code and starts their verification processes/cards/calls/etc. is about 4 weeks. The Utah application period used to be open for only a month, and there are other states that have similarly short application windows, so that shouldn't be the issue. As cynical as it may seem, my best guess for the current timing of the application period is to require people to commit to applying before most other states release the results of their LE/OIAL draws. Why put in for a UT LE deer/elk tag if you already know that you drew a great tag in NV, AZ, or CO that year? Admittedly, that is a small portion of the applicant pool so the logical side of me says that cannot be the reason...but I can't point to anything else that seems more likely. I'm open to hear other ideas though.

As for the shortened window for dedicated hunters to complete their hours...how so? Say we change the application period to open in March and close the last day of April, versus opening in late January and closing in early March. The year still has 52 weeks, right? Admittedly, I have never participated in the dedicated hunter program and am ignorant as to how it functions beyond the basic "X # of hours/year, hunt all 3 seasons, 3 year commitment but you can only kill 2 deer in 3 years."

I get why the DWR and Wildlife Board set tag numbers in April--that makes sense to me. What I don't get is why the application period (and please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) now that they only accept online applications has to happen before tag numbers. That just seems like placing the cart before the horse.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

PBH said:


> My whole point in this is that things certainly could have been just opposite, and it would be a different group complaining. That's what happens when the public is allowed a voice. It's not always the majority that gets their way -- what's the saying about the squeaky wheel getting the grease?


There was nothing for the true majority to be outraged about, until the 18 people got a memo and had a small meeting and changed the rules without proper timeline or public notice.

It would have required some notice for outrage, which is happening now that it passed.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> The 18 unsuccessful hunters received a letter from the DWR informing them of the proposal and the Wildlife Board Meeting.





RandomElk16 said:


> There was nothing for the true majority to be outraged about, until the 18 people got a memo and had a small meeting and changed the rules without proper timeline or public notice.


Was the notice from the WB sent to those 18 individuals before or after the rumors of a potential lawsuit?



johnnycake said:


> There appear to have been rumors that some hunters were threatening to sue the DWR.












I'm just trying to piece all of this together in my own little mind.
Again, I'm not agreeing with the DWR's actions to extend the hunt.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

PBH said:


> Was the notice from the WB sent to those 18 individuals before or after the rumors of a potential lawsuit?


Doesn't matter. Those rumors were still involving a small group.

You seem to keep arguing that the 1400 individuals who put in had an adequate chance for their voice to be heard, and I don't believe that is the case. We can bounce around these other logistics, but an outdoor forum is the first that many are hearing of this.

Go to the Utah DWR site. You see anything about it? I clicked on latest news and there isn't a single thing. When I go to the wildlife board and rac section. It was revised on March 1st for the March 7th meeting. That is not anywhere near enough public notice of such a large change.

If anything, this meeting should have been part of the April meeting to determine tags. What happened was a fast sweep under the rug to avoid a lawsuit. Watch the meeting also, there is never enough research by those who vote on these subjects beforehand. They learn stuff on the fly and make massive decisions.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

johnnycake said:


> I guess I see this as UTDWR failing to manage hunters and not necessarily wildlife.


Does hunter and tag management not directly correlate with wildlife management? All these years I have been lied to :grin:


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I seem to remember the DWR stating a year or two ago that the early application period is an attempt by the state to get application money before the other states.
It is an attempt to increase the amount of money they receive from the draws.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> You seem to keep arguing that the 1400 individuals who put in had an adequate chance for their voice to be heard, and I don't believe that is the case.


no.
What I'm arguing is that 18 individuals went to the State and complained about a product / service, threw a tantrum, and got their way.

This is no different than when SFW shows up at a WB meeting with a hefty check in hand to bribe the members for a certain outcome.

Maybe what needs to happen now is those 1400 applicants need to band together, threaten a lawsuit, and counter this outcome using all those arguments expressed on this thread, including a lack of notice.

this is the system we voted for. There are problems with it that we need to fix. We've all watched a crappy WB make poor decision after poor decision over the course of many years. Why are we still allowing a terrible process of governor appointed nominees to our WB?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> Does hunter and tag management not directly correlate with wildlife management? All these years I have been lied to :grin:


I guess I wasn't clear enough in the distinction I was trying to make. The hunter/tag management correlation with wildlife management is "X number of animals available to be harvested, with an average success rate of Y%, results in Z tags issued for the unit." The Wildhorse Bench Bison hunt in 2018-19 was going to have the same total tags issued to harvest approximately the same # of animals that the bios determine need to be killed, whether or not the Wildlife Board approved the extension of these tag holders season. From a wildlife management perspective, the decision is irrelevant as the bios don't(shouldn't) care which person it is that kills them and I doubt it makes a difference to the bison either.

But when the DWR and Wildlife Board start to pick the individuals deliberately to be given tags, that is a failure of hunter management--justified by a failure to properly manage hunter's expectations as to the conditions of this hunt.

I was able to get some more data today on the hunt. Unfortunately, the person I spoke with did not know the resident/nonresident split of the 18 unsuccessful hunters. But, here is what I was able to find out:

- Bison began arriving in the hunt boundaries in mid October/early November.
- Not counting the 7 bison "guided" by the DWR, there were 7 bison harvested prior to the helicopter hazing, including 1 cow (5 total cows were harvested). 
- The helicopter hazing occurred on 12/5/2017, in a specific area of the 9 Mile portion of the unit, relocating approximately 275 bison back onto the Ute Reservation. 
- After the hazing, 10 more bison were killed of which 7-8 were killed on either the 9 Mile Anthro or Wildhorse Bench portions of the unit (one report did not include the location of the harvest)
- The last 2 days of the season had 3 cows harvested

While I recognize that the DWR did not have a great situation here with many competing interests guaranteeing that some people would be upset at whatever course of action they chose, I still cannot agree with the hunt extension. I think the DWR did a lot of bending over backwards to help people, first of all with creating this hunt taking advantage of bison that the State of Utah has spent very little money on, and been able to provide lots of people with a OIAL hunting opportunity. Also, the DWR worked hard with the UoU and Natural History Museum to reach a creative solution to help at least some of the tag holders target the bison.

But at the end of the day, this wasn't the first time that without notice prior to the application that the DWR physically removed a significant portion of a unit's huntable OIAL population outside of the hunt boundaries during a hunt, impacting hunter's experience and opportunity. If anything, the great lengths that the DWR went to to help the hunters make the best of a variety of difficult circumstances should have been mitigation enough--it was certainly far more than was offered to the 2013 Beaver goat tag holders.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> --it was certainly far more than was offered to the 2013 Beaver goat tag holders.


At least you had a week between the transplants and the hunt. In 2014, they did transplants only a couple days before my wifes Billy hunt started. They scattered goats all over the place.

-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

DallanC said:


> At least you had a week between the transplants and the hunt. In 2014, they did transplants only a couple days before my wifes Billy hunt started. They scattered goats all over the place.
> 
> -DallanC


True, he did get that week in between, and he got his goat and we had a great time. But if I recall the DWR did add that check box about aerial surveys and transplants occurring during/before the season when you applied in 2014--notice that was not given for 2013. But not everybody did on any of these hunts, but none of them were given an extension. I really feel bad for the 2013 early season any goat tag holders had it occur in the middle of their hunt, with at least one individual that I am aware of having his stalk blown by a helicopter swooping down and netting one of the goats he was approaching.

Which goat hunters had it worse is neither here nor there, as none of the unsuccessful hunters were loud enough I guess to get a twice in a lifetime chance. But that was the right decision back then and should have also been the outcome yesterday.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> True, he did get that week in between, and he got his goat and we had a great time. But if I recall the DWR did add that check box about aerial surveys and transplants occurring during/before the season when you applied in 2014--notice that was not given for 2013.


No they added the checkbox after the 2014 season, and I like to think I had no small part in that. I raised the issue and we got called by the DWR personally to discuss what happened. It was the following year they started including the warning of transplants possibly going on.

My wife got a nice goat so overall we dealt with it, changed the gameplan a little and had a great time.

-DallanC


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

brisket said:


> Amy, what does it take to get a proposal to the board?


Thanks for asking about this, brisket. Before you take a proposal to the Wildlife Board, it should ideally go to the five regional advisory councils (RACs) for public input.

You may also want to check out the pages on our website about getting involved in the public process and making a presentation to the RACs and Wildlife Board.


----------



## jsel358 (May 22, 2013)

Count me as one of those 1400 that applied without knowing that this meeting was going to happen 1 week after application the deadline. Had I known that there were only going to be 4 permits I would have applied for another unit. It makes no sense to me that they would make these types of decisions after the application period had closed.:x


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

jsel358 said:


> Count me as one of those 1400 that applied without knowing that this meeting was going to happen 1 week after application the deadline. Had I known that there were only going to be 4 permits I would have applied for another unit. It makes no sense to me that they would make these types of decisions after the application period had closed.:x


I strongly recommend that you attend the April 26 Wildlife Board Meeting where they will be setting permit numbers (and the RACs as well), and provide comments on this. You were directly harmed by the Wildlife Board's decision yesterday (less so if you end up being one of the lucky few), and they should hear about it. If anything, it would be a good opportunity to argue for change the current system where the application period closes prior to permit numbers being set.

Unfortunately, as best I can tell the Wildlife Board's decision yesterday cannot be challenged. At best you could argue that the Wildlife Board is prohibited from issuing this variance under R657-57-6-(d) the hazing did not "substantially precluded" the unsuccessful tag holders "from participating" in the hunt---which I think is actually a really good argument. But even that argument is so squishy as to what "substantially precluded" means that I doubt a challenge would ever gain traction.

We'll see how they set permit numbers next month. I was surprised that I was unable to find any code or regulation delineating the 90/10 resident/nonresident requirement. I had thought Utah had made that formal, but as best I can tell that is up to the Wildlife Board and their whims. There are some court cases about nonresident permit allocations that reach conflicting conclusions, and a vague federal law enacted after the AZ case basically saying states have the right to manage their wildlife as appropriate...but nothing concrete. Huh. You learn something everyday.

Regardless, a lot of people are going to be upset over how the Wildlife Board chooses to split the pie next month. Somewhere between 25-50% of the draw tags going to nonresidents is simply not going to go over well. Unless the bios and DWR decide to shock us all and recommend +20 tags in the draw, with the expectation that success rates will be significantly less than usual for an OIAL hunt. It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## jsel358 (May 22, 2013)

johnnycake said:


> I strongly recommend that you attend the April 26 Wildlife Board Meeting where they will be setting permit numbers (and the RACs as well), and provide comments on this. You were directly harmed by the Wildlife Board's decision yesterday (less so if you end up being one of the lucky few), and they should hear about it. If anything, it would be a good opportunity to argue for change the current system where the application period closes prior to permit numbers being set.
> 
> Unfortunately, as best I can tell the Wildlife Board's decision yesterday cannot be challenged. At best you could argue that the Wildlife Board is prohibited from issuing this variance under R657-57-6-(d) the hazing did not "substantially precluded" the unsuccessful tag holders "from participating" in the hunt---which I think is actually a really good argument. But even that argument is so squishy as to what "substantially precluded" means that I doubt a challenge would ever gain traction.
> 
> ...


I will plan on attending and letting them know my thoughts on it. I am not one of the max point holders, but I do have over a decade putting in and now feel like this year is a wasted year. I may as well have just put in for a point.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Amy said:


> Thanks for asking about this, brisket. Before you take a proposal to the Wildlife Board, it should ideally go to the five regional advisory councils (RACs) for public input.
> 
> You may also want to check out the pages on our website about getting involved in the public process and making a presentation to the RACs and Wildlife Board.


Great advice, but did these 18 people go through the RAC?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Critter said:


> From the opening remarks of the meeting I am guessing that everyone was not in the loop about what was going on with either extending the 18 hunters season or even when the meeting was going to take place.
> 
> The chair mentioned that it was short notice and thanked everyone that showed up. it sounds like this meeting was just organized this week so talking to someone that doesn't know what is going on before the application period ended wouldn't of been much help.


I talked to a DWR employee prior to the application deadline and he told me they intended to recommend to the wildlife board to extend the hunt another season for those 18 hunters. That's the main reason my dad is in for the cow hunt instead of the wild horse bench hunt.

I think we ought to all call the DWR about our hunts of choice next season just to verify that nothing screwy is going on with permit numbers or anything else prior to applying. Pretty soon, they'll get so sick of all the calls that they'll extend the application period until after permit numbers come out. ;-)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> Great advice, but did these 18 people go through the RAC?


Requests for a variance don't go through the RACs. I would be curious to know if all 18 unsuccessful hunters individually applied for the variance to the DWR, or if only a handful did. From what I read in the regulations the individual requesting a variance applies to the DWR, but the DWR can only approve 3 types of variance, none of which applied here. Then the DWR had to give the applicant notice that the DWR lacks the authority to grant the requested variance, and that the DWR will request it from the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board then has their own limits as to what they can and cannot do. I think the Wildlife Board could have easily (and should have) found that the tag holders requesting the variance were not substantially precluded from participating in the hunt, but it that determination is up to their discretion.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I also think that the DWR opened up a can of worms when they started to shuttle or escort hunters down and through Range Creek. It may of only been 7 hunters and their helpers but with them doing it for some it should of been offered for all. And this is one of the places that the DWR got into trouble with this hunt. Not to mention having the helicopters wrangle the herd that was on the Range Creek/Nine Mile properties back across the river during the hunt.

The more that I think about it they just kept getting in deeper and deeper until they had no way out of it. Perhaps this extension of the hunt is their way of getting out of it.


----------



## brisket (Mar 3, 2015)

Critter said:


> I also think that the DWR opened up a can of worms when they started to shuttle or escort hunters down and through Range Creek. It may of only been 7 hunters and their helpers but with them doing it for some it should of been offered for all.


I had the 2017-2018 Wildhorse Bench tag. I received a call from the biologist the Saturday before Thanksgiving, and made an appointment to hunt the following weekend. I have no idea why I was called, and others were not, but I assume it was because they were only letting in 2-3 hunters per day and perhaps I was near the top of the list. After scouting and hunting desert bighorn spring, summer and fall along with elk, pronghorn, and deer I was really pushing my limits with work and Mrs. Brisket. The call was welcome news and after hearing about the fiasco that later ensued, I'm glad I went. Although in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have harvested, I could have had another year of hunting!

This whole situation has been interesting to me because I had no idea the hunt was that difficult this year as I never made it back to the unit in Dec or Jan. I didn't find out about it until this week as I watched the board meeting. I was not notified of the meeting, I only found out about it when Amy created this thread.

My bull must have been the last one harvested in Range Creek Canyon, as they had already harvested 6 bison out of the canyon when I arrived. From talking with the range officer, I know they had at least one other hunter scheduled to come after me, and more the following week, so I'm surprised the harvest number wasn't greater.

In their defense, the biologist and the range officer were very friendly, helpful and accomodating. Great guys all around. I shot my bison 9 or so miles down the canyon, and that would have been rough to pack out on foot uphill the entire way. Still, I would have prefered to drive my own vehicle in, and I don't understand why the museum wouldn't allow it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Johnny cake, 
Just curious, 
How many words per minute can you type? LoL.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Johnny cake,
> Just curious,
> How many words per minute can you type? LoL.


Ha! You can always tell when I write up a post from my phone or from my computer based on the autocorrect typos. Been a while since I took a typing speed test, maybe 10 years but back in the day I could clack out ~120 wpm sober. 160 on Red Bull


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Holy cow. Left town for a few days to miss all heck breaking loose if you are in the buff pool. I'm sure glad I put in for the cow hunt. 8) A few comments/questions.

1. I have just glanced through the numerous responses but it seems to me that the WB is setting a precedent that is a pretty slippery slope for them. Will every OIL or LE hunt that has unusual weather that season or some other "Act of God" affecting the outcome become eligible for do-overs? Seriously? 

2. I am somewhat dismayed that the Utes are looking into culling their herd significantly. As I understand it, that is the bulk of what is hunted on the Wildhorse bench hunt, along with a few from the "regular" Books herd. However, I understand there is some interchange. How would the Utes cutting back their stock affect the "regular" Books herd? 

3. It seems likely to me that buff from the Books will wander and spread again at some point. It looks to me that this will be met with forced removal and/or slaughter. Kind of sad but not surprising.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

1. The official reason the DWR pushed for variance was not due to weather or difficult access, but because of the deliberate hazing with the helicopter authorized by the DWR. I do actually believe that is the reason for the DWR's proposal. That should eliminate any precedential effect claiming weather/acts of God type as the basis for requests from other unsuccessful hunts. But, it certainly exposes the chance of a similar request if the DWR conducts aerial surveys or transplant activities during future hunts. 

2. The tribe had been upset about this hunt from day 1, but can't do anything if their animals leave the reservation. And to be clear, ~99% of the animals present on the 9 mile/wild horse unit are from the tribe's herd. The tribe's commercial slaughter facility is finished and they will do significant culling with the intent to maintain the herd at a size that will not leave the reservation. It wouldn't surprise me to see the tribe using helicopters to herd their bison towards the center of the reservation before the fall starts. There's also talk of the tribe putting up fencing (as much good as that'll do). 

3. The State's herd in the Bookcliffs is doing really really well though and will continue to expand no doubt. That is very encouraging to me, and I hope that AUM allotments will allow for a much higher management objective in that region.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> 2. The tribe had been upset about this hunt from day 1, but can't do anything if their animals leave the reservation. And to be clear, ~99% of the animals present on the 9 mile/wild horse unit are from the tribe's herd. The tribe's commercial slaughter facility is finished and they will do significant culling with the intent to maintain the herd at a size that will not leave the reservation. It wouldn't surprise me to see the tribe using helicopters to herd their bison towards the center of the reservation before the fall starts. There's also talk of the tribe putting up fencing (as much good as that'll do).


It is interesting (but not surprising) that the tribe dislikes this hunt. The tribe contributed a fair number of stock to the DWR in the "regular" Book Cliffs transplants. And a few of their buff were going far into the Books even before the DWR started the transplants. Therefore, it would seem they were hoping for success in the DWR efforts.

Maybe they were hoping parts of the Book Cliffs herd would periodically come over to their side and help them restock for free.



johnnycake said:


> 3. The State's herd in the Bookcliffs is doing really really well though and will continue to expand no doubt. That is very encouraging to me, and I hope that AUM allotments will allow for a much higher management objective in that region.


You are probably more up on it than I, but as I recall from reading the management plan, the target population objective for the Books was 400. It seems like they are well on their way to getting there. I assume that number is derived from how many AUM allotments they have to work with.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Catherder said:


> You are probably more up on it than I, but as I recall from reading the management plan, the target population objective for the Books was 400. It seems like they are well on their way to getting there. I assume that number is derived from how many AUM allotments they have to work with.


Yes, 400 is the management objective and the population estimate I was given was 325-350 after last season's hunt. And yes, the 400 objective is based on the AUMs the DWR was able to allocate to the bison. To increase that there will have to be decreases in grazing allotments, or by some miracle, removing large numbers of feral horses. I would love to be more hopeful on both of those fronts, but I just can't seem to muster it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> To increase that there will have to be decreases in grazing allotments, or by some miracle, removing large numbers of feral horses. I would love to be more hopeful on both of those fronts, but I just can't seem to muster it.


Definitely agree. (sadly)

Another possible development related to these events is what might ultimately happen to the Wildhorse bench hunt. If the tribe culls their herd severely enough and starts herding their stock with helicopters, it may eliminate most or all the huntable buff that are targeted in this hunt. That could be the end of the hunt.

All would not be lost though. As the Books herd approaches and exceeds population objective, the tag numbers will go up to at least the levels offered on the Henry's. They could even offer a late hunt where tag holders would have the option to hunt the Wildhorse bench area if tribal buff come into there but could hunt elsewhere if they don't.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

johnnycake said:


> 1. The official reason the DWR pushed for variance was not due to weather or difficult access, but because of the deliberate hazing with the helicopter authorized by the DWR. I do actually believe that is the reason for the DWR's proposal. That should eliminate any precedential effect claiming weather/acts of God type as the basis for requests from other unsuccessful hunts. But, it certainly exposes the chance of a similar request if the DWR conducts aerial surveys or transplant activities during future hunts.


Can anyone confirm or deny that they had the survey/transplant check-box during the application? Both last year and this year.

If not, why?? They didn't know they would be doing it?

If they didn't do transplants or captures, I am not sure a survey itself warrants any action. Heli/personal planes can fly over areas at any given time (same with aliens). Can it also be confirmed that they did more than just "look" at the heard?

There are some conflicting stories in this decision on the true WHY. If it was surveys, they shouldn't even address weather or access and vice versa.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> Can anyone confirm or deny that they had the survey/transplant check-box during the application? Both last year and this year.
> 
> If not, why?? They didn't know they would be doing it?
> 
> ...


I thought the survey/relocation checkbox was added to all OIAL applications following the 2014 hunting season, but I could be wrong. I do know that the hunt planner unit description for the Wild Horse Bench unit was very clear about this being a migration hunt and highly weather dependent.

This incident was not a simple survey though, nor was it a "typical" transplant or relocation. It was a very targeted herding of the bison in a particular drainage back into the Ute reservation. The bison hadn't migrated in large numbers into that area in previous years and this herring couldn't have been planned. It only happened because of the ranchers that have grazing leases in that area were upset at the number of bison "stealing" the food from their cattle. The few hunters the DWR took in didn't put enough pressure on the bison so eventually the ranchers basically said get the bison out of there or else they would take care of it themselves. That's when the DWR gave the tribe the green light to use a helicopter to chase them back to the reservation.

To be clear, my primary criticism where I think the DWR just flat out made the wrong decision is in extending the season into next year for the 18 unsuccessful hunters. While there are a few other things I don't exactly agree with what the DWR did in handling this, there is enough wiggle room I can see why the DWR did what they did.

Had the DWR/Wildlife Board just extended their season through the end of March I would have been fully supportive of that given the circumstances. That wouldn't have any of the negative effects on the current applicants and next year's tag allocations


----------

