# RAC Packet is Up



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2018-11_rac_packet.pdf

I'll probably chime in with some thoughts tonight, when I get home from work. In the meantime, post up if you see something noteworthy.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Who wants to heli into a very specific area? 

And which guy has a super ballin airgun that wants to shoot animals?


These are very direct, specific changes that don't seem like a "group" proposed it but I dunno...


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Who wants to heli into a very specific area?
> 
> These are very direct, specific changes that don't seem like a "group" proposed it but I dunno...


(3)(a) The provisions of this section do not apply to the operation of an aircraft, drone, or other airborne vehicle or device [in a usual manner, or landings and departures]used for the purposes of transporting hunters, equipment, or legally harvested wildlife, *provided the aircraft takes off and lands only from an improved [airstrips]airstrip*, where there is no attempt or intent to locate protected wildlife.
(b) Hunters that are transported by aircraft into an area may not hunt protected wildlife until the following day.
*(c) For the purposes of this section, "improved airstrip" means a take-off and landing area with a graded or otherwise mechanically improved surface free of barriers or other hazards that is traditionally used by pilots for the purposes of air travel.*

Where does one find such a list of available "improved airstrip" on public ground :?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

My highlights so far: 


Looks like a few more areas are being considered to establish new goat populations, cool. 

Archery only goat hunt on Nebo.

An early general season any weapon deer hunt on Panguitch Lake? interesting. 

Any bison archery hunt 10 days 9/14-24. A cow only archery Henry's hunt (october-not my favorite choice), plus adding a hunter's choice henry's hunt and putting all three any bison/any weapon hunts in November 10 days/season. 

Adding a few more any bison hunts to the Bookcliffs units and another cow only bison hunt.

Adding Wellsville mtns and Box Elder, Hansel Mtns to the any bull unit

Boundary changes to the South Slope any bull and the Nine Mile Anthro-Myton Bench LE elk hunts

The airborne transport of hunters, to include helicopters(?!), smells like sheep/goat wannabes that can't climb the mountains. I don't mind fixed wing transport, but rotary wing is a different story.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

As I read it, it would just take a couple guys with some rakes, shovels, etc to hike in and clear/smooth a helo pad area and voila--"mechanically improved surface!"


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> As I read it, it would just take a couple guys with some rakes, shovels, etc to hike in and clear/smooth a helo pad area and voila--"mechanically improved surface!"


You must read better than I can. Didn't see where it said that for public ground


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

More extended archery areas. 

Yes yes and yes


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

gdog said:


> *that is traditionally used by pilots for the purposes of air travel.*


^^^ It would be amazing to find where these airstrips/improved areas, that are traditionally used by pilots, in remote areas of Utah. . .

It'll be interesting to hear the discussions behind this proposal.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> ^^^ It would be amazing to find where these airstrips/improved areas, that are traditionally used by pilots, in remote areas of Utah. . .
> 
> It'll be interesting to hear the discussions behind this proposal.


That is a very squishy sentence and as I read it I see "traditionally used" as being tied to the type of improved airstrip and what qualities it must have (free of debris/hazards/etc) that is traditionally used by pilots. More of a qualitative statement as opposed to a requirement that the airstrip has a history of use. But it definitely could be read the other way too.

gdog, not sure I follow your comment. The proposal states that they can use aircraft to transport hunters, equipment, harvest, etc provided that the take off and landing are from an improved airstrip, which is then defined as including surfaces that have been mechanically improved. "Mechanically" does not mean motorized, and it doesn't delineate between public/private lands. Lots of people in Alaska clear their own runways after making a brutal initial hike/quad/etc trek into the location, and I see that as being the gist of the definition. Get rid of the helicopters and I see no problem with it.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

CPAjeff said:


> ^^^ It would be amazing to find where these airstrips/improved areas, that are traditionally used by pilots, in remote areas of Utah. . .
> 
> It'll be interesting to hear the discussions behind this proposal.


A few mentioned here:
https://www.nifc.gov/aviation/BLMlibrary/RecAirstipPublicLands.pdf

and a bit more detail here:
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/UT/Airfields_UT.htm


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Nice work middlefork! That information is pretty amazing!


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> gdog, not sure I follow your comment. Lots of people in Alaska clear their own runways after making a brutal initial hike/quad/etc trek into the location, and I see that as being the gist of the definition.


I was talking about Utah public land, not Alaska. Go get 10 of your best buddy's and come on down to the Bookcliffs, Manti, Wasatch, North/South Slope... and start clearing some ground for your runway project. I'd imagine you wouldn't get very far. I wasn't questioning the manner of how you actually cleared the ground, but the authorization you'd have to conduct such a project on public ground (not including historical landing sites such as those mentioned in middlefork's links)



johnnycake said:


> The airborne transport of hunters, to include helicopters(?!), smells like sheep/goat wannabes that can't climb the mountains. I don't mind fixed wing transport, but rotary wing is a different story.


I was seeing this not for a "wannabes" view, but from a view to access land locked public ground. Just happened to watch a Randy Newberg MT hunt where they did exactly that. Took a helicopter into some land locked public ground for an elk hunt. I'd imagine the prerequisites for an actual landing strip would keep you from doing such in UT on similar public ground(?)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

gdog said:


> I was talking about Utah public land, not Alaska. Go get 10 of your best buddy's and come on down to the Bookcliffs, Manti, Wasatch, North/South Slope... and start clearing some ground for your runway project. I'd imagine you wouldn't get very far. I wasn't questioning the manner of how you actually cleared the ground, but the authorization you'd have to conduct such a project on public ground (not including historical landing sites such as those mentioned in middlefork's links)
> 
> I was seeing this not for a "wannabes" view, but from a view to access land locked public ground. Just happened to watch a Randy Newberg MT hunt where they did exactly that. Took a helicopter into some land locked public ground for an elk hunt. I'd imagine the prerequisites for an actual landing strip would keep you from doing such in UT on similar public ground(?)


I see. Well, the rules for most NF or BLM land are the same in both AK and UT, and since that accounts for the vast majority of public lands in both states I still stand by my comparison. The authorizations required would be very similar I'd imagine, but I could be wrong.

I agree that the labor involved to clear an airstrip would be significant in many areas, but way more feasible to clear a helo pad. However, there are a number of ridge tops I am familiar with in UT that would only require a little bit of "mechanical improvement" to meet the requirement, so who knows what the impact would be.

Accessing landlocked public parcels is a good point, and Randy Newberg did shine a spotlight on that. That could very well be part of it. I was thinking maybe Denny Austad got tired of chasing deer/elk and decided he wanted the state record mountain goat or desert bighorn but didn't want to have to climb the mountain and would rather hop in the chopper like many outfits in Canada and New Zealand do for alpine hunts.


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

I am pretty excited about the extended archery adds. In the south they seem to be cutting them off prior to the rifle and limiting them to close to towns (wasatch south, utah lake and herriman) the add into alpine is nice for me since I live there...


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

The utah lake one is puzzling, is there even any area around the lake my which to hunt?


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

I will say it is also interesting that they are eliminating the extended archery north of I-80...


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

kdog said:


> I will say it is also interesting that they are eliminating the extended archery north of I-80...


and it doesn't go all the way east to 40 (Parleys)


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

gdog said:


> kdog said:
> 
> 
> > I will say it is also interesting that they are eliminating the extended archery north of I-80...
> ...


True, i didnt catch that either


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And Johnny, correct me if I’m wrong, you would not have to hike the shovels, etc in. Why couldn’t one with a chopper haul all the materials in tomorrow, drop all the people off to work on it and pick it up, and be done? 

You’re right that this would be much easier for a heli-pad than a plane landing strip. But don’t underestimate people’s creativity when it comes to disposable income and hunting!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

kdog said:


> The utah lake one is puzzling, is there even any area around the lake my which to hunt?


There is a fair sized herd that is out there in and around agricultural, wetland and undeveloped tracts. There is definitely, huntable private land that could be utilized with permission and maybe a little public land as well. With the deer often being pests to the farmers out there, they may be willing to let some hunters on.

My general thoughts at a glance.

1. I like the multiple Books bison hunts. I'm still not sure where I stand on the archery only issue in general but I appreciate that the DWR is trying to increase opportunity. I'm also pleased that the Books herd seems to be doing very well.

2. I like how they did the Sanpete extended. The hunt allows archers extra opportunity to get at deer that are living around towns and in the alfalfa fields year round, but the season is cut off before wintering deer arrive from nearby public lands and the heavy pressure they will get on the general hunts.

Cutting off the South Wasatch unit that way also will help as the wintering deer usually don't arrive from the mountains to the wintering grounds above town until the end of November or December, depending on snow.

I still maintain the extended hunts will not help the (Utah county) urban deer problem much at all as most of the problem urban deer will not reside in a huntable area regardless of how long the season is.

3. While I'm quite sure I will never hunt mountain goats, the expansion plan sounds good.

4. Was there anything on the sheep sections about adding enforcement teeth to preventing the herds from being decimated by wayward sheep?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> And Johnny, correct me if I'm wrong, you would not have to hike the shovels, etc in. Why couldn't one with a chopper haul all the materials in tomorrow, drop all the people off to work on it and pick it up, and be done?
> 
> You're right that this would be much easier for a heli-pad than a plane landing strip. But don't underestimate people's creativity when it comes to disposable income and hunting!


I think you are right, as they could land in the unimproved tract for the purpose of improving it (not to hunt) and then lift off, circle and touch back down to wait a day to hunt having now landed on a mechanically improved surface. It is very poorly written IMO.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

You all have mentioned most of what stood out to me. My thoughts:

1. The Henry Mountains cow bison hunts just keep getting harder. They used to follow two hunter's choice rifle hunts, and take place either early or late December. Now there are two archery seasons and three hunter's choice hunts beforehand, and they take place either in late December or early January. I'll bet we see success rates go down on those hunts, which may lead to more tags in the future.

2. If there are going to be archery bison hunts, then IMO there ought to be some hunter's choice and some cow-only archery tags, at a proportion consistent with what's being offered to the any-weapon hunters. With that in mind, I am pleased to see archery-only cow hunts. Would there be anything wrong with holding the archery hunter's choice bison hunts and cow-only bison hunts concurrently?

3. A roadless Book Cliffs bison hunt. What!? :shock: You've got to be pretty hardcore to go after that tag. I'm curious to see what the demand will be like if the hunt is approved.

4. Anyone know what the Nebo goat hunt is like? Hard enough that the new archery hunt will have low success?

5. Another round of cactus buck hunting in 2019 on the Pauns, as well as archery and muzzleloader management buck tags.

Still trying to decide how I feel about the move toward archery OIAL tags. I guess I'm fine as long as they leave the desert sheep tags alone.... maybe more on that later.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

kdog said:


> I will say it is also interesting that they are eliminating the extended archery north of I-80...


The DWR offered 100 rifle doe tags and 100 archery doe tags on the Front in Davis County this year. I would guess that's why they're doing away with it - extended archery wasn't nearly as effective as a targeted harvest with dedicated tags.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

As far as archery OIAL tags go,

In 2018, the archery goat tags had 155 applicants for 4 tags, while the goat hunts as a whole had 6784 applicants and 108 tags (excluding nonresidents). So, 3.7% of the tags were archery only, and 2.3% of the applicants went for them.

Looking at resident applications for bison, there were 11404 total applications for 145 total tags, and 422 applications for 13 archery tags. All told, 9.0% of the permits were archery-only, and 3.7% of the applicants went for them.

I don't think I have a problem with how the numbers have worked out for the goat tags so far. Numbers seem skewed a bit high for the archery bison tags, though.


----------



## kdog (May 4, 2015)

gdog said:


> kdog said:
> 
> 
> > I will say it is also interesting that they are eliminating the extended archery north of I-80...
> ...


True, i didnt catch that either


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

kdog said:


> True, i didnt catch that either


Yeah this is particularly troubling for me. I-80 up to I-84 is a large "problem area" for deer. And it will only get worse as they build up the mountain. This is an area they have done a lot of rifle hunts, opened those special city hunts, etc....

I hope others have a loud voice for this. It sucks that Davis is part of the central RAC and is a 2 hour drive to attend and voice concerns on this.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

If ANYTHING in this packet concerns you, please attend the meetings:

Meeting Locations
CR RAC – Nov. 6th 6:30 PM (Location Change)
Monte L. Bean Museum
645 E. 1430 N., Provo

SER RAC – Nov. 14th 6:30 PM
John Wesley Powell Museum
1765 E. Main St, Green River

NR RAC – Nov. 7th 6:00 PM
Brigham City Community Center
24 N. 300 W., Brigham City

NER RAC – Nov. 15th 5:30 PM
Wildlife Resources NER Office
318 North Vernal Ave., Vernal

SR RAC – Nov. 13th 5:00 PM
Cedar City Middle School
2215 W. Royal Hunte Dr, Cedar

Board Meeting – Nov. 29 - 9:00 AM
DNR Boardroom
1594 West North Temple, SLC


----------



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

RandomElk16 said:


> Yeah this is particularly troubling for me. I-80 up to I-84 is a large "problem area" for deer. And it will only get worse as they build up the mountain. This is an area they have done a lot of rifle hunts, opened those special city hunts, etc....
> 
> I hope others have a loud voice for this. It sucks that Davis is part of the central RAC and is a 2 hour drive to attend and voice concerns on this.


This is not a rhetorical question, but is the goal of the extended hunts to manage animal numbers near suburban areas or provide more hunter opportunity or both? In either case, I don't see how eliminating the hunt north of I-80 as helping either cause. Also, after a quick review it looks like the new extended areas have a good amount of private and are only for deer. Seems like this could create more of a mess than the extended unit already is. I'd love to see these new extended areas opened while also leaving north of I-80 open. If you're an extended archery elk hunter this is a terrible development. One of the last areas you can actually hunt archery elk for the month of September is going to be gone


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

So I'm seeing posts elsewhere that are stating the Front Extended will not be changed and that hunting North of 80 will be retained, per conversations with Covy Jones (Big Game Coordinator)

_"1- All of the new extended archery areas are proposed as deer only.

2- My understanding of the boundary change for the existing Wasatch unit is simply an expansion of the unit to the south (Timpanogos Highway).

3- I have confirmed with the DWR Big Game coordinator that the extended area north of I80 will remain unchanged._"


----------



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

gdog said:


> So I'm seeing posts elsewhere that are stating the Front Extended will not be changed and that hunting North of 80 will be retained, per conversations with Covy Jones (Big Game Coordinator)
> 
> _"1- All of the new extended archery areas are proposed as deer only.
> 
> ...


Can you point me to where you are seeing these posts? Thanks


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

gdog said:


> So I'm seeing posts elsewhere that are stating the Front Extended will not be changed and that hunting North of 80 will be retained, per conversations with Covy Jones (Big Game Coordinator)
> 
> _"1- All of the new extended archery areas are proposed as deer only.
> 
> ...


They should probably adjust the boundary map then. Because it doesn't say "additional wasatch front" - it just says "Wasatch Front Extended Boundary".

Edit:

Updated Boundary: Salt Lake and Utah counties--Boundary begins at I-15 and I-80; south
on I-15 to SR-92; east on SR-92 to the USFS Wilderness Boundary (mouth of American Fork
Cyn); north on this boundary Lake Hardy Trail; north on this trail to the Salt Lake/Utah county
line; east on this county to the Salt Lake/Wasatch county line; east on this county line to the
Salt Lake/Summit county line; north on this county line to I-80; west on I-80 to I-15.

That reads to me like the entire boundry description, not an addition. Otherwise it should say "Boundary begins at I-15 and I-84" - or it should be a new "South Wasatch Front Extended Area"


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

KRH said:


> Can you point me to where you are seeing these posts? Thanks


Go take a look at the "Bowhunters of Utah" Facebook page.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> They should probably adjust the boundary map then. Because it doesn't say "additional wasatch front" - it just says "Wasatch Front Extended Boundary".
> 
> Edit:
> 
> ...


I agree. Just conveying what I've seen stated elsewhere, supposedly clarifying the information and contradicting the info in the RAC packet (?)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

How 'bout the airstrip near Boulder Utah? maybe that one would fall into this discussion? As far as I know, only aliens use it today.



















Didn't we see some video last year of some rich adventure seeker landing helicopters in remote desert areas of utah, camping, and finding bull elk? There are a lot of places out on the Escalante desesrt, and Henry mountains that would sure be nice to use a heli to access....

I would guess these proposals are a way to prevent this. Which is good.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you look on a BLM map of the Book Cliffs you will find airstrips all over the place.


----------



## hondodawg (Mar 13, 2013)

Critter said:


> If you look on a BLM map of the Book Cliffs you will find airstrips all over the place.


Go and buy a sectional VFR chart at a local FBO and it will list public and private airstrips.

Or use this
http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=40.436&lon=-109.511&zoom=10

But most of the abandoned strips won't be listed

So I'd suggest this link

https://utahbackcountrypilots.org/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KRH (Jul 27, 2015)

gdog said:


> Go take a look at the "Bowhunters of Utah" Facebook page.


Thanks


----------



## TheHunted (Feb 22, 2016)

I for one would love to see the Davis county extended DEER hunt go away. Those deer get hunted from August through November with two rifle hunts two muzzy hunts and a state full of bowhunters after them. Plus all the new doe hunts this year. 

There is a good portion of bowhunters that go straight to the top of the mountain in Davis county to hunt deer. I thought the purpose of the extended was to help cull the city deer.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

TheHunted said:


> I for one would love to see the Davis county extended DEER hunt go away. Those deer get hunted from August through November with two rifle hunts two muzzy hunts and a state full of bowhunters after them. Plus all the new doe hunts this year.
> 
> There is a good portion of bowhunters that go straight to the top of the mountain in Davis county to hunt deer. I thought the purpose of the extended was to help cull the city deer.


And yet they still feel the need to add doe hunts, urban hunts, etc...

Deer migrate. The deer I would hunt there in November aren't necessarily resident bucks. The area is hammered with hiking, recreation, etc... anyways.

Anyways - the Mule Deer plan is to manage for 18-20 B : D ratio on that unit. The 3 year average is almost 32. They actually increased the tags for that unit by 1700 this year. So, I don't see why the extended archery should be targeted - especially when it's a nice area to access and is huge? We may feel it gets hammered, but the fact is the deer are smart and there are bucks all over.


----------



## TheHunted (Feb 22, 2016)

Does that buck to doe ratio include the roughly 80 percent of the unit that’s private? I’m curious I really don’t know, I would assume the B : D ratio includes all the private ground. If that’s the case you’ll never see a buck to doe ratio get to what they’re trying to manage that unit for.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

TheHunted said:


> Does that buck to doe ratio include the roughly 80 percent of the unit that's private? I'm curious I really don't know, I would assume the B : D ratio includes all the private ground. If that's the case you'll never see a buck to doe ratio get to what they're trying to manage that unit for.


Of course it does. But then we can't assume there isn't a bunch of deer seeking solitude on that private either.

If the herd and B : D are healthy, per their standards (which that we could debate), then there isn't a reason for them to adjust to less hunts. Like I said, they are going to actually continue increasing hunts.

To your earlier statement about people going up the mountain - we talked about that in this thread I believe. City deer are the issue and we aren't allowed to hunt city deer, even on remote parcels of land. It's silly, yes.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I went to the Central RAC last night. Here's my best memory of what happened (which is a little foggy, since the meeting lasted until almost midnight - and I had been up since 5:00 AM and put in a full work day).

The mountain goat and bighorn sheep management plans were approved as presented.

CWMU permit numbers were approved as presented. 

There was a lot of discussion about the proposed dedicated hunter rule amendments. Several people didn't like the fact that they wanted to require 8 service hours prior to getting the first tag (since results aren't out until the end of May, and archery opens in August). Ultimately, though, it passed as presented.

SFW proposed a list of 6 or 8 hunts they came up with, and the RAC spent a good deal of time discussing them. I'll hand it to SFW - they're pushing HARD for additional hunting opportunity. A theme for a lot of their proposals was the use of more "primitive weapons" - muzzleloaders without scopes, recurve bows, etc. The RAC made a motion to ask the wildlife board to direct the DWR to look into creating a new definition for "primitive weapons" and the possibility of some new hunts, but did not vote to put any of those hunts into play this year. Apparently it would be an administrative nightmare since there aren't definitions in the rules that would allow them.

SFW asked them to recommend removing the late rifle hunt on the Dutton (or maybe it was the boulder?) unit for the sake of protecting large bulls that migrate in from other units. I'm pretty sure that motion passed.

SFW also asked them to split the Wasatch unit into 3 subunits and discontinue the late rifle hunt on Wasatch West (again, in the name of protecting large bulls). I don't think that one ended up going anywhere.

The Utah Wild Sheep foundation asked for archery-only sheep tags on the Newfoundland Mountains and Zion units. The RAC approved that.

John Bair asked the RAC to make a motion expressing their strong support for the spike elk hunt, and against any actions that would reduce spike elk hunting opportunity or permit numbers. The RAC was happy to oblige.

I encourage you to attend your respective RAC if you want to comment on any of these. For the life of me, I can't figure out why SFW thinks large bulls need protection on some of these late rifle hunts... I thought the point of LE hunting was to find them and shoot them.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

What happened with the Extended Archery boundry expansion discussion? I didnt realize the rac was last night and emailed the board members my reasons against, just an hour or so before the meeting started.


-DallanC


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

The extended archery proposals passed. There was some discussion about the boundary extension from the Utah-Salt Lake County line to SR-92, but the committee ultimately passed the boundaries as initially proposed.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Mike Honcho said:


> The extended archery proposals passed. There was some discussion about the boundary extension from the Utah-Salt Lake County line to SR-92, but the committee ultimately passed the boundaries as initially proposed.


Was it confirmed that the "Front" boundaries did not change?


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

The extended archery boundaries, as proposed by the DWR and described in the RAC packet, passed as proposed. There were no alterations.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Mike Honcho said:


> The extended archery boundaries, as proposed by the DWR and described in the RAC packet, passed as proposed. There were no alterations.


Not exactly. Covy showed a different boundary on his PowerPoint, and specifically mentioned that the boundary change only added to the unit.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Clarq said:


> Not exactly. Covy showed a different boundary on his PowerPoint, and specifically mentioned that the boundary change only added to the unit.


Ok..thats what I was looking for...thanks!


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

Clarq said:


> Not exactly. Covy showed a different boundary on his PowerPoint, and specifically mentioned that the boundary change only added to the unit.


Now I am confused? What was different in Covy's power point than what was contained in the packet?


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Mike Honcho said:


> Now I am confused?


The rac packet showed different boundaries for the Wasatch Front specifically (stopped at I80 going North). There was confusion if this boundary was actually being changed or not, but they stated it was just the way they split up the maps by region and nothing was being changed.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

gdog said:


> The rac packet showed different boundaries for the Wasatch Front specifically (stopped at I80 going North). There was confusion if this boundary was actually being changed or not, but they stated it was just the way they split up the maps by region and nothing was being changed.


Got it. Thanks.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Emphasis on redefined primitive weapons - in the same agenda as air rifle hunting and only 2 years after they allowed any magnification on ML hunts lol.

"For the sake of bigger bulls" doesn't have science - but sounds good!


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Our DWR and WB sure do like to experiment a lot! One day... they’ll come up with the perfect solutions to everybody’s gripe.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

I honestly would like to see some primitive weapons hunts put into play. Say the early rifle deer hunt be open sights only. You could put this into LE deer and maybe move a few more folks threw. I’d be one of them. Same thing with the mid season LE elk hunts. You could probably lighten the load on the point creep for a bow hunter by offering a recurve’s only season running from say... aug 17-sept 23. And the **** with discontinuing some late LE bull tags for the sake of the bigger bulls! Let some brave ambitious old school hunters get after them with open sights. And to be clear I’m not in the camp that thinks more wounded and unrecoverable animals will be shot than with high powered scopes.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> There are a lot of places out on the Escalante desesrt, and Henry mountains that would sure be nice to use a heli to access....
> 
> I would guess these proposals are a way to prevent this. Which is good.


Timely...


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> And Johnny, correct me if I'm wrong, you would not have to hike the shovels, etc in. Why couldn't one with a chopper haul all the materials in tomorrow, drop all the people off to work on it and pick it up, and be done?
> 
> You're right that this would be much easier for a heli-pad than a plane landing strip. But don't underestimate people's creativity when it comes to disposable income and hunting!


A man with a shovel etc. isn't "Mechanical". Now if he had a weed whip, brush hog, or something powered by an engine, its Mechanical.

Now...&#8230;&#8230;. On "Primitive" designated lands, you can't use any kind of device that powered electrically, or gas.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

taxidermist said:


> A man with a shovel etc. isn't "Mechanical". Now if he had a weed whip, brush hog, or something powered by an engine, its Mechanical.
> 
> Now...&#8230;&#8230;. On "Primitive" designated lands, you can't use any kind of device that powered electrically, or gas.


No, you are conflating "mechanical" with "motorized." A shovel is technically a simple machine and would meet a "mechanically improved" definition.


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

Clarq said:


> I went to the Central RAC last night. Here's my best memory of what happened (which is a little foggy, since the meeting lasted until almost midnight - and I had been up since 5:00 AM and put in a full work day).
> 
> The mountain goat and bighorn sheep management plans were approved as presented.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Clarq. Interesting that the OIL archery sheep was brought up; where was this in the agenda? Why does the RAC feel they have to vote on something that was not in the posted public agenda and put forward by an organization and not the DWR?

Fully understand that the sheep management plan stated "We recommend increasing hunting opportunity to help address point creep" but where was the division recommendation on the archery tags? Why does increasing opportunity automatically mean increasing archery opportunity and not increasing any weapon tags. Wasn't there a survey recently that discussed this very issue? Were the results of this survey posted?

Ya gotta hand it to the Bowmen; only a few other minority groups are as organized, know how to shape opinion (even at the exclusion of other hunters e.g. book cliffs bear, ANY WEAPON tags moved to archery pool) and increasing opportunity for their constituents.

I cant believe that there is not more discussion on removing OIL any weapon tags and moving them to an archery permit (definitely a minority hunting method) but then again the so called loophole was such a huge issue and needed closed as it was a menace to the hunting in Utah. But after the DWR actually did the research less than 2% ever used the loophole.....whew! glad that was closed...lol


----------

