# Big Game RAC packet online



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

The wait is over.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2014-04_rac_packet.pdf


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Hmm! Panguitch Lake deer is now 3,200 deer over objective (and growing) and we're still only planning on removing 220 does (100 transplanted and about 120 shot). Two years ago on the range ride, we were told we needed to remove 500 per year for the next 3 to 5 years in order to allow the winter range on the Parowan Front to recover. Looks like someone (or several someones) isn't too concerned about a drought, hard winter or range fire which could put 80% of the herd at risk.


----------



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

elkfromabove said:


> Hmm! Panguitch Lake deer is now 3,200 deer over objective (and growing) and we're still only planning on removing 220 does (100 transplanted and about 120 shot). Two years ago on the range ride, we were told we needed to remove 500 per year for the next 3 to 5 years in order to allow the winter range on the Parowan Front to recover. Looks like someone (or several someones) isn't too concerned about a drought, hard winter or range fire which could put 80% of the herd at risk.


Hey leave it to the professionals they ALWAYS know what they're doing.-O,-


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Other than a couple blips here and there things look and feel on the up the DNR deserves applause!


----------



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

berrysblaster said:


> Other than a couple blips here and there things look and feel on the up the DNR deserves applause!


Ya they always do don't they.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes, Good to see all those cow elk permits gone on the southern Wasatch.:!:..


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Hmm! Panguitch Lake deer is now 3,200 deer over objective (and growing) and we're still only planning on removing 220 does (100 transplanted and about 120 shot). Two years ago on the range ride, we were told we needed to remove 500 per year for the next 3 to 5 years in order to allow the winter range on the Parowan Front to recover. Looks like someone (or several someones) isn't too concerned about a drought, hard winter or range fire which could put 80% of the herd at risk.


And who's to say they didnt stroke those counts?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Even if they stroke those counts, I went out and looked at that winter range myself and its pathetic and much worse that the original range ride we were on two years ago. I will take ZERO pride in an "I told you so" scenario if the population again grows with limited removal of those does causes a crash on the Panguitch Lake Unit. There were deer EVERYWHERE!!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> And who's to say they didnt stroke those counts?


 And which counts and in which direction do you prefer they were stroked?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Hey leave it to the professionals they ALWAYS know what they're doing.-O,-


 Hey, leave it to SFW as well as the DWR, both who refused to increase the number of tags for fear of the public outcry. It's amazing how much that fear overrides biology.


----------



## horn hunter (Oct 30, 2013)

Wow..... That's about all I can say. 

They are absolutely up in the night as far as the deer numbers are concerned...

Sure glad I have all those cow moose points saved up. $10 says they still let you but a point for the "future". 

Wish they would have posted these numbers 3 weeks ago... My application for the drawing would look ALOT different.

What a joke...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Some things I like ,,,,

The split Bookcliff rifle deer permit numbers should help congestion out there ..

Increasing deer herds on general units reflected in estemates are a GOOD sign,
The last several weeks I have seen very encouraging deer numbers on several
units Ive been on.....GREAT fawn carry over and heathy looking deer eveywhere!

Removing all cow elk permits from Wasatch, Springville and Diamond fork GOOD !
and HUGE reductions on Timp, Alpine, Currant creek, Avintaquin, Heber, also good.

Some things "Not so incouraging" -- IMO.
The reduction of OIAL permits.
HUGE drop in Rocky mountain goat permits----162 to 108
Drop in buck antelope permits---841 to 774
Moose continue a decline--( only 1 permit on Kamas////WOW!)

And, of the 100 permits increased for LE bull elk,
50 of those are on the Wasatch unit-- from 655 permits last year to 703
for 2014..With all that is going on in the Wasatch--It may take a few years to recover after 2014..


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

How does the Ogden unit go from 600 elk and no antlerless tags for several years to 2000 elk and control permits in one year?


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

derekp1999 said:


> How does the Ogden unit go from 600 elk and no antlerless tags for several years to 2000 elk and control permits in one year?


Cause the computer says so!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

derekp1999 said:


> How does the Ogden unit go from 600 elk and no antlerless tags for several years to 2000 elk and control permits in one year?


No kiddin... I questioned the counts on another thread and got bashed for it, so they must be accurate. I just don't know how one season resulted in migration and births of 1400 elk. The population more than tripled in one season, and now there will be 500 gun slingers in a pretty small area.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Berry & Random... I know the elk herd has increased in the area that I frequent within that unit dramatically over the last couple years so don't get me wrong I'm not complaining that we're starting to see decent numbers of elk in the area again. That's just a really drastic change to go from zero antlerless tags for several years to 500 antlerless tags plus unlimited control tags.
That just means I'll do my civic duty and fill my freezer with a cow this year as well... aw, shucks, twist my arm.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

derekp1999 said:


> Berry & Random... I know the elk herd has increased in the area that I frequent within that unit dramatically over the last couple years so don't get me wrong I'm not complaining that we're starting to see decent numbers of elk in the area again. That's just a really drastic change to go from zero antlerless tags for several years to 500 antlerless tags plus unlimited control tags.
> That just means I'll do my civic duty and fill my freezer with a cow this year as well... aw, shucks, twist my arm.


I have seen an increase over the last few years as well.. But according to that it has been steady, then jumped 1400. So what are they gonna do, issue 500 tags in a brand new area... that really isn't that large either. I am just curious what the effects will be with such drastic changes. Other units add or decrease tags 5, 10, 30.... Not 500 :shock:

Curious to the Deseret tag drop, can anyone provide insight on that?


----------



## ARROWHNTR (Dec 11, 2008)

Does anyone know what portion of the wasatch west is going to be added to the controlled tags? Also is there anywhere you can see the boundry changes for the Current Creek Avintiquin antlerless unit?


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

RandomElk16 said:


> I am just curious what the effects will be with such drastic changes. Other units add or decrease tags 5, 10, 30.... Not 500 :shock:


It will be interesting that is for sure... but it's not like they hadn't all but eliminated the Middle Fork herd once already when they traded a bunch to Kentucky 15 to 20 years back. I wonder if it has anything to do with keeping ranchers in the Ogden Valley happy as well... ah, the consipracy theories!



RandomElk16 said:


> Curious to the Deseret tag drop, can anyone provide insight on that?


Perhaps the elk have migrated onto the Ogden unit! :!:


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Arrw hunter, where are you reading about control permits on Wasatch west?


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

berrysblaster said:


> Arrw hunter, where are you reading about control permits on Wasatch west?


It's the 8th of 9 units listed on page 18 of the packet. Says "Portions of Wasatch West (new this year)"


----------



## ARROWHNTR (Dec 11, 2008)

17) We are recommending that hunters who have any antlered big game permit can also purchase an
antlerless elk control permit valid on 12 units:
3 elk units where the population objective is 0 elk.
-- Henry Mountains
-- North San Rafael
-- San Juan, East of US-191 and South of US-491
9 units where we struggle to harvest enough antlerless elk to reach the population objective.
-- Nine Mile Range Creek
-- South Slope Yellowstone
-- Chalk Creek
-- East Canyon
-- Morgan South Rich
-- Wasatch Currant Creek and Avintaquin (boundary change)
-- Portions of Wasatch West (new this year)​-- Ogden (new this year)


----------



## Wasatch (Nov 22, 2009)

Holy crap! If I'm looking at this right, the Willard Nanny tags for residents were dropped from 17 tags in 2013 to 2 in 2014 that's an 85% reduction! How many Nanny's did they relocate??? The Beaver unit isn't looking any better. I actually had a chance at drawing this tag, putting in with 8 points this year....Doesn't look llike I'll ever draw if they keep tags this low.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Some things I like ,,,,
> 
> The split Bookcliff rifle deer permit numbers should help congestion out there ..
> 
> ...


Honest question. I can't download the packet in my phone. What decreases are you talking about on the timp, alpine area?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Timp will be down from 80 permits in 2013 to 20 permits this year...

Apline, from 40 prmits in 2013 to 30 this year.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

San Juan will have seen 33% of its tags cut from 2012 until this year. It's not the only unit like that. 

As I've said before...Units like the Wasatch that have added a total of 71 tags in that same time have allowed the DWR to cut tags on the premium units and still tell the public they haven't cut any tags. Now I don't know if the Wasatch needed a major tag cut (yes, I consider 33% in two years "major") or not. If so, that is great. But the age of bulls harvested on that unit for the last 3 years is 7.4, 7.3, and 7.3. Doesn't seem to me that they are killing some younger bulls so they need to cut tags, so what gives? 

Those with 18+ points....get ready to be in this one for the long haul!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

TS- What gives is all the "Premium" elk units have an unattainable management age objective at 7.75. Sure they might hit it one year, but they will not average 7.75 for 3 years. A quick look through shows no Premium Unit has even hit the 7.75 one year. If the bulls are not meeting the objective then tags must be cut-- problem is many 6.5- 7.5 year old bulls can be good enough for the hunter holding the permit and wahlaa- we don't meet the age objective. This extreme age objective was passed by a majority of the Elk Committee and the Board despite warnings from others on the Committee and the UDWR that the objective was too High and not likely to be reached. But it sure makes for a great hunt for a few lucky hunters and all that buy Conservation Permits- if that makes sense.......

A quick look through the numbers shows maybe Berry jumped the gun a little on his Wasatch predictions. CC still has 2,000 cow tags and control permits. Other portions of the Wasatch have Control Permits and cow tags. 

Goofy- Do you know anything about the Alpine herd and if the decrease is either good or bad?

It will be interesting to hear the biologists' opinions as to why they are recommending the numbers. I won't judge much until I hear the reasoning.


----------



## morvlorv (Mar 30, 2012)

does all this mean it will be easy or hard to put elk meat in the freezer this year?
I have zero points so I wont be drawing a LE area before I die. hah


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout......doh! I guess I could have easily answered my own question by looking at data on the exact same page I pulled the numbers for age class the last three years. Thanks for pointing that out. 

7.75 does seem like an awfully high age objective, especially when you are talking a unit that is not hurting for giant bulls. And the numbers on that page, telling how many tags there were allocated each of the last 3 years, don't line up with the data on the pages just above. And they don't align with the numbers in the 2012 Big Game report either.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Packout said:


> TS-
> Goofy- Do you know anything about the Alpine herd and if the decrease is either good or bad?
> .


Not 100% sure , BUT, 
I suspect the added oppertunity for controll permits on Wasatch west
May-be on the Timp, Alpine units during regular season hunts ?????

That could be why early season cow permits were removed there...

Just a guess though.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

800 Antlerless elk tags on the small Mt Dutton unit? :shock: It's been a couple of years since I've been on Dutton the elk population must have exploded in that time.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

TS it wasn't as much as we wanted but it was a monster decrease from the last 3 years...I hope the control permits are truly 'depredation' centered hunts and not just a free for all...


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Curious............could somebody tell me why an early any weapon elk hunt would have permits cut by 4 and the same unit would have late hunts added by 16 tags? Just wondering what the reasoning is? 

Eliminate points from the pool and increase revenue?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^ Well, The late hunt on the Manti is more difficult.......^^^^


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Curious............could somebody tell me why an early any weapon elk hunt would have permits cut by 4 and the same unit would have late hunts added by 16 tags? Just wondering what the reasoning is?
> 
> Eliminate points from the pool and increase revenue?


Call the regional biologist and ask&#8230;.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^ Dennis Sotherland---Central office---Springville ^^^^^^^

I'll PM you his phone number if you would like Skinner.......................


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> Call the regional biologist and ask&#8230;.


last I heard biologists are primarily a bunch of idiots. The state DWR can't organize a two car funeral and don't listen to the biologist. I could only assume because they are idiots.

I thought it would be more efficient to pose the question for those on here that already know everything about every unit.


----------



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

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Curious............could somebody tell me why an early any weapon elk hunt would have permits cut by 4 and the same unit would have late hunts added by 16 tags? Just wondering what the reasoning is?
> 
> Eliminate points from the pool and increase revenue?


Can I ask you something? What reason do you think? Because it yields greater revenue with smaller success odds. The best way to give out too many tags is to give them when there is less chance of killing too many. Money, money, money. Why yield $1,140 off of 4 tags, when you can yield $4,560 off 16 tags? Also why make us pay for a license, then have us pay our taxes, then have us pay to raise pheasant chicks to cover up failed, poor, and terrible management, then have us release them on DWR land, then have us go shoot the chicken we just raised, instead of a wild bird that with better management could exist? Yes that was a rant.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Can I ask you something?


No.

Unless you have an answer that I didn't already provide in my question.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> No.
> 
> Unless you have an answer that I didn't already provide in my question.


Good thing I have insurance on my phone. Those last two posts made me giggle like a school girl. I may have got some Monster on it too.


----------



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

Mr Muleskinner said:


> No.
> 
> Unless you have an answer that I didn't already provide in my question.


Ignoring the money aspect is keeping many of you blind.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

#1 eye can I ask you a question? Do have hairy palms? How is your eyesight?


----------



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

martymcfly73 said:


> #1 eye can I ask you a question? Do have hairy palms? How is your eyesight?


Marty if you want to take what you're fed full of be my guest. You have to experience some things on your own. Whether it's hunting an actual wild rooster in this beautiful state, or watching elk and deer numbers plummet with estimates continuing to rise, believe as you please. Remember though researchers don't keep there jobs by concluding, weird how one minute there telling us coyotes don't effect populations, but now they are saying they do. Just because you discredit people without a peace of paper doesn't mean the people with a peace of paper are flawless. Stay blind.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

It seems like two extremes seem to frequent the interweb lairs of the outdoors. Those that have conspiracy on the mind, and those that are willing to defend anything in the 'name of science'. 

Somewhere in between those is reality, reality is the DNR is almost always spot on. Reality is that 99% of the time someone cries wolf it's really a chupacabra, or actually a chihuahua 😇😇. However, there are those few times where there is a problem, where a model failed or a count was skewered. We can't right off the one time there was a problem because 99 times before there wasn't...

JMHO anyways


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

So you're saying one eye is wrong 99% of the time? I agree with that.


----------



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

martymcfly73 said:


> So you're saying one eye is wrong 99% of the time? I agree with that.


If you believe the DWR is perfectly right 99% of the time you're 100% wrong.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think I know why Anise left the big game coordinator job in utah and went to manage small game in in another state lol. Utah is a snafu


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> last I heard biologists are primarily a bunch of idiots. The state DWR can't organize a two car funeral and don't listen to the biologist. I could only assume because they are idiots.
> 
> I thought it would be more efficient to pose the question for those on here that already know everything about every unit.


Depends on which ones you are talking about. The UDWR is full of plenty of incompetent people, from the top down, including biologists. And every time they loose a good qualified guy, that expression is magnified. The good ones don't get any political cover, because they have nothing to sell, and they need a job like everyone else.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

berrysblaster said:


> It seems like two extremes seem to frequent the interweb lairs of the outdoors. Those that have conspiracy on the mind, and those that are willing to defend anything in the 'name of science'.
> 
> Somewhere in between those is reality, reality is the DNR is almost always spot on. Reality is that 99% of the time someone cries wolf it's really a chupacabra, or actually a chihuahua &#55357;&#56839;&#55357;&#56839;. However, there are those few times where there is a problem, where a model failed or a count was skewered. We can't right off the one time there was a problem because 99 times before there wasn't...
> 
> JMHO anyways


Do you have any data to support these claims, and figures? Its a scientifically based question. Oh, never mind, I see where you said its your opinion.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If you believe the DWR is perfectly right 99% of the time you're 100% wrong.


60% of the time...it works every time.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Depends on which ones you are talking about. The UDWR is full of plenty of incompetent people, from the top down, including biologists. And every time they loose a good qualified guy, that expression is magnified. The good ones don't get any political cover, because they have nothing to sell, and they need a job like everyone else.


I watched it all start sliding when Steve Flinders left the DWR .....

And its never been the same.


----------



## 300 Wby (Aug 14, 2008)

Who is getting admonished? I just about spit all over the computer screen when I noticed that subject line and then I noticed that the Division doesn't list AI for recommended Bison permits ( I think that is an unintended omission) sure am glad we find out the recommended number of permits after we have put in.


----------



## sklobe25 (Jul 11, 2010)

Any idea why the Cache antlerless elk season would get moved so early?
I understand cutting some tags if it's "below" objective, but it has usually been two seasons...one that overlaps general spike (mid-October) and one late (December-ish). Now the recommended is Aug 16 - Sept 5?

(Also, the total # of tags in recommended hunts sheet does not match the # in the permit recommendations...385 vs. 370?)


----------



## rockroller (Dec 7, 2008)

I find it disturbing that even though the back side of the Stansburys burned off ,they're giving out more deer permits this year !


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

rockroller said:


> I find it disturbing that even though the back side of the Stansburys burned off ,they're giving out more deer permits this year !


It's because the deer herd has increased along with the buck to doe ratio. 
that's the way it's supposed to work.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

If I draw an antlerless tag for a certain unit, but am hunting deer (antlered big game) on a unit that has control permits, can I hunt both elk?

Deseret would be one tag... One of those contol units the other


----------



## horn hunter (Oct 30, 2013)

rockroller said:


> I find it disturbing that even though the back side of the Stansburys burned off ,they're giving out more deer permits this year !


They are determined to shoot the **** out of several units in this state, including the oquirrh/stansburys. That fire wiped out basically 1/4 of the unit. And they up permit #s??? All I can do is shake my head.... It's disgusting. What they try to do to our deer. That unit is not increasing. Stable, but definitely not increasing. But here we are in 2014, issuing more permits for excess animals we don't have


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

horn hunter said:


> They are determined to shoot the **** out of several units in this state, including the oquirrh/stansburys. That fire wiped out basically 1/4 of the unit. And they up permit #s??? All I can do is shake my head.... It's disgusting. What they try to do to our deer. That unit is not increasing. Stable, but definitely not increasing. But here we are in 2014, issuing more permits for excess animals we don't have


Maybe the Oquirrh and Stansburys should be two separate units.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

maybe they are increasing the permits because the land can not provide for the same population of deer because of the burn.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The Oquirrh/Stansbury unit has a deer population objective of 10,600

The 2013 post estamate was 10,800

Thus, an increase in permits

And the burn,?, That will bennifit habitat almost immediatly--a non-factor.


----------



## horn hunter (Oct 30, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> The Oquirrh/Stansbury unit has a deer population objective of 10,600
> 
> The 2013 post estamate was 10,800
> 
> ...


That number is just an ESTIMATE. doesn't mean it's accurate... I mean, look who the number is coming from... It's coming from the people who want your $$$.

And that burn destroyed habitat. And no BENEFITS have come from it yet and won't for quite awhile. Bet it's 20 years before it's back to what it was. Maybe longer... That fire hurt that unit. A lot. You might know a lot about certain units, but I can promise you that you aren't an 'expert' when it comes to this one.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

horn hunter said:


> That number is just an ESTIMATE. doesn't mean it's accurate... I mean, look who the number is coming from... It's coming from the people who want your $$$.
> 
> And that burn destroyed habitat. And no BENEFITS have come from it yet and won't for quite awhile. Bet it's 20 years before it's back to what it was. Maybe longer... That fire hurt that unit. A lot. You might know a lot about certain units, but I can promise you that you aren't an 'expert' when it comes to this one.


The bighorn sheep have been enjoying the burn area greatly. I can't believe they didn't increase the tags this year. 3 ram tags, it should be at least 6. There will be rams dying of old age in the next couple years.
That's a fact.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

horn hunter said:


> That number is just an ESTIMATE. doesn't mean it's accurate... I mean, look who the number is coming from... It's coming from the people who want your $$$.
> 
> And that burn destroyed habitat. And no BENEFITS have come from it yet and won't for quite awhile. Bet it's 20 years before it's back to what it was. Maybe longer... That fire hurt that unit. A lot. You might know a lot about certain units, but I can promise you that you aren't an 'expert' when it comes to this one.


Read a book. It doesn't have to be back to what it was to benefit the animals.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

It doesn't have to be back to what it was but if burns are hot enough they can do longer term damage than just turning around in a year or two. I have not read anything about the severity of the burn. My comment above was just assumption that the burn may have cooked the topsoil and killed the of the organisms that give plant benefit and create a hydrophobic condition. Maybe it hasn't.


----------

