# I400 Elk Proposal



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

)In 1989 Utah began issuing spike tags to increase the number of mature bulls on many of the elk units in Utah. The idea was to allow a certain percentage of the yearling bull elk population to be harvested while restricting the harvest of mature bulls. This also enabled the DWR to issue several thousand spike tags with very low harvest numbers, allowing for many people the opportunity to hunt yearly with reduced harvest of the bull population compared to the OTC any-bull tag policy that preceded the spike/limited entry policy. We believe the spike tag still has it’s place in the management of both elk and elk hunters. We propose eliminating the issuing of spike tags on the following five units(1): North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and LaSal. We propose introducing spike tags to the following five units(2): San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert. This will allow more bulls to reach maturity on the (1) units increasing the number of mature bulls that can be harvested yearly. These units will also have season date changes that will be addressed in the next paragraph. It will also reduce the bull:cow ratios on the (2) units which currently have an excess of mature bulls. Issuing spike tags for a determined time will reduce the number of bulls being recruited into the mature bull population without affecting quality. This also allows the displaced spike hunters from the (1) units a place to hunt spikes in addition to the increase in mature bull tags in the (1) units as well as an increase in cow tags as the bull:cow ratios come more in line with the current Elk Management Plan. This will minimize the loss of yearly spike tags by redeploying where the spike tags will be issued based on bull:cow ratios and average harvest ages determined by the DWR biologists. As bull:cow ratios become more balanced, more cows will be available for harvest and too increase the recruitment of calves into the herds each year.
2)We propose changing the season dates on the (1) units to the following:
September 1-21 Limited Archery, any-bull
September 26-October 4 Limited Muzzleloader, any-bull
October 6-14 Limited Rifle any-bull on the North Cache, Wasatch, and Nebo units
November 10-16 Limited Rifle any-bull on the Fish Lake and LaSal units
All three seasons Premium Limited any-bull
3)We propose changing tag allotments for the (1) units from 60/25/15 to 50/30/20, meaning changing rifle tags from 60% of the total tags to 50%, archery from 25% of the total tags to 30%, and muzzy from 15% of the tags to 20%.. Giving more tags tp primitive weapons combined with the season date changes will decrease harvest success rates, allowing for more mature tags to be issued for all weapon choices.
4)We propose the (a) unit tags be issued thru a preference point system, while keeping the remaining(23) limited entry elk units be under the current bonus point system. We propose hunters a one time option of which point system to deploy their current elk points, meaning someone with 10 LE elk points can choose one time, which pool to apply for; the (1) units or the remaining 23 limited entry units. Once that hunter has chosen which pool he/she prefers, his/her points are no longer transferable. Those who opt for the preference point pool, when they draw a (1) unit tag, they will have no waiting period for (1) unit permits, but will still be required a five year waiting period for the bonus point units. This will allow hunters to chose between the two systems, which will reduce the number of applicants for both pools, this will increase the odds for drawing a limited entry tag for all applicants.
5)Make reporting mandatory, including tooth submitting with the DWR aging all teeth submitted, instead of just a sample of the teeth submitted. The reporting will be done online.
SUMMARY
We believe that by the changes in season dates, elimination of spike tags on the (1) units, getting bull to cow ratios in check with the Elk Management Plan, mandatory reporting, tag allotment changes on the (1) units, more tags can be issued while maintaining quality. In addition, by redeploying the spike tags from the (1) units to the (2) units on a scaled down tag number the bull to cow ratios on the (2) units will become more inline with the desired ratios per the Elk Management Plan. This proposal will allow more hunters the opportunity to hunt mature quality animals in Utah while minimizing lost yearly opportunities for OTC tags.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

I like what you guys are doing with the I400 proposal and I'm for it for the most part. A couple of things have changed since I found you guys after the old forum got shut down that I don't like. 
Redeploy the spike tags to (2) units? If these units have a problem with to many mature bulls why not hunt more of them? If you shoot more young bulls won't this just get worse. I would like to see MORE managment tags take care of this along with more LE tags. The spike tags are for increasing the age class not lowering it.

I would rather the bonus point system handle all LE and I 400 units. Just put a note like they do for the Book Cliffs saying these are not trophy areas for the I400 units. This way someone like my 13 year old son.(who will be coming into the drawing system this year) Who really doesn't know what kind of hunter he is trophy or meat or some were in between changes his mind he won't have wasted many years and points in a totally differant system. I have to say I flip floped on this after talking with my son as I was for the preference point system at first. He thinks a trophy elk hunt sounds great at first. Then when I explained it to him he would rather hunt a lesser unit with me,  than a trophy hunt with me following him around not hunting. So he might change his mind in the future thus losing points. Bad Bad Bad.

Just my two cents. I like what you guys are doing keep up the good work.

Allen


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Why are you starting another thread about the same I400 ideas?


----------



## bds (Sep 20, 2007)

I think I like this less and less as time goes on.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I think I like this less and less as time goes on.


Its ok if you like our currrent system, but ALOT of us want MORE opportunity to hunt elk so that is why we have a I400 Proposal. Sagebrush this proposal isnt old


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I like what you guys are doing with the I400 proposal and I'm for it for the most part. A couple of things have changed since I found you guys after the old forum got shut down that I don't like.
> Redeploy the spike tags to (2) units? If these units have a problem with to many mature bulls why not hunt more of them? If you shoot more young bulls won't this just get worse. I would like to see MORE managment tags take care of this along with more LE tags. The spike tags are for increasing the age class not lowering it.
> 
> I would rather the bonus point system handle all LE and I 400 units. Just put a note like they do for the Book Cliffs saying these are not trophy areas for the I400 units. This way someone like my 13 year old son.(who will be coming into the drawing system this year) Who really doesn't know what kind of hunter he is trophy or meat or some were in between changes his mind he won't have wasted many years and points in a totally differant system. I have to say I flip floped on this after talking with my son as I was for the preference point system at first. He thinks a trophy elk hunt sounds great at first. Then when I explained it to him he would rather hunt a lesser unit with me, than a trophy hunt with me following him around not hunting. So he might change his mind in the future thus losing points. Bad Bad Bad.
> ...


Thanks Yak4fish for your input. Under the current system your son doesnt really have a chance to hunt mature bulls, but I400 will make his dreams become a reality.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Thanks Yak4fish for your input. Under the current system your son doesnt really have a chance to hunt mature bulls, but I400 will make his dreams become a reality.


this is really an understatement, a person might not get to hunt one of the few elite units does not mean they will not hunt a mature bull.

We have mature bulls though out this state they are not only on limited entry units, there is opportunity for all. a person will have to do some homework to achieve a 100% success rate.

Also the price of a limit entry Elk permit does not fit everyones budget these days. I'm sure the price will keep going up!

we keep hearing it is experience of the hunt that counts, filling a tag is just part of the hunt well a person can hunt elk anytime they really feel like it. be it general season, archery, muzzler loader, and limited entry.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> this is really an understatement, a person might not get to hunt one of the few elite units does not mean they will not hunt a mature bull.
> 
> We have mature bulls though out this state they are not only on limited entry units, there is opportunity for all. a person will have to do some homework to achieve a 100% success rate.
> 
> ...


I400 has nothing about it that would require ALL to apply for LE hunts. ALL of the otc tags available now would STILL be available under I400.

Yes, the experience is a MAJOR part of the hunt, the kill is a small part, by is the desired outcome. You seem to be missing the point here, which is we have EXCESS bulls on every/nearly all LE units where rifle hunters 'enjoy' 90 % success rates. I400 is ONE idea of many that is intended/desired to address the under use of the 'resource' (big bulls) and the 50,000+ applicants who desire to hunt them. I did some checking, my 15 year old daughter who has one point will NOT be able to get a 'bonus' tag for the Wasatch any-weapon early season for 35 YEARS! That is based on today's numbers, it WILL get worse over than span if changes aren't made. For example, my odds of drawing a Pahvant any-weapon tag are worse this year than three years ago, and that is after acquiring three more bonus points. This is due to the demand out-pacing the supply. This will most likely always be the case, but there are realistic ways to maximize the supply, while keeping demand high. I400 IS one biologically sound management plan that WILL work.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I did some checking, my 15 year old daughter who has one point will NOT be able to get a 'bonus' tag for the Wasatch any-weapon early season for 35 YEARS! That is based on today's numbers,


See there it is again.

people do draw with one point, you do not have to have max points to draw a tag. remember this is a drawing.

why does it have to be a specific unit? what is wrong with the other units? or CWMU units?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush, you are missing the forest for the trees. I used the Wasatch as an example, it isn't the unit my daughter will be putting in for in 2008. The forest you don't see is, the division gives out less than 3000 LE tags for 50,000+ applicants, while there are EXCESS bulls on most/all LE units. Coupled with the extremely high success rates on the rifle hunts and OPPORTUNITY is limited MORE than need be. Quality can remain high even with a higher than currently tag increase rate. Why is seeing/looking for ways to increase OPPORTUNITY w/o losing much/any quality such a radical concept?

yak4fish, I think you brought up a couple of great points, thank you.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

is saying 35+ years being realistic? I see the trees Pro; every time I go out in the Forest. what I do see is people getting frustrated because they did not draw a tag.
And they are saying life is not fair, well that is what a drawing is all about one chance just like anything else that you put in for.

Are you going to tell people do not draw with one, two , or even three points?

So if a person wanted to hunt a mature elk do we not have opportunity besides the limited entry units?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> is saying 35+ years being realistic? I see the trees Pro; every time I go out in Forest. what I do see is people getting frustrated because they did not draw a tag.
> And they are saying life is not fair, well that is what a drawing is all about one chance just like anything else that you put in for.
> 
> So if a person wanted to hunt a mature elk do we not have opportunity besides the limited entry units?


Of course we have opportunities besides LE's, that is NOT the point, at least not for me. My point is; there are EXCESS bulls on most/all LE units, why should we NOT look for ways to maximize the OPPORTUNITIES to hunt these bulls? Why do we need bull/cow ratios well over 50/100 and harvest ages INCREASING every year?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

If the DWR would increase tags, but the question is how many tags? the system does not need to be changed to increase tags or opportunity. the key word is to *INCREASE TAGS ONLY *



proutdoors said:


> Why do we need bull/cow ratios well over 50/100 and harvest ages INCREASING every year?


this can only be answered by the DWR, not you or i or anyone else here.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I400 has nothing about it that would require ALL to apply for LE hunts. ALL of the otc tags available now would STILL be available under I400.


Well Pro lets not leave out the part about all the thousands of over the counter spike tags not being availavle.

The more I think about this what I would love to see them do is turn many of the larger currently LE units back into any bull general season and with the handful uf units they leave LE require that if you put in for a point on one of those you can not draw a general season elk tag.

Then you really would be making people choose between *trophy* or *opportunity*.

You see this is not meet v.s. trophy, it is opportunity v.s. trophy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > I400 has nothing about it that would require ALL to apply for LE hunts. ALL of the otc tags available now would STILL be available under I400.
> 
> 
> Well Pro lets not leave out the part about all the thousands of over the counter spike tags not being availavle.
> ...


There would NOT be a single otc spike tag "unavailable" under I400.

I see this as balance, not one vs the other.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

So I just have to make a post on the newest thread about I 400.

So here is how I feel about it. Changed my mind not going to say anything as I have said it all before.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> There would NOT be a single otc spike tag "unavailable" under I400.
> 
> I see this as balance, not one vs the other.


I don't know if I followed you there Pro, my question is this.

Right now if you combine spike tags, cow tags, management tags and LE tags on the units you are proposing how many TOTAL tags are there?

IF you implimented I400 how many combined LE tags, cow tags, spike tags.....would there be?

The answer to this question tells us if hunters have lost opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Right now if you combine spike tags, cow tags, management tags and LE tags on the units you are proposing how many TOTAL tags are there?
> 
> IF you implimented I400 how many combined LE tags, cow tags, spike tags.....would there be?


No spike tags would be reduced, no cow tags would be reduced, there was only I believe 70 some management tags that could/SHOULD be dumped, LE tags would INCREASE by MORE than the management tags lost. I can't give exact numbers, but the ONLY tags 'reduced' would be management tags, while the FIVE pilot areas would have MAJOR increases of mature bull tags. Therefor I stand by my statement of MORE OPPORTUNITY under I400.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I guess I have not followed I400 for awhile. If you are not taking away any general season spike tags on the pilot units is that just for a certain number of years and then you reduce or take them away or is I400 simply to dump management tags and add lots more LE tags on these units?


----------



## archerben (Sep 14, 2007)

> We propose eliminating the issuing of spike tags on the following five units(1): North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and LaSal. We propose introducing spike tags to the following five units(2): San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert.





> There would NOT be a single otc spike tag "unavailable" under I400.


I think you guys are missing something here. Your proposing eliminating spike tags on five units and adding spike tags on another five units. However, the units proposed are far from equals. There are roughly one third the number of elk on the new proposed spike units as there are on the spike units you are proposing to eliminate spike tags from. Yet you want to keep the same number of tags. This doesn't feel quite right. Here are the estimated herd populations for the proposed units (taken from the 2005 Big Game Annual Report, the latest numbers I could find publicized):

Cache - 2000
Wasatch - 2800
Nebo - 1580
Fish Lake - 4000
LaSal - 1900
Total: = 12280

San Juan - 1400
Monroe - 900
Pahvant - 1150
Pansagaunt	- 75
SW Dessert	- 1100
Total: = 4625


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Therefor I stand by my statement of MORE OPPORTUNITY under I400


Hmmm; How many years will it take someone to draw a tag under this I400? seeing how you say it takes 35+ years under the DWR current plan.

People do draw with *ONE* point, Pro. under the current DWR plan.



proutdoors said:


> there was only I believe 70 some management tags that could/SHOULD be dumped,


Why get rid of the tags? just because you do not like them, does not justify getting rid of them. Maybe a poll of the general public should be made of this request.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

archerben said:


> I think you guys are missing something here. Your proposing eliminating spike tags on five units and adding spike tags on another five units. However, the units proposed are far from equals. There are roughly one third the number of elk on the new proposed spike units as there are on the spike units you are proposing to eliminate spike tags from. Yet you want to keep the same number of tags. This doesn't feel quite right. Here are the estimated herd populations for the proposed units (taken from the 2005 Big Game Annual Report, the latest numbers I could find publicized):
> 
> Cache - 2000
> Wasatch - 2800
> ...


Exactly...and, in doing so, they are going to "prove" that spike hunting is so unpopular.

I see this as a huge loss of opportunity...comparing the spike opportunity of units like the Wasatch and Fish Lake units to the opportunity Pahvant and SW Desert would offer (not to mention the Pauns) is ridiculous.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro now I'm confused, I asked on the the specific units you are proposing to impliment I400 how many combined total elk tags there are currently now and how many there would be under I400?

You answered in such a way that made me understand not a single tag would be taken away only adding to LE tags.

Is this true what archerben said, you are going to take away all the spike tags and add that same number of spike tags to units outside of I400?

If so, on *these* units your are taking away opportunity.

And to those who result to spike hunting just for the opportunity this means an increase of hunters to your hunting areas.

Sounds like for the opportunist he is loosing opportunity on one unit and having his quality of hunt on another dragged down.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> I guess I have not followed I400 for awhile. If you are not taking away any general season spike tags on the pilot units is that just for a certain number of years and then you reduce or take them away or *is I400 simply to dump management tags and add lots more LE tags on these units*?


I think that is pretty close to dead on.

Ben, nobody is suggesting/wishing that all the 'displaced' spike hunters go one for one to the 'new' spike units, I expect some to go to any-bull units and spread out among ALL the spike units. This is also a rotation we want, not a permanent spike unit. Also, if hunters have to chose, like what we have suggested before and 10000ft as brought up again, how many spike hunters will there be in a given year?

sagebrush asked:


> Why get rid of the tags? just because you do not like them, does not justify getting rid of them. Maybe a poll of the general public should be made of this request.


I don't like them because they make NO sense. According to the DWR guy I talked with at the WB meeting last week, there were 54 bulls killed by "management tag" holders, only *THREE* of them were what the DWR deems "management bulls". So, I say just increase tag numbers, rather than allow people to by-pass the logjam.

I also realize that people draw with *ONE* point, duh. I know people with *ZERO* points who draw every year. The point is that the odds are long to do so, and regardless of how many people with few points draw, when the number of tags issued is less than 3000 and the number of applicants is OVER 50,000, the odds STINK. If no new applicants were to apply until all with points drew it would take *17+ years* before everyone drew a tag. All while the DWR and even wyo2ut admit there are EXCESS bulls on most/all LE units. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Pro now I'm confused, I asked on the the specific units you are proposing to impliment I400 how many combined total elk tags there are currently now and how many there would be under I400?
> 
> You answered in such a way that made me understand not a single tag would be taken away only adding to LE tags.
> 
> ...


 If you look at LE units by themselves that will be pilot units, I would say hunter 'relocation' not lost opportunity. This would happen as well under your "I401". Any change to management of a unit will do this to an extent.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I also realize that people draw with ONE point, duh. I know people with ZERO points who draw every year. The point is that the odds are long to do so, and regardless of how many people with few points draw, when the number of tags issued is less than 3000 and the number of applicants is OVER 50,000, the odds STINK. If no new applicants were to apply until all with points drew it would take 17+ years before everyone drew a tag. All while the DWR and even wyo2ut admit there are EXCESS bulls on most/all LE units.


Well did you open your eyes or what then? So by just increasing tag numbers alone will not increase odds?

Why all the changes to the units then?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Why all the changes to the units then?


TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITY! :roll:


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Why all the changes to the units then?
> 
> 
> TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITY! :roll:


what does increasing tags numbers do? you said it before

BTW the number of hunters will increase everyear more than decrease, say somewhere around 50,000 year increase due to age increase. remember the age limit has be reduced to 12 years old.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

So by just increasing tag numbers alone will not increase odds?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

So Pro tell me if the statments are true or false below so I understand if we are on the same page.

The total elk tag numbers on the proposed *I400 units *would be reduced under I400. True or False?

If I400 is implimented spike tag would be taken from the I400 units and would be distributed to other areas with spike hunting or any bull hunting out side of the I400 unit. True or False?

I400 increases the number of hunters who can hunt bull elk on its units but lowers the total number of elk tags (opportunity) currently issued to hunters on these units. True or False?

Sending OTC spike tags from the I400 units to other *all ready crowded *general season areas outside of I400 lowers the quality of those hunts. True or False?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

How many years will it take someone to draw a tag under this I400? seeing how you say it takes 35+ years under the DWR current plan.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> If you look at LE units by themselves that will be pilot units, I would say hunter 'relocation' not lost opportunity. This would happen as well under your "I401". Any change to management of a unit will do this to an extent.


Pro that statement is not true I401 only increases the size of the general season area an dthe availability of that tag. There would be no relocation of hunters under this plan.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

PRO I have to go to work, so i will have to leave for now, do not worry I shall return :rotfl: :rotfl: try to be a good sport today.

P.S. You seem to be hiding in the background? I do not see when you are on-line anymore. are you paranoid?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> PRO I have to go to work, so i will have to leave for now, do not worry I shall return :rotfl: :rotfl: try to be a good sport today.
> 
> P.S. You seem to be hiding in the background? I do not see when you are on-line anymore. are you paranoid?


Yes, Big Brother is watching! 8)



> Pro that statement is not true I401 only increases the size of the general season area and the availability of that tag. There would be no relocation of hunters under this plan.


Of course there would be! If you made the Manti "general season", would that not displace the 'trophy hunters' that are currently applying for LE Manti tags? You bet your high elevation it would relocate hunters.



> So Pro tell me if the statements are true or false below so I understand if we are on the same page.


Ok. :|



> The total elk tag numbers on the proposed I400 units would be reduced under I400. True or False?


True, but mature bull tags and cow tags would be increased.



> If I400 is implimented spike tag would be taken from the I400 units and would be distributed to other areas with spike hunting or any bull hunting out side of the I400 unit. True or False?


True



> I400 increases the number of hunters who can hunt bull elk on its units but lowers the total number of elk tags (opportunity) currently issued to hunters on these units. True or False?


True



> Sending OTC spike tags from the I400 units to other all ready crowded general season areas outside of I400 lowers the quality of those hunts. True or False?


True AND false. I don't think spike hunters are over-crowded on Boulder/Beaver/etc., open-bull is slightly. I don't see it affecting quality in measurable quantities.

How did I do? Do I get an A?


----------



## Mntman (Nov 16, 2007)

For your spike tags in the proposal, if you rotated them between the 10 units, each one every other year. 
1. You would succeed in reducing the bull to cow ratio, but every other year the LE hunters wouldn't have to deal with the excess spike hunters(a plus). This way they would know ahead of time so they could choose when they applied. Also per the herd populations previously stated, you would have minimized lost oppurtunity for spike tags. I'm not a bioligist but it seems that if you did it every other year you could actually increase each years number of tags for spikes by a small %, due to having a higher percentage of the "off" years spikes reaching maturity.

2. If it wasn't working you could respond and make a change prior to it causing long term damage to the elk numbers & bull/cow ratios,.

2A. which leads into if this is accepted or any form of it, there should be a plan in place that can make adjustments in tag #'s for populations and bull/cow ratios. Because what is your plan once the excess mature bull's have been harvested and all the ratio's are in place. Is it to reduce the number of spike tags and or LE tags back closer to the original #'s or is there data that shows the area's can sustain the higher number of animals being harvested while still having the same oppurtunity for quality for years down the road?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Good Job Pro I'll give you an A, one more thing....



> Pro that statement is not true I401 only increases the size of the general season area and the availability of that tag. There would be no relocation of hunters under this plan.
> 
> Of course there would be! If you made the Manti "general season", would that not displace the 'trophy hunters' that are currently applying for LE Manti tags? You bet your high elevation it would relocate hunters.


It still would not "displace" thouse who hunt the manti for two reasons

1.) 90% of those who put in for the Mani have never hunted there to begin with and 50% probably never will.

2.) Technically they would still be able to hunt the general so "technically" you can not clasify them as displaced.

*Displaced* means they can no longer set up camp in said area or get a tag for said area


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> For your spike tags in the proposal, if you rotated them between the 10 units, each one every other year.
> 1. You would succeed in reducing the bull to cow ratio, but every other year the LE hunters wouldn't have to deal with the excess spike hunters(a plus). This way they would know ahead of time so they could choose when they applied. Also per the herd populations previously stated, you would have minimized lost oppurtunity for spike tags. I'm not a bioligist but it seems that if you did it every other year you could actually increase each years number of tags for spikes by a small %, due to having a higher percentage of the "off" years spikes reaching maturity.


I think you, Pro and others don't realize how big an issue the *displacement of hunters* is.

You talk about moving the spike tags around like it is nothing for these hunters to get there whole group to up and relocate to another mountain every year.

Again I think the #1 reason for hunters who have given it up in the last two decades is this very issue. Had to leave the old family spot to make room the the trophy reserve.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good post mntman.



> which leads into if this is accepted or any form of it, there should be a plan in place that can make adjustments in tag #'s for populations and bull/cow ratios. Because what is your plan once the excess mature bull's have been harvested and all the ratio's are in place. Is it to reduce the number of spike tags and or LE tags back closer to the original #'s or is there data that shows the area's can sustain the higher number of animals being harvested while still having the same opportunity for quality for years down the road?


We intend to have specific objectives to DRIVE tag numbers, objectives like bull/cow ratios, population numbers, calf/cow ratios, and even harvest age objectives in place.

I believe as bull/cow ratios are lowered to objective levels, success rates will decrease, which will allow for tag numbers to be more generous. If this proves effective and gets balanced bull/cow ratios, and meets objectives, then I would like to explore adding more units into units managed this way. This would be based on hunter demand, ability to meet/sustain objectives, and habitat conditions. Remember as well, as bull/cow ratios are lowered, calf production will INCREASE, meaning more bulls being recruited into the herd each year available to be hunted/harvested.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> It still would not "displace" thouse who hunt the manti for two reasons
> 
> 1.) 90% of those who put in for the Mani have never hunted there to begin with and 50% probably never will.
> 
> ...


1)This statement is why I think the current plan is seriously flawed.

2)Technically, they would still be able to either get a I400 tag or cow tag is many cases. And, by 'forcing' those who are the die-hard 'trophy hunters' to other LE units, IS displacing them.

I guess my definition of "displaced" is different than yours. If you change the quality/type of hunt in a given unit, you WILL displace hunters.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

The more i read about this i am starting to dislike this because the units your moving the spike hunts to can't allow the same amount of hunters so then you would have to up the any bull units as well as the LE units and then the any bull units would be jamed with more hunters making those units suffer more than they are. i was for this but this is quickly changing my mind.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

First of all, I dont see a need to increase the tags on the anybull units. So it wont be overcrowded than it already is. 12,300 is the highest the number it will get until there is a need to issue more tags. We need to issue more LE tags. We need lower success rates on the rifle hunt so by moving the rifle hunt out of the rut then you will reduce success rates and thus increasing the bull escapment.

I like the idea of rotating spike tags because its used as a management tool to keep the bull/cow ratios in check without reducing quality on the units.



> You talk about moving the spike tags around like it is nothing for these hunters to get there whole group to up and relocate to another mountain every year.


You make it sound like these people are camped on the mountain all year long and having to relocate is next to impossible. Do these same people get a Southern deer tag every year or do they have to relocate?

Right now they want to move the spike tags statewide so this favors 11,000 spike hunters, but there are about 60,000 hunters who apply for LE tags and many of those spike hunters also put in for LE tags. There isnt a plan right now in place that even gives one ounce of favor to the 60,000 plus elk hunters. The limited number of LE tags issued favors the max point holders because they know they will soon draw a tag and then they will be out of the game for many years.

We have twice as many elk as Arizona and they give out twice and many tags and yet we are only behind then by 9 BC bulls. Arizona knows what hunters want and that is to hunt mature bulls.

Utah wants the "majority" of hunters to be "baby bull killers" while the selective few and the rich hunt the "Big Daddys"

I400 is working towards favoring the 60,000 plus elk hunters so they can hunt mature bulls instead of spikes


----------



## Mntman (Nov 16, 2007)

I think you, Pro and others don't realize how big an issue the *displacement of hunters* is.

You talk about moving the spike tags around like it is nothing for these hunters to get there whole group to up and relocate to another mountain every year.

Again I think the #1 reason for hunters who have given it up in the last two decades is this very issue. Had to leave the old family spot to make room the the trophy reserve.[/quote]

I do see that as an issue, I would really be mad if I was content in hunting an area for my whole life with then to have it change even though I was against it. 
With that being said, the thing is everything changes all the time. I was just trying to come up with a compromise that benefits everyone, while still increasing tag numbers with out damaging the quality already established.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Man!!! Again, like I tried to explain on the other thread!! Quit dreaming up more red tape and give some elk hunters the opportunity to hunt elk!!! I know that is what PRO and the PROponents of I-400 are trying to do but **** enough is enough.

We have "grown the pie" to the breaking point!! Why do I or any other hunter need to or have to jump through the hoops that are being set up to kill a bull??? Aren't there several units that are almost a 1:1 bull to cow?? What is going to make the trophy horn hunters happy?? 3:1?? 4:1?? 5:1?? 400 inch bulls tied to tree's with the tag holders names visible from 500 yards and bullseyes painted on the vitals?? How many 400 inch bulls are going to be needed before SFW and the wildlife Board start worrying about wildlife instead of the coffers??
DO NOT **** yourselves, we as Utah elk hunters are jumping through hoops to appease
the inch hunters, to the point that the health of our herds will eventually hit the wall.

If the elk herd in Utah isn't PRIME FOR MORE OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT THE BULL **** I CAN'T THINK OF A HERD THAT IS.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I know that is what PRO and the PROponents of I-400 are trying to do but **** enough is enough.


No its not near enough. Gordy I truly thought you would jump on board a long time ago. You talk about MORE opportunity for elk hunters and that is what I400 is all about but yet you still dont get the picture. We explained it to you in the UBA meeting and yet you still dont get the picture. We want to hunt big bulls like other states. I dont think that having the majority of hunters in this state kill baby elk and only giving out 2,000 mature tags is the right thing to do so dont get sooo blown over by I400 because we are trying to create MORE opportunity which is what your crazy post is trying to say. So I think its about time for you to jump on board and quit dragging your feet.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS I agree, I am OPPORTUNIST 100%. I think instead of trying to play along with the good old boys in not sacrificing any MATURE BULLS to a common scumbag like myself we simply ask the question of why certain mindsets don't support responsible wildlife management and care more about inches and dollars?? 

I'll ask all of you the same question are we managing for opportunity?? Inches?? trophy quality?? Or are we managing for what is best for the elk?? Simply, quit playing along with SFW and the inch freaks, the opportunists ( like myself ) and start doing what is healthy and best for Utah's elk herds.

I would NEVER EVER UTTER ANOTHER WORD about elk management as long as tags were allocated by whatever was healthy for our herds, instead of what a conservation, expo or any other type of elk related money making tag was used for management protocol.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Gordy, read my signature, that is what I believe MUST be the end goal.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

read mine


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Gordy, what is wrong with having trophy units for those people who want to hunt trophy bulls and have lesser trophy units for people would like to kill a 300 to 350 bull and then of course the general season units. Its called having diversity for everyone. 

You want everything be pretty much open bull almost like the anybull units we have right now. A lot of people dont want that.

I 400 gives opportunity to the trophy hunters
it gives opportunity to those people who just want to kill a branch antlered bull
Spike tags will remain the same
Anybull units will remain the same
More cow tags because the elk population will increase because when you lower the bull/cow ratios to where they should be then more calves are born which means more elk need to be harvested so the young elk survive to replace the old elk and the ones you harvest


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> DOLLARS HAVE NO PLACE IN RESPONSIBLE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT!!!


Habitat projects cost money so the DWR and hunters benefit from rich people buying conservation tags. This money needs to come from somewhere so either we raise the price of tags or we let rich people pay part of the bill.

If you dont have trophy bulls that are worth buying a tag over then the rich guy will take his money somewhere and Utah Hunters will be affected by it.

Heres one example we have bighorn sheep on Timp and Provo because Karl Malone helped pay for it. The DWR benefited because that was less money they had to spend and they can now spend their money on another project.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I 'stole' mine right from the Nevada DWR Mission Statement, with one minor change, I changed Nevada to Utah.

Reality says if the quality/inches is not there, the money is not there, and money is NEEDED to restore habitat, set aside habitat, manage wildlife, introduce wildlife, protect wildlife, increase opportunity. It may/may not be 'ideal', but it is REAL.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

So Gordy quit hiding behind your statement of inches and dollars because I400 is about OPPORTUNITY for ALL hunters whether they be rich or poor.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Pro questions;

How many years will it take someone to draw a tag under this I400? seeing how you say it takes 35+ years under the current DWR plan.

So by just increasing tag numbers alone will not increase odds?

what does increasing tags numbers do?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Did you skip math class in school? :? 

If there are MORE tags, how can the odds not be improved? This is NOT about improving draw odds, it is about INCREASED OPPORTUNITY. I would say once up and going full speed, there would be at least double the mature tags than currently available on these five units. So, if roughly the same number of hunters applied, your odds would be twice as good as now. Now by implementing bonus point restrictions like many seem to want, where if you acquire a bull elk tag, any bull elk tag, you do NOT acquire a bonus tag that year, the odds will get even better. A bonus point should be just that, a bonus point for NOT acquiring a bull tag.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

So your increased opportunity theory is A hunter will be able to go hunting?



proutdoors said:


> If there are MORE tags, how can the odds not be improved?


having your odds increase is the same as having increased opportunity.

You still did not answer the question about; How many years will it take someone to draw a tag under this I400? seeing how you say it takes 35+ years under the current DWR plan.

People want to draw a tag now! Pro once people understand that in a drawing it is all about "*LUCK OF THE DRAW"* to increase your luck one would have to buy more tickets. thus the reason for bonus points.

You can sit here and paint a pretty picture on paper juggling around numbers all you want. it is not going to increase the odds (opportunity) any more.

Adding more tags into the picture will increase the drawing odds, not moving around the hunt dates or dividing the units up.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Adding more tags into the picture will increase the drawing odds, not moving around the hunt dates or dividing the units up.


Are you wyo2ut in disguise? Good hell, the MAIN purpose of I400 is to INCREASE opportunity through INCREASED tags! Moving the dates allows for MORE tags to be issued, which is how opportunity is INCREASED with minimal effect on quality. _(O)_


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Moving the dates allows for MORE tags to be issued, which is how opportunity is INCREASED with minimal effect on quality.


How does moving dates around allow more tags?

Can not just by adding more tags accomplish this task?

Why do you keep side stepping this question? How many years will it take someone to draw a tag under this I400? seeing how you say it takes 35+ years under the current DWR plan.

The DWR increased opportunity by adding the Management tags. which needs some eduction on the hunters part of what a 5 point bull looks like.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Moving the dates allows for MORE tags to be issued, which is how opportunity is INCREASED with minimal effect on quality.
> ...


Season date changes will LOWER success rates, which makes it possible to INCREASE tags.

Yes, but not as MANY tags could be added due to the extremely high success rates.

I do not/have not side stepped this question, it has been asked and ANSWERED a 100 freakin times. I have no idea how long it would take since it is impossible to project how many applicants there would be in the I400 pool, no set tag numbers, etc.. So, it makes no sense to even try and project how long it would take to draw. But, I have learned that if you have more of something available to acquire, it increases your odds of obtaining it. How much depends on many unknown variables in this case.

The management tags totaled 79 tags on four units. I am fairly certain that I400 will increase MATURE bull tags by MORE than 20 tags per unit, hence MORE opportunity.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I do not/have not side stepped this question, it has been asked and ANSWERED a 100 freakin times. I have no idea how long it would take since it is impossible to project how many applicants there would be in the I400 pool, no set tag numbers, etc.. So, it makes no sense to even try and project how long it would take to draw. But, I have learned that if you have more of something available to acquire, it increases your odds of obtaining it. How much depends on many unknown variables in this case.


So in reality no one really knows how long it will take to draw a tag. So this I400 is full of inconclusive information.
using the words of "*INCREASE OPPORTUNITY"* to make it sound like the best deal in town is really the same as the current plan.

"I have no idea how long it would take since it is impossible to project how many applicants there would be in the I400 pool, "
this statement also applies to the current system then. so your projected outcome of 35+ is B.S. another misleading statement.



proutdoors said:


> Season date changes will LOWER success rates, which makes it possible to INCREASE tags.


Why do you have to have lower success rates to increase tags?

Did you not say we have too many bull elk on the units?

is it not the desire of the hunter to fill this tag that he acquired? I hear this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, speaking for myself, I sure would like to fill this tag with the 400 class bulls that you speak of.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> How does moving dates around allow more tags?
> 
> Can not just by adding more tags accomplish this task?


You can add MORE tags, but it wont give out as much opportunity. You can't kill spikes and mature bulls at the same time. Because you will reach a point where not enough bulls are being recruited to the herd compared to the number you are harvesting. In other words you would be overharvesting so you would have to cut back on mature tags.

You cant increase tags for many years when the success rate is 85% for rifle hunts. Under the current seasons you would have to adjust the tags allotments if you did and it would go something like this 20% rifle, 30% ML and 50% archery. Then you might be able to handle MORE tags with the current season dates. This wont make a lot of people happy.

I400 if you move the rifle hunt out of the rut then the success rate would go down to were you could maintain double the amount of tags. You would increase the escapement of bulls. We wouldnt be killing spikes year after year on these units so the recruitment would increase. Thus MORE bulls available. The tag alloment would be 50% rifle, 30% archery and 20% ML.

I400 is a long term fix

If you just add tags to the current system then eventually you would have to cut back on tags. Then we would kick ourselves for not doing I400 all along.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

NO maybe if people want to just simply add tags to the current system then we would have to adjust the tag alotment to this to have it more long term.

10% rifle, 20% ML and 70% archery and then we will be able to maintain double the amount of tags for many years.

Would people go along with this tag alotment?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So in reality no one really knows how long it will take to draw a tag. So this I400 is full of inconclusive information.
> using the words of "INCREASE OPPORTUNITY" to make it sound like the best deal in town is really the same as the current plan.


I will type slower this time for you, I400 allows for *MORE* opportunity than the current plan.



> this statement also applies to the current system then. so your projected outcome of 35+ is B.S. another misleading statement.


No it is NOT B.S., it is based on TRENDS from past years and current applicant numbers in the bonus point pool who apply for that tag. There is NO trend for I400 since it hasn't been IMPLEMENTED yet!


> Why do you have to have lower success rates to increase tags?
> 
> Did you not say we have too many bull elk on the units?
> 
> is it not the desire of the hunter to fill this tag that he acquired? I hear this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, speaking for myself, I sure would like to fill this tag with the 400 class bulls that you speak of.


Lower success rates allow for MORE tags to be issued with less negative impact on quality.

Yes there are excess bulls, what is your point? :?

Yes it is the 'desire' of the hunter to fill his tag, but since we are talking about HUNTING not KILLING, 100% success rates should NOT be the desired outcome. If *you* desire that go 'hunt' a high-fence operation. One of the desired outcomes of I400 is to make it NOT be a once in a lifetime opportunity on EVERY LE, just on SOME. There are MANY hunters who want to hunt mature bulls who do NOT feel it is their 'right' to harvest a 400 class bull. I am a 'trophy' hunter to the core, I will draw a LE tag in 2008, and I will gladly go home without my tag punched rather than harvest a bull below MY standards, that is my choice, not one I 'demand' others comply with.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

It all comes down to *DRAWING THE TAG* which is the *LUCK OF THE DRAW* not by moving season dates around or % #'s of hunters using different weapons. 
adding more tags to the pool will increase the opportunity, tags increases can be a few to several, and change from year to year as needed. the success rates can only be changed by the hunter himself.

Hunting; should I say most hunters feel like, "killing an animal" not just being out in the outdoors for the sake of being there. the reason for hunting.

Yes there hare those that like being out in the outdoors and could care less about killing an animal.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> It all comes down to *DRAWING THE TAG* which is the* LUCK OF THE DRAW* not by moving season dates around or % #'s of hunters using different weapons.


Drawing a tag is easier if there are MORE tags available. Tag numbers are dictated by number of bulls deemed allowable to harvest, so success rates *DO* play a major role in the number of tags issued. So, by moving season dates and giving higher percentages of tags to primitive weapons, MORE tags can be issued while harvesting the same number of animals.



> adding more tags to the pool will increase the opportunity, tags increases can be a few to several, and change from year to year as needed. the success rates can only be changed by the hunter himself.


Success rates can/ARE changed by season dates and weapon choice in EVERY state. A rifle hunter in a similar situation as an archery will consistently harvest at a higher rate due to the effectiveness of the weapon used.



> Hunting; should I say most hunters feel like, "killing an animal" not just being out in the outdoors for the sake of being there. the reason for hunting.
> 
> Yes there hare those that like being out in the outdoors and could care less about killing an animal.


You are correct most hunters desire to harvest an animal while hunting, but I doubt very many EXPECT to have 100% success rates across the board. If they did they would buy a 'canned' hunt. The DWR should NEVER manage herds and allot tag numbers based on a desired 100% success rate, that would be idiotic, yet you seem to be advocating such. :? Are you a hunter, meaning you hunt for animals, or a killer, meaning you EXPECT 100% success?


----------



## Mntman (Nov 16, 2007)

Sagebrush,
Here is an example of how moving the hunts and reducing the success % will allow more tags. I always like examples so I can "see" what is going on. 
Unit "X" Unit "X"
Current proposed/predicted
# of Tags 100 150
success % 90(any weapon during rut) 0(no hunts during peak of rut)
Success% for archery would remain the same, leave the hunt where it is.
Success % for ML might actually increase slightly, cause My recomendation would be to make it the first post rut (peak) season.
Success % for Rifle would be closer to 50%, cause I would move it post ML season. 
Note: this is no official example of any part of I400, I just made it up as an example.

If you lower the success % for hunters you can allow more hunters in the woods to harvest the same amount of animals, which equals more OPPURTUNITY for hunters to DRAW a tag. In my opinion the true hunters will still be successful, the ones that will feel the lower success would be the road hunters. 
The way to get around having more hunters in the woods at the same time would be to add another date of seasons.

Pro- another thing that might be worth tossing around would be to have 2 archery seasons. 
1st season could run from the last weekend of AUgust through the 10th of Sept. 2nd season could go from the 11th to 19th? Just a thought, don't know if that has been tossed around before?
This is just a guess but I would say that by having 2 archery seasons you could increase archery tags by 20-40%?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Thanks fir the ideas mntman. We'll take a look at the season dates and split archery seasons you suggested.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I understand your concept, Are you really achieving the goal of keeping the bull to cow ratio in check?
in your example its states 90% success rate for rifle, then moving hunt to a later date will reduce it to 50%.
success #'s for archery will stay the same (% #'s no-one really knows)



Mntman said:


> Success % for ML might actually increase slightly, cause My recomendation would be to make it the first post rut (peak) season.


success #'s for ML will either stay or sightly increase. during this hunt the number of hunters will then greatly affect the outcome.

So hypothetically the bull to cow ratio pretty much stays the same. by losing 40% from the rifle and gaining say 40% in the ML nothing is changing.

It has been said that the bull to cow ratio is getting out of hand, too many bulls.
so if by adding more tags to eliminate some of these to many bulls in certain units. On a as needed by basis it will not work?
which can be changed on a year by year basis, unit by unit basis.
this will in turn add more opportunity and also higher success rate (keeps people happy) or is this too simple?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sagebrush, do you ever get tired of spreading your non-sense? If you look at success rates in AZ and NM then it will give you a pretty good idea what Utah's success rates will be if you move the rifle hunt out of the rut OR are you just saying that Utah elk are dumber than AZ and NM elk?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> If you look at success rates in AZ and NM then it will give you a pretty good idea what Utah's success rates will be if you move the rifle hunt out of the rut


What does AZ and NM have to do with UTAH?

UTAH hunters are not hunting in AZ or NM.

Why do the hunt dates for different weapon choices have to be changed around to keep the Bull and Cow ratio's in check?

if by adding more tags to eliminate some of these to many bulls in certain units. will be used to keep the bull over population in check.

which can be changed on a year by year basis, unit by unit basis.

this will in turn add more opportunity and also higher success rate (keeps people happy) or is this too simple?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> What does AZ and NM have to do with UTAH?
> 
> UTAH hunters are not hunting in AZ or NM.


Because it gives us data on success rates because these states dont have rifle hunts in the prime of the rut. Are you saying that Utah hunters are better hunters than AZ and NM hunters :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:



> Why do the hunt dates for different weapon choices have to be changed around to keep the Bull and Cow ratio's in check?


Sagebush, cant you read english or do you want me to write it in spanish. We aren't changing the season dates to keep the bull/cow ratios in check. We are changing the season dates to give out more *OPPORTUNITY* (THIS IS IN BOLD JUST FOR YOU.)


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

*SHH H'S* YOU NEED TO GET A SCAT SCAN DONE ON YOUR HEAD! To look for brain damage. Better yet lay off the crack pipe.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> SHH H'S YOU NEED TO GET A SCAT SCAN DONE ON YOUR HEAD! To look for brain damage. Better yet lay off the crack pipe.


Is that the best you can come up with? Maybe you can think of something better. So please do some thinking and post something better. -()/- -()/- -()/- -()/-

Please almighty Sagebrush I'm counting on you 

But your the typical Sagebrush and when you have nothing better to say then you come up with crazy comments and this shows your true persona.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > If you look at success rates in AZ and NM then it will give you a pretty good idea what Utah's success rates will be if you move the rifle hunt out of the rut
> ...


Looking at other states gives us a base line. This enables the numbers to be projected when they are unknown.

Changing season dates and tag allotments for different weapon choices allows for higher tag numbers, while lowering/keeping bull:cow ratios at/near objectives.

Success rates with rifles will always be fairly high with elk herds as healthy as they are on LE units in Utah. But, I would guess MORE hunters would be "happy" if given a tag with 50-60% success rates over NO tag at 90%. Those who desire/need a 90% success rate hunt can/should apply for LE hunts that are NOT one of the five pilot units. Simplicity at it's finest!


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Looking at other states gives us a base line. This enables the numbers to be projected when they are unknown


*UNKOWN * that is right your I400 plan is not a full proof solution.

Pro how far will all of this babbling about I400 put you in Don Peay ranks? Hoping for 2nd lieutenant


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Pro I do believe the DWR is doing a fine job with the current plan, True it might take a few years for some to draw a tag. But hey we all do not have the same luck in drawings. It is a game of chance something we all have to contend with.

'the DWR just has to add tags to certain areas for increased opportunity on a yearly basis and to keep the bull to cow ratio in check, simple and easily done. 

we already enough trophy LE units on hand, and do not need any more generated, it will complicate things to much, do you not believe the regs are already confusing for some?


If you really want a trophy area for yourself go and lease some land and become a CWMU. Or a private ranch for yourself. Do not try and use the public land that the residents of Utah are using.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> If you really want a trophy area for yourself go and lease some land and become a CWMU. Or a private ranch for yourself. Do not try and use the public land that the residents of Utah are using.


I400 is NOT about me, I WILL draw LE elk tag in 2008. I will 'pass' 'lesser' bulls that are smaller than 390. I do NOT see I400 being "a trophy area for myself".



> Pro how far will all of this babbling about I400 put you in Don Peay ranks? Hoping for 2nd lieutenant


Great argument, way to use logic, data, reasoning to support your stance. :roll:


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I400 is NOT about me, I WILL draw LE elk tag in 2008.


You should draw, but it is still a drawing max points or not.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*What I like about I-400*

1). Moving weapon dates around to lower success rates. 
2). Increasing number of LIMITED ENTRY TAGS in these 5 units.

*What I don't like about I-400*

1).taking thousands of spike tags (the only over the counter tags availabe in these areas) out of these five units and relocating those tag alotments to other already crowded spike areas and anybull areas.

I have no attachment to hunting "SPIKES" but I see this as a major loss to the "over the counter / general season / hunt every year" type hunter. In my opinion Utah's hunting opportunity should be closer to 80% general season 20% LE for elk, similar to how deer hunting currently is. But in fairness to the advocates of LE units, in any hunting season you should get a general season tag or a point for a LE unit, not both.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> But in fairness to the advocates of LE units, in any hunting season you should get a general season tag or a point for a LE unit, not both.


AGREED!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> If you look at success rates in AZ and NM then it will give you a pretty good idea what Utah's success rates will be if you move the rifle hunt out of the rut OR are you just saying that Utah elk are dumber than AZ and NM elk?


Hmmm....Wile E. do you even look this information up before posting, or do you just throw out these comments without looking?

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Hmmm....Wile E. do you even look this information up before posting, or do you just throw out these comments without looking?
> 
> You claimed that Arizona offers far more tags than Utah...here is the truth: Utah has a herd of 65,000 elk and gives out 20,000+ spike tags alone...this is not even counting the 11,000 general season any-bull tags. If you are going to throw out numbers, don't forget the truth. You can't omit all of the general season tags that Utah offers. The fact is that Utah offers the 2,800 LE tags alongside the 30,000+ general season tags. Yeah...sure, we can do what Arizona does...and, by doing so, we could drop the total number of elk tags in Utah from over 30,000 to about 20,000. I call that a significant loss of opportunity...


Wynuts, I wasnt even talking about general season. Maybe I should write in Spanish for you so you can follow along. IM comparing LE hunts here NOT General Season hunts. AZ has never had a success rate of 90% for a rifle hunt like we have here in Utah because their rifle hunt isnt in the rut.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Wynuts, I wasnt even talking about general season. Maybe I should write in Spanish for you so you can follow along. IM comparing LE hunts here NOT General Season hunts. AZ has never had a success rate of 90% for a rifle hunt like we have here in Utah because their rifle hunt isnt in the rut.


Just an observation Coyote,

You always refer to WYO2UT as Wynuts and seem to get kind of hostile whenever he posts what seem to me to be, very well thought out, civil posts. I would have to say as an outsider on your continueous "round and round we go" arguments with him it makes me question your credability.

I think all forum members deserve the respect of being refered to be their name or at least a kind abreviation of it


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I don't mean to make a big deal about this nor does wyo2ut need or want me to defend him I'm sure. But that is just it, I can tell he is the kind of guy who won't say anything about.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

WYO,

I once asked if you would send me a link to these odds, and I still have not recieved them from you. You and I have gone the rounds on this a time or two already. Last time I also included the odds for New Mexico.

We have already said, many times now that spike tags and general season tags will still be in place with I400. One thing that you fail to grasp is the general season tag amount will still be the same. LE tags will increase, that along with the amount of general season tags, we will further blow out the surrounding states with hunter opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> IM comparing LE hunts here NOT General Season hunts. AZ has never had a success rate of 90% for a rifle hunt like we have here in Utah because their rifle hunt isnt in the rut.


1) You have to compare the entire states together; otherwise, the comparison doesn't make any sense. You are comparing apples to oranges otherwise. Again, Utah is managed totally differently than Arizona...we offer FAR more opportunity than Arizona and we shoot more FAR more elk than Arizona.

2) Never? Hmmm...I found stats in Arizona that say the exact opposite. You sure you don't want to go back and look at them? Arizona does have some hunts and units with success rates above 90%; in fact, one particular unit had a success rate over 100% (this unit had more elk harvested than hunters hunting)!

3) You still failed to even recognize that Utah's muzzy and archery hunts have much higher success rates...is that because these hunts are NOT during the rut? I am confused....what part does the rut play in these inflated numbers?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You always refer to WYO2UT as Wynuts and seem to get kind of hostile whenever he posts what seem to me to be, very well thought out, civil posts. I would have to say as an outsider on your continueous "round and round we go" arguments with him it makes me question your credability.
> 
> Just an observation Coyote,
> 
> ...


Hahaha sorry its just a habit. Wyo2ut ( see I got it here) has three personalities so I addressing one of them> Excuse me 10,000ft for being so mean.



> Wile E. do you even look this information up before posting, or do you just throw out these comments without looking?


Even Wynuts didnt get my name right, but it slipped your radar. You better get an upgrade on your software.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 1) You have to compare the entire states together; otherwise, the comparison doesn't make any sense. You are comparing apples to oranges otherwise. Again, Utah is managed totally differently than Arizona...we offer FAR more opportunity than Arizona and we shoot more FAR more elk than Arizona.


Oh I wasnt aware of that comparing rule :rotfl:



> we offer FAR more opportunity than Arizona and we shoot more FAR more elk than Arizona.


[/quote]

But yet AZ is ONLY behind us by 9 BC bulls. AZ harvests a lot of Big bulls


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> I once asked if you would send me a link to these odds, and I still have not recieved them from you. You and I have gone the rounds on this a time or two already. Last time I also included the odds for New Mexico.
> 
> We have already said, many times now that spike tags and general season tags will still be in place with I400. One thing that you fail to grasp is the general season tag amount will still be the same. LE tags will increase, that along with the amount of general season tags, we will further blow out the surrounding states with hunter opportunity.


1)http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting.shtml
Scroll to the right side of the page and to the very bottom...this is where I got the numbers.

Isn't this what I said earlier?


wyoming2utah said:


> 1) http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hunting.shtml
> Scroll to the bottom of the page and look in the right hand column; it is there. Sorry, I don't know how to post a link to Utah's 2006 stats...it is a pdf file.
> 
> According to what I have, New Mexico's harvest rates are:1) Rifle--30% 2) Archery--15% 3) muzzleloader--24%. Again, though, and like Arizona, these are NOT stats for just bulls...these success rates include cows and calves. The statewide success rate for bull harvest is much lower: 21%. For a statewide total, in the 2006-07 season, 5071 total bulls were taken on public hunts. By way of comparison, Utah shot 5035 bulls in 2005...and, although, I do not have the totals, I am sure Utah shot more than New Mexico in 2006 despite New Mexico having about 20,000 more elk!


2) I don't fail to grasp that we won't be losing any total tags with your I400 plan...I am more worried about potential loss and real loss. I see moving the spike tags from a unit as big as the Wasatch to a unit much smaller like the Pahvant or Nebo to result in a definite loss realistically. How could the DWR realistically allow as many hunters to hunt smaller units?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Do you mean these harvest numbers.

http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/h_f/hunting/H ... ok-WEB.pdf

Go down to the elk harvest data.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Do you mean these harvest numbers.
> 
> http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/h_f/hunting/H ... ok-WEB.pdf
> 
> Go down to the elk harvest data.


Glad to see you have them...now read them and maybe you won't make these kinds of remarks:


coyoteslayer said:


> AZ has never had a success rate of 90% for a rifle hunt like we have here in Utah because their rifle hunt isnt in the rut.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*We have already said, many times now that spike tags and general season tags will still be in place with I400. One thing that you fail to grasp is the general season tag amount will still be the same*

To all of you I400 supporters tell me how you think taking all of the current general season spike elk hunters on these five units and adding their tag alotments to the other spike and anybull areas is going to effect the general season hunts?

I hope hunters really think hard about this concept, how about we do it the other way around and we make these five units anybull general season units and we sent all the LE tag alotments to other existing LE units.

How can any person who buys either an over the counter anybull or spike elk tag feel good about this proposal? I don't!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyo2ut, you are as guilty as any on the other side of half-truths and implying things intentionally different than what is the whole picture. I will agree with 10000ft the name calling gets old, but I contend wyo2ut is NOT innocent in this, far from it.

Arizona has lower bull/cow ratios than Utah, this is ONE reason for lower success rates, one that wyo2ut has admitted/acknowledged as a major factor in S.R.. Another is the time of year for each hunt. Many archery hunts in Arizona take place in November, and anyone who spends much time around/hunting elk would realize the added difficulty of archery hunting in November as opposed to late August/early September. Same goes for the timing of the muzzy hunts and rifle hunts. Funny, the two MAJOR differences between the two states that account for the DRASTIC difference in S.R. are two of the MAJOR items I400 seeks to address to increase opportunity and maintain quality.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Same goes for the timing of the muzzy hunts and rifle hunts. Funny, the two MAJOR differences between the two states that account for the DRASTIC difference in S.R. are two of the MAJOR items I400 seeks to address to increase opportunity and maintain quality.


That's funny...how come then that some of Arizona's highest success rifle hunts are during October? And, how come these "Early Bull" rifle hunts have success rates similar to ours (80-100%)?

Hmmm...did you not look at their numbers very close?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> To all of you I400 supporters tell me how you think taking all of the current general season spike elk hunters on these five units and adding their tag alotments to the other spike and anybull areas is going to effect the general season hunts?


Would any of you like to take this question on?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> To all of you I400 supporters tell me how you think taking all of the current general season spike elk hunters on these five units and adding their tag alotments to the other spike and anybull areas is going to effect the general season hunts?


I'll be your Huckleberry. 8)

I am somewhat unclear what you are asking, but I will take a stab at it anyway. The 'displaced' spike hunters would be absorbed on the other spike areas and the any-bull areas , AND the 'new' LE units where spike tags will be issued. Spike hunters experience VERY low S.R. regardless of the number of hunters in the field, so I don't see much change under I400. I also believe that by doing what *you* have suggested and making hunters chose between applying/acquiring a LE tag OR a general elk tag, the number of spike/any-bull hunters will DECREASE, added with the INCREASE in mature tags available on the five pilot units and I see little/no negative impacts on surrounding units/areas.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

And you think trading the likes of the Wasatch Unit and Fish Lake units for Pahvant and Monroe is fair? You don't see that as a huge loss of opportunity? With far fewer elk on these new units, wouldn't spike hunters also shoot far fewer spikes? Wouldn't spike hunting even become more difficult than it already is?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Strange, I thought spike hunting was all about opportunity, not success rates. Guess I was mistaken. :?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro, I guess I look at like this, you are adding LE tags and in that sense you are improving the LE hunt on these units in the sense that these applicants will get through the draw faster. This also takes preasure off the other LE units.

But

To the even larger number of annual tag holders who choose to hunt the spike general season you are pushing them off these units and onto the other general season units. 

All people who hunt ANY type of general season elk just had there hunting experience down graded to some degree wether it be those who used to hunt the 5 pilot units and were asked to leave or those who hunt areas not included in your pilot units who have to even have so much as one additional camp or hunter displaced into his canyon or draw or campsite.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Strange, I thought spike hunting was all about opportunity, not success rates. Guess I was mistaken.


As a spike hunter I do look at spike hunting as opportunity not success. Then again I am weird.


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> And you think trading the likes of the Wasatch Unit and Fish Lake units for Pahvant and Monroe is fair? You don't see that as a huge loss of opportunity? With far fewer elk on these new units, wouldn't spike hunters also shoot far fewer spikes? Wouldn't spike hunting even become more difficult than it already is?


*Are we talking about fair or what is best biologically for maintaining huntable populations.*

What were the herd #'s on each unit when the spike hunt was initialized? I would love to see a compilation for the numbers on both CACHE units for the last 20yrs, as well as the any bull Monte Cristo area, to see what has happened in these three herds. The population numbers then, may not be what they are now.

It *may be *that a spike hunt would don't know what the dinamics would be for the Pahvant and the Monroe.

Biologically speaking the spike hunt *may be* what these units need.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Strange, I thought spike hunting was all about opportunity, not success rates. Guess I was mistaken.
> 
> 
> As a spike hunter I do look at spike hunting as opportunity not success. Then again I am weird.


You said it brother. :wink:

Of course I have had wyo2ut saying for a year now how the spike hunt is not about the kill, it is just getting out and having a tag in hand. Now all of a sudden it is about success rates for spike hunters. Curious, what does wyo2ut believe the success rates would 'drop' to? They are currently depending on the area/year between 7-18% from what I can gather, so does the resident biologist believe the SR would drop below that?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> *Are we talking about fair or what is best biologically for maintaining huntable populations.*
> 
> What were the herd #'s on each unit when the spike hunt was initialized? I would love to see a compilation for the numbers on both CACHE units for the last 20yrs, as well as the any bull Monte Cristo area, to see what has happened in these three herds. The population numbers then, may not be what they are now.
> 
> ...


Pro has been talking about what is fair or "balance" has he not? How is this a "balanced" situation...aren't you taking away the opportunity to hunt units with double and triple the number of elk and replacing it "unfairly" with ones with far fewer elk?

Also, wouldn't it be "biologically" sound to add spike hunts to ALL LE units...wouldn't the premium LE units that do not have them benefit from spike hunts? IF we are just talking about the biology, why should we ever even remove spike units from Fish Lake and Wasatch in the first place? Biologically, they don't need it do they?

Pro, lessening the quality of a spike hunt makes the experience worse not better or equal. My spike hunting experience revolves around the opportunity to not only shoot an animal but to see numerous animals. With fewer animals available the quality and experience of my hunt undoubtedly will decrease...especially if these units are unnecessarily crowded by forcing more hunters onto small areas.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Curious, what does wyo2ut believe the success rates would 'drop' to? They are currently depending on the area/year between 7-18% from what I can gather, so does the resident biologist believe the SR would drop below that?


I don't know...what does the resident trophy "opportunist" believe the success rates of rifle hunters would change to if their hunts were moved from the rut?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

You could also see his (Wyo2Utah) argument (sacrilege, I know) and point of view as he feels that there would be less opportunity to maintain the current success rates. More tags on units with "less" elk.... I don't see that being good for guys out to hunt just for the hunt...., guys who might not even buy a tag if there wasn't decent opportunity afforded to them to harvest the animal they purchased a tag for. Heck, I could buy an elk tag and go hunt the GSL evaporation ponds.... but why would I without at least a reasonable expectation of success? Seems to me, and it could just be the angle I'm looking at but trading spike tags over to poor units or taking spike tags from units with lots of animals and putting them on units with far fewer animals would seem pointed at discouraging hunters from chasing spike elk and ultimately perhaps leading to the slow reduction in the number of spike tags issued. Call me crazy... but I kinda just get a weird feeling about all of that. 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Curious, what does wyo2ut believe the success rates would 'drop' to? They are currently depending on the area/year between 7-18% from what I can gather, so does the resident biologist believe the SR would drop below that?
> ...


We have gone down that road dozens of times, so I defer back to you. 8)


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Riverrat, that is one of the main concerns I have with this proposal as well.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Some people will get misplaced in the suffle. It happen's alot. Think of how many people ever year have to go find a new hunting spot in the northern region because they didn't draw that central or southern tag. Yet they do this time and time again. Because they still want to hunt. In 16 years of big game hunting. I have changed not only the method that I hunt with, but I have also switched hunting area's over 6 times now. Some of it is my choice but most of it is due to hunting changes that have occured in the past. 

The way I look at it is this, if we increase the LE tags. That is will increase the amount of LE hunters. That in return will lower the amount of general season hunters. Remember you can not hold a GS tag and LE tag in the same year. Also keep in mind that for years now, the amount of GS hunters has remain consistent, both before and after the reduction in general season tags. So allowing more of those hunters to hunt LE for the year will help out the GS hunters in alot of different ways.

I think this will help with over crowding on the GS area's.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Even if LE elk tags were increased by say 200 tags (which is a long shot), roughly a 10% increase from current tag allocation, how much of an affect will it have on the general season. If there are 10,000 general season tags, the two hundered additional LE tags only reduces general season tags by 2%, and this is assuming the 200 hunters with the LE tags hunted the general season hunt and not the spike hunt. I don't think additional LE tags will affect the general season at all.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

It will if you can only obtain a bonus point if you do NOT acquire a bull elk tag that year. A bonus point should be a reward for not getting a tag, as it is you can get your point and still get a general season tag. If you had to choose, how many who apply for points would still choose general season? I am sure there would be some, but I believe the numbers would go down, thus lowering any negative impact on the general season areas/hunters.


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

But how does this increase opportunity Pro? If my son wants to hunt mature bulls he can only hunt *bull* elk in Utah 2 or 3 times in his lifetime? Wow talk about a great opportunity. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> But how does this increase opportunity Pro? If my son wants to hunt mature bulls he can only hunt *bull* elk in Utah 2 or 3 times in his lifetime? Wow talk about a great opportunity. :roll:


He can still hunt the general season areas if he choses to. There is NO lost opportunity to hunt EVERY year, but INCREASES opportunity to hunt mature bulls on LE units.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Some people will get misplaced in the suffle. It happen's alot. Think of how many people ever year have to go find a new hunting spot in the northern region because they didn't draw that central or southern tag. Yet they do this time and time again. Because they still want to hunt. In 16 years of big game hunting. I have changed not only the method that I hunt with, but I have also switched hunting area's over 6 times now. Some of it is my choice but most of it is due to hunting changes that have occured in the past.
> 
> The way I look at it is this, if we increase the LE tags. That is will increase the amount of LE hunters. That in return will lower the amount of general season hunters. Remember you can not hold a GS tag and LE tag in the same year. Also keep in mind that for years now, the amount of GS hunters has remain consistent, both before and after the reduction in general season tags. So allowing more of those hunters to hunt LE for the year will help out the GS hunters in alot of different ways.
> 
> I think this will help with over crowding on the GS area's.


Sure, hunters get misplaced...but that is not the only issue. You are misplacing hunters from large units with with larger herds to smaller units with far fewer elk. This will not only increase the pressure on these smaller units, but it will decrease the quality of the hunt.

Also, FWIW, I don't believe you are going to see the increase in LE hunters make any difference at all in how many generals season hunters you have. If Utah offers 11,000 spike tags and 12,000 general season any bull tags, they will sell them. Remember, this past year was the first year ever that the any bull tags have sold out...and they sold out even when the spike tags sold out. Doesn't that show that the interest in general season hunting is increasing?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sure, hunters get misplaced...but that is not the only issue. You are misplacing hunters from large units with with larger herds to smaller units with far fewer elk. This will not only increase the pressure on these smaller units, but it will decrease the quality of the hunt.
> 
> Also, FWIW, I don't believe you are going to see the increase in LE hunters make any difference at all in how many generals season hunters you have. If Utah offers 11,000 spike tags and 12,000 general season any bull tags, they will sell them. Remember, this past year was the first year ever that the any bull tags have sold out...and they sold out even when the spike tags sold out. Doesn't that show that the interest in general season hunting is increasing?


That is why implementing what 10000ft suggested would help minimize your fears, or at least the validity of your fears. If hunters acquire a bull elk general season tag (any-bull or spike) they can NOT obtain a bonus point for LE elk. I serious;y doubt all 12,000 any-bull tags and 11,000 spike bull tags would be sold under such a setup.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That is why implementing what 10000ft suggested would help minimize your fears, or at least the validity of your fears. If hunters acquire a bull elk general season tag (any-bull or spike) they can NOT obtain a bonus point for LE elk. I serious;y doubt all 12,000 any-bull tags and 11,000 spike bull tags would be sold under such a setup.


That is why implementing more general season any bull areas would minimize my fears...but I see no reason to change the point system.

Should we also change the LE deer system and tell people that they can't get a bonus point in LE deer hunts if they draw a general season tag? I don't.

I don't know if all those tags would still be sold...maybe not. But, again you would unnecessarily be restricting hunters...I would only agree to this kind of change if more of the LE units were turned into general season units.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

> Should we also change the LE deer system and tell people that they can't get a bonus point in LE deer hunts if they draw a general season tag? I don't.


Why not? It would seperate opportunists from trophy hunters. Thanks for the idea wyo2ut.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I agree Tye, bonus points should be just that, BONUS points. They should be a reward for NOT acquiring a tag for that species that year.



> I don't know if all those tags would still be sold...maybe not. But, again you would unnecessarily be restricting hunters...I would only agree to this kind of change if more of the LE units were turned into general season units.


I think you have a pretty good idea that they would NOT be sold, just admit it. We/I will be sure to keep in mind your condition(s) of agreement, we would NEVER want something proposed and passed that you disapprove of. I would NEVER do that, oops I guess we/I did just last month. :twisted: :wink:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Why not?


That's easy...a couple reasons: 1) revenue...money that goes to support wildlife and widlife management 2) unnecessary...why restrict hunters when it isn't necessary?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> That's easy...a couple reasons: 1) revenue...money that goes to support wildlife and widlife management 2) unnecessary...why restrict hunters when it isn't necessary?


1)What money would be lost? I suspect the general deer tags would still sell out where the do so now.
2)Why reward hunters when it isn't necessary? A bonus point should be a reward for NOT acquiring a tag. 
3)Would this not show how many hunters in Utah are 'trophy' hunters, and how many are 'opportunists'? Maybe that is why you are against it? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> That's easy...a couple reasons: 1) revenue...money that goes to support wildlife and widlife management


Yet you want to lower quality. :? How many MILLIONS are raised/spent on wildlife/wildlife management from conservation tags that is a direct result to Utah's quality? :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Why not?
> ...


That would be fine if we mange for necessity, but we don't. It's a balance between sound biology and hunter happiness. If it was a bare bones thing, Why not do away with hunting all together? It's definitely not 'necessary'.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yeah...sure it would separate the true opportunists from the true trophy hunters. But it would also eliminate the opportunity of many hunters of being both...

Aren't millions of dollars earned from conservation tags in deer hunting which many claim is of low quality in Utah? So, why couldn't we lower quality to levels similar to deer hunting and still have conservation tags and trophy hunting. Why couldn't we take some of the LE units and make them general season units and offer more opportunity?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

wy2ut


> *Should we also change the LE deer system and tell people that they can't get a bonus point in LE deer hunts if they draw a general season tag? I don't.*
> 
> Treehugnhnt
> Why not? It would seperate opportunists from trophy hunters. Thanks for the idea wyo2ut.


I think making hunters put their "points/money" where there mouth is and choose between a general season tag or a limited entry point is neccessary for the survival of both types of hunting.

However I agree with what wy2ut said that possibly with deer and almost certainly with elk we would need to turn some LE units back over to general season. This all would have to be based on percentages and numbers of how many hunters when at the computer ready click "submit" would actualy choose general v.s. LE?

A LE hunt should be a reward for the guy who surrenders his general season tag for X number of years. It would be intresting to know actual numbers of how many hunters would choose general season opportunity over trophy and just how much that potentialy could cut the number of points down in the draw. Possibly just a few years.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not sure I disagree with your last statement wyo2ut.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Aren't millions of dollars earned from conservation tags in deer hunting which many claim is of low quality in Utah? So, why couldn't we lower quality to levels similar to deer hunting and still have conservation tags and trophy hunting. Why couldn't we take some of the LE units and make them general season units and offer more opportunity?


The money raised form conservation tags come from LE units, not general season areas. LAst I checked the quality on the Henries is world class, hence the two rifle conservation tags for 2007 going for $60,000+ each. I doubt a conservation tag on Nebo would go for the same. I doubt you can get as much for a N Slope elk tag as you can from a Pahvant elk tag.

10000ft, what you are suggesting similar to what SFW put out recently. Have LE/general season are % setup based on hunter demand, SFW was talking about deer, but I think it could/should apply to elk as well. Like I have said MANY times, we should manage for ALL types of preferred hunting styles, not just one or two.



> A LE hunt should be a reward for the guy who surrenders his general season tag for X number of years. It would be interesting to know actual numbers of how many hunters would choose general season opportunity over trophy and just how much that potentially could cut the number of points down in the draw. Possibly just a few years.


+1


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*



Yeah...sure it would separate the true opportunists from the true trophy hunters. But it would also eliminate the opportunity of many hunters of being both...

Click to expand...

*I still think you could be both even if you had to choose between a general season tag or a LE point.

First I'm a firm believer that there is "trophy hunting" opportunity on general season units, especially for deer.

Second I'm a dad, I put in for a general season tag 4 out of five years and a LE point 1 out of 5. On the off year I may just go help a brother. Maybe when my boy starts to hunt I just put in for a LE points for a few years and focus on helping him bag an animal. If you could get the system down to where by giving up a hunting tag for a LE point the draw only took 3-5 years you could still do both in your hunting lifetime.

The beauty of it is it would be your choice, you want a general season tag every year, go for it. You want to hunt general season 80% of the time and go on a few LE hunts, go for it. You want to just hunt every 3-5 years and only hunt LE units, go for it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft, I see I400 as a 'compromise' between 'true' LE unit and general season. Kind of a hybrid of the two, much like our bonus point system in Utah. It increases opportunity w/o taking quality WAY down. This is also known as BALANCE. 8)

Good last post 10000ft!


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro there are some things I do like about the idea of I400, the only thing I don't like is I400 is about 5 specific (large) units. On those 5 specific units it is completely removing all general season hunting. I would be verymuch on board if somewhere whithin those 5 specific units there was an area given to general season anybull.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Pro there are some things I do like about the idea of I400, the only thing I don't like is I400 is about 5 specific (large) units. On those 5 specific units it is completely removing all general season hunting. I would be verymuch on board if somewhere whithin those 5 specific units there was an area given to general season anybull.


It will be rotated every other year. I also believe we can/should look at modifying a unit like the Wasatch, since we want to make it three smaller sub-units, of making one of the sub-units any-bull general season. It is NOW on the table open for discussion. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Why not change more LE units back to open-bull general season units?



10000ft. said:


> I think making hunters put their "points/money" where there mouth is and choose between a general season tag or a limited entry point is neccessary for the survival of both types of hunting.


I agree with this thought, but only as far as we make elk hunting more like deer hunting...where more general season hunters can hunt larger animals yearly.

The big difference in deer hunting is that I can still choose to hunt a trophy or simply a young buck in all general units...I am not sacrificing that opportunity. If we made elk hunting similar to deer hunting, I would agree.

This is why I don't like SFW's idea on deer...it is not "balanced" at all. Right now, trophy deer hunters have the opportunity to hunt deer on any general season deer unit...SFW's idea would increase their opportunity, but at the expense of general season hunters.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I am not familiar with SFW's proposal for deer nor do I have numbers and percentages for LE tags v.s. general season or even more important LE hunting area/square miles v.s. general season but I would have to guess amount the amount of ground/habitat the state leaves for the deer general seaon is 80%+. I still believe the 80/20 ratio would be where the chips would fall if you had hunters choose between walking with a tag and weapon in hand each year or sitting out a few for a premium hunt. I believe it would be true of even elk. What spike elk hunter goes out on his unit, sees all the massive bulls walking around and doesn't put in for the LE hunt in that unit. But how many of them would not give up the general season tag at least the majority of the time just to get a point. I think more than most would think. Especialy if the general season elk opportunity reflected that of the deer.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> On those 5 specific units it is completely removing all general season hunting. I would be verymuch on board if somewhere whithin those 5 specific units there was an area given to general season anybull.


Why just "somewhere"? Why not the whole unit...why not all five units? Why couldn't the DWR make these units open to general season hunters? Wouldn't this offer more opportunity and big bull hunting opportunity? Couldn't the DWR set objectives for bull/cow ratios and then manage toward those objectives? If the bull/cow ratio, for example, were lower than objective fewer OTC tags would be offered and vice versa...Why make I400 at all when you could help appease both groups?


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

I would fight tooth and nail if you try to make some general season units into any bull units. The only reason why the Unita's and not over run with people hunting elk is the lack of roads, the steepness of the terrain and the ruggedness of the country. Those areas that do offer some roads are just crawling with people. Red cloud loop is a good example of this. There in not another wilderness place like the Uinta's here in Utah. There are area's that would offer some ruggedness, but nothing like the Uinta's. 

When there was talk about opening up 1000 lakes and Oak Creek to being a GS season unit. All I heard was people talking about them going to those places next year.
If you were to open a portion of the the Wasatch to become an anybull unit you would slaughter the elk in the first year. The west desert is a prime example of this.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The money raised form conservation tags come from LE units, not general season areas. LAst I checked the quality on the Henries is world class, hence the two rifle conservation tags for 2007 going for $60,000+ each. I doubt a conservation tag on Nebo would go for the same. I doubt you can get as much for a N Slope elk tag as you can from a Pahvant elk tag.


I never said the conservation tags didn't come from LE units...my point was that you could have an elk management plan similar to the deer plan in that the majority of the sate would be open to general season hunting...and still not LOSE conservation money. We get all that conservation permit money from deer hunts in Utah even though the majority of the state is of lower quality. Couldn't the same thing happen with the elk hunts? If those 5 pilot units were changed to general season units, wouldn't we get the same amount of conservation money from other LE units?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

utfireman said:


> When there was talk about opening up 1000 lakes and Oak Creek to being a GS season unit. All I heard was people talking about them going to those places next year.
> If you were to open a portion of the the Wasatch to become an anybull unit you would slaughter the elk in the first year. The west desert is a prime example of this.


Not if tag numbers were limited...and, over time, things would balance out. If the DWR determined how much harvest the unit could withstand without lowering the bull/cow ratio below 30/100 (or the set objective) and issued tags based on this, you could/would maintain a level of quality similar to the Uintas.

At first, people would flock to these areas...undoubtedly. But, after a few years it would balance out...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > When there was talk about opening up 1000 lakes and Oak Creek to being a GS season unit. All I heard was people talking about them going to those places next year.
> ...


wyo2ut, if tags were *limited*, how would this be different than I400? Except for the first come first serve mess that would result from "opening up" these units, I see little difference. Oh, and thanks for answering what odds would look like under I400, "over time, things would balance out". You also are repeating what we have said 1000 times on tag numbers, "If the DWR determined how much harvest the unit could withstand without lowering the bull/cow ratio below 30/100 (or the set objective) and issued tags based on this, you could/would maintain a level of quality", BETTER than any-bull areas but not as high as LE units. Glad to see you are coming around on this. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyo2ut, if tags were *limited*, how would this be different than I400? Except for the first come first serve mess that would result from "opening up" these units, I see little difference. Oh, and thanks for answering what odds would look like under I400, "over time, things would balance out". You also are repeating what we have said 1000 times on tag numbers, "If the DWR determined how much harvest the unit could withstand without lowering the bull/cow ratio below 30/100 (or the set objective) and issued tags based on this, you could/would maintain a level of quality", BETTER than any-bull areas but not as high as LE units. Glad to see you are coming around on this. 8)


How would it be different? You said it...OTC, baby...general season. With I400...the odds wouldn't balance out, they would get worse and worse and worse. But, if these units were general season things would balance out in that these areas wouldn't be much/any different than the already general open-bull units...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman pointed out why turning a unit like the Wasatch into OTC, the access is WAY to high for escapement. The any-bull areas currently in play have built in escapement, either through remote roadless areas, or through lots of private land. The slaughter would be immense the first year, which would undo everything accomplished by the LE/spike management plan that has been in play for several years. I, like utfireman, will fervently fight AGAINST turning units like the Wasatch into OTC. There are ways to offer more opportunity w/o destroying the unit. I believe I400 is a more sound management plan where opportunity is offered without destroying what has taken years to acquire overnight.

Why would the odds get worse and worse? If MORE tags are offered, while OTC options are available in the state, why would the odds get worse?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The slaughter would/could be avoided based on tag numbers...the slaughter wouldn't be any smaller/greater than it would be under I400 the first few years. Also, a slaughter is not necessarily a bad thing...aren't these units above objective anyway? Wouldn't it be beneficial from both an opportunity standpoint and a biological standpoint to kill lots of bulls from these units? The DWR could determine levels of harvest that a unit is capable of withstanding and then force hunters to choose their unit...this would keep the unit from having too much harvest.

I am in no way advocating a destruction of these units...I am advocating more general season hunting and open-bull hunting. You can accomplish these things--like we have done with the deer hunt--and still keep at objectives and maintaining certain numbers of bulls.

The odds would get worse and worse because hunter applicants are increasing yearly...you wouldn't be able to gradually increase your tag numbers forever. At some point, you are going to hit a plateau. The great thing about OTC tags is that they eliminate point systems...it is all first-come-first serve.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If units like Wasatch and Fish Lake were 'opened' up you would have how many THOUSAND wishful hunters? How would this be issued OTC w/o creating a HUGE cluster @%#[email protected]? The number of unhappy hunters would be higher than ever if this were to happen. I can see it now, 20,000 people wanting to buy 3000 tags on the former LE units. What happens to the 17,000 SOL hunters? I say this is a horrible idea, but that is just me. Oh, the 20,000 and 3000 numbers were made up, in no way were they meant to be factual. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

How would that be any different than the thousands of unlucky hunters who do not draw?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> How would that be any different than the thousands of unlucky hunters who do not draw?


It is a random draw, with some order, and the knowledge that if you don't get a tag this year, your odds are much higher next year. It would have to be done at least like the general deer, and NOT like the general elk is admin now. I still contend I400 is a BETTER balanced option.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> It would have to be done at least like the general deer, and NOT like the general elk is admin now. I still contend I400 is a BETTER balanced option.


I would love it if our elk were managed similarly to our deer...

I still contend I400 complicates what should be simple, reduces opportunity, and its followers greatly exaggerate what effects it would potentially have.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Well, since I am NOT a 'follower' of I400, your last comment does NOT apply to me. :shock: :twisted: 

You are in the minority on wanting our elk managed like our deer, since MOST hunters believe our deer herd is mis-managed horribly! :?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> You are in the minority on wanting our elk managed like our deer, since MOST hunters believe our deer herd is mis-managed horribly!


I think what wyo2ut is refering to is the amount of general season opportunity v.s. LE.

I will be the first to admit that Utah could improve on its deer management but this would be habitat restoration, aquire areas to keep as winter range.......not create more LE deer units. Infact one of the best things I think could happen for the deer herds would be to make most the states elk hunting general season and bring total elk numbers down in many areas.

As far as making a current LE area a general season area I do see the initial problem with overcrowding and over kill. Perhaps this is where something similar to I400 could help make a smooth transition. Increase I400 tags until it is no longer a LE unit just another great open bull area.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > You are in the minority on wanting our elk managed like our deer, since MOST hunters believe our deer herd is mis-managed horribly!
> 
> 
> I think what wyo2ut is referring to is the amount of general season opportunity v.s. LE.
> ...


The Elk Management Plan has an end goal of 80,000 elk, that is up from the current 63,000-65,000 elk we have now. Good luck getting ANYTHING passed that will reduce total elk numbers down. I know I would be opposed to such a proposal.

The end goal of I400 is to have the herd at objective for total population, bull:cow ratios, calf:cow ratios. If that is accomplished, these units would be similar to open bull areas, with slightly more restrictive tag allotments allowing for decent quality and less crowding than the open bull areas. This would give elk hunters ONE MORE option in the type of elk hunt they want to go on. We would have very restrictive LE units maintained for high-end quality, less restrictive LE units maintained for mature bulls with bull:cow ratios lower than the high-end LE units, but higher than open bull areas, open bull areas for those who are just wanting to hunt elk even when the success rates are very low, cow tags issued to maintain over-all populations, spike hunting for those who just want meat and to have a tag while helping balance bull"cow ratios on LE units.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro, I really think I could get on board with I400 if it was an absolute requirement that points were only given to those who forfit a general season tag. And yes, make it for both deer and elk. I still see I400 as a loss of hunting GROUND/HABITAT for general season hunting but at the same time a more realistic approach for a LE unit to allow the maximum number of hunters an opportunity.

Not to keep going off on this "general season tag or a LE point" deal but I see wyo2ut's point when he says what makes you think the waiting period to draw even an I400 tag will not continue to climb? Truth is until you have to choose, every Limited draw will continue to get further and further away from hunters.

PRO is there anywhere in the state (maybe not within I400) that you are any of those you lobby with would be willing to transition back over to a general season any bull area?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> PRO is there anywhere in the state (maybe not within I400) that you are any of those you lobby with would be willing to transition back over to a general season any bull area?


Absolutely!!!


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

1000,

What is your beef with getting more any bull area's? Do you currently hunt the any bull areas? I have for awhile now and the increase of hunters is outstanding in these area's. Every time I run into a new hunter, I ask them why they decided to hunt any bull, and they all say that they are tired of hunting spikes. 

If you do not see that an newly opened area will be over run with people, then you are blind my friend. I pointed early the west desert. They had a decent herd built out there and they opened it up for any bull and extended archery. When hunting season opened, there was people crawling all over the place looking for the bulls. They found them alright and pretty much killed all legal bulls out there. Since then there has been some restructuring to the hunt, and there is not much out there except for cows. During this hunt there was people making new roads, going through the brush and doing anything possible to get to the elk. You will have the same thing happen if you open up more area's to general season.

The only way I see a way to open more area's to any bull is to have more wilderness area's put into place. Alot of hunters are lazy and they will not go where they can not drive to.

I am all for expanding on some area's and basically making them "general season" area's but limiting the amount of tag's given. This plan will fit a broader range of hunters then what is currently offered.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I don't think we need more open bull areas. We need to manage areas for opportunity and quality and that is what I400 is about. If you opened up a LE Unit to open bull then it would be a disaster and it wouldnt take long before all the bull were shot out and all you would have left is a few spikes and maybe a raghorn or two. Then we would be right back where we started from and it would take years to build the elk numbers back up again. Im all for opportunity, but Im not in favor of some LE units managed like our deer herds. I think it would be totally stupid to even attempt that type of management. 

They wanted to make the Oak Creek unit an anybull unit and look at the stink people rasied and petitions that people signed to keep it LE and that units is very low quality.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

They wanted to make the Oak Creek unit an anybull unit and look at the stink people raised and petitions that people signed to keep it LE and that units is very low quality.
Good point slayer. At the Wildlife Board, a gentleman showed up with a petition signed by 300 sportsmen/landowners/locals AGAINST making the Fillmore Oak Creek an any-bull area. What do you think would happen if you did the same for say the Wasatch? Remember, any-bull areas do NOT issue Landowner tags, and there are NO CWMU's on any-bull areas. If you think those folks will sit back and watch their livelihood taken away from them, you must believe in the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I don't think we need more open bull areas. We need to manage areas for *opportunity* and *quality* and that is what I400 is about. -coyoteslayer


What did I tell all of you about those two words in the same sentance? :roll: watch out!

So you guys are saying, we have taken 80% of Utahs huntable bull elk ground and made it into units that it takes 20+ years to aquire a tag and there is nothing we can do to reverse that anywhere! Land owners in surrounding areas are selling tags for OUR elk and depend on that money, this is ireversable.

Give me a break!

You could easily transition a Limited Entry unit back into an any bull. Limit the number of tags over five years, slowly increasing the tag numbers until the opportunity, number of elk, quality..... is that of any other any bull unit.

Mark my words, the thing that will cause your I400 to fail is your unwillingness to compromise and REALLY expand and improve general season opportunity. Because when it comes down to it that is a priority to the average JOE hunter and more importantly the DWR.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So you guys are saying, we have taken 80% of Utahs huntable bull elk ground and made it into units that it takes 20+ years to aquire a tag and there is nothing we can do to reverse that anywhere! Land owners in surrounding areas are selling tags for OUR elk and depend on that money, this is ireversable.
> 
> Give me a break!
> 
> You could easily transition a Limited Entry unit back into an any bull. Limit the number of tags over five years, slowly increasing the tag numbers until the opportunity, number of elk, quality..... is that of any other any bull unit.


If you think any landowner is going to give up their money they make on landowner tags then you seriously need some help. They depend on this money for damages done by elk and you dont want to screw the landowers or the CWMU operators because they help improve elk habitat. If you screw these people out of their money then what would stop them from selling out and having their ground developed and then we would have less habitat for elk and deer????


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> You could easily transition a Limited Entry unit back into an any bull. Limit the number of tags over five years, slowly increasing the tag numbers until the opportunity, number of elk, quality..... is that of any other any bull unit.


If you are limiting the number of tags than how is that different from a LE unit where we limit the number of tags. It would still be "Limited Entry"


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Mark my words, the thing that will cause your I400 to fail is your unwillingness to compromise and REALLY expand and improve general season opportunity. Because when it comes down to it that is a priority to the average JOE hunter and more importantly the DWR.


We need to give more opportunity to hunt big bulls on LE units by giving out more tags. The General Season units have enough opportunity especially when they want to give out 8,000 more spike tags.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Coyote........Nevermind.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I understand where you are coming from 10000ft., you have some valid points.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah you make a lot of good points and atleast you are brainstorming and trying to make things better.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

You know one thing that still bothers me with I400.

More important to me than the EASE of being able to find trophy class animals every 5 to 20+ years when I draw a LE or I400 tag are the "ground" the "areas", the "mountain ranges" that I have availabe to hunt elk on.

Do I have any sentimental attachmet to hunting SPIKES in these areas? Heck NO! But at least I can buy a tag and go hunt on these mountains next year if is so desire. 

Already (I don't know exact numbers) 80% (?) of utahs mature bulls are on "once every 20+ years" type units and now you want to make what percent of Utahs huntable mountain ranges closed to general season? :roll:


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

While some are closed, others are opened giving those who desire to pursue this type of hunt a greater opportunity to explore this great state we live and hunt in. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Mark my words, the thing that will cause your I400 to fail is your unwillingness to compromise and REALLY expand and improve general season opportunity. Because when it comes down to it that is a priority to the average JOE hunter and more importantly the DWR.


No offense 10000ft, but we have COMPROMISED on so many fronts it isn't even funny when someone says we are "unwilling to compromise". If I am not mistaken, I have on here and through PM's told you, that you have some great ideas/questions. I also recall saying we ARE willing to look at some different scenarios that MAY include expanding any-bull areas. Just because we are NOT willing to turn a great unit back into what it was 25 years ago, does NOT mean we are not willing to look at many different options. I400 has changed so much since it was first hatched, I barely recognize it as the same proposal. I dare say that it will change a lot between now and when we propose it in November 2008.

Remember also, the spike takes will be rotated every other year with the pilot units and other LE units. This will be contingent on the bull:cow ratios on the affected units. If a unit falls below/way above bull:cow objectives adjustments MUST be made. We also are wanting MANDATORY reporting on the five pilot units, this will enable the DWR to know exactly how many bulls are harvested each year, and by each weapon. If you feel the need/desire to hunt an area that holds special meaning for you, there will in most scenarios more cow tags issued once bull:cow ratios get to objective, in addition to the increased number of mature bull tags, and the every other year of spike tags.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> TThe end goal of I400 is to have the herd at objective for total population, bull:cow ratios, calf:cow ratios. If that is accomplished, these units would be similar to open bull areas, with slightly more restrictive tag allotments allowing for decent quality and less crowding than the open bull areas..


If you have two units with "similar" bull/cow ratios, the quality is also going to be similar...so, if quality is similar, why be more restrictive with the tags? That doesn't make any sense at all to me...

This is one of the big gripes I have had with I400...to accomplish their end goal of making a huge impact in the amount of time it takes to draw, they would have to diminish these "pilot" units to levels similar to the open-bull units. If they are going to reduce the quality this far, why not just open them up to general season open-bull hunting?

The funny thing is that you I400 guys are missing the forest for the trees...right now Utah has a management plan that calls for certain strategies in managing elk. We are NOT following that plan...what makes anyone think the I400 plan would be followed like it is designed? What makes you think that the DWR/Board would ever agree to rotate pilot units and give the number of tags you are hoping for? What makes you think that the public won't show up with signed petitions demanding that these "pilot" units remain LE units with high quality?


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Wasn't it Hogan that kept track of the changes for I-400. 

IMO - it would benefit everyone to have the original proposal put up and some documentation if possible of the changes made and why.

If nothing else it will help us to think about where it's been and where it is going.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

+1


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> Wasn't it Hogan that kept track of the changes for I-400.
> 
> IMO - it would benefit everyone to have the original proposal put up and some documentation if possible of the changes made and why.
> 
> If nothing else it will help us to think about where it's been and where it is going.


We will see what we can do. Give us some time, there has only been about a million posts on I400 here and on the DWR site.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*



I have on here and through PM's told you, that you have some great ideas/questions. I also recall saying we ARE willing to look at some different scenarios that MAY include expanding any-bull areas.

Click to expand...

*Pro I guess I take a defensive position when one of your (I would assume) I400 followers like coyote says something like



> We need to give more opportunity to hunt big bulls on LE units by giving out more tags. *The General Season units have enough opportunity* especially when they want to give out 8,000 more spike tags.


I need to see in writing within your proposal something reguarding expanding any bull hunting ground or general season hunting ground before I believe you guys are representing the masses as a whole on this one and I'm not talking just throwing general season hunters a bone just so the plan qualifies as reaching out to all hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I need to see in writing within your proposal something reguarding expanding any bull hunting ground or general season hunting ground before I believe you guys are representing the masses as a whole on this one and I'm not talking just throwing general season hunters a bone just so the plan qualifies as reaching out to all hunters.


I am not in the writing of contacts business here. If you chose to believe or not believe is 100% up to you. I have, and do so again, offered an invite to become directly involved in the drafting/refining/expanding of I400 ideas/directions. That would be ONE way to see first hand, and play a part, in the decision making process of I400.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Pro I guess I take a defensive position when one of your (I would assume) I400 followers like coyote says something like
> 
> We need to give more opportunity to hunt big bulls on LE units by giving out more tags. The General Season units have enough opportunity especially when they want to give out 8,000 more spike tags.


10,000 what I mean is the fact that right now there is 11,000 spike tags and 12,000 plus anybull tags, but we only issue 2,000+ LE tags. This doesnt even counting the archery general season elk tags.

We need more opportunity to hunt big bulls.

60,000 plus people put in for 2,000 tags and only 31,000 hunt general season elk. *We need to focus on the other 29,000 who don't hunt spikes or anybull units.*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> This is one of the big gripes I have had with I400...to accomplish their end goal of making a huge impact in the amount of time it takes to draw, they would have to diminish these "pilot" units to levels similar to the open-bull units. If they are going to reduce the quality this far, why not just open them up to general season open-bull hunting?


The quality and bull/cow ratios will be higher than any of the anybull units. I dont know why you keep thinking it will, but you have been stuck on that for a long time and I dont think it will ever sink in.



> The funny thing is that you I400 guys are missing the forest for the trees...right now Utah has a management plan that calls for certain strategies in managing elk. We are NOT following that plan...what makes anyone think the I400 plan would be followed like it is designed? What makes you think that the DWR/Board would ever agree to rotate pilot units and give the number of tags you are hoping for? What makes you think that the public won't show up with signed petitions demanding that these "pilot" units remain LE units with high quality?


So what you are saying is basically we shouldnt even have a plan? That is brilliant thinking from the internet biologist. Wyo2ut we will never know until we try right? Many people like you thought the world was flat until they were proven wrong. What makes you think "WE" wont show up with a petition who are in FAVOR of such a plan?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> No offense 10000ft, but we have COMPROMISED on so many fronts it isn't even funny when someone says we are "unwilling to compromise".


As much as I hate to say it this is actully true. i used to think there was no compromiseing with the PRO 400 group. I now know I am wrong. I still do not agree with the whole plan, but like where it is going.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah we have compromised a lot from when the plan first started.


----------

