# Moose Numbers



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I have been a little upset the past few years with the number of Moose I have been seeing.........I have not been shy about it 

I seriously have asked everyone under the sun as to what is going on and have been told things are great and nothing is abnormal, and that statewide herds are doing fine, I even had Anis explain to me in detail as to why the Cache herd in particular is doing so well. My first hand arm chair biologist "reduced sightings" had/have no merit........Im well aware 8)

Everything he explained sounded somewhat reasonable........but every time I talk to him I feel like I get the Walt Disney Version of the story (always such a positive guy, makes me feel better about everything)

I now sit back and look at the recommendations and am quite frankly speechless.......139 Bull Tags from 2010 reduced to 93 for 2011, *46 Bull Tags CUT*..........I do not get why now we are seeing the reduction when I was hearing nothing but rave reviews last year about how great the herd is doing.....

I also find it interesting that the two units I complain the most about seen over 50% Reduction in Bull Tags in 1 YEAR......If this change was based solely on new management objectives why the hell are some of the other units going unchanged from last year :?

Cache- 
2010-24 Bull Permits
2011-10 Bull Permits

Ogden-
2010-22 Bull Permits
2011-10 Bull Permits

I then go on to read in the highlights this-


> We recommend no public antlerless moose permits in 2011. Many of the moose populations in Utah
> are stable or slightly declining, and there is no need to harvest antlerless moose.


Wierd to think that in 2008 there was like 100 Cow Moose Tags given and that last year everything was so great..........

As happy as I am about all this, I really am confused as to what could have changed the minds of everyone because the way I understood it the new Moose Management plan was not that dramatic of a change???????? Maybe I missed some thing :|

I am one happy guy about this though and wish it would have happened a few years ago as I sure enjoy seeing the big dumb **** things :mrgreen:

OOO°)OO


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2011)

maybe you should ask the biologists why they feel the need to capture moose that were born in our state and ship them away to other states in trade...?

i do agree, this year it appears they are taking a step in the right direction with everything!


----------



## GON4ELK (Jul 30, 2009)

I'm with you on this. The quality on both units has gone to hell and it's about time the numbers cut back. Glad I had the tag a few years back when the qaulity was still good. Had a friend who had the Ogden tag 3 years ago when they 52 bull tags, couldn't find a good bull to save our lives. Felt bad for him since you wait all those years to look at and eventaully realize a 32" bull is the best your going to do. Saw a few pushing 40 but they had no palm, just points (looked like an elk).


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I now sit back and look at the recommendations and am quite frankly speechless.......139 Bull Tags from 2010 reduced to 93 for 2011, 46 Bull Tags CUT..........I do not get why now we are seeing the reduction when I was hearing nothing but rave reviews last year about how great the herd is doing.....


Because now wolves are in Utah.


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

DWR biologists fly moose units every year or two to count moose. The biologist probably flew the unit recently and saw fewer moose than was expected, thus the reduction in tag numbers. 

Natural fluctuations occur in wildlife populations, and sometimes they are more severe than others. Hard years often result in lower offspring survival, resulting in less growth or decline in a population. DWR biologists will then adjust permit numbers based on survival and several other statistics to meet their objectives. 

However, just because quality is low does not mean that the population is struggling. You have to remember: biologists in Utah are obligated to manage units to objectives, which are often based on political rather than biological standards. If the unit is over it's objectives then the biologist really has doesn't have much say whether a units tags will increase, even if some hunters are dissatisfied with quality.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

silverlabs82 said:


> Hard years often result in lower offspring survival, resulting in less growth or decline in a population. DWR biologists will then adjust permit numbers based on survival and several other statistics to meet their objectives.


What constitutes as a "Hard Year" for moose?????????

I was recently told by UDWR employees that winter/predation has little effect on moose............not to mention nothing significant involving winter/predation has occurred on the two units I mention *ACCORDING* to the UDWR.

Its my opinion that they might have made a mistake, but mark my words, they WILL not admit it, as its always something/someone else's fault in regards to all wildlife problems. :!:


----------



## InvaderZim (Sep 7, 2007)

Sons a bitches


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

All is not well in the moose world on any unit. I don't care how it's spinned by the dwr, conservation group, or someone with a moose tag to sell. 

We've got some serious issues. Maybe we need a prop 2 for moose! o-||


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Most people will die before they draw a moose tag anyways.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Rebel,
Over 90 head of moose were taken off the Burnt Fork unit of the north slope in 2010 alone and traded to WY and Co for who knows what. It is akin to the troubles we are having on the Fishlake for Elk and the Parker/platue for pronghorn. It sure the hell ain't Canis Loopus Coyote! The only wolves we have in the henhouse reside on North Temple and have accounting degrees with not one college credit in wildlife management or range science.

If we need to cull the herd, hunters in the state of utah should get at least 90% of all surplus before one animal is transported accross state lines.......Big


----------



## AAA (Mar 25, 2011)

Maybe the wolves really ARE moving in from the north and east...


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> If we need to cull the herd, hunters in the state of utah should get at least 90% of all surplus before one animal is transported accross state lines.......Big


Why anything goes across state lines is beyond me br................

I have asked about "trading" as well and was told never, not once has the division TRADED anything. I was told it was simply a donation of surplus animals.......

Here is Anis quoted explaining how we have such a surplus of moose and "giving them to other states, etc. at a RAC meeting a few years ago, just so you all know as well most of the moose traded were not "huntable" either  -

November 10, 2009 Northern RAC


> Cowley- It seems we are doing a lot of trading of moose with other states which is a great opportunity. I am wondering at what point is that maximized or we open up additional hunting opportunity for the people of Utah?
> Aoude- We don't do trades with other states. We provide animals if we have surplus and they may provide us with animals if they have surplus. Most of the animals that went to Colorado were female moose so it did not decrease the bull harvest opportunity for the local hunters. We could have increased cow permits. A lot of those cows were not in places where the public could have hunted them.


This is also the date when I was informed the Ogden Moose Herd is overpopulated :|

My, My things sure have changed in a few years :?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Glad to see the cut in moose tags for sure. I have watched the Cache Unit slide in recent years. 

Then again maybe I am just concernced that I am not seeing as many mature bulls. I should probably support shooting more bulls as some hunters may not get to ever hunt them with current tag levels.


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

What exactly are the problems with the Parker pronghorn and Fishlake Elk? The Parker pronghorn herd has sustained years of trapping and hunting. And it continued to be over objective. The only thing that hurt it was a hard winter and lost fawn crop. So the DWR responded by closing doe hunts so the herd could rebound. And in a few years it will be back over objective AGAIN. How is that the DWRs fault?

The Fishlake elk herd IS STILL over objective, despite the cow hunts from the last 2 years. As a result of being over objective, high number of cow tags are being offerred again this year to get the herd back in line with the objective. Again, how is that the DWRs fault?

Most of the moose that were transplanted from problem areas...

"Utah DWR Conservation Outreach Manager Phil Douglass says, "This transplant operation is to move these moose out of areas where they would eventually show up in residential areas and on highways." That's been a problem in this area. So, to help thin the herd some, Utah is sending these moose to Western Colorado, where they'll have more room to roam. It's a win-win for both states: Utah protects the moose habitat that's overpopulated and Colorado gets to increase the size of its big game population."...

"Utah and Colorado have exchanged animals for years: otters, big horn sheep, fish, deer, and moose. It's all about protecting the wildlife and keeping these various species of wildlife healthy." 





Wouldn't you rather see a moose used for a beneficial purpose (shot or transplanted), as apposed to dead on the side of the road?

I don't see why you guys are complaining about the DWR. The DWR is MANDATED to manage herds to their objective. If any herd, be it bison, moose, elk, deer, pronghorn, they have to be managed to their objectives. And ultimately the objectives aren't set by the DWR. So if you want an objective to be something else then talk to the Wildlife Board, RAC, or other committe members who are making the decisions.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Southwest Wyoming is having the same problem as Utah, disease is killing moose. Problems outside the WYFG's and UDWR's control are taking a toll on moose pops (plus wolves in WY of course). I have been trying to spend my WY moose points the last couple years and get out of the moose swing. Sure glad I got out of the Utah moose chase a few years ago.


----------



## lifeisgood (Aug 31, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Glad to see the cut in moose tags for sure. I have watched the Cache Unit slide in recent years.


Me too I miss seeing those big critters. Here are two of the 5 moose that kept crossing paths with me on the '08 Cache muzzy deer hunt. Did not even see sign of them in '09 and '10 hunting the same areas.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I know wolves are to blame, but I have talked with the biologist in western Wyoming. He said wolves are definitely a factor in the declining moose populations, but there was something else as well. I guess it was a sort of disease/environmental sensitivity that is contributing to the population decline. I'm just glad I got a chance to hunt them in 2005 -- I may never have that chance again. Moose are one of my favorite big game animals.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Come on guys don't you realize weather patterns are completely different since the turn of the century. Several yrs of drought coupled with some bad winters are the primary reasons for Moose declines. Not to mention all the ATV's roadkill and human encroachment. Cabins and housing every 100 ft in the cache units. Its a wonder we have any Moose at all. :mrgreen:

And just because *you* have noticed a decline doesn't mean there has been one. You need to get off the roads. Hike in a few miles to the back country and you will see plenty of 50" bull moose. They don't hang out on the roads you know. Personally I think there are more moose in that area than ever before. I went up to the cabin at Causey Estates and seen 6 in just one evening. :mrgreen:

But in all seriousness I haven't seen any moose on the Monroe unit.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

It all seems to be the same comment "if you dont see them from the road." Maybe try hiken back into the hills of Monroe I'm sure theres plenty of 54 inchers back there.


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

If you see a moose on the Monroe unit then take lots of pictures! You're going to need a lot of evidence to prove your case!!!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

silverlabs82 said:


> Utah DWR Conservation Outreach Manager Phil Douglass says, "This transplant operation is to move these moose out of areas where they would *eventually* show up in residential areas and on highways." That's been a problem in this area. So, to help thin the herd some, Utah is sending these moose to Western Colorado, where they'll have more room to roam. It's a win-win for both states: Utah protects the moose habitat that's *overpopulated* _(Now its not I guess)_ and Colorado gets to increase the size of its big game population."...
> This is 100% Pure speculation and what I call the Walt Disney Version, You cannot look at a moose and where it is at and tell me that they will move next to the highway and residential areas, sure they might, but even the UDWR Biologists cant look at a moose, its location and tell me it will be hit by a car or in someones backyard, sorry sir..........
> 
> Wouldn't you rather see a moose used for a beneficial purpose (shot or transplanted), as apposed to dead on the side of the road?
> ...


My question was simple, Why the change now all of a sudden????? Thats it.............

Hell if it is so simple to transport animals that will *eventually* move into the city why haven't we started eradicating the deer that WE KNOW are going to be hit by cars and be in peoples back yards?????? (rhetorical question) :?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I now sit back and look at the recommendations and am quite frankly speechless.......139 Bull Tags from 2010 reduced to 93 for 2011, *46 Bull Tags CUT*..........I do not get why now we are seeing the reduction when I was hearing nothing but rave reviews last year about how great the herd is doing.....


I'm not much of a moose guy but my impression was that the tag reductions were due to a change in moose objectives. They want to increase the moose populations. I don't know if that number has been decided upong yet but in short I didn't get the impression the tag cuts were due to a declining population.

Check out the moose plan.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... e_plan.pdf


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Bullsnot-
I too thought that it might be in relation to the new management plan. I was at the RAC meeting when the new plan was introduced, and do not remember changes being that significant-

BUT 
If it is all about the new changes, then why are some, not all of the units seeing cuts in tags?????????

If it is simply management changes the tag cuts should be across the board and they are not, the North Slope, Summit, Cache and Ogden units are all going to see 50% or more cut....all the while a few units are actually increasing tag numbers????????


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

These tag cut are taking place because of LOW moose numbers period....

And the low moose numbers are a result of transplants (trades) and disease..

Wolf predation in Utah is minimal at this point and pretty much confined to
the Unitas,,,,,,,BUT that will change significantly over the next decade...

I rolled my 15 moose points at the south slope this year and hope to get it done!!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> These tag cut are taking place because of LOW moose numbers period....


But.......

I don't think these low numbers happened over night and are a result of mistakes made the past few years.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree rebrl,,,

In fact, there are several canyon I watch every year on the south end of 
the Wasatch, Typically holding good numbers of moose.
I've witnessed a steady decline there as well . There were actually moose
brought on to Teat mountain and released 2 years ago, They moved or their
dead,,,Or I just cant find them. About 4 or 5 years ago you could find moose 
all across Strawberry ridge , The Waters, and Tie Fork,,,,,,,
Not many left these days..

AND YES, Reductions should have started sooner......IMHO.

The other thing that sucks for me is my wife wanted moose too...
She is setting on 13 points :evil: 
Had her switch back and fourth from desert sheep a couple times,
Wish we would have stuck to the sheep only...


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Couldn't agree more on East side of Wasatch there used to be 15 bulls winter together in 08. 09 there was 12 bulls in the same spot of 08. 2010 there was only 4 bulls on the same winter ground of 08. So they must have packed there bags and left. HUH? I have spent alot of time trying to relocate them but not much luck either Goofy.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

So in the Moose plan it states that Utah had around 4000 moose in 2005 and by 2009 there were 3200. It states they were intentionally reduced by 20% due to habitat degredation. Now the way I understand it they want to increase the herd size by increasing carrying capacity through habitat projects.

So while this seems to support the theory there are less moose, I don't see anything concerning. Sounds like everything that has happened has been calculated and for a good reason. Now they are trying to increase herd size through habitat projects.

Am I missing something?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

silverlabs82 said:


> Wouldn't you rather see a moose used for a beneficial purpose (shot or transplanted), as apposed to dead on the side of the road?
> 
> I don't see why you guys are complaining about the DWR. The DWR is MANDATED to manage herds to their objective. If any herd, be it bison, moose, elk, deer, pronghorn, they have to be managed to their objectives. And ultimately the objectives aren't set by the DWR. So if you want an objective to be something else then talk to the Wildlife Board, RAC, or other committe members who are making the decisions.


I have heard everything now!

When in he!! Has Utah DWR or any other governing body ever managed wildlife for management object? And better question yet is; how many years have we ever reached a management objective on herd strength on any big-game species in this state?

If we are truly concerned about meeting management objectives, a deadline must be set. If a species numbers fall below 60% management objective, then harvest permits should be cut by 50% with a total harvest objective of no more than 3% of herd strength (normal herd strength harvest objective at 6%.) If the herd strength falls below 50% of management objective, no harvest permits are issued in that given year.

Transplants to other states with Utah wildlife should not be allowed unless all units of the state and target species are at or above 80% of management objective and transplants to other states will never exceed more than 2% of the harvest objective in a given year.
No conservation/ sportsmen permits shall be allocated to a unit that is not at 75% of management objective.

Should a target species reach a management objective statewide, then no more than 5% of harvest objective animals are allocated to conservation/sportsmen permits or out of state transplants. Any residual harvest objective animals will remain in the general hunting pool for harvest in the given year objective is determined to be reached.

The old adage is as true today as it was yesterday; "a goal not written and followed is only a wish!" Utah has a bunch of wishes but to hell with anything that is identifiable with true measures and policies to provide performance. If you want wildlife then put in performance requirements and stick to them.
Imho Big


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2011)

some of you guys are soooo 2-faced when it comes to the topic of poor management.... its not even funny  :O//: question. why is every one blaming the DWR officials, transplanting and the poor management plans on the low moose populations?? its all the hard winters fault that we have no moose left!! come on guys, we know this!! just like how we have no pronghorn left on the plateau, no muledeer in every region in the state or no elk left on the nebo and other units. blame it on the WINTER. leave the poor folks of the DWR and the WB alone. they know what they are doing. we have no need to worry, they are professionals at this. we know nothing.....  :O•-: :roll: :roll:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> some of you guys are soooo 2-faced when it comes to the topic of poor management.... its not even funny  :O//: question. why is every one blaming the DWR officials, transplanting and the poor management plans on the low moose populations?? its all the hard winters fault that we have no moose left!! come on guys, we know this!! just like how we have no pronghorn left on the plateau, no muledeer in every region in the state or no elk left on the nebo and other units. blame it on the WINTER. leave the poor folks of the DWR and the WB alone. they know what they are doing. we have no need to worry, they are professionals at this. we know nothing.....  :O•-: :roll: :roll:


Ok kill em....go read the moose plan. Then read my post above. Go back and read waht happened to the antelope on the Plateau.

I am all for accountability but putting it in the wrong place is counter productive and contributes to the problem. My point is if we want to fix something we have to understand what is really at the root of the problem. We can sit here and fling poo at whom ever we like but if we want change then it's my belief we have a DUTY to search out the real problem and effect change there.

Remember all tags numbers go through the RAC and WB approvals. I challenge you to have an open mind and get involved instead of just getting ticked all the time and blaming bad management. These issues are much more complex than they seem on the surface. Politics, both hunting and non-hunting, pose a far bigger threat to our herds than bad management.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> Ok kill em....go read the moose plan. Then read my post above. Go back and read waht happened to the antelope on the Plateau.


how is what happened to the moose any different then what happened on the plateau?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

kill_'em_all said:


> its all the hard winters fault that we have no moose left!! come on guys, we know this!! just like how we have no pronghorn left on the plateau, no muledeer in every region in the state or no elk left on the nebo and other units. blame it on the WINTER. leave the poor folks of the DWR and the WB alone. they know what they are doing. we have no need to worry, they are professionals at this. we know nothing.....  :O•-: :roll: :roll:


Killemall,
I really hope that this was a satirical post and not your honest opinion!

Where to Start&#8230;.. If moose are susceptible to hard winters, then there would not be one moose alive in Alaska and especially north of the Brooks Range. Studies have shown that moose do not do well in warmer environments and will leave an area that is to warm, hence the reason we have stopped trying to transplant moose on the Fishlake.

The Parker plateau pronghorn, Fishlake elk, and Burnt Fork moose, are all prime examples of asinine management decisions after the fact. For example how can you go ahead and remove 400 pronghorn off the parker last year in the spring/summer round up and then blame the reduced herd numbers on a hard winter and poor fawn survival as a reason to close the season? And Rebel anasssss is lying to you when he said we do not trade wildlife!... How about taking 90 moose off the Burnt fork unit last summer, just before the hunt and the wondering why hunter can't find moose to harvest, male or female? If you continue year after year to harvest over 1600 cow/calves off the Fishlake then you will have emergency closures as we did last year on the Fishlake.

I get so tired of hearing about how hard the winter was or how drought laddened the state has been as the major excuse for why our wildlife is not producing. Good heavens people! Sportsmen just put 140 million dollars into this state in habitat rehabilitation over the last ten years, where in the hell has all the wildlife gone? And don't give me this chit about the wolves and big coyotes!

In the above cases the most glaring reason for the decline was piss poor MANAGEMENT&#8230;&#8230;!!!!
Big


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2011)

no that was a sarcastic post directed at some of these people who believe that the hard winter is the reason for no goats being left on the parker and call me ignorant for not looking at the big picture when i say it is a result of terrible management and shooting that place to he!!. then they come to this thread and blame low moose numbers on poor management and trade. if we had people in charge who knew what they were doing and actually cared more about the well being of the herd and not just numbers and $$$ we wouldnt be having this discussion.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Ok kill em....go read the moose plan. Then read my post above. Go back and read waht happened to the antelope on the Plateau.
> ...


Again go back and read the posts...

Moose decline was due to an intentional reduction because of habitat degredation.

The Plateau antelope herd was way over objective for *7 years* which is against the law. They had to react by increasing tags. Then that herd was hit with a hard winter that killed production and they reacted by cutting tags and hunts.

Let's break it down. In 2009 the estimated population was 2062. Objective was 1500. They then harvested 834 goats bringing the estimated population down to 1228 animals. Is it safe to say that they should've expected the fawn production the following spring to bring that population to above objective once again? The numbers make sense. After the harsh winter they counted 800+ plus goats. (That doesn't count the ones they didn't see) How can you blame anything but mother nature for going from 1200+ animals down to 800+? (Again if they saw 800+ plus goats there were some they didn't see) Are you following this?

No matter how good a management plan is we can't control mother nature, especially when they are trying to keep the herd down to a certain number.

What would your plan have been with the Plateau herd? Remember you can't just ignore the law and manage the herd to well over objective.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Moose decline was due to an intentional reduction because of habitat degredation.
> 
> The Plateau antelope herd was way over objective for *7 years* which is against the law. They had to react by increasing tags. Then that herd was hit with a hard winter that killed production and they reacted by cutting tags and hunts.
> 
> The numbers make sense. After the harsh winter they counted 800+ plus goats. (That doesn't count the ones they didn't see) How can you blame anything but mother nature for going from 1200+ animals down to 800+? (Again if they saw 800+ plus goats there were some they didn't see) Are you following this?


 Bull,
Let's just for a moment assume the numbers were right and the only counted 800 pronghorn on the spring count. Why in hell would you go ahead and do a round up for transplant last year knowing that the herd numbers were far bellow objective, and by far more than 6% which is a targeted harvest objective? People need to stop smoking cedar bark and realize that winter was no more than an excuse for the management debacle. Six percent of 1200 is 72 animals not hundreds as was removed through transplants and harvests. Go back and re-read you wildlife science merit badge book. As with the story of lost moose habitat where is the proof on this statement or should we all just take a big swig from the pink Cool Aid jug on that one also.
Respectfully&#8230;.Big


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

As a person who lives and recreates on the Parker I can tell you that you would not have found 800 pronghorn on the Parker last year if you poisened every water hole. This number is about twice of what was actualy there


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Killem I know where the 11 bulls off the east side went. They went to overpopulated hunting.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> The Plateau antelope herd was way over objective for *7 years* which is against the law. They had to react by increasing tags. Then that herd was hit with a hard winter that killed production and they reacted by cutting tags and hunts.


 :shock: :shock: :shock: OMG. WTF. how dare they break the law by having too many pronghorn in that unit!! they should be ashamed of themselves for letting the numbers get too high.

they finally had something working for them in their favor, but still decided to shoot the **** out of them. "just because they are there, it doesnt mean we should kill them" Petunias!! -_O-

:roll: so if its against the law to have TOO MANY animals somewhere, is it against the law for them to have not enough animals on a unit??? if so, i think the WB is looking at some serious jail time since the herd numbers are so poor across the ENTIRE STATE! :RULES:


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2011)

bigbr said:


> As a person who lives and recreates on the Parker I can tell you that you would not have found 800 pronghorn on the Parker last year if you poisened every water hole. This number is about twice of what was actualy there


+100 :|


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Bull,

Would you be so kind as to state the chapter and verse of the Utah State Code Annotated or any other Adjunctive policies that make Utah wildlife management objectives Law or impose punitive damages?
Thanks…Big


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I kinda like bigbr approach at this..

I would like to see this state code as well..

AND GAWD forgive we ever put any common sense at these management issues :shock:

I mean really, all the bashing back and forth,,,OPPERTUNITY vs QUALITY..
The guy in the middle getting screwed.....Like a lot of the average guys on this forum.

:?: :?: Not sure what this has to do with this topic :?: :?: 
Just thinking out loud with a key board at hand..


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

We've talked about the plight of the shiras moose here numerous times. Generally speaking the southern range of moose, from Wyoming to Sweden, is being pushed northward. Scientists claim that the ever so slight rise in average annual temperatures, especially in the winter, have increased the number of moose deaths due to parasites, particularly _(Elaephora schneideri)_ a carotid artery worm.

see: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/reg ... heck09.pdf

Some parasites attack the brain, others the neck, sometimes creating a mass so large it pinches off the animal's esophagus and then it starves to death.

The decline in moose populations in Wyoming and northern Utah has been dramatic, and I have witnessed it firsthand. Minnesota and Ontario moose herds have been effected too, 10 years ago or more.

Check out this discussion we had on here a while back:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=23988&hilit=moose+parasites

Also Mr Google has a multitude of Moose parasite stories for everyone...just ask him "moose" & "parasites"


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Well there you have it folks!

The DWR is just trying to get rid of our wildlife before it perishes to global warming….

Thank you DWR for saving those 400 pronghorn off the Parker and some 90 moose off of Burnt Fork. I guess I will just have to go to Sweden or the arctic circle from now on to hunt. 
Thanks again guys.

P.S. please save the mule deer!
Sincerely, Big


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I figured some factor that is out of our hands was to blame. Heck for 20+ yrs the DWR has been trying to cram down our throats that wildlife management has little to with humans. And everything to do with mother nature you would think we had figured it out by now. :roll:

And forget about Mule Deer. Didn't you know they are an unadaptable inferior species. That freak out and die at the sight and sounds of human activity. They cant handle a drought or a bad winter. And no matter how many get eaten by predators they would have died anyway.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

This tread is exactly what the problem is with our wildlife management in Utah. What a joke! Yet groups and individuals continue to support the one constant group involved in our poor wildlife management!

The DWR and it's supporters will always blame poor management on ANYTHING but the DWR! Until they take ownership of what they can control we will struggle in this state! Sure the WB and other special intrest groups make some issues difficult. This however does not change the fact that the DWR does a very poor job in issues they can control!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> Bull,
> 
> Would you be so kind as to state the chapter and verse of the Utah State Code Annotated or any other Adjunctive policies that make Utah wildlife management objectives Law or impose punitive damages?
> Thanks&#8230;Big


By law the DWR has to follow direction from the WB. Technically they are breaking the law by not meeting the objective as well. Don't shoot the messenger...learn the system.

Punishment? Peoples jobs are on the line I can tell you that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I'll tell you what guys.....I'm all for making things better. I won't back ANYONE blindly and I will back ANY plan that makes things better and makes sense. 

Listening to armchair quarterbacks and whining is really boring. Learn the system and come up with a plan that makes sense, with biological data to back it, and I'll support ANYONES plan. 

Has the DWR made mistakes? Absolutely. Did we kill too many goats on the Plateau? Obviously when looking at it in hindsight but how could they have known that there would be such a bad winter? But I can tell you the cattlemen were raising quite a stink prior to the 2009 season about that unit being over objective for so long.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > The Plateau antelope herd was way over objective for *7 years* which is against the law. They had to react by increasing tags. Then that herd was hit with a hard winter that killed production and they reacted by cutting tags and hunts.
> ...


It would be interesting to see if you'd sing this same tune if in your favorite deer unit you watched the deer population plummet and the DWR knew that the cougar population was way over objective for 7 years and didn't issue enough tags to bring it down.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It would be really interesting to know the survival rate of the moose transplanted off the NS. As Goob stated, the moose pop in Northern Utah and Southern WY took a hit from parasite/disease. 

As for the herd objectives, it is my understanding the UDWR has entered into agreements with land managers on the size of herds. The land managers (BLM, FS, SITLA, Private, etc) assign AUMs to each area/unit, which dictate the number of animals which can use the forage. They don't allow too many sheep or cows, and they don't want to allow too many ungulates. Most of these agreements came to be through working groups with reps from each side. That is why we just can't raise the herd objective of buffalo on the Henry Mtns (even if it is reasonable) or elk on the Fish Lake. The Monroe elk herd objective was raised a few years ago, if I remember correct, and that came through a formal working group.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> [
> Let's just for a moment assume the numbers were right and the only counted 800 pronghorn on the spring count. Why in hell would you go ahead and do a round up for transplant last year knowing that the herd numbers were far bellow objective, and by far more than 6% which is a targeted harvest objective? People need to stop smoking cedar bark and realize that winter was no more than an excuse for the management debacle. Six percent of 1200 is 72 animals not hundreds as was removed through transplants and harvests. Go back and re-read you wildlife science merit badge book.


Uhhh...Bigbr, are you sure they did a transplant in 2010. From what I understand the last transplant was in 2009. Also, the count of the antelope herd last spring yielded more than the objective...again. That is why so many tags were recommended and issued. It wasn't until AFTER the tags were given that the fawn crop died and so many antelope were lost. Again, do you expect the DWR to have a crystal ball?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> If you continue year after year to harvest over 1600 cow/calves off the Fishlake then you will have emergency closures as we did last year on the Fishlake.


yeah....that emergency closure that was NOT recommended by biologists but by sportsmen and politicians that put is again this year into a must issue cow tags scenario...and put is right back where we were last year--too many elk and lots of cow tags!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout said:


> As for the herd objectives, it is my understanding the UDWR has entered into agreements with land managers on the size of herds. The land managers (BLM, FS, SITLA, Private, etc) assign AUMs to each area/unit, which dictate the number of animals which can use the forage. They don't allow too many sheep or cows, and they don't want to allow too many ungulates. Most of these agreements came to be through working groups with reps from each side. That is why we just can't raise the herd objective of buffalo on the Henry Mtns (even if it is reasonable) or elk on the Fish Lake. The Monroe elk herd objective was raised a few years ago, if I remember correct, and that came through a formal working group.


That's basically my understanding as well packout. My understanding is that objectives can come from committees, formal working groups, and from the DWR itself depending on the species, the unit, and the interests involved. All objectives are part of a management plan that goes through the public process and is approved by the Wildlife Board. Once the WB approves the plan the DWR is obligated to follow the plan and the objectives within it. Many plans give the DWR a time period to "ramp up" or "ramp down" to an objective. In the case of the Parker Pronghorn they had to come down to objective by 2010. They had tried to do that a little at a time and by 2009 they had to do something more drastic.

If they choose to ignore that plan then heads may roll and the DWR may lose funding from the legislature if they fail to comply.

If anyone is unhappy with how your wildlife species are being managed the key is to change the plan. Get involved and have moose objectives raised. Have the objectives on the Parker raised. I encourage everyone to do that...maybe then you'll see the challanges the DWR and our herds face in these matters and you may get something good accomplished. You may get a glimpse into the politics and biological factors that come into play.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> kill_'em_all said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


huh... funny you should bring that up. the place i hunt deer is over run with cats. there are wayyyyyyyyyy too many cats in that area.... AND the DWR know that. but they refuse to issue more tags then they do because the houndsmen say there arent enough! i dont find it as a COINCIDENCE that this same area i hunt is one of the units that is struggling as far as deer numbers and buck/doe ratios. because of it they put special seasons/regs on it... the deer numbers are lower then they use to be and keep dropping. why is that? they have endless winter range, plenty of food and water, great habitat and not too much hunting pressure... i cant imagine that cougars might have something to do with it :roll: last year, i counted 5 cats in different areas while just hiking around hunting/looking for sheds... 1 of which was WAY TOO CLOSE for comfort. i'd be willing to bet that a majority of the people who spend as much time in the hills as me, will go their entire lifetime and MAYBE see 5 cats in their life without the use of dogs. i saw 5 last year. i dont even know how many i have seen in previous years, but i know i have seen cougars on atleast 15 trips out there.

they issue way too many tags for certain animals/areas and not enough for others


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

kill_'em_all said:


> they issue way too many tags for certain animals/areas and not enough for others


Honestly kill em I like your passion. I wish everyone cared about our wildlife as much as you do. I do have to say though that your entire argument is based emotion and opinion. What evidence do you have to back up your claims? If you can come up with evidence to back your claims I can all but guarantee that tag numbers would change in the units you speak of. All you have to do is show why tags are too high or too low. Simple as that.

I'm telling you that if you want to make a difference you've got to change the management plans for those species. That's the key here.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2011)

and thats the problem. unless you have a degree in wildlife biology or are a DWR employee or a WB member, everything you say is considered to be opinion. apparently you need to have a badge or be one of the top people to have your "opinion", be a "fact". they arent willing to listen to a few sportsmen about 1 or 2 issues about a few things, "they dont get paid enough to deal with it all". all i have to back my claims is a few other people who have witnessed what i have seen and a few photos. :|


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I think kill em the problem is more fundamental than that. bigbr called BS on counting 800+ pronghorn and you agreed. You are essentially saying they are lying to us. If they really did count 800+ pronghorn on that unit then you have just discredited yourself greatly. Your opinion comes across and biased and flawed and nothing else you say carrys much weight. 

So the solution is to request to have someone tag along on their next flight. You would likely have to get involved in an org that would be willing to request that but I know they are flying that unit counting pronghorn as we speak and they are allowing tag alongs on flights to do counts in the central region. In fact in the central region they are allowing reps from sportsmens organizations to do range rides with the division, they are allowing them to help classify animals, and go into bear dens with the division. They are even having resp from sportsmens orgs to help count winter kill all to add creditbility to what they say.

It's ok to have an opinion but have an open mind enough to seek the truth. If you feel strongly that something is wrong then my advice is get involved. Contact orgs, like the UWC, and ask them if they will request "ride alongs" on these flights and during classification exercises.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2011)

like i said, im no expert. i wasnt aware they allowed people to go with them on counts. i actually think that is a great idea. but personally speaking from experience, i have a REAL hard time believing they counted 800+ a few weeks ago. i wasnt there, i didnt see what they saw. but i was there on the rifle hunt last fall. i have some really good friends that had archery tags down there. none of us could honestly say we saw 200 goats combined. they just werent there. we covered ALOT of the unit. maybe theres some new hybrid goat out there they are testing out that can produce fawns every 3 months and they had an amazing fawn production from Nov.-April 

i could be wrong, i wouldnt be afraid to admit it if i was. honestly i hope i am. but from what i and many people that i am close to, have experienced and witnessed, theres no way some of the numbers they come up with are even close to accurate not only on the parker, but through out the entire state. some of the blame may fall on them, some on the winter and some else where, but something is outta whack...

thanks for the insight, you learn something new every day. didnt mean to hi-jack the thread. this was suppose to be about the decline in moose numbers, which is another issue we need to address.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

kill_'em_all said:


> l but personally speaking from experience, i have a REAL hard time believing they counted 800+ a few weeks ago.


I honestly believe I saw more than this last weekend....while hunting turkeys.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> kill_'em_all said:
> 
> 
> > l but personally speaking from experience, i have a REAL hard time believing they counted 800+ a few weeks ago.
> ...


i honestly believe i saw 8 big foots this last weekend...while hunting turkeys. :shock:  see? anyone can SAY anything. :O•-:

but, good for you...? :roll:i hope you did though. maybe its not as bad as i and others think, but its still not good either way. real disappointing. that should be THE antelope unit of utah... sadly its THE worst one in utah.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Kill_em wrote: *


> the DWR has "managed" the Plateau antelope herd to extinction. i drove around for 6.5 hours yesterday hunting with my brother and saw a total of 20 goats, with only 3 legal bucks. they gave way too many permits for goats that dont exist.


Ok so last Sept you saw a total of 20 goats with only 3 legal bucks and the DWR counted 800 goats on the Unit. This tells me either your antelope hunting skills aren't quite as good or someone in the DWR is drinking while counting.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

In fairness the division told me that they recieved some complaints about the lack of goat sightings last summer. They went out to investigate and the day they drove the unit they said they didn't see one pronghorn. So they decided the fly the unit. This was not scheduled. That's when they counted the 800+ antelope.

There is hope though. The fawn crop is looking good this year and and that herd will rebound relatively quickly.

Back to moose numbers just reading the plan, I haven't asked anyone at the division about it, it says they intend to increase capacity through habitat projects. Sounds like a positive direction to me.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2011)

coyoteslayer said:


> *Kill_em wrote: *
> 
> 
> > the DWR has "managed" the Plateau antelope herd to extinction. i drove around for 6.5 hours yesterday hunting with my brother and saw a total of 20 goats, with only 3 legal bucks. they gave way too many permits for goats that dont exist.
> ...





bullsnot said:


> In fairness the division told me that they recieved some complaints about the lack of goat sightings last summer. They went out to investigate and the day they drove the unit they said they didn't see one pronghorn. So they decided the fly the unit. This was not scheduled. That's when they counted the 800+ antelope.


huh.... imagine that :O•-:


----------



## gunplay (Apr 28, 2008)

for someone like me sitting on 17 points for moose, this is all a bit disheartening. I've been wanting a moose tag my whole life and I will finally draw one and wont be able to find the quality I have always wanted. It makes me nervous to draw one but there is no turning back now.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2011)

dont give up or go into this with a bad attitude! moose are cool as hell, and that goes for any moose, even a cow. they are still around, theres just not as many as before. go do some scouting in the area you plan to hunt and you should be fine!


----------

