# Interview on 1320 KFAN



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

This Thursday evening (Nov. 4), the DWR's Big Game Coordinator, Anis Aoude, will be interviewed live on the Inside the Outdoors radio show on 1320 KFAN. The show begins at 7 p.m., and he'll be discussing the 2011 deer proposals and taking calls from listeners.

After following many of the 2011 proposal-related discussions here at UWN, I have to echo what I've seen from quite a few of you: *attend your RAC meetings and the Board meeting, if at all possible*. Those meetings are where the policy changes occur. If the RAC and Board members see that hundreds (or thousands) of hunters are passionate about these issues, it may affect what they choose to do.

On a related note: the location of the Central Region RAC meeting changed this morning. It will now be held at Springville Junior High. If you can't attend a RAC meeting, and you feel strongly about these options (one way or the other), please send an e-mail to your local RAC members.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Hi Amy. You single? Do you like to hunt and fish? You did vote today for the Republican of your choosing didn't you? Love Berg


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

I'm married, I fish and I voted early. 

And I neglected to provide the RAC specifics, so here they are:

*Northern Region* - Tuesday, Nov. 9 at 6 p.m. at the Brigham City Community Center (24 N. 300 W. in Brigham City)
*Central Region* - Wednesday, Nov. 10 at 6:30 p.m. at Springville Junior High (165 South 700 East in Springville)
*Southern Region* - Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 5 p.m. at Beaver High School (195 E. Center St. in Beaver)
*Southeastern Region* - Wednesday, Nov. 17 at 6:30 p.m. at the John Wesley Powell Museum (1765 E. Main St. in Green River)
*Northeastern Region* - Thursday, Nov. 18 at 6:30 p.m. at the Western Park (302 E. 200 S. in Vernal)


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Berg, you are the man, LOL.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Friggin Berg.........


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

BERG,

I had to explain to my professor why I broke out laughing in the middle of his lecture. Thanks


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Well, OK Amy I sort of understand that whole being married thing, but the fact that you voted early, you fish, and you're concerned about getting information about RAC meetings to the masses makes you very hot. Should your marital status ever change, please send me a pm. Hope to see you at a RAC meeting. Still Love Ya - Berg


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Amy and her husband are wayyyyy too classy to be hanging around you slackers. She only comes here for work, aiding the hopeless.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

Thanks for the laugh berg! That was great!


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Anis is just a puppet and until we get some new blood on the Wildlife board nothing will change they will continue to promote their own and SFWs agendas.


----------



## Stellarmike (Mar 12, 2009)

That is awesome Berg.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Not to inject too much into this discussion, which is starting to read like a Brett Favre text messege, but remember that we are in Utah, and multiple spouses is one of those things that while publically frowned upon, is more or less acceptable in most circles. Just sayin'!


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

blackdog said:


> Anis is just a puppet and until we get some new blood on the Wildlife board nothing will change they will continue to promote their own and SFWs agendas.


Anis is both a biologist and a hunter. He also has a job where no matter what he does, someone will be unhappy. I don't want to try and speak for him, but I know he's hoping that hunters will show up and share their views about these hunt options. As I mentioned earlier, if hundreds of people (or more) attend the public meetings, it will make a definite impression on the RAC and Board members.



BERG said:


> Should your marital status ever change, please send me a pm.


You sure know how to tempt a girl. 



GaryFish said:


> ...we are in Utah, and multiple spouses is one of those things that while publically frowned upon, is more or less acceptable in most circles.


 :shock:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Jeeeeeezzzzz BERG !!!!! :roll: 

:O--O: -_O-


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Not to inject too much into this discussion, which is starting to read like a Brett Favre text messege, but remember that we are in Utah, and multiple spouses is one of those things that while publically frowned upon, is more or less acceptable in most circles. Just sayin'!


GF, makes a very good point; however, in this case it would be called Polyandry...not to to be confused with the movie *Along Came Poly in 2004* staring, the equally hot to Amy, Jennifer *Anis*ton. Even so, I'm sorry, but I just can't roll with a marriage based on Polyandry, yet I am able to see the plus, and minus, side of marriage based on polygamy. Nevertheless, I would personally prefer a maximum of just one wife. 

Ever notice how the first four letters of Jennifer's last name spell *Anis*? Kind of freaky huh?  I'm just sayin, but I'll let the masses draw their own conclusions about him and the possible covert tactics of SFW.

And thanks for the compliment Amy. It's good to know that I'm still good at tempting. :-|O|-:

Love ya even more, Berg


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh E, it may time to quit while you're... uhhhh.... not as behind as you could be?


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

:_O=: Are you kidding? I worship Amy, but she is a married woman, so I'll just try and keep my feelings for her to myself from here on out. As for you Treetard...:^8^:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Amy said:


> blackdog said:
> 
> 
> > Anis is just a puppet and until we get some new blood on the Wildlife board nothing will change they will continue to promote their own and SFWs agendas.
> ...


While I agree Anis is NOT a puppet, I do have issues with how he drafts proposals. IMHO, and I have worked on numerous committees with Anis as well as been to numerous RAC/Wildlife Board meetings, Anis' biggest flaw is that he tries to appease everyone, which ensures he will appease no one! Since he is a biologist, and a smart one at that, he needs to draft proposals based on biology and leave the politics/appeasing/splitting the baby to special interest groups, sportsmen who care enough to show up, and the Wildlife Board.

I also agree and disagree with your assertion that if hundreds show up to the RAC's and Wildlife Board it will have an impact. I think the RAC's are a WASTE of time/energy, as the Wildlife Board often completely ignores the feedback from the RAC's. I do agree that if HUNDREDS were to show up at the Wildlife Board meeting they would be much more likely to listen.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> ...he tries to appease everyone, which ensures he will appease no one! Since he is a biologist, and a smart one at that, he needs to draft proposals based on biology and leave the politics/appeasing/splitting the baby to special interest groups, sportsmen who care enough to show up, and the Wildlife Board.


Sorry it took a while to get back to you on this, pro. I actually asked one of our biologists (not Anis) about this very thing a few months ago, and his response was interesting. He said that one of the first topics taught in Wildlife Management 101 classes is that managing wildlife is about more than just the biology. It's also about all of the social issues that accompany wildlife management. The public is invested in wildlife (in a number of ways) and feels very strongly about how it's hunted, protected, handled and managed. Those concerns must be weighed in our decisions and recommendations.

Here at the DWR, our mission statement is pretty straightforward: "Our mission is to serve the people of Utah as trustee and guardian of the state's wildlife." There are two main components to that statement: the people of Utah and the state's wildlife. The people of Utah aren't a single, uniform group, and they all have opinions and recommendations on what we should do. Our biologists listen to them, obtain statistically valid data/input and try to put together recommendations that address both the biological and social components. I think it's oversimplifying the issue to say that the biologists should just focus on biology.



proutdoors said:


> I think the RAC's are a WASTE of time/energy, as the Wildlife Board often completely ignores the feedback from the RAC's.


The role of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) is to advise the Wildlife Board, not to make policy. The board does not always implement RAC recommendations - sometimes those recommendations are in complete conflict with each other. The RACs also provide a way for the public to share their input without having to drive to Salt Lake to attend a board meeting. They are held on multiple nights in multiple locations, so people have some flexibility on when and where they can attend. As a side note, Wildlife Board members often attend their local RAC meetings and gauge public sentiment. On this issue, I think RAC attendance is extremely important. So I guess we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. 

Also, I've seen a couple of discussions here about the Wildlife Board. There will be two spots opening up on the board next year. You'll be able to find the application on our website in February. (In order to apply, though, you must live in either the Central or Southeastern region.) A committee will consider the applications and then forward its recommendations to the governor, who will make the final decision.

And now, I'm heading back to the Deer Creek article I need to finish for the Fishing guidebook.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Amy said:


> Also, I've seen a couple of discussions here about the Wildlife Board. There will be two spots opening up on the board next year. You'll be able to find the application on our website in February. (In order to apply, though, you must live in either the Central or Southeastern region.) A committee will consider the applications and then forward its recommendations to the governor, who will make the final decision.


The Governor will make the final decision. The same Governor who took away public access to public streams, Boy I feel better now. :roll: Then the Gov. will pick up the phone and call Don Peay and ask him who he recommends.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Amy said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > ...he tries to appease everyone, which ensures he will appease no one! Since he is a biologist, and a smart one at that, he needs to draft proposals based on biology and leave the politics/appeasing/splitting the baby to special interest groups, sportsmen who care enough to show up, and the Wildlife Board.
> ...


It is also the responsibilities of highly educated PUBLIC employees is to educate the PUBLIC. I guess I likely over-stated my view on what Anis and his group should do, to clarify I think they focus far too much on the social aspects and not enough focus on the biology. I could cite NUMEROUS examples if you would like. 8) The deer proposal drafted by the DWR is a prime example, as I do NOT believe most hunters in Utah were personally contacted to see if they actually want the buck:doe ratio raised from 15:100 to 18:100. Who is calling for this? Special interests! That means Anis and his group are drafting proposals for a SMALL vocal minority of Utah hunters. Thanks for correcting me, and I hope I have clarified my view on this.



Amy said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I think the RAC's are a WASTE of time/energy, as the Wildlife Board often completely ignores the feedback from the RAC's.
> ...


I STRONGLY disagree, and I can cite numerous examples if you would like. 8) I have attended many, many RAC meetings over the last several years. I have witnessed RAC's where the place was packed, and the overwhelming majority were very clear on what they wanted, only to be completely ignored by the RAC Board(s). As recently as 2008 at the Southern RAC, which was packed with concerned archers about the *DWR* proposal to do away with statewide archery deer hunting because of 'over-crowding'. Exactly *ONE* archer stood and stated he was in favor of doing away with statewide archery. And, when Anis was asked point blank what qualifies as 'over-crowding' is admitted there was *NO* criteria to determine what qualifies as 'over-crowding'. The DWR even presented a survey that showed the most satisfied group of hunters were archers, even in regards to the number of fellow hunters encountered while hunting, soundly besting LIMITED ENTRY deer hunters. Yet, when it was all said and done, the Southern RAC voted to go with the *DWR* proposal and do away with statewide archery for deer! I attended 4 of the 5 region RAC's that fall, and at ALL of them the opposition was 90%+ of those who claimed to be actual archers. After encountering similar experiences time after time at RAC meetings, I am convinced the RAC process is a WASTE of time. The people, in reality, have no representation, but special interest groups **** well have it! A trend I have noticed is that very few people attend the Wildlife Board meetings, mainly because it is not close to home and it is held during work hours. And, the same people attend again and again. I am thoroughly convinced if the Wildlife Board meeting were to be packed with sportsmen DEMANDING to be heard, the WB would be forced to listen.



Amy said:


> Also, I've seen a couple of discussions here about the Wildlife Board. There will be two spots opening up on the board next year. You'll be able to find the application on our website in February. (In order to apply, though, you must live in either the Central or Southeastern region.) A committee will consider the applications and then forward its recommendations to the governor, who will make the final decision.


This is a great opportunity for Utah's wildlife and Utah's sportsmen, as the two Board members being replaced are, in my not so humble opinion, the two least likely to listen to sound science and the actual will of the majority of hunters. One of the two leaving the Board flat out told me in 2008 that the Board did not have to follow the Management Plans, nor the input from the DWR, and that they could do "whatever we want."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Amy said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I've seen a couple of discussions here about the Wildlife Board. There will be two spots opening up on the board next year. You'll be able to find the application on our website in February. (In order to apply, though, you must live in either the Central or Southeastern region.) A committee will consider the applications and then forward its recommendations to the governor, who will make the final decision.
> ...


1)The governor did NOT take away public access, that is misleading and dishonest on many levels. The governor can't pass ANY legislation, he can only sign or veto passed legislation. And, *66%* of those who took the time to vote cast their ballot for Herbert. If HB141 was as unpopular as folks on this forum would like people to believe, I can't see how he would get two out of every three votes. :? 
2)I have contacted several state lawmakers telling them of my concern for who the Wildlife Board is acting and who is driving it. I suggest EVERY one that reads this do the same. I am hoping to get a few of them to attend the Wildlife Board meeting next month to see first hand what is going on.


----------



## 71nova (Jan 9, 2008)

I am in favor of having the buck doe ratio raised to 20 to 100 if that means I see some of these mythical bucks on the rifle. That being said, I am going to be using the draw to pull the bow tag from now on, since I actually see a good number of em then. I also have a lot more fun even if I never shoot. In all honesty I would give up my tag every now and again, pay more for it, and do more for it if there were more bucks out there. I also like the proposal that breaks the state up into smaller management areas, it seems most the places I hunt are in serious need of this... Either that or allowing us to hunt with helicopters, or thermal imaging, maybe hand grenades. 

Amy, do you think you could pass on the e-mail adddresses to the RAC's that you mentioned, Please?


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

71nova said:


> Amy, do you think you could pass on the e-mail addresses to the RAC's that you mentioned, Please?


Sure thing. Here's a link to the names and e-mail addresses of all the RAC members. And here's the RAC chairs' contact information.

Finally, here are a few tips on making a presentation at a RAC meeting.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> I hope I have clarified my view on this.


Thanks for following up, pro. We obviously don't agree on everything, but I really appreciate your willingness to clarify/discuss these issues and to get involved in the process.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It is interesting that HB141 was brought up. Pro, even though you and I will never agree on that issue, it is apparent to me that there are significant similarities to what you want to do on the deer hunting/wildlife board issue and what we dealt with in fighting the recent Conatser, HB187/141 battles.

First off,


proutdoors said:


> 66% of those who took the time to vote cast their ballot for Herbert. If HB141 was as unpopular as folks on this forum would like people to believe, I can't see how he would get two out of every three votes. :?


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50600 ... s.html.csp

Considering that 2 out of 3 voters didn't even bother to vote *at all* in this election, and there were a TON of major issues on the plate, it strongly suggests that virtually NO wildlife issues are going to move the needle much with the general populace. Not stream access, and not deer hunting regs. It also tells us that 2 out of 3 people bi*#@ing on these boards about the proposed regs didn't bother to vote either.

2. When we were going up to the Hill last year to actually talk face-to-face with the legislators about HB80/141/Conatser, it was clear to us that while most of the reps were genuinely trying to understand the issue, many had no clue about the particulars of the proposed legislation and issues like High water mark, navigability, and other particulars. Many sought out "advice" from someone they knew from his years of being up on the hill, Don Peay and SFW, along with some of the other "good ol boys" the reps knew well. He gleefully labeled us a "bunch of radical flyfishermen" and that held significant power with some of the reps. I fear you will have the same problem.

3. As you know, we beat HB 187 2 years ago with a burst of grass roots energy that was surprising to many on the Hill. Then the power brokers exerted their muscles last year and prevailed. You will need to be prepared for a political onslaught from the people you are fighting against.

It could go something like this: 
Phone rings, Hello, this is Rep. McIff. (or many other reps)
Hi, Kay, this is Don. Remember last year when I helped you deal with those wacko flyfishemen that fought you on Hb141? Well, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. We have some nutjobs that want to derail my plan for changing the deer hunt regs and also want to influence the wildlife board in ways I don't approve of. Can I count on your support to insure that we get our way with this issue?

I agree that this is also true 


proutdoors said:


> Then the Gov. will pick up the phone and call Don Peay and ask him who he recommends.


It will be a tough fight for you to overcome.

4.


proutdoors said:


> I am hoping to get a few of them to attend the Wildlife Board meeting next month to see first hand what is going on.


We found this to be critical. While legislative emails and posted comments on the DWR comment line have some value, *face to face interaction* was much better! Go up on the hill, meet them, drive them to the dang WB meeting. Don't send one email and assume that you've done all you can.

At least with 141 we have recourse with the courts. I don't think the hunters do with the proposed hunting regs. 

All this said, I wish you the best. I agree with what you are trying to do with the deer hunting.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Pro, Of-coarse Herbert got 66% of the vote, this is Utah, when was the last time there was a Democrat Gov? Besides, the vast majority of people don't fish or hunt so they could careless about 141.

Herbert had a chance to VETO 141 and he DIDN'T. How is that "misleading and dishonest on many levels"?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is the way I see it, 
In most areas of the state , general season deer herds are not up to par..
Last night on the radio claiming 300,000 deer in Utah and OK buck to doe ratios,,,
Lobbying for changing nothing,,,,,I'm not sure that's right or the smart move.........

We are one hard winter from total disaster in many deer herd units,,,,
I'm still for option 2, Micro-managing deer units,,,,I think it could be more productive.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

In my position with BOU I get a few phone calls. I had one last night that 
shares the same opinion with GOOFY.

GOOFY You can go to 500 units and as long as the focus is on hunter control instead of what really matters you won't see one bit of growth.

Mule Deer hunters in Utah HUNT BUCK MULE DEER. BUCK MULE DEER HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH OVERALL HERD POPULATION. So in essence you are trying to limit or control 
the least impactfull element in the equation. Look killing one cat is going to exponentially 
increase the herd in any given region or unit. If the cat kills a buck it's one deer dead. Nothing more. Now if a cat kills a doe it has an exponential effect on that herds population, if you figure a doe gives birth to another doe or twin doe's and multiply that over 4 or 5 years you can see the effect of one dead doe.

Predators are one part of the equation here, mix in habitat loss, roads, deer vehicle collisions and so on and you can see what is having the major effect on our herds.

Hunters killing buck deer are not the issue here. Unfortunately the Wildlife Board 
either won't or cant make the paradigm shift to manage what really matters as far
as the overall big picture. They would rather involve themselves in their petty little pissing matches like how many hunters are hunting with a bow south of I-70 and so on.

We as hunters need to stick together and educate ourselves on the facts first. Stick together and focus on what really matters.


----------



## CP1 (Oct 1, 2007)

AMEN WILEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I STRONGLY disagree, and I can cite numerous examples if you would like. 8) I have attended many, many RAC meetings over the last several years. I have witnessed RAC's where the place was packed, and the overwhelming majority were very clear on what they wanted, only to be completely ignored by the RAC Board(s)."


Pro, I still don't think you understand the roles of the RACs. The RACs are NOT supposed to simply follow exactly what the majority of people in attendance want. The RACs are supposed to gather input from a variety of sources--including the public--and make a decision based on those multiple sources. Just because a bunch of people show up and voice a strong opinion against something the RACs nor the WB are supposed to follow that opinion. Again, both the RACs and the WB are supposed to make decisions based on the multiple sources of information they receive with the public being only one of those sources. For some reason, you believe that if a loud voice from a lot of people is given to the RACs they MUST follow...but that is simply not true. The RACs are composed of people who represent different areas of our society...these people are supposed to make decisions based on what they believe is best for their constituents or the people they represent....NOT on what the loudest voice wants.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I STRONGLY disagree, and I can cite numerous examples if you would like. 8) I have attended many, many RAC meetings over the last several years. I have witnessed RAC's where the place was packed, and the overwhelming majority were very clear on what they wanted, only to be completely ignored by the RAC Board(s)."
> ...


I was at a RAC last year for New Elk Proposal and group after group and person after person kept reiterating what the people wanted. A few of the RAC members seemed to be listening and made a motion to try on of the concerns being brought to their attention by hunters. Then just as quick as the momentum had started on dude takes over the microphone and basically said all of the polls that have been done, all of the biology was wrong and he didn't like the idea. He gave no good reason and just like that it was shut down. I highly doubt any of that information got back to the wildlife board and really it didn't matter because by the time the RAC's come around the WB already knows what they want to do, the RAC's is simply a legal obligation they have to do to make it look legit. There is corruption at a scary lever in the WB, not all members, but a majority of them are corrupt. It is my opinion that everything we do now is a waste of time until we address the real issue. We need to push for legislation that holds the WB more accountable, we need legislation that makes it illegal for them to accept bribes, hunts, money, ect. We need to hold them to the fire and make sure they listen to the public, not the group that throws the most money at them.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Again, the RACs are NOT supposed to just listen and do what the public wants. They are SUPPOSED to make decisions on what is best for the group of people they represent. And, after the RAC votes on what its decision is, they then take that information to the WB.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> ...... The RACs are composed of people who represent different areas of our society...these people are supposed to make decisions based on what they believe is best for their constituents or the people they represent....*NOT on what the loudest voice wants.*


By listeneing to the likes of Special Interest groups that is exactly what they do!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The reality is that many average hunters share some of the same wants of special interest groups. There are A LOT of hunters that want to see inches. In fact I'm surprised through discussions on this forum how important inches are to many people. I think saying the RAC's are only listening to special interests may be a bit naive.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Again, the RACs are NOT supposed to just listen and do what the public wants. They are SUPPOSED to make decisions on what is best for the group of people they represent. And, after the RAC votes on what its decision is, they then take that information to the WB.


Then why have the public comment portion? Basically they are a filter between the public and the WB, they filter out what they don't want or do want.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the RACs are NOT supposed to just listen and do what the public wants. They are SUPPOSED to make decisions on what is best for the group of people they represent. And, after the RAC votes on what its decision is, they then take that information to the WB.
> ...


Because the public is ONE of the groups of people they are supposed to take input from. But, again, it is only ONE.

The RAC members include individuals who represent the following groups:
agriculture
sportsmen
non-consumptive wildlife
locally elected public officials
federal land agencies, and
public at large (including business).

"The councils shall:
hear Utah Division of Wildlife Resources input, including recommendations, biological data, and information regarding the effects of wildlife;
gather information from staff, the public and government agencies; (and)
make recommendations to the Wildlife Board in an advisory capacity."

Just to make things clear, I don't believe for a second that every RAC member or even WB member for that matter always do exactly what they are supposed to do; however, they are NOT supposed to just listen to what the people in attendance want and follow the opinion of those at the meetings.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

But my point is still valid, the people are a portion of it, but in my opinion the public input is NOT considered. I understand they are not the only portion, but in my experience it is not even considered and ultimately the public is the only one who doesn't have a vote. All the other portion have the power to vote on the proposals, we don't. So what is the point of the RAC again?


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

jahan said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


This in my opinion is dead on and the most acurate statement here. Wyo2 also speaks the truth but they are only small degrees just like the public is one degree, really does not make a difference. $$$$$ talks, cattle feeding grounds come before elk or deer, it is all a bunch of political bull$hit.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> But my point is still valid, the people are a portion of it, but in my opinion the public input is NOT considered. I understand they are not the only portion, but in my experience it is not even considered and ultimately the public is the only one who doesn't have a vote. All the other portion have the power to vote on the proposals, we don't. So what is the point of the RAC again?


Well, I would definitely disagree...I can think of several instances when the public input was not only listened to but followed. The example pro cited is a perfect one...year after year hunters from the southern region whined and cried about overcrowding, so the RACs finally listened and decided to take a look and see if it was actually a problem. Also, I remember when the public pushed to have fishing on trophy brook trout lakes on the Boulder closed...and the RACs listened made the recommendation which was ultimately adopted by the WB. I remember year after year hearing hunters object to the DWR's desire to increase the number of LE tags and, as a result, the RACs and WB very rarely agreed to the increases recommended by the DWR. I remember the public complain about fishing regulations involving perch at Yuba and watching the RACs and WB ultimately shut down the DWR regulation. I could go on...in fact, I every RAC meeting I attend and every meeting that I have read the minutes for, I feel like people speaking as part of the public input have made a difference.

...the point is that the RACs and WB are NOT supposed to just listen and do what those in attendance of meetings want. Just recently, for example, hunters on this site were outraged about the pronghorn situation on the Boulder. I dug into the situation a little deeper and found out that the DWR pushed for such large numbers of doe tags the past couple of years because of pressure from the BLM, the Forest Service, and from agricultural groups to get the herd back to objective. When the DWR was granted those tags from the RACs and WB, I would imagine that regardless of how hard hunters might have cried foul over them, they would have still been issued because members of the RACs represent the federal land agencies and the agricultural groups that were pushing for them. The RAC members have to keep those things into consideration...as hunters, it is too simple and naive to think that just by voicing our opinions strongly and with numbers at a meeting that the WB and RACs should do just what we want. We are only PART of the equation and our opinions and ideas need only be considered...nothing more. Making the assumption that our ideas are NOT considered simply because a different idea is adopted is naive, unfair, and simplistic at best.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > But my point is still valid, the people are a portion of it, but in my opinion the public input is NOT considered. I understand they are not the only portion, but in my experience it is not even considered and ultimately the public is the only one who doesn't have a vote. All the other portion have the power to vote on the proposals, we don't. So what is the point of the RAC again?
> ...


You make some excellent points. I just hope they listen this time around, because I don't know many hunters that are happy with these proposed changes.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The example pro cited is a perfect one...year after year hunters from the southern region whined and cried about overcrowding, so the RACs finally listened and decided to take a look and see if it was actually a problem. Also, I remember when the public pushed to have fishing on trophy brook trout lakes on the Boulder closed...and the RACs listened made the recommendation which was ultimately adopted by the WB. I remember year after year hearing hunters object to the DWR's desire to increase the number of LE tags and, as a result, the RACs and WB very rarely agreed to the increases recommended by the DWR. I remember the public complain about fishing regulations involving perch at Yuba and watching the RACs and WB ultimately shut down the DWR regulation. I could go on...in fact, I every RAC meeting I attend and every meeting that I have read the minutes for, I feel like people speaking as part of the public input have made a difference.


You are misrepresenting a few keys issues! First, it was RIFLE hunters making noise about 'overcrowding' during the ARCHERY season. This was quickly obvious during the RAC meetings when exactly *ONE* archer in *FIVE* RAC meetings stood and stated he agreed there was an overcrowding issue. Ironically, he based this on his experience that year while archery hunting LIMITED ENTRY elk. He felt he was running into 'too many' archery deer hunters for his liking. Second, neither the PINHEAD rifle hunters (most of whom were SFW members, anyone see a pattern here?) nor the DWR, nor the RAC Board members, nor the Wildlife Board members even attempted to define was qualifies as overcrowding. So, the entire recommendation was pointless and STUPID! It was nothing more than catering to a vocal MINORITY made up mostly of ONE special interest group that is hell bent on pitting rifle hunters vs muzzy hunters vs archery hunters vs trophy hunters vs opportunity hunters. Who were the most vocal opponents of raising LE elk tags? The very special interest group you are trying to say has little impact on what happens during this whole process. :?



wyoming2utah said:


> ...as hunters, it is too simple and naive to think that just by voicing our opinions strongly and with numbers at a meeting that the WB and RACs should do just what we want. We are only PART of the equation and our opinions and ideas need only be considered...nothing more. Making the assumption that our ideas are NOT considered simply because a different idea is adopted is naive, unfair, and simplistic at best.


I sure hope you were not directing this at me. As you KNOW better! When the majority of Utah hunters AND the DWR biologists are ignored at the behest of a special interest group again and again, taking Utah hunting down a path I KNOW you are not happy about, why do you defend the very system you just last week were blasting? Nonsensical!

The statewide archery issue was the nail in the coffin for me. It proved beyond even a sliver of a doubt that the WB/RAC's do NOT listen to those who are most impacted by their decisions. There was NO outcry from ARCHERS to end statewide archery for deer, NONE! It was rifle hunters who didn't think it was 'fair' that archers from urban areas were hunting on 'their' mountain while they couldn't draw a rifle tag every year. Either the DWR/Wildlife Board/RAC folks are mentally challenged, or they caved to ONE special interest group. Neither scenario bodes well for Utah hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> I agree that this is also true
> 
> 
> proutdoors said:
> ...


to clarify, I did NOT post this originally.  That was blackdog. I merely responded to it. 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

blackdog said:


> Herbert had a chance to VETO 141 and he DIDN'T. How is that "misleading and dishonest on many levels"?


That is NOT what you stated, now is it? :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> You are misrepresenting a few keys issues! First, it was RIFLE hunters making noise about 'overcrowding' during the ARCHERY season. This was quickly obvious during the RAC meetings when exactly *ONE* archer in *FIVE* RAC meetings stood and stated he agreed there was an overcrowding issue.


NO, I am not. YOU are misrepresenting the issue because YOU are only talking about one year's worth of meetings. I am talking about year after year after year. I read and heard NUMEROUS archery hunters complaining about dedicated hunters and archers from the north coming south to hunt. When the RACs heard the same complaint year after year and meeting after meeting, they finally decided to do something about it. I didn't like...you didn't like it, and many other archery hunters didn't like it. BUT, the truth is that they WERE listening to what people were telling them. The truth is that change would NEVER have come about had individuals--not special interest groups--not voiced their opinions on this year after year.


proutdoors said:


> Second, neither the PINHEAD rifle hunters (most of whom were SFW members, anyone see a pattern here?) nor the DWR, nor the RAC Board members, nor the Wildlife Board members even attempted to define was qualifies as overcrowding. So, the entire recommendation was pointless and STUPID!


What the recommendation did do, however, is find out exactly where hunters were going to be hunting based on what their tags said...it DID at least show the RACs and the WB if the South had a legitimate gripe or not. Which, both of us know, they did not.



proutdoors said:


> The very special interest group you are trying to say has little impact on what happens during this whole process. :?


Uhhh...I NEVER said that any special interest group has little impact...I don't know where you got that idea from. In fact, I believe SFW has too much impact.



proutdoors said:


> I sure hope you were not directing this at me. As you KNOW better! When the majority of Utah hunters AND the DWR biologists are ignored at the behest of a special interest group again and again, taking Utah hunting down a path I KNOW you are not happy about, why do you defend the very system you just last week were blasting? Nonsensical!


Nope, wasn't directed at you...but, my point remains the same--the RACs and the WB should NOT simply do what a vocal public wants. That is NOT how they were designed to work and to say that the public has NO say and are completely ignored is absolutely false. Also, I am NOT defending the system...I don't like the system and I have said that on numerous occasions and in numerous different posts. But, I also don't like the idea that some people on this site--and it seems like you are one of them--believe that if the public shows up to these meetings and makes a loud cry about something that the RACs and WB should automatically do what those in attendance want regardless of what the other pieces of the puzzle give as far as input. Personally, I believe the RACs and the WB should NEVER have been created and wildlife management should be left entirely up to the professionals.

Also, some RAC members are perfectly obligated to ignore the DWR and the majority of Utah hunters--remember some RAC members and WB members represent the BLM, the Forest Service, agricultural representatives, business people, non-consumptive wildlife users (including anti-hunters), and public officials....utah hunters and the DWR are only two entities that RAC members and WB members are supposed to listen to.



proutdoors said:


> The statewide archery issue was the nail in the coffin for me. It proved beyond even a sliver of a doubt that the WB/RAC's do NOT listen to those who are most impacted by their decisions. There was NO outcry from ARCHERS to end statewide archery for deer, NONE! It was rifle hunters who didn't think it was 'fair' that archers from urban areas were hunting on 'their' mountain while they couldn't draw a rifle tag every year. Either the DWR/Wildlife Board/RAC folks are mentally challenged, or they caved to ONE special interest group. Neither scenario bodes well for Utah hunters.


This is nothing more than sour grapes and similar to the actions of a little kid throwing a temper tantrum. True, there was no outcry from archers to end statewide archery for deer...but there was a continued complaint year in and year out from HUNTERS--including archery hunters--about northern hunters coming south. But, you want only YOUR voice to be heard and only YOUR ideas to be followed. And, then you say the public has no voice...when, in fact, it was the public's voice that made this change in the first place. NOT some special interest group.

Also, by the way, isn't it ironic that you are complaining about locals disliking urban hunters making decisions about "their" mountain when you often complain about the urban "pinheads" from Washington making decisions about Utah? Isn't it the same concept...localized government making the decisions for those who it impacts most? Just a thought.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > You are misrepresenting a few keys issues! First, it was RIFLE hunters making noise about 'overcrowding' during the ARCHERY season. This was quickly obvious during the RAC meetings when exactly *ONE* archer in *FIVE* RAC meetings stood and stated he agreed there was an overcrowding issue.
> ...


 Yes you are! See how fun this is? :mrgreen: I am NOT talking about just one year's worth of meetings, I just used one year as a perfect example of how flawed the entire system is. What you omit, for obvious reasons, is that the DWR repeatedly stated they already had data that showed overcrowding was NOT an issue. Yet, the SAME DWR proposed doing away with statewide archery. Explain that! The voices that created the red herring were almost exclusively from ONE special interest group. Even factoring in the whinyass rifle hunters, the publicly stated views on this issue were 5-1 opposed to doing away with statewide archery. And why would anyone with a shred of intelligence side with RIFLE hunters over ARCHERY hunters in regards to ARCHERY issues?



wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Second, neither the PINHEAD rifle hunters (most of whom were SFW members, anyone see a pattern here?) nor the DWR, nor the RAC Board members, nor the Wildlife Board members even attempted to define was qualifies as overcrowding. So, the entire recommendation was pointless and STUPID!
> ...


The DWR already KNEW the numbers, hell BOTH bow hunting groups provided the RAC's and the Wildlife Board with the data, yet it was ignored. NOTHING was gained by doing away with statewide archery for a year, and there was NOTHING scientific about the way the data was gathered for ONE year, nor on the conclusions drawn from it. Again, having NO definable measure as to what qualifies as overcrowding makes it **** hard to determine of there is overcrowding. How can you state otherwise? That is like someone saying they want to see if people in Sevier County are pinheads, without defining what a pinhead is. :O•-: 



wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > The very special interest group you are trying to say has little impact on what happens during this whole process. :?
> ...


Then WTF are you defending the RAC's where SFW does most of their damage? O|*



wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I sure hope you were not directing this at me. As you KNOW better! When the majority of Utah hunters AND the DWR biologists are ignored at the behest of a special interest group again and again, taking Utah hunting down a path I KNOW you are not happy about, why do you defend the very system you just last week were blasting? Nonsensical!
> ...


You contradict yourself at least three times just in this paragraph. 



wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > The statewide archery issue was the nail in the coffin for me. It proved beyond even a sliver of a doubt that the WB/RAC's do NOT listen to those who are most impacted by their decisions. There was NO outcry from ARCHERS to end statewide archery for deer, NONE! It was rifle hunters who didn't think it was 'fair' that archers from urban areas were hunting on 'their' mountain while they couldn't draw a rifle tag every year. Either the DWR/Wildlife Board/RAC folks are mentally challenged, or they caved to ONE special interest group. Neither scenario bodes well for Utah hunters.
> ...


Why would any SANE person give more credence to "HUNTERS" that are not impacted in ANY way, over the "HUNTERS" who were directly impacted? It wasn't just "MY" voice and "MY" ideas, it was the voice and ideas of 99% of all bow hunters! So, your **** right its sour grapes when a special interest group hoses a large chunk of "HUNTERS" simply because they can! It should chap the hide of EVERY hunter in the state!



wyoming2utah said:


> Also, by the way, isn't it ironic that you are complaining about locals disliking urban hunters making decisions about "their" mountain when you often complain about the urban "pinheads" from Washington making decisions about Utah? Isn't it the same concept...localized government making the decisions for those who it impacts most? Just a thought.


This is where you are so far from reality, I wonder if you have Toto in tow in your little bicycle. I don't even know where to start with so many flaws. 1)It is NOT "their" mountain. 2)I wonder if you have ever read this little thing called the U.S. Constitution. Hell, based on your comments, I wonder if you have even heard of this document. 3)If you want to localize game management, I am all for it! That would mean an end to FEDERALLY owned land, period! No more feds telling state/local governments how to manage the lands. Glad to see you are for kicking the feds out! :twisted:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that this is also true
> ...


Sorry, Pro, right you are. It was late last night and I had a "cut and paste" malfunction.

One more thing for all of you. It seems that in spite of whatever things are argued about on these threads, there is general agreement about 2 things.

1. The RAC system does not seem to instill confidence in its constituents (us) that it is an effective entity.
2. The actions of the WB seem at best to often be "suspicious" for being unduly influenced by special interests, and it often tends not to make decisions that are biologically based.

So what is the solution?
Doing away with both?, or one or the other? Changing the way WB members are named? (such as requiring legislative approval?) Changing the composition of the boards? Other?

It seems to me that just going to meetings and saying "look at us" will be limited in providing a long term solution to what almost everyone agrees is a deeply flawed system.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

anyone have a link to the interview I missed it.....


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Personally I think we need to get a legislator on board this upcoming session and propose legislation to do away with the RAC process. I am mainly a fisherman that has attended more than my share of fishing RAC's. Fishermen flat out don't attend. I believe the one this past September in the SR had two fishermen show up. It sounds like hunters are equally frustrated.
Sounds like a good time to revisit the whole process and think about a new approach. This system was set up with the public in mind. If the public doesn't like it, let's change it.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

HOGAN said:


> anyone have a link to the interview I missed it.....


The radio station hasn't posted it yet. I'm keeping an eye on their website and will add a link here as soon as the podcast is available.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Thank you Amy.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

From KSL today

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13186474



> Utah Division of Wildlife Resources spokesman Mark Hadley tells The Spectrum of St. George that the restrictions could trim the number of deer tags available in Utah next year to 87,000, down from 94,000 this fall.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Slow day at work.



280Remington said:


> Personally I think we need to get a legislator on board this upcoming session and propose legislation to do away with the RAC process.


Perhaps, but the thing about the RAC's is that they do not set any policy, the WB does. So any abuses and ineffectiveness of the system ultimately ends there.

Wyo mentioned the Yuba perch debacle. Some anglers that I know were part of that. They went to the central regional *biologists* and got their opinion on a possible regulation change. The biologists were on board with the proposed plan and the anglers took it to the RAC. It passed 7-2 and then went before the WB. The WB then shot it down even though the biologists said it would be OK and the RAC passed it. No reasons were given. These guys vow never to get involved in the RAC process again.



280Remington said:


> This system was set up with the public in mind. If the public doesn't like it, let's change it.


As the previous example shows, that certainly seems to be the case.

I am a bit saddened that my previous questions have gone unanswered. How do you fix it? Or do you actually think that the current system can/does still work, and we just need to get involved enough? Since I myself am trying to increase my understanding of the best course of action, I promise, I won't debate. It does seem very odd to me that the DWR is essentially removed from any bottom line decision making authority by the present system. Politics is always at play with government agencies, but the current setup seems to especially predispose to abuse.


----------

