# Attend or watch tomorrow's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board is meeting tomorrow (Thursday, Dec. 1) at 9 a.m., and there's a lot on the agenda, including proposed changes to the statewide elk management plan and the recommended big game hunts and season dates for 2023-24. 

If you're interested, you can watch the meeting online or attend in person. (It will be held at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center, located at 1157 South Waterfowl Way in Farmington.)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Looks like a very important meeting.

Thanks for the head's up.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Thanks Amy!!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

So do you guys think that scopes on muzzleloaders for all muzzy hunts in Utah will be discussed at this meeting? Is this on a different agenda for a different year or not something that is going to be brought up at all and we will stay status quo for a years to come?

I ask this because I'm gonna get my kid a muzzleloader for Christmas and I need to know what type to move forward with. I don't want to buy a scoped version and have to get the thing tapped for open sights in a couple years. Maybe I should just buy a setup that can handle both like I have. Just thinking out loud here.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'd wait and see what is discussed in the meeting and then make a decision on buying a ML that is just set up for a scope. 

Or get him one that a scope can be mounted to it that has a front and rear sight from the factory. The problem with getting one with just a scope sighting setup is what do you do in a year if they do ban scopes? I have one of these types of muzzle loaders, no front or rear sight. If Utah bans them in the near future I'll just put it up for sale to a buyer who can use it.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The current language only addresses the definitions for HAMS hunts. Meaning if they are approved that will be the definitions of weapons legal on HAMS hunts. Nothing effects current muzzle loader seasons or legal weapons for current muzzle loader hunts.

That can change but needs to go through its own public process. If I was a betting man I would bet you will have at least one more season under the current regulations.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> That can change but needs to go through its own public process. If I was a betting man I would bet you will have at least one more season under the current regulations.


It would absolutely not be the first time this Board took a recommendation from the DWR that goes through the RACs and completely changes it to vote on something that wasn’t a part of the public process.

In fact, this specific board makeup has done exactly that, and many of these specific board members have done it more than once in the past.

Yes, something like that absolutely should be vetted through a full public process. These board members have shown that is not a requirement for them.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Well then maybe the two expiring members will go out in a blaze of glory! (Have you applied?)

I'm sure I'm probably wrong but this meeting only applies to accepting the elk plan. Not setting weapons restriction for big game in general.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> I'd wait and see what is discussed in the meeting and then make a decision on buying a ML that is just set up for a scope.
> 
> Or get him one that a scope can be mounted to it that has a front and rear sight from the factory. The problem with getting one with just a scope sighting setup is what do you do in a year if they do ban scopes? I have one of these types of muzzle loaders, no front or rear sight. If Utah bans them in the near future I'll just put it up for sale to a buyer who can use it.


I'm seeing good things about Williams peep sights.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Well then maybe the two expiring members will go out in a blaze of glory! (Have you applied?)


Not yet, but stay tuned! 



middlefork said:


> I'm sure I'm probably wrong but this meeting only applies to accepting the elk plan. Not setting weapons restriction for big game in general.


Click on the link for the agenda Amy posted. Lots more than the elk plan on that agenda, including technology issues. I’m not saying the board WILL go rogue tomorrow, I’m simply citing precedent that they have before. If they did it again we could not be surprised by it.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Your best bet is to buy a muzzle loader that is set up for both. 

The current agenda doesn't call for a discussion of the findings and recommendations of the tech committee, rather as has been mentioned the HAMS definitions. But the future is somewhat murky beyond the 2023 season.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I realize there are other things on the agenda. I managed to work my self through all the RAC meetings. But the elk plan is the main attraction. And in every RAC is was emphasized that the current discussion on weapon restrictions was for future hunts with the provision they were recommending them only for HAMS hunts in the elk plan. The discussion for other regulations would be addressed in future WB meetings.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

My head might literally explode if I have to listen to board members talk about shutting down the spike hunt due to over-harvesting bulls one more time.

How many times does that question have to be answered by the DWR? 

That question has become a clown question.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Archers rejoice! Getting to have their cake and it eat too.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

They seriously just eliminated the multi season any bull tag!? Just like that!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Remember when I said this board will take up things that are not recommended or have been a part of the public process?


----------



## TheHunted (Feb 22, 2016)

3arabians said:


> They seriously just eliminated the multi season any bull tag!? Just like that!?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That was shocking! Discussion went from not allowing multi season hunters to hunt both rifle seasons to a motion to completely end the multi season SMH.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

TheHunted said:


> That was shocking! Discussion went from not allowing multi season hunters to hunt both rifle seasons to a motion to completely end the multi season SMH.


Ya! It was like “geez this is really tough….you know what..f-it…we’re just getting rid of this hunt!”

I about fell out of my chair. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

you never know what you are going to get with this WB group - I was shocked by the motion and vote as well!!


----------



## PHall (Oct 12, 2013)

As someone who sat on the elk committee, I am sad, and furious. We did NOT present that in the plan, no RAC's suggested it, however the board decided it was what was neeed. This diminishes the public's faith in the public process. With all the praise early on I was optimistic about how this plan was created, then have this, just feels like a stab in the back. Disgraceful.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Now an antler point restriction motion for general any bull elk. 

Remember when I mentioned things being voted on that aren’t on the agenda and haven’t been through the public process?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

*Fingers crossed for the December Avenues Rhinoceros blow-dart permit!*


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Now an antler point restriction motion for general any bull elk.
> 
> Remember when I mentioned things being voted on that aren’t on the agenda and haven’t been through the public process?


Bryce said the same thing. Good for him.

We can't manage a certain way just because Colorado does it. The DWR made a couple very good points why they do not want antler restrictions - that should have been enough to end it. But, here we are voting....

....or maybe not. Chairman can't make a motion to vote. Doh!


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

So 3 season is gone and an elk antler restriction?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Deleted


----------



## TheHunted (Feb 22, 2016)

TPrawitt91 said:


> So 3 season is gone and an elk antler restriction?


Multi season is gone.

The chairman had the deciding vote on antler restrictions, he wanted to vote yes to the restrictions but wound up voting no with the expectation there was going to be further discussion about it. The discussion didn't go the way he wanted and another motion was not placed. In short the antler restrictions failed. No antler restrictions from what I gathered.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

3arabians said:


> They seriously just eliminated the multi season any bull tag!? Just like that!?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is multi-season spike still a thing? I'm at work and can't watch.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Clarq said:


> Is multi-season spike still a thing? I'm at work and can't watch.


Yes, I believe so, for now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Crap, completely forgot to have this going in the background today at work...

Sounds like I didn't really miss too much - ideas derived from thin-air being passed . . . sweet.


----------



## Isuckathunting (Sep 15, 2019)

Those multiseason spike tags are going to be bought by guys that want archery hunt the anybull units and still have a rifle tag to kill a spike later in the year.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I actually feel bad for the DWR. Let me explain:

They put in so much work to guide committees, solicit public input, collect data to support recommendations, and this Board in particular just gives them the middle finger and does whatever they want. And then, when they go completely against the DWR’s recommendations, they charge the DWR to come back in 3 years and tell them how they’re doing.

This Board needs to change its mindset. I know it’s not the first Board that goes rogue, but it seems they are much more willing to do so. They don’t know better than those people hired and paid to do this job, they need to listen more and talk less.

When it’s all said and done, it’s the DWR that gets blamed for the wildlife board’s crappy decision making process. The public always criticizes the DWR, but things would be going better if the Board actually followed the DWR’s recommendations. Too bad there is no accountability to the public by these board members. Maybe they’d be a little more careful if there was?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Isuckathunting said:


> Those multiseason spike tags are going to be bought by guys that want archery hunt the anybull units and still have a rifle tag to kill a spike later in the year.


My thoughts exactly. Sales day is going to be an absolute joke.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I really have to wonder if the WB even has the interests and/or concerns of the people they are supposed to represent in mind at all. 
They just do what they want anyway.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

2full said:


> I really have to wonder if the WB even has the interests and/or concerns of the people they are supposed to represent in mind at all.
> They just do what they want anyway.


Sounds like the WB just wants to be like our other political representatives!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Anyone have the SFW letter on technology that all the RACs are mentioning?

10 points they were proposing to all the RACs.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

deleted.
Being mean.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> deleted.
> Being mean.


When has that stopped you before?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)




----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

My favorite part of the WB meetings is how much Wade likes to hear himself speak.




(there. back to myself again)


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

WH on technology: This was our issue, not yours. We don’t need any more committee, RAC, or public feedback!

(paraphrased, of course)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

This is just the beginning of a "career in politics" dream for him.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

WB, county commission, next thing you know, he’ll be POTUS!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I think my favorite thing about the WB meetings is the fashion. I mean, is this a "business attire" meeting? Is it a baseball hat and camo meeting? Is it a western vest with bolo tie meeting? If we decide to wear a dress shirt, do we tuck it in or leave it untucked? Should I shave now that it's December? Do my comments hold more weight depending on the camo brand I wear? Do I wear my hunting boots or my dress shoes?

Regardless, I think I'm going to try some of these styles at HC meeting Sunday. Sitka gear jacket will replace my suit jacket.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Interesting discussion toward the end of the meeting about swans!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

3arabians said:


> They seriously just eliminated the multi season any bull tag!? Just like that!?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Vanilla said:


> Remember when I said this board will take up things that are not recommended or have been a part of the public process?


The multi season permits were absolutely open for discussion. There were plenty of public comments submitted requesting they go away.

As for not following the committee's or DWR recommendations, as far as I know there is no rule that does not allow them to modify or ignore anything recommended. Don't like it? Change the process.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Can some maybe list the major items that passed and what we have coming down the line? A lot of mixed signals out there. I was not able to listen today--sorry


----------



## Isuckathunting (Sep 15, 2019)

Airborne said:


> Can some maybe list the major items that passed and what we have coming down the line? A lot of mixed signals out there. I was not able to listen today--sorry


I watched a good portion, but was in and out a bit at work. I left the meeting pretty confused even for the stuff I was watching when they voted, there was a lot of comment and motioning.
I think for elk they removed multiseason from anybull, left spike the same as last year. Split anybull rifle hunt into a first season and second season. First season 15k tags unlimited number for second season. No antler restrictions. Not sure if there's still a muzzy any bull or what the tag numbers would be. If that's wrong hopefully someone can correct me.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Airborne said:


> Can some maybe list the major items that passed and what we have coming down the line? A lot of mixed signals out there. I was not able to listen today--sorry


Proposed season dates and changes were passed.

I believe the new proposed elk plan was passed with the exception of the multi season general season tags being eliminated and there was a change to the proposed cow tag change. I believe it passed but would not result in the tag holder losing points. I missed some of it, so I'm not sure exactly what passed there. There was some discussion of antler point restrictions and a motion to add them to the any bull unit, but did not pass. 

There was also discussion about not opening a couple of the proposed new any bull units (Deep Creek due to tribal concerns and Paunsagaunt to protect archery deer tag holders). The Deep Creek motion passed. I missed the Puans vote, but based on the discussion I heard, I assume it passed as well. Deep Creek is suppose to open in a year as long as the tribal concerns are addressed. The Pauns discussion will just kick it down the road 2 years for them to do it all over again if it passed.

The division admitted the technology recommendations were a complete mess and unclear and after some discussion they were pushed to the spring board meeting.

Those are the issues I think most were concerned about.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It actually wasn't all that controversial in the end. They put it back to the either-s3x archery tag and they did away with the Anybull Multi-season tags. I guess some might want to make a huge deal out of those two things, but I was thinking there would have been many more changes. There was a ton of public input asking for the Multi-Season tags to go away. It is my understanding that the Elk Committee wasn't even fully on board with keeping them. As a past purchaser of Multi-Season permits, I enjoyed them, but it kind of feels right to do away with them under the current system with all of the changes. I was more surprised the LE stuff wasn't changed and tweaked. All things considered, I think shook out about the best it could have. Flame away.......


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

i just want to make sure that I understand the position of a couple posts here:

Is it your position that so long as there were public comments on a topic, we’re counting that as having gone through the public process and should be contemplated by the board?

That is how I’m understanding middlefork and packouts comment, that people making comments are good enough, these things shouldn’t require notice to the public to be able to participate and comment on that specific thing.

Did I get that wrong? I want to make sure I understand correctly before I respond.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Hey Niller'

Did you send in written comments regarding the proposals this time or maybe you attended the meeting?

I didn't send in any comments nor attend. I really should have sent in comments but I did not so I can't b!tch too much about what went on. I should be better about that--I discuss stuff on the forums but don't put my money where my mouth is and actually contact the folks who make the rules. In this case I kind of agree with most of the suggestions so I'm ok with what went down.

I hope you apply to be on the board Niller' I just hope you own a turquoise bolo tie or a camo dress suite, otherwise you ain't gonna fit in.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> i just want to make sure that I understand the position of a couple posts here:
> 
> Is it your position that so long as there were public comments on a topic, we’re counting that as having gone through the public process and should be contemplated by the board?
> 
> ...


The multi season tags were discussed extensively during the most recent RACs. Not just public comment, but the RAC boards as well. They have been discussed in previous WB meetings and nearly every RAC that includes in discussion of elk since they were introduced. I was surprised to see the board just get rid of them completely, but with in the context of the discussion they were having it made sense. The multi season tags created a lot of complexity within the new elk plan. They were very popular among many sportsmen but were hated by many others. I think it's fair to say it was easier to eliminate them than to continue to try and fit them into the plan going forward. 

What is your expectation of the WB? Should they simply take the divisions recommendations and rubber stamp them? If that is the case, then what is their purpose? The RAC process and WB function would have no value and exist only to serve the divisions desires and be an elaborate charade pretending to serve the public input process.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I did not attend, but I did submit comments.

The quick summary version of it was there were many points in the proposals I don’t personally like, but a lot of effort went into it to try and appease a lot of conflicting interests and desires, so let’s roll with the proposal and see how it goes.

I really (REALLY) appreciated the real talk from Gary when talking about the elk proposals. He mentioned that people kept saying everyone gave up something, and he made it clear that some gave an awful lot while some didn’t give much l, if anything. Real talk. We need more of that!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> i just want to make sure that I understand the position of a couple posts here:
> 
> Is it your position that so long as there were public comments on a topic, we’re counting that as having gone through the public process and should be contemplated by the board?
> 
> ...


All aspects of the elk plan were up for discussion. Public comments were made to both the RAC's and WB concerning proposals of the plan. The public had an informed choice to comment on any of it. Exactly how much public review do you deem needed? More surveys? What?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dahlmer said:


> What is your expectation of the WB? Should they simply take the divisions recommendations and rubber stamp them? If that is the case, then what is their purpose? The RAC process and WB function would have no value and exist only to serve the divisions desires and be an elaborate charade pretending to serve the public input process.


Oh man, that is a LOADED question!

My expectation, over-simplified because nobody wants to take the time to read it in great detail, if for these guys to talk less and listen more. We invest a crap ton of tax dollars into experts in these fields, and too often I see those things being tossed by a Board that is not experts in this. Listening a board member today talk about technology and basically say “We started this concern, we don’t need any more input from the public or technology committee we created.” It’s very disheartening. The Wildlife Board was not put in place to just rule and do whatever the individual board members want.

I would strongly argue that without listening to the experts we pay to give us advice, the Board has no value. It would be like going and hiring an attorney and not doing anything they tell you. That would be a bit frustrating, now consider that the Board works for the people and aren’t some dumb client that thinks they know better, and you get my point.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> All aspects of the elk plan were up for discussion. Public comments were made to both the RAC's and WB concerning proposals of the plan. The public had an informed choice to comment on any of it. Exactly how much public review do you deem needed? More surveys? What?


How about a simple statement in ANY of the literature put out to the public asking “should we keep multi-season permits?”

It appears my understanding of your position was correct, and I simply could not disagree more. That’s okay. We’re each entitled to our opinion. The Board is not a monarchy. These are OUR wildlife, not theirs. These are OUR hunting rights, not theirs. These are OUR resources, not theirs. They should start acting accordingly.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

Vanilla said:


> Archers rejoice! Getting to have their cake and it eat too.


What happened here?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> How about a simple statement in ANY of the literature put out to the public asking “should we keep multi-season permits?”
> 
> It appears my understanding of your position was correct, and I simply could not disagree more. That’s okay. We’re each entitled to our opinion. The Board is not a monarchy. These are OUR wildlife, not theirs. These are OUR hunting rights, not theirs. These are OUR resources, not theirs. They should start acting accordingly.


I listened to what I could and have mixed opinions on some of their styles/approaches. Unfortunately, that seems to be baked into the structure of the Wildlife Board by statute/law. 

But their decision making is rather expansive, or "broad", according to the letter of the law. We are talking about a group of people chosen solely by the Governor based upon a list completed by another group of his appointees. I don't like that level of singular influence myself but it's how its intentionally structured.

And the "our" in your statement is a rather diverse group of stakeholders with conflicting demands (as evidenced by WH's unsubtle & persistent interjections). That's going to lead to many awkward decisions.

Sounds to me like the law surrounding the WB should be amended if we want them to be less "monarchial". Because at it currently stands they are empowered in a manner not too far from that mark. The only other avenue seems to be electing a governor with a direct interest in preferencing the hunting community's voice & appointing WB members accordingly.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Look, I get it that not everyone will see things the way I do. That’s fine. But we legitimately had a board member say today that he didn’t want more input from the tech committee or the public because the more input and more time they spend crafting recommendations, the harder it will be for them to do what they want to do on the Board.

If you’re okay with that type of dictatorship from the Board, you’re entitled to feel that way. I am NOT okay with it, and this Board as currently constituted has seemed way more prone to act like that than previous editions. I don’t like it. These people are working for us, the people of Utah. Yes, that includes a wide array of stakeholders and interests, and that’s why you create broad committees that put years of work in to represent all those interests and stake holders. When the Board pushes that to the side and does what they want, that doesn’t create trust in the system or process. That is something the WB has not had in quite some time: trust from the people.

You (the proverbial “you,” not anyone specifically here) can be okay with that, but I’m not.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> How about a simple statement in ANY of the literature put out to the public asking “should we keep multi-season permits?”


I wonder if that question was included in the survey?

My thoughts are as follows:

1. The Division released a draft plan and solicited comments on that plan.
2. The plan specifically addressed multi-season permits and their proposed numbers.
3. The public had the opportunity to comment on whether they agreed with the inclusion of the multi-season permits and/or their proposed numbers.
4. Multiple hunters commented either in favor of them or against them (myself included).

Considering all that, I don't feel like the Board stepped out of line on this issue. I think it was a hasty decision with some potentially bad consequences, but it was well within the realm of today's discussion.

I didn't think there was much chance the committee would recommend getting rid of the multi-season permits, simply because I suspect that the committee had too many avid elk hunters who enjoy using them (I'd love to know what percentage of committee members had been buying them). Same with most of the RACs. I'm also convinced that the Division enjoyed the extra revenue they were bringing in way too much to ever recommend eliminating them. The only way it ever would have happened was just like it did.

One way to look at it is to view the board as acting like a dictatorship without regard for what came out of the committee and from the DWR. Another way to look at it is that they attempted to sense the wider public opinion and act in the best interests of everyone, rather than a few groups who were pretty heavily invested in the multi-season tag and who had far more control over the narrative and the recommendations than most of us. I'm still trying to figure out what I think happened and how I feel about it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Okay, I’ll play along with this positive vibe. Give me the silver lining on the attempts of putting antler point restrictions on general any bull hunting and also Randy’s attempt to get them to end spike hunting on 4 units.

Also, Wade’s attempt to get them to just vote on what they wanted to do (still curious what that meant) on technology and not send it back for more public and committee input. 

I’ll hang up and listen.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Ray said:


> What happened here?


General archery elk tags will remain either sex. They get to hunt cows every year and clog up the ever-increasing applicant pool for rifle tags (which are commonly taking 4 - 5 points to draw, at least for public land units).

Personally, this elk plan pushed me over the edge. I'm ordering a bow tomorrow. I'll join them if I can't beat them.

The elimination of multi-season any bull tags should really make the archery hunt less crowded and better.

The plan will be to stand in line for a few hours so I can get one of the multi-season spike tags. After summer scouting, I'll be out there on day 1 of archery season in one of the new any bull units trying to get a big bull left over from the LE days. Assuming that doesn't work for me (I don't expect it to, considering the stats and my beginner status, but I could get lucky), I'll hunt spikes during the rifle season and maybe muzzleloader too.

Sounds like a pretty good gig, once sales day is behind me.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Okay, I’ll play along with this positive vibe. Give me the silver lining on the attempts of putting antler point restrictions on general any bull hunting and also Randy’s attempt to get them to end spike hunting on 4 units.
> 
> Also, Wade’s attempt to get them to just vote on what they wanted to do (still curious what that meant) on technology and not send it back for more public and committee input.
> 
> I’ll hang up and listen.


Those are different discussions entirely, and none of them passed today. Some board members specifically spoke against those ideas because there was very little public input/support on those items.

By contrast, the multi-season permits have been a point of discussion for as long as they've existed, with comments coming in through the public process pretty much that whole time (including a good handful during this RAC cycle), and a significant number of those comments being against.

I never suggest that the board is always right, that everything they discuss is worthwhile, or that they always act in the best interests of Utah citizens. By and large, I'm not a fan of this board.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

My head hurts.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I know I'm a little slow, but.........

What in the world is the reasoning to leave the multiple season on the spike hunts, but eliminate the multiple season on the any bull units ??
And then, let them hunt the any bull archery units for archery ?? That just doesn't compute for me. 
There must be some info I haven't seen.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

2full said:


> I know I'm a little slow, but.........
> 
> What in the world is the reasoning to leave the multiple season on the spike hunts, but eliminate the multiple season on the any bull units ??
> And then, let them hunt the any bull archery units for archery ?? That just doesn't compute for me.
> There must be some info I haven't seen.


My recollection from the meeting was that most of the complaints they were hearing about the multi season tags (crowding being the big one) were for the any bull units. They mentioned that they hadn't heard much opposition on the spike side of things.

The other significant factor at play was the two rifle any bull seasons. The board recognized that the demand for the multi season and bull tags would go way up because there would be a lot of rifle hunters who would start going after them so they could have two weeks instead of one. I think they recognized the headache it would be each sales day and that the volume of complaints would go way up for that reason.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Look, I get it that not everyone will see things the way I do. That’s fine. But we legitimately had a board member say today that he didn’t want more input from the tech committee or the public because the more input and more time they spend crafting recommendations, the harder it will be for them to do what they want to do on the Board.
> 
> If you’re okay with that type of dictatorship from the Board, you’re entitled to feel that way. I am NOT okay with it, and this Board as currently constituted has seemed way more prone to act like that than previous editions. I don’t like it. These people are working for us, the people of Utah. Yes, that includes a wide array of stakeholders and interests, and that’s why you create broad committees that put years of work in to represent all those interests and stake holders. When the Board pushes that to the side and does what they want, that doesn’t create trust in the system or process. That is something the WB has not had in quite some time: trust from the people.
> 
> You (the proverbial “you,” not anyone specifically here) can be okay with that, but I’m not.


I actually found WH to be disappointing all around. He came in with a clear agenda and was unmovable on most subjects. Unfortunately the design of the board allows and empowers that.

And under the current design they are working for a public entity but I'm not sure they are "working for us" in the way you claim. I keep reading the relevant provisions and I'm not sure I can conclude what you do. I understand the spirit of what you are saying and they seem to operate at a different level & purpose than that. 

I'm not saying I agree that's ideal but I think the board is operating well within the scope of their design. If we want them to be more confined to serving "us" and abiding by the public employee experts and RACs then their charter has to be remedied. Until then, individual members like WH will continue to advocate as they have.

PS...I found the director to be a great communicator and thought his goal to return the issue to the RACs and agency to "get it right" was very admirable.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The Technology portion was botched from the the first. Nobody understood what the committee or DWR were recommending or presenting.

I heard at one RAC SFW's proposals but would also like to see it in writing if anybody has that available.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

backcountry said:


> I actually found WH to be disappointing all around. He came in with a clear agenda and was unmovable on most subjects.
> 
> ...members like WH will continue to advocate as they have.



BUT -- WH did say "I do not have a conflict of interest in this" (paraphrasing). So, he's clear.

(I think that's like when I call 'Nilla dingleberry, but add a wink at the end -- it's all good!)


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> The Board is not a monarchy. These are OUR wildlife, not theirs. These are OUR hunting rights, not theirs. These are OUR resources, not theirs. They should start acting accordingly.


Do you have your podium ready for your march on the Capitol steps? haha Just ribbing you Vanilla. I know you are passionate about this and that is good. I will only speak about the Elk Plan issues.

As Middlefork so eloquently stated, the whole plan was open for review. Yep, I think the multi-season item went thru the public process. The highest portion of concern in comments made thru the public process pertained to crowding issues and unlimited tags. Those comments were expressed on record, in the minutes, during the public process. Well, doing away with 30,000 possible permits (7,500 x 4 possible seasons) in exchange for 7,500 first season only Anybull permits seems like a win in both of those categories of concern. Doing away with them also lessened the rush for the permits when they go on sale (which had been an extreme concern). I don't know why they still allowed them on spike units. 

Now, if no one had commented to the RACs and a couple guys showed up at the Board Meeting and asked to remove the multi-season permits then I'd have a problem if the Board granted that. Under the circumstances they passed the items- I have no problem.

As for all the motions that failed- well they failed. So isn't that positive? One RAC did vote for antler restrictions, I believe?. Many comments were submitted against spike hunting. All valid to discuss. They laid their cards on the table and lost. 

If you want to know what does bother me a little- the Reps who had a seat on the Elk Committee showing up saying how great the Committee was and how the Plan should be passed as written because everyone gave something-- and then they say BUT how about making one little change to benefit our group.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

PBH said:


> BUT -- WH did say "I do not have a conflict of interest in this" (paraphrasing). So, he's clear.
> 
> (I think that's like when I call 'Nilla dingleberry, but add a wink at the end -- it's all good!)


If it wasn't obvious on my part, his agenda was clear to audience members like myself not necessarily in his actual practice. He throws off a lot of red flags for me personally. My best interpretation is he was appointed out of strategic appeasement but there are lesser conclusions that could justly be drawn. (But once again it's largely irrelevant as I don't get a say in that process)

I haven't read the relevant conflict of interest disclosure policy myself so I can't accurately judge him on that. But I will say I've found the record of recusal in such situations in S. Utah rather dismissal.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> And I highly doubt the decisions were significantly influenced by posts on UWN.


Agree 100%! I’m on the record multiple times on this forum telling people that posts on here are NOT feedback for the DWR, RACs, Board, etc. We discuss things here, and that’s great, but don’t post here thinking you’ve made your voice heard, because it doesn’t count here.



Packout said:


> If you want to know what does bother me a little- the Reps who had a seat on the Elk Committee showing up saying how great the Committee was and how the Plan should be passed as written because everyone gave something-- and then they say BUT how about making one little change to benefit our special interest.


I noticed this and it bothered me as well. It was when Gary finally chimed in and gave some real talk about who actually gave in the elk committee. Again, that was refreshing! I’m sure that went over many peoples head that are convinced all gave some, when in reality, that was not the case.

I have to respectfully disagree that just because the whole elk plan was up for review that anything pertaining to elk hunting is fair game.

When a packet comes out with recommendations and give the public notice on specific items, that is what the public should be able to rationally believe is on the agenda and up for debate. Having to guess what the Board might come up with (or a RAC) that falls under the entire elk plan which literally could include anything from ending elk hunting entirely to opening the entire state up to unlimited OTC multi-season tags simply is not reasonable, and I will never consider that notice.

As for what motions passed the RACs, I had no clue going into this meeting yesterday. I consider myself a “better than average” informed person on the processes of these issues, and I’m still completely unaware of how to view what passes each RAC officially until I see them at the WB meetings I’m able to watch. (Which is not all of them, and certainly not the entirety of those I can watch.) Expecting a person to have to go watch every RAC meeting and take their own notes on what motions passed is not reasonable, and that is not public notice. I’ve asked many times on here and other places where I find the passing motions for RACs, and I’ve never been given a good answer. Can you help me with that, Packout? If anyone knows, it would probably be you. It’s entirely possible the answer to that is easy, but it’s evaded me for multiple years now.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Expecting the public to watch every meeting to understand committee votes is a joke. There should be a record of those votes in the materials provided to the public before the WB meeting. I don't see anything like that on the relevant DWR page. That's a huge failure in the process.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

They use to publish minutes but I've not seen them for awhile.
I've been having a problem accessing the page since the meeting ended. Anybody else having problems?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It's usually one or two days after the meeting when they post the recap of it

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Agree 100%! I’m on the record multiple times on this forum telling people that posts on here are NOT feedback for the DWR, RACs, Board, etc. We discuss things here, and that’s great, but don’t post here thinking you’ve made your voice heard, because it doesn’t count here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe what your asking for is included here. RAC, Board meeting agendas, materials & minutes

I agree with all the comments regarding WH. He has to comment on every issue repeatedly and obviously has an agenda. The CWMU issue may not have affected him directly, but it could impact him indirectly or at some point down the road. He absolutely needs to recuse himself from those discussions and motions and then keep his mouth shut. Leave the room if he must to avoid influencing that discussion.

I didn't appreciate his comments regarding the technology suggestions either. I'm not sure what exactly he was pushing for, but clearly what the division presented was rushed, vague and lacked the detail necessary to function as a guiding document. The fact that it didn't meet the standard necessary didn't preclude it from further discussion which would allow the WB, who asked for it, to provide direction and clarification to the division and committee.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I get this error now


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

middlefork said:


> I get this error now
> 
> View attachment 154830


Hey Middlefork — We had an issue with that page but resolved it early this morning. It might just be cached on your machine from yesterday? If you can do a hard refresh (or clear your cache and try again) or even try a different browser, it should hopefully work. 🤞


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

middlefork said:


> I get this error now
> View attachment 154830
> 
> View attachment 154830
> ...


I went right in






Utah Wildlife Board approves new statewide elk management plan, changes to elk hunting and 2023–24 big game hunting season dates


The Utah Wildlife Board approved a new 10-year Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan, which includes several changes to elk hunting, along with a few other items during Thursday's public meeting at the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources' Eccles Wildlife Education Center.




wildlife.utah.gov





Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Amy said:


> Hey Middlefork — We had an issue with that page but resolved it early this morning. It might just be cached on your machine from yesterday? If you can do a hard refresh (or clear your cache and try again) or even try a different browser, it should hopefully work. 🤞


Thanks Amy. Hard refresh worked.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dahlmer said:


> I believe what your asking for is included here. RAC, Board meeting agendas, materials & minutes


Forgive my ignorance, but I’m still not finding minutes and tabulation of the motions from the RAC meetings. Help a brother out!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It kind of looks like they are using the recordings as modern minutes rather than good old fashioned minutes. At least that's what I see if you search wildlife board minutes on the division site. I'm sure someone else could prove me wrong though.


----------



## 2pntkiller (10 mo ago)

Watching this should count as dedicated hunter hours 🤣, so any word on what areas will turn general bull if they're still keeping the hams areas? Antelope island general elk unit? West side of Utah lake? I mean it's opportunity.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Reading the packet is faster than listening to the meeting. The only discussion and motion I remember is Paunsangunt Archery for general elk. But I could be wrong.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

middlefork said:


> It kind of looks like they are using the recordings as modern minutes rather than good old fashioned minutes. At least that's what I see if you search wildlife board minutes on the division site. I'm sure someone else could prove me wrong though.


It looks like the previous meeting minutes are being added to the next meeting packet for approval. Not sure of the timing.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> It looks like the previous meeting minutes are being added to the next meeting packet for approval. Not sure of the timing.


Which means we don’t have the motions available to the public before the WB meeting?

This is the question that has always alluded me. How does one know what happens (officially, not what people talk about online) at the RACs without having to go to and/or watch every RAC meeting and take their own notes?


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

2pntkiller said:


> Watching this should count as dedicated hunter hours 🤣, so any word on what areas will turn general bull if they're still keeping the hams areas? Antelope island general elk unit? West side of Utah lake? I mean it's opportunity.


Here are the limited entry units moving to general any bull:



Nine Mile, Anthro
Paunsaugunt (no archery hunts)
West Desert (Oquirrh-Stansbury and Deep Creek is on hold for a year)
Central Mtns, Moroni Hills and Valley Mtns
Book Cliffs, Floy Canyon
Box Elder, Sawtooth


----------



## 2pntkiller (10 mo ago)

elkhunterUT said:


> Here are the limited entry units moving to general any bull:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Welp hopefully all the bulls on the oquirrhs know and run over to the wasatch unit 🤣


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I’m still not finding minutes and tabulation of the motions from the RAC meetings. Help a brother out!


The RAC motions are included in the "Materials" section of the Wildlife Board meeting info. This past Board meeting info on RAC motions starts on page 19 with a brief recap of motions which passed. Scroll down further to see a cliff-notes version of motions from each RAC which were made- regardless of passing.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I’m still not finding minutes and tabulation of the motions from the RAC meetings. Help a brother out!


All of the RAC minutes are included in the materials for the WB meeting. To find them you will have to scroll past the minutes for the previous WB meeting.



https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2022-12-01-board-packet.pdf



BTW, several of the RACs referenced a letter including 10 recommendations from SFW. Does anyone have a copy of that or know where to find one?


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Guess Packout shared already. Should have finished reading the thread first.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’ll be honest, I didn’t know the materials changed. I thought it was the same packet and materials that went to the RACs. I learned something new today…THANK YOU! This is valuable information for me.

I’ve seriously asked dozens of people about this and never got a straight answer. This is very helpful, thank you!


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Glad to have finally offered something useful.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dahlmer said:


> Glad to have finally offered something useful.


Hardly! While we may not see eye to eye on every issue, your contributions are always thoughtful, and therefore useful.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Yes, they're in the materials for the board meeting.

My complaint is that the materials for the board meeting weren't actually available until after the window for comments to the Board was closed.

I had to sort through hours of recorded meetings to get a feel for what was going on, and even doing that, I missed some things. I left a complaint about that in my comments. I think it's reasonable for the division to provide a summary of motions at each RAC before the deadline to comment to the board has passed. I want to comment to the Board about all the latest happenings, not just the Division's original proposal.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Thx for that info folks. I tried to find it myself after Vanilla mentioned his concern and didn't see them either.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

Dahlmer said:


> BTW, several of the RACs referenced a letter including 10 recommendations from SFW. Does anyone have a copy of that or know where to find one?


Interesting on how this all works, isn’t it? I too would like to see this letter. But for some reason it hasn’t been published to the public.

im sure packout has a copy of it. Post it up please. With as much as it has been referenced lately, I think the public should be included on it contents at this point.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dahlmer said:


> BTW, several of the RACs referenced a letter including 10 recommendations from SFW. Does anyone have a copy of that or know where to find one?


Has anyone had any luck finding this letter? I'm striking out, and I have not found it in any of the WB materials I learned existed either. 

There has to be RAC or SFW board members reading this stuff that can share it.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

So back in 2016, I was sitting on a few elk points. I knew I would be moving out of state for the foreseeable future and wanted to burn those points. I listened with horror, as Troy from $FW stood up and said, "Modern-day muzzleloaders are simply single shot rifles. We need to allow magnifying scopes on them." I REALLY thought it would hamper my ability to draw a tag due to the pool jumpers, luckily it didn't.

Here we are, a short six years later, and now $FW wants to change it all up...again... Good grief, can't we just cut the umbilical cord already?!?!


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Vanilla said:


> Has anyone had any luck finding this letter? I'm striking out, and I have not found it in any of the WB materials I learned existed either.
> 
> There has to be RAC or SFW board members reading this stuff that can share it.


I have asked for it on the ‘other forum’ multiple times, as have others.
I think original Bible parchment paper is less rare than ‘The Ten SFW List’ paperwork.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Has anyone had any luck finding this letter? I'm striking out, and I have not found it in any of the WB materials I learned existed either.
> 
> There has to be RAC or SFW board members reading this stuff that can share it.


Probably hard to find the right diner napkin that it was written down on


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Pretty amazing that a document that was sent to every RAC member and WB member that was agreed to by every regional head of SFW and brought up in every RAC has not leaked. I vaguely remember then being read in one of the first RAC's but have not bothered to go back though and listen again to see if I'm correct.

That being said I'm not sure that they were completely understanding what was actually being presented by the DWR. There was more than a little confusion with everybody involved along with the public. Thus the directors admission and recommendation to give the division more time to clearly define their recommendations.

And to my understanding the DWR were only recommending new weapon definitions for HAMS hunts.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

middlefork said:


> And to my understanding the DWR were only recommending new weapon definitions for HAMS hunts.


That is correct. The restricted weapons definitions only applies to HAMS. There is currently no discussion about restricting weapons currently legal on a general type hunt


----------

