# Official 2023 PSG Trumpeter Count



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

In Blair's presentation at the WB meeting today, he indicated that 10 of the 20 Trumpeters killed in 2022 came from PSG. I've got to believe that this is going to figure in heavily when DWR looks at changes to the 2023 swan hunt. If they can more or less remove 50% of the trumpeters taken by removing that area and thus allowing the season to continue longer, that would seem to be a win-win for both hunters and trumpeters.

Another interesting tidbit was that historic swan harvest rates have been around 40%. With the seasons closing down earlier due to meeting the quota, we are down to about 30% now. I'm sure that will factor in heavily into the discussions...and I highly doubt that with reduced success rates that they will decide that they can issue more tags in this scenario!

Last item - based on a best case scenario, once feather data comes back (optimistically this spring), it will still be a minimum of 4 years before any substantial change to the trumpeter quota numbers. It will take that long going back and forth in consultations with the USFWS.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Thanks for the update.

According to the RAC/board calendar, waterfowl recommendations for 2023 was on the agenda for the current RAC cycle. However, I didn't see anything proposed. Not sure whether it got delayed or whether they decided not to recommend any changes for next year.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I recommend a 7 drake pintail limit….😃
and I hope PSG is eliminated in the swan hunt boundary.


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

Fowlmouth said:


> I recommend a 7 drake pintail limit….😃
> and I hope PSG is eliminated in the swan hunt boundary.


Seriously, for the days the pintails want in, it would sure be nice to be able to shoot a few. I read an article from Delta Waterfowl sometime in the last year or so about their proposal to the feds to allow a 3 drake limit. I don’t remember all the details, but it included data to support that it won’t affect the breeding populations. It would be so great if they could at least give something like that a trial run. I remember thinking as I was reading it that it seemed like a very logical biologically sound idea. 
I know it’s not that simple, but a guy can dream.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

gander311 said:


> Seriously, for the days the pintails want in, it would sure be nice to be able to shoot a few. I read an article from Delta Waterfowl sometime in the last year or so about their proposal to the feds to allow a 3 drake limit. I don’t remember all the details, but it included data to support that it won’t affect the breeding populations. It would be so great if they could at least give something like that a trial run. I remember thinking as I was reading it that it seemed like a very logical biologically sound idea.
> I know it’s not that simple, but a guy can dream.


You are correct, no different than our Pheasant limit biological reasoning.
Let us take 2 drakes, but zero hens.
Win for Pintail breeding, win for us.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

gander311 said:


> Seriously, for the days the pintails want in, it would sure be nice to be able to shoot a few. I read an article from Delta Waterfowl sometime in the last year or so about their proposal to the feds to allow a 3 drake limit. I don’t remember all the details, but it included data to support that it won’t affect the breeding populations. It would be so great if they could at least give something like that a trial run. I remember thinking as I was reading it that it seemed like a very logical biologically sound idea.
> I know it’s not that simple, but a guy can dream.


I'm sure there are a few pins that wind up mashed in the swamp. How accurate is the harvest data and so on? Most of the hunters out there are standup hunters, but you also have the % of not so law abiding hunters. The information correctness would be skewed to some degree.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

How many Canvasback, Redhead, Scaup or Wood Ducks do you see compared to Pintails? You can shoot 2 of those. Yeah, the bag limit of 1 Pintail has never made sense to me. Maybe the FWS, DU and Delta Waterfowl need to do their population counts around the GSL.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

October - 1 pintail either sex. November on - 3 drakes. 

That would help misidentification on early season birds. 

It will never happen.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

The statistics for "mashed" birds are surely baked into the calculations. I'm sure they account for it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

One time when I was about 14/15 years old I went out hunting with a buddy and had one of the most amazing shoots I can ever remember. We brought our two man limit home, proud as can be to show my older brother. He looks at us and says “those are all pintails!” Ooops! That was almost 30 years ago. I started to take duck ID a lot more seriously after that.

While I made the pintail mistake many years ago, I’ve never shot a limit of trumpeters.

Did they mention where the other 10 trumps were killed?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I didn't see that in his presentation, Jeremy. Just said elsewhere.


----------



## Irish Lad (Jun 3, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> One time when I was about 14/15 years old I went out hunting with a buddy and had one of the most amazing shoots I can ever remember. We brought our two man limit home, proud as can be to show my older brother. He looks at us and says “those are all pintails!” Ooops! That was almost 30 years ago. I started to take duck ID a lot more seriously after that.
> 
> While I made the pintail mistake many years ago, I’ve never shot a limit of trumpeters.
> 
> Did they mention where the other 10 trumps were killed?


 My grandson texted me a picture of duck last season asking what it was. I told him it was a scaup and had just come in season the day before 😄 😄 .


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

LOL... my sons first half dozen ducks were all scaup. We snuck up on a big flock of greenheads one evening on the youth hunt, had'em close and unaware. He got setup and "CLICK", no bullet in the chamber... racked in a shell but it was too late, the flock was in air and moving out quickly. /shrug

-DallanC


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Fowlmouth said:


> How many Canvasback, Redhead, Scaup or Wood Ducks do you see compared to Pintails? You can shoot 2 of those. Yeah, the bag limit of 1 Pintail has never made sense to me. Maybe the FWS, DU and Delta Waterfowl need to do their population counts around the GSL.


It depends on where you are at. 

I know PSG has a metric ton of Wigeons with a bunch of Redheads. 

I know the BRBR has a ton of Cans on certain lakes. 

I know that Ogden Bay is where I have seen the most Pinnies. 

I know that Cache Valley may or may not have a decent amount of Woodies. 

I know that I have never seen much Scaup in Utah.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I wanna shoot a scaup! Still never got one of those in all my years out.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

MWScott72 said:


> I wanna shoot a scaup! Still never got one of those in all my years out.


They’ll show up December 26th in force. You can count on it.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

Vanilla said:


> One time when I was about 14/15 years old I went out hunting with a buddy and had one of the most amazing shoots I can ever remember. We brought our two man limit home, proud as can be to show my older brother. He looks at us and says “those are all pintails!” Ooops! That was almost 30 years ago. I started to take duck ID a lot more seriously after that.
> 
> While I made the pintail mistake many years ago, I’ve never shot a limit of trumpeters.
> 
> Did they mention where the other 10 trumps were killed?


They were spread out throughout the other WMAs in the hunt area. Blair called them “opportunistic harvests”… he also didn’t seem that concerned about trumpeter harvests in the slightest. And in fact, hinted that the quota might not exist in the coming years, based upon the data they expect to receive


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

Fowlmouth said:


> I recommend a 7 drake pintail limit….😃
> and I hope PSG is eliminated in the swan hunt boundary.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall back In the 90s that there wasn’t a limit on pintails.

a drake only 2 limit isnt out of our possibilities. They expect people to identify hen mallards and not exceed those at 2 per day. Sexing pintails on the wing isn’t impossible


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here are a few interesting graphics from the swan presentation.

Success rate by year:










Location of swan harvest:










Location of swan harvest before and after the 2019 boundary change:










Location of trumpeter swan harvest:










As I suspected, PSG has a large portion of the overall harvest, so it naturally would probably have a higher trumpeter count. It wasn't even the biggest contributor in 2019 and 2020. It's been a more recent trend as people have honed in on it.

The line item that really fascinates me on the above graph is "Corinne Area." I believe that would encompass "Box Elder Private Club" and "Box Elder Other." If so, that would mean that areas with 7.3% of swan harvest are taking between 20 and 35% of the annual trumpeter quota. That's even more disproportionate than PSG.

Next steps:










I'll bet dollars to donuts that the boundary is adjusted next season to exclude PSG and the Corinne area. We'll see when the spring RACs come around. I'll be disappointed if that happens but not necessarily opposed - it's a standard case study demonstrating why we can't have nice things.

Big thanks to the DWR for releasing some data. I'm anxious to see what comes back from the GPS collaring and feather analysis studies.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

That’s the content I am here for! Thanks Clarq.

Cut the border at Forrest Street like before and we’re golden. But then you’re up against Millionaire Club.

And the comment that Blair didn’t seem concerned by the trumpeter harvest…that has been my feeling all along. I don’t think the DWR actually believes this is a problem.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I don’t believe the DWR has any issue with the Trumpeter harvest either. However, they should have a problem with the season closing early 4 straight years in a row and screwing other hunters out of their opportunity to harvest a Tundra Swan. I know that is what I have a problem with.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t think you’re wrong in any of that, fowlmouth.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Fowlmouth said:


> I don’t believe the DWR has any issue with the Trumpeter harvest either. However, they should have a problem with the season closing early 4 straight years in a row and screwing other hunters out of their opportunity to harvest a Tundra Swan. I know that is what I have a problem with.


I think our problem should be with so-called ‘fellow’ waterfowlers intentionally targeting Trumpeters to screw the remainder of tag holders out of opportunity.
There is zero difference between that action and an anti-hunter buying a Swan tag and destroying it to screw a hunter out of an opportunity.


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

That data shows what I suspected, that a large percentage of the trumpeters have been shot in the PSG/Corrine area. And that’s why I’d be on board for closing them again to see if it leads to longer seasons and no more early closes. And I killed my swan in the areas north of Forrest Street, so I’m not just saying that selfishly.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

MrShane said:


> I think our problem should be with so-called ‘fellow’ waterfowlers intentionally targeting Trumpeters to screw the remainder of tag holders out of opportunity.
> There is zero difference between that action and an anti-hunter buying a Swan tag and destroying it to screw a hunter out of an opportunity.


Is it any different than guys who are better at lion and bear hunting, that help reach quotas and shut down hunts before others have the opportunity to cut their tag, or even go?


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Bux n Dux said:


> Is it any different than guys who are better at lion and bear hunting, that help reach quotas and shut down hunts before others have the opportunity to cut their tag, or even go?


Extremely different.
Shooting a Trumpeter is avoidable.
Your analogy only compares if the Swan hunt were to get shut down when 20 of either species of Swan are killed.
If, during Bear season, the season closes when 20 brown colored Black Bears are killed on purpose to close the season then you are correct that there is no difference.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

MrShane said:


> Extremely different.
> Shooting a Trumpeter is avoidable.
> Your analogy only compares if the Swan hunt were to get shut down when 20 of either species of Swan are killed.
> If, during Bear season, the season closes when 20 brown colored Black Bears are killed on purpose to close the season then you are correct that there is no difference.


A quota is a quota… 

again, Blair wasn’t worried about trumpeter swans being killed. Maybe it’s a much bigger non issue than many “hunters” hope for it to be


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I think Blair was concerned that the early closing had reduced the success rate down considerably and was not allowing others to be as successful as in the past.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Do we have a whack-a-moose scenario after this last ban?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Bux n Dux said:


> A quota is a quota…
> 
> again, Blair wasn’t worried about trumpeter swans being killed. Maybe it’s a much bigger non issue than many “hunters” hope for it to be


Okay fine! The quota is 2,750 permits for Tundra Swans, but 70% of of those permits go unfilled because of selfish bungholes that target Trumpeters. 

I don’t think the DWR, Feds or anyone of importance is worried about the Trumpeter population. The early closure should be their concern though.
If a quota is a quota, then 2,750 Tundra Swan hunters should have the opportunity to hunt the full season.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Do we have a whack-a-moose scenario after this last ban?


of course


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

Fowlmouth said:


> Okay fine! The quota is 2,750 permits for Tundra Swans, but 70% of of those permits go unfilled because of selfish bungholes that target Trumpeters.
> 
> I don’t think the DWR, Feds or anyone of importance is worried about the Trumpeter population. The early closure should be their concern though.
> If a quota is a quota, then 2,750 Tundra Swan hunters should have the opportunity to hunt the full season.


That brings us full circle back to the lion and bear quotas. If the quota is met early, the other tag holders didn’t get the change to hunt the full season, robbing them of opportunities.

I get what you’re saying. However, early closures haven’t been a secret the last few years. You yourself have stated you aren’t applying for a tag because of that (you weren’t apply for a tag prior to the early closures either, but let’s not let that get in the way of the discussion). Everyone had the same amount of time as anyone else with a permit this year. If you wanted to hunt swans, it wasn’t a shocker that you should have been in the marsh the first weekend in November or you might not get to cut a tag. 47 days was the season length (ish). If you didn’t get out, that was poor planning on your part.

the facts are, this isn’t a biological issue now. The data has and is expected to continue to show that. It’s purely a social issue. And last I check, the DWR is tasked with wildlife management. Not human emotion management. Leave that part to the wildlife board and let the division employees do things as the biological data indicates that needs to be done.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

backcountry said:


> Do we have a whack-a-moose scenario after this last ban?


Did Moose get banned?
Although him and I rarely saw eye to eye, I enjoyed our banter as it did help me look at issues from different perspectives.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

The swan season may have run for 47 days, but let’s be realistic, they don’t even show up in numbers until the first part of November. So, how many days are really swan hunting days? From the time the first Trumpeter was killed until the quota was met wasn’t very long. I bet not more than a couple of weeks.
And I have to disagree about everyone having a fair opportunity to hunt. Not everyone lives in Northern Utah and can just hunt after work or school. Some have to plan a trip. 
you are correct. I didn’t apply prior to the closures, and I didn’t apply this year because I knew it would close early. I have points to burn if the DWR will close PSG.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Didn’t years ago DWR re-issued some tags for a Buffalo hunt that ended early or something like that?
I’m good now.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

Fowlmouth said:


> The swan season may have run for 47 days, but let’s be realistic, they don’t even show up in numbers until the first part of November. So, how many days are really swan hunting days? From the time the first Trumpeter was killed until the quota was met wasn’t very long. I bet not more than a couple of weeks.
> And I have to disagree about everyone having a fair opportunity to hunt. Not everyone lives in Northern Utah and can just hunt after work or school. Some have to plan a trip.
> you are correct. I didn’t apply prior to the closures, and I didn’t apply this year because I knew it would close early. I have points to burn if the DWR will close PSG.


There were swans killed at BRBR opening weekend. You are right. The numbers aren’t strong until mid November. But you can’t kill them at home. And everyone knows the current situation. You can’t plan on waiting any more. If you draw a tag, better plan on the first couple weekends in November if you want an opportunity to shoot one. If you can’t swing that, probably should just hold out for points until you can make it work


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

MrShane said:


> Didn’t years ago DWR re-issued some tags for a Buffalo hunt that ended early or something like that?
> I’m good now.


I honestly don’t know why we don’t have the swan season go from November 15 to December 20. At least that way on opening day, there’s plenty of birds around to shoot at for the 3 days it will remain open


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> The swan season may have run for 47 days, but let’s be realistic, they don’t even show up in numbers until the first part of November. So, how many days are really swan hunting days? From the time the first Trumpeter was killed until the quota was met wasn’t very long. I bet not more than a couple of weeks.
> ........................................................................................................................


Yeah, I agree. Not many swans taken before Nov 4th......and it closed this year on Nov 17th.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Bux n Dux said:


> I honestly don’t know why we don’t have the swan season go from November 15 to December 20. At least that way on opening day, there’s plenty of birds around to shoot at for the 3 days it will remain open


Agreed.
And, if Trumpeters did not count and/or it was Tundras only, no reason to just not carry it through to end of duck season.
2750 Swans is still 2750 Swans.
I’m just butt hurt because I was looking for a collared Tundra.
Not unlike trying to kill a four point during Deer season and then having season shut down because 20 three points were killed.
I let two Trumpeters and many, many Tundras have a free pass out of my decoys and it was just starting to get exciting.
I was not in in for the short haul, I burnt my points because I thought for sure the five year ‘time out’ would for sure let the season run it’s course.
It had the exact opposite effect.
That is what I deserve for thinking.


----------



## OverTheEdge (Sep 12, 2013)

Maybe a somewhat simple solution to maintain some swan hunting opportunity would be to create 2 swan sub-management units each with its own trumpeter quota. For example, a south unit (Ogden Bay and south), and a northern unit (north of Ogden Bay). Assign the trumpeter quota and swan permit numbers for each area based on the average proportion of swan harvest that has occurred in each management unit. Make you choose which area you want to hunt on the application. Keep all the current areas open but let hunters choose which area they want to hunt knowing the likelihood of closure would be far lower in the southern management area.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

MrShane said:


> Did Moose get banned?
> Although him and I rarely saw eye to eye, I enjoyed our banter as it did help me look at issues from different perspectives.


Yep, though uncertain on the exact reason why. He's been banned multiple times and chooses to create sock puppet accounts to bypass the bans. 

I'm guessing Bux n Dux is one of them from the unsubtle overlap in statements.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

I 100% agree that the DWR has *ZERO* concern or interest in regard to differentiation between Trumpeters or Tundra's. I really don't think they care one way or the other as long as cash is collected, and the permits continue to be sold.
My faith in the UTDWR is far from good as I really don't believe their intentions and end game for fish and wildlife is authentic or the best for sportsman.
Targeting Trumpeters does not benefit Utah waterfowl hunters. A strong message to push that point home is absolutely necessary.
Creating more "suggestions" regarding Trumpeter harvest will likely only give clever Utah hunters more options or loopholes not fewer. 

I really would like to see change come through hunters themselves, and maybe there's a smaller percentage of selfish game horney folks than I think there are.
I'd like to hope we could police ourselves and fellow hunters call people out on fellow hunters' bad behavior.
I've just seen way too much negative crap on social media with many, many others rooting them along lately to believe this is possible.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

backcountry said:


> Yep, though uncertain on the exact reason why. He's been banned multiple times and chooses to create sock puppet accounts to bypass the bans.
> 
> I'm guessing Bux n Dux is one of them from the unsubtle overlap in statements.


?

is it not possible that more than 1 person can share the same view or opinion on a particular topic?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Never said it wasn't possible. Its a guess but an educated one that comes from site moderation in the past and the uncanny resemblance between posts. Plus the sudden activation of an account that was inactive until the recent ban of MM.

Would be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I think they have to do something to address the obvious issues with trumpeter harvest at PSG and the surrounding area. I could see a complete closure of the area OR maybe a seperate quota for that area...let's say 8 birds. Once 8 trumps are killed then PSG shut down for the season.

Now that I think about that though, what does keeping PSG open do? It just encourages the same type of people to go out and target trumpeters. The "get mine before others can" mentality will still be strong. So, now I'm back to just close PSG and see what happens. I really think that will solve 90% of the issue.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

OverTheEdge said:


> Maybe a somewhat simple solution to maintain some swan hunting opportunity would be to create 2 swan sub-management units each with its own trumpeter quota. For example, a south unit (Ogden Bay and south), and a northern unit (north of Ogden Bay). Assign the trumpeter quota and swan permit numbers for each area based on the average proportion of swan harvest that has occurred in each management unit. Make you choose which area you want to hunt on the application. Keep all the current areas open but let hunters choose which area they want to hunt knowing the likelihood of closure would be far lower in the southern management area.


Best idea so far!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Let’s not let the clubs in that area off the hook, since they are clearly targeting birds there as well.

You have to fight money and influence you don’t with PSG, but restoring the swan area to how it was 4 years ago seems like a logical move if we are REALLY concerned about the season ending early.

A split quota closing that area once it’s hit and leaving the southern areas open could be a good idea too. I would not give that northern area more than 8 trumps, however. We know where they’re being targeted.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Add a $500 fine and a 10 year waiting period, then I will be on board with a 2 zone hunt. It won’t matter what the quota is, guys will still target Trumpeters.

Or just make Trumpeters illegal to kill altogether, and leave all areas open. What’s the point of having the on line swan course if there is no punishment? Make a mistake it’s $500. Do it intentionally it’s $500.. There has to be a way to discourage people from shooting Trumpeters. A 5 year waiting period is obviously not the answer. Hit ‘em in the wallet!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I'm not for punishing accidental take financially. That defeats the entire purpose of the quota. $500 would be a massive fine for many hunters, especially inexperienced ones who are more likely to misidentify the swan. 

I could see a financial fine for experienced hunters who would ideally know how to differentiate the two species. Only way to do that would be to fine hunters who have previously harvested. But even that would capture some accidental harvest.

Extending the waiting period seems an easier remedy. I could even support a lifetime ban on swan hunting for those who harvest trumpeters, especially if it was targeted at those with previous experience.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

MWScott72 said:


> I think they have to do something to address the obvious issues with trumpeter harvest…….
> 
> ……….I really think that will solve 90% of the issue.


is there really even an issue at all? Biologically speaking, there doesn’t appear to be any issues with trumpeter swan harvest. The current data suggests that. They also anticipate it to continue suggesting that.

maybe there isn’t any issues in reality.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The issue is they feel it will take around 4 years to jump through all the hoops to possibly change or do away with the quota. Until that happens the DWR would like to not have an early closure to allow more tundra to be harvested.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

middlefork said:


> The issue is they feel it will take around 4 years to jump through all the hoops to possibly change or do away with the quota. Until that happens the DWR would like to not have an early closure to allow more tundra to be harvested.


That is a very good point. You’re right. That’s about the only issue I heard them talk about during their latest presentation.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

backcountry said:


> I'm not for punishing accidental take financially. That defeats the entire purpose of the quota. $500 would be a massive fine for many hunters, especially inexperienced ones who are more likely to misidentify the swan.
> 
> I could see a financial fine for experienced hunters who would ideally know how to differentiate the two species. Only way to do that would be to fine hunters who have previously harvested. But even that would capture some accidental harvest.
> 
> Extending the waiting period seems an easier remedy. I could even support a lifetime ban on swan hunting for those who harvest trumpeters, especially if it was targeted at those with previous experience.



There wouldn't be a quota if they are illegal to shoot. I know the DWR won't go this route, but it sure would stop the season from closing early.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Maybe I missed something in the meeting, but I felt like the swan information was received with a giant “meh.” It seems there are some passionate folks, including members of this forum, about what’s happening with the early closure - and that’s great!!

It’s a slippery slope to throw ethics around on something that’s already legal (i.e. killing a trumpeter is not illegal). If the DWR was overly concerned about the harvest of trumpeters, it would be illegal - including fines and penalties far stiffer than a five-year waiting period.

I “should” draw a tag in 2023 and will plan on hunting swans the first ten days, or so, of November. I won’t target trumpeters, but that’s my choice. If the season gets closed down before I get out, it’s all good - there will be zero complaints from me!


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

CPAjeff said:


> Maybe I missed something in the meeting, but I felt like the swan information was received with a giant “meh.” It seems there are some passionate folks, including members of this forum, about what’s happening with the early closure - and that’s great!!
> 
> It’s a slippery slope to throw ethics around on something that’s already legal (i.e. killing a trumpeter is not illegal). If the DWR was overly concerned about the harvest of trumpeters, it would be illegal - including fines and penalties far stiffer than a five-year waiting period.
> 
> I “should” draw a tag in 2023 and will plan on hunting swans the first ten days, or so, of November. I won’t target trumpeters, but that’s my choice. If the season gets closed down before I get out, it’s all good - there will be zero complaints from me!


Just out of curiosity, if a mature trumpeter happens through your spread at that time, are you taking the 5 year wait?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

My only complaint is the season closing early. I could care less if there wasn't a quota on Trumpeters and people shot Trumpeters. It's just the way it's set up now, we have a quota and guys keep shooting Trumpeters knowing there is a quota. Heck, take your Trumpeter home and just say you were unsuccessful on the survey. Nope! I guarantee guys do that with Tundra Swans if there is not a check station at the WMA. These guys are proud of themselves, and you can read their write ups and see their photos all over facebook. That's what pi$$es me off! They are smug about it.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> Maybe I missed something in the meeting, but I felt like the swan information was received with a giant “meh.”


In fairness, it was at the tail end of a long day discussing contentious aspects of the elk plan, everybody was exhausted, there was no action being taken, and it hadn't been released for prior review. I'm sure we'll get a better sense for how people feel when the Division releases recommendations for changes in the spring.

I'm curious to see what they come up with. My best guess is a boundary change and little else. 

Some interesting ideas being thrown around here... I personally would be fascinated to witness the spectacle at PSG if there was a separate swan opener some time in November. It might rival the general opener. Not sure how I feel about split seasons, areas, etc.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The fact it was brought up at all at the meeting should say something. It wasn't on the agenda.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I can't think of a single community that doesn't have and apply ethics on a consistent basis. And I'd say the irony is a community without ethics is creating a slippery slope, as even the hunting community has seen. Just look at the trail camera issue.

And I hope people really aren't serious about not reporting your harvest. 😬🙄

And I'm highly skeptical that DWR is "meh" about the subject. If they are then they need to change their messaging. Not to mention the MOA requires them to minimize trumpeter harvest.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> And I'm highly skeptical that DWR is "meh" about the subject. If they are then they need to change their messaging. Not to mention the MOA requires them to minimize trumpeter harvest.


Hence…the quota.

My opinion is there should be a boundary adjustment and nothing else. (*Edit: and certainly leave current 5-year wait period in place.) That will absolutely help the season extend to later dates. And if 19 of the 20 trumps are killed every year and the season doesn’t close, then I just couldn’t care less about those 19 legally harvested animals being harvested.

The only aspect that garners sympathy or a worry from me on this is cutting off the season short for people, especially since those that were waiting to hunt marshes south of Box Elder County and the swans to come in. I do feel bad for that.

If we could remedy that, I don’t care if folks target and kill (legally) trumpeters.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

One caveat, the quota is the upper limit. The MOA and flyway documents consistently call for minimizing harvest. Those aren't the same things.

And future hunting options will be informed by how well the community has behaved. The feds explicitly thought the harvest would be much lower and used that for justification for the increased quota. 

Hopefully the entire conversation is moot in a few years. But there is still the chance that the "legal" harvest of trumpeters up to and beyond the quota could create negative consequences for future hunters.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Bux n Dux said:


> Just out of curiosity, if a mature trumpeter happens through your spread at that time, are you taking the 5 year wait?


As of right now, no. Ask me that when one is locked up, and the answer might change.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

CPAjeff said:


> As of right now, no. Ask me that when one is locked up, and the answer might change.


I appreciate the honesty. There’s a pile of guys who would immediately say “no”, but would become the biggest hypocrites this world has seen once they would find themselves in such a scenario.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

backcountry said:


> One caveat, the quota is the upper limit. The MOA and flyway documents consistently call for minimizing harvest. Those aren't the same things.
> 
> And future hunting options will be informed by how well the community has behaved. The feds explicitly thought the harvest would be much lower and used that for justification for the increased quota.
> 
> Hopefully the entire conversation is moot in a few years. But there is still the chance that the "legal" harvest of trumpeters up to and beyond the quota could create negative consequences for future hunters.


Do you work for the federal government? The only people I’ve ever seen defend their opinion with incorrect facts as hard as you, is the feds. Give it up. The powers that be don’t even care as much as you. If they did, it would take much sooner than 4 years to put an immediate stop to it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Backcountry, I just disagree. I think you’re way overplaying the worry on harvest. The future hunting options of swans in Utah will be informed by the population’s ability to take harvest.

I’m simply not buying this “bad behavior” stuff. I’ve listened to it (not just from you, but others are mentioning it as well), thought about it, read some stuff, and I just don’t agree. I don’t think the feds or DWR care if we hit 20 every year.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Bux n Dux said:


> I appreciate the honesty. There’s a pile of guys who would immediately say “no”, but would become the biggest hypocrites this world has seen once they would find themselves in such a scenario.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla,

It's not an issue of opinion, its the feds own words & requirements. And it's the MOA the state agreed to. Hence the consistent messaging by the DWR which expressed concern about the future of the hunt as well.

Those are all facts.

Wildlife management is never just about population numbers. It always involves the human dynamics.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Bux n Dux said:


> Do you work for the federal government? The only people I’ve ever seen defend their opinion with incorrect facts as hard as you, is the feds. Give it up. The powers that be don’t even care as much as you. If they did, it would take much sooner than 4 years to put an immediate stop to it.


If it walks like a moose, and talks like a moose it's probably a moose.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

backcountry said:


> Vanilla,
> 
> It's not an issue of opinion, its the feds own words & requirements. And it's the MOA the state agreed to. Hence the consistent messaging by the DWR which expressed concern about the future of the hunt as well.
> 
> ...


Post up the feds statement. I know what discussion you’re talking about, and no where in it are they so passionate about trumpeter swans that they threaten the closure of the entire hunt. You are simply going off an assumption based off what the state DWR printed in the waterfowl guide book. That’s the state issuing a precautionary statement in hopes of scaring hunters into not shooting trumpeters. If you actually took the time to watch where these conversations take place, you’d see the same attitude about the topic, as you saw last Thursday during the WB. It’s a PITA for them because of everyone complaining about the hunt being shut down. Beyond that, they don’t care if they hit the quota or not. They are going off biological and scientific data. Until that changes, you likely won’t see their stance on the issue shift from one side to the other.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

backcountry said:


> If it walks like a moose, and talks like a moose it's probably a moose.


Unless you’re from California. Then it’s probably an elk. Or some poor dudes llama.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Have a good evening, Shaun. Best of luck not getting banned again. I know where my money is being placed.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

backcountry said:


> Have a good evening, Shaun. Best of luck not getting banned again. I know where my money is being placed.


Hopefully on a Ducks Unlimited membership.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Vanilla,
> 
> It's not an issue of opinion, its the feds own words & requirements. And it's the MOA the state agreed to. Hence the consistent messaging by the DWR which expressed concern about the future of the hunt as well.
> 
> ...


Agreed human dynamics are involved. You know what else is a fact?

The feds recently DOUBLED our quota.

You can disagree with me just like I do with you, that’s okay. But you’re overplaying the “bad behavior” hand way too much. They aren’t taking away swan hunting. I’m confident enough in that I’m willing to place a little wager, if you care to make it interesting! 😜


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

backcountry said:


> And I hope people really aren't serious about not reporting your harvest. 😬🙄


I am serious. Do you think all hunters are going to make a special trip to a DWR office to have a bill measured? I’m sure the majority of hunters are doing their duty, but no way all of them are. If a check station is available on the drive out guys will stop, but I bet a lot of them aren’t making a special trip if they don’t get checked. I assume the DWR figures this into the harvest percentage. Maybe, I don’t know that for fact.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t know if the DWR factors it into harvest data (not sure how they would), but I have no doubt there are unchecked birds every year.

I shot mine at BRBR on Veteran’s Day last year. It was a royal PITA to go get it measured the next day during business hours because they were not doing the check station at the refuge and all Division offices were closed due to the holiday. I still did it, but if I didn’t have some flexibility with work for that next day (a Friday) I would not have been able to get it checked in time due to hunting on a holiday.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> Agreed human dynamics are involved. You know what else is a fact?
> 
> The feds recently DOUBLED our quota.
> 
> You can disagree with me just like I do with you, that’s okay. But you’re overplaying the “bad behavior” hand way too much. They aren’t taking away swan hunting. I’m confident enough in that I’m willing to place a little wager, if you care to make it interesting! 😜


I actually think the numbers will play out in hunters favor; I've said that multiple times. I'm not overplaying the card though. It's 100% a possibility that the feds could reduce the trumpeter quota because of intentional targeting, given is not the intent of the hunt and agency statements.

I hope they have intermediate measures that don't punish the majority for the behavior of a minority (not even 20 given accidental harvest). But it's possible they'll change course given the very justification in their own documents is hunters never reached the 10 swan quota before 2019. They stated they didn't think 20 would be reached either. They were wrong in that assumption and it's a glaring hole in their justification. I've only written a small number of EISs and contributed small portions to other management documentation. But I can tell you that hole in their written logic is 100% a problem and it will be a variable in how they justify future quotas. It's an Achilles heal for any extremist activist groups (ie not average ones like you have shown in other swan threads) to exploit.

The hunting community convincing itself that maintenance or increases of the current quota are a sure thing is putting the cart before the horse. Anytime a federally protected species like this is at play creates significant uncertainty. Even more so given the problematic record the last four years


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Fowlmouth said:


> I am serious. Do you think all hunters are going to make a special trip to a DWR office to have a bill measured? I’m sure the majority of hunters are doing their duty, but no way all of them are. If a check station is available on the drive out guys will stop, but I bet a lot of them aren’t making a special trip if they don’t get checked. I assume the DWR figures this into the harvest percentage. Maybe, I don’t know that for fact.


I also assume their is attrition in regards to reporting and DWR factors that into decision making.

I just hate to see any minimization of that requirement in public statements. I understand the spirit of what you said (ie stop social media boasting) yet I hope folks aren't condoning the bass of this legal requirement. That's just another factor that could bite us in the arse.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry said:


> It's a blatant Achilles heal for any extremist activist groups (ie not average ones like you have shown in other swan threads) to exploit.


This is not a worry of mine in the least. I am not worried about those people/groups and couldn’t care less what they have to say.

I’m certainly not suggesting the feds couldn’t act here if they were concerned. We both know they could. My position is they aren’t concerned. Some minimal adjustments to boundaries can take place and we can all go back to arguing about trail cams and scoped muzzleloaders.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the only likes on posts from MM's alternate account are coming from another one of MM's alternate accounts?

He loves us way too much to stay away.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Sometimes I'm really glad I don't hunt waterfowl  
This has been quite the discussion to follow. 
Interesting and informative.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Clarq said:


> Anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the only likes on posts from MM's alternate account are coming from another one of MM's alternate accounts?
> 
> He loves us way too much to stay away.


I’m Spartacus!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Clarq said:


> Anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the only likes on posts from MM's alternate account are coming from another one of MM's alternate accounts?
> 
> He loves us way too much to stay away.


Ha, I would moderate some of this stuff but I'm making a double batch of Christmas cookies.

oatmeal


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

I know I'm in the minority with my views but I really don't see a Trumpeter hunt or a swan hunt with no differentiation between a Tundra and a Trump anytime in the near future. The Trumpeter numbers are up, but I've not seen a count that anyone could really take seriously as they differ so much from one another. If there is a legitimate source, I'd like for someone to post Trumpeter numbers here for me and others to see.

I really don't see the bird societies and Trumpeter societies nor the bunny luvin tree hugger groups and the like forgetting why they became an organized group. Nor do I see the feds or others forgetting that just a short hop, skip and jump away from Utah is a very rare group of birds whether they EVER in the next 100 years ever make it down to Utah or not.
I don't think the DWR cares, but I think the Feds can't ignore the possible issues and responsibilities they have with migratory birds especially when Trumpeters just came up short of becoming on the endangered specie list. It's great they screwed up and located enough to keep them off that list, but I could see the Tundra's becoming again protected before Trumps reached numbers to open up a hunt and/or eliminate quota's.

I'd like to throw another proposal into the ring for the upcoming swan hunts.
I see the current hunt to be a Mongolian cluster mess to begin with and I can't really see it getting better, only worse for hunters so no loss only opportunity for wins.
Up the tags to like around 5,000 (double the revenue for the DWR and more hunter opportunity. Who could dispute this win, win scenario right?)
Shorten the hunt down to three days in the middle of November sometime when the swans are in and moving through..... Look at it like a really jacked up version of a pheasant hunt.
No quota for Trumpeters, no check stations as it would likely be too chaotic to do so anyway. The DWR could still play like they are checking if they wish, but it wouldn't really matter either way with a three day hunt and the window to check a bird in. They could put up barrels and folks that weren't planning on putting their bird on the wall could throw wings, tails and heads in the barrel. The taxi guys could check their birds in. 
No bad press as no one would know what was happening anyway as it would begin and end in three days.
Of course this may not be too much different than the hunt we currently have, but it would at least be something that folks from the outside looking in could be seen as "controlled" somewhat by the DWR and feds and not a disputable topic as the one we have now especially the issue and topic of waiting for the magic number of 20 to be hit every year.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

OATMEAL Christmas cookies??


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I don't think the Feds are going to do a damm thing until the feather analysis and related discussions take place...and has been said, there will be no resolution to that for at least 4-5 years. Until then, the DWR has authority with the current management framework to tweak things as they see fit. The obvious, low hanging fruit is a boundary change and perhaps an increase in the wait period. I fully expect the former to be implemented next season and we'll see how it shakes out. My bet is that it extends the season almost, if not all the way, to the end of the season. Just my opinion though.

The trumpeter quota is out there to support a limited amount of incidental take. It wasn't put there for "targeted take". Make the boundary change and remove the core area of trumpeter use in Utah, and we'll be back to an "incidental take" reality.

I don't get a sense of the DWR being concerned about the 20 trumpeter limit being reached...except for the fact that it closes down the entire hunt early taking away hunter opportunity and lowering overall success rates. Those are the two items they really care about. The 20 birds killed (more likely but that is probably already baked in with the statistics) is just the means that gets them to shortened season and lower success rates.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've never hunted or killed a swan. Honestly, never had a desire to "kill a big, white duck" as MM eloquently put it (God rest his screen name). That has changed in the past 3-4 years and after forgetting to apply for a couple of those years, I finally got that first preference point this year. Will that get me a swan tag next next fall...guess we'll see. I do know this, I won't target trumpeters, BUT if a big mature trumpeter comes sailing in to the decoys, I'm not sure what will happen. Shoot, it might just be a bucket list thing to say I've done it. One and done. As long as they are legal, they are just that. And, if only 19 are officially killed and the season runs its entire course, there won't be anyone -DWR, Feds, Biologists, hunters, birders, non-consumptives, etc. that will lose one wink of sleep over it.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

JerryH said:


> OATMEAL Christmas cookies??


Yeah, double batch baby!

My buddy n I had a Trumpeter come into our spread and we let it go.

I'm not making this up, I have a buddy.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Time to bake up some boiled rasin oatmeal cookies, almost a full meal while waiting for those swans to come in close enough to tell the difference.

I'm glad that I got mine in the early 80's when you could hunt the whole state.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Oatmeal and craisin cookies are pretty good especially warm out of the oven.

But Christmas cookies need to be a sugar cookie with frosting. No sprinkles. 

Is it frosting or icing??


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm going with frosting - icing is for cakes.

Goob - any homemade egg nog recipes? 'Tis the season.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I'm gonna have to sign off for a few weeks if Goob starts sharing eggnog recipes. I've lost 20 lbs in a month and have 11 more to go. Eggnog would be a brickwall in that progress.

Can you ban Goob, CPAJeff? I can provide a doctors note.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

JerryH said:


> Oatmeal and craisin cookies are pretty good especially warm out of the oven.
> 
> But Christmas cookies need to be a sugar cookie with frosting. No sprinkles.
> 
> Is it frosting or icing??


Agreed. Christmas oatmeal cookies? That's just wrong! Sugar cookies it is, and it has always been so. Also, raisins in oatmeal cookies is way too healthy. They're for crunchy tree huggers. Now, oatmeal chocolate chip cookies are a much better ying/yang balanced treat.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

backcountry said:


> I'm gonna have to sign off for a few weeks if Goob starts sharing eggnog recipes. I've lost 20 lbs in a month and have 11 more to go. Eggnog would be a brickwall in that progress.
> 
> Can you ban Goob, CPAJeff? I can provide a doctors note.


Costco has Darigold egg nog now, sold in the half gallon. Very good, we're into our second one already.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I might get banned for this but the penultimate Christmas cookies around here are cardamom sugar cookies. They are divine. It's going to be tough to moderate myself when they are baked and we have bourbon & nog. 

We no longer have the best cookie as the recipe died with my grandmother. Some how it wasn't in her cherished recipe files and no one but her ever made them. They were the most decadent but light cookies to ever grace earth & they were probably from a Home Ec class from her high school years in the thirties.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Bourbon & nog?

I would of figured you a teetotaler!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> Time to bake up some boiled rasin oatmeal cookies, almost a full meal while waiting for those swans to come in close enough to tell the difference.
> 
> I'm glad that I got mine in the early 80's when you could hunt the whole state.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


Boiled raisin oatmeal cookies? Where's the recipe?

The trumpeters have a distinct call, much different than a Tundra's oo oo kuk kuk. If they come in alone I can tell the different calls. If Trumpeters come in with a flock of Tundras all bets are off, for me anyway.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> Boiled raisin oatmeal cookies? Where's the recipe?
> 
> The trumpeters have a distinct call, much different than a Tundra's oo oo kuk kuk. If they come in alone I can tell the different calls. If Trumpeters come in with a flock of Tundras all bets are off, for me anyway.


Here it is, we also add nuts and chocolate chips to it. With this recipe they don't flatten out but stay quite full.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> Here it is, we also add nuts and chocolate chips to it. With this recipe they don't flatten out but stay quite full.


Those look penultimate, thanks.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> Those look penultimate, thanks.


Well played if that was a ribbing. Or welcome to the club if it wasn't.

It's a perennial member of the list of the words I misuse. And I don't even misuse it the way most people do as no one else really uses it for second best 🤣.

My wife will not be happy with the review I accidentally gave her cookies.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

JerryH said:


> Bourbon & nog?
> 
> I would of figured you a teetotaler!


🤣

Anything but. There have been many a morning I wish I was in hindsight. Some parts of youth aren't so fun.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Bourbon? Did someone say bourbon? There's not much I can think of that doesn't go good with bourbon. It's good all by itself too. It has to be Jim Beam though.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Raisins in cookies should be a crime! $1000 fine with a 5 year wait period for any new cookies.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Bourbon & cookies

Who gives a $h!t about swans!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

JerryH said:


> Bourbon & cookies
> 
> Who gives a $h!t about swans!


With that combination all of the DWR's problems could be solved 

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> I'm going with frosting - icing is for cakes.
> 
> Goob - any homemade egg nog recipes? 'Tis the season.


Nah - frosting is for cakes. Icing is for cinnamon rolls. 😉


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> Bourbon? Did someone say bourbon? There's not much I can think of that doesn't go good with bourbon. It's good all by itself too. It has to be Jim Beam though.


Jim Beam? You're kidding, right? I have Colonel Taylor Small Batch, Elijah Craig, Bookers, Woodford Reserve, Buffalo Trace (personal favorite), Makers Mark and 46, Bulleit, even Wild Turkey, but no Jim Beam. Who's got the cookies?


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

paddler said:


> Jim Beam? You're kidding, right? I have Colonel Taylor Small Batch, Elijah Craig, Bookers, Woodford Reserve, Buffalo Trace (personal favorite), Makers Mark and 46, Bulleit, even Wild Turkey, but no Jim Beam. Who's got the cookies?
> View attachment 154899
> 
> [/QUOTE


you better add a bottle of Jim Beam Devil’s Cut to the mix.


----------



## one4fishing (Jul 2, 2015)

Why no love for Scotch?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

paddler said:


> Jim Beam? You're kidding, right? I have Colonel Taylor Small Batch, Elijah Craig, Bookers, Woodford Reserve, Buffalo Trace (personal favorite), Makers Mark and 46, Bulleit, even Wild Turkey, but no Jim Beam. Who's got the cookies?
> View attachment 154899


Paddler, I have a whole new respect for you. 
😎


----------



## DREW_22 (Dec 23, 2020)

Clarq said:


> Anyone else get a kick out of the fact that the only likes on posts from MM's alternate account are coming from another one of MM's alternate accounts?
> 
> He loves us way too much to stay away.


If you're referring to me, you are mistaken... I just get a kick out of the covid fearing keyboard warrior brokebackcountry replying to every post. Get some fresh air. 
MM (BxD) seems like a guy I could stand to be around. 
When's the UWN Chuck-A-Rama get together again???


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Fowlmouth said:


> Bourbon? Did someone say bourbon? There's not much I can think of that doesn't go good with bourbon. It's good all by itself too. It has to be Jim Beam though.


I prefer Basil Hayden myself but it's owned by Beam, who is owned by the Japanese brand Suntory now. They'll all owned overseas now, even PBR is owned by the Russians.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

one4fishing said:


> Why no love for Scotch?


Did somebody say Scotch? Quick, hold my beer. Actually, there is much more variety among the Scotches than bourbons. Most corn liquors taste similarly. Scotches, OTOH, vary widely. Laphroig, for instance, is so smoky it's been described as drinking a campfire. McCallan, not so much. My personal favorite is Lagavulin 16, which is very well respected.






A bit pricey locally, at ~$100. Balvenie Doublewood is also excellent. Raising a glass of either is a fitting tribute after taking a Tundra swan.

Guys who kill Trumpeters should be restricted to PBR.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Besides Martinelli's what pairs well with swan?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

paddler said:


> Jim Beam? You're kidding, right? I have Colonel Taylor Small Batch, Elijah Craig, Bookers, Woodford Reserve, Buffalo Trace (personal favorite), Makers Mark and 46, Bulleit, even Wild Turkey, but no Jim Beam. Who's got the cookies?
> View attachment 154899


That is cool and I don't drink.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

JerryH said:


> Besides Martinelli's what pairs well with swan?


I'm going with 1% milk.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Fowlmouth said:


> Add a $500 fine and a 10 year waiting period, then I will be on board with a 2 zone hunt. It won’t matter what the quota is, guys will still target Trumpeters.
> 
> Or just make Trumpeters illegal to kill altogether, and leave all areas open. What’s the point of having the on line swan course if there is no punishment? Make a mistake it’s $500. Do it intentionally it’s $500.. There has to be a way to discourage people from shooting Trumpeters. A 5 year waiting period is obviously not the answer. Hit ‘em in the wallet!


Speaking of costly mistakes, I was on the National Elk Refuge last weekend and some kid from Minnesota hunting with his dad mistook a calf bison for a cow elk. 

Not sure what the fines are going to be, but not a mistake that one should make.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

wyogoob said:


> I'm going with 1% milk.


Not even whole milk, goob? I can't drink milk you can see through.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Speaking of costly mistakes, I was on the National Elk Refuge last weekend and some kid from Minnesota hunting with his dad mistook a calf bison for a cow elk.
> 
> Not sure what the fines are going to be, but not a mistake that one should make.


Ooops - that's not going to be good.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> Ooops - that's not going to be good.


Mistakes are different than doing something intentional or due to poor judgement. Maybe they'll go easy on the kid if they believe it was actually a mistake.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

1BandMan said:


> Mistakes are different than doing something intentional or due to poor judgement. Maybe they'll go easy on the kid if they believe it was actually a mistake.


I completely agree. I hope they do go easy on him if it was an honest mistake because I've been involved in similar circumstances before. Because there is a youth involved, I think there is more leeway for the conservation officer. If it were an adult, I don't think that "wiggle room" would neccesarily exist.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

1BandMan said:


> Mistakes are different than doing something intentional or due to poor judgement. Maybe they'll go easy on the kid if they believe it was actually a mistake.


The difference is, a trumpeter on a swan tag is legal. Accident or not, it’s legal. A bison on an elk tag isn’t legal, no matter how you look at it. It’s really sad that you seem to show sympathy for someone who killed an illegal animal regardless of circumstances, yet want someone who kills a legal bird to swing on a short rope from a tall tree.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

I really don't Sean (I still remember how to spell your name).
I think every single Trump shooter should all go in front of a judge. If there's hero shots in Facebook the birds at the taxidermist, etc. /= $5000 fine and a year in prison for shooting a federally protected migratory bird.
I've not been grey on this Sean. I've never waivered with the legal/illegal thing especially (your gonna love this MWScott) with the game hog, bird horney Utar......well you know).


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I don't think you can criminally punish someone for an act that's legal. The DWR can institute waiting periods to discourage harvest, but levying a fine implies wrong doing and until they make trumpeters illegal to take, I don't see an avenue to criminally prosecute the act of taking one within the quota.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

It's the reason for these threads.
It is completely legal.
BUT THAT IS THE REASON ITS NOT ILLEGAL. ITS A BUFFER FOR THOSE WHO MAKE *MISTAKES*, not for chest pounding douche bags to hang one on the wall.
It's a perfect example. That's what's funny about it. Interesting White muscle fish posted it in this thread huh. It should be illegal. There's no open Trumpeter season anywhere. It should be like the kid capping the buffalo. You make a mistake with a Federal Migratory Bird and as mentioned the consequences are exponentially more than a buffalo though.....but that's what it's come down to in my opinion.

The kid I hope is still learning and I hope his old man is a decent example and teaches his kid good values and ethics.
If the judge lights the kid up I hope it's a good learning experience for him.
As I've also said Trumpeter hunters in Utah will NEVER learn. Shut'r down or expect it to end in yet a new record time next year.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MWScott72 said:


> I don't think you can criminally punish someone for an act that's legal. The DWR can institute waiting periods to discourage harvest, but levying a fine implies wrong doing and until they make trumpeters illegal to take, I don't see an avenue to criminally prosecute the act of taking one within the quota.


I can unequivocally confirm that you are correct.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I can unequivocally confirm that you are correct.


Yup, but it should be illegal. 
And an end to the swan hunt in Utah.

Sounds familiar, don't it?


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

1BandMan said:


> Yup, but it should be illegal.
> And an end to the swan hunt in Utah.
> 
> Sounds familiar, don't it?


You’re in a very small minority of hunters who believe that. Including the people in charge.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Bux n Dux said:


> You’re in a very small minority of hunters who believe that. Including the people in charge.


We'll see Shane. 
The Fed's have to be impressed that within a week or so of the swans showing up 20 of them get splashed.
The environmentalists have been fairly quiet but with this type of sh!t going on they might wake up. Again, we'll see.
Is our bet still on???


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

1BandMan said:


> We'll see Shane.
> The Fed's have to be impressed that within a week or so of the swans showing up 20 of them get splashed.
> The environmentalists have been fairly quiet but with this type of sh!t going on they might wake up. Again, we'll see.
> Is our bet still on???


Sure. 2023 utah swan hunting won’t be a thing.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

The Feds probably want to hope like you that 4 years in a row is an anomaly 🤣 or there's just so many Trumpeters now that hunters couldn't pick out the Tundras 😂 as the reason. 2023 won't be any different. Again maybe we'll set a new record and it will be over even sooner in November.
But don't be coy Sean 2024. You'll smash another Trumpeter in my honor, Trump will be reelected, etc. etc., etc.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

1BM - Do you really think the Feds are going to close down a swan hunt that has a 20 bird quota on protecting swans...simply because the quota is reached but not exceeded? To the best of my knowledge, there aren't a bunch of knuckleheads out there popping birds after the season closes, hence the quota is working at protecting the trumpeters.

There is a TON of supposition in your posts, putting words in the Feds mouths, lots of the use of the word "should", but nothing definitive. There are plenty of options that the DWR can use within the current framework to decrease the trumpeter take (and I hope they use them). How about we encourage that instead of yelling fire in the theater?


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> 1BM - Do you really think the Feds are going to close down a swan hunt that has a 20 bird quota on protecting swans...simply because the quota is reached but not exceeded? To the best of my knowledge, there aren't a bunch of knuckleheads out there popping birds after the season closes, hence the quota is working at protecting the trumpeters.
> 
> There is a TON of supposition in your posts, putting words in the Feds mouths, lots of the use of the word "should", but nothing definitive. There are plenty of options that the DWR can use within the current framework to decrease the trumpeter take (and I hope they use them). How about we encourage that instead of yelling fire in the theater?


You see the current TUNDRA hunt and management as a success??? Really????
Do you think the Feds (I have zero faith or hope with the DWR) can curb the killing of Trumpeters when everyone in Utah knows how much of a trophy bird a Trumpeter is and how legal it is to shoot one and put it on social media and then on your wall? It didn't take long to hit that maximum number once the swan started trickling in.
Is there a fire in the theater? I don't know but it's definitely not good. If I drew a tag for next year I'd make sure to get out earlier than later that's for **** sure.
I also believe there were a fair amount of birds that never saw a DWR check point or office. Why would these hero's lose the chance to shoot another one as quick as they can draw again.
I saw a bunch on Facebook. Maybe it was just the one's on Facebook that was taken in and tallied to 20.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

1BandMan said:


> The Feds probably want to hope like you that 4 years in a row is an anomaly 🤣 or there's just so many Trumpeters now that hunters couldn't pick out the Tundras 😂 as the reason. 2023 won't be any different. Again maybe we'll set a new record and it will be over even sooner in November.
> But don't be coy Sean 2024. It's a ways away but......





MWScott72 said:


> 1BM - Do you really think the Feds are going to close down a swan hunt that has a 20 bird quota on protecting swans...simply because the quota is reached but not exceeded? To the best of my knowledge, there aren't a bunch of knuckleheads out there popping birds after the season closes, hence the quota is working at protecting the trumpeters.
> 
> There is a TON of supposition in your posts, putting words in the Feds mouths, lots of the use of the word "should", but nothing definitive. There are plenty of options that the DWR can use within the current framework to decrease the trumpeter take (and I hope they use them). How about we encourage that instead of yelling fire in the theater?


he does. He’s predicted that in 2024, swan hunting won’t exist in utah. At all. He hasn’t said what he’s willing to bet yet. I’m sure it’s nothing of value. But he’s made the bet.

and somewhere along the way he’s gotten the impression he can beat me up by the flagpole too. I’m certain he’s wrong on both predictions, but let the geezer dream. Maybe he’s banking on the hope that I won’t hit an elderly man in public. Here’s to hoping… 🤞🏼


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1BandMan said:


> Yup, but it should be illegal.
> And an end to the swan hunt in Utah.
> 
> Sounds familiar, don't it?


Yes, it does. The narcissism is certainly not new.

“I’ve never hunted them and someone did something that hurt my feelings, so let’s shut the entire thing down!

I’ve said it before, I’ll reiterate it here: I’m glad I don’t hate hunting as much as some of you (I’ll leave out the term I want to use here since this is a family channel) folks.

1BandMan may have independently convinced me to target a trumpeter swan next year. It’s not something I would have done in the past, but these posts have become too much. Stay tuned…


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> 1Bandman may have independently convinced me to target a trumpeter swan next year. It’s not something I would have done in the past, but these posts have become too much. Stay tuned…


I can't make any sense of this one.

"I'm so annoyed by a random internet stranger that I'm going to plot for a whole year to try to shut a hunt down early just to get back at him!"

Yet in the same post, claiming you don't hate hunting. And in many posts previously, claiming you can "see the harm" done by targeting trumpeters, or that you "sympathize" with those who had their season shut down early.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Welcome to the club of not being able to make sense of people’s posts, Clarq!

I look forward to you calling out the multiple posts demanding that the entire swan hunt get shut down. Weird I haven’t seen those yet… 

I’ll be patient.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Welcome to the club of not being able to make sense of people’s posts, Clarq!
> 
> I look forward to you calling out the multiple posts demanding that the entire swan hunt get shut down. Weird I haven’t seen those yet…
> 
> I’ll be patient.


Go ahead and enlighten me.

Edited - I need more time to address the rest of this.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Correct me if wrong, but the Feds main concern / goal in all this is protecting the Yellowstone population of trumpeters…hence the 20 bird quota. The DWRs main concern is diminishing hunter opportunity and success brought on by an early closure of the swan season. Shutting down the season at 20 trumpeters satisfies the Federal restriction, so do the Feds really have issues? Their main goal, protection of Yellowstone trumpeters, is served.

Now the early closure does no good for the DWR’s goal of removing a certain amount of Tundra swans from the population. It reduces hunter opportunity and success…yet if we’re to believe 1BM, the solution to this would be a complete closure of swan hunting period brought on by trumpeter harvest. In DWR’s eyes, this does nothing to help them meet their goals. You go from reduced hunter opportunity and success to absolutely no hunter opportunity / success. So, at the end of the day, getting rid of the entire swan hunt is a non-starter for the DWR as it does NOTHING to further their goals.

So if the Feds are happy but DWR is not, based on the above scenario, the swan hunt isn’t going away due to a quota being met. There will be additional restrictions added by the DWR to allow the hunt to continue. In this manner both the State and Feds are able to have their goals met. I don’t see it being that complicated. Tweak things within the agreed upon framework and move on!


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

MWScott, how dare you bring logic into the conversation.

Can’t you just type in all caps so we know you’re mad, and spew drastic measures and insults like a civilized human?

There have now been about 500 posts on this topic in the last few weeks, and I told myself I wasn’t going to add to the chaos anymore. Like most things in life, it seems like we are just hearing from the polar opposites that are enjoying the fight more than anything. And the reality is that there is probably some pretty logical solutions in the middle. Call me naive, but I have faith that the DWR will make changes to work towards that middle ground.

My prediction for the future is this. The swan hunt will remain open, some trumpeters will still be shot, some changes will be made, and once they do the season will remain open longer or for the full season again. And for the most part, the Utah waterfowl hunting world will keep moving forward and we’ll all be okay.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> Correct me if wrong, but the Feds main concern / goal in all this is protecting the Yellowstone population of trumpeters…hence the 20 bird quota. The DWRs main concern is diminishing hunter opportunity and success brought on by an early closure of the swan season. Shutting down the season at 20 trumpeters satisfies the Federal restriction, so do the Feds really have issues? Their main goal, protection of Yellowstone trumpeters, is served.
> 
> Now the early closure does no good for the DWR’s goal of removing a certain amount of Tundra swans from the population. It reduces hunter opportunity and success…yet if we’re to believe 1BM, the solution to this would be a complete closure of swan hunting period brought on by trumpeter harvest. In DWR’s eyes, this does nothing to help them meet their goals. You go from reduced hunter opportunity and success to absolutely no hunter opportunity / success. So, at the end of the day, getting rid of the entire swan hunt is a non-starter for the DWR as it does NOTHING to further their goals.
> 
> So if the Feds are happy but DWR is not, based on the above scenario, the swan hunt isn’t going away due to a quota being met. There will be additional restrictions added by the DWR to allow the hunt to continue. In this manner both the State and Feds are able to have their goals met. I don’t see it being that complicated. Tweak things within the agreed upon framework and move on!





MWScott72 said:


> Correct me if wrong, but the Feds main concern / goal in all this is protecting the Yellowstone population of trumpeters…hence the 20 bird quota. The DWRs main concern is diminishing hunter opportunity and success brought on by an early closure of the swan season. Shutting down the season at 20 trumpeters satisfies the Federal restriction, so do the Feds really have issues? Their main goal, protection of Yellowstone trumpeters, is served.
> 
> Now the early closure does no good for the DWR’s goal of removing a certain amount of Tundra swans from the population. It reduces hunter opportunity and success…yet if we’re to believe 1BM, the solution to this would be a complete closure of swan hunting period brought on by trumpeter harvest. In DWR’s eyes, this does nothing to help them meet their goals. You go from reduced hunter opportunity and success to absolutely no hunter opportunity / success. So, at the end of the day, getting rid of the entire swan hunt is a non-starter for the DWR as it does NOTHING to further their goals.
> 
> So if the Feds are happy but DWR is not, based on the above scenario, the swan hunt isn’t going away due to a quota being met. There will be additional restrictions added by the DWR to allow the hunt to continue. In this manner both the State and Feds are able to have their goals met. I don’t see it being that complicated. Tweak things within the agreed upon framework and move on!


There never has nor will there ever be a Trumpeter hunt in Utah but that's what it's appeared to have become.
The waterfowl hunters of Utah allowed the Tundra hunters 800 birds while killing 20++ Trumpeters and posting them as well as some crazy bad press for hunters on social media.
Its very similar to the previous post of the kid capping a buffalo in a national park.
If there were a cow elk hunt designed as a cow elk hunt but folks like buffalo better for their size and rarity and they also make good wall mounts it's not ok for people to shoot the buffalo.... legally or not. It's also no longer a cow elk hunt as the goals have changed.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

MWScott72 said:


> Correct me if wrong, but the Feds main concern / goal in all this is protecting the Yellowstone population of trumpeters…hence the 20 bird quota. The DWRs main concern is diminishing hunter opportunity and success brought on by an early closure of the swan season. Shutting down the season at 20 trumpeters satisfies the Federal restriction, so do the Feds really have issues? Their main goal, protection of Yellowstone trumpeters, is served.
> 
> Now the early closure does no good for the DWR’s goal of removing a certain amount of Tundra swans from the population. It reduces hunter opportunity and success…yet if we’re to believe 1BM, the solution to this would be a complete closure of swan hunting period brought on by trumpeter harvest. In DWR’s eyes, this does nothing to help them meet their goals. You go from reduced hunter opportunity and success to absolutely no hunter opportunity / success. So, at the end of the day, getting rid of the entire swan hunt is a non-starter for the DWR as it does NOTHING to further their goals.
> 
> So if the Feds are happy but DWR is not, based on the above scenario, the swan hunt isn’t going away due to a quota being met. There will be additional restrictions added by the DWR to allow the hunt to continue. In this manner both the State and Feds are able to have their goals met. I don’t see it being that complicated. Tweak things within the agreed upon framework and move on!





MWScott72 said:


> Correct me if wrong, but the Feds main concern / goal in all this is protecting the Yellowstone population of trumpeters…hence the 20 bird quota. The DWRs main concern is diminishing hunter opportunity and success brought on by an early closure of the swan season. Shutting down the season at 20 trumpeters satisfies the Federal restriction, so do the Feds really have issues? Their main goal, protection of Yellowstone trumpeters, is served.
> 
> Now the early closure does no good for the DWR’s goal of removing a certain amount of Tundra swans from the population. It reduces hunter opportunity and success…yet if we’re to believe 1BM, the solution to this would be a complete closure of swan hunting period brought on by trumpeter harvest. In DWR’s eyes, this does nothing to help them meet their goals. You go from reduced hunter opportunity and success to absolutely no hunter opportunity / success. So, at the end of the day, getting rid of the entire swan hunt is a non-starter for the DWR as it does NOTHING to further their goals.
> 
> So if the Feds are happy but DWR is not, based on the above scenario, the swan hunt isn’t going away due to a quota being met. There will be additional restrictions added by the DWR to allow the hunt to continue. In this manner both the State and Feds are able to have their goals met. I don’t see it being that complicated. Tweak things within the agreed upon framework and move on!


There never has nor will there ever be a Trumpeter hunt in Utah but that's what it's appeared to have become.
The waterfowl hunters of Utah allowed the Tundra hunters 800 birds while killing 20++ Trumpeters and posting some crazy bad press on social media.
Its very similar to the previous post of the kid capping a buffalo in .
If there were a cow elk hunt and folks like buffalo better and start shooting some of those as well as a few beef cattle because they can mount those on the wall, it's not a cow elk hunt any more.


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

1BandMan said:


> It’s very similar to the previous post of the kid capping a buffalo in a national park.


I can’t believe I’m doing this, but your comments are driving me insane. The ironic thing is that in general I think we agree that guys shouldn’t be shooting trumpeters by choice. But your statements and arguments are not helping any bodies cause. You sit and bash on all of us as your fellow hunters as if we’re the enemy. Make absolute statements that you have no grounds or evidence to prove, then post nonsense like your quote above. How can anybody take your input as valid when you make comparisons like that? They are by all definitions of fact NOT similar situations. Like it or not, shooting a trumpeter on an Utah Swan hunt tag is LEGAL. In the case of shooting a bison on an elk tag in that example, it is ILLEGAL. Literally the exact opposite.

You’ve done a lot of complaining, finger pointing, blaming and name calling. But I don’t recall you doing much by way of offering solutions. Griping on this Internet forum isn’t going to get you anywhere or accomplish anything. How about you add something constructive to the conversation like make others here have attempted?


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

gander311 said:


> I can’t believe I’m doing this, but your comments are driving me insane. The ironic thing is that in general I think we agree that guys shouldn’t be shooting trumpeters by choice. But your statements and arguments are not helping any bodies cause. Your sit and bash on all of us as your fellow hunters as if we’re the enemy. Make absolute statements that you have no grounds or evidence to prove, then post nonsense like your quote above. How can anybody take your input as valid when you make comparisons like that? There are by all definitions of fact NOT similar situations. Like it or not, shooting a trumpeter on an Utah Swan hunt tag is LEGAL. In the case of shooting a bison on an elk tag in that example, it is ILLEGAL. Literally the exact opposite.
> 
> You’ve done a lot of complaining, finger pointing, blaming and name calling. But I don’t recall you doing much by way of offering solutions. Griping on this Internet forum isn’t going to get you anywhere or accomplish anything. How about you add something constructive to the conversation like make others here have attempted?


That's the problem and what keeps coming up. 
Shooting Trumpeters is legal and now what the swan hunt has become in Utah. Is a Trumpeter hunt.


----------



## gander311 (Dec 23, 2008)

Also, this is for Vanilla and really will be my last post on this thread.

“311’s got the boom ya’ll…”
-Nick Hexum


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

I have offered solutions. My 3 day swan hunt proposal I believe is fantastic and makes total sense.

Legal/illegal. It may be legal but I'm confused as to why there are 2750 tundra permits and only 20 Trumpeter permits. Why is that???????


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Alright gents, this thread is beginning to take a turn for the worse. Let's keep the "my Dad can beat up your Dad" or the "let's meet by the monkey bars at recess" attitudes and comments out of the discussion.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

MWScott72 said:


> Correct me if wrong, but the Feds main concern / goal in all this is protecting the Yellowstone population of trumpeters…hence the 20 bird quota. The DWRs main concern is diminishing hunter opportunity and success brought on by an early closure of the swan season. Shutting down the season at 20 trumpeters satisfies the Federal restriction, so do the Feds really have issues? Their main goal, protection of Yellowstone trumpeters, is served.
> 
> Now the early closure does no good for the DWR’s goal of removing a certain amount of Tundra swans from the population. It reduces hunter opportunity and success…yet if we’re to believe 1BM, the solution to this would be a complete closure of swan hunting period brought on by trumpeter harvest. In DWR’s eyes, this does nothing to help them meet their goals. You go from reduced hunter opportunity and success to absolutely no hunter opportunity / success. So, at the end of the day, getting rid of the entire swan hunt is a non-starter for the DWR as it does NOTHING to further their goals.
> 
> So if the Feds are happy but DWR is not, based on the above scenario, the swan hunt isn’t going away due to a quota being met. There will be additional restrictions added by the DWR to allow the hunt to continue. In this manner both the State and Feds are able to have their goals met. I don’t see it being that complicated. Tweak things within the agreed upon framework and move on!


The principle problem with the logic of your argument is assuming the feds are "happy". They may tolerate reaching and exceeding the upper limit but to say they are happy with the outcome the last few years isn't supported by their publications and MOA. Ideally, they would like a minimal harvest of Trumpeters, at least until the studies are done. 

As well, I would hope the DWR is forward thinking enough to recognize a targeted trumpeter hunt is possible for Utah in the future IF we play our cards right. That takes a conserving the current population to the best of our abilities and maintaining our healthy relationship with the feds. That means truly minimizing Trumpeter harvest to honor the MOA, not just allowing the season to run its course for tundra swan hunters.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

backcountry- can you share the MOA you have referenced?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> Alright gents, this thread is *beginning to take a turn for the worse.* Let's keep the "my Dad can beat up your Dad" or the "let's meet by the monkey bars at recess" attitudes and comments out of the discussion.


Beginning? I thought it passed that point awhile ago. It's not even fun now.


----------



## MrShane (Jul 21, 2019)

Simply print ‘Tundra’ on tag already.
No closed zones.
No shortened season.
Everybody has full use of their tag and can wait till last day of season for guaranteed hunt opportunity if desired.
Everybody wins for the simple expense of a microdrop of ink to be used on each tag.
Heck, I’ll pay for the ink for everybody!
So simple…..


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Let's keep it on topic. 

I got rid of a few responses and edited a couple

We have a good thread going here let's keep it going in a discussion or it'll get locked down


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> backcountry- can you share the MOA you have referenced?


I haven't had luck finding it yet. But the federal register and Pacific Flyway reports all use the same "minimize take of trumpeter swans" language in reference to it. I've tried every truncated search phrasing I can think of and just haven't found it online yet.

Haven't had the energy to figure out who to contact in Utah yet to request and have no desire to deal with GRAMA. Best I can tell we've been under modified MOAs for almost two decades but the minimize take requirement has remained the same. * = changes to reflect quotas


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I realize it may be more work than worth it to track it down, but if you ever find it, please share.

The MOA requiring an education course to minimize trumpeter take certainly does not guarantee that the feds are upset by the 20 birds being taken. With the information we have, it’s equally an assumption they are NOT okay with it as the assumption that they are.

And until I see something different, I’m going to think the limit they placed on the take is a number they can live with. Pretty irrational to think otherwise, actually, especially considering that limit (IE- quota) just doubled recently.

None of this is to say that people should actively target (except me next year to share with 1bandman) trumps, but I still maintain the powers that be at each level are not bent out of shape with the quota being hit for any reason other than the early closure. I’d need some definitive statements otherwise to change my mind, not assumptions.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

If I can find it I definitely share it. My educated guess is the phrase is a word for word copy & paste* of a binding component of the MOA itself. Having it would be clarifying though. (*It's not only efficient with these tedious processes but helps foster consistency in the ridiculous number of documents that are required for federal rule making and policy).

And, It's anything but irrational to believe the functional contract between the state and feds represents the expectations and values of the USFWS. In this case "minimize" clearly represents a preferred goal of less take, not more. That's simple logic. Having worked on various resource management documents you don't waste time with replicating such phrasing word for word unless it carries import. That's especially true with how the federal government structures their announcements in the federal register.

Yes, the 20 bird harvest was a number that they factored would have minimal impact on the population. And, they came to that conclusion because we never previously reached the quota threshold. Both are factors in the decision. It's not just one or the other. 

And we can't say the DWR is successful at helping minimize take when we have reached that quota, and exceeded it, four years in a row since the increase. And the DWR has the legal responsibility to act in good faith of their agreement to minimize take, of which education was just one variable.

My guess is they'll take an intermediate step, if any, in their next working group recommendation. And the USFWS doesn't ignore it's justification for management decisions when they do their annual reevaluation of the policy. Many of them are hunters who care about our legacy. And they also are well versed in the social and legal parameters of every decision they make regarding protected species. Not to mention, the early season closure is unlikely a concern for the USFWS unless the WMA ecology is suffering because of it. Their concern is the sustainability of their own policy across the board, from biological parameters to political ones. They function very differently than DWR & Wildlife Board in how they prioritize these decisions.

I don't think anyone other than 1manband is saying the state or feds will lose their minds. But many of us do seem to recognize the behavior of the last four years has put us into an undesirable gray area. Hopefully the consequences is something slight. But we don't know and I think it's to our disadvantage to jump the gun and actively downplay the non-biological factors at play (ie, "meh"). Being in this type of grey with feds is never a good idea given how often they deal with lawsuits and how turbulent that process can be.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

And there is one caveat we haven't talked about: how the swan hunt in Utah will affect future decisions in other states.

The federal policy review process weighs public opinion into the decision. It's not uncommon for public comments against such a new policy, ie opening up a new swan hunt, to outnumber those in support. The record in Utah the last four years is a gold mine for those against opening it up in other regions. 

This isn't just an ethical issue between current and future Utahns but also one that affects existing hunters in others states. And the hunting communities in many other areas are struggling as their sport isn't practiced by fewer of their fellow citizens.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

How about those JAZZ?????


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I can’t for the life of me think that rational policy makers sat in a room and said, “We have never hit the 10 bird quota, that means we should double it!”

I just don’t buy that for one second. The much more logical conclusion is they said we are are good if they shoot more, so we’ll increase it.

And I agree 100% that the “minimize take” words have meaning and they expect it to mean something: hence a quota limiting take.

I just see this completely opposite from everything you stated. But I’m clearly biased from a pro-hunting point of view. However, my feeling is supported in the actions of expanding the swan zone and doubling the trump quota, both of which were in place to reduce take. Seems logical if the expansion of the zone and the increase in quota was approved that the feds were okay with more take than was happening.

This shouldn’t be so hard. Will it stay that way forever? No clue. But right now, all the available information points to this not being a problem for decision makers.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> How about those JAZZ?????


Better than I expected. I also thought the Utes would get trounced by USC. My buddy and I got back from Canada the day before the game. He went to USC, I did my residency at the U. I loved the game. Him, not so much.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Welcome to the club of not being able to make sense of people’s posts, Clarq!


See previous response. I'll be patient. 



Vanilla said:


> I look forward to you calling out the multiple posts demanding that the entire swan hunt get shut down. Weird I haven’t seen those yet…
> 
> I’ll be patient.


I do not have the obligation, nor do I have the time and energy to respond to every single post I don't like. I reply to what stands out to me. Regarding your post, it stood out because I found it baffling that you would start planning almost an entire year in advance to:


Clear your schedule in early November
Make what will probably be multiple long drives
Get up early and/or stay out late for multiple days
Compete with the crowds in the known hotspots (assuming they aren't shut down)
Look over and pass on dozens if not hundreds of perfectly good tundra swans

...all so you can hop on the UWN with your hero shot and taunt a random internet stranger who could be nothing more than a troll or another one of Shaun's duplicate accounts (controlled opposition, anyone?). It seems like a lot of work for not much of a payoff.

Regarding 1BandMan and his posts about shutting the season down...

I believe I've made it abundantly clear that I am against anything that would reduce my swan hunting opportunity, including shutting the season down. I don't see a need to repeat that to him every time he makes a post.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

paddler said:


> Better than I expected. I also thought the Utes would get trounced by USC. My buddy and I got back from Canada the day before the game. He went to USC, I did my residency at the U. I loved the game. Him, not so much.


I loved the game. Didn't expect them to kill USC.
My dad and uncle had season tickets for them and the wives for years when we were kids. Used to get to go to Ute games a couple of times a year. Good memories !!

The wife got online with about 3 minutes left in the game. Tickets for the Rose Bowl we're $200 each. 
We called another couple to see if they wanted to go.
They live in Southern California. Both attended the U. 

They said heck yes.......went to finalize the purchase and they had already gone up to $330 each. 
Locked it in....... We're going to the Rose Bowl. 😁


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

A waterfowl hunter bashing other waterfowl hunters?? For shame. The worry I have is I’m not ashamed. Have any of you seen the many posts on Facebook and other sites of the people who were responsible for our record setting 2022 swan hunt? From what I can gather many of you have and are impressed with all the Trumpeter killers and their lack of respect for themselves and others. I believe most would like to continue to see the hunt go on as is, no harm no foul. Maybe you yourself can post up your Trumpeter on Facebook with some snide disrespectful bragging comments next year right? Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Canada, etc. farmers and fellow nearby state and even country (Canada) waterfowl hunters are also very aware of the problems in Utah and cringe to see Utah license plates and the guys inside wearing camo. We’re quite the known bunch and for all the wrong reasons.
Policing ourselves from about 99% of the posts here indicate that it simply isn’t possible. Most of you are just too game horny to recognize that there is even a problem with the current swan hunt.
95+% of you appear to believe the hunt is fine and should remain the same or that if there is a problem it just isn’t a big deal and will somehow sort itself out. “If it kinda looks legal or isn’t prosecutable right now, it’s obviously 100% aok.” “The DWR will just have to come up with a magical solution to benefit Utah waterfowlers to continue doing what is questionable or out and out wrong.” Far from exact quotes, but definitely a summation to many posts on here. 
I get where you all are coming from I truly do. We’ve had these discussions over and over and over I get that no one wants to make any changes or feel that it is the Utah Waterfowlers responsibility to take on that kind of accountability. I don’t want to make any changes either. I’m done.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> I can’t for the life of me think that rational policy makers sat in a room and said, “We have never hit the 10 bird quota, that means we should double it!”
> 
> I just don’t buy that for one second. The much more logical conclusion is they said we are are good if they shoot more, so we’ll increase it.


It's true, we all have our biases. My passion here comes from this almost being my career, ie resource management with a focus on the human dynamics. That causes my own bias. I'm hopeful we won't get to a negative place but there are plenty of issues that could lead us down that path. I just can't unsee the multiple, competing values at play here. (And I'm grateful life took a different direction 😁😬 ).

I'll try to find the documents but your first paragraph is actually written logic on their part. And it's very logical if you recognize the "quota" is a compromise to protect hunters from penalization. The USFWS doesn't want trumpeter swans harvested. But they recognize incidental take is a likely outcome of a tundra swan hunt. So they compromise because there are multiple, competing values at stake. Given the Trumpeter swan isn't listed they are willing to incur some loss in these moments. That number is 20 but they never intended for that number to be reached, especially multiple years in a row (also their statements). That's a summary of their logic across multiple documents I've read on the subject.

The Trumpeter swan issue has similarities with listed species management. Even with species listed under the ESA the USFWS can and does allow incidental take. The best example are Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). Similar to the trumpeter swan, the agency knows there are competing demands. But ultimately it can be better to foster buy in and allow take than to hold a zero tolerance policy. Neither the Utah MOA nor HCPs want take, it's just the compromise to get to the desired outcome. But you can guarantee that if a property owner with HCP started intentionally harvesting the protected species up to and beyond the historic numbers,and doing so multiple years in a row, the USFWS would reevaluate the agreement. Similarly the historic trumpeter harvest numbers pre-2019 are important context not only for justifying the 2019 increase but also are carried into constant reevaluation.

The phrase "take" just carries significant import in conservation well outside hunting. That's why I believe using the phrase "quota" like we do for other species is so problematic in the trumpeter swan scenario. It carries heavy baggage that game species regulated solely by the state do not. And I think we are in an era in which more legal and management conflict (like massive oscillations in management philosophy because of partisanship) is playing out with these federally protected species.

Thx for interacting. I learn from this. It often seems like we are at loggerheads but from what I can tell we are both hovering around a similar goal.

Have a good evening, Vanilla.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

2full said:


> I loved the game. Didn't expect them to kill USC.
> My dad and uncle had season tickets for them and the wives for years when we were kids. Used to get to go to Ute games a couple of times a year. Good memories !!
> 
> The wife got online with about 3 minutes left in the game. Tickets for the Rose Bowl we're $200 each.
> ...


I was born in Southern California and have three degrees from UCLA. I went to more than a few games in the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. I'll watch it on TV.


----------



## Bux n Dux (Jun 6, 2021)

puddler said:


> I was born in Southern California and have three degrees from UCLA. I went to more than a few games in the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum. I'll watch it on TV.


This explains so much.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Bux n Dux said:


> This explains so much.


Yep, education is good. You should try some.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

paddler said:


> Yep, education is good. You should try some.


I would take experience over education any day of the week if I were needing help. I have both, and I use experience more than the education in the field.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

"Education is the continuous reconstruction of experiences." - John Dewey

Fortunately, it is not a binary choice.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, this is going well.

You think you fellas have problems. I've been in Vegas with a non-hunting short-legged woman for 4 days..................................And I'm outta oatmeal cookies.

Stay on track, respect each other's opinions, follow the UWN rules and try to use good punctuation.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Buffet at the Rio? Its pretty dang good!

-DallanC


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Buffet at the Rio? Its pretty dang good!
> 
> -DallanC



I have a Vegas story about the Rio buffet....................



wyogoob said:


> You think you fellas have problems. I've been in Vegas with a non-hunting short-legged woman for 4 days..................................And I'm outta oatmeal cookies.


Sounds like the opening lines from a Hunter S Thompson book.


----------

