# Time to Shake things up with Elk Mgmt in Utah!!



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

After watching the Utah Wildlife Board working session yesterday, I was even more convinced that Utah's elk management needs a complete overhaul and should be governed by bull to cow ratio rather than age objective. Mike Wardle, the biologist over some of the best units in the state (Beaver, Pahvant, etc.) shared that their latest classification flight with helicopter indicated that the Beaver unit had over 84 bulls per 100 cows. He also said that those flight counts are often low because of the challenge with finding/seeing all bulls in the unit - he felt like the bull to cow ratio could actually be nearer to a 1:1 bull to cow ratio  

I personally hunted the Pahvant unit in 2020 - there were a TOTAL of *54* LE bull tags for ALL hunts on the unit if I am remembering correctly. When I talked to Mike Wardle before applying for my hunt, he told me that several hunters in 2019 had killed 2-3 year old bulls on the Pahvant, which obviously drags down the average age of bulls killed and "artificially" shows that the unit is not meeting age objective. So what happens? The biologist's hands are tied on recommending increased tag #'s for the unit, even when bull to cow ratios are beyond crazy and there are a crapload of 320-330 bulls running all over the unit that MANY hunters would be elated to kill. 

Here we are 2 years later and the proposed # of tags on the Pahvant is *53* LE bull tags. I guarantee you based on my own experience and the # of bulls I saw during my scouting and hunting, that this unit could *SIGNIFICANTLY *increase the number of bulls harvested if we managed for bull to cow ratio rather than age objective.

On these more premium units that manage for a 7-8 year old bull, there is an overabundance of surplus bulls that are not being harvested but biologists *HAVE* to manage the herd to an age and a specific herd #, so we kill cows (and some spikes) to keep the herd at or under objective and limit mature bull harvest to keep the age objective. This leads to a bull heavy herd and adversely impacts future production. 
The herd suffers and ultimately we as hunters do as well. We are pissing away opportunity every year on these units and not addressing point creep issues because idiots and special interest groups full of greed want their 400" bull because they have waited 25 years for it and that is how we have managed things in the past. 

It is *FAR *beyond time to piss off these greedy people and blow things up in Utah for the benefit of the elk and not the greedy hunter!!! I hope the new Elk committee has the juevos to address this issue along with addressing season dates to pull the most successful weapons out of the most vulnerable times for elk.


----------



## torowy (Jun 19, 2008)

Most units aren't managed for that old of a bull though. I think having a variety still provides opportunity as well as trophy class. Some people want a chance at a giant, some just want to kill a 6 point.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Just brainstorming here, so chill--> I wonder what would happen if there were an LE hunt for a 4 point or 5 point and under bulls. This would keep the top end 6+ point bulls for those waiting forever and those wanting an opportunity hunt could tag out on lesser bulls and clear through the system quicker with more opportunity? 

I can already hear the argument--> 'well the 4 point tag guys would shoot the bigger bulls and let them waste'. Yeah yeah, laws don't matter so why even have them crowd here we go


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Your analysis is correct but I doubt the trophy elk units like the Pahvant will be changed like that anytime soon. Who wants to pay a gazillion dollars for a conservation tag for a unit with run of the mill bulls, even if the herd dynamics is healthy?



Airborne said:


> I wonder what would happen if there were an LE hunt for a 4 point or 5 point and under bulls.


This was my initial thought too. I don't see why it couldn't work and the population dynamics are such that if some guys mistakenly harvests a couple of "6'''s the herd would still be OK. It should be obvious enough that "spinnenbulle 2" should be safe from these hunters.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

When I was on the elk committee a couple plans ago, we were told that for every year in increased age we lose 50% of the opportunity from 6 years old on up. So, if an 8 yo unit has 50 tags, managing it at 7 would give us 100 tags and a 6 year old objective would give us 200ish tags. Take away spike hunting and the tag numbers almost double all the way down to 2yo. That is a general number, but it makes sense.

Not many people hunting the 8yo units are shooting the 8-15yo 310" bull. Move the age down to 6 and the average age of bulls killed will skyrocket as hunters shoot the 8+yo "lesser" bulls. This has proven out on many units that changed the age down, such as the Monroe.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Airborne said:


> Just brainstorming here, so chill--> I wonder what would happen if there were an LE hunt for a 4 point or 5 point and under bulls. This would keep the top end 6+ point bulls for those waiting forever and those wanting an opportunity hunt could tag out on lesser bulls and clear through the system quicker with more opportunity?
> 
> I can already hear the argument--> 'well the 4 point tag guys would shoot the bigger bulls and let them waste'. Yeah yeah, laws don't matter so why even have them crowd here we go


There was a short discussion of hunters killing the wrong deer on management hunts yesterday. They said the LEO's actually feel really bad ruining a guys experience for a mistake they made. So it is not unlikely to happen with your idea. But it might take a few out of the draws.

The elk committee will have to look at a lot of different scenarios because the biologists are already saying they can't keep managing they way they have been. I'm guessing some form of targeting younger bulls will come out.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Lowering the age class will likely have a small impact on the top end quality of elk on a unit. Especially if they are managing for an age range of 7-8. Sure, there will be fewer of these top end bulls, but that's another problem the current system has created. People expect to see 380" bulls all over the mountain when they draw a tag after waiting 25 years to get it. That just insures that most people are going to go home disappointed and frustrated. There have been several studies done showing that mule deer antler size typically levels off between ages 4 and 5 and elk antler size between ages 6 and 7. Obviously exceptions will occur and nutrition can have a big impact from one year to the next, but the reality is there are likely a lot of older bulls "that just need another year or two" dying of old age on units like the Pahvant and Beaver. Same with deer on the Paunsaugunt and and Henry Mountains. Below is a chart from one study and a link to the study if you want more info.

Managing for bull:cow ratios is a much more biologically sound management strategy. And it would create significantly more opportunity as well.


















Figure 2. Antler Size and Age. Relationship between age and index of...


Download scientific diagram | Antler Size and Age. Relationship between age and index of antler size (i.e., Boone and Crockett score in cm) for mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ; closed circles) and American elk ( Cervus canadensis ; open circles) collected from 20 areas of western North America...




www.researchgate.net


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

This "rag horn" hunt sounds good. But, could you imagine the number of hunters chasing elk on a LE unit at the same time? I'd think you would have to have a separate date and stay away from the "trophy bull" hunt time. It wouldn't sit well if a guy that sat on 27 points applies for a the trophy bull hunt and has 50 other utards running all over the mountain.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

taxidermist said:


> This "rag horn" hunt sounds good. But, could you imagine the number of hunters chasing elk on a LE unit at the same time? I'd think you would have to have a separate date and stay away from the "trophy bull" hunt time. It wouldn't sit well if a guy that sat on 27 points applies for a the trophy bull hunt and has 50 other utards running all over the mountain.


The only LE elk hunts now that don't have other hunters competing at the same time are the any weapon hunts. Archery are competing with spike hunters and deer hunters. Muzzle loader are competing with deer hunters And you can throw in a few random grouse hunters.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> This "rag horn" hunt sounds good. But, could you imagine the number of hunters chasing elk on a LE unit at the same time? I'd think you would have to have a separate date and stay away from the "trophy bull" hunt time. It wouldn't sit well if a guy that sat on 27 points applies for a the trophy bull hunt and has 50 other utards running all over the mountain.


It's not raghorns that need to be shot. It's old bulls that don't appeal to anyone because their antlers never grew big enough.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I stayed this elsewhere, and I really don’t know how this would work, but I hear an awful lot of complaints with how deer are managed on the buck:doe ratio. Why would elk be different?

I actually like this idea. Especially after reading Packout’s explanation of how many tags could be added by just dropping the age classification down one year.

Giving more bull elk tags is not they way to sell high end conservation tags and make SFW happy, but I think it should be happening. It is a major uphill battle, especially when you have SFW trying to get hunts completely closed (IE Dutton late) because too many average Joes are killing trophy bulls on it or how they want to move the rifle hunt so we can grow more 400 inch bulls. But I’m all for it. People complain about point creep, the ONLY way to slow it is to move more people though the system. I absolutely think some of the “premium” units need to give out a lot more tags.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The biology says that the SFW model does not work. In fact it will create a major decline in elk. They lose production carrying excess bulls. It is self defeating.


----------



## 2:22 (Jan 31, 2013)

Hunters are drawn to kill the BEST animal they can. The management hunt on the Henry's was to target the three point bucks. Hunters held out and hunted hard so they could kill the biggest buck possible under the description they were given of a "Management Buck". Most hunters that I know agree that the management hunt that has now been discontinued did some MAJOR damage to the Henry quality.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

If dropping the desired age of a bull by one year on a unit is set in place for the sole reason of attempting to "move hunters through the system", or, "slowing the point creep" I believe that is not "biology science", it is "public pressure". As more folks move into Utah, and begin applying for tags, the point creep is only going to get worse and if the "Bored" receives pressure and adds tags or whatever to accommodate the publics demands, well, say goodbye to hunting.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm all for a change like this. There's no reason to have more than a 50:100 bull/ cow ratio even on the most high end trophy units. In fact, the only game animals that should be based on age are pronghorn and bighorn sheep.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

2:22 said:


> Hunters are drawn to kill the BEST animal they can.


That’s not true. I’ve seen many hunters smoke the first 280 bull they saw opening morning on a unit that’s managed for 320-340 bulls, and if you put in a little effort on scouting, could kill a 350+ bull. Thousands of deer hunters shoot the first buck with antlers they see. Sure everyone WANTS a giant. But many also just want to fill a tag. Size is just a bonus at that point.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Elk herd management is completely broken. Carrying far too many bulls prevents cow herd build up. We could probably cut the bull herd to one third of current allowing an equivalent cow herd increase which would produce a big increase in bull calves. Could go to a completely different tag structure: 1 take high kill weapons out of the rut to lower the kill % and clear out more top point holders, 2 create a rag horn hunt where hunters could spend their points and,3 greatly up the bull tags to achieve a 1 to 3 bull to cow ratio. It is insane to carry all these bulls for a once in 30 year branch antler bull hunt.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> If dropping the desired age of a bull by one year on a unit is set in place for the sole reason of attempting to "move hunters through the system", or, "slowing the point creep" I believe that is not "biology science", it is "public pressure". As more folks move into Utah, and begin applying for tags, the point creep is only going to get worse and if the "Bored" receives pressure and adds tags or whatever to accommodate the publics demands, well, say goodbye to hunting.


This just isn’t true. Carrying excess males in the population is not biologically necessary, and even could be detrimental on the long term for the health of the herd.

Not every unit has a large excess in males, but the example cited here to bring up this discussion is an extreme example that needs to be corrected or they could have a major crash in here health. You could triple the amount of tags on the Beaver and not even begin to negatively impact herd health. You may not see as many big animals over years, but herd health is not measured in inches. Societal pressure is, however. So I think you actually have it completely opposite.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Why not keep it simple. Just double the tags allotted for a LE elk unit and then reassess the next year.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Critter said:


> Why not keep it simple. Just double the tags allotted for a LE elk unit and then reassess the next year.


The stats for the Beaver came from flying it this winter. Might have to fly each unit more often to keep track?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> I'm all for a change like this. There's no reason to have more than a 50:100 bull/ cow ratio even on the most high end trophy units. In fact, the only game animals that should be based on age are pronghorn and bighorn sheep.


I'd like to hear why you think pronghorn should be managed based on age?


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I live and hunt in the Boulder Unit where it takes 6 years or more to get a cow elk tag and at least 6 years for a buck tag and probably 27 + years for a branch antler bull tag along with a dwindling antelope herd and diminishing doe herd. Nearby units appear to be in the same condition. It's no longer a matter of tweaks to our wildlife management - it's time for a complete reworking of our entire wildlife management system. It will only worsen with the increasing hunter population. The bull elk situation is pathetic -maintaining a bloated bull population at the expense of a minimal cow herd for the fortunate few to get big bull hunt with a 90% kill rate that barely qualifies as a hunt more like a high fence taking.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> I'd like to hear why you think pronghorn should be managed based on age?


 because they already are to an extent in Utah and I like it. They are managing for 3 year old bucks but if they did a 20:100 buck to doe on pronghorn, I'd like that too.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Hunter Tom said:


> I live and hunt in the Boulder Unit where it takes 6 years or more to get a cow elk tag and at least 6 years for a buck tag and probably 27 + years for a branch antler bull tag along with a dwindling antelope herd and diminishing doe herd. Nearby units appear to be in the same condition. It's no longer a matter of tweaks to our wildlife management - it's time for a complete reworking of our entire wildlife management system. It will only worsen with the increasing hunter population. The bull elk situation is pathetic -maintaining a bloated bull population at the expense of a minimal cow herd for the fortunate few to get big bull hunt with a 90% kill rate that barely qualifies as a hunt more like a high fence taking.


 looks like you can draw it with 3…


----------



## 2:22 (Jan 31, 2013)

How bout we go back to random draw and get rid of all point systems but still manage the herds for low impact so the value continues to be worth something?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

2:22 said:


> How bout we go back to random draw and get rid of all point systems but still manage the herds for low impact so the value continues to be worth something?


Hard pass. I will never subscribe to a philosophy that puts a dollar amount value over each of our ability to hunt. I’d rather quadruple tags across the board on elk tags and make 320 bulls the top end trophy in our state than manage to incentivize how much we can sell one of those tags to private parties.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The idea is to get more hunters through the system. 

About the only way to do this is to allocate more tags and perhaps change waiting periods or something to that effect. With Utah's draw system I have seen hunters draw a couple of tags for a unit before others have drawn a single tag. Luck is involved here but it needs to be fixed. 

As for thinking that those who draw a premium tag shooting a lesser quality bull, I doubt it. They put in for those quality units to hunt a quality animal and not a lesser one. I have however seen a hunter shoot a rag horn on a outfitted hunt on the first day. I don't know the situation but he shot it so he must of been happy with it.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I've seen units that were awesome and produced some giant bulls (350+) That was when they didn't have 80+ tags available. One unit was the Wasatch. Back in the early 2000's there were some real nice bulls, and now 22 years later, your lucky to find a handful of 350 bulls in the same acreage that produced those bigger bulls. Don't get me wrong, there are some big bulls on the unit now, but, it sure isn't like it was. I blame the mass amount of cow tags the DWR handed out, along with more LE tags. 

Remember the saying and bumper stickers back in 1995 when the DWR changed things up? *"Nothing Alive In 95" *


----------



## 2:22 (Jan 31, 2013)

I blame it on the spike hunts. I am ALL about hunting a quality animal every once in a great while over hunting every year with specimans that aren't even a true representaion of the species. I realize that I am alone on this site but that doesn't matter to me. LET EM GROW!


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> I've seen units that were awesome and produced some giant bulls (350+) That was when they didn't have 80+ tags available. One unit was the Wasatch. Back in the early 2000's there were some real nice bulls, and now 22 years later, your lucky to find a handful of 350 bulls in the same acreage that produced those bigger bulls. Don't get me wrong, there are some big bulls on the unit now, but, it sure isn't like it was. I blame the mass amount of cow tags the DWR handed out, along with more LE tags.
> 
> Remember the saying and bumper stickers back in 1995 when the DWR changed things up? *"Nothing Alive In 95" *


This mindset has gotten us into the point mess. Less opportunity means more people waiting. Now numbers are showing you can wait in line and never be guaranteed to draw.

This isn't just a Utah problem every state is starting to think "what the heck can be done about point creep"? 

In every pyramid scheme there comes a time where the middle players start to get stiffed and the gig is up. 

Points simply aren't sustainable over the long haul as applicants continually increase and opportunity remains flat or decreases.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> looks like you can draw it with 3…
> View attachment 151676


That was 4 years of drawing not 3 and it was every other year not too long ago and will be 6 years of drawing soon.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Hunter Tom said:


> That was 4 years of drawing not 3 and it was every other year not too long ago and will be 6 years of drawing soon.


Did you or did you not say it takes at least 6 years to draw a tag? That’s simply not true. And that’s for a rifle tag. Muzzy and archery are shorter than that. There’s also nothing saying you have to apply for and hunt the unit you live in. It’s your choice to wait that long for an opportunity to go deer hunting in your home state. You said yourself that the Boulder hunting experience is bad. So maybe go try another unit?


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

2:22 said:


> How bout we go back to random draw and get rid of all point systems but still manage the herds for low impact so the value continues to be worth something?


Says the guy who’s on wait periods for all OIL species in the state. Easy to want change when it doesn’t benefit or take away from your own personal experience


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> Did you or did you not say it takes at least 6 years to draw a tag? That’s simply not true. And that’s for a rifle tag. Muzzy and archery are shorter than that. There’s also nothing saying you have to apply for and hunt the unit you live in. It’s your choice to wait that long for an opportunity to go deer hunting in your home state. You said yourself that the Boulder hunting experience is bad. So maybe go try another unit?


YOUR 3 POINT DRAW WAS 4 YEARS AND 15% of them did not draw I will bet that the 5 year wait draw this year will not all draw and only 6 year wait is guaranteed. Don't you have something better to do?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hunter Tom said:


> YOUR 3 POINT DRAW WAS 4 YEARS AND 15% of them did not draw I will bet that the 5 year wait draw this year will not all draw and only 6 year wait is guaranteed. Don't you have something better to do?


I don’t have a dog in your fight here, but I’m seeing anyone with 4+ points will draw 100% this year and 3 points will be 50/50 shot or better.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Hunter Tom said:


> YOUR 3 POINT DRAW WAS 4 YEARS AND 15% of them did not draw I will bet that the 5 year wait draw this year will not all draw and only 6 year wait is guaranteed. Don't you have something better to do?


4 years is not 6, like you stated. You also implied it takes longer with saying “AT LEAST”. 85% draw odds means you can probably plan on drawing a tag that year.

you’re the one who said it. Not me.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I don’t have a dog in your fight here, but I’m seeing anyone with 4+ points will draw 100% this year and 3 points will be 50/50 shot or better.


4 points is a 5 year draw- o points is the first year draw and some may be in a six year draw this year. If you start applying now you will probably have a 6+ year wait. My point is that we are having to wait ever longer to draw with no end in sight.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

The state should just pay out the $10 for each point every hunter has (after bumping the application fee to, say $50) and be done with the issue of point creep. Then toss all applications into a random draw. Said and done, no arguing and no need to design an algorithm for the best chance at a tag. Face it boys and girls, it's only going to get worse and the herds are diminishing every year.

Twenty Five years from now the way things are going, you'll have to draw a fishing license. 

EDIT....

Put a minimum point system in place for units. Say the Monroe LE Elk tag. To apply you must have at least X amount of points.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Taxi, your post says two completely opposite things. I’m very confused.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Hunter Tom said:


> 4 points is a 5 year draw- o points is the first year draw and some may be in a six year draw this year. If you start applying now you will probably have a 6+ year wait. My point is that we are having to wait ever longer to draw with no end in sight.


Ok, but you don’t need 4 points. Or 6 (like you said it took at least that to draw), you need 3. Pick up a bow or muzzleloader if you don’t want to wait that long. It’s your choice. No one is forcing you to wait 3 years for a rifle deer tag on that particular unit. But I do forget it’s 2022 and it’s much more popular to complain about things and be mad, than be proactive and try to figure out a solution to things very trivial like this


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Taxi, your post says two completely opposite things. I’m very confused.


Ok, I agree. Let me try to clarify.

1- IF the point system that is in place now, stays in place. Break each unit into a "must have" minimum points to apply for that unit. For instance Monroe LE Elk, If it normally takes 25 points to draw the tag, make a minimum point application for that unit 15. If you don't have 15 points and apply for that unit, it kicks you out of the application. Similar to applying for two LE species now. Cant do it, the system wont allow it for a resident.
This could move the bottleneck of points faster with getting rid of the highest point holders now. You would eventually run into the same scenario as we have now in 5-8 years though. It's a band aid for the time being. 

2- Buy out the point holders at face value ($10) and eliminate the point system all together going to a random draw for all hunts. Fresh start for everyone.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> Ok, I agree. Let me try to clarify.
> 
> 1- IF the point system that is in place now, stays in place. Break each unit into a "must have" minimum points to apply for that unit. For instance Monroe LE Elk, If it normally takes 25 points to draw the tag, make a minimum point application for that unit 15. If you don't have 15 points and apply for that unit, it kicks you out of the application. Similar to applying for two LE species now. Cant do it, the system wont allow it for a resident.
> This could move the bottleneck of points faster with getting rid of the highest point holders now. You would eventually run into the same scenario as we have now in 5-8 years though. It's a band aid for the time being.
> ...


#2 is a terrible idea. I would never support it.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

There were a lot of cons presented during the workshop regarding changing the system. The take away I got is that there needs to be a "better" solution to the current system to justify a change. I have yet to see any solution that address any of the cons presented.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

middlefork said:


> There were a lot of cons presented during the workshop regarding changing the system. The take away I got is that there needs to be a "better" solution to the current system to justify a change. I have yet to see any solution that address any of the cons presented.


This is one constant I’ve noticed. Lots of ideas for change, but that is really all it would be is a change. It wouldn’t solve any problem and not really help, but it would be a change.

Until they can grow the herd significantly, no system will be good. A bunch of imperfect systems that don’t make people happy.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*Until they can grow the herd significantly, no system will be good. A bunch of imperfect systems that don’t make people happy.*

Is the DWR in place to "make people happy", or, to manage the wild animals that we hunt? It wouldn't matter what the Scientists came up with. Any plan that is presented will be ridiculed by many hunters. Cant please everyone, but maybe try to please the majority I guess.

If tag prices increase, I think you'll have a strong possibility that poaching cases will increase as well.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Something else that "could" help point creep. MAYBE. No more unit jumping. If you apply for unit A for six years, and then decide to apply for unit B the next year, you have 0 points for unit B. The points would have to stay with the units applied for. No more building points up then cashing them in for a unit that one could draw with the points they've acquired.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

The simplist change is to issue a LOT more bull tags to reduce the bull herd and enlarge the cow herd. That will knock the old bulls down and it will be a rag horn hunt. Deal with the point system once the bull to cow ratio becomes reasonable.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> The simplist change is to issue a LOT more bull tags to reduce the bull herd and enlarge the cow herd. That will knock the old bulls down and it will be a rag horn hunt. Deal with the point system once the bull to cow ratio becomes reasonable.


Did you hunt Elk back in the 80's? You were lucky to find a 5x5 bull on the mountain. Then they implemented the spike only units and the bulls grew up. If you want to reduce the bulls to have an ideal "cow to bull" ratio, just open the entire state up to the taking of any antlered bull. That would only take one year to knock the bulls down.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The best solution is to simply manage to bull/cow ratios and give out more bull tags...we aren't going to fix the problem of too many hunters chasing a limited resource.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

wyoming2utah said:


> ...we aren't going to fix the problem of too many hunters chasing a limited resource.


^^^^^ THIS!


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> 2- Buy out the point holders at face value ($10) and eliminate the point system all together going to a random draw for all hunts. Fresh start for everyone.


They are going to have to pay out much more than $10 a point if they are going that route. I’m not ok with the buying out idea at all. But, if you were going to do that, I’m going to need about $1,000 per point. I’ve invested in their system for a long time over all species. I’ve bought licenses to buy into their system all those years as well. Investments gain interest. And that interest will be significant. 

throw lifetime deer licenses into that mess, and they will have to make it $1,000 per point to make it “fair” for everyone since they won’t take those tags away from current holders.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> They are going to have to pay out much more than $10 a point if they are going that route. I’m not ok with the buying out idea at all. But, if you were going to do that, I’m going to need about $1,000 per point. I’ve invested in their system for a long time over all species. I’ve bought licenses to buy into their system all those years as well. Investments gain interest. And that interest will be significant.
> 
> throw lifetime deer licenses into that mess, and they will have to make it $1,000 per point to make it “fair” for everyone since they won’t take those tags away from current holders.
> [/QUOT
> ...


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

I haven’t complain about the system at all. I like how it’s set up and honestly I don’t feel like it’s unfair to anyone. From those at the top or those at the bottom, everyone has a chance. That is not the case in the other drawing situations. It’s a 50/50 split for applicants. I’ve drawn tags in the max point pool, I’ve drawn random tags with 0-5 points. So have countless others. People who feel entitled are the ones complaining

this isn’t just a little issue with a refund with the amount paid up front by those invested. They’ve got to come up with far more than that to buy people off. Points are extremely valuable to everyone playing the game. Anyone who’s interested in this system knows that. Which is why there’s such a bitch fest over this whole thing right now.

and the government entity has never offered fair market value for anything, especially land they feel entitled to. Which is why everyone tells them to get phucked on their fair “offer”.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Did you hunt Elk back in the 80's? You were lucky to find a 5x5 bull on the mountain.


My dad shot a spike elk in 1982 or '83, had it hanging in the garage. I remember lots of people coming over to see it as word got out. It was like he shot a unicorn or something.

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

DallanC said:


> My dad shot a spike elk in 1982 or '83, had it hanging in the garage. I remember lots of people coming over to see it as word got out. It was like he shot a unicorn or something.
> 
> -DallanC


Dang, I remember back in the 70's when they were a unicorn. The first wild elk that I saw in Utah was back in the middle 60's just off of Skyline Drive. There was a whole herd of them that we watched heading up the hill towards the top, just as the reached the top someone opened up on them then there was all kinds of yelling that they were elk. This was during the deer hunt. I have no idea if any of them were hit by the ones doing the shooting. 

That was the time that there was only a draw for elk and it was a 5 year waiting period then also if you drew a tag if I remember correctly.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

MooseMeat said:


> I haven’t complain about the system at all. I like how it’s set up and honestly I don’t feel like it’s unfair to anyone. From those at the top or those at the bottom, everyone has a chance. That is not the case in the other drawing situations. It’s a 50/50 split for applicants. I’ve drawn tags in the max point pool, I’ve drawn random tags with 0-5 points. So have countless others. People who feel entitled are the ones complaining


This +100. 
I've drawn tags with small point amounts, and drawn tags with big point amounts. I think the system works well.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Critter said:


> Dang, I remember back in the 70's when they were a unicorn. The first wild elk that I saw in Utah was back in the middle 60's just off of Skyline Drive. There was a whole herd of them that we watched heading up the hill towards the top, just as the reached the top someone opened up on them then there was all kinds of yelling that they were elk. This was during the deer hunt. I have no idea if any of them were hit by the ones doing the shooting.
> 
> That was the time that there was only a draw for elk and it was a 5 year waiting period then also if you drew a tag if I remember correctly.


My grandfather was one of the lucky ones who drew a tag those first years they were offered. They killed a 5 point up somewhere by gunnison valley or bull valley (I can’t remember which. Somewhere up top of the willow creek drainage). Only elk they saw during the entire hunt. Being from Salina, they were pretty popular and everyone in town wanted to see it. Wish I had those antlers. They got thrown away shortly after they got home from what I was told


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> *Until they can grow the herd significantly, no system will be good. A bunch of imperfect systems that don’t make people happy.*
> 
> Is the DWR in place to "make people happy", or, to manage the wild animals that we hunt? It wouldn't matter what the Scientists came up with. Any plan that is presented will be ridiculed by many hunters. Cant please everyone, but maybe try to please the majority I guess.
> 
> If tag prices increase, I think you'll have a strong possibility that poaching cases will increase as well.


Utah can't grow elk herds significantly. Most units in the state are already at objective. They can push to increase herds, but that isn't a decision they get to make unilaterally. They have to work with cattlemen, forest service, BLM, and other landowners to put more animals on the landscape.

The current LE system is broken. It will not improve on it's own. Some tweaks are going to have to be made in an effort to move hunters through the system. During the work meeting, the division indicated under the current system, someone starting to apply today would have to wait 188 years to draw a Henry Mountains rifle tag. I don't imagine the top elk units in the state are much better.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

We need to manage elk units at a 20:100 bull to cow ratio. They can keep a few premier units like San Juan, Boulder, Monroe at an objective closer to 50:100. But this almost 1:1 thing we have going on needs to stop. It’s clear guys would rather hunt than wait half their life to shoot a 350 bull. Raise cow numbers, lower bull numbers. Push more hunters through the system and have a healthier herd.

and of course changing season dates would also increase tags.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

MooseMeat said:


> We need to manage elk units at a 20:100 bull to cow ratio. They can keep a few premier units like San Juan, Boulder, Monroe at an objective closer to 50:100. But this almost 1:1 thing we have going on needs to stop. It’s clear guys would rather hunt than wait half their life to shoot a 350 bull. Raise cow numbers, lower bull numbers. Push more hunters through the system and have a healthier herd.
> 
> and of course changing season dates would would increase tags.



And to do this people want to increase archery permits and take the rifle out of the rut!


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> And to do this people want to increase archery permits and take the rifle out of the rut!


Seems pretty logical and likely to be the best way to achieve what is needed - what is your recommendation?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

elkhunterUT said:


> Seems pretty logical and likely to be the best way to achieve what is needed - what is your recommendation?


If we want more bulls killed, my suggestion would certainly NOT be to take away rifle tags and give them to archers. And even if we don't want more bulls killed, my suggestion is still not to take away rifle tags and give them to archers. The vast majority of Utah hunters are rifle hunters. Archery is already the easiest weapon choice to move through for tags. We don't need to cater to the minority.


----------



## elkhunterUT (Jan 21, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> If we want more bulls killed, my suggestion would certainly NOT be to take away rifle tags and give them to archers. And even if we don't want more bulls killed, my suggestion is still not to take away rifle tags and give them to archers. The vast majority of Utah hunters are rifle hunters. Archery is already the easiest weapon choice to move through for tags. We don't need to cater to the minority.


We need more bulls killed AND need to get more hunters through the point system - changing season dates AND giving a lot more tags to less effective weapon types accomplishes both far better than any other proposal I have heard or seen.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

elkhunterUT said:


> We need more bulls killed AND need to get more hunters through the point system - changing season dates AND giving a lot more tags to less effective weapon types accomplishes both far better than any other proposal I have heard or seen.


8-10% of resident LE elk applicants apply for archery tags. (last year it was 8.3%) Archery gets 25% of the LE elk unit permits. 25% of the opportunity goes to 8-10% of applicants. So you are proposing that those 8-10% get more than the current 25% of the opportunity to LE elk hunt? Also, many of those applying for LE archery have already drawn other LE elk tags. 

Lets look at changing the seasons- On some units, the any weapon later seasons have higher success rates than the early season. Many units have comparable success rates between early and late any weapon hunts. Few units have a substantial difference between success rates on the early vs later. It can be argued that moving the any weapon hunts later just moves the timing of when the bulls get killed. We would see few opportunities to increase tags by moving the any weapon hunt out of the rut and we could actually see loss of opportunity in some cases. So, while this drum has been beaten over the years, the facts just don't back it up. 

And I apply for LE archery elk- so selfishly I say let's do it. Realistically, I can't in good faith see giving more to one small group at the expense of the majority.


----------



## Bowhunter50 (Oct 14, 2014)

MooseMeat said:


> We need to manage elk units at a 20:100 bull to cow ratio. They can keep a few premier units like San Juan, Boulder, Monroe at an objective closer to 50:100. But this almost 1:1 thing we have going on needs to stop. It’s clear guys would rather hunt than wait half their life to shoot a 350 bull. Raise cow numbers, lower bull numbers. Push more hunters through the system and have a healthier herd.
> 
> and of course changing season dates would would increase tags.


I love this idea. I would like to see a better balance between opportunity and quality. 

Right now there’s a huge disparity between opportunity hunts (OTC any bull) and quality hunts (LE hunts).

Not saying I want to see OTC go away… I love that hunt. I would just rather make LE a once every 5 years where a guy has a decent chance at a 6 point or big 5. Not a hunt where a guy is pissed if he doesn’t see 350 bulls everyday

I know the current wait period is 5 years for elk and with the habitat and animal numbers, maybe this isn’t possible. I guess this is what I would like to see in a “perfect world”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

MooseMeat said:


> I haven’t complain about the system at all. I like how it’s set up and honestly I don’t feel like it’s unfair to anyone. From those at the top or those at the bottom, everyone has a chance. That is not the case in the other drawing situations. It’s a 50/50 split for applicants. I’ve drawn tags in the max point pool, I’ve drawn random tags with 0-5 points. So have countless others. People who feel entitled are the ones complaining
> 
> this isn’t just a little issue with a refund with the amount paid up front by those invested. They’ve got to come up with far more than that to buy people off. Points are extremely valuable to everyone playing the game. Anyone who’s interested in this system knows that. Which is why there’s such a bitch fest over this whole thing right now.
> 
> and the government entity has never offered fair market value for anything, especially land they feel entitled to. Which is why everyone tells them to get phucked on their fair “offer”.


I haven't been as lucky as you and others in drawing a LE tag with sub max points. Must be a black cloud over me, I don't know. But whenever the "system" has a possibility of changing direction, it seems we, (myself included) begin the role of chicken little in some fashion. 

This is a site that we can bounce ideas and what if's off each other. I've seen some remarkable comments made that I hadn't considered or thought about. I like this, even if we start bantering back and forth and nearing a locked thread. It's healthy I believe.

I guess we just have to wait and see what 2023 brings and then, begin to complain and moan.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I have drawn 2 LE tags in Utah. First was an antelope tag by mistake. I thought I put in for AW but ended up drawing an archery tag. That got me serious about archery. Second one was an archery elk after switching to a different unit that I had been applying for muzzle loader. Drew that tag with 2 more than max points. I'm glad I did.

I don't see a magic fix for the problem but a lot of the angst is created by people who are set on a unit or weapon type. I get that people don't want to pick up a different weapon and only want to hunt a specific unit. But with that come some limitations. I think the current system (flawed as it might be) is a good blend.

I'm not smart enough to figure out the pros and cons of any proposed fix. But the reality is the fix will need to make sense to those impacted. This is not being done in a vacuum by any means. It has really never been easier to get involved. I would hope that some good proposals come forth that at least try to address some of the issues.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Packout said:


> 8-10% of resident LE elk applicants apply for archery tags. (last year it was 8.3%) Archery gets 25% of the LE elk unit permits. 25% of the opportunity goes to 8-10% of applicants. So you are proposing that those 8-10% get more than the current 25% of the opportunity to LE elk hunt? Also, many of those applying for LE archery have already drawn other LE elk tags.
> 
> Lets look at changing the seasons- On some units, the any weapon later seasons have higher success rates than the early season. Many units have comparable success rates between early and late any weapon hunts. Few units have a substantial difference between success rates on the early vs later. It can be argued that moving the any weapon hunts later just moves the timing of when the bulls get killed. We would see few opportunities to increase tags by moving the any weapon hunt out of the rut and we could actually see loss of opportunity in some cases. So, while this drum has been beaten over the years, the facts just don't back it up.
> 
> And I apply for LE archery elk- so selfishly I say let's do it. Realistically, I can't in good faith see giving more to one small group at the expense of the majority.


This is the exact mentality that will never let Utah change its “management” style. I’m sure no one would put in for those extra tags if they shifted to more primitive weapons. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Packout said:


> 8-10% of resident LE elk applicants apply for archery tags. (last year it was 8.3%) Archery gets 25% of the LE elk unit permits. 25% of the opportunity goes to 8-10% of applicants. So you are proposing that those 8-10% get more than the current 25% of the opportunity to LE elk hunt? Also, many of those applying for LE archery have already drawn other LE elk tags.
> 
> Lets look at changing the seasons- On some units, the any weapon later seasons have higher success rates than the early season. Many units have comparable success rates between early and late any weapon hunts. Few units have a substantial difference between success rates on the early vs later. It can be argued that moving the any weapon hunts later just moves the timing of when the bulls get killed. We would see few opportunities to increase tags by moving the any weapon hunt out of the rut and we could actually see loss of opportunity in some cases. So, while this drum has been beaten over the years, the facts just don't back it up.
> 
> And I apply for LE archery elk- so selfishly I say let's do it. Realistically, I can't in good faith see giving more to one small group at the expense of the majority.


This if this was true why would every other state avoid managing their elk this way?

If archery had better dates it would attract more applicants that's a fact. 



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> Realistically, I can't in good faith see giving more to one small group at the expense of the majority.


This. This right here! Yet all we hear from that one small group is how they need more. Will never cease to amaze me. 

I chuckle every time I hear folks say “no other state does this so it must be wrong.” Utah does a lot of things no other states do, not just in wildlife or hunter management, and it’s what makes Utah such a great place. I don’t think there is a lot of states that have more sought after elk hunts than Utah has. We must be doing something right!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

silentstalker said:


> This is the exact mentality that will never let Utah change its “management” style. I’m sure no one would put in for those extra tags if they shifted to more primitive weapons.


Show me some numbers that support your hypothesis.
Lets look at some numbers, based on speculation and what we know. We run the archery hunt thru the whole month of Sept and add archery tags. What should the percentage of tags for archers be- 33%? 40%? 50%? I've heard all of those numbers proposed. Lets go with the 33% of tags to archers.

How many applicants will it attract? We had 4,669 archery apps last year. Will that number jump to 10,000? I doubt it would increase by more than double, but let's go with 10k applicants. Now we are giving 33% of the permits to 17% of applicants. While I personally think it is easier to kill archery bulls pre-rut, I could be wrong and now we increased success rates for archery. Last year, the LE archery success was 51%. Is success going up with a Sept hunt? Isn't that what we hear claimed by those who want to push archery into late Sept?

Now we move the any weapon hunt out of Sept. All those bulls that would have been killed are still alive to be killed by the archers for the rest of their hunt and for the muzzleloaders. It stands to reason that with more bulls available, the ML success rate will increase some- a little or a lot, I have no idea- can't be across the board as some ML hunts are at 100% already. Then those bulls that are still leftover will get killed on the Later hunts, which means Later Season success could also increase due to more bulls available to harvest. Outcomes will depend on the unit of course.

A quick glance at the success rates show success on Early hunts for 7 units was more than 10% higher than Later hunts. 9 units had similar success rates (10% or less difference) of early/late- with 6 of the 9 having higher Late Season success rates. Moving Any Weapon tags to later dates does not automatically give us more tags overall. In fact, it is possible to have less tags if Any Weapon success rates increase or if archers kill a higher number of younger bulls, lowering ages and putting units below age objective.

So now archers get more tags, a longer season, and hunt thru Sept. ML gets to hunt bulls that would have been killed on the previous Any Weapon hunt and some years get a Sept portion to their hunt. Any Weapon hunters get to hunt late season bulls after the rut, many broken, during harsher weather, dealing with closed roads, etc. Or if you want to run the hunt in Oct then they get to hunt with Spike hunters or General Season Deer hunters and their family/friends choose between hunting together for the LE tag or apart on their own hunts.

Show me where I'm way off base. I'm willing to listen.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

weaversamuel76 said:


> This if this was true why would every other state avoid managing their elk this way?
> If archery had better dates it would attract more applicants that's a fact.


I think you are correct that if archery ran the whole month of Sept we'd see an increase in applicants. I'm not sure what that increase would look like. 
And there is no "if this were true" about the success rates. That is what the numbers say, if the numbers are wrong then so am I.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Scrap the whole system. Make it one season, August 20 to November 15, statewide, unlimited OTC. Legal weapon: blow guns (manual only, no mechanical or compressed air assist) between .22 and .700 caliber.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

Packout said:


> Show me some numbers that support your hypothesis.
> Lets look at some numbers, based on speculation and what we know. We run the archery hunt thru the whole month of Sept and add archery tags. What should the percentage of tags for archers be- 33%? 40%? 50%? I've heard all of those numbers proposed. Lets go with the 33% of tags to archers.
> 
> How many applicants will it attract? We had 4,669 archery apps last year. Will that number jump to 10,000? I doubt it would increase by more than double, but let's go with 10k applicants. Now we are giving 33% of the permits to 17% of applicants. While I personally think it is easier to kill archery bulls pre-rut, I could be wrong and now we increased success rates for archery. Last year, the LE archery success was 51%. Is success going up with a Sept hunt? Isn't that what we hear claimed by those who want to push archery into late Sept?
> ...


Muzzleloader LE bull (open sights only) august 1-10-16% of tags
Early archery august 16-September 6 (LE and GS)- 16% of tags
HAMS September 11-16- 16% of tags
ALW (GS and LE) October 1-10 - 36% of tags
Muzzleloader GS (scopes allowed) November 1-6
Late HAMS or late archery November 11-20 - 16% of tags 

cow hunts start November 21 and end by December 31

everyone wins. Elk get breaks from hunters. Harassment from hunters on late season are minimized. And in the process we knock bull to cow ratios down to 20:100. All while shooting 3-4 year old 280-315 bulls. If you want a 350 bull, you’re gonna have to wait 30+ years for 1 of the 5 units managed for them.

don’t get me wrong, I love a great January rifle cow elk hunt. But some of the chit that goes down on them is far from ok. You could do an extended cow archery season for January if you wanted to add extra opportunity, but im pretty sure that won’t be too popular with many. Times are changing. If you want to hunt more, you need to adapt and pick up another weapon. Archery isn’t hard once you jump into it. Just about everyone can do it. It’s the “hunting” side of archery that people suck at.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

*Times are changing. If you want to hunt more, you need to adapt and pick up another weapon. Archery isn’t hard once you jump into it. Just about everyone can do it. It’s the “hunting” side of archery that people suck at.*

When I was a young whipper snapper hunting the Nebo back in the 80's to late 90's, archery was my choice and I managed to kill a bull every other year. It almost became "easy" it seemed. It takes years of archery hunting to figure out how chit works. (at least for me) Once I got in the groove, it became second nature. I gave up archery elk after I found myself hunting alone while the rest of the family turned to the rifle. To dang hot now it seems like. Try packing a spike bull out of the bottom of bear trap on your own in 90 degree temps. That isn't fun at all.

I've threatened this year, will be my last, hunting big game in Utah. I've been leaning towards the archery elk GS tag this year.


----------



## MooseMeat (Dec 27, 2017)

taxidermist said:


> *Times are changing. If you want to hunt more, you need to adapt and pick up another weapon. Archery isn’t hard once you jump into it. Just about everyone can do it. It’s the “hunting” side of archery that people suck at.*
> 
> Try packing a spike bull out of the bottom of bear trap on your own in 90 degree temps. That isn't fun at all.


Oh I know. I’ve done it several times. But have since discovered much easier places to get them out of. It still sucks, but not nearly as bad as the hole you’re referring to. Waiting until night to do the bad hikes helps. But you’re also there at night dealing with that whole other scenario, when you’d rather be home in bed after a good shower.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> Show me some numbers that support your hypothesis.
> Lets look at some numbers, based on speculation and what we know. We run the archery hunt thru the whole month of Sept and add archery tags. What should the percentage of tags for archers be- 33%? 40%? 50%? I've heard all of those numbers proposed. Lets go with the 33% of tags to archers.
> 
> How many applicants will it attract? We had 4,669 archery apps last year. Will that number jump to 10,000? I doubt it would increase by more than double, but let's go with 10k applicants. Now we are giving 33% of the permits to 17% of applicants. While I personally think it is easier to kill archery bulls pre-rut, I could be wrong and now we increased success rates for archery. Last year, the LE archery success was 51%. Is success going up with a Sept hunt? Isn't that what we hear claimed by those who want to push archery into late Sept?
> ...


<insert slow clap emoji here>

Facts plus data rather than selfish emotion is a beautiful thing.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> Facts plus data rather than selfish emotion is a beautiful thing.


Look at those big bull mid season success rates. 

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Here's another freebie: LE photography season with a 75:25 bonus pool:random tag split.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Here's another freebie: LE photography season with a 75:25 bonus pool:random tag split.


We need multiple seasons. 0-50mm glass, 51-200mm, then "open lens" season, 201mm on up.

-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

DallanC said:


> We need multiple seasons. 0-50mm glass, 51-200mm, then "open lens" season, 201mm on up.
> 
> -DallanC


Make them separate draw categories, each with their own point system. Point $ machine go brrrrr


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Look at those big bull mid season success rates.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk


Ok, what conclusion would you like me to draw?











With exception of the Wasatch, it would be impossible to conclude that the moving all tags to the mid season would result in lower success. And if you listened to the discussion from last week, the division felt that any decrease in success was likely a result of competition with spike hunters.

I'm happy to give archers the rut. I would love to get the first chance at the bulls the last week of August and first week of September with my rifle. I don't see the rut being a huge advantage with archery gear when bulls are surrounded by dozen or more highly alert cows. You're not going to have much luck calling the herd bull off of his cows if you can't get between him and them. And you're going to be dealing with the satellite bulls that are pestering him too.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Any rifle hunt for bull elk on units with such high bull/cow ratios as most of our units have will result in inflated success rates. I've said this many times in the past....if you move the rifle hunt away from the rut, the amount of tags added is negated by increased success by whatever hunt replaces it. I am totally fine with the rifle hunt being in the rut because, as a bow hunter, I get a complete month to hunt.


----------



## 2:22 (Jan 31, 2013)

Oops


----------



## 2:22 (Jan 31, 2013)

DallanC said:


> My dad shot a spike elk in 1982 or '83, had it hanging in the garage. I remember lots of people coming over to see it as word got out. It was like he shot a unicorn or something.
> 
> -DallanC


I love how many of you speak of the days when shooting a branch antlered bull of any size would result in becoming the talk of the town. I remember the Pre SFW days well. This is why I am such a fan. Most of you won't give SFW a speck of credit but I was there. The introduction of SFW is when hunting in Utah changed. It was when going on a Snipe hunt or an Elk hunt was much the same. We were hunting basically something that was non existent. YES hunting changed drastically and hunting Elk became something that would only happen once or twice in ones lifetime if they wanted a trophy bull but could hunt spikes every year. In my mind that is such a better option than hunting Snipes every year. If we turn the masses loose on the herd, the herd will be gone in ONE year as has been mentioned.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

2:22 said:


> I love how many of you speak of the days when shooting a branch antlered bull of any size would result in becoming the talk of the town. I remember the Pre SFW days well. This is why I am such a fan. Most of you won't give SFW a speck of credit but I was there. The introduction of SFW is when hunting in Utah changed. It was when going on a Snipe hunt or an Elk hunt was much the same. We were hunting basically something that was non existent. YES hunting changed drastically and hunting Elk became something that would only happen once or twice in ones lifetime if they wanted a trophy bull but could hunt spikes every year. In my mind that is such a better option than hunting Snipes every year. If we turn the masses loose on the herd, the herd will be gone in ONE year as has been mentioned.


I watched the central RAC meeting today. I think they said there were 24 public comments (they are on line feel free to correct me) But I get the feeling that there will be some changes coming down the line concerning LE elk. I think it was Troy who told the story of a HAMS hunt with his nephew. A 315 bull aged at 14 years. Some how there needs to be a change to address the inability to stock pile bulls to meet the age objective. It really is becoming a problem that is impacting herd health.

But again I am basing my comments after listening to others who seem to know a whole lot more about what is going on than this old man.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

2:22 said:


> I love how many of you speak of the days when shooting a branch antlered bull of any size would result in becoming the talk of the town. I remember the Pre SFW days well. This is why I am such a fan. Most of you won't give SFW a speck of credit but I was there. The introduction of SFW is when hunting in Utah changed. It was when going on a Snipe hunt or an Elk hunt was much the same. We were hunting basically something that was non existent. YES hunting changed drastically and hunting Elk became something that would only happen once or twice in ones lifetime if they wanted a trophy bull but could hunt spikes every year. In my mind that is such a better option than hunting Snipes every year. If we turn the masses loose on the herd, the herd will be gone in ONE year as has been mentioned.


The problem with SFW is they are trying to stock pile trophy bulls. You can't have your cake and eat it too. For years, I watched the DWR try to give out more elk tags on many LE units only to be shot down under the pressure of SFW to the WB. Heck, I have even seen SFW members lobby to eliminate spike hunting because it was "ruining the trophy potential of a unit." The truth is that if we could back off the "trophy" ideal just a little bit, we could move a lot more people through the LE system.


----------



## runallday (Sep 17, 2018)

Covey covered most of this in the Central RAC meeting the other day. Very informative and transparent. The main take away for me was if we manage for older class bulls the quality of herds diminishes long term. The balance between biologist recommendations and social pressure is the crux of effective management. I like the level of consideration between opportunity and management. Biologists are very careful to not overreact when making recommendations for the long term outlooks. Our current team of biologist is the best it’s been in a long time and we will see progress over the next couple of years pending uncontrollable habitat and environmental variables. Solving point creep with a balanced approach is going to very challenging. Demand is high and supply is fairly stable so drawing premium units will be challenging. Good thing there are many units you can frequently draw that have quality and hunters will have to spend more time and effort to be successful and I prefer that. Hunters can no longer head out for a few days and be successful. I get frustrated when people expect easy hunts. In my opinion this increased challenge makes it more rewarding in the end. There are lifetime quality animals all over Utah on public land. You just need to put in the time. If you don’t have the time your expectations may be unrealistic.


----------

