# The best way to manage wildlife?



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

This quote was posted by wy2ut on another thread, taken from the British Columbia Wildlife Department. I have never read or heard any words that better convey how I feel on the matter.



> "In general, wildlife managers should adopt a quantity over quality philosophy for deer, moose and elk. *Hunting success is strongly related to continued participation*, and there are far more hunters that are happy to shoot an average animal than there are hunters whose specific purpose is to bag a trophy. *Really skilled hunters are capable of finding impressive animals if they put their minds to it*, but hunters of lesser skill find their chances for success greatly limited by trophy management practices. Furthermore, managing for animals with impressive antlers pushes opportunity away from general open seasons and towards Limited Entry hunting, restricting participation even further."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This is the link...but I can't get it to work.
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/ds/docs/ 070607_HunterRecruitment-RetentionStrategy.pdf


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Never. ever. go back to the 3 point restrictions, because the DWR SAYS IT JUS DON"T WORK, Never did? OK!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

10,000ft NO, what we need to do is manage the general season units that we already have. We have places that are under objective and the habitat needs A LOT of work so lets focus on the general seasons units we have before YOU and your buddy Wyo2ut decide to destroy LE units just because you want more opportunity than you have right now. Lets bring the deer population up on General season units and restore habitat and then you will have more opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Let's take a look at what the Arizona Fish and Wildlife Department found out in their state:

"New Survey: Arizonans look forward to more opportunities to hunt

A newly released independent study shows Arizona hunters feel having more opportunities to hunt is more important than hunt quality or outcome of the hunt.

"This agency has always prided itself on providing hunters with the highest quality hunting experience it can," says Arizona Game and Fish Department Deputy Director Steve Ferrell. "However, hunt demand now far exceeds hunting opportunities. This survey provides us with another perspective for use in our management efforts so they may address our customers' expectations."
The two-part independent study was conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Va., to determine Arizona hunters' attitudes toward the state's big game hunter permit tag draw, as well as hunting participation, hunting characteristics, and attitudes toward hunting.

Responsive Management, which is an internationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues, conducted the study via an Internet survey of hunters who applied for an Arizona big game hunt permit tag for fall 2006, plus a telephone survey of those who didn't respond to the Web survey. The entire study can be accessed from the link below. The survey study was posted on Jan. 9, 2007.

*"Of the 13 different factors related to the hunting experience, getting to go hunting ranked the highest in importance among respondents," says Mark Damian Duda, the executive director of Responsive Management. "Most people also said having more frequent opportunities to hunt big game is more important than actually harvesting a trophy animal."
*
Duda says the surveys show twice as many hunters would be willing to accept lower hunt success rates, if it meant they would be drawn and have an opportunity to hunt more often.

*Of six different factors related to a successful hunting experience, having the opportunity to hunt ranked the highest in importance among respondents, closely followed by spending time with family and learning to hunt and develop skills, with majorities rating each of these factors as extremely important. Harvesting a trophy animal ranked the lowest in importance, according to the study.*

Department officials say the study is important in helping the agency to best meet the needs and desires of its customers both now and in the future, and the study results also have implications for another critical area - hunter recruitment and retention. "Opportunities to hunt, including increased chances of success in the big game hunt permit tag draw, are important to hunter retention," say big game applicants."


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, its funny that you post all this garbage but yet you fight against I400 which gives more opportunity to hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good link wyo2ut, that is why I agree 100% with Nevada's mission statement, "Define, develop, and sustain both trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Nevada." It is all about BALANCE, which I support, and before wyo2ut tries to spin where I stand on this, I DO support BOTH trophy AND opportunity hunts, just not one or the other! I agree with this statement from Nevada's game management plan so much, I adopted it as my signature only changing the word Nevada with Utah. It's all about BALANCE.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...Pro here's your "spin"...Because of the survey and information that Arizona collected, they have formed new management guidelines:
"Buck-to-doe management guidelines have been shifted to 10-20 for mule deer and 15-25 for white-tailed deer.
Bull-to-cow management guidelines have been shifted to 15-25 for elk.
Bighorn sheep management guidelines have been adjusted to target the harvest of 15-25 percent of the Class III and IV rams.
Annual female harvest limits have been added to bear hunts and will be approved by the commission in the season-setting process of commission orders. These have already been established for spring 2008 and will appear in the spring hunt booklet."

Would you support this kind of balance? Would you support buck/doe ratio changes for LE units? What about bull/cow ratio changes on LE units? Just think how much more opportunity we could offer here in Utah if we managed our LE elk units for 15-25 bulls/100 cows...

You adopted Nevada's moniker...but in NO way do you support the kind of balance that Arizona's survey calls for. If a Utah survey showed that only 13% of the hunting public listed themselves as "trophy" hunters and if 87% of the hunting public said that hunting opportunity is more important than "trophy" opportunity, would you be willing to give up LE units?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Would you support this kind of balance? Would you support buck/doe ratio changes for LE units? What about bull/cow ratio changes on LE units? Just think how much more opportunity we could offer here in Utah if we managed our LE elk units for 15-25 bulls/100 cows...


We talked about this with I400 and you fought against it because you were worried about the quality going down. I think I need to ask Richard just how many personalities you really have. :roll: :roll: :roll:

I bet your students are entertained by your many personalities.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Ok...Pro here's your "spin"...Because of the survey and information that Arizona collected, they have formed new management guidelines:
> "Buck-to-doe management guidelines have been shifted to 10-20 for mule deer and 15-25 for white-tailed deer.
> Bull-to-cow management guidelines have been shifted to 15-25 for elk.
> Bighorn sheep management guidelines have been adjusted to target the harvest of 15-25 percent of the Class III and IV rams.
> ...


Let ME administer, or at least help write the questions asked in the poll and I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near 13%/87%. 8)

I would LOVE to see bull/cow ratios reduced, I don't know if EVERY unit needs to be 'reduced' to 15-25 bulls/100 cows, but I have NO problem with MOST of the state being managed that way. Same for deer, although I believe we are already there with two/three exceptions, which I am fine with.

On the elk, I would love to see 8 premium LE units managed for 40/100 ratios, and the other LE units managed for 25-30/100 ratios, while keeping the any-bull areas, and DOING AWAY with spike hunts except where the mature bull level is too LOW.

When did I EVER say I support anything from Arizona? I said NEVADA! I also know there are MANY unhappy Arizona hunters right now, I am POSITIVE it is more than 13% of the hunters down there. But, I do like the direction Arizona is headed, BALANCE. I would love to see Utah become more BALANCED. Just because I differ on what 'balance' means in Utah does NOT mean I am against it. It just means my 'scale' is 'balanced' different than yours. I also believe there are MANY in my camp, in fact I dare say at least as many as in your camp in the state of Utah. Certainly of the hunters who are 'active' in the 'process'.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

The general and LE areas are a good setup the way they are now. There may need to be changes in the way LE or general areas are managed but beyond that I think we have a good system. The Trophy animals being taken have proven we Know how to grow them. Now we just need learn how to mange the herd size and the capability of the habitat to support them.

Percentages of hunters does not equate to percentage of land. It takes more land to manage for trophy than it does for opputunity. I am not a biologist or wildlife manager so I don't pretend to know what those magic numbers are but I think we are close.

There are areas in the general units that need help to improve habitat and herd numbers. But I think that can be done without cutting the state into small tracts of land. They manage permits such as DH that allows you to hunt the state for one weapon and a region for others. I think we could issue permits using the same line of thinking but instead the permit is good for a region but only a certain amount can hunt an area that have suffering herds. This keeps areas and options open but helps a herd management.

Bottom line is if we fight for what "WE" want instead of what has the greatest benefit for all we are losing.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*TRUEMULE*


> It takes more land to manage for trophy than it does for opputunity. I am not a biologist or wildlife manager so I don't pretend to know what those magic numbers are but I think we are close.


That is exactly the point, how many general season hunters were knocking off for any one LE unit?

*PRO*


> Let ME administer, or at least help write the questions asked in the poll and I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near 13%/87%.


Any further discussion on this issue PRO is a waist of time because for UTAH it is all still speculation but I think a similar poll needs to be taken with both camps agreeing to re-focuse efforts and management practices based on the findings. I'll still bet the farm our results would be very similar to the ones shown in the Arizona poll.

So tell me this PRO if a poll (that you designed) showed 85% of hunters wanted 85% of Utahs huntable BULL elk general season would you support their desires?

Before you flip the question on me, YES I would support the LE crowed if the poll showed they were the majority. But I don't even worry about that being the outcome.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Let ME administer, or at least help write the questions asked in the poll and I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near 13%/87%. 8)
> 
> I would LOVE to see bull/cow ratios reduced, I don't know if EVERY unit needs to be 'reduced' to 15-25 bulls/100 cows, but I have NO problem with MOST of the state being managed that way. Same for deer, although I believe we are already there with two/three exceptions, which I am fine with.
> 
> ...


1) Exactly, because if you adminstered the survey you would use loaded questions that would totally destroy the validity of the survey. But, just to be clear, I want you to read this quote from another Arizona website that I also wholeheartedly agree with: "The Arizona Game and Fish Commission invited the director of Responsive Management, Mark Damian Duda, to meet with them in a work session during its summer meeting in Flagstaff to discuss the survey, its methodology, its validity, and its applicability to wildlife management in the state. Duda told the commission that Responsive Management has conducted hundreds of such surveys in 30 or 40 states during the past 20 years. "We have no dog in this fight. We just use scientifically sound methods to gather information." If the Arizona survey had shown anything different than all the other surveys across the United States, Duda said, there might be some reason to question the validity. It did not. *"The surveys show the same pattern here in Arizona that we are seeing across the country."*

Duda said he understands the dilemma facing the Game and Fish Commission in Arizona. "Bottom line, you are confronted with how to please two divergent publics or markets. It's not an easy decision facing you."

Duda said there is one public of avid, knowledgeable hunters who care deeply about the state's wildlife, and who are tremendous supporters of the department and its mission, and who can wield a lot of power in the process. "They are at the higher end of the hunting spectrum. They want trophy animals. *They are the well-informed and influential minority."

Then there are the average hunters who are the silent majority. "The surveys show that most hunters just want the opportunity to hunt. Harvesting a quality animal is not at the top of their list.," Duda said.
*

2) I too would love to see bull/cow ratios reduced...the problem with our current system is that the majority of our state and the majority of our elk are managed for trophy quality. I do not believe this is balanced toward the "silent majority". That is why I believe we should make changes to some of the LE areas that would move them towards "opportunity" hunting. In my eyes, having 8 Limited Entry premium units is too many...especially if our state is similar to the rest of the country.

As for deer hunting, my concern is over the SFW proposal/idea...if we change our current deer management structure to a proposal much more like our elk plan, we are really sticking it that "silent majority". I don't see the balance in changing our deer hunting units to type A and type B units...I see this as a way for SFW to manipulate the deer hunt into something similar to the elk hunt.

3) Arizona is also looking for balance...they have felt as a result of their survey that they were unfairly balanced towards trophy hunting and against the opportunity hunters. They are making strides to balance their state better...


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't agree with any type of blanket management strategy. Just because a majority of hunters prefer opportunity doesn't mean that 100% of the state should be managed that way. There should be a variety of opportunities to satisfy a variety of hunters. Utah only has the 2 extreme ends of the spectrum right now. Poor quality general hunts, and high quality LE hunts. There are very few opportunities in between. Arizona has a butt-load of in between, but nothing on the low end. 

I400 is, from my perspective, designed to address this. It will provide a hunt that is better quality than a general hunt, with a wait that is significantly less than a LE hunt.

I would also like to see something similar for deer. The 3 point or better areas were just right for my style of hunting. I know there are a lot of arguments against that specific regulation however. We have some good LE areas, and plenty of decent general areas. What we are lacking is something that is restricted enough to allow young bucks to grow up but yet allows a large number of hunters to get tags.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Lets flip the coin just a little bit. Let me give you a "for instance" situation. I don't know the numbers of oportunists vs. Trophy but let me just be the one to say that It doesnt' matter what the % is, the Trophy guys are getting it done! The saying goes, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." You guys are squeaking but the others are making it happen. They may have 99% of the numbers and they may have 1%, I don't know, but bottom line is they got organized, they made the money, they proposed the solutions and then went to work to make it happen! I just happen to be one who likes it. I support it. It makes sense to me. I am loving the "opportunities" in Utah. I am supporting the group that gets the attention and respect like the 800 pound Gorrilla that they are.................Some one stop me, I'm almost getting Giggley just thinking about my opportunities that I have in this great and WELL managed State of Utah!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Lets flip the coin just a little bit. Let me give you a "for instance" situation. I don't know the numbers of oportunists vs. Trophy but let me just be the one to say that It doesnt' matter what the % is, the Trophy guys are getting it done! The saying goes, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." You guys are squeaking but the others are making it happen. They may have 99% of the numbers and they may have 1%, I don't know, but bottom line is they got organized, they made the money, they proposed the solutions and then went to work to make it happen! I just happen to be one who likes it. I support it. It makes sense to me. I am loving the "opportunities" in Utah. I am supporting the group that gets the attention and respect like the 800 pound Gorrilla that they are.................Some one stop me, I'm almost getting Giggley just thinking about my opportunities that I have in this great and WELL managed State of Utah!


So, you are saying that managing to the loud "majority" is the right thing to do?

FWIW...I have lived in other states--Arizona and Wyoming--and I wouldn't trade for the opportunities that either offers over Utah.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I


> don't agree with any type of blanket management strategy. Just because a majority of hunters prefer opportunity doesn't mean that 100% of the state should be managed that way. There should be a variety of opportunities to satisfy a variety of hunters. Utah only has the 2 extreme ends of the spectrum right now. Poor quality general hunts, and high quality LE hunts. There are very few opportunities in between. Arizona has a butt-load of in between, but nothing on the low end.
> 
> I400 is, from my perspective, designed to address this. It will provide a hunt that is better quality than a general hunt, with a wait that is significantly less than a LE hunt.
> 
> I would also like to see something similar for deer. The 3 point or better areas were just right for my style of hunting. I know there are a lot of arguments against that specific regulation however. We have some good LE areas, and plenty of decent general areas. What we are lacking is something that is restricted enough to allow young bucks to grow up but yet allows a large number of hunters to get tags.El Matador


Good post +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So, you are saying that managing to the loud "majority" is the right thing to do?
> 
> FWIW...I have lived in other states--Arizona and Wyoming--and I wouldn't trade for the opportunities that either offers over Utah.


Are they going to manage to the silent people who NEVER show up? If you want things changed then SHOW UP or SHUT UP


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Are they going to manage to the silent people who NEVER show up?


Yes, they will...just like Arizona is. Why? Because they are smart enough to know who their backbone is.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

but maybe people like you never show up and voice your opinion, but you just sit and home and complain on the internet. You need to be Pro-active at the RAC meetings.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> [
> 1. So, you are saying that managing to the loud "majority" is the right thing to do?
> 
> 2. FWIW...I have lived in other states--Arizona and Wyoming--and I wouldn't trade for the opportunities that either offers over Utah.


1. If I am in that majority then an overwelming YES! 
2. Then go back.........................sorry but you left yourself open for that one.

Obviously I am being the devils advocate but in reality, that's the reason that your voices aren't heard is that your too quiet, under numbered or just not organized.

Can you honestly think that a group of individuals that would like to see more trophy opportunity would get together, organize, raise money and then say "Now that we have done all of this work to create the enviroment that we would like, lets put a bunch of our money into the guy who hasn't helped us get here?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Can you honestly think that a group of individuals that would like to see more trophy opportunity would get together, organize, raise money and then say "Now that we have done all of this work to create the enviroment that we would like, lets put a bunch of our money into the guy who hasn't helped us get here?


In the private sector that is a valid argument but not with government controled public resorces.

El Matador nobody has proposed doing a blanket management stratogy just finding out how the general public would like to see our wildlife managed and divide our hunting upportunities up accordingly. There will always be a "LOUD MINORITY" going against the grain, infact probably even raising money, lobbying all year, doing other great things but that still should not take presidence over the wishes of the majority.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Even if say 90% of the people are average joe type hunters that "Don't Show Up", doesn't mean the DWR won't manage for them. There is still a lot of money there if they make the majority mad. I realize the minority make a lot of money for the DWR, but thousands of hunters paying regular prices adds up really quick. Coyoteslayer saying "SHOW UP or SHUT UP" is the wrong attitude. All it would take is for the majority of average Joes to quit hunting or priced out(which I admit would more than likely never happen) and the their actions would speak volumes. I personally think the current system is a fairly nice balance between opportunity hunters and hunters who are looking for a little more. I am not saying the system is perfect, there are tweaks that can be done that could help, but I think the majority of people are happy with the way things are. 

Sometimes we forget how many hunters out there don't put in for LE type hunts and go and get ready for the hunt the week before it starts. I don't agree with it, but there are a lot of people like that out there. A majority of the hunters are not aware of some of the new changes to fees and some of the other changes. Just the other day I reminded someone at my work that they needed to apply for hunts if they wanted to and told them about the changes. They were pissed and said they wouldn't be putting in this year, even after I tried to explain to them that deer and elk tags went down in price. I don't agree with everything wyoming2utah is saying, but he brings up an excellent point when he says "they know who their backbone is."


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I can't help but laugh at the mentality that goes on here with some of the posts. You want more opportunity at less quality. You want someone else (DWR) to create that. You then go into the woods and shoot anything with horns because that equates opportunity. That deer is gone, he will never breed, he is out of the loop. Now on the next year you want to go out and have big expectations that the deer fairy has left many more two points in the woods for you this year. Hello, they don't grow on trees. Leaving a few makes more. Leaving many, makes many more. We are actually wanting the same thing but you bite the hand that feeds you. Let them go, let them grow, they will have babies, you shoot the babies and save the big ones for me since you don't want them. Problem solved! You should have asked me earlier....................I am like a scholar!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I can't help but laugh at the mentality that goes on here with some of the posts. You want more opportunity at less quality. You want someone else (DWR) to create that. You then go into the woods and shoot anything with horns because that equates opportunity. That deer is gone, he will never breed, he is out of the loop. Now on the next year you want to go out and have big expectations that the deer fairy has left many more two points in the woods for you this year. Hello, they don't grow on trees. Leaving a few makes more. Leaving many, makes many more. We are actually wanting the same thing but you bite the hand that feeds you. Let them go, let them grow, they will have babies, you shoot the babies and save the big ones for me since you don't want them. Problem solved! You should have asked me earlier....................I am like a scholar!


I know you might find it crazy and absurd, but that is mentality of the majority of hunters in Utah. That is exactly what I was trying to point out. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is the way it is like it or not.


----------



## 4pointmuley (Sep 18, 2007)

Never. ever. go back to the 3 point restrictions, because the DWR SAYS IT JUS DON"T WORK, Never did? OK!!!

It never worked because we couldn't stop the Californian's from shooting any buck with antler's! I use to hunt near Fishlake when the rescriction was in place! It was sad to see deer shot and left to rot because it wasn't an 3 point!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


go back? Why would I go back if I believe that Utah offers better opportunity?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Hey guys, again I go back to the quote I posted



> "In general, wildlife managers should adopt a quantity over quality philosophy for deer, moose and elk. *Hunting success is strongly related to continued participation*, and there are far more hunters that are happy to shoot an average animal than there are hunters whose specific purpose is to bag a trophy. *Really skilled hunters are capable of finding impressive animals if they put their minds to it*, but hunters of lesser skill find their chances for success greatly limited by trophy management practices. Furthermore, managing for animals with impressive antlers pushes opportunity away from general open seasons and towards Limited Entry hunting, restricting participation even further."


To me the two bolded statements say it all! For ALL types of hunting to survive we need to have strength in numbers. How much more vulnerable are all off if our numbers are cut in half in the next 10 years?

Second, my style of hunting is going after mature animals (trophy hunter I guess :roll: ) and I hunt that way every year on the general deer and elk hunts. If i could only be a trophy hunter on a LE unit then heck...I would get to hunt elk and deer about two or three more times over the next 50 years. Give me an opportunity and I will find a trophy!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft wrote:


> So tell me this PRO if a poll (that you designed) showed 85% of hunters wanted 85% of Utahs huntable BULL elk general season would you support their desires?
> 
> Before you flip the question on me, YES I would support the LE crowed if the poll showed they were the majority. But I don't even worry about that being the outcome.


No, and let me explain why. If they took a poll of Americans on 'free health care', and the question was worded something like, "Would you like 'free' health care' for your kids?" what do you think the over-whelming answer would be? That does NOT mean we then run out and offer 'free' health care for all. I am guessing if the 'masses' were asked if they should be given some of Bill Gates billions based on a 'poll', at least 73% would say yes. This country doesn't work based on 'polls', and neither should our game management! elk22hunter made several good points, one is that what group of hunters have invested millions into big game in Utah, and now the "silent majority" who was content to do NOTHING to 'grow' the product, now want to 'harvest' the product and feel ENTITLED to it. How many elk are in Utah today compared to when the 'trophy hunters' 'took' over? How many bighorn sheep were in Utah before the 'trophy hunters' stepped up? How many acres were being improved/restored/kept from development before the 'trophy hunters' invested money/sweat/time/tears/lobbying to help INCREASE the number of deer/elk/bison/bighorns/turkeys/goats? It's easy to let others do the 'work', then act outraged when those who did the bulk of the work want a SMALL percentage of their 'crop' put in their 'silos'. There are two types of people in the world: users and producers. Users let others do the work, then expect the fruits. Producers look for ways to add value and get things done through their own hard work, not on the backs of others. Users are 'victims', producers SHOW UP!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


Sorry, my bad! I missread it. 

I was messing with you anyway so no harm, no foul. (you can't foul in pick up games can you? I consider all of this just a pick up game where we let off steam but don't really accomplish anything.)


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I was messing with you anyway so no harm, no foul. (*you can't foul in pick up games can you? I consider all of this just a pick up game where we let off steam but don't really accomplish anything.*)


That is the best analogy I have heard yet!  8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I can't help but laugh at the mentality that goes on here with some of the posts. You want more opportunity at less quality. You want someone else (DWR) to create that. You then go into the woods and shoot anything with horns because that equates opportunity. That deer is gone, he will never breed, he is out of the loop. Now on the next year you want to go out and have big expectations that the deer fairy has left many more two points in the woods for you this year. Hello, they don't grow on trees. Leaving a few makes more. Leaving many, makes many more. We are actually wanting the same thing but you bite the hand that feeds you. Let them go, let them grow, they will have babies, you shoot the babies and save the big ones for me since you don't want them. Problem solved! You should have asked me earlier....................I am like a scholar!


So, we should never shoot any deer? Because when we do, "that deer is gone, he will never breed, he is out of the loop"?

Opportunity management is based on the conservation of species and managing for quantity of animals. A good opportunity-based management program will allow high levels of opportunity through high levels of recruitment...the whole problem with the elk hunting right now is that we have ridiculously low recruitment levels because we have too many bulls and too few cows. The harvest of male species is an integral part of any management program. In Utah, right now, we do not have one single unit that has a buck/doe ratio so low that does are not being bred as you imply...recruitment is not being hindered by harvest.

Also, you imply that opportunity hunters want to go out and just kill the first two point they see...I couldn't agree less. Opportunity hunters have a wide range of reasons why they hunt: some hunt to enhance their skills or use of equipment, some hunt to be with family and friends, some for the recreation, some to be close to nature and spend time in the field, some just to see the animals. For many of us, the opportunity is much more important than the kill...BUT, we are afforded the opportunity to shoot any legal animal of our choosing.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Jahan its just reality. If you show up then you usually get what you want. One forum member requested to have a waiting period on the management elk tags. This wouldnt have happened if the guy didnt SHOW UP.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Jahan its just reality. If you show up then you usually get what you want. One forum member requested to have a waiting period on the management elk tags. This wouldnt have happened if the guy didnt SHOW UP.


As much as it pains me, I agree.  You can pis$ and moan all you want, but nothing will happen if you don't go through the proper channels.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro, I know having read other posts of yours that we see pretty eye to eye politicaly and I don't think the health care analogy is a fair one. Lets use school vouchers, if the majority wants school vouchers but a much smaller group from a teachers union lobbies and raises money and protests and runs adds.....and the majority continues to just go to work every day, serve in their churches and communities and pays their taxes should our government leaders just grant the wishes of the loud minority?

Or say Al Gore and his cronnies (minority) want the auto industry to make all cars smaller, lighter and more gutless to increase MPGs and they want a ban on all SUV's and full size trucks. If they yell load enough should we all just bend over because they are the loudest and free up the most time on their hands and many have even made an occupation out of it to do so?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Also, you imply that opportunity hunters want to go out and just kill the first two point they see...I couldn't agree less. Opportunity hunters have a wide range of reasons why they hunt: some hunt to enhance their skills or use of equipment, some hunt to be with family and friends, some for the recreation, some to be close to nature and spend time in the field, some just to see the animals. For many of us, the opportunity is much more important than the kill...BUT, we are afforded the opportunity to shoot any legal animal of our choosing.wyoming2utah


And some opportunity hunters like to chase big mulies year after year. You dont have to kill a buck every year to be a GREAT hunter. Many hunters should pass on the little bucks and give them a chance to grow up.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> No, and let me explain why. If they took a poll of Americans on 'free health care', and the question was worded something like, "Would you like 'free' health care' for your kids?" what do you think the over-whelming answer would be? That does NOT mean we then run out and offer 'free' health care for all. I am guessing if the 'masses' were asked if they should be given some of Bill Gates billions based on a 'poll', at least 73% would say yes. This country doesn't work based on 'polls', and neither should our game management! elk22hunter made several good points, one is that what group of hunters have invested millions into big game in Utah, and now the "silent majority" who was content to do NOTHING to 'grow' the product, now want to 'harvest' the product and feel ENTITLED to it. How many elk are in Utah today compared to when the 'trophy hunters' 'took' over? How many bighorn sheep were in Utah before the 'trophy hunters' stepped up? How many acres were being improved/restored/kept from development before the 'trophy hunters' invested money/sweat/time/tears/lobbying to help INCREASE the number of deer/elk/bison/bighorns/turkeys/goats? It's easy to let others do the 'work', then act outraged when those who did the bulk of the work want a SMALL percentage of their 'crop' put in their 'silos'. There are two types of people in the world: users and producers. Users let others do the work, then expect the fruits. Producers look for ways to add value and get things done through their own hard work, not on the backs of others. Users are 'victims', producers SHOW UP!


It kills me how much credit you are giving to the "trophy" hunters...let's stop go back and look at where the DWR get's their funding--license sales. If 85% of the hunting public do NOT consider themselves trophy hunters, then wouldn't it also be fair to say that at least a majority of hunting licenses are sold to non-trophy hunters and, therefore, a majority of the money earned through license sales is from non-trophy hunters?

The thing hardest to swallow from this type of reasoning is the idea that trophy hunters feel like they deserve or have earned special consideration...if you are volunteering time and money, you are doing it for the benefit of the species. NOT for trophy hunting rights!

Step off your high horse and stop acting like the only people who contribute to wildlife conservation and habitat are trophy hunters...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, we should never shoot any deer? Because when we do, "that deer is gone, he will never breed, he is out of the loop"?
> 
> Opportunity management is based on the conservation of species and managing for quantity of animals. A good opportunity-based management program will allow high levels of opportunity through high levels of recruitment...the whole problem with the elk hunting right now is that we have ridiculously low recruitment levels because we have too many bulls and too few cows. The harvest of male species is an integral part of any management program. In Utah, right now, we do not have one single unit that has a buck/doe ratio so low that does are not being bred as you imply...recruitment is not being hindered by harvest.
> 
> Also, you imply that opportunity hunters want to go out and just kill the first two point they see...I couldn't agree less. Opportunity hunters have a wide range of reasons why they hunt: some hunt to enhance their skills or use of equipment, some hunt to be with family and friends, some for the recreation, some to be close to nature and spend time in the field, some just to see the animals. For many of us, the opportunity is much more important than the kill...BUT, we are afforded the opportunity to shoot any legal animal of our choosing.


1)Nothing like hyperbole. :roll:

2)I agree, I and MOST 'trophy' hunters agree. The problem I have is when you/10000ft say you want to get rid of the LE program all together. That I oppose, since that is NOT balanced.

3)Maybe you should add that into your poll. Ask what kind of "opportunity" hunter they are, that way they all get 'represented', instead of having just *your* definition of 'opportunity' hunters. Yes/no? If you just want the 'opportunity' and the kill is an after thought, you do know there is NO cap on the number of archery tags for spikes/cows and any-bull units (meaning ALL elk in the units)? Sounds like 'unlimited' OPPORTUNITY to me.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> 2)I agree, I and MOST 'trophy' hunters agree. The problem I have is when you/10000ft say you want to get rid of the LE program *all together*. That I oppose, since that is NOT balanced.


PRO you are better than that, you know I have never advocated doing away with LE and neither has Wy2ut. I think you are affraid to do a survey, poll, questionaire, whatever you want to call it because you know the majority is not currently being represented.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Or say Al Gore and his cronnies (minority) want the auto industry to make all cars smaller, lighter and more gutless to increase MPGs and they want a ban on all SUV's and full size trucks. If they yell load enough should we all just bend over because they are the loadest and free up the most time on their hands?


10,000 Aka AL Gore :lol: :lol: You want everything to be general season pretty much. A lot of other people like it balanced. You need the big trucks for people who want them. You need big trophy units for people who want them.

I think you sell Tires right? Are you going to have one brand of tire to sell or MANY brands and styles?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Also, you imply that opportunity hunters want to go out and just kill the first two point they see...I couldn't agree less. Opportunity hunters have a wide range of reasons why they hunt: some hunt to enhance their skills or use of equipment, some hunt to be with family and friends, some for the recreation, some to be close to nature and spend time in the field, some just to see the animals. For many of us, the opportunity is much more important than the kill...BUT, we are afforded the opportunity to shoot any legal animal of our choosing.


All of your points are a very valid example of exactly my thoughts except for every thing that you said after the "BUT".

I am big on the enhancing ones skills. I don't think they will get as enhanced by shooting the dumbest members of the species. (spikes and two points)

Family and friends is my biggest point. I am very big on "Every body puts in for something good and then we ALL go help them have a great hunt." I don't have to have a tag every year. I recieve great fulfilment on helping my kids, brothers, and nephews.

The being close to nature and just spending time in the field can be accomplished on my "Family hunts". And seeing the animals is amazing. Huge animals. I would rather look at those all day long while my nephew has the tag than look at two points while I'm holding the tag.

I'm all about opportunity. Oportunity for animals that show what the species is capable of doing when given a chance to mature and "be all that they can be".

By the way, I noticed that you don't use smilies when your posting. You havent' become an angry elf have you?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I think you sell Tires right? Are you going to have one brand of tire to sell or MANY brands and styles?


Exactly coyote if 85% of the public wanted BIG O ATs and 15% wanted Firestone I would purchase my inventory accordingly (85% general season 15% LE).

You know we just need to go away from the analogies because some are getting the real issues confused in them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Step off your high horse and stop acting like the only people who contribute to wildlife conservation and habitat are trophy hunters...


I went out of my way to make sure I did no such thing, but you like to read it into my posts on a regular basis.

Bottom line for me is: We MUST "Define, develop, and sustain *both* trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah." That is what I will strive for, and I look forward to the great OPPORTUNITIES to hunt in Utah this year. I'll take Utah's hunting over ALL other states every day of the week. Can it be better? You bet. I hope those who believe 'change' is needed get involved and help make it possible. Have a good one!

P.S. 10000ft, I look at the school voucher as an example of what should *not* be followed, it was decided by 'special interest' groups and mis-information. In game management, I prefer to have informed citizens/biologists make policy. I see nothing but a HUGE trainwreck if we start managing wildlife based on polls and the 'mood' of the day. Most, *not all*, that tend to be actively involved in the process are better informed than those content to sit on the sidelines.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> PRO you are better than that, you know I have never advocated doing away with LE and neither has Wy2ut. I think you are affraid to do a survey, poll, questionaire, whatever you want to call it because you know the majority is not currently being represented.


First, I am NOT 'affraid' to do a survey, lets do it!

Second, what did your signature used to say? Now tell me how you are not advocating doing away with LE units. :?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Family and friends is my biggest point. I am very big on "Every body puts in for something good and then we ALL go help them have a great hunt." I don't have to have a tag every year. I recieve great fulfilment on helping my kids, brothers, and nephews.


Elk22 I could even be OK with this type of mind set but let me tell you about another hobbie of mine. My dad started whitewater rafting 25 years ago, many rivers he could go throw on any time. After awhile and most my growing up the started to require permits to be drawn (these are multi day trips). Pretty soon with 4 applicants putting in we started not drawing some years. The trend has progresed to where today we send off 10-12 applications and have now not drawn for our 7th year in a row. Sounds a little like our LE programs doesn't it. Imagine it getting to the point that even your "family style hunting" not a single person draws but every 5 years. Again I'm not advocating doing away with LE just increaseing what I believe the majorities intrest would be and that is general season opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft, why do you think they 'restrict' the number of rafts on these rivers? Could part of it be because the demand is higher than what can be 'supplied'? Same with hunting, the days of EVERYBODY who wishes to hunt simply buying a tag the night before and heading to the hills are GONE, FOREVER. This is due to many factors like, habitat loss, more people living here than years ago, fewer deer than 40-50 years ago (which will always be the case here on in), more effective weapons/methods of harvesting animals, etc. We can wish for days gone by, but it won't help the situation any.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PRO being completely honest I can't even remember what my old signature used to say. If it did advocate doing away with LE units I need to eat my words and clarify that that is not my current opinion or desire. 

I come out pretty strong on the general season side somewhat playing the devils advocate because when I first started coming on the DWR forum I noticed 90% of the focus was on a type of hunting that hunters can enjoy only once or twice in their lives and very little talk was about the tags we all hold year in and year out. I wanted more discussion, more hunters thinking about the system and hopefully improvment on all hunting opportunities.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Holy Crap this is like a pissing contest. I can't read as fast as you guys are throwing it back and forth. I like exchange of ideas and thoughts though.

Elk22, I think it was you that said in one of your earlier posts that these disscussion really don't accomplish anything. In a physical change sense you are correct. But, it helps a person see different thought processes and helps align a persons own thoughts on what they feel about a certain subject. You just have to make sure that you are not confusing the B.S. and analogies for actual information.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

PRO again I should probably not use analogies because ther are many subtlties that can be used for either argument. Many of the rivers could sustain much higher numbers of rafters but environmentalists have caused them to limit the places you can camp along the river also limiting how many can be on the river. Further the environmentalists have limited how many people can be in a camp (or go down the river on a permit) to reduce environmental impact. But like I said I don't want to go in circles with analogies.

I will say the number of rafters in the last ten years has doubled ten times over! Hunters numbers are in decline with many herd populations on the rise. :roll: ?


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Why do we continue to argue about this? Elk 22 you brought up that general season hunters go out and kill dumb 2 points or something like that. Not all do that, I pride my self on being a pretty good hunter and one that tries to put the best shot on a animal. I only bow hunt, which doesn't matter but I take pride that I can make a good vital shot, take down the animal and try and get the biggest one that I can get. See the deer or elk I want and stock it and hope to take it down. I wasn't able to get a huge deer last year, got a pretty respectable 3 point, my darn dad out did me this year and got a great 4 point. I think there are a lot that just want to shoot what ever they see, and that is fine with me, but you can't group every one and stereo type people, just like you can't stereo type trophy hunters, because aren't we all, are you saying that a general season hunter would pass up on a trophy buck or bull? Of course they wouldn't. Someone made a argument that general season hunters don't speak out, well I believe this is because they dont think it would help, whether that is the case or not you still can't say they don't matter because they are not speaking out. I try and go to as many meetings as I can, but I still don't say anything when I am there, I just like to hear what is going on. I think the only way the DWR would change is if everyone boycotted the hunts for a year, but the average person just doesn't hold enough clout, but they would if everyone banded together. So instead of everyone fighting over trophy vs opportunity we should band together and figure out a plan. Do I want more opportunity hell yes I do, I get a tag every year though and have a great time. Would I go to a LE unit if I got the chance of course I would. So would the average joe. I just want things managed a little better and I think everyone fighting on here is the same way. I don't think these trophy hunters don't care about general season hunting I think they have whats best for EVERYBODY at heart. Not just one group vs the other. Are there more general season hunters of course there are because not that many people draw out. I don't even attempt to, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy the hunt if I did get the chance. I probably would like it even more. Lets just get along and fight for everyone, band together. Pro, Elk 22, Wyo you guys all seem to have a lot of knowledge on these topics, I don't even pretend to. I am just a hunter who loves being in the Mountains and killing big game :mrgreen: I have that opportunity now and am just fine with it. Let me enjoy it with my kids when they are old enough and I would even be happier, so lets just focus on making our opportunities last. Ok I have babbled long enough. Hopefully I made a little since :roll:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I think that it's coming down to who's toughest, John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. (not to be confused with John Wayne Bobit or Bob-be-gone, and the Clint Eastwood that Michael J Fox played in Back to the future.)

It's all about the Avatar!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

well said bowhunter3


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> It's all about the Avatar!


What about the guys that do not have familly or friends to hunt with?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> I think that it's coming down to who's toughest, John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. (not to be confused with John Wayne Bobit or Bob-be-gone, and the Clint Eastwood that Michael J Fox played in Back to the future.)
> 
> It's all about the Avatar!


The Duke wins, no contest! :mrgreen:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > It's all about the Avatar!
> 
> 
> What about the guys that do not have familly or friends to hunt with?


Bowhunter3 say's he'll be your Huckleberry. I think that means he'll be your family and friends. :mrgreen:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Jahan its just reality. If you show up then you usually get what you want. One forum member requested to have a waiting period on the management elk tags. This wouldnt have happened if the guy didnt SHOW UP.


Far fetched at best, at least the if you show up you usually get what you want part. So you are telling me one person (forum member) single handily made them get rid of the management elk tags? I am assuming you are talking about Pro? It doesn't really matter who, but I would be very surprised if any ONE person (besides Don Peay backed by many) could change the minds of those at the DWR. They probably already had there mind made up and had complaints from MANY. I do admire and respect you folks that go to all the meetings, I wish I had the time to go to all of them and I really should start making it to some of them. 

Using your theory, can I show up to the Utah State Congress and tell them I don't want to pay as much taxes as I do, so could you cut them in half since we have been in surplus the last couple of years. Fat chance. I agree with you overall about needing to show up, but I was just busting your chops for being so dramatic. 8)


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> weatherby25 said:
> 
> 
> > > It's all about the Avatar!
> ...


 :mrgreen: More the merrier


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Well if the Duke and Eastwood were running from a group of wild Comanches on foot I would beg to differ.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> Using your theory, can I show up to the Utah State Congress and tell them I don't want to pay as much taxes as I do, so could you cut them in half since we have been in surplus the last couple of years. Fat chance. I agree with you overall about needing to show up, but I was just busting your chops for being so dramatic. 8)


You can do that. But don't just show up at the congress. Take these guys out golfing, fishing and hunting. Once they are your friend then you tell them your thoughts. Once they see your sincerity, they will go to battle for you and our taxes will be lower. It's all on your shoulders..................Go get em!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Using your theory, can I show up to the Utah State Congress and tell them I don't want to pay as much taxes as I do, so could you cut them in half since we have been in surplus the last couple of years. Fat chance. I agree with you overall about needing to show up, but I was just busting your chops for being so dramatic. 8)
> ...


I will leave it to the rest of the kiss ass's on this site to take care of it. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Far fetched at best, at least the if you show up you usually get what you want part. So you are telling me one person (forum member) single handily made them get rid of the management elk tags? I am assuming you are talking about Pro? It doesn't really matter who, but I would be very surprised if any ONE person (besides Don Peay backed by many) could change the minds of those at the DWR. They probably already had there mind made up and had complaints from MANY. I do admire and respect you folks that go to all the meetings, I wish I had the time to go to all of them and I really should start making it to some of them.
> 
> Using your theory, can I show up to the Utah State Congress and tell them I don't want to pay as much taxes as I do, so could you cut them in half since we have been in surplus the last couple of years. Fat chance. I agree with you overall about needing to show up, but I was just busting your chops for being so dramatic. 8)


First, it was Packout who stood up and DID indeed get the management hunt changed to make those who draw the tag lose their points, certainly not me, nor was it Mr Peay. You can thank him for "showing up and standing up". From seeing how effective Packout is at the WB leads one to conclude this wasn't his first rodeo. Which leads to point #2, one can't realistically expect to "show up" once and get what you want. You have to 'prime' the pump, cultivate the soil, water the crop, THEN you can harvest the fruit. You can't just walk out into the middle of a dirt clearing and expect the crop to magically appear. It's called being a steward of the land/wildlife, which takes work/effort/knowledge of how the 'game' is played. And, like it or not, there is a ton of politics involved in this whole process. I like it, because it makes it harder to make changes based on the latest poll taken right after the draws. 8)


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I completely agree with you Pro. :shock: Like I said I was just messing with the yote. He can take it.  I appreciate people that get involved in these processes, until they want to pass something I don't agree with. :wink: Good on you guys for showing up. I hate how there are politics involved in everything, it drives me nuts, but I realize that is reality of the game. I also agree polls on this forum really mean nothing, but give us an idea of how the group of people who visit the forum think. It is by no means any representation of the whole, IMO.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Jahan, if you become Pro-active in the issues and go to the RAC/WB meeting then you can make a big difference. I was there when ONE man stood up and had them make the change for a waiting period on management tags. He had a very logical reason why it should/needs to be changed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Like I said I was just messing with the yote. He can take it.


Yep :lol: :lol: I will just throw it right back


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Like I said I was just messing with the yote. He can take it.
> 
> 
> Yep :lol: :lol: I will just throw it right back


You would never do such a thing. :wink: Thats why I like ya, in non brokeback mountain kind of way! :shock: 8)


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

After my car accident then I didnt want to have to compete with all the other yahoo road hunters so me and a few other hunters were able to get a disabled hunting season passed.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

This is a great thread. Maybe it will even get back on track.

I would ask a few of you a quick question. Are we following the true intent of what limited entry units were supposed to do?? LE units were created to help struggling herds. Nothing more nothing less. Does any one of you think that one of the old timers that went through the depression era would support in any way shape or form the means of taking food off of their tables??? Do any of you think that the size of a elks antlers or the size and tenderness of a spikes backstraps would play part in the decision making that took place back then??

Can any one of you PRO QUALITY people tell me that the original intent of closing any of the LE Units is still closed for the reason that this IDEA began??? 

If any of you have an intellictually honest bone in your bodies you'll admit that the switch from herd recovery to "QUALITY" trophy units has taken place. You'll also admit that this 
was all driven by more than responsible wildlife management!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Good points as always.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> If any of you have an intellictually honest bone in your bodies you'll admit that the switch from herd recovery to "QUALITY" trophy units has taken place. You'll also admit that this was all driven by more than responsible wildlife management!!!


Before the establishment of LE units, there was a statewide draw. There was a 3 year waiting period. That turned into a 5 year waiting period and it was getting really difficult to find a bull. The next necessary step seemed to be a 7 or possibly 10 year waiting period. So when the LE idea was originally proposed, it was a good compromise. Nobody was happy about it, but we understood that it was in the best interests of the elk.

Nowhere in any of this was the word "trophy" ever mentioned. That came later. But from the original inception of LE units to now, I see no evidence at all to support the idea that managing to rack size is in the best interests of elk.

And by the bye, trophy hunting is one thing. Trophy management is something else. We shouldn't confuse the two.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Nowhere in any of this was the word "trophy" ever mentioned. That came later. But from the original inception of LE units to now, I see no evidence at all to support the idea that managing to rack size is in the best interests of elk.
> 
> And by the bye, trophy hunting is one thing. Trophy management is something else. We shouldn't confuse the two.


Those nasty trophy hunters /**|**\ /**|**\ /**|**\

I wish we still had raghorns like in the 1980's. Who wants to shoot a big bull anyways?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't see anywhere in Finn's post that he ran down trophy hunters. He merely gave his opinion about managing for rack size not being in the best interest of the herd (sorry, put trophy hunters here in error). You and a few others are sure quick to turn it into "don't bash the trophy hunter" though. Maybe thats because there is some truth to what he says and the folks who really are just out for the "trophy" are wanting to bury that opinion. At least thats how your reponse reads to me. It seems to work that way a lot in these discussions.

I haven't said much on these posts lately but here's my take on it. Trophy hunters are the minority. There are too many folks who just want to fill their tag when they draw one for this to be otherwise..... People want a tag filled, and if its just with a nice elk instead of something huge, I'm sure they're happy about that. Not every hunter that draws is out to break a world record and I'd wager that most are happy if they go home with any meat in the freezer. If the LE areas were created to boost numbers of elk in hard hit areas..... then stick to the plan. Do that and leave it alone. If there was purpose behind the original creation, why stray from that? I'm not going to put in for a LE tag any time soon, if ever (the rare exception might be a moose point or tag to appease my wifes ambition of a moose for the wall). Why would I? I hunt for the experience, yes, but I also plan on doing everything I can to come home with something to eat for the next six months or whatever, whether thats a cow, spike, two or four point buck.... and I don't plan on waiting 10 years just so I can hunt some place down south that I've never even seen before. Am I alone in that?? Again, I'd say more than likely not. Does it mean I'm out bashing trophy hunters? No, it doesn't but I'd bet a spike elk steak thats how it'll be spun.

Folks want to hunt just trophies.... ? Great... find em among the numbers of animals that are there because of the creation of LE areas. The very concept of LE areas to create more animals in areas with low numbers should be enough to give anyone that hunts there plenty of elk and deer to sort through looking for that one trophy without trying to turn every animal on the unit into the next huge buck or 400 class bull. Like Finn said, that wasn't the original intention and I don't see that its that important to *most* folks now. I liked your post Finn and didn't think there was anything wrong with your line of thinking. Oh, and for what its worth.... you DON'T have to show up at a RAC to make a difference. You can get numbers and email addresses for the RAC members so that you can send letters, make phone calls and get to know these people outside of an arena where you'll more than likely be disregarded because of the opinions of people with more "pull". Seems there were a few RACs a bit ago (I don't remember the exact circumstance) but I do remember people posting about how unhappy they were at the RAC because they made the effort to show up and support their cause but were either talked down by other folks in attendance or were disregarded by RAC members who apparently already had their mind set on what they wanted to do in the first place. I think that led to a lot of disenchantment with the whole RAC process and could be a huge reason people don't go anymore unless they're required to be there. You don't want to go?? Ok, thats cool and don't let people bag on you for that. There are other ways to be effective in expressing your views without grandstanding for the crowd in attendance. :?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Well said river.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Amen and +1 riverrat77


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here's the deal riverrat, I am 100% fine with what wileywapati and finnegan are saying. :shock: I am 100% in favor of increasing tag numbers on LE units. I am NOT fine with doing away with them and turning back the clock and returning our elk herds to 1985. I hunted elk back then, and it was nowhere near what we have now. Has the pendulum swung to far the other way? I believe so, but that doesn't mean we over-react and send it too far back the other way. I am all for better balance, I see things like I400 as a great way to bring better balance. What I am puzzled with from guys like wileywapati, whom I consider a friend, is he says what the original intent of the LE units was, what about the 'original' intent of spike tags? Yet he and others say they are against doing away with spike tags, if he and others are "intellectually honest", as he said to me, then he will explain the inconsistent positions he has taken. It goes BOTH ways. I see I400 as making units be exactly what was the original goal to begin with when spike/LE units were setup several years ago!

I will be out for a while, got to drive a snow cat up the mountain for the FAA, have fun while I am gone! 8)


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro, I do agree that we didn't get the "elk" reputation we have by letting everyone shoot anything that moves... that totally makes sense. I also agree that LE areas serve their purpose and they shouldn't be eliminated. I just don't want to see, like you said, the pendulum swing too far one way or the other. Just keep a happy medium for most folks and I honestly think that people will still be able to take their meat and people will still be able to be selective with regard to inches and coexist nicely. That may be rather naive of me to expect that but I honestly don't think its an unreasonable goal. If your I400 pushes things toward that compromise, great and I hope it works out for the common good. I think its safe to say we all want to hunt as much as we can be allowed.... what we choose to pursue is where the differences lie.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO I've stayed pretty consistent in my approach to the spike I-400 thing.

I would be the first person on the I-400 train if we weren't going to negotiate away an unlimited opportunity for a chance to harvest bigger animals. Granted you plan does include the increases that should have been included for the last several years but untill I hear unlimited like I do now I am not willing to support the gamble. 

My whole point in this discussion is that the hunters years ago couldn't possibly envision 
what the plan they supported had become. This is not what they intended. 

Frankly I have absolutely no problem with the current draw system, tag allocation system
or bonus point system. My whole beef is that the wildlife is not being used for opportunity
it is currently being used for inches. Thats where the "intellectually honest" part comes in.

How many times in the past few years have we heard that "we'll shoot the Quality out of a herd or unit"?? How many times have we heard that any LE unit is not above or right at management quota and yet we Limited Entry ourselves with all kinds of regulations 
like management hunts, early hunts, late hunts, spike hunts. Does this have anything to do with responsible wildlife management or does it have to do with protecting a certain kind of elk??? I totally applaud 99% of the I-400 plan but you know as well as I do that under the current management philosophy that giving something up to get more in the long run hasn't panned out yet.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wiley, you missed my point, which is most likely due to me doing a poor job of presenting it. You mentioned what the original intent of LE units was, I am saying look at what the original intent of issuing spike tags was. Then tell me why we 'need' spike tags issued at all, little lone "unlimited" amounts for ANY weapon choice. And, before wyo2ut or others freak out, I am NOT saying let's do away with all spike tags, we have gone down that road enough. Point is, if people are only going to focus on the top end of the issue and ignore the bottom end, what will happen? Again, it's all about balance.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*PRO*


> I am 100% in favor of increasing tag numbers on LE units. I am NOT fine with doing away with them and turning back the clock and returning our elk herds to 1985. I hunted elk back then, and it was nowhere near what we have now.


At least you hunted back then! Pro what do we have now? Sounds like you will draw your tag this year with max points, I assume you have waited 10-13 years already.

How many more times do you think *YOU* will get to hunt on LE units in your life? I hope your answer is not more than 1 if even that.

I know you are going to say "well that is why I400.....", I400 will erroad into the same increasing max point mess that every other LE unit has. And then what did we give up our general season spike hunting opportunities in those areas for???


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Nice posts Finn, River, Wiley, & pro


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> At least you hunted back then! Pro what do we have now? Sounds like you will draw your tag this year with max points, I assume you have waited 10-13 years already.
> 
> How many more times do you think *YOU* will get to hunt on LE units in your life? I hope your answer is not more than 1 if even that.
> 
> I know you are going to say "well that is why I400.....", I400 will erroad into the same increasing max point mess that every other LE unit has. And then what did we give up our general season spike hunting opportunities in those areas for???


I don't have that many points, but I have a good friend with that many who put in with me, thus increasing 'my' point total. I also drew AR301 TWICE, so this is my THIRD LE bull tag since 2000. But, I am greedy and I want to hunt big bulls again after this year. But, my main concern is my kids, my youngest in 3. I want him to be able to hunt big bulls at least as many times as I have. That is why I SUPPORT increasing mature bull tags on LE units, just not making them, in wiley's words, "unlimited". The days of OTC statewide elk/deer are GONE FOREVER in Utah. Way too many hunters, way too much habitat lost, way too effective of weapons and ways to get to the animals, for that to ever happen in your/my lifetime!

I'll ask you what I asked wiley, what was the original intent of spike tags? Was it intended to be a permanent tag, or was it a way to still provide hunting 'opportunities' while allowing more bulls to reach maturity?


> Nice posts Finn, River, Wiley, & *pro*


Thanks Rich. I agree.8) :mrgreen:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> The days of OTC statewide elk/deer are GONE FOREVER in Utah. Way too many hunters, way too much habitat lost, way too effective of weapons and ways to get to the animals, for that to ever happen in your/my lifetime!


PRO maybe I am ignorant but I just don't know if I can believe this statement. Yes weapons are more effective. More ways to get to animals?? I know of way more roads and trails closed in the last ten years than I do opened. And last I heard the number of hunters was in decline and has fallen substantialy since almost everything was general season.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The spikes tags were issued to protect branch antlered bulls so they would reach maturity like Pro stated. Spike tags also gave people the opportunity to hunt elk while we protected these branch antlered bulls. The health of the herd was increased because we had more branch antlered bulls to get the breed job done. Ranchers dont use yearling bulls to breed their cows and elk are like cattle.

We still protect bull elk today because we dont issue out a lot of tags. Its easier to hunt bull elk in the rut because they're vocal animals unlike deer. We need to protect these bulls because they're a great resource. Yes we need to give out MORE tags because we have to many bulls and they need to be thinned down, but not by General Season hunters. 

We protect a lot of bulls on the anybull units because we only allow 300 youth elk hunters and disabled hunters to hunt these bulls during the rut or we would destroy these units. This is why the Anybull unit rifle hunt is in October and not September.

UTAH WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AS IT WAS IN THE 1950s. TIMES HAVE CHANGED. HABITAT HAS CHANGED. WE HAVE LESS DEER AND MORE HUNTERS.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > The days of OTC statewide elk/deer are GONE FOREVER in Utah. Way too many hunters, way too much habitat lost, way too effective of weapons and ways to get to the animals, for that to ever happen in your/my lifetime!
> 
> 
> PRO maybe I am ignorant but I just don't know if I can believe this statement. Yes weapons are more effective. More ways to get to animals?? I know of way more roads and trails closed in the last ten years than I do opened. And last I heard the number of hunters was in decline and has fallen substantially since almost everything was general season.


There are MORE atv's on the mountain, with MORE trails to access canyons than ever. Don't break down my sentence, it is a combo of ALL. I am saying due to habitat loss, more effective weapons, more access into the backcountry, COMBINED with the number of 'wishful' hunters, it would be a slaughter to make deer/elk "unlimited".


----------



## north slope (Sep 8, 2007)

o-||


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I wasn't going to get in this, but..... I havn't read every post, but the last page or so.

I imagine that Wiley was talking about these I400 units being unlimited for archers. Wliey is an archer and protecting what is already there refers to the unlimited archery tags available for the I400 units.

Yote wrote:


> The health of the herd was increased because we had more branch antlered bulls to get the breed job done. Ranchers dont use yearling bulls to breed their cows and elk are like cattle.


I don't want to get in an arguement, but this statement is not fully correct. Ask a biologist who worked on Utah's elk herd in the 1980s and they will confirm that the open bull option created the huge increase in elk numbers during that time period. The open bull hunts grew the herd, very fast. The herd grew so fast because there are always enough bulls to breed the cows, even spikes. The bulls did not compete for food with the cows. Director Karpowitz (the man behind the spike units, implemented in 1989) gave a great speech on this fact. The Limited Entry units were put in place to offer better quality to Utah hunters. I know it was never meant to swing the pendulum so far towards quality, but that is why it was put in place.

By the way, we run yearling bulls on our mother cows. Works just fine for us and we don't have to deal with snotty, 1,800 lb bulls.

I think everyone can agree that the current management for elk, brought on by groups lobbying against biologically based numbers, is not the best solution for the herds or the hunters. It is great for guides and inches. (No offense meant Pro, Guides are just reaping what is put in front of them) Simply adding more permits would be a great start, moving dates to lower hunter success can also help. Managing to the low end of the objective should be ok.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I will have to disagree about spikes doing a lot of the breeding. Most spikes never will play any part of the breeding cycle even if the bigger bulls aren't present because many arent sexually mature. The reason the elk grew faster is because we were protecting the branch antlered bulls. The elk population really boomed after spike tags were issued because there were more sexually mature bulls to breed the cows. When you have younger bulls doing the breeding then calves are often born later in the year. This can be said the same for deer.

Can a spike or two point breed a doe? Sure they can if their sexually mature. Will the doe let this young buck breed her on her first estrus cycle? More than likely not.

Yes Packout you can get more breeding years out of a yearling bull then if you brought a 4 to 5 year old bull so it would be more cost effective for the rancher to buy a yearling or 2 year old bull than a older bull which wont give him as many breeding years before he has to trade him in to buy another bull.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I am not putting my own spin on this. This is what came the man who created elk hunting in Utah as we know it today. I don't feel inclined to argue the point further because I tend to believe what he told us that day and the data he had to back it up. As long as the female population is bred, then excess bulls are a burden on the population. 

Manti Unit:
1985- 5,000-6,000 elk - hunters killed 1,017 bulls
2005- 10,000-11,000 elk - hunters killed 937 bulls (spikes and mature)
When you look at the past bull : cow ratios (low) and current bull to cow ratios (high) on the Manti, you can see that the bulk of the increase in elk on the Manti comes mainly from more bulls. 

We run yearling bulls in our herd of cows because they are very efficient in breeding. We then sell them in the Fall and buy new yearling breeders the next Spring. We ran many yearling and even lamb bucks with our ewes for breeding. Spike bulls are viable breeders. Even some fawn deer can be viable breeders. No one wants that for our herds, but the fact is yearlings breed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Even fawn deer can be viable breeders. No one wants that for our herds, but the fact is yearlings breed, or didn't you go to high school.


I seriously doubt a fawn could ever breed because their not sexually mature. Of course high school kids can because their sexually mature. Can elementary kids? You must believe so if you believe a fawn can breed.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I must have been editing my post as you were posting. I realized my try to lighten the mood was not even close to true. Facts are some fawns are sexually viable. Cow elk yearlings are bred that Fall. Bull yearlings can breed in the Fall. We will just have to agree to disagree. Best of luck in the draws.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Manti Unit:
> 1985- 5,000-6,000 elk - hunters killed 1,017 bulls
> 2005- 10,000-11,000 elk - hunters killed 937 bulls (spikes and mature)
> When you look at the past bull : cow ratios (low) and current bull to cow ratios (high) on the Manti, you can see that the bulk of the increase in elk on the Manti comes mainly from more bulls.


Well it pretty much shows that the elk population doubled in 10 years. Yes we have excessive bulls, but we are also killing a lot of cows because ranchers want them off the mountain. Its about time the ranchers compromised and gave up a little. We would have a lot of more elk if ranchers wouldn't fuss about the elk numbers. We would have more elk if we didnt kill cows to save more bulls from being shot.

So its about time a lot of ranchers bite the bullet instead of demanding more elk killed. There is plenty of room for more elk because we have grass fires every year and elk and cattle should be eating up the newly grown grass before it becomes a fire hazzard.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Excelent posts Packout!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Excelent posts Packout!


+1


----------

