# fillmore oak creek elk/beaver open bull



## hazmat

why did they turn the west side of i-15 beaver/oak creek limited entry hunt. into a general bull hunt. i have heard for the deer population. was wondering if anybody knew anymore details... i know this hunt was not a coveted l/e tag but there are some dang nice bulls down there especially on the beaver side... either way going to be some big general bulls coming off that range... my cousin hunted the oak creek 2 years ago and killed a wicked looking 320 bull...


----------



## Birdbow

Probably for the same reason the northern part of the unit got changed to open bull awhile ago. It's because of the elk tearing up the farmland especially the church farms corn. My neighbor in Mona was the fish cop for the area. He routinely got calls on elk destroying crops. He would have the guys at the church farm drive the tractor through the corn and shoot the elk as they ran out.
I moved to the area a year after the north unit opened so I missed out on the initial hunt. Close to 100 bulls were taken opening weekend of the open bull rifle hunt. Well see what happens this year.


----------



## hazmat

i thought that probably played a role in that. going to be a bull slaughter down there... hopefully my nephews can draw a youth tag and get down there for the rut would be an awesome hunt i think


----------



## legacy

Crop damage was only part of the issue. The main reason it was turned into a General Season area was because guys were applying for it not knowing a thing about the unit and then discovering that there are very few elk on the unit and very few mature bulls. Then they would complain to the DWR about it. The DWR had enough complaints that they decided to just kill every last elk off and not worry about it. Are there elk still on the unit? Yes. Are there MANY elk on the unit? No. Are there many mature bulls on the unit? No. Will it be an absolute zoo and circus on the youth hunt? Yes. Sad really.


----------



## goofy elk

legacy nailed it ...

The good news is a hand full of young kids will kill a few nice bulls ...

Both areas will be shot out this year though ...reduced to Utahs general season quality..
Ya, really sad.


----------



## hazmat

legacy said:


> Crop damage was only part of the issue. The main reason it was turned into a General Season area was because guys were applying for it not knowing a thing about the unit and then discovering that there are very few elk on the unit and very few mature bulls. Then they would complain to the DWR about it. The DWR had enough complaints that they decided to just kill every last elk off and not worry about it. Are there elk still on the unit? Yes. Are there MANY elk on the unit? No. Are there many mature bulls on the unit? No. Will it be an absolute zoo and circus on the youth hunt? Yes. Sad really.


i seen some good bulls down there just last year. just have to really know where your going on the unit. like goofy said going to be some youngsters and other people that have a great year down there.


----------



## Packout

I hope one of my sons draws the Youth hunt this year. More people on the new unit means less where we hunt. (selfish for sure) 

I would have liked to see them keep the Oak Cr LTD elk hunt, which was a unit where a guy could actually draw in a short period of time and hunt a mature bull. Legacy's assessment of the situation is pretty accurate.


----------



## COWAN

Birdbow said:


> Probably for the same reason the northern part of the unit got changed to open bull awhile ago. It's because of the elk tearing up the farmland especially the church farms corn. My neighbor in Mona was the fish cop for the area. He routinely got calls on elk destroying crops. He would have the guys at the church farm drive the tractor through the corn and shoot the elk as they ran out.
> I moved to the area a year after the north unit opened so I missed out on the initial hunt. Close to 100 bulls were taken opening weekend of the open bull rifle hunt. Well see what happens this year.


Most of this post is an all out lie! The fish cop that lives on Buraston hill (Jay Topam) was never involved in ANY of the elk issues on the Oak Creek North unit. Howard Jaquort was the warden at the time and he was highly against the selfish unnecessary killing of the elk. Yes there were more than 100 elk killed in the FIRST WEEK not first weekend. Yes they were eating the corn, but that issue was poor judgement/management and actions on behalf of the LDS Church welfare crops manager, the Utah DWR (Steve Flinders and others), farmers in Levan(Kennisons), and the Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation (Bill Christensen). Get your s**t strait.


----------



## COWAN

legacy said:


> Crop damage was only part of the issue. The main reason it was turned into a General Season area was because guys were applying for it not knowing a thing about the unit and then discovering that there are very few elk on the unit and very few mature bulls. Then they would complain to the DWR about it. The DWR had enough complaints that they decided to just kill every last elk off and not worry about it. Are there elk still on the unit? Yes. Are there MANY elk on the unit? No. Are there many mature bulls on the unit? No. Will it be an absolute zoo and circus on the youth hunt? Yes. Sad really.


Yet another fictitious, very off the mark post nowhere near the truth. 100% bullsh*t!


----------



## ridgetop

Cowan, you seem to know a lot of the behind the scenes details about how or why it was opened up to general season. Could you share the whole truth?


----------



## bullsnot

COWAN said:


> legacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crop damage was only part of the issue. The main reason it was turned into a General Season area was because guys were applying for it not knowing a thing about the unit and then discovering that there are very few elk on the unit and very few mature bulls. Then they would complain to the DWR about it. The DWR had enough complaints that they decided to just kill every last elk off and not worry about it. Are there elk still on the unit? Yes. Are there MANY elk on the unit? No. Are there many mature bulls on the unit? No. Will it be an absolute zoo and circus on the youth hunt? Yes. Sad really.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another fictitious, very off the mark post nowhere near the truth. 100% bullsh*t!
Click to expand...

You have my attention. I'm on the Central RAC and heard what the DWR told me was the reason for changing these units to open units in a public meeting (basically boiled down to low hunter satisfaction) but I'd like to hear the real reason.


----------



## hazmat

bullsnot said:


> COWAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> legacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crop damage was only part of the issue. The main reason it was turned into a General Season area was because guys were applying for it not knowing a thing about the unit and then discovering that there are very few elk on the unit and very few mature bulls. Then they would complain to the DWR about it. The DWR had enough complaints that they decided to just kill every last elk off and not worry about it. Are there elk still on the unit? Yes. Are there MANY elk on the unit? No. Are there many mature bulls on the unit? No. Will it be an absolute zoo and circus on the youth hunt? Yes. Sad really.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another fictitious, very off the mark post nowhere near the truth. 100% bullsh*t!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have my attention. I'm on the Central RAC and heard what the DWR told me was the reason for changing these units to open units in a public meeting (basically boiled down to low hunter satisfaction) but I'd like to hear the real reason.
Click to expand...

i am just wondering how much efforty they put into the hunter satisfication survey. i liked that hunt was challenging yet very rewarding


----------



## legacy

COWAN, please enlighten us all!
My statements also come from what I have heard from the DWR, biologists, RACS, hunters, etc... You seem to have a strong opinion on what you think the truth is. I'd love to know what that is. 
The problem (IMO) is that guys were looking at the draw odds and thinking they could easily draw the unit, not knowing a thing about it. I'm assuming they thought that there were 400 inch bulls behind every cedar tree just like on all the other units in the state. :lol: The truth is, it is a very difficult unit to hunt. In the past several years, between me, my wife, my father and bro-in-law, we've had 5 elk tags for the unit and have killed 3 bulls. The biggest being around 340, but that was in 2001 when the unit was really at it's prime. the last 2 bulls we have killed were all well under 300 inches. The thing is, we know what we are getting with Oak Creek. We know you can draw it with few points and we know the chances of killing a "big" bull are rather small. My mom and dad are both from Millard County so we love just being down that way. 
I know there are some good bulls on the unit and seen a couple of really nice bulls 2 years ago. A lot of those bulls move on and off the unit from other units, but there are some pretty nice resident bulls as well. There are just not a high number of elk there and I don't thing it has been managed properly. I don't think the demise of the unit boils down to ONE single factor though.


----------



## bullsnot

The problem is the bulls on the Oak Creek roam onto Indian Reservations and places where they get killed and the division can't control that and are unable to get the ages of those bulls up to objective. They've tried to work with the Reservation with little success.

Also the elk density on the Beaver east of I-15 is low and hunters have a harder time finding elk. Sucess rates are lower.

These factors have contributed to low hunter satisfaction and the DWR proposed making them open bull units because of it. That's what I understood to be the reasoning behind thier proposal.


----------



## gwailow

Actually guys, Cowan is pretty well spot on. The reason they opened the north end was pretty much exactly how he stated. It had nothing to do with the quality of the unit or hunter satisfaction. The Oak Creeks were an amazing unit that had exceptional bulls on it. The unit was as good as any other L/E unit in the entire state. There were tons of locals fighting tooth and nail for the unit to not be opened, and we got told to stuff it from everyone. It's my understanding that the only two people on the RAC who stood up for the elk on the unit this time were Hansen and Neilsen. 

In regards to the dis-satisfaction, nowadays, people are spoiled and yes the L/E part of the Oak Creeks are a difficult hunt to kill "A BULL". Not a 350 bull, a 4 or 5 pt bull. So yes, I can see low satisfaction now, but that's because people that put in for it expect it to be like all the other petting zoos in the state of Utah. It was a great opportunity for people not wanting to wait their entire life to draw a tag, to have a reasonable chance at a branch antlered bull if they are willing to work for it. When this opens up all the people that go down on this unit thinking it will be like when they opened it up the last time will be sorely mistaken. I saw 1 ONE 340" bull last year on this unit and I've heard from several sources he was killed on the late hunt. Youth hunters may nail one or two 6 points, but they will likely also be very discouraged. It will be a mad house. I heard of several fights taking place last time due to people shooting someone else's elk once it was on the ground, and other situations of the like. I can only imagine what's going to happen when there are very very very few bulls and ass loads of people trying to kill them. 

Not sure where the Indian Reservation land you are speaking of comes in to play...Maybe you are thinking of the deep creeks or the SW desert. Plain and simple, the DWR are sick of paying for damaged crops to a very few landowners.


----------



## legacy

"Actually guys, Cowan is pretty well spot on. The reason they opened the north end was pretty much exactly how he stated. It had nothing to do with the quality of the unit or hunter satisfaction. The Oak Creeks were an amazing unit that had exceptional bulls on it. The unit was as good as any other L/E unit in the entire state. There were tons of locals fighting tooth and nail for the unit to not be opened, and we got told to stuff it from everyone. It's my understanding that the only two people on the RAC who stood up for the elk on the unit this time were Hansen and Neilsen."


Yes, this is absolutely accurate as far as the north end of the unit being opened up several years ago. I had first hand accounts of what the elk were doing to the corn fields in Nephi. I know there were other problems in and around Nephi and also Elberta and other places.

As far as I know, the crop issues were "mostly" resolved with opening up the north end of the unit. 

I'm not quite sure what Indian Reservation is in question either.


----------



## bullsnot

Its the same reservation that the Deep Creek bulls go to. From what understand many of those bulls migrate west and back. At least many of the Oak Creek bulls. They go out into the desert.

If you look at the big game report you'll see the average age of bulls is below par. I have no doubt that there are those that loved the unit and knew where to go to have a great hunt. The problem was that was not representative of larger hunter pool.

In the DWR's proposal crop damage was never mentioned. It was purely a hunter satisfaction. Just as adamant that many of you are that these should not be open bull units there were some very adamant individuals stating that losing thier 5-10 points, or what have you, was not worth the hunt and wanted points back. A few stated that advertising these areas as LE areas was fraud. 

Black helicopters are fun but the motion passed without much problem based on the explanation given.


----------



## gwailow

bullsnot said:


> In the DWR's proposal crop damage was never mentioned. It was purely a hunter satisfaction. Just as adamant that many of you are that these should not be open bull units there were some very adamant individuals stating that losing thier 5-10 points, or what have you, was not worth the hunt and wanted points back. A few stated that advertising these areas as LE areas was fraud.
> 
> Black helicopters are fun but the motion passed without much problem based on the explanation given.


I'd maybe re-read your RAC minutes about the crop damage and private property not being an issue.


----------



## bullsnot

gwailow said:


> I'd maybe re-read your RAC minutes about the crop damage and private property not being an issue.


I didn't say private property wasn't mentioned. It was absolutely mentioned but only because of access issues to the public. I said crop damage was never mentioned and I went back and listened to the Central RAC meeting again and it wasn't mentioned in the presentation or in the subsequent discussion.

My larger point was though that the reason that it was recommended was because most hunters said they were crappy hunts, not because landowners didn't want the elk there.

I have no doubt there were a few landowners and locals that either had elk on their property or knew a honey hole or two where they could go kill a 350 bull and wanted to stay as is. But most people that hunted the unit didn't like the hunt. It really is that simple guys.

Units that are primarly private land and have poor elk habitat just don't make good LE units.


----------



## COWAN

Ok Im back. Yup this topic is a sore spot on my feelers, big time. Bullsnot you had better re-review your meeting minutes, crop damage was the major issue on church property in Elberta, Nephi, and the Kennison property South of Levan. Funny thing was the property owners would not let anyone hunt them on their property! I really cant speak for Elberta but I do know a bit about the other properties and the old Oak creek North unit.

Please understand I do not hate the DWR at all, I just do not agree with what took place several years ago on the Oak Creek North unit, period. The best elk unit in the state has been destroyed and will never return and yes this bugs me a bit.

It all started with the report of crops (corn ,mind you) being destroyed at the Nephi LDS welfare crop land SouthWest of Nephi. The crop manager reported $40,000 in crop damage from one, yes one pivot. Wrong. Is there $40,000 in corn in one pivot? The elk didnt eat the whole thing, just a small, micro portion. I am part owner of the trap club just across the street and got to see the damage first hand, and it was minimal at best. Yes it was lush there for the elk, water and corn. They loved it and didnt like to leave it, like a fat kid in a candy store. Then came reports of issues at Elberta and Levan. A meeting was held in Nephi I believe it was hosted by the mayor at the time, when it was decided to wipe out the elk on the unit. People were outraged to say the least. Steve Flinders a biologist for the DWR at the time said quote "we flew the unit and only spotted 11 head of elk, one 6x6, a rag horn, and spike with 8 cows. This "roag" heard of elk are starving, and terrorizing and destroying crops in the Nephi and Elberta areas. If we (DWR open the unit up we will put an end to the damages done. The elk cannot survive within the unit" end quote. 11 head?!?!?! They must fly blind. The crowd erupted with you can only guess what, it got very ugly. There were 3 meetings to try to save the elk heard from being destroyed, I was there for all of them. Also attending was the RMEF Bill Christensen, Utah DWR, Flinders and others, Lds crop manager Troy Rindlesbacher, Kennison farm manager Alen Kennison (also local stake president at the time) and 2 others I didn't catch who the were, they sat silent I think they were BLM. Bill sat thru the first two meetings and stared at the floor saying, Quote" there is nothing we can do, nothing we can do." end quote. A funny side note The Warden for the area (Jaquort) thought it was a bad move as well. When he walked thru the door Flinders said "good to see you here, you can back us up." Jaquort said "nope! I'm here to see you sink, I'm with these guys." end Quote. I was on the second row back and Jaquort sat behind me, he would'nt even sit with his own people. I heard it all. 
At the second meeting, more stress and noise. A project to build a fence at the Nephi crops area was discussed but nothing was decided.
At the last meeting Things were looking up, slightly. It got heated again and again, then towards the end of the meeting Bill (RMEF) stood up and shouted, Quote" what we need is a project!" end quote. Well guess what..... the building **** near fell over with uproar from the crowd, but not in a good way. I was surprised Bill didn't leave after hearing what several folks had to say about his comment. Sad to say the fence didn't get built due to the fact materials were provided but the issue of who was going to construct the fence was the major issue. WHAT?!?!?! The fact that there are Dedicated hunters and Priesthood quorums etc., etc. that could perform the labor for free was brought up but was not wanted to be discussed by any representing parties. WOW, great minds at work there, I guess they had there minds made up. However a plan was presented and a few people were selected to present "OUR" changes and recomendations to the DWR in a meeting to be held at DWR offices in Salt Lake and we were actually gaining ground. When the time came for the meeting in SLC our reps were caught in traffic and was late, when they walked in the door, Mr. Kennison was there representing his farm and the LDS church farm and was asked what he thought should happen and he said Quote" Kill them all, get rid of them". The DWR said alright then and that was that. Our group was not allowed to present "OUR" solution at all. End of story.

Now as far as unsatisfied hunter numbers, I have never heard of that statement until now on this site. All I can say is that if a "hunter" could not find an elk on the old North Oak Creek unit he must have never left camp or his motel room. Elk were very abundant. At almost any time you could go out and find a very nice bull elk. This unit was supreme for elderly and disabled hunters. You could get around so easily and the elk were largely on BLM ground. I work with a guy whose daughter killed a 407 bull on the opening morning of the youth hunt and had chances at several other big elk before the one she killed on the same hill. His wife killed a 320 bull on the open hunt. FACT! There were 65 (going to verify this number soon) very big bulls killed on the youth hunt alone, and that's just the ones I have seen pictures of, or knew of. The past mayor has the fact sheet and pics of these elk killed just by kids, some were killed on his property. 65 ELK ON THE YOUTH HUNT KILLED ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT????? UNSATISFIED HUNTERS????? And then several big bulls killed on the open hunt. My cousin killed a 375 bull opening morning under 100 yards off the road. 

I hope this answers some questions, I could lay down some more but I am quite tired of reliving this nightmare for now. Please feel free to PM or reply with any questions


----------



## hazmat

bullsnot said:


> I didn't say private property wasn't mentioned. It was absolutely mentioned but only because of access issues to the public. I said crop damage was never mentioned and I went back and listened to the Central RAC meeting again and it wasn't mentioned in the presentation or in the subsequent discussion.
> 
> My larger point was though that the reason that it was recommended was because most hunters said they were crappy hunts, not because landowners didn't want the elk there.
> 
> I have no doubt there were a few landowners and locals that either had elk on their property or knew a honey hole or two where they could go kill a 350 bull and wanted to stay as is. But most people that hunted the unit didn't like the hunt. It really is that simple guys.
> 
> Units that are primarly private land and have poor elk habitat just don't make good LE units.


my wife drew the tag a few years back and it was a awesome hunt.


----------



## bullsnot

COWAN said:


> Ok Im back. Yup this topic is a sore spot on my feelers, big time. Bullsnot you had better re-review your meeting minutes, crop damage was the major issue on church property in Elberta, Nephi, ......


Listen dude I'm not going to round and round with you on this. I'm not sure which RAC and when this discussion happened. I am on the Central RAC and here is the audio recording where this was discussed during my tenure.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/huntin...rd-meeting-agendas-materials-and-minutes.html

Go to November 8th (2012) central audio recording. I'm sure there were other discussions but this is where the discussion of removing these units as LE units happened. Crop damage was never brought up as a "reason" for making these open bull units. It was primarily private ground (access issues), not great elk habitat and ultimately hunters didn't like the hunts.

Please start at 15:40 for the presentation. Then go to 33:30 for more discussion.

At 33:53 you will hear Anis say that "hunters that draw that unit almost always give it a not satisfatory rating."

If you liked these units as LE units I promise you that you were in the minority. We did our best to listen to public on this and to listen to the surveys.


----------



## Packout

I think there is simply a misunderstanding in the timeline between Cowan and Bull. 

Cowan's description covers when part of the unit went general 8 or so years ago. That was soley because of the ag issues and that really hurt the whole unit. 

Bull is refering to the most recent decision to make the rest of the OC elk general. The last decision was based on hunter satisfaction. Both can be correct. Hugs all around. 

The ltd unit produced some decent bulls over the past few years (even after the 1st change to the unit). Hard to come by, took a little more work, but I know a lot of guys who enjoyed their hunts there.


----------



## gwailow

I'm done with this conversation as well, but your RAC minutes do state "deprevation":

Larry Fitzgerald - Are there any other factors involved in this? Is there a lot of private property? 
Anis Aoude - Yes, which is one of the main reasons we are doing this. Basically it's a *good way to deal with depredation. * The area isn't great elk habitat so what ends up happening is the elk go into the agricultural areas. .


----------



## bullsnot

gwailow said:


> I'm done with this conversation as well, but your RAC minutes do state "deprevation":
> 
> Larry Fitzgerald - Are there any other factors involved in this? Is there a lot of private property?
> Anis Aoude - Yes, which is one of the main reasons we are doing this. Basically it's a *good way to deal with depredation. *The area isn't great elk habitat so what ends up happening is the elk go into the agricultural areas. .


I'll tell you what. If you want to take that comment and single it out in the context of the conversation in its entirety and make the leap that the unit was moved to open bull based on that obviously you can choose what you want to believe. If we want to hold on to conversations that happened 8 years ago you can choose to do that as well. I'm not trying to be insulting but rather very matter of fact about this subject.

The point I was trying to make was simply that the unit was not moved to an open bull unit to deal with depredation or for monetary reasons. I'll give you that perhaps the depredation might be a benefit of the move but the move was recommended by the elk committee, the DWR, and ultimately approved by the Wildlife Board simply because the unit fits the criteria of an open bull unit and was a low satifaction hunt.

All I was trying to say in my previous post is simply we can argue all day long about what was said at what meeting but when asked what are the reasons for the move, it was about access to the elk, poor elk habitat, and low satisfactory ratings. I completely understand there have been depredation issues on the unit. I understand that some hunters had a great hunt on the unit. I undertstood these issues back in November. But the bottom line is, as I said through out this thread, that the reasons for moving to open bull were very simple and in my opinion correct. There is no black helicopter flying over this issue. There are no back room hidden motives here IMHO.


----------



## Lonetree

"Its the same reservation that the Deep Creek bulls go to. From what understand many of those bulls migrate west and back. At least many of the Oak Creek bulls. They go out into the desert."--bullsnot

The Goshute Indian Reservation(West side of the Deep Creek Mountains) is about 100 miles, and three mountain ranges, away.


----------



## bullsnot

You're right, maybe I misheard the biologist I talked to and he meant the Kanosh Reservation. I'm passing along information that I had obtained during conversations I had over 6 months ago. I did my homework back then but that was a while ago and my memory of many of the details are starting to fade. We've had several meetings since and addressed lots of other topics and issues on other units and perhaps I'm getting them mixed up. I apologize if I posted any misinformation.

The bottom line hasn't changed though on the subject in my view. We are just trying argue about details that have little bearing on the bigger picture. The unit has historically struggled to get to age objective. Don't take my word for it, read the big game report. The satisfaction index is way down, again don't take my word for it ask the DWR. The unit has limited public access, check with the county. 

If anyone wants to me to some digging I will be happy to and answer any questions. I am happy to reach out to biologists and the DWR to get their answers.

The bigger problem with this thread, rather than arguing about a sentence said in a meeting or where the bulls winter, is that the accusation was made that the unit was moved to open bull due to depredation issues, monetary reasons, and had nothing to do with hunter satisfaction. Admittedly I have probably got a detail or two mixed up in this thread but there has been nothing that has been shared that makes any of the accusations I mentioned above hold any merit.


----------



## Lonetree

It appeared to be more than one sentence, that more than one person took issue with. I just found the Deep creek reference interesting, as the distance is so far. No need to even check a map, it is so great.

Can you tell me how the "satisfaction index" has any bearing on the NAMWC? This is of course rhetorical, social acceptability, and satisfaction should have no bearing on real wildlife management conducted under the tenets of the NAMWC. If they did, then it would give voice to non hunting, and anti hunting groups as well. 

I have no issue with the unit being converted, but rather some of reasons being given. They don't pass muster.


----------



## Lonetree

I had never heard of the Kanosh Reservation, so I looked it up. It is a wopping .9 square miles in size.


----------



## COWAN

Packout said:


> I think there is simply a misunderstanding in the timeline between Cowan and Bull.
> 
> Cowan's description covers when part of the unit went general 8 or so years ago. That was soley because of the ag issues and that really hurt the whole unit.
> 
> Bull is refering to the most recent decision to make the rest of the OC elk general. The last decision was based on hunter satisfaction. Both can be correct. Hugs all around.
> 
> The ltd unit produced some decent bulls over the past few years (even after the 1st change to the unit). Hard to come by, took a little more work, but I know a lot of guys who enjoyed their hunts there.


Packout , I believe you are right about the time line here. When the North unit was opened to open bull the meetings I attended were not RAC meetings, they were in the Nephi town hall. I am not sure of the reasons for opening up the elk for this round, but I couldn't help think that it was to benefit the Oak Creek deer unit (maybe one reason) I'm sure there are others.

bullsnot: I'm not going to go round for round about this either, it's stupid and pointless. Ya I think Packout was right about the time line thing. Sad thing is, the elk units all around the Oak Creek units (North & South) with the deletion of elk on these 2 units have hurt the other units quality of animals and numbers as well. Especially the Nebo unit. Elk are very nomadic, they don't sit still very well.

I just can't believe that something so good (North unit) has been blown to bits for some very selfish reasons. We really shouldn't be digitally b#tching at each other here, we should all get together for steak and eggs solve the worlds issues.... mmmmm steak and eggs.... have a good one people.


----------



## bullsnot

Lone - I've already admitted I may be off on the some of the details and mixed up issues with other units but the reservation issue is really an unimportant detail as to why it was moved to an open unit. I have no problems admitting where I may be wrong but I haven't budged an inch on the key portions of this conversation. Don't get hung up on unimportant details, you are taking your eye off the ball or rather trying to get others to. You'd really make a great politician. 

Again don't take my word for the reasons why it was moved to an open bull unit, go ahead and to listen to the recordings of the discussion and do your own digging. If you feel it doesn't pass muster ask the elk committee, the DWR and the WB why they did what they did. It went to the RAC's only after the decision was made.

Why would the NAMWC have anything to do with the unit being open bull or LE? (insert your rhetoric here)

Cowan - I like steak and eggs. Be sure to stay involved and let the RAC's and WB know how you feel. Passionate sportsmen being involved is a good thing even if we don't always agree.


----------



## Lonetree

As ussual, you dont get it. This is a big part of the problem, and why we are on the current course we are on.


----------



## bullsnot

Lonetree said:


> As ussual, you dont get it. This is a big part of the problem, and why we are on the current course we are on.


I think you're the one missing the boat on this Josh. It's simple...buck/bull only hunting has little to do with wildlife conservation.

Now if the change made was advertised as "this will grow more elk" then I could see your point.


----------



## Lonetree

Yep, I'm missing the boat, must not be one I want to travel on.

The NAMWC, covers more than _just_ conservation. Conservation itself, is about the bigger picture of wildlife management. There are tenets of the NAMWC that apply to the way in which decisions about wildlife management are to be made.

Tell me more about the "Satisfaction Index", and the scientific and democratic metrics used to measure this. I mean this sounds great, maybe we can have our legislature require that we take such things into account with all of our wildlife management?

"Satisfaction Index" is just another term for "socially acceptable", and has no place in wildlife management. What if PETA deems a hunt to have a low "Satisfaction Index"? Wildlife belongs to the people, even PETA people, so should they be able to use such criteria?

Like I said, I don't necessarily have an issue with the unit being converted, but if it were truly converted on a "Satisfaction Index", then what else can we change, based on those criteria?


----------



## TRDHUNTER

Another thing that sucks is that there is now one less unit to disperse tag applicants, longer wait to draw times, which equals more people unsatisfied. When people complain about tag draw wait times, the dwr seems to up the tag numbers on units that do not need them or cannot sustain them. This leads to guys who want huge bulls behind every tree to be unstisfied. Cannot please everyone, but not sure if changing this unit was good move or not.


----------



## bullsnot

Lonetree said:


> Yep, I'm missing the boat, must not be one I want to travel on.
> 
> The NAMWC, covers more than _just_ conservation. Conservation itself, is about the bigger picture of wildlife management. There are tenets of the NAMWC that apply to the way in which decisions about wildlife management are to be made.


Let's take these things one at a time.

First moving the the unit from LE to Open Bull does not violate any of the 7 sisters in any way, shape or form in my view. In fact I think one could make a pretty strong argument that move in fact would be in line with the spirit of the 7 sisters.

Second I think using a "satisfaction index" to "get a feel" for how hunters feel about the hunt is also does not violate any of the 7 sisters in my view. If we we were to "manage" wildlife based on a satisfaction index then I think you may have a very valid point. Let's be clear, buck/bull hunting permit numbers and even strategy has little to do with management. That is nothing more than metering the flow of harvest of our resource and has very little to do with population health. Where you and I do agree is that we both know that making the argument that harvesting less bulls/bucks will make the herd healthier and more reproductive is complete BS.

You and I have some common ground and I understand that your point is the system is absolutely flawed at its core and that the whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. I disagree with that and believe that we would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are a lot of positive things in the management practices today. The flaw in my view is the agendas and smoke and mirrors behind some of decisions that are made in the name of "herd health" and for the good of the public at large.

For example we should not be raising elk age objectives to drive up the value of a conservation tag. We should change elk age objectives, up or down, because that's what the public at large, the owners of the wildlife, want. Asking people about how they feel about the hunts they go seems to be perfectly in line with the NAWCM in that we are asking the true owners of the wildlife how they feel about hunting their wildlife.


----------



## bullsnot

TRDHUNTER said:


> Another thing that sucks is that there is now one less unit to disperse tag applicants, longer wait to draw times, which equals more people unsatisfied. When people complain about tag draw wait times, the dwr seems to up the tag numbers on units that do not need them or cannot sustain them. This leads to guys who want huge bulls behind every tree to be unstisfied. Cannot please everyone, but not sure if changing this unit was good move or not.


Good points, some of them anyway.

The tag numbers are basically set by the elk management plan. Its the DWR's job to apply the plan correctly and suggest tag numbers but upping the tags is not arbitrary decision with no reasonable and logical reason behind it. One could easily make the argument that we were ignoring the plan 5-7 years ago and created the 400" inch bull craze that was happening. Tag numbers were way low compared to what they should've been based on the elk plan.

The point creep will never stop, remember that cutting tags also makes that worse. More and more people are putting in for the hunts on a resource that can't grow anymore. Also the "inches" craze isn't slowing down much either and I promise that will lead to the demise of our sport...that and money for wildlife policies. At least for the average guy it will.


----------



## Lonetree

bullsnot said:


> Let's take these things one at a time.
> 
> First moving the the unit from LE to Open Bull does not violate any of the 7 sisters in any way, shape or form in my view. In fact I think one could make a pretty strong argument that move in fact would be in line with the spirit of the 7 sisters.
> 
> Second I think using a "satisfaction index" to "get a feel" for how hunters feel about the hunt is also does not violate any of the 7 sisters in my view. If we we were to "manage" wildlife based on a satisfaction index then I think you may have a very valid point. Let's be clear, buck/bull hunting permit numbers and even strategy has little to do with management. That is nothing more than metering the flow of harvest of our resource and has very little to do with population health. Where you and I do agree is that we both know that making the argument that harvesting less bulls/bucks will make the herd healthier and more reproductive is complete BS.
> 
> You and I have some common ground and I understand that your point is the system is absolutely flawed at its core and that the whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. I disagree with that and believe that we would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are a lot of positive things in the management practices today. The flaw in my view is the agendas and smoke and mirrors behind some of decisions that are made in the name of "herd health" and for the good of the public at large.
> 
> For example we should not be raising elk age objectives to drive up the value of a conservation tag. We should change elk age objectives, up or down, because that's what the public at large, the owners of the wildlife, want. Asking people about how they feel about the hunts they go seems to be perfectly in line with the NAWCM in that we are asking the true owners of the wildlife how they feel about hunting their wildlife.


I have to agree, moving the LE to open bull could be very much in line with one of the seven tenets, That of biologically sound management, as there is no justification for trophy management, under the NAMWC. So....agreed also on the raising of age objectives.

I think you get where I was going with the "Satisfaction Index". Hunter input is very much one of the tenets of the NAMWC, it is called democracy. But there is a difference between the the democracy of wildlife management, and those things that fall outside of that. To many things are nothing but "social acceptability" issues, and "satisfaction index's". When you pass these things off as part of the democratic process, it weakens the system, and makes for a slippery slope, that undermines the process, and its priorities. This is how we get things like Option WTF? False democracy, overriding the lack of any biological, and scientific premise.

As for agendas, and smoke and mirrors, yeah there is a lot of BS being perpetrated. This is going to continue, until we put an emphasis, on the priorities of the NAMWC, specifically that of biology and science. We make the vast majority of our wildlife management decisions based on how people feel about things, this is wrong. Yet, when we look to the science, and the biology, to guide our decisions through the democratic process, we are left short. And as long as this ignorance persists, the smoke and mirrors game will continue.

A few examples from the Northern region RAC last night:
A RAC member asked a division employee that was giving a presentation on the new 5 year plan on bighorn sheep, "do domestic sheep really transmit disease to bighorns, or is this just something people say"( I am paraphrasing of course) The division employees response was "It depends on what you look at, but it looks like it". This is complete and utter BS ignorance. It has been known and proven for decades, that domestic sheep pass disease to bighorn sheep. The most recent science on the matter, is conclusive that M. ovipnuemonia not only is the most responsible agent for bighorn die offs associated with bighorns coming into contact with domestics. It has also been demonstrated that co-mingling domestic sheep that are negative for ovipnuemonia, with bighorns, does not result mass die offs. This is huge, unprecedented, and has major implications for the management, and politics of bighorn sheep management.

Another question was asked about what causes pinion and juniper encroachment. They brought the habitat guy up to answer the question. Where he promptly stumbled over the standard 1950s answer about grazing and fire regime suppression. While these things are at play at some locales, woody plant encroachment, is a global phenomenon that has been in play for the last century. It is this mechanism that drove the rise in browse species, over grass, and allowed for the golden age of deer, in the mid part of the last century. CO2 and nitrate deposition rises over the last century have been correlated with this rise in woody plant encroachment. This effect has been proven and reproduced in large scale, controlled grow houses.

This is but a few, I could go for pages.

Do you think that the phragmites problem is restricted to the Great Salt Lake? Nope.

As long as we operate under this outdated, topical, cloak of "natural life science", interpretive, quasi biologic model of management, that is overridden anyway, because of peoples feelings, the smoke and mirrors will persist, and we as hunters will all lose.


----------

