# Trumpeter Swan



## Wire (Nov 2, 2017)

Question for everybody..... I ran out duck hunting over the weekend for a quick pass/jump shoot. Did kill a couple ducks. Here's the big question. I did see/hear a trumpeter flying with a tundra. Would you shoot the trumpeter knowing that it is not a tundra??


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

NO!


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Yes, and there are a few shot every year. The interesting thing is you could shoot a Trumpeter, but if the bill doesn't measure a certain length (I think it's over 63 mm) then it's marked as a Tundra.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I wouldn't knowingly shoot one. There is a hope deep inside of me that we'll see more swan permits offered at some point in the future, but I think each trumpeter shot probably makes it a little harder for the DWR to move in that direction.


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

No, I would not intentionally target a trumpeter. I would like to see their numbers increase. Even though shooting the 10 that are allowed by regulation is insignificant to the overall numbers we as a community might as well do everything we can to help bring the numbers up. I would also like to see the swan hunting regulations relaxed at some point. Every trumpeter shot gives a foot hold for those that would like to see swan hunting reduced or eliminated all together.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

I sure would! No question.
62 mm is the bill measurement to be counted a trump.
Hunted with the brbr manager today. Even he told me to shoot a trump if it came into the blocks. Of course that’s off the record


----------



## 7summits (Nov 28, 2017)

king eider said:


> I sure would! No question.
> 62 mm is the bill measurement to be counted a trump.
> Hunted with the brbr manager today. Even he told me to shoot a trump if it came into the blocks. Of course that's off the record


Love the honesty!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

yes i would. there numbers are going up. For tag numbers going up never happen.


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

Tag numbers won't go back up BECAUSE people keep shooting trumpeters. If people would quit targeting trumpeters there is a good chance the tag numbers could be increased. 

Let me put it this way: when I started hunting we had 2500 swan permits available they were good state wide and the season ran from the first Saturday of October to the end of the duck season in January. 

In the late 80's early 90's trumpeters started migrating into northern Utah and stated showing up in the harvest stats.

Skip forward to 1995. The swan hunting area was reduced to just the area surrounding the Great Salt lake and the season was shortened to end the first Sunday in December. The reasoning for these reductions was because most of the trumpeters were shot outside the great salt lake area and later in the season.

In 2000 The hunt area was further reduced to BRBR and south only and permit numbers were reduced from 2500 to 2000. The reason for this was most of the trumpeters were being shot in public shooting grounds and salt creek wma. Permit numbers were reduced to lessen the chance of trumpeters being harvested. 
*It should be noted that the average trumpeter harvest between 1995 and 2000 was 2.8 birds per year.

Between the years 2000 and 2011 the trumpeter harvest fell to an average of 1 bird per year and we had no further swan hunt restrictions. 

However the past six years the trumpeter harvest has jumped up to 3.2 birds per year. That makes me wonder what further restrictions we may face in the very near future.

The point is that when trumpeters get shot we loose swan hunting opportunity. So why anyone would intentionally shoot a trumpeter completely defies any rational thinking if they care at all for future swan hunting opportunity.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

king eider said:


> I sure would! No question.
> 62 mm is the bill measurement to be counted a trump.
> Hunted with the brbr manager today. Even he told me to shoot a trump if it came into the blocks. Of course that's off the record


If you get a Trumpeter checked like you're supposed to, do you get to keep it?

Or do you not get it checked and just send in your questionnaire claiming you didn't harvest anything?

Would a taxidermist mount one?


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Goshawk said:


> If people would quit targeting trumpeters there is a good chance the tag numbers could be increased.


Since the average number taken each year is a decimal number, I would say the average is taken over 2 or more years. And since I am not aware of any early closings of a swan hunt in recent years (if you know of any, please tell me when it occurred), I'm guessing that there have been less than 10 trumpeter swans killed in any recent years (killing 10 trumpeters in any given season is cause for an immediate closing of the swan hunt for that year). This would indicate that there is little, if any, actual 'targeting' of trumpeter swans taking place in Utah.

I would also guess that very few tag holders can successfully identify a trumpeter swan on the wing and that most of those that can would not harvest it because of the encouragement by the DWR to not do so. And of course, there are ALWAYS exceptions as a couple of posters on here have already indicated they would. And they would be completely within their rights to do so. I wouldn't knowingly do it, but would not harbor any grudge against anybody else if they choose to do so. :O--O:



blackdog said:


> If you get a Trumpeter checked like you're supposed to, do you get to keep it? "The swan orientation course provides information about swans, including information that will help you identify tundra swans and trumpeter swans in flight. *Both are legal to take*, but the Division discourages you from shooting trumpeter swans."
> 
> Or do you not get it checked and just send in your questionnaire claiming you didn't harvest anything?That would be a violation of the law subject to penalties. "If you do harvest a swan, a Division biologist will complete your harvest survey as part of *the post-harvest examination that is
> required of all successful swan hunters.*"
> ...


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Hmmm interesting. 

I shot a lot of swans in Utah back in the day but not for many years now. I don't even think there was a swan orientation course most of those years. I certainly don't remember the specifics about what if you shot a Trumpeter. 

So who has a Trumpeter mounted in their house?


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

dubob said:


> Since the average number taken each year is a decimal number, I would say the average is taken over 2 or more years. And since I am not aware of any early closings of a swan hunt in recent years (if you know of any, please tell me when it occurred), I'm guessing that there have been less than 10 trumpeter swans killed in any recent years (killing 10 trumpeters in any given season is cause for an immediate closing of the swan hunt for that year). This would indicate that there is little, if any, actual 'targeting' of trumpeter swans taking place in Utah.
> 
> I would also guess that very few tag holders can successfully identify a trumpeter swan on the wing and that most of those that can would not harvest it because of the encouragement by the DWR to not do so. And of course, there are ALWAYS exceptions as a couple of posters on here have already indicated they would. And they would be completely within their rights to do so. I wouldn't knowingly do it, but would not harbor any grudge against anybody else if they choose to do so. :O--O:


The swan statics are based on 5 year terms. If you re read my post I clearly indicate the years used for each "decimal number" that I stated. For example the latest 5 years that statics are available for trumpeter swan harvest is as follows...
2011.....3
2012.....2
2013.....5
2014.....2
2015.....4
average of 3.2 birds per year.

The highest single year harvest was 7 trumpeters in 1996. We have never hit the 10 bird quota limit or like you say the hunt would have been shut down.
The low number of trumpeters taken is indicative of the overall low number trumpeters in the state and not an indicator that trumpeters are not being specifically targeted. I read a large number of waterfowl related boards, forums and pages. The number of people that indicate they would "like" to shoot a trumpeter is surprising to me. A few, not a lot but a few, have come out and stated that they were "holding out" for the chance to shoot a trumpeter when thy learned there were some in the area.
I think that your "guess" that most would not harvest a trumpeter because of the DWR's encouragement not to do so is in error. This thread is proof of that. The question posed was, would you knowingly  shoot a trumpeter and half of those responding indicated they would. I find that to be about the same across all the boards, so it would probably be safe to assume that around 50% of the tag holders would knowingly shoot a trumpeter if given the chance. That is more than a few exceptions, that becomes a problem when looking at the long term for the swan hunt.
Just because it is "legal" to shoot a trumpeter does not mean that it is without repercussions. Instead of having the individual accountability of a ticket for the one that shoots the trumpeter we all get to share in the repercussion in the form of shorter seasons and lower permit numbers.


----------



## naturalist (Aug 20, 2011)

The Trumpeter swan population has increased dramatically in recent years according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are now more than 63,000 adult birds in North America and the population is growing by more than 10,000 per year. Because of this increase in numbers the USF&WS has even kicked around the idea of allowing more states to have Tundra swan hunts knowing that the incidental killing of some Trumpeters wouldn't be a big deal: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/oct/20/trumpeter-swan-hunting-proposal-alarms-birders/.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Goshawk said:


> The swan statics are based on 5 year terms. If you re read my post I clearly indicate the years used for each "decimal number" that I stated. Yep, you clearly talked about averages for 5, 6, and 11 year periods in your post, with no indication of what sliding scale (5 years) was being used by the state for official statistics. I assumed it was 2 or more. For example the latest 5 years that statics are available for trumpeter swan harvest is as follows...
> 2011.....3
> 2012.....2
> 2013.....5
> ...


 While it is very clear to me that you have some very real issues with anybody killing a trumpeter swan, I don't share your views or concerns. I've tried to be as clear as I can be about my opinions on the matter. You disagree with my opinions and that's fine with me. I'm letting it go at that. I don't have a need to discuss it further. Have a great rest of the season. :O--O:


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

> Yep, you clearly talked about averages for 5, 6, and 11 year periods in your post, with no indication of what sliding scale (5 years) was being used by the state for official statistics. I assumed it was 2 or more.


Maybe I wasn't clear with my response, so let me try again. The official federal statistics are based on 5 year terms. That is just for your information and has no bearing on the statistics that I presented. 
To simplify things and in the interest of keeping my post short as possible I blocked together subsequent years into larger blocks. With this I clearly state which I years used to come up with the averages presented. Being that the years used were clearly stated there should have been no need for you to assume anything.
Clearly this blocking of years together does not fit within the official framework and I never indicated that the statistics I presented fit within the official 5 year framework. 


> I'm curious how you determined that the 3 out of 9 responders prior to your last post that said they would shoot a trumpeter computes to half.


I normally exclude my own response so as not to influence the "poll" just for the sake of argument. So given that there were 3 respondents that stated they would shoot a trumpeter and 3 including yourself that indicated they would not knowingly shoot a trumpeter. That is half and half, is it not? Being that even if I include my own response there were only 7 that actually responded by answering the question I don't know where you come up with the figure of 9 respondents. 


> It's not safe to ASSUME any thing of the sort. Polling a dozen or so posters on a handful of forums does not equate to anything remotely close to the intent of 2,000 tag holders.


Of course the informal polls are far too small of a base to be of any kind of official or scientific value. But when you introduced your unsubstantiated guess that "most" people would not shoot a trumpeter I figured that assumptions based on the small polls and general feeling of the forums would be accurate enough for the sake of this discussion. If you don't find that adequate and want to hold the discussion to a higher level of proof so be it. But you will also have to adhere to the higher level so feel free to substantiate your guess that "most" people would not shoot a trumpeter with any hard facts based on anything you would like. I would love to see the data.


> While it is very clear to me that you have some very real issues with anybody killing a trumpeter swan, I don't share your views or concerns. I've tried to be as clear as I can be about my opinions on the matter. You disagree with my opinions and that's fine with me. I'm letting it go at that. I don't have a need to discuss it further. Have a great rest of the season. :O--O:


I wouldn't say I have any issue with anyone killing trumpeters. In fact it doesn't affect me at all because I haven't put in for swan for several years. I made the decision years ago that I wouldn't shoot another swan unless I wanted one to mount. 
The purpose of my post was to educate those interested in the possibility of raising the swan permit numbers that the only limiting factor against doing so is the trumpeter harvest. The simple fact of the matter is that if they want more permits then they need to change their attitude toward shooting trumpeters and eliminate the harvest of trumpeters.
Let me say that I do value you opinion. Unfortunately you have spent very little time conveying your opinion on this matter. The majority of your posts seem to have been an attempt to discredit my "opinion" by picking apart my posts. Which doesn't really make any difference because my posts can stand on their own merit so pick away to your hearts content.
In the cold and impersonal realm of the internet it is hard to judge the other parties demeanor in a discussion. So as not to be taken out of context I would like to say, If you do leave this discussion please don't go away mad it was never my intent to ruffle your feathers.
Happy hunting.


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

naturalist said:


> The Trumpeter swan population has increased dramatically in recent years according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are now more than 63,000 adult birds in North America and the population is growing by more than 10,000 per year. Because of this increase in numbers the USF&WS has even kicked around the idea of allowing more states to have Tundra swan hunts knowing that the incidental killing of some Trumpeters wouldn't be a big deal: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/oct/20/trumpeter-swan-hunting-proposal-alarms-birders/.


That is good news. The ideal situation would be for the western population of trumpeters to reach a level to where the incidental take wouldn't matter or even need to be reported.
I like their proposal to confiscate trumpeters taken. If hunters had to punch their tag and lost their bird that sure would diminish the incentive to shoot them and really make hunters be sure of their target.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Goshawk said:


> If hunters had to punch their tag and lost their bird that sure would diminish the incentive to shoot them and really make hunters be sure of their target.


^^^This^^^

Utah hunters are a selfish bunch, well at least half anyway. They don't care if they get the hunt shut down for everyone else as long as they get their bird. Not suprised tho.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's another question while we're on the subject: How often do any of you even see trumpeter swans during the season? In my ~10 years of hunting, I've seen a grand total of one confirmed trumpeter swan. It was in early January.


----------



## Wire (Nov 2, 2017)

I've only seen one confirmed in 15+ years. I initially thought someone was playing with a goose call until it got louder and flew over. I was surprised to see it in the middle of November.


----------



## Goshawk (Sep 7, 2007)

One confirmed sighting for me, a small flock of 3 birds. If I remember right it was toward the end of November, I know the swan season was open at the time. It was several years ago.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

Clarq said:


> Here's another question while we're on the subject: How often do any of you even see trumpeter swans during the season? In my ~10 years of hunting, I've seen a grand total of one confirmed trumpeter swan. It was in early January.


I see thousands.

This reminds me back in the 90's of seeing pink Trumpeters flying around BRBR. Anyone else remember seeing them?


----------

