# Watch today's Wildlife Board meeting



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

The Utah Wildlife Board meeting will begin at 9 a.m. today.

If you're interested, please check out the agenda and watch the meeting online.

Thanks!
Amy


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Interesting the way the anti hunters approached the cougar numbers. Reminded me of a California meeting I went to once. Totally against trophy hunting, and firm on the assumption predators regulate prey and themselves in a natural 'balanced' way. Hmmm...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Also, I find it interesting how many of the comments are strictly emotional based, and that's from the hounds men to the non consumptive commentators.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The first thing that I thought when the lady from Park City stood up and said where she was from and what she studied was that she was from California. Along with the "cougar" that was commenting on the cougar hunts. I also thought that the one could of educated herself before she came to the board meeting where she would of actually looked like she knew what she was talking about. 

I saw the same thing here in Colorado when the front range pushed for and got the trapping regulations and changes to the bear hunts. People from California that moved here and pushed their addenda until it became law.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

forget the cougars -- what about the elk?! Wayne County grazers want the elk out.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

PBH said:


> forget the cougars -- what about the elk?! Wayne County grazers want the elk out.


The elk are ok. The cougars only kill the weak and the sick and keep the herds in balance with nature and all other predators.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> The elk are ok. The cougars only kill the weak and the sick and keep the herds in balance with nature and all other predators.


But the elk are killing the sheep on Boulder.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

"I am ...., and I speak for the cougars." I thought I was watching The Lorax with my kids there for a second. 

I wish they'd hurry up and just vote to kill all the cougars so they can move on to this emergency antlerless permit discussion. Plus, it's Utes-Wildcats game day, who gives a crap about cougars?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Critter said:


> The first thing that I thought when the lady from Park City stood up and said where she was from and what she studied was that she was from California. Along with the "cougar" that was commenting on the cougar hunts. I also thought that the one could of educated herself before she came to the board meeting where she would of actually looked like she knew what she was talking about.
> 
> I saw the same thing here in Colorado when the front range pushed for and got the trapping regulations and changes to the bear hunts. People from California that moved here and pushed their addenda until it became law.


+1

Couple of other things resonated with me. 1-Both houndsmen and the 'non consumptive speakers hit on the DWR's highly vague cat estimates, ranging from a low of 2000 to maybe as high as 5000. The houndsmen claiming how can the dwr justify more tags when they have no real population numbers. The NC speaker mentioned something similar, veering off to the point we might kill so many that they become extinct, like on the east coast, cause the DNR and the DWR don't know how many are really around. Point taken, kinda.

2-The one older gal was a bit miffed that hunters/DWR use PC words like 'take', 'harvest', etc., instead of saying what we are really doing, 'killing'. And I agree with her. I don't care for the pc talk and unless my keyboard becomes possessed I have and will say 'kill' not harvest. I don't like hiding behind those pc words. I take responsibility for hunting and that means killing, although harvesting is fairly accurate. We grow our wildlife like crops, harvest what science tells us what we can, the continue to grow them year after year, to 'harvest' again. She said we should admit what we are doing and say 'the word', and I agree.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Hope someone catches the expo stuff, gotta go back to work...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Okay...we get it. Drought is bad and all this is part of the plan. Blah blah blah... 

Are you going to give me a cow elk tag or not? 

(sorry, I must need a Snickers)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Okay...we get it. Drought is bad and all this is part of the plan. Blah blah blah...
> 
> Are you going to give me a cow elk tag or not?


maybe. And a bison tag to boot! (on the Boulder!!)


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

How do I get me one of these Bison tags!??!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I wish my bison points were for the Henrys this year and not the Books... 

(insert sad face)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

'Nilla is out for bison....



OTC first-come-first-serve for the cow tags?


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I think I'd be screwed since I drew LE pronghorn though right? Cause I think you normally get pulled out of the OIL pool if you draw LE. Kinda sucks cause I'm at 11 Bison right now (definitely not top of pool) but I did apply for the Henry Cow.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH said:


> OTC first-come-first-serve for the cow tags?


shhhhhhh!

This is getting interesting.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

oh dear....Vanilla is kicking himself right now...


hunter's choice bison tag? You should have entered the Henry's unit.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Man, I can just imagine the Board meeting next spring when Henry Mountain hunters are asking to get bison tags again next year because this hunt was so hard. Setting precedent sucks...



PBH said:


> oh dear....Vanilla is kicking himself right now...
> 
> hunter's choice bison tag? You should have entered the Henry's unit.


I really don't like you!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Tree huggers are awesome. Just for the record.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I just wished that some of these people would get a little bit of a education on wildlife before they make a idiot of themselves. 

The one up now would rather the bison starve than be shot.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

"I would personally want to see them die a natural death than be shot." 


HAHAHAHAHA! I friggin love tree huggers.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I can do a bison hunt in Montana for $4000 for a young bull. 

That's about what I feel that I have invested in Utah right now


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

This King guy from Wayne County is my favorite. He's pretty anti antelope and elk on the Boulder.
(and anti bison!)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Ok of course today of all days I had to actually work and didn't see this until now! Somebody want to fill me in on what all has been said before now on the bison?! I am watching now


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

DWR proposing additional bison tags due to drought and range conditions.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Man, these cattlemen are sure hard to watch.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill

That's all the DOW wants to do


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

finally!! Someone said "get rid of the cattle" and leave the elk / bison.

Awesome!

(I wonder if the two Wayne county fellers will follow that guy out of the room....)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

And literally 3 mins into starting to watch I had to stop and go over something....so I'm totally in the dark.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

How many additional bison tags total? I heard 5 bull tags...and a new cow hunt?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wow.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

There are going to be more either sex bison tags and a lot more cow tags depending on the hunt season. 

The new cow hunt will be in January, which will be a real tough hunt depending on the weather. They also expanded the hunt boundaries to include Plateau/Boulder as a just in case the bison move over there.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> How many additional bison tags total? I heard 5 bull tags...and a new cow hunt?


4 new bison hunts. 2 cow hunts and 2 either sex hunts. Almost double the tags.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I knew that I should of put in for the Henry Mountain bison tag instead of the Book Cliffs this year.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> 4 new bison hunts. 2 cow hunts and 2 either sex hunts. Almost double the tags.


:shock:

Is this on an emergency basis for 1 year or long term? Have they said anything about changing the population objective?

Also, have bison moved onto the P/B/K?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Would have effected how I applied too. Stupid archery tag. How are they going to decide what pool to pull from? They had 2 any bull hunts and 1 archery and 2 cow hunts. Everyone given a number than put in to thier respective draw or are people separated into thier draw group than given a number? I can this as a logistical nightmare or a heavily wieghted advantage depending where the alternates come from.


Critter said:


> I knew that I should of put in for the Henry Mountain bison tag instead of the Book Cliffs this year.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

They are worried the hunting pressure could push them there. This is a single year deal to deal with drought


Catherder said:


> :shock:
> 
> Is this on an emergency basis for 1 year or long term? Have they said anything about changing the population objective?
> 
> Also, have bison moved onto the P/B/K?


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

PBH said:


> 4 new bison hunts. 2 cow hunts and 2 either sex hunts. Almost double the tags.


Whoa.

Sucks that they can't just round up ~100 of them and drop them off in Uintahs, wasatch, oquirrhs...etc. And yes, I know that would be a massive crapstorm to even think about attempting--I'm just talking in johnncake's perfect world...

Doubly sucks that I don't have any family (I think) that put in for bison tags, only some bonus points.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Catherder said:


> :shock:
> 
> Is this on an emergency basis for 1 year or long term? Have they said anything about changing the population objective?
> 
> Also, have bison moved onto the P/B/K?


One year only

Population objective is the same 325 bison but after this year they could go down to 290 with the additional permits

The bison have not moved into the P/B/K but have moved into the park. The extended the boundary as a just in case they move over to P/B/K


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> Sucks that they can't just round up ~100 of them and drop them off in Uintahs, wasatch, oquirrhs...etc.


Or the PBK!  And just think, there will be a new National Park there where they can hide and grow their population. The Wayne county boyz may not be overjoyed by such a transplant though.

TOTP


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I tip my hat to the division and the Wildlife Board. I don’t agree with all they do, and I’ve been openly critical in the past, but I’ll say, they saw a situation that needs fixing and took action. 

Doubling the tags on the Henry’s this year I’m sure was a daunting prospect. No easy answer to situations like this. Maybe as part of the next bison plan we can get transplants to new areas mixed in for these situations. (Great chance of that happening...) 

Good work, DWR.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Or the PBK!  And just think, there will be a new National Park there where they can hide and grow their population. The Wayne county boyz may not be overjoyed by such a transplant though.
> 
> TOTP


Trust me, I want bison EVERYWHERE! I was just trying to avoid areas that are also in similar drought conditions right now. I think the #1 place in UT I'd love to see wild bison is on the La Sals. Great terrain/area for them IMO.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I would just like to add my two cents. I will watch the wildlife board later to see the bafoonery but can someone give a quick run down on what they passed cougar wise?


Also, I’m so over this f***** cattlemen BS. They have and are going to continually punch us in the mouth. At what point are we going to punch back? Elk numbers are FAR under what they used to be on most units than they were even 4-5 years ago. The Parker antelope herd is pathetic compared to what it should be. Can we stop just taking the punches and punch back? I’ve listened to these b****y crybabies long enough. They have there own meeting pretty often and all I feel like they do is sit around, mope, b*** and complain. The bottom line is, it’s time to fight back at them and stop just slowly getting pushed further and further back. They get their fair share and their issues are addressed more than fairly in most cases. It’s not they want less elk and antelope, is that they want no elk and pronghorn, and certainly no bison. Completely sick and tired of the b**** old bastards who have nothing better to do in their life than complain. 

There I feel slightly better.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I would just like to add my two cents. I will watch the wildlife board later to see the bafoonery but can someone give a quick run down on what they passed cougar wise?
> 
> Also, I'm so over this f***** cattlemen BS. They have and are going to continually punch us in the mouth. At what point are we going to punch back? Elk numbers are FAR under what they used to be on most units than they were even 4-5 years ago. The Parker antelope herd is pathetic compared to what it should be. Can we stop just taking the punches and punch back? I've listened to these b****y crybabies long enough. They have there own meeting pretty often and all I feel like they do is sit around, mope, b*** and complain. The bottom line is, it's time to fight back at them and stop just slowly getting pushed further and further back. They get their fair share and their issues are addressed more than fairly in most cases. It's not they want less elk and antelope, is that they want no elk and pronghorn, and certainly no bison. Completely sick and tired of the b**** old bastards who have nothing better to do in their life than complain.
> 
> There I feel slightly better.


I agree with most of this rant.

I've never liked hearing, smelling and stepping in piles left behind by cattle or sheep while out enjoying our public resource.

I feel that if you want to be in the cattle business then you should have a place of your own to raise and feed them.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I would just like to add my two cents. I will watch the wildlife board later to see the bafoonery but can someone give a quick run down on what they passed cougar wise?
> 
> Also, I'm so over this f***** cattlemen BS. They have and are going to continually punch us in the mouth. At what point are we going to punch back? Elk numbers are FAR under what they used to be on most units than they were even 4-5 years ago. The Parker antelope herd is pathetic compared to what it should be. Can we stop just taking the punches and punch back? I've listened to these b****y crybabies long enough. They have there own meeting pretty often and all I feel like they do is sit around, mope, b*** and complain. The bottom line is, it's time to fight back at them and stop just slowly getting pushed further and further back. They get their fair share and their issues are addressed more than fairly in most cases. It's not they want less elk and antelope, is that they want no elk and pronghorn, and certainly no bison. Completely sick and tired of the b**** old bastards who have nothing better to do in their life than complain.
> 
> There I feel slightly better.


+1 here. fu#% the cattlemen and fu#% giving them leases. I was down hunting the Fishlake area last weekend and there's nothing but cattle from top to bottom. It's getting old. If you can't purchase enough land for your cattle to graze on that's on you, not us and native species. Stop letting them lease out public land, all the cattle do is compete with native species and destroy waterholes and food sources. I'd personally rather see more bison and less cattle.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

KineKilla said:


> I agree with most of this rant.
> 
> I've never liked hearing, smelling and stepping in piles left behind by cattle or sheep while out enjoying our public resource.
> 
> I feel that if you want to be in the cattle business then you should have a place of your own to raise and feed them.


I'm perfectly fine with them using public land. I'm beyond over this constant complain and b*** game these guys play. They play victim while they pay pennies on the dollar for a public resource that belongs to all of us, their cattle drain water holes dry, for people who hate the feds so much they sure take a lot of welfare grant money from them and mooch off a public resource we all own, and then drive around in their $70,000 diesel trucks with $20,000 trailers and plead poverty and act picked on constantly. There's room for both of us, but I'm beyond tired of being the ones getting the short end of this stick and string knocked in the back of the head. Hunters for the most part have stood up for cattlemen and their grazing. They have not done the same for us and undermined us and knocked us in the back of the head every chance they get. Time to do the same to them.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Ray said:


> +1 here. fu#% the cattlemen and fu#% giving them leases. I was down hunting the Fishlake area last weekend and there's nothing but cattle from top to bottom. It's getting old. If you can't purchase enough land for your cattle to graze on that's on you, not us and native species. Stop letting them lease out public land, all the cattle do is compete with native species and destroy waterholes and food sources. I'd personally rather see more bison and less cattle.


Tbh this is where our mentality should be going. The mountains are overrun with cattle and sheep. Period. Period. They eat their **** fair share use out of our public resource and that's fine for the most part. I have no problem with public land grazing. I have a problem with the entitled b**** attitude those who use it have. I'm not for them, I'm against them, simply because they are against us. For too long we have catered to them and stuck to their side. I'm fully against them at this point and to the attitude sportsmen should take until they stop f**** us over.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Cattleman are the worst. What other industry do people get things subsidized next to free from the government and then whine and complain that things aren’t free enough and then not pay any of their taxes for years on end? Any other business, the owners would be in jail. These guys get whatever they want handed to them on a silver platter, then asked “what else can I get for you sir?”. It’s not like if you or I could decid to get into the cattle business then take a portion of the permits next year. They will be the only ones getting the permits and it will stay that way for their children’s children. It makes zero sense.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I don’t mind public land grazing, per se. But they do seem like a rather entitled bunch. If I own a construction business, and the housing market tanked, I wouldn’t be able to go to the government and tell them they have to make my business stay afloat by harming the public resources. 

I know, I know. They do us such a service and provide us beef, yada yada yada. I get it. We should be thanking them for their service. Whatever...just saying, they seem like an entitled bunch. Particularly at these meetings. 

The last motion on the emergency tags to increase the elk permits to closer to what the cattlemen were reducing was a freaking joke. No, if things are short, those benefiting off public lands take the hit, not the rest of us in the name of our wildlife. That isn’t even a debate in my mind. That was just stupid and silly. In my opinion, of course.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I don't mind public land grazing, per se. But they do seem like a rather entitled bunch. If I own a construction business, and the housing market tanked, I wouldn't be able to go to the government and tell them they have to make my business stay afloat by harming the public resources.
> 
> I know, I know. They do us such a service and provide us beef, yada yada yada. I get it. We should be thanking them for their service. Whatever...just saying, they seem like an entitled bunch. Particularly at these meetings.
> 
> The last motion on the emergency tags to increase the elk permits to closer to what the cattlemen were reducing was a freaking joke. No, if things are short, those benefiting off public lands take the hit, not the rest of us in the name of our wildlife. That isn't even a debate in my mind. That was just stupid and silly. In my opinion, of course.


I was perfectly fine working with these guys until the past few years. They've gotten to a point all they're doing is punching us in the gut while we aren't punching them back. It's time we be done being nice, and do what they're doing to us. We aren't friends until they come to the table and stop b**** constantly and then taking cheap shots at us when we don't do the same. It's gotten very old.


----------



## Humpy (Apr 30, 2018)

Let me play devils advocate here and stick up for the cattlemen, people on here complain about them whining and wanting stuff their way, blah blah blah. Few mentioned that they get their grazing for next to nothing and shouldn’t be able to use public land for grazing, which is all valid points, but how many of you are willing to pay the monthly AUM’s? Last I checked it was around $30 per head, are any of you willing to pay that? Or do you all want to have the land for free use and bitch at people who are willing to pay a monthly use? I agree that some do over graze parcels of land and it’s disgusting to hike up to a meadow and find it grazed down to nothing. But do you think having less cattle on their and more elk would be any different? Or if there wasn’t grazing going on think of how bad the fires would be in years like now? 

Until the public is willing to pay for the use of public grounds we shouldn’t be on here saying kick out the people who are paying for their use.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Humpy said:


> Let me play devils advocate here and stick up for the cattlemen, people on here complain about them whining and wanting stuff their way, blah blah blah. Few mentioned that they get their grazing for next to nothing and shouldn't be able to use public land for grazing, which is all valid points, but how many of you are willing to pay the monthly AUM's? Last I checked it was around $30 per head, are any of you willing to pay that? Or do you all want to have the land for free use and bitch at people who are willing to pay a monthly use? I agree that some do over graze parcels of land and it's disgusting to hike up to a meadow and find it grazed down to nothing. But do you think having less cattle on their and more elk would be any different? Or if there wasn't grazing going on think of how bad the fires would be in years like now?
> 
> Until the public is willing to pay for the use of public grounds we shouldn't be on here saying kick out the people who are paying for their use.


You really don't know what you're talking about. They pay $1.87 a head per month, well below your 30. Hell yes, give me that fee and I'll bring my cows up and let them eat, and I won't bitch at all. No they are welfare cases who have nothing better to do than complain. They made us the enemy not the other way around. They continue to knock us in the back of the head, while we for the most part support what they do, yet they try to tear down what we do. I can assure you, I've listens to these whiney a***** they want elk and pronghorn pretty much gone, and that makes you my enemy if that's what you want.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Humpy said:


> Let me play devils advocate here and stick up for the cattlemen, people on here complain about them whining and wanting stuff their way, blah blah blah. Few mentioned that they get their grazing for next to nothing and shouldn't be able to use public land for grazing, which is all valid points, but how many of you are willing to pay the monthly AUM's? Last I checked it was around $30 per head, are any of you willing to pay that? Or do you all want to have the land for free use and bitch at people who are willing to pay a monthly use? I agree that some do over graze parcels of land and it's disgusting to hike up to a meadow and find it grazed down to nothing. But do you think having less cattle on their and more elk would be any different? Or if there wasn't grazing going on think of how bad the fires would be in years like now?
> 
> Until the public is willing to pay for the use of public grounds we shouldn't be on here saying kick out the people who are paying for their use.


The problem is that the total revenues brought in by public grazing fees are less than ⅓ the government cost to administers the grazing programs. In other words, eliminate public grazing and you drastically increase the amount of funds available for managing public lands.

I have no problem telling somebody to pound sand when they whine that because they pay $1 to do something I need to pay more than the $2 I'm already paying to help them do it


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> The problem is that the total revenues brought in by public grazing fees are less than ⅓ the government cost to administers the grazing programs. In other words, eliminate public grazing and you drastically increase the amount of funds available for managing public lands.
> 
> I have no problem telling somebody to pound sand when they whine that because they pay $1 to do something I need to pay more than the $2 I'm already paying to help them do it


That's without the cost to our wildlife as well.....and there is a cost both in meeting their demands and their livestock on the land suppressing wildlife numbers. I'm over getting screwed by guys we don't try to make life harder for. We are usually on their side, and they're constantly screwing and attacking us.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Just watching the meeting 

So the Wayne county commissioner tries to imply the DWR is conspiring to expand the hunt boundary of bison to the boulder so they can start managing bison there, when the division guy clearly said it was a hunt boundary to help better hunt the animals not a management boundary. This speaks to the level of government conspiracy and level of intelligence we are dealing with in Wayne county.

Next we see one of the same old b**** farmers come up and complain about no more anger less pronghorn tags for the Parker. I’m happy the division guy kind of flat out stated that they are far below the agreed objective on the Parker and are not recommending more permits. Like I said, they want them gone, not reduced.

PS- I like our new big game coordinator, he has some attitude to him and he should with the constant BS.
Also, Calvin Crandal needs to hear from a lot of us on his take to increase anterless harvest like he was proposing. If you have a moment email him your displeasure. Gotta be some push back on this stuff.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I would just like to add my two cents. I will watch the wildlife board later to see the bafoonery but can someone give a quick run down on what they passed cougar wise?
> 
> Also, I'm so over this f***** cattlemen BS. They have and are going to continually punch us in the mouth. At what point are we going to punch back? Elk numbers are FAR under what they used to be on most units than they were even 4-5 years ago. The Parker antelope herd is pathetic compared to what it should be. Can we stop just taking the punches and punch back? I've listened to these b****y crybabies long enough. They have there own meeting pretty often and all I feel like they do is sit around, mope, b*** and complain. The bottom line is, it's time to fight back at them and stop just slowly getting pushed further and further back. They get their fair share and their issues are addressed more than fairly in most cases. It's not they want less elk and antelope, is that they want no elk and pronghorn, and certainly no bison. Completely sick and tired of the b**** old bastards who have nothing better to do in their life than complain.
> 
> There I feel slightly better.


 By cattlemen, do you mean sheep herders or sheep in general? Cause words fail me where my disgust with sheep is concerned. Right now, I think it is nearly impossible to find an area where sheep haven't been in, or currently are in, and usually through prime habitat, eating everything in their path. It's at ridiculous levels, it's like these guys feel the entire mountain range, the entire national forest, is their personal pasture.

A few weeks ago, I glassed a bear near one of many flocks of sheep, and I found myself hoping the bear would eat a few out of spite.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So the Wayne county commissioner tries to imply the DWR is conspiring to expand the hunt boundary of bison to the boulder so they can start managing bison there, when the division guy clearly said it was a hunt boundary to help better hunt the animals not a management boundary. This speaks to the level of government conspiracy and level of intelligence we are dealing with in Wayne county.


Covy's response was perfect! He basically said "I don't understand your question. We clearly stated that the boundary expansion was not a management boundary but rather a caution in case the buffalo moved to that unit...". He also told Blackburn that we already know that there is nothing the State can do about the bison inside Capitol Reef. Good for him for setting Blackburn straight - although I'm sure it didn't sink in to that stubborn buffoon..

Those guys want all the elk, antelope, and bison gone -- permanently.

As for us hitting ranchers back; there was only 1 person that stood up and commented to the Board that he wanted to see fewer cattle and more elk / bison on the Book Cliffs. Until we get more people attending and voicing that same opinion, nothing will change. Until we stop voting commissioners and legislators that are funded by the cattlemen, nothing will change.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I have no problem telling somebody to pound sand when they whine that because they pay $1 to do something I need to pay more than the $2 I'm already paying to help them do it


This. This could not be more perfectly stated. This may not be the most expensive entitlement program our federal government runs, but it sure ain't cheap either! And make no mistake, it is absolutely an entitlement program. Wonder how many of these old boys sit around at the country store whining about meidicaid, food stamps, or other similar programs the same government administers?

What are the ranchers doing to improve the habitat for their animals that graze? I know hunters have done their part. Millions of dollars in habitat restoration and improvement have come directly from hunters. I ask again, what are the ranchers doing? Maybe the answer to that is "a lot?" Of they are doing projects on public lands, I'd like to hear about them.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

There are places on national forest where grazing cattle have degraded the streams and meadows so much that it looked like the backyard of a dairy farm. Crap everywhere, hoof pocked meadows and stream banks, willows denuded, and mud wallows where pristine waters used to flow. Two of these areas were rejuvenated by having buck-rail fences put in, willows planted, and actual backhoe work done to groom the area. It's coming back. All of this was funded by TU and DWR money gathered through license and habitat fees. The cattlemen agreed to what was being done but I'm not sure they lifted a finger or added a dime to the projects.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I would encourage everyone to ask themselves the question again....how ridiculously bad would it be if the state of Utah somehow got a hold of federal public lands and controlled them? It’s laughable.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I would encourage everyone to ask themselves the question again....how ridiculously bad would it be if the state of Utah somehow got a hold of federal public lands and controlled them? It's laughable.


Extraordinarily bad would be an understatement. There is already too much private land owned within the national forest boundaries. Aside from "inholdings", which presumably existed before the national forests were established, I'm scratching my head at how in the heck do so many people own so much private land within the national forest?!

This whole private property within the national forest issue has me at odds with myself. I really do believe in small government. I really do dislike the idea that the federal government owns over half the state's lands, HOWEVER, I also DO NOT trust ANY of our elected officials within our state government to do right by us and keep the public lands public. I'm pretty suspicious at any of their moves where they say, "We can manage our own land better", because I don't trust em. Particularly where land and development is concerned. I'll bet my last dollar that if they could manage what is currently federal lands, most of it would have "posted" signs plastered all over the place within a decade. What little public land that would remain? The hunting pressure would be ridiculously high. It would pretty much be the end of the mountains as we know them.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I would also encourage everyone to fill Calvin Crandals inbox after his comments towards the end of that meeting. Here's his email

[email protected]


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Extraordinarily bad would be an understatement. There is already too much private land owned within the national forest boundaries. Aside from "inholdings", which presumably existed before the national forests were established, I'm scratching my head at how in the heck do so many people own so much private land within the national forest?!
> 
> This whole private property within the national forest issue has me at odds with myself. I really do believe in small government. I really do dislike the idea that the federal government owns over half the state's lands, HOWEVER, I also DO NOT trust ANY of our elected officials within our state government to do right by us and keep the public lands public. I'm pretty suspicious at any of their moves where they say, "We can manage our own land better", because I don't trust em. Particularly where land and development is concerned. I'll bet my last dollar that if they could manage what is currently federal lands, most of it would have "posted" signs plastered all over the place within a decade. What little public land that would remain? The hunting pressure would be ridiculously high. It would pretty much be the end of the mountains as we know them.


You don't know what you got tell it's gone. I've watched places I've always hunted be sold and locked up, some of which there's no way to permission. To me sometimes it isn't even about hunting those places again, it's about the fact I can never even legally go see them again because some of the new people who own those places won't give any permission whatsoever.There are places in my back yard I may never legally be able to go see again, let alone hunt. I'll do everything I can to stop that from happening to these amazing places on public land we all now enjoy. People won't know what they have until they slowly watch it disappear.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

1-I....I feel your pain. It bugs me that we increase elk tags and doe antelope tags in order to lower their populations so we don't compromise habitat yet we all know that ranchers are not sacrificing some of their AUM's for the same reasoning. IT ticks me off too.

But, let us also not lose site of what this does mean: another opportunity for people to get out and enjoy the great outdoors and possibly harvest an animal. For that, I am thankful and will not begrudge that extra opportunity in a time when it seems sportsmen groups are doing more to take those opportunities away rather than give me more!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Not to muddle up this thread any more than it is, I just posted the link to the DOW site with the additional anterless tags that are available that go on sale 9/6 at 8 am.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1-I....I feel your pain. It bugs me that we increase elk tags and doe antelope tags in order to lower their populations so we don't compromise habitat yet we all know that ranchers are not sacrificing some of their AUM's for the same reasoning. IT ticks me off too.
> 
> But, let us also not lose site of what this does mean: another opportunity for people to get out and enjoy the great outdoors and possibly harvest an animal. For that, I am thankful and will not begrudge that extra opportunity in a time when it seems sportsmen groups are doing more to take those opportunities away rather than give me more!


For a few years. At some point these herds are so suppressed opportunity will be lost a lot at some point. The Parker pronghorn herd is a prime example of where we don't want to go everywhere and with everything. These guys are really complaining? Drive up Cove today and there are cows spread from Bell Rock, to big lake, to deep lake, some sheep in between signal, and the ranger station, then we get back to cows from there to the south end of the mountain. I've seen about 20 elk in the past two weeks and hundreds of cattle and sheep. I've seen waterholes full until cows have been there for about a week and then they are empty and dry. There's little to no grass left and I know a few of them. None of them are taking there cattle off "voluntarily" like they plead. They won't touch them until the forest service makes them. They don't care about the range they care about their entitlement to be the ones who abuse the range and f*** the wildlife. I'm over the entitled, welfare cases. They suppressed wildlife down here, dried up water sources, and over grazed long enough.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> But, let us also not lose site of what this does mean: another opportunity for people to get out and enjoy the great outdoors and possibly harvest an animal. For that, I am thankful and will not begrudge that extra opportunity in a time when it seems sportsmen groups are doing more to take those opportunities away rather than give me more!


Good point. In reviewing the additional tags that were issued, the numbers seemed quite reasonable in light of the drought and far from being a disaster for the herds. I agree with what has been said previously that the DWR and (gulp) the WB acted reasonably in their actions yesterday.

A couple of other thoughts.

1. AG interests will always push politically to reserve as much of a limited resource as possible for their own needs. If that means lower game population objectives and greater harvest/killing, so be it. The actions of Crandall are hardly surprising. He probably even realizes that he can't get what he was pushing for. The Wayne county boyz are probably another matter.

Oddly enough, there were people there at that meeting opposing them. The tree huggers! It is odd but true that sometimes hunters and tree huggers can become allies. However, as has also been pointed out, many of their positions are not favorable to us either. There will also be times when we may need to be allied with the ranchers to oppose some enviro initiatives. So it may not be wise to totally burn bridges with the different players.

2.


PBH said:


> Until we stop voting commissioners and legislators that are funded by the cattlemen, nothing will change.


I agree but do you think the voters of Wayne county will ever opt for someone besides the likes of Blackburn? They would never pick a liburl, outsider, non local, tree huggin rascal over the type of politician that feeds their own views and paranoias.


----------



## elkantlers (Feb 27, 2014)

Honestly, the more I have watched the WB meetings the more I realize how unintelligent some of the members are. Really, they are a joke. 
They are SFW cronies that have been appointed because of that affiliation. 
The change needs to start with letters to the Governer next time there is a vacancy on the WB (SFW) Board. We need some people on there with more than two firing brain cells.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Good point. In reviewing the additional tags that were issued, the numbers seemed quite reasonable in light of the drought and far from being a disaster for the herds. I agree with what has been said previously that the DWR and (gulp) the WB acted reasonably in their actions yesterday.
> 
> A couple of other thoughts.
> 
> ...


The DWRs recommendations were reasonable. The ag guys and Crandals were not. I am glad the division guy kind of scoffed at the question being asked if they were going to release more doe tags on the Parker. He said we are well below objective and what we agreed to on that unit. I really like the new big game coordinator, he has more of an edge to him than Shannon and isn't afraid to give an eye roll or two and almost push back a little.


----------

