# Elk Board vote in, bright for some, Regression to others



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I recieved this email and thought that I would share.


Last night in a 12 to 3 vote, the elk committee for Utah voted to move forward.

The elk plan will have lots of great new efforts to focus on habitat restoration, providing diversity of hunting opportunity, etc. If should also allow Utah to move to 80,000 elk, up from 65,000 as long as mule deer nor livestock operations are not impacted. After investing over $65 MILLION in habitat projects on nearly 1 million acres, an increase in herds: keep quality, increase opportunity.


After 6 or so meetings and tons of analysis, looking at a broad based survey, etc the elk committee voted on this recommendation. Here is what most hunters want to know:


7.5 – 8 year old average age harvest bull units:

San Juan
Boulder
Beaver
Pavant
Monroe
Roadless Book Cliffs

6.5 – 7 year old average age harvest bull units

Road area Book Cliffs
SW Desert
Diamond Mtn
Central Mtns, Nebo

Fish Lake - NOTE, 

the Fish Lake unit will be at this level, if the local elk committee agrees to bump elk herd to pre – blue Light special numbers of 6,500 elk. If not, unit goes to 5.7 to 6.3. The CWMU owners on the units want the higher age class, and they have asked SFW and Farm Bureau to work with other landowners in the area to find win/win solution to increase from the current 4,800 elk and move to 6,500 elk, prior to Blue Light special hunt that dramatically lowered this herd population.

5.7 to 6.3 Average Age Harvest Units

Panguitch Lake
Dutton
Wasatch
Manti
Lasal
Oquirhh Stansuby
Box Elder
Nin Mile Anthro

NOTE: The west portion of the Wasatch unit From Park City to Strawberry to Soldier Summitt and down to Spanish Fork Canyon to I 15 north to SLC and then to Park City (about 2,600 elk) will be managed where the majority of the permits will be ARCHERY tags – 65%, MZ 15%, and Early rifle 20%. This will be a five year experiment to see if the LARGE bulls on the Wasatch that used to winter along the face of the Wasatch foothills can be returned, while still maintaining opportunity


4-5 year old units

Cache
Three Corners
Box Elder – grouse creek
Paunsagunt
Fillmore Oak Creek
Deep Creeek 
Nin Mile Range Creek


Finally, based on the survey and in an attempt to reduce pressure on the BEST bulls each year with rifles during the peak of the RUT, Rifle Rut tags will be reduced from 75% of the rifle tags to not more than 60%.

This is a very good plan in my opinion.

We spent countless hours looking at data, survey, talking to people


The DWR guys had some GREAT data to go by and were very cooperative and informative. Thanks to Anis, Justin and Kent. Anita as well.

The Committee Vote was 12 to 3.

The 3 descending votes wanted to see the age classes a little lower and have more opportunity but they were close to being completely on board.


Now for my commentary and opinion if anyone cares


I HOPE that more opportunity will come by the creation of SUSTAINABLE wealth – increasing the ELK HERD POPULATIONS. With these age class goals to keep our quality standards high, and there will be about 2,200 limited permits a year is what the model predicted. 2,200 is a lot more than the 760 tags just ten years ago, less than the 2,800 in 2009.

As Elk populations grow, then there can be an increase the number of permits, thus allowing for more opportunity and keeping quality high.

To simply lower the age class objective and give out more tags is a short term solution, kind of like the US Government, just print money, then wonder why our economy crashes.

The elk survey questions clearly showed the elk hunters of Utah did not want the short term fix, they wanted the model that sustains long term wealth creation.

Now, if Congress would just let us take over the US economy, we could fix that to, using the right principles of wealth creation and sustainment, not simply squandering our nation’s wealth for short term gains, then being mad when we do ! I know this project would be a little bit more complicated, but I think my good friend Dr. Israelsen, a Harvard and MIT trained economist who teaches Econ at Utah State, would agree the principles of Sustainable wealth creation are universal. Thanks to Dr. I. for all his great comments over the years.

The political whims of short term gain – giving out loans that should not have been given ( or simply printing more elk tags) - allowing predators to suck the wealth out of the system ($140 a barrel Oil, or large packs of wolves) leads to the destruction of wealth or elk herds.


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I wasn't going to chime in until the mention of Dr. Israelson. What a great economist!


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

How will this impact hunters? They are going to give out less tags now?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



Igottabigone said:


> How will this impact hunters? They are going to give out less tags now?


It sounds like it. Less than last year but many more than a few years ago. We cant grow the numbers by 15,000 if we kill the same amount until it builds.

I think that it is a small sacrifice for now. My kids and grandkids are going to love this.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> The elk plan will have lots of great new efforts to focus on habitat restoration


On public land? what when where and how?



> If should also allow Utah to move to 80,000 elk, up from 65,000 as long as mule deer nor livestock operations are not impacted.


From 65,000 to 80,000 while killing spikes and cows?

So if everyone wants a long term fix rather then a band aid then What is this? Im all for impoving habitat and they can improve all they want. It make no differance when we are also losing habitat to development at the same time. My guess is SFW has something in this as well. It sounds like the quility Bi&^%ers Got there voice heard. 2,800 tags to 2,200 tags. Guess they really care about seeing that 400 inch bull around every corner.

As far as giving a higher percentage of tags to primitive weapons in some areas that is great news. Wish they would apply it to several others. Its the only thing that makes sence.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



cklspencer said:


> > The elk plan will have lots of great new efforts to focus on habitat restoration
> 
> 
> On public land? what when where and how?
> ...


From 65,000 to 80,000 while killing spikes and cows?

So if everyone wants a long term fix rather then a band aid then What is this? Im all for impoving habitat and they can improve all they want. It make no differance when we are also losing habitat to development at the same time. My guess is SFW has something in this as well. It sounds like the quility Bi&^%ers Got there voice heard. 2,800 tags to 2,200 tags. Guess they really care about seeing that 400 inch bull around every corner.

As far as giving a higher percentage of tags to primitive weapons in some areas that is great news. Wish they would apply it to several others. Its the only thing that makes sence.[/quote:1i2ms05g]

A better PMA would go a long ways on this. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Was the Uintas in any part of that plan? I really think that both the north and the south slope could be built up into a great elk herd if there was some better management done.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

If this really truly is an investment into the future of opportunity, and by that I mean cutting tag numbers now in order to be able to give a higher number of tags sutainably down the road, I'm on board. I just don't want to see that happen at the cost of long term opportunity. As long as the plan is that down the road, this will mean that more people will have the opportunity to chase elk. great.

If on the other hand this is just about raising the age class, and that will be done by lowering permit numbers without hope of them coming back, bad idea. The elk herds we have now already have bulls big enough to make the average Utah sportsman wet himself.

On a positive note I really like the idea of the potential changes on the fish lake unit. I'm not a big fan of the blue light special hunt down there. I'm all for opportunity but it has to be done sustainably. Hopefully a balance can be struck on that unit because it's been a yo yo for the last decade.


> Was the Uintas in any part of that plan? I really think that both the north and the south slope could be built up into a great elk herd if there was some better management done.


I think the Uintas are the last unit left that a regular guy can chase branch antlered bulls. I'm just curious as to how either of these units could be made better without taking away the last opportunity for guys who don't want to wait 35 years to chase an elk with more than one point to a side.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



WasatchOutdoors said:


> > Was the Uintas in any part of that plan? I really think that both the north and the south slope could be built up into a great elk herd if there was some better management done.
> 
> 
> I think the Uintas are the last unit left that a regular guy can chase branch antlered bulls. I'm just curious as to how either of these units could be made better without taking away the last opportunity for guys who don't want to wait 35 years to chase an elk with more than one point to a side.


I don't know how to solve that problem. but maybe they could make it a bull only area, maybe have a antler point restriction or something to that affect. Not trying to say take it away, but make it better for the average joe


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I think they need to keep anyone with less than 6 points out of the pool for a few years and clear some/most of the high point people out. I think it would be a great improvement to what is happening now. I know a lot of people who will probably die before they draw a tag.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

We already have enough bulls on unit because some are now dying on old age. Why do we to cut LE tags all in the name of "sacrafice"? Haven't we all sacraficed enough? Good hell lets hunt some bull elk instead of keeping units at 60/100 to 80/100 bull to cow ratios.

I thought the elk commitee could do better than this. They have spent a lot of time talking and talking and this is their great solution :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll: cut tags to have more elk. We are already killing cows to create more room for bulls. I have never seen a pregnant bull before. We need to be harvesting mature bulls.

GIVE OUT MORE LE ELK TAGS, DO NOT CUT THE LE TAGS.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

So sent they are going to cut more elk tags. Does that mean the price per tag is going to go up? Because they will lose that much more money. With all of these changes it getting harder to keep up with all of them. When you think you got it all down and then pow there another change.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Alright here is my spin.

We had managed by age class and by percentages of total elk population per age class.
The old system was 4-5 at 25% 5-6 at 50% and for the guys that wanted to wait 
20 years to draw 6-7 at 25%. There was a question on the survey that asked how people 
would feel about going to both ends of the spectrum ( all opportunity or all trophy )
the response was almost 2-1 to keep the current split at 25, 25, 50.

Well what happened was that now there are four different age classes 7.5-8, 6.5-7
5.7-6.3 and 4-5. This was a good compromise on the higher age class units because there was a customer base that asked for this. Great I agree. Now the devil is in the details.
your new splits are this. 15% 7.5-8, 30.1% 6.5-7 total for this upper age class 45%.
What used to be the opportunity units are set up to target a 6 year old bull and went from 
55.1% of the states elk population down to 46% of the elk population. 4.5-5 year old units make up the remaining 8% or so. There are a few percentage points here and there but these are your figures. What really matters is that now we have gone to over 90% of the state being managed for bulls 6 years old and older. We have also set in place triggers that 
have higher age class goals. What this means is that on a 7.5-8 year old unit you are going to have to kill a ton of 9 year old bulls to make up for the 6 year old bulls that are killed or you will be below objective and permits will be reduced untill age class is met. In the long run this will be extremely hard to accomplish and still offer any hope of hunting opportunity. This is going to have an effect across the board where age class is close. In most cases we are not close but we will be by the end of the plan.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Can you run that last part by me again? I've read it three times and I'm stuck. The part about killing tons of 9 years to make up for the 6 year old class stuff...


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Steep if you set you age class target at 7.75 year old bull that is your management goal.
so if you have 10 guys go out and kill 10 large 6 year old bulls that is going to reduce your 
harvest age closer to six. In order to offset the six year old bulls killed and maintain your target you would need to kill just as many bulls from the higher end of the spectrum ie9 years or however many years above target to make the averages work out to hit your target.
you may have a ton of great elk on the unit but since you consistently kill bulls under your target you will reduce tags untill you acheive a balance and average that hits target


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



coyoteslayer said:


> We already have enough bulls on unit because some are now dying on old age. Why do we to cut LE tags all in the name of "sacrafice"? Haven't we all sacraficed enough? Good hell lets hunt some bull elk instead of keeping units at 60/100 to 80/100 bull to cow ratios.
> 
> I thought the elk commitee could do better than this. They have spent a lot of time talking and talking and this is their great solution :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll: cut tags to have more elk. We are already killing cows to create more room for bulls. I have never seen a pregnant bull before. We need to be harvesting mature bulls.
> 
> GIVE OUT MORE LE ELK TAGS, DO NOT CUT THE LE TAGS.


I guess we'll see what they do in terms of cow tags here in July and then the proof will be in the pudding whether or not these changes are all about increased opportunity in years to come!


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Gracias. Well, I have to say I'm not really excited about this news. When Elk22 gets excited I should know better. Some say this should get our kids to a great place. I disagree. This should backlog the system even more. If you raise the overall age class in the state you have to A: Sacrifice opportunity year over year to get there- as you stated, and then B: Live with the fact that now people are after more of a trophy than before. Supply and demand necessitate that increased quality and a limiting factor on that quality leads to higher demand. There is no way around that. Heck, it even turns up the heat for those who can't wait for the tag or season - poachers.

Poachers aside, we get: more articles for hunting mags, better draw for convention, more money at those conventions for "Conservation" (insert heavy sarcasm), and longer wait times for everyone - or, less opportunity. This is just fuel for the engine of money from management, and isn't related to the health of the herd or opportunity. This is madness. How can anyone think that the current system would be better off by limiting it further?

More elk= awesome. Yet, in this scenario they are more elk to look at, not hunt. As you also added, the number of elk may be reached at the EXPENSE of other species, namely deer. Dial up the heat slightly on that group as well.

Why should my son believe this benefits him? He is 3 by the way. The only lesson I can give him about this - not hunting, but this kind of decision- is that the only really worthwhile hunts have to end with a taxidermist. He certainly won't need a cookbook as he won't be doing much of that.


----------



## itchytriggerfinger (Sep 12, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I'm starting to like I400 more and more.

more elk overall in the stat huge++++

Less rut rifle tags +++++

Less LE elk tags-------- Are you freakin kidding.

At what age do bull elk die from old age?

7.5-8 year age objective???

Even for a late season tag with decent odds. My wait just went up 5 years.
Ridiculous


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> I HOPE that more opportunity will come by the creation of SUSTAINABLE wealth - increasing the ELK HERD POPULATIONS. With these age class goals to keep our quality standards high, and there will be about 2,200 limited permits a year is what the model predicted. 2,200 is a lot more than the 760 tags just ten years ago, less than the 2,800 in 2009. Decreasing the number of LE BULL ELK tags will do NOTHING to help increase elk herd populations, NOTHING! In fact, it will likely decrease elk herd populations on many/most LE units. I applaud the goal of increasing the elk herd to 80,000, but there are a lot of things that have to happen in order for the elk herd to be ALLOWED to increase, just saying we want it doesn't mean we can have it. Until herd population objectives are increased (again not a gimmie on ANY unit) the DWR by LAW has to keep elk numbers at/under herd population objectives. So, by reducing the number of bulls harvested on a unit, you MUST increase the number of cow elk killed to keep the herd in compliance with STATE LAW. How this equates to "more opportunity" escapes me. Help me out Scott!?!
> 
> As Elk populations grow, then there can be an increase the number of permits, thus allowing for more opportunity and keeping quality high. See above, how does decreasing bull permits help increase overall elk populations?
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



itchytriggerfinger said:


> I'm starting to like I400 more and more.


They at least implemented I400 on the Wasatch in part. The ONLY sane thing they are recommending.

Steep's last point triggered a thought. 22 says this is good management that leads to abundance, but in truth this is RATIONING (the opposite of managing for abundance), IE limiting the product (bull elk) by reducing the amount of product offered to the public, while forcing inventory levels (number of mature bulls in the herd) to artificially high, and foolishly high, quantities to accomplish an unmeasurable outcome (quality). I challenge elk22 or ANY other person to define quality in a measurable way that is agreed upon by ALL elk hunters. What elk22/PRO/itchy deems as a quality bull will vary greatly, so whose definition gets to be used, and why?


----------



## cfarnwide (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> 7.5 - 8 year old average age harvest bull units:
> 
> San Juan
> Boulder
> ...


Any guesses as to what will happen to tag numbers on these units? Would the vote results take effect this year?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



cfarnwide said:


> Any guesses as to what will happen to tag numbers on these units? Would the vote results take effect this year?


They WILL decrease, and the plan IF approved will go into effect in 2011.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I gotta say...

+1 on everything Pro said. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Madness! To get people with viewpoints as different as ours saying something is bad is evidence to me that something was overlooked for this process. You sitting down Pro?

Go get em!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> Alright here is my spin.
> 
> We had managed by age class and by percentages of total elk population per age class.
> The old system was 4-5 at 25% 5-6 at 50% and for the guys that wanted to wait
> ...


Gordy, don't you think it would be better to manage elk with bull to cow ratios? The average age of harvest only tells you the age of bulls being harvested. You could have 400 bulls on a unit and as long as the average age of harvest is being met with 15 tags then tags wouldn't be increased. Meanwhile bulls are dying of old age and it will take us 50 years to draw a tag.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



coyoteslayer said:


> Gordy, don't you think it would be better to manage elk with bull to cow ratios? The average age of harvest only tells you the age of bulls being harvested. You could have 400 bulls on a unit and as long as the average age of harvest is being met with 15 tags then tags wouldn't be increased. Meanwhile bulls are dying of old age and it will take us 50 years to draw a tag.


Gordy, I am proud to say, was one of the THREE who voted against the recommendations. :O||: :_O=:

Managing, a foreign concept to this committee, to bull:cow ratios was never even seriously considered. that would instill logic/reasoning and God forbid MANAGEMENT to the table. :?

Steep, you see, we aren't as different as you once thought. :mrgreen:


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Managing a unit for age objectives of harvested animals is not effective. It will only reduce opportunity. As we have seen in Utah since the mid 90's. Management should be based on better indicators to herd health. I think the DWR is taking the easy route, rather than putting in some miles and doing extensive surveys of live elk, they find it a little easier to collect data on the dead ones. (Not that the data from harvests isn't important).

I just don't think that harvested animals necessarily gives a good cross section of what is necessarily in a hunt unit.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> Gordy, I am proud to say, was one of the THREE who voted against the recommendations.


my apologizes to Gordy :_O=: :_O=: :_O=: :_O=: It's just sad that only 3 people voted against average age of harvest being raised.

If we continue to kill cows to create more room for bulls on this units then less calves will be born each year on these units, therefore; we will have fewer elk and the unit won't be very good in the future.

If you want to increase the herd then you need more cows to produce more calves. We need to harvest more bull elk.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

We're still different...I don't actually step foot in the nail salon. I'm not nice enough to my wife to even go with her to the mall.

I'm sure you were practicing your Vietnamese.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



svmoose said:


> Managing a unit for age objectives of harvested animals is not effective. It will only reduce opportunity. As we have seen in Utah since the mid 90's. Management should be based on better indicators to herd health. I think the DWR is taking the easy route, rather than putting in some miles and doing extensive surveys of live elk, they find it a little easier to collect data on the dead ones. (Not that the data from harvests isn't important).
> 
> I just don't think that harvested animals necessarily gives a good cross section of what is necessarily in a hunt unit.


+1. Harvest averages only tell ONE small detail of the overall picture. What is the age of the LIVING bulls, what is the bull:cow ratio, what is the 'trophy' size of the bulls harvested, what is the escapement options for the elk on a given unit? Those are ALL as important, of not significantly more so, as harvest age averages.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



SteepNDeep said:


> We're still different...I don't actually step foot in the nail salon. I'm not nice enough to my wife to even go with her to the mall.
> 
> I'm sure you were practicing your Vietnamese.


Korean. :shock: :wink:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

The Elk Committee's recommendations will go through the public process and some may still be tweaked.

Wiley has it right. You can not manage units to 7+ age objectives. It is simple. Too many bulls with the "large antler" genes can be true trophy quality-- 370+ --- at 6 years old. So if a unit is managed for 8 year old bulls and guys are shooting 360+ 6 year olds then the unit struggles to meet that high objective. For every 6 year old shot someone has to shoot a 10 year old bull to off-set and average 8.

For example, when the Monroe had a 7-8 year objective they never met the objective, always hovering in the 6s. Yet when the age objective went down to 5-6 the Monroe harvest age jumped to 8.0. More hunters in the field will shoot bulls which are older, yet may not carry genes to be above say 320".

The permit numbers most likely will remain high until age objectives are brought in line and the new age objectives are implemented.

After sitting through half a dozen meetings, I was disappointed that the end result was a loss of 10% of limited elk hunting permits. (Compared to the current objectives)


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> If should also allow Utah to move to 80,000 elk, up from 65,000 as long as mule deer nor livestock operations are not impacted. After investing over $65 MILLION in habitat projects on nearly 1 million acres, an increase in herds: keep quality, increase opportunity.


It's very easy to have 80,000 elk in this state, but because of our poor management ideas we have slowed down the growth of the elk herds by constantly killing cow elk when we should have been killing bull elk. Again, I have never seen a pregnant bull before :lol: :lol: :lol: BUT I'm sure there is a few gay bulls on the San Juan units because there isn't enough cows to go around.

This is another reason why so many bulls have busted up antlers or injuries


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Packout, I hear you were fighting the fight right along side Wiley, THANK YOU!!



coyoteslayer said:


> > If should also allow Utah to move to 80,000 elk, up from 65,000 as long as mule deer nor livestock operations are not impacted. After investing over $65 MILLION in habitat projects on nearly 1 million acres, an increase in herds: keep quality, increase opportunity.
> 
> 
> It's very easy to have 80,000 elk in this state, but because of our poor management ideas we have slowed down the growth of the elk herds by constantly killing cow elk when we should have been killing bull elk. Again, I have never seen a pregnant bull before :lol: :lol: :lol: BUT I'm sure there is a few gay bulls on the San Juan units because there isn't enough cows to go around.
> ...


Not quite that simple CS. There are several hurdles to over come in order to see an increase in elk populations. the biggest in the livestock associations. they have concerns, some are valid, over allowing too many elk to be competing with livestock for feed. The second is depredation on farmers crops during the winter. These two issues are bigger limiters than high bull numbers in the mix. What the high bull:cow ratios does is limit the number of new recruits into the mix each year, putting the herds at risk if a harsh winter or disease causes a decrease in elk numbers, making the recovery of the population much slower due to a lower than warranted number of cows in the mix.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> Not quite that simple CS. There are several hurdles to over come in order to see an increase in elk populations. the biggest in the livestock associations.Yes I agree, they can make it difficult. they have concerns, some are valid, over allowing too many elk to be competing with livestock for feed. The second is depredation on farmers crops during the winter.Yes, we will never totally eliminate cow elk tags because many need to be taken out of the herd before winter to reduce depredation These two issues are bigger limiters than high bull numbers in the mix. What the high bull:cow ratios does is limit the number of new recruits into the mix each year, putting the herds at risk if a harsh winter or disease causes a decrease in elk numbers, making the recovery of the population much slower due to a lower than warranted number of cows in the mix.This would be terrible if that happened and because of our poor management ideas the herd wouldn't rebound quickly.


BUT if we did reach an agreement with cattle ranchers then it would be easy to hit 80,000 elk with the proper management. Elk are easier to grow than mule deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



coyoteslayer said:


> BUT if we did reach an agreement with cattle ranchers then it would be easy to hit 80,000 elk with the proper management. Elk are easier to grow than mule deer.


Correct, the supporters of these recommendations make it sound like managing elk is difficult, it is NOT. What is difficult is getting the vocal MINORITY out of the way to allow the elk to thrive and be abundant. Limited Entry LIMITS opportunity and LIMITS the number of elk available for ALL to enjoy/hunt. Saying elk need our help to increase in population through REDUCED bull elk tags is like saying a SUV gets better mileage by driving it less leading to a tank of gas lasting longer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Don Peay said a few years ago........*Go to Colorado if you just want to kill a bull elk*

I think this is becoming a reality more and more.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Like Packout said we still have the RAC process to give input. This is going through next month so if you have an opinion please exercise your right and like PRO says SHOW THE HELL UP!!!.

To say I was dissapointed would be an understatement. But then again thats just one bald fat guys opinion who was clearly and soundly outvoted.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Woah! This is seeming to be "my" plan. I just posted the email that I recieved. The thing that I get excited about is the fact that I am going to see the herds increase accross the state by 15,000 elk. There still has to be some planning on how to get the cow to bull ratios in tact.

Steep said that if Elk22 was happy with it, he should have known better. ha ha I have to come clean with you boys. I like quality because I am not rooted in Utah for my elk hunts. I have only hunted elk in Utah twice in my entire, very old life. I hunt Colorado, Idaho and Montana usually and have had good success with "ok" bulls. I am waiting for a shot at a PIG in Utah. A guy only gets one or two (if that) shots at PIGS in his lifetime and I am ok with that. I am not saying that you should hunt other states to recieve satisfaction but that is what I do. I don't like shooting spikes. I like to have an opportunity at a 6x6 every year, even if it is only a 300 class bull. I will wait my time to possibly kill a monster. That will upset some that I say that because they live in Utah and want Utah to provide a chance at a branch antlered bull every year. That will take out the chance at a PIG and that is what I would rather have.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Heres the post I put up a week ago,,,,,,,,

Re: LE elk butt plugg is getting worse!!
by goofy elk on Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:17 pm

Want the facts,,,,,Here is what I'm learning is coming out in the new EMP.....

1)Reduction in any weapon tags and increases on Archery and muzzy LE permits..

2)Increasing age objectives on some units....

3)Also an over all reduction on LE elk permits to improve quality....

There's a few other issue I'm not cleat about yet so I wont post those, 
Please correct me if I'm wrong??,,,,,Wiley ,,,Packout?? Is this right?


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Lots of good posts already on here, Packout and PRO have said it like I see it. One thing to add to Packout's post though. It's true that a lot of people get their LE tag and hunt hard, and then take a 6 year old 360" bull. And then it takes a 10 year old bull to offset that. But what about all the lazy hunters, and everyone that can't find their 360 bull. There are a decent number of 3 year old bulls killed every year on LE units, so to offset those on the 8 year units you have to harvest a 13 year old or 5 bulls that are 9. The whole age objective idea is total garbage.

Telling us that this is a sacrifice for better hunting in the future kind of pisses me right off. I remember them telling me that when they implemented spike hunts. And now every elk in the state is off limits to me. Well, I guess its not a sacrifice after all since I'm giving up nothing for even more nothing. 5000 LE tags would be a step in the right direction, backing it off to 2200 is bordering on ridiculous.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Goofy here is what I understood
1 No reduction in any weapon tags. Although there was a shift of roughly 5%
from the early rifle hunt to the late hunt. The Committee voted not to increase 
archery permit allocations because of supply and demand. They figured that the majority of applicants were for rifle permits.

2 Age objectives increased to a 5.7 minimum ( targeting a 6 year old bull ) 
on all but 8% of the elk population in the state. The 4-5 yo units stayed the same.
92% of your elk will be managed at this higher classification.

3 Once you increase age objective permits will decrease AT OUR CURRENT ELK POPULATION.
If we hit 80K elk in the state then increases will happen AS LONG AS THE UNITS MEET OBJECTIVE


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

What was the discussion on the spike hunting issues, and the direction it will take?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

A motion was made to go to 15K tags which didn't pass. another motion was made to go to 13,750 and ease in to 15k after the effects are seen over a few years. either way there is a hard cap at 15K


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Thanks for the info wiley,,,,,,,,,,,

IMHO,,As long as we are giving out 15,000 spike tag on LE unit's,,,,
The new EMP is probably OK with me, I'm not a big fan of managing by age class,,
Or reducing LE elk tag allocations,,,,,,,,,,,But with spike hunting there is no way to
increase numbers on the mature bull tags.....

I guess this is how its going to be in Utah,,,,,,,,,,Like it or not.


----------



## jsc (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Gordy, If they are talking about reducing permit numbers from 2800 to 2200 and they are not reducing rifle permits are the reduction in numbers going to only effect the muzzleloader hunters and archers?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

JS It is a reduction across the board. All weapon types will see a reduction


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I400 is looking better by the minute because it will accomplish the following.

1. Increase LE tags so that more people can draw out and hunt mature bulls.

2. Help the overall health of the elk herd.

3. Increase cow hunting opportunity because more calves will be born on units.

4. It will give hunters more options when applying for an elk tag.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

On the spike thing I am not a real big fan but it isn't because of biology.
Look we have plenty of bulls. We want to increase to 80K elk while reducing the LE numbers to basically grow bigger elk. Harvesting the male of the species doesn't affect population. If you have a healthy bull to cow ratio you will recruit new animals in to the herd. What does affect population is killing cows!!! Spikes are spikes for a very short time and then they are pretty much safe untill they become desirable enough for someone to pull the trigger on them. Spike harvest is around 17% so we are not really going to see a huge effect unless they open the floodgates with these tags.

We've got so much forage on the range, split this up with livestock, winter or summer a few of these elk where it starts to affect ranchers and the cry goes out to kill elk. We've all seen that we don't want to kill bulls so we kill cows to control populations. This in my opinion retards the effect of trying to grow the herds. How can we save a bunch of big bulls by killing a ****load of cows and progressively try to grow the herd. You are killing the goose to get the golden egg.

If ya want to increase elk herds quit killing the **** out of the cows and we'll get there pretty **** quick.


----------



## captain (Nov 18, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



tuffluckdriller said:


> I wasn't going to chime in until the mention of Dr. Israelson. What a great economist!


And an amazing hunter. Have you seen some of the animals he has harvested. Check out his website.

http://huntsman.usu.edu/dIsraelsen/htm/ ... 19/gid=410


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Boy wiley,,,,You hit that nail on the head,,,,Cut cow hunts and the heard would EXSPLODE!

Then get rid of the ridiculous spike hunt and Utah could move more toward managing
elk like say,,,,,,,Arizona may-be.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



goofy elk said:


> Boy wiley,,,,You hit that nail on the head,,,,Cut cow hunts and the heard would EXSPLODE!
> 
> Then get rid of the *ridiculous spike hunt *and Utah could move more toward managing
> elk like say,,,,,,,Arizona may-be.


For real...this spike hunt is killing us!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> Woah! This is seeming to be "my" plan. I just posted the email that I recieved. The thing that I get excited about is the fact that I am going to see the herds increase accross the state by 15,000 elk. There still has to be some planning on how to get the cow to bull ratios in tact. elk22, I know this is not 'your' plan, but you are head cheerleader for it. -*|*- :wink: The devil is in the details, how we increase from 67,000 elk to 80,000 elk is what matters. And, we aren't being led by Saul Salinsky, so the end does NOT justify the means. Increasing the number of bulls on a unit will SLOW the overall growth of the herd, what we need is more cows, NOT more bulls. And, until we get the livestock guys in support, the elk committees recommendations to increase the elk herd means less than squirrel squat.
> 
> A guy only gets one or two (if that) shots at PIGS in his lifetime and I am ok with that. I am not saying that you should hunt other states to recieve satisfaction but that is what I do. I don't like shooting spikes. I like to have an opportunity at a 6x6 every year, even if it is only a 300 class bull. I will wait my time to possibly kill a monster. That will upset some that I say that because they live in Utah and want Utah to provide a chance at a branch antlered bull every year. That will take out the chance at a PIG and that is what I would rather have. You may be okay with hunters getting 1-2 (if that) shots at "PIGS", but is the MAJORITY of Utah elk hunters? I guess we shall see. wileywapiti made a nice, but in the end naive, gesture by offering to give YOU/me trophy hunters 7 LE units that could be managed for "PIGS" in return for MORE units managed at the 5-6 year old age. What he/we got was the 7 LE units managed for "PIGS' and an increase in the age objectives for the 'middle' tier units as well. *This is a SHORT-SIGHTED plan that reeks of rationing NOT managing an abundant resource and telling the regular every day type hunter to take a hike, Utah's elk herd is for the elite ONLY. The rest, "Go to Colorado," and like it!*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



wileywapati said:


> Spike harvest is around 17% so we are not really going to see a huge effect unless they open the floodgates with these tags.


My math says 17% success rates on 13,750 spike tags is 2338 spikes killed, plus whatever archers kill. That is MORE male elk killed than what the committee is recommending for the number of tags ISSUED for mature bull tags let a lone the number of mature bulls actually killed, how can that not have a huge effect in 2-3 years?

When statewide spike hunting was proposed in 2008 Anis stood up, repeatedly, and said issuing spike tags statewide would NOT lead to a decrease in LE tags. And, he said it with a straight face, as did the leadership of SFW who supported the statewide spike plan. Myself and many others said it WOULD result in lost LE tags. Who was right, and who was flat out wrong?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> When statewide spike hunting was proposed in 2008 Anis stood up, repeatedly, and said issuing spike tags statewide would NOT lead to a decrease in LE tags. And, he said it with a straight face, as did the leadership of SFW who supported the statewide spike plan. Myself and many others said it WOULD result in lost LE tags. Who was right, and who was flat out wrong?


It sounds like the same old broken promises that are made in politics.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



proutdoors said:


> elk22, I know this is not 'your' plan, but you are head cheerleader for it.[/color] -*|*- :wink:


This is the first thing that I said:
"I recieved this email and thought that I would share."

next:
"It sounds like it. Less than last year but many more than a few years ago. We cant grow the numbers by 15,000 if we kill the same amount until it builds.

I think that it is a small sacrifice for now. My kids and grandkids are going to love this."

Then:
"A better PMA would go a long ways on this."

next:
"Woah! This is seeming to be "my" plan. I just posted the email that I recieved. The thing that I get excited about is the fact that I am going to see the herds increase accross the state by 15,000 elk. There still has to be some planning on how to get the cow to bull ratios in tact.

Steep said that if Elk22 was happy with it, he should have known better. ha ha I have to come clean with you boys. I like quality because I am not rooted in Utah for my elk hunts. I have only hunted elk in Utah twice in my entire, very old life. I hunt Colorado, Idaho and Montana usually and have had good success with "ok" bulls. I am waiting for a shot at a PIG in Utah. A guy only gets one or two (if that) shots at PIGS in his lifetime and I am ok with that. I am not saying that you should hunt other states to recieve satisfaction but that is what I do. I don't like shooting spikes. I like to have an opportunity at a 6x6 every year, even if it is only a 300 class bull. I will wait my time to possibly kill a monster. That will upset some that I say that because they live in Utah and want Utah to provide a chance at a branch antlered bull every year. That will take out the chance at a PIG and that is what I would rather have."

How does any of this convert to "Head Cheerleader"? I simply posted an email that I recieved and felt that increasing the amount of Elk had to be a good thing. I am not one to feel that this state is all about doom and gloom. I think that people who know more than me about these situations are probably a bit more likely to lead with their Biology backgrounds than a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks. I am not saying at all that the things that have been mentioned on here aren't some really good comments and should or could be looked into. I just try and not lead with emotions. I kind of sit back and look at the situation the way that I see it and try to make the best out of it. I was not voted by my senior class as the "person most likely to change the world" but "the person most likely to try and make the best out of the situation handed to him". I am sorry but I just havent lost complete trust in the people who are chosen to lead these studies. If that makes me "Head Cheerleader" then Rah, Rah, Rah,.............GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM! :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> How does any of this convert to "Head Cheerleader"? I simply posted an email that I recieved and felt that increasing the amount of Elk had to be a good thing. I am not one to feel that this state is all about doom and gloom. I think that people who know more than me about these situations are probably a bit more likely to lead with their Biology backgrounds than a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks. I am not saying at all that the things that have been mentioned on here aren't some really good comments and should or could be looked into. I just try and not lead with emotions. I kind of sit back and look at the situation the way that I see it and try to make the best out of it. I was not voted by my senior class as the "person most likely to change the world" but "the person most likely to try and make the best out of the situation handed to him". I am sorry but I just havent lost complete trust in the people who are chosen to lead these studies. If that makes me "Head Cheerleader" then Rah, Rah, Rah,.............GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM! :mrgreen:


You know I like you, elk22, and I usually agree with you, but NOT on this issue. If, and that is a big if, these recommendations were based on sound biology I would be all for them, but they are NOT. Instead, ironically, they are based on emotion that ignores biology and common sense. How many of the 12 who voted for these recommendations have, "biology backgrounds", and how many of them can support these recommendations with biological NEEDS? If the "chosen" leaders who recommended this joke of a plan throw reason out the door and have the eff the average Joe mentality, are they really 'leaders', or are they people looking out for themselves? Leaders do NOT put themselves first, they put the 'little' people first. I, sadly, HAVE lost faith/trust in the 'leaders' of two special interest groups that I have been a HUGE supporter of for a long time, one of which I sat on their Board of Directors for 3 years. I will NOT be renewing my membership to either group until they can show some LEADERSHIP and look out for ALL hunters, not just a SMALL niche. I will put the "biology background" of the two forum members who were on the committee who voted against this plan up against the "biology background" of said 'leaders' of the aforementioned special interest groups any day of the week. I'll take Packout, you can have ANY of the 'leaders' you want.

Reducing mature bull elk tags will do NOTHING to help increase elk populations and is NOT based on biology of any substance.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

So Pro..............Does this mean that you are not going to be pointing me in the right direction when I draw my LE Elk hunt this year? I will be doing my darndest to not let a Bull die of old age. In fact, I am going to try and find the oldest bull on the mountain and help him not go to waste. :mrgreen: I love the tast of really old, tuff, and knarly elk steaks!  
I'm not "against" you. I am "for" anything that will make elk hunting great. If you have a better plan than what is being presented then make yourself available to give it and be heard. I just get tired of the complainers who do nothing but complain. I am not putting you in that group as I know that you are very "Pro"active. It just takes me a bit longer to jump ship or jump on another bandwagon.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> So Pro..............Does this mean that you are not going to be pointing me in the right direction when I draw my LE Elk hunt this year? I will be doing my darndest to not let a Bull die of old age. In fact, I am going to try and find the oldest bull on the mountain and help him not go to waste. :mrgreen: I love the tast of really old, tuff, and knarly elk steaks!


 I'll help in any way I can, you've got my cell number. 8)



elk22hunter said:


> I'm not "against" you. I am "for" anything that will make elk hunting great. If you have a better plan than what is being presented then make yourself available to give it and be heard. I just get tired of the complainers who do nothing but complain. I am not putting you in that group as I know that you are very "Pro"active. It just takes me a bit longer to jump ship or jump on another bandwagon.


 I have plenty of better plans, IMHO anyhow. :mrgreen: Many better plans have been laid out by 'nobody's' on this forum. Get the rifle hunt OUT OF THE RUT in all but a FEW premium units. Give MORE tags to primitive weapons as they kill at lower success rates and on average kill smaller/younger bulls leaving 'quality' bulls available for the more discriminatory 'trophy' hunters like you/me. As tag numbers have increased rifle and muzzy success rates have held fairly steady, while archery success rates have dropped dramatically, showing that you can issue more archery tags and likely kill the same or slightly more bulls, thus creating opportunity w/o sacrificing 'quality'. Another idea is to manage to the demands of ALL the hunters, follow the percentages of the elk survey, manage the same percentage of the LE permits as the percentage of hunters want a specific type of hunt. If 51% want premium type hunts, then manage 51% of the LE elk to that, of 20% want that then give 20% of the LE tags to those type of hunters. What this plan does is ignore the wishes of the elk hunters, which is poor stewardship and reeks of self interest instead of interests for all hunters, now and in the future. Giving up 600 permits in hopes of someday reaching 80,000 elk and supposed permit increases is a high risk investment with weak prospects of a return on the investment. How many years will it take to make up the lost 600 permits the first year, the lost permits the following year, and the next? What does that do for the prospects of new hunters ever drawing a mature bull elk tag in Utah? I dabble as a stock broker, and as an investor, and I would never take nor recommend such a high risk low return investment. That is 2007 Wall Street type investing, how has that turned out? :wink:


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

22's email included this:


> NOTE: The west portion of the Wasatch unit From Park City to Strawberry to Soldier Summitt and down to Spanish Fork Canyon to I 15 north to SLC and then to Park City (about 2,600 elk) will be managed where the majority of the permits will be ARCHERY tags - 65%, MZ 15%, and Early rifle 20%.


Does anyone have a more specific boundary description? This could affect rifle hunters in a major way.

Will this affect permit numbers for 2010?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> ..... I just get tired of the complainers who do nothing but complain. ..


Well maybe you should stop talking and *listen* for once.

This so called plan is nothing more than the same old garbage.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I'm just glad I started bowhunting... <<--O/


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



stablebuck said:


> I'm just glad I started bowhunting... <<--O/


I would not rejoice just yet. If archery is the only game in town you may have a lot more company than you want.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



Huntoholic said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > ..... I just get tired of the complainers who do nothing but complain. ..
> ...


It's a good thing that I don't hold grudges and that I have thick skin, because I would ALMOST think that was a slam directed towards me.

I have said very little on this. I have read 6 pages of comments and listened intently on what others have to say. I simply read into it on the "are they qualified" to say anything of value. There are a few on here that I absolutly take their oppinions as worth something. Those are the same guys who have been in the trench's along with me on several work projects from building fences, aiding transplant operations to fundraising and standing as one in the crowd at the State Capitol to let the state know that we as sportsman need our voices heard. I "listen". I listen with my eyes as well. Those that walk the talk are going to get a better "listen" out of me than others.

Pro, I recieved another email this morning and unless you have been removed from that list, you recieved the same one. It mentioned that there has not been even ONE comment in opposition to the new plan. Why don't you make your voice heard. I agree with what you are saying whole heartidly. I am not a numbers guy. I am not an accountant nor have an accountants mind like you do. I listen to numbers and they are gone out of my head as fast as they come in. You on the other hand love numbers. They make sense to you and stick with you. The main number that I saw that made it look like I am in total support of whatever happens as long as SFW is involved was the numbers of increasing the herd by 15,000. I have racked my brain on several occasions on a way to better utilize the raghorn bulls without compromising the quality of the trophy bulls. I hate the spike hunt as well and this is why I rarely hunt Utah for elk. I made a phone call to Don a couple of years ago and mentioned to him, all of the 27-30 inch 3x's on the Henry's. I asked him about alocating tags to the youth and the Seniors to kill some of those so they are not left to breed by the trophy hunters that don't want them. His worry was that it would be tough to police and people would be trying to stretch the rules to kill the biggest buck possible and justify it into being a management buck. I told him that it would be a good idea to use the dedicated hunters as guides for thier hours and they would take courses, become qualified and then no shot gets fired unless the guide is with the person and gives the ok. He mentioned that they were going to try it with the elk. It must have had issues or it would still be in place. It is much easier to police and also for the hunters to tell if it is a "spike" or a "trophy" than a 5x6 vs. Trophy. I would love to have a better solution but it is not a "simple" task. I thank those who put so much time into our behalf on missing many days and evenings away from thier families in trying to figure out a better way to solve the problems of "too many bulls". I still believe that it is a much better problem than we had just a few short years ago. We are going the right direction but definately have some speed bumps along the way. I am NOT AGAINST some of you. I am NOT necisarily FOR others. I am just "listening" along the way.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

well that is ok...at least when I'm out on the last day of the rifle deer hunt I won't hear 15 shots going off in the last 30 minutes of shooting time...I'll sacrifice a marginal amount of solitude in order to avoid the gun fight at the OK Corral at the end of October every year!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



stablebuck said:


> well that is ok...at least when I'm out on the last day of the rifle deer hunt I won't hear 15 shots going off in the last 30 minutes of shooting time...I'll sacrifice a marginal amount of solitude in order to avoid the gun fight at the OK Corral at the end of October every year!


+110000254646873.2 :mrgreen:


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

My thoughts on this deal are it seems to me this plan seems to be centered around providing trophy bulls. The more trophy class bulls that exist the less valuable they are. Second most folks just want to hunt with the knowledge that there is the possibility they could find the bull of a lifetime but under the current system and this proposal less than 3000 tags are available to shoot a bull of a lifetime. Seems to me with this proposal it is the everyday guy the majority of which hunt with a rifle are the losers ie less opportunity with a rifle and forced to make the choice of don't hunt at all or switch to archery. Smacks of catering to a small segment of the hunting community.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

this proposal is a sham! BUTT PLUGGGGGG!!!
This proposal is nothing more then the door slamming shut at a shot at a branched antler bull on a le unit for me and my kids!

The only people that it benifits is the guys with top 3 year points and that is it. Because in reality that is the only people that will draw the tag in their lives!!! The rest can go pound sand!

People you haven't even seen the effect of the tag cuts!!! Wait until there is a void in age class on these units that was created by the death of the 25%-50% spike deaths from spike hunters, cougars, and cars. the division says most of the spikes don't make it to maturity so lets kill them now. foolish!! the one thing for sure you've done is garantee a kill of an animal that hasn't shown his potential. you probably just killed the 500".

Sometimes people are **** proud of a 4 year old 330 bull. some times you are **** proud of a 5 year old bull. When tards are left to do the killing with a rifle it will get done in one day, first hour of hunt. they see 6 points and the majority think they are looking at a 500" bull till you put a tape on it. then it is just a 280 6 point. This is why age objective sucks.

The division says we are going to increase the elk herds so we can have more opportunity. You guys have just fallen for the biggest lie. you were duped if you believe that. they just put KY on the shaft they just inserted into your behind!

All I can say is told you so! his wildlife board, SFW and the money are out of control! going to the rac's is a wast of time!! this proposal is finished!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> this proposal is a sham! BUTT PLUGGGGGG!!!
> This proposal is nothing more then the door slamming shut at a shot at a branched antler bull on a le unit for me and my kids!
> 
> The only people that it benifits is the guys with top 3 year points and that is it. Because in reality that is the only people that will draw the tag in their lives!!! The rest can go pound sand!


Maybe this is why Elk22 supports this plan so much. He has a very good chance of drawing his once in a lifetime tag this year so the plan doesn't really affect him because he has enough points to make it happen. He did mention this earlier.


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

+1 SW. 
I think its a great idea to increase the age classes on the majority of units and reduce numbers. The only thing missing is to increase the number of give away tags to the SFW and its sister groups. They and their elite patrons are the ones who will benefit from this. 
The RAC process is a sham. It doesnt matter what is approved or disapproved. The wildlife board is in the SFW's pocket and will do whatever he wants regardless. If you look close you can see his hand behind their back pulling the puppets strings. Look my lips arent even moving.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

elk22 doesn't hunt in Utah except for an exceptional trophy...so the plan works for him...I can't blame him...if I lived in Idaho, Colorado, or Wyoming I wouldn't mind either...
It is painfully obvious that the only solution to making EVERYONE happy is to hand out more LE permits...anything else besides that is HOGWASH...hogwash...


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> I thank those who put so much time into our behalf on missing many days and evenings away from thier families in trying to figure out a better way to solve the problems of "too many bulls".


Many states are actually giving out hunting permits and harvesting animals which they believe are overpopulated. I think the same idea could work in Utah. We have too many bull elk on most units, what would everyone think about giving out some permits to hunt these elk? Hunters would probably get a kick out of it.

Nothing directed at you here E22H, just thought that quote was ironic to the point of vulgarity. I'm pretty out of the loop on the politics these days, but I'd love to know who was surveyed to start this whole thing. Certainly not anyone in my circle. And I'd also love to know where all the positive feedback is coming from. Apparently there was an email sent (from SFW I suppose) stating that everybody loves this plan, and not a single negative comment have they received. Looks to me like about 90% of the people on this forum disagree with it, so somebody's cross-section is pretty jacked up.



swbuckmaster said:


> Sometimes people are **** proud of a 4 year old 330 bull. some times you are **** proud of a 5 year old bull.


Amen! And other times, people have a really enjoyable hunt just because they had a chance at a 300" bull. What is wrong with a bull elk hunt that has a 50% success rate? Why does every LE hunt in our state have to be 90% or better?

Let's just simplify the whole thing and make the entire state any-bull, general season. Give out thousands of tags on the larger units like Wasatch and Manti, and limit the tags on other units to create a variety of opportunities. Make the elk drawing just like general deer so that you burn all your points any time you draw a tag. Impose a 1 year waiting period on people that draw. It's a brilliant plan, I'm calling it "I-Matador"


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



stablebuck said:


> elk22 doesn't hunt in Utah except for an exceptional trophy...so the plan works for him...I can't blame him...if I lived in Idaho, Colorado, or Wyoming I wouldn't mind either...
> It is painfully obvious that the only solution to making EVERYONE happy is to hand out more LE permits...anything else besides that is HOGWASH...hogwash...


Ha Ha, I sure keep getting mentioned a bunch. Again, I am not against you guys. I posted a letter that I recieved that I knew you would find interesting.

Yes it is very true that I am not a guy that feels that I have to kill a bull in Utah every year. I have lived there all of my 48 years. I don't have kids that have to go every year either but put in for points and patiently wait for thier day when they can have a quality hunt. It has taken many years to gain the Elk herds that we have. My family puts in for "quality" hunts all over. When ONE draws, we ALL go and help that person. It is a fun way to share "Quality" time together. 
Back to the time spent to gain the Elk herds that we have. I know that many cannot see the effect that the numbers of Elk will provide later to them. I have more trust in our DWR than that. Build up takes time. It has taken money from the Sportsman to build the herds. The sportsman that irritate me are the ones that cannot be patient and know that "someday" the herds will be where we want them and that equates to more tags and more opportunity. Some people smell the cake baking in the oven and have to open the oven to see if it is done. The cake drops and is ruined because of the lack of patience and not being able to just wait for the finished product. I am not saying that I like to wait for my big day..............I have simply tried to adapt.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Maybe the people that think this plan is so brilliant should come on here and explain why it's such a great plan. They will be filled with many negative comments then. They will be also roasted over the coals. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Elk22 since you have the connections then please invite them to see how much their plan is loved.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> Back to the time spent to gain the Elk herds that we have. I know that many cannot see the effect that the numbers of Elk will provide later to them. I have more trust in our DWR than that. Build up takes time. *It has taken money from the Sportsman to build the herds.* The sportsman that irritate me are the ones that cannot be patient and know that "someday" the herds will be where we want them and that equates to more tags and more opportunity.


But we shouldn't be letting special interest get so much power and authority that they can bypass the RAC system and go straight to the Wildlife Board to get what they want.

There is a book called "In Search of Big Heads" by Jim Bonds. He talks about the very same thing. When special interest groups gain so much power then they are no longer representing sportsman, they have lost their mission statement, and they have a new personal agenda.

SFW does a lot of great things for wildlife, but I think they have way to much POWER. The 5 days statewide hunt is one good example. This should have never happened without first letting the public comment on the idea.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Two thoughts and I'm done-
1st- We should not/cannot manage our herds on age class numbers. It ought to be on bull/cow ratios. Can anyone tell me why we manage off age class? Please?

2nd-If the tag numbers are cut for the public draw, the "auction/special intrest/landowner/expo tags should be cut back as well. I bet my bottom dollar these type tags WILL NOT be reduced next year.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Is anyone a fan of Dave Ramsey? I would suspect not because he speaks of us being in the "I want it and I want it NOW!" mentality. He mentions that if we live like no other, (meaning to tighten up and not spend, not impressing the neighbors, nor having to own everything now or go out to dinner with all of our friends) then one day, We Will Live Like No Other!" (we will have the wealth and security to do what ever we want)

I simply see it like the above statement but adjusted to an Elk herd. Too many want to throw away all the work done and kill everything NOW! I agree that there is much work to do but we also need to not be so spend happy at the expense of the Utah Elk herd.

It doesn't bother me that I am the minority here. Dave Ramsey speaks the same of the ones who are thrifty and put away for a rainy day as the minority also.

Now off the Dave Ramsey thing. Good thoughts Blazingsaddle. I believe that if any are to sacrifice, all should.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

SADDLE there was a motion to manage by B and fricken C score if you can imagine that!!!

I **** you not this was an option that waas put on the table


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

how does varying the number of bull elk permits from 2800 to 2200 affect the growth of the state elk herd from 65k to 80k???
If they do not issue a single cow tag in June then I see the point...but if not then someone entertain me on that question...


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



stablebuck said:


> how does varying the number of bull elk permits from 2800 to 2200 affect the growth of the state elk herd from 65k to 80k???
> If they do not issue a single cow tag in June then I see the point...but if not then someone entertain me on that question...


You are trying to get the Cow hunters very angry. 

Everyone has their place in this scenario. Never are we going to make everyone happy. I definately see your point however!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Wow, I was watching Yes Man on HBO and reading this at the same time. As I read through this thread, I happened to see Jim Carrey's 70 year old neighbor pull her teeth out to reward him for hanging a few shelves in her apartment and I **** near laughed as hard as I was already laughing at the BULL **** that was in the email and in this thread.

The special interest and wildlife board railroading the DWR and public time and time again is sickening. 22, Dave Ramsey? Dave Ramsey is about common sense and this piece wreaks of idiocy and dirty laundry. Do you really think this makes sense? I'm camped on a bunch of points too, but this is completely contrary to the desires of pretty **** near every person I have spoke to concerning elk management in our state, including DWR employees. Chalk one up to the big man, his silver tongue and money lined pockets have done it again. This has nothing to do with "I want it now", though dismissing it as such makes it easier to move on. I'm not saying you have an agenda, but you ARE the minority on this one, but somehow our state has now become one where the minority makes policy for the majority, according to their wishes. DO you really think that the majority of hunters in our state want to hunt a giant bull every 30 years? If yes is the answer, let me know where you are and I'll have fedex drop of a flashlight and methadone.

The title of the email should have been: REGRESSION


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Gotta side with Tree and Company on this one. Everyone I know in my vast circle of influence prefers opportunity more frequently vs a shot at a giant bull every 30 years.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



> elkhunter22 wrote
> Woah! This is seeming to be "my" plan. I just posted the email that I recieved. The thing that I get excited about is the fact that I am going to see the herds increase accross the state by 15,000 elk. There still has to be some planning on how to get the cow to bull ratios in tact.


I'm curious about some of the ideas that have been talked about to get the bull to cow ratios intact? :?: It seems tough when there are to many bulls on most units and the plan is to kill less bulls by 17%. The simple solution would be to cut cow tags by 34% or more. Or have they talked about bringing the management tags back? Or is bull to cow ratio even talked about?


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



NHS said:


> Gotta side with Tree and Company on this one. Everyone I know in my vast circle of influence prefers opportunity more frequently vs a shot at a giant bull every 30 years.


Just when I thought that I was making perfect sense, my buddies Nate, Ty, and Bart hang me out to dry.

I must hang out with different folks because all, no most, well I guess SOME of my friends like the fact that Utah owns the world record for Elk. :mrgreen: It used to be all until I saw my friends turn on me like a ravashing Wolf. Maybe those guys aren't my buddies anymore and it really is ALL my friends like the fact that Utah owns the world record for Elk!    (see I am still smiling)
"What ere thou art, act well thy part". That translates to "If you are going to be an Elk state, Be the BEST elk state. 
Bart is the one of the only ones that makes sense to my "adgenda". I see a lot of people on here that have loads of elk but they can't hunt them so they are mad. They want to hunt them all right now and destroy what has been created by hardworking individuals. Bart wants to propose a plan to allow the trophy guy to have his cake and eat it too while the raghorn opportunist gets his cut of the pie as well. 
Tree, explain yourself on how you differ from what I want. Be nice however because I am starting to get a complex! :mrgreen:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



yak4fish said:


> > elkhunter22 wrote
> > Woah! This is seeming to be "my" plan. I just posted the email that I recieved. The thing that I get excited about is the fact that I am going to see the herds increase accross the state by 15,000 elk. There still has to be some planning on how to get the cow to bull ratios in tact.
> 
> 
> I'm curious about some of the ideas that have been talked about to get the bull to cow ratios intact? :?: It seems tough when there are to many bulls on most units and the plan is to kill less bulls by 17%. The simple solution would be to cut cow tags by 34% or more. Or have they talked about bringing the management tags back? Or is bull to cow ratio even talked about?


I am not sure if they have talked about cow tags. I read the same letter that everyone else did that started this discussion. I think that you make some valid points, however you have cow hunters that have been doing that as a family for years and will not like the change. You have hunters that are ok with hunting every few or even many years to insure a shot at a Monster bull. You have guys who wish we would all shut up and leave things alone because they have a "Honey Hole" in the Uintahs where they kill at least 4 bulls in thier group every year and one is usually a 6x6 that goes over 300". We will not please all walks of life.


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I'm confused, how can they manage the Boulder for 7.5-8 year old bulls when they have had unregulated spike hunting for as long as I can remember and give out cow tags in the 100's???

This endless debate wears me out just reading it


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> Bart wants to propose a plan to allow the trophy guy to have his cake and eat it too while the raghorn opportunist gets his cut of the pie as well.


Yeah, me too. You can really see the voice of reason when you analyze each point of view. The average guy, like myself, wants to hunt elk more frequently than every 15 years. We have *no problem* with leaving areas for the trophy hunters. But ask those trophy hunters to give up a few areas for the average joe and they freak out. Selfish little babies, they are. Like Bart has said, if 50% of the population wants a trophy, 50% of the elk should be managed for them. Unfortunately they are a minority and yet they control 90% of the herd.

I was reading through some Eastman's Hunting Journal stuff recently, and they were on the verge of mockery when talking about Utah's elk management. They were appalled at the number of conservation tags Utah gives out vs the very limited number of tags in the drawing. Their whole take, just like my own, is that Utah has great elk but good luck getting a tag.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> NHS said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta side with Tree and Company on this one. Everyone I know in my vast circle of influence prefers opportunity more frequently vs a shot at a giant bull every 30 years.
> ...


Mr. 22, my idea is a simple one and is not black and white as this somehow been equated to. IT IS NOT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BROTHER. (Why am I on here debating elk when I could be making a fortune rapping next to a Bentley and half naked women?)

Survey every last one of LE applicants, take the data and mirror it with management, easy enough, isn't it?

Keep the San Juan, SW desert, pahvant, Monroe and a handful of others for monster bulls, manage the rest of the sate for limited opportunity to kill branch antlered bulls. By "manage" it means do the same kinds of data research, just don't hold ridiculous age objectives that will never be met. It's just like Henry's deer, they shoot world class bucks year in and year out and never even scratch age objectives, so they either have to reduce harvest or lower objectives.

Based on results, If we managed units for 2-3 year old bulls (the age strategy is BS IMO) it's going to be above the desired age class. SO WHAT"S THE PROBLEM? Here's what I see the problem being, 300" bulls don't fetch 15k, causing pay cuts for certain "consultants" and others who stand to benefit from high dollar elk, period.

Blah, blah, blah they do a lot of good, that's great. There was a guy in my neighborhood that gave candy to all of the little kids and was a church going feller, good guy right? I'll let you finish the story..........

The bottom line is that it doesn't have to be one way or another and there is no reason why we can't be dynamic in our approach to wildlife if everyone involved is heard and considered.

Time for a coup.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

22, you know you are wrong when NS posts against you. haha

Gordy, at least we stopped something. HAHA Can you imagine have B&C scores as an objective? "Sir, we are managing that unit for 350 inch bulls, but yours is only 342 2/8. You should have held out for a larger antlered bull."

Those of us on the Committee who were against the age increases were not against having a few top end units. What happened though is that approx 93% of the elk herd within limited entry units went to higher age objectives. 93% of limited entry elk went to higher age objectives! Really, did the ages on 93% of Utah's limited entry elk herd need to climb?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I really need to start applying to Wyoming and Colorado so my family and I can hunt elk more often.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



Treehugnhuntr said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > NHS said:
> ...


+1,000,000


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



Treehugnhuntr said:


> Keep the San Juan, SW desert, pahvant, Monroe and a handful of others for monster bulls, manage the rest of the sate for limited opportunity to kill branch antlered bulls. By "manage" it means do the same kinds of data research, just don't hold ridiculous age objectives that will never be met. It's just like Henry's deer, they shoot world class bucks year in and year out and never even scratch age objectives, so they either have to reduce harvest or lower objectives.


Ya see, we are the same after all. That is where I see guys like Bart and yourself make sense. A compromise is good. I feel that we have ALL sacrificed long enough as we have seen the numbers grow that we can start to see the fruits of our labors. I am only pointing out that we have the ok to gain 15,000 more Elk before we impliment such drastic tag numbers. Once the goal is reached then we can regulate. I don't have a problem with the Trophy units that you listed, remain as the "Trophy units". We may have a bottle neck on those areas with the amount of hunters that will not give up their points for a rag bull. I did like the idea that someone mentioned on another thread that guys lose their points for that year if they hunt an any bull area. I can promise you however that if that rule was implimented that you would see a bees nest get stirred like no other. Everybody wants the best for them.

Lets say that I walk into a canyon with a group of guys and we all say what we are holding out for. Everyone else but me says if it has horns, they are shooting. I say "if it's not a 330+ I will keep a hold of my arrow. Well that doesn't mean that If I see a 330 bull it is all mine. I am going to have to fight every other guy in the group for that bull even though I would not fight them for what they were ok about shooting. (Spike)

What I am getting at is if you asked everyone in the state right now to put their name in the hat for where they would like to hunt elk and there is no point system and the draw is even all accross the board, they would put in for the San Juan, Pahvant, SW, Monroe, Beaver and Boulder. No one would even put in for the Uintahs. My point is that the person that wants opportunity, wants what is in it for him. He is not willing to wait the long term. I have 16 points. I only missed one year and that was because of the DWR telling us that we would lose our points on other species if we did not put in within a three year period, I believe. They changed their minds after the fact and I lost a point. I am walking the talk. I am not whining that it has taken me this long to draw. I know that there is a big reward waiting for me. I do however see guys with minimal points wanting to take away my bull. The one that I have been patient in waiting for. Even with that said, I am ok about giving out more tags in areas that will be rag bull areas in a short amount of time. If that is what the public wants then give it to them. Once those areas depreciate as an area, you will see a decline in the numbers that are "OK" with rag bulls and the bottle neck spoken of before will be greater than ever in the "Trophy" bull units.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

What good is it to be the best elk hunting state if you never get the chance to even hunt one of the 400 class bulls we try to produce. I just might have to take up bow hunting. Seems like they are getting the most opportunities.

Keep changing, making new rules, better this better that. One bad winter and all will have to be changed again. I keep saying too much management. I think we have really gone over-board with this one.

I was looking at draw opportunities with points, and the number of tags, and the number of years it takes to draw a coveted tag. Every year the numbers just keep increasing. Keep this up and the people with 15 points or more will not see the 100% draw result.

One good thing. Some of the people will pass away before they ever draw. :wink: Unfortunately, I fall into this category.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



horsesma said:


> +1,000,000


You don't have a million to plus. 

Where are all my +1,000,000's? ha ha


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> Where are all my +1,000,000's? ha ha


You get this

-2,000,000's :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

Another note, It took me 12 years to draw my Colorado hunt and they only give to Max point guys. My bro. took 15. My kids are now at 14 and will most likely never catch it. I am back up to 6 but if my kids wont catch it at 14 then I don't stand a snowballs chance at 6. They allow a person to put in for thier #1 area, gain their point and then buy a any bull tag that will allow them to hunt every year and also gain a point. Pretty soon the only guys that have tags will be between the ages of 65 and dead.

Utahn's will want the same thing thus proving my point about the Trophy guys having to fight for their bulls when they are not asking for the raghorn guys bulls.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



dkhntrdstn said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Where are all my +1,000,000's? ha ha
> ...


Thanx Dustin, that made me laugh.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

I promise to stop bashing Scott on this subject. He is NOT one of the IDIOTS that voted in favor of the proposal. I guess word got out on my unhappiness because up until yesterday I have never missed a single SFW email in 3+ years, but I have NOTHING from them this week. I wonder why. -Ov- I did get The Sportsmen's Voice last week, so I'm pretty sure I'm still on the books. :?

I was accused, and I gladly plead guilty, of being a numbers guy. I am a strong believer that two things are needed for something to work when it comes to economics and managing ANYTHING; math that adds up and common sense that propels whatever is being proposed toward giving people a product they WANT. This proposal, endorsed by the 'leaders' of the RMEF/UBA/SFW and others, accomplishes NEITHER necessity.

Lets run a few numbers real quick: They want to reduce permits from 2800 to 2200 in ONE year, and they say this will lead to MORE opportunity down the road. Really, HOW??? 2800 tags is 4.2% of the current overall elk population (67,000), that's right ONLY 4.2%. 2200 tags would be 3.3%, that is 3 permits issued for every ONE HUNDRED elk on a unit with 3 elk being removed from the herd. I wonder why so many cows have to be killed each year to keep populations at/under objectives, hmmmmmm. Now, under the proposed numbers, 3.3% of 80,000 elk is 2640 permits, a whopping FORTY more permits than what we had in 2009. How many years will it take to get to 80,000 elk? Will we actually ever get there? Now, if they issued permits at a 4.2% on a herd of 80,000 elk they would issue 3360 permits, that is 720 MORE permits than under the plan that is supposedly about creating 'more' opportunity. That is roughly a 25% reduction of permits available to elk hunters. So, even IF we get to 80,000 elk in five years, which I doubt, we would have 40 more permits in 2015 than in 2009 even though we would have 13,000 more elk. Does this sound like the math adds up or that common sense and logic were present when this was passed? If so, can someone please show me the light. Maybe one of the 'leaders' who know what we really want instead of what we say we want can 'educate' all of us little minions that should be grovelling at their feet for taking such good care of us and our wants/needs.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> Another note, It took me 12 years to draw my Colorado hunt and they only give to Max point guys. My bro. took 15. My kids are now at 14 and will most likely never catch it. I am back up to 6 but if my kids wont catch it at 14 then I don't stand a snowballs chance at 6. They allow a person to put in for thier #1 area, gain their point and then buy a any bull tag that will allow them to hunt every year and also gain a point. Pretty soon the only guys that have tags will be between the ages of 65 and dead.
> 
> Utahn's will want the same thing thus proving my point about the Trophy guys having to fight for their bulls when they are not asking for the raghorn guys bulls.


Comparing Utah to Colorado is a huge leap, they kill more bull elk EVERY year than Utah has living as of today. They have a VERY SMALL percentage of their elk herd managed as LE, they issue more bull elk tags in one year than Utah does in a decade. And, the most protected elk in Colorado is the spike, this allows them to kill around 30,000 branch-antlered bulls EVERY year, even with their very difficult to draw LE units. If you don't think the majority of elk hunters are happy hunting branch-antlered bulls you are mistaken. I outfitted in Colorado for several years, and the only limit to how many clients I could book to hunt 'raghorns' (never had a client kill a bull over 270 in Colorado) was getting land leased and getting quality guides to guide them. I booked out every single year, and a lot more Utah hunters than you would think paid me $3000.00+ to hunt raghorns on 5000 acres in October, and that was in the 90's when $3000.00 was like $4000.00 today.

I am 100% in favor of managing Utah's elk herd closer to how Colorado does, glad you are board with that Scott. :wink:


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > elk22hunter said:
> ...


IM glad.just trying to lighten this thread up a little.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

So let's say they end up moving in the direction stated in the email that elkhunter22 posted for us to read. We will see a decline in opportunity, which we can probably expect to continue for at least a half dozen years or so. I have my doubts about managing for age objectives of harvested animals, but that has already been discussed. The simplest solution to provide more opportunity, in a situation that under current conditions will see decreased opportunity is to give more tags. This can be done by moving the dang rifle seasons out of the rut. Increase tag numbers, decrease success rates. Opportunity doesn't translate into harvest, opportunity refers to the chance someone has to harvest. The easiest way to move people through these ever-growing point pools without a substantial herd increase and maintained management strategies (as ineffective or effective as they may be) is to reduce hunter success, and rather than handicap hunters physically, change the season dates.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*

svmoose gets it, as do most on this forum. We can manage elk for 'quality' AND for opportunity with very simple tweaks to the current plan and MAJOR tweaks to the proposed plan. On all but the premium units move the rifle hunt out of September and put it in mid-October, manage to bull:cow ratios more than harvest ages, give more tags to primitive (lower success rates allows more mature bulls to escape), and manage to what the people want, not what they are told they want.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



proutdoors said:


> svmoose gets it, as do most on this forum. We can manage elk for 'quality' AND for opportunity with very simple tweaks to the current plan and MAJOR tweaks to the proposed plan. On all but the premium units move the rifle hunt out of September and put it in mid-October, manage to bull:cow ratios more than harvest ages, give more tags to primitive (lower success rates allows more mature bulls to escape), and manage to what the people want, not what they are told they want.


I love it........Where do I sign?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > svmoose gets it, as do most on this forum. We can manage elk for 'quality' AND for opportunity with very simple tweaks to the current plan and MAJOR tweaks to the proposed plan. On all but the premium units move the rifle hunt out of September and put it in mid-October, manage to bull:cow ratios more than harvest ages, give more tags to primitive (lower success rates allows more mature bulls to escape), and manage to what the people want, not what they are told they want.
> ...


I'm working on a draft and a plan right now. I will keep you posted. 8)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think that a hunter satifaction survey should be included in with the bull to cow ratio or the age class. Hunters should rank their experience from 1 to 4. 1-very unsatisfied 2-unsatisfied 3-satisfied 4-very satisfied. Then even if the age objective does not get met but the overall hunter survey averages over 3.0, then tags should not be lowered. It is possible that with 10 tags given out on a (7.5 age class unit). All the bulls killed are 7 years old or younger 350" class bulls and all the hunters had the time of their lives. Very happy with their harvest Quality but the DWR will lower the tags the next year because the "data" does not match up. I don't like the current proposal.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Pro. Dont take this as a personal attack. How do you know for sure what "the people want"
From my perspective, looking at last years drawing odds, the people want to hunt LE elk with a rifle on the really good (easy chance at a huge bull) units. The chance to get a tag on a lesser quality unit is already out there. Some of the hunters I know are more willing to wait it out than try for an easier to get archery tag. These guys are archery hunters too! I am kind of leaning to your ideas on elk but I dont really like decreasing success to maximize opportunity. The state has done that on deer for the last 17 or so years. My biggest problem with this is that, to use someone elses analogy, prime rib, steak, and hamburgar should not cost the same! 280 dollars is alot of money for some people and after waiting many years and paying that much alot of hunters do not want to come home without tagging out. If some units had in between prices for less success I could really agree with that!


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

one thing i can say without alot of problem is that most if not all want more elk
in the state. step one: unless a unit is over there harvest objective just dont hunt the momma s. one bull can breed a number of cows but it takes that one
cow to produce the calf s we need for herd recruitment.
step two same princaple if harvesting spike s if when the numbers are tallied it appears that the combined harvest of spikes and mature bulls are above what the calf recuritment is abolish the spike hunts for that unit for a period of time.
step three: if there are more mature bulls being harvested than calf recruitent can replace cut tags for a period of time till the harvest is in line with recuritment.
that is if what were looking at is building the herd numbers up again if not well forget the suggestion


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> It's a good thing that I don't hold grudges and that I have thick skin, because I would ALMOST think that was a slam directed towards me.
> 
> I have said very little on this. I have read 6 pages of comments and listened intently on what others have to say. I simply read into it on the "are they qualified" to say anything of value. There are a few on here that I absolutly take their oppinions as worth something. Those are the same guys who have been in the trench's along with me on several work projects from building fences, aiding transplant operations to fundraising and standing as one in the crowd at the State Capitol to let the state know that we as sportsman need our voices heard. I "listen". I listen with my eyes as well. Those that walk the talk are going to get a better "listen" out of me than others.


First off my comment was not meant as a slam. But it was meant to be a reminder that one must listen as well as talk. Second if any one should feel slighted, maybe it's just us average guys. I guess since we are nothing more than complainers. Third, what makes you think that some have not put their time in. Just because you don't see them. I don't recall seeing you in the 80's. I guess what I'm hearing you say is that the regular guy does not matter.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10yearquest said:


> Pro. Dont take this as a personal attack. How do you know for sure what "the people want"
> From my perspective, looking at last years drawing odds, the people want to hunt LE elk with a rifle on the really good (easy chance at a huge bull) units. The chance to get a tag on a lesser quality unit is already out there. Some of the hunters I know are more willing to wait it out than try for an easier to get archery tag. These guys are archery hunters too! I am kind of leaning to your ideas on elk but I dont really like decreasing success to maximize opportunity. The state has done that on deer for the last 17 or so years. My biggest problem with this is that, to use someone elses analogy, prime rib, steak, and hamburgar should not cost the same! 280 dollars is alot of money for some people and after waiting many years and paying that much alot of hunters do not want to come home without tagging out. If some units had in between prices for less success I could really agree with that!


But, they are recommending RAISING the harvest age objectives on 93% of the units. That means, if they are going with what the people want, 93% of elk hunters want older class bulls, IE more LIMITED/rationed hunting. I want someone to spin that with a straight face. FWIW, the prime rib, steak, hamburger analogy was mine. :mrgreen: In a nutshell, make the menu have a few more choices. 67,000-80,000 elk gives a lot of produce to choose from, the ONLY thing limiting our choices is a few fellow hunters/sportsmen being GREEDY.

Also, no offense taken. :wink:


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



Huntoholic said:


> I don't recall seeing you in the 80's.


I was there! I was the one with the headphones on listening to my sony walkman while singing to Deaf Leopard!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall seeing you in the 80's.
> ...


Pyromania is one of the greatest albums ever! Hysteria was pretty dang good also. Just don't be playing, "It's Too Late", just yet. :shock:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

*Re: Elk Board voting and results for a bright Utah Elk future*



elk22hunter said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall seeing you in the 80's.
> ...


Then we must have something in common.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> no offense taken.


 good. And I totally agree with the part about selfish hunters/sportsman. I think alot of huntings core problems come from the "ME" "ME" "ME" guys. And just so everyone knows I am going to try and burn my 10 pionts on a really good burger. I just wish it did not cost as much as the monroe prime rib. Or is it pahvant hibachi? Whatever. I think ill have a wasatch arrow burger.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

you want to see how the people in Utah feel about spike hunting and hunting in general. Make them use their points!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I couldn't stomach reading even half of what has been posted in this thread because most of it is must emotional garbage and BS. But, I will say this: any decrease in opportunity is bad...not because of an LE tag butt plug, not because of the biology or ability of the DWR to increase or decrease populations, but because the single biggest problem hunting is experiencing across the country is the decline in hunter recruitment. Decreasing opportunity is bad...so, this new plan is bad....

BUT, some have suggested that we eliminate spike hunting as a means to increase LE hunting tags. This is equally as bad and probably even a worse idea than the elk committee proposal for the above reason. Any plan that decreases hunting opportunity as a whole is bad and should be fought! If Utah moved to an elk management plan similar to Colorado's where lots of opportunity was given at the expense of quality, I would be fine with that as long as we don't decrease our current total number of tags. Moving to a plan similar to Arizona's would be asinine and stupid....too little opportunity!

The "good" fight should be to find ways in increasing and changing current hunter recruitment trends by getting the youth more opportunity to hunt...regardless of whether those hunts are for branch-antlered bulls or not. Decreasing our overall opportunity by cutting spike tags is a bad idea for this reason alone....


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Colorado...that's what I'm talking about baby!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Moving to a plan similar to Arizona's would be asinine and stupid....too little opportunity!


this shows you how ignorant you are about the current system in Arizona!

In Arizona you have to pick a sex and use your points. So if you are wanting to kill something every year you can always put in for cow tags. thus having plenty of opportunity at a meat hunt which is all a spike hunt is!

In Arizona they have half the elk population Utah has and gives out more tags. hundreds more tags on most units than Utah.

Arizona still has big bulls just as many as Utah! look at the b&c record books!

Utah has more elk then Arizona so they should be able to give out more tags than Arizona.

There is no waiting period in Arizona

Arizona does not manage every unit in their state like a Henry deer tag!

Arizona is not a OIL tag for a mature bull

this is about as fair a system there is! Fair is what everyone wants! If Utah turned the whole state into a system like this it would be 10 times better than Arizona.

asinine is only being able to hunt a le unit maybe once in your life. asinine is seeing some rich guy be able to purchase the tag and hunt every year. asinine is making you kill a spike bull before it ever has a chance to show its potential. asinine is what the current plan is!!!


----------

