# Packet for April meetings



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

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-04_rac_packet.pdf

Here's the packet.

For the most part I'm happy with what I see, except for anterless tags on elk a little. I don't quite understand the on slot of tags as Monroes herd continues to drop population wise and its never been at objective yet. I like the increase in deer tags. Should be a good year.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

I'm going to give the uwn a brief spelling lesson. Onslaught. The word is onslaught. That is all.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Are your spikes safe though?


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

I am happy with the proposal, however... I am a little concerned over the anterless elk situation but I think with the collar study that the DWR is undertaking I am hoping for the best. 

I am pleasantly surprised by the number of buck deer tags, but noticed that almost all OIL have had cuts across the board. Anyone have insight on this. Not moose as we all know they are declining. Wondering about Goats, Bison, and Sheep. 

Does this have to do with possible transplants? Population objectives for the species in certain area's? 

Cannot wait to listen to the WB meeting and see what happens...


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Did you guys happen to notice in the packet of materials that the DWR is modifying the administrative rule that governs that Antelope Island tags so that the Wildlife Board would have the authority to issue more tags on Antelope Island? See page 14. Have any of you heard anything about the reasoning for this proposed change?


-Hawkeye-


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I noticed that change for the Island. A trial program for the funding of State Lands..... hhhmmm


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Packout said:


> I noticed that change for the Island. A trial program for the funding of State Lands..... hhhmmm


I noticed that as well, and that they could issue antlerless tags and also with the State parks and the conservation group reuse the money from the tag sale to other conservation projects around the state...


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Lets just skip the next 20 years of policy change and get to the end-game: Dutch auction for every tag in the state.

-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-04_rac_packet.pdf
> 
> Here's the packet.
> 
> For the most part I'm happy with what I see, except for anterless tags on elk a little. I don't quite understand the on slot of tags as Monroes herd continues to drop population wise and its never been at objective yet. I like the increase in deer tags. Should be a good year.


We had a napkin meeting at Carls jr and discussed cow tags on the monroe and came up with this plan. We called it operation On slot.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

That's quite the read. 

I feel kind of smarter, now.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-04_rac_packet.pdf
> 
> Here's the packet.
> 
> For the most part I'm happy with what I see, except for anterless tags on elk a little. I don't quite understand the on slot of tags as Monroes herd continues to drop population wise and its never been at objective yet. I like the increase in deer tags. Should be a good year.


Well, the herd was over objective in 2013 and only slightly under objective in 2014...I did not realize that 150 tags was considered an "on slot" to a herd of 7200 +/-.

May have something to do with the fact that they raised the age objective to the impossible level of 7.75 and now they can't issue enough bull tags. Just a thought.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I know that goats are being relocated heavily from the Beaver unit, and that is why a lot of the nanny tags have been cut. As for the bison, they are going down in tags because there was a huge spike in tags offered in 2012, would be my assumption.


----------



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

Dahlmer said:


> Well, the herd was over objective in 2013 and only slightly under objective in 2014...I did not realize that 150 tags was considered an "on slot" to a herd of 7200 +/-.
> 
> May have something to do with the fact that they raised the age objective to the impossible level of 7.75 and now they can't issue enough bull tags. Just a thought.


No you're talking deer, I'm talking elk. The elk herd is estimated at 1,350 down from 1,400 last year, and the objective is 1,800 with no reduction in tags. I would just like to see the unit get to objective before killing hundreds of cows a year.

Also if 80+% of fawns and does made it through te winter I question how Monroe ended up with 600 less deer on it.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Also if 80+% of fawns and does made it through te winter I question how Monroe ended up with 600 less deer on it.


600 less bucks? Cougar, Bear, Poachers... aliens, chubacabra... bigfoot.

-DallanC


----------



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

With 80% survival on 7,800 deer, with buck to doe ratios on the unit that would mean around 6,200 would be does total. 80% of that would be 4,960. Now if even 50% successfully had fawns and those fawns made it that would be 2,480 fawns that would make it. Together that equals 7,440. Now roughly 20% more bucks from that number should be 8,928 deer on the unit according to their numbers. But wait there must have been a 100% success rate on te 150 tags they gave out which brings us to 8,778 deer, but the estimate is 7,300. That would mean somewhere during summer there was quite a bit of loss.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess that's why they call them "estimates", huh? 

But more importantly, your numbers here trying to question the estimates certainly aren't fool proof either. Something about throwing stones in a glass house comes to mind. 

I think between the inherent margin for error factored into the DWR's inexact estimate of 7200, combined with the margin for in your logic and calculations, I can account for the 1500 deer you are wondering about.


----------



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

TS30 said:


> I guess that's why they call them "estimates", huh?
> 
> But more importantly, your numbers here trying to question the estimates certainly aren't fool proof either. Something about throwing stones in a glass house comes to mind.
> 
> I think between the inherent margin for error factored into the DWR's inexact estimate of 7200, combined with the margin for in your logic and calculations, I can account for the 1500 deer you are wondering about.


I'm not saying accounting for the deer is the problem, I'm just saying that by those numbers estimates are flawed.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And I'm saying that your assumptions and calculations you are using to bash them are flawed. So where does that leave us?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Are your spikes safe though?


Yes, his spikes are safe. Now if they would just do something about keeping those wasatch front city slickers off of his mountain everything would be just peachy.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Yes, his spikes are safe. Now if they would just do something about keeping those wasatch front city slickers off of his mountain everything would be just peachy.


As soon as they keep those southern hillbillies off the wasatch we'll talk. Maybe we need to install a berlin type wall around Payson area...


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

It's gonna take a lot more fencing than that. I mean every unit belongs solely to the people who live no more than fifty miles from its boundaries. After all it is only their tax dollars that are used for all the road maintenance and everything else. People shouldn't even think about crossing state lines to hunt. The nerve of some people.


----------



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

colorcountrygunner said:


> Yes, his spikes are safe. Now if they would just do something about keeping those wasatch front city slickers off of his mountain everything would be just peachy.


If you ever need help hunting down around here just send me a PM


----------



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

TS30 said:


> And I'm saying that your assumptions and calculations you are using to bash them are flawed. So where does that leave us?


My assumptions are based off their numbers. If they're flawed they weren't my flaws I calculated based upon the numbers they released. Population numbers from last year to this year and 80-84% survival rates. If anythig I low balled the entire estimate 80+% survival yielding 600 less deer shows me flaw to yes.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If you ever need help hunting down around here just send me a PM


Thanks for the offer, 1-I. You ain't so bad.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Thanks for the offer, 1-I. You ain't so bad.


He knows a few good areas where you can get some good shooting from the road.;-)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You see where they claim there are 350 elk on the entire Zion unit but are giving out 150 cow tags.:shock:
Sounds like there are a couple of land owners that want the herd thinned out.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> With 80% survival on 7,800 deer, with buck to doe ratios on the unit that would mean around 6,200 would be does total. 80% of that would be 4,960. Now if even 50% successfully had fawns and those fawns made it that would be 2,480 fawns that would make it. Together that equals 7,440. Now roughly 20% more bucks from that number should be 8,928 deer on the unit according to their numbers. But wait there must have been a 100% success rate on te 150 tags they gave out which brings us to 8,778 deer, but the estimate is 7,300. That would mean somewhere during summer there was quite a bit of loss.


A few things: 1) you didn't include any buck harvest numbers in your calculations (656 were estimated to be killed). 2) The 80% survival rates of adults and fawns were statewide estimates not Monroe estimates....what were the Monroe estimates? A drop of those two estimates down to even 70% would really change your numbers. 3)None of the harvest numbers above include depredation (Fee mitigation harvest)...how many deer were killed on depredation hunts (in 2013, for example, more than twice as many does were killed on these hunts as were killed on regular hunts) 4) Have you called Vance and talked to him about any of these questions? Maybe he could explain them better to you...


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

ridgetop said:


> You see where they claim there are 350 elk on the entire Zion unit but are giving out 150 cow tags.:shock:
> Sounds like there are a couple of land owners that want the herd thinned out.


Yeah,

78 Bull Paunsaugunt Elk Permits and 125 Cow Permits on a herd estimated at 175 animals, may be a little extreme.

It seems like some places in Southern Utah, really do not like Elk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Yeah,
> 
> 78 Bull Paunsaugunt Elk Permits and 125 Cow Permits on a herd estimated at 175 animals, may be a little extreme.
> 
> It seems like some places in Southern Utah, really do not like Elk.


Just an FYI--if you were to go back and look at all discussion of the Pauns elk herd by the elk committees, you would find that virtually all interested parties (DWR, BLM, NFS, sporstmen, private landowners etc.) wanted few elk on this unit because of the fear that the elk would negatively affect the deer. This unit's elk herd is being treated similarly to the Henrie's unit elk...

Also, the Zion unit is ruled by private property. The private property owners across this unit have long been sheep ranchers....and sheep compete with elk for feed. So, much of the management of the Zion unit is done in cooperation with these private landowners (hence the open bull and generous cow tags).

Other elk units in southern utah have long been considered by many to be the "best" elk units--Beaver, Monroe, Boulder, Panguitch, Dutton etc. The elk from these units will often travel to and from both the Zion and Pauns units...

....private landowners who raise cattle and alfalfa probably will never be huge elk fans. As much as I don't like it, I can't say I blame them...elk can reek havoc on crops!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wyoming2utah said:


> Just an FYI--if you were to go back and look at all discussion of the Pauns elk herd by the elk committees, you would find that virtually all interested parties (DWR, BLM, NFS, sporstmen, private landowners etc.) wanted few elk on this unit because of the fear that the elk would negatively affect the deer. This unit's elk herd is being treated similarly to the Henrie's unit elk...
> 
> Also, the Zion unit is ruled by private property. The private property owners across this unit have long been sheep ranchers....and sheep compete with elk for feed. So, much of the management of the Zion unit is done in cooperation with these private landowners (hence the open bull and generous cow tags).
> 
> ...


I agree, I was just stating it may be a little extreme.

I know a few people that sit on the border of the Pang unit and wait for the elk/deer to be pushed over to the other side.

Those are trophy units for sure, but the others in Southern Utah would rather see the elk disappear.

Giving out more tags than you have animals for doesn't seem like a great idea though.

Giving more higher success hunts (Longer Season) will be in my mind a better solution than giving out more tags than you have animals to fill.

I also think moving elk to supplement other herds would be better than cow/spike tags, but that's like my opinion, man.


----------



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

It's simple whiney ass landowners get their way.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's simple whiney ass landowners get their way.


In some cases you may be spot on, but I'd hardly call people who are having their livelihood decimated by wildlife "whiney ass" people. If elk were regularly coming into my cubical, bashing my computer and spreading my files all over the place, I'd probably want someone to help control the populations too.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's simple whiney ass landowners get their way.


Maybe....but, at least in the case of the Zion unit, more elk on all that private land would hardly do you or any of us any good unless we have access to all that private land.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I agree, I was just stating it may be a little extreme.


I don't think it is extreme at all...did you look at the objectives of those units? Also, if you look at these hunts closer, you will find that both are coming with a warning that they are tough hunts with lots of private land....success rates will not be exceptionally high!

Personally, I would always much rather have the option to hunt and harvest an animal than see the DWR foot a very expensive bill that moving animals would require....


----------



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

willfish4food said:


> In some cases you may be spot on, but I'd hardly call people who are having their livelihood decimated by wildlife "whiney ass" people. If elk were regularly coming into my cubical, bashing my computer and spreading my files all over the place, I'd probably want someone to help control the populations too.


In very very few cases that I've seen, they are just whiney individuals who blame deer/elk because a corn cob is missing. In very few cases have I seen a legitimate decimation of anyone's livelihood by wildlife. In fact I have never seen it. What I've seen is landowners who don't want fewer deer/elk, but no deer/elk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

More thoughts on the zion and pauns elk tags: 
1) both units are over objective
2) both units have been over objective since at least 2011
3) both units have increasing elk herds
4) both units have had slowly increasing numbers of cow tags
5) bordering units are also all over objective


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wyoming2utah said:


> I don't think it is extreme at all...did you look at the objectives of those units? Also, if you look at these hunts closer, you will find that both are coming with a warning that they are tough hunts with lots of private land....success rates will not be exceptionally high!
> 
> Personally, I would always much rather have the option to hunt and harvest an animal than see the DWR foot a very expensive bill that moving animals would require....


It's 140 for the Pauns and they are at 175 estimated.

Muzzy's did well last year. It was either 7 of 8 or 8 of 9 , if I remember correctly - which is why I rolled the dice on it.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wyoming2utah said:


> More thoughts on the zion and pauns elk tags:
> 1) both units are over objective
> 2) both units have been over objective since at least 2011
> 3) both units have increasing elk herds
> ...


Well, it looks like increasing the tags is not working.

Increasing the success of those tags might work. I know the muzzies were good last year, but not so much for everyone else.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Well, it looks like increasing the tags is not working.
> 
> Increasing the success of those tags might work. I know the muzzies were good last year, but not so much for everyone else.


Maybe, but you have to remember that you are talking about a migratory herd. Many of the elk wintering on the Pauns are also not elk that use the area for summer range. So, you could (I don't know what the success rates of cow hunts on the pauns are; I would be interested to see them though) be killing a fairly high percentage of those tags but still getting more elk wintering on the range...they are migrating off other units whose objectives are also being exceeded. I did notice, though, that 80 of the recommended cow tags would be for a "new hunt". I know that a fairly high number of elk are migrating off the Dutton and off the Boulder on to the pauns....both of these units have elk numbers over objective as well and are getting a high number of cow tags too.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I don't think it is extreme at all...did you look at the objectives of those units? Also, if you look at these hunts closer, you will find that both are coming with a warning that they are tough hunts with lots of private land....success rates will not be exceptionally high!
> 
> Personally, I would always much rather have the option to hunt and harvest an animal than see the DWR foot a very expensive bill that moving animals would require....


W2U, you and the DWR are assuming a lot. A lot of people have access to all that private land on the Zion unit and if most of them decide to hunt cows. It could be a 70%+ success. I think it would be a better solution, if there is a concern with a certain herd/land owner problem, then some depredation tags are in order. There are several different herds of elk on the Zion unit that don't ever mingle with each other or cause any problems.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> In very very few cases that I've seen, they are just whiney individuals who blame deer/elk because a corn cob is missing. In very few cases have I seen a legitimate decimation of anyone's livelihood by wildlife. In fact I have never seen it. What I've seen is landowners who don't want fewer deer/elk, but no deer/elk.


Another big problem is elk do a lot of damage to those high mountain fences. Those high mountain fences are meant to be taken down each fall though the winter , so the heavy snow doesn't damage them. A herd of elk can easily push down these fences, letting the cattle to leave the property. Which can cause problems with the other property owners that don't want the cattle on their land.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Ridgetop nailed it. By far the biggest complaint amongst landowners on the Zion unit is fencing damage. The elk do a number on those square link fences in a quick hurry and it doesn't take long for the sheep or cattle to get out and cause headaches for the ranchers. The ranchers I know don't want any elk on the zion unit!

As far as permit numbers are concerned the DWR could double or triple the amount of cow tags and still not put a dent in the herd (the only thing more tags would do is cause even more trespassing than already happens). They rarely have more than a 30% success rate. From my own observations and conversations I've had with the biologist, F&G officers and landowners roughly only about half of the tag holders actually have permission to hunt ANY private land on the unit! It is amazing how many people get a tag and just cruise the right of way roads hoping to see a herd they can go after despite the fact that they do NOT have permission and they simply don't give a **** about the no trespassing signs and orange paint on just about every fence post on the mountain. Another reason it's difficult to drastically reduce the herd population is that once the cow hunts start the elk figure out real quick which properties aren't getting hunted or make it into the park.

The dwr has figured out that very few people who draw Zion cow tags actually have legal access to private land so instead of issuing 300 cow tags they are leaving public permits in the 100-150 range(which will harvest 20 to 40 cows) and starting to issue more landowner mitigation cow tags so that the landowner can give them to people who actually have legal access to their property.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> Ridgetop nailed it. By far the biggest complaint amongst landowners on the Zion unit is fencing damage. The elk do a number on those square link fences in a quick hurry and it doesn't take long for the sheep or cattle to get out and cause headaches for the ranchers. The ranchers I know don't want any elk on the zion unit!
> 
> As far as permit numbers are concerned the DWR could double or triple the amount of cow tags and still not put a dent in the herd (the only thing more tags would do is cause even more trespassing than already happens). They rarely have more than a 30% success rate. From my own observations and conversations I've had with the biologist, F&G officers and landowners roughly only about half of the tag holders actually have permission to hunt ANY private land on the unit! It is amazing how many people get a tag and just cruise the right of way roads hoping to see a herd they can go after despite the fact that they do NOT have permission and they simply don't give a **** about the no trespassing signs and orange paint on just about every fence post on the mountain. Another reason it's difficult to drastically reduce the herd population is that once the cow hunts start the elk figure out real quick which properties aren't getting hunted or make it into the park.
> 
> The dwr has figured out that very few people who draw Zion cow tags actually have legal access to private land so instead of issuing 300 cow tags they are leaving public permits in the 100-150 range(which will harvest 20 to 40 cows) and starting to issue more landowner mitigation cow tags so that the landowner can give them to people who actually have legal access to their property.


makes sense to me but the count of 340 elk on the unit is funny. When ten years ago their count was at 300 and I knew there was a lot more elk on the unit back then too.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

That number is laughable at best! Not trying to start a pissing match with anyone but IMO the way the dwr does their counts is basically just a wild ass guess, nothing more nothing less! 
Last July I must have been really lucky on a morning drive and saw every elk on the unit:shock:!!! At first light I went to check out the giant nursery herd and counted over 240 elk, drove down the road a few miles and found a smaller group of about 60 head, then went to a friends property to check out a bachelor group that had been staying on his place and counted 23 bulls. In a matter of 3 hours I saw every one of the 320ish elk on the unit so I called it a day:mrgreen:.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

huntinfanatic said:


> That number is laughable at best! Not trying to start a pissing match with anyone but IMO the way the dwr does their counts is basically just a wild ass guess, nothing more nothing less!
> Last July I must have been really lucky on a morning drive and saw every elk on the unit:shock:!!! At first light I went to check out the giant nursery herd and counted over 240 elk, drove down the road a few miles and found a smaller group of about 60 head, then went to a friends property to check out a bachelor group that had been staying on his place and counted 23 bulls. In a matter of 3 hours I saw every one of the 320ish elk on the unit so I called it a day:mrgreen:.


Maybe you can tell me were you've been seeing all the extra deer lately on the unit. The DWR says there are 4,500 more deer on the unit since 2011. They sure are not on the Western half of the unit and if they are increasing that much on the Eastern half. Why is the Pauns. not increasing at all, with the same habitat as East Zion?
Something sure doesn't add up with their counts.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

They most definately are not on the west half! IMO the problem with the way they do their population counts is the formula the computer model uses to account for animals that are not seen(unsightability if thats a word). 

This winter I volunteered and went out with a dwr employee a couple days on the western half of the unit and helped with the deer population & b/d ratio classifications. We saw quite a few deer each outing but nowhere near what each area is historically known to hold. I thought for sure the population estimate was going to be the same as the year before or slightly down. I was pretty suprised when the numbers came out. The only thing I can come up with is that the ratio is off on the model and is adding to many deer to account for what is not seen. 

I believe the biologists and officers go out and get the most detailed accurate counts possible and then enter it into the database and the computer butchers it and comes up with some crazy number, in some cases way to high and others way to low.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Why is the Pauns. not increasing at all, with the same habitat as East Zion?
> Something sure doesn't add up with their counts.


Uhhhh...have you ever looked at the buck/doe ratios on the Pauns vs. the Zion? Also, to say that the East Zion and Pauns have the same habitat is totally false...we are talking about two totally different unit...and vastly different terrain.

As far as elk counts go, you guys have to remember that elk are migratory. One one day they can be all over a unit and the next they might be on a totally different unit.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

A lot of the Pauns deer herd winters on Zion. East Zion and Pauns is the same habitat excluding the North end Kaibab area on Pauns.


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

So kinda off topic but yet not. Does anyone have any reports from the rac's and how the numbers were represented there?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The only one that didnt pass as presented was Wasatch elk.......^^^^^
( At the central RAC )


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

I had to wonder just were the heck all the 5 to 6 year old bulls were that they claim were harvested on the oquirh standsbury unit was this year until I remembered that a third of the total harvest comes of the cwmu part in Kennecott they figure that bunch in and one can see how the can jack up the figures for the whole unit. we watched a lot of bulls get hammered this year epically on the late hunt and only 4 were even close to age objectives. do they even bother to check with the hunters on the non cwmu part of the unit if not it just might be a good idea to do so.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Uhhhh...have you ever looked at the buck/doe ratios on the Pauns vs. the Zion? Also, to say that the East Zion and Pauns have the same habitat is totally false...we are talking about two totally different unit...and vastly different terrain.
> 
> As far as elk counts go, you guys have to remember that elk are migratory. One one day they can be all over a unit and the next they might be on a totally different unit.


Uhhhh....sometimes it's fun to see try to put me in my place and read how much you think you know about the Southern units but your the one that's way off base on this subject. 
You have no idea what the Zion elk herds are like and where they winter.
The only difference between East Zion and the Pauns. is a 2 lane road between the two. Have you even flown over the two units in the same hour?
I have and they look pretty much the same from the air as they do from driving the hundred + miles of 2 track roads on both units.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

mack1950 said:


> I had to wonder just were the heck all the 5 to 6 year old bulls were that they claim were harvested on the oquirh standsbury unit was this year until I remembered that a third of the total harvest comes of the cwmu part in Kennecott they figure that bunch in and one can see how the can jack up the figures for the whole unit. we watched a lot of bulls get hammered this year epically on the late hunt and only 4 were even close to age objectives. do they even bother to check with the hunters on the non cwmu part of the unit if not it just might be a good idea to do so.


I know of three bulls that were killed on the muzzy that went between 330-360" and were 5+ years old. 
Two were taken on private property though.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Uhhhh....sometimes it's fun to see try to put me in my place and read how much you think you know about the Southern units but your the one that's way off base on this subject.
> You have no idea what the Zion elk herds are like and where they winter.
> The only difference between East Zion and the Pauns. is a 2 lane road between the two. Have you even flown over the two units in the same hour?
> I have and they look pretty much the same from the air as they do from driving the hundred + miles of 2 track roads on both units.


No...you are right I have no clue. I only lived and run around on that mountain for more than half my life! I only hunt the **** thing every year....You can't tell me that the Kolob area and Cedar Mountain areas are anything like the Pauns....look again at those summer ranges. And, yes, many of the deer from those areas drop off on to the east zion and the sands.

Yeah...that road separates those two units along with miles and miles of land between much of the summer ranges and winter ranges. You think that those two units have the exact same amount of rainfall each year? The same exact weather? Snowfall? The same amount of food? Good grief, they are two totally different areas...so as similar as some of the terrain and vegetation is, they will never be the same habitats. Then, you have two vastly different buck/doe ratios which also will ultimately vastly affect the number of fawns recruited into the herd. Good hell, wise guy, look at the fawn/doe ratios for each unit and you can see why one is growing and the other one is not.....don't you think that has something to do with habitat?

The elk populations on the zion unit fluctuates big time from summer to winter because of the movement of elk to and from the Panguitch unit. Come winter, though, there aren't too many elk anymore up around deep creek, crystal creek, kolob reservoir, the peak, down in webster's or even around shurtz canyon...too dang much snow! Do you even realize that the population estimate for this unit is a WINTER estimate and not a summer one?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> No...you are right I have no clue. I only lived and run around on that mountain for more than half my life! I only hunt the **** thing every year....You can't tell me that the Kolob area and Cedar Mountain areas are anything like the Pauns....look again at those summer ranges. And, yes, many of the deer from those areas drop off on to the east zion and the sands.
> 
> Yeah...that road separates those two units along with miles and miles of land between much of the summer ranges and winter ranges. You think that those two units have the exact same amount of rainfall each year? The same exact weather? Snowfall? The same amount of food? Good grief, they are two totally different areas...so as similar as some of the terrain and vegetation is, they will never be the same habitats. Then, you have two vastly different buck/doe ratios which also will ultimately vastly affect the number of fawns recruited into the herd. Good hell, wise guy, look at the fawn/doe ratios for each unit and you can see why one is growing and the other one is not.....don't you think that has something to do with habitat?
> 
> The elk populations on the zion unit fluctuates big time from summer to winter because of the movement of elk to and from the Panguitch unit. Come winter, though, there aren't too many elk anymore up around deep creek, crystal creek, kolob reservoir, the peak, down in webster's or even around shurtz canyon...too dang much snow! Do you even realize that the population estimate for this unit is a WINTER estimate and not a summer one?


I make a comment about East Zion(Kane County part of the Zion Unit) and the Pauns. being alike and then you are comparing Kolob instead. 
What's up with that?
I never said Kolob was part of East Zion but if you think it is, then you really don't know the unit too well. 
I have been talking about where the Zion elk winter and you go off subject and start talking about the deer. The Kolob deer do not winter out by the sands and the elk do not winter like the deer do. The elk will stay as high on the mountain as weather dictates. The deer will move 20+ miles overnight just because their parents have always done it in mid October, no matter the weather conditions.
Anyway, I can't believe you don't think the area between Navajo Lake and highway 89 is not like the Pauns. Plateau.
And all the country to the south. Both units have the pink cliffs, both have the white cliffs and both have vast sagebrush flats and mesas.
I guess we sure do look at things much differently.
About the B/D ratios. 
Zion has a 23/100 ratio which you and many other option 2 haters have said a ratio that high will only bring a unit down in numbers.
Even with a high B/D ratio, the Zion unit has increased by 30% in the past three years according the DWR numbers.
Maybe a 20/100 B/D ratio really is not as bad as you guys have made it out to be.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

The only difference between the summer range of east Zion and the Pauns is that Cedar Mt is covered with cabins and the pauns Plateau is not. Same elevation , same habitat pretty much same weather. Pretty much same Mt with a HWY 89 splitting them. The Zion elk , for the most part, winter above the Whites just like a lot of the Pauns elk do. A lot of Pauns Plateau elk also migrate to the south end of Dutton to winter.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I make a comment about East Zion(Kane County part of the Zion Unit) and the Pauns. being alike and then you are comparing Kolob instead.
> What's up with that?
> Because many of the deer including many of the KOLOB deer winter on the sands....I know that because I have watched them not only move off that mountain myself, but because I have hunted private property up there throughout my life! I have a good friend with property near Miner's Peak....they have an ATV trail off their property that runs clear off the mountain towards Zion....the deer head down that canyon virtually every year and his rifle hunt all depends on whether those deer have dropped off or not!
> I never said Kolob was part of East Zion but if you think it is, then you really don't know the unit too well.
> ...


By the way, I can't wait for the ice to come off Navajo, so I can get up there and do some fishing...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> _I make a comment about East Zion(Kane County part of the Zion Unit) and the Pauns. being alike and then you are comparing Kolob instead.
> What's up with that?
> Because many of the deer including many of the KOLOB deer winter on the sands....I know that because I have watched them not only move off that mountain myself, but because I have hunted private property up there throughout my life! I have a good friend with property near Miner's Peak....they have an ATV trail off their property that runs clear off the mountain towards Zion....the deer head down that canyon virtually every year and his rifle hunt all depends on whether those deer have dropped off or not!
> I never said Kolob was part of East Zion but if you think it is, then you really don't know the unit too well.
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > _I make a comment about East Zion(Kane County part of the Zion Unit) and the Pauns. being alike and then you are comparing Kolob instead.
> ...


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks for the RAC update EFA. I am glad to hear thats the reason for no doe hunts on the unit! There is no doubt the unit can handle many more deer than there currently are and that an objective of 9,000 is way to low if there really are 15,000 at this time. The only precedence I hope it sets is that it OK to have thriving deer herds! I think leaving general season permit numbers the same as last year or even the recommended increase of 100 is good from the aspect of hunter crowding on public land. You know well that with the amount of private and park on the unit that the only thing adding more general season permits will do is lower the overall hunting experience for the public land hunter by concentrating hunters into small areas. If harvesting more deer on the Zion unit is necessary I think adding more late season muzzy tags would be the way to go instead of sandwiching as many hunters as possible onto the limited public land during the general hunt. 
What were the RACs comments and recommendations on the late muzzy hunt?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

huntinfanatic said:


> Thanks for the RAC update EFA. I am glad to hear thats the reason for no doe hunts on the unit! There is no doubt the unit can handle many more deer than there currently are and that an objective of 9,000 is way to low if there really are 15,000 at this time. The only precedence I hope it sets is that it OK to have thriving deer herds! I think leaving general season permit numbers the same as last year or even the recommended increase of 100 is good from the aspect of hunter crowding on public land. You know well that with the amount of private and park on the unit that the only thing adding more general season permits will do is lower the overall hunting experience for the public land hunter by concentrating hunters into small areas. If harvesting more deer on the Zion unit is necessary I think adding more late season muzzy tags would be the way to go instead of sandwiching as many hunters as possible onto the limited public land during the general hunt.
> What were the RACs comments and recommendations on the late muzzy hunt?


I'll answer your last question first. They recommended that the late muzzy permits be reduced to 3 along with eliminating the recommended general hunt increase of 100 buck tags. In total, they voted to eliminate 1,050 of the recommended 2,250 general statewide buck tag increase, though they approved the recommended statewide antlerless deer tag numbers.

As for your other statements:
1) I think you're missing my point about setting precedence. Maybe the population objective increase is justified on this unit at this time and maybe it's not, but at what point do we stop increasing the objectives and start issuing tags and on how many units will this be the case? Or was that just a ploy to create 30 units which will eventually be turned into official Limited Entry units once they reach the population objectives and buck to doe ratios that qualify for LE? The move in that direction has already started!

2) You're missing the fact that there are landowners on that unit (and others) that also have to draw tags to hunt their own property. Not all of the "public" are outsiders! And there are landowners who don't want deer or elk on their property and are glad to have hunters there, sometimes for a fee! Not all of the private property is closed.

3) You're also assuming that "overcrowding" spoils the hunting experience for everybody. That simply is not the case! In fact, I'm happy to have all you guys chasing the animals around so that I don't have to risk my health by hiking all over. I grew up when there were twice as many hunters as there are now and some of my fondest memories were of strangers helping us out by offering to push deer out of timber or draws. Of course, in those days we weren't so worried about the size of the antlers. And, FWIW, I 'm still not! And I'm not alone!

4) You're also assuming or hoping that the favorable winter weather will continue to hold, but most of the concern for increasing the deer and elk herds in the Zion, Pine Valley, SW Desert and Panguitch Lake units beyond the objectives came from ranchers who have already lost much of their private land grazing to the DROUGHT (and wildlife). They don't want more wildlife! Also, with the dry forage, let's see how the fire season plays out!

It's great to see an increase! So, my question is: When does it pay off for the "public"? Or does it?


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks for the response to my question. I'm a little suprised that they thought 10 muzzleloader tags was to many. I hope the WB will choose to go with the DWR recommendation.
As to your comments on landowners and private property, I obviously know it is not all closed! I also realize landowners aren't increasing access to their property when the wildlife board increases permits. Most ranches have the same number of hunters each year regardless of permit numbers. 
I know dozens of landowners on the unit and very rarely does one not get a deer tag if they really want one. There are plenty of ways for landowners to end up with a tag. They can put in the general season draw and if they dont get one there they can apply for a general season landowner permit, and now for smaller land owners who don't qualify for those tags they can apply for a landowner appreciation permit. The landowners don't have it as hard as you make it sound.
To answer your question I think it's paying off now!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

huntingfanatic,

I'm not even a little bit surprised they thought 10 muzz tags was too many. I've seen this pattern with the southern RAC. They are adverse to any tag increases. Option 2 was a sucker punch to the general hunters. Zion is 6000 deer over object, 24 b/d ratio for 4 years in a row, and they vote to increase Zion tags by 3 - (and the RAC says DWR logic is hard to follow?) 

My dad agrees with elkfaboves sentiments 100% on pressure. He preferred the days where the deer got pushed. I guess I agree also in that I hunt the Salt Lake area when I don't draw southern. I see a lot more deer opening morning because there is a lot of pressure. 

I have to agree with you about the ranchers. I sympathize with them, but I'll start to buy into it when "no trespassing" signs are converted to "elk hunters welcome... call for instructions." I also agree that the west side of Zion used to hold a lot more deer.


----------

