Utah Wildlife Forum banner

2023 Swan Hunt Recommendations are Out

8K views 120 replies 27 participants last post by  goosefreak 
#1 ·
#15 · (Edited)
To be fair, they did restrict the killing of them. That's what the limit was about and why we had a safeguard in place. Unfortunately enough hunters either misidentified them or intentionally targeted them that the historical justification for the cooperative based policy was no longer tenable. We are now in a full compliance framework and those who truly shoot a trumpeter accidentally will suffer the consequences because enough people the last 4 years intentionally targeted them.

A few bad apples can truly spoil the barrel, as our hunting community just learned.

I for one hate it when our communities justify this type of increase in oversight. This eliminates much of the leniency for honest mistakes that agencies tried to provide us. But it's an all too common reality for stakeholders.

I hope the state acted swiftly enough to prevent an escalation in federal policy. If so, then maybe we can recover in the near future and facilitate the opening of a legitimate trumpeter season down the road.

If I read the information correctly this means killing a trumpeter is poaching and could possibly qualify the reporting of such action for rewards. I'd love to see anyone out in the marsh intentionally targeting trumpeters or trying to hide the kill of a trumpeter (already discussed here) fully prosecuted under the law.
 
#5 ·
Wow!--I am surprised the DWR went full DEFCON 1 in the Swan world. Welp--the trumpeter targetors are gonna be sore but when ya kick the dog, it can bite ya. Going to be interesting to see how many trumpeters get killed this fall. I will laugh my head off if they can now make it through the whole season without closing early. That would really show that this was a targeted bird as apposed to mistaken identity.

I don't really waterfowl hunt but I have killed a tundra swan. I don't think I've ever seen a trumpeter, my friends tell me the difference is obvious. When I swan hunt again I will carry some binoculars just in case.
 
#8 ·
Yay! More rules!!

I'm betting even more trumpeters are stomped, not reported, or unrecovered than ever before.

This is a "feel good" tactic that will not stop the trumpeter targeters.

Having a set limit on the number legally allowable to be shot was a good thing imo. A slush fund for truly accidental take was a realistic expectation for this hunt. Ultimately honest people will continue to be honest. What really should be done is the areas with higher concentrations of trumps (PSG) should be closed to the taking of all swans.
 
#9 ·
Unfortunately, this will just result in many “not found” birds that will end up planted in the mud and become one with the ecosystem. Not only for the adult birds, but any juvy birds in question will certainly get stomped as well. The circle of life…

it will be interesting to see how they handle juvy swans that measure bigger than “normal” when checked in… swan hunting just got a whole lot scarier. You’re not just looking at state penalties, this is federal stuff too. They are trying to bandaid a bullet hole. I believe there were better solutions than this, but it is what it is. Can’t wait to watch the WB discuss this one. Half of those guys up have probably never seen a wild swan, unless they are counting the ones swimming around the castle at Disney land.

another question, now that it’s illegal to shoot them (probably), will the 5 year wait period still apply to the 20 guys who shot one during the 1 season that rule was in play?
 
#13 ·
This was a likely outcome given the trend the last four years. A community that doesn't self police ends up with more regulations.

It will be interesting to see if this is done in concert with federal changes. The Pacific Flyway council had their general meeting in late March. I can't find any minutes from the meeting but it wouldn't be shocking if the Utah situation was actively discussed in preparation for their August regulation meetings.

We'll learn a lot about our fellow hunters based upon how they respond if/when these new state rules are passed. It's one of the many canaries we keep sending down the coal mine.
 
#22 ·
I think the excuse that “a bunch of birds will now get stomped” is a bit overblown. Sure, it will happen, but I think we over-hype that outcome too much. Most of the time reality is somewhere around n the middle and not on the extremes.

I do dislike that you could get penalized for unknowingly shooting a juvy bird. That is scary IMO. I guess you don’t shoot until you’ve heard said bird vocally? I’ve never shot a swan (never really cared to), but they have peaked my interest the past couple years, so I’m building points. Doubt I get a tag this fall, but next year should be doable.

And to the question of whether the DWR will/could confiscate legally taken taxidermies trumps, that is absolutely ludicrous in my view. I can’t see that happening whatsoever…nor should it.
 
#23 ·
We've gone the rounds on the "should we or shouldn't we" on the trumpeter harvest. If they were to just put a ban in place I do wonder what this will do for truly accidental takes of trumps or even non-trumps that measure a certain way. We know there were non-trumps classified as trumps based upon measurements only, right? It was just a "better safe than sorry" situation based upon the measurements. If you're now making it illegal with criminal penalties, do we need a new way to officially identify a trumpeter vs tundra?

I'll admit I'm a novice swan hunter, but I'd be a little worried swan hunting under a straight ban on trumps. While in most situations it's easier to identify a trump, there are certainly situations where it is not easy, and maybe even impossible from the air.

You seasoned swan hunters...talk me off the ledge.
 
#24 ·
It is no different than looking for a small spike Elk in a herd of cows, you must be sure of your target.
How do you think Trump targeters are successful, they are looking for those differences and they are there if you give the bird time and don’t skybust.
And anyways, there is now no reason for a mandatory Swan check since it most likely will be illegal to hunt Trumpeters.
We don’t have to take a spike Elk in within 72 hours if we are hunting spikes in an area that also has cow Elk in it do we?
You go out, shoot your Swan, and take it home for processing.
If there is a check station and you killed a Trump, you are cited.
Otherwise, carry on and have more fun.
 
#25 ·
If I was a novice swan hunter I would probably skip this year and wait until this all gets settled out. The risk is just too high for mistakes for those who don't want to take any chance of breaking the law.

But we earned this response. DWR and the feds were 100% clear that trumpeters were not the target species. They spent years educating the public on the importance of this distinction. They gave us plenty of opportunity to self correct. Their previous policy shielded those who made honest mistakes from legal penalties. But enough hunters chose to behave otherwise to make that policy untenable.

I sincerely hope the DWR has checkpoints setup at the major marshes and access points that trumpeter harvest was a problem the last four years. The new policy has to have teeth to alter the outcome. And, I feel for the novices caught up in this mess. Our community failed them.
 
#26 ·
Mr Shane, I don’t view this at all like the spike hunt. You don’t hunt elk and swans even close to the same. And we have a characteristic that absolutely makes it a legal spike vs not a legal spike, and that is by definition. It is defined, clear, and you are able to ascertain that by looking closely. What is the definition of a tundra swan? If I understand things properly, there are known tundras that get classified as trumps due to measurements, and known trumps that get classified as non-trumps due to the measurement. Is that correct? If so, that is HUGELY problematic for this rule. If it’s a tundra only hunt, this known misclassification can’t continue. Also, the whole purpose of the quota is because they know there are times where you simply can’t tell the difference, and that is what the quota was supposed to account for.

Also, the mandatory measurement of the head within 3 days is still in place. That is not going away. Go read page 76 of the packet.

Backcountry, I don’t disagree with your statement, but I think it actually illustrates my concern about this perfectly.

If I was a novice swan hunter I would probably skip this year and wait until this all gets settled out. The risk is just too high for mistakes for those who don't want to take any chance of breaking the law.
We should never create a law that there is significant of a chance of innocently breaking that people should just simply avoid the activity. There is nothing right about that kind of a regulation, and everything wrong about it. Not just with swan hunting, that is just a general principle. I just could never get on board with a regulation or law that is that hard to follow even for people that want to follow it. That is a very bad law/regulation.

A hunting regulation that makes it so new people can’t get into the game and leave it only to the seasoned pros? Heck no! I would oppose ANY regulation that did this.
 
#27 ·
Like I said, If this goes through, you’re going to have scenarios where honest people panic and don’t claim a bird that otherwise would have been tagged and checked in. It’s going to happen. No way are most people going to volunteer themselves for a possible felony charge when an honest mistake was made.
 
#28 · (Edited)
It's not my preference either but hunters chose to eliminate one of the best alternatives with their behavior the last four years.

The closure of trumpeter heavy hunting grounds is another option but that would involve eliminating all swan hunting there. That also has unfortunate downstream effects that have to be factored in.

The reality of hunting in general does require discernment on the part of the hunter though. If we truly care about conservation then we know that sometimes means penalizing hunters for shooting non-target species is necessary. It's not unusual to expect hunters to make important decisions while carrying their firearm in the field. That is true for big game (though noticeably different) as well as waterfowl throughout that long season. And unfortunately the stakes are always higher for novices still learning the ropes.

But we as a community eliminated the friendliest option for those novices when we equivocated about the tundra swan hunt the last four years. We had the opportunity to show we self-policed our own community. Unfortunately there are enough hunters in our community who are more than happy to intentionally target trumpeters despite adequate and persistent warnings.

Make no mistake, this is far from ideal. I prefer cooperative based policy in which we show agencies we don't need a heavier hand to balance out our desire to hunt with long term conservation goals. My hope at this point is the agency staffs the field heavily enough to catch those individuals who intentionally target trumpeters AND/OR disguise the shooting of them. I hope they go after those people with the full force of the law. As well, I hope they show leniency to those who accidentally shot trumpeters so long as evidence supports that (or there is a lack of evidence supporting the alternative conclusion).

We unfortunately have plenty of laws that deal in this less than ideal territory. Sometimes they lead to truly unfortunate outcomes. But they often can be implemented to prevent the undesired outcomes while also reducing liability for those making genuine mistakes.

But until the community and agencies deal with the selfish hunters who catalyzed this change in policy we are only going to continue to see the problem persist. Hence, "a few bad apples spoil the bunch". We ignore the ending and primary message of that cliche at our own peril.
 
#29 ·
Different hypothetical scenario:

Unit X has a deer hunt. It's a draw hunt, stating that either sex can be taken. However, as soon as 20 does are killed, the season is closed. Opening morning comes and after hiking into a canyon, a big ol' doe is feeding 100 yards away.

Are you going to shoot?

People need to stop expecting others to give a **** about their situations (i.e. the sobs stories about not being able to get off work and hunt swans until around Thanksgiving, but the season being closed early). Life isn't fair, it's not supposed to be. Those who work the hardest, or the smartest, are the ones that enjoy life. The rest sit on the sideline and whine and complain. Alan Watts once said, "It's better to live a short life that is full of what you like doing, than a long life spent in a miserable way."
 
#31 ·
The “hunters ruined it” argument is not persuasive to me to implement this regulation. Yes, targeting trumps was going to bring further regulation. They already put the waiting period in place, yet they are not waiting to see if that works. Heck, they could even make trump shooting a lifetime waiting period on swans and it would be infinitely better than this regulation.

Bad behavior by one party or group does not justify bad policy or behavior in response. It never has, and never will.

If you’re creating a law that has a high chance of innocent violations by people trying to follow the law, then that is a bad law. Period. There is no justification for bad laws.
 
#35 ·
Who else was responsible for needing policy change except hunters? If we don't take responsibility for the last four years then it's unlikely we'll see meaningful change in behavior nor will we likely rebound to the point of ideally getting to the place of an actual trumpeter swan hunt. Resource management always has and always will be about managing people as much as the resource itself. It's never been otherwise.

How our community responds to such challenges is a huge component of these scenarios. And if we fail to take accountability for this outcome then we are setting up ourselves and future hunters for failure.

I understand you believe this is bad policy. I don't. I think it's far from ideal. I personally wouldn't hunt as a novice this year or advocate to friends to do so. Nor do I think it's going to lead to a bunch novices being completely eliminated from the hunt or suddenly dealing with unacceptable punitive consequences in the years to come. Communities and individuals in them adapt to change. Hunting regulations and ethics are dynamic. We educate ourselves and mentor others accordingly.

The fact is most hunters during the tundra swan hunt don't harvest trumpeters. It will be harder for novices and therefore riskier but by no means is the expectation to only harvest tundra swans unrealistic or impossible . Nor are we likely to see a massive campaign to aggressively prosecute novices for honest mistakes.

We chose this gray area as a hunting community though. We are accountable and are the ones to deal with the consequences. We aren't victims of an over reaction. The agencies spent years educating us and warning us about the intent of the hunt and possible consequences. None of the options in our path are ideal any longer.

The hunting community at large and the swan hunting community in particular would be wise to learn lessons from this outcome. Swan hunters would be wise to organize an education and outreach program this year. They would be wise to encourage not only a stringent tundra only ethic but also being vocal in the field about those that continue to play with fire. I sincerely hope hunters actively report people who engage in poaching and/or waste of trumpeters this autumn. Without a very public and sincere effort to address this problem we are only likely to see more severe and punitive policy in the years to come.

And that includes ending the use of "quota" for the trumpeter harvest we saw the last four years in a way that makes it seem analogous to other game animals. It never was the same and how we communicate these things influences field behavior.

Change starts with accountability. I hope our community chooses to own this, and soon. Very soon, as this informs more than just swan hunting.
 
#32 ·
I guess the big question will be what are the consequences for killing a trumpeter. If it's Felony charge, loss of hunting rights and firearm rights?--well in that case it just ain't worth hunting swans at all. Now if the penalty is confiscation of trumpeter, $250 fine, maybe swan hunt ban for 5 years, and nothing more...well that might be worth the risk. Really this all comes down to what happens if you kill a trumpeter.
 
#33 ·
This☝

Also, I was wondering about the definitions that will be used to determine what constitutes a Trumpeter? Overall size?, beak length? , other? The call the bird made would be impossible to prove in a dead bird at a checking station. I suspect how a "Trumpeter" is defined will go a long way in determining whether this new rule will result in an "excrement" show or a good rule.
 
#34 ·
Even if it’s just a small fine and confiscation of the bird, that’s still at a minimum a class B misdemeanor on your criminal record that will follow you for a long time.

All when someone is actively trying to follow the law doing an otherwise lawful activity that may be impossible to differentiate between the two species. Or even worse- based upon prior practices, a 100% legal bird by species but illegal simply because of a line they set for measurement purposes that all stemmed around the prior quota.
 
#38 ·
Even if it’s just a small fine and confiscation of the bird, that’s still at a minimum a class B misdemeanor on your criminal record that will follow you for a long time.
Couldn't they classify it as an infraction or a class C misdemeanor much like a speeding ticket? I'm no lawyer but I did take a business law class in 2005 so I'm kind of a big deal
 
#37 · (Edited)
I'm glad you'll be communicating with them. I hope you recommend an alternative that leads to a reduction in trumpeter harvest, legal consequences for those that don't abide policy and some leniency for honest mistakes.

And my comment and it's context doesn't justify a conclusion it's a bad policy. It exposes I'm a low risk individual who likes to see how things shake out before engaging in behavior in the spotlight. I don't like to be the test case with such public spectacle. I don't want to be the poster child for anti-hunters looking for ammunition we voluntarily hand them. I would hope anyone that applies this year takes into account that their actions carry more import than most hunts. There will be a lot of eyes on the outcome this autumn.

You just have to look at the public record to realize identifying tundra swans accurately isn't impossible or the chance of aggressive and disproportionate enforcement and prosecution is unlikely. The state does not have a history of that and that's partly because they care about balancing conservation with hunter opportunity.

I think we can set much higher expectations for our community than we have the last four years. I'm not personally holding my breathe though. I'd say we are 50/50 on turning the corner on this versus continuing to justify an escalation in state & federal policy.

PS...2022 was evidence the 5 year wait period wasn't enough to discourage trumpeter harvest. Was it enough evidence? Mileage will vary. But the season ended sooner and with higher harvest of trumpeters, if my memory serves me correctly. The trend got worse, not better. That's important when evaluating this recommended policy change. And we still don't know what information the state has from the feds regarding their potential response. This may in fact be the state's attempt to ameliorate a more pronounced reaction from the feds.
 
#39 ·
Help me understand- my friend shot a spike elk that didn't end up being a spike. They called it in, the officer came, wrote him a ticket and confiscated the elk. I believe they also took his tag? I am confident that wasn't a felony. I'm fairly confident it didn't even go on his record as anything more than a speeding ticket would. (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)

Or the fellow I saw getting a ticket in the parking lot because he had one too many pintails (thought a hen pin was a mallard). He was written a ticket, the bird was confiscated.
Couldn't the swan issue be a similar scenario? Shoot a trumpeter by accident, self report or get checked, get a ticket, the bird is confiscated, the permit is taken so they can't hunt more swans. Maybe impose a 5 year waiting period?

Don't mature tundras have a yellow patch by the bill and trumpets don't? I have to know what a hen pintail vs hen mallard or redhead vs can back. Is it really that hard to identify the difference on a mature bird? I'd like some more info from you guys.
 
#40 · (Edited)
Amazing how someone with no personal experience on a topic can write paragraphs on it…

To answer your question, Here’s where it gets really scary. The pursuit of the loss of rights and other consequences, many times is left up to the officers to decide if further action is necessary. So let’s say you have someone with a past conviction, and they honest to God shoot one on accident, what might just be a simple fine for someone else with a clean record, can turn into an absolute nightmare for someone else, if the officer chooses to do that. I don’t support this proposal at all, but if that’s the route we go, there needs to be a clear, set in stone, this is what’s going to happen to you if you shoot one punishment that we are all aware of before we even apply for permits. Because as it stands now, one person can get a ticket and another could lose rights, for the same crime, with the same intent.
 
#42 ·
The DWR does not get to determine what the criminal penalty for illegal taking of protected wildlife. Only the legislature does that. The legislature gives the board authority to declare seasons, bad limits, methods of takes, etc. But the penalties are set by the legislature.

As it sits right now, the basic penalty for an illegal take of protected wildlife is a class B misdemeanor. That is any illegal take, intentional or not.

The ante get upped if there is knowing or intentional acts (IE- wanton destruction of protected wildlife). The legislature has set “value” in dollar amounts on specific animals to determine what level of offense applies. Value less than $250 is a class B. $250-$500 is a class A misdemeanor. $500+ is a 3rd degree felony. As an FYI- a swan is classified in statute as worth $100.

(There are more options here that can enhance penalties and gets more nuanced, but they don’t really apply to what I’m describing as an otherwise law abiding hunter doing their best to follow the laws and 100% mistakenly takes a trump thinking it’s a tundra.)

The maximum penalties for a class B misdemeanor in Utah are as follows:
-Up to $1000 fine plus surcharge (making it closer to $1,900)
-Up to 180 days (6 months) in jail
(In this type of case, $100 restitution for the bird.)

The case will definitely start with the issuing of a citation by an officer. It is possible a prosecutor may offer a plea in abeyance which could keep this off someone’s record. That is not guaranteed, however. Some may be more willing to work with them, and others may not. It all depends on the luck of the draw.

I know this violation could potentially cause me some real issues with my employment and career. It’s definitely not equivalent to a speeding ticket. And I haven’t even started to mention what B&D mentioned with potential hunting privilege sanctions for the future.

I think it would be A LOT easier to mistake a trump for a tundra than mistakenly shooting an elk that doesn’t meet the definition of a spike. Again, let’s not forget the entire purpose of the trump quota is an acknowledgment that differentiation can be very difficult to impossible at times.
 
#68 · (Edited)
I think it would be A LOT easier to mistake a trump for a tundra than mistakenly shooting an elk that doesn’t meet the definition of a spike. Again, let’s not forget the entire purpose of the trump quota is an acknowledgment that differentiation can be very difficult to impossible at times.
This flies the face of basic hunter safety, the first basic and simple hurdle to acquire a hunting license.
If your not sure of your target, do not shoot.

If someone is bombing away at distances, they can't distinguish what they are shooting at......probably not a good idea.
If someone is shooting in low light conditions that they can't distinguish what they are shooting at.....probably not a good idea.
If someone doesn't know what they are shooting at and they shoot it anyway.......probably not a good idea.
If someone is shooting a protected species intentionally......probably not a good idea.

If it is difficult to near impossible to determine whether it's a Tundra or Trumpeter swan and Trumpeters are a protected species, the feds should reconsider, at least in Utah, whether there should be a swan hunt at all.
 
#43 ·
The fine and record concern is fair. I tend to agree the optimal situation is to avoid ensnaring accidental mistakes in the legal system, or at least to that degree. And we had a policy that surpassed that standard and we failed to live up to our end of the bargain.

And there are other options, including closing the public lands with the heaviest trumpeter harvest during the swan season. They could also close all swan hunting down in the state. Hopefully those in favor of alternatives speak up.

How they delineate species will also be very important.

And....hunters do have a choice when they pull the trigger. Are you confident you have correctly identified a tundra swan? The history of this hunt would indicate most hunters who harvest a swan are capable of that distinction and discretion. That seems to undermine the argument it's remotely "impossible" to do so.

Per difficult, the hunting community has long prided itself on skill. We practice shooting before we hit the field so our shots are accurate and precise. We learn to stalk and move through the field in a manner that reduces the wildlife's awareness of our presence. And we learn to properly identify our target.

For many the difficulty is part of the appeal of the sport. Would the new policy require a cultural change in parts of the community? Quite likely. Maybe it means fewer novices enter the field with a tag until they have mentored with a more experienced hunter for several seasons. Maybe you don't hunt until you've spent considerable time watching both species for several seasons only with glass and guidance.

Maybe it means you teach yourself not to pull the trigger until you are confident it's the correct target. Developing that self-restraint is also a skill. And that might mean you only shoot adults that present an obvious morphological difference that screams "I'm a tundra swan".

And maybe some never hunt. That's also appropriate. Some people aren't skilled enough to minimize the potential risk. That's already true now with every type of hunting.

And it would be wise to recognize there remains a scenario in which trumpeter numbers continue to increase yet are never a legal target. That will make proper identification all the more important.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top