I think as implemented, there is NO "benifit" to the elk and very little benifit to hunters as a whole. I am assuming you are talking about the elk management tags implemented on four LE units. :?:TargetProne said:What do you think is the benifit of management hunts?
The key word is intended. What will 10 archery tags on the San Juan do to the bull/cow ratio? Even if all 10 killed, very doubtful, it would lower the ratio to what? The implemented management tag was/is nowhere near what the elk planning committee recommended, IF they had implemented the plan recommended by the committee it MAY have benefitted the herd, in reality this will do little to help the serious problems facing these units on the bull/cow ratios, which is getting very close to having, in the words of Craig McLaughlin, a crash of the herds on these four units with several others not far behind. But, as long as it was intended to do good things, it's all good I suppose, results be damned.wyoming2utah said:The intended benefit of management hunts was to bring bull/cow ratios down without hurting quality. Simply by adding numbers of tags to the total numbers of LE tags on these management units, the DWR has benefitted the herd. Had they not added these extra tags, the bull/cow ratios would have been higher.
Every additional bull killed helps...does it not?proutdoors said:What will 10 archery tags on the San Juan do to the bull/cow ratio? Even if all 10 killed, very doubtful, it would lower the ratio to what?
WOW! Good response. Since this is going south real fast, I will resist typing anything further on this. Have a good day wyo2ut, your maturity and wisdom today is astounding!wyoming2utah said:
Spare me your hypocrisy...it is ok for you to "take jabs" but when I do I am being immature? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...proutdoors said:WOW! Good response. Since this is going south real fast, I will resist typing anything further on this. Have a good day wyo2ut, your maturity and wisdom today is astounding!
Not sure why, but I'll answer your post.wyoming2utah said:Spare me your hypocrisy...it is ok for you to "take jabs" but when I do I am being immature? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...proutdoors said:WOW! Good response. Since this is going south real fast, I will resist typing anything further on this. Have a good day wyo2ut, your maturity and wisdom today is astounding!
The funny thing about management tags and what has been done with our elk management is that you complain when more tags are being given out...isn't this exactly what our herds need? Don't we need to shoot more elk on these units? Won't even "slight" increases as the DWR has been purposefully recommending help?
The funny thing is that you have repeatedly said that the DWR can't give out enough tags to reach objectives because the public won't allow it, so we should come up with a new plan--like I400--to find a way of getting the numbers back down to meet objectives. Yet, every time the DWR does give out more tags and even when the DWR does recommend new ways of giving out more tags, you and the public complain. I find this exceptionally ironic. Are you truly concerned about the herd health, or are you more concerned with your own agenda? It seems to me that you should applaud any increase in tags because it will ONLY help alleviate the problems you have identified--1) bull/cow ratios 2) low draw odds. And, the DWR is supposed to--at least according to you :roll:--listen to the public first BEFORE following biological needs...isn't that what you have said in other threads?
Out of curiosity, what do you think will be different with your plan? Why will the public suddenly embrace this plan...as you seem to think :roll: ? Also, out of curiosity, have you ever asked any of the region/unit managers why they do NOT recommend giving out more tags?
I knew you would respond...you can't help it!proutdoors said:Not sure why, but I'll answer your post.
1)I don't dislike the management tags because of it adding more tags, it is because of how they are doing it and with the number of tags issue don the San Juan it won't lower the bull/cow ratio by any measurable amount. My point is the plan recommended by the elk committee, IMHO would have helped more than what was implemented.
2)Again, where have I complained about increases in tag numbers? What I see is bull/cow ratios getting worse by the year, odds of drawing worse by the year, harvest age averages staying/cllimbing above objectives every year. I have NEVER opposed tag increasements, to assert otherwise is a lie!
3)I never implied that the entire 'public' would/will suddenly embrace I400. I do believe however that more people will like it than hate it. You feel differently, go figure. As to satisfy your 'curiousity', I HAVE asked the region/unit managers and their bosses why they do NOT recommend giving out more tags, in fact I asked Anis(their boss) that very question last night. I got the same answer from EVERY one of them. In short, the EMP dictates what direction the DWR MUST manage the herds toward. They also have to deal with the politics involved in tag increases, and in the end, the Wildlife Board decides how many tags to issue, NOT the DWR, and the DWR feels if they ask for too high of increases they may get none, so they feel going in with lower numbers improves the odds of getting SOME increases. You mistake, intentionally I believe, my stance on the tag numbers. I am 100% in favor of issuing more tags on most, if not all LE units(even 'my' LE unit). I am completely in favor of utilizing the great resource we have in the elk here in Utah. I believe there are several issues that can be 'tweaked' to improve this. Just because I think the ball was dropped into the muck on the 'management tag' does NOT mean I oppose tag increases to lower the bull/cow ratios, I had direct input into what was recommended by the elk committee to INCREASE tags on these 4 LE units. It just means I think they implemented a seriously flawed tag. How is that opposing tag increases? Nonsensical!