Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 169 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
)In 1989 Utah began issuing spike tags to increase the number of mature bulls on many of the elk units in Utah. The idea was to allow a certain percentage of the yearling bull elk population to be harvested while restricting the harvest of mature bulls. This also enabled the DWR to issue several thousand spike tags with very low harvest numbers, allowing for many people the opportunity to hunt yearly with reduced harvest of the bull population compared to the OTC any-bull tag policy that preceded the spike/limited entry policy. We believe the spike tag still has it’s place in the management of both elk and elk hunters. We propose eliminating the issuing of spike tags on the following five units(1): North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and LaSal. We propose introducing spike tags to the following five units(2): San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert. This will allow more bulls to reach maturity on the (1) units increasing the number of mature bulls that can be harvested yearly. These units will also have season date changes that will be addressed in the next paragraph. It will also reduce the bull:cow ratios on the (2) units which currently have an excess of mature bulls. Issuing spike tags for a determined time will reduce the number of bulls being recruited into the mature bull population without affecting quality. This also allows the displaced spike hunters from the (1) units a place to hunt spikes in addition to the increase in mature bull tags in the (1) units as well as an increase in cow tags as the bull:cow ratios come more in line with the current Elk Management Plan. This will minimize the loss of yearly spike tags by redeploying where the spike tags will be issued based on bull:cow ratios and average harvest ages determined by the DWR biologists. As bull:cow ratios become more balanced, more cows will be available for harvest and too increase the recruitment of calves into the herds each year.
2)We propose changing the season dates on the (1) units to the following:
September 1-21 Limited Archery, any-bull
September 26-October 4 Limited Muzzleloader, any-bull
October 6-14 Limited Rifle any-bull on the North Cache, Wasatch, and Nebo units
November 10-16 Limited Rifle any-bull on the Fish Lake and LaSal units
All three seasons Premium Limited any-bull
3)We propose changing tag allotments for the (1) units from 60/25/15 to 50/30/20, meaning changing rifle tags from 60% of the total tags to 50%, archery from 25% of the total tags to 30%, and muzzy from 15% of the tags to 20%.. Giving more tags tp primitive weapons combined with the season date changes will decrease harvest success rates, allowing for more mature tags to be issued for all weapon choices.
4)We propose the (a) unit tags be issued thru a preference point system, while keeping the remaining(23) limited entry elk units be under the current bonus point system. We propose hunters a one time option of which point system to deploy their current elk points, meaning someone with 10 LE elk points can choose one time, which pool to apply for; the (1) units or the remaining 23 limited entry units. Once that hunter has chosen which pool he/she prefers, his/her points are no longer transferable. Those who opt for the preference point pool, when they draw a (1) unit tag, they will have no waiting period for (1) unit permits, but will still be required a five year waiting period for the bonus point units. This will allow hunters to chose between the two systems, which will reduce the number of applicants for both pools, this will increase the odds for drawing a limited entry tag for all applicants.
5)Make reporting mandatory, including tooth submitting with the DWR aging all teeth submitted, instead of just a sample of the teeth submitted. The reporting will be done online.
SUMMARY
We believe that by the changes in season dates, elimination of spike tags on the (1) units, getting bull to cow ratios in check with the Elk Management Plan, mandatory reporting, tag allotment changes on the (1) units, more tags can be issued while maintaining quality. In addition, by redeploying the spike tags from the (1) units to the (2) units on a scaled down tag number the bull to cow ratios on the (2) units will become more inline with the desired ratios per the Elk Management Plan. This proposal will allow more hunters the opportunity to hunt mature quality animals in Utah while minimizing lost yearly opportunities for OTC tags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
I like what you guys are doing with the I400 proposal and I'm for it for the most part. A couple of things have changed since I found you guys after the old forum got shut down that I don't like.
Redeploy the spike tags to (2) units? If these units have a problem with to many mature bulls why not hunt more of them? If you shoot more young bulls won't this just get worse. I would like to see MORE managment tags take care of this along with more LE tags. The spike tags are for increasing the age class not lowering it.

I would rather the bonus point system handle all LE and I 400 units. Just put a note like they do for the Book Cliffs saying these are not trophy areas for the I400 units. This way someone like my 13 year old son.(who will be coming into the drawing system this year) Who really doesn't know what kind of hunter he is trophy or meat or some were in between changes his mind he won't have wasted many years and points in a totally differant system. I have to say I flip floped on this after talking with my son as I was for the preference point system at first. He thinks a trophy elk hunt sounds great at first. Then when I explained it to him he would rather hunt a lesser unit with me, :D than a trophy hunt with me following him around not hunting. So he might change his mind in the future thus losing points. Bad Bad Bad.

Just my two cents. I like what you guys are doing keep up the good work.

Allen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,399 Posts
Why are you starting another thread about the same I400 ideas?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I think I like this less and less as time goes on.
Its ok if you like our currrent system, but ALOT of us want MORE opportunity to hunt elk so that is why we have a I400 Proposal. Sagebrush this proposal isnt old
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I like what you guys are doing with the I400 proposal and I'm for it for the most part. A couple of things have changed since I found you guys after the old forum got shut down that I don't like.
Redeploy the spike tags to (2) units? If these units have a problem with to many mature bulls why not hunt more of them? If you shoot more young bulls won't this just get worse. I would like to see MORE managment tags take care of this along with more LE tags. The spike tags are for increasing the age class not lowering it.

I would rather the bonus point system handle all LE and I 400 units. Just put a note like they do for the Book Cliffs saying these are not trophy areas for the I400 units. This way someone like my 13 year old son.(who will be coming into the drawing system this year) Who really doesn't know what kind of hunter he is trophy or meat or some were in between changes his mind he won't have wasted many years and points in a totally differant system. I have to say I flip floped on this after talking with my son as I was for the preference point system at first. He thinks a trophy elk hunt sounds great at first. Then when I explained it to him he would rather hunt a lesser unit with me, than a trophy hunt with me following him around not hunting. So he might change his mind in the future thus losing points. Bad Bad Bad.

Just my two cents. I like what you guys are doing keep up the good work.
Thanks Yak4fish for your input. Under the current system your son doesnt really have a chance to hunt mature bulls, but I400 will make his dreams become a reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,399 Posts
coyoteslayer said:
Thanks Yak4fish for your input. Under the current system your son doesnt really have a chance to hunt mature bulls, but I400 will make his dreams become a reality.
this is really an understatement, a person might not get to hunt one of the few elite units does not mean they will not hunt a mature bull.

We have mature bulls though out this state they are not only on limited entry units, there is opportunity for all. a person will have to do some homework to achieve a 100% success rate.

Also the price of a limit entry Elk permit does not fit everyones budget these days. I'm sure the price will keep going up!

we keep hearing it is experience of the hunt that counts, filling a tag is just part of the hunt well a person can hunt elk anytime they really feel like it. be it general season, archery, muzzler loader, and limited entry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
sagebrush said:
this is really an understatement, a person might not get to hunt one of the few elite units does not mean they will not hunt a mature bull.

We have mature bulls though out this state they are not only on limited entry units, there is opportunity for all. a person will have to do some homework to achieve a 100% success rate.

Also the price of a limit entry Elk permit does not fit everyones budget these days. I'm sure the price will keep going up!

we keep hearing it is experience of the hunt that counts, filling a tag is just part of the hunt well a person can hunt elk anytime they really feel like it. be it general season, archery, muzzler loader, and limited entry.
I400 has nothing about it that would require ALL to apply for LE hunts. ALL of the otc tags available now would STILL be available under I400.

Yes, the experience is a MAJOR part of the hunt, the kill is a small part, by is the desired outcome. You seem to be missing the point here, which is we have EXCESS bulls on every/nearly all LE units where rifle hunters 'enjoy' 90 % success rates. I400 is ONE idea of many that is intended/desired to address the under use of the 'resource' (big bulls) and the 50,000+ applicants who desire to hunt them. I did some checking, my 15 year old daughter who has one point will NOT be able to get a 'bonus' tag for the Wasatch any-weapon early season for 35 YEARS! That is based on today's numbers, it WILL get worse over than span if changes aren't made. For example, my odds of drawing a Pahvant any-weapon tag are worse this year than three years ago, and that is after acquiring three more bonus points. This is due to the demand out-pacing the supply. This will most likely always be the case, but there are realistic ways to maximize the supply, while keeping demand high. I400 IS one biologically sound management plan that WILL work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,399 Posts
proutdoors said:
I did some checking, my 15 year old daughter who has one point will NOT be able to get a 'bonus' tag for the Wasatch any-weapon early season for 35 YEARS! That is based on today's numbers,
See there it is again.

people do draw with one point, you do not have to have max points to draw a tag. remember this is a drawing.

why does it have to be a specific unit? what is wrong with the other units? or CWMU units?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
sagebrush, you are missing the forest for the trees. I used the Wasatch as an example, it isn't the unit my daughter will be putting in for in 2008. The forest you don't see is, the division gives out less than 3000 LE tags for 50,000+ applicants, while there are EXCESS bulls on most/all LE units. Coupled with the extremely high success rates on the rifle hunts and OPPORTUNITY is limited MORE than need be. Quality can remain high even with a higher than currently tag increase rate. Why is seeing/looking for ways to increase OPPORTUNITY w/o losing much/any quality such a radical concept?

yak4fish, I think you brought up a couple of great points, thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,399 Posts
is saying 35+ years being realistic? I see the trees Pro; every time I go out in the Forest. what I do see is people getting frustrated because they did not draw a tag.
And they are saying life is not fair, well that is what a drawing is all about one chance just like anything else that you put in for.

Are you going to tell people do not draw with one, two , or even three points?

So if a person wanted to hunt a mature elk do we not have opportunity besides the limited entry units?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
sagebrush said:
is saying 35+ years being realistic? I see the trees Pro; every time I go out in Forest. what I do see is people getting frustrated because they did not draw a tag.
And they are saying life is not fair, well that is what a drawing is all about one chance just like anything else that you put in for.

So if a person wanted to hunt a mature elk do we not have opportunity besides the limited entry units?
Of course we have opportunities besides LE's, that is NOT the point, at least not for me. My point is; there are EXCESS bulls on most/all LE units, why should we NOT look for ways to maximize the OPPORTUNITIES to hunt these bulls? Why do we need bull/cow ratios well over 50/100 and harvest ages INCREASING every year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,399 Posts
If the DWR would increase tags, but the question is how many tags? the system does not need to be changed to increase tags or opportunity. the key word is to INCREASE TAGS ONLY

proutdoors said:
Why do we need bull/cow ratios well over 50/100 and harvest ages INCREASING every year?
this can only be answered by the DWR, not you or i or anyone else here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
I400 has nothing about it that would require ALL to apply for LE hunts. ALL of the otc tags available now would STILL be available under I400.
Well Pro lets not leave out the part about all the thousands of over the counter spike tags not being availavle.

The more I think about this what I would love to see them do is turn many of the larger currently LE units back into any bull general season and with the handful uf units they leave LE require that if you put in for a point on one of those you can not draw a general season elk tag.

Then you really would be making people choose between trophy or opportunity.

You see this is not meet v.s. trophy, it is opportunity v.s. trophy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
10000ft. said:
I400 has nothing about it that would require ALL to apply for LE hunts. ALL of the otc tags available now would STILL be available under I400.
Well Pro lets not leave out the part about all the thousands of over the counter spike tags not being availavle.

The more I think about this what I would love to see them do is turn many of the larger currently LE units back into any bull general season and with the handful uf units they leave LE require that if you put in for a point on one of those you can not draw a general season elk tag.

Then you really would be making people choose between trophy or opportunity.

You see this is not meet v.s. trophy, it is opportunity v.s. trophy.
There would NOT be a single otc spike tag "unavailable" under I400.

I see this as balance, not one vs the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
993 Posts
So I just have to make a post on the newest thread about I 400.

So here is how I feel about it. Changed my mind not going to say anything as I have said it all before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
There would NOT be a single otc spike tag "unavailable" under I400.

I see this as balance, not one vs the other.
I don't know if I followed you there Pro, my question is this.

Right now if you combine spike tags, cow tags, management tags and LE tags on the units you are proposing how many TOTAL tags are there?

IF you implimented I400 how many combined LE tags, cow tags, spike tags.....would there be?

The answer to this question tells us if hunters have lost opportunity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
Right now if you combine spike tags, cow tags, management tags and LE tags on the units you are proposing how many TOTAL tags are there?

IF you implimented I400 how many combined LE tags, cow tags, spike tags.....would there be?
No spike tags would be reduced, no cow tags would be reduced, there was only I believe 70 some management tags that could/SHOULD be dumped, LE tags would INCREASE by MORE than the management tags lost. I can't give exact numbers, but the ONLY tags 'reduced' would be management tags, while the FIVE pilot areas would have MAJOR increases of mature bull tags. Therefor I stand by my statement of MORE OPPORTUNITY under I400.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
I guess I have not followed I400 for awhile. If you are not taking away any general season spike tags on the pilot units is that just for a certain number of years and then you reduce or take them away or is I400 simply to dump management tags and add lots more LE tags on these units?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
We propose eliminating the issuing of spike tags on the following five units(1): North Cache, Wasatch, Nebo, Fish Lake, and LaSal. We propose introducing spike tags to the following five units(2): San Juan, Monroe, Pahvant, Pansagaunt, and SW Desert.
There would NOT be a single otc spike tag "unavailable" under I400.
I think you guys are missing something here. Your proposing eliminating spike tags on five units and adding spike tags on another five units. However, the units proposed are far from equals. There are roughly one third the number of elk on the new proposed spike units as there are on the spike units you are proposing to eliminate spike tags from. Yet you want to keep the same number of tags. This doesn't feel quite right. Here are the estimated herd populations for the proposed units (taken from the 2005 Big Game Annual Report, the latest numbers I could find publicized):

Cache - 2000
Wasatch - 2800
Nebo - 1580
Fish Lake - 4000
LaSal - 1900
Total: = 12280

San Juan - 1400
Monroe - 900
Pahvant - 1150
Pansagaunt - 75
SW Dessert - 1100
Total: = 4625
 
1 - 20 of 169 Posts
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