Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
Since you're a bow hunter you'll like it. Seems a bunch of bow hunters are upset that the rifle hunters get to hunt bulls in the LE areas during the best time and want to change it so they get to hunt during that time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
I400 is a reference to the management strategy of Utah's elk herds since the start of the spike-only units. This was an excellent path and has created the world's best trophy elk hunting in areas of Utah.

The problem is that managing most of the state's excellent elk areas for huge bulls has created a situation where a hunter who begins applying at age 14 has only a 50% chance of drawing a limited entry tag by age 65 on many units. In other words, for about half of the applicants it's a once in a lifetime draw. Many new hunters, the rising generation, will never be able to draw.

Many hunters feel that the average Joe isn't necessarily looking for a 380+ bull. Many LE tags are filled with mature 6x6 bulls in the younger age ranges. The thought behind Initiative 400 is to pilot a new management strategy on a few of the spike-only units. The general season spike tags would be eliminated in order to maintain a good population of bulls, and the units would be managed for mature bulls in the approximate 5 year old age class. In other words, the units would be managed for 320-350 class bulls instead of 370+, and tag numbers would be adjusted so that hunters could draw an LE tag every 3-5 years instead of once in a lifetime.

This is only proposed for some units, so that the elk management strategy would offer something for everyone more like deer hunting is currently. In other words, some units would be premium for 370+ bulls, some units would be standard LE for 320+ bulls, and other areas will remain general season. This will also allow more hunters to move through the system, decreasing the number of years it takes to draw other tags.

In other words, it's a proposal to allow more hunters to enjoy the state's excellent elk hunting for big bulls more than once (or possibly never) in their lives. It is also being driven by the fact that most of the spike-only units are suffering from bull to cow ratios that are too high, which endangers the health of the herds. These units have also proven to be currently exceeding the age objectives for mature bulls, so the concept of increasing the harvest of bulls is not only good for hunters that enjoy chasing bigger elk, but for the elk themselves.

The strategy does have some key benefits to bow hunters, as was mentioned. Since archery hunters have a lower success rate, the proposed number of archery tags on I400 units is high. Archers will have the best odds of quickly and repeatedly drawing LE tags, but rifle and muzzleloader hunters will also have greatly improved chances compared to the current system. Because today's strategy is once in a lifetime, many bow hunters apply for rifle LE tags to make sure they can harvest a bull. With I400, if you don't get one you'll be able to hunt again in a few years instead of in 20+.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
This is the meat of I400

threshershark said:
The problem is that managing most of the state's excellent elk areas for huge bulls has created a situation where a hunter who begins applying at age 14 has only a 50% chance of drawing a limited entry tag by age 65 on many units. In other words, for about half of the applicants it's a once in a lifetime draw. Many new hunters, the rising generation, will never be able to draw.

Many hunters feel that the average Joe isn't necessarily looking for a 380+ bull. Many LE tags are filled with mature 6x6 bulls in the younger age ranges. The thought behind Initiative 400 is to pilot a new management strategy on a few of the spike-only units. The general season spike tags would be eliminated in order to maintain a good population of bulls, and the units would be managed for mature bulls in the approximate 5 year old age class. In other words, the units would be managed for 320-350 class bulls instead of 370+, and tag numbers would be adjusted so that hunters could draw an LE tag every 3-5 years instead of once in a lifetime.

This is only proposed for some units, so that the elk management strategy would offer something for everyone more like deer hunting is currently. In other words, some units would be premium for 370+ bulls, some units would be standard LE for 320+ bulls, and other areas will remain general season. This will also allow more hunters to move through the system, decreasing the number of years it takes to draw other tags.

In other words, it's a proposal to allow more hunters to enjoy the state's excellent elk hunting for big bulls more than once (or possibly never) in their lives. It is also being driven by the fact that most of the spike-only units are suffering from bull to cow ratios that are too high, which endangers the health of the herds. These units have also proven to be currently exceeding the age objectives for mature bulls, so the concept of increasing the harvest of bulls is not only good for hunters that enjoy chasing bigger elk, but for the elk themselves.
And this is the pork barrel

threshershark said:
The strategy does have some key benefits to bow hunters, as was mentioned. Since archery hunters have a lower success rate, the proposed number of archery tags on I400 units is high. Archers will have the best odds of quickly and repeatedly drawing LE tags, but rifle and muzzleloader hunters will also have greatly improved chances compared to the current system. Because today's strategy is once in a lifetime, many bow hunters apply for rifle LE tags to make sure they can harvest a bull. With I400, if you don't get one you'll be able to hunt again in a few years instead of in 20+.
I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.
Please explain this assertion!

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
proutdoors said:
I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.
Please explain this assertion!

PRO
Are you really asking for an explanation because you don't understand or because you object to what I said? Because I'll explain it if you don't understand but I don't want to get into an argument if you simply object to what I said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
marksman said:
proutdoors said:
I think alot of people feel the main objectives of I400 are sound but object to the extra junk thrown in to please certian contributors.
Please explain this assertion!

PRO
Are you really asking for an explanation because you don't understand or because you object to what I said? Because I'll explain it if you don't understand but I don't want to get into an argument if you simply object to what I said.
I honestly have no understanding of how I400 is/has thrown "extra junk" in to please certain contributors. I have no idea what "extra junk" you are talking about, and I have no idea who the "certain contributors" are.

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Ok then, I think the main idea of I400 is to remove spike tags to increase the number of tags that can be sold for hunting larger bulls, I think this is a good idea. However I400 also has this idea that we can sell more archery and fewer rifle tags. I think this idea is not directly releated to the idea of adjusting spike tags. I think it was thrown in as a perk to bow hunters because most of the main contributors to the plan are bow hunters.

The government does this alot it's called "pork barrel" it's why you will see bills on the floor of congress that say they are highway bills but have funding for farm subsidies. The farm subsidy was added to the bill not because it was related but because one of the bills writers has agricutural constituants.

I think that the additional tags for archery hunters is in I400 not because it belongs but because alot of the proposal's advocates are archery hunters themselves.

I know you will disagree and as I said I don't want to get into a fight about it. So as long as you understand what I am saying then it's all I have to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,087 Posts
I am not one of the "founders" of I-400, but my understanding is they want to issue more archery tags because of the much lower success rates. You can give out a lot more tags at 20% success rate vs. 85% success rates. More tags=more opportunity. I am not as knowledgeable as others in this regard, but I don't see how anyone could argue these simple numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
Thanks for the clarification Mark. While I will respect your desire to not "debate" this with you, I WILL clarify a few things for you and others.

I400 started based on a question asking how can we get more LE elk tags issued. The intial comment that started I400 stated there were TWO things that could be done.

1)Eliminate spike tags
2)Move the rifle hunt out of September(the peak of the rut).

From this we grew to where we are now. Those who have been involved from the beginning have learned tons about game managment, biology, Utah elk numbers, Utah hunter numbers, and many other stuff. What we soon discovered was that there was/is resistance to change, I know like I should be surprised. The ONLY motive we have ever had/discussed as to lowering the percentage of total tags to rifle and more to muzzy/archery was/is too lower the overall success rates which will enable MORE overall tags to be issued, even rifle hunters will see a major INCREASE in tag numbers under I400. So, I fail to see where we did ANYTHING to accomadate "certain contributors". I am as big of an archery advocate as any one out there, but I have continually gone on record to make sure we have not made this an archery driven proposal. It boils down to the FACT that the number ONE way to give out more tags w/o hurting quality and quanity is to issue more of the tags to primitive weapon hunters. That is cut and clear. Like HOGAN has said, many who currently apply for LE rifle will jump ship to one of the primitve seasons because it will no longer be basically a once in a lifetime hunt.

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Sorry I said I was done but I guess I simply can't help myself.

If you consider my highway bill example. I'm not saying that farm subsidies are bad but what are they doing in a bill about funding highway's? The idea is that the bill writer knows that highway funding is a necessity and it will pass so he throws the unpopular farm subsidy in hoping it will ride the highway fundings coat tails.

I personally disagree with the idea of removing tags from the majority and granting extra tags to the minority. However I don't want to argue that. What I am trying to say is the two are not intrinsically tied together. If you think the archery tag adjustment is a good idea make it into it's own proposal. Have I400 that removes spike tags, and I401 that grants a higher percentage of tags to archery. Why not let each idea stand on it's own?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
jahan said:
I am not one of the "founders" of I-400, but my understanding is they want to issue more archery tags because of the much lower success rates. You can give out a lot more tags at 20% success rate vs. 85% success rates. More tags=more opportunity.
This is exactly right. There will be more muzzleloader tags, more rifle tags, and more archery tags with I400. The tag numbers for each were determined by harvest and herd objectives. Archery hunters have a lower success rate, which is why many hunters who prefer archery actually apply for rifle LE tags today. They don't want a 20 or 30% success rate on a once-in-a-lifetime tag. More archery tags is a function of the success rates with that weapon, and it creates fairness because by the odds bow hunters need an average of 3-4 hunts to harvest an animal. Today, that would take 100 years if you had some luck. Rifle and muzzleloader hunts have very high success rates, which by definition means the number of tags needs to be closer to the harvest objective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
OK, Maybe it is a good idea. Why not let it stand no it's own? If it's such a good idea it should be easier to pass if it's not tied to the less popular spike reduction idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
marksman said:
OK, Maybe it is a good idea. Why not let it stand no it's own? If it's such a good idea it should be easier to pass if it's not tied to the less popular spike reduction idea.
There you go confusing me again. :oops: I am at a loss as to why making two proposals would be 'better/easier' than one that encompasses bith as part of ONE plan. The two are tied together, it would be much less effective to do one w/o the other.

PRO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
marksman said:
If you think the archery tag adjustment is a good idea make it into it's own proposal. Have I400 that removes spike tags, and I401 that grants a higher percentage of tags to archery. Why not let each idea stand on it's own?
Your logic is very good here. To better understand why I400 is structured exactly the way it is, it might help to have the context.

I400 was developed with a bunch of objectives in mind, such as lowering bull to cow ratios. Many states have experimented with spike-only management and it is widely known at this point that it's not a wise long-term strategy. It did work for the intended purposes, but it's been in place so long that we are seeing some unintended consequences. Mainly however, the movement started because of a core concept: The LE system is broken, because it is being managed for world class trophy animals across the board. With supply and demand where they are, residents of Utah who would like to hunt mature bulls have such low odds of doing so that it will either never happen or may happen once in their lives. The initiative started around the concept that people should be able to hunt mature bulls every 3-5 years, if they are after a nice mature bull and don't necessarily want 370+ animals.

Tag numbers, for all weapons, were chosen around herd and harvest objectives but also around targets which will permit successful LE drawing odds every 3-5 years. The whole package, including the archery opportunities, are needed to make this happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,043 Posts
I copied this information from a recent RAC meeting from a DWR biologist. The information was presented "to inform the public about how we manage deer and elk populations and why we manage them the way we do."
Utah Elk management
o We Manage elk in 4 ways :
1)Any bull units
2)Limited entry only
3)Limited entry with spike bull hunt
4)Limited entry with management bull
Distribution
1)Any bull--15
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--10
3)Limited entry only--15
4)Limited entry with management bull--4
Opportunity
1)Any bull--high
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--low/high
3)Limited entry only--low
4)Limited entry with management bull--low/medium
Quality
1)Any bull--medium
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--high/low
3)Limited entry only--high
4)Limited entry with management bull--high/medium
Bull:cow ratio
1)Any bull--low
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--low
3)Limited entry only--high
4)Limited entry with management bull--medium
Reproductive potential
1)Any bull--high
2)Limited entry with spike harvest--high
3)Limited entry only--Low
4)Limited entry with management bull--medium
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
I guess I disagree I think that having them tied together you run the risk of both ideas being rejected because the other is unpopular. If you belive they are both good ideas then splitting them will actaully double your chances of getting at least half of your ideas passed. Also it would make each individual change smaller and easier for a change resistant public easier to swallow. It would also allow you to focus your efforts into one smaller change at a time. Maybe it would ge easier for you to get them both through if you took smaller steps instead of trying to achive all your objective in one grand leap.

I'm not going to lie to you I think you should split them because I think one is a good idea and the other one not. But even if you think they are both good ideas I think you could get them passed easier if you split them.
 
1 - 20 of 128 Posts
Top