Call me lame (maybe I should know this) but what is this I400 that everyone keeps mentioning?
And this is the pork barrelthreshershark 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.
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.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+.
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.proutdoors 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.marksman said: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.proutdoors said:
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.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.
There you go confusing me again. 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.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.
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.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?