Utah Wildlife Forum banner
1 - 20 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This quote was posted by wy2ut on another thread, taken from the British Columbia Wildlife Department. I have never read or heard any words that better convey how I feel on the matter.

"In general, wildlife managers should adopt a quantity over quality philosophy for deer, moose and elk. Hunting success is strongly related to continued participation, and there are far more hunters that are happy to shoot an average animal than there are hunters whose specific purpose is to bag a trophy. Really skilled hunters are capable of finding impressive animals if they put their minds to it, but hunters of lesser skill find their chances for success greatly limited by trophy management practices. Furthermore, managing for animals with impressive antlers pushes opportunity away from general open seasons and towards Limited Entry hunting, restricting participation even further."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
10,000ft NO, what we need to do is manage the general season units that we already have. We have places that are under objective and the habitat needs A LOT of work so lets focus on the general seasons units we have before YOU and your buddy Wyo2ut decide to destroy LE units just because you want more opportunity than you have right now. Lets bring the deer population up on General season units and restore habitat and then you will have more opportunity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
Let's take a look at what the Arizona Fish and Wildlife Department found out in their state:

"New Survey: Arizonans look forward to more opportunities to hunt

A newly released independent study shows Arizona hunters feel having more opportunities to hunt is more important than hunt quality or outcome of the hunt.

"This agency has always prided itself on providing hunters with the highest quality hunting experience it can," says Arizona Game and Fish Department Deputy Director Steve Ferrell. "However, hunt demand now far exceeds hunting opportunities. This survey provides us with another perspective for use in our management efforts so they may address our customers' expectations."
The two-part independent study was conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish Department by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Va., to determine Arizona hunters' attitudes toward the state's big game hunter permit tag draw, as well as hunting participation, hunting characteristics, and attitudes toward hunting.

Responsive Management, which is an internationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues, conducted the study via an Internet survey of hunters who applied for an Arizona big game hunt permit tag for fall 2006, plus a telephone survey of those who didn't respond to the Web survey. The entire study can be accessed from the link below. The survey study was posted on Jan. 9, 2007.

"Of the 13 different factors related to the hunting experience, getting to go hunting ranked the highest in importance among respondents," says Mark Damian Duda, the executive director of Responsive Management. "Most people also said having more frequent opportunities to hunt big game is more important than actually harvesting a trophy animal."

Duda says the surveys show twice as many hunters would be willing to accept lower hunt success rates, if it meant they would be drawn and have an opportunity to hunt more often.

Of six different factors related to a successful hunting experience, having the opportunity to hunt ranked the highest in importance among respondents, closely followed by spending time with family and learning to hunt and develop skills, with majorities rating each of these factors as extremely important. Harvesting a trophy animal ranked the lowest in importance, according to the study.

Department officials say the study is important in helping the agency to best meet the needs and desires of its customers both now and in the future, and the study results also have implications for another critical area - hunter recruitment and retention. "Opportunities to hunt, including increased chances of success in the big game hunt permit tag draw, are important to hunter retention," say big game applicants."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
Wyo2ut, its funny that you post all this garbage but yet you fight against I400 which gives more opportunity to hunters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
Good link wyo2ut, that is why I agree 100% with Nevada's mission statement, "Define, develop, and sustain both trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Nevada." It is all about BALANCE, which I support, and before wyo2ut tries to spin where I stand on this, I DO support BOTH trophy AND opportunity hunts, just not one or the other! I agree with this statement from Nevada's game management plan so much, I adopted it as my signature only changing the word Nevada with Utah. It's all about BALANCE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
Ok...Pro here's your "spin"...Because of the survey and information that Arizona collected, they have formed new management guidelines:
"Buck-to-doe management guidelines have been shifted to 10-20 for mule deer and 15-25 for white-tailed deer.
Bull-to-cow management guidelines have been shifted to 15-25 for elk.
Bighorn sheep management guidelines have been adjusted to target the harvest of 15-25 percent of the Class III and IV rams.
Annual female harvest limits have been added to bear hunts and will be approved by the commission in the season-setting process of commission orders. These have already been established for spring 2008 and will appear in the spring hunt booklet."

Would you support this kind of balance? Would you support buck/doe ratio changes for LE units? What about bull/cow ratio changes on LE units? Just think how much more opportunity we could offer here in Utah if we managed our LE elk units for 15-25 bulls/100 cows...

You adopted Nevada's moniker...but in NO way do you support the kind of balance that Arizona's survey calls for. If a Utah survey showed that only 13% of the hunting public listed themselves as "trophy" hunters and if 87% of the hunting public said that hunting opportunity is more important than "trophy" opportunity, would you be willing to give up LE units?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
Would you support this kind of balance? Would you support buck/doe ratio changes for LE units? What about bull/cow ratio changes on LE units? Just think how much more opportunity we could offer here in Utah if we managed our LE elk units for 15-25 bulls/100 cows...
We talked about this with I400 and you fought against it because you were worried about the quality going down. I think I need to ask Richard just how many personalities you really have. :roll: :roll: :roll:

I bet your students are entertained by your many personalities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,174 Posts
wyoming2utah said:
Ok...Pro here's your "spin"...Because of the survey and information that Arizona collected, they have formed new management guidelines:
"Buck-to-doe management guidelines have been shifted to 10-20 for mule deer and 15-25 for white-tailed deer.
Bull-to-cow management guidelines have been shifted to 15-25 for elk.
Bighorn sheep management guidelines have been adjusted to target the harvest of 15-25 percent of the Class III and IV rams.
Annual female harvest limits have been added to bear hunts and will be approved by the commission in the season-setting process of commission orders. These have already been established for spring 2008 and will appear in the spring hunt booklet."

Would you support this kind of balance? Would you support buck/doe ratio changes for LE units? What about bull/cow ratio changes on LE units? Just think how much more opportunity we could offer here in Utah if we managed our LE elk units for 15-25 bulls/100 cows...

You adopted Nevada's moniker...but in NO way do you support the kind of balance that Arizona's survey calls for. If a Utah survey showed that only 13% of the hunting public listed themselves as "trophy" hunters and if 87% of the hunting public said that hunting opportunity is more important than "trophy" opportunity, would you be willing to give up LE units?
Let ME administer, or at least help write the questions asked in the poll and I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near 13%/87%. 8)

I would LOVE to see bull/cow ratios reduced, I don't know if EVERY unit needs to be 'reduced' to 15-25 bulls/100 cows, but I have NO problem with MOST of the state being managed that way. Same for deer, although I believe we are already there with two/three exceptions, which I am fine with.

On the elk, I would love to see 8 premium LE units managed for 40/100 ratios, and the other LE units managed for 25-30/100 ratios, while keeping the any-bull areas, and DOING AWAY with spike hunts except where the mature bull level is too LOW.

When did I EVER say I support anything from Arizona? I said NEVADA! I also know there are MANY unhappy Arizona hunters right now, I am POSITIVE it is more than 13% of the hunters down there. But, I do like the direction Arizona is headed, BALANCE. I would love to see Utah become more BALANCED. Just because I differ on what 'balance' means in Utah does NOT mean I am against it. It just means my 'scale' is 'balanced' different than yours. I also believe there are MANY in my camp, in fact I dare say at least as many as in your camp in the state of Utah. Certainly of the hunters who are 'active' in the 'process'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
The general and LE areas are a good setup the way they are now. There may need to be changes in the way LE or general areas are managed but beyond that I think we have a good system. The Trophy animals being taken have proven we Know how to grow them. Now we just need learn how to mange the herd size and the capability of the habitat to support them.

Percentages of hunters does not equate to percentage of land. It takes more land to manage for trophy than it does for opputunity. I am not a biologist or wildlife manager so I don't pretend to know what those magic numbers are but I think we are close.

There are areas in the general units that need help to improve habitat and herd numbers. But I think that can be done without cutting the state into small tracts of land. They manage permits such as DH that allows you to hunt the state for one weapon and a region for others. I think we could issue permits using the same line of thinking but instead the permit is good for a region but only a certain amount can hunt an area that have suffering herds. This keeps areas and options open but helps a herd management.

Bottom line is if we fight for what "WE" want instead of what has the greatest benefit for all we are losing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
TRUEMULE
It takes more land to manage for trophy than it does for opputunity. I am not a biologist or wildlife manager so I don't pretend to know what those magic numbers are but I think we are close.
That is exactly the point, how many general season hunters were knocking off for any one LE unit?

PRO
Let ME administer, or at least help write the questions asked in the poll and I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near 13%/87%.
Any further discussion on this issue PRO is a waist of time because for UTAH it is all still speculation but I think a similar poll needs to be taken with both camps agreeing to re-focuse efforts and management practices based on the findings. I'll still bet the farm our results would be very similar to the ones shown in the Arizona poll.

So tell me this PRO if a poll (that you designed) showed 85% of hunters wanted 85% of Utahs huntable BULL elk general season would you support their desires?

Before you flip the question on me, YES I would support the LE crowed if the poll showed they were the majority. But I don't even worry about that being the outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
proutdoors said:
Let ME administer, or at least help write the questions asked in the poll and I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near 13%/87%. 8)

I would LOVE to see bull/cow ratios reduced, I don't know if EVERY unit needs to be 'reduced' to 15-25 bulls/100 cows, but I have NO problem with MOST of the state being managed that way. Same for deer, although I believe we are already there with two/three exceptions, which I am fine with.

On the elk, I would love to see 8 premium LE units managed for 40/100 ratios, and the other LE units managed for 25-30/100 ratios, while keeping the any-bull areas, and DOING AWAY with spike hunts except where the mature bull level is too LOW.

When did I EVER say I support anything from Arizona? I said NEVADA! I also know there are MANY unhappy Arizona hunters right now, I am POSITIVE it is more than 13% of the hunters down there. But, I do like the direction Arizona is headed, BALANCE. I would love to see Utah become more BALANCED. Just because I differ on what 'balance' means in Utah does NOT mean I am against it. It just means my 'scale' is 'balanced' different than yours. I also believe there are MANY in my camp, in fact I dare say at least as many as in your camp in the state of Utah. Certainly of the hunters who are 'active' in the 'process'.
1) Exactly, because if you adminstered the survey you would use loaded questions that would totally destroy the validity of the survey. But, just to be clear, I want you to read this quote from another Arizona website that I also wholeheartedly agree with: "The Arizona Game and Fish Commission invited the director of Responsive Management, Mark Damian Duda, to meet with them in a work session during its summer meeting in Flagstaff to discuss the survey, its methodology, its validity, and its applicability to wildlife management in the state. Duda told the commission that Responsive Management has conducted hundreds of such surveys in 30 or 40 states during the past 20 years. "We have no dog in this fight. We just use scientifically sound methods to gather information." If the Arizona survey had shown anything different than all the other surveys across the United States, Duda said, there might be some reason to question the validity. It did not. "The surveys show the same pattern here in Arizona that we are seeing across the country."

Duda said he understands the dilemma facing the Game and Fish Commission in Arizona. "Bottom line, you are confronted with how to please two divergent publics or markets. It's not an easy decision facing you."

Duda said there is one public of avid, knowledgeable hunters who care deeply about the state's wildlife, and who are tremendous supporters of the department and its mission, and who can wield a lot of power in the process. "They are at the higher end of the hunting spectrum. They want trophy animals. They are the well-informed and influential minority."

Then there are the average hunters who are the silent majority. "The surveys show that most hunters just want the opportunity to hunt. Harvesting a quality animal is not at the top of their list.," Duda said.


2) I too would love to see bull/cow ratios reduced...the problem with our current system is that the majority of our state and the majority of our elk are managed for trophy quality. I do not believe this is balanced toward the "silent majority". That is why I believe we should make changes to some of the LE areas that would move them towards "opportunity" hunting. In my eyes, having 8 Limited Entry premium units is too many...especially if our state is similar to the rest of the country.

As for deer hunting, my concern is over the SFW proposal/idea...if we change our current deer management structure to a proposal much more like our elk plan, we are really sticking it that "silent majority". I don't see the balance in changing our deer hunting units to type A and type B units...I see this as a way for SFW to manipulate the deer hunt into something similar to the elk hunt.

3) Arizona is also looking for balance...they have felt as a result of their survey that they were unfairly balanced towards trophy hunting and against the opportunity hunters. They are making strides to balance their state better...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
I don't agree with any type of blanket management strategy. Just because a majority of hunters prefer opportunity doesn't mean that 100% of the state should be managed that way. There should be a variety of opportunities to satisfy a variety of hunters. Utah only has the 2 extreme ends of the spectrum right now. Poor quality general hunts, and high quality LE hunts. There are very few opportunities in between. Arizona has a butt-load of in between, but nothing on the low end.

I400 is, from my perspective, designed to address this. It will provide a hunt that is better quality than a general hunt, with a wait that is significantly less than a LE hunt.

I would also like to see something similar for deer. The 3 point or better areas were just right for my style of hunting. I know there are a lot of arguments against that specific regulation however. We have some good LE areas, and plenty of decent general areas. What we are lacking is something that is restricted enough to allow young bucks to grow up but yet allows a large number of hunters to get tags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
Lets flip the coin just a little bit. Let me give you a "for instance" situation. I don't know the numbers of oportunists vs. Trophy but let me just be the one to say that It doesnt' matter what the % is, the Trophy guys are getting it done! The saying goes, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." You guys are squeaking but the others are making it happen. They may have 99% of the numbers and they may have 1%, I don't know, but bottom line is they got organized, they made the money, they proposed the solutions and then went to work to make it happen! I just happen to be one who likes it. I support it. It makes sense to me. I am loving the "opportunities" in Utah. I am supporting the group that gets the attention and respect like the 800 pound Gorrilla that they are.................Some one stop me, I'm almost getting Giggley just thinking about my opportunities that I have in this great and WELL managed State of Utah!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
elk22hunter said:
Lets flip the coin just a little bit. Let me give you a "for instance" situation. I don't know the numbers of oportunists vs. Trophy but let me just be the one to say that It doesnt' matter what the % is, the Trophy guys are getting it done! The saying goes, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." You guys are squeaking but the others are making it happen. They may have 99% of the numbers and they may have 1%, I don't know, but bottom line is they got organized, they made the money, they proposed the solutions and then went to work to make it happen! I just happen to be one who likes it. I support it. It makes sense to me. I am loving the "opportunities" in Utah. I am supporting the group that gets the attention and respect like the 800 pound Gorrilla that they are.................Some one stop me, I'm almost getting Giggley just thinking about my opportunities that I have in this great and WELL managed State of Utah!
So, you are saying that managing to the loud "majority" is the right thing to do?

FWIW...I have lived in other states--Arizona and Wyoming--and I wouldn't trade for the opportunities that either offers over Utah.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
I
don't agree with any type of blanket management strategy. Just because a majority of hunters prefer opportunity doesn't mean that 100% of the state should be managed that way. There should be a variety of opportunities to satisfy a variety of hunters. Utah only has the 2 extreme ends of the spectrum right now. Poor quality general hunts, and high quality LE hunts. There are very few opportunities in between. Arizona has a butt-load of in between, but nothing on the low end.

I400 is, from my perspective, designed to address this. It will provide a hunt that is better quality than a general hunt, with a wait that is significantly less than a LE hunt.

I would also like to see something similar for deer. The 3 point or better areas were just right for my style of hunting. I know there are a lot of arguments against that specific regulation however. We have some good LE areas, and plenty of decent general areas. What we are lacking is something that is restricted enough to allow young bucks to grow up but yet allows a large number of hunters to get tags.El Matador
Good post +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
So, you are saying that managing to the loud "majority" is the right thing to do?

FWIW...I have lived in other states--Arizona and Wyoming--and I wouldn't trade for the opportunities that either offers over Utah.
Are they going to manage to the silent people who NEVER show up? If you want things changed then SHOW UP or SHUT UP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,218 Posts
but maybe people like you never show up and voice your opinion, but you just sit and home and complain on the internet. You need to be Pro-active at the RAC meetings.
 
1 - 20 of 92 Posts
Top