[goofy elk]

I just wish these changes didn't take so long to happen..

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=33944360&nid=1112&title=ksl-outdoors-wasatch-elk-debate

Too bad 2015 permit numbers probably/wont be changed....
At the very least, cow control permits need to be removed from the Wasatch.

DWR quote:
"There's a concern that we've let out too many permits for the number of elk that are here and there's a real concern that the numbers that we are reporting are not being realized on the ground
Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1112&sid=33944360#HtHJiaza1ixkgjFO.99"

 

[hazmat]

i am glad the voices of all the concerned sportsman are being listened to. and all of these Wasatch threads and emails that piss some people off are paying off. one thing I don't get when they do their fly overs why don't they use still shot photos for a more accurate count . from that piece it looks they do a whole lot of guessing. why not take well placed photos and get a better count. you cant tell me those herd numbers don't get rounded up it is human nature

 

[swbuckmaster]

It's about time

 

[stillhunterman]

Thanks for posting goofy, even though the article is a couple months old and the meetings have been in progress for a little while. I suppose SOMETIMES, when hunters make a big enough stink about something, the smell has to be dealt with.

The DWR does make mistakes here and again, mostly via established guidelines and laws they have to follow, but for the most part they do a fine job. Personally, I have no idea what is going on with the elk here, and I get the distinct feeling no one really does for sure; but the attempts are being formulated to find out, one way or another.

As for the time frame in which wildlife issues are considered and resolutions implemented, yeah, it doesn't happen over night. And that's probably a good thing in many cases. Rash decisions rarely work out for the best. The statement made by Dax (DWR Wildlife Program Manager) was pretty spot in with what he said:

"...the reality is we going to come to some kind of middle ground. I suspect it will be something different than what we have now. Probably more elk, than what we have now. Based on the feedback that we have so far. but I also think there's still guys that aren't going to be happy with it. We are still going to have to harvest some elk. I don't know if there is a way to make everyone happy but we want to bring everyone together. Get everyone on the same page and at least come up with something that everyone can live with and make the process more transparent and make the people understand, what we are up against and what the different interests are in how we manage elk."

 

[hazmat]

Thanks for posting goofy, even though the article is a couple months old and the meetings have been in progress for a little while. I suppose SOMETIMES, when hunters make a big enough stink about something, the smell has to be dealt with.

The DWR does make mistakes here and again, mostly via established guidelines and laws they have to follow, but for the most part they do a fine job. Personally, I have no idea what is going on with the elk here, and I get the distinct feeling no one really does for sure; but the attempts are being formulated to find out, one way or another.

As for the time frame in which wildlife issues are considered and resolutions implemented, yeah, it doesn't happen over night. And that's probably a good thing in many cases. Rash decisions rarely work out for the best. The statement made by Dax (DWR Wildlife Program Manager) was pretty spot in with what he said:

"...the reality is we going to come to some kind of middle ground. I suspect it will be something different than what we have now. Probably more elk, than what we have now. Based on the feedback that we have so far. but I also think there's still guys that aren't going to be happy with it. We are still going to have to harvest some elk. I don't know if there is a way to make everyone happy but we want to bring everyone together. Get everyone on the same page and at least come up with something that everyone can live with and make the process more transparent and make the people understand, what we are up against and what the different interests are in how we manage elk."

poor dwr it must be rough. glad they are finally coming around but I think they need to evaluate why and how they screwed this up in the first place. here are some ideas for them

quit kissing the landowners behing and give out more cwmu tag's

instead of overreacting like they did with the beginning of the unlimited antlerless control tags take a step back and think about

quit just throwing a number out in fly overs take pictures get an accurate count.

quit thinking more antlerless tags is the be all and end all in elk management

to me this was a better ask for forgiveness than for permission scenario for those involved.

 

[mack1950]

I hope that these meetings prove to be helpful in proper evaluating a unit. then maybe they can look past there pocket books at other elk units that are facing the same problem one for sure is the oquirh/standbury unit, for years the counts and herd objectives have been based on evaluations which contain the Kennecott property elk which for with the exception of around 10 bulls allocated for the oqurih east cwmu are off limits to hunting unfortunately the Kennecott property takes up about half the oquirhs seriously effecting both the counts and age objects on the huntable part of this unit. for a long time the unit was split north and south sections with permits allocated to both and while it was not perfect at least the counts were more object full. even the f/g wardens who work this unit think that something has to be done to correct the problem which continues to get worse every year. at the very least when figuring out the age of the bull harvest use on the the statistics from the public area and do not figure in the cwmu bulls.