Utah Wildlife Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
I have been listening to this most the day. All I can say is very interesting.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Justin: I don't agree with that. Boundaries are as consistent as we can make them at this point.

Board: Question, question, push, question... Do you agree yet? Question.. Push.

Justin: Ummmm....


After all the no's and rational why.. Board: "Let's defer and talk about this again."


Some of this has been painful today. I have a management degree, I try and develop leadership skills. I am fit to lead people. It is apparent that "Management" skills are not applicable to wildlife though. There are many mangers on the board, but it doesn't sound like they even hunt. They don't know anything about equipment or the animals. The most concerning thing is when someone has a legit view with data, John instantly dismisses it. It looks like it is the John Opinion show. I don't even know the guy or have any basis for this view other than watching him today.

He just bashed the 1X and said its "negative" magnification. That is a quote. For a guy with astigmatism, I sure enjoy it. "They know how far they can shoot, it's still a muzzleloader" "They won't shoot any further"... Tell that to Gunwerks 700+ yard shots. People will without a doubt shoot further.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
So, looking at their Chart. Henry Mountains. B:D looking for 40-50 (big range). They had a pop objective of 2000, at 2200, new objective is 2700. What is the basis of this? 125% increase because?

Just trying to get a scope on if these proposals are based on simplistic management of "More is better" or what.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
John is actually a BIG TIME hunter. But I see what you are saying.
Good to know. It's just hard listening to some of this. Not because my opinion is correct, but because many of the statements are OPINIONS that could effect our state's hunting in major ways. I haven't heard many facts.

I am sure it isn't an easy job. But hard to watch.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
SFW(John Larsen I think?): Manti is 14,000 under population, but we lowered B:D for opportunity.

We understand that, but scratch our heads. But we are ok with the plan.


So are you objecting and kissing butt at the same time? Stand up and ask why are we killing so many bucks, young bucks at that, on a unit WAY below objective. Great almost concern.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,393 Posts
So much for the board giving 2 shxts about what the RACs think.

-DallanC
DallanC - I agree with you! I, for my own selfish reasons, wanted the ML regulations to stay the same. I would be in the top point category for a LE Elk unit and have been looking forward to that hunt for some time now. As stated in the broadcast, 53% of people surveyed agreed with allowing magnified scopes, but 3 out of 5 RAC meetings voted against allowing magnified scopes - which is 60%. All those comments about how the "majority" has already voted, were not really spot on.

One thing that stuck out to me, was when Troy Justensen said, "Lets not kid ourselves, an inline muzzleloader is basically a .308." - I don't not know Troy, and I am not taking a shot at him, but that would be all the more reason to not allow magnified scopes on muzzleloaders.

My soapbox rant is now over, I am going to go drown my sorrows in a nice cold Diet Dr. Pepper!

I am appreciative to all those who work for our wildlife here in Utah, whether for a state agency or a conservation group. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out with the changes.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Have you listed to it? The RACs have given the impression that they supported the plan mostly as it stands. So even though we heard otherwise at the meetings, they aren't reporting that to the board...
Shocked at how little the RACs have said. They have approved basically everything with little or no voiced concern.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Scofield Canyon CWMU made a dang good point, and it just seems like they don't have enough political friends to get the benefit from their RAC. The board doesn't understand the justification either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,102 Posts
the board is a joke. and the rac's are all for show..
Agreed. The RAC is all for show. Maybe I am naive, but it appears year after year, the board generally approves 90%+ of what the DWR proposes for wildlife management. It is too bad that they then add or subtract something for hunter management.
 

·
Senior Goof
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Scofield Canyon CWMU made a dang good point, and it just seems like they don't have enough political friends to get the benefit from their RAC. The board doesn't understand the justification either.
This was one of the better parts I personally viewed today. The guy had requested 2 additional elk permits for his cwmu. He currently had the highest acres per tag of the 5 cwmu's within 5 miles. Even with the 2 additional tags he would be the lowest, or close to. The board was shocked to learn we don't have a uniform way to distribute tags.

Many were reluctant to open the can of worms because it is a large task. I actually commend John on this because he acknowledged that, but said it needed to be fair. Another board member brought up, and these aren't for sure the numbers he said, but 48 moose tags go to private, 38 public. Somewhere along a 60/40 split which he called unfair. I completely agree. So this is on the agenda to review.

Honestly, we raise and lower tags on public units and the same should be for CWMU's. We should have the acreage documented, and the amount deemed habit. They are reviewed if they sell or gain land. Tags are reviewed based on this documented information and distributed accordingly.

I was pretty surprised(but not) that they don't review this and that it was kind of a guess when tags initially handed out and its held that way.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,393 Posts
Soapbox Rant #2:

After listening for the entire day yesterday, the common crux and justification behind moving tags out of the early and late hunts by creating the October LE hunts was to allow more hunter opportunity and reduce the pressure on mature bulls during the rut. As it now seems, mature bulls will be pressured with high-powered rifles (no longer muzzleloaders) for the vast majority of the rut - give or take a week.

Using the hunt dates from the fall of 2015, I understand that the dates will be different in 2016, but data from 2015 will be plenty to paint the picture.

September 12 - 20 LE Early Rifle 9 Days
September 21 - October 2 LE Muzzleloader 12 Days
October 3 - October 15 General Season (which will now be the mid-season LE in 2016) 13 Days

That is 34 days straight of hunting pressure during the rut or thereabouts. Not to mention the rutting action that the LE archers get to enjoy, the last 3-5 days of their hunt. Some of these changes do not make sense, if we are trying to reduce the amount of pressure the bulls get during the rut.

I am done with my rant now! O|*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,954 Posts
Soapbox Rant #2:

After listening for the entire day yesterday, the common crux and justification behind moving tags out of the early and late hunts by creating the October LE hunts was to allow more hunter opportunity and reduce the pressure on mature bulls during the rut. As it now seems, mature bulls will be pressured with high-powered rifles (no longer muzzleloaders) for the vast majority of the rut - give or take a week.

Using the hunt dates from the fall of 2015, I understand that the dates will be different in 2016, but data from 2015 will be plenty to paint the picture.

September 12 - 20 LE Early Rifle 9 Days
September 21 - October 2 LE Muzzleloader 12 Days
October 3 - October 15 General Season (which will now be the mid-season LE in 2016) 13 Days

That is 34 days straight of hunting pressure during the rut or thereabouts. Not to mention the rutting action that the LE archers get to enjoy, the last 3-5 days of their hunt. Some of these changes do not make sense, if we are trying to reduce the amount of pressure the bulls get during the rut.

I am done with my rant now! O|*
I seriously do not understand some of those that hold positions. Completely clueless. and then there's the ring leader who only likes to hear himself talk and crack lame jokes. I hope a few of those guys don't weasel their way in on the expo proposal decision. You could tell a couple of them were combing with a fine brush on what means "conflict of interest." Nothing surprises me anymore.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top