Utah Wildlife Board

Not sure what to think about loosing five tags to the jerk in Piute County. I'm disappointed that Anis was so casual about how hunters would react to loosing them and some having to keep on waiting to draw on that unit. It would have been nice to hear more discussion on the views the board members were actually taking regarding the actually issue.

I missed the antlerless too. Will they post the audio online later? I'd like to hear the diatribe of a certain someone and then I'd like to hear the blah blah blah about Mexican Wolves from Bair. Can't wait to hunt those SOB's in Southern Utah! lol

Nice thanks. I am really unhappy about the 5 tags off the beaver do to a jackass on a mission. :>/

Who is the guy with deepest/coolest voice on this audio from yesterday? Someone help me out please.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board_minutes/audio/12-05-02.mp3

And THANKS for the info Dahlmer!

Here is my basic thoughts were I have an opninion.

- 4:2 against managing 4 units in the southern region for a 20-25 buck:doe ratio.
AGREED

- Rejected with no motion to NOT make leftover tags available for sale first to archers, 2nd to muzzleloaders, and finally to rifle hunters in opposition of the DWR's recommendation to make left over tags available for sale.
AGREED

- Rejected with no motion to increase buck:doe ratios from 15-17 to 18-20 on both San Juan units and the Manti unit.
Agreed on Manti, not so much on San Juan. But I don't hunt either, so my opinion is minuet.

- Rejected with no motion to increase buck:doe ratios from 15-17 to 18-20 on several units in the NE region.
No opinion, I don't know enough about NE region

- Passed unanimously to accept the proposals from the DWR regarding mule deer.
Agreed for the most part.

- Passed unanimously to lower Dutton bull elk tags from DWR recommendation to 110.
Agreed and although it's now even harder to get an tag this was NEEDED IMO.

- Tabled closing the spike hunt on Monroe until November mtg.
Not sure, but makes sense and I seem to agree as well here.

- Rejected with no motion to reduce sheep tags on Zion unit.
Not sure here? Tough call

- Passed 4:2 to to lower Manti bull elk tags from DWR recommendation to 406.
Makes sense, again I don't hunt here though.

- Passed unanimously to reduce Book Cliff elk tags from DWR recommendation to 130.
Not sure, but makes sense

- Rejected with no motion to reduce Book Cliffs buck tags by 50.
Agreed

- Passed 4:2 to reduce Beaver bull elk tags by 5 as a result of the bulls killed by pvt land holder
Weird? What's to say this guy won't kill 10 next year? Something better needs to be done here eh?
This is become a PR issue though.

- Passed unanimously to accept the remainder of the DWR recommedations for buck, bulls & OIL.

The guy with the deep voice is John Baer.

There was some interesting discussion around a few of the issues. The discussion regarding the spike hunts on the Monroe was tables until Nov. because the information was already in the 2012 proc. and they felt that the discussion would be better suited for the November meeting.

The idea behind reducing deer tags on the Book Cliffs was in an effort to increase quality, but the DWR and most of the board agreed that lowering the tag numbers would do nothing to improve genetics on the Books. In fact the DWR indicated the age class is actually quite high. Another point that was made is that the majority of hunters seem to hunt the same area which is around Nash Wash.

I thought is was silly to reduce tags on the Beaver as a result of the landowner issue there. Anis did say that if they reduced tags they would be close to having so few tags there that the harvest data they collected could be comprimised as a result of so few tags. There was also discussion of whether this would set precident going forward with this type of issue. I agree that this could be a problem.

As far as buck:doe ratios on the San Juan units it sounded like public input was all over the place. There was some concern by locals that they would be unable to hunt their own back yard if the ratio was increased. The only consistent argument seemed to be that both units should be handled the same.

I think I'm ok with all the buck:doe set numbers. I'd rather see the General Season remain an "opportunity" hunt, those hunters that desire quality can continue to put in for the LE units.
The deer tag reduction on the Book Cliffs... I would have to agree with not changing that one. As I've learned about many the LE deer units, I've learned that there are a handful of units where you apply knowing what you're going to get, which is a potentially "average" 4 pt. Based upon what I saw out there 2 years ago, the Book Cliffs is one of those units (IMO). Still a great hunt with some great bucks out there, and I'd love to draw that tag myself someday.
I was ready to jump out the third story window of the laboratory complex when I read that they recommended reducing the number of elk tags on the Book Cliffs... because that's where I applied this year ](*,) . A little homework helped me realize that it was a reduction of only 7 tags from the DWRs recommendation, so that wasn't as tough a pill to swallow because my chances are good but not great to draw the tag [-o< .
There has to be a better way than reducing the Beaver unit elk tags! That seems excruciatingly near sighted to remove 5 tags from the general public because of this clown landowner. I would be livid if I had put in for the Beaver unit this year! It's not like they offer a pile of tags for that unit anyway. The DWR recommended a total of 45, so that works out to be an 11% cut because of this landowner (that would be the equivalent of cutting 46 Manti tags, or 72 Wasatch tags). That's a lot of opprtunity stolen from the hunting public.

Here is SFW's response for those that care...

Big Decisions at Yesterday’s Wildlife Board Meeting

Many of you are aware of some critical decisions that were to be made yesterday, at the Utah Wildlife Board Meeting. Here is a quick update. First, the board voted for zero cow elk permits on the declining Fish Lake unit and and only a modest increase on antelope permits on the Plateau unit (Parker Mountain). These were the recommendations of Utah DWR and were supported Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. In our view, this was a major decision in support of producing abundant wildlife in these herds and across the state of Utah.

At yesterday’s Wildlife Board meeting, SFW and BGF were the only conservation groups present. We were there to fight for abundant herds and to keep a diversity of quality and quantity, and even super quality hunt opportunities. We are very encouraged by the vote of the board on these and other important issues.

It has been a big job to strengthen sportsmen’s voice at the Utah Wildlife Board and Regional Advisory Councils. Prior to the formation of SFW the makeup of the old Board of Big Game Control was such that Sportsmen had one representative out of five. Many times, the sportsmen motion would not even get a “second” to consider the sportsmen motion. In a few cases, when there was a “second”, and the DWR Director voted to increase elk populations, these actions resulted in TWO DWR Directors being fired – Doug Day and Tim Provan.

When SFW started, there was only 600 trophy bull permits, and those “trophy bulls” were mostly 280 to 300 inch bulls. Today, there is approximately 2,800 trophy bull elk permits, a substantial increase in opportunity, and now a balance needs to be attained to keep Utah’s world class quality and opportunity hunts on our great public lands.

Yesterday, DWR Director Jim Karpowitz gave an aggressive and compelling case why there should be NO cow elk permits on the Fish Lake herd, and only a modest increase on doe antelope permits on the Parker Mountain. Mr. Karpowitz also addressed head-on the anti-elk position of the US Forest Service making the case that sportsmen and the DWR had made a major investment to improve habitat in Central Utah, including improvements of over 200,000 acres of public and private land, at a cost of over $16 Million dollars. The DWR also recommended reducing some bull elk permits on Utah’s premium units where age class is in decline– the Beaver, Boulder, Book cliff Roadless, Monroe, San Juan and Pahvant. Permit reductions to increase the average age back up to 7.75 years – grow monster bulls again on these units – was approved by the Board.

The Utah Wildlife Board voted for NO cow elk tags on the Fish Lake unit, and No increase on antelope permits on the Parker Mountain herd. A good outcome for wildlife and a good outcome for maintaining abundant wildlife for hunters in Utah. Additionally, after looking at some data provided by SFW at the local RAC meetings, and at the Board meeting, the DWR agreed that it would be appropriate to reduce the trophy bull elk permit on the Dutton to 110, the Road area of the Book Cliffs to 130 and the Manti at 406.

In other decisions at yesterday, the Board also voted to increase the number of permits for Bison, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and Mountain goats. These herds continue to grow as a direct result of our conservation investment in habitat and transplants. The tremendous Utah limited buck deer permits on the Paunsagunt, Henry Moutains and Book Cliffs remained essentially the same from 2012.

Byron Bateman, President of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife explains the importance of yesterday’s efforts at the Utah Wildlife Board, “this is just a begging of our efforts to increase deer populations to 400,000 head, and have increased quality and opportunity for success on Utah’s public land, general season hunts.”

While we don’t always agree with every recommendation, and many times there are multiple good alternatives, as one RAC member said, “When SFW comes to a meeting, you know they have done their homework, they represent a lot of sportsmen, and their recommendations need to be taken seriously.” We thank all the volunteer members of the public who serve on the RAC Board and Wildlife Boards for their time, efforts and ongoing commitments to wildlife.

Governor Herbert has been a great supporter of sportsmen. The DWR Director is aware of sportsmen strong support for his efforts to protect and grow abundant herds in Utah. As a result of the tremendous support by sportsmen, yesterday’s actions won’t result in another director being fired for growing more wildlife. We the sportsmen have a voice and it does make a big difference. SFW and Big Game Forever are proud to be a part of the answer for creating this tremendous support.

"MuleyMadness" wrote:Here is SFW's response for those that care...
At yesterday’s Wildlife Board meeting, SFW and BGF were the only conservation groups present. We were there to fight for abundant herds and to keep a diversity of quality and quantity, and even super quality hunt opportunities. We are very encouraged by the vote of the board on these and other important issues...
SFW and Big Game Forever are proud to be a part of the answer for creating this tremendous support.

Glad to see SFW so quick to take credit for these decisions... I hope they don't hurt their arms patting themselves on the back.

"derekp1999" wrote:

MuleyMadness wrote:Here is SFW's response for those that care...
At yesterday’s Wildlife Board meeting, SFW and BGF were the only conservation groups present. We were there to fight for abundant herds and to keep a diversity of quality and quantity, and even super quality hunt opportunities. We are very encouraged by the vote of the board on these and other important issues...
SFW and Big Game Forever are proud to be a part of the answer for creating this tremendous support.

Glad to see SFW so quick to take credit for these decisions... I hope they don't hurt their arms patting themselves on the back.

Wow, it's a loss, loss for those guys. It doesn't matter what they say, somebody will take a shot.

As for SFW's response, I had/have no issue with their statement release, the only part I questioned was this line...

At yesterday’s Wildlife Board meeting, SFW and BGF were the only conservation groups present. We were there to fight for abundant herds and to keep a diversity of quality and quantity,

Reason being, I thought NO public input was taken? So this statement seemed irrelevant or contradictory.

BTW - I listened to almost the entire 3 hour 20 minute meeting. How many others did? I found it very helpful and interesting.

"ridgetop" wrote:Wow, it's a loss, loss for those guys. It doesn't matter what they say, somebody will take a shot.

Not saying that I don't like the outcomes of the Wildlife Board Meeting... I find it ironic that these guys (SFW) have enough hubris to take credit for the decisions made by someone else (the Board).
I think there were some very educated decisions made by the Board like leaving the buck:doe ratios lower on many general units, recognizing that it's a genetic problem therefore not reducing deer tags on the Book Cliffs, and reducing tag numbers strategically on some of the elk units (Dutton, Manti, and Book Cliffs). THESE are the kinds of decisions, although potentially unpopular, that will start to make a difference.

I would like to thank Tye Boulter and Lee from UWC for NOT giving public input at the meeting and all the non-SFW folks who also DID NOT send hundred of emails or attend RAC's this last month concerning the hybrid b/d ratios suggested by the division that SFW came up with.....but wait a minute. I DID hear both Tye and Lee from UWC, weird. And SFW didn't like the hybrid b/d ratio but knew there was way too much social pressure for it even though they wanted that third tier so they could get rid of the 15-17 and 18 - 20 in coming years and only have 15-20 and 20-25, THAT'S RIGHT, or did I just let a little secret out of the bag?!?!?! Stupid ADD!!!!! SFW should not include me in their secret email circle!

"MuleyMadness" wrote:BTW - I listened to almost the entire 3 hour 20 minute meeting. How many others did? I found it very helpful and interesting.

I listened to most of the 3 1/2 hours as well. I thought much of the discussion was very helpful also. I thought that SFW/BGF's statement was disingenuous...it just felt as if they were trying to take credit for many of the decisions that were made and discrediting any contribution from others. If anything I felt the lack of interest in the 20-25 buck:doe ratio in the southern region and the idea of not selling left over tags, as well as not raising several areas in the NE and SE regions to 18-20 buck:doe ratios was in direct opposition to SFW's desires.

A couple of issues that were discussed that I found particularly interesting were first that the DWR indicated that their studies indicated that 95% of does were being bred (this on the Monro with one of the worst buck:doe ratios in the state) when tested. This would fly in the face of the concept that low buck:doe ratios were resulting in low pregnancy rates. Ongoing studies are being done to provide greater information than has previously understood or collected.

Secondly, there was a question about the timing of does being bred and the concern that many were being bred during their 2nd or 3rd estrus cycle. Anis indicated that there was no data suggesting that this was happening. They had found the most does were bred during their first estrus cycle. Does being bred later was primarily a result of poor health or yearling does not cycling until later. He indicated that their is no evidence to suggest that this is a problem, if a doe is healthy she very likely to be bred during her first cycle.

I don't like the idea of unsold archery tags going back out to the gun hunters. When I was voicing my concerns with not enough tags being cut on unit 18. The Biologist(and many others) assured me that a couple hundred rifle tags were shifted to the archery season and this will help elevate the buck to doe ratio. But if those extra archery tags don't sell, then there could be just as many gun hunter as in past years. Which will cause a drop in the buck to doe ratio. I just don't like that door being open, not even if it's just by a crack.

I also agree that the 5 reduced elk tags on the Beaver was done to get more sportsman upset with that rancher and to put pressure on us to make sure something like that will not happen again.

"dahlmer" wrote:

MuleyMadness wrote:If anything I felt the lack of interest in the 20-25 buck:doe ratio in the southern region and the idea of not selling left over tags, as well as not raising several areas in the NE and SE regions to 18-20 buck:doe ratios was in direct opposition to SFW's desires.

There were some very unhappy SFW members the night we left that RAC. It was made pretty clear in an email and in discussions that the intentions were to get that third tier as a means to hold certain units from ever having tag increases but also so that the argument could be made later that there was no visual or biological difference in the 15-17 or 18-20 so we might as well combine the two and just have the two (for then four) tiers. There were lots of people from the public that suggested it was a great idea (mostly SFW supporters). This was seen by some in the "secret circle" to be a way to control and reduce tag numbers while somehow introducing an artificial age class to the b/d ratio for mule deer. I didn't get it but they were convinced. Thank goodness the RAC didn't care for it except for the four units and we all knew THAT wasn't going to fly! Also, not wanting the tags to roll over came from a non consumption member of the RAC but had open support from other members but you could tell there were hurt feelings and it didn't gain momentum.

Your points on the other information from the WB meeting are good ones. They definitely seemed to almost hold strong and Bair almost was frustrated a couple of times to the point of that big sexy voice actually cracking.....THAT would have been spectacular!