Statewide harvest objective UTAH!!!

[black eye]

I was invited to sit in on the revision of the cougar manaement plan in Utah by the udwr.

Meetings have been interesting to say the least.

In the last meeting we had opportunity to address different ideas concerning the current plan.

A group (I wont say names) wants the entire UTAH state over the counter permits (harvest objective)for lion harvest year round.

I was taken back as many units in Utah are not even on predator management.

What do you all think?

[Neff]

I am just the opposite I believe the whole State needs to be LE. Adjust the permit numbers as needed on each unit. Manage on a unit by unit basis. The current plan with management areas that are extremely large just does not work. Some areas are taking the the brunt of pressure while others are not getting hunted at all. Some of the areas not being hunted are where there are predator problems. It's not working.

[tom]

I'm not positive but isn't that similar to how Colorado does it only they also have female sub quotas? If so, how is it working for you guys in Colorado?

[tonto]

I'm with Neff

If this takes place it wouldn't surprise me at all
the way this state is being manged now our kids and grand kids won't be able to enjoy seeing a lion or a bear in a tree that (special group) is all about big game and they are slowly getting there way


They are not happy unless every predator called animal is dead

But to answer your question I am completely against harvest objective state wide

[tigger]

I agree with Neff a statewide objective would be a joke. I live in an area that has been objective hunts for quite a while now and we might still have a lion or two but they are the most hounded cats you've ever chased, and a 2 year old tom is a trophy. Not what kind of cat I want to kill if I am drawing a tag. I am all about a year long season for the person that draws a tag, but not a quota hunt.

[rockytrails]

I disagree with a Statewide harvest objective for numerous reasons. I NV we now have Region HO's that were previously unit specific. Biologists may tell you cats move long distances to repopulate the overharvested areas. May be true. I would start with your State species management plan. Hopefully you have one. I'll pm you.

[Pumaguy]

No question, there is a big push to go to HO on all units. A very serious thing to have that particular group think about is the Bighorn units. If you (or them) look at the units they are trying so hard to protect sheep, you will see they do not have harvest. If the entire state goes HO, there will not be any cats taken on the bighorn units. I'm for limited entry, but more importantly in my opinion is we need to reduce the slaughter on the cats whether it is HO or limited entry. The overkilling has got to stop. Also, one of the people on the group claims the Bookcliffs still has a lot of cats, he's wrong. Very few with a good tom now nearly a myth.

[FullCryHounds]

CO. does not have a female quota. Each game unit has a quota for total number of cats. Each game manager sets that number each year. When that quota is met, the unit is closed. You can no longer hunt there. Season runs mid Nov through end of Mar. We have an online educational test everyone must take prior to buying a tag. It helps to identify the difference from a Tom and female. That started about 5 years ago. Since then, our female harvest has dropped below 40%. Our system works very well.

[black eye]

Pumaguy,
Your right on the money as always!!! One of the reasons the wildlife board closed the S.E. MANTI a year back was to disperse the hunters back to the sheep units instead of the easier units. I hope this group will listen to reason, and not forget what has recently happened?
HOPE!!!!

Dean,
The bad thing over here is that the biologist do not have the final say period.
As many times I have watched the wildlife board over rule, increase or revise a units hunt stratagy!
This is the reason we are in trouble in UTAH!
Its all about special intrest and BIG money not biology!!

But I do believe it could work if a biologist had the final say.