Point Creep Variable #1... Tag Allocation

The first variable to point creep to discuss is the allocation of tags based upon the management plan and the objectives assigned to each unit. Examples of objectives outlined in the management plan are age trends of harvested animals, buck to doe ratios, numbers of mature bucks/bulls per 100 cows/does, and/or overall herd estimates. Most of the counts that are obtained by DWR personnel are performed post-hunt while game animals are concentrated on winter range and are more easily observed and counted.
The DWR is bound by the management plan to propose tag numbers based upon the objectives outlined in the plan. If a unit has a herd that exceeds the prescribed herd objective then more tags must be proposed. If a buck to doe ratio exceeds what is outlined in the plan then the DWR is bound by the plan to propose more tags. The flipside is also required. If herd estimates are below the objective herd estimate then the DWR proposes fewer tags for the unit. Here is a recent example… the Cache, South unit age objective for harvested bull elk was recently increased from 4.75 to 6.75 years. The last harvest data that I have was several years old (from the 2015 Annual Big Game Report) lists the average age of harvested bull elk at 5.7 years old. Based upon this change in age objective we expected the number of tags to be cut. In 2015 and 2016 there were 140 and 156 bull elk tags, respectively, offered in the drawing under the 4.75 year age objective then in 2017, following the increase in age objective the number of tags issued for the Cache, South unit was reduced to 75… exactly what was expected to happen based upon the management plan.
There is an ebb and flow each year as the annual winter count data is gathered, analyzed, and reported. Based upon this report, the DWR makes a formal proposal for tag numbers for every species and every unit. This occurs in late March or early April in time for the April/May public process sessions of Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) and Wildlife Board (WB) Meeting.
Now here is where it gets interesting. The DWR is bound by the management plans and makes their proposal accordingly but during the RAC and WB meetings the public is allowed to provide input and Conservation Organizations and other Special Interest groups often make recommendations that deviate from the management plan. I have observed a number of RAC and WB meetings and I have found that these recommendations made largely cut tags from the DWR proposal for a number of reasons. Most often the Conservation Organization or Special Interest group couches their recommendation to cut tags from the DWR proposal as “preserving trophy quality” or something of that nature. There always seems to be a representative of the Cattlemen’s Association that recommends additional tag increases to reduce competition from big game with their cattle… but largely recommendations from the public seem to be skewed to one side requesting tags be cut from the proposal for one reason or another.
The WB considers the DWR proposal in combination with the public input and finalizes the tag numbers at the May Wildlife Board Meeting. This particular meeting is often the highest attended of the year and I have seen exchanges become rather heated during discussion periods. In general though, the WB has done a reasonable job of finding middle ground between the DWR proposal and public wants.
Tag cuts contribute to or exacerbate point creep for a unit, especially in units where there are already few tags offered to begin with.
Links to the individual management plans for each species can be found on the Utah DWR website (LINK HERE) about 2/3 of the way down the page.


PREVIOUS: Point Creep?
NEXT: Point Creep Variable #2 - "The Point Buyer"