Utah Wildlife Board Meeting November 1, 2012, DNR, Boardroom 1594 W
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Utah Wildlife Board Meeting November 1, 2012, DNR, Boardroom 1594 W. North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah Revised October 23, 2012 Thursday, November 1, 2012, Board Meeting 9:00 am 1. Approval of Minutes ACTION – Del Brady, Chairman 2. Old Business/Action Log CONTINGENT – Ernie Perkins, Vice-Chair 3. DWR Update INFORMATION – Jim Karpowitz, DWR Director 4. Fishing Guidebook and Rule R657-13 ACTION - Drew Cushing, Aquatic Program Coordinator 5. Illegal Species Movement in Utah INFORMATIONAL - Drew Cushing, Aquatic Program Coordinator - Paul Birdsey, Sport Fisheries Program Coordinator 6. Centerville City Hunting Closure Proposal ACTION - Neal Worsley, Centerville Police Chief 7. Conservation Permit Audit ACTION - Greg Sheehan, Administrative Services Section Chief 8. Conservation Permit Allocation – 1 year and 3 year permit ACTION - Kevin Bunnell, Wildlife Section Chief 9. Conservation Permit Annual Report ACTION - Kevin Bunnell, Wildlife Section Chief 10. 2013 RAC/Board Dates ACTION - Staci Coons, Wildlife Board Coordinator 11. Other Business CONTINGENT – Del Brady, Chairman • Winter WAFWA Thursday, November 1, 2012, Board Appeal 1:00 pm 1. Board Appeal –– Time Certain 1:00 pm ACTION • George Jay Simon 2. Board Appeal –– Time Certain 4:00 pm ACTION • Jack Bennett In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act - Persons needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) for this meeting, should contact Staci Coons at 801- 538-4718, giving her at least five working days notice. draft 11-1-12 ACTION LOG Wildlife Board Motions Following is a summary of Wildlife Board motions directing the Division to take action and the response to date: Fall 2012 – Target Date – Preference Point Presentation MOTION: I move that we ask the Division to give a presentation on the preference point system relative to the new 30 unit deer plan. Assigned to: Greg Sheehan Action: Under Study Status: Scheduled for November 2012 RAC Meetings/ December 2012 Board Meeting Placed on Action Log: June 6, 2012 Late Fall 2012 – Target Date – Conservation Permit Program Report MOTION: I move that the Division publish an annual report in reference to the conservation program that lists from start to finish how the permits are allocated, the percentages that are allocated, where the money goes and what projects are accomplished with that money. Assigned to: Kevin Bunnell Action: Under Study Status: Scheduled to be presented to the Wildlife Board November 1, 2012 Placed on Action Log: June 6, 2012 Spring 2013 – Target Date – Convention Permit Meetings MOTION: I move that we add to the action log a request that the Division have a two- part meeting; the first meeting between the Mule Deer Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and United Wildlife Cooperative to identify the main issues and concerns. The second meeting will be between the Division and the Mule Deer Foundation to discuss possible voluntary changes to the current contract to address the issues identified. The Division will report back to the Board within one year. Assigned to: Jim Karpowitz Action: Under Study Status: Letter to be presented to the Wildlife Board November 1, 2012 Placed on Action Log: August 16, 2012 Summer 2013 – Target Date – Additional Take of Sandhill Cranes and Swans MOTION: I move that we put the issue of swans and sandhill cranes on the action log to see if there could be additional take in other parts of the state. Assigned to: Blair Stringham Action: Under Study Status: Pending Placed on Action Log: August 16, 2012 Late Fall 2013 – Target Date – Nine Mile Range Creek MOTION: I move that we ask the Division to report back on the Nine Mile Range Creek change to any bull relative to all issues of hunting, including trespass, harvest, and hunter satisfaction. Assigned to: Anis Aoude Action: Under Study Status: Pending Placed on Action Log: December 1, 2011 1 State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MICHAEL R. STYLER Executive Director GARY R. HERBERT Governor Division of Wildlife Resources GREGORY S. BELL JAMES F. KARPOWITZ Lieutenant Governor Division Director M E M O R A N D U M Date: October 23, 2012 To: Wildlife Board From: John Shivik, Mammal Coordinator SUBJECT: Clarification on Interim Review of Female Cougar Harvest At the meeting of the Wildlife Board on 12 September, 2012, there was a significant amount of comment and discussion about cougar management. Given the amount of concern for immediate action, the Division acknowledges the need to present a more thorough analysis of female cougar harvest (with particular reference to the Wasatch-Manti Cougar Management Area) and why an emergency change is not needed. Utah’s Cougar Plan operates on large management areas due to the scale of cougar home ranges and movements. Cougar home ranges in Utah are on the order of 250 to 300 square miles. Dispersal distances for cougars range up to 600 miles. One female Utah cougar wandered a path 833 miles long during the course of a year while dispersing to a point 221 miles away from where she was born. Cougars can move between most management units in the state fairly easily and rapidly, and female cougars are actually drawn into areas with lower densities, allowing local populations to quickly rebound if sub-populations are low. Because of their dispersal and reproductive capabilities and the tendency to live in areas that are difficult for human access, cougar populations can respond and grow relatively quickly if hunting pressure is reduced. For example, in the data set below, it took several years of intense harvest (pre-2002 on the Monroe Unit) to bring cougar populations to a low level. Equally important, when hunting pressure was reduced, populations returned to previous high levels within 3-4 years. 1594 West North Temple, Suite 2110, PO Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 telephone (801) 538-4700 • facsimile (801) 538-4709 • TTY (801) 538-7458 • www.wildlife.utah.gov Page 2 October 23, 2012 Subject: The Cougar Management Plan also relies upon a 3-year data collection period because cougar populations and hunting success can vary considerably due to variation in weather and snow cover. It takes several years of data collection to develop precise estimates of population parameters. A complete data set and precise estimates is essential for making strong management recommendations, especially on a species that can be controversial. The plan employs biological indexes to adjust permit/quota numbers. The performance targets are percent adult females and cougars treed per day. Summarizing the first 2 years of the current management cycle in the table below, some areas are receiving significant hunting pressure, and it is likely that the Division will recommend reducing quotas on them in 2013. In other areas hunting pressure is less significant and recommended quotas are likely to be increased in 2013. It is better to wait for additional data at this point, but even if the plan were on a two year cycle, on only one of the management areas (and not the Wasatch-Manti) would permits be adjusted by the maximum amount. Management Area % Adult Females Cougars Treed/Day Potential Adjustment Oquirrh-Stans 0.24 0.18 < 25% Cache 0.22 0.19 <15% Uintas 0.21 0.25 <10% Wasatch-Manti 0.31 0.25 <20% Book Cliffs 0.15 0.35 >15% Monroe 0.30 0.28 <20% Sheep Units 0.17 0.20 No change San Juan 0.11 0.30 >20% Pine Valley 0.24 0.27 <20% The Southwest Manti in particular was the unit that seemed to be the greatest focus of discussion. The Southwest Manti, for example, is only about 60 miles long and 10 miles wide, a relatively small area when managing cougars that have home ranges exceeding 250 square miles. As shown in the graph below, there was a high harvest of 18 cougars in 2012, but the cougars treed per day and proportion of adult females is continuing to trend upward, indicating that even with the high harvest, there are still adult female cougars in the area. Page 3 October 23, 2012 Subject: Another complicating factor is that the Cougar Management Plan assigns permit adjustments on the Area scale while simultaneously calling for units under Predator Management Plans (PMP) to be managed more aggressively (>25% adult female harvest). Separating PMP units from the remaining units, such as in the Wasatch-Manti, reveals that the desired effect is being achieved, a heavy harvest of cougars on the Wasatch-Manti PMP units (proportion adult females = 0.40; cougars treed/day = 0.22), but a lighter harvest on the non-PMP units there (proportion adult females = 0.22; cougars treed/day = 0.27). One final question that came up during discussions was what females are counted when analyzing harvest data. When calculating the proportion of adult females, only females >3years old are considered for two reasons. First, younger animals are more prone to disperse and it is not appropriate to count animals that are only passing through and are not necessarily residing in an area. Second, because sub- adults are more transient, they are more susceptible to mortality. Adult females are the stable and resident animals that are responsible for reproduction in an area, and therefore provide a barometer to the status of the population, whereas earlier ages classes are not producing young, are not necessarily residents of the area, and are more likely to die before contributing kittens to the population. The Division acknowledges significant harvest on the Southwest Manti and other units, but there is no evidence of an immediate threat or irreparable damage to cougar populations based on current data and cougar ecology. There is no evidence of a female overharvest that requires emergency management action. The level at which populations are being impacted will not be known at a precise enough level to make management decisions until the spring of 2013.