Too Many Trigger Happy Hunters

AWHOLELOTTABULL

Long Time Member
Messages
4,357
I am new to the site but I just read the post by Prism regarding mule deer projects and funds used for these projects. One person said that the SFW gives most of the funds to the LE areas and not to general public areas. I agree. The reason for this is the trophy quality. There has to be areas with great habitat that the average hunter can't get to because the average hunter can't stay off the trigger long enough to let the 1,2 & 3 year old bucks get mature. This is proven time and again at the deer checking stations on the general rifle season. There is hardly a deer come through there without the milk still drying on its lips. Do you agree that people need to be more selective in the animals they kill? The habitat is there if we will just let them get bigger.


www.awholelottabull.com
 
Believe it or not, some people actually hunt for meat and just want to fill the freezer. Thank god they are all not trophy hunters, what would the competition be like then ??

JB

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--Benjamin Franklin 1759
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-15-06 AT 10:45PM (MST)[p]There's nothing at all inherently more ethical, reasonable or respectable about shooting 180 class deer over a decent 3 point. If you hunt legally and love eating deer no other hunt snob should tell you that you are a lesser person. Want to hunt horns, you're cool by me. Love to eat meat and you'll shoot what fills your tag, you're cool by me too. Neither owes the other an appology.

Game depts should manage MOSTLY for NUMBERS. Because the more LE hunts there are, the fewer hunters can hunt, the more we commercialize hunting, the less often we can hunt and ta da... the fewer hunters that come up in the next generation that hunt and VOTE in our commmunity interests. The original concept of hunting was about providing food for families and community for men only much later on did we become antler whores. Which of course breeds the whole Utah situation where the citizens have to watch their oportunity sold off to the highest bidder. Nope I'd rather there were thousands of fork eaters than a few hundred guys that get to hunt every 5 years.
 
I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying that everyone should be a trophy hunter. I am not even saying that you shouldn't shoot a 2 year old buck. I am saying that if you want numbers you need to let the bucks grow up a little. The more muture bucks will breed a lot more does than a 1 or 2 year old deer. Your decent 3 point is a prime example. I am not sure what you are calling a decent 3 point but your average 3 point is at least 2 years old if not 3 or 4. My comments were directed more to the complainers that there are not enough trophy bucks available on public land. The reason is we shoot too many younger deer on public land. No offense intended.


www.awholelottabull.com
 
who's complaining? It just takes work to find them. If you just drive around and don't ever see anything trophy quality, well then I guess you need to revise your strategy. The biggest bucks I've ever seen have been on public land in general hunt units.
 
If you hunt for meat, shoot a doe. For those that have to shoot a buck of any size to feel like a man, suck it up and shoot a doe. For those that like a challenge, like matching wits with a mature buck, work hard while hunting, accept defeat and can eat tag soup, respect the animal your after, and honor them if you come out the winner, I'm with ya and best of luck. :)

Lien2
 
One of the interesting things about this website is to see who replys to what posts. I have seen some of these same guys post recently on other much more heated and deleted subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with this but for whatever reason there is enough interest in this subject to bring out some of the same members.

My .02$.........I believe that there is an element of peer pressure involved with some of the younger hunters in that there is a need to fill the tag. I believe this is more true in Utah because of the tradition and history that revolves around mule deer hunting and the social and family implications related to it. Its woven into Utah's culture but now the demand far exceeds the supply.

No one should tell another what kind of buck to hold out for as that is a personnal decision. The dream buck is in the eye of the beholder. That being said I believe its also true that a person should not kill a buck at the end of the hunt just to have said they "filled their tag" or "got their buck" to friends or peers. If you killed that buck for just to speak those words, it might be time to re-think your approach.

If Utah is to have opportunity and quality in their deer herds in the future, this culture must be changed. You cannot wipe out a majority of the 1 1/2 year old age class in the open areas every year and have good representation of older age class bucks.
 
my 02 cents.

Not everyone is a trophy hunter, thank someone for that.
There is nothing ethically wrong with shooting a 2 pointer vs a mature buck, people need to get that out of there heads, I wouldn't do it, half the people on monster mulies wouldn't do it, but 80% of the hunting population would and with out that 80% the 20% of us wouldn't be hunting. If the 80% doesn't get a shot at a 2 pointer every once in a while they will quit hunting and the sport becomes less popular affecting all hunters. In reality don't encourage these folks to go shoot does instead of a 2 pointer or a spike. The 2 pointer or the spike doesn't reproduce the doe does. Unless you have a serious over population (not usually the case) shooting a doe hurts the overall population and possibility of future mature bucks, much more than shooting a forky. Contrary to what many of you believe there is no genetic bottle necking from the overhunting of mature bucks, it just doesn't happen genetically on the level you are talking about, let the 2 points do the breeding it is the same genes in the herd, The only reason you see less big bucks is because there are less of them. The environmental pressures on deer don't allow many big bucks to survive, hunting or no hunting.

T
 
i have not spent any time hunting out of state, but a question for you utah guys. is there any antler restrictions on your general season deer? in washington most of eastern washington where our mule deer are is 3pt minimum on one side. granted we are not famous for monster muleys and our wdfw could probably use some help in the management dept. but what would you guys think about a 3pt minimum?
just curious as there is at times a lot of drama over that issue in our state. i personally am all for it.
 
A three point minimum for mule deer has a negative effect on genetics. I used to live in WA. I understand this issue. There are essentially no antler point restrictions in Utah. Antler point restrictions are the wrong approach for managing mule deer. This is one area where Utah has the right idea. While it is true that many yearling bucks are harvested every year in general units, they are not being overharvested. There are great bucks taken (and still living) on general season units each year. Enough survive to maturity to ensure successful propogation. General season mule deer hunting in Utah is better than many give it credit. Don't try to "fix" something that isn't broken.

Bill
 
I agree with some of the points made. It is silly to kill a "last day" buck just to say you did. If you are a meat hunter then kill what you can, to fill your freezer. A trophy is in the eye of the beholder. If you're a trophy hunter, and you see your trophy, take him. I consider myself a trophy hunter, but at the same time I also enjoy eating venison. I will have at least four deer tags this year. That being said, I will have a deer in the freezer before the season is over. Hopefully from a "trophy"!
Don
 
What if you want meat and a trophy? What if you hold out for a trophy until the last day or two, then shoot a "meat" buck? That means you would be killing a "last day" buck. But I do understand where it shouldn't be just for the sake of saying you wanted to kill something. I agree with most of you. If you want to "kill" something, shoot a coyote, prairie dog, etc.
 
I agree with scremin.I always trophy hunt,but I also like the meat so I will try to get anything I can at the last minute.I don't do this just to say I killed something because I know I can kill a deer.I just enjoy the meat.I have shot plenty of young bucks and as I get older it makes me strive to get a bigger one each year.The little ones just don't get me as excited as they used to,but they sure taste good.I think each person is different.If someone wants to shoot a 2 point,I think they have every right as long as they don't waste the meat.How many big bucks get poached every year and the meat goes to waste.That has an affect to.There are big bucks and small bucks everywhere you go.What gets shot should be up to the hunter.
 
#1
>If the 80% doesn't get
>a shot at a 2
>pointer every once in a
>while they will quit hunting
>and the sport becomes less
>popular affecting all hunters.

#2
>Contrary to
>what many of you believe
>there is no genetic bottle
>necking from the overhunting of
>mature bucks, it just doesn't
>happen genetically on the level
>you are talking about, let
>the 2 points do the
>breeding it is the same
>genes in the herd, The
>only reason you see less
>big bucks is because there
>are less of them.

Point #1 -You make a valid point here Toole. Most people don't have the patience to wait out the big one and if they don't get an opportunity to "kill" something they will quit. It is sad but true.

Point #2 - You are right about the 2 points carrying the same genetics as the mature bucks. However, it is a fact that the mature bucks will breed significantly more does than the younger bucks. If you wipe out 1/2 of the 1-2 year old deer then the mature bucks have to "service" more does. They can't do it all. Point being, if people are harvesting a good number of young bucks there are more does that are not getting bred every year.

I am not sure what the fix is but I do know that there needs to be a higher survival rate for young bucks to increase the deer numbers. There also has to be some does taken every year to make room on winter range for the bucks. If you are a meat hunter, good for you, get a doe tag.


www.awholelottabull.com
 
AWholeLotOfBull,
You're a little off the mark regarding young bucks servicing does. Does will always be serviced. It is very, very rare for a doe not to be bred. Doesn't matter if it is young bucks or older mature bucks doing the breeding, she won't be missed.

There is way more to hunting than just big antlers and bragging rights. The vast majority of hunters out there are not trophy hunters. Being in the outdoors with family and friends and bringing home some great table fare is more the focus. Ain't nothing wrong with that. I consider myself a trophy muley nut, but I too love eating venison. I might be in a rare situation, but having a freezer full of meat does help greatly on the ol' budget. I don't spend much on hunting, don't need too. The cost savings are tremendous when you consider the price of beef at the grocery store. So I've been known to kill a small buck or two. ;) I put in for LEH antlerless draws every year as well. Always nice to have a young doe in the freezer.
 
I choose to use my buck tag for a "trophy" if you want to call it that. I try to take a buck that is bigger than the biggest buck I have taken in previous years. I have eaten a few tags. I have drawn the tag for my preffered area only once. I am fortunate to be able to purchase up to 3 doe tags. All 3 are filled every year and in the freezer. In my case I prefer to let the small bucks go to grow up. Besides, If I don't draw my preferred muley tag, I can shoot a whitey buck and thin out the other deer. I love muley bucks, but whiteys taste better. mtmuley
 
I beg to differ. You may have a better buck to doe ratio in Canada vs here in Utah but we have does here that don't get bred every year. I know that for a fact. It is not as rare as you make it seem. I guess my point is balance. Yes there needs to be youngs bucks taken every year as well as does and if lucky enough, the big bucks. I don't condemn the meat hunter as I enjoy venison as much as the next guy. Some states require you to take a doe or two if you are going to harvest a buck. I hunt on a ranch in Kansas where you are required to take 2 does to every buck. It's all about balance. We too survive off of venison all year long and I agree, it does help out the budget alot. I would love to hunt Canada for big muleys and whitetail someday.


>AWholeLotOfBull,
>You're a little off the mark
>regarding young bucks servicing does.
>Does will always be serviced.
>It is very, very rare
>for a doe not to
>be bred. Doesn't matter if
>it is young bucks or
>older mature bucks doing the
>breeding, she won't be missed.
>
>
>There is way more to hunting
>than just big antlers and
>bragging rights. The vast majority
>of hunters out there are
>not trophy hunters. Being in
>the outdoors with family and
>friends and bringing home some
>great table fare is more
>the focus. Ain't nothing wrong
>with that. I consider myself
>a trophy muley nut, but
>I too love eating venison.
>I might be in a
>rare situation, but having a
>freezer full of meat does
>help greatly on the ol'
>budget. I don't spend much
>on hunting, don't need too.
>The cost savings are tremendous
>when you consider the price
>of beef at the grocery
>store. So I've been known
>to kill a small buck
>or two. ;) I put
>in for LEH antlerless draws
>every year as well. Always
>nice to have a young
>doe in the freezer.


www.awholelottabull.com
 
"There is hardly a deer come through there without the milk still drying on its lips."

Yup, nothin' better than prime, milk fed, muley!!! :9

I do meat hunt and don't mind taking a doe when we are allowed to. Living where I do, I can also hunt fairly inexpensively and a couple of deer, or a few antelope and an elk in the freezer makes a difference for us. I don't begrudge trophy hunters and when the family is more grown up and the meat less necessary and perhaps I've more free time to scout.... I would definately set my sights and a hog and accept nothing less...but then they taste so damn good...
 
WholeLotABull,
Just curious how you came up with that theory that there are a whole lot a does not being bred in Utah? Is that personal observation or what? Just because you might see does without fawns in the spring or summer don't mean they weren't bred. Fawns do die of many things like predation, hypothermia, malnutrition ect... I would say that the science in mule deer biology would greatly disagree with you. ;)
http://sdana.photosite.com/DanasHuntingPics/
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-18-06 AT 09:37PM (MST)[p]Hey there BCBOY. I didn't say that there are "a whole lota does not being bred". I think in a normal area where the buck to doe ratio is adequate,it is expected that every doe will have the opportunity to get bred. I have a personal aquaintance that happens to be a wildlife biologist that we have worked with on several projects including mule deer habitat and breeding studies. Obviously it is very difficult to get concrete evidence without preg testing every doe during the months of January and February, thus no published studies. However, one of their major concerns is buck to doe ratio's on over-the-counter public areas that get a lot of pressure. There are certain areas in the state that have very marginal buck to doe ratios. You are right about the several factors playing into a low concentration of mule deer but one of the main factors of concern is depleting the number of bucks to the point of not getting every doe bred. There are numbers showing that this could be a concern in the very near future. I wish I could point you to a published study. I think you can deduce using common sense that if there are not enough bucks, there won't be enough fawns. Don't you agree?

The whole point of this thread was to see just what people thought of getting off the trigger a little bit on smaller bucks. I think we got a little side tracked. I appreciate your comments and hope I haven't offended any of the "meat hunters".

www.awholelottabull.com
 
Awholelotabull,
I understand the whole premise of the thread. I myself agree with much of it. You can't kill big ones if you are always taking care of the little ones. There is a lot of whinning that goes on on this site especially from the Utah crowd (hence the nickname Utard :) :) ) about the trophy quality of their herds. You log on to MM and you see monster buck after monster buck and it is easy to think that this is the norm everywhere. But it just ain't so. The norm everywhere is that the vast majority of hunters out there across most of the west are hunting for many different reasons. Hard-core trophy muley nuts are a slim minority. 99.9% of the hunters in my home province are meat hunters. Sure they would love to kill a big buck, but most don't have what it takes. And unless they luck into a big un once in their lifetime, they will end up taking little ones time and time again. Just a fact of life. Trophy hunting takes more than just the physical ability to get into some ruff country, it also is a mental attitude that most will never grasp. Last year I hunted for 3 months straight, passed on bucks that most guys would only dream about and came home the last day of the season eating tag soup. The mental aspect was made easier due to the fact I had a young bull moose in the freezer, but I've had many years in the past where I've gone with no meat, and that was okay with me. To go day after day after day without even seeing a hint of a deer in pursuit of that Monster that you know lives there is hard on the brain. It would be so easy to give up and just jump in the truck and drive the first bush road you see and kill a buck, but that buck won't be that Monster you are after, so you keep at it. Physically drained from climbing that steep and deep again and again, you push yourself till you are at the breaking point and then push somemore. That is what this pursuit is all about. And when it boils right down to it, most hunters don't have it in them.
http://sdana.photosite.com/DanasHuntingPics/
 
your suggestion of getting off the trigger of smaller bucks is really the same idea behind 3 pt or better type of rules. And, while it seems to make sense, it really is not the answer, all it does is shift the population harvest from 1.5 yr old deer to 2.5 yr old deer, and the real problem is that it has been shown in many areas that these types of rules actually result in fewer truly mature animals because it keeps people in the field longer, actually increasing the odds that they might stumble on to a true mature animal.

the 3pt rules are popular in many areas because it increases the number of 2.5 yr old animals, and most mule deer hunters are ecstatic at shooting a basket racked 18 inch 3pt, so it seems like it is a good deal.

Unfortunately, in the US, the only way of really fixing the mule deer herds is to reduce the amount of bucks harvested, gimmicks like minimum pt rules are not going to do it, there needs to be fewer bucks harvested, and the only way to do that is to restrict the number of tags given out. With all the increased technology (like the internet, better optics, etc) it is just not possible for their to be good buck escapement anymore.

And, while it is probably true that most does are bred in a year, the fact is that the majortiy of them are being bred by immature bucks, and there have been numerous studies done that show that breeding by immatue bucks does not produce as fit fawns as does that are bred by mature bucks.

The real key to good numbers of mule deer herds is the fawn recruitment; and fawn recruitment has been horrible almost all over the west for the last decade. The age structure of the buck populations in the west is pathetic, and my guess is that this has been a factor in the systemic poor fawn recruitment levels. I think the other big factor in the systemically poor fawn recruitment is higher levels of predation.

some of the best examples of rules that have gotten good results is the spike only elk hunting rules that have been put in place in areas of WA state, they have succeeded in fixing the age structure of the elk populations, providing opportunities at mature bulls for hunters, while still providing opportunities for Joe 6 Pack hunters.
 
awholelottabull, I'm not questioning your acquaintance's knowledge, but there are plenty of published studies regarding fecundity rates. If he's a typical state game bio, he's too busy to keep up with the published literature. We've done the preg testing with ultrasound on numerous studies, others have looked at preg. rates from roadkill does from Dec - May. Results are extremely consistent; even where bucks are heavily harvested and escapement is very low, pregnancy rates are consistently high. With the exception of most yearlings and some very old females, nearly every mule deer doe over 2.5 years old is pregnant with twins during the December-May timeframe. In the cases where reduced fecundity has been documented, it almost invariably is related to body condition (% body fat) of the females during the rut - usually, though not always, drought related. If body condition is adequate, lack of pregnancy is extremely unusual in adult does under 8-10 years old. If they are too emaciated, they won't impregnate; once impregnated, they do everything short of death to bring fetuses to term.

That said, there are very good biological reasons we THINK there should be adequate age structure and sufficient buck numbers. Among those are receptivity of does to breeding by large antlered bucks, and refusal to breed during the first heat with small bucks. This leads to higher birth weights, due to longer gestations and/or higher body condition of the doe during early pregnancy, which results in a shorter period of vulnerability to predation; higher survival during inclement parturition weather; and greater synchronization of fawning, which reduces predation rates on newborns.

Second, the presence of dominant bucks has a suppressing effect on rutting effort of subordinate bucks; consequently, young bucks expend less energy during the rut, receive less wounds, winter in better condition, have higher survival rates and begin growing antler earlier and at a faster rate the following year, resulting in larger antlers at a younger age. For most hunters, it does not matter whether that 170+ buck is 3.5 years old, or 7.5 years old. The herd where they grow big antlers at 3 or 4 will produce far more trophies than the same size herd where that doesn't happen until they are 5+. It's mainly nutrition, but there are important effects for population regulation in having adequate buck escapement and escapement of older age bucks.

In the best cases, hunting pressure is sufficiently balanced, through season length or timing, access limitations (physical or legal), and other factors leading to sufficiently low harvest vulnerability, that any deer or any buck is legal quarry. Where vulnerability is higher, and it is not politically possible to change from general seasons to limited entry by permit, antler point restrictions may be the difference between sufficient buck escapement - of any size - and killing nearly all the bucks. Primarily spikes and 2-points surviving is not optimum, beats heck out of no bucks surviving. Antler point restrictions are a poor substitute for limiting harvest pressure, but beat the heck out of unlimited harvest pressure where vulnerability is high.

Me? I like to hunt. I prefer to hunt for old bucks and bulls, but hunting is more important than what I'm hunting. I love the meat, but it's a bonus, not the reason. That said, trophy hunting used to be a choice, not an entitlement, and those who chose to refrain from harvesting legal game would have never dreamed of forcing other hunters to refrain from killing legal game, to increase their own odds of killing trophies.

My hat's off to every hunter I've ever talked to who said words to the effect, "I passed up small ones, and didn't find the one I wanted. It was a great hunt". I've also been fortunate to meet literally hundreds of young hunters, new hunters, and newly successful hunters with their first animal or first buck, and the last thing I ever want to do is reduce their chance for success to increase the odds of that first guy.

Lastly, an indulgence. If the p.o.'ed "trophy hunter" who came through my check station west of Casper in 1994, snarling "I've burned three tanks of gas and haven't seen one big enough to shoot!", is on this site, or to anyone who's ever expressed that particular sentiment (number of tanks can be variable): I couldn't express it at the time, but - you can pucker up and kiss mine!

Thanks for letting me ramble.
 
ansonlynn, I agree with everything you say but have some questions. How many does will a typical buck breed in one season and what percentage of the does bred produce viable fetus'? I know that my aquaintance mentioned the concern of what breeding would do to a low buck populated area. One buck can not possibly service that many does an be healthy enough to survive a winter in Utah, Wyoming or Colorado.m Just curious as to your thoughts on that. I appreciate you comments as well as BCBOY. You're never too old to learn. As far as the 3 point or better restrictions you mention.....an example I can think of that would back your point is the Book Cliffs unit in Utah. I remember hunting that years ago and you would see buck after buck down there but there were not that many big mature deer. As soon as they lifted that restriction hunters went wild and shot everything in site. I remember hunting down there the year before they closed it. You were hard pressed to find a little 2 point buck. After they let it sit for several years hunters are taking some huge bucks off of that unit now.


www.awholelottabull.com
 
This is an ongiong dilemma. There really are no easy answers because different hunters have different value sets. I'm a mlue deer nut, tried and true. I'll do whatever I can to help mule deer. My personal philosophy has been to not harvest less than a solid trophy, a mature mule deer buck.

If I want meat, I take one of the "verminous" species. I'll shoot a cow elk or a whitetail doe. There are way too many elk and whiteails in eastern Wyoming, so I can even get extra licenses to hunt them. I'd encourage others to do the same. Colorado has way too many elk as well.

The point is that there are choices besides shooting those young bucks or even muley does for meat. And don't give me a bunch of biological lectures about the need to harvest mule deer does. I'm not buying that form anyone. Our habitat will carry a LOT MORE mule deer than we have.

Kind of like "save a horse, ride a cowboy" only "save a muley, shoot an elk or whitetail." :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-19-06 AT 11:49AM (MST)[p]ansonlynn.

I was about to address an earlier message in this thread about the breeding of does requiring a high buck-to-doe ratio, but your recap covered it all very well. The main benefit a high buck-to-doe ratio provides is more targets. :)

My take:

For the most part, our problems with low mule deer populations in the West right now are pretty much habitat/predation related and not a result of the lack of sexcapades between bucks and does. :D

Also, if I recall a conversation with Brian Wakeling, the head of the Ariz. G&FD big-game branch, the fewer bucks that are breeding actually results in better physical condition to make it through the winter. Reason: the most energy they expend is warding off other bucks and not from the actual rigors of breeding does.

Below is a snippet from an article (Oh, How They Thirst) I did a couple years ago after that interview. -TONY

***************************************

The major concern of biologists when it comes to the relationship of rain and deer is timing. Rains that come at the wrong time of the year provide little benefit to big game. In the case of deer, the two key periods to benefit them are late winter and late summer.

Wakeling points to the 1998 deer population jump as a perfect example of what can happen.

"We had normal winter rains, good spring rains and adequate summer rains. Statewide, fawn recruitment went to nearly 40 fawns per 100 does in areas of the state where it had dropped to as low of 20 fawns per 100 does. On the Kaibab Plateau, somewhat different climatic conditions caused the corresponding recruitment to rise to nearly 90 fawns per 100 does. It was an exceptional year. Unfortunately, it was only one, and that won't do it.?

According to Wakeling, the lack of moisture to sustain ideal deer populations started in 1988 and pretty much reflects the trend that occurred about 40 years ago.

?Our deer numbers reached the highest ever in the 1960s, but the population dropped very rapidly from those numbers to all-time lows by the late 1970s. That's why we put deer on the permit system in 1972. And if we look back at the weather conditions from the late 1960s and early 1970s. we would quickly see they mirror the same patterns that are occurring right now. The deer population is also following the pattern.

?Then the deer numbers shot up again in the early and mid-1980s because we had an anomaly of sorts with rains that produced three 100-year floods over a five-year period. Even the normally dry Salt River was running at 200,000 feet per second and washing out bridges in downtown Phoenix.

?The result on our deer herds was quite predictable. For a few years running, all of the does had twins, their twins had twins, and those twins?and so on. So we wound up with more deer than we knew what to do with. Over the next several hunting seasons, we had more permits available than we had hunters to apply for them. In 1986, we set the all-time record with 95,821 permits. That is more than double the permit allocation for 2000.

?The one thing hunters shouldn't do, however, is think we'll ever get to that point again. The floods were very uncommon occurrences that created the best deer habitat we've ever had. So unless those conditions repeat themselves, which isn't too likely, our traditional optimum deer numbers will be considerably less than what we had in 1986.?

Fortunately, even though the permit numbers are at an all-time low right now, there are still more deer today in Arizona than there were in the 1970s when the population hit bottom. The reason is a different management concept put into place by the AGFD.

When the herds plummeted in the 70s, the hunter success did likewise, averaging 16 to 18 percent statewide -- a result of supply and demand with only so many deer to go around. This prompted many complaints from hunters. Rather than allow that trend to continue, the game department began adjusting the permit allocation whereby the hunter success remained fairly consistent at 21 to 24 percent in most units. So while fewer hunters go afield now, more of those that do get to a tag a buck.

The relationships between moisture and deer populations can be somewhat difficult to understand, but what it mostly comes down to is habitat.

The simple explanation: when plants gets rained on they grow and provide moisture, nutrition and cover for deer. And obviously, lots of rain also provides more standing water. The more complicated explanation involves all the interrelationships within the simple one, including what appears to be increased predation.

For the most part, the number of deer and predators are intertwined with each other, with the latter?s population increasing or declining in proportion to that of deer. But the adjustment takes time, according to Wakeling.

?When the deer herds are large and healthy, the predators are also healthy and numerous. When deer numbers begin dropping, though, the predator numbers stay high for considerably longer. They continue to kill the same number of deer as before. So over time, the percentage of a deer herd killed by predators in any particular area goes up, and that trend continues until the predator numbers drop in relationship to the deer decline," Wakeling said.

?To illustrate, consider a healthy deer population of 100,000 and a predator base of 1,000 that kills 10,000 deer annually. The resulting loss to predation is 10 percent of the deer population, thus cutting the deer herd size to 90,000. If that herd contains 60,000 does that kick out 40 to 50,000 fawns, the loss to predators is considered minimal. Now consider the same predation on the deer if their number falls to 20,000 animals; the loss of 10,000 animals now amounts to 50 percent of the herd and leaves maybe 6,000 does left to drop 3,000 or so fawns. All of a sudden the predation rate is three times the fawn production. This would rapidly cause the demise of that deer herd if the predator population didn't eventually adjust to the deer numbers. Fortunately, it always happens. It just takes time and consequently causes the deer population to recover more slowly.

?In years of good moisture, deer can normally get all the moisture they need by eating. As the rains decrease, they have to find other sources, which are mostly tanks or other standing water. That walking and use of standing water sources increases the chance for predation and burns up additional energy.

?Without water, a doe doesn't put on weight, and the chances for her to drop twins go down considerably. She also has a lower milk production when she does drop a fawn, and the lack of good cover makes the survival of that fawn more iffy because of predation. And we're not talking a lot of weight to make a difference. If a doe can increase her weight by 5 percent, it's likely her fawn will weigh a pound more when born. That is significant for the survival of a fawn that weighs five or six pounds at birth.?
 
those are all good point above, but the problem is that game departments in the West are not able to respond fast enough to population changes brought about the different conditions outlined above because of political pressures.

The problem is that we are starting from the wrong point; we look at what hunters want, and then work backwards to try and fit the mule deer herds to fit OUR (hunters) objectives, and that is COMPLETELY wrong.

What needs to happen is that you need to start from the perspective of what is right for the mule deer herds, and then work backwards from that point to try and fit in hunters needs as best you can.

So, the management of mule deer herds should be to maximize mule deer numbers to the given habitat and to ensure that the proper age structure is maintained in the male population. After these objectives have been met, THEN you allocate enough tags (hunting opportunities) to be able to stay under those thresholds.

That way, the biology dictates the hunting opportunites; not the political or financial needs of the game department.
 
Jim, I don't think anyone has quantified with mule deer how many does a buck can breed before he's shooting blanks! I believe it has been looked at with captive whitetails, but I don't know the number, am not sure it would apply to mule deer, and believe there would be real differences between the captive and field situation. I do know of mule deer herds which have been as low as 4 bucks:100 does postseason, with no apparent impact on fecundity, so the number appears to be greater than 25.

Writer, I know Mr. Wakeling and have a lot of respect for his opinions and expertise. Thanks for sharing.

ICM, I don't live in WY or work for WGFD anymore, so take this as my own interest, writing on my own time, with no reason to spin anything. FYI, I still do hunt WY every year, and usually hunt deer east of I-25. You are right about many areas of eastern WY being capable of supporting more deer - especially the plains east of I-25 - that doesn't change the fact that habitat quality is KEY to productive herds. People growing crops have limited tolerance for high deer numbers, especially if they aren't making money off them.

Quality means both nutritional value, and quantity. Many herds ARE severely impacted by habitat quality issues, be it degradation, fire suppression, overutilization, fragmentation or loss. Low elevation, nonmigratory deer in eastern WY tend to be shorter lived, more productive, and more impacted by severe winters and droughts than migratory mountain-foothills deer. With wet years and mild winters, they are productive, and tend to grow large antlers at young ages. They die in droves following drought, and the survivors do NOT grow big antlers. One area I worked near Casper, we collected teeth for aging from all harvested adult bucks field checked, and antler beam circumpherences, numbers of points, and maximum spreads. This was around 1999, several years into the extended drought, and in an area that had historically produced lots of big bucks. The average buck checked was 5.5 years old, ranging from 2.5 to 9.5. These mighty mature bucks averaged 4.2 points per side (most bucks in this area lack eyeguards); a 19.5" spread; and 3.5" antler beam circumpherences above the base (H1 measurement, if you prefer). They weren't overhunted, the age structure was very healthy. On that low nutritional plane, they didn't have the ability to grow large antlers. Plains deer are very hard to stockpile, and even if they get old, don't grow huge racks when drought cycles through, unless they have access to good quantities of spring-fed or riparian vegetation.

The issues for a herd biologist are both biological and social. The biological issues for the deer herd are minimum viable population, and carrying capacity; and impacts to other species, plant and animal both. Mule deer are not endangered, which addresses the first concern. Social tolerance is usually lower than carrying capacity, usually addressing the second. Under those biological parameters, nearly every herd, except those where deer are negatively impacting habitat to the point they are reducing future carrying capacity, is managed appropriately. Impacts to other species is biological, but how much to accept is social. Same can be said for habitat protection. A deer hunter, a conservation botanist, a human rights activist, an animal rights terrorist, and a real estate developer will all assign different values to wildlife, habitat, and economic and intrinsic values. Age structure and escapement objectives for mature bucks increase the hunt quality for me, at the expense of maximum harvest opportunity. I, as a hunter, think that's a good thing. A die-hard meat hunter will not, and I can't prove to him that my way is right, and his wrong.
 
You guys are making this way more complicated than it is. I have a degree in wildlife and have an extensive background as a University researcher and 20 years as an outfitter and over 20 as a rancher. Simply put, there are limited resources in eastern Wyoming. Compared to 20-30 years ago, there are WAY MORE elk and whitetails and FAR FEWER mule deer. Easy solution if you are like me and love mule deer. KILL MORE ELK AND WHITETAILS. The elk and whitetails encroach on what was once better quality muley habitat (due to fewer elk and whiteys). The whitetails now mostly "own" the riparian habitat, and elk rule the uplands. That leaves more marginal habitat for my muleys. Smaller "niches" for the mule deer to occupy.

It's simple, there is a limited habitat/resource base. Wet years or dry years, like the terrible one we are having, more elk and whitetails compete with fewer mule deer.

Advocate for muleys if you're going to visit this site. To me that's what it's about.......

Also please list your name if you're going to write. I can't imagine why a person would be too embarassed to list their name here.
 
The easiest to implement and probably the most effective way to maintain the same opportunity but increase the number of mature deer is to LIMIT MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS!!!

I get sick and tired of people calling for a reduction in tags in the general units when the real problem is too much motor vehicle access. There have been 1000's of areas that used to grow large bucks that have been reduced to the yearling slaughter we are talking about on this thread. When it was a 2+ mile hike into the area people didnt shoot yearlings. Now there is a ATV trail down the ridgeline and up the bottom of the canyon so there are 100's of hunters that ride the canyon and eventually most of the yearlings are going to stick their noses out at some point and get killed.

You can either have nearly unlimited tags combined with a small amount of roads and grow big deer (Western Wyoming, Many Colorado Units, etc.) or you can have many, many roads and very limited tags and grow big deer (Book Cliffs, Paunsagaunt, Vernon and most other "limited entry units").

I favor the combo of many tags and few roads (so everyone can go hunting every year, just not road hunting on their ATV).

-RPinenut
 
while it would be nice to somehow undo all the roads that have been created in the West, it just isn't realistic. There is not enough money in the game department systems to provide any kind of realistic enforcement of anti ATV rules etc.

And, while I would agree that I would just as soon as walk into areas to hunt, what about my 70 yr old grandfather? Or my 12 year old daughter? Are they not entitled to the same resource as you?? So, you only represent once class of mule deer hunter out of many.

The problem is not just ATV's; it is all of the technology that is now available to mule deer hunters. You have 350 hp, chained up 4ws PU that can go anywhere; you have premier $2000 optics and custom built rifles shooting custom loaded bullets that can kill out to 500 yds. I can go on and on, but you get the point. Even websites like this and all of the hunting services you can apply to now have created a situation where it is possible to do 80% of your scouting from your house. And, for a small fee, you can subsicribe to a service that will take care of putting in for all of the western state draws.

And, the issue of habitat always gets brought up by the wildlife biologists; but once again, there is no way that habitat loss or poor habitat can account for the systemic wide mule deer decline over the entire west. There are literally millions of acres of habitat that is in perfect condition over several different areas in the west, and mule deer numbers are still pathetic. Poor habitat, or loss of habitat certainly could explain certain localized problems in specific mule deer herds, but it cannot account for the decrease across the entire west. I can take you to areas in both montana and wyoming that have good quality habitat, appropriate moisture, and absoloutly no developoment in 20 years, but yet the herds still are not healthy, and the numbers of mature mule deer bucks is disgustingly low.

The poor structure of mature mule deer bucks in the population is NOT due to poor habitat; it is a function of the number of tags that are given out by the game department. And, while drought might certainly account for some herd troubles in some areas, it cannot account for all of the problems.

The problem in a nutshell is too many deer tags being made available; how is it possible that I can go hunting in a general tag area of mixed public and private land. I can go down a road, and on the private ground, I can count hundreds of deer, many bucks and a few good mature bucks. But, when I get a little further down the road onto the BLM ground, where the habitat is exactly the same, the number of does is pathetic and it is simply impossible to find a buck older than 2.5 yrs.

Poor habitat is the excuse that is always trotted out to explain it, but, common sense tells you otherwise. There is one thing that is guaranteed to increase deer numbers and fix the age structure of mule deer bucks; fewer tags.

It is not a god given right to go mule deer hunting every year. The choice is rather simple, you can slightly restrict mule deer hunting and end up with larger, healthier herds, or you can leave it wide open, and continue to suffer through year after year of a poor experience.
 
Well stated Muleyguy. You have a number of good points. And don't forget the money part of the equation. At least in Wyoming, the Game and Fish only gets funds thorugh the sale of licenses (plus a few grants). There is no state allocation from our very healthy general fund. But the Game and Fish has to spend countless millions of dollars on everything from wolves and griz to toads and jumping mice.

That said, they could do a much better job managing mule deer. We could, at the very least "sort off" some quality areas and make them limited quota hunting only. At present, there are very few such areas in Wyoming and quality mule deer hunts are almost nonexistent. I've said for years that with a little management, the Greys River coiuld be a crown jewel. But it own't happen until licenses are limited. And that is regardless of what happens on the winter range near Pinedale, etc. Even the creation of limited quota areas for archery and muzzleloaders would allow for the sale of as many licenses but fewer buck harvested.

Anyhow, good thoughts and good discussion.
 
A couple points. First, a limited number of quality (antler size/points) deer does not make for a poor herd per se, though it can make for a poor hunt/unit depending on your persepctive. As pointed out clearly above, breeding rates remain HIGH when there are very few bucks in the herd. The valuation of qaulity is not a scientific/biologic matter of herd health it's just one potentially desireable outcome out of multiple desireable outcomes for a population.

Not seeing trophy deer in numbers is for some a wasted resource. As long as they don't argue that it indicates poor herd health I understand their bias. My problem is that those interested primarilly in horns attempt to use biology arguments to suggest that LE is needed not just for their desires (more mature bucks) but for herd health and unfortunately, that's not true.

There are competing interests that can both be used inside a biologically sustainable herd. One prefers oportunity the other quality. ICM you said "the Greys River coiuld be a crown jewel,," That's probably true but only if you first admit your bias. There are a hell of a lot of guys who'd say a unit that they can only hunt ever 5 to 10 years would be a WASTE not a jewel, in particular if it's someplace they have a tradition of hunting.

As long as the overal consideration of maintaining herd health is observed, regardless of the hunting methods employed, it becomes a simple debate amongst hunters. How much of the state do you restrict for quality?

Personally, I'm convinced there's lots and lots of quality deer in wilderness areas. Most simply live out their lives in places no one has the stones to go get them. Because a trail doesn't run right to their basin, because it's ringed in cliffs and blowdowns and because it's miles back. There's lots of quality oprotunity for those willing to go hard after it. What I think is funny is that the same guys who want more "qaulity" usually want it in November! Then they can rut hunt the freshly migrated deer down to a lower elevation. I'd be more supportive if it were LE, but still durring a general season time frame when the deer haven't pushed out yet. There'd be more decent deer but it wouldn't be any kind of freebie and there could be far more total tags granted as there'd be a lower success rate. I think this belies the point though. Most don't just want to know there's lots of good mature deer out there to be had, they also want to be handed them on a platter.

Understand, I backpack to find mule deer. Later I go hunt whitetails to fill the freezer. I'll pass on a small muledeer in a wilderness hunt beccause that's not what I came for but I shoot a spike or 2 point whitetail without hesitation because I love eating them. If you told me I had to vote to give up anual meat hunting as the trade off for hunting quality I'd vote no. If Someone told me I have to quit having an open season so that 100 Guys can have a November tag I'd vote NO.
 
I think all of the past posts are correct with deer recruitment problems. It's a number of factors. Weather, Habitat conditions, fat reserves going into the winter,buck to doe ratio,number of does bread in their first cyle, preditors, road access,number of hunters, type and season of hunts, competition with elk and whitetails,winter kills, green up looses, stress on deer in winter ranges from harassment,poaching,highway kills etc. In northern Utah I'm confident that more deer get killed by the the THREE C'S CARS, COYOTES, AND CATS, than hunters. I'm a trophy hunter also. However, I'm excited to take my twelve year old boy to Wyoming and Idaho this year for his first deer or antelope hunts. I'm sure he will be happy with less than a trophy for his first big game animal. We need to balance trophy and opportunity hunting. We also need to continue to recruit young hunters for hunting to continue. Hunting is getting too expensive in many situations. Trophy hunting cost more money (older class animals) and provides less opportunity. I wish there was a faster fix to our deer herd problems. Good points have been made.
 
One thing we can't forget in all this is that game departments exist not only to manage a state's wildlife but to also manage people, i.e. hunters and those concerned with hunting and or wildlife -- farmers, ranchers, etc. The latter often brings in the social/political implications.

In many cases, the people management becomes one of those "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situations. All one needs to do is read this thread to see the bias and differences of opinion in what hunters would like. That's neither good nor bad but merely points out that no one is ever happy unless they get THEIR way. :)

Here in AZ, we've been on a limited permit basis by specific unit for more than 30 years. NOWHERE in the state has been opened to general deer hunting. Over that span, we've also gone from more than 90,000 permits statewide when the herds went nuts after several years of super precipitation to less than 40,000 permits in the more recent years. Yet despite the drastic cuts, the herds WILL NOT grow much larger until several years in a ROW of good rainfalls again. Still, every year hunters here kill outstanding trophy mule and Coues deer.

Obviously if the overall deer numbers are down, the overall numbers of bucks, because of low fawn recruitment each year, will also be down. But the mix of mature bucks within that population of all bucks stays pretty constant, as does the overall hunter success rates because of fewer hunters in the woods. -TONY
 
Despite some highly qualified guys who know the problems and solutions are simple .. the ultimate variable IS habitat quality and quantity, IF the subject is population size and productivity. There are good, but in the big scheme relatively small, population biology reasons to have sufficient buck numbers for breeding competition, and escapement of older age bucks. Since I'm on my own nickel here as an individual, I can be a little more frank - or rude - than when I have my employee hat on.

I've been a professional game biologist managing big game populations since 1993. I consider myself a lover of the hunting tradition and of mule deer, and a strong advocate for both. I grew up rural in farming and logging towns, and was the best fisherman hands-down in my high school, which was attended by 500 kids bused in from 9 towns (didn't start hunting until I was 18). I've worked since I was 14 doing everything from horse logging to milking goats to picking vegetables on a truck farm. I graduated 4th in my high school class, scored 1400+ on both the SAT and GRE, and worked anywhere from 15-50 hours a week continuously while earning a BS in wildlife management with a 3.5 GPA, and a MS from the U. Wyoming Laramie studying the elk herd in the Bighorn mountains for 3.5 years, graduating with a 4.0 GPA. Over the past 20 years I've hung around 70 tags on mule deer, whitetails, elk, antelope, moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goat. Shot a couple thousand birds along the way, from doves to turkeys. One of my best friends in college labeled me a "cervical erythrote", which is a redneck who takes tests well. I'd be a fairly well regarded good ol boy, if I wasn't a wildlife biologist, which apparently makes me a stupid, untrustworthy liar.

Why, I can't figure, since "everyone knows" once you get a government job, even if you don't do jack sh*t you can't get fired. A whole lot of my peers are a whole lot like me, and I'll clue you in to a little secret; we're always going on about habitat because we believe it is true. Not because we're afraid to admit predators kill game, or that ATVs are the root of all evil, or species compete sometimes, or because we're trying to hide something or justify too many tags. It's because we think habitat is the most important factor. Too bad we're all so flippin' dumb.

I'll be off for a while, headed away for a conference; the agenda is supposedly habitat and populations, but it's probably actually on how to lie to trophy hunters.
 
This is good discussion. I didn't know it was a resume contest. I won't go there, but I feel like my qualifications and experience will stack up with anyone.

Colville, good point on the Greys. I hunted there every year from 83 to 97 and maybe I remember what it was. But you are smoking some serious stuff if you think you can get away from people in the wilderness. In fact, unless you are Wyoming resident, you can't even legally hunt a wilderness area in our state unless you hire a guide/outfitter. The Greys is a good example of what has transpired in the past 25 years. In the late 70's and early 80's, you could go there and often not see a single hunter in a given day. In a week, I'd see 3-4 people. That was because I did as many die-hard hunters do, hiked to the roughest, worst hell holes. But by the late 90's, those places were crowded, at least by my standards. Camps and hunters in every drainage and basin. In 97, I saw 14 foot hunters and six on horseback by 9 am on opening day. That's a lot in those timberline basins. And the hunters are better prepared and equipped, and much more serious about taking those big bucks Eastmans are telling everyone about.

The point for me is that I really don't care if I harvest anything. In an earlier post in this string, I said I'll shoot vermin (elk or whitetail) for meat. I can do that without packing them out on my back, near home. But I'd like a chance for a muley hunt without hordes of competition in my home state. I'll hunt with bow or muzzleloader. But Wyoming Game and Fish has made the decision to manage for quantity and not emphasize quality. (We have almost no special seasons for archery or muzzleloader in Wyoming; too bad.)

I'd prefer a balance. So - I end up going to Colorado every year or to Alberta (this year) or Nevada to get the sort of hunt I could get at home if our Game and Fish chose a different management philosphy. I sympathize with them and the biopolitics, but they really are losing mature hunters because they choose to avoid opportunities for quality. We talk about having hunter recruitment and encourage general seasons to get youth a yearling or two-year old buck. But we forget that mature hunters leave our ranks in droves because they get tired of competing with thousands of people for those same deer. They "mature" as hunters and focus more on the experience and less on the harvest. But like me, they want a chance at a solid buck, and many don't mind waiting for that chance.

I'd prefer to bow hunt for 5 years before I get a good rifle license if that's what it takes to get a good license. I'll wait for a good hunt. And there is enough of a resource base in Wyoming to offer different types of hunts.

Anyhow, good discussion. We live in a great country. It's nice to know we can speak our peace and not have any fear. Freedom of speech is the foundation of what we have and it's nice to see it in action.
 
IC
While I don't doubt that you may have too many elk and whitetail in Eastern Wyoming, we don't have the over population of elk and so far we haven't got whitetail in the state (at least none that the UDWR want to admit) so that theory doesn't work in Utah. Just curious what your thoughts would be in the case of a "normal" population big game (except mule deer).


>You guys are making this way
>more complicated than it is.
> I have a degree
>in wildlife and have an
>extensive background as a University
>researcher and 20 years as
>an outfitter and over 20
>as a rancher. Simply
>put, there are limited resources
>in eastern Wyoming. Compared
>to 20-30 years ago, there
>are WAY MORE elk and
>whitetails and FAR FEWER mule
>deer. Easy solution if
>you are like me and
>love mule deer. KILL
>MORE ELK AND WHITETAILS.
>The elk and whitetails encroach
>on what was once better
>quality muley habitat (due to
>fewer elk and whiteys).
>The whitetails now mostly "own"
>the riparian habitat, and elk
>rule the uplands. That
>leaves more marginal habitat for
>my muleys. Smaller "niches"
>for the mule deer to
>occupy.
>
>It's simple, there is a limited
>habitat/resource base. Wet years
>or dry years, like the
>terrible one we are having,
>more elk and whitetails compete
>with fewer mule deer.
>
>Advocate for muleys if you're going
>to visit this site.
>To me that's what it's
>about.......
>
>Also please list your name if
>you're going to write.
>I can't imagine why a
>person would be too embarassed
>to list their name here.
>


www.awholelottabull.com
 
ansonlynn hit on a pet peeve of mine. There are some highly intelligent extremly well qualified biologists that care about wildlife . They cared enough to get the credentials , yet more often than not, hunters will scoff at thier work and results. Hunters tend to choose the expertise of peers that "spend countless days and hours in the woods observing these animals".Guess what so do the professionals. Being adept at killing deer ,raising money for saving deer , writing about or filming deer does not mean you know how to manage deer. Heres what I was told from the biologist of a world renown trophy muledeer area. An area the recieves heavy critisim from arm chair biologists as to thier conservitive approach to increasing the deer herd on that unit. If you destroy the habitat with too many deer during a drought cycle it will take up to 20 years to rebound that habitat after the drought cycle has ended. Its about carring capacity and 2 years of normal pecip does not recover the habitat. He tries to maintain a smaller deer herd during dry cycles to allow for a faster recovery when the the drought really is over if ever. He achieves this partly with doe hunts. He does this only because hunters insist on having a certain amount of bucks to hunt each year. The carring capacity will sustain bucks or does. Its a tough job to keep everybody happy. Especially with so many "experts" involved. I respect his opinion because I know he spent 6 years getting educated about the subject and I know he loves muledeer and loves to hunt as much as I do.JMHO
 
point restrictions

Gotta jump in here. The problem with point restrictions is that alot of guys will shoot the deer, walk up and look, see its not big enough and keep hunting. I have heard it was a problem. No concrete data, but how could there be. They are considering dropping the restriction in NM next year. As for hunting horns vs. meat....I'm glad there is both type of hunters personally. The trophy guys pass alot of animals that the meat hunter can take. And the meat hunters aren't gonna stick around long enough for a trophy. I'm right in the middle. I'd love to shoot a big muley and maybe I will, but I am more set on bringing home some freezer stuffing. My standards will start going down throughout the week. I like the horns and all, but you can't eat them.
 
This has been an interesting topic and discussion. I have to disagree with the statement that "Utah does not have an over abundance of elk." Compared to what? If you look back at the elk populations in the 80's and compare them with populations today it shows that elk have increased their populations and ranges over that time period. Now compare the deer herd numbers over the same time period and you will see the opposite; deer numbers have dropped as much as elk numbers have grown. So does Utah have an over abundance of elk? Not for elk hunters, but certainly for deer hunters. Our ranch in Central Utah once produced some extremely large mule deer. The area held high numbers of deer. Now elk have increased 5x and the deer population on our place is 20% of what it used to be. Elk displace deer. There should be no dispute to that. The neighbor's ranch has very few elk and large numbers of deer. I have also seen this happen on the much of the public lands which I have hunted over the past 20+ years. It is my opinion that Utah does in fact have an over abundance of elk on many units.

As for the health of the deer herd and the buck to doe ratio. Utah did a study on Mule Deer breeding in the Indianola area in the late 60's (I believe). Of course this was a time of the "Good Ole Days". Indainola was selected because the area had a buck to doe ratio of around 4 bucks per 100 mature doe. (And we compalin about 15 per 100) The biologists slaughtered around 100 doe (I beleive) and tested them for pregnancy. My memory tells me they had a 90%+ fetus rate. So it is obvious to even us who did not score over 1400 on the SATs that 15+- bucks per 100 doe in Utah will allow for high breed rate.

So why is Utah's deer herd not growing? Here is my opinion and it has nothing to do with bucks. Utah has an over abundance of predators due to ban on poison and limiting domestic animal grazing. The drought caused our doe population to not breed, abort, or malnourish their fawns. The low fawn recruitment coupled with higher mortality has caused the herd to be stagnent in growth. You get 5 years of decent precipitation and the deer herd and the habitat will rebound. Unfortunately, we only had 2 years of decent precipitation and now it is very dry once again.

As for the buck issue, I agree completely with BuckSpy and Pinenut. If you allow hunters in Utah more access with their "I must fill my tag" mentality you have a recipe for disaster. Those hunters are not shooting doe so they arn't harming the herd, just the mature buck future.

So that is my 2cents. I guess I could list my qualifications, but no likes a braggart.
 
don't get me wrong, I am not saying habitat is not important, it is important. But, there are lots of areas that have great habitat, and we still have major problems with the mule deer herds. And, my experience is that when you talk to just about any biologist, in any state, they will usually blame it on habitat. And, I think that is a copout in many instances, not all, but many.

I think you need to seperate out the habitat issue with the poor rainfall issue. An area might have great habitat (few roads, no development, good mix of habitat types,etc) but might be suffereing through a low rainfall period which limits the carrying capacity of that area. That is a legitimate issue, and the herd should be managed for that in that area.

You can't worry about things you cannot change, if the habitat in a given area is otherwise good, but local rainfall has been poor, you CANNOT change mother nature, BUT, you can change the management of the mule deer herd.

Like I said earlier, you take what mother nature, the predators, the habitat, etc will give you, and you manage for the carrying capacity of that area and you manage it so the population structure of the bucks and the buck to doe ratio is healthy.

Once you have the herd in a healthy state, you then give out as many hunting opportunities as you can to still maintain it. We go at it backwards, we work from what we want first, then try and get the herd to fit it.

I am not berating biologists, but ask yourself this question: When was the last time you heard a biologist say, "boy, we screwed up in the management of the mule deer in that unit, we allowed too many tags." I have never heard that once in my lifetime.

All we ever hear is habitat, habitat, habitat, no rainfall, no rainfall, no rainfall....

The best evidence that management of hunting is critical to deer numbers and deer quality is the example I gave earlier of hunting in mixed public and private land areas. In many of these areas, the habitat is exactly the same and the rainfall is exactly the same on both the private and public parcels. The herds are healthier and the age structure is healthier on the private lands vs the public land right next to it. So, there is no way that a biologist can tell me that somehow the habitat and rainfall is all screwed up in this area.

It isn't about managing for trophy hunters or meat hunters. All hunting areas should have a healthy population and a good makeup of mature bucks. It is fine to have some truly trophy quality areas, but the general draws are completely pathetic, and the herds are not healthy, period.

Biologists need to stand up and say that we need to decrease hunting in the general areas to get them healthy again, and not just run the habitat flag up the pole because it is politically easier.
 
>>I think you need to seperate out the habitat issue with the poor rainfall issue. An area might have great habitat (few roads, no development, good mix of habitat types,etc) but might be suffereing through a low rainfall period which limits the carrying capacity of that area.<<

Duh!

"Great habitat" is a result of great rainfall. You can't have "great habitat" with no or little raindfall, regardless of the stuff you listed above. No roads or development or mix of habitat types do not contribute to the HEALTh of a deer herd or to fawn recruitment. What does matter is the the health of the habitat that exists, i.e. PRODUCTIVE habitat that sustains deer and contributes to the reproductive capacity of any particular population of deer. They need moisture, NUTRIONAL food and cover. -TONY
 
I've been avoiding posting to this thread.....:)

It's apparent that there a lot of minds far superior to mine on here?.. There?s been some great posts and ideas (and some not so good).

I'm not going to make this a long reply and beat the dead horse anymore than it has already.

I don't consider myself an expert on mule deer, but someone that has had the opportunity to travel and hunt many of the Western states. So my thoughts come from actual time in the field hunting lots of places and talking with others from Canada to Mexico.

To those of you that feel you know what's best for Utah when you've never hunted here good on ya. To those of you that hunt Utah every year, but don't hunt many other states good on you too.

I think that most in a similar situation to me will agree that the ?grass is greener on the other side of the hill? when it comes to Utah deer hunting.

We can talk about habitat, predators, droughts, weeds, range conditions, ATVs, etc. until we're all blue in the face. Unfortunately game managers (especially the really bright ones here on monster muleys;)) do not have as much control as we'd like over habitat, predators, droughts, weeds, range conditions, ATVs, etc.

What they really can control is the number of human HUNTERS!

I sense a movement among Utah hunters.

I believe we're on the verge of looking at different management plans, and my guess is we're going to try to reinvent the wheel, when Colorado has shown us what it's going to take to bring back our deer herds.

Unfortunately until the MDF & SFW makes this a priority, we're going to keep getting what we've always got the last 10-15 years. And they seem to have their hands full with more pressing concerns??

There?s not a person on here that could make me believe that Colorado has better habitat, better range conditions, fewer weeds, fewer ATVs, fewer predators, fewer elk, etc. etc??

So, what have they done??? About 6 years ago they started to manage the one thing they really could-human HUNTERS!

BUCKSPY has an awesome article in the last ?Western Hunter? magazine about what it took to turn Colorado around. Utah is behind the times, but I believe we'll start to make some changes in the near future.

And as far as trigger happy hunters?.. We couldn't and shouldn't put that burden on hunter?s shoulders. The DWR sold them a tag to kill a buck deer. Be it a 195? typical or a 5? spike. If we don't want as many 2.5 year old bucks killed, then we simply shouldn't sell as many tags.

All right I'm done beating on this dead stinkin horse?.:)
 
prism, said very well, manage the thing that you have control over, the number of hunters, and magically, the other issues like habitat seem less important. Best post yet.
 
Well I'm a hunter that has killed a lot of deer in my time and I see no reason that if someone spends there money for a tag to hunt, and if they want kill a one, two, or three pointer thats fine with me. If you have done any hunting at all you know that all those deer are close to the roads. Yes I have seen grown men jump up and down with joy over a two pointer. Do I like it NO but they payed there money to hunt just like everone else. Just to let you know I'm I trophy hunter and the last time I brought a deer home was 8 years ago. They can have all my small ones.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-06 AT 11:21PM (MST)[p]I think you hit the nail right on the head. But you remember all the bithing and moaning when they put the 90,000 tag limit several years ago. I am a firm believer in biding my time for a good tag. I don't gripe because I don't draw because I know that when I get a good tag it will be exactly that...a good tag with an opportunity for a good animal. I also believe that the day is rapidly approaching when all these general units will be divided up into smaller units and tags reduced. Of course the tag price will inevitably increase but oh well. I agree with Prism, I have hunted in many of our western neighbor states and it is far better there than here, at least on public land.

www.awholelottabull.com
 
A few more thoughts....

I'm not biologist by any stretch, but I took enough classes at USUs dept. of natural resources to come to the conclusion that there is a whole lotta politics involved with animal and land management throughout the west.

According to many fine pedigreed scientist chronic wasting disease was going to be the end of deer hunting as we know it, according to many fine pedigreed scientist whirling disease was going to be the end of trout fishing as we know it. Major concerns for sure, but also a lot of short term job security and $$$. I believe the habitat issue is somewhat similar.

I'm sure there are some well trained and talented scientists that can point to global warming and attribute it to declining mule deer numbers

I am not saying that habitat isn't important. I believe for the overall long term health of the species it's VERY important.

However??.

Show me a unit where habitat improvement projects are the sole factor in increased deer populations and increased average age of harvest?

I bet for every one you can show me I can point out dozens of units that have increased deer populations and increased average age of harvest due largely in part to hunter management and lower hunter success rates. Be it through a simple decrease in the number of hunters or using other means to lower success rates such as archery, muzzleloaders, non rut hunts, etc?.


Again, I know habitat is a huge controlling factor. But, I also feel it's used as a political box for conservation groups and govt. agencies alike to stand on and use as they see fit.

I really don't know that Utah needs much of a total decrease in the number of buck tags. I believe that the current amount could be distributed better across smaller units??.like Colorado.

Let's take the NE Region for example. This region has approximately 14,000 (less muzzleloader) licensed general buck deer hunters that could (and many did) hunt concentrated deer on the winter ranges during the 2004 hunt. Shame on the DWR for allowing this to happen!

Had this unit been broken down into smaller subunits the winter ranges wouldn't have been beaten to death. The DWR can't manage the weather but they can manage hunter distribution and numbers.

Utah deer hunting will never be like it was 20-40 years ago. I think it's time we start to manage for the future instead of trying to manage for the past!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-06 AT 10:01AM (MST)[p]With every point on Colorado's small unit success we can look at the lack of success with Nevada's small unit management. I would compare most of Utah to Nevada before I compared it Colorado. Nevada has had thier small units in place for many years and their deer population has decreased over the years. Sure, they shoot some good deer on many units, but they cut hunter numbers back drastically. Since they cut hunter numbers so much, they have a higher success rate. So less hunters are killing almost as many deer. I look at Nevada and their problems and I don't see it helping Utah, that much. Arizona has suffered the same fate with its micro management; decreased deer populations AND decreased hunter opportunity. Utah's herd is stagnent with minimal growth, but is not declinging.

Another comparison with Colorado and Utah that does not pan out is the Wilderness areas. Places that are harder to reach for the average hunter. Places where there is a chance for bucks to grow old. Utah has what, 10 smaller wilderness areas? Colorado has over 20 such areas, many of them very large in size. Areas where ATVs, motorcycles, mtn bikes etc can't go.

If your doe population is bred every year then why is there a need to increase buck numbers? Besides the desire to shoot a slightly larger buck. I can buy the early fawn birth as a positive effect, but not a drastic one. If your deer herd is not growing and the doe population is bred at a high enough rate then the problem lies somewhere else. Predators, roads, rain, virus, etc?????

Prism- I do really like your posts and passion. Not trying to be a jerk, just looking at different sides.
 
I don't understand how you can say Nevada is not a success, I think they have it just right. They are taking what the resource will give them and allocating tags appropriately. Right now the conditions in Nevada are not conducive to large numbers of mule deer, so they adjust down accordingly.

My guess is that Nevada probably sports some of the healthiest, well strucutured mule deer populations in the West, albeit smaller than many other states. I think the key is that in Nevada, the habitat is not capable of supporting large numbers of mule deer, so they manage it very aggressive to keep herd health up.

I did a little digging and came up with this chart for drought periods in Utah, what you can see is that droughts are a FACT of LIFE in the West, they come and go all the time. It is not like this drought is really any different, and it is hard to see any significant periods of time when there wasn't a drought sprinkled in:

1896-1905 ? 10 years
1930-1936 ? 7 years
1953-1965 ? 13 years
1974-1979 ? 6 years
1988-1993 ? 6 years
1999-2003 ? 5 years??

So, I am not buying it.......the herds in the West are not anywhere as healthy as they used to be.
 
Packout no offense taken. I know we're all passionate about mule deer and only want what's best for them.

I would have to really study the numbers, but I would take a fairly educated guess and say that Nevada has a higher average success rate than Utah, and a higher average success rate on older age class deer.

I think there is some valid argument that Colorado has more wilderness/hard to access areas, perhaps all the more reason for Utah to micro manage and do a better job with hunter distribution........
 
Whooo, whole lot'o'shakin goin on...
IMHO, as I see it there are basically two types of hunters, those who hunt meat and those who hunt horns.
There will always be those who will do anything they please, laws be damned, and there will always be those who aspire to hunt for huntings sake and take the hard road just for the sake of taking it. Those who hunt just the meat will always be that way, and those who hunt horns will always make the opportunity avail itself regardless of cost or outcome.
There are some good points brought out here and some not so good.
Be that as it may I am holding out for good horns hanging on the meat...


Stop Global Whining
 
Truth betold I think the reasons for the mule deer decline are not "singular" problems. It is a complex issue with many problems affecting herd populations and recovery.

Couple points I'd like to throw out. It is possible to see what herds would be like without *ANY* hunting pressure and without pressure from too many roads and trails. These are our instate national parks.

Its curious that if indeed the mule deer slow recovery is due to over hunting, why are populations not exploding inside of national parks for deer? Sure there are some big deer in parks and this is due to them reaching old age without fear of being hunted by man, but that is irrelvant to the overall herd population. If man is the major cause of poor population recovery, then in areas where man cannot hunt populations should be sky rocketing... but do some research (its out there) and you find that deer are not thriving in parks either.

This makes me believe one of 2 things... man is not currently responsible for populations rebounding (Note for Prism, man IS however responsible for buck deer AGE not increasing) *OR* deer populations of the recient past were artificially high and current populations are returning to some natural level.

I bring this up because in Lewis and Clarks journals they clearly make note that Mule Deer were very rare as they explored the west yet elk were as numerous as the bison.

I've heard it said by others and I believe there is alot of truth to the inverse relationship between grass eaters and browse eaters like Elk vs Deer. As the west was settled the habitat changed in incredible ways as elk and bison disappeared to be replaced by cattle. Grasses diminished and browse grew back. Its interesting to note tn the 60's and 70's laws were passed to remove cattle from the forests, and that is about the time where the mule deer populations began to reduce.

This is a complicated issue... very complicated and I tip my hat to the biologists who are trying to find solve the problem.


-DallanC
 
I guess I got off topic from the original post (I tend to do that at times). If all that is wanted is a higher percentage of older bucks and higher success rates then I agree with the smaller units idea and fewer hunters. But for the overall deer herd growth then Utah's system is working or could work. I am more concerned with the overall herd then hunters shooting minimally older bucks at a higher success rate.

Utah already has 13 deer units. Some units have a 99% success rate while others have a 20% success rate. If Utah made 30+- units then should the units still have a 25% success rate? That won't help the mature bucks. So you have to cut tags. As you cut tags the success rate goes up. 1000 hunters at 25% success = 250 dead bucks. 250 hunters at an 80% success = 200 dead bucks and a 4 year wait to hunt at $180 per tag. 50 bucks are saved that may or may not be needed to produce next year's fawn crop.

Combine Buckspy's and Pinenuts' post and you could have an answer to the perceived mature buck problem. It could never happen, but it would be nice.

Just different points to think about.
 
Muleyguy- I wish I had the numbers in front of me, but Nevada has had more years of herd decline than growth. Nevada has an average buck doe ratio higher than needed for sustained breeding. Nevada has a long wait to draw for many people. Nevada, for many years had a herd decline even with a high buck to doe ratio. I have family in Nevada who wait for 2-5 years trying to draw an average tag. Then they go hunting and have a 40% success rate. Then they have to wait another 2-5 years. 10 years between bucks for some hunters. The herd in the unit they hunt has decreased substantially over the past 15 years. They arn't shooting doe so why the decrease? Definatley not hunters shooting bucks.

The health of the herd in each state is shown thru the productivity of the herd. A herd which is healthy will recruit fawns and grow in size (Colorado). An unhealthy herd will not produce enough fawns to keep the population from decreasing (Arizona). Why the is the real question.

Anyway, I like your posts, even though I may not agree with some of the content. Best of Luck to you.
 
Ok here's my midday solution to Utah's mule deer woes....

We take some of the monies raised from our (much needed) reasonable number of conservtion tags, and give it back to hunters that don't shoot a deer at the end of the season.

We have bounties on Coyotes so I say we put a bounty on unused deer tags..... What do you think of $50.00 a tag?:)

That might get someone to think twice about dumping bambi for the sake of filling a tag.....

We can even auction some off. Maybe even raffle a few in private-unconservation tags.........

I call dibs on guiding the governers unconservation tag, and claim the rights to all finders fees, tips, picture, video, and endorsments of any and all types:)

The possibilities are endless.....;)

(That's a joke post to those offended)
 
I wish I could take a mature buck. I have never even seen a big buck. Wish they where out there. Maybe if I paid for a guided hunt or something I can get on them big ol bucks.LOL
I know some guys here hunt for a big mature buck but if they do not get one then the last week they are hunting for meat. What is wrong with a guy taking a younger buck. i agree that a big fat doe is sometimes or always bigger than those young bucks.
me personally I dont care what some one takes. A forked horn buck or a 180 class buck. As long as your having fun and enjoying yourself and doing what is OUR right to do is.

fca2e9e9.jpg
 
Now that is what I like, Prism. Thinking outside the box. I really like the UN in the unconservation tags. As in UNdo. Here is another idea......(like I said before, I can get off topic) We take all of the Utah tags and auction them off for 5 years. There are 1,000 ltd entry deer tags @ $5,000 = $5,000,000. 2,000 ltd elk tags @ 10,000 = $20,000,000. 97,000 deer tags @ $100 = $970,000. So approx $26,000,000 x 5 years = $130,000,000. Just think of what we could do with $130 million......... I'd bet we could buy some mule deer from Colorado and release them here to increase our herd. Sorry about the Conservation Tag tangent, but Prism brought it up.

But really, this topic has had some great posts priot to this one. Great to look at different sides of the map to where we all want to go.
 
I think the one thing we all agree on is that the deer herds in Utah need some over due help. If we do the same things we have been doing for very much longer there won't be many deer to hunt. There needs to be some drastic changes. I realize that there are family hunting traditions that people just don't want to give up but I am here to tell you that those days are over. You may be able to go on a family camping trip but you won't be hunting together. Mark my words, the day is coming when you will have to choose whether to put in for a tag on the south end of Stawberry or the north end.

I truly don't know what the answer is but I do agree that it is a combination of things. I was in my favorite elk hunting hole the other night and saw 3 cougars (a mom and two 2 year old kittens). Obviously I didn't see any animals other than those damn cats. I have seen 5 cougars and 3 bears and over 10 coyotes since May 1. A little excessive wouldn't you say? Thanks for all the comments. We should be passionate about this!


www.awholelottabull.com
 
This is a really good string of posts. I don't kow much about Utah, but I'll chime in on two other issues. First, I'd still be a champion for smaller units. I think it just forces folks to look more closely at all management. Wyoming's units are managed too big. For nonresidents, the units are lumped into regions and for residents, we still hunt nearly the whole state. And the deer, elk and antelope units all have different numbers and boundaries. It would be prudent to look at the geographical unit, not the different species in similar but overlapping units. We'd be better off if we looked at the multi-species picture in the same area, at least in Wyoming.

And I always love the dry weather habitiat cop-out. A good example of that is here in eastern Wyoming. Once you get out of the Laramie Range, the deer are almost totally reliant on crop ground for feed. There is irrigated alfalfa, wheat and corn. Plus other deer buffet items like beans and beets. The same holds true for many of the eastern Colorado counties or the muleys in western Kansas or western Nebraska. Those deer have feed from irrigated and nonirrigated cropland in wet or dry years. Let's not try to fool oursleves into believing that a few inches of precip one way or the other has a major impact on their feed base. I laugh when I hear Game and Fish try to sell that story.

Yes, in most of muley country, drought is a huge factor, but don't try to sell it in Yuma County Colorado or Goshen County Wyoming. There are just too many center pivots that provide the feed base.

Just a couple of other thoughts.........
 
IC,

They must have a lot of very large green houses in those counties to raise such crops during the fall,winter and early spring months, when deer, especially pregnant does, need nutritional browse the most. ;-) -TONY
 
Amazing. Maybe you don't know that wheat in the great plains is planted in the fall, stays green all winter and is harvested the next summer. Come over some time and I'll show you several hundred deer grazing green wheat during the winter.

Also, just in case you don't know, deer eat a LOT of corn when it's dry. They eat out of fields, silage pits, hay stacks, corn piles, etc. The corn does not have to be green for deer to eat it. (That's why it is called grain.) Again, come out some time and take a look around. There are lots of eating deer in the corn fields in eastern Colorado and Wyoming after the harvest. Deer are especially good at picking up gleanings out of corn fields. Same is true for oat regrowth and some other small grains.

And in our country, the grass is green from late February 'till November, some years 'till December along the riparian areas and in the crested wheatgrass. We've got cows and they have some sort of green feed during all of those months.

If you don't know, just ask. I assumed everyone was a bit more familiar with ag.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom