UT Deer Managment

Daxter

Daxter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,425
How does fewer hunters, no tag price increases, and an increased operating budget for DWR sound?

Lots of people have shared lots of ideas about how UT can improve the quality of deer hunting in the state. Lots of these ideas involve a substantial revenue cut for the DWR. The DWR has the charge of managing wildlife in Utah, but the bottom line is that they have financial limitations and any proposed change to hunting structure that involves a loss of revenue is a difficult sell.

I have an idea that would reduce the number of buck tags by almost 30%, and would increase revenue $90,000 without increasing tag prices. Instead of taking a 90/10 resident/non-resident split on general tags we move to an 80/20 split. Here are the numbers.

Current 90/10 Scenario with 97,000 tags
87300 go to residents at $40 each = $3,492,000
9700 go to non-residents at $263 each = $2,551,100
Total Deer Tag Revenue = $6,043,100

New 80/20 Scenario with 72,500 tags
58,000 go to residents at $40 = $2,323,000
14,500 go to non-residents at $263 = $3,813,500
Total Deer Tag Revenue = $6,133,500

Differences
Total Tag Reduction is from 97,000 to 72,500, a 30% reduction
Resident Tag Reduction is from 87,300 to 58,000 a 29,300 reduction for residents
Non-resident tag increase from 9,700 to 14,500, a 4,800 increase

Let me know what you think.

Dax


*Disclaimer* I know that reducing buck tags/harvest doesn't necessarily increase the deer population, but it will increase buck to doe ratio and buck age class along with reducing crowding which are large components of perceived hunt quality.
 
are there that many out of state hunters that hunt Utah to take up almost 15,000 tags? and if not used do they revert back to resident tags?
 
I bet we would be close to selling all of them. It might take some time and some marketing, but if the hunt quality improves that will also increase the demand. UT is pretty affordable for non-residents compared to our neighbors.

Dax
 
I agree with crimedogs question. I would also rather the price of non-res tags go up than see more non-res hunters.
 
Woohoo! In before it gets nasty! Sounds good to me, I would gladly sit out every 3rd or 4th year to increase the herd size and Buck age.


:( Somebody didn't like bouncing betty :(
 
That sounds good to me, this is kind of what I said in my post about haveing a one year waiting period, but probly better if you look in my post I said to have a 25% decrease in tags I just didnt punch the numbers like you did. Watch out now you are about to get all the guys that feel that they need to hunt every year to get there fix, posting about how everyone needs to get off there lazy a$$ and get away from the crowds BLA BLAA BLA BLLAAA BLA.

I say we help the herds out, it is good to have these discusions.



Jake H. MM Member since 1999.
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
And as I said in my original reply to your original post you guys do need to get off your lazy a$$ and put your words to action. There is nothing wrong with guys who love to hunt every year even if it is to get thier fix as you say. I don't mind hunting with the masses or not filling my tag every year. I'm happy just to have the opportunity to hunt. I'll gaurrenty that you guys that are bitchen now will be bitchen later when you can't hunt. Here's a better suggestion, rather then expect other hunters to live by your rules why don't you live by the restrictions that you want to impose on others? Why don't you and others like you volentarly (?) set out two years while applying for bonus points then hunt every third year. That would eliminate the over crowding for the rest of us and would also protect the herds by allowing the bucks you would shoot to survive. Now you'll say if you don't apply someone else will just get the tag and shoot all the small deer anyway and nothing will change. So here's another suggestion, apply every year for a tag and if you're successful in drawing a tag don't hunt. That way the DWR will still bring in the same amount of money thus protecting the hunter that can't afford the price increase. but you will be doing your part by easing the over crowding and saving the bucks that would otherwise be shot by those fix seeking hunters. But that sounds too easy dosen't it? Hunters like you will be the downfall of hunting. You continually want to impose restrictions on other hunters and raise the prices so as to eliminate the compitition to satisfy your own goals.
Wes
 
Wes needs to cool his jets. Can you not see that Deer hunting is going downhill slowly and has been for 15 yrs? Everyone needs to step up and do their part to get the herd #s back up, not just 3 guys on a website. Cutting the tag numbers is the only way, sorry. As for me, I get a tag every year but have only taken 3 Bucks in the last 7 years, unlike your average Joe Shmoe that shoots a spike or 2 pt just so doesn't "eat his tag". If you honestly really want, or need the meat, by all means shoot whatever you want. But don't shoot just anything to be all macho.

:( Somebody didn't like bouncing betty :(
 
sorry dax my last post was meant for the one year waiting period thread ,,, oops as a non res i like your numbers, not that it will ever happen :)
 
Wes, I didnt kill a buck in '04, or '05, I did kill a buck this year, I pass alot of bucks that most people would shoot in a heart beat, so dont go spoutin off about crap you dont know about. You dont know me and I dont care to know you. I never said anything about raiseing the price of the tags, and hell yes I want to impose restrictions on other hunters because I feel there is currently a problem with are curent system. I feel you will be the down fall of hunting because you think that everything is hunkedory, and the deer will be around for ever. That is a poor way to be. I have been told twice in two days that I will be the down fall of hunting, because of my thoughts on this subject. I just dont see it that way I feel that by talking with other hunters and trying to fix a bad situation we will overcome alot of the problems faceing todays muledeer.


Jake H. MM Member since 1999.
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
And just because you dont have a tag dosent mean you cant be out enjoying the outdoors.


Jake H. MM Member since 1999.
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
While you are raising Non Resident prices, why don't you raise the Resident prices as well. I can't believe the DWR thinks an opportunity to hunt deer is only worth $40. It ought to be closer to $100 for a resident.
People pay $40 to see a country music concert that lasts 3 hours, and a deer hunt can last 5 days or more.
A tank of gas costs more than a Utah buck license. Now that's just not right.
People will buy a $40,000 truck to hunt in, and then whine about a $40 license.
 
Tylercreek2, I never said to cut the tags from the non residents or raise the prices. and neather did Daxter deerbedead.


Jake H. MM Member since 1999.
458738e374dfcb10.jpg
 
Daxter,
I really think that you are on to something with that. Thanks for punching the numbers. I am all for a plan like that. I think that your logic is very sound. The division won't lose money and we have to figure out a way to reduce numbers. I with you 100% thanks for the post

Jordan
 
I wonder if Utah can sell that many non-res tags as well. I can draw a Non-Res Southeastern General Buck tag damn near every year, or I can buy an archery tag OTC after the draws every year... After the last 3 years of buying non-res tags (to hunt the area I grew up near Price) I won't do it again this coming year. It's not worth it any more. I'll just play the LE/Bonus Points game in the future and hope that's worth it.
 
I forgot to add that it's a great idea if you can get the Non-Residents to come. Utah has always been pretty stingy with non resident tags at 7%.

Colorado sets aside 40% in regular units and 20% in quality units for non-residents! I find it funny becuase most of the people complaining about that are non-residents of CO who think they deserve more than the 20% of quality tags!
 
Some Great ideas, The overall deer herds are increasing in total numbers, the buck doe ratios have improved from 7 to 17 average on general season units, most serious hunters would like them to be 25-30, because when they are there, there are some really nice bucks for the guys who will go hunt hard.

Some posts have made this great point, How do we get hunters to hunt, enjoy the woods, spend money, support conservation, and yet not shoot a buck, just because they have to fill the tag ?

As stated, for those who want the meat, need the meat, fine, but could they shoot a cow elk instead ?

What about this idea, Sell a two year license, only has one tag ??

This way, hunters could hunt, but would be forced to choose when to pull the trigger. If you pull the trigger, you sit out next year, by your own choice.

5% will cheat no matter what regulations we have, so don't worry about the 5%.

If 15,000 of the guys who shoot a buck every year, harvests were cut in half, that saves 7,500 bucks a year, and that would bump the ratios significantly.

There are four or five ways that buck harvest could be reduced. The SFW Board is committed to talking to Utah deer hunters and working with the DWR and MDF to look at ways to meet all the needs, yet reduce buck harvest, and increase the numbers of mature bucks.

look forward to some good ideas.

Don
 
Don,
Your idea is great, but some people like deer meat and enjoy shooting a deer every year, if we are wanting the buck quality to go up, we can fix it in one year, why don't we shut the deer hunt down state wide for one year, why don't we have the DWR raise the deer tag by 20% and shut the hunt down every 5th year for 1 year state wide, this way they are not out any money because the 20% increase will pay for the one year of no deer hunting, the deer herds will get a break every 5th year.

or we could find a way to stop party hunting in Utah, one solution would be that we make all hunters that draw a tag mandantory 8 hrs of service, this would make everyone that hunts put something back into wildlife, there is a big need of more habitat restoration and think of the man hours that can be used. Most people are selfish now days and think that hunting is a right not a priviledge. I think the real out doors men and woman will not complain to have to put back into what they partake of, but the rest will complain. This will make those that buy mom, sister, grandma, and who ever else think about putting them in for the hunts because they know that mom, sister, grandma will not do the hours. We will eliminate most of the party hunting this way, there might be better ways but this is one that could work. Just a thought.
 
One way to help the resource is to lower success rates.
It's kind of ironic that on certain sites we see post's
or advertisements about long range shooting with all types of weapons. 1500 yard rifle rigs, 300 yard smokepole rigs
and target shooters killing deer at 80 yards plus with a bow.

Mix in a road on most ridges that can be accessed without
using one ounce of shoe leather, and pack 97,000 hunters into the woods for a 10 week period and you get what we now have.

Reccomendations.

1 Close a few roads so the deer have a fair shot at some refuge
without hunters having easy access.

2 Encourage lower percentage rate methods of hunting.

3 Get serious about penalizing the party hunters in the state
THIS GOES FOR THE GUIDES AS WELL. Put some teeth in the penalties for this offense.

I would submit the Wasatch Front extended hunt area as success story. Look at some of the bucks that have come from this area. Look at all of the strikes going against this herd and yet the herd continues to thrive. I can hear you already
well he is just a bowhunter blowing the merits of bowhunting
and yeah I am but also remember that under 20% of this unit is archery only. North of I-80 it is legal to hunt with a rifle.
The plan works the proof is from Point of the Mountain to Brigham city. Now if we could only get other members of this community to wake the hell up and quit penalizing the lowest
rates of success, which by the way provides maximum hunting opportunity.
 
It would be nice to see some road closer, but it won't happen, I know down here on the San Juan it is pathetic, during the Archery hunt this year I sat down by a trail and watched 4 wheeler after 4 wheeler trying to sneak up on bucks, they thought the slower they went on a 4 wheeler the closer they would get to the bucks, the sad thing is lots of small bucks were killed by this method.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-01-07 AT 12:19PM (MST)[p]If we start cutting more hunters out then we are our own worst enemy. I do not want to see less hunters. 12 years ago we lost 120,000 hunters.

We use to have 27,000 archers, now there is 16,000

We use to hunt all 3 seasons, now we have to choose.

We use to hunt in the rut.

Some people only hunt every 3 years because of the draw.

We have given up enough opportunity. Unless biologically we need to cut permits to save the deer I will never be in favor of it. And biologically we do not need to.

The greed from wanting to kill big bucks will ultimatly hurt us if we cut out the masses.

If we cut tags we will not recruit youth or new hunters. If we cut tags then the local ecomomy will suffer. The Ma and Pa shops will suffer.

Right now Utah is doing more habitat work then all the other states combined. We are pounding predators. We are doing water projects.

The Utah DWR, SFW,MDF are all commited to helping deer. If mother nature continues to be kind we will reach our managment goals.

Deer have increased 70,000 the last 5 years, that is not enough but it is a start.

97,000 is the number I will support unless there is a need to cut them for the betterment of the herd not the betterment of the trophy.

Mdf proposed to manage deer on a smaller unit size, SFW agrees. That is where we are working towardsafter the current plan runs out in 2008.

If we want to help deer then I suggest we look at what impact elk may be having on them especially on their winter range. Studies show they compete yet noone is addressing it. Yeah it is neat we kill 400 inch bulls, but I ask if it is at the expense of deer?

That is where I believe we go next.

Tony Abbott
 
Tony, I couldn't agree more. It was neat that we took a 400 inch bull a few years ago. Now we took how many last year??

I didn't want to bring up the sacred cow ( BULL ELK )
but it does make a ton of sense.

I could support the smaller units as well. I probably wouldn't support the 28 that was kicked around a few years back
but a smaller percentage of units would work. Maybe 15 or so
would work without taking families out of their traditional hunting area's and would not contribute to the decline in hunter recruitment.
 
While I hate to admit it, I do agree with Tony. Now why did Tony stand before the RACs and Board asking for decreases in the recommended bull elk tags.........

I am not a fan of "smaller" units. We already have them. They can be manipulated within Regions. Tags, at times, must be cut for the health of the herds. Tags in the Central Region need to be cut. That 97,000 hunter number was plucked from the air and should stand some manipulation from time to time. Figure the loss of private lands (developement, CWMUs, closures) to hunters and we are seeing the same hunter numbers which must now pressure what is left as open lands.
 
I can tell you why I did that at the racs and boards, if I remember it was the Fishlake unit and the Wasatch late rifle hunt.

The reason I did it is because we did not have sufficeint information to justify the proposed increase in permits.

I will always put the health of the heard before my own self intrests.

Tony
 
Tony,

I respect your point of view and understand your argument against any reduction in deer tags. The idea I presented is geared toward an improvement in hunt quality, and not a population recovery mechanism. I know that there are some good bucks available on all the general units in the state. I also know that based on what I have experienced hunting in WY, ID, and especially CO that UT's general units have a lot of room for improvement. I too am against what I consider "overly restrictive" tag limits. The way we manage elk in UT is a perfect of example what I mean. A LE elk tag is practically once in a lifetime. That is not what I would like to see happen to our deer herd. In CO there are roughly the same number of deer hunters each year as we have in UT, about 97,000. However, we currently boast a population below 300,000 and CO estimates their population at 600,000. I don't necessarily propose cutting our numbers in half, but I do think reducing numbers would be a good thing at this time. In the future, when all of our habitat work starts to pay off (hopefully) and the population increases we could adjust tags accordingly. It is hard to find the right balance between quality and opportunity. I respect anyone who cares enough to make an effort, even if I don't necessarily always agree with them.

Thanks to all for the ideas and feedback.

Dax
Dax
 
I still dont agree with the elk having that much of an impact on the deer herds. I have not seen an elk kill a deer yet. I don't even see them in the same winter ranges, the elk theory is a cop out of the real reason, Take a look at the elk ridge deer herd for example, the dwr shut down this unit for 5 years because there were no deer there, this was before the elk were there, this means the deer herds were hurting before the elk, so I don't buy the fact that the elk have that much impact on the deer, until I see an elk kill a deer then I will believe it.
I would blame mis management first, but then drought, predators, winter kill, road kill, loss of habitat, over hunting for to many years, the 97,000 has helped, deperdation tags, doe hunts, reservation hunts, then if I had to blame anything else elk would be on the very bottom of least impact on deer herds.
We will see the same with the elk herds soon, and then I will blame the deer, instead of the real reasons.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-07 AT 06:15PM (MST)[p]A statewide reduction of tags with an eye to revenue balance doesn't address the far more critical issue of the balance between deer populations and winter range capacity which is not consistent statewide.

A far better way to manage deer would include micromanagement (in those areas where it's justified) and a reduction of the DWR's dependency upon revenue so that the budget has less influence on tag allotments.

There are several ways to reduce the tendency of the DWR to allot tags against the best interests of the deer. I hate conservation tags and everything about them, but I have to admit that's one way to do it. Reducing kill numbers by promoting traditional weapon hunts is another. But I think an innovative look at volunteer incentives and local stewardship programs has merit, too.
 
MICROMANAGE the units!! Look what colorado did in 5 years! Utah could do it faster. Also go BIG or go HOME. I hunted utah general season this past fall as a NR, southeast unit. Saw lots of deer and small bucks. Could have taken two 24" 4x4's but chose not to. Hopefully they did some screwin and will be back next year. So the deer I didn't take will be bigger and also made some fawns. We as hunters can do alot of MANAGING OURSELVES. Also if you meat hunt, add up your gas, food, time, etc., you have some 10-15 dollar a pound venison. LET THE BAMBI'S live a little. Also my dad took a 207" buck on the general hunt, Sorry you will have to wait for the mag. I agree with you all, a little better management in utah and it will be BEEEG BUCKS!!!
 
Micromanagment is good, they micromanage the unit is CO, but they also had large tag reductions in CO a few years back, right before hunt quality started improving dramatically. Imagine the ability wildlife managers would have to respond to unique local conditions if there were fewer tags and more units. I know that there are currently good bucks avaialble on all the general units in UT, but I just think there is so much potential that is not being realized. I wish it could be effective, but just trying to appeal to the conscience of hunters and telling them to not shoot small bucks will not work. There has been a lot of scientific research that shows organisms (including humans) will almost always take a smaller, sooner reiforcer rather than wait for a larger, later reiforcer.
Dax
 
>MICROMANAGE the units!! Look what
>colorado did in 5 years!
>Utah could do it faster.

Hey I've got an idea! Lets ignore all of the other times we've discussed this same topic and argue it all over again a-new! We can do it again and again and again... oh wait! We ARE arguing the same points over and over and over again.

:(

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/8538.html#28


-DallanC
 
I do not think they are being argued, I think they are taking real form this time. Both MDF and SFW stood in front of the wildlife board and said they want more units to manage.

The board instructed the division to form a commitee to get this ready for the racs so when the current plan expires next year we will have something in place.

Colorado is nothing like Utah. They do not have the problems with Habitat and drought that Utah has. A carbon copy of Colorado would be a bad idea (my opinion).

Also if we had as many units as Colorado we would all but ruin family tradition.


I believe there is a medium which will preserve hunting traditions and also help manage the herds. 15 units is something that I think would help.

I do not want to see our deer units turn into our elk units. Our elk policy and opportunity is horrible (my opinion)

If we cut deer tags to suffice the head hunters then everyone loses. Odds will be next to impossible to draw and as big bucks flourish then more people will put in for Utah and odds will get even worse. Look at our elk odds, Less then once in a lifetime. I am not interested in that.

We better be careful as to how much we push for trophy hunting because if that is all there is then very few of us will be able to afford it, and our kids will never get to experience what we did as kids, the opportunity to hunt.

The opportunity to hunt will always be more important to our sport and our heritage then the size of the head gear.
Trophy managing is a slippery slope.

Tony
 
Well said.

The only thing I disagree with is the idea of smaller units. We were fed this line back when the state was divided up into the current 5 regions and 32 subunits. The idea was that the state could "Better manage" resources improving things... has it really been a success or a failure? Why would moving to even smaller subunits make a difference over the existing subunits? Why is a large group of hunters excluded from the region boundrys and allowed to hunt anywhere they want statewide???

The average hunter sees the 5 regions and thinks we need to divide it up further, they dont realize each of the 5 regions is already divided up and in some of those subunits, specific season lengths are already in place to micro manage those areas.

I'll admit it flat out, I do not want to see smaller units because I hunt in a wide range of areas within a region. I sometimes will hunt 80 miles from where I hunted the day before because its fun, a change of scenery etc etc.
 
On Family Hunting, Recruiting Young Hunters, Smaller Units, and Biases

I do not think smaller units or fewer tags would eliminate family hunting opportunities. In CO there are always units that are under-subscribed, and the same would probably be the case in Utah as well. Even with a more restrictive buck harvest there would still be units managed more for opportunity than for quality. There are a lot of family hunting opportunities for small game, and for elk. A few years back when the 25 unit thing was being considered the DWR did a study and found the the vast majority of hunters only hunt in one of the proposed 25 units. It is only a handful that hunt more than one unit, but they were quite vocal about the potential loss of that privilege.

I don't think lack of hunting opportunity is leading to the decline in the number of young hunters. Look at eastern states that have unlimited hunting opportunities, young hunter recruitment is still decreasing even though bag limits for deer are set in number of deer per day rather than per season. In Utah we have youth elk hunts, youth can hunt all 3 season for deer, youth antlerless tag set-asides, and there is no age limit for small game hunting. Turkey hunting opportunities are on the rise big time. The opportunity is there, parents need to step up and take them, and when they go out hunt quality and success will make the difference!

When I was 14 my dad took me out and I shot a 3x4. I was so excited and it was such a good experience I will never forget it. It started something in me that has never stopped. A few years later when my little brother turned 14 we went out again. We froze our butts off, hiked all over, and didn't see a buck. This happened the first two years my brother hunted with us. Because I had tasted success I stayed at it, but he has never been back. A little success was all it took for me to get hooked.

I think improving the quality of deer hunting in Utah through a modest tag reduction might actually improve our recruitment of young hunters. In lots of places where opportunity abounds young hunters are being lost, but in places where a quality hunt is available it could be a different story. I also do not want to see mule deer managed like elk in Utah. Game animals are a public resource and need to be available to the public. However, I don't want to see mule deer exploited and I think we may be close to that at our current buck population levels and hunter numbers.

This is my own biased opinion. I respect and appreciate the opinions and ideas that others have expressed. I recognize that I have strong biases and opinions and that they are not necessarily ?right? or ?wrong?. Beyond certain population thresholds management of big game animals through hunting becomes a social and political issue rather than exercise in applied biology.


Dax
 
Micro-management doesn't start by drawing an arbitrary boundary on a map based on human factors, (as the current units were established). Instead, it's based on habitat zones and deer migrations - a set of common factors.

Let me give an example. There's a node on the southern end of the central unit from Nephi Canyon to Gunnison and from Wales to Levan. This area has little in common with the rest of the central unit. In fact, hunters get ticketed every year because they think it's part of the Southeast. It has different habitat and habitat issues as well as different deer in the aggregate. DWR biologists will quickly confirm this. It therefore makes no sense to manage this area just like the rest of the central unit.

So a few years ago, it was restricted to a 5 day hunt. But just one year later, it was opened back up to a 9 day hunt. Central hunters believed it to then be a good bet for better deer, (and it was), and clobbered it, destroying any benefit that the 5 day hunt had achieved. Obviously, since it's part of the larger unit, we can't control the harvest in that area. No harvest management = no management at all. The result in this "south central" unit is that we're currently abusing an area that can hold large numbers of deer and lots of mature bucks.

If this area was managed independently, we could control the harvest rate, build a body of reliable research and manage it with some intelligence.

I find it hard to believe that this is an isolated example. Want to talk about the Wasatch Front?
 
Can't manage anything without $$$ but a good portion of the DWR budget goes to labor. As it becomes harder to draw tags, some believe that those who pay should have the edge.

Okay, but why not tap into the volunteer labor force that the DH program has only touched on? Once we establish some real management units, (so we have better supervision of the labor), why not create a stewardship program? You want to hunt every year? (I do.) Fine - roll up your sleeves and do meaningful work in the unit you want to hunt. 20 hours of verified labor (don't just show up and stand around with your hands in your pockets) and you get one bonus point for the draw. Put in as many hours as you want.

Include serious education opportunities in a stewardship program, too. It could only improve management and hunting practices if we all got some schooling. I'm all for public input, but shouldn't that input be well informed?
 
I am glad to see something is in the works! Something is better than nothing when we speak of human management. Yes, predator control and habitat projects have been a great thing, but we have been refusing to address the human impact. PO is right, central tags are way too high!

I cannot see why "Colorado" is a bad option Tony? Can you argue their success? The way I read the Colorado draw odds, there are trophy hunts that take 15 points and undersubscribed units you can hunt every year! Does this leave anyone out? No! Only by their choice! Pick your medicine and go!

It is often referred to, but Utah elk is a pyramid? One 400 bull equals ten 380 bulls equals fifty 350 bulls and so on. To have this kind of set up for deer would allow Jr to pluck a 2 point, would allow a guy who wants a 4 point that chance, and allow the guy who wants a 200" buck the chance by knowing these deer exist if they are willing to dig in. Doesn't a healthy herd equal greater opportunity?

I would not be in favor of limiting the state to Henry Mountain status, I would favor Colorado style hunting. You state the herd comes first, however, you state family tradition is first also? Family tradition and 270k hunters each year is over Tony! Gone for good! I will never understand why if one family member draws how this ruins tradition? Why doesn't the family go along and camp, spot, laugh, enjoy, the one person's hunt? Family tradition is only a tear jerking response to greed.

Cut deer tags to help the herds, give biologists the ability to raise and lower unit tags as necessay and get the buck ratios at 30. I think everyone wins then Tony? It may require a few years of sacrifice, but in the long term hunters, youth, and the deer win.
 
>Some Great ideas, The overall deer
>herds are increasing in total
>numbers, the buck doe ratios
>have improved from 7 to
>17 average on general season
>units, most serious hunters would
>like them to be 25-30,
>because when they are there,
>there are some really nice
>bucks for the guys who
>will go hunt hard.
>
>Some posts have made this great
>point, How do we get
>hunters to hunt, enjoy the
>woods, spend money, support conservation,
>and yet not shoot a
>buck, just because they have
>to fill the tag ?
>
>
>As stated, for those who want
>the meat, need the meat,
>fine, but could they shoot
>a cow elk instead ?
>
>
>What about this idea, Sell a
>two year license, only has
>one tag ??
>
>This way, hunters could hunt, but
>would be forced to choose
>when to pull the trigger.
>If you pull the trigger,
>you sit out next year,
>by your own choice.
>
>5% will cheat no matter what
>regulations we have, so don't
>worry about the 5%.
>
>If 15,000 of the guys who
>shoot a buck every year,
>harvests were cut in half,
>that saves 7,500 bucks a
>year, and that would bump
>the ratios significantly.
>
>There are four or five ways
>that buck harvest could be
>reduced. The SFW Board
>is committed to talking to
>Utah deer hunters and working
>with the DWR and MDF
>to look at ways to
>meet all the needs, yet
>reduce buck harvest, and increase
>the numbers of mature bucks.
>
>
>look forward to some good ideas.
>
>
>Don

I like it!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-07 AT 01:01PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-07 AT 12:58 PM (MST)

"Cut deer tags to help the herds, give biologists the ability to raise and lower unit tags as necessay and get the buck ratios at 30."

That is the same slippery slope we have on a limited basis here in Utah. The Book Cliffs have a buck doe ratio of around 30. Right now that herd is offering 400 tags for a population of around 4,000 deer. No where near the hunting opportunity needed to satisfy the public on a statewide basis. The Vernon is not that great and it is a limited/small area. It doesn't even have 30 bucks to 100 doe. The Oak Creek provides hunting for 50+- guys and is only at around 25 to 100. Same with 1000 Lakes, San Juan, South Slope; all aroun 20-25 bucks per 100 doe. And these are all managed as Limited Entry, highly restricted areas.

I guess the question is: What does Utah want for deer hunting. Do we want to hunt yearly/every other year OR do we want to hunt every 3-10 years? Yearly/every other year with the chance to shoot a mature buck OR every 3-10 years with seeing numerous mature bucks? Do we want to limit our herds to producing 22" four points for the lucky who draw? Or do we want to have areas where people can go hunt and choose to shoot whatever they like?

Good to see Tony has come around, a little; away from his Pro-Elk rants and remarks last Spring at various MDF Banquets, RACs and Board Meeting.
 
Legolas, I was one of two guys who stood before the RAC and asked to institute the 5 day season on the Nebo unit. The RAC accepted that proposal and they cut the hunt to 5 days for 2 years 2001 and 2002. In that time period, the buck doe ratio went from 7(?) to around 16. It worked.

That is the way to manipulate sub-units within the regions. They should have left the 5 day hunt restriction in place, especially on the San Pitch Mtns. Manipulating sub-units is very possible thru 2 means. Making the unit limited entry or cutting the hunting opportunity thru both tag cuts region wide or/and reducing hunter days afield. It is so easy to do, yet hunters do not see the possiblities there.
 
My position has never changed. Elk are a success but a tragedy.

I never said I wanted 200,000+ hunters again. I said I didn't want to lose anymore. Cutting deer tags does not help the deer herd. Bucks do not determine the number of deer, does and fawns do.

We need more does to have more fawns and more fawns to survive. All the while we need to fund the dwr and have the opportunity to hunt.15 bucks per 100 does will breed all the does just like 30 bucks per 100 does will. All the does will get breed.

We cannot compare ourselves to Colorado because the 2 states are completly different when it comes to habitat and water. Colorado can easily carry twice as many deer as Utah because it has 2-3 times as much habitat.

We sale out all 95,000 deer tags this state offers. Every single year people don't get to hunt deer that want to. Do you all want to leave more out because you want bigger bucks?

Utah has the bucks for your trophy desires if you want them. It is a matter of trophy versus opportunity. Do you want to wait for the Henrys? Or do you want to hunt the general season?

Right now Utah has a good mixture of Trophy and opportunity. Lets just grpw more Does and Fawns and then there will be more deer which will make more Bucks which will let more bucks get bigger. I never said increase the buck tags I said increase the deer and don't increase the buck tags.

This is the way it should be done and then everyone will be happy.

Tony
 
Dax, your proposal could work, however there is just one flaw. Why would Nonresidents want to pay almost $300 for a deer tag when the quality sucks. We need to improve the quality before we can convince enough NR to pay $300 to hunt our state.The problem we have is there are to many guys like Fishon who think it's their God given right to hunt 2 points every year.Ok maybe that was un called for. Sorry Fishon, but I think you get my point.
We need to reduce tags by at least 30% raise the buck to doe ratios state wide to 25 bucks per 100 does and than micromanage to get these results. I would also make guys pick their unit and do away with the bonus point program and go to a statewide preference point program. Man this almost sounds like what CO is doing. Oh! And one more thing! Do away with the over the counter tags.
Talk about digging up a dead horse and beating it to death. There is no way to get results in this state. I give up!

Mike
 
The Problem is a that a few people think it is their right to hunt huge bucks.

Most just want to hunt. Utah has both opportunity's. The trophy hunters want to cut out the everyday hunter while the everyday hunter is fine with the trophy hunter. You don't see people on here trying to make you stop shooting Big bucks yet there are many that complain if a guy shoots a 2 point.

I like to kill big bucks as much as anyone but not at the expense of losing more hunters. If we need fewer hunters to save deer I would be all for it. But that is not the case.

Our deer herds are growing and our habitat is being fixed. Now if we would all have patience then we will all be happy.

This state is getting results. You want to kill big racks then put in for elk, you may draw it 1 time in your life if you are lucky. If you want to hunt then put in for deer and enjoy.

Tony
 
So you want the whole state to have better buck doe ratios than the current ratios of San Juan, Oak Creek, Vernon, 1000 Lakes, and South Slope limited entry units? To get there you will have to cut far more than 30% of the tags. Try cutting tags in half or more. Which means Southern tags now are a 5-6 year wait. Central, a 4-5 year wait. SouthEastern at least 2-3 year wait. Northern, a 2 year wait. (Even if you break the state down into more units) So we will all get to hunt every 2-6 years. That sure sounds like a great deal.......
 
Tony,

I understand where you are coming from, but I guess I just don't agree. Deer hunting in Utah is almost like Heaven vs. Hell. You wait 6-13 years and get to hunt in Heaven, or you slug it our in hell* every year. CO is a different state with it's own unique circumstances, I acknowledge that, but I also think they have some things going for them that we ought to look at real hard. There are lots of units in CO that can be drawn with 1, 2, 3, 4 points. In Utah the easiest to draw LE units take 6+ years to draw. I agree that when our habitat improves, and we have more deer we ought to give more tags.

I wish I could say differently, but despite aggressive (and expensive) habitat restoration efforts we loose more than we gain every year. Between development on critical winter ranges, wildfire, drought, and noxious weeds we are playing catch-up with habitat. Maybe we should adjust our hunter numbers to match the deer population we have now, not what we hope to have in the future. That would give us a strong incentive to improve habitat and deer numbers.

I do not think I have the right to hunt big bucks every year, I also do not think I have the right to hunt 2-points every year. I think hunting is privilege, and as long as we have enough bucks to breed the does (scientific literature says a minimum of 5-7 buck per 100 does) the rest is a social issue. Again, I don't want deer hunting so limited that it takes 6+ years to draw a tag, but I could easily stomach having to hunt spike elk every couple of years or so when I can't get a deer tag.

Thanks to all for sharing your ideas.

Dax

*disclaimer: I know there are some big bucks available in all of our general units.
 
Tony, people who just want to hunt and kill any buck aren't complaining because there are plenty of those young bucks to go around. The odds suck on many of our limited entry units because there are very few of them. Manage the entire state for some quality and make guys pick their unit and than drawing a good tag doesn't take so long.It levels the playing field. There are units in CO that take a resident 0-1 points to draw that I would hunt over the paunsaguant any day of the week. My point is, we could learn something from states like CO, but there are too many people who use the lame excuse that CO has better habitat, which is true.However, because we have less habitat, doesn't make since to manage based on the lack thereof.The bottom line; CO has chosen to manage for quality and now everyone type of hunter is benefiting.

Mike
 
I am not trying to change any of your opinions. I am simply giving mine. This is not the MDF's opinion it is my opinion.

I personally am comfortable with the opportunity we now have to hunt deer. I am also comfortable in saying if the effort is applied you can shoot a great buck every year in the state of Utah at a good price.

Nothing is more true then this is a social issue now. Our statewide buck to doe ration is about 17 bucks per 100 does. 10 years ago it was 7 bucks per 100 does. I believe biologically we are moving in the right direction.

One thing for sure is there will never be enough deer to go around, whether you are a trophy hunter or an opportunity hunter. Thats why I believe we need to keep heading in the direction we are because both parties are benefitting.

Tony
 
I now know why I have no interest in MDF. As long as we have enough bucks to breed the does Utah is benefiting. It would suck to have a few around to grow up a little through some sacrifice. How do we KNOW micromanaging and tag cuts do not work? We never tried it and at this point trying anything would be better than what is currently working so well. Maybe I am blind, but in 28 years of hunting, scouting, hiking, and riding I have seen less than a grand total of two trophy bucks in Utah. Tell me how to get the big Utah bucks Tony? I hunt in Wyoming 3 years and get two trophy bucks. For some reason I can get it done in Wyoming, but Utah is another story. Tell me more about the "phantom deer."

The thing that amazes me is the fact that concerned hunters in Utah try and put viable ideas out there, because they are obviously unhappy, and all the MDF president wants to do is shut them down with ideas that certainly will keep him in the hills at any cost. Many of the ideas would not work, or would need adjustment, but at least people are trying to give solutions. All MDF wants to do is keep doing what we are doing and hoping for the best.

Thank God for Wyoming and Colorado is all I can say. Otherwise I would quit deer hunting all together. That would provide one more opportunity for a family outing and some fine venison.

Go ahead and send me your annual PM Tony so we can take up our arguments in private so the world cannot see.....
 
KTC


1st off I am not the MDF president, that position is held by Miles Moretti. His credentials speak forthemselves.

2nd I can state my opinion on this form and it does not need to be kept private. If you would re-read my posts you would be able to take back a few of your comments.

1. I stood in front of the wildlifd board and represented MDF and made the proposal for managing deer on a smaller scale.
SFH supported it and now a push is moving forward to take that proposal through the racs. What this means is MDF,SFH and myself support managing deer on a smaller unit size. So that is an idea that has been shared on this fourm, and myself and SFH and MDF support it. I believe that means none of us are trying to shoot it down.

2. We have already cut tags. About 130,000 of them. It has had a positive impact on the herd. It has been slow coming but it has helped. It also has showed that cutting tags alone will not fix the deer problems. IF it did then the 55% reduction in buck permits 12 years ago would of taken care of the problem by itself, but since it didn't we need to look elsewhere. I am not interested in forcing anyone else out of deer hunting unless we need to for the deer.

Biologically we don't need 35 bucks per 100 does. Socially maybe we want them. Biologically 17 bucks per 100 does will do the same amount of breeding as 35 bucks per 100 does. Socially maybe it is not sufficeint.

All I have ever said is my support of an idea is based on the betterment of the deer herd 1st and then the opportunity to hunt 2nd and then the trophy factor 3rd.

Biologically we do not need to cut tags. Socially some want to. There is a huge difference.

3. It is tough to grow a deer herd when they do not have much to sustain them. Utah DWR as well as conservation groups are spending millions on habitat in the state. Utah is building a foundation so it can support deer. The increase in deer populations the last 5 years is proof to that.

As I mentioned earlier I am not satisfied where our deer herds are but I am satisfied where they are heading.

4. Draw a central region deer tag for the Muzzle Loader and I would be happy to take you hunting with me. I will show you numerous deer, lots of bucks and a couple trophy's. We can take a summer trip and you can bring your camera. We can have a nice picnic and I will show you plenty of deer. You will be able to bring your cell phone and call some buddies and tell them that I wasn't lying. The only catch is there is no 4 wheeler access and horses won't get there either. So you will need to strap on your hiking boots and plan on spending the night on our scouting trip.

Now you have the offer. Either take me up on it or don't talk to me about the "phantom deer"

Last thing, please do not try to make something out of this that it isn't. I made it clear that this is my opinion and my opinion only. I also made it clear that I am not the MDF president so if you would like to talk about the MDF position on deer I would be glad to put you in touch with the president.

As always here is my contact number

Tony Abbott
801-885-1274
 
My Gawd Tony.

Did I call you the president? All though it would be a great title for someone with Antelope Island early shed hunting privlidges.

We did cut tags. Did we micromanage with tag allotments to fit the size of the herd in these units? Help me out Tony. The only thing I saw was a cap of 97,000 because it was out of control with over 200k tags after a severe winter die off. Thank God SFW stepped in and pushed that.

You want to invite me on a picnic? I want to know where these phantom deer live not go on a date. No horse? We are not going out to view the AlliantTech bucks are we? Sorry, I am going to pass on your date offer. If my horse don't go there then niether do I.
 
KTC, I couldn't agree with you more.

Tony, I'm not sure what you consider a trophy buck, but in 20+ years of hunting with my family in Utah we have killed only 2 bucks that were of trophy class. One buck was a 24 inch 160 class buck and the other was a 30 inch 3 point. In the last 3 years, I have killed 3 bucks in another state that were bigger than anything my entire family has killed in 20+ years hunting public land in Utah.
I also think it's pathetic that guys have to wait 8-10 years to draw a premium rifle tag on the paunsaguant and than hunt a migrating herd that will allow them to kill a 150-170 type buck.
Sounds like the president of MDF is ok with Medocrity. I'm am so tired of all these organizations preaching the habitat sermon. We all know it's important and we support it,however,hunters will kill far more deer than the lack of habitat. We can't just focus on habitat we need to control harvest and I believe that we can do that and still have oppurtunity and quality.
 
Tony, disregard the comment in my last post about you being the president. I stand behind everything else I said.

Mike
 
I do not claim to be on top of the game when we talk social deer issues. Biologically all I can report is what I see. I have shot several 150-165 bucks in Utah. Most are closer to 150. To me that is not a trophy anymore. To some it is and that is great and nothing wrong with it! I can shoot a buck every trip out. I guess things are improving and there is no denying it. I personally do not see it to potential or even good enough to be satisfied.

Tony, when I say I am unsatisfied, as many here also say, then why the resistance to change? Habitat and conservation dollars are great and there are many things being done. It is certainly one very important step. It will be interesting to see how NM fares after an all draw micromanaging system. Colorado sure did well! My question is what are the major differences in Colorado and Utah? What about Nevada and Utah? Colorado has more elk than Utah and bigger and more bucks, so the elk ruining it does not fly with me?

I keep hearing the you want it like the Henry's statewide argument. Not true at all! I would love to see every wanting man, woman, and child hunt every year, but it will NEVER happen again! Humans have the brain power to recognize this and we must adjust! When I look at draw odds in other states they have a wide range of opportunity. Some units give lots of tags and they support a few trophies and other units give less tags and give fewer tags.

97k is the number and it is not getting us there. Maybe very very slowly, but why not help speed it up some? There have been some great ideas here! Continue to do habitat projects, predator control, now add in micro units and tag cuts! Eliminate the LE deer units and over the counter sales, raise prices, and MANAGE TO AGE CLASS, not ratios? The CWMU's have trophies, some LE's have trophies, why not spill these concepts into the general hunt without making the draw very exclusive like henry's? I do not want 200" bucks in every draw! To have a handfull in each unit would be nice though! To know your hunt can end with a 2 point or a 200 class buck with some work, scouting, and luck would be nice.

I honestly can say I have seen only one or two 200" bucks in Utah. They have been on the winter range. I would guess I have seen no more than 3 180 bucks in all of my scouting, riding, hiking, and hunting. I have never got a crack at or seen a 180 while hunting. NEVER in 25 or so years.

2 years ago the Utah hunt was pretty good. It was the year AFTER the big snow. I think access was so poor that the bucks survived. I did not shoot a deer that year because I was after one particular 170-175 buck that was just under 30" wide. I never could close the deal. In my opinion, this is what happens when the deer have limited hunting over a one year period. This year it was back to the same old stuff. One or two 22-24" bucks about 150-160 tops.

What do you say Tony? How about using some of the expo money to help fund the DWR? Help set up a better deer management system? The masses are crying for change. Lets get it done! You can count me in to do some work! I feel change is hard because of the family tradition arguments and hands are tied. I think SFW is on-board, rather than be resistant why not embrace some change? Educate me and others to sound deer management practices? Practices that allow a small percentage of 200 class 6 year old bucks? A little better percentage of 170-180 4 or 5 year old bucks? 30% 3-4 year old bucks? 25-30 bucks to does? Lets get an age class in there with the ratios?
 
I believe MDF and SFW are supporting smaller managment units. That is a step in your direction. Also it is not the masses crying for a change, the masses don't even get on this site. It is a few (me included) that push the enevelope. Keep it up cause I will.

To bad you won't take me up on the offer, cause you would really enjoy yourself. Here is a counter offer.

Bring your horse, I can get you to within spotting scope distnce of some trophy Bucks, show you 10-15 good bucks and then a whole bunch of other deer and then when can move on to another discussion.

Its always refreshing to get on here once in awhile, kinda clears the cobwebs out.

Hopefully I will see you at the convention, if not I'll pack the lunch and the spot and you provide the horse.

What do you say KTC?

Tony
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-07 AT 11:44AM (MST)[p]KTC and Cabin,

Why should we discontinue "over the counter tags"? Utah does not have over the counter tags. Utah does have leftover tags which were not taken in the draw. Colorado, Wyoming, and most all other states sell leftover tags after the draw. Why not Utah?

You both want 25-30 bucks per 100 doe. There are only 3 units in Utah that exceed 30 bucks per 100, (excluding some private lands units). The other limited entry units only have 20-26 bucks per 10 doe. You are advocating making this standard across Utah. That will mean extreme cuts in tags and extreme waiting periods between tags. That means the whole state becomes a trophy unit.

Sorry, I just don't see it. Every year there are huge bucks shot on public lands in general units. You just have to know how to hunt them and where they live. If you arn't seeing them in 25 years then you have been hunting in areas that stink! 1981-1988 was a great time to hunt deer in Utah. Try somewhere new.
 
PO,

I giess I mean leftover. Eliminate or cut the tags to see a lesser harvest. I guess it all boils down to reduced harvest either through eliminating leftovers up north, 1 deer in 2 years, a 10% reduction in tags or so, micro units to get a better handle on the different logistical problem areas. I am no pro here, just reporting what I see and throwing out ideas. I reread some ideas here and I find it hard that SOMETHING cannot work?

By eliminating LE's and making the whole state micro unit or LE hunting if you will, then I think a central tag will be easier to draw. This would force a guy to pick his medicine. Do you want a unit XX tag (Nebo) or a XX tag (Henry). No more of this putting in for Henry or Book Cliff, not drawing, then applying for a general tag?

My comments are a wish list I want it BETTER? How do we do it? I am all for max opportunity, but I want max quality to go along with the oppotunity.

Let me get up off the floor again Tony and make sure the new horses are bomb proof and we will see. I need to heal up again.

PO, you are right. I need a new area. North, soth, east, or west of the state line of Utah!;-)
 
KTC,
You didn't get hurt riding, did you? I told you..... Better to spend an extra $2,000 on a horse than spend $10,000 in doctor bills. Last week I found out that my bomb-proof gelding wasn't encephalitis-proof and on Tuesday I found that he wasn't .22-proof either.

Sorry to Hijack the thread. Now, carry on with the yearly, post season argueing.....
 
I think it is funny when they blame everything on habitat. If you look at Colorado and Wyoming. They have mountain areas, desert areas, flatland grass areas and sagebrush areas. All of those areas hold deer, some more then others but all of them hold and sustain ample amounts of deer.

Yet here in Utah we have the same type of areas and our habitat holds less deer. How can others states have equal types of habitat and able to sustain more animals?

I do feel that the deer herd is coming around, however we can use some help. I feel smaller sub units might help but not the the extent of 28 smaller units. Those would be really small units.
If I picked my area in April and come July it burns then I am out of luck. That is one reason why I love the statewide archery. This example has happened to me twice now.

To also say you can not look at Colorado and other state as examples is a crock. Both Wyoming and Colorado have smaller units and yet they are able to offer quality and quanity at a much larger scale then we do. I have been to a few RAC meetings where the DWR has said they have taken various models off of other states and it is working here.

Also about traditions and getting kids involved. First traditions went out the door 10+ years ago. The family weekend hunting trip, has since turned into family caravans with the 4wheelers. I have uncles and numerous cousins who quit hunting because of the lack of deer. There was nothing to keep them excited, it had nothing to do with cutting tag numbers back. They could care less if they hunted every year. However when they did draw they wanted something worth while to hunt. Since there was a lack of bucks, they decided enough was enough.
I can promise you that if you want to keep kids invloved, give them animals to shoot at, not chances to go out into the field.
 
RE: JUDAS FRICKEN PREIST

SORRY BESS I couldn't resist
Once the inch mobbers get the same worn out elk philosophy going with the deer in the state you can pretty much kiss all but the most wealthy hunters goodbye. Cut the tags and raise the fee's will decimate the pool of hunters that would be willing to volunteer, Take a kid out hunting, Buy a new rifle,
Pay the majority of income in the rural Utah Communities, buy gas from the neighbor down the street, buy bullets to sight in with and hunt with, maintain their rigs.

You people have no clue what a mistake you will be making
if you cut opportunity. The domino effect will be huge. The tags would be more valuable than ever but what the hell would it matter. Ty I ain't willing to wait 20 years to go hunt a buck just so I may have the chance of seeing a 200 inch rack.

You keep taking people out of the hunt game and who's going to be left to pay for biologists, trucks, seeding, burning and on and freaking on.

What is next are we going to close down all trout streams untill 85% of the fish are 24 inches and above.

Listen to Tony... most of all listen to yourselves.
 
RE: JUDAS FRICKEN PREIST

Easy ww!

I did not say I want Henry odds or waits. When I talk price increase I am talking 10-20 bucks IF it is needed to pay biologists and fish cops. I am also saying it COULD be better! Everyone does not need a 200 inch buck, but how would it be to get one or maybe two in a lifetime on general units? How would it be to know a few exist somewhere in the hills? To have a slim chance instead of no chance?

My hope would be to cut tags tempoarily, get the numbers where we want them, put some age structure into the plan, and increase opportunity! THAT IS MY HOPE! No one should have to wait 20 years, we already wait 2-4 and the hunting is better than 10 years ago, but still not very good. OK, but not good.

I do not want to argue 200" bucks or nothing or 20 year waits or every year. Things have changed and a happy medium exists somewhere. The current, or more opportunity, with a little better quality is my hope.
 
RE: JUDAS FRICKEN PREIST

Damn ww! I thought we had an understanding? Oh go blow it out your....!;-)
 
RE: JUDAS FRICKEN PREIST

I'VE BEAT ON DEER SOLUTIONS FOR YEARS & DECADES!!!

NOBODY EVER LISTENED!!!

THEY STILL DON'T!!!

AND THE DEER HERDS ARE ONCE AGAIN IN PISS POOR SHAPE JUST AS I PREDICTED!!!

I CAN'T DRAW OR BUY A HENRIES TAG SO BASICALLY I'M SCREWED IN UTAH!!!

SURE YOU CAN FIND A Nomad BUCK!!!

BIG FRICKEN DEAL!!!

HERES A QUESTION I'VE ASKED OVER ALOT OF YEARS THATS STILL NEVER BEEN ANSWERED!!!

WITH HERDS IN THE SHAPE THEY'RE IN AND HAVE BEEN IN FOR MANY FRICKEN YEARS,WHY TF WOULD YOU STILL BE SHOOTING SEVERAL THOUSAND DOES & FAWNS IN THE CURRANT CREEK WINTER GROUNDS???

ANSWERS PLEASE???

AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE FAKE F###KING PHONY EXCUSE THE SAGEBRUSH IS DIEING!!!

THE ONLY bobcat SUGGESTING ONCE & AGAIN,IT WILL TAKE SOME DRASTIC CHANGES TO BRING THE BIG BOYS BACK,YES THEY WILL HAVE TO LIVE PAST AGE 3 TO BECOME BIG!!!
 
Packout and Tony, 25 bucks per 100 does is not that high of a ratio. The worst units in CO have 25 bucks per 100 does. I think everyone is worried that they will have to sit out every year to maintain this objective. I think most will still get to hunt every year, but they may not get to hunt their favorite area every year. I think it is still possible to have a quality hunt every other year in a quality unit with these objectives.
Tony, I have no problem finding a trophy buck or two here in Utah during my summer scouting trips, but thats the problem. There is usually only a few good bucks and what happens when 1000's of hunters descend on that unit like a pack of wolves. I think you get the picture! I'm not asking for the DWR to manage for 200 inch bucks in every unit. I'd just like to see the quality improve. I don't know where you guys hunt, but here in the southern region some of these units get more pressure than the herds can support.

Mike
 
Mike

Right now in the south people are waiting 2-4 years to hunt. In fact S.E. and Central now has people not drawing permits and only hunting every 2-3 years. With the amount of new applicants every year combined with A cut in tags we would be lucky to draw evey 5-8 years. Also cutting buck tags does not improve the deer numbers, it simply improves buck numbers, Well when we control predators and highways and habitat and water then we grow more does which have more fawns which turns into a bigger deer herd which means more bucks. That way everyone wins.

Cutting tags will not cut it for me unless it was a biological necessity which it is not. I remember 220,000+ deer hunters in this state, we are alot better now then we were then.

Also I hunted Colorado this year, units 41,42 and 421 I believe. I hunted the entire hunt with 2 buddies. We even had access to private property. The best buck we saw was a 27" 4x4. That voucher cost me $1,500 plus the license fee (I think $300) plus the gas and food. It was well over a $2,000 hunt and it was the worst deer hunt I have been on in 5+years.

Yes I saw a couple nice bucks that had been killed but no more then where I hunt in the central unit in Utah. There were hunters everywhere, California, Utah, Colorado, Nevada etc. Just as crowded as Utah and would of been worse were it not for the private land access.

Every state has their problems and their benefits. I still like Utah.

Tony
 
Tony,

What do you and MDF plan to do with the expo cash flow? You represent the Mule Deer! I totally understand predator control and habitat projects. These projects seem isolated in small areas? OK, they are needed, but when does MDF step forward in a more agressive role to BUILD and EXPAND the herd and opportunity?

Predator control and habitat projects have only gone so far. Now what? I honestly do not have answers. I have ideas, but no answers and no pull to do much of anything. What do you propose to up ratios, up quality, and up herd sizes? I only see what I see in the hills and I can only compare Utah to Wyoming and Colorado. What do we do to be better? It seems ratios are a bit low, quality is down, and the herd size is not at potential. All of this after a hard winter in 1993. It has been 13 years and no note worthy improvements as a whole? The draw odds are getting worse because people want to hunt and the herd cannot take the current pressure. I saw a herd of wintering deer the other day. About 25 does and one tiny 2 point. Kind of sad when you think about it.
 
In my opinion there's a bigger picture we need to keep in mind. Every time you take tags away from the general public you decrease the number of hunters. Fewer hunters mean a bigger voice for the non-hunting community. A bigger voice for the non-hunting community and you run a risk of one day only hunting with a camera. Be careful of what you wish for!

If you decrease opportunity for some today, you might be decreasing opportunity for everyone tomorrow. The great thing about our country is that everyone has one vote. It doesn't matter whether they have money or not, whether they are for hunting or against it, or even if they hunt for meat or antlers. Their vote will count. We need to keep our voice as strong as we possibly can.

There have been some great suggestions so far for improving Utah's herds without cutting tag numbers. Everyone keeps mentioning Colorado and how they've limited tag numbers to increase trophy potential. The other side of that argument is Idaho, which ranks #2 in the country for B&C entries since 1985. Hunters can hunt the entire state with all three weapons on an over the counter tag. The rifle hunt is also an incredible 21 days long. What is it that they are doing that Utah isn't? My point is that we can, and should, look at positive alternatives that don't drive people away from our sport.

Paul
 
Ty we've still got that understanding pecke....

Close some roads, limit success and incent hunters to
let some deer live another year. I am also a huge proponent
of putting your actions where your mouth is as Legolas suggested.

I would hope that the proposed ATV legislation would help
in the coming years. I would also hope that the org's would step up and support this bill if they have not already done so.
 
Tony, I don't hunt the SE region, but in the southern region you can draw it every other year and sometimes 2 years in a row.GMU 421 would probably be the last unit in CO I'd hunt in. Infact, i think you can draw that tag with 0 points at a cost of $293.Sombody took you, if you paid $1500 for that voucher. Having said that, if you spent the time in that unit I'll bet within 3 years you'd kill a monster. I have herd of a few toads coming out of that unit.
The problem with the big 5 regions is some units are better than others and therfore get more pressure than they can support. I know this sounds xtreme, but if everyone that had a southern tag wanted to hunt the pine valley area they could.There are some units that have more hunters than a herd can handle.There are several different herds within the southern region, yet we manage them as one. Tony, how can you say that is sound management?

Mike
 
Paul, you have a good point, however while Idaho does rank next to CO in B&C entries since inception they have fallen way low in the amount of entries as Utah has in the last ten years.
 
Cabinfever, the stats I gave before were from 1985, not from the B&C inception. In fact, from the years 2000-2005 Idaho had 17 B&C mule deer entries, and Utah had 13. During those five years Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico ranked higher than Utah. Granted these are just entries, and some people who shoot B&C deer don't submit them, but it does give you an idea of where each State stands.

I still would like Utah to try a few other things before they cut tag numbers again. Once those tags are cut, we'll never get those hunters back.

Paul
 
Before I start ranting let me make it clear I do not want the entire state managed for "Trophy deer" but I do want to be able to take my kids for a horse ride, atv ride(on legal roads of course) in the truck, or a hike and let them actually see a dam deer with horns.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Utah does not go with some form of micromanaging the state with smaller deer units than it currently has our deer herds will not come back to their potential. Each year someone shoots a 200"+ buck along the Wasatch and word gets out and that mountain gets pounded the next year. It sucks I used to hunt what we call front mountain then a large buck gets killed now it gets more pressure then the north skyline drive.
More of the hunters today are looking for big bucks and they go where they are, then that area gets shot out and a buck or two grow up on another mountain and they head that way.
The DWR needs to say, so many hunters here and so many hunters there.
Tony you are the only guy I have ever heard (that has hunted both Utah & Col.)say that they would rather hunt Utah. I would be bitter to if I had paid that money for a tag that can be drawn easily. I have hunted an undersubsribed unit in Col. 2 years now and would take it for a 3 day hunt over a Utah gen. deer unit with a 14 day hunt, every year. It is what we should have in our general units, plenty of small bucks a handful of 20"+ 2-3 year olds and a few mature heavy horned 24"+ bucks. I do not think this is asking alot from the DWR and sportsmen to sacrifice by not hunting every other year or 1 out of 3. It is not rocket science but it is asking for a little sacrifice.
We are losing kids now because they go out hunt there tails off over 3 seasons luanch an arrow or 2 at some yearlings, then do not even see anything to shoot at with MZ or rifle so they quit hunting and take up one of the 100s of other hobbies/sports available nowdays and are lost to us. They do not have the experience needed to find those few bucks that are on the general units. Its just not feasible for a dad to hual his 8 year old up some of these mountains where the big boys have a chance to grow. But if you want to recruit that kid his dad needs to be able to drive up hobble creek take the kid on a hike and show him or her some deer hopefully a buck. I went hunting with my dad since I can remember, the only deer i saw him kill was a wounded 2point, I watched him let plenty live and he would always say next year that will be a nice buck. So I do not beleive we have to have buck to doe ratios so high every one can kill a buck. But when we went out as kids we always saw deer so the chance was there. Today in Utah it is not.
The DWR has never really managed deer in Utah. The only effort ever made was cutting the tags to 97,000. A lot of you will not like this but that was purely a political decision and the 97,000 number was picked because that was enough money for the DWR to stay in business. It had nothing to do with the fact that the deer herd was on life support. I remember a bioligist telling my dad and some other sportsmen who were pressuring them to do something about the deer herd back in the early 90's that Utah was going out of the deer business and the future of Utah wildlife would be the elk and nongame species. When I see the position he is in today it makes me sick.
Even after the tags were cut to 97,000 they oversold them by 10,000+ for years and fought the changes needed to stop that.
If the DWR was really interested in the health of the deer herd and the future of deer hunting they would put some serious effort into managing the deer. So the way I see it is the DWR is not going to do anything until enough pissed off hunters force them to do it.
Dave
 
Mike

I have said 10 times I would like to see the state managed on smaller units. Not 30 but maybe 15. And I very well may of got taken on that voucher but I can promise you that every place I have hunted in Utah had better deer then the unit I hunted in Colorado.

Infact 2 years agao I had a unit 10 tag and it was average as well. Colorado has some nice deer but it is not Gods gift to the deer hunter.

I prefer where I hunt in Utah. (my opinion). We all have what we like. I just don't want to lose more hunters in the name of trophy bucks.

Tony
 
Tony, if your seeing better bucks in Utah I may just take you up on your offer. Seriously!

FYI: Since B&C inception here are the amounts of entries in the Mule deer Typical category. I have only listed the top 10 states.

1. Colorado typical mule deer 504


2. Idaho typical mule deer 205


3. Utah typical mule deer 151


4. Wyoming typical mule deer 142


5. New Mexico typical mule deer 117


6. Oregon typical mule deer 92


7. Montana typical mule deer 65


8. Arizona typical mule deer 58


9. Saskatchewan typical mule deer 56


10. British Columbia typical mule deer 55



FYI; Here are the amount of entries in the last 5 years for the top 10 states. Notice how Idaho has been bumped from 2nd to 3rd and Wyoming has been bumped from 4th to 6th, however, the most alarming is Utah which has been bumped from 3rd to 7th.





1. Colorado typical mule deer 91


2. Mexico typical mule deer 21


3. Idaho typical mule deer 18


4. Saskatchewan typical mule deer 18


5. New Mexico typical mule deer 16


6. Wyoming typical mule deer 16


7. Utah typical mule deer 15


8. Oregon typical mule deer 12


9. Nevada typical mule deer 11


10. Alberta typical mule deer 10
 
Did all of you anti conservation group folks notice that Tony said he is not in favor of managing for trophys but for the health of the herd. I say good on ya Tony, and I agree with you on this issue 100%. The biggest deer I have seen in the last 20 yeras was in 05 on a general public land area in Utah, and I spend alot of timne in Colorado and Idaho. The big ones are there you just have to, get this, HUNT for them.

PRO
 

Similar threads

L
Outfitters
Replies
15
Views
1k
heywouldya
heywouldya
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
1k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
C
draw question
Replies
3
Views
892
sticksender
sticksender

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_9541.jpeg
IMG_8277.jpeg
IMG_9443.jpeg
6655F4C1-1974-4D0F-9068-6D63B8D5A43A.jpeg
91BAD1FD-081C-4A9D-AFCA-E8F62B907B64.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_2287.jpeg
20201205_162451.jpg
6E33D6F8-B7D6-41B3-9E0E-E100BC6CE1A5.jpeg
IMG_2709.jpeg
20201117_195459.jpg
20220919_080641.jpg
IMG_0093.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom