Utah Antler Restriction

[screamingseason]

I know the central region is under review right now about what they are going to do with it over the next few years because the buck to doe ratio is down. They are considering shutting it down for a year or two. I put my input in to them to create a antler restriction. I know they have done this a time or two back in the good ol days. I am sick and tired of driving down the freeway on the opening weekend of the rifle hunt, while chewing on the jerky from the nice deer I took on the muzzy hunt, and seeing little fork horned deer strapped to the racks of four wheelers that resemble small goats rather than deer. I can understand a 14 year old kid taking a small buck for his first deer. But when I pull into a gas station and see a 35 year old man with his spike that is barely legal on his four wheeler acting like his is the baddest man around because he killed a little deer with his big bad rifle. This just frustrates me bad. That is the reason that our deer quality is poor. What is your take on the antler restriction?

 

[gilamonster8]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-07 AT 00:01AM (MST)[p]I think this post will be a new screaming season. While I hunt horns, I cant put someone down that puts meat in the freezer. Some people need the meat. I dont want to open the can of worms, Im just saying they have just as much of a right to shoot their deer as you and i do eating our tags. I shoot horns, they shoot meat there is no differnce in my mind.

 

[270longshot]

I wish we had an antler restriction in az. You dont get much meat off of the little guys anyway. My friends and I have talked about this a lot and we would like to see something in the works. The increased oppurtunity at a larger buck would be greatly welcomed. But our state has decided that "oppurtunity" not quality of the hunt is important. Just my opinion and for the naysayers tell me how many of you would want to hunt a unit with only spikes an 2 points. I say let em grow a little.

 

[Shedfreak380]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-07 AT 07:53AM (MST)[p]screamingseason,
I agree with you completely. Here in Sevier county nobody gives a damn how bad the deer herds are and surelly dont care if the bucks will never grow to there full potentional. The first day of the rifle i seen twelve yearling bucks in the back of trucks and on four wheelers. Its not just the UDWR that have to manage the deer herds, its the hunters them selves that have to do thier part to help. Thats why guys like us have to suffer because of those guys that are to lazy to hike, shoot a yearling or two year old buck off the road and because those bucks are so yong and dont know any better they end up getting shot. Bucks will never learn if thier not alive. Let Em Go.....Let Em Grow!!!!!!


GO BIG or GET OFF the Mountain!

 

[gdog]

The "they need the meat" excuse is weak...Let me know who needs some meat and I'll help them out. I'm sure there's a ton of guys here that would help out as well....

The masses of "deer hunters" are not on this forum. Most of the guys here are dedicated and a hell of a lot more active then the weekend hunter. Trying to get Joe avg to self regulate is not going to happen.

Make sub units, spread hunters out, close areas when needed, cut back permits to areas that are struggling and up the tag fee's to off-set the changes. Big deer just don't happen...and we need to be willing to make some concessions to get things to change.

 

[HUNTINFORLIFE]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-07 AT 09:11AM (MST)[p]>gdog

>The "they need the meat" excuse
>is weak...Let me know who
>needs some meat and I'll
>help them out. I'm sure
>there's a ton of guys
>here that would help out
>as well....
>
>The masses of "deer hunters" are
>not on this forum.
>Most of the guys here
>are dedicated and a hell
>of a lot more active
>then the weekend hunter.
>Trying to get Joe avg
>to self regulate is not
>going to happen.
>
>Make sub units, spread hunters out,
>close areas when needed, cut
>back permits to areas that
>are struggling and up the
>tag fee's to off-set the
>changes. Big deer just
>don't happen...and we need to
>be willing to make some
>concessions to get things to
>change.



I agree if some on needs meat they can go buy some beef it will be cheaper in the long run any ways.

there is no question i believe the only thing that will help the deer hurd is to micro manage each unit.

 

[utrednek]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-07 AT 09:30AM (MST)[p]They don't work (with a big period)

---Please pay attention to the last paragraph but read this.....

Antler point restrictions

Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters WHO THINK it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.

Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.

Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.

Wyoming?s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.

Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.

Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.

 

[llamapacker]

You guys are missing the point. Not everyone hunts for what you would consider a "trophy". The limited entry hunts are already there for the trophy hunters. The general season hunts should be left alone. There are quality bucks taken every year in the general units, although I agree not that many. So what? The does are getting bred, and population numbers are generally fine. If I decide to shoot a small buck, then I am enjoying the hunt and the time afield. What a great hunt! ( For a whole set of different reasons than to show off my trophy).

Trying to implement more restrictions will drive people away from hunting and ultimately lead to a lack of support among the "average" person. Most of the general public does not support "trophy hunters". I know this is due largely to misconception, but it is still a reality. There are quality bucks in many parts of the general units. You will have to work even a little harder to get these big bucks. And for the average guy that takes a yearling on opening day, if done in a fair chase manner, I say "Congratulations"!

Bill

Flame away...

 

[Hunterted]

First off lighten up a little bit. Someone shooting a spike shouldn't ruin your day. If you want to improve the deer in the central region by using point restrictions I suggest you make it spike only. That is the best method to relieve pressure on the branch antlered bucks.

I understood that the buck to doe ratio is right at objective and that the deer population is growing. If that is the case, why make any changes at all?

 

[thebuckstopshere]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-07 AT 10:33AM (MST)[p]I seen a two point dead off the side of the road yesterday, I am going to email the DWR and ask that they outlaw driving in the State of Utah because it adversely affects trophy management.

On a serious note, the general season Utah deer hunt is set up for game management. The DWR could give a ##### less about trophy quality on general units around very public areas where the deer herds need management - and that will NEVER change - see the extended wasatch archery cluster f&ck if you don't believe me. The DWR may have buck: doe ratios that drive the management plan, but the management plan has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with trophy management. This is just the way it is and any real changes need to consider the overall objective.

Everyone complains about the pisscutters (borrowed term) shot during the hunt; but we need to realize that the dang cars and semis in this state do far more destruction to deer herds than the general deer hunt ever could whether its five days, ten days, or a month.

You wanna get some real change that may help trophy quality but will also further the management objectives? Then cut the number of buck tags in each general region by 1/3. Let people who want to hunt bucks pay a little more for a tag to compensate for the reduction in tags and let them sit out two or three years between tags. Do away with the Wasatch extended archery for bucks and make it doe only (that will take care of your buck:doe ratio problem in the central unit). Implement a program to allow those who really want to hunt for meat to kill does that are in high traffic areas or eating in the orchards during the winter (I mean set doe hunts, not just depredatation).

Are these viable options, heck I don't know. But I think they are more likely to happen than an antler restriction that failed miserably the last time it was tried.

 

[4x4muley]

As far as Montana having 2 point only seasons, I've never heard of it. Was it a long time ago? I know in the southwest several yaers ago they implemneted a 4 point only season for several years, and shortly thereafter, some nice bucks were being shot.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

To me it sounds like this was working, "it reduced buck harvest" wouldn't that imply that the buck to doe ratio was now better as more antlerless deer were harvested? As far as increasing the illegal harvest of 3x3 bucks by 40%, where does this statistic come from, moral criminals reporting their illegal harvest? And as far as increasing the harvest of bucks having 3x4 points (which I believe is the legal requiremnet in a 4pt only zone), to me shows that there were more deer with at least 4 points after the restriction was emplaced.

I think the statistics can be be viewed both ways.

I do think someting can and should be done, particularly in MT.
What the best answer is I do not know. I know this is a wildly unpopular idea, but I wish the price for a buck tag would drastically increase. Make it $100 for residents, higher for nonresidents. I know the "monetary excuses" will flow; but is hunting your passion or is it just a pastime to occupy the fall? I know for me if a tag was $500, I would give up some other luxuries, so I could hunt, it's what I live for (I too have a family, a mortgage, a car payment, etc and am not becoming wealthy at my chosen profession, but the reason I work is so I can hunt). Granted there are still arguemnets to this scanario as well, and I can think of several.

I just think this may be one a way to reduce the number of bucks harvested, as quoted in the last paragraph by "utrednek", and still allow the "meat hunters" to shoot does, and also allow the guys who really want to harvest a trophy, possibly, the chance.

 

[Deerlove]

Antler point restriction wont work in Utah. People DONT know what there shooting.(small bucks left dead) I do think there working it's starting to work in Id. Russ

 

[browtine]

gdog +1

Sub units for sure.

Later, Brandon

 

[proutdoors]

utrednek wrote: "Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks."

This is correct. Antler point restrictions have been tried by EVERY western state with the same results, and they do NOT lead to bigger bucks and more bucks.

There are basically two options that come to mind for me when it comes to reducing the number of bucks harvested, one is a reduction in tag numbers, which means FEWER hunters, I am strongly against that. The second would be to give more tags to primitive hunters, they are less effective and have less impact on the number of bucks harvested, this would enable the DWR to issue the same/more tags than currently issued while allowing more bucks to survive and become older (bigger) bucks and would result in higher buck/doe ratios. Micro-mamanging could work IF the desired outcome is more deer, not bigger deer or higher buck/doe ratios. We have already made hunting mature elk in Utah a once or twice event, we CANNOT do that to deer in this state. I keep hearing how Colorado is doing so much better with their deer management, I disagree. They are managing for DIFFERENT objectives and issue a far smaller number of tags per hundred head of deer. They have made the deer herd a quality managed herd, while their elk is a quanity managed herd. Utah is reversed, doesn't make one better/worse managed than the other. It just means their management priorities are different, Utah sets their management priorities based on input from the PUBLIC, sportsman groups, landowners, ranchers. Maybe increase the number of LE deer units to give more options for the "horn hunters", but I do NOT want to see Utah turn our deer management into anything like our elk management. People want/need to hunt every year or the number of hunters WILL dwindle, and that is not in the best interest of ANY hunter.

PRO

 

[DallanC]

>The "they need the meat" excuse
>is weak...Let me know who
>needs some meat and I'll
>help them out. I'm sure
>there's a ton of guys
>here that would help out
>as well....

Well hell if hunting isnt about the meat anymore how about we raise hunting license prices up to about what they should be in relation to other costs. A Deer tag used to cost about twice what a tank of gas was in my truck, so concidering what tank costs now lets raise the fees as follows:

Resident Gen Deer $125
Resident Gen Elk, $275
Non Res Gen Deer, $1000
Non Res Gen Elk, $2500

The extra money generated could go to habitat and other wildlife benefiting projects. The bonus is alot of people would quit hunting which means less competition in the draws! YAY! Oh yea... for those who cant afford the new price costs, well sucks to you, you shouldnt even be hunting for meat, its all about the antlers dont-cha-know.


-DallanC

 

[bowhunt]

Sub Units sounds good, but if there are not enough resources to manage the sub units, then they are worthless.

If you divide the state up into little units, then have no one look at the data, working on the unit plan, etc...this does NO GOOD.

Look at Idaho, they have more units than you can count, and is does not help the herd.

I really do not think Utah has enough people to manage the smaller units if they were put in place.

Just some thoughts.

 

[gdog]

Dallan...why don't you add up what it has cost you (all expenses included) to hunt deer over the past bunch of years and the total amount of "meat" you've harvested. I bet that's some pretty expensive meals. Hunting for "meat" as a cheap way to feed the family isn't much of a reality anymore. If you want to shoot a yearling buck...then shoot one, but don't make up excuses for doing so.

Res hunting licenses here in UT are cheap. People cry about costs, but that doesn't stop them for buying their super F350's and paying +$3.50 for a gallon of diesel or buying that 800 atv so they can drive their fat azz all over the mnt, not to mention the super toy hauler for another $40k.

 

[NVdrhntr]

Ok, I got it.
wean us hunters off slowly.
if the current plan calls for 15/100 buck to doe.
Plan your ratio up 1 buck/100 does each year for 5 years.
in 5 years, you'll have 20/100
The masses will still get to hunt but tag numbers will go down slowly until you reach your objective.
Yeah!!

 

[DallanC]

>Res hunting licenses here in UT
>are cheap. People cry
>about costs, but that doesn't
>stop them for buying their
>super F350's and paying +$3.50
>for a gallon of diesel
>or buying that 800 atv
>so they can drive their
>fat azz all over the
>mnt, not to mention the
>super toy hauler for another
>$40k.


Thats exactly my point. There is no reason deer tags should be as cheap as they are. Raise the hell out of the price of normal tags and lets pump that money back into wildlife enhancing projects like chaining junipers, planing bitterbrush, buying wildlife easments in critical winter range.


-DallanC

 

[proutdoors]

I disagree DallanC, raising the cost of a deer tag with just price a segment of hunters out of hunting, making it a "rich man's" sport. I am confused why we would rather have low to middle class hunters pay for the "wildlife enhancing projects" inistead of letting the rich folks pay for the bulk of this thru conservation tags and banquets. Utah will have $13 million hit the ground for just 2007, that is doing the very projects you speak of. If tag prices are increased, there is NO guarantee that the additional money raised will be spent on these projects. The conservation tag money is required by law to be spent on these projects.

The DWR just LOWERED the price for a deer/elk tag, I seriously doubt you'll get much support for major HIKES in tag prices. Not every hunter has the big truck and toy hauler, there are many who travel w/family and/or friends to reduce the cost making it possible to still go hunting. Pricing this type of hunter out of hunting in NOT a wise plan, IMHO. We need to look at ways that benefit ALL hunters, not just 'us'.

PRO

 

[gdog]

PRO..its not the "rich mans" burden...give me a break. You just keep on depending on those rich guys and see what direction the draws and such head. The DWR is going to become so dependent on these conservation tag and banquet revenue that they will become more of a puppet organization then ever. Resource (money) allocation is a big problem, when a good part of the funds raised from license sales are diverted to "other" agencies...its a joke.

We all have equal responsibility and the average joe better realize this and pony up or he has no right to ##### and moan when changes occur that their not happy with.

 

[codster]

i totally agree with it up where i hunt we seen tons of two points and spikes everywhere. by the end of the week though you dont see much of them though besides on in camps and on trucks and four wheelers. but every body we talk to dont understand where the big ones have went thats cause every one is shooting little spikes and two points i mean when i was hunting when i was at the age of 14 to 16 i shot two points every year. you just dont get big deer though if you kill all the young ones though and i know both me and my dad we dont squeeze the trigger unless its big and we walked all every day of the week and finally the last day we seen a big one. what the fish and game said is that there should be a 15 doe to 1 buck ratio and from what i saw was about a 50 to 1 ratio i think something needs to happen, maybe more limited entry or less tags.

 

[screamingseason]

I don't have a problem with someone that takes a two point. I just think that alot of people do not show enough respect for the game they take. Hunters in general do not have a good wrap to those that are not educated about hunting. We just need to be careful that we don't make hunters as a whole look bad to the people that are not educated.

 

[_droptine_]

Cut back tag numbers. It seems to have worked for Colorado. You could also try micro managing like Colorado does. Even if that wasn't done though. Cut back the number of tags given out by a large percentage and then the quality will return. Split it up into smaller units and limit the tags and it will get even better.

My 2cents

 

[swbuckmaster]

Thebuckstopshere wrote these two utarded posts.
?On a serious note, the general season Utah deer hunt is set up for game management. The DWR could give a ##### less about trophy quality on general units around very public areas where the deer herds need management - and that will NEVER change - see the extended wasatch archery cluster f&ck if you don't believe me. The DWR may have buck: doe ratios that drive the management plan, but the management plan has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with trophy management. This is just the way it is and any real changes need to consider the overall objective.?

?You wanna get some real change that may help trophy quality but will also further the management objectives? Then cut the number of buck tags in each general region by 1/3. Let people who want to hunt bucks pay a little more for a tag to compensate for the reduction in tags and let them sit out two or three years between tags. Do away with the Wasatch extended archery for bucks and make it doe only (that will take care of your buck:doe ratio problem in the central unit). Implement a program to allow those who really want to hunt for meat to kill does that are in high traffic areas or eating in the orchards during the winter (I mean set doe hunts, not just depredatation).?

I don't know if Thebuckstopshere has ever hunted the extended archery hunt but this is a successful unit. It has over 20 bucks to 100 does ?probably more like 40 bucks to 100 does,? and average age on the deer is probably 4 years or older.

200? deer are killed every year with a $35 dollar over the counter tag.
This should be looked at as a model for the rest of Utah?s units!!!!

 

[screamingseason]

I agree that the increase of illegal bucks would increase. But don't you think that would make people be a little more careful and actually know what they are shooting at instead of just pulling the trigger before identifying the animal. I believe that we would have fewer wounded deer by people taking a little more time to identify and then take a clean shot.

Also you will have to help me understand that this statement about colorado "The number of mature bucks did not increase over time." If we are not shooting the smaller yearling bucks, do there antlers stop growing, or do they all become a winter kill statistic, also if fewer of them are being harvested. Aren't there more bucks around. I am not attacking you, but my common sense tells me that if you have 10, 2 points and they make it a year, you are going to have 10, 3 points or small 4 points the next year(assuming none of them were winterkill).

 

[middlehoof]

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO??????

 

[screamingseason]

That is the exact reason it needs to happen. People need to start to recodnize what they are shooting at.

 

[screamingseason]

They seem to pull the trigger and then look to see what they were aiming at.

 

[deserteagle500]

QUESTION?????



if that guy shot a little spike, or 2-point, then didn't he leave that big monster buck to live another year????


and if he shoots that big buck, then the next year that spike will not grow into maturity...


i thought about the antler point restriction and MIDDLEHOOF, you are a little late on this topic. its been covered so many times already. plus how do you know it was a mule deer?? it could have been the neighbors dog after running through a prickly pear! lol! NO disrespect, just a little razzin.













the only eagle with enough power and speed to kill and gut you with one shot

 

[thebuckstopshere]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-07 AT 00:22AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-07 AT 00:12?AM (MST)

SWBUCKMASTER

The model for Utah deer hunting should be hunting essentially winter-range during the rut? I doubt that. But, I have no problem with the extended archery generally, I just think killing more does would help numbers.

Are your numbers extended area only? or all central region?

Anyways, sorry to upset because there really is nothing wrong with the extended archery other than it takes out bucks and leaves the does to be hit by cars.

 

[Shedfreak380]

middlehoof... Jesus wouldn't give out 18,000 general deer rifle tags in the southern region of Utah... there's not even 18,000 deer total in southern Utah.


GO BIG or GET OFF the Mountain!

 

[albubba]

First thing we should do is ban anyone under the age of 21 from this forum.
Generally they have little to bring to any topic and spout off way to much.

Second- I was kidding(mostly), but thats the same as telling guys they can't shoot a small buck.
Out of the 97,000 deer hunters out there, how many are MM members? How many are Trophy hunters?
I would say that 90% are guys and gals out for a good time with their families. Is that so wrong.

Third- I think there are things that we need to change. I'm open to a good idea. But don't call 90% of hunters fat, lazy dumb***** for shooting 2 points.

 

[middlehoof]

I was talking about Jesus the great Mexican Hunter!! Not the Jesus your thinking of!!