Liberal Nebo Limited Entry Proposal

N

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-07 AT 12:51PM (MST)[p]After alot of discussion with many, many hunters in the field and on different forums, I have found that the majority of hunters who take an interest in this part of the Central Region want some type of restrictions that will increase the buck/doe ratios. This proposal will include the following area.
Starting at Santaquin and I-15, south to Nephi, east along Nephi Canyon road to the beginning of the Nebo Loop road, northerly along this road to the Santaquin Canyon Road, westerly on this road to Santaquin & I-15 ( point of beginning)
The hunt could either take place at he same time of the general season hunts ( archery, rifle, muzzleloader ) or they could be put in at dates that correspond with other LE units in the state.My preference right now would be to have the hunts outside of the general season dates. It seems it would be much easier to monitor. The tags would be allocated as follows - Archery -50 Muzzleloader-50, Rifle-50.Any dedicated hunter that would draw out on this unit would be counted in each category. The area is only about 1/10th of the entire 16A mangement unit. Carving out a small area like this still allows for much of this unit within the Central Region to be available for hunting for General Season Deer.
The 16A Mangement Unit is currently at 12 bucks/100 does, and is 1500- 3000 under the population objective of 22,600.
The objective of this proposal would be to promote over the next several years an increase in the buck/doe ratio.Because the area is substantionally under population objective there is ample room for an increase in buck numbers without having to harvest does. As the ratio increases the excess bucks will begin to out migrate into the adjacent areas within the unit and thereby providing better opportunity for general season hunters to harvest more bucks.We believe also that recruiting more bucks into the population and thereby having a more comprhensive age class structure will continue to benefit the health of the herd overall. Also, if the DWR's recommendation to open up the Plateau/Thousand Lakes LE Deer unit to general season hunting is approved, the possible loss of available permit numbers statewide would most likely not be negatively impacted by changing this to an LE sub-unit.
Anyone that is interested in this please contact me via this forum or by e-mail- [email protected].
 
I would be against this. The fucus is only on improving the buck to doe ratio by reducing hunter opportunity. Utah has plenty of Limited Entry units, we don't need another.

I would be interested in a proposal that would increase the number of deer in the unit and increase hunter opportunity.
 
I support this proposal. I believe it will increase the buck:doe ratio in the LE unit itself as well as in the surrounding areas.
 
Hunterted, you gotta start somewhere.... And nothing has been done so far to increase either the buck/doe ratios or hunter opportunity.


Elk
 
Improving buck to doe ratios by making the unit a LE unit is a temperary fix that reduces hunter opportunity and doesn't increase the deer herd. Yes you will have less bucks killed but once you open it back up (if ever) then you are back to where you started. You have to find out why the deer herd isn't thriving and address that issue. With a 12/100 ratio if the deer herd isn't thriving, it isn't becuase of the lack of bucks.

The plan above is great for short term improvement of hunting but 5-10 years from now you are back where you started accept you now have lost opporunity for that time. the last couple years the deer herd has been rebounding, I say give mother nature a couple more years before we start cutting opportunity.
We have seen in the past that once opportunity is lost you very seldom get it back.
 
I think it's time to start being proactive-I like it, and look forward to seeing more of the same.

Also glad you pointed out the DWRs way of increasing buck to doe ratios-kill the does.........Worked in the northereastern region-NOT!!!:( And what peaves me off more is they try to tell us it's a habitat issue........

Can you clone yourself onto the other RACS?
 
One of the above comments states that we need to find out wha the issue is and solve it.

HUNTING is the issue.

Now you will go off on some predator kick and state that is the reason the herd is low. Are there predators in the Book Cliffs? Yes, TONS, but the herd is doing great because the state limits hunting in that area. Are there predators in Colorado, YES, but the herds are doing amazingly well compared to Utah because they manage the hunting on a more limited basis in smaller management units.

In both places I mention the predators are thick and the hunting was regulated and the hunting got much much better.

I am for limiting the hunting into smaller units accross the state. Just like Nevada, Just like Colorado, Just like Idaho, Just like Washington, Just like.........All of these states have better buck to doe ratios and less pressure per unit than Utah because they manage it in a better way.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Oh yeah, I am FOR the suggestion of the author of this post.

Anyone that has hunted out of state in the smaller management units knows why I feel this way. Anyone with Adobe and the internet can download the buck to doe ratios, hunter success rates, and age of bucks harvested in these other states. It shows without a doubt that their management method is superior.

Utahs management method is....sell as many tags as we can and still have mule deer with an occasional buck.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
If you only have 150 hunters you are going to increase the number of bucks that are in the unit but it is all temporary.

With a buck to doe ratio of 12/100 the problem isn't how many bucks are in the herd because the does are all getting bred. You all focus way to much on the bucks and the size of the bucks antlers in the unit. The key is the health of the does because, the health of the does reflects the health of the fawn and the health of the fawn reflects the survival rate of the fawn, regardless of how many predators are present.

I realize I'm in the minority on this board, and that I won't likely change your minds, but I challenge you to read Colorado?s game management report and read what the biologist say. You will see that once the buck to doe ratio is at a very small ratio the key to the deer herd is the health of the does and that they have chosen to manage the deer herd they currently are because it quiets the complaints and not because it is the best long term management practice.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-07 AT 10:32AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-07 AT 10:29?AM (MST)

Thanks for your comments- pro & con. This proposal keeps 90% of the management unit as an open general season area. While it does restrict hunter numbers on a small area, the hope is that it will actually benefit the adjacent areas over the next few years. It would not surprise me to that within 3 years we would begin to see a big difference within the unit. If the majority of hunters are willing to sacrifice a little opportunity to bring about better quality-- what is the problem. In reality the DWR has done a good job in providing many, many opportunities to hunt all over the state. It seems that for the hunter who wants to hunt every week there is some kind of hunt available to participate in some where in the state. Also, according to V. Geist, large mature bucks and a good age class spread of bucks in the population is vital in maintaining a healthy, productive herd. This is not "just" about having bigger deer to hunt-- it can be a win-win situation for hunters and deer herds. As the population of the bucks increases additional tags can be made available to increase the harvest as needed. Remeber also, that if the Plateau/Thousand Lakes LE unit is opened to general season, there will actually be even more opportunity statewide. But, even without that happening, the basic reasons to implement this remain the same. Remember also, that the unit is under objective by 1500-3000 animals-- which leaves room for increased buck numbers without having to kill does to accomplish that.
Thanks Richard Hansen
 
I disagree that the majority of hunters feel that way. I have a problem with the proposal because it's focus isn't on growing the deer herd and maximizeing hunter opportunty. The focus is on limiting hunter opportunity.
 
Ted, you say that it is a temporary fix to the problem. You are right to a point... It is a temporary fix to a long term solution. It just gives us all a starting point, and a base to work on in order to improve the over all quailty and opportunity.

Elk
 
>I agree 100% with AspenAdventures!

I DISagree 100% with AspenAdventures!

PRO
 
ELkster I honestly don't understand how a temporary fix can be a long term solution.

The wrong change isn't correct just because it is change. The proposal only limits opportunity. It doesn't lay a base for anything other then creating another LE unit, which by definition, reduces opportunity.
 
I like the idea and I do not see where hunter oppprtunity is lost. Next year you are going to have a current LE area that is going to be absorbed into a general season area. Now we are going to gain back some hunter opportunity. Also this area is very step country. IT gets hunted but it is not a very common hunting area. This proposal is not going to misplace very many hunters. About the only ones that it will effect are those who do the nightly road hunting after work.

I am all for trying out the proposal.
 
Limiting hunting licenses is another way to manage harvest and meet population objectives. In some areas, mule deer populations have not been able to keep pace with human populations, and demand for harvest exceeds availability. In these areas, biologists have little choice but to limit the number of hunting licenses.

In other areas, several years of severe weather forced states like Colorado to limit mule deer licenses. The state saw a corresponding increase in mule deer numbers as weather conditions improved and fewer mule deer were harvested.

By limiting licenses, fish and wildlife agencies offer fewer big game hunting opportunities, but can more effectively improve the number of large bucks, post-season buck:doe ratios and buck age structure.

PRO,
You said you disagree, but here in your link it states that hunter restriction can improve the ratios and age structure. Like I said earlier I like the idea, the only way we will ever know how it will improve, is to act on our thoughts and SHOW up and try out the proposal....
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-07 AT 03:46PM (MST)[p]I DISagree 100% with PRO... As usual....

Ted, I said it will give a base to help fix the problem long term... You can't fix the years of damage that have been done with ONE quick solution like you are looking for.

Elk
 
Pro- I am not sure where in the article you are referring to. If it is about more archery permits, then say so. Permit numbers are not set in stone. I know you don't know or hunt this area, but for those of us who do-- we know the difference of when it has been good and bad. Right now it is just a little bit better than bad. Whether it is good or bad has little or no association with harvest success. The unit is under objective both for buck/doe ratios and population. It has been depressed for nearly 20 years. It just doesn't need to be a "sacrifice unit" anymore. If the permit numbers need to be adjusted then so be it. We are not asking for anything that would or could jepordize the health of the resource. If a majority of hunters are willing to sacrifice some opportunity, why is that a problem to you ? As long as the DWR can continue to biologically keep it viable and within appropriate numbers, I really don't see the problem. If you want to just use minimum biological standards then 2 bucks /100 does is sufficient--right? If a majority of hunters give up opportunity to have better quality opportunity,even if it is less frequent-- Whats the problem? If the Elk had been continued to be managed the same way they were 20 years ago-- would you be having the success you are as a guide now? It took sacrifice to get there with elk but look at all the opportunity that is available now.
 
Elkster, Actually I am for A LONG term solution. thus the focus in all of my posts that mention long term solutions. I am against one quick solution (this proposal) that isn't a solution at all. It has been proven that the focus of this proposal, more bucks, isn't the solution to increasing the deer herd until the buck to doe ratio is below 5/100. Once you increase beyond a 5/100 ratio the benifits drop substantially. That is why buck only hunting has very little, if any, affect on deer populations.

This proposal doesn't give a base, it limits opportunity. Where in the proposal is there a long term solution? I don't see one. Where does it increase opportunity? I don't see it. Manageing for quality only is what the proposal is all about. It is not about increasing the deer herd it is about increasing the bucks by reducing opportunity and not about increasing the deer herd.

Increase the deer herd and you will increase the bucks as well.
 
utfireman wrote: "You said you disagree, but here in your link it states that hunter restriction can improve the ratios and age structure. Like I said earlier I like the idea, the only way we will ever know how it will improve, is to act on our thoughts and SHOW up and try out the proposal...."

It also says in this study, that this is one of the LEAST favorable methods to accomplish it!

Nebo stated: "If the Elk had been continued to be managed the same way they were 20 years ago-- would you be having the success you are as a guide now? It took sacrifice to get there with elk but look at all the opportunity that is available now."

Elk are thriving, but to say "look at all the opportunity that is available" is off-key. Opportunity for elk hunting in Utah is DECLINING, in 2005 there were fewer elk hunters and fewer elk killed than anytime in the last 10 years. To try and LIMIT the number of deer hunters while LIMITING the elk hunting opportunities would be a mistake, IMHO. The DWR should be issuing MANY more mature bull tags. The herds are on the verge of being 180 degrees from deer herds in that the bull/cow ratios are TOO high, this is no more healthy than ratios that are TOO low.

I see folks referring to how Utah is doing such a poor job and other states have 'figured' it out. I have been researching some ot the other states management plans, Nevada put right in their Management Plan the following; "Hunters are increasingly urban and LESS likely to UNDERSTAND the habitat requiremnets for healthy mule deer populations." I added the CAPS for emphasis. They also state as an objective: "Balance competing demands on the mule deer resource; Some mule deer hunters persue trophy animals, while others are more interested in opportunities to hunt mule deer regardless of the probability of encountering trophy bucks. Others are less interested in hunting opportunity than the knowledge that mule deer are a healthy part of intact ecosystems." From this, THEIR strategy is: "Define, develope, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state."

What I get from this, and from other states management strategeies, and from talking with many hunters throughout Utah is: we need BALANCE. I don't oppose making this area(NEBO) a LE unit for increased "trophy opportunities" as long as the opportunities for the "opportunity hunters" needs/wishes are not neglected in the process. The Thousand Lakes LE unit is being made general, maybe this part of the NEBO could be made LE as a 'replacement' for the trophy hunting crowd. I am fine with that. I am NOT in favor of turning the whole state, nor even a large portion of the state into severely restricted areas.

PRO
 
Huntered- Why don't we then go back to General Season Deer hunt like we had in the good ol' days ( of which I was a part of the tail end of). It seems as though you would be in favor of "either sex" harvest. The biggest reason that has changed is because we had a problem that had to be fixed. The management of our deer had to be adjusted. This is just a continuation and evolvement of the adjusting management thinking and planning to accomplish what most of us want. I am a big fan of Valerius Geist's view of the need for mature bucks and a good age class range within the herds. It makes sense that the herds are more productive and have a better chance of survival if there is a good balance of mature bucks in the populations. If it is good to have more bucks in the herds hwy would you have a problem with that? If it also benefits the hunting public's desire to have more and bigger bucks, why is that a problem. There is currently no doe permits for this unit, I am sure that will help. If you just want to be able to hunt at your convenience, I believe that the DWr has done a great job in providing ample opportunity throughout the state. I respect your opinion and appreciate your view points. I just have a different view of what can help achieve more quality. If we harvest less bucks on this unit, it will in no way, hamper or retard the population growth in the unit. If and when it gets to its objective I am quite confident that the biologists and big game manager will do what is appropriate to reduce the numbers through additional buck tags and antlerless permits.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-07 AT 05:35PM (MST)[p]>

We need to increase the health of the does and fawn. They are the key to maintaining a healthy deer herd and a healthy deer herd is the key to having a good buck to doe ratio.

My whole point is that your proposal is all about more quality with less opportunity. That in itself doesn't hurt the herd, but it doesn't help it either. It is an outdated philosophy that has been proven incorrect by reputable scientific studies.

If you want to propose changing this to a LE unit because you want to increase the number of bucks and decrease the number of hunters then propose that, but don't sell it by saying that it will increase the health of the deer herd.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-07 AT 06:04PM (MST)[p][Some of the most useful harvest strategies include buck-only seasons, antlerless harvests, changes in season timing and length and limited licenses.]

I didnt see anywhere where it talk about licence restrictions as being the less effective way. Infact it says that it is a productive way to increase post season ratios.

It also said, 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.

I am all for move this to a LE unit since we are loosing one next year. I have hunted this area while I lived in Utah county and this proposal will misplace hunters, but not to the extent that most of you are probalby thinking.



Maybe I missed it, after all us Tooele County guys are slow.
 
Why are the limited Elk hunts so good here in Utah?

Limited hunting?!?!

The health of the cows? No, limited hunting. Look what happened to the herds in the Henries and the Books when hunting was closed down for a few years. The populations exploded. Genetics of the bucks gets better too because the two points (the 12 bucks left in the unit per 100 does) don't do all the breeding. Limiting hunting will give you better competition for breeding. Thus spreading better genes.


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Aspen, which state has MORE elk, Colorado or Utah? Which one has otc tags and which one is extremely LIMITED? The health of Utah's herds has very little to do with the number of 400" bulls. It has to do with habitat more than ANY other factor. Deer are more affected by habitat changes, weather changes, drought, deseases, than elk. Mule deer numbers will NEVER get back to the numbers they were in the 1950's. We MUST realize that and deal with it. A 2 year old two-point has the same genetics it will have as a 5 year old 180" class buck. It is nearly, if not completely, impossible to improve genetics thru harvest of certain genetically traits of bucks on public land. Populations have grown, not exploded, on the Henries and Books because of MANY factors, such as habitat improvement, predator control, improved water sources. These factors contributed and are still doing so now, more than limited hunting pressure.

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-07 AT 10:43AM (MST)[p]Pro, what you say is true. But why then does "nature" put the genetics in some bucks to grow large antlers? If large deer with large antlers don't play a part in the overall scheme of the survival of deer as a species why can and will some of them grow large antlers? I think you know the answer-- does will choose to breed with the buck with the largest most impressive head gear that is available-- because it signals to the doe that this buck probaly has the gentics that will give her offspring the best chance of being healthier, stronger and more able to avoid predators and thus insure the continuation of the species.
Even though a 2 year old buck has the same genetics at two years old as he he will when he is 5 years old, a doe can't tell that until he is older either. That is why older mature bucks that have antlers that attract does are so important. Two year old bucks that are two points may be a two point when they 5 years old, the only way for a doe to tell is if the buck really does have large antlers in place.
Pro-, this is a small area that we are proposing-- call it a "seed" subunit if you like. I believe this would allow the area around it to begin to produce more bucks.
By the way, maybe you are not old enough to remember the days when everyone had to draw out to hunt elk in this state. Then it changed so you could buy a tag every 5 years, then it changed to every 3 years and so on to how it is currently. If you don't think there is more opportunity to hunt elk now, you probably don't know the past. I was part of the initial push to create a draw system with LE entry units to help create places where bulls could grow big. We do have more opportunity now, not just for big bulls but for small bulls, cows, spikes.
 
Nebo wrote: "We do have more opportunity now, not just for big bulls but for small bulls, cows, spikes."

I have looked at the data provided by the DWR on this, since 1989, when the LE units got going, 2005 issued the fewest number of elk tags, and killed the fewest number of elk, during that period. 2006 numbers were not available, lest not that I could find. Combine a steady DECREASE in elk tags/hunters with the reduction in deer tags/numbers and I see LOST opportunities numbering in the thousands.

I seriously have no heartburn over your plan on the Nebo unit. I just get very leery about the constant push for reducing opportunity more and more. We MUST find ways to keep hunter numbers high, I know I get hammered for it every time, but primitive weapons ARE a viable solution, they have lower success rates and kill fewer 'big' animals, meaning the tag numbers could remain high or even INCREASE while allowing for MORE mature bucks to be in the mix. And, unless the habitat is healthy, it will make little difference in the number of bucks harvested year to year.

PRO
 
1. I never said that it would get back to the way it was in the 50's. Why even adress this?

2. Colorado has 3 times the National Forest that Utah does. And has about 3 times the elk population. Saying Colorado has more elk is like saying Europe has more people than America. It is bigger in forrest size. It better have more elk.

3. If a 10 point buck that is 200 inches is doing the breeding I can garuntee good genetics are being passed on. If 2 points are breeding then we can only "hope" that he had good genes. I pitty the units that have 30" two points with willowy horns that do the breeding. I know the genes stay the same know matter the age of the buck. But, there is no garuntee that the two point breeding that doe has good genes. You can only hope.

4. The hunting got better in the Henries when hunting was shut down. The hunting got better in Colorado about two years after they restricted hunting. The hunting in the Books got better when hunting was shut down. The hunting on private land next to public is better because the hunting is restricted. It has virtually nothing to do with drought. I have seen arid private land next to lush green forests on public. The arid land holds the better bucks. Don't tell me the private land doesn't have predators crossing the fence.

5. If predators were the issue then the Books would have no deer. That place is teeming with predators.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Aspen, that 200" buck had the same genes as when he was two point buck. You can't have bad genes unless the animal is producing retarded or disfigured offspring.

UDWR can't, nor should they, be trying to manage genes.

Just because a buck has big antlers that doesn't mean he is doing the breeding. A doe doesn't care how big of antlers the buck has. The bucks choose who is going to do the breeding. It doesn't matter to the health of the deer herd if a doe is bred by a twenty inch wide three point or 30" wide four point.

The focus on antler size at the expense of management for the health of the deer herd is incorrect thinking.

You can have 50/100 buck to doe ratio and only have 150 people hunting them but at what cost, both to opportunity and to the deer herd? We shouldn't be manageing to increase the number of four points in a herd of deer we should be managing for what is healthy for the deer herd. If we do that then the four points will be there as well.

I don't see how taking the books cliffs, an area that used to produce huge numbers of big deer and provide huge numbers of hunting days, to a unit that has a large number of bucks but can only sustain a few number of hunting days as a success. Sure the select few who get to hunt it enjoy it but it used to be able to sustain a lot more pressure then it can now.

That in my book is failure.
 
Hunterted wrote: "You can have 50/100 buck to doe ratio and only have 150 people hunting them but at what cost, both to opportunity and to the deer herd? We shouldn't be manageing to increase the number of four points in a herd of deer we should be managing for what is healthy for the deer herd. If we do that then the four points will be there as well."

You are correct! Well said. "WE SHOULD BE MANAGING FOR WHAT IS HEALTHY FOR THE DEER HERD, IF WE DO THAT THEN THE FOUR POINTS WILL BE THERE AS WELL." I love it! That is called biology and common sense.

PRO
 
I'm thinkin Ted and Pro need to move to Colorado if they want more opportunity...... But hey, that's just me.... I want to have the opportunity, when I hunt, to see more, and have a chance at bigger bucks. Not just hunt and "HOPE" I can find a big one hiding in a dark hole.


Elk
 
>I'm thinkin Ted and Pro need
>to move to Colorado if
>they want more opportunity......
>But hey, that's just me....
> I want to have
>the opportunity, when I hunt,
>to see more, and have
>a chance at bigger bucks.
> Not just hunt and
>"HOPE" I can find a
>big one hiding in a
>dark hole.
>
>
>Elk

So, you are saying you don't want to hunt, you want to KILL.

If you read what I and "Ted" have said, if you FIX the true underlying causes of low deer numbers, such as HABITAT, HABITAT, and then HABITAT, you will have more deer, which would mean MORE bucks, and a percentage of those bucks will be older/bigger bucks.

Nevada, right in their Deer Management Plan put the following: "Hunters are increasingly urban and less likely to understand the habitat requirements for healthy mule deer populations." You have proven Nevada prophetic. If the HABITAT can only sustain X number of deer, it makes NO difference what the buck/doe ratio is, the range will STILL only handle X number of deer. If the deer numbers are limited and you increase the number of bucks in the mix, you MUST lower the number of does in the mix, which means FEWER fawns born each spring, which means FEWER 'new bucks' being recruited into the herd. Study after study by BIOLOGISTS and game managers shows that habitat is struggling across the west, most certianly here in Utah. To shrug that off and believe that all we need to do is limit the number of bucks killed to solve all the problems is faulty. Bucks do NOT give birth to future bucks, does do. If you increase the number of bucks it has no/little correlation to the number of fawns each spring recruited into the herd.

PRO
 
Huntered-- PLEASE go and get Valerius Giest Book on Mule Deer. According to him, Does do the choosing. In his research, the does will almost always choose a buck that is the most impressive. If he is right it does matter. No one here is asking to have 50 bucks/100 does. It is ludicrous for you go to an extreme. It seems if it were up to you that either sex and unlimited tags would be the norm. It got changed because it was necessary to protect the resource. It amazes me how some people get so extreme in their comments. Have you ever heard of "survival of the fittest"
Also, I'm not talking about someone elses favorite spot to restrict--- I have hunted and hiked on this area hundreds of times with 50 pound back packs and for over 30 years. This change affects me directly.
Pro- sometimes I wonder what you would do if they wanted do away with the LE elk units that you guide in-- would it bother you or would it be okay as long as it creates more opportunity?
Huntered-This proposal does not affect large numbers of hunters-- perhaps 50-100 hunters over a 9 day period. It does affect road hunters off the west side of the Nebo Loop road probably more than any others. This area needs a little help. It is at least 1500 to 3000 animals under objective for the entire management unit. There is room for growth without comprimising the habitat and health of the herds. It needs a litte breathing room from the hunting pressure to do that. Predators, including us, are pretty efficient in helping keep population growth leveled ( yes,highway kill is a problem too ) Are you willing to give up your favorite spot if it could help the resource to be healthier?
I have not tagged a buck for over 15 years-- because I choose to hunt for specific bucks. They are smarter than me-- but I wouldn't trade the challenge and experiences for all the yearling bucks that I have enjoyed watching.
 
Nebo asked: "Pro- sometimes I wonder what you would do if they wanted do away with the LE elk units that you guide in-- would it bother you or would it be okay as long as it creates more opportunity?"

Have you heard of I400? I am the one who started the dang thing. I am 100% in favor of increasing opportunity on MOST LE elk units, even the ones I guide on.

I have NEVER suggested doing away with LE deer units, NEVER. I am saying we need balance. I have said it more than once in this thread alone, I am in favor of LE deer units, I even support your plan on the Nebo, I just do NOT want to see the number of deer tags reduced statewide, nor for it to be the 'norm'. I see where you are coming from, and I believe you and I are close to being on the same page. My issues and concerns are with those who are pushing for a reduction of general season tags because they want "more big bucks to hunt". I believe that would be a disastor for deer and deer hunters. We must find ways to either maintain opportunity, or INCREASE it, for deer/elk hunters. We are on a downward trend, that is not the direction we should be happy with, nor should we be pushing us toward even more lost opportunities.

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-07 AT 04:13PM (MST)[p]Some good discussion Points.

The DWR is going to review deer managment plans in 2008 for 2009-2015.

Here is an idea i would like some feedback on.

If 30% of the customers want black shoes, and 70% want white shoes, would stores supply 90 Black shoes ?

Taking a step back, what if the state surveyed all of Utah's deer hutners and asked them this question.

If Utah made two different kinds of deer hunts, pick which one you would want. Type A will be managed for 15-12 bucks per 100 Does post season. Type B will be managed for 35 bucks post season. If you pick a unit within Type A, you can probably hunt most every year. If you apply for a unit in type B, you will draw a tag every 4 years or so. If you apply for Units in A, you can NOT apply for hunts in Units B. And Vice Versa.

Then, if 60% of the hunters want Units Type A, the 60 percent of Utahs deer units are managed for 15-20. And 40% want type B, 40% are managed for 35. The main key would be to try and manage the product produced, with the desire of the customers.

Right now in Utah, about 10% of the units are managed for higher quality and 90% are managed for general season. This is NOT A good match for what Utah deer hunters want. Some want more opportunity, some want more quality. Neither one is right, it is a simple matter of personal preference.

The other major isssue under Utah's Current System is that everyone can put in for the super quality, thus making the drawing odds very long. When the hunter wanting higher quality doesn't draw, they don't hunt. When the causual hunter doesn't draw, they are happy hunting lower quality units, maybe not happier, but tolerant.

Under the future System, you would have to pick Type A or Type B, and stick with that choice for say a five year period.

This approach does not discriminate based on money, but asks hunters to choose what they really want. However, in fairness to the DWR, if Type B units require a 3/4 reduction in the number of hunters, the price for that unit would probably have to triple - go from $40 to $120 or so.

What are the thoughts on this approach ?

The second questoin then becomes, which units go into Type A, and Type B. The answer should proably be a fair distribution of Units A and B geographically throughout the state.
 
Nebo Please read Nevada's latest Mule deer report and Colorado's Mule Deer report and you will see that habitat is the key not the buck to doe ratio. Your proposal is only about buck to doe ratio.

Does don't care how big the antlers are on a buck. They might well breed with the larger antlered deer around but that has to do with that bucks dominance not with the doe choosing the buck. Also the dominant buck isn't always the largest antlered. They don't turn down a 20" wide three point because he isn't big enough for them. I do hear they prefer sailors over civilians though.

The 50/100 is an extreme number to prove my point, which you missed, Please re-read post.

No where have I said unlimited tags and or either sex is the way to go. I have said the does are the key to mule deer herd health, why would I want to shoot the does if they are they key?

This proposal affects averyone who hunts the area you have blocked out and the areas surrounding those areas and it would reduce opportunity and it is more then 50-100 people over a 9 day period. There are that many people who hunt that area on the bow hunt alone not to mention muzzle loader and rifle hunters.

If anyone is pushing for what is best for the deer herd it is Pro and I. your proposal is all about hunting not about heard health. We believe LONG TERM quality hunting comes from a healthy herd of deer not from an extremly low number of hunters.
 
Don,

I love this idea! In fact, I would love to see this implented for elk as well. I am more than willing to be involved in anything that will enable this to be implemented. You let me know when/where and I will be there. You have my cell # and e-mail. Feel free to let me know what I can do to assist, whether it is helping conduct a scientific survey, gathering/analizing the data garnered, to helping come up with the Type A units and Type B units. Lets get this going, that way we can have some data to take to the Deer Committee to go thru and implment as part of the new Deer Management Plan.

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-07 AT 05:13PM (MST)[p] I had the opportunity to go on the pheasant opener a few weeks ago. I loaded my duck decoys in my boat and headed to the marsh instead. Why, you ask?? Cause there ain't no freaking pheasants in Utah any more. Not only are there no more pheasants but there are no more pheasant hunters either.

What all of the armchair biologist's, inch obsessed, quality, horn hugging, hunters want to do is treat the symptoms instead of curing the disease. Several years ago we cut the number of tags back to 97,000. Ain't seen a lot of progress since we did this or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we??

We've thrown umpteen million dollars "on the ground" and have programs that are the envy of all of our western states and we are still talking about cutting more opportunity out of our hunts.

We have neighboring states that are not only inhabited with wolves, but also deal with CWD and still these states do not go to the extremes that we here in Utah go to as far as deer hunting goes.

Since 1994 when Utah hunters couldn't hunt with bow, rifle and muzz in the same year we've had nothing but losses!! First with deer, then with hunters afield, then time length of hunts
and now you want to continue down the same path???

I unlike Don would rather have a tag in my pocket and hunt every year with the possibility of putting an arrow through a deer. Personally I haven't reduced the "herd" for going on six years. MY CHOICE.

My long winded point is that you can continue to be lead down the road of reducing hunters or you can reduce success
on these hunts. That is untill they sell a conservation tag that produces rain, busts drought, and keeps homes and fires from reducing winter habitat.
 
TO PRO and All,

On the SFW website, about 500 voted to allow more restrictive harvest to incrase post season buck/doe ratios, and 100 voted no. The main question will be to see what all the hunters in Utah want.

In the last SFW Board, it was voted to take a very serious look at every option about addressing teh gap in desire between quality and quantity. Everything would be on the table.

I believe SFW will be sponsoring a major Mule Deer mangement plan meeting the last two Saturdays in January of 2008. One will be in the Provo area for all parts within a two hour drive. The otehr would be in Cedar City.

For the past ten years, there has been a TREMENDOUS amount of work, effort, and money going into restoring habiat. Utah is leading the nation in this effort. Over 350,000 acres is being treated this year alone, at a cost of around $13 Million. that money has come from Conservation permit funds, Utah state funds, and matching federal funds. Utah is now over 600,000 acres treated, plus millions of acres more in fires and reseeds. The results are dramatic, and the tide of declining Mule Deer herds has been stopped, and the chance to have larger herds on a sustainable basis is being addressed in a scale large enough to make a difference.

Habitat is part of the equation, weather and predators are the other two dominate factors on overall herd size.

the larger the herd size, the more opportunities there are for us to argue about quantity and quality of bucks.

Other states are starting to follow the Utah sucess.

Keep me posted on this issue, and when the final locations and times are nailed down in mid December, we will get it out and encourage all sportsmen to come to these meetings. With a united voice, SFW members, MDF members, Catholics, Protestants and Mormons, there is a chance to make some changes. If everyone has 20 different ideas, the status quo will win and that is no longer satisfactory for many.

don
 
Don't you hate people who reply to thier own posts....


Nebo I don't see us changing each others minds anytime soon so I will lay out what I think should be the prioritys and you can do with them what you will.

. Buck to doe ratio's matter but after a certian level it is all about the does and the health of the does anything that improves the health of the does should be utilized. (I.E. Habitat and reduction of predators.
. Anything that takes opportunity away that doesn't benifit the health of the deer herd should be avoided.
. L.E. Units provide the opporunity for the guy who has to see a 30" buck to be successfull. The general season units should be for people who enjoy hunting and if they get a 30" buck it is a bonus.
. The key to hunter recruitment is the oportunity to hunt regularly.
. Familys should be incouraged to hunt together and often.

There it is, you all have a good weekend.
 
Wiley,

Progress has been made, in a lot of areas, there are more deer, and there are more mature bucks. Overall average on general season, post season BDR has gone from 7 to 17. That is ok for some, not good enough for others.

This year, my son, and six nieces and nephews all got their first bucks, lots more general season bucks than there was even five years ago.

I haven't punched a tag since 94 - my choice.

Under an type A and type B scenario, you could have your cake, and the more serious quality guys could get theirs once in a while to.

It would be nice, from our prospective, if all hunter were more like us. Hunt a lot, contribute to habitat restoration, pass up lots of bucks. But the vast majority aren't and to upgrade the quality more, as the majority of the SFW members have asked, and many other hunters have asked, will require some more changes.

With all the technology today, if hunters don't control themselves, they can kill more efficiently than ever.
 
Pro, why do guys put in for Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming? Because there are more deer, and "bigger" deer so to speak. Right? I've guided in Nevada, and it's night and day difference to Utah. But, I have never personally held a tag in any other state outside of Utah. I do trophy hunt, I'm not affraid to admit it. But, that's my personal choice. I have killed three deer in the past 10 years. And those three are all on my wall. None are absolutely "huge" by any means, but trophies to me. My family is not big on deer meat. So I ususally donate my deer to needy families in my area. The area that NEBO is proposing is a reletively small area. But, has a lot of potential. I never read anywhere where he said that you said that you wanted to shut down any LE units. He was just trying to give an example, that you would not be happy if all units were made general, and making a comparison to our current deer situation. That's what I read...

Don, I like some of your points... However, I do not want to wait 4 or so years in between to hunt. I could live with skipping a year, here or there if I knew it would improve the future overall goal. And I'm not going to shell out anymore money for tags. That's not going to help anything. It will just benefit the guys that you are acustom to catering to, and not the average Joe.

Ted.... JFP.... where does a guy even start.... I';m not even going to try, so you just enjoy your weekend...

Pro, it'll work out, but, you have to be willing to compromise too!


Elk
 
Elskster you could start by reading this from the Colorado's Uncompahgre deer herd.


Ultra-sound studies conducted last winter on the Uncompahgre deer herd showed that 93 percent of the does were carrying fetuses, with an average of 1.7 fetuses per doe. These rates compare favorably with historic data when the deer herds were much more productive. This means there were enough bucks to breed with the does despite the relatively low buck/doe ratio of 10 bucks for every 100 does. Essentially, the Division?s biologists knew in advance how many fawns should have been produced during the fawning season, and that the does were getting bred.
What is still unknown, however, is why so many of the fawns died before they had a chance to make it from birth to winter, and of the ones that died from sickness, what was the cause. Results of the Fawn Survival Study suggest that many does were in less than optimal physical condition prior to giving birth and during lactation as evidenced by the weak and sick fawns found.
From this study biologists have found that many fawns are dying over the summer, and most importantly, the causes are not solely predation.
?One reason may be the doe is under some sort of stress condition, thus giving birth to a fawn that is in poor condition,? Pojar said.
?Many of the fawns we studied were not in good shape, which indicates that the does were also in poor condition.? Learning why does are in poor condition may provide a clue as to why there may not be a healthy recruitment of fawns going into a population, Watkins said. Coincidentally, many of the fawns studied also showed signs of stress. Necropsy reports revealed several fawns had a reduced thymus gland. ?It's a clue that the animal was in poor condition,? Watkins said.
?A reduced thymus gland can compromise an animal?s immune system,? Pojar said. When an animal?s immune system is compromised it is more susceptible to a variety of pathogens. ?This may explain why fawns are dying of such a variety of sicknesses,? he said.
Does are better able to survive the variety of pathogens encountered because they have a more developed immune system.
In addition, fawns do not emit a scent during the first month after birth. But if the animal is sick and has diarrhea, a predator may be attracted to its scent and thus the animal is more susceptible to predation.
Mule deer populations may be cyclic. A similar decline was observed in the 1970s.
Some biologists feel the over-grazing of the late 1800s and early 1900s resulted in an increase in forbs and shrubs that set the stage for the explosion in deer numbers that occurred in western Colorado from the late 1930s to mid-1960s. As the 20th century progressed, plant communities became increasingly mature due to the suppression of fire; trees, especially pinyon and juniper, became more predominant.
These changes could have resulted in less nutritious forage available for deer and thus less capacity of the habitat to support large deer numbers. Elk may not have been negatively impacted because of their larger digestive system, which allows them to eat lower quality forage than deer and still derive the nutrients necessary for reproduction and winter survival.
The quality and quantity of sagebrush and other shrubs and forbs that deer depend on to gain energy reserves for breeding and winter survival are critical for the production of healthy, viable fawns. This may contribute to nutritional stress on does and thus on newborn fawns.
?The weak and unthrifty fawns that we saw this summer leads us directly to our best clue as to the cause -- the nutritional status of the does during key times of the reproductive cycle.? Pojar said.
 
Ted, thought you were going to wander off into the sunset and enjoy your weekend?!? Good for Colorado and "THEIR" studies! Give "THEM" a pat on the back! They deserve it cause their deer herds are leaps and bounds ahead of ours! Like I said, maybe you ought to move out there, and relish in their success!

Elk
 
Pick a state with similar conditions to Utah and examine their deer hunts. Reducing hunter numbers is not the answer.
this strategy simply will not fly economically, or traditionally with the hunters in the state. Look no further than the elk situation. How many elk hunters are there with
13 or 14 points that are out chasing spikes so that we can
have 400 inch bulls on several units and biologically damaging bull to cow ratio's in other herds??? Not to mention habitat loss and forage competition between the two species. IT AIN'T BIOLOGICALLY HEALTHY AND IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T WHAT IS BEST FOR WILDLIFE!!!

This proposal is nothing more than the LE Elk plan for deer
plain and simple. If you want more deer REDUCE HUNTER SUCCESS!!! Make these area's primitive weapon area's for a few years. No reduction in hunter numbers just regulate these area's to Bow or traditional muzzloaders. Get the hunters in the field for 9 days and then this unit is done for the year.

Explain to me how the most challenged unit in the state CAN THRIVE year after year while supporting a 4 month opportunity
that is within a 20 minute drive for the majority of Utahn's
that is either sex and borders the main habitat of approximately 1.8 million two legged predators and their cars, houses, dogs, daily intrusions into bedding and feeding area's??
Oh and I forgot to mention that about 90% of this unit is open to all three weapon types.

I know it ain't politically correct and is inclusive to those that hunt with primitive weapons but ya can't argue for one second that this plan is not a success and has not worked for MANY MANY years in this hunt unit.

When are we in Utah going to start managing for biological herd health and quit managing for inches and buck to doe ratio's??
 
Hunterted, you say the 2 point buck is the same genetically as he will be in a few years. I agreed with that in my post right above where you try to explain it to me. I believe when I said "I know the genes stay the same know matter the age of the buck" I pretty much said exactly what you were trying to teach me.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Perhaps pro and the others are right.....there are too many predators and the habitat is all messed up.

NOT, the habitat in most of the state is just like it was 30 years ago. The Front is changing daily but the rest of the state is basically the same. In fact I was just in a unit where guzzlers have increased the herd size to at least 5 times what it was naturally. I'd say we are doing pretty good. Habitat is not the problem.

Predators can be a problem if the animals are in what they call a "predator pit". That is where the weather or hunters kill off too many animals and then the natural predators hold the population below thriving levels. That was the case in the Books. Hunting was completely stopped and now the Books are back. So predators are not the problem.

It is so plainly obvious that habitat on Nebo is fine, predators are not much more than what they used to be and even if they were the Books have the highest concentration of bear in the state. So habitat and predators are not the issue.

IT IS HUNTING. That is why we are allowed to hunt by the state! To help control the populations. We sometimes do to good a job.

And lastly, I GET THAT THE 2 POINT COULD HAVE WORLD RECORD GENES. I just think I trust the world record buck to do the breeding rather than the Bambi waiting to be the world record. I don't care if he is the next prince of the forrest. Let the older bucks breed the does and you wont have to wory about survival of the fittest. It will take care of itself, just like it is designed to. Unless we decide to continually kill the fittest.
"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
I hunt an area on the front that had over 300 late season doe tags issued to keep the deer from eating the roses. Guess what happend to the deer herd. You gcan guess pretty easily. The predators are not the problem, the habitat is getting eaten up quickly but even on the Front we produce some good sized deer herds still. Thus the issuance of over 300 late season doe tags. HUNTING IS KILLING THE DEER. That's the point. That is why we hunt. We intend to harvest animals and sometimes we get really good at it.

We once had 350,000 hunters in Utah. They now limit it to 90,000. That is amazing. Do you really think that 90,000 people can hit the deer this hard and expect to kill a nice buck each year!? Even if the herd was what it once was we would not have been able to sustain the 350,000 hunters we once had.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
This is another interesting debate. Seems like another opportunity vs quality one. These are my favorite.;-)

I am glad to see that SFW is willing to take the lead on an important issue. Hopefully they can turn things around to benefit the hunters in the best and most compromising way. Utah general deer hunting sucks right now, but I do not think the whole state needs to be Henry Mountains either.

wiley, you make some good points, but as always, I must disagree with many of your points. Yes, the Wasatch Front is without any argument from me the best general area in Utah hands down. Surely the bow only restrictions are working, but what do you do when 60 or 70 percent of the hunters choose to rifle hunt? Give the bow hunters the state?

The elk issue always gets thrown into the argument by saying the opportunity to hunt these bulls is not there. When in state history has there been more than 2500 or so mature bull tags? Tags for almost everyone to hunt spikes or any bull units, and tons of cow tags? When was there more sheep, moose, goat, or turkey tags? The bison tags have dropped, antelope has been about the same, but deer numbers and tags have dropped. So what is the deer answer? I have no idea for sure, but issuing 250k tags is not going to work, bow only in Utah will not work. You mention reducing harvest rates. You suggest traditional muzzleloaders, but you fail to mention long bows and recurves?

One way to lower success is to put restrictions on ATV use and seasonal road closures. Another way to reduce hunter success is to lower tag numbers. Some of us are not happy with 2.5 year old deer. Sure, none of us should expect a 200" deer every year, but to see one once in 25 years of deer hunting would be nice. As we get older some of us want to focus on inches. I will never shoot another forky as long as I live. I think these deer should be available to new hunters and meat hunters though. I am also past shooting young 4X4's. Again, some people would love to get one and should be available. Just as a few older mature bucks with 180"+ of bone is available from time to time. What is wrong with that? Does that make me an evil inch monger?

On my wife's LE elk unit this year we were in some of the best mule deer habitat that I could imagine. Water, farm land, sage, cedars, grasses, and so forth. In 12 days this fall I saw 0 deer. What is wrong with habitat work and human predator control to fill this void with deer? Or is it ok that not one deer was visible in this area in 12 days?

wiley you say you want to go every year with hopes of putting an arrow through one once in a while. I would have to think after 6 years of hunting with a good effort, which I am sure you put in, you would be able to get a good shot at a 170+ buck? I like being out, but I am hunting, not hiking and riding.

I am excited that dk and nebo are putting forth an effort to improve things by taking polls and asking for input to see what people want. I think this is a great start to fix what I believe most people are unhappy with.
 
As many know I am against further reducing Utah hunting opportunities for the sake of antler size. When it is good for the herd, YES.

This plan cuts deer hunters out of hunting. ALL the hunters who currently hunt that area (100 or 1,000) can not be pushed to other areas. That pressure (permits) MUST be cut from the Region Wide Cap. So you just reduced the hunter opportunity. Do NOT push those hunters into other parts of the region which is barely meeting objective.

Landowner tags. So how many land owner tags are we going to give for this new unit? By law the landowners (who have habitat) within all limited entry units can obtain a quota of tags from the DWR.
 
Ty on the front 90% of the hunt is open to all weapon types.
The only bow only area's are from I-80 to the point of the Mountain. From I-80 to Brigham City the unit is open to
all types of hunting.

The terrain is mostly vertical in much of the unit and much of the unit has restricted ATV access.

DK's group should be applauded for some ongoing work that has to do with a win - win plan for ATV use.

Yep 6 years is a long time to be on a dry spell, I've had my chances and passed on several deer. Such is the case with a bow and the way I choose to get r done.

I can see this idea bringing much of the state in to a situation like the Vernon and Book Cliffs units. Great area's
great deer but no one will ever get to hunt them.
 
The division of wild life resorces are probley never going to do anything with Nebo or any other unit that is in sever hurt. All they care about is the "general fund" and all of our money. Unless it becomes a limited entry unit they could give a s#it less about the mature genes. I'm probley worng because I'm usually never right but why all the debate when the Issue is never going to go anywhere serious!
 
Tyler,
You said the DWR doesn't give a "s#it" about the mature genes on general hunting units. They shouldn't per the Deer Management Plan that they are directed to manage to. It has no objectives geared toward "mature genes" in the herd. This debate IS healthy and can make a difference, nebo is on one of the RAC's, others here will be on the deer committe that will be writing up the new deer management plan that will be implemented starting in 2009. Input from the 'public' is needed and desired to come up with a plan/plans that are in line with the hunters desires/wishes.

PRO
 
Packout, that's the good thing about possible unit. It is 99% State and Forest Service land. Along the entire West side of the unit there are only 3-4 land owners at most. And these land owners have been here for years and years. They know they are sitting on critical winter habitat. So the land owner tags issued, if any, would be very little. There are no crops along the unit, and I cannot foresee much if any damage done by the deer. Along this portion of the LE Nebo unit for elk, there are zero land owner tags issued. Also, this, as stated, is going to acctually be a very, very small portion of the overall Nebo unit. So, I don't believe that you will be lowering opportunity, and pushing hunter's into other regions. The hunter's will still be able to hunt all around this small portion. Only a small number of hunter's will acctually be affected directly by this change. I will be one of them. And as I stated it is a personal choice that I hunt for the trophy. I'm not standing behind this proposal just for me, by any means. I have just watched this area go downhill for years. And I want to make it better for my kids to be able to hunt when they are old enough. I just feel that it will benefit the overall picture in the end. If this proposal doesn't go through it won't be the end of the world for me. But, I can hope that the majoity will see it as a benefit, not as someone trying to take anything away from you. It's not even close to being a LE Elk propsal being converted to to deer like WILEY has stated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Guys like WILEY are doing a lot of complaining about things and not being proactive and trying to help the situation, while others are. You can't please everyone, that's for certain. I've gained a certain amount of respect for guys like PACKOUT. He's one that will voice his opinion and try to help, rather than make things worse. I won't like everything he says, and he won't like everything I say. But, I respect his views. As with several other guys on here. Bottom line is, if we want to keep hunting, we HAVE to help the herds where we can. And wether we all want to admit it or not, we are ALL trophy hunters. If we weren't why do we visit this site, and look at all the amazing trophies taken each year by the lucky hunter's. Why do we buy the magazines and DVD's? Because we all love to see these big boys hit the dirt. Right? So where are we going to start to keep our opportunities open? The divison has already said they do not want to put any more money into purchasing winter range. They have passed on several opportunities to purchase land that is CRITCAL to wintering animals, and they have chose to pass. So now what?? Who's going to step up to the plat and do something? Someone has got to be proactive and do it! As stated this propsal is entirely up to discussion and tweeking. It is not law by any means. So let's all give and take a little to make things better!

Elk
 
I spend a lot of time on the Nebo area. I only live about a half mile from nebo so alomost every weekend in the winter months I'm up scouting and filming big mule deer. The big bucks 160 or bigger are few and far between. I have a lot of film with some really big mature mule deer that I have recorded in the past, but it seems like every year it is harder to find a good quality mule deer. I'm really intersted in making the proposal happen. I'm 100% for it. I have read several topics on nebo to make the deer herds better for the hunter. I would do anything as a dedicated hunter to make the area better. Lets get together and make some good changes for the unit.
 
Elkster, I agreed with most of your post. A couple of areas of disagreement.
1)wileywapati and I agree on very little, but he IS out there "getting his hands dirty" trying to improve hunting for ALL hunters, he just sees things different than me, and apparently you.

2)You said: "The divison has already said they do not want to put any more money into purchasing winter range. They have passed on several opportunities to purchase land that is CRITCAL to wintering animals, and they have chose to pass."

You may want to recheck were you are getting this info, the division just purchased a HUGE chunk of land this year that will have HUGE benefits for wildlife, and they are limited by funds as to what tracts of land to purchase. The BEST avenues to get critical winter ranges purchased and set aside for wildlife is conservation groups, that is what they are set up to do, the division is NOT.

PRO
 
Elkster- It seems very rare anymore when people on these forums can actually discuss ideas with respect so I appreciate your post. (Wiley does try to better hunting also)

No landowner on the Nebo qualifies for big bull elk landowner tags because there is a general season bull hunt on the unit (spike). To think that the landowners in these areas won't want their piece of the $$$ pie (or even the opportunity to hunt their land) would be an error in the plan. It must be taken into consideration.

I would bet that with this proposal, you are displacing 200-300+ hunters. To push them elsewhere, at a 25% success rate it equates to 50-100+ dead bucks, would lower the buck : doe ratios in those areas.

As for the DWR's lack of purchasing the properties, well you can thank the Legislature and local counties for that. The local governments complained to the State Government that the DWR was purchasing their private lands. The DWR was stopped from obtaining more property, at a time when land prices were reasonable. The DWR purchased the Range Creek property at the request of the landowner and with the help of outside groups and that is the only piece of property I can think they have purchased in recent memory. They would like to purchase more, but their hands are tied.

I say 5 day hunt. It worked before and it will work again. The Nebo unit is where I grew up hunting. Another man and I lobbied the RACs and Board to shorten the season on this unit in the early 2000s. They took the recommendation and it worked. Those big bucks killed in 2004 were a direct result of the 5 day season, which had been in place for the previous 3 years. I respect the DWR's stance on the shorter seasons, but I disagree as I have seen them work.
 
Pro, thanks for the info. I did not know that the Division had recently purchased a large piece of winter range. Where is it? I wish they would have purchased a 600 acre chunk right above my house in Mona. This ground is very critical to the deer and elk right off the Nebo. Now Barnes bullets is parking a big ol' building in one portion, and their big ol' nice house, and roping arena right smack in the middle of the other! I can't blame them for doing it, the opportunity was there and they took it! Also, I wished they had purchased several hundred acres near the West Rock plant, near Mona Pole Canyon, when the had the chance. They already have some up there, but had the chance to buy more, and didn't. Now it's just a big freakin hole! It's kind of aggrivating to watch all that vital winter range go away.

Packout, thanks for pointing out the landowner thing, and the general hunt issue. That one flew by me. Hey, I agree with the 5 day hunt! I am all for it. I was for it the first time! I think it was a great idea and it worked!

I honsetly don't think this poposal will pass. But, you got start somewhere. If we start with proposing this, and end up with a 5 day hunt that's great with me!
 
This proposal would NOT be implemented before 2009 at the earliest since it has not been proposed at any of the RAC's, in order for a proposal to be approved, it must be proposed at a minimum of three RAC's and there are only two left. That gives thos ewho like this a whole year to get it all drawn up and possibly having it addressed by the deer committee that will be writing the new mule deer management plan next year.

The DWR just purchased a large chunk of land by Flaming Gorge this spring. SFW played a major role in getting this done as well.

PRO
 
PRO thanks for the kind words. ELK I am not really one to complain and sit on my ass. Tell me one time that reducing hunter numbers while allowing your kids as well as mine a realistic opportunity to hunt an area has worked??

The Book Cliffs?? Paunsagunt?? Henry's?? Have ya looked at the odds of hunting one of these area's?? For what reason?? to grow trophy racks for the select few that can afford ONE MORE Conservation tag?? Are the deer herds in these units not
biologically sound?? Can ya name me any better mule deer units in the west??

Go ahead and create more LE Game Farms. Leave me out of it.
This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. This is not what Teddy Roosevelt had in mind. This is nothing but a brainchild of trophy hunting horn huggers. Its based on nothing more than growing horn or antlers and unhealthy buck to doe
ratio's.

Idaho recently ran a survey of deer hunters and it turns out that most people would like to "JUST GO HUNTING" The small demographic that visits this site as well as others are a HUGE minority comapred to the majority of Utah taxpaying citizens that just want to go kill a buck in the fall of the year.

If ya want horns then go right ahead and apply for the
units listed above. If ya want responsible wildlife and deer management then come up with a plan that is based on biology not on inches of antler.


You guys can't see the forest for the tree's. How many falls are you going to be satisfied sitting at home while biologically you should be hunting?? How screwed up are you going to let the herds get before you actually start listening to biologists instead of your ego's and what the tape measure
reads for a determination of what kind of a hunter you are???

It's simple base deer management on biological data not on what you want hanging on your wall, a score that you can tell your no life having buddies and the fuel for your own selfish ego's.

THE ONLY ww THAT IS FOR BIOLOGY, RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT, AND OPPORTUNITY. NOT INCHES OR EGO'S
 
Wiley, I've went back through the posts, and tell me where my ego has gotten the better of me when it comes to hunting? I never said that. I said I wanted to see the numbers increase, and have a chance to take a big buck. I said I PERSONALY hunt for antlers. Not that everyone I hunt with does, and that's ok. This has nothing to due with ego. JFP man! Get over yours! And you won't be involved you if you chose not to get involved. That's ok with me. How does more deer not increase opportunity? More equals more tags, more money, therefore everyone is happy! You've got two LE deer units that will become general season units next year. So there ya go, go hunt on those. I'm sure you won't be down there hunting for a big mature buck though will you? Afterall you don't hunt for inches, cause you don't hug antlers.....

Mmmmmmmmm.... ANTLERS.........


Elk
 
Wiley, the reason the limited units are hard to draw is we are LIMITED in choice. In Colorado they have something like 200 units to choose from. 40 or so of those are quality so it takes people from all over the state into 40 limited units instead of 4 like here in Utah. The odds of drawing a good tag would go up if the state segmented into 100 units because some guys would sit on a sweet unit for the next 15 years hoping to draw. The rest of the hunters would put in for decent units and probably hunt every other year. As management gets better the state could issue more tags for the units.

Currently, if ther is a fire on Nebo and it knocks out a lot of the deer by burning winter range, the DWR can not reduce tags in the area. They manage the regions on to broad a base with too broad a brush. If it were like Colorado they could reduce the number of tags to two or three until the unit rebounded and then issue more tags.

Increasing the number of units and making them smaller sized will give the state better management ability, spread out the hunters, provide better herd size, provide better buck size, and the state may be able to issue the same number of tags state wide so no opportunities are lost. The difference is that the hunters will be spread out instead of all sitting on the nebo loop road. Spreading out the hunters will make it so the state can still issue the same amount of tags.

In fact, if more guys are willing to sit and wait to hunt a good unit while their points stack up, the state will have more tags to give out. Say 5000 guys want to sit on unit 543 for 6 years to get a tag and the same thing happens on unit 542. That takes 10,000 guys out of the hunting pool that year. That allows for 10,000 more guys to hunt.

That is what Nevada has done, Colorado has done, Idaho has done, and they all have better hunting opportunites than we do. Perhaps we ought not try to reinvent the wheel? The successful path has already been trodden. Shall we follow or stay behind?


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
ELK I agree 100% with ya on my ego. It is always present
and I am always right HAHAHA Just ask KTC or the CAT.

Aspen I agree with everything that you said about helping the herds in trouble. If we have a biological reason to cut numbers lets get r done. If we are doing the right thing for our herds and closing an area is the only way I couldn't agree more. If on the other hand we are trying to just grow big heads while loosing opportunity for all of us, TROPHY HUNTER OR OPPORTUNIST, I'll have a hard time voting in favor of this.

Once a unit goes into a LE Unit it stays that way, regaurdless
of the shape of the herd. I have absolutely no problem with the way things are now. There a several great units that those of you that wish to wait a lifetime to hunt can work with. We don't need any more LE Units. In the case of the Nebo if the herd will not biologically support ANY TYPE OF A HUNT Shut it down untill it can.
 
Gordy, you wrote: "Once a unit goes into a LE Unit it stays that way, regaurdless
of the shape of the herd. I have absolutely no problem with the way things are now. There a several great units that those of you that wish to wait a lifetime to hunt can work with. We don't need any more LE Units. In the case of the Nebo if the herd will not biologically support ANY TYPE OF A HUNT Shut it down untill it can."

1)The Thousand Lake LIMITED ENTRY deer unit is being made general as we speak! So, the claim that "once a unit goes into a LE unit it stays that way, regardless of the shape of the herd", is false.

2)Next you wrote: "I have absolutely no problem with the way things are now." The important word in that is "I", many Utah hunters DO have problems/complaints about the current state of affairs. Do we just dimiss how they percieve things because YOU have "absolutely no problems"? How is that in the best interest of deer hunters?

3)I thought you were about not "giving up" opportunities, yet here you are advocating shutting down an area. If you can 'rescue' the area WITHOUT shutting it completely down, shouold we not do that instead?

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-11-07 AT 11:44AM (MST)[p] Bart here's my exact quote.

"If we have a biological reason to cut numbers lets get r done. If we are doing the right thing for our herds and closing an area is the only way I couldn't agree more."

like I said "I" have no problem with the way the hunts are set up for the most part. I think you may be confused with mule deer management that needs to be improved and the Don Peay proposal to increase LE Units. I'm all for going to a 28 unit
management plan, I'm all for travel restrictions in certain units, I'm all for doing away with the legislated general deer opener date. This is management these are management ideas.
Wanting a bigger percentage of the state devided into units that nobody will ever be able to hunt is NOT MANAGEMENT it's pure and simple trophy hunting no opportunity tactics.

Tell me PRO are we going to debate mule deer management or are we going to debate the expansion of mule deer LE Units??
Can we agree that there is a line and these are two different items??

As far as Thousand Lakes, I would hope that after how ever many years that a unit would be opened back up. Keep in mind that this still has to get passed the W.B
 
Pro, the way I understand it the Oak Creek unit is on the chopping blocks as well. You heard anything about it? Pretty crazy stuff! Just goes to show how bad off our deer herds are. I'm sure the Thousand Lakes will be absorbed into a general unit next year. I doubt that the W.B will turn it down.


Elk
 
The DWR had a meeting in Hurricane. on the Oak Creek unit and it did not Pass as a Open bull unit in the southern region. I had a tag there last year and passed a lot of small 6 point bulls so I would hope that they leave it a LE so that they can get some age.
First thing you got to do to nebo if you want a Deer herd is to take out all the Preditors. Like Bobcats and Lions. Then not advertise when somebody shoots a 31 inch buck.
 
Someone shot a 31" buck off there? Where? When? The biggest I've ever seen or heard of coming off there was no bigger the 24".... The DWR has taken a pretty aggesive approach on predators up there over the past few years. Grandted, it's all in the name of helping the Bighorn take hold but it has helped. The lion hunters need to quit just looking for tracks on the road. The big cats get smart enough to stay away from the roads.

Elk
 
>This is another interesting debate. Seems
>like another opportunity vs quality
>one. These are my favorite.;-)
>
>
>I am glad to see that
>SFW is willing to take
>the lead on an important
>issue. Hopefully they can turn
>things around to benefit the
>hunters in the best and
>most compromising way. Utah general
>deer hunting sucks right now,
>but I do not think
>the whole state needs to
>be Henry Mountains either.
>
>wiley, you make some good points,
>but as always, I must
>disagree with many of your
>points. Yes, the Wasatch Front
>is without any argument from
>me the best general area
>in Utah hands down. Surely
>the bow only restrictions are
>working, but what do you
>do when 60 or 70
>percent of the hunters choose
>to rifle hunt? Give the
>bow hunters the state?
>
>The elk issue always gets thrown
>into the argument by saying
>the opportunity to hunt these
>bulls is not there. When
>in state history has there
>been more than 2500 or
>so mature bull tags? Tags
>for almost everyone to hunt
>spikes or any bull units,
>and tons of cow tags?
>When was there more sheep,
>moose, goat, or turkey tags?
>The bison tags have dropped,
>antelope has been about the
>same, but deer numbers and
>tags have dropped. So what
>is the deer answer? I
>have no idea for sure,
>but issuing 250k tags is
>not going to work, bow
>only in Utah will not
>work. You mention reducing harvest
>rates. You suggest traditional muzzleloaders,
>but you fail to mention
>long bows and recurves?
>
>One way to lower success is
>to put restrictions on ATV
>use and seasonal road closures.
>Another way to reduce hunter
>success is to lower tag
>numbers. Some of us are
>not happy with 2.5 year
>old deer. Sure, none of
>us should expect a 200"
>deer every year, but to
>see one once in 25
>years of deer hunting would
>be nice. As we get
>older some of us want
>to focus on inches. I
>will never shoot another forky
>as long as I live.
>I think these deer should
>be available to new hunters
>and meat hunters though. I
>am also past shooting young
>4X4's. Again, some people would
>love to get one and
>should be available. Just as
>a few older mature bucks
>with 180"+ of bone is
>available from time to time.
>What is wrong with that?
>Does that make me an
>evil inch monger?
>
>On my wife's LE elk unit
>this year we were in
>some of the best mule
>deer habitat that I could
>imagine. Water, farm land, sage,
>cedars, grasses, and so forth.
>In 12 days this fall
>I saw 0 deer. What
>is wrong with habitat work
>and human predator control to
>fill this void with deer?
>Or is it ok that
>not one deer was visible
>in this area in 12
>days?
>
>wiley you say you want to
>go every year with hopes
>of putting an arrow through
>one once in a while.
>I would have to think
>after 6 years of hunting
>with a good effort, which
>I am sure you put
>in, you would be able
>to get a good shot
>at a 170+ buck? I
>like being out, but I
>am hunting, not hiking and
>riding.
>
>I am excited that dk and
>nebo are putting forth an
>effort to improve things by
>taking polls and asking for
>input to see what people
>want. I think this is
>a great start to fix
>what I believe most people
>are unhappy with.


I can't find one thing you wrote about which I disagree. For those of us who don't want to shoot even a small 4x4, WHERE'S OUR OPPORTUNITIES? All those who want to kill anything are ruining it for us! Sounds fair to me to manage 1/2 the state for 2-point killers and the other half for bigger buck opportunities, maybe not as restricted as the Henries, but more restricted than the Book Cliffs cuz if it aint close to 180, I aint interested.
 
Great proposal NEBO.

I am not sure anyone can explain it, but I watched the Book Cliffs with my own eyes. The deer were hurting. When it was closed for a few years, the deer population grew rapidly, both bucks and does. Predators and habitat did not change much.

There are really 2 issues here. 1.) Increasing buck numbers and quality, and 2.) increasing the deer herd.

To increase the deer herd, habitat is key. Those who made that point are correct.

But to increase buck size and ratios, you can't kill everything with a bone on its head.

I would rather not hunt deer than to continue general deer hunting as it is now, orange, trucks and ATV's all around you racing to the next 2 point. Makes me sick, and frankly, I am ashamed to be a part of it at times.

Utah needs a few LE units spread throughout the state. Right now they are mainly in the NER and SER regions. i.e. Diamond Mountain, Book Cliffs, San Juan, Henries, Paunsaguant. I am all for establishing a few additional LE units throughout the state to help increase LE draw odds and provide more opportunity for hunters to kill at least a decent 4 point buck, as MOST hunters have indicated they want. I support this NEBO proposal, and would hope there could be additional units in the Northern and Southern Region identified for Limited Entry.

Utah will never be back to the good old days of general season hunting. Too many things have changed. Hunters might as well accept it and move on.
 
If your trying to get Nebo at limited entry statis, why not go for Maple Mtn. I think you have the same problem there with the good genes like on Nebo.
 
First of all, thanks to everyone who has weighed in on this.
This proposal to only cut out a small portion of this management unit was so that large numbers of hunters would not be displaced and if they were displaced, it would not necessarily push them to the other side of the state.
The entire management unit is currently at 12 bucks/100 does.The 3 year average is 11 bucks/100 does. The unit is under population objective by 1500 to 2000 animals. I felt that there was a room for additional bucks in the population without having to kill does to keep it under the population objectives. The habitat is rated at "acceptable".
I beleve that one of the problems with the unit is because of its proximity to the Wasatch Front. It recieves a tremendous amount of recreational hunting pressure. We are all part of that, but when you consider that the hunting pressure begins in August and goes sometimes into December (elk included), the animals can be under constant pressure from hunting. I would like to see less constant pressure on the animals.
I do believe that it is beneficial to deer herds to have a wide age class structure in the population. This is not just about trophy bucks. Every study I am aware of includes this as being part of a healthy, thriving population. The fact is- who doesn't excited when they are able to watch a big mature buck-- hunter or non-hunter ?
The opportunity vs. quality debate will always be in the middle of this. We have the DWR to thank for that. If the herds were not being managed properly from a biological standpoint, our discussion would be about how are we going to save the deer from near extinction. I know there may have been some cases of poor management, but I don't think it was on purpose.
Alot more could be said, but I hope all of you will be a t th RAC to voice your opinions.
 

Similar threads

V
Looking for a great mule deer unit in Colorado for youth (my son) with 5 points (last year as a youth)
Replies
4
Views
1k
VWiddi1
V
F
1.8 Satisfaction rate for Thousand Lakes
Replies
34
Views
2k
SS!
SS!
B
Late season muzz elk
Replies
6
Views
506
105Coues
105Coues

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

10EEABE1-A4BF-4975-B22F-004636AFC0EE.jpeg
Heavy Dude with Kickers
Big Wide Dude!
2E063D22-EA8F-4742-AFE1-1BB851FD7A5F.jpeg
C50C6759-3F88-4E8E-868F-1215AC2EA2CA.png
59BD3FE1-26FF-4978-A6BC-1EB2FA6B3F04.jpeg
47F4A15B-CB11-472A-A117-9223EA40CC6F.jpeg
FA6D2FA1-B362-444B-A005-F82BCD98F572.jpeg
Best Buck of the Year - MonsterMuleys.com
IMG_0934.JPG
CBEF3776-9BB7-44E3-9380-01E9CD6482E2.jpeg
3010C766-F9D1-437E-8D5F-06AFFC828D63.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom