Looking for Answers

[rock5150]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-07 AT 08:46PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-07 AT 08:45?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-07 AT 08:42?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-07 AT 08:33?PM (MST)

Mule Deer Numbers. This table is the general numbers given by each state. How they came to these numbers can be debated. I repeat these are generalizations But, valuable none the less.
State Deer #'s Licenses

Colorado 615,000 92,000

Wyoming 480,000 63,000

Nevada 107,000 17,000

Utah 280,000 96,000

This Table can be found on page 34 of the big game proclamation

Total permits in 2006 Number of applications in 2006

Region Resident Nonresidents Residents Nonresidents

Archery 14,400 1,600 5,164 669
Statewide.

Any weapon

Northern 20,700 2,300 4,539 222

Northeastern 11,700 1,300 9,845 331

Central 10,800 1,200 15,650 380

Southeastern 11,700 1,300 11,682 1,359

Southern 16,200 1,800 22,561 4,924

Totals 85,500 9,500


Dedicated Hunter 9963 This was the Number given by the DWR on DEC 11th 07 when called.


Interesting facts, there is no separation of muzz hunters and rifle hunters in Utah?s draw. Why? I called the DWR and they could not give me any answer. In fact they said the number of hunters on each hunt depended on the percent of hunters that put in for each hunt. Example northern regain 20,700 permits any weapon. If there were 15,000 muzz hunters and 5,700 rifle hunters that would be where the permits would go. Just so long as they got sold. There is no percent of tags for each hunt.

There are really 25,963 statewide bow hunters for four weeks. What is the impact? This is not even counting the extended hunt on the Wasatch front for two months.
Where is the balance?

It has been said in past posts I have read opportunity to hunt, hunt what? How many would like to hunt at least a 3 1/2 year old dear, over a forked horn even if it meant not hunting a year or two?

Why are the deer not managed by the smaller regains suggested a few years ago?

Why are not all deer checked in so the division has real hard numbers to manage areas off of, not just statistical guesses. If they had hard numbers would the number of permits have to go down? For all hunts.

If we look at the elk herds in Utah we see the DWR can manage to some degree. Why not the deer?

In Utah, the budget of the DWR is over 95% to 97% subsidized by permit sales. Why is the hunter carrying the vast majority of the load? I love ground hogs and tortoises don't you. How much of that budget is spent on none game species?


Just looking for answers

Rock 5150

 

[blazingsaddle]

You post some good questions. What do you mean by where is the balance? The balance of archery hunters verses rifle and muzzy tags? And for anyone looking to hunt a 3 1/2+ year old deer, every year mind you, pick up a bow, and use your "opportunity" that Utah gives you.
I would love to see Utah install a mandatory harvest report to every hunter, every year in every region. Ask questions such as where the animal was harvested, how many points on each side, sex of animal, how many days hunted. May be even send in teeth. Will this not give the state more information about hunter densities, animal populations, and maybe how to manage better? ( Not that its horrible now) By mandatory, I mean you fill it out and send it in, with or without your tag. If you send nothing, then you are not able to apply for the following year.

 

[bragabit]

Does the number of archery permits go down every year that the dedicated hunter numbers go up? Or do they stay the same and we only take the dedicated hunter permits out of the rifle/muzzleloader allotment?

 

[rock5150]

What i am saying is i would like, as i think many would like, to to have a good chance at a 3 1/2 old deer when hunting. I am dedicated so i hunt all three however, i do not like the bow very much as many do not. However, i do practice so if the chance comes it will be ethical. To say to the vast majority of hunters you have no real shot at a 3 1/2 year old dear if you do not bow hunt seems unreasonable.

I hunt white tail in Missouri every year. They have a tela check in which almost all of the things you suggested are done. Very easy and it takes like 2 minutes.

If you look at the number of tags to deer it seems there is a need to cut the number of tags and manage by much smaller regions to better control the populations of each unit, like elk or cougars. I believe the DWR does not just because they would have to cut tag Numbers if they had the data from smaller units. There budget does not allow for that.

 

[rock5150]

>Does the number of archery permits
>go down every year that
>the dedicated hunter numbers go
>up? Or do they
>stay the same and we
>only take the dedicated hunter
>permits out of the rifle/muzzleloader
>allotment?


Bragabit
I asked the DWR this question and got a very sideways answers on 12/11/07 aka no real answer, I was told it came out of the over all numbers. However, if you look at the number of dedicated hunter, and that number has gone up by several thousand in the past couple of years, and the bow numbers have not changed. So you tell me.

 

[nv_hunter]

Good post....makes you wonder whos running these states.

 

[bragabit]

Are you telling me that Utah gives enough tags each year to potentially kill 30 percent of their deer herd. It looks like the other western states try to limit their numbers to max of 10 percent. Seems like sound a sound management practice to me!

 

[rock5150]

>Are you telling me that Utah
>gives enough tags each year
>to potentially kill 30 percent
>of their deer herd.
>It looks like the other
>western states try to limit
>their numbers to max of
>10 percent. Seems like
>sound a sound management practice
>to me!


As i said the Numbers are in general. However, the state of utah says they have around 280,000 total deer of all kinds no whitetail in utah. They give 96,000 tags each year, about 34% if you run it out.
Very different from the other western states. They are at about 15% not 34%. Much smaller units and better data to manage each unit with.

 

[Daxter]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-13-07 AT 09:30PM (MST)[p]I totally see your point, but just so you know Utah's current deer population is estimated to be 320,000, the 280,000 number is from a few years ago. I say let's follow CO's example and go 5 point or better unlimted general elk tags statewide, and cut deer tags in half. How do you think that will go over with the 400" fanatics?

Dax

PS I am just kidding (mostly) about the statewide general elk hunt.

 

[Prism]

Geeze, haven't you guys learned anything?

Micromanagement doesn't work.

Hunting doesn't affect deer herds in anyway.

It doesn't matter if a hunt is 5 days or a month.

The shorter the hunt the larger the number of deer killed. Good grief, just think of the horror if we had a 2 day hunt!

It only takes one buck in the state of Utah to breed all of the does.

Ah, but we should all give ourselves a pat on the back, we got big elk..........

Oh, and my personal favorite. If you want to increase your buck to doe ratios......kill the does!

 

[JakeH]

"Oh, and my personal favorite. If you want to increase your buck to doe ratios......kill the does!"



Prism, That would bring up the buck to doe numbers, wouldn it.;-);-)

Ohh, and heres another one for ya, if one deer is found to have CWD go out and kill a couple hundred deer in that area and test them all to see if they have it too.




Jake H. MM Member since 1999.

 

[Daxter]

Did you guys see the presentation at the Nov. RAC meetings about how the state would manage deer on a 25 unit basis? The way it was presented it would do nothing more than create an administative hassle for the DWR and law enforcemtn, and limit hunters, with very little overall benefit. If they proposed managment in 25 units along with a 30% or greater decrease in overall tag numbers then things might start looking good. But, I doubt we will ever see deer tag numbers drop more than 1,000 to 2,000 below the 97,000 cap. Unless micromanagment is accompanied by a significant tag reduction I just don't see it doing much good for our deer hunting. It might help one or two areas, but it will do it at the expense of the other areas that are doing well. Unless someone (probably SFW) puts some major pressure on to make significant changes happen I don't see anything changing in how deer are managed in UT.

UT hunts their deer much harder than all the other surrounding states. Especially if you figure the proportion of those deer that are actually bucks is lower in UT than in CO, NV, WY. If UT had a statewide average b/d ratio of 20/100 then of our 320,000 deer 64,000 would be bucks. If CO had a statewide average b/d ratio of 30/100 then of their 620,000 deer 186,000 would be bucks. So UT sells 97,000 tags to hunt 64,000 bucks, and CO sells 92,000 tags to hunt 186,000 bucks. Do the math, that equalls a huge difference in hunt quality.

Dax

 

[Prism]

Dax,

It's simply amazing that we have the deer we do with the amount of pressure we put on them. Gives us an idea of what Utah would be capable of if it was managed right.

I also don't think the answer is a huge cut in tag numbers, just a huge cut in the harvest.......there's a lot of ways to offer hunters opportunity and lower the harvest.

I was just having fun with my last post

It looks as if SFW is about to get things moving with our mule deer. Maybe all of the complaining on the Internet does work after all..........

 

[cabinfever]

Rock5150, good post. Ditto Prism.

One only need look at the CO & UT comparison above to see why deer hunting in Utah sucks. It aint rocket science.I hope prism is right and SFW uses their weight to put a micro management plan in place.

If Ut will follow CO's lead and get a micromanagement plan in place it will be scary the kind of bucks this state will produce.

Mike

 

[rock5150]

Thanks for the correction on numbers. Just wondering if the DWR takes credit for the increase or has it been the mild winters the last three years. I am in total agreement about the pressure there is to much on all hunts. But, how do you cut pressure with out cutting tags? What would you suggest to still give opportunity reduce pressure and still have a sound management plan. That makes the assumption there is a sound management plan now which could be argued.

As to smaller units my personal feeling is if they did go to smaller units they would have to manage to the real buck doe ratio of 15/100 and not just guess for the hole region like now. You would have to have hard harvest data to make these changes. With smaller units this could be done with out much effort if the DWR would invest in a computer program of some kind that does this. As i said in earlier posts it is done in other states i hunt in, by county's and they are smaller than most of the units would be if implemented.

As to it being a issue for the DWR to managing such smaller units when was the last time any of you saw a fish cop during a hunt? They farm out the draw now, ever called to get information about a drawing issue, you get sent out of state, Fallon. In the last 5 years i can think of one time on a cow elk hunt i saw a fish cop. And, 2 or 3 other time through out the years not in a hunt, that is all. . There is no way they can do what needs to be done with the numbers they have now. 5 or 6 fish cops in a region and how much time in the field VS office. Comes down to public pressure and allocation of funds by the DWR.

The deer hunting could be as good as any where if it was managed.

 

[huntin100]

It looks like several possible changes/ideas have and will be discussed. A deer management group will be formed. Changing seasons dates for general deer to be the first part of Oct and general elk end of Oct may be helpful. This will require a change in Utah law. I personally, believe there are ways to have more quality bucks and still good opportunity. Limiting harvest of yearling bucks,season dates,length of seasons,smaller units,point restrictions, buck to doe ratios for various units and numbner of tags will be discussed. I personally would like to see manditory harvest reporting on general deer hunts. If you don't fill out the report. You don't get a tag next year. You need good data for good management. I believe changes will be coming to improve things. Looking at other surrounding state management plans will be researched as well. Bottom line in most cases. You need to limit harvest and many times opportunity, to improve quality. It's a trade off. Just like Utahs Elk management. Let's hear more ideas to improve quality and still provide opportunity. Especially for youth.

 

[BBB]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-07 AT 02:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-07 AT 02:09?PM (MST)

Nice posts Dax. I think Utah could take some hunting pressure off the deer but would have to follow Colorado's example and provide some hunting opportunities elsewhere, like allowing a lot more elk hunting, like you mentioned. (I'm not kidding about the general elk season (

Colorado manages for mature bucks in practically every unit, but of course their elk are hunted harder than elk in surrounding states..they do a great job keeping within that fine line of opportunity vs. trophy hunting.

I, for one would like to see a better balance (in terms of number of tags:number of bucks/bulls in the state) in Utah between elk and deer. Utah is breaking it's own elk trophy records several times each year.

I don't know how I feel about deer micromanagement in Utah. It seems to work well in some other western states. One drawback is I'm sure there would be more administrative costs being spent to help manage these smaller units, which isn't a good thing especially when the overall goal is to reduce the number of deer tags(less state revenue).

Prizm, I'm curious to know your thoughts on ways to offer hunter's opportunity and lower the harvest?

Thanks

 

[rock5150]

Huntin100

The stuff you suggest sounds pretty good. Question, if the law can be changed and the deer hunt moved back does the Muzz hunt get moved back to the middle of september? I am for more shorter hunts. I think this is the best way to reduce pressure however, this must be done in conjunction with smaller units and fewer tags. If we had the hard data things would have to change. If ratios change ie buck to doe then tags have to go down. I am a big fan of point restrictions as well, when it was tried 15 years ago on the pavonent I saw a lot more better bucks. The divisions says it does not work? so who knows.

How can a person get on the deer management group?
How do i give imput ?
where do i find more information? etc.

As to Balance mentioned in post 16 i am for that concept if it is not taken to far.

Thanks for the Thoughts
Rock 5150

 

[Daxter]

I like this post, I love talking UT deer managment ideas. Paul, I would like to hear more about ideas for reducing harvest without loosing opportunity. I have heard some interesting ideas like; an earlier season, more primitive weapon hunts, less motorized access, a tag that was good for 2 years but could only be used for 1 deer. I would like to hear more ideas. The potential that we have for producing monster bucks here in UT is amazing. I would never advocate Henry Mtn. type managment statewide, but it would be awesome to realize a little more of that potential. If we can find a way to do it with loosing opportunity, that would be the cherry on top of one sweet sundae.
Dax

 

[ktc]

I did not read all of this word for word, however, it is glaring that the permits in other states (like mentioned above) is 10% of the total population. Utah does give enough permits to wipe the entire buck herd away. Certainly that will not happen, but it sure seems dumb. If Utah has 320k deer and the buck to doe is 20% (which it is not) that would mean a total of 64k bucks? Right? So offer up 97k tags and we can sit here and wonder why the hunting sucks.

If Utah were to follow suit, then Utah should offer 32k permits. That would mean 65k less permits for the forky shootin' whine bags. I hope Karpo can read this and understand the fuzzy math?

What is Utah's deer potential? Hopefully SFW throws their weight around and finds out. I will have my check in the mail, SFW, about March.

 

[rock5150]

Has the dedicated hunter program run it's course. How much pressure do we put on. I have been a member for 9 years and love to be out there. However, would it be worth giving up, to hunt a 3 1/2year old when you got to hunt? Could this be one of the peaces that is needed to have a better deer herd?

I would like to see five day style hunts two muzz two bow two rifle. Mix it up. let the bow hunters hunt a week in november, 15th or so the muzz hunter a week in the end of august etc this kind of thing. By doing this you still get opportunity and lessen the pressure out over a greater time frame. If some hunt is better it may take a year or two to draw but you could still hunt other units or spiecies. just a thought?

Rock5150

 

[Packout]

You all have heard me rant on this for years, so I will re post it all again. I didn't read and remember every post in this thread. I will say hunting is not the problem with Utah's deer herd growth.

Has micromanageing really worked in other states, besides Colorado? Nevada has not grown its deer herd. Nevada has grown a few more bucks, but that isn't helping their herd. Arizona has not grown its deer herd. New Mexico has not seen a real growth in herd numbers. Nevada hunters wait years between tags for 40% success rates. Arizonans wait years between tags for lower success rates. The Colorado deer unit I hunted this year had a 2 (Yes TWO) mature bucks per 100 doe ratio.

I hunt 4+ year old deer every year on Public Lands here in Utah. The wait to hunt the Central and Southern Regions is already 2 years or so. To get the numbers many talk about, we will all have to wait 4-6 years between tags. All for 3 year old, 20" 4x4.

If Utah's doe population are bred at a sufficient rate, which they are, then there is no reason to carry more bucks (except to fulfill a hunter's wishes) and carrying more bucks compete for the existing food sources.

The real question is where are all the doe fawns going which are produced every year? With 60 fawns per 100 doe Utah should have a replacement of around 100,000 fawns a year. If half are bucks then there should be 50,000 new doe fawns. Where are they all going? Hunting is not the problem with Utah's herd growth.

When we look at buck doe ratios, we have to use the numbers prior to the hunt. So if Utah has 320,000 deer with a post season buck doe ratio of 15, that means there are about 50,000 bucks which will be 2+ years old for the next hunting season. If 30,000 were harvested on the hunt then there were 80,000 available to hunt. The UDWR manages the herd knowing that the success rate will be low.

40,000+-. That is the real number of possible archers in Utah. Archery tags- 16,000. Dedicated hunters- 10,000. Youth hunters- 15,000+-. (of course not all dedicated or youth archery hunt) There are probably around 30-35,000 archery hunters in Utah.

I am not deadset against micro units, but there are many other points to consider. One last point, look at the hogs which came out of the Milford Flat fire area. All those old bucks lost their cover and many were slaughtered. Point is there are huge old bucks out there to hunt. People just have to HUNT to find them.

 

[bragabit]

Rock,
Yes, I think the dedicated hunter program has run its course of effectiveness. The added pressure that it is adding during the archery and muzzleloader hunts is pretty big. I have put in 96 hours in volunteer work. I don't feel like 1 hour has been benificail to the deer herd (I have helped a lot of chukars). I too would like some infromation on how to get involved on the new deer management commitee.

 

[Daxter]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-07 AT 11:24AM (MST)[p]Packout,

You make some really good points that not many hunters seem to understand. Reducing buck harvest does not grow a deer population. That is a really hard concept for many sportsmen to wrap their heads around. Fawn recruitment is probably the biggest problem UT has with deer population management. Our fawn to doe ratios are at historic lows, and fawn over-winter survival is highly variable. Even in LE units with very limited buck harvest the buck segment of the population doesn't grow like you would calculate it on paper. Our deer have a very high mortality rate.

That being said, I think that UT is making a commendable effort to get habitat work done to facilitate growing a bigger deer herd. Sure there is plenty of room for improvement, but the UT probably has one of the largest and most active habitat initiatives in the country. I hope we can keep on our current path, and continue to do lots of habitat work.

I see two areas where we really have potential to make a difference with habitat. 1. We really need the federal land management agencies to start managing their lands, and 2. we could use some normal moisture years rather than all this drought. We probably have a better chance of getting the water than we do of getting large-scale common sense management on federal lands.

So the work is in progress towards making the pie bigger for the future, but in the meantime sportsmen still have to face decisions about how we divide up the pie that we have now. That is where the quality vs. opportunity trade-offs comes into play. While I agree that there are a few trophy quality bucks available on all of UT's general season units, I think we could hunt our deer less and elk more and it would be a win/win situation for everyone.

I think you have to do both, you have to think long term about how to make the pie bigger (make more habitat, reduce mortality, and grow the deer herd), but while you are in that process you also still have to think about how to divide the pie you currently have (opportunity vs. quality). These are not easy decisions.


Dax

 

[cabinfever]

One other thing to look at is CO has up to 5 seasons for deer 2 of which are in the rut yet the number of big bucks harvested each year is astounding. In contrast, UT has 3 seasons none of which are in the rut and yet we have fewer bucks and even fewer big bucks.Go figure!

Just another angle to look at!

M

 

[rock5150]

Bragabit and Dax

First deer potential in Utah if we are at 320,000 now there in not reason the herd could not flex between 400,000 and 450,000 if managed right. If you talk to Jim Bounds from SUU he has deer data clear back to the 60s there were once as many as 5 to 6 hundred thousand deer in Utah. However, this was when they could chain and poison Predators. He feels like that and some very bad winters that knocked down the herd numbers are the biggest issue. At least the last time I asked him about it.

There has to be a more concerted effort to control the predators. I feel like this has more of an affect than any one other thing, on fawn retention.

There were numbers given about how may bucks you could have if all went right each year. Is still seem jacked up to say we are putting out 35,000 more tags for bucks than we say we have. Here?s your sign.

The Fed MUST manage there ( OUR ) land better!!!!!! Question how do we get input on this SO it can happen.

There are good buck on all of the public land, it is the pressure that makes it very hard to harvest a good one. How many of us spend countless hours scouting and pattering deer, to only have other hunters, that don't even know the deer are there, come bouncing through and blow the hole gig. That is pressure, when it happens year after year day after day.

Dedicated Hunter. Where I hunt with a bow and muzz I think there would be Half the hunters on both hunts if there was no dedicated hunters. I put in a bunch of hours each year and most have not effected the habitat in the hills, some but not most.

Still wanting to here how I can get on the deer management committee??????

Rock 5150

 

[BBB]

I remember years ago taking a wildife course from Bounds at SUU. Is he still around? He looked like he was at retiring age back in '95.

I know the effects predators play on our deer herds, but what is interesting is Colorado isn't proactive in reducing predator populations. Look at their tight trapping regulations and it is easy to see other states have a more aggressive predator control program. Once again, I do know that predators are a factor in reducing deer herds so don't call me a wolf-loving, bunny hugger.

 

[Packout]

Rock, You said "How many of us spend countless hours scouting and pattering deer, to only have other hunters, that don't even know the deer are there, come bouncing through and blow the hole gig."

If there weren't those hunters afield, those big bucks would get killed every year, rather than bumped and educated. There in lies the problem with less hunters afield. Less hunters afield does not always mean less deer harvested. There seems to be an inverse relationship between lower deer hunters and higher success. To put less hunters afield causes success rates to rise so to save more deer we must severely reduce hunter numbers. Just another way to look at things.

Daxter, you are 110% correct. Dividing the current pie is where we are today. I am not completely against micromanaging, but right now the Cons outweigh the Pros for going that route. Jumping units to 25 bucks per 100 (which is what has been pushed by some) would cause an extreme decrease in hunter opportunity. (Like 33% of the current hunter numbers or in other words getting a tag every 5+ years to hunt general units.)

This is an important discussion, one which has many side-effects. On one hand hunt every year (or 2) and have chances at 4+ year old bucks. The other hand holds 4 year old deer as more common, yet you only get a tag every 5+ years. I personally would take my chances hunting every year.

I feel first and foremost the deer herd should be the number one priority and paid professionals should have a big part of the say in managing the herd. Hunting opportunity comes a distant second to the herd's well-being.

 

[rock5150]

I am accusing no one of being a wolf lover on this sight, most likley it would be the oppisite. I am just saying with our habit does it make a differance? from CO habit and predators ect. I do not know. yes Jim is still kicking as of a few months ago when i talked to him, teachs part time.

I am not in faver of 25/100, you are right it will be ever 5 years if that often to hunt if that is done state wide. If there was data from smaller units not just regions you could manage to the curent 15/100. However, you can not manage Fishlake on Cedar mountion numbers and that is what happen more than not. All this comes back to my fundmental argmunt we need more hard data to make many of the dicisions that need to be made to have better hunting. Way to much gussing!!!

As to Pressure and other hunters, yes there is an inverse relationship to the harvest numbers. I get that. How many people just quit hunting because of it though. Not people like us but sertinly many older and younger individules, certinly many i have taked to, ever herd to much of a rat race or the like, i am sure you have. We need those people to give a crap to, and many just don't any more.

What do you think about the dedicated issues and more shorter hunts?

Thanks for the feed back, good things to think about.
Rock5150

 

[Castnshoot]

Rock 5150 Great post and great response. I see that you have been in the dedicated hunter program for 9 years. I have thought about joining a time or two, but it seems that most of the stuff they are doing is stuff that the county jail crew should be doing.

What about this? There was close to a half million acres burned between the Milford flats fire and and the Bald ridge controlled burn that got away from them this summer. There is going to be a two year moratorium on running cattle on a lot of that land. That's good and bad. The bad is a lot of water supplies that help spread the heard out won't be available. The good is there is going to be a lot of great new habitat to add numbers to the over all herd.

Even the studies that start out saying that drinker projects
don't do much for mule deer do end up showing a positive effect if you read all the way through them. Drinker projects have worked well in some places to expand heard range and size.

That being said, do you think that is something that the dedicated hunter program might get into. If somebody who has the know how can get something like that off the ground. I'll put my money where my mouth is and donate the use of a 4000 sq foot metal building located right between the 2 fires to be used as a base of operations. There is water and power and RV dump on site. Also the use of a tractor with skip/scrape and brush mower and post hole digger attachments.

 

[bragabit]

Castnshoot,
You are right most of the Dedicated hunter projects are just busy work and have nothing to do with helping deer. Thinning of some PJ's on some of the winter reange is about the only helpful thing I have seen done around here. I have been on 5 guzzler project on the southwest desert. Four of them were built for birds, no way for a deer to get a drink. Some nice guzzlers on the bald ridges and black rock area would be great. I would be glad to help out. Maybe we could take lessons from Arizona, they know how to build a guzzler.

 

[rock5150]

> Rock 5150 Great post
>and great response. I see
>that you have been in
>the dedicated hunter program for
>9 years. I have thought
>about joining a time or
>two, but it seems that
>most of the stuff they
>are doing is stuff that
>the county jail crew should
>be doing.
>
> What about this? There
>was close to a half
>million acres burned between the
>Milford flats fire and and
>the Bald ridge controlled burn
>that got away from them
>this summer. There is going
>to be a two year
>moratorium on running cattle on
>a lot of that land.
>That's good and bad. The
>bad is a lot of
>water supplies that help spread
>the heard out won't be
>available. The good is there
>is going to be a
>lot of great new habitat
>to add numbers to the
>over all herd.
>
> Even the studies that
>start out saying that drinker
>projects
>don't do much for mule deer
>do end up showing a
>positive effect if you read
>all the way through them.
>Drinker projects have worked well
>in some places to expand
>heard range and size.


Castnshoot

The Mildford fire/bald ridge burn out.

I am very much in favor of water projects of all kinds. On Fed land it is a BIG pain in the butt to do much of anything that does not take years. The DWR has water projects that they have tried to do for years but can's due to Environmental impact studies. If your project is to work it would have to be done on private land. Some farmers like deer most don't when it come to them competing for resources. So to do this you would have to find a land owner willing to let you set a guzzler up. I have done several and it is not real hard just need the people and equipment. I would being willing to help with this kind of project and i know many who would.


Rock 5150

 

[rock5150]

I have another thought and question. Is the resion why the DWR does not go to the smaller units or give more information about them because, they would have to tell us how many tags they would give on any given unit?

I wonder what the break down would be?

 

[huntin100]

Rock, packout, and Daxter. Good comments. The deer management group will have a lot of things to consider. I agree that professional biologist input is needed. I don't know who will pick the deer management group. I'm sure they will get representation from the 5 different regions. If you have too large of a group it will be hard to get anything done. There is a lot of money going into rehab of winter ranges. Preditors, fawn recruitment, elk management, size of units, number of tags, season dates, etc will have to be looked at. I don't know any specifics. I can pass on info and ideas from other sportsmen. I know that improving general season deer hunting quality and maintaining opportunity is needed. Many ideas out there. Glad you want to see things improve as well.

 

[dancasey2]

Great facts!