N. Utah Winter Kill...it's BAD!!!

A

AntlerKing

Guest
I took off for a hike on Saturday on the Cache. My friend Justin and I counted close to 80 dead deer on our 9 1/2 mile hike. The state of Utah only cut 1000 tags, what's the reasoning for only cutting a 1000 tags? How or where did they get their winter kill numbers? I would think with the bad winter they would wait for the snow to melt, then go out and do their counts. This area is only one small spot on the Cache, I'm sure other county's in Northern Utah had it just as bad or worse. What are your guys thoughts on Utah's Division of Wildlife's Deer Management? I personally think it's crap!

Here's a pic of what we saw all day long...
4804e6fe1cd09ad3.jpg
 
That is sad.

I cannot speak for the Utah DNR, but I assume they are just like Colorado's, they care more about revenue than herd health and quality. Taxpayers in CO don't fund the DOW, but they are forced to fund free healthcare and schooling for illegals. Maybe they should spread those tax dollars around a bit, and the DOW would rethink their policies.
 
It's good that you feel sympathy for the deer. They went through a rough winter. Utah actually has a good management plan. When the small and weak deer dont make it through the winter only the fittest deer survive. While cutting tags seems logical to improve the herd, whether the DNR puts out 30000 northern tags or 20000 Northern tags the general harvest rate stays about the same. When all the smaller bucks are harvested then the larger ones are left to breed the does. This creates a stronger gene pool. Northern Utah has several "high country" bucks that only appear on the winter range or during the rut. Consider this hard winter a remedy to the poor buck to doe ratio in the Cache unit. This year will be a tough hunt with low success rates. But next year the buck to doe ratio could potentially explode. I too have spent time in the cache unit and I have noticed that most of the winter kill has been either small bucks (without antlers protruding from the skin) or fawns and an ocaisional weathered doe. That means our population next year will be primarily 2.5 yr or older bucks and young fertile does.
 
The majority of deer killed were fawns, that is NOT helpful for the future of the herd. This will result in a void in the doe/buck populations down the road. I am glad you see a rosy result, but in reality I doubt it will be a healthier herd as a result of a significant winter kill. Many older bucks, wore down from the rut, didn't survive, in fact the segment that did the best was the doe population, making the buck/doe ratio WORSE, not better, with a low fawn recruitment for the existing fawns and this year due to many aborted fawns from does trying to survive.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
>"While cutting tags seems logical to
>improve the herd, whether the
>DNR puts out 30000 northern
>tags or 20000 Northern tags
>the general harvest rate stays
>about the same."
>"This year will be a tough
>hunt with low success rates."


Seems to me you contradicted yourself here. Which is it? Will the "harvest rate stay the same" or will this "be a tough hunt with low success rates."?
 
It is a stretch to imply that only the fittest genetically survive when it comes to a bad snow year. Thinking a deer that survived, somehow has superior genes, to pass on is absurd. What if the deer had great genes, but lived in a an area most of the year that had poor forage? What if it was a genetically superior buck that just had a real tough rut? What if it was a genetically superior deer that wandered down from the high country, only to find condos in last year's winter range?

Genetics are overrated anyway. I am a firm believer that it is age, not genes that makes a trophy rack. Certainly not all deer have the genes to make book someday, but most deer could at least atain 170.
 
4000fps,
I agree with the first part of your argument, but disagree that most deer have the genetic potential to reach 170.


It is too bad to see the all those dead deer. I might buy the natural selection, only the strong will survial argument if we hadn't come in and messed up most of the historic winter range in Northern Utah. Between development, fire suppression, PJ expansion, and weeds we have taken a huge chunk out of what wintering habitat is available. Add in roadkill and it is amazing we have the deer we do in some of those Northern Utah areas. I guess we just all have to keep our fingers crossed for good growing season precip and hope that habitat projects like this one ( http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID5/11804.html ) and other start to pay off and the range begins to improve.

The Cache will be a tough hunt this fall, but that isn't anything new.

Dax
 
First off, good points made by all! Also, it is sad to see the bad winter kill. Years like this one will definitely slow down the growth of the mule deer population.

As far as buck:doe ratios, I hate it when someone comments on how removing a bunch of does improves the ratio for the next fall. Don't you guys realize that there will be the same number of bucks if those does (and their fawns) lived until the next year. The only thing that changed is the ratio --- crazy!

Also with the genetic thing. If you see a big old 30"+ buck on the winter range doing all the breeding, keep in mind when he was a 2X2 at 1.5 years of age he was passing on the same genes back then as well!

P.S. I lived in Logan and the spring of '93 was terrible. Everywhere I went in the hills that summer made me sick to see all the carcasses (sp?). It sounds like this is another year like that one ---- SAD!
 
I am by no means an expert,but I think the tags need to be cut hard if the kill is as bad as some have reported and go to a 4 point to a side legal buck for a couple of years or more.
Having grown up in eastern Montana, the winter of 77-78 killed off huge numbers of deer and antelope. The tags were cut in half and does were no longer legal. The herds bounced back and 4 years later doe tags were offered up in limited numbers. Two years after that the herds had such high numbers you could get two doe tags for each species and your buck tag.
The 4 point rule would allow more bucks to reach maturity and allow for better quality IMHO.
HuntFX4
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-08 AT 11:43AM (MST)[p]There is no shortage of hunters who thought we should be cutting tags in recent history in these hard hit areas. Now the winter has explained carrying capacity. We should have been killing more deer in these areas over the past few years. Cache has some of the worst winter range in the state and has perpetually been struggling with winter kill recovery for almost 20 years. Who cares how many tags are given out if old man winter is going to decrease the herd for us anyway. If an area has poor winter range, more tags is more appropriate. The DWR is cutting doe tags for 2008 which is appropriate for the short term.

The DWR hasn't changed tag allotments in the northern region since 1994 when we first had a huge winter kill and went to the draw. Now we are back to square one.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-08
>AT 11:43?AM (MST)

>
>There is no shortage of hunters
>who thought we should be
>cutting tags in recent history
>in these hard hit areas.
> Now the winter has
>explained carrying capacity. We
>should have been killing more
>deer in these areas over
>the past few years.

I have to disagree. Overhunt the area, just incase there is an out of the ordinary winter, every 10+ years? Less deer does not change the snow depth.
 
Ungalate in no way did your incoherant rambling attempt to make a valid point we are all dumber for having read it and may god have mercy on your soul.

The number of deer harvested is given in a percentage if they give out less tags the percentage will be the same but the overall number of deer that were harvested would be ultimatly less. I say diddo to 4 point of better and quit killing any does for a few years.
 
+1 4000 we have alot of winter range where i live and every deer struggled to survive this winter. it had nothing to do with carrying capacity. they are not overpopulated. if they can not get to the food they will starve to death.
 
Balz

We have poven in Utah, More than once, that point restrictions do not work here. What you get is a lower success rate on tagged bucks, and whole lot of 2 and 3 point bucks shot and left to rot. Anyone who has hunted in a point restricted area in the state of utah has more than one story about finding deer that were shot and left.
 
>Balz
>
>We have poven in Utah, More
>than once, that point restrictions
>do not work here.
>What you get is a
>lower success rate on tagged
>bucks, and whole lot of
>2 and 3 point bucks
>shot and left to rot.
> Anyone who has hunted
>in a point restricted area
>in the state of utah
>has more than one story
>about finding deer that were
>shot and left.


I've seen the point restriction work in Montana. If there are that many screwed in the head hunters out here then more people turning them in or more wardens is the answer for that. Like I sai before I would put in the point restriction
 
Point restictions DO NOT WORK! If you truly care buy a tag but do not hunt this year!That way one more buck will survive...
 
Carbonnation
Sorry man but I grew up in Richfield I lived there my whole life except for the last 3 years so I remeber the three point or better days and I remeber the FACT that the Division was not for the 3 point or better and so what did they do? Do you remember they slaughtered thousands and thousands of does. That mistake is one of the major reasons the state ever saw a massive drop in the total number of deer. There was a couple of hard winters that came shortly after that and it did not help anything. But the FACT remains the same if they would have not killed all the does during the 3 point or better days we would have been seeing big buck everywhere. We were starting to already in the few short years that it was into effect if they would have let it go the possibilities were incredible. There solution to the buck to doe ratio was to kill all the does instead of trying to save more bucks. A yearling 2 point has the same genes his first year as he does his whole life so if we are killing more big bucks and more of these yearling bucks do alot of the breeding who cares its the same genes no matter how old they, and I personally like big deer to harvest not yearlings.

Issues like these drive me up the wall. Once again the Division is managing Money instead of the wildlife and instead of taking a hit in the pocket book for a few years and allow the population to rebound. They drag the effects of one winter on for 20 years and as soon as we feel like we are finally getting somewhere mother nature strikes again and we sit on our hands and make a problem that could be fixed in a few short years drag out for an eternity. Dont tell me that the 3 point restriction wasn't working it was working better than any plan that had been or has ever been implaced!!
 
>Point restictions DO NOT WORK! If
>you truly care buy a
>tag but do not hunt
>this year!That way one more
>buck will survive...


May be hard for you to believe Sage, but I know it works. It worked in Montana. It will take some time, but the quality of bucks will improve with a 4 point rule. In just a couple of years all those little 2 points everyone is shooting will be 4 pt's.
 
4000 fps,

if an out of the ordinary winter occurs every 10 years, then it really isn't "out of the ordinary." We can count on a winter like this every decade or so. If history repeats itself, we will watch the herd recover for another 5 years, then we will have a few years of drought, then the herds will be doing okay and everyone will complain that there are still too many tags, so the DWR will not increase tags even though the herd increased. Then the winter in 2020 will kill off our gains again.

I'm not speaking state wide here. I'm mainly talking about Cache & the Wasatch Front where the winter range has been destroyed. We can cut tags to zero in these areas and the herds will continue to thrive in good years and get wiped out every 10-20.
 
I was going to post something, but I'll refrain! This topic has been beat down before and we never get anywhere. It is just plain sad to see what nature does on some years.
 
Here is a solution that very few would like but it would work. Why not shut all the areas down that had been hit the hardest. Then on the forth year have the state auction of 10 tags and have another 10 that you could apply for just like the spprtsmans tags. Then everyone gets a chance and the people with lots of money will buy the auction tags generating maybe not as much money as would be lost during the years that the were not selling tags but it would be comparable. These tags would allow a hunter to hunt any of the areas that were shut down. Then on the fifth year open it back up and start managing for what ever age class was decided upon. I like seeing more and bigger deer just like anyone and the fastest way to see that is to quit killing all of them for a few years. Can't wait to hear the feedback on this one I imagine a few of you will want to hang me high
 
>>Point restictions DO NOT WORK! If
>>you truly care buy a
>>tag but do not hunt
>>this year!That way one more
>>buck will survive...
>
>
>May be hard for you to
>believe Sage, but I know
>it works. It worked
>in Montana. It will
>take some time, but the
>quality of bucks will improve
>with a 4 point rule.
> In just a couple
>of years all those little
>2 points everyone is shooting
>will be 4 pt's.

Didn't work in Colorado, in fact, it really hurt the bucks.
 
Didn't Utah close down two units a few years back (Henry's and Book Cliffs)? From what I remember both those units came back strong? I know it was for bigger bucks, but it worked didn't it?
 
The Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns. both came back way strong as far as buck age class and proportion of bucks in the population. But, they are both managed as trophy units now, and lots of hunters have been displaced. On the Book Cliffs before the closure from 1975 to 1995 there were an average of 2,745 hunters per year. Since it has opened back up 1999-2005 there have been an average of 426 hunters per year. 2,300 deer hunters had to find somewhere else to hunt. I really like the Book Cliffs and there are lots of bucks out there, but it comes with a tradeoff. The Henry Mtns. is a similar story, there weren't as many hunters out there to begin with, but now they only give a small handful of tags each year. The Henries is probably one of the best trophy units there is right now, but most of us will never be able to hunt it. I like having a few units managed like the Henries, but it is nice to have units where you can get a tag every couple years too.


Dax
 
I agree with Dax. It's a trade off. We need good trophy areas and areas to just go huntin.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-17-08 AT 06:40PM (MST)[p]This happens all the time on this forum, sportsman compare the limited entry units to the open public units. Yes all units are limited on the amount of tags they allow but there is a big difference between 21,000 northern region tags and 35 Henry Mt tags.

It was said by ungulate in this thread that Buck to Doe ratio will go up due to the winter kill. Killing all the Does WILL improve the buck to doe ratio, the problem is there will only be 50 bucks to 100 does in the whole northern region, that's piss poor management. Wyoming tried this tactic back in the early ninetys and it almost wiped out the whole Mule Deer population!!
 
The DNR has people who work year around studying fawn mortality and winter kill. Thousands of hours of research and data are collected in order to produce results for the good of the herd. I know that a lot of sportsmen spend a lot of time in the hills but observations made on a brief hike or on the weekends doesn't really compare.
I support the DNR in their decision to distribute the amount of tags that they distribute. Not every management plan can place emphasis on both quality and quantity so the focus is to give hunters opportunities. I do not represent the DNR but I support them. I don't think that it is possible for every hunter to fill a tag. It only takes one buck to breed multiple does. I intend to introduce 3 first year hunters to the sport this fall and a successful harvest is not the only attribute of the hunt that will produce a memorable experience.
 
I am convinced that you are one of them sent here to cause confusion among the weak minded. Your tricks will not work with me.
 
Well atleast Utah is cutting tags. Here in Oregon we had our worst winter since 1992. After a short email to a local Oregon Department and Wildlife Department official he stated that they where not going to cut any tags at all. I believe the reason for nut cutting deer tag numbers is for the fact that they count on deer tag numbers to support the wildlife division. Truley sad too say the least.
 
Ungulate,

Your argument is indeed compelling and represents the near majority of great government personnel who work for the resource.

My personal opinion on a wide scale, not just Utah specific is that it is a combination of your analysis and it being all about the money. License sales grease the wheel.

Unfortunately the biggest fight for Utah mule deer long term isn't the weather, it's development.

http://chippewapartners.blogspot.com
 
It's ok Balz I was born in Richfield too, we can all be friends. The goal is to increase the amount of hunters in Utah so that hunters don't become a minority and lose all of their rights. If we reduce tags and eliminate hunting opportunities and experiences for others then the tree huggers win. We lose political strength and everything that we do is considered inhumane.

If all the hunters are amatuers then the big bucks survive to replenish the herd and Proutdoors can win too by demonstrating his skill which exceeds that of the average hunter.

In the perfect tree hugger world the poplulation of deer would only be reduced by prius', civic hybrids, and smart for twos on the highway.
 
(They) can not cut tags, over 95% of there budget comes from tag sales. Lets all be real, follow the money and the truth will be told. I like what was said about no doe tags they may do that if there is pressure.
Rock5150 long live the beast?????
 
Wouldn?t it make sense to just shut down a unit that is stressed for a two year period and evaluate the situation after seeing how it recovered? Ooops! My bad. That's called game management! No profit in that.

RUS
 
HEY RUS!!!

IF PERMITS WERE CUT AS WELL AS CLOSING THE UNIT IT WIULDN'T BE A BAD IDEA!!!

WHAT I'VE SEEN HAPPEN THOUGH THEY HAVE CLOSED A FEW UNITS OVER THE YEARS!!!

BUT THEY NEVER CUT PERMIT NUMBERS!!!

SO ALL THEM ORANGE SHIRTS MOVED TO ANOTHER UNIT THAT WAS ALREADY HURTIN & POUNCED THE PISS OUT OF IT!!!

THIS IS MY NEW GUN,YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT,YOU'LL LIKE IT A HELL OF A LOT LESS WHEN IT HITS ITS DESTINATION!!!
47654abd5a8fd79a.jpg


469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
Talked to a warden last week. Told me they located 34 2 point bucks shot and left, in a point restriction area in utah......all on the first weekend of the hunt. He couldn't even guess how many were actually put down. Very few leads were ever found. Point restriction was removed a few years later. The principle is sound if we follow the rules.
 
>The DNR has people who work
>year around studying fawn mortality
>and winter kill. Thousands
>of hours of research and
>data are collected in order
>to produce results for the
>good of the herd. I
>know that a lot of
>sportsmen spend a lot of
>time in the hills but
>observations made on a brief
>hike or on the weekends
>doesn't really compare.

Are you serious? Doesn't really compare! Do you really thing that those biologists spend all there time in the hills observing and counting? Here are a couple of facts. We hear a lot about science on this site, but wildlife management if not science, it is statistics. Counting wildlife from an airplane once every three years could hardly qualify as acurate scientific methodology. We guess. We put our made up number into a computer modle/ formula which spits out another guess. We make changes and hope for the best.
You ask any biologist in the nation and they will tell you that one of the greatest resources at there disposal is the sportsman. We are out there everyday observing wildlife in areas they have never been in.
The DNR does the best job they can with the resources that they are given, but that does not mean there solutions are always the best solutions nor are those solutions based on scientific methods. Statistics 101 90% of statisticians are wrong 50% of the time.
 
Silverlake, I also talked to an Oregon biologist, who is recommending a 17% decrease in buck tags, but was not confident the reduction would be approved at the staff level.

He also told me the mule deer counts in central and se Oregon were terrible. Since some units were already more than 50% below management objective, the downward spiral will obviously continue.

At my age, it is very unlikely I will see the end of Mule Deer hunting in Oregon, but it might be close, the way things are going.

As a final note, Oregon sold 79,000 less deer tags in 2006 than they did in 1998. Biggest reductions were in Western Oregon for blacktails, but significantly fewer mule deer tags as well.

Scoutdo
 
Bessy,
You are exactly right!

Utah is famous for closing areas and with our gigantic regions, all the hunters just move to the next hotspot until they've worked it over and ruined it too.

When will anyone realize that to manage a deer herd, you have to have a managable sized area.
 

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