Mule Deer Numbers in Utah

bowhunt

bowhunt

Long Time Member
Messages
3,191
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-09 AT 04:14PM (MST)[p]Not that many years ago I would drive down several back roads in Utah just before dusk.
I would make a bet with whomever was riding along. We would bet on the number of deer we would see. It was usually in the 30-50 range.
Now I drive those same roads, go on same hikes and see maybe 5-10 deer. Here is what I think is and is not the cause of this decline.

Causes:

-Over Hunting...We harvest way to many antlerless deer per year. If an area is under objective there should be NO antlerless tags.

-Increased Elk populations.
All of the areas I once hunted deer are now full of elk. I love elk, but I also believe they are responsible for the decline.
They push deer out of normal areas to places they are more vulnerable.

-Predators
I see more coyotes, Mt Lion and Bears now than I ever have.

Not Causes:

-Decreasing habitat
The areas I hunt have been virtually unchanged for 30 years. The feed is still the same, the winter range is the same, no change in habitat.
Look at the extended Wasatch unit, more encroachment on winter range than any other area in Utah, guess what? a good herd.



Thoughts?
 
Add Wildfire Prevention to the list. Wildfires spur the growth of aspens, which young fawns need to thrive.

Don't forget global warming and George W. Bush as main causes of decline either.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-09 AT 04:21PM (MST)[p]My own observations of mule deer all over the west mirror just what you have seen.
If you think this decline is just, or mostly, habitat related, well you drank the government cool aid :)
Trust your own judgement. Trust what you see in the field. I wish more Americans were independent thinkers.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
I too see far fewer deer in places they used to be like jackrabbits. I attribute it to a lot of things. Many you mentioned.

I see far more big predators than I ever have before, ie bears and cats. I also think we have grown to be far superior hunters than we were 10 or 20 years ago. Due to this improvement, we are able to hunt more efficiently and kill the better bucks almost every year. Very few big bucks survive each year. I see plenty of young bucks each year on the bowhunt. Most rarely turn 2 years old. ATV use on every ridge whether their is a road or NOT, has opened up areas the deer and elk used to seek refuge in. Now there are far fewer "primitive areas".

The biggest change I have seen is the numbers of elk. As the elk herd grew, the deer numbers dwindled. Very few areas with a solid elk herd have many deer left. I prefer elk meat and elk hunting to deer, but wonder if we maybe should not have a few areas in the state where elk are not the primary prey.

Should we hammer the elk herd in select areas, and push for a deer healthy habitat? And no I am NOT talking another LE area. I do not know what the answer is, it is certainly not any of these things individually, but rather a combination of all and maybe a few things we have not thought of. I wish some of our beloved org's would step up to the plate for our deer. Right now it seems like elk are the cash cow and to heck with the deer.
 
Numbers are definately down. Absolutely no question! I took a horseback ride a couple of weeks ago up behind my house and ran into quite a few does (probably close to 200). The crazy thing is, out of all those does there was one (1) little forked horn buck. Not another buck there. Not even one that had shed. I think you're right on all accounts but there's probably multiple factors. I do think our habitat has improved but the pressure hasn't.


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-09 AT 05:14PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-09 AT 05:13?PM (MST)

Hunter harvest does not affect mule deer in Utah. Just ask our biologist...

Deer numbers in Northern Utah on public land are pathetic.

The one acception is the archery only area and that must be due to all of the great habitat projects and predator control the Wasatch front receives...NOT!

The Wasatch and our handful of LE units are the only places in the state that are affected by hunter harvest I guess.

They're selling out of tags and sadly I think that's all that matters.
 
Good points Prism,

On the wasatch front harvest is limited by terrain and weapon type, and on the LE units by tag #'s. Either way, harvest is reduced. It really is a no brainer, but are we all really prepared to not hunt deer every year? It will take a pretty radical reduction in permits for a few years to help. I would gladly stop hunting deer for a few years to help the herd. I did not hunt deer last year and if I don't draw my LE permit, probably won't hunt them again this year.

Maybe we could give Ducks Unlimited a few more elk tags to auction off to cover the loss of income from the deer permits we cut!!! (Sarcasm intended)
 
I'm always a sucker to read these endless "where have the deer gone" posts.

I disagree with some of the thoughts here. I don't think hunters are any more successful or effective at killing than they were 3 decades ago. Ask some old timers how many deer they'd kill a year, party hunting was rampant. Look at the success rates - about the same. Look at the tag numbers - a lot less. I don't know exact numbers but I'll bet hunter days afield are more. (We wouldn't be having this discussion if hunters felt they were more successful than they were in the 60's) Our deer herds have had far more pressure in years past. Maybe there is too much pressure for the amount of bucks we have, but shooting bucks alone will not stop overall population growth. The herds have stopped growing for a different reason.

I disagree that there are too many doe tags. Very few doe tags are issued in comparison to the size of the herd and is pale compared to how many buck tags are out there. If I remember right fewer than 2000 doe tags were issued in 08. If there are 200,000 does, we aren't even shooting 1%. I'm sure we lose far more on the roads. The anterless population should be rebounding far above 1% every year with new fawns. There has to be another reason besides too many anterless tags.

I use to feel habitat improvement was the key, I'm starting to have my doubts on this. I agree there are a lot of areas that still have good habitat, but have seen a decrease in numbers regardless.

The only thing left is preditors as far as I can tell. If our government trappers operated like they did in the 60's (kill cougars full time, year round) we'd see our herds increase by at least 25%/yr. and we'd see a higher percentage of bucks.

my $20.00
 
Some observations:

1. It is certainly true that many more bucks were killed in the 60's, the highpoint of mule deer populations in most states, and success rates were certainly much higher. That is the wrong statistic to look at. What matters is what percentage of the bucks are being harvested during the season, particularly mature bucks. Buck/doe ratios are much lower today than in the past, with the exception of Colorado. Most states average around 15/100 does. We kill less bucks today, but we kill a higher percentage of the overall buck population. The second factor is that there is much more pressure on the mature buck portion of the deer herd than in the 60's for a number of reasons, better access, better equipment, and more hunters that target mature animals.

2. The elk versus deer argument is getting old. I would certainly agree that elk moving into an area will temporarily relocate deer, but there is absolutely no research or evidence that I can find that an increasing elk herd causes mortality in Mule Deer. One theory I came across that has some validity is that a significant elk herd provides an alternative prey species when deer populations plummet, allowing predator numbers to remain high. This could be a factor in Oregon, given our extremely low deer numbers in some units, but I don't see any evidence that deer numbers have dropped to the point that predators need to target other species in Utah. The other point I would make here is that Colorado has more than twice as many elk as any other state, and considerably more mule deer than any other state. Pretty solid evidence that elk do not negatively impact deer populations to any significant extent.

3. It is my observation that habitat is only an issue when a big game population is close to the management objective. When populations are considerably under objective, as is the case with most herds in the west, it is hard to make the case for habitat being the limiting factor. In Oregon, where the mule deer population is now less than 40% of the historic high in the early 60's, I will flatly state that habitat is not a limiting factor in any mule deer unit in the state. Are there very small, local areas where conditions can lead to habitat degradation? Sure. Do those conditions exist across large portions of any of our units? Not a chance.

4. I would submit that in some cases, the building of houses in subdivisions in what was formally mule deer winter range is actually providing a benefit. It is a fact that the biggest bucks you will see in Central Oregon will be in Sunriver, Black Butte, Sisters, the outskirts of Bend, etc. These bucks aren't hunted, and are available to breed does during the first estrus cycle. That is not the case on much of the public land that is hunted.

Scoutdog
 
This is easy and Silent Stalker and Scoutdog5 hit it dead on.

Hunters are the problem. Why are LIMTED ENTRY units so good? Why is the Extended Wasatch Archery Hunt so good even though it is feet away from Salt Lake City?

Because the hunters are limited!

Some will argue predators are the problem. Really? Bears, cougars, and tons of coyotes in the Book Cliffs can't hold down the deer population. Years ago when the Book Cliffs were shut down to hunting for a few years the deer population took off. It is still one of the best places to hunt for a good 4 point and thus it takes 7 years or more to draw a tag. Deer populations in our limited entry hunts are amazing because there are very few hunters. Period.



"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
I live in Northern Utah and in 2007 they gave out a grand total
of 2 or maybe 3 building permits. This area has had little or no growth in the past 100+ years. In fact, it may have went down in population!!

The deer herd is in horrible shape. Over hunting is the number
1 cause IMO. The other things listed do have an effect as well.
But, I still believe this is the main cause.

The fact is the UDWR does not care THAT much about deer. Elk
take priority and I am sure that the majority of the people that live in Northern Utah would agree to me.

This is a never ending debate and I guess I got suckered into it once again :)
 
It is a never ending debate, but here is why I brought it up.

1: I do not buy the Loss of Habitat argument.

2: I think some changes HAVE to be made.


The groups that we all support: SFW, MDF, RMEF....
Are all focused on HABITAT RESTORATION. Most of the money goes towards it.

I think we as members need to get them refocused on other things, I am not sure what those other things are, but I really do not believe it is a Habitat issue.
 
bowhunt,

It is no secret numbers are down. We all know it. Predators have been in check, habitat has been saved and restored, and projects continue to be done and completed. The numbers do not reflect the changes like they should and the deer still struggle. Until tag numbers are cut it wont change enough to matter.

Do you wanna know what pisses me off to no end? Utah had the perfect opportunity to make sweeping changes this year and they DID NOTHING!!!!

I get so fed up with the Utah hunter's entitlement attitude I could puke. If Utah proposes tag cuts all you hear is how good Utah is, how the family outing is in jeopardy, and how they want opportunity to "get out" and dont care if they shoot anything. Then every year we see a couple of decent bucks taken and the rest have dinks in the bed of the truck. Then like clock work we go over this again the following year.

I will get a central tag this year and it can rot in the gun safe while I go out of state. This subject ruins my chance to "get out" cuz it sucks so bad staying home and watching Gilligan's Island re-runs sound more fun to me.

I feel better now. :)
 
BTW, Colorado has habitat loss and there are so many deer that the deer lay on people's lawns and eat the grass. I wonder why their deer dont die because a house was built?
 
aspen,

you seem to contradict yourself. the wasatch front limits hunters??? actually its not a draw area and its open aug-dec. there are no shortage of hunters on the wasatch.

there have been some draw areas that have not succeeded. remember the browse unit, bumblebee, comanche? why were they taken out?

there are more bucks on limited entry, but not necessarily more does.

why does the overall population not grow.

deer multiply quickly. if ut has 200,000 does, why cant we be up to 400,00 deer in 2 years?

obviously there would be more bucks if everyone on this website stopped shooting them. why doesn't the herd grow in general?
 
I believe in Northern Utah the largest component to the equation is hard winters. If the snow gets deep and stays deep then the following spring you will find dead deer everywhere. I am a big fan of starting feeding programs early when there is large snowfall.
 
Two areas I used to see the most deer were areas that had been clearcut in the previous 3 years and areas that had been chained in the previous 10 years. Those practices helped the deer population and as far as I know, are not done anymore. I think clearcutting is gone for good. Chaining might have a chance.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-09 AT 10:14AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-09 AT 10:11?AM (MST)



Just a few comments on aspenadventures post for the sake of a good discussion:

1 - Limited entry units are good because of the higher percentage of mature bucks which increases the trophy quality. Total herd numbers are still down in those units.
Limiting hunters increases the numbers of mature bucks, not the herd size. Does should only be taken in areas of herd overpopulation. Does are breeders and needed to increase the herd size.

2 - When the bookcliffs were closed to hunting: a lot of predator control was done to give the herd a jump start toward recovery. Predator control is very very effective at helping a deer herd recover when that deer herd is well below habitat carrying capacity.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
Pro,

Nice Post thanks.
Can you please help us all understand why the efforts to restore habitat, create a Mule Deer plan...have all done nothing.

Why are the numbers still down, and not improving?
 
Someone needs to tell me why the Utah DWR is more focused on elk, than deer. I don't get it. Utah gives out thousands upon thousands of deer tags, but only a fraction of the elk tags(big bull) So obviously there are more deer hunters a year than LE elk hunters. So why should the majority take it up the a.. for the minority?

Feel free to correct my line of thinking.
 
Habitat, hunters, predators, Elk and public/private production oriented programs are all factors in the deer populations in Utah. These factors are interrelated, and in my opinion, it is the relationship between these factors that is misunderstood.

Here are some facts.

1. At one time we had thriving deer populations, plentiful hunting opportunities and extensive public/private production oriented policies simultaneously on our public lands here in Utah.

2. Most of us would be tickled to death to have the deer numbers, permit numbers and deer herd stability we had at that time.

3. Predators were strictly controlled.

and

4. Elk were not prevalent.

So, what is different now?

1. Predator numbers have increased. It is estimated that an adult lion can kill up to four deer a month. If that estimate is anywhere close to true, one lion is responsible for the loss of close to fifty deer a year- amazing.

2. We sell fewer deer permits. Cutting permit numbers to a fraction of what they once were has not produced an increase in deer numbers. There was a time in Utah when there was massive hunting pressure, but deer numbers managed to stay strong. This leads me to believe that hunting pressure is not the root of the problem.

3. Elk are everywhere. When elk were introduced, we brought the elk, but we just dumped them into our existing resources without compensating for their eating habits. This is like adopting ten kids and thinking your grocery bill will not go up.

4. Finally, habitat. Unfortunately, environmentalist wackos and many biologists, hunters and sportsmen organizations don't get it when it comes to habitat- very arrogant thing to say, I know. But none the less, I believe it is true.

The reason we were able to have massive deer herds, ample hunting opportunities and public/private production oriented programs on public land simultaneously is because of the massive infusion of resources by these public/private production driven programs. The flourishing deer herds were a byproduct of these policies.

Before these management practices, there was some great hunting, but only because of the small hunter numbers. As deer numbers increased due to production oriented policies, hunting became more popular and hunter numbers increased.

This is when the environmental wacko movement started to take over. The underlying motivation for this movement was that the earth should be returned to its natural state. This meant getting rid of any type of production management.

The concept of returning the earth to its natural state is misguided. Most of the state of Utah is essentially a desert. In its natural state, (before white man), it provided enough game for a few thousand natives to subsist.

Yes cattle and sheep herds came in and grubbed what there was to the ground, but there wasn't much there to start with. It was only when public/private production oriented groups stepped in and started large scale improvement projects that we saw the large increase in deer numbers.

When public policy changed from managing public lands for productivity to returning the land to its natural state, the forests became less productive, deer numbers started to fall and everything started to fall apart.

The reality is we will never see the deer herd numbers we saw in the hay day of Utah deer hunting until we see the investment put into public lands that we saw at that time.

The only problem is that this type of investment is a hundred, maybe a thousand, times larger than what we are seeing at present.

Sportsmen organizations do good work on habitat, but unfortunately all the work they do is almost imperceptible compared to the resources invested during the public/private production oriented era. In addition, improvement projects today are over regulated providing less bang for the buck.

The reality is that those of us who got to experience some of the mule deer hay days in Utah were the beneficiaries of a massive investment in public lands by a public/private production oriented policy.

As public/private production oriented policies have continued to disappear from public lands, the land has become less productive.

In the process we aggravated the problem with the addition of elk and the spread of predators.

It is my opinion that we will never see the deer numbers we saw during the hay day of Utah deer hunting again, because we are unwilling to admit that they were the result of public/private production oriented policies which infused unparalleled amounts of resources into the public lands- far more than we will ever invest through voluntary contributions.
 
Okay I'll play devil's advocate. If the best way to increase the deer herd is to limit hunters. Are SFW, MDF, and RMEF actually hurting the herds by fighting to increase hunting opportunities while focusing their efforts on habitat.

I'm not saying I believe this, just posing a question.

Grizzly
 
>Add Wildfire Prevention to the list.
> Wildfires spur the growth
>of aspens, which young fawns
>need to thrive.
>
>Don't forget global warming and George
>W. Bush as main causes
>of decline either.

Wildfire Prevention also goes hand in hand with prescribed fire. Utah does alot of control fire plots and we all know that new regrowth= better habitat
 
SMELLYBUCK, you say I contradict myself and I can see what you are talking about. However, is it a stretch to say that archery hunters don't have a huge impact on deer. I know we all understand that success rates on archery hunts is much lower than rifle and there are less hunters on the archery hunts. I would say that LIMITS the amount of hunting occuring in an area where there is NO HABITAT for the winter.

Shut down hunting for one year and see what happens to the deer herds. I'm guessing but I would venture to say that we harvest 30,000 animals each year. We would have 30,000 more animals each year if we did not hunt.

Many others have brought up predator control. I agree, but hunting is the main problem. We should control the predators but I have hunted in many places in Colorado where there are a LOT of predators. There are bear everywhere and it seems a lot like the Book Cliffs of Utah. The predators are there but there is a great population of deer. Why? Can't be the 4 legged predators. Unless the deer are in what they call a "Predator Pit" in wildlife biology, then predators are not the problem, hunters are.

Look at the Henrys, lots of cougar, lots of deer. We need to follow in the footsteps of Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, etc., and make smaller units to control the areas better. Making 5 units the size of Rhode Island is not really effective at managing anything.

The guy that said Utah had a chance to make some real change this year and did NOTHING! I agree 1000% Is it really that difficult to figure out how to manage deer when every neighboring state we have is kicking our trash at it?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Habitat!

Bucks don't give birth to fawns.

The Wasatch Front does well for quality, but it and the Premium Limited Entry units are NOT models of success for how to obtain higher numbers of deer. In fact, just the opposite is the case. The Henries does indeed produce world class trophy bucks, but the herd is NOT exploding population wise, despite getting the lions share of habitat projects and as intense predator control as anywhere in the west. Too many bucks hurts a herds ability to replenish, just as too little quality habitat is by far the number one limiting factor. The deer on the Wasatch Front are misleading, their 'winter range' is people's back yards, do we really want to model that throughout the state?

I also believe ATV's and their increased use in areas that affect deer in adverse ways coupled with increased highways fracturing migratory routes have had negative impacts on deer populations. Limiting the harvest of bucks in MOST parts of Utah will do little/nothing to help population numbers. Improving habitat through prescribed burns, pinion juniper removal, and replanting forbes that sustain deer are crucial and mandatory in order to have serious impacts on improving deer populations in Utah.

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
Pro,

Please help me understand the low number of mule deer
in Rich County. According to your "theory", it would be
loss of habitat. Is this correct?
 
Not just lost habitat, harsh winters/droughts can have dire effects on mule deer. Also, I think a lot of people mistake poor habitat as ground turned into developments. Fire suppression prevents new browse from replacing old browse. Older browse loses its value to deer. One needs to look closely at the vegetation and see if it is of value to mule deer, not just look and see brush and grass and assume it is substantive feed.

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
I am going to throw a few of my thoughts in the mix. I'm obviously not a biologist, and know nothing about why the deer aren't exploding in numbers, but I can make some comparisons from now and the good old days as some call them.


I wasn't there in the 60's, but I don't think there were as many seasons as there are now. I haven't heard anyone talk about a muzzleloader hunt back then, and only rarely hear of anyone that archery hunted. Most of the deer were killed on the rifle hunt, and or poached at various other times of the year.

Now we have several seasons that stretch from August, to November in most areas of the state. I don't know what effect that would have, other than it gives hunters many more days to kill these animals.

The other thing I see now that I don't believe we saw in the 60's is the sheer volume of high speed traffic along the highways. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe there are many millions of vehicles traveling highway 89 each year, and there are many more deer dying from cars than there used to be. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Most of the deer I see on the roadside dead, are does and fawns. I live on the border of the Paunsaugunt and we really do lose hundreds of deer on this highway each year.


The last thing I see now that you didn't see in the 60's is the amount of predators. I've personally seen 2 coyotes chase and kill deer just in the last year. I've also seen a lion chase a deer a few years ago. I've seen 9 lions here in So. Utah in the last several years, and yes that's without dogs, and just while I've been in the woods or traveling down the highway. The old timers I visit with in my taxidermy shop say it was quite rare to see a lion back then, and coyotes were much more rare then as well, due to the poison used to control them.


Now I know this is not scientific information. It's just a few observations I've made. I understand that habitat is important, but I also wonder this: There are literally millions of acres of winter range in Utah that haven't a deer on them during the winter. I drive the Pauns winter range during the winter and late fall, and see very small numbers of deer there compared to just 20 years ago. Miles of sage and bitterbrush with no deer.

How can we distribute the deer and get them to utilize these areas? Does that happen when the population increases and displaces them, pushing them out to other areas they normally don't use?

Well, I've wasted enough time for today. Long live the Mule Deer!
 
I don't know squat about the specifics in Utah, but I've got to believe we're all pretty similar. We often mention predators, but there's a deal I call the "hierarchy of predation." When I was a kid, we could shoot all hawks and owls on sight. (Until 1964 ??) There were hardly any coyotes and we shot every hawk or owl we saw. And there were literally jillions (the hugest number - :)) of rabbits. Every coyote had plenty to eat, but we had 1080 and the coyotes were scarce. Lions were nonexistent, as were eagles.

Now we have lots of predators and very few rabbits. Every predator is trying to catch them. I saw 16 eagles in one spot the other day. With all of these predators and few rabbits, the predators just move up the food chain. They now eat lots more mule deer and are especially hard on fawns. I've seen eagles take antelope more than once and deer, too. I even think we have fewer mice, so it all starts low on the food chain, and it puts pressure on the mule deer.

I feel like this is another factor that makes it tough for deer to recover from low populations.

Not sure this is real relevant to this Utah deal, but I think it is one more factor that makes it tough on mule deer.

I know we are re-hashing old turf, but it is good conversation and I apprecaite hearing what folks think.
 
I just do not buy the habitat argument.
Like I said earlier, from the early 80s until now there has been NO habitat change at all in the areas I hunt. NONE.
However the change in the Deer population is incredible.

Whey can't we just try NOT having Antlerless hunts for a few years. I bet you would start seeing a difference in herd numbers.

I agree with PRO on one thing, we have to have females to make males. Killing bucks is not the cause of low deer numbers.
 
I would say that cougar's aside, the coyote causes to the most damage to the deer herds, when you are talking predators. Coyotes do not get near the credit they deserve.
 
Bowhunt, is the sage and other habitat worth anything? what Pro is saying is the habitat is aging, there for not producing the browse it used to. fire suppression the main culprit i would think.
 
IMO you need to go smaller units. It happens alot were we hunt you get bad weather, and so you get 200 to 300 more hunters out were we hunt and it puts alot of pressure on the deer and the bucks get wiped out. in 05 the deer scouting was good we seen alot of good bucks we got some really bad weather and our area had cleanup on good bucks.I think if you hunt nebo nephi canyon and over into birdseye then that were you should hunt its just an example.I know in colorado when we drew we were albe to hunt unit 4,5,6. on the map it looked small but it was pretty big. And when a unit has had a bad winter kill you can limit the amout of tags for that unit.
 
Pro, I usually agree with you but come on.

We have huge habitat issues in the Deep Creeks? By Delta? By Filmore? By the Booke Cliffs? By the Henries?

These habitats are much the same as they have been for a long time.

Stop hunting and see what happens to the deer herd? I wonder what would happen? Why do we all want the LIMITED ENTRY tags? Perhaps because they LIMIT THE HUNTERS and INCREASED amount of deer.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
I can prove my point on hunting pressure very easily!

Ever been hunting on PUBLIC ground and the hunting sucks? Then go across the fence onto private property and what do you see? EXACTLY!

I was once in Fountain Green. Hunting all day up Log Canyon and saw nothing. Then came down and there were all the deer. ON PRIVATE GROUND where there were NO HUNTERS. There were 2 bucks over 30 inches in that group. THEY WERE WHERE THE HUNTERS WEREN'T.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
AspenAdventures, people apply for LE tags for the quality of bucks, NOT the quantity of deer. The Henry deer herd is not doing any better population wise than the general season areas in the southern half of the state.

Of coourse the bucks are were less pressure is, but that has NOTHING to do with overall sustained deer populations. Winter ranges are critical, and MOST winter ranges in Utah/the west are suffering. Either they are gone or they have aged to the point of having poor nutritional value or they have been taken over by invasive grasses/brush/trees such as cheat grass and pinion juniper.

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
"Of coourse the bucks are where less pressure is, but that has NOTHING to do with overall sustained deer populations. Winter ranges are critical, and MOST winter ranges in Utah/the west are suffering. Either they are gone or they have aged to the point of having poor nutritional value or they have been taken over by invasive grasses/brush/trees such as cheat grass and pinion juniper."

Pro hit it right on the head.

The real question is what to do about it. Current levels of improvements are grossly inadequate compared to the improvements we saw 30 years ago.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-09 AT 12:09PM (MST)[p]How dare some of you claim that habitat is not the problem. Utah has some of the prettiest habitat west of the mississippi.No other state grows more, and better habitat than Utah. You might not find a doe turd, or a buck track on that habitat, but by hell Utah is a habitat growing state. Heck, just last year when the sun came up on opening morning, I found my self smack dab in the middle of some killer habitat.....there wasn't a deer to speak of, but the habitat was simply second to none. We need to continue to sell off our premium tags so we can continue to be a leader in habitat. Some states grow Big deer, while others grow big elk but Utah will forever go down in history as growing the biggest and baddest habitat in the west.

Seriously, If I hear this habitat card played one more time I'm going to puke! KTC, deerbedead, prism and others have really nailed down the real issues affecting our mule deer and it aint habitat.

This is worth repeating;very well said.

>If you think this decline is just, or mostly, habitat related, >well you drank the government cool aid
>Trust your own judgement. Trust what you see in the field. I >wish more Americans were independent thinkers.
 
Here is my take LE units suck!

PRO is always right!
Don?t argue with the PRO!
The PRO knows his stuff!

I would also like to add
I believe who ever posted his theory of hawk?s, eagles and coyote numbers being up and rabbit numbers being down.

Vehicles are next to take their toll

Cats have an effect! Units that have high deer numbers are also units that have low cougar numbers. Bookcliffs is a great example. Average cat killed on that unit is 1.5 years old. Where any given general deer unit in this state has a lot of older age cats in them. Old age cats will equals a pyramid effect with loads of younger cats!

Next look at the trend in vehicles. More cars and roads equal more collisions with deer.

Now look at off road vehicles. In the 70?s we didn't have four wheeler trails on every ridge wide enough for a rino!

Weapons We have bows that can touch a deer out to over a 100 yards easy in the right hands, muzzle loaders can reach out to 400 yards, and rifles can reach out to 1000+++ ask stinkey. Is it ethical?

Last but not least we USED TO HAVE our 200,000 deer hunters spread out across this entire state. If you wanted a big buck you either got on a horse, or packed you big but into remote areas where you could earn a big buck. Now days we only have 90,000 hunters packed into these small little areas where the deer get slammed and the rest of the state is managed where only a few guys can hunt them. We manage our herds on these units for fat, lazy, old, young, women, and handicap accessible terrain. Where they are guaranteed a four point if they can lay off the trigger on the first two point that presents a shot.

In the real world things are not fare, not every one is rich, not every one is successful, so why should deer hunting be turned into a social program where you are guaranteed a big buck.

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-09 AT 02:46PM (MST)[p]Man I try my best to stay away from these posts...

I agree that habitat has changed. Range conditions for the most part aren't what they were-due to lack of fires, under/over grazing, weed infestation, loss of winter range, elk grazing, etc....

Habitat is essential for the longterm health of our deer-I get it!

All of that being said I'm sick of habitat being the main argument. Habitat is a great and worthy cause to rally the troops behind, but it's also a lot of job "security" for much of our federal/state govt and it's used too often as an excuse for piss poor deer management. So is over predation, drought, and a myriad of other limiting factors that we "often" don't have ANY CONTROL over.

The one thing we CAN control is hunter harvest-be it by seasons, weapons, hunter numbers, etc...

Once again Utah's Wasatch Front extended archery area is a PRIME EXAMPLE of this. There is NO winter range, there is NO habitat projects, there is NO predator control. There is A LOT of opportunity for A LOT of hunters because hunter success rates are SO LOW! GO FIGURE!

The catch here is those making the decisions make their living off of SELLING deer tags. The last thing they want to do is sell fewer deer tags. They're going to point their fingers every which way they can, show you studies, numbers, graphs, etc..whatever they can to keep jobs secure and bosses happy.

I've got lots more to say but it'll have to wait-gotta run.
 
I believe the habitat has changed in a variety of ways.
One relatively inexpensive and quick fix for some habitat help: CHAINING. One chained area in the Book Cliffs we used to hunt had TONS of deer in it until the trees got several feet tall. Nothing after that, NOTHING. During rifle season, the deer inhabit completely different areas than they used to. Why?
 
I agree ktg. Habitat is a major issue, but the way we have been going about it is ridiculous.
The main problem with the LE argument. Everyone wants less tags sold, unless of course, its their tag.
 
If it were up to me we would kill the cougars, poison the coyotes open up a hawk season since we don't have any pheasants to hunt. I hear hawk taste like chicken anyways.

Then I would make the whole state a draw unit for rifle and muzzle loaders.

Then I would make the whole state including le units open to archery tackle over the counter tags and no limit. I would also do this for the elk units also. The heck with the spike tags.

Go with what works like prism says. Wasatch front works so why mess with success! This would also make the rifle tags at the auctions sell for a million's of dollars and we could fix the so called problems with habitat.

I am so sick of these threads and what people think should happen. All they do is get me riled up. I am sure you people are also sick of what I think. The only way we as hunters can get anything done is pad the pockets of the wildlife board members. As for the division of wildlife, they just seem to be another failed government program where they get raises, new vehicles, better uniforms, and never get anything done.



Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
"Once again Utah's Wasatch Front extended archery area is a PRIME EXAMPLE of this. There is NO winter range, there is NO habitat projects, there is NO predator control. There is A LOT of opportunity for A LOT of hunters because hunter success rates are SO LOW! GO FIGURE!"

There IS winter range, it's called people's back yards and golf courses. Not exactly what we want to model all winter range after. Also, the deer herd is stable population wise, the herd is NOT exploding, which according to many here would be the case due to the high buck:doe ratio on the front.

Lower buck harvest may/may not result in bigger bucks available on a given range, but it has little/no impact on population numbers. The aforementioned Wasatch Front and the L/E units are proof that killing fewer bucks does NOT result in more deer! In fact the Henry and Paunsagaunt L/E units are not growing population wise as fast the general season areas, even with piles of habitat work done their. Why? Because of abnormally high buck:doe ratios, and predators.

Balance is the key, and habitat IS the overwhelming factor in deer populations. Bucks do NOT have fawns each spring, so how in the hell does more bucks on a range result in more deer? More feed results in more does, more does results in more fawns, more fawns results in more deer. It starts with FEED!

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
.....More does equals more fawns, more fawns equals more feed........yes, more feed, for more coyotes. Wait a minute, maybe I am confused?
 
PRO,
Ask Anus what the numbers are for the Wasatch front. I think it will surprise you. I looked at them a month or so ago and they have increased every year. You are right, it's winter range but those deer hang out up in those nasty cliffs until really late in the season. Then you see them running down Park City main street. Just drive from Jeremy Ranch to Heber during the winter months and look at all the road kill. There is a pretty dense population of deer. I didn't pay attention to the buck to doe ratio but the deer numbers have gone up every year. There is also a CWMU on the Wasatch Front that is inundated by deer. I think the Wasatch Front is a pretty good example of a good unit due to limited kill and pressure.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
So who in the west right now or midwest has the best divison of wildlife programs is it Wyoming,Colorado,Idaho who does the best job with habitat, predator control, IMO Colorado still does the best job for Deer.
 
Pro,

I agree that habitat-feed, cover, etc... is super duper important for the LONG TERM health of our deer herds.

I think that (most) all of us would agree that there isn't as much good habitat in Utah as there was even 5 years ago. I know that around Heber we're losing thousands of acres of winter range every year.

The Southern part of the state seems to be holding its own when compared to the northern half.

Wouldn't common sense tell one that if less habitat equals fewer deer then we should have fewer permits? Or atleast reduce the harvest?

There are a ton of creative ways to reduce harvest and still offer opportunity. The only reason I point out the extended area is because it does just that-and no, I don't want the whole state to be archery only. I just use it as an example of how much pressure a deer herd can handle when it doesn't have the continued overharvesting that we see on most of our general units.

I DO NOT want to see Utah hunters lose more opportunity, but I do want healthy deer herds, and I think healthy deer herds contain mature bucks.

Sure a young buck with milk dripping from his lips can breed plenty of does, but he's not going to get around to them all when they need to be bred-the first time. Not to mention the lack of genetic diversity from one buck doing the breeding, fawns being born late, lack of social structure, wearing the "lucky" buck down due to overbreeding, etc... Healthy deer herds contain mature bucks and the lack of mature bucks in most of northern Utah on public land is ALARMING!

I think pretty much everyone would agree that human hunting is the quickest way to reduce deer numbers. Wouldn't it make sense that limiting human harvest would be the quickest way to increase deer numbers?

Longterm I understand the habitat issues, but I think we need to do something NOW with our deer in the northern part of the state.

If the 5 day rifle deal in the Southern part of the state didn't work then why in the world do they now think it's going to work in the areas with low buck to doe ratios??? What's up with that?

I think it helped, and I think it will likely help these new 5 day areas. But, what's going to happen to these displaced hunters the rest of the hunt? Are other areas going to be overharvested?

What happens if there's a big storm and deer are pushed to the winter ranges like they were a few years ago and thousand upon thousands of hunters can access them? The herds around Heber haven't recovered from the last big snow hunt, last winter took a huge toll on the herds especially on the central side of the valley. And we're increasing tag numbers again???!!!

The Cache unit is probably one of the sadest deals in western hunting. It has some of the best genetics in the world, some of the most amazing habitat on God's green earth and it's in SHAMBLES mainly because of OVERHARVESTING. What do we expect when one region receives around 20,000 tags and every single one of those tags can hunt the Cache if they want to.

There are always going to be a handful of big bucks harvest all over Utah. Shoot, there's going to be a handful of big bucks killed in every state-even California produced a 260" buck last year. But, in my opinion the public land in northern Utah isn't even a shadow anymore of its true potential-it's a joke!

I understand it's a balancing act for the DWR. Deer tags equal revenue. There's a lot of great people that work for the DWR and a lot of their income comes inpart from the selling of deer tags.

I just think it's time to come up with some creative ways to offer hunter opportunity, lower harvest, and keep the funds flowing...

I'm done with this post. I realize there isn't ONE easy answer and that in reality it's much more complex than we can hash out on the Interent.

I really don't mean to offend anyone and understand that the reason this discussion always gets heated is because we're all passionate and concerned about our deer herds.
 
Wow have to jump in here I guess..

Been hunting lions on the Bookcliffs for 29 years not many around nowdays.
Twenty years ago lot of lions lot of deer.
Dwr changed the the unit from a four point or better to three point then open, along with does hunts on the winter range deer herd crashed.
Closed the unit, whacked the lions, deer came back somewhat not even close to what it used to be. It was an improvement though.

Had rut hunts right off the bat when it was opened killed some big big bucks, big impact, stopped that it helped some.
ADC has been pounding the coyotes for years helping I dont know.

Looked at some old photos last winter ADC hunters making 10-80 bait balls to drop from planes on the the mountains Henrys, Bookcliffs etc. This was in the late fities just before the deer herds boomed.

What is the answer dont know maybe a C 130 loaded with poision baits?
Were the high deer numbers of the early 70's artificial due to poisoning efforts?
93 year old Grandfather said deer were not plentiful when he was a boy.

When someone really figures it out this might get boring. Till then I will open a cold one and watch the show
Mulehound.
 
Mulehound,

"93 year old Grandfather said deer were not plentiful when he was a boy."

It is true. Utah's native habitat does not support huge numbers of deer. Everyone seems to think that the deer numbers in the sixties etc. were just a natural occurrence. They weren't. They were the result of huge range improvements spawned by production oriented policy.

If we want to ever see anywhere near the type of deer numbers we saw in the sixties, we are going to have to return to the large scale range improvement policies of the sixties.

If we are unwilling or unable to restore and maintain that scale of range improvements, we are going to have to be content with lower deer numbers.

If we are content with small deer herds and still want mature bucks, the only solution is limited permits.

Predator control helps deer numbers in any situation.
 
Can someone fill me in on what production oriented policy means? Do you mean running more cattle on the hill? Poising predators? Water troughs? I have seen old pictures in Cache Valley of feeding operations in the winter for hundreds of mule deer. Any information to get me up to speed on the policies during the 50's and 60's that brought success (meaning exactly what did they do to make the land so productive) would be appreciated.
 
Pro,

Thanks for the paper. Well written for the most part.

Just a couple of things.

From the paper:

"Mule deer numbers in the CPE prior to the 1900s are difficult
to assess because reports are purely anecdotal. Diaries and
reports of early explorers and settlers suggest mule deer were
widespread and commonly encountered in the CPE during
the 1800s (Denney 1976, Carmony and Brown 2001, Gill et
al. 2001). Deer populations were reduced to very low levels
during the late 1800s and early 1900s because of unregulated
hunting (Julander 1962, Robinette et al. 1977, Brown and
Carmony 1995, Gill et al. 2001). Mule deer populations
began recovering by the 1930s following the advent of game
laws and perhaps changing habitat conditions and intensive
predator control. One common theory suggests that
excessive livestock grazing in combination with drought
conditions favored a conversion of many grasslands to
shrub-dominated habitats, favoring an increase in mule deer
(Julander 1962, Julander and Low 1976, Urness 1976,
Robinette et al. 1977, Austin and Urness 1998). Liberal
predator control practices during the early-mid 1900s and
restrictive deer harvest may have facilitated a rapid increase
in deer once habitat conditions became amenable. Whatever
the mechanism, mule deer numbers increased dramatically
during the 1940s, reaching historic highs (Julander 1962,
Workman and Low 1976, Gill et al. 2001). Populations
remained high overall through the 1950s and early 1960s."

I think it is a large oversight to ignore the large scale range improvement programs of the era as a major factor in the increase in deer numbers. The author openly admits he does not know exactly the reason for the increases- "Whatever the mechanism." I think large scale range improvement programs must be factored in.

Nutrition requirements are one of those areas where we can get distracted in my opinion. Yes, differing animals have different preferences, but the reality is, all ruminants thrive on high quality forages. The range improvements implemented during this period were intended for cattle, but the deer benefited from them.
 
All great stuff!
Habitat and Range the key to more deer...hmm.

Let me go back to my first post:

-The Habitat has not changed in 30 years.
-There is still grazing, water improvement on the land
-The winter habitat is the same.

I agree that habitat is an issue that needs addressed...however
We cannot do enough to make a difference
I do not buy it is the most important issue.

I do not buy that our habitat is at it's carrying capacity, and that is what many of you are saying.
If the deer cannot recover due to poor habitat, then you are saying we are at the carrying capacity...I just do not buy it.
 
WC,

"Can someone fill me in on what production oriented policy means? Do you mean running more cattle on the hill? Poising predators? Water troughs?"

When I refer to production oriented policies, I am referring to a mindset that human involvement can positively effect public lands. This is in opposition to the environmental wacko theory that the "natural state" is best- even if the natural state is blow sand.

This may include running cattle on the hill, but just running cattle on the hill is not necessarily production oriented in this sense. If you just turn cattle or elk or whatever out on the range and don't look back you're just using existing resources. Production oriented policy means taking steps to improve existing resources so the range is more productive than before.

Some of the production oriented policies I am referring to included large scale chaining and reseeding projects, water improvements, predator control, fires, timber harvesting and others.

In addition to what the policies were, it was the scope of the policies. Many of these practices were carried out on a scale a thousand times larger than anything we are seeing today.
 
Thanks for the feedback on my question.I agree that the natural state is not always the best state for the land. Would everyone agree that the big pertinent issue is WINTER WINTER WINTER and the factors surrounding it? From my experience their is more feed on the mountains than could ever be consumed by our current deer herds during the summer months. Deer die in large numbers when they are standing up to their chest in snow for months on end. I hunted in west Box Elder county for much of my life and I remember as a child seeing huge herds of deer all over the mountain and it all ended with a terrible winter. It is my opinion that you need to treat deer like a large herd of livestock meaning when you are in jeopardy of loosing a big portion of the herd you take serious feeding action. I would like a portion of liscence revenues to be strictly allocated for feeding programs. I absolutely agree that the notion that nature will always produce the best results is false.
 
WC,

"Would everyone agree that the big pertinent issue is WINTER WINTER WINTER and the factors surrounding it? From my experience their is more feed on the mountains than could ever be consumed by our current deer herds during the summer months. Deer die in large numbers when they are standing up to their chest in snow for months on end."

I totally agree about winter. The only thing I would add is that deer don't have to be standing in snow up to their bellies to be affected. Lack of adequate feed on winter range can be devastating even without huge snow falls.

Another fact is that it is not just mortality rates. Lack of adequate feed during the winter has a big effect on conception. Does in poor health coming out of winter struggle to keep fawns healthy- if they survive at all, and are less likely to breed back.

I believe your statement about summer range is true as well- particularly in areas where the deer summer at high elevations. Maybe not as true is areas where deer inhabit the same general area year round.
 
bowhunt,

The habitat has changed in the last thirty years. Nearly all of the range improvements done thirty years ago have become overgrown with little quality forage left.

"We cannot do enough to make a difference"

The reality is that at one time it was possible. To return to those levels would require a major change in thinking at several levels. I think recognizing that abandoning the range improvement policies of the past have had a large negative effect on deer populations would be a good first step.

WC makes a solid point in his post. Carrying capacity is only as large as winter range capacity.

The other point I would make is that just because you see a big sage brush flat doesn't mean it is good winter range. As mentioned in the article, deer use sage brush but can't survive on it alone.

I know its frustrating because what needs to be done is overwhelming, but I really think the biggest obstacle is just recognizing that the policies of the last couple of decades are flawed.
 
I have seen some nice ranches with very little deer on them.

A new owner comes in, stops hunting the deer, and the deer population explodes.!?

The deer are in a hole explained by the "Predator Pit Hypothesis". The population declined in large part due to some very bad winters in 1993 and a few others since. Utah went from almost 800,000 deer to less than half that. Now the population is being held stable by hunting pressure.

It doesn't take a genius to see that if we let more deer live than die then the population grows.

Seems rather simple! Let some more deer live and have more deer. No, bucks don't make babies. But let more deer live and have more deer. Let more deer live and have more deer. Let more deer live and have more deer.

Let more deer live and have more deer.


Let more deer live and have more deer.


Let more deer live and have more deer.


Let more deer live and have more deer.


Let more deer live and have more deer.

Let more deer live and have more deer.

Let more deer live and have more deer.

Let more deer live and have more deer.

Do you get the point yet?

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Were deer numbers low in the Book Cliffs?
Were there a lot of predators in the Books?
Are there still a lot of predators in the Books?
Is the winter range any different than it was 30 years ago in the Books?

All they did in the Books, despite changing winter range from lack of fire, larege populations of predators that still exist, etc....is STOP HUNTING for 3 or 4 years.

GET IT?


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Aspen,

I don't know much about the book cliffs. Has the overall population increased in the books or just the amount of nice bucks taken? Do you have any numbers?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-09 AT 09:50AM (MST)[p]I can't find good information on the Book Clffs deer population numbers before and after the closure, but since the closure the deer population has stayed pretty stable with a general trend upwards, just like most of the general season units with similar habitat types.

How about NV? They manage like CO on a unit by unit basis with fairly low tag numbers and high post season buck to doe ratios. NV has good buck quality, but their deer numbers continue to decline just like Utah. NV is very sparsely populated and roadkill and development are not very significant issues in most parts of NV.

I wish growing deer populations was as easy as cutting buck tag numbers. I agree 100% that cutting buck tag numbers results in higher buck to doe ratios, better quality, and a smaller number of more satisfied hunters. I have heard/read all the arguments about having more bucks will help in population growth.

I really liked Adam Bronson's article in Huntin Fool a couple years ago entitled "Time for a Change, Mule Deer Management". He made some really good points and brought up some great ideas, but I couldn't find information to back up some of the ideas he shared in the article. I searched through wildlife agency data and published studies and found some stuff that agreed with Adams ideas, and some stuff that contradicted them. It got me thinking and I decided to write up my own findings for Hunting Illustrated ( http://kingsoutdoorworld.v1.myvirtualpaper.com/huntingillustrated/2008010401/en/?page=96 )

As a sportsman, I know what kind of hunting I like, and I would love to see UT managed similarly to CO, but that preference is based on quality, not growing deer numbers.

I almost wish that we could initiate a study in UT and choose a couple big units that have a lot of hunting pressure and have similar habitat types, fawn production, limiting factors, etc, and randomly select one and make it a LE unit (wouldn't it be sweet to see what the Cache, Pine Valley, or Currant Creek units could produce if tags were limited?). Then monitor fawn production and survival on both units using collars and observations and see if higher buck to doe ratios are correlated with increased fawn production and survival. Lets have SFW put some of the conservation tag money into funding a PhD student at USU or BYU to conduct a 5 year study and see if limiting buck tags can grow a deer herd. I know that CO did some similar studies with mixed results, one showed an increase of 7 fawns per 100 does, and the other showed a decrease of 7 fawns per 100 does. I would love to see a study like that done in Utah.

I really wish there was an easy way to grow more mule deer, but I just don't think there is.

Dax
 
Dax,

I think you have a good perspective. I agree completely that cutting buck tags will result in more bucks. No mystery there. To me the mystery is why have we hit a population ceiling when we have such a large base of anterless deer?

There seems to be a lot of disconnect on these posts regarding quality and quantity. A lot of guys thing buck population when the word "herd" is mentioned. The mystery I'd like to crack is quantity alone. Common sense tells me that the population should be growing if the females are largely left alone by hunters, but it is stagnant. I don't understand/agree the argument that buck tags are the reason the overall population doesn't grow.

Last, It's interesting that you mentioned Pine Valley. Pine Valley is the reason I tend to think preditors are a bigger problem than some suspect. My dad grew up in Hurricane and said there were 3 governement trappers in town that killed cougars & coyotes year round. It had excellent deer hunting at the time. When I was a teenager the south side was in limited hunting units and I never had the opportunity to hunt big game there as convenient as it was. I never saw a big buck in all my quail hunts there. There is no winter and development is immaterial; however, the units did not improve from the decreased hunting pressure. It's a mystery to me why there aren't more deer on South Pine Valley. Plenty of food, cover, water, and limited hunting. I'd love to find someone with a reasonable explanation.

smelly
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-09 AT 05:40PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-09 AT 05:19?PM (MST)

>Aspen,
>
>I don't know much about the
>book cliffs. Has the
>overall population increased in the
>books or just the amount
>of nice bucks taken?
>Do you have any numbers?
>

Basically it used to take 4 hours to get to the Book Cliffs from Vernal. Few hunters. Tons of deer. Road was paved and improved. Now takes 1 hour. Roads made on every ridge. DWR gets the bright idea to make it a 3-point or better unit. Tons of hunters decided to try it out " cuz we'll kill a monster 3 point, duh" (now finding a 4x4 buck can be a challenge because they're mostly management bucks with crap for genetics cuz they left all the crappy giant 2 points to do the breeding, but that's another thread) Then DWR decided to make it a free for all. Everyone in Utah hunted there and killed everything. There was one pisscutter left. DWR shut down the unit. After several years they opened it up and "The Book Cliffs was the new Pauns", for a few years. Just like the Pauns, it now sucks compared to what it used to be and could be.
 
Smelly Buck,

I have talked to lots of guys that say the Browse area on the Pine Valley has and does hold tons of lions that keep that deer population down. Great deer country though, ever see pictures of the old "Hunt" buck from that area? Huge!

Something just doesn't add up with our deer numbers. We don't hunt does, and you are right the populations should really grow. I don't think we have a good idea of how many fawns and adult does we actually loose, and I think that we loose a lot of them on summer range to predators. I spend quite a bit of time in the Book Cliffs, the post season fawn to doe ratio out there in Nov/Dec was in the upper 40's, the buck to doe ratio is also in the 40's so all the does are definitely getting bred. If there was no mortality from birth to post season the fawn to doe ratio would probably be something like 120 fawns / 100 does, but we are in the 40's. Almost TWO THIRDS of the fawns are not even making from birth to the beginning of winter! And then we loose some of that last third during the winter.

Maybe pregnancy and birth rates aren't as high as they used to be?? Maybe range conditions are causing does to abort, resorb fetuses, or stop lactating too early? Maybe coyotes, bears, bobcats, etc, are have an all-you-can-eat fawn buffet in the spring/early summer? I don't know what it is, but every year we are loosing from ONE HALF to TWO THIRDS of our fawns on the Book Cliffs before winter even starts!

The numbers vary on other units in the state, but many loose 1/3 to 1/2 of their fawns from birth to the start of winter, and often the units that have higher fawn production also have higher winter losses than units with lower fawn production.

Argh, I have to quit!

Dax
 
Dax,

Thanks for your input. It's good to know there's a few guys thinking within the "company." :)
 
dax,

good info regarding how many fawns make it. its feasible that the ut population could reach 400,000 in a year if 100 fawns to 100 does made it. then we could cut tags if the quality buck problem persisted. i'm convinced the current population growth problem is bigger than buck tags alone. do you think the division will study fawn and anterless mortality more in the future?

sb
 
Deer numbers were at there high in the 60's, what has changed?

1- I-15. The freeway cut the state in two, east and west. The great migrations out of the high country out onto the desert was disrupted by the freeway. Deer were forced to stay in the benches, herding them together to make them easier for predators and disease.

2- Dying forests. Look at the massive loss of aspen. The massive kills of trees due to beetle etc. Whether it is global warming, or sunspot climate cycle, or on coming ice age, the forests are undergoing massive change. It is no secret that the mule deer is perhaps the second most sensitive species(big horn sheep are devistated by disease) so dramatic changes in their habitat are bound to affect them.

3- Evolution. Thats right, survival of the fitest. Whitetail and elk both seem more apt to adapt and thrive than mule deer.

4- Land use. CWMU's and private property have concentrated hunters into smaller areas. The worst deer unit in the state is the northern, which unit has the most CWMUs? Private summer home areas and ranchettes?

5-Us. We love our animals to death. We follow them around all year, hunt them in the fall, film them all winter, shed hunt in the spring. Trail cam them year round. Scout them to death. Mule deer are not real happy with the company, stress makes them very susceptable to disease and miscarrage.

6- UDWR. Elk tags are $65, LE $280+. Deer are half that, what else do you need to know.

I am 35. First deer hunt I was 3 1/2. We killed a lot of deer "back in the day". No one, and I mean no one ever tagged a deer killed the first week of the hunt. Most hunters killed one each weekend. Their were 200,00 hunters. You killed a deer, mom went and bought a tag, killed another, your sister bought one, etc. Wrong or right(we actually ate deer, yes trophy hunters, you can do that, horns actually taste really bad) so the number of deer killed then I would bet dwarfs the numbers killed now. A lot of people killed deer (poached) deer to feed their families year round so I don't think poaching has changed, poachers kill bucks now.
Sadly it has changed and I think the nostalgia makes current conditions seem worse. Remember, school was out on friday and sometimes monday of opening weekend. Thousands of guys headed out. You would pass the same guys camped in the same spots year after year. On the way home you lived to see them horns hanging out of trucks. That was the best 2 weeks of the year. Now it seems more corporate, more about killing and less about the experience,and because of that I think it is easier to see the flaws.
 
Prism

Do you think it would be a good idea to cut rifle tags and increase archery tags?




Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
SW, That would be one way to offer opportunity and cut success rates, but I don't think it's the only way.

Personally I'd like to see success rates lowered by several means-such as access restrictions (ATV use), road closures, shorter seasons, smaller units, and yes maybe even more "primitive weapon" use in some areas.

There are several key roads that could be closed east of Heber in the NE region that would give the deer a fighting chance. Right now with all of the ATVs and hunters it's almost impossible for deer to get any age on him (let alone survive) unless he's lucky enough to hit private before the rifle hunt starts.

It's like this almost everywhere in the state-especially the northern part. There's too much access for the amount of hunters and lack of deer.

I think there's several places in the state that could offer "extended" type archery hunts w/o having a lot of impact on the deer herds and offer a lot of opportunity for hunters. I wouldn't really agree with letting dedicated hunters hunt these areas though. Personally I think the extended areas should be on an unlmited draw, guys that drew would have to stick with the bow in these areas...and not just use it as a "back up" after they've chased animals in other parts of the state for 3 months with the bow, muzzleloader, and rifle.

I not a huge fan of how the dedicated hunter program is currently setup and think it needs an overhaul. It's kind of grown into a cash cow and it doesn't seem like mule deer are seeing as much from the program as they should. I also think it's a lot of the "congestion" problem complained about in so many areas.

I don't think it should be done away with, but it needs changed.

So, I guess my answer is yes and no, and I've probably said enough to piss off a few people for the day. :)
 
Daxter summed it up really well. I agree that cutting tags is not the only solution. I agree that predators do take toooooo many animals.

Someone in an above post asked about the population in the books before compared to now. I don't have an exact study to cite. BUT, I know what it was like before and what it is like now and they are two different plants. It is much better now.

KTG answered the question on the population then and now in the books. It could be better and it is already decent. Imagine if we managed some of the predators better ( I see a lot of bear out there and the lion hunters have a lot of luck in the books too.)

Predators and tags, both kill deer. The habitat is a tough pill to swallow.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Aspen, you have proven me and others correct with your comments about the Books. You say on one hand you have no idea what the before/after population numbers, but that it is better now. Is it better now population wise or just mature buck wise? More bucks does NOT mean more deer unless there is habitat to sustain them!

Predators and 'tags' both kill deer, as does poor habitat. But, 'tags' kill mostly bucks while predators and habitat kill does and fawns at MUCH higher rates which has bigger negative impacts on populations.

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
The lion hunters have a lot of luck in the bookcliffs! LOL

This is one of the reasons the deer are doing so well out their. There aren't many lions! If you managed this states cats like they do in the bookcliffs the lion hunters would be up in arms.

Sounds good to me!

I don't need to see Boone and Crocket lions and coyotes on every unit in Utah. That to me means there is a crap load of younger age animals. A pyramid scheme so to speak!





Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
Pro, my comments prove that you are right? You must be really good and reading between the lines.

Let's take a poll and i WONDER what the outcome might be to this question: "Do you see more deer now in the books, or was it better just before they shut hunting down?"

Yeah, I WONDER if the population is up or down? Man, you guys kill me sometimes.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Way to many people to few deer.
The winter range on the south Books is covered with four wheeler, utv and motorcycle tracks. I wonder if all the pressure from the antler hunters has an effect on fawn production. Don't take that comment wrong, I see nothing wrong with shed hunting but give em a break. Saw where wheeler riders ran a herd of deer off the rims by cottonwood, waiting for a horn to fall off? Just park when you get where you are going and walk.

Have a buddy he works for the BLM, he says the damage on the books winter range is going to bring the big shutdown, I hope not that would be a negatve we can do without.

The lion population on the books is way down from the hay days but so are the deer numbers. I grew up in thompson utah then moved to Green River in 73 the books can and has supported a lot more deer.

The big fires helped the mountain out a lot. Deer and elk both use the burned area's lots of browse and grasses. I think we need to burn the rest of the mountain, just my opinion.

Mulehound.
 
Mulehound,
Think your really on to something with the burn the mountain down theory,take a look at Mt. Dutton, Fires have helped that mountian 10 fold IMO, there is fresh grasses and shrubs sprouting up all over in the burned pines. When we have a forest fire in the Pinyon/juniper, if its not near any homes,why does the forest service and the BLM have to come save the day! LET ER BURN! When its done we have a perfect opportunity to re-seed and replant. I know some cheatgrasses and bad shrubs will come up after a fire, thats normal, but the benifits out way the consicuences of a forest fire by far. Habitat and lower hunter numbers is where the state of Utah needs to head. We flat out need more fawns. We will never get a good hold on this until the day comes when it takes us all 2-3 years between deer tags (as a reisdent), we need to be willing to make sacrafice in order to help this problem, limited hunter opportunity is KEY, if the state was to do this, in 5-10 years Utah could have a sucess story. Just my opinion
 
OK, Maybe this topic needs to die, but one perspective from someone who was around in the 60s when deer were everywhere.
Pro is right. The habitat back then was much better than now. It is hard to see the gradual encroachment of junipers, cheatgrass, etc. but if you look at almost any winter range pictures from the 60's compared to now, you will see a whole different ecosystem. Healthy sage is now old sage, or more likely a hillside of junipers where sage used to be.
In the "hay day" there were plenty of hunters, killing plenty of deer. Most bucks killed were still immature and that was just fine with most people. Few had even heard of B&C score, much less cared about it. You always heard the question, "did you get your deer?" Rather than how big was your buck. And remember, in the 60s hunting was either sex. You could kill a doe or a buck, and most were looking for meat.
So what I am saying is, Habitat is a huge issue, along with lots of others.
We will never be able to manage for enough big bucks for everyone to get one! Plain and simple (unless you want to start raising them on deer farms and planting them like fish)!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-07-09 AT 02:47PM (MST)[p]bowhunt,

I agree with most of the things you've said. Hunter pressure is definately a key. The RAC recently passed with a vote of 5 to 4 to decrease deer permits by 5000 in the Northern Region. It now must be passed from the wildlife board. Thanks to all that showed up to the rack meeting to help fight this cause. Where I am from there have been no doe permits for many years that I know of. The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter how many deer there are as long as the buck to doe ratio is 15 bucks per 100 does this is the only thing the division currently uses to determine hunting permits.

As for the elk causing the problem that may be part of it. It's too late for the elk in Utah the division is issuing way too many cow elk permits the elk population in 10 years from now will be much less than it is now. Again one of the main reasons is they are still killing way too many cows. It will happen the same as it did with the deer. Elk are managed by age class and that is what determines the amount of elk tags. Killing spikes will not help though it has recently been instituted. They need to increase bull elk permit numbers, quit killing cows and maybe the elk will survive. Most people are too caught up in the 400 point bull and thats why this wont work either. The mentality is I bought 5.00 or 10.00 bonus pts for 16 years I deserve a 400 inch bull.

The best proposal yet in my opion is to have micro units that are managed for what the majority of sportsman want and what the current habitat can produce. In northern Utah if you want to have a lot of deer again the only way to get there is to have a feeding program. But of course that is against division policy. One bad winter wipes out half the herd. This year for example was not an overly harsh winter up North. I have seen very few fawn that made it through the winter most are dead.

Sorry for the long reply sometimes you just need to vent.
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
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
Deerlove
Winter conditions
Replies
15
Views
2k
ridgetops
ridgetops

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

image.jpeg
High Country Buck
VideoCapture_20230816-174522.jpg
EFB4533F-1B7F-4275-9F93-B984354CA9E6.jpeg
C8AB471D-C8BF-49AE-A23E-4B68E061A843.jpeg
buck Oct. 2014 002.jpg
VideoCapture_20230816-174530.jpg
20211115_165053.jpg
Great Looking Nevada Muley
93328D50-43BF-47F0-AE59-9AF52C92C8AB.jpeg
268A8E03-7F56-4B2B-90D8-614523DC731B.jpeg
6879A4C6-6192-4D97-9A3D-909223966531.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom