Deer Numbers----The real problem

[adamsoa]

I was reading the Utah Mule deer numbers post. Everyone seems to think that we have to decrease hunter numbers. I think that we should just increase deer numbers.
I think that automobiles play a much larger part than hunters ever will in the harvesting of game animals. I've read a few reports where the numbers were a little shocking. I used to work over at Camp Williams and one winter our biologists were keeping track of the deer killed just from Bluffdale to the four corners. From late summer through December there were over 200 deer hit by cars. I'd also be willing to bet that there are 5 or 10 times more deer hit by cars on the Wasatch Front than are killed by hunters. Out where I'm at now on one small road between Altamont and Roosevelt (about 10-15 miles) there were over 40 deer killed by cars a in the winter of 07-08. I can't even count how many deer I've seen dead on the road on I 40 through to Heber. I've lived in Logan and Sardine Canyon was a deer killing machine also. There are countless deer killed on the roadways each year statewide. Lots of Elk and other animals too.
Here? a thought for you. Instead of reducing the hunting numbers go figure out a way to stop the deer from getting hit by cars. I'm pretty sure that statewide there are more deer killed by traffic each year than are ever killed by hunters.

 

[proutdoors]

You are right Adam, but not only are more deer killed by cars than hunters, a high percentage of them are does/fawns which actually affect future population numbers unlike hunters killing bucks. I consider highways as the second biggest limit to deer numbers behind habitat.

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[Prism]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-09 AT 10:28AM (MST)[p]Agreed. I drive just a tad around the state and see plenty of roadkill from Logan to St George and everywhere inbetween.

But, it's just another piece of the puzzle and with Utah's ever growing population (fastest in the country last year) there is likely going to be more and more roadkill. Utah's human population isn't getting any smaller.

If roadkill percentages have continued to increase over the past decade or so, how can we sit by and say that killing the same amount of deer we did a decade ago isn't part of the problem too?

We have more habitat issues, predation issues, roadkill issues, drought issues, wintekill issues, (almost as many issues as a woman ;-)) etc... and we're still manageing our deer herds pretty much the same way we always have. Guess what-it's not working...

Sure we can (and should) build deer underpasses, fencing, etc..but it takes a lot of time and money. I'm all for doing it, but it's just part of the puzzle.

Why can't we just accept the fact that we (hunters) are part of the problem?

It's time to quit being reactive and time to be proactive with how we manage our deer and hunters.

It's been said that our Utah deer population is growing faster than Colorado. Well I got to looking and according to Colorado's stats much of the state of Colorado (as of 2007 counts) were OVER objective, and they're trying to supress deer numbers in many units, trying to decrease deer populations by using hunters.

Who would of thought...granted a lot of that changed with last years winterkill in certain parts of Colorado, but I guarantee with their management the populations are going to expand a whole lot faster than Utah's winterkilled areas.

 

[proutdoors]

Objectives can/are changed to meet whatever agenda is being pushed. Using that as an example of how successful a state is at managing deer is nonsensical. Look at the STUPID objectives here in Utah for elk harvest ages, makes no damn sense and even if objectives are being met what does that mean?

Hunters have a small impact on deer populations, much smaller than habitat, weather, highways, drilling/mining, atv usage, predators. So, why are you so obsessed with taking away opportunity when it will have little/no effect on the population numbers as long as the BIGGER factors are still limiting populations? Kind of like letting the tail wag the dog.

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[Deerlove]

Yes it would be nice for some convention money to put up some high fences. They hang up is a lot migratory routes cross a lot of roads.

 

[BrowningRage]

This is always a fun topic to address... First off I have to disagree with your figuring that more deer are killed on the road than at the end of a gun or arrow...

I remember hearing last year from someone who just happens to deal with our roadkill problems, he picks up the dead deer and elk carcasses and whatnot here in the northern area. He said they pick up on average, 9 dead deer per day/per year. 9deer X 365days= 3,285 per year. Now, I forgot to ask if that was just northern Utah or not, but lets figure that it was and that this number tracks about the same all over the state (This in itself is illogical considering the greatest concentration of people and vehicles is in the north. So... 3,285 X 5regions= 16,425 roadkill deer. (I can guarantee that this number is considerably higher than the actual number of roadkilled deer.) Just the same, according to the 2007 harvest report on the DWR website, roughly 30,000 deer were harvested, with 82,000 hunters afield.

It's nice to speculate that cars kill more deer than hunters, but it just isn't true. However, if we look at sheer waste as far as our wildlife are concerned, I'd definitely say that the cars have it won. I bet 95% of all roadkill is purely wasted, rotting on the road. Of the 30,000 deer harvested by hunters, I'd say that 95% of them are put to good use feeding people. In the end, I feel like the roadkill is much more detrimental to the population of our deer herd simply because they are wasted.

 

[Ticks N Tines]

How about a 10,000 deer, elk, and moose combo per year? That's how many animals were killed last year alone. In the newspaper today. Pretty sad

 

[Hunterted]

I think we are asking the wrong question. The focus should be on what has the most affect on deer herds growing. Not on who kills the most the deer.

If you look at it that way anything that protects the does, and the un-born they carry, should be at the top of the project list. Habitat improvements, road kill, no doe tags, predators etc.

Buck only hunting is a long ways down that list.

 

[Prism]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-09 AT 12:59PM (MST)[p]Pro,

"Objectives can/are changed to meet whatever agenda is being pushed. Using that as an example of how successful a state is at managing deer is nonsensical. Look at the STUPID objectives here in Utah for elk harvest ages, makes no damn sense and even if objectives are being met what does that mean?"

Do you really believe what you just said in the above paragraph?

You're the one that's always pointing out studies, data, etc, and claiming Utah's deer herds are growing faster than Colorados?

Your AGENDA was to show that Utah is doing a better job than Colorado growing deer. Which is BS!

I DO NOT want Utah hunters to lose opportunity, I've said that over and over and over-get it! I do think we need to get creative so we can save our deer and keep hunter opportunity.

What's Utah going to look like in 10-20 years?

You think we're going to have more habitat and fewer cars on the road?

You think we're going to have fewer ATVs? More ATVs? More access? Less access? More winter range?

Do you think we're going to be able keep manageing hunters and deer like we currently are?

We can't!

What may have worked 10 years ago doesn't work anymore. What works today isn't going to work in 10 years. I'm sick of Utah sitting on its can and doing pretty much nothing when it comes to HUNTER MANAGEMENT.

The DWR can't even make up its own mind if 5 day hunts are better for buck to doe ratios than 9 day hunts. How hard is it to figure out that killing bucks lowers buck to doe ratios. They sure as hell know that killing does raises buck to doe ratios...

I just can't wait to see the antlerless recomendations for this year...

Good grief, why don't we just go back to OTC deer tags state wide, do away with LE units, and go to unlimited deer tag numbers, make the seasons longer, get rid of age limits, etc.... Apparantly hunters don't really impact deer herds.

Maybe the reason our deer herds are so screwed up is because we don't manage them like we did in the 50s-80s. Maybe the worst thing that ever happened to our deer was going to the cap.

Maybe we're our own worst enemy and hunters killing more deer is the answer?

Just think of all the good the DWR could do with all of the extra revenue from unlimited deer tags....it would also help with hunter recruitment, families could hunt together where they always have.

Hell, it'd be just like the good old days...

The more I think about it the more I like it. No draws, no preference points, COs wont have to worry about people hunting in the wrong areas, etc... Seiously, maybe we've just over complicated this thing and all we need to do is sell deer tags. The rest will balance itself out...

Hunting sure didn't affect the buffalo, passenger pigeon, elk, or turkey. Must have been some major habitat issues then too!!!

;-)

 

[Wildman]

There really are two main perspectives of this.

You think current deer numbers are adequate and cutting permits to increase mature bucks is the answer.

Or

You want to improve deer herd numbers so that opportunities are greater.

I think the underlying motivation for everyone is to have better hunting. For some that may mean hunting less but having the opportunity for a trophy animal when they get the chance. For others that means trying to solve the current deer numbers problem so opportunities are greater.

I will say that I get very frustrated with people who cry "cut permits" and then do everything in their power to encourage permits which allow them to skirt the consequences of their own policies. If you really believe in cutting permits, you have to be willing not to hunt. People who want to cut permits but only want to cut them in areas that take other hunters out of the field are disingenuous.

 

[BBB]

Browning Rage,

I see you have some figures with hunter-killed deer vs. deer vehicle collission; however, I don't think your figure on vehicle collissions is very accurate at all. You are assuming that your aquaintance is the only person in the northern region picking up deer. Several gov't agencies pick-up dead deer along the sides of roads. These are just the deer that are laying dead on the road. Many (if not most) deer are mortally wounded and die off of the highway or in the brush alongside the highway and not accounted for. Many people (most, once again) do not report deer collissions. Vehicles kills independent of age and gender, which is unmanageable, unlike hunter-killed deer which are typically bucks.

Road-kills are a big factor in why we cannot bring our deer numbers back up. No matter how smart we think a mule deer is they need to cross dangerous roads during migration or in daily patterns, they are not wired to outrun and dodge a 80 mph vehicle. Have you seen how fast Utahns drive?

 

[proutdoors]

The Big GAme Coordinator told me they have only guesses on how many deer are killed each year, but that they are sure MORE deer are killed by automibles than hunters.

Prism, nothing like hyperbole to try and make your point eh? We cut tags in half after the huge winter kill (notice it was NOT hunters) of 1993 than devastated the deer populations in much of Utah. According to your 'theory' the herd should have grew by leaps and bounds by such actions. But, alas that is NOT the case.

Habitat projects do not result in herds rebounding overnight, it takes time when done right. 'Quick fixes' rarely result in long term 'good times'. Many people keep saying the habitat is the 'same' as it was 30 years ago, which means the habitat is older and less productive/nutritional. Most of us don't even know what 'good' winter habitat is, myself included.

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[thebuckstopshere]

UTARDS in action again - what a hilarious post. So many thoughts . . . so little thought.

Adamsoa - I agree with you 100%.

Everyone that disagrees with him - when you show me a picture of a buck giving birth, we will talk.

 

[AspenAdventures]

I agree with adamosa 100%

The problem with the idea is that it is tough, as in near impossible, to stop cars from hitting deer.

You can try to do all sorts of things but nothing changes unless the public wants to stop developing in certain areas such as on top of the point of the mountain by Lone Peak and build bridges just for animals to travel under.

People will not stop building unless the Feds or the State own the land. Period. So start buying winter range or working with landowners to allow more deer to winter on their farms.

Bridges or an overpass with natural vegitation under it work very well. However, they are unpopular because each bridge on a highway will run you about $5 million or so. The general public will not pay that for the deer to have a trail under the road. I think they should do it but they won't and don't very often.

So, in summary, great thought but not likely.

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

 

[Prism]

Pro the herds haven't grown by leaps and bounds for a number of reasons-including human predation be it by bow, bullet, or bumper.

It's not the only reason, but it plays a bigger part than it's given credit by those with the "agenda" of selling deer tags.

 

[bowhunt]

Prism,
Very good post! I agree completely.
We cannot do enough with the money we have to make any difference in habitat, do some math and figure that out people.

We have got to change how we hunt, when, with what, etc.
We can keep opportunity and change success.

Could we just start by not having any antlerless permits for a couple of years? PLEASE If we are under objective then do not shoot DOES!!!

If you do the math you can see, that given even a 50% fawn survival rate, deer herds grow pretty quickly.

I also agree that we have to kill fewer bucks. I think we are getting to the point that all DOES are not bred.

Given the HUGE burn that we had in Central Utah last year, according to many on this site, the Deer population will now explode in that area. We will see.

 

[huntFX4]

My job requires me to travel many different roads in UT ID and MT.

I sometimes see up to a dozen dead deer in just a 2-5 mile stretch of road where they are wintering at. I'll have to search for it but I saw a picture once of a crossing that was built for game. It showed a number of elk on it, going over a highway.

 

[jcmuleys]

I am confident that if CO swapped management with UT and Utah did what colorado does. Utah would see an increase in deer numbers and better quality of deer in a few years.
And if CO did what Utah does CO would see a decline in numbers and quality.
CO has roads and cars and they can still manage there deer.
Jc

 

[Prism]

Pro,

PM sent. I'm checking off of this post.

 

[proutdoors]

>Pro,
>
>PM sent. I'm checking off of
>this post.

Got it. Thanks!

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[Daxter]

>I am confident that if CO
>swapped management with UT and
>Utah did what colorado does.
>Utah would see an increase
>in deer numbers and better
>quality of deer in a
>few years.
>And if CO did what Utah
>does CO would see a
>decline in numbers and quality.
>
>CO has roads and cars and
>they can still manage there
>deer.
>Jc

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

 

[proutdoors]

Great article Daxter! I enjoyed it more knowing how the writer is than the other times I read it. Spot on!

PRO

www.oddiction.com