Why can't Utah reduce deer tags?

  • Thread starter high_country_hunter
  • Start date
H

high_country_hunter

Guest
So I have been reading the posts regarding the Utah deer hunt and the statement that the Utah DWR cannot reduce tags to help the herd keeps coming up. I am wondering if someone can shed some light on this subject for me. I (hopefully like many of you) will be attend a RAC meeting or two with some ideas. I am wondering what you all think about something like this.

I would like to see the Utah DWR reduce general rife/muzzleloader tags by 20,000 tags. To offset the reduction in tags I would propose that the general deer tag be raised to $50. Now I know a lot of folks will belly-ache about $50 but it is only $15 more. What is that, one steak dinner? Anyhow, with 20,000 fewer muzzy/rifle hunters in the field, hunters will 1) see fewer hunters, 2) see more deer and 3) see an increase in more mature deer..over time. The tag reduction would also limit how often one could hunt deer in Utah. You would probably only be able to hunt every other year. I know that I would rather hunt every other year, see fewer hunters and see bigger deer then deal with what we have now. I have spoken to many friends who think the extra $15 and not hunting every year would be worth it. What say you?

Just think, if the success rate is 20%, in 3-4 years we would have 4000 more 4 points in the state. We would get to hunt larger deer and there would be more mature bucks to breed. This is turn would help to strengthen our herd.

I would also like to see a mandatory harvest report here in Utah. I think that is the only way we can really know how many deer are killed each year. If the state needs data to make informed decisions, I think this one should be near the top.

Anyhow, I think there will come a point when we as hunters will need to say enough is enough. We do not have a right to kill a deer every year and opportunity is not the only thing that matters. The experience and privilege to hunt these magnificent animals should be at the forefront. If we can find ways to strengthen the herd, everything else will fall into place. Just my 2 cents is all.

Let me know what you think and I'll look forward to hearing other opinions at the RAC meetings. I don't agree with a 2 hunt season, especially with the same number of tags.
 
It's real easy to say you would be ok hunting every other year as you hunt year after year after year. If it actually happened I think we would all be bitching that we couldn't hunt every year-I know I would. Just makes me want to keep on bowhunting!
 
I think I would be okay with it since I hunt Wyoming and California every other year. You just plan something else on the years you don't hunt here. More then half of my hunting group didn't even take their tags out of the envelopes this year.
 
It doesn't matter how much you raise the price of the tag. License sales go into the state general fund and do not determine the budget with which the DWR works with. They can reduce tags if it is determined to be biologically justified. They've done it before. I doubt the majority will go along with it though.
 
I think mathewsman answered one of the main reasons. PERSON SELFISHNESS. He states he would complain about not getting to hunt every year.

When everybody at the RAC meeting in Green River tonight brought ideas about improving the herds it was the bowmen that said they would not be will to sacrifice. That is why I bowhunt but choose to NOT align myself with Utahs bowhunting groups. The archers already get 65 days afield and they still complain!

Personal selfishness will destroy our herds quicker than anything! Bad winters, low fawn crops, low buck to doe ratios all come and go, but the one consistant factor is each special intrest group boobing they are getting screwed.
 
Its all money. I bowhunt and I'd sacrifice to have better herds. But I look at it as if we don't do something then our kids(4) won't have jack for opportunity at a decent hunt. I'd love to see micromanagement in place but thatll never happen. As stated above the years I don't draw in utah I will go out of state. Ill hunt anywhere as long as I'm hunting. There's a lot more opportunity for more than just utah bucks out there.
 
But if we reduce tags, and increase prices, wouldn't it be a wash? Same amount of income but fewer tags?
 
deadibob,

The DWR actually is funded by the sale of tags and licenses. That money doesn't go to the general fund. The DWR gets a little bit of money from the general fund for habitat work, and a couple other programs, but almost all the funding for the agency comes from the tag and license sales and some of that money is matched with federal money generated from the excise tax on firearms, ammo, and other sporting goods. The day to day operation budget of many state game and fish agencies is almost totally dependent on the sale of tags and licenses.

There are lots of people that want higher quality deer hunting, but at the same time tags sell out quicker and quicker every year and there are very few leftovers after the draw. From an economics standpoint that sends the message that demand for deer tags is increasing. There are a lot of people in this state that want the opportunity to hunt deer every year no matter how crowded it is or how few bucks they see.

The DWR did a survey a couple years ago and randomly survey a bunch of deer hunters in the state. Most hunters surveyed wanted to see improved quality, but even more they wanted the opportunity to hunt every year. You can't eat the cow and milk it too, but that is what everyone wants when it comes to mule deer management. Tough decisions.

Dax
 
Daxter you are right and I was wrong. I falsely understood that the license/tag revenues went directly to the general fund and then were reallocated to the division.

In that case: slash the tag numbers in half and double the price.

Let's make bonus points transferable as well people can sell them to the highest bidder. We'll model it after the cap and trade program. That ought to create a little economic machine here in the state.
 
Regardless of what people want sounds like the consensus is that we want more and bigger bucks... There is only a few ways this will happen... Make most of the state a 3 or 4 point or better, people stop shooting the smaller deer, or tags are reduced. Of the three tag reduction is probably the easiest to implement and manage. I'd be fine with hunting everyother year if quality and quantity was improved. There are plenty of other hunting opportunities to do in the off years and plus you could help your friends getting a deer instead of being 'selfish' and always having to have a tag in your wallet and rifle (bow and muzzleloader included) on your shoulder.
 
"We do not have a right to kill a deer every year "

Who says we don't... I believe we DO have the right, if we choose to, to hunt and harvest an animal every year...

When you think about it, we are already restricted to only hunting deer in the fall, 9 days if we're lucky. That's only 2.5% of all the days that we could actually be hunting were there no regulations...

Just a small point...
 
"I know that I would rather hunt every other year..."

Seeing how you have money to spend out-of-state anyway... why don't YOU just hunt here every other year and let those of us who can only afford the $40/year have our fun...?
 
I believe that is the point. He said he would hunt every other year. I personally would hunt every third year. But again it is the hunters, LIKE YOURSELF that are unwilling to sacrifice at all. Like you said YOU sacrifice, I WON'T. Personal selfishness! I am not a SFW member but the more I hear hunters that are not voice their opinion it makes me think I should be!
 
I gotta say this quote is where I checked out from your post really... It's a shot to the credibility of your logic, and opinion...

"there would be more mature bucks to breed..."

This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard...
Do you think that a mature buck had different DNA and different genes to pass on when he was just a little guy..? :D
 
"unwilling to sacrifice at all."

LOL This is laughable Muley. You have no idea what I have or have not sacrificed... Because I want to protect one of my rights, and the rights of others, to choose for myself when, where, and how I hunt..?

For your information I have hunte general season deer hunts here in Utah since I was a teen. Since 2002 I have harvested 2 deer... I pass smaller bucks, and have even passed some that I thought better of later. The 2 bucks I did harvest were the largest buck I hve ever killed (21" 4 point) and my first ever archery deer...

I basically harvest an animal every 4 years... But the LAW doesn't regulate me, I do. And that's MY point...
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-09 AT 02:21PM (MST)[p]The genetics may be passed on by a immature buck, but the natural selection process doesn't really kick in until their is a good supply of mature bucks. According to Valerius Geist, he states that does are the ones that choose the buck they breed with. He states that the bigger and more impressive the head gear the more opportunity a buck will have to breed. Competition among bucks ensure that the stronger and healthier and more superior genetic endowed buck will do most of the breeding.This in turn can help to produce bigger and healthier fawns. The livestock guys have figured that out years ago.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-09 AT 03:08PM (MST)[p]Utah could very easily reduce the hunting tags to increase the quality of the mule deer bucks...the question, though, is should they. About 10 years ago, Colorado drastically reduced the number of deer tags across the state...and, more recently, they have divided the state up into smaller units to further decrease tags to increase quality. After studying several units since that time span, Colorado has found that "limited buck harvest had a negative effect on December fawn:doe ratios and was not an effective tool for increasing fawn recruitment. OUr data suggest that factors other than buck harvest caused the observed decline in recruitment in Colorado mule deer populations....In fact, our study suggests that limited harvest could reduce population productivity."

In other words, by decreasing the buck harvest population growth slowed because bucks began replacing does in the herd make-up and the number of fawns being recruited into the herd decined. For a population that is below objective--as Utah's population is--increasing buck harvest only slows growth. So, the question is not why shouldn't Utah decrease buck harvest, but should they. In my mind, the answer is a definite "NO". Until our herds on individual units start meeting population objectives, the number of buck tags should NOT be decreased!

The situation Colorado has now found themselves in is that hunters throughout Colorado and the West are very happy with the number of quality bucks, but the deer population as a whole has actually declined fairly dramatically--about 100,000 deer in 10 years.The problem in Colorado is that the increased number of bucks surviving the hunts is leaving far less room for does and fawns and in tough winters like that of 08', major winter loss of does and fawns is a result. So, even though hunters think everything in Colorado is rosy...it ain't!

Yes, Utah could decrease harvest increase quality and improve our hunts...but at what cost? We would lose hunting opportunity and we could lose herd productivity and growth. For me, that price is way too steep to pay!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-09 AT 03:29PM (MST)[p]
If you only want to hunt every third year, why don't you just start doing something else entirely. Get out of the game. Here is why you won't though, because every time one of your 50 punk ass friends draws a tag the whole dame tribe goes out and "hunts." Ruining the damn sport for those that have sacrificed plenty just to be able to spend one (for Gods sake finally two) weekends in the hills each year.

I'm all for improving quality, but dang it some of you want to drive the death nail into our sport without even batting an eyelash.
 
My punk friends would actually be my wife, and 17 and 12 year old son. I agree that if more hunters passed smaller bucks we would have more mature bucks. I have never said once that I wanted more mature deer. I would just like more overall deer and some oppurtunity to pass some decent bucks when I do have a tag. If the best buck you have ever seen or taken is a 21 inch 4 point how can you say that the herd is quality?
 
browningrage

we have the "right" to bear arms, but hunting is a privledge.Utah will never cut tags because too many people think it's their right too hunt and kill deer every year.
 
Muley 73 - I don;t think hunters are the problem in Utah. I don't want to see any more tags, and I would applaud a minimal reduction in tag numbers. Personally, I don't care if they raise the fees to cover any tag decreases.

But, many, many, many things other than hunters kill deer in Utah. It makes me sick that as hunters we want to restrict ourselves to the max just so an antler can get bigger - and I feel that is what it is really all about. If you could find a way to get big antlers and screw deer in general, people on here would say go for it. I don't get it. We should all applaud any effort to increase the opportunity to hunt more often. I really don't think for a second anyone at the DWR is trying to screw the deer herd. In fact, by law, they are required to manage the herd in a responsible manner, and they are.

This was a banner year for big bucks in Utah. But, if you were not hunting the archery or the muzz hunt, you might not have known it. The Rifle hunt was hard. Not much water. Warm dry weather. Mucho pressure. To me, two rifle hunts with less hunters each season would be a bonus to the Utah system. Sure, there a lot of other ways Utah can improve their management, but it really doesn't matter what they do, people will sit back and armchair the decisions as being wrong. Everyone has their agenda. Mine just involves my kids being able to hunt. And once every five years isn't going to keep anyone's interest, and personally, that is stupid.

Since I haven't said much about what I would do - Here goes - If I were running the show at the DWR I would:

1 - phase out the dedicated hunter program;

2- reduce all Utah general season deer tags by 10%, archery, muzz, rifle.

3- Make the Central region bigger to the South, and the SouthEastern and Southern Units smaller giving some each to the Central Region.

4- have a rule where any subunit that goes below the ratio is closed for a year. No five day BS, no point restriction BS, just close it for the year. Every year a subunit was closed, there would have to be a small reduction in tags given out in that unit.

5- raise fees 10%.

6- keep preference points, but do away with that GOD awful rule that you can keep them if you don't draw your first choice. If you draw, you go back to ZERO, end of story.

7 - mandatory harvest reporting - simple - this is the internet era.

8 - have two rifle hunts, one five day hunt early in October, and a seven day hunt starting the third weekend in October. Youth could hunt both. Non-youth would have to choose which hunt to apply for.

9 - allocate tags for the muzz hunt. No more muzz and rifle combination allocation.

10 - get word OUT that one of the best LE units in Utah is the (SHHH) extended archery unit.

Sorry for the long winded post. But, I get tired of this tit for tat arguing.
 
I actually cant believe there are guys that would shoot their own crank off so to speak by giving up their opportunity to hunt. once your opportunity is lost it rarely comes back.

managing deer is kind of like managing cancer. you can treat cancer different ways. Sure you can just cut off the leg that has the cancer but there are less drastic ways of treating the cancer you might be want to try first don't you think.

Well guys in hunting you could go out and simply cut tags or cut off your leg. You will have one less leg and lost opportunity.
You will more then likely be sitting home wack'en yourself when hunting season comes around. You also would only be able to hunt one or two times in your life in Utah. Just like the Le units are now. OIL tags!

So if you want to kill trophy bucks put in for the premium LE tags and wait your turn. You say you don't mind waiting to hunt bigger bucks. I call BS!

If you want to hunt better bucks put in for the other LE tags and wait your turn. Again I call BS

If you want to hunt every year or every other year put in for a general tag and be happy with it. Go earn your buck they are there.

You guys that b&M about the archery guys sound like the character on Saturday night live. The guy that wears a diaper and always says "but I don't wana" in a high pitch girls voice.
There is a place in Utah that has Le quality animals 40 bucks to 100 does all with over the counter tags which anyone of you die hards could hunt. All I hear is "But I dont wana pick up a bow." "But I don't wana hunt with other people." "But i don't wana hike and earn my buck." "But i don't wana put in the time to scout-hunt for a big buck."
 
Well some of these posts have been rather interesting. I appreciate that everyone has expressed their opinions.

First off, I am not a SFW guy either. Don't ever plan to be. I am an MDF guy though and pretty proud of it.

My concerns are our deer herd and our seemingly endless selfish desires in regards to it. To those who took offense to my post, my intentions are not to deny you an opportunity to do something that you love. My desire is to have a healthier deer so that our kids can enjoy this sport as much as we do. I had mentioned that by decreasing tags we would have more mature deer in the state. One of you has mocked me on this point. Yes, I would rather have a mature 4 point breeding does then a younger immature buck. The fact is that the older buck knows how to get things done. How good where you on your first time??? My point is, if a doe can be bred early and successfully, the chances of her having a healthy fawn that survives increases. That is what we want isn't it?

The other concern is that if I have the money to hunt other states then I should and leave this state to those who can't afford it. My friends, it all boils down to priorities. I am not a rich man. I can sometimes hunt other states because I have chosen one sport to follow. I don't go on vacation, I don't go on fishing trips, I don't buy new stuff all the time. I save up and spend my vacation time and money on what I love to do...hunt. We are all in different situations and that is okay. Some can hunt more then other and that is okay. We all hunt for different reasons and that is okay.My hope is that we can someday all ban together and realize that maybe it isn't all about killing a little 2-point every year just to say you did. Maybe just being in the woods with you family and friends chasing these animals is more important. I don't know and I don't mean to be-little anyone on here. I've shot my share of little bucks. I just think there is a bigger picture out there.

Oh, and thank you for the Colorado data on decreased buck harvest. Interesting.......
 
w2u, your argument is well versed, but you are missing a crucial aspect when you argue that increasing buck harvest will increase the herds. It won't increase the herds it will increase fawn recruitment.

Colorado's fawn recruitment decreased due to the high number of bucks. That means that the area has reached its "carrying capacity". In essence, for every buck you kill, you gain a fawn, but the herd number remains unchanged. What changes about the herd is the ratios of buck:doe and mature:immature.

Grizzly
 
I agree with high country on this post. I think they need to shrink the units and run them like they do in co would like to see them offer easy to draw hunts and than some hunts that take 2-3 yrs to draw but are good hunts. make all the hunts le and make some of them every year hunts and others 2-3 and you use your pts where you want. wow what a novel idea? it lets the guys who want to hunt every yr hunt and those who want quality get thers. hum that makes sense and solve both sides of the issue
 
sw,
just what i thought.
another opportunistic plick!

VJ
49ca8f1a4fbfdf37.jpg
 
VJ
I not an "opportunistic plick" I'm a full blown big buck killer. Ill get mine I usually do. If you sharpen up your hunting skills, someday you might actually see a buck. O Keep telling yourself there are no big bucks in Utah!

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
>I agree with high country on
>this post. I think they
>need to shrink the units
>and run them like they
>do in co would like
>to see them offer easy
>to draw hunts and than
>some hunts that take 2-3
>yrs to draw but are
>good hunts. make all the
>hunts le and make some
>of them every year hunts
>and others 2-3 and you
>use your pts where you
>want. wow what a novel
>idea? it lets the guys
>who want to hunt every
>yr hunt and those who
>want quality get thers. hum
>that makes sense and solve
>both sides of the issue
>
The Bookcliffs is a unit just like you want. They mostly kill 2 and 3 year old bucks or "small 4 points and 3 points". That's what you want! Awesome but the reality is it will take you 7-10 to draw it with a rifle not your fantasy 2 years. Here is the kicker people still b&M about the quality on the books. nothing is good good enough for the inch crowd.

the inch crowd was even complaining the bucks on the Henry Mts wasn't good enough so they cut the buck tags back! go figure a 200" dink


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
I agree with alot of what is being said, but I have a few questions?

You say shoot your own crank off? I understand what you are saying but, If we keep shooting units down under 10 buck per 100 doe are we not shooting that crank off?

Would hunters really b&m about the Books if it only took a couple 2 to 3 years to draw?

Does b&m about the state of the deer herd automatically put me into one of several groups?
1. Trophy Hunter only worried about inches?
2. Punk ass gang hunter with 50 friends?
3. Lazy hunter that only road hunts and does not hike
or scout?
I would lean more toward a concerned sportsman thats wants to look forward to quality outings with my sons and daughter. Other family would probably be included at times, but I promise I'll keep it under 50 and make sure they are not punk ass.

One more question for all of the hunters that say they would not be willing to sit out a year.
What if the state set up general units that could be hunted every year with an actual 10 buck per 100 doe ratio. Not unlike many units now. They would then set up other general units that could be drawn every 2 to 3 years. Now here is the question. How many of the hunters would switch from the every year units to the every 2 or 3 year units if the buck doe ratio on those units was kept at an actual 30 buck per 100 doe? My bet it would be a little red hen effect and the numbers would jump. This would result in more unit having to be added to keep the draw odds at 2 or 3 years. But you could still have general units that you could hunt every year. They may be a little more crowded and the buck to doe ratio may drop below 10 to maybe 5, but you could still hunt them every year.

I'm being a little long winded but lastly, I am not trying to offened anyone with my views. I just know the deer herd is heading in the wrong direction. If we the sportsman continue to bicker about how it should be fixed the DWR will just leave it the same. I welcome any change if it will insure the future of hunting not just Moster but any muleys. I love it and want my childern to have the chance to do the same!
 
what sw don't understand is:
bump the average age up by 2 years & see a world of difference on the size of the bucks.
why hell,there'd still be smaller dink bucks around for sw to shoot & be happy with since that's what he wants.
you called me a putz sw,that makes you a plick!
you started the name calling first,just shows your 'my pecker is bigger than yours' mentality,or is it 'my dink buck is bigger than yours'?


VJ
49ca8f1a4fbfdf37.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-09 AT 05:14AM (MST)[p]"Would hunters really b&m about the Books if it only took a couple 2 to 3 years to draw?"

No this is the way it is right now. How often can you draw a southern tag right now. I know some guys that have had to wait 3 years!

You say you love hunting and want your children to have the chance to do the same!

this is how it is with kids. I was out in the books this year with friends and the kids were mad we passed any deer. they wanted blood. They got board driving around passing animal after animal. Its just like fishing they are happy with any fish but you might be happy with big trout.

There are ways in utah to have over the counter opportunity, Henry MTN quality, and hunts you can hunt for 4 months a year. But Ill I hears is "But I don't wana pick up a bow." I want to cut your tags and make you hunt every 10 years or so. Just so I can shoot a 20" 4 point out my car window. Now Im starting to hear we need to make the front a Le area. its not fun to hunt big bucks every year if I got to beat Joe blow to the deer. this is why it public land.

Im in no way trying to be an azz I am just sick of hearing people complain. I answered a bookcliff post and got reamed for the size of bucks my friends killed. They happened to be 150 to 170 class bucks. They complain nothing is ever good enough!

Be happy you can hunt! if you are sick of seeing small bucks come to my area "the front" and hunt them. I have seen plenty of bucks this year and I haven't seen a hunter on the mtn while I'm hunting it this year! Go figure Ive been on every trail you would have thought I would have seen at least one this year


4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
what velvet is B&M about is the quality of deer is on the books he wants to bump the age class up. He is one of the guys unsatisfied. with the the quality. But what he dont understand is bumping the age class up 2-3 years will turn it into the henry mtns age class buck 4.5yrs

sorry velvet I shoot mostly big bucks. You can pick up a copy of Rusty Halls new edition of Utahs biggest bucks if you want I have three record book animals in it. All were shot on public land with an over the counter tag. It can be done just because you don't poses the skills to get it done doesn't mean it cant be done!



4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
SW you never answer the question.

My boys both hunted on the Pauns with Grandpa this year and had an absolute ball. They were excited about all the nice deer they saw. They did not scream for blood letting. They where excited when Grandpa killed a nice buck and it was great hunt.

The point you make actually falls in line with mine. When those kids are old enough to hunt and the buck doe ratio is 5, how many bucks will they get a chance to kill. Like you seem to be pointing out it is about the kill for the youth hunters. For sucess there must be deer.

You have not given any input on what you think ought to be done? That leads me to believe you think the current system is ok? I know you shoot big bucks, I have enjoyed the pictures that you have posted. However your stance and comments to others makes me believe that you think the rest of us are crappy, lazy hunters that never get off the road or shoot big deer? You also assume that we are not archery hunters. Well you are actually wrong on both counts. My point is my personal success or your horn blowing success does not change the fact that the deer herds in Utah are heading the wrong direction.

So I'll ask again, would you continue to hunt every year in a unit with 10 buck per 100 does or would you switch to the unit with 30 buck per 100 does. What would you have your childern do?
 
I agree something needs to be done, but dont think it will happen anytime soon. I went to a rac meeting last night and they had excuses for everything. The main biologist basically said it only takes a yearling buck to breed the does, I guess that is true but as stated above, that is not the ideal, for a healthy heard. I am about sick and tired of the sportsman getting told their opinions dont matter, I guess I will just have to take it up the butt and hunt what I have, and stop hopping for any improvement.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-09 AT 09:05AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-09 AT 08:58?AM (MST)

>w2u, your argument is well versed,
>but you are missing a
>crucial aspect when you argue
>that increasing buck harvest will
>increase the herds. It
>won't increase the herds it
>will increase fawn recruitment.
>
>Colorado's fawn recruitment decreased due to
>the high number of bucks.
> That means that the
>area has reached its "carrying
>capacity". In essence, for
>every buck you kill, you
>gain a fawn, but the
>herd number remains unchanged.
>What changes about the herd
>is the ratios of buck:doe
>and mature:immature.
>
>Grizzly

In the study of Colorado's units, it states: "Future buck harvest restrictions should be framed as an issue of quality hunting management rather than population productivity. Factors other than buck harvest appear to be limiting fawn recruitment in Colorado. In fact, our study suggests that limited harvest could reduce population productivity." Many people have suggested--probably because of Dr. Todd Black's paper on the subject--that having a young buck population could hurt the productivity of the herd. However, Colorado's research directly refutes that notion because of the high number of mature bucks in their units.

Also, many hunters make the statement that we should limit buck harvest in order to restore our populations back to what they are. In my opinion, these hunters are only looking at the buck portion of the population and forgetting that a herds productivity and long-term well-being is more dependent on the does and fawns. By increasing the number of bucks in our populations, we could be jeopardizing the future growth of our herds. How? Simple...if our herds are at or near carrying capacity like those in Colorado, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot because the extra bucks would be replacing does and fawns...and, since we are doing tons of winter range habitat work (that, in time, should increase our carrying capacity), we would be replacing does and fawns at a time that we want to maximize herd productivity and growth. To me, that is a very bad idea!

So, if Utah decreased buck tags and increased buck/doe ratios, we could be actually lowering doe numbers...which, in turn, would lower fawn recruitment numbers.

My opinion remains the same....instead of looking at lowering buck harvest numbers as a way of increasing the quality of our units, let's increase the total number of deer and consequently the total number of bucks by improving the habitat, increasing the carrying capacity, and getting our populations numbers up to where they should be. Sure, decreasing harvest may make hunters happy, but it does virtually nothing for our deer herds as a whole!

Also, FWIW, I am NOT arguing that we should increase buck harvest to increase our herds. I am arguing that we should NOT decrease buck harvest. We need to keep a relatively low buck/doe ratio to assure the maximum number of does giving birth to fawns. Science tells us that it takes 5 bucks to breed 100 does...therefore, a buck/doe ratio above 15/100 should assure us that all does are being bred. We should maintain our buck harvests at a point where buck/doe ratios remain in that 15-25 bucks/100 does range....
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-09 AT 09:15AM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-09
>AT 02:21?PM (MST)

>
>The genetics may be passed on
>by a immature buck, but
>the natural selection process doesn't
>really kick in until their
>is a good supply of
>mature bucks. According to Valerius
>Geist, he states that does
>are the ones that choose
>the buck they breed with.
>He states that the
>bigger and more impressive the
>head gear the more opportunity
>a buck will have to
>breed. Competition among bucks ensure
>that the stronger and healthier
>and more superior genetic endowed
>buck will do most of
>the breeding.This in turn can
>help to produce bigger and
>healthier fawns. The livestock
>guys have figured that out
>years ago.

Interesting...the information I have says something totally different. According to this quote from Dr. Geist, the animals with the biggest headgear are actually non-breeding animals and are considered cowards...

"The matter of trophy males contains counterintuitive ironies. Very large horns or antlers are not adaptive. They are freaks. They may be the biggest, but they are not the best! Otherwise they would not be rare in normal population. The genetic breeding of huge-antlered freaks on deer farms, currently, is not breeding the ?biggest and the best?. It is genetic wreckage of the adaptive genome of the species, and done for the frivolous pleasure of an affluent clientele. It has nothing to do with hunting or with wildlife conservation. Quite the contrary!
The adaptive horn/antler configuration is that of the ?average male?. We know, from centuries of experience, exactly how to produce ?trophies? without genetic manipulation. In a nutshell, offer superior food for body and antler growth and insure that he male does not breed. To generate ?trophy heads?, feed the population maximally with a diet rich on protein and minerals for about five generations. Even then maximum growth will not set in, unless the male can be prevented from breeding. Excluded from the stresses and strings of reproduction and fighting, the males save their summer?s fat stores, survive winters splendidly, and may begin body growth the following spring with enough body resources to give growth a real boost. Such males grow more year-by-year and become exceptionally large in body and trophy size. This has been done artificially. In nature, however, without human manipulation, exceptionally large antlers or horns indicate that their owner may be a non-breeding male. Far from being the epitome of male hood, such individuals are shirkers (cowards) that do not participate in rutting. I have observed such in the field. (However, I have also seen one reversal in which a huge shirker reverted and became a successful breeder)."
 
If a deer unit is at carrying capacity, then extra bucks do compete with fawns and does. However, many of the deer management units are well below management objective. The Nebo and Manti sub units are nearly 50% below carrying capacity/management objective. The figures as stated by Brent Stettler of the DWR are that the management objective is 40,000 and the the population is only at about 21,000. Looks like to me that there is tons of room for more bucks on those two sub-units. Once the population begins to reach the carrying capacity then they can increase buck tags to make sure there is room for fawns. The Nebo hasn't had any doe tags except for the resident valley deer in agricultural areas for 10 years, but the herd is still stagnant or even decreasing. Winters have not been bad for well over 10 years. I believe that the herd numbers have gotten so depressed that any fawn production is completely wiped out by predators-- including hunters-- every year. It used to be that there would be a bad winter, heavy winter kill would occur, but the herds would rebound back within 3 years, and there would be lots of deer.It wasn't at all uncommon to see upwards of 1000 deer on the winter range along I-15 from Santaquin to Nephi. You are lucky to see 100 now. Maybe, the poor practice of allowing antlerless elk hunting until Jan 31 has had a damaging effect on deer also.
There are things that can be done to turn some of our general season units in the right direction but it will take drastic measures. Everyone may have to sacrifice being able to hunt and kill a buck every year.
 
management objective and carrying capacity are two different things...a unit can be at carrying capacity but below management objective. That is why the DWR has teamed with SFW and MDF on habitat improvement projects...to hopefully improve carrying capacity and habitat in order to increase deer herd sizes.
 
w2u, I misinterpreted your position.

You are right that decreasing buck harvest would not increase herd size. It would increase the number of mature bucks, but not overall size.

Though, at this point, the herds are in such poor condition that increasing buck numbers would have no detrimental effect on herd size because we are so far removed from a position where we begin squeezing fawn production due to buck numbers.

I do like the point that late season cow elk tags may be harming deer herds, but I also think there is a correlation between the increasing elk herds and decreasing deer herds.

To get our deer herds up, we need to decrease elk. There is no place in the world that is truly a world-class trophy elk and trophy deer unit simultaneously. For instance, San Juan was a Premium Deer Unit, until the elk herds exploded, it is not anymore.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-09 AT 10:41AM (MST)[p]>Management objective is based on carrying
>capacity. There is more wrong
>on these two units than
>habitat.


I would also say that there is more wrong on those two units than habit....but one of those things is NOT hunter harvest! The DWR, for example, lists crop depredation, habitat (winter range), predation, highway mortality, and illegal harvest as the limiting factors of the Nebo unit. So, limiting hunter harvest would NOT increase the deer herd size.

Management objective may be based on carrying capacity, but they are still not the same. The Nebo, for example, could be at carrying capacity right now despite the management objective. Again, that is why the DWR is trying to improve the Nebo's winter range.
 
>
>Though, at this point, the herds
>are in such poor condition
>that increasing buck numbers would
>have no detrimental effect on
>herd size because we are
>so far removed from a
>position where we begin squeezing
>fawn production due to buck
>numbers.
>

>Grizzly


I disagree totally with this comment...I believe we are at this point. Because winter range is a limiting factor on most of our deer units, I do believe that if we increase buck numbers we would begin "squeezing fawn production due to buck numbers". I believe that habitat is one of the limiting factors on many of our deer units and the deer on many of these units are at or near carrying capacity even though they are below management objective levels.

Look at the Henry's for example...this unit has remained below total population objective for years despite the low number of tags. The DWR has concluded that one of the limiting factors is summer range...so, the DWR, MDF, and SFW have teamed and done a lot of work trying to improve that summer range. If that work does accomplish the task of improving habitat, carrying capacity will be increased. However, we are not there yet. Right now, I don't think there is any doubt that we are squeezing fawn production for the sake of having a trophy hunting unit. And, as the habitat improves the growth of the deer herd on that unit will be slowed. The same thing can be said about any unit within the state that has habitat listed as a limiting factor for meeting objectives.

Just because we are below objectives does NOT mean we are not at carrying capacity.
 
W2U-- I know that you are pretty much a straightline biologist thinker-- I can appreciate that-- however-- I have read a number of studies and opinions by wildlife biologists in regards to mule deer. They don't always agree. As long as we as hunters are in the mix, what we would like, has to be part of the management plan.
What would happen if we just quit hunting deer ? Would the herds increase or decrease, would there be less fawns or more fawns, less bucks or more bucks ? In your opinion are the hunters the problem or the solution.
Back in the 60's when predator poisoning was legal there was a huge increase in deer numbers in the state and there were 200,000 hunters.When poisoning was banned, deer numbers plummeted. Maybe that is the only real answer !
 
The problem lies in that even when the DWR is claiming 15 to 25 bucks per hundered doe it is inaccurate. If we really where at 25 buck per 100 does I don't believe I would be asking for as much change.

Also do you not think we could better manage each unit for 25 buck per 100 does if they were broken into smaller units? I understand that Colorado is not perfect and that Utah faces some different challanges. However they at least have the ability go in and tweek or change things as each unit needs attention.

Say what you will and throw all sort of data at it if you like, units like the Cache, Monroe and Nebo are not health right now and they need something to change. Habitat is one very big issue, bad winters are another. Over harvest or to much pressure is another and it is the easiest to fix, if we are willing.

One last point. We have top elk units in the world at this point in Utah. Some of those units have a 1to1 bull to cow ratio. Yet when the DWR adds even a small number of tags everybody screams that they are going to ruin the herds. Why is the elk herd growing on the these units if we are lowering overall numbers by having to many bulls? Or does that theory only had true for mule deer?

SW, still waiting on an answer?
 
Muley_73

Is it just coincidence that as elk herd numbers have risen deer numbers have fallen for the most part?

Also I don't know about other 5 day units, but I grew up in Cache Valley. One thing that is very noticable is the large amount of spring, summer, and fall range. The winter range there is almost non-existent. Green canyon use to have some really good area for wintering above Lundstrom park that the city said they wouldn't sell. Then someone brought the right price and suddenly the deer fence was moved up and now there are houses there. Every year the Dwr is going up and removing deer in a lethal way from cliffside and other rich neighborhoods that have taken up the benches. I would always hear Verl Hatchet(I believe this is the officers name) complaining about how they would have to go shoot deer in the winter due to the complaints of them eating gardens and imported shrubbery. I have personally seen a lot of deer that have starved to death on the face in between Logan and Blacksmith fork canyon during harsh winters. In my opinion I don't believe the cache can ever reach max objective without proper wintering range. Even the Bear lake side is being eaten up with all the growth over there.
 
Max1,

I agree totally. I have lived in Cache Valley for the last 17 years. In that time I have seen the winter range disappear and the deer numbers go down. Yet they still hammer it on the hunt every year. I spend 3 to 4 days a week up Blacksmith Fork during the late summer and fall. I see nice bucks every year, that does not mean that the herd is in good shape. For the summer range there should be more deer numbers overall, even with the loss of winter range. The private areas on the Cache seem to hold alot more deer and they all winter in the same area. That leads me to believe the herd could be managed better than it currently is. Because currently they really do not manage the Cache herd.

I usually hunt the southern region as that is where I grew up and we have family cabin down there. There is enough winter range on the Monroe to easily carry more deer, however the deer are not present. So that crutch, valid as it may be in some areas is NOT the only issue and is not really an issue at all in some of current poor units.
 
I agree. I hunt the central unit where they shortened the hunt this year. They have great habitat year round yet the numbers keep dwindling. What is funny is I saw more bucks this year than I have the past three years. The problem I saw was that I counted 40 different bucks this year on the archery hunt in 9 days(I saw more but I know some were the same buck), but I only saw a hundred does and a majority of them had no fawns. The only positive was the few with fawns had twins. So for that area I don't know what is wrong with it. The amount of bucks didn't seem to bad for a general area, but the amount of does that were fawnless was quite alarming.
 
again,nobody listens!
you ever heard of coyotes?
you ever seen a pack of coyotes working deer over?
VJ
49ca8f1a4fbfdf37.jpg
 
Muley
I am still interested in what you know that the rest of us dont, you mentioned above that we would be surprised at the up coming changes. I know of the proposals for 2011 but their isnt much in their that I think will help a lot. And I am looking at the worst deer heard in the state, at the rack meeting I went to last night they had the buck to doe ratio in all the sub units and the one I live in and hunt the south slope vernal is at 9, now if that isnt sad I dont know what is. Its going to take way more to fix that then what they are looking at doing, I think that micro managing is the best answer, and tags will need to be cut drastically in alot of units.
 
>SW you never answer the question.
>
>
>You have not given any input
>on what you think ought
>to be done?

I have exasusted my efforts to what I think aught to be done. You can read my posts. if you like


That leads
>me to believe you think
>the current system is ok?

I dont think it is ok, I just dont believe it is as bad as the rest of you.

> I know you shoot
>big bucks, I have enjoyed
>the pictures that you have
>posted. However your stance
>and comments to others makes
>me believe that you think
>the rest of us are
>crappy, lazy hunters that never
>get off the road or
>shoot big deer?

there is a saying in fishing 10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish I believe this to be true in hunting also. I dont know why some guys fail and some succeed. I do know one thing I hunt in Utah more than anyone I know. I hunt mule deer for 4 months a year if I have to. I start scouting in june and end in december. This year I have hiked every trail on the wasatch front at least twice. I have been in every canyon, I have been to every peak. I didnt work all summer and hike 2 to 3 times a week putting in at least 5 miles round trips. I have not seen a single hunter while hunting this year. The parking lots are full when I get down so I cant figure out why I havent see anyone except hikers. Maybe it is becaues I dont use the trails unless it is dark. I hike in the dark. For two months I have not even seen a buck. I know they are there cause I seen them in june and july.

You
>also assume that we are
>not archery hunters. Well
>you are actually wrong on
>both counts. My point
>is my personal success or
>your horn blowing success does
>not change the fact that
>the deer herds in Utah
>are heading the wrong direction.

I dont assume anything and you are incorrect about the deer heards they are on the increase. Sure there are some areas that have less than the reccomended buck to doe ratios. That is why they went to 5 day seasons.
>
>
>So I'll ask again, would you
>continue to hunt every year
>in a unit with 10
>buck per 100 does or
>would you switch to the
>unit with 30 buck per
>100 does. What would
>you have your childern do?

That is an easy qustion. I would switch areas if they suck. why would anyone hunt in an area with low buck to doe ratios. I used to rifle hunt the nebo. I hunted it for years. I now hunt the front exclusivly. It has what I want. I was never a bow hunter I had to switch so I could hunt an area that had what I wanted to hunt. I dont regret hunting switching equipment one bit. I am adaptable. If I was a die hard rifle hunter and a bow hunter that says screw the front I would hunt in southern Utah. bever or dutton. I would never hunt the monroe for deer cause it sucks. If your area sucks go somewhere else. The system already regulates its self! They only give out a certain amount of tags. So you wont kill all the bucks.

So dont hate the player hate the game.

4a7d1f93337c7fd7.jpg

Archery is a year round commitment!!
 
why if we have no deer on south slope why cant we get rid of unitah basin extended archrey hunts and save a thousand deer for breeding popose i went on n.e rifle hunt to many hunters and no deer why limet hunt to 5 days close for 2 3
years to every one even the tribal.why/????
 
I hunted the Muzz on the Nebo this year, as I always do, I spoke with the sheep herder quite a few times this summer... The day before the hunt, I asked him if he had seen many deer, he said no, I asked about Elk, he said yes, I asked about lions, he said no... BUT WHEN I ASKED ABOUT B E A R S.... He said he had seen a ton ! ! ! From what I understand and after talking to some DWR guys, Its interesting to note that all of the "trouble" bears in the state go to Nebo when they are caught... in fact, we saw two different bear kills on a 5 day hunt.
I think its interesting that we see every doe with two fawns every spring, and by the time the hunts roll around, they only have one... or none... WTF We have GOT to control the predators ! ! !

CSO

It's all about the good times...
 
I think to close the area for 23 years is a little drastic dont you. lol We dont need to close anything, we just need to cut tags by about 20 % and shorten the hunts. And I would be real surprised if their are more than a few hundred bucks killed (if that) on the UB extended hunt. And 90% of them are on private in the valley anyway, that has very little to do with the south slope numbers.
 
I'm glad somebody finally pointed out that deer numbers fell about the same time they stopped using Cyanide on coyotes. Hmmm.

Grizzly
 

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