2011 Utah deer options available

walleye1121

walleye1121

Active Member
Messages
331
The Utah DWR has posted three options for the 2011 deer hunt on their web site.

Eveyone should take a look at all of them and think it through carefully. I would like to see everyones opinions on the best option to proceed with.

My opinion is that many of the details are missing for option #2 and there is no guess as to how many permits would be allocated to the 29 units. It makes it a real crap shoot to support it.

I am still concerned that there is no real understanding of just how low deer numbers are. Not buck numbers but the actual total herd. I still think that is being addressed about the deer population which is the root of the problem.

So, I am supportin option #1 which I think has the least actual change and a tag cut of 7,000 permits. I don't think it will help with the herd recovery but I am really afraid of the missing details.
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-10 AT 06:44PM (MST)[p]I am good with either option but I would like to see something in there regarding eligible bucks to be harvested. This past weekend I saw well over 20 bucks. With that being said they were all 2 points and spikes with the exception of two... and I saw at least 12 of them harvested by the end of Saturday alone. If we were to govern the size of bucks harvested two things would/should happen.

1. The buck to doe ratio would go up with the younger (dumber) bucks making up a bulk of the ratio initially (I would like to see two point bucks and spikes protected).

2. By passing on the little guys the population would make an instant rise. Success rates would suffer initially but probably actually rise as time goes on and the herd makes a comeback (a trade off I am willing to take).

We could actually start seeing some bigger bucks and more bucks in general. If the young guys could be given an extra year to get a little smarter they would survive longer and before you know it it's the "good ole days" again.

I personally am sick and tired of seeing grown a$$ men shooting spike deer that provide less meat (they use this as justification for shooting a baby spike (By The Way- the spike was about 3 inches long, and I am not even sure it was legal)) than the $35 for the tag and $10 for the draw fee could buy. I see the herds down (even though we saw about 200 deer this last weekend) but I think we could be a little more creative in how we bring up the deer population and buck to doe ratio... and yes this is about getting bigger bucks back in the state as well.
 
rbon80-

I appreciate your reply and opinion. But, I would like to ask you a question.

Do you really think that we should have a deer herd that cannot sustain the harvest of yearlings? It has not been a problem for our elk. It seems to me that we need more two and three year old bucks to survive. It is the harvest of the yearlings that should be encouraged. If people are willing to let the small three points go then you will see bigger bucks next year.

Again don't see this as a challenge to your opinion because I don't know.

I think we need a proposal that increases deer numbers and not bucks.
 
I like option #2 but it will never pass unless they allow statewide archery. I also dont think the DNR has the balls to actually close a subunit down for a year on option #1. Too much "fuzzy" math and averages on the region #1 option for me.
 
I like option 2 as well. I like the idea of a 1 year DH program, they would just have to do a draw and limit the number of DH's to a specific unit. Enforcement of boundaries will be tough. I agree with you on the archery issue, it will be a hard sell, and what about the extended areas? Shutting down a unit to get the herd to MO is a great idea, it just limits opportunity. A big argument against this is what it does to hunter recruitment. I had 2 new hunters with me this past weekend, we didn't even see a buck. We hunted an area that has always produced in the past, this year nothing. This is the first time in 21 years I've gone hunting on the opener and not seen at least a forkie. If something isn't done about the herd numbers, hunter recruitment will be lost anyway. I know there are areas that have lots of deer and people see 15 forks in a day and even bigger bucks regularly, but these people aren't in the majority.
 
I think it's hard to compare the elk spike hunt to the deer hunt based on hunter numbers alone so I couldn't form an opinion on that. Also, given the option to shoot a spike or three point is a no brainer situation, the issue is more people are killing off the small guys because that is all they see. A couple growth years IMO is all this state needs to get things back in order. For the greater good I would consider supporting cancelling the next year or two but we all know that isn't an option.
 
I like option 2 but if they let you hunt all three hunts I am against it. You should have to pick one weapon and stick to it. I think in the long and short run it will be the most influential. I like the one year dedicated hunter idea.
 
Sorry Walleye, something needs to give. #1 is no different that it is now and it's pathetic. I support #2, but when it is all said and done nothing will change. You and everyone else may have to sacrifice if you want to see positive changes.
 
I believe in option #2 that it is only the dedicated hunters allowed to hunt 3 seasons on that specific unit only. The general hunters are restricted to one weapon, one season, one unit.
 
would anybody be opposed to shutting down all the regions, maybe a few scheduled archery hunts and throw in a muzzy hunt, no more in-lines, back to the old traditional muzzy's, with no scopes..it would suck a@@ for us all, but somethings got to give...
 
Elkoholic,

I was originally favoring the idea of sub units but I am scared by the lack of info as to how many permits would be offered in the units.

They seem to have been way off base as to how many deer made it through last winter in many of the areas. They had painted the same rosey picture of a stable deer herd similar to the last couple of years. The hunting reports from good experienced hunters in the field are not supporting this.

Change for the sake of change makes no sense. We need better data and a better response to make a difference.

I don't want to hunt one out of three years if the hunting doesn't change. Do you?
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-10 AT 08:45PM (MST)[p]Option 2 for me also. I think that would help a lot, I dont mind if I could only hunt one unit, there are only two that I have ever really hunted for deer. Beaver and Pahvant what about everyone else???

I wouldnt mind seeing the whole hunt shut down either, we all know it wont happen, but it would definatly help with the deer numbers and produce more and better bucks. Either way they need to cut tags some in my opinion.

I AM THE ULTIMATESHEDFREAK!!!!
 
Why is it that people think keeping more bucks around helps the deer herds so much. 7-8 bucks per 100 does will get the job done every year for a healthy herd. I like option #1 but I don't usually have a hard time finding deer. I think last winter put a hurt on the herds down south last year and the nasty weather keep a lot of the critters in tight cover all weekend for the hunt.

alpinebowman

>>>---shots that are true pass right through--->
 
I think you guys are wasting your time Utah dont want to im prove the deer and you cant change that all they care about is the $$$$$$$ the only way to improve the deer is to boycott the deer hunt and dont buy tags then the next year buy your tags and shoot only 3 point or bigger then after that the deer should be back to good buck to doe ratios and bigger bucks this is what we are trying to do
 
From option 1:Remove a unit from the regional hunt ? and designate it a recovery unit ? if it averaged fewer than 12 bucks per 100 does. A recovery unit would not return to the regional hunt until it averaged at least 15 bucks per 100 does.

I think they would then have to reduce tags to alleviate pressure from the closed unit on the rest of the region. Otherwise that might work as well.
 
I am good with #2.

I wish they would put the Front as one of the 29....

Plus I do not see why we need 2 point systems/draws (Preference--Bonus points) if they do this 29 units and ya have to draw any of them to hunt??


Robb
 
I think they need to possibly shut it down for 1 year, and as mentioned before, thats not happening. I also think, and to the contrary of lots of people, we need to go on a giant preditor hunt. AND YES, kill as many mountain lions as possible.

They kill on average 1 deer per week.
Lets say there are 3000 lions in Utah.
lets take an easy number of 50 weeks in the year(even though there are more).
THATS 150,000 deer!

Or lets say 2000 lions at 50 weeks= 100,000 deer.

You can do the math, but I think the preditor situations is horrible. Just my 2 cents!
 
I am all for option #2, I am willing to go 3 to 5 years between hunts for a realistic chance at a good deer. I am also for only allowing youth to harvest young deer. Big sacrifices are required to have mature animals in an over hunted state.
 
I have been lurking on this site for a few years and have finally decided to come out of the closet if you will. I agree with what many of you are saying. With that said I have a few questions for you all. 1. How many of you actually go to the rack meeting and say something? There is some great ideas (IMO) that need to be shared with the fish and game.2. Is anyone opossed to letting youth and the elderly have their own Season?
 
It's not just the lions. Lions eat other animals too. Do you just eat Deer? I am a Lion Hunter and have been for all of my life. I have noticed that in the last few years I have been finding more and more coyote kills. They usually pack up in the winter but lately there are more packs than ever before. Just this week end I was up on Skyline and got into some fresh Snow. I cut 23 different Coyote tracks and not a single Cat. I was actually hoping for a cat track because I like to run up there. How many of you out there are seeing more mountain Coyotes than ever before? How many Fawns do you think 1 coyote finds and eats a year? I know I find 3 or 4 fawns a year and I am a human. I think?!
 
If we go with option 2 I think we need to merge the bonus and preference points systems. Having one point system will make hunters choose what they really want, not let them have their cake and eat it too. It will make it easier to draw the kind of unit you really want to hunt and make a huge dent in the point creep problem. That is how CO, AZ, NV, do it and it works well in those states. If we do that maybe my kids might actually have a chance of drawing a LE deer unit in their life, and some of us might actually draw more than once.

Dax
 
I personally am leaning toward #2. The number of permits for each of the 29 units is fuzzy but so it the regional numbers in #1. I think if we really want the fish and game to manage deer (really the hunters that kill them) then we should push for a system that makes them do that and lets them manage the number of hunters and where they can go. I don't think the archery should be statewide. We can pick a unit and stick with it just like everybody else. Shutting down a small unit within a region, cutting tags, or shortening the season has not worked and is causing big problems. That is why I don't see the #1 and #3 working.

Stop shooting the small bucks on the opening morning and we will have more bucks. Just cuz you have a tag doesn't mean shot the first thing that moves or even if that is all you ever see. Leave it for next year.

Buck regulations don't increase the herd size. Habitat, predators, cars, weather manage the deer herd size. Kill more lions and coyotes. Every serious deer hunter should be out in the hills all year long killing coyotes. You know it is free and a great time.
 
The mountainlion hype of lions eating 50 deer a yr blah blah blah is old news. There's less lions in the state of utah right now than there has been for lots and lots of years, but yet the deer herd still sucks. Explain that to me? The DWR has had lion quotas in effect for certain regions for years with some quotas never being met, and some units with year round hunting. The average age of lions killed in Utah is 2 yrs. old (kinda like deer eh?)Our problem is US yes man is the problem....we just like to try to find something else to blame stupidity on. There's too many hunts.....too many tags.....to many cars killing them on the hiway. Deer and predators have survived for ever, but throw us in the equasion and we pretty much screw it up. No I don't know how your going to improve your deer herds as the DWR is not willing to do what needs done for that to happen. When I was young you had to be 16 to hunt big game....then it went to 14.....now its 12. We really needed that many more tags in the field. Now don't get me wrong I'm totally in favor of kids hunting although I feel 12 is too young, but we're too greedy. We all want to shoot a buck every year, and and buy tags over the counter. Our current herds cannot sustain that.
 
I hate to see opportunity cut, but our deer herds need to have something done.

Being we already have way too many hunters, for the deer we have, I would like to see a choose your weapon hunt and do away with the undedicated hunter program. With the reduction of permits, and the abolishing of the DHP, could they not come up with a work hour program where guys/gals could earn a point and up their chances of still drawing a permit, and at the same time they could only hunt ONE hunt.

It's not going to be an easy fix and nothing substantial will ever come out of it without many hunters having to stay home a year or two.

I do not want to see Utah's mule deer managed like their elk herd, where the rich can hunt every year and the regular will be lucky to even get to hunt. Let's make sure that route is shut off before it's even started.

Have a good one. BB
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-10 AT 02:05PM (MST)[p]>If we go with option 2
>I think we need to
>merge the bonus and preference
>points systems.

> It will make it
>easier to draw the kind
>of unit you really want
>to hunt and make a
>huge dent in the point
>creep problem.
>

Here is a problem with that- Currently UT RES have to pick for LE species. If you make ALL deer tags a LE draw there would be a huge outcry from those who want to put in for LE Elk, and can no longer draw a deer tag since there is no General Hunt. Those other states you mentioned all allow hunters to apply for all LE Species. So you will have more hunters putting in the draw for the good deer units. Look at the NR random draw odds once they opened that up for all species applications.
 
I like option 1, except i would like more tags cut. option is 2 is ok, but i would like to see half of the units go to 3 point or better. And please dont compare deer to elk, our elk and deer herds are completly different. What the dwr did with the spike elk on le hunt was stupid. Thats like saying next year the henries and all le areas will be opened up to spike deer hunting.
 
The way I understand it the life-time hunters will get first go at the tags. I believe there are around 3500 of them in the state. This is where it gets sticky and where the 29 unit ideas has died in the past, it has been attempted 3 times. What if all 3500 of the life-time hunters in Utah want to hunt the southern region every year? Then there will be very few dedicated hunters allowed to hunt those regions in comparison to where the life timers do not want to hunt. It they let all the lifetimers hunt the best units in the state each year it won't work either.

The Wildlife Board would most likely set up a percentage game. Where 10 percent for of the tags for an area (each of the 29 units) go to life-timers, and they may have to have first, second, third choices to get a tag. Meaning they may not hunt near home even though they are promised a tag. Then 10 to dedicated hunters, which will also be a draw before the general draw. Then 15 percent to youth. Then 15 percent to senior citizens, and finally about 50 percent to everyone else. It sucks but I see it going down something like that. On units like Zion, Panguitch Lake, Beaver, Pine Valley and a few others it may end up taking 3-5 years for a resident to get a general rifle tag.

I am totally for having a smaller scale management plan and cutting tags in some areas if it means a healthier and more mature herd. The 18 post season buck to doe ratio would be awesome.

Someone said 7-8 bucks can breed 100 does easy. I disagree. In some areas the deer are so pressured and spread out either by hunters or other forces that the bucks are luck to find all the does in heat when they are ready to breed. That is why often there is a second rut, because does were missed. These fawns are then born later and have less of a chance of surviving the following winter. Plus at the current rate those 7-8 bucks are yearling's for the most part that don't know up from down. A doe will choose an older buck because their baby will have a better chance of being bigger and healthier, which means better recruitment.

I know I keep going on but if Utah is going to change they need to get with it soon. At the rate we are cutting tags and our bucks are struggling Utah will be a no-go state in five years.

I think we should adopt a plan like Colorado has, and we will see better bucks, and healthier herd in a few years. Lets put ourselves to the side for a year or two and think about our kids.

There will be less tags, they may be more expensive, you may not get to hunt with your family, but when you do get to hunt you will see more deer and better bucks.

Pray we have gentle winters. We can't afford a winter kill right now.
 
If we adopt a deer management plan like colorado that would put it at 25 bucks per 100.Just simply micro manage doesnt do it.
Im just glad its not 7-8 per 100.WOW!
 
I vote #2. I also think that it would be good to manage the age of deer harvested, but I don't think that will happen. IMO if the overall number of bucks can increase, and the number of tags can be managed effectively, there will be enough older bucks available. Once people realized that there are older bucks available in the unit they are hunting in, they will stop shooting the small ones. But, the herd will eventually be healthy enough to sustain even some small ones being shot by younger hunters etc.

I hunted in a different state this year and there were plenty of hunters, lots of small deer, but people knew that the bigger bucks were there, so they weren't shooting the small ones.

We will never start shooting the big ones if we can't stop shooting the little ones.


Layemdown

"Vegetables are not food, vegetables are what food eats!!"
 
Too many tags! Too many hunts! Too many guys shooting spikes and two points!
All adds up to none of these!

2311colorado_buck.jpg
 
OPTION #2 EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK 365 DAYS A YEAR...!!!

YES THIS IS A LONG POST BELOW BUT WELL WORTH YOUR TIME.....

LETS ALL FACE IT... THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WINTER RANGE LEFT IN 90% OF THE STATE (DUE TO DEVELOPEMENT) TO SUPPORT SUBSTANCIALLY HIGHER DEER NUMBERS. SO....... WE HAVE TO MANAGE THE DEER OUR RANGES CAN SUPPORT ON SPRING,SUMMER,FALL, AND WINTER!

THE ADVANTAGES OF OPTION TWO CLEARLY BRING TO THE SURFACE THE UNDERLYING AREAS IN NEED OF IMPROVMENT FOR UTAHS DEER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES FOR THE LAST DECADE.

(A) ALLOWS FOR MORE PRECISE MANAGMENT OF UNITS.....

CORRECT NUMBERS OF BUCK TO DOE RATIOS AND ACTUAL NUMBERS CANNOT BE COUNTED BY REGION... JUST PLAIN AND SIMPLE THE REGIONS ARE TOO BIG...EACH SUB UNIT HAS ITS OWN NEEDS.

(B)ALLOWS THE DWR TO MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTE HUNTING PRESSURE....

HOW MANY OF YOU ARE TIRED OF BEING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER IN YOUR HUNTING AREAS! AND AGREE THAT MORE HUNTERS HUNTING A SPECIFIC AREA WILL RESULT IN A HIGHER FATALITY OF BUCKS THUS REDUCING BUCK NUMBERS AND EVENTUALLY THE QUALITY OF BUCKS SEEN AND HARVESTED...

IN ADDITION LESS PRESSURE FROM LESS TAGS AND SPREADING THE HUNTING PREASSURE OUT WILL RESULT IN MORE BUCKS SURVIVING THE SEASONS GAINING AGE AND MATURITY AND WHO DOESNT WANT TO HARVEST A MATURE BUCK??.. AND WHO DOESNT WANT TO SEE MORE BUCKS MAKE IT THROUGH THE SEASON WHICH WILL INCREASE THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE!...

(C)ENSURES ALL UNITS WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE AT LEAST 18 BUCKS PER 100 DOES!

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR US AS HUNTERS??.... WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FAR MORE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO HUNT A QUALITY DEER HERD!!

HOW MANY ARE TIRED OF HEARING THAT THERE ARE SO AND SO MANY BUCKS PER 100 DOES IN THE HUNTING UNITS OF YOUR CHOICE AND THEN SPEND COUNTLESS DAYS FINDING THE PROCLAIMS JUST DONT STAND!

WHEN I THINK OF BUCK TO DOE RATIOS I THINK OF THE BUCKS WHO ARE NOT MILKIN ON THE DOE MOMMA STILL??!!

(D) IMPROVES HARVEST DATA COLLECTION.....

WELL THAT WOULD BE NICE TO ACTUALLY HAVE HARVEST DATA TO COMPARE AGE CLASS AND BUCK TO DOE RATIOS TO MANAGEMENT PLANS SO WE CAN KEEP TABS ON HOW THE HERDS ARE ACTUALLY DOING NOT SWEEPING UNDER THE RUG LIKE PREVIOUSLY!....

THERE WERE SOME DISADVANTAGES LISTED FOR OPTION 2....

(A,B,C)LIMITS A HUNTER TO ONE GENERAL SEASON UNIT ETC....

ISNT THAT THE POINT OF OPTION TWO!!!??

HUNTERS HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHICH UNIT THEY PUT IN FOR. YA IT HAS BEEN NICE TO HUNT WHICH MOUNTAIN RANGE YOU WANT WITHIN THE REGION YOU HAVE HUNTED PREVIOUSLY, BUT WE ALL HAVE TO DO OUR PART IN LIMITING HUNTING PRESSURE TO THE DESIGNATED UNIT BOUNDARY SO THAT THE OVERALL HERD SUCEEDS.

THIS WILL PROVIDE A BETTER QUALITY HERD SO OUR CHILDREN WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPERIENCE WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR HUNTING CAREERS.

IT?S VERY APPARENT THAT LIMITING HUNTING PRESSURE AND HUNTING A SPECIFIC UNIT MAY LEAD TO NOT HUNTING THE UNIT OF YOUR CHOICE EVERY YEAR BUT HERE IN AMERICA WE STICK TOGETHER AND IF A FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND DRAWS A TAG EVERYONE GOES ALONG TO GET A PEICE OF THE PIE!!!...

WITH THAT BEING SAID IT REBUTLES THE NEXT LISTED DISADVANTAGE WHICH SAYS MAKING IT HARDER TO HUNT AS A FAMILY OR GROUP. NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID. NOT EVERY HUNTER IN CAMP HAS A TAG AND A GUN ANYWAY. ALOT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OR GROUP MEMBERS THAT GO ALONG ON A HUNT ARE THERE FOR THE EXPERIENCE AND TO HAVE A GOOD TIME. SURE THEY THEMSELVES MAY WANT TO KILL A BUCK BUT THEY WOULD GET THEIR CHANCE AND WHEN THEY DID THEY WOULD HAVE A GOOD (QUALITY) HUNT!!!!!!

(D)CHANGES THE DEDICATED HUNTER PROGRAM TO ONE YEAR.....

ADVOCATE OR NOT OF THE DEDICATED HUNTER PROGRAM ONE HAS TO ADMIT THAT THE PROGRAM SEEMS MORE APPEALING BEING A ONE YEAR COMMITMENT AND HOPEFULLY LESS MONEY AND TIME INVESTMENT SINCE TAG PRICES WILL LIKELY INCREASE.

(E)POSES LAW ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES...(BOUNDARIES ETC.)

YES OPTION TWO DOES PUT MORE PRESSURE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT COLORADO,NEVADA,ARIZONA,WYOMING,AND IDAHO HAVE MICRO UNITS AND HAVE HAD THEM FOR YEARS....THESE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SEEM TO MANAGE JUST FINE OR THEY WOULD BE PUTTING AN END TO THEIR MICRO MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS WHICH THEY HAVENT EVEN HINTED TOWARD DOING....

(F)MAY RESULT IN 13,000 LESS TAGS....

BEAUTIFUL... A BUCK HAS 13,000 LESS PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE HOLES IN HIM AND SURVIVES THE SEASON GAINING AGE AND MATURITY WHILE INCREASING THE HERD SIZE WHICH IS THE POINT/GOAL OF ALL THREE MANAGEMENT PLANS.

(G)PERMIT FEE INCREASES.....

LET?S DO THE MATH..... DEER TAGS HAVE BEEN 35.00 AND LETS JUST SAY FOR EXAMPLE YOU PUT IN FOR A UNIT YOU DRAW EVERY 3-4 YEARS AND YOU SAVE THAT 35.00 YOU HAVE BEEN SPENDING ON A TAG AT LEAST EVERY OTHER YEAR UNLESS YOU ARE A DEDICATED HUNTER. AFTER FOUR YEARS YOU WOULD HAVE SAVED 140.00 WHICH MEANS YOU COULD AFFORD A MORE EXPENSIVE TAG AND THE DWR/DNR DOESNT LOSE ANY MONEY ON TAG SALES...

SURE WE ALL NEED TO STAY MOTIVATED TO KEEP PUTTING IN AND SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY ON A TAG SO WE HAVE OPTIONS (A)HUNT WITH FRIENDS OR FAMILY, (B)HUNT A UNIT THAT IS EASIER TO DRAW, AND (C)HUNT SHED ANTLERS, WATCH HUNTING VIDEOS, AND PHOTOGRAPH AND VIDEO DEER!!!!.....

I APPRECIATE ANY SUPPORT ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED AND WISH EVERYONE SUCCESS WHILE HUNTING THIS FALL AND I JUST PRAY YOUR ALL AT THE RACK MEETINGS BEING AN AMERICAN AND SUPPORTING THE ONLY OPTION #2!!!!
 
I agree that they really do not understand or know how really bad the numbers are and much more needs to be done, but at least option 2 will break the areas down for us to watch a little better. You can go on and look at their counts and they do them by these units anyway.

Funny you only lose 7,000 tags on option 1 but 13,000 tags on option 2. Both options cover the whole state and manage for the same amount of bucks. How are they even giving us a number yet when no counts have been made? I am sure this is how they have worked in the past to hand out tags. It is time this process changes and if a unit has no deer, tags should be given accordingly, and not doubled in another area.
 
Lots of good points on this thread, but they won't do any good unless they hit the right ears........

We invite everyone to attend the any Regional Advisory Council
meeting. (Central Region Nov. 10, 6:30 p.m.Springville City Multipurpose
Room 110 S. Main St. Springville) For the upcoming agenda and schedule
please visit: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/board-rac.html For
the November RAC, important information regarding changes in deer
management will be discussed and it might affect you. Unit by Unit
options as well as potential reduction in deer permits will be presented
and may have an impact on the dedicated hunter program in the future.



-----------------------------------------------
http://andymansavage.blogspot.com/
 
Option #2 for my all the way!!!!!!!!!

My problem is in the statement in Option #1. The one that says "Of the three options under consideration, Option #1 is the DWR's preferred option."

Let me translate this. "The DWR has already made up its' mind on this discussion. But due to massive public outcry at the absolutely horrendous situation our deer herd is in we will take the typical politician stance and put forth propsals that give the impression that we are doing something about the problem. All the while we prefer to keep things they way they are (which is what option #1 is!) but we will go through the dog and pony show of the "RAC Meeting" process to convey the impression that we're really doing something and we truly value hunters opinions."

They've already made up their minds. The fact that option #1 is a viable option in their minds blows me away. Option #1 has led us down the road to were we are today. Nothing will change with option #1. Option #1 doesn't change anything!!!!!!!
 
let me give a scenerio and you tell me if this could happen.
If the wildlife board decides on option 2 and cuts 13,000 tags
(which to me is an arbitrary number, What's that based on?)
in advance and sets that tag quota for 3 years as has been done in the past, they have to spread those 84,000 tags over 29 units.
If a unit falls below the buck ratio of 18 per 100 they lower tag numbers on that unit until the objective is brought back up.
here's the kicker. they have to spread those tags somewhere else.
So, they put those hunters in other areas that are at objective and then that area has to many hunters and they ruin it. and it goes below objective.
So, reason tells me they CANNOT set an arbitrary number of tags.
they MUST count/classify the herd every year and determine how many tags that unit will sustain. it could go up or down every year, depending. But they want their $$ to be secure and constant, so I'm afraid they will do just what I described.
anyone think this might happen?
 
I have an extremely hard time with the UDWR's mentality when it comes to Utah's deer herds. It speaks VOLUMES...when in their own e-mail they send out...they want to keep things how they are now. How about, attempting to fix the underlying problem in the overall health of the state's deer herds? You can't manage a dynamic resource (mule deer) which has numerous variables coinciding with it, the same way for 20 years. Your management needs to adapt to the changing resource, rather than sit stagnant and do nothing. Or with the few minor tweaks the UDWR implements (5 Day Hunts etc...) which equate to next to nothing.

It's pretty obvious that revenue is far more important than sustaining our deer herds for the future. It's kind of a...lets get what we can now, and not worry about things down the road attitude.

I was at the SE RAC meeting last November. There were plenty of frustrated mule deer hunters sitting in the room expressing their frustrations on how poor the quality of the deer herds are. All Anis Aoude could say in response, is "Well...hunters want opportunity." The sportsmens sitting in that room blew up and told Anis...the sportsmen that really care about the deer herd are sitting in this room. He didn't have much to say after that. Mule Deer Management in this state is terrible.

Does anyone at the UDWR who are responsible for mule deer management think long term??? What about hunters 20 years from now??? What about my son? And his son? Shouldn't the health of the state's deer herd be a priority?

There's got to be a few competent people working for the division. Get creative, and come up with some alternate ways to generate revenue. Invest in things that are important...like coming up with better, more accurate methods of getting some sort of idea of what ACTUAL deer numbers are...fawn mortality studies etc. Investing and putting quality time into something, is how you acheive results. What's being done now is not good enough. And for UDWR to claim they want things to continue how they are is outrageous IMO.

I'm all for changes, as I think they are desperately needed, but shouldn't the focus be on the overall health of the deer herd, and not just proposing a 3 buck increase in the buck-to-doe ratio?

I'm with a lot of you on the lack of details under Option #2. Don't give us half-assed proposals with very little detail, that have dis-advantage lists twice as long as the proposal your in favor of.

The person/(s) in charge of mule deer management in this state are doing a poor job imo. They have been receiving a lot of public outcry from dissatisfied hunters the past couple years about the lack of deer overall and the lack of seeing fewer and fewer mature bucks during the hunts. This is the result? They finally generate some options, but make it very clear that they aren't in favor of change at all?

It's disheartening to say the least.

BowHuntr
 
Good post DesertMuley. I agree with most of what you said. Now you just need to send that to the RAC members.
 
This is both a great idea and a great point Muleymonster

I like that Option 1 would close certain units in order to let them recover, and the number of tags for that region should then be cut relative to the amount of land being closed off- So if that unit was 20% of the entire region, 20% of the tags from the region should be cut. It's the only way to not hurt the herds in the rest of the region...

I really like the unit management- but hunting a specific unit would make choosing a hunt and coordinating with family very hard (Which is acknowledged by the DWR). I like managing the units- but hunting specific units as opposed to a region will be hard to swallow... But it could very well be worth it in the end...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
I agree with all of these comments. How can the DWR already put a number on the number of tags 29 units will be reduced. Each unit will be different with regards to numbers. They have already determined what a 7,000 and a 13,000 tag lose would cost in fee increases, so this is their objective number. Sorry DWR but the cut tags will likely be way more than this if the count is done right. If they deduct tags in poor areas and transfer them to the better areas, we will see all areas poor just as we are now.

AS for the deer herd in general, look on the website and see that they are still killing off does in all areas. Does that seem logical to you if the deer herd is decreasing. I have also heard that in their counts they count half of all fawns as bucks. We want to see horns on those deer before we classify them in the buck to doe ratio. As seen in this last winter, a fawn was lucky to make it through, so if they all died so did most of their buck count.
 
"7-8 bucks per 100 does is all you need"???? What a joke. Let's be real optimistic and figure each general unit has 15 bucks/100 does. How many of those 15 bucks are mature???? 2-4, so two to four bucks are adequate to breed 100 does???? Get a frigging clue.
 
My vote is option 2 WITH NOT CHANGES TO THE DH PROGRAM.

To me it makes no sense to limit the DH program to one year. The benefits of the program to the DWR are:

Guaranteed 15000 fewer permits in a 3 yr period
Work done through conservation projects
Most DH's don't even kill two deer in three years
(I can't remember when I killed two deer in a
3yr period)
DH entry fee 180.00 vs total cost of gen permits
through draw for 3 yrs 135.00

Benefits to DH's

hunt all three hunts
don't have to enter the draws (Sorta)
Pick our region

I for one NEVER archery hunt and only rifle hunt if the weather is like this years, the ML is my hunt of choice. I still gladly participate in the DH program to avoid the general draws and to pick my region and find the fee and 40hr donation still worth the benefits.

If part of their goal is to limit tags and maintain or increase revenue changing the dedicated hunter program does not make sense to me. They could keep the program the same and no matter what option they decide to go with they could use the easy mans numbers and count 5000 permits out of the equation every year and not jepardize revenue from the program.

I for one will not participate in the DH program if I have to draw for it every year. I only hunt one hunt normally so the General draws would save me money.
 

Similar threads

M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M
BrowningRage
Recommendation Gen Season Rifle Deer for family?
Replies
1
Views
431
BrowningRage
BrowningRage
Deerlove
Winter conditions
Replies
15
Views
2k
ridgetops
ridgetops

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

DD1BB06F-A08D-4066-9FBE-E2EAFC23CC10.jpeg
2021.jpeg
MD 21.jpg
03B9C0A3-EB75-4841-A46F-669B531E3B6D.png
IMG-3467.jpg
984AA72F-CD7D-41F7-810B-D836727C6F46.jpeg
20201012_161858.jpg
20230810_113808.jpg
IMG_3289.jpeg
img_8887.jpg
F909DD4C-E601-407B-91A5-7E30A5858925.jpeg
F8D9C701-A243-4258-A6F7-4B9F22F5BB88.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom