The time has come Utah. please get it right.

NVdrhntr

Active Member
Messages
418
well, after walking through some of the most beautiful deer habitat the last several days in southern utah. I can honestly say this is the worst I've seen it in 35 years of hunting there.
didn't see a mature buck and does are way down. talked to a biologist who said winter kill took it's toll. Ok.
Now, before those of you who might have had a decent hunt come down on me, let me say i've talked to many other hunters who hunted different areas of the Southern region and got many of the same reports. very poor.
It's time to start managing for deer and not $$ for the DWR.
If it means cutting thousands of tags, then I say do it.
It really wouldn't take that much to make up the money anyway.
raise the app. fee's 5 bucks and raise the tag fee 20.
and reduce the tags. By the way, hunter congestion where I was was the worst I have ever seen it there. A 2 point didn't stand a chance trying to run that gauntlet.
Please get it right. Make your opinions known to the Board.
 
They really need to stop shooting deer in fields during the winter because they are a "problem animal."

You put your field in the winter range, deal with the wildlife! Put a high fence around the stackyard and let them have the field for the winter. They aren't hurting anything. When the snow gets deep enough they will move back out of the field and into the sagebrush where the food is easier to get to.

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
IT IS TIME...I am not sure which one of the "2" options is best, but anything is better than what we have now. I still don't think that a ratio is the best way to do it, why not total heard numbers...if the ration is 1 to 1 and u only have 50 deer on a unit what good is a ratio? The base heard numbers are so low it is gonna have to do more than just a increased buck to doe ratio to get us back on the increase
 
shut all the regions down for a few years, all i have seen taken this year is spikes and two points, only decent bucks taken have came off draw units...also lets fence some more highways where the migration is, too many dead ones........
 
Honestly I agree with shutting down the whole state for a few years. If they would shut down the whole general season for deer for 2 or 3 years I would pay the state 35 dollars each year to not hunt. Then when they open it back up open it to 4 point or better. I don't know if this is the best solution but something has to be done. My father hunted hard the first 4 days of the hunt and I was with him Sat and Sunday and we only saw 20 does total and he only saw 40 does on the whole hunt. Not a single deer with horns.
 
I don't know where you guys hunt, but I hunt the northern region and saw so many dang bucks it was unbelievable! I saw over a dozen yesterday, got a shot at a monster I had been watching for the last three days of the hunt. I saw more mature bucks than 2 points and this is a public land area that I hunt. To be honest, I'm a little pissed off about the 5 day hunt thing. What a waste of my money to buy a tag for five days. The weather was so crappy this year I only hunted a full day and that was yesterday, the last day.
 
+1 on the ratio management plan. Where I usually hunt, just a few years ago it wasn't uncommon to see 20+ bucks per hundred does. The difference now is the ratio is the same there are just 10 times less overall deer. Although the ratio has remained constant, the hunting sucks. We have to get the total herd numbers way up to fix this problem. Cut tags, reduce predators, increase fees, micromanage whatever but what they are doing isn't working and IT IS TIME to make serious changes if we are going to ever fix the problem.

Just my .02 cents anyway.
 
I agree the south needs some help big time I know a few guys who got some small four points but the only unit I heard of decent 170 to 180 class deer with a few breaking 200 was of course the Pauns. I hunted 13 days (bow, muzz, rifle seasons) and saw only one four point and he was nothing to special mabey 23 wide 140ish.
I honestly think the snow did em in.
 
I would not say the south was all that bad. Yes not as good as the past but we got into some bucks none that we wanted to shoot so we passed just to have them killed the next ridge over. We did see a monster killed. 7x9 33 inch. i was hoping i would see it posted up here but not yet
 
So how does cutting buck permits grow more deer? Yeah, I get that it grows more bucks, but how does it grow more doe and fawns. The doe are bred, they are having fawns. There are enough bucks to breed the doe population. So where are all those fawns going? Hunters are not shooting them. Micro-management or shutting regions down only grows more bucks.

And if the herd died during the winter, then doesn't that mean the range would not support what we had? How will more bucks on the range, competing with doe and fawns for forage, help grow more deer?

I think we need to put the deer first. If a unit really needs more bucks then cut tags. That doesn't mean we stop hunting deer. The focus should be on where the fawns are going-- predators, disease?, etc...

When the UDWR planted the Bighorns onto Timp, within the first week the lions killed 2 and ran the herd down onto the Country Club. So they decided to kill some cats. From Dry Creek in Alpine to Provo Canyon, over 40 cats were killed in less than 1 year. That is a lot of cats for a 14 mile stretch of habitat. The side effect was simple-- the deer herd exploded. The fawns that were born actually survived.

Hunters keep focusing on the least important component of the herd: bucks. Keep cutting tags, go to Micro Units, and you won't have any more doe than you have today. Hunters only kill bucks and bucks do not give birth.
 
+ 1 packout. In the Southern Unit, my family owns a small piece of land. The deer numbers have decreased while the predators are increasing. I have watched the coyote populations skyrocket. I try hunting them but apparently I suck at it. I see dog sign everywhere and even have pictures of them on trail cams and hear them every night. I lack the abiltiy to call them in I guess.
 
Thank you Packout for finally helping people understand the problem. Shutting down the hunt would only help for the first year or two after it was re opened, if you want more deer count the does. Back in the "glory days" they were using 1080 poison to kill all the predators and there were 300'000 hunters. Deer were every where. I know there are houndsman that love the predators, but I think we need to get serious about killing predators and getting deer numbers up then there will be more bucks. And quit acting like raising tag prices is the answer. I haven't seen anybody paying the does to have more fawns, that will just make it harder for dads (like me) to take our young boys out and get them interested in hunting. How many of us are as dedicated to saving the deer (killing predators) as we are killing them. I like the shorter season and wish they would do it with all three weapons, and make people choose there weapon, no more dedicated hunter crap.
Until we like seeing the deer as much as we like killing them we are not going to see things change. And by the way I don't think the hunt was that bad, I saw 25 bucks in 1 day and 2 evenings of hunting, with kids and family so I didn't get into the places I like to go when I am serious. Maybe we should make it mandatory for people ti kill a coyote before they can get a deer tag.
 
I agree with you packout. we need more does. I didn't see near the does I used to in my hunting area. I'm all for killing more predators
however, we did not see anything near the buck/doe ratio the DWR
says there is. we hardly saw any bucks. so where are they?
hiding till the hunt is over? I doubt it.
someone told me this week that when they do their counts/classifications in November that they count half the fawns seen as male deer and include them in their buck/doe ratio.
anyone know if this is true? if it is, that's ridiculous.
 
The amount of does and fawns killed on private property during the winter is digusting!

In 1 40 acre field last winter there we 16 does and fawns and 9 cow elk killed by the fish and game. Little much don't you agree?

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
I agree,

It is time the DWR in Utah understand that we no longer have faith in what they are doing, in the numbers of deer they are telling us we have and the number of bucks to does. We do need to go to the unit hunting, but how do they already know we will be cut 13,000 tags. If they really manage these units correctly they will not know how many tags until they do their counts. It is concerning to me that they have already thrown a number out for us so they can figure the cost they need to raise for each tag. Did they ever think by the time they make these counts in all 29 units it could be much more if done correctly.
 
you hit the nail on the head soutahhunter.
how can they know how many tags they are going to cut depending on the proposal selected. 7000 if they stay region management.
13,000 if they go unit management.
now, either plan still encompasses the whole of the general regions.
Can someone enlighten me on why the different numbers.
I assume they came up with their numbers based on trying to get from 15 bucks per 100 does to 18 bucks to 100 does using some formula. So, why 7000 one way and 13000 the other?
it sounds like they are managing for money first and deer second.
There are some scare tactics going on I think to try and get the public against proposal 2.
They say one of the disadvantages to proposal 2 is families may not get to hunt together. Why not. Why does everyone in camp have to have a tag. Can't a family go on a hunt with 4 or 5 tags in camp instead of 10 or 15? does everyone have to have a tag to have a good family time?
 
No he didn't! Packout, why don't you tell us why your against having a better quality hunt? You see, micro management is just a small piece of the puzzle not all of it. You want ways to get the overall herd up? On the particular unit I hunt it will be under the Predetor Management Unit this year. I don't know how much this will help, but it can't hurt. Also, on this unit highway mortality is one of if not the biggest factors of the dwindling deer heard in my opinion. It would be interesting if they kept a count on road kill. I can see a lot of issues with building a "deer proof fence", but the help is there...the money should be there from all the high dollar tags they sell.

I guess my question to you is why are you against it? Your only rebutal is that it won't grow more deer and we will have to cut tags. Why can't we work on the overall deer numbers under the micro-units? Will this not help from hot spots getting pounded and having a less that desirable experience due to over crowding? Will this not give us better control on where the permit numbers need to be from year to year?

I think people are tired of the way things are going and just doing nothing isn't going to cut it anymore. I believe one of the ideas were cut the tags 7000 and keep it the way it is. Thats going to do a lot of good!
 
MIcro manage will never work until the DNR does an accurate count, I lost all belief the little that I had with the DNR when the put an article in the san juan record about the deer herd on the abajo unit, they stated that there is over 13,500 deer on this unit, which is crap, there isn't 4,000 deer on this unit. So as long as the DNR are doing the count then micro managing will never work, they will fudge the numbers to get the sales they need. they will create 29 units and with the count they lied about on the abajos they will give 6000 rifle tags on that unit alone and wipe out the remaining deer, and with the count they produce it will make things worse, The numbers are fudged too bad. They need to have someone else do the deer count if they want it to work.
 
just to add to the fire i just got back from hiking ma @$$ of above bountiful, did alot of glassing saw 8 does and one two point dink that survived the rifle hunt. Yet the city officials of bountiful are claiming there are over 3000 head of dear in city limits. So they are hiring some guy to go around and shoot them. instead of shooting them why not transplant them to areas with low herd numbers. DWR and the city officials of bountiful need to pull their heads out of their asses.
 
One thing that got my attention was the advantages vs disadvatages in option #2. The advantages seem to me like staples in managing a deer herd things you hafto to have to correctly do their jobs. The disadvantages are luxarys that given the current deer #s we really cant have unless the #s come up drasticly.
 
The time HAS come for Utah! We must get it right! I have mixed emotions regarding the proposed changes by Utah DWR. I agree 100% with Packout. None of the proposed changes are going to increase deer numbers by a substantial amount. I wonder if the deer were at there objective numbers if there would be enough big bucks for people? I think that is where the focus must be directed. In addition to increasing the buck doe ratio!

I spend more time on the Pahvant in the winter counting and looking at deer than anyone I know and I can honestly tell you that my deer numbers are less than a third of what the DWR is coming up with on their deer counts. Way below objective numbers!

I have noticed one trend over the last 8-10 years though. Increasing predator tracks and sign. I see lion tracks in every canyon that I have hunted over the last few years. Coyote tracks everywhere in the low country. Last year I watched this buck right up until the muzzleloader hunt and this is how we found him. Obvious lion kill. I see a ton of predator kills on this unit. Don't know about the rest of the state but very possible to kill a B & C lion or a B & C elk on Pahvant. I am doubtful that a B & C buck even exists. If we want bigger bucks we need more deer to give them a chance to live into their prime!
8491103_7242.jpg

91100925091450.jpg
 
Elkoholic- Those are fair questions. I have a quality hunt every year. This year we only hunted for about 10 hours over 4 days in the Central Region. We saw multiple bucks, passed on 4 points. We only had people around us for 10 minutes on opening day. We didn't pull the trigger, but my young sons, wife and I had a memorable hunt. Your idea of quality is obviously different than mine.

I am against it because I sat in Mule Deer Committee meetings for 4 months and saw the data. Simply growing more bucks does not increase the productivity of the herd. In fact, data from NV and CO both show that it can be detrimental to the herd health. I believe that the dozen men on the Mule Deer Committee (made up of reps from many groups and back grounds) were right in not recommending Micro-Management.

I am against it because it deals with the least important component for the health of the herd-- bucks. I am against it because I think it will drive more people from hunting. I am against it because I, along with 60% of hunters, hunt more than one area. I am against it because once you go to Micro-Units then you can't come back.

I am against it because people will never be satisfied with the "quality". We all heard the whining about how the Henry Mtns "quality" was declining. Some lobbied for less tags/more restrictions on the Henry Mtns. We saw people at the RACs, Board, and on MM complain about the Henry Mtns going downhill. Ask Marley if the "quality" was acceptable on the Henrys.

I see deer micro-units going the same way as the elk management. Special interest groups (there are many more than people think) lobbying for less tags, even when the units are meeting objectives. Inches over science. Waits of 3-8 years to hunt deer in Utah. NV has 3-8 year waits and 50% success rates. Of that 50%, only 50% are 4 point +. That means they wait 3-8 years for a 25% chance to kill a 4 point. I can do that every year on Public Land in the Central Region, if I wanted to pull the trigger. I dislike the fact micro-units will create 170 more Conservation Permits.

Now, I agree with you on cutting tags if needed. I can live with the UDWR's plan: manage the 3 chronically struggling units until they start meeting their buck objective. Cut tags if the herd needs it. Major predator control. Road improvements (underway), habitat improvements (underway, but a few more years from being established), educate people to stop harassing the deer 365 days a year, strategic road closures could save bucks.

But where are the fawns? During the past month I saw more fawns than all last Fall. So the doe population was bred, the bucks got their job done. Now how many of those will live through next year? That is the most important question facing our deer herd.
 
3 point or better is not a bad thing but it still does not really solve the problem of no deer.
That is what is so frustrating to me. When I spoke with biologist this spring he stated that the deer herd was "doing okay, not as bad as I was thinking because fawn recruitment looked very good!" yeah four of the five does in the area had fawns. Our winter range here in central utah is the best that it has ever been. Unless DWR can figure out what is killing the deer and control predators, we will have no deer.
 
well i did my part this year seen nothing but two points and spikes and i let them go. But i did make a nice hard shot :) and saved a couple fawns with this big dog down!!!!!
27052010deer.jpg


8444dog.jpg
 
PACKOUT, Sounds like you have a few honey holes. I don't think your experience represents most hunters in utah though. I just don't see how trying to manage 5 huge units and all the different deer herds within it works?

I also don't see how growing more bucks are detrimental to the herd? Is this what we have to look forward to? And where did 7-8 buck per 100 does become acceptable to breed all the does? Who did the study and how big was the study area? Remember that the way we count deer is what we like to call a SWAG. I would dare say that having a little higher Buck to Doe ratio would be better for the overall health of the herd.

Back to the decline of the herd. You can't get away from some type of road or atv trail on this unit. I remember 25 years ago when not many people had atv's and it was alot different. You could still get away from the crowds and see a lot of deer. We used to walk into these areas on the newly built trails and you might run into a couple guys that had ATV's. We was always envious because they usually was packing there deer or elk.

Looking back now I don't think people realized what a negative effect it would be to have a trail on every ridge and drainage. I don't know what the fix is know because a road closed sign don't seem to stop many people anymore.

The winter range also suffers from all the roads. It just makes sense to shut down the side roads. The few buck that do make it meet there demise from the poachers. It's nothing to go for a walk in the spring and see 5+ deer with there horns sawed off on the winter range.
 
If the DWR is already doing their counts by the the 29 units, does it not make sense to go ahead and manage by those same units. Why count in the 29 units, then combine into 5 big regions where you cannot control hunter pressure in certain areas.
 
I couldn't agree more with the predator comment. I could not believe the amount of coyotes we've seen and heard this year. I know the area has always had them, but I was definitely shocked to say the least by the numbers. My dad and I were talking and why not give a guaranteed tag to someone who brings in ten dogs. I'm sure that would save more than one buck.
 
The 29 unit will work if the DWR will give a true or more accurate count, The problem is they said on the Abajo unit there is 13,500 of deer and 18-20 per 100 doe, and that is crap, so lets say they put this abajo as 1 unit, and they use this crappy number they pulled out of their hat and now they will say we can manage to support 6,000 rifle hunters, and lets say right now this last season we had 4,000 rifle hunters, we just now added 2,000 hunters on the abajo because the division pulled some outrageous number out of there behind, that would put more pressure on one unit that struggled with 4,000 hunters, now we added 2,000 more. Sounds like a great plan to me.
What will suck is the lack of detail we are being presented with, we will get 29 units but wont know what amount of tags they will get, and what the deer count is and the buck to doe count is, we wont have enough data to make a good decision.
 
I think those who want to see tag cuts, will get to see them soon enough. Utah is THE place for big bull elk and I think many, including the UDWR, would love for Utah to eventually be THE place for huge mule deer. And, there's only one way to do it, and that is to offer very few tags, just like the elk.

As I posted in another thread, if you look at the business side of hunting, and that is what the UDWR does, it makes better sense to manage deer like they do elk.....few hunters, high success rates, huge animals taken each year, etc.
My business, taxidermists, guides, outfitters, magazine owners, MDF, SFW, UDWR, and many other businesses (except maybe retail stores) benefit greatly from BIG animals being taken each year.
HOWEVER, it's the sportmen who want to go hunt who suffer. Sure, once every 10 years they might get to hunt a good unit, but the other 9 years are going to be awfully boring.

I guess I would just say, be careful what you ask for, unless you can afford a conservation tag. They will always be around, cause those will be the future of funding the UDWR.

PS - It's kinda funny to hear people complaining about southern Utah when Jason Carter killed a 250 buck with his bow down there this year and a 220 last year. Anyone reading his stories would probably believe that southern Utah is the greatest place on earth!!

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
You are right founder, in order to generate more bucks we are going to have to cut many tags making it harder to hunt, but if your mind set is doing what is best for the deer herd and not what is going to be the best deal for me as a hunter you will soon see the vision.
 
You think the way Utah manages elk is best for the herd? A couple years back many units had more bulls than cows!!! I'll bet most units are still in the 60-80 bulls per 100 cows.
You may be right though.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I agree with Packout concerning the fact that the proposal doesn't increase fawn production/overall herd numbers that much. However, until predators are whittled down dramatically, our hopes of flourishing deer herds is just a pipe dream. As I understand it the DWR is required by the legislature to use deer modeling to conme up with deer numbers. It is interesting to note that in about 2004 the DWR began using a "new" scientific computer model. The Nebo unit went from having 22,000 deer to 10,500 and the Manti dropped by over half as well. The hunters have known for years that those numbers were a joke-- but no one the could do something about it listened. The DWR readily admits that deer population modeling is not a very accurate way to count deer. Director Kaporwitz even said that back before the 1980's when they used "on the ground" counting methods-- the counts were very much more accurate. The fawn doe ratio needs to be at least 32/100 just to maintain the herd size, anything below and the herds will decrease.
Also, it is true that that hunting is not the major factor in herd sizes. Habitat and road kill both have small impacts on herd mortality. Predation is far and above the major limiting factor on herd size and growth. Coyotes and cougars could care less if their next meal is a fawn, buck or doe. There can be no doubt that they are the major factor in fawn and doe survival. Of course, hard winters do damage. However, years ago. we have devastating winter kills-- hunting was poor the next year-- but usually within 3-4 years there would be a huge increase in deer numbers. It was kind of cyclic, we just don't see that kind of exponential growth after tough winters anymore. Predators are the major reason. Go to a chart that shows what happened to deer herds after poison bait was banned. It is absolutely amazing to see the correlation. If we want better deer hunting(bigger herds, more bucks)predator numbers have to be lowered considerably.
In the meantime-- there is ample room on most units to have more bucks and bigger bucks without creating food competion between does and bucks. I recieved the current buck doe ratio chart for all 29 deer units and I was shocked to see what was reported-- most of the units are at at least 15/100 and many are above 18/100. I know the units I am familiar with and I have to say that whatever model they are using is way off. Those ratios are supposed to be POST season. I believe that they predict how many fawns will be born next spring and figure half are bucks. I believe if that is correct, the inclusion of buck fawns into the count needs to be stopped.
Lastly, if I am not mistaken-- Packout has access to alot of private ground, so I don't doubt he could easliy be seeing alot of bucks-- just nothing big enough to harvest !
We really need to do what needs to be done so that the herd numbers can actually increase. In the meantime........
 
I certainly don't think managing deer the way we manage elk is the best for the herd. I am 40+ years old and I don't want to hunt deer only one or two more times in my life. I too fear that is where we are headed. I go into canyons and make drives where we would produce 50+ deer back in the day. Now we go there and see 5 or 6 deer. Given the new proposals for deer management increasing buck doe ratios from 15 to 18/100 does, my chance of seeing a buck in this draw increases from .75% to 0.9%. Doesn't make a big difference if there are no deer. I love to see a big buck as much as the next guy.
 
I think comparing Jason Carter to 95% of the hunters that go hunting every year is unrealistic. he has way more time, money, and most of all resources to keep track of those few giants that are always going to exist no matter how few deer they're is. dont get me wrong he works very hard for those bucks but, most hunters dont have those kind of resources at their disposal. They just have to spend what time they have scouting spots they know and hope bucks come back from the previous year or a buck shows up.
 
Elkoholic- Where did I say 8 bucks is enough? I know the the studies done by multiple state agencies say that, but I do not think that is acceptable. We are at 18+ bucks on most units.

As for the numbers, they is what the UDWR will manage with under either the REgional or Micro formats.

Nebo1200- You are old enough to know that you shouldn't be muddying the water with false tales. You know, as I have told you over and over and over again that our ranch holds elk and the elk drive off the deer. We have discussed this point and it remains fact. Elk drive off deer on our place (and I'd wager other places also) so we never hold many deer on us. I hunted up AF Canyon and above Provo. Public land. Hiked in with my wife and our 9 and 11 year old boys. Drove roads a couple times and glassed, public land. No need to spread falsehoods to make your points.

If there is plenty of habitat to carry bucks because herds are depressed then how did the Southern Region sustain the winterkill so many are speaking about?
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-10 AT 03:53PM (MST)[p]Packout is dead on accurate.

The UDWR needs to fix the foundation of the problem...the overall health of the deer herd.

Increasing the buck-to-doe ratio doesn't equate to producing more deer.

You can't propose a micro-management plan with a pre-determined number of tag cuts. The management needs to be flexible...equating to differnt amounts of tag cuts each year depending on deer numbers.

A micromanagement strategy will never work either, if the UDWR continues to use a computer model to guestimate deer numbers. It would require the UDWR to invest time and money into getting the most accurate deer numbers possible and counting every year...which according to them is very hard or impossible to do because they don't have the time or money.

The UDWR is in favor of not changing anything. It's sad...that they are responsible for the management of mule deer, a public resource, and they have done a terrible job over the past 20 years. Hell...longer than that. When managing a dynamic resource (mule deer), with so many variables in play...the management needs to be dynamic in turn...and make changes when changes are needed. Those changes are LONG overdue. Yet, the UDWR wants to make no change to mule deer management...they make the claim themselves in the e-mail they sent out to everyone.

We need to invest more resources into finding out why fawn survival rates are so low, and what we can do to bring those numbers back up. We need to invest more resources into yearly monitoring/counts..that yield more ACCURATE numbers of how many deer are really out there. I can tell you in the region (SE) I hunt...the numbers are no where near what they claim. I'm fortunate to have a biology job that allows me to be out and about for 7-8 months out of the year...and if the UDWR's numbers are accuarate I must need to get my eyes checked and go retake a basic math class.

I can't wait to see what mule deer hunting is like in this state in 20 years. Obviously, money is far more important than the long-term health and perpuation of our mule deer herds.

Maybe who ever his in charge over there, Jim and Anis, need to go find a different line of work and let someone else with some common sense manage our deer herds.

My .02


BowHuntr
 
Founder and muleycrzy have some VERY GOOD points. If Utah manages the deer like the elk, it will be just like the elk in the sense only the "haves" (max point holders and the big $$ hunters) will get to do the lion's share of the hunting.

Limting opportunity to the point of making a muley tag a once in a decade thing cannot be good for the future of hunting. It will be pretty hard to convince a 12 year old to stay interested in hunting when his dad tells him that he will have to wait until he is 25 before he is able to finally shoot a 4x4 on a limited entry hunt.

Utah does not need to try to turn every deer herd into the Henry's Mtns.
 
Must be close to halloween with all the BS scare tactics. There will always be units to draw every year. Plus its pretty hard to convinse a 12 yr old to go hunting for 5 days without seeing a buck. A 12 yr old most likely isnt going to hike for hours on end looking for a buck for 5 days. The better experiance IMO is actually being on a few descent bucks every day without all the BS of having to out shoot 10 different people for a spike. Maybe some place like Hmmm i dont know COLORADO or NEVADA that has micro-managed units with higher buck/doe ratios!
 
It's apparent from everyone's posts that the UDWR method for counting deer is not accurate. I would agree with statement as well. The only issue that has not truely been addressed is what is a more accurate way to count the deer numbers.

It was briefly discussed that the old UDWR of getting out and physically counting deer worked better then the new computer generated model of counting deer. We currently have required reporting for limited entry permit holders to obtain current more accurate data then a computer model. Why not require tag holders to go online and enter data or a short form with hunter observation information.

I have done for the turkey's on the Pahvant unit. Why not have us, the hunters report back our observations. Granted it is based on hunters providing accurate information and some may try and fudge the numbers. Would this really be worse then the current computer model of deer numbers. The UDWR reported a 20/100 buck to do ration ont the Pahvan and Beaver unit. If this were the case I would have observed a minimum of five bucks per day for the does I observed during the recent rifle hunt. This was not the case, it was closer to 1/100.

During the 2009 winter I observed several immature bucks breeding does. There appeared to be limited competition for the does and the doe numbers a down drastically. In area that was common to see 100-200 a day during the rifle season, now your excited to see thirty does in a day.
 
Did you know that when they count the number of bucks in late November and December half the number of fawns they see are counted as bucks. Then we go through a winter like last year where most of them die and we are left with nothing. If they are going to count a buck doe ratio lets make sure it is a buck with antlers on its head before it is counted. With the DWR leaning toward option 1 that is telling me that it is less painful on everyone but not what is in best interest of the deer herd. They think it is what all the sportsmen will want, but they fail to understand that we want to bring back the deer herd, not just get another tag to hunt nothing again. They say if you stay with option 1 we will only cut around 7,000 tags, you can still have the dedicated hunter program the way it was and you can still hunt in the region. Sounds like they are steering us in that direction, but again they fail to realize that we want our deer herd back.
 
Amen, I am glad to see that many of you feel the same way I do. If I could see 10 to 15 bucks a day or more than a dozen does in a day, I would love it. I would take my chances on finding a big buck. Deer are smart animals and there would definately be some that would survive to become big ol' boys. To me the enjoyment of mule deer hunting is getting together with friends, making some drives AND seeing some deer. Nothing like the anticipation of seeing a big string of deer working up a hillside and knowing that if there is a big buck in the bunch you are going to get a shot! Not hunting all darn day to see 5 does and a skragely looking 3 or 4 point. We need more deer! I think many of the younger hunters don't realize the number of deer we used to have!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-10 AT 02:39PM (MST)[p]Nebo1200- You are old enough to know that you shouldn't be muddying the water with false tales. You know, as I have told you over and over and over again that our ranch holds elk and the elk drive off the deer. We have discussed this point and it remains fact. Elk drive off deer on our place (and I'd wager other places also) so we never hold many deer on us. I hunted up AF Canyon and above Provo. Public land. Hiked in with my wife and our 9 and 11 year old boys. Drove roads a couple times and glassed, public land. No need to spread falsehoods to make your points.

Packout-- I don't think I said anything that wasn't correct. You do have access to private ground and you could be seeing alot of bucks. Didn't say anything bad about you or your opinions. Not spreading false info at all. I think you took it a little hard-- sorry if I put it in a way that it seemed to put you down.
 
soutahhunter,muleycrzy, thats checkmate. You said it perfectly.
We want are deer herd back!
 
The entire deer population is down. More does means more bucks. Fewer does means fewer bucks. How can a few deer compete with predators, ATV traffic, drought, hard winters, etc. You need more animals to have a higher survival rate. The population seems to be continually spiraling downward.
 
Nebo-Thanks for the message. I just took your post as dismissing my experience (which was on public land) because you implied that I hunted our ranch. I would love to hunt our ranch for deer, but the problem is elk have displaced them.

Maybe someday hunters will realize that simply killing less bucks will not produce more deer. How has the Mico-management of the San Juan helped that deer herd? Oh yeah, they kill a few giant bucks because they only kill a few every year. But the herd has not exploded. I'd say it has imploded.
 
I been preachin this for years.......
Every excuse your gonna get from the UDOW is going to just fall back on them, whether it's the lions, or the hunters. Winter kill wasn't bad enough to take a good deer herd and make it look like an epidemic hit the herd in 2 years.
They need some serious help, Completely close units for a few years and in the mean time learn how to manage your game better Otherwise the hills are gonna look like lifeless paintings



-Cass
 

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