D
dh2273
Guest
Here is a copy of my letter to RAC CO members. Do you agree? RAC Members,
I will be out of town during the meetings so I will weigh in via e-mail. I think we are missing the point with these three proposals even though I appreciate the fact that the state in trying to do something about deer herds in Utah. Last month I received my SFW magazine in the mail and they had a Utah Mule Deer quiz inside. One of the questions was ?What is the biggest factor in mule deer decline in Utah?? The answer they listed was ?Loss of habitat.?
I know SFW does some great things for our state but they have no right to appoint themselves as the authority over mule deer in the state of Utah. Habitat loss is indeed a major player along the Wasatch front but let's look at San Juan Elk Ridge as a perfect example of what is wrong with the 3 proposed plans to change Utah deer hunting. For over 20 years in the 1960?s and into the 70?s Elk Ridge harvested an average of 2500 deer per year. For the last 10 years or more the harvest on Elk Ridge has been less than 100 and even as low as 50 deer. Common logic would lead us to believe if we are taking almost no deer in that unit the deer numbers would begin to climb again but that has not happened at all. Elk Ridge is in big trouble with their deer herd. 2500 to less than 50! It's not the buck to doe ratio that is the problem, it is the number of deer!
My point is this: Go and look at Blanding. The deer habitat in that area has not changed significantly in 40 years. So what has changed? Elk numbers and predators. One cougar now kills more deer in San Juan than the entire deer hunt and elk numbers have exploded in that area. We have to get our heads out of the sand and realize that we don't need more bucks nearly as we need more DEER!
Go through the state and you will find over and over places that held amazing numbers of deer in the 60?s 70?s and even the 80?s that are almost now devoid of deer. Look around Richfield, Scipio, Monticello, Loa, Green River, Bicknell, Boulder and on and on and on and you will see the same pattern. If we get 20 bucks to 100 does that's great but nothing from nothing is still nothing.
What we absolutely need to do is scale back elk numbers in certain indentified units and at the same time conduct massive predator control in those same units to see if we can bring the herds back in those units and use that as a template for re-growing our deer in Utah. Let's use a bunch of that auction tag money to zero in on predators and remove cow elk in selected units. What we have is an elk herd that is driving down deer numbers and then the predator population will not allow it to rebuild.
If I was to favor any one of the proposals it would be to break down the state into smaller management units but only if we actually do something drastic to really manage those units. 29 mediocre deer units is not better than 5. Take some action to grow more deer, not just more bucks. If you have 350,000 deer in Utah and a buck to doe of 15/100 you have a lot more bucks than if you have 150,000 deer and 20/100.
I will be out of town during the meetings so I will weigh in via e-mail. I think we are missing the point with these three proposals even though I appreciate the fact that the state in trying to do something about deer herds in Utah. Last month I received my SFW magazine in the mail and they had a Utah Mule Deer quiz inside. One of the questions was ?What is the biggest factor in mule deer decline in Utah?? The answer they listed was ?Loss of habitat.?
I know SFW does some great things for our state but they have no right to appoint themselves as the authority over mule deer in the state of Utah. Habitat loss is indeed a major player along the Wasatch front but let's look at San Juan Elk Ridge as a perfect example of what is wrong with the 3 proposed plans to change Utah deer hunting. For over 20 years in the 1960?s and into the 70?s Elk Ridge harvested an average of 2500 deer per year. For the last 10 years or more the harvest on Elk Ridge has been less than 100 and even as low as 50 deer. Common logic would lead us to believe if we are taking almost no deer in that unit the deer numbers would begin to climb again but that has not happened at all. Elk Ridge is in big trouble with their deer herd. 2500 to less than 50! It's not the buck to doe ratio that is the problem, it is the number of deer!
My point is this: Go and look at Blanding. The deer habitat in that area has not changed significantly in 40 years. So what has changed? Elk numbers and predators. One cougar now kills more deer in San Juan than the entire deer hunt and elk numbers have exploded in that area. We have to get our heads out of the sand and realize that we don't need more bucks nearly as we need more DEER!
Go through the state and you will find over and over places that held amazing numbers of deer in the 60?s 70?s and even the 80?s that are almost now devoid of deer. Look around Richfield, Scipio, Monticello, Loa, Green River, Bicknell, Boulder and on and on and on and you will see the same pattern. If we get 20 bucks to 100 does that's great but nothing from nothing is still nothing.
What we absolutely need to do is scale back elk numbers in certain indentified units and at the same time conduct massive predator control in those same units to see if we can bring the herds back in those units and use that as a template for re-growing our deer in Utah. Let's use a bunch of that auction tag money to zero in on predators and remove cow elk in selected units. What we have is an elk herd that is driving down deer numbers and then the predator population will not allow it to rebuild.
If I was to favor any one of the proposals it would be to break down the state into smaller management units but only if we actually do something drastic to really manage those units. 29 mediocre deer units is not better than 5. Take some action to grow more deer, not just more bucks. If you have 350,000 deer in Utah and a buck to doe of 15/100 you have a lot more bucks than if you have 150,000 deer and 20/100.
