The reason I don't hate Option 2

ktg

Active Member
Messages
865
Option #2

1. Will increase the health of the deer herd. More bucks than we have now will mean more mature deer will be doing the breeding, leading to a healthier herd, and a better hunt.

2. Fewer hunters will be hunting with Option 2. I love hunting when there are fewer people around, rather than more. I don't need to have a tag every year.

3. My family will enjoy the hunt more when we see more bucks and fewer hunters. Only one of us needs a tag and we all can go.

4. What has been said is that they are pushing for 18:100 ratios, this is partially true. If you read through it and have listening at the RACs, the proposal is actually for 18-25:100 ratio, which in my mind is great. The higher the better.

How many tags would be available statewide under 25:100? Less than there is now. I love hunting with fewer people around.

Any idea what the odds of drawing a tag would be under that scenario? I have an idea. I wouldn't be able to get a tag every year. Fine. If you think you need a tag every year, you're selfish.

5. Increasing the buck/doe ratio is going to mean more bucks seen during the hunt. Fun stuff.

Additional consideration needed: It doesn't focus on habitat which should be one of our concerns, along with predator control (eradication would be better).
 
Why isn't the Henry Mtn population exploding then. You would think with all them awesome bucks then the deer population would be exploding, but instead its one of the slowest growing deer populations.

Bigger and better bucks doesn't equal a better health mule deer herd. Have you ever seen a pregnant buck because I haven't???????

You want more does and fawns on the winter range with fewer bucks competing with them for browse.

KTG More DOES means more FAWNS means more BUCKS means more OPPORTUNITY.
 
Also what about your son, KTG, he won't be hunting a lot either when we slash tags for nothing. Success rates will remain the same and until we address the real issues then this bandaid won't accomplish much, and we will lose a lot of hunters in the process.
 
And to answer your question about how many tags would we have if we managed for 25 bucks per 100 does?

I have that model in front of me my friend.......................................

You would have 40,000 hunters statewide
SO if that is where you want to go you will be in line with the other high dollar pay the most money to hunt people in this state.

Oh and your license would cost 3 times as much and the numbers of hunters in the state would be out numbered by the anti hunters.

You would also hunt about every 5th year. I have that chart in front.

Tear it up KTG, you can be the cause for hunting to be outlawed.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
 
And for you and all the other guys that hate hunters and think you should have the mountain to yourself with 26" 4 points everywhere and poor deer here health here is your henry mountainStat...................................

Manage the state for 40 bucks per 100 does and you would have a whopping 20,000 permits statewide that you would draw 1 in 15-20 years.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
 
>And to answer your question about
>how many tags would we
>have if we managed for
>25 bucks per 100 does?
>
>
>I have that model in front
>of me my friend.......................................
>
>You would have 40,000 hunters statewide
>
>SO if that is where you
>want to go you will
>be in line with the
>other high dollar pay the
>most money to hunt people
>in this state.
>
>Oh and your license would cost
>3 times as much and
>the numbers of hunters in
>the state would be out
>numbered by the anti hunters.
>
>
>You would also hunt about every
>5th year. I have that
>chart in front.
>
>Tear it up KTG, you can
>be the cause for hunting
>to be outlawed.
>
>Tony Abbott
>www.myfreehunts.com


40,000 tags? Sounds about right to me. I've hunted 1 year in the last 13 so being able to hunt 1 out of every 5 would be fine with me. At least when I do hunt I'd have a quality experience. I really doubt that little old me will be the cause of hunting to be outlawed, lol.
As for my son not getting to hunt every year, I think he's about had enough of the hunt as it has been the past couple years. Something's got to change or all the youth, like him, will become frustrated and quit hunting. Then by your logic, YOU will be the cause of hunting to be outlawed.
 
>And for you and all the
>other guys that hate hunters
>and think you should have
>the mountain to yourself with
>26" 4 points everywhere and
>poor deer here health here
>is your henry mountainStat...................................
>
>Manage the state for 40 bucks
>per 100 does and you
>would have a whopping 20,000
>permits statewide that you would
>draw 1 in 15-20 years.
>
>
>Tony Abbott
>www.myfreehunts.com

Now where did I say that the whole state should be managed like the Henry's? I used it as an example of that limiting tag numbers could do. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere.
 
Then what's your solution Tony? I may have missed a post on that but I haven't read it anywhere. Or do you think things should just continue as they have been?
 
My solution is coming and it won't be a popular one. But it will work.

Now answer the Question. Where are all those bucks we have been saving and were are all the does and fawns that saving the bucks created?

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
 
>My solution is coming and it
>won't be a popular one.
>But it will work.
>
>Now answer the Question. Where are
>all those bucks we have
>been saving and were are
>all the does and fawns
>that saving the bucks created?
>
>
>Tony Abbott
>www.myfreehunts.com

I never said that cutting tag numbers was THE solution, I said it was a part of the solution, like the bandaid until the wound is healed. But I don't see any healing coming in the future with all the politicians running things, so bandaids are the next best thing. Obviously, in the past, cutting ONLY the number of tags that has been cut, without fixing some of the other things that are wrong, didn't work either, except on the limited entry units, because there was much greater tag cuts there. Something in between those 2 options sounds right to me.
I can't wait to hear your solution (seriously).
 
Uhhh the suspence is killin me.

BTW fishon, you dont mention anything about what happens when the buck/doe ratio increases due to tag cuts and they start issuing more tags due to more bucks. But i guess that would downplay your BIG SOLUTION. LOL
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-10 AT 01:46PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-10 AT 01:43?PM (MST)

Which deer population would grow faster? Same habitat, same number predators

Group A 1,000 deer, buck to doe ratio 15 bucks to 100 does.



Group B 1,000 deer, buck to doe ratio 25 bucks to 100 does?


What groups produces more bucks?

Which group provide more opportunity for hunters?
 
A would be long term healthy herd, B would be short term gain long term loss with little chance for a bounceback.

All bucks are good for is hunting and breeding after that all they do is eat. As said before how many pregnant bucks have you seen?

18-25/100 is not a healthy herd its a sausage fest.

Get a healthy herd and bigger bucks will follow. Increase overall numbers and manage for 15/100 max! Healthy numbers are 10/100 but that's not popular.

29 sub units is dumb!

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
Your both assuming that the DWR can grow a herd wich they said at least at the southern rac that they can't. Anis said they were not responsible for low deer #s, that they had no control over the weather wich is what really has the most to do with deer #s. This is what was said after people wanted accountability for herd #s. So if nature has more to do with #s than anything the DWR does we'll have the same amount of does but only half the bucks we do now. But hey thats science ehh.

Utah's general season deer units are a laughing stock and lets have fewer bucks than we already have. Its a good thing Nevada and Colorado are'nt very far away. Plus i can draw those states every other year and actually see a couple mature bucks. And no a mature buck isnt a 2-3 yr old.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-10 AT 04:16PM (MST)[p]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-10 AT 04:10?PM (MST)

Personally I have been able to find mature bucks every year. Just haven't been able to connect. 1 well into the 200s, 1 right at, 1 at 180, 1 at 160.
Call me selfish but I want to hunt every year and work my butt off for that trophy buck because it will mean more. In the meantime work on drawing LE tags for a little more chance at a big buck that still has no guarantee! It is rediculous what people are trying to do! You can't see the forest for the trees! Option 2 WILL hurt our deer herds! Hopefully it won't stick so I don't get to tell you I told you so.

Every hunt I go on is a success, if I kill or not! Its great time in the outdoors with family and friends working my butt off doing what I love and chasing animals I love!

I agree that DEER numbers are down not just bucks. Something needs to be done but this is NOT the way to do it! Habitat is our problem, work on that. Roadkill is another problem, build some fence! Predators are the problem, kill more predators! Elk are the problem, bull to cow ratios are way out of wack kill more elk! Look at any unit, elk numbers go up, deer numbers go down! Does option 2 do any of that?

What has changed since the good ol days? We have elk, we lost a lot of range, there's more predators and more cars and more roads! And a lot less hunters in the field every year!

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
Agreed on most of the problems exept the one at least were i hunt.

Thats good if you work your butt off all year to find a 200, 180,and a 160 buck but did you ever think about the people that are physically unable to work they're but off. No i'm not talking about people that are to lazy but people that have had injurys or people getting on in years that would love to see one of your 160-180 bucks that cant make back in 1-5 miles. But hey as long as your gettin yours right.

Never said it was only bucks that were down but i'm telling you what the DWR told me and everyone else that attended the southern rac. Anis said and i dont know the exact wording but it went like this, we cant control the weather and that has more to do with the fluctuating deer populations than anything else. But they did say they could control buck/doe ratio threw limiting tags. Your problem should be with the DWR as wildlife managers that havent stepped up and taken responsabilty for current state of the deer herd. At least with opt #2 were changing it up and not just doing the same thing that got us here and thats going along with the DWR's proposals.
 
All 4 bucks were this year, 3 were found from the road with my wife and kids. The other was less than a half mile from the road. We have some damn good LE units for better chances at a bigger buck. Mule deer are a very valuable resource that people love to hunt, sorry but not everyone will kill a monster buck in their lifetime. Option 2 does nothing for our overall deer herd. It doesn't change the way they manage than they do now. It only limits hunter area and opportunity!

Elk don't run deer to another area, they compete for resources and guess who loses? So guess who starves to death? Deer are easier for predators to kill.so guess who gets killed first?

In the 60's our elk herds were slim to none, we also didn't have many predators to speak of. Now we have lots of predators, huge elk numbers with less winter range that they have a lot of bigger animals to compete with all while getting chased by coyotes and lions. Along with 500 times more cars on the roads. We are going in the wrong direction with these options.

We need to do more predator control, build fences especially on busy highways and make crossings for the animals over or under roads. We need to stop killing them on winter range! We need to give them a fighting chance and everything else will fall into place! Healthy herds mean more deer and bigger bucks!

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
justr-86

The last 3 deer I've killed in Utah were public land general season muzzleloader; 255, 170 and 173. And I still like option 2 as the choice that's headed in the right direction. Hunters will not distribute themselves....
 
It says right above the options it will not do anything to increase overall numbers. So its not doing anything to increase the health of the overall herd. So we take away opportunity and still are left with no deer. Seems like a pretty crappy plan/option to me.

Congrats on the bucks btw.

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
Hopefully we can all agree that things can never be the same for a lot of reasons. 30 years ago no one had quads, there were no deer fences, predator control was not an issue, sub-divisions were not on every winter range etc.

Folks, we can't go back! I think we should manage for opportunity! But that opportunity should be for quality. Why does everyone in your camp need a tag?

Can't you enjoy camping, hunting, spending time with friends & family without killing a deer?

For many years now our camp has gone about 25% success.... but thats ok because the bucks taken have been quality. I don't care if I can't pack a gun every year. It doesn't diminish the opportunity to spend time with friends & family.

Lets manage the wildlife rather than managing special interest and cash flow.

Slick
 
Ok then if none of the three will work, where are we going to get the 4th,5th,and 6th opt?

Fact is this is what we were dealt and opt#2 is the better option for managing deer than the other 2 options.
 
deer are easier for predators to kill so guss who gets killed first.. well at least you got that much right'
 
OPTION 2 doesnt manage deer herds it manages hunters which accomplishes nothing. Fewer hunters will be in the field for WHAT? Hunters aren't the problem.. Again it does nothing to address why our fawn survival rate is so low.
 
>deer are easier for predators to
>kill so guss who gets
>killed first.. well at least
>you got that much right'
>

What's your arguement for the rest of it? Its the honest truth of what's wrong, not all of it but most of it. How do we fix it? Sure as hell isn't option 2!



4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
>OPTION 2 doesnt manage deer herds
>it manages hunters which accomplishes
>nothing. Fewer hunters will be
>in the field for WHAT?
>Hunters aren't the problem.. Again
>why our fawn survival rate
>is so low.

A+++++++ TheElitehornhunter
1 out of 100 post talk about this and IMO this is the biggest problem we face.
We know the DWR numbers are Bull $#@% But we have to use them for a start.
If there is 300,000 deer in utah that would leave ruffly 150,000 reproducing does.At the average of 1.5 fawns being born by each doe a year that is 225,000 deer a year

225,000 deer born each year
25,000 deer killed by hunters
--------
200,000 Deer a year are going where.

Predators,cars,doe not being bread the first cycle.The list goes on and on
You have to crawl before you can run the 100 meter in the Olympics for gold
Lets start with fawn survival rate first.Even if we didn't give a singe tag next year that would save the 25,000 being killed by hunters but the 200,000 unaccounted for deer will still be the problem




ITS ALL ABOUT MEAT-IN WITH THE TAXIDERMIST
 
No,but lowering some numbers yes. When you look at "healthy" ratio's from other biologist not jus state biologists our bull to cow ratio is high on EVERY unit in the state. Get them back to healthy numbers along with habitat improvement, predator control and access to winter range without getting killed. Anything we can do to get fawn survival rates up. Hunters aren't shooting fawns so limiting them is worthless.

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 

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