29 Data Analysis Units (DAUs) in Utah

hunter1975

Active Member
Messages
191
This is the basis Colorado uses in Unit Management. May be a good start for Utah, but just like Colorado the amount of units and/or unit boundaries may need to be adjusted to better manage each herd. Any Thoughts? Here is the link where I found this info.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/HerdManagementDAUPlans/

"INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) manages wildlife for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the state within the guidelines set forth in the CDOW?s Strategic Plan, Five Year Season Structures, and mandates from the Wildlife Commission and Colorado legislature. Colorado?s wildlife resources require careful and increasingly intensive management to accommodate the many and varied public demands, as well as increasing impacts from a steadily growing human population. The primary tool that the CDOW uses to manage game wildlife within the state is annual hunting seasons. Historically, big game season have been set as a result of tradition or political pressures. Often, the seasons that resulted did not adequately address big game population dynamics or current habitat conditions and pressures.
More recently, big game herds within the state are managed at the herd level, called a Data Analysis Unit (DAU). DAU boundaries are drawn so that they approximate an area where most of the animals are born, raised, and die with as little ingress or egress from other herds as possible. Normally, each DAU is composed of several game management units (GMUs). Within these DAU?s, the herd is managed using the guiding principles set forth in the comprehensive DAU plan.
These DAU plans are updated at five year intervals through a public planning process that incorporates big game management principles and the many and varied public interests associated with Colorado?s wildlife, as well as the mandates of the Wildlife Commission and state legislature. As many interested parties as possible are involved in the planning process, including the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, sportsmen, guides and outfitters, farmers, ranchers, the business community, outdoor recreationists, anglers, and the wildlife viewing public. All these groups have a vital interest in the size and composition of the state?s big game herds.
The DAU plan establishes two primary management objectives: the approximate post-hunt population size objective, and the post-hunt composition (number of bucks per 100 does) objective. They are referred to as the DAU population and composition objectives, respectively. These two objectives determine the overall size and structure of the population and influence the management strategies used to reach the goals. The DAU plan also collects and organizes most of the important management data for the herd into one planning document, determines relevant issues through a public scoping process, identifies alternative management strategies to resolve these issues, and finally selects the preferred management objective alternative.
Once these population and composition objectives are set through the DAU planning process, the CDOW has the responsibility to work to achieve these goals on a yearly basis. The population objective drives the most important decision in the establishment of the annual big game hunting seasons: how many animals need to be harvested to maintain or achieve the population objective. To reach these 2 objectives, the CDOW uses a method called ?Management by Objectives? approach (Figure 1).
Select Management Objectives for a DAU
Measure Harvest & Population Demographics
Conduct Hunting Seasons
Establish Harvest Goal Compatible with DAU Objectives
Evaluate Populations & Compare to DAU Objectives
Establish Hunting Season Regulations
Figure 1.

CDOW's Management by Objective Process.
To collect and analyze the data necessary to attain these goals, CDOW biologists use post-hunt aerial classification surveys and computer models. The data collected during annual aerial surveys are used in these computer models and allow biologists to estimate population size and structure. These estimates are then used to generate harvest recommendations that will align population estimates with the herd population objectives generated by the DAU planning process.
 
Thanks for digging that up and putting it on here.

I wonder how many posts it will take before we're told it won't work in Utah...
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-10 AT 05:44PM (MST)[p] Hell don't stop there... Post up the reports of a couple of them. They don't do squat as far as population!! This plan works on whitetail ranches. For Mule deer in the intermountain west they don't increase herds or stop the declines any better than where Utah is now.

Colorado can get away with this type of Management... They have twice the deer population as Utah, Better habitat and more private land escapement. They should have deer behind every bush right???

Go ahead and post the population trend graphs for several of these units and tell me how the trend is any different than Utah.

Sounds great... Overall results are no different than anywhere
else in the west.

Best part is they didn't CUT THEIR FREAKING BUCK HUNTER NUMBERS BY 75%!!!







*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
Utah??? It don't work in Colorado!!!





*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
Why don't we open the Wasatch Front up to rifle and muzzleloaders. We can add hunter opportunity that was previously lost and since you only need a few small bucks to keep a herd going there will be no effects on the population?

Actually we will probably be doing this herd a favor by eliminating the excess bucks right?

Come on guys I am just looking at ways of creating hunter opportunity.

Tree and Elite are you with me on this one?
 
WW - what are you talking about 75% cuts? Really? You didn't pay attention young man. After that last big winter kill they had 3 years ago they cut tags as much as 90% in some units. Why? Because they knew what they had to do to get the deer numbers back. They micromanaged the herd in a specific unit. It is working!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They were able to increase tag #'s this year down around Montrose and from what I've heard, barring any big winter kill this year, they will be able to increase them again. The difference is that Utah would have probably given out more tags not cut tags to save a herd because we believe that the herd is going to rebound if we just kill more deer.

BIG - good luck with that one buddy. You won't find an archery hunter on here (except me) that would be for that one. SWB and BroadSideShot probably broke out in a sweat with the mention of that. LOL


It's always an adventure!!!
 
One question for the micromanagement naysayers. Have you ever hunted Colorado? And if you have, have you hunted it frequently? If you've experienced multiple units in Colorado, I don't see how anybody can say that it doesn't work. I guess I have the mule deer blinders on. Apparently the mule deer blinders increase your sightings of mule deer in Colorado and work just the opposite in Utah by decreasing the mule deer sightings. Funny how that is.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
Wiley,

There are many graphs throughout the different DAU's plans in Colorado that have shown herd increases from this system. Sure there are years of decreases due to uncontrollable factors, but at least the steady declines in many cases were reversed at some point. The key is that every unit has different needs and should be addressed by unit.
 
BIG everything north of I-80 is open to Muzz and Rifle as well as an extended bowhunt. The herds there seem to do OK with pressure and hunters almost continuously.

Jim, COLORADO has twice the mule deer as UTAH TWICE!!

Look at the POPULATION GRAPH'S and tell me these units are seeing increases in overall population they aren't. They are staying with the trends that every other western state is seeing.





*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
WW I know it is open north of I-80 to rifle and muzz. I just wonder if Tree, Elite and Fishon would support opening up the portion south of I-80 as it is lost opportunity, has excess bucks, and it is managed on the micro level.

Based on a many of their arguments this should just be part of the central region and not set up as it is, because it does not biologically make sense. Many hunters were displaced and opportunities lost by making this portion archery only.

I do wonder how many guys support option 1 mainly due to the statewide archery. I think some of their arguments show there is no reason for the archery only extended.
 
Wiley,

Please post the link to the "graphs" you are referring to. Some of them I can find in the link above do show increases as well as some with decreases, but also they ended in 2006 and many units are missing all together. I would like to see some current info from Colorado.

thx
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-10 AT 10:34PM (MST)[p]> It is working!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>They were able to increase
>tag #'s this year down
>around Montrose and from what
>I've heard, barring any big
>winter kill this year, they
>will be able to increase
>them again.

I've work with a guy who had a tag this year near Montrose. He killed a good 4 point and a guy who hunted with him killed a 180+ buck. He said after that experience, he's done hunting Utah's general season.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-10 AT 10:53PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-10 AT 10:52?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-10 AT 10:49?PM (MST)

I say We just Kill every deer in the state.Then NoBody will have anything to whine about.none of you guys want to save the herd anyway.all you care about is bucks and what you can and cant shoot. no matter what plan you come up with to do that there will be a whiner saying that dont work.i love mm but you guys are realy ruining this site with all your cry baby crap.thanks for your negative cooperation on saving a wonderful animal.And Colorado must not work cause they have more hunters than any other state.so yea that dont work anyone that beleives it dont work is a idiot.oh and by the way sorry iam not an english major so you can kiss my u know what.
 
>WW I know it is open
>north of I-80 to rifle
>and muzz. I just
>wonder if Tree, Elite and
>Fishon would support opening up
>the portion south of I-80
>as it is lost opportunity,
>has excess bucks, and it
>is managed on the micro
>level.
>
>Based on a many of their
>arguments this should just be
>part of the central region
>and not set up as
>it is, because it does
>not biologically make sense.
>Many hunters were displaced and
>opportunities lost by making this
>portion archery only.
>
>I do wonder how many guys
>support option 1 mainly due
>to the statewide archery.
>I think some of their
>arguments show there is no
>reason for the

I would quit hunting in this moment if I thought it would have an impact on deer numbers. . My gripes extend from decisions being made for the division under heavy political leverage. S. Of I-80? Don't have much of an opinion, never hunted there and I'd just as soon stay out of salt lake county.

Tag reductions (buck) are what I am against, for ANY weapon. I support the DWR and think they as an agency are very capable, but apparently Keele Johnson, Tom Hatch and co. are more credible and biologically savvy than the professionals.

If the dwr was recommending micro management, I'd have little issue, but they aren't.... For a reason.



www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
Managing multiple deer herds as one, some of which are seperated by over 100 miles, is absurd.Micro management works! You say we can't compare ourselves to CO. Sure we can! Just ask anyone who hunted CO prior to micromanagement which I believe started in '99. It was as bad if not worse than Utah.
 
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/HerdManagementDAUPlans/

There is the link boys.

Here's the results.

D-3 FLAT SINCE 01
D-4 DECLINE TO FLAT
D-5 FLAT 01 - 06
D-8 NOSEDIVE
D-9 FLAT
D-11 NOSEDIVE
D-12 FLAT
D-16 FLAT TO SLIGHT INCREASE
D-17 FLAT SINCE 01
D-18 FLAT
D-21 SUCCESS STORY ABOVE OBJECTIVE
D-22 ROLLERCOASTER DOWN SINCE 02
D-25 FLAT TO DECLINE
D-26 FLAT
D-30 01 REPORT POOR DATA
D-31 DOWN
D-32 INCREASE 85% PRIVATE
D-34 SLIGHT INCREASE, HARVEST REDUCED BY OVER 50% 60% PRIVATE
D-35 PDF WOULDN'T LOAD
D-36 NOSE DIVE
D-37 FLAT
D-42 INCREASE
D-44 INCREASE
D-49 ROLLERCOASTER TO FLAT
D-50 INCREASE
D-52 DOWN
D-54 FLAT
D-55 INCREASE

So what does all of this mean??? That even if you have all of these units 90 % are still either flat or in decline!!!

Opportunity has been cut in some cases by almost 60% and the numbers still are not skyrocketing like all of you that buy this hype are hoping.

So you can cut Utah's general season buck hunters down to under 50K. Create 10,000 units if you wish and you won't be any better off.

We can manage by the "I think" or the "I hope" philosophy or we can look at the numbers and facts and realize that GENERAL SEASON BUCK HUNTERS ARE THE LEAST OF OUR WORRIES.











*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
ww - I would take flat at this point. There are only about 25% of those that took a "nose dive". What was the last year that study was done? Just asking my friend. Don't bring the gloves out yet?:D


It's always an adventure!!!
 
No gloves Jim... All of the reports varied. There was one from 2001 that didn't include a population graph.

Settling for a flat trend is OK if we don't cut opportunity
to get there. If we slash hunter numbers and don't
show an increase in overall populations it's a huge failure.

The other graphs that I didn't include data from were harvest
and hunters a field







*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
As a side note, many of these are not very current and there are also many units missing from the list on their website....not sure why at this point.
 
"Settling for a flat trend is OK if we don't cut opportunity
to get there. If we slash hunter numbers and don't
show an increase in overall populations it's a huge failure."

I agree ww!

At this point, whatever we do should have some sort of immediate result (2-3 years). I don't think we can afford to watch and wait for 5 years (10 years according to Anis Aude) while the rest of our deer herd slides.

I still think we can micromanage without cutting opportunity. The DWR is just too lazy to figure it out. Adjust the hunting population and dispersion to areas that are over objective and reduce tags in areas that are under objective.




It's always an adventure!!!
 
Pretty sure when its been boiled down WW,elite,and tree, are bowhunters that can't stand the thought of not having they're statewide hunt takin from them! They want they're cake and eat it too! Ive hunted colorado and dont care what anyone says if I had to choose between Co and Ut. Co all day! Even as a non res.

WW, you dont care about the herd. All you care about is your own agenda! Save your " I would quit huntin if it helped the deer herd" crap! Obviosly you've never been to Co huntin. If you had you might save your fingers for a fight you can win. Colorado wasnt much better huntin than Ut. before 99 when they limited tags and said piss off to guys like you that boobed about oppurtunity and they've never looked back. They might have better and more habitat than Ut. but, they understand it takes more than yearlings to breed does to have a healthy herd. Look carefully at the buck/doe ratio along side th fawn/doe ratio as they almost mirror each other. Stronger bucks, more competition= stronger healthier fawns.

Utah would be smart to try and model our state after Colorado's current deer management plan. You dont see any other state saying "gosh Utah's really got it figured out. We should strive to have their deer herd. Its great huntin.". Maybe in the 60's,70's, and 80's till the DWR put deer on the back burner and propped the elk and prarie dogs up the list.
 
I have hunted Colorado also. I killed an awesome buck this year. Colorado has seen a big loss in their mule deer herd because of the way they manage the deer. Sure, there is some good bucks in Colorado, but that doesn't mean the herd is healthy just because you see big bucks. We need to focus more on the health of the herd and address issues like the fawn survival rate than worry about how many big bucks we see in a day.

Colorado focuses more on hunters than their deer herds. Utah needs to focus more on the deer herds and less on the hunters. If we do this then hunting will be better in Utah.
 
What qualify's you to say "Colorado has seen a big loss in their mule deer herd because of the way they manage the deer"? Who are you? They had alot of winterkill a few years ago that they havent recovered from. Weather was the culprit not management. News flash if they manage according to the way hunters want, hunters are the ones beeing affected by the management. So the hunters get what they deserve. Wich in colorado = big bucks.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-10 AT 01:11PM (MST)[p]The lucky people that draw a tag might kill a big buck, but the mule deer herd is affected because of this management. You want a healthy mule deer herd that is productive or do you want a high success rate hunt every time you draw a tag?

You can kill a big deer when the deer herd is managed for a healthy mule deer also.

The data shows that Colorado has seen a big loss in their mule deer because of the way they manage the deer.
 
BRUTUS you can think whatever you want about me.. I don't know you I don't give a rats ass what you think of me as a person. You are exactly right though when you say I am a Bowhunter through and through.

That being said you don't have any comeback to what the freaking facts are. You can think, you can hope, and you can wish that the propaganda driven by a Wildlife Board and SFW that want to turn Utah in to a pure LE State will grow more deer all you want but the PROOF THAT I PROVIDED SHOWS DIFFERENT.

So who is Richard Cranium now BRUTUS???? Who is selfish now BRUTUS?? I've proven that micro management doesn't do $hit for populations. Are you hoping to get on the cover of Muley Crazy Magazine??? Do you need your "look at me" moment or do you want to debate the facts???

Jesus get over yourself BRUTUS even when confronted with the facts you make a personal attack on me???







*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
I'm not a bowhunter and I'm 100% with Wiley. (Other than disrespecting the Lord's good name, bad idea for a long term plan.)

As far as sterotypes go, the only people I've noticed pushing for more units and more tag cuts are hard core trophey hunters and/or guides. They blindly push for more regs without ever looking back to see if any of it helped. I don't think you can ever cut enough tags for them. The concept of meat hunting is a far distant after thought, and sometimes scoffed.

I've concluded nobody has it figured out. Fawn survival is the real mystery. Figure that one out and you will have the key to sustainably increasing buck harvest of all sizes.

Southern Utah had a hard winter in many parts last year. I'm surprised people have expected no decrease.
 
Which do I qualify for then Smelly? I'm only an elk outfitter and the vast majority of that is done on private land. The deer herds are horrible even on the private. It's to the point that we don't hunt deer on them anymore. They are elk only. I am surely NOT a trophy mule deer guy. Guess how many muley heads I have on the wall . . . . ZERO! The only reason I am in this fight for mule deer is for my kids. It has nothing to do trophy hunting or paying clients. I don't care to ever guide a deer hunter. Now that's just me. I'm sure that you're right and there are several groups and individuals that push certain things for their own benefit, but don't we all? I'm pushing this for the benefit of my kids and my brothers kids and your kids for that matter. I hope I'm not the only one with that idea in mind. But I do see why some would think that.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
>I'm pushing this for the
>benefit of my kids and
>my brothers kids and your
>kids for that matter.
>I hope I'm not the
>only one with that idea
>in mind. But I
>do see why some would
>think that.

Huh, me too, Jim. :)



www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
WW, did i strike a nerve?

So you've proven micro-management doesnt work,huh? So all the limited entry units in Utah suck? Nobody will ever apply for those units cause it doesnt work? Man are you loosen it. Colorado huntin is no good? Nevada doesnt have any good deer huntin either cause they micro-manage? Yep you've proven that micro-management hurts the deer herd, your the man. You better stop this disaster called micro-management cause were not gonna have any deer left? Besides according too UDWR, southern has a healthy thriveing mule deer herd. What do we need more deer for?

PULL YOUR HEAD OUT
 
I agree something needs to change, we cant keep doing the same thing and expect different results!! The current plan is NOT working, so we need to do something different!
 
Seems to me Brutus thinks having more bucks and longer waits between hunting equals a better deer herd. Seems Wiley thinks having more doe and fawns creates a better deer herd and it does not take many bucks to breed all the does. I'll put my money with Wiley on that arguement. If the limited entry units in Utah were so great for deer then people in Blanding residents should never have to mow their lawns because the deer off the San Juan should be so plentiful that they are spilling over into the rest of the state. Hasn't the San Juan been limited entry for a few decades. That sure has worked out well to grow more deer down there.
 
I hunted it twice during those first years and it was great. In my estimation the decline of the deer were starting to be obvious as the elk herd started increasing.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-10 AT 09:37PM (MST)[p]No one said there wasn't good hunting on the LE units. Almost all the LE units are below objective. Why is the Thousands Lake and Oak Creek struggling with very few bucks killed? Why is the survival rates low for fawns on the LE units. General Season units have higher fawn survival rates than most LE units.

Brutus, shouldn't the LE units be superior which the data show it isn't. Sure you will see more bucks on LE units because very few tags are issued. but seeing a lot of bucks doesn't mean the herd is in the best of shape.

I want to see our mule deer herds grow larger and more healthy. Bucks will be a byproduct of a larger mule deer herd. I'm more worried about fawn survival rates than the number of bucks in a herd or the number of bucks I can see in a day. The fawns are the future deer herd. If we don't address the issues as to why the fawns are dying then we won't have a mule deer nor a lot of bucks.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-10 AT 10:03PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-10 AT 10:01?PM (MST)

brutus just one question in your honest opinion just what do you think that micro units are going to achieve in Utah. Seriously let's hear it how long will it take to achieve how many tags will need to be cut and to what class of society will it benefit the most what kind of results are we looking at here. Also you talk about Colorado alot how many times have you personally hunted there was it just recent years back?
 
Imo like i have said colorado cuts tags with a winter kill like they had in eagle county utah does nothing. The deer herds that were affected by the winter kill still strugle the herds in co are coming back. Im sorry but if anyone thinks that a spike or a two point is going to effectivley breed does is crazy imo how can a buck with milk on its lips get the job done? and for those who say they hunt for meat i call bs. Maybe co doesnt have it perfect but there system sure seems to be working alot better to me.
 
So if Utah had twice the mule deer it currently does, ( Colorado's herd is over 550k ) It would be great to maintain status quo right???

Well Utah doesn't and NONE OF YOU THAT SUPPORT ANY OF THE THREE OPTIONS SUPPORT GROWING MORE DEER!!!

I know and understand the current plan, it will grow more deer
and still let Jim hunt with his kids.

Like I have always thought, the three proposals are nothing more than a DKPEAY wet dream to go completely LE 100% success.







*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
ww - we are already statewide draw (LE). All I am saying is force the DWR to actually manage unit by unit. Disperse the current pressure that we already have on deer. I strongly believe that's what smaller units do, disperse pressure. If the DWR would do that and actually come out with some substantiated data from physical counts, I would support whatever proposal did that. I agree that none of the proposals are in the best interest of growing a better deer herd but spreading hunters out is a good start. I also believe they can start by not cutting tag numbers. They don't have to cut tag numbers to initiate any of the above proposals unless they stay with a 5 region plan. If they stay with a region plan I say cut the tags.

We can argue back and forth about the best way to do this. Irregardless of what plan goes into affect, if the DWR continues their current practices, it won't do a thing. We could have the best laid out plans that every single hunter agrees on, but if the DWR keeps doing their studies and counts the way they are now, it won't matter. As hunters we need to come together and make sure this happens! Force the WB to initiate different policies to ensure accurate counts and studies. Fund studies like Fishon's that will look at elk vs deer. Studies that look at fawn survival rates, etc. This is the only way we are going to get something done in the state of Utah, or anywhere else for that matter (for all you Utah haters).


It's always an adventure!!!
 
First off the reason san juan is not producing is predators keep fawn recruitment low and elk have taken over the prime habitat and deer are forced into lesser quality feed. Thats not because its micro-managed.

Elite, the reason thousand lakes and oak creek are struggling is anyone with a general season tag can hunt private property on thousand lakes and deperadation hunts on hay feilds doesnt help. Oak creek deer largely migrate off the limited onto the hay feilds within the general season boundaries. Plus dep. hunts their as well.

The reason fawn recruitment is lower on LE units is the DWR is forced to make a better count on fawn/doe because they cant average their #s and they spend more time counting LE units than general units. The general doesnt have better fawn recruitment than LE, the LE units just have more accurate counts.

Sidehill, that was like three questions but in regards to how long it will take. As long as is needed to have quality hunting in Utah again. Dont know how many tags will need to be cut cause dont know how many deer we REALLY have. Maybe we should start there and then figure tag cuts. Dont know about class of people, your obviously harboring some hatered toward people better off than yourself. Besides everyone has the ability to apply for a hunt no matter what your bank account has in it. I dont agree with all of the auction tags but thats not the people that buys the tags fault that they can afford them. I'd buy one to if i could afford it. Lets not blame the person buying the tag for issueing the tags. With micro units I hope to have more accurate counts, better solutions to the problems affecting a specific herd, better hunter disdribution, less crowding, overall better hunting experiance, more accountabilaty for actions. Ive hunted colorado every year but one since 2003 elk and deer. I was hooked after the first year.

WW, if the current management plan is growing a healthier herd and #s, why are we having this discussion? You cant be serious. Do you really think we are currently building are deer #s the way the DWR is manageing deer?
 
"The reason fawn recruitment is lower on LE units is the DWR is forced to make a better count on fawn/doe because they cant average their #s and they spend more time counting LE units than general units. The general doesnt have better fawn recruitment than LE, the LE units just have more accurate counts."

Brutus you have any facts to back up your statement?
 
>First off the reason san juan
>is not producing is predators
>keep fawn recruitment low and
>elk have taken over the
>prime habitat and deer are
>forced into lesser quality feed.
>Thats not because its micro-managed.
>
>
>Elite, the reason thousand lakes and
>oak creek are struggling is
>anyone with a general season
>tag can hunt private property
>on thousand lakes and deperadation
>hunts on hay feilds doesnt
>help. Oak creek deer largely
>migrate off the limited onto
>the hay feilds within the
>general season boundaries. Plus dep.
>hunts their as well.
>
> The reason fawn recruitment is
>lower on LE units is
>the DWR is forced to
>make a better count on
>fawn/doe because they cant average
>their #s and they spend
>more time counting LE units
>than general units. The general
>doesnt have better fawn recruitment
>than LE, the LE units
>just have more accurate counts.
>
>
>Sidehill, that was like three questions
>but in regards to how
>long it will take. As
>long as is needed to
>have quality hunting in Utah
>again. Dont know how many
>tags will need to be
>cut cause dont know how
>many deer we REALLY have.
>Maybe we should start there
>and then figure tag cuts.
>Dont know about class of
>people, your obviously harboring some
>hatered toward people better off
>than yourself. Besides everyone has
>the ability to apply for
>a hunt no matter what
>your bank account has in
>it. I dont agree with
>all of the auction tags
>but thats not the people
>that buys the tags fault
>that they can afford them.
>I'd buy one to if
>i could afford it. Lets
>not blame the person buying
>the tag for issueing the
>tags. With micro units I
>hope to have more accurate
>counts, better solutions to the
>problems affecting a specific herd,
>better hunter disdribution, less crowding,
>overall better hunting experiance, more
>accountabilaty for actions. Ive hunted
>colorado every year but one
>since 2003 elk and deer.
>I was hooked after the
>first year.
>
>WW, if the current management plan
>is growing a healthier herd
>and #s, why are we
>having this discussion? You cant
>be serious. Do you really
>think we are currently building
>are deer #s the way
>the DWR is manageing deer?
>


A couple of questions:

-How would issuing tags by micro units make their counts any more or less valid?

-How would micro managing hunters create more accountability?

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
I've sat back and studied both sides of this argument, and one question I have is how can we keep people in one unit? It does no good to have a 3 day hunt, with a 5 day hunt next door. It puts too much pressure on the 5 day hunt, in this small way I support micromanagment. Russ
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-30-10 AT 11:24AM (MST)[p]Simply put, Colorado's deer are in a better place than they were when I started hunting in the late 80's here. The west slope where I grew up has always had some big bucks but the deer were in really sad shape(comparatively speaking) up until they went to a limited draw sysetem and eliminated statewide licenses(micromanagement). Am I saying it is a perfect system....hell no. But I have seen it work. Are the deer like what we saw when I was a kid in the late 70's....no. I believe the increase in elk numbers and the resulting change in their distribution play a large part in holding deer numbers down in some of the units I have been on ever since I was a kid. We now hunt elk during archery in ground that we used to hunt bucks in much later in the fall. There is no doubt in my mind that the deer & elk compete for space and the elk always win. I don't think anyone can expect to have the deer numbers that they saw back in the "good ol days" without reducing elk numbers to what they were then too. Not advocating this...just sayin'. There has also been a big reduction in the number of guys trapping 'yotes and other predators here in CO thanks to law changes...gotta believe that has an impact too. Deer and elk herds are individual populations so I fail to understand why anyone wouldn't advocate managing them as such?
 
BRUTE the Current Plan just made it through it's first year.
They don't even have the data in yet to know what the hell happened. Now we are going to change it up??

Below is another quote from Colorado. From the report on reduced antlered harvest.

"Chad J. Bishop, Gary C. White, David J. Freddy, and Bruce E. Watkins

Abstract In response to apparent declining mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) numbers in
Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism
to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991,
the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management
units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on
December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and
unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in
limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51
fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE
= 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in
response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were
regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment
is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of
quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity."

Did ya pay attention to the part where it said FAWN PRODUCTION DROPPED BY 7.51%

Unlike what you all "FEEL" and "THINK" I've provided you with scientific,controlled, and long term trends here to look at.
This ain't my opinion, This ain't Utah's supposedly F'd management this is in the mule deer Mecca that you all keep referring to in Colorado. No kidding they've got more deer.
Probably twice what Utah has. They still are in decline at the same percentage as Utah and everywhere else in the west.
The micro manage magic bullet ain't doing squat there. Nor is it stopping the decline anywhere else it's used either.

So here is proof number 2 about micromanagement. Ignore it like
all of the other BIOLOGIC AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

It won't increase our herd sizes. It may produce a few more bucks if WE SEVERLY LIMIT OPPORTUNITY. This will last for a few years perhaps a decade untill the fawn production bottoms out then we are really screwed.






*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
Elite, UDWR stats dont impress me at all. I look at proof i can see with my own eyes.

Tree, dunno how it will affect the counts till we try it. I would really like to have a independent not associated with the DWR do the counts but dont think that is going to happen. The counts suck but how will it be different if we keep everything the same? Huh? If we go to micro at least we'll start by keeping bowhunters limited to one unit and keep dedicated hunters to one unit. DH's killed 1507 bucks in So. region in 2009. They only killed 1058 bucks in the rest of the state. At least in opt#2 that would be addressed. That is some accountability.

Man your makin it too difficult just look at states that micro manage. They have alot better hunter success, alot better hunter satisfaction, and their is nothing that suggest's that micro-manageing hurts the deer herd. As far as that go's if regionwide management is so great why are all the limited deer and elk units micro-managed? Because they can better control the factors that limit herd potential. If your right than the best deer hunting should be on general season units right?
 
Jim the thing with dispersing pressure is a great idea.

It will never happen. Where do you honestly think this whole micromanagement fiasco started??

Now honestly which part of the state has the units that are above objective??

What exactly do you think you are going to hear 12 months from now once these nearsighted brain surgeons realize that their herds are the herds above objective and they have MORE not LESS hunters in their hills???


Ponder that and talk to me tonight








*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
BRUTUS with 29 units the DH program is DONE!!! Kiss it goodbye




*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
"Elite, UDWR stats dont impress me at all. I look at proof i can see with my own eyes."

Brutus, so you saw the DWR making better counts on the LE units than you did on the GS units with your own eyes?
 
WW, long term, really, you and fishon need to find out what long term is. that study is one year, come on.

Elite show me were smaller units has hurt mule deer herds. Lets see it. You wont find anything that suggest smaller units hurt mule deer herds.

I can only hope smaller units kill the DH program. That thing is a joke anyways. Everybody around here get's their hours by selling tickets to SWF,MDF,RMEF, banquets. Dont think thats what DH program was designed to accomplish.

You guys crack me up! you'll dig through piles of studies that support smaller units and examples of success stories of units that have higher buck/doe ratios just to find one that disputes it. It kinda sucks cause if we go to smaller units and it gets better you guys will come up with another reason why "its not smaller units thats helping". But you guys still reap the reward. Bottom line smaller units help deal with ALL of the problems that affect mule deer more than larger regions.
 
Nevada Micromanages.... Lets see how it's working there...

Here's their report

"The spring fawn ratio or recruitment value was the fourth lowest on record since 1952 at 27 fawns/100
adults, based on a sample of 24,400 deer in March and April 2009. Driven by very poor fawn recruitment,
the 2009 statewide population estimate declined 2% to 106,000 from 2008. The 2008 post-season buck
ratio was again one of the highest on record at 31 bucks/100 does. Though this may be good news for the
lucky Nevada deer applicants that are able to draw a tag, it is also a liability. With so many bucks in the
population, they are directly competing with does and fawns for limited quality forage and thermal cover
on winter range and are likely contributing to decreased body condition in does and fawns. This likely
increases winter fawn mortality and decreases fawn production the following summer."





*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
brutus thank's for the reply. I'd like to let you know that I am not harboring any hatred towards people better off then me. In fact I am actually thinking of those worse off then me. I have had and still do have more opportunity to hunt than most will ever dream of. I can tell you that not one of the three options proposed are worth a dam for improving Utah's deer heard's given the way Utah manages the deer. You act like micro managing is the only solution it's not. I do not think you realize what kind of change's the DWR would have to implement to manage proper for option 2 to show any kind of results at all over any period of time. I can tell you right now that if the WB does go with option 2 there will not be a difference what so ever in our deer herd. There won't be a difference in crowding. There won't be anymore accountability then there is now. I believe your hunting experience will be no better then than now. I now for sure you'll have alot more time to plan your next Utah deer hunt during your years of waiting to draw a tag and all the restrictions and waiting for what? hum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sounds like you hunt Colorado alot happy for you maybe you should move there and take your micro manage BS with you!!!!!!!!!!!
 
K show me were that is do to smaller units. Your assuming that doe's are starving because their is too many bucks. Not even considering too many predators, too many horses,ect. Narrow minded bout somes it up. The does i've seen in nevada look pretty good this year. Nevada likely has as many coyotes as any time in history too, dont see you mention that. But that's not part of your theory is it. Get over it, NO MORE STATEWIDE ARCHERY!
 
BRUTUS Dude, you won't get it.

All that matters to you is inches of antler and doing whatever
is needed to get that bone on the wall.

It's too bad you are gullible enough to buy in to the B.S.
even when the FACTS tell you different.

Your last statement about my motives and Statewide Archery
just confirm your lack of understanding and gullibility.









*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.
 
WW, cause you love facts and our DWR, using your logic that the cause of deer #s to be low is bucks competeing for food, here's your precious DWR's #s to back your claim or somehting.

Central Mts. Manti- 12/100 buck/doe ratio. 17100 UNDER obj.

Wasatch Currant Crk- 12/100 buck/doe ratio. 5500 UNDER obj.

Oquirrh Stansbury- 8/100 buck/doe ratio. 2600 UNDER obj.

Monroe Mt- 11/100 buck/doe ratio. 400 UNDER obj.

Plateu Boulder- 15/100 buck/doe ratio 9500 UNDER obj.

Pine Valley- 22/100 buck/doe ratio 600 OVER obj.

Zion- 23/100 buck/doe ratio 600 OVER obj.

Panguitch- 16/100 buck/doe ratio 2000 OVER obj.

Beaver- 22/100 buck/doe ratio at obj.

Paunsagaunt- 51/100 buck/doe ratio 600 OVER obj.

So what's your reasoning behind your argument now? You either accept that 18-25 bucks per hundred doe's doesnt negatively impact deer herds or you stay on your selfish soapbox and keep beatin that pointless drum. THERES YOUR FACT'S! (you should like them, they came from your DWR that you think is doing such a great job)

BTW, who's BS am I buying into? Looks to me like your the one buying into something that has only labrats and DWR paid biologists (educated idiots) support. But I still say your just pushing this cause you can't stand the thought of loosing your statewide archery hunt.
 
Here are my thoughts on micromanaging.

Sitting back and thinking about how to go about managing deer herds and tag numbers, and to me the micromanaging systems seems to out weigh managing different deer herds as a whole. Now this is just my opinion based on looking in from the outside.

With the micromanaging system you are able to manage each range/herd individually instead of lumping them together. Thus you can control the amount of hunting pressure on each individual unit/herd. When you lump every range/herd together you have a lot less control on hunting pressure on each individual range/herd. What is stopping people from overhunting one range/herd?

With micromanaging you are able to allocate the exact amount of tags to each specific unit depending on how the herd is doing, (i.e. CO & NV). This is something that cannot be accomplished with grouping all the ranges/herds together.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, as it is obvious people are heated over this debate.

___________________________________________
-TEAM HOSSBACK- "Making Blood Trails, Not Profit"
 
.
>
>With the micromanaging system you are
>able to manage each range/herd
>individually instead of lumping them
>together. Thus you can control
>the amount of hunting pressure
>on each individual unit/herd. When
>you lump every range/herd together
>you have a lot less
>control on hunting pressure on
>each individual range/herd. What is
>stopping people from overhunting one
>range/herd?
>
>With micromanaging you are able to
>allocate the exact amount of
>tags to each specific unit
>depending on how the herd
>is doing, (i.e. CO &
>NV). This is something that
>cannot be accomplished with grouping
>all the ranges/herds together.

To me, this would make sense if was for doe harvest, but high buck pressure for a few weeks seems to have a negligible effect on overall herd population. If we are talking about chronically low buck to doe ratios, causing unbred does and low fawn recruitment, I'd concede, but on all but 3 units, this isn't the case. There are triggers in place to reduce hunter pressure on these specific units. They tried 3 day hunts on these units, which I think is ridiculous. What they have concluded is that drastically reducing tag numbers for these units, thus reducing buck harvest is key. The division has stated that they will most likely go to LE on these units until they are back to par.

Trusting that they will open them back up to general hunting when this happens is a different conversation altogether.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
Jim,

I hope you're right because I think you'll get your way. I'm just not a believer anymore. I believed getting rid of CA hunters would fix the problem. I believed moving the muzz out of the rut would fix it. I believed choose your hunt would fix it.

I completely realize a limited entry / poly unit approach will increase the % of mature bucks taken per hunter (like CO.) But it is interesting to note populations are decreasing even in places where tags are limited. Sure those lucky ones who draw a tag have a great hunt with little pressure and have great selection, but all those areas supported far more hunting in the past.

The true problem is not pegged.

I'd rather just hunt every year good or bad. Despite the fact I saw far fewer does this year on a number of ranges (I'm concerned), I had a great opening morning with some relatives. I hunted the Wasatch Front Tues & Wed. of the rifle and saw 3 great bucks come out the the canyon I hunted. Extended archery hunters have seen some great success the past two weeks.
 
Man WW cat got your tounge. Truth hurts dont it. I think i heard you at the wildlife board meeting at least it sounded like the same argument that micro-manage causes deer #s to decline. Not coyotes not highway mortality not habitat not lions. Just micro-manage.
 

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