April 12, 2012 RAC

rperkins · Jan 26, 2012

Dear Sportsmen and Women,
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is considering a General Season deer hunt recommendation that needs your input, prior to the next Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting, scheduled for April 12, 2012.

As you will recall, the Utah Wildlife Board amended the existing Statewide Mule Deer Plan, which outlines mule deer management in Utah. They approved two significant changes over the past 14 months: First, the General Season postseason buck to doe ratio objective was raised from 15?25 bucks/100 does to 18?25 bucks/100 does. This objective change will necessitate a significant reduction in the number of buck permits available on deer hunting units, and thus reduce hunter opportunity. Second, General Season deer hunting was changed from Regional hunting to Unit by Unit hunting, resulting in 30 general season units in the state.

Upon further evaluation, the Wildlife Board has asked the UDWR to revisit the buck ratio objectives in an effort to increase hunter opportunity while maintaining healthy deer populations. The Wildlife Board still believes that going to 30 units is a good change, but they have asked us to come up with buck to doe ratio objectives that fit the specific units, as opposed to a one size fits all approach. Some units in the state have good access and lend themselves to high buck harvest. We would need to reduce opportunity greatly on such units to achieve higher buck to doe ratios. Other units in the state are not as accessible, thus we could manage for high buck to doe ratios without losing opportunity.

The Division is recommending each general season deer unit be placed in one of the following 2 postseason buck to doe ratio categories:

- 15?17 bucks/100 does - units that have high harvest, good access and are primarily public land

- 18?20 bucks/100 does - units that are primarily private land and/or have limited access

Specifically for the Northeastern Region, we are recommending our General Season units be placed into the following categories:

Unit

Proposed Buck Ratio

North Slope (8)

18?20

South Slope, Yellowstone (9a)

18?20

South Slope, Vernal ? Bonanza (9bd)

15?17

Nine Mile (11)

18?20

Wasatch Mountains, Current Creek/Avintaquin (17bc)

15?17

These recommendations will be made at the April RAC. However, the region would like you to consider these recommendations now, before they go to the RAC. Please discuss this with your constituency. We may modify our recommendation based on the comments we receive. Please give us your input either by email or call the Regional Office and ask to talk to the Regional Wildlife Manager or one of the District Wildlife Biologists.

Thank You

(From the DWR)

-Alright....let's hear it guys. How do you feel about the proposed alteration in the plan?

PM if you don't feel like getting in the middle of it, but I would REALLY like to see a lot of input here.

Thanks!!

Carrie Mae
[email protected]
NE REGION RAC
4357248511

cannonball · Jan 26, 2012

Good grief man it looks to me as if you're looking at this completely backwards. Easy access should = less hunters not more. That the problem we've got now.

Tree · Jan 26, 2012

>Good grief man it looks to
>me as if you're looking
>at this completely backwards.
>Easy access should =
>less hunters not more.
>That the problem we've got
>now.

I think you comprehended it incorrectly. Here's the quote-

"Some units in the state have good access and lend themselves to high buck harvest. We would need to reduce opportunity greatly on such units to achieve higher buck to doe ratios."

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

Mutley · Jan 26, 2012

Thanks for the opportunity to offer some feed back.
I agree with most of what was said. I just wonder if it is a little smoke screen for more tags to be issued to private land owners. If this is the case, and has nothing to do with trying to save our deer herds. I strongly oppose. The same rules need to apply to both public permits and private.

David

soutahhunter · Jan 27, 2012

If we are going to get the deer herd back, they cannot keep finding ways to hand out more tags. Sounds like now they are saying that in some areas we will give out more tags and not have so many bucks, watch out that may get rid of any bucks that are left in those areas. I think we should be looking at shutting areas down rather than finding ways to hand out more permits.

llamapacker · Jan 27, 2012

I understand the rationale, but do NOT support this proposal.

We haven't even implemented the new deer management plan, and now we have an attempt to change it! Yes, opportunity will decrease in some areas, at least for the short term. I am very much pro opportunity. But let's give the new management program a chance.
Nobody really knows what the harvest rates will be on any given unit now that hunters will be isolated to a specific unit. Give the plan a chance, get some real data, not guesses, and them make an informed proposal.
This proposal seems to be a way to sell more permits, or make more money in the short term, without putting any faith in the new managmeent model.
Bill

Zeke · Jan 27, 2012

>I understand the rationale, but do
>NOT support this proposal.
>
>We haven't even implemented the new
>deer management plan, and now
>we have an attempt to
>change it! Yes, opportunity will
>decrease in some areas, at
>least for the short term.
>I am very much pro
>opportunity. But let's give the
>new management program a chance.
>
>Nobody really knows what the harvest
>rates will be on any
>given unit now that hunters
>will be isolated to a
>specific unit. Give the plan
>a chance, get some real
>data, not guesses, and them
>make an informed proposal.
>This proposal seems to be a
>way to sell more permits,
>or make more money in
>the short term, without putting
>any faith in the new
>managmeent model.
>Bill

+1 well said BIll

Zeke

Tikka · Jan 27, 2012

luckyfinds · Jan 27, 2012

TSX · Jan 27, 2012

Carrie Mae,

As it is known to most all deer hunters in Utah there has been and still on going a serious decline in the number of buck deer in the state of Utah.

The current Wildlife Board has finally recognized this and has offered two management changes that you detailed in your original post in hopes of turning this problem around.

At best, it will take several years to see if the new management changes succeeds.

From the information provided there are three options on the table:

1. Leave the original recommendation of 18?25 bucks/100 does in place across all the 30 units.

2. 18?20 bucks/100 does - units that are primarily private land and/or have limited access.

3. 15?17 bucks/100 does - units that have high harvest, good access and are primarily public land.

In order to improve the buck deer numbers in Utah as quickly as possible hunter opportunity (unfortunately) has to be decreased. From my point of view the first option is the most reasonable to improve the buck numbers and the Wildlife Board should leave this as purposed. Both options two and three just delay the recovery effort further.

As was very well stated by llamapacker the is no collected harvest data in order to make decreasing the buck/doe ratio proposal change to the plan at this point, and therefore should remain unchanged. Actually, I would like the ratio higher but we can't politically go there.

Thank you for all your efforts as a member of the RAC. I know of no other RAC member that has done more to keep the hunters of Utah informed!

Thank you.

TSX

Deerlove · Jan 27, 2012

Well said Bill.

theox · Jan 27, 2012

dont like it. i am all about hunter opportunity. but right now we need to cut down tags and maybe close a unit or two.

every unit that has evr been closed has made an unexplainable(by biologist) recovery. henries went from 300 deer to 1200 in the years it was closed. and many other units have done the same. for whatever reason shutting units down seems to help. I do not want to lose opportunity, and i love hunting deer more than anything but if i have to go a year or 2 w/o for the good of the herd i would.
We have spike elk, open bull, cow elk that we can hunt still.

I just want the herds to ge4t better and with the wb always changing plans every year it is not going to help lets give the 18-25 a chance for a few years and see what it does. if it is not working on some units we can adjust accordingly.

I think SOME units are stuggling due to low BD ratios just not enough mature bucks to breed. 5 bucks per 100 might be enough in an enclosed pen but out in the millions of acres these deer roam i think its not enough. we are seeing low fawn crops, which means 1 of several things, either not enough does being bred becasue too few bucks, or some other reason/s

i say give the original plan a chance for a few years

Tikka · Jan 27, 2012

WOW!!!!

This is good guy's we are all agreeing with each other for a change, let's keep this up!!!!

3blade · Jan 27, 2012

I'm with TSX on this one.

ColoradoOak · Jan 27, 2012

Amusing....they finally acknowledge the elephant in the room (access!!!), but refuse to address it!

LOWCOUNTRY · Jan 27, 2012

Well said OX!

JuddCT · Jan 28, 2012

My initial thought would be if a specific unit can handle the lower ratio why not let the micro management mentality work and apply the lower ratio? Isn't that what the new 30 units are about? Getting away from "blanket wildlife management"? I'm not trying to disagree just asking an honest question.

Tikka · Jan 28, 2012

JuddCT

We must first climb out of the huge hole we have dug. What everybody is saying let's not worry about BD ratios until we get the TOTAL deer count back to what the DWR thinks it's at now. Then manage each unit for BD ratios.

I hope that makes sense it does in my pea brain, but that's not sayin much!!! LOL

JuddCT · Jan 28, 2012

Thanks Tikka and I understand where you are coming from. I guess I just think if a specific unit is doing okay and the biologist can honestly say it can support the lower ratio I think that shows in a way micro management is/can work to an extent. Obviously if a unit is struggling and fawn to doe ratios are really low (coinciding with a struggling herd estimate) I think tags should be cut and keep the higher ratio.

Thanks

400or200 · Jan 28, 2012

This is absolute BS!!!! Deer should NEVER be managed according to any ratio!!! We have absolutly no clue on how many total deer we have in any unit or even the state. Until we can have an ACCURATE and CORRECT count we will never be able to manage properly. WE NEED A RESOURCE TO MANAGE. Right now there is nothing to manage....the counts are way to skewed to PROPERLY MANAGE.

Tree · Jan 28, 2012

This is hunter management, not deer management.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

goofyelk · Jan 28, 2012

Thank gawd the Utah sportsmen are stepping forward!!!!!

3 years in a row now Utah's deer herd have declined sharply
and the DWR has been putting out almost 'flat lined' deer
herd estimates leading the misconception that there was
no real problem......................

400/200 is spot on!
I've been raising hell for 3 years now about Utah's deer
herd estimates being grossly over exaggerated......

Now that option 2 in in place, CORRECT herd counts per
unit is vital in deer herd recovery....Come on DWR!
Let see some realistic herd estimates please.

Birdman · Jan 28, 2012

Under the current plan of buck to doe ratio, If we got down to 500 deer and 100 were bucks then the plan has been successful. We need to manage more for number of deer, not buck to doe. I think that the plan should be numbers, not buck to doe.

wileywapati · Jan 28, 2012

Seriously???? We are back to this again???

Lemme ask all of you biologists this, say your motor in your truck
Has blown 4 cylinders up through the hood. Is checking for the
Correct tire pressure going to get that sumbitch up and running
again??? Is adding fluid to the windshield washer tank??

Judas mother truck driving priest!!!! Ya'll piss and moan to get
30 units because you want to be able to manage each unit
independently and then you come out with a statewide buck to
Doe ratio??

I hate to say it but what did I tell ya?? It will never be enough
For some of you!! Piss on the guy that just wants to get out
And hunt. Piss on the guy that wants to get his kids involved.

Look this whole deal came down because you've tied finances to
buck to Dow ratios.

2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE

tstewy · Jan 29, 2012

I am ok with managing the south slope units for a lower buck to doe ratio. If they combine the le units with the genreal deer units and let you decide,How often you want to hunt. Lowering the amount of time it takes to draw a good tag and allowing those that want hunting oppurtunity to draw their tag every year if they so choose. This would help out allot and seperate the guys that want to trophy hunt more of a chance to hunt more often in their own state. If they are not willing to do this than i think they should leave the buck to doe ratio where it is at by doing this it will allow those who want a better hunting experince than we curently have and still afford those that want oppurtunity a better chance to draw. Having said that fixing the our herd numbers would solve both problems.

cannonball · Jan 29, 2012

I stand by what I said on ID#1, if they reduce the ratio on those units that have easy access, as Ronald Reagan said, "THERE YOU GO AGAIN!!". They will shoot every decent buck on the mountain, where as, in the more remote areas some of the larger buck will make it though the massive amounts of hunters. 15 to 18 buck don't really mean those will be shootable buck. Unless they have changed the way they count buck, any fawn that looks as if it may grow horns will be counted as a buck.

As for those of you who don't want the issue to be the buck-to-doe ratio, you do have ground to stand. That is why I like the 30 units because the real issue is the total number of mule deer in each region. This will require the game managers to manage - - Now do it!!!

cannonball · Jan 29, 2012

I didn't explain myself very well above. I still think the increase ratios are important, but they detract from the more important issue of the herd size in general. Just don't ever think that the "SHOWN" number is out there to breed the doe, it just "ain't" so.

buglinbilly · Jan 29, 2012

I personally would like to see them keep the higher buck to doe ratios.

And now that they have decided to break the state into 30 units, I can't believe they are going to frost each unit with the same frosting!

Why don't you have a few archery only units with longer and more liberal seasons where they can give more permits.?

Have a couple muzzle loader units with longer seasons and a few more permits..

And have a couple rifle only units.

If the board is wise, its a perfect time to try some different stuff and hopefully then, down the line, they will learn how they can maximize the number of hunters and still maintain and hopefully grow the herd. Having a general season like it has been in the past, just hasn't worked well for the deer, or even for the hunters.

With everyone wanting hunter opportunity, they could make the Wastach extended unit, a unit that had unlimited tags, but if you wanted to hunt it, you have to apply for it and then you could not hunt any other unit. This way a person who wants to bow hunt will always have a tag, but he can't apply for another unit, thus letting those tags go to people, who otherwise would not draw. If he wanted to draw a tag in one of the 30 units, then when the bow season was done in that unit, he could not hunt the front. To me that would give more people the opportunity to hunt and even yield a bit more revenue, as there could be more licenses sold.

As it is now, a person like myself, with a lifetime license, can get a tag in the best unit and then if they don't take a deer, they can come back hunt the extended. Why not make us, and all other bow hunters choose the extended area if we want to hunt it with a bow, and exclude us from taking one of the other area tags, that could then go to someone else.

There are ways to maximize opportunity and that I think would be a good starting point.

Lets. keep the buck to doe ratio as now set and find other ways to maximize hunter opportunity.. Hunters in Utah can and will come up with some great ideas, if only the board would listen.

And one final thought as what is now being proposed. ------- I can see, down the line, when higher buck ratios, in private areas, lead to more wealth tags, where the rich can hunt great areas every year, while the little guy, sits on the side lines and waits his/her chance, for the year to come, once in a while, when they too can hunt.

Put on your thinking caps and please don't cover all these units with one FROSTING!!

We have a great opportuinty to try some different approaches in different units and see what works best. Once we figure that out we switch the other units to what is working best!

Have a good one. BB

rperkins · Jan 29, 2012

bug you don't get it we want to increase our deer herd, more mature bucks and alot more does, we don't want to kill off all the deer. Whats wrong with trying 18 to 25 bucks to 100 does, it just might work, it was voted in by the Wildlife Board in 2010, give it a try.

soutahhunter · Jan 30, 2012

If we keep the buck to doe ratio the way it is now, we are looking at around 6 bucks to 100 doe and hard to find a 100 doe. If we force them to go to 20 bucks per 100 doe at at least the population may grow some, I am sure it wont be what they say it is, but better than we have now.