UDWR Tag Recommendation

N

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
Just received info regarding proposed permit numbers for deer and elk hunts for 2012. Only two levels of buck/doe ratio--15-17 and 18-20. Archers gained 1300 permits, any weapon & muzzleloaders lost 1800 permits.This next RAC meeting will be interesting. I personally am not happy about some of the deer recommendations but am generally supportive of the elk recommendations.
 
its not about the deer its about the opportunity, if we have 1 deer left we will still sale 87000 permits for opportunity.
 
Are they going to take how many deer are in an area into consideration? For example, Sw desert has one of the best buck to doe ratios in the state, but there are very few deer compared to most areas. Are they going to have a great amount of tags in an area with few deer, big area, but good buck ratio?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-12 AT 02:42PM (MST)[p]Everything looks good to me. I really like the buck to doe ratios at 15-17 and 18-20. There is no reason to manage general season units higher than 20 bucks per 100 does.

There is a difference between GS units and LE units and people keep wanting to combine the two.
 
interesting that the henries has a 3-year average of
58% of harvested bucks 5 years old or greater. In '08 the bioligist stated that we could never get that average age over 5 for a three year average. that was quite a fight in the Mule Deer committee, RAC and Board. Maybe some of the units they think will be hard to get to 18 or 20 bucks wont be that hard either. The 15-17 number means the dwr can keep on doin what they have for years just limp on along.
 
15-17 in my local unit. Yippee! I sure am glad people came to their senses after the smoke cleared a bit.Thanks to all that aided in this happening!

I also agree with elite. There are already hunts for you guys that are willing to wait years and years to hunt trophy bucks they're called limited entry hunts.My self I like to chase trophy bucks every year with my general tag.
 
When you guys forget about the buck to doe ratios we can start growing a deer herd again. It's kind of like saying you're one of the richest people in Harlem. If you only have 100 deer total, does it really matter if 18 of those are bucks? These units should be managed on sustainable herd numbers NOT buck to doe ratios. Until people figure this out we are pissing in the wind.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
food for thought
it wasn't untill the pressure to go to 30 units and raise the buck to doe ratios that the director got serious about fawn recruitment.
 
Buck to doe ratios are equally important. If you talk about just herd size alone you'll end up with a herd of does. Hard to put a buck tag on a skin head. I'd an are can only handle so many deer I would like to see it managed for the maximum amount of does and bucks, not just deer, but I do see where you are xoning from because it seems as if some people only care about the b2d ratio.
 
Some of these guys would know the answer to this better than me but I'm sure there are studies out there that look at the percentage of buck fawns vs doe fawns. Mind you, this is just my oppinion from talking with different biologists both in Utah and out of Utah, but they say, and I would have to agree, that once a herd is at carrying capacity, all you should have to do is fine tune it with buck tag allocations and some doe tag allocations to maitain your buck to doe ratios. They say fawn recruitment is of utmost importance if you want to grow a herd to capacity. The buck to doe ratios usually end up pretty close to objectives on their own and should only need a little fine tuning.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
Nebo,

Just as clarification. The changes you mentioned in permit numbers are only comparing to the permits given in 2011. From 2010 to 2011, rifle hunters took a 7,000 permit cut. Also, prior to 2010, rifle hunters again took a several thousand permit cut. Just wanted to point out that in recent years permits for rifle hunters have been incrementally cut by thousands and the 1,800 change is just from 2011 to 2012. Remember, in 2011 rifle hunters were cut the 7,000 in preparation for the 2012 Amendment. So, you really need to factor the 7,000 into the cut as well as the several thousand cut in the 3 years leading up to 2010.
 
Start the rifle on Wednesday with only a 5 day hunt. Turn muzz hunt back to 5 days aslo. Leave them at that for a few years it will help.
 
hogg,
What about cutting the archery hunt to 14 days? You guys are quick to want to cut the rifle and muzz hunts. Never willing to take cuts yourself.
 
According to people who actually have a degree and have been to school for wildlife management it takes 8-10 bucks per hundred does to successfully maintain and grow a deer herd. If we continue to cut tags and opportunity (which is really only band aid) we will loose the next hunting genration and all of our work will be for nothing. The deer herds will still be lost. If we were really concerned about deer herd health we would put far more of our efforts toward habitat improvement. Again cut opportunity enough and you will temporarily gain some more bucks but you will lose the war so to speak. The deer herds on the limmited units are no more healthy than general areas solely because of higher buck to doe ratios.
 
My personal observation and experiences tell me this--
Our kids and grand kids are leaving hunting primarily because they aren't hooked on hunting because of the lack of success. 2 or 3 days of tromping through the mountains with dad and only seeing a few does and fawns and if they are lucky seeing a small buck doesn't exactly lend itself to getting them hooked on hunting. The older hunters have learned to simply appreciate being out there- enjoying the outdoors-- killing a mature buck doesn't make or break our love for the opportunity-- but for kids it is different. They have to believe that there is a reasonable chance of finding and getting a shot at a good buck-- not a gaurantee of killing one -- just a reasonable chance if you work hard and are diligent and hone your skills, you could get one.
If we can increase the herd numbers and thus the buck numbers- the kids will come back and get hooked into the experience and opportunity along with their family and friends.
 
Nebo,
I agree.... to a point. The biggest problem with our youth hunters isn't the 5 days in the field, it's the 360 other days with all the diversions and distractions.

Hunting is HARD and most kids today don't do "hard"! Those parents who bring their kids up in the outdoors will always have outdoor kids regardless of buck to doe ratios!

Zeke
 
I have have had great expiriences taking youth out in the field, when we get the opportinity. The problems I see are young folks getting excited to go hunting and going through hunter safety. Then they are let down because they could not even draw a tag. Also even the older generation ie, the parents of the next generation growing weary of playing the point game year after year trying to get a tag and just find other activities for their families. I agree that there are a few areas in the state that are struggling, however the majority of the state is not as dire as some would like us all to believe. This observation is not based on how I hunted or how many animals I saw. This is based on reports and numbers given by actual biologists. I am not ready to jump on the band wagon of claiming that the DWR does not know how to manage wildlife. The DWR will never please everybody so there will always be poeple disappointed in how things are managed. I also agree that the wildlife board has made some poor decisions but I garantee they understand that healthy populations mean more money.
 
correct me if im wrong but if people wanted to really go hunting they could've applied for northern or north eastern and got the tag every year and southern is only 2 yrs for a rifle tag. Most of the guys I talk to that have supposedly put in for years and not drawn and say they're sick of it, didnt really want to go hunting anyways and want to #####.
Ive had guys go hunting to Colorado with me that havent ever hunted anything outside of a general southern region tag and have just about figured hunting just wasnt worth their time anymore,and do a 180 after the first day. They couldnt believe that they were seeing 8-10 4 points a day on a unit that took 2 points to draw. Most of them said they would save their money and time off and not hunt in Utah to go to Colorado every 2-3 years. The others would try and hunt both every year.
Bottom line all hunters young and old want to believe that they can kill a good buck when they get a tag, young hunters especially need to see the quarry they're hunting to stay interested.
 
I agree with you on many of those points, however it's not so easy for everyone to hunt out of state or even 300 miles from where they live. I am not speaking fo my own situation here, I have always done what it took to get myself and my family out in the field. I hear the same complaints from folks here is SO. UT claiming that the deer herd down here is in bad shape and hunting is not worth the effort. I strongly disagree with that opinion. That's my whole point everbody is wanting to raise the buck to doe ratios claiming that hunting is so poor everywhere in the state. Again I agree there are a few units that are in bad shape. I am all for cutting tags if in fact the biologists say that is what is needed to help the deer herd as a whole. I am not for cutting tags based on people not seeing enough mature bucks in thier opinion. Over hunting is not what is causing deer herds to decline currently and there is in plenty of real evidence to back that up. We could debate all day and thats' not my intent but I would like to say again if we have to cut tags to grow the population by all means. However if we are cutting tags based on a hunters perception that hunting is poor that is a poor decision on our part. You can cut tags all you want but over hunting is is not our current problem it will only be a band aid. I say if you want to grow a healthy deer herd and maintain it. Lets put our money and time where our mouth is and preserve and improve habitat and while they are not perfect, give the DWR biologist a little more credit. Yes, mistakes have been made but it not easy trying to do what's right for the wildlife and please every sportsman.
 
While catching up on the previous posts I see where the opportunity argument is being brought up. I do not see anybody chiming in on the DWR's request to abolish the new BP rule (pg. 37 of the DWR proposal).
In my opinion this was a step in the right direction to alleviate the Point Creep. Now they want to call it off because they stand to lose $5K a year, and $95K this year.

Big deal, if you dont apply you lose your points (half the people may be dead or incarcerated).
Increase the BP cost if you need to but please do something to speed up the waiting.

I still feel that combining ALL deer hunts into the same drawing will lessen the point creep. If a guy wants to hunt the Henry's let him use it as choice #1, then he can have his favorite GS tag as his #2 and so on.

Not addressing this right now is going to cause our current BP PLUG to remain as well as starting a new one on the general units. Mark my words the current setup is about to cause more waiting. In five years we will start seeing general units that will take 3-5 years to draw.

All in all I feel these changes are moving us in the right direction, but still need a little fine tuning.

just my 2 cents.
 
RidgeRebel, you better check the DWR population numbers before you think about having a larger deer herd in So.UT. Pine Valley, Beaver, Zion, and Panguitch are all at or over objective in thier opinion. Speaking of biologist doing thier job, last year I spoke with the biologist over PV and he said in his opinion PV could handle 18000 deer easy and he said he was hoping the carrying capacity would be raised. Guess what a year later and it is at 12800??? Why is the DWR not listening to thier own biologist's?
 
The problem is that the DWR deer counts are estimats and not actually counts. I wish that I could get away with the mistakes that they make in their ESTIMATES at my current job. Can you imagine if I could take a small sample of the work that I do and then multiply it to account for my sales. That would be sweet.I would make some serious cash.

I am not bashing the Biologist and I feel that they do a great job and could possibly work harder than any other managment group of the western states. Unfortunatly if they are not given the right tools or resources to make the correct counts they will fail every time.

I don't know why everyone is hung up on buck to doe ratio. You should be looking at the herd populations. You boys in the southern part of the state should be upset. They are selling short your herd size. The Pine Valley, Panquitch, Pansugaunt, and Zion are no where near carrying capacity. These are units that have very low elk numbers and in some units no elk at all. The deer have no competition for habitat. Both Panguitch and Pine Valley can support 18,000 plus deer and the Pansugaunt can handle a lot more that 6,000!

You guys should be worried about what they are saying the deer carrying capacity is!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-12 AT 05:53AM (MST)[p]Rackster wrote:

Nebo,

Just as clarification. The changes you mentioned in permit numbers are only comparing to the permits given in 2011. From 2010 to 2011, rifle hunters took a 7,000 permit cut. Also, prior to 2010, rifle hunters again took a several thousand permit cut. Just wanted to point out that in recent years permits for rifle hunters have been incrementally cut by thousands and the 1,800 change is just from 2011 to 2012. Remember, in 2011 rifle hunters were cut the 7,000 in preparation for the 2012 Amendment. So, you really need to factor the 7,000 into the cut as well as the several thousand cut in the 3 years leading up to 2010.

Actually, since 2009, the Central region has added 1,000 tags, with many of it's units under the 15:100 buck to doe ratio. The DWR is proposing 3,000 more tags within the Central region units over last year. 2011 (13,000 tags) 2012 (16,000 tags) Most of these units inside of the old Central region are under the 15:100 target buck to doe ratios. I hope, no "beg" the WB to do the right thing and at least cut 20% off the proposed tag numbers on units 18, 19a, 19c, 17a and 16a. This would at least get the total back close to the 13,000 from last year.
Right now, I don't see much concern with the DWR trying to get the buck numbers up any time soon. It's more important to keep as many hunters in the field as possible, as long as there is a minimum number of bucks to do the breeding in the fall. VERY DISAPPOINTING!
 
Great points-- once again Anise seems to have gone the route of designated "sacrifice areas". Some of the units in the Central Region will have more hunters and pressure than they have had in the past years. I for one will stand up against that kind of management attitude. I have matched up the different units and the proposed tag numbers and in some units it is absolutely ridiculous. The hunters per square mile on some units will be worse than " a flourescent orange jacket on every ridge and sidehill". I am still trying to grasp the logic. The Nebo will be a sea of orange-- Now that will be a quality experience to take your kids into. Of course- they did say that they want to keep the buck/doe ratio at 15-17 on that unit becasue it is largely public ground and it is close to the Wasatch front-- easy access.. They are certainly viewing it as a "sacrifice area"--
 
I know that there has already been a lot of discussion, but I just want to urge all of you to take your input on these recommendations to the RAC meetings in April. If you have friends and family that hunt, please encourage them to go as well. Here's a page that summarizes the recommendations as well as the RAC locations, dates and times. If you aren't able to attend the meetings, please contact your RAC members directly.

Also, for those of you who are interested, the Utah Wildlife Board is holding a work session tomorrow at 1 p.m. to discuss some of the recommendations. Board members will not be taking action on any of the agenda items. The meeting is open to the public, but no public comment will be accepted. We are planning to broadcast the meeting, and I'll post a link here tomorrow as soon as the audio feed is live.

Amy Canning
Communications Specialist
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
 
>Great points-- once again Anise seems
>to have gone the route
>of designated "sacrifice areas". Some
>of the units in the
>Central Region will have more
>hunters and pressure than they
>have had in the past
>years. I for one
>will stand up against that
>kind of management attitude. I
>have matched up the different
>units and the proposed tag
>numbers and in some units
>it is absolutely ridiculous. The
>hunters per square mile on
>some units will be worse
>than " a flourescent orange
>jacket on every ridge and
>sidehill". I am still trying
>to grasp the logic. The
>Nebo will be a sea
>of orange-- Now that will
>be a quality experience to
>take your kids into. Of
>course- they did say that
>they want to keep the
>buck/doe ratio at 15-17 on
>that unit becasue it is
>largely public ground and it
>is close to the Wasatch
>front-- easy access.. They are
>certainly viewing it as a
>"sacrifice area"--

yea, someone gets it! Are you on the central RAC? I hope so. I also agree with your comment about the kids mentality these days.

I viewed Nebo as a unit that had a large portion of private land though and harder access, due to the wilderness areas and roadless forest lands, so I was expecting a 18-20 on that one.
 
bragabit Absolutley cut the Archery to 14 days and start it on a Wednesday as well. I hunt with a Muzzy I am not biased to any particular weapon. Let's make a drastic change in the Utah deer hunting culture.
 
I will be proposing that the Nebo go to an 18-20 ratio and that the proposed number of tags is reduced by at least 300. Once the unit begins to really increase in overall numbers-- up around 15000-- then increase tags. Right now under the proposal it would be just status quo-- in fact it might make it worse. The buck/doe ratio is only at about 13-14/100 and the herd numbers are at about 11,900 with a 22,000 management objective.
 
You guys are forgetting the open houses the DWR hosted for the
past several weeks. I've heard the input they received and will take back to the Wildlife Board was 50% lower ratio's and 50% higher. These recommendations are simply a reflection of that input.

Nebo has been talking to good old Mr. Peay. That is the exact party line I got and get from him. Well my kid can't find a "Quality" deer. Seriously are we to the point where a kid can't experience a deer hunt and come away unhappy if they don't see several 160 inch bucks?? How in the hell does a kid know what a
big buck is?? Is it dad in his ear telling him he is less of a man and hunter if he kills a 2 point his first year?? If you want your kid to experience success and get hooked let him pull the trigger. Simple as that.





2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
> You guys are forgetting
>the open houses the DWR
>hosted for the
>past several weeks. I've heard the
>input they received and will
>take back to the Wildlife
>Board was 50% lower ratio's
>and 50% higher. These recommendations
>are simply a reflection of
>that input.

Wiley your post is the dumbest post I have seen on here in a long time. I went to the open house and I was never asked to take a survey or asked any questions gathering information that would be taken to the WB. The open house I went to was to give informatino not gather information.

Just because Nebo wants a larger deer herd does not mean that he has been talking with Don. Even if he has who cares. I dont support SFW or Don. However if given the chance I would talk to him to figure out how he thinks. The more info that I have available to me the more informed I am. Maybe if you took that approach you would not make lame post like the one above. Come on buddy get a clue.
 
Hooner, the open houses were held for that exact reason, for deer hunters to give input. I went to two of them and was asked by multiple Division people what my opinion was.

Last November when Karpowitz informed the WB that Division funding was now tied directly to buck to doe ratio's as well as a few groups not being all that happy with no increase in deer permits until a unit gets to 25+ bucks the WB decided to backtrack. Thats how it went down.

I also attended a meeting for the Sportsmans groups where these numbers were presented to us by the Division. I can't think of any group that had issues with the deer portion.

"Just because Nebo wants a larger deer herd does not mean that he has been talking with Don. Even if he has who cares"

Hooner I care... Nebo is a RAC member and he can make any proposal he wishes. BUT at the end of the day he NEEDS to listen to the public's input and base his vote on that. Not on anecdotal data that he pulls out of his ass or from the Monster Muley community. He also has NO BUSINESS defining what a "QUALITY HUNT" is for me and my family. NONE it ain't his place and never will be.






2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
They are
>certainly viewing it as a
>"sacrifice area"--


Its a damn shame unit 2 is gonna be a "sacrifice" area.
 
Until the TARDS of this State get the Buck to Doe Rastio BS out of their Self Oppinionated Pea Brains and start using that Pea Brain for what it was intended for & start focusing on total/more Deer numbers there ain't gonna be anything change!

Who gives a Rats Ass if the Buck to Doe Ratio is 18 Bucks per 100 Does when you're counting 25 head of Deer?

Easy wiley,there will always be a PISSCUTTER for you to hunt,if you draw a Coveted General Tag!:D






[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Hooner I care... Nebo
>is a RAC member and
>he can make any proposal
>he wishes. BUT at the
>end of the day he
>NEEDS to listen to the
>public's input and base his
>vote on that. Not on
>anecdotal data that he pulls
>out of his ass or
>from the Monster Muley community.
>He also has NO BUSINESS
>defining what a "QUALITY HUNT"
>is for me and my
>family. NONE it ain't his
>place and never will be.

Wiley you act like you are the only one that cares and attends the meetings. It gets old. There are a lot of people that attend the meetings. I should not have to remind you but last year the majority of the racs voted to go to units and to get a higher Buck to Doe ratio. In the racs that I attended this move was made to hopefully move us towards a larger deer herd.

Guys like you are so fixated on the buck to doe ratio. Get over it. We need more deer. The herds are in a downward spiral. Nebo is looking at units that he feels like the tag allotment that has been propased are incorrect. I applaud him for that. There are about 15 units that I feel have messed up tag allotment and if the tags stay as have been proposed will mess the herds up even worse than they already are.

You are so worried about having your tag every year that you are willing to jump over what is best for the deer herds. I don't know what it worse SFW or a guy that will risk the deer herds so that he has a deer tag every year.
 
Wiley you stole the words right out of my mouth.I fully agree that us as parents play a huge role in what our young hunters come to EXPECT out in the field.If good old dad keeps telling junior that "this hunt sucks ,you should of seen it back in the good old days,don't shoot that 2 point only lazy redneck hunters settle for small deer like that" then junior is sure to think it sucks as well.

I know that killing a trophy buck my first years of hunting was the last thing on my mind or any of the youngsters in camp for that matter.My dad taught me the first step in becoming an efficient hunter is to put some deer on the ground plain and simple.

I'm blown away by your comments nebo.In my opion you and your posts make me feel like I'm talking to the Don himself.And to think your sitting on the RAC makes me count my lucky stars you are not representing my unit.

What young hunters need is action. The way to get a young hunter alot of action is to give them the green light on anything with horns whether that be a spike or a 28" 4 point let them burn some powder for heavens sake.I would think that any young or beginning hunter would be content just getting some shooting.more than likely they will miss a few, forget to take the safety off , fogg up the scope because they're so excited what ever it may be but there are alot of bugs that need to get worked out that you just don't get from target shooting.Let them get their hands bloody for a few years and then let them decide what size of buck makes them happy down the road.

I think we need to all realize that these are GENERAL units that are designed for opportunity.At the end of the day the science speaks for its self and shows that on most units the does are getting bred bottom line.Infact my unit has always had some of the highest birth rates I have seen even though the unit has forever hovered from10-15 bucks per hundred does.I am very happy to see my unit classified as a so called"sacrifice" unit in your eyes.Why should you take my tag away simply because you are unwilling to do what it takes to get a big buck found and killed?Just because you cant get it done doesn't mean it can't get done by others and it does .

Maybe some people just are not cut out to be successful trophy hunters on our general units.It's hard enough for seasoned veterans let alone a young or new hunter.
 
cache,
Take an honest look at the Cache unit and tell me it is but a shell of what is was 30 years ago.

This issue is much much deeper than having a tag in your pocket every year.

Also the size of deer you are finding has nothing to do with the state of the herd. I find bucks also on the Cache and some of them are very nice. However it does not change the fact that the unit sucks for overall deer numbers. GENERAL units or not we should still manange them for what is best for the future of our deer herds

You type a whole post talking about kids kids kids and that is what we should be worried about. Yet right at the end it has nothing to do with kids.

"Why should you take my tag away simply because you are unwilling to do what it takes to get a big buck found and killed?Just because you cant get it done doesn't mean it can't get done by others and it does"

Why should you take MY tag. MY tag. Nope that is the problem. Its the MY, not really the kids. But they sure make a noble excuse.
 
Cache, Of course you agree with Wiley your comments make about as much sense as his. The buck to doe ratio has nothing to do with you being able to get it done in the field. I don't understand the guys that get on here and say I killed a 28 inch four point on a general unit so deal with it you need to get off the road. Really you think you are the only one that is getting it done. Come on!

The issue is not if you can close the deal on a big buck it is about the deer herd. If you look at Nebos post he is worried about the amount of tags that they are giving on a unit. It is a valid concern and does not make him a Don Peay lover.

You guys act like the opportunities are going to be taken away from the youth. Really? There has never been more opportunity for youth than now. Buck deer tags, bull elk tags, cow elk tags, water fowl,upland game, turkey, fishing, archery tags, etc. What you can only take your youth deer hunting? If it is the experience that you are looking for the best experience I ever had I didn't pull the trigger but was with my grandfather. Your opportunity argument is lack luster at best.

I also have no idea what you last comment means.

"Maybe some people just are not cut out to be successful trophy hunters on our general units.It's hard enough for seasoned veterans let alone a young or new hunter"

After you entire rant you end it with "it is hard enough for the seasoned veterans let alone a young new hunter. Like I mentioned above you and Wiley make no sense it is hard for the youtha nd seasoned alike because the deer numebrs are down and the buck numbers are down.

I will make you a deal lets take your youth hunter on a deer hunt in Utah and then lets take him to Colorado on a deer hunt. We can choose units that take 0 points to draw. Then lets let the youth decide what hunt had more action and which one was funner.
 
Muley when I say mine I meant all others that see it as i do and alot of theses include young or beginning hunters
 
Hooner the last point I was trying to make was inregard to someone talking about taking a youth hunter on a general unit and tromping the hills for 2-3 days then complain how bad it was because you couldnt find the size of buck you were hoping for.I'm sure there was no scouting prior to opening day and for someone to expect to just stumble onto some gagger buck is unrealistic at best.Even when I think I have a nice buck patterned before the hunt it surely does't mean that I'm going to kill it or let alone see him during the hunt.So I guess even though I work my butt off to put me in area where I know a nice buck hangs does not mean anything once opening morning comes.
 
Cache,
I understand your point but let me ask you this if you are spending a ton of time on the unit scouting for deer and still don't always connect what do the youth have to do to close the deal?
I know very few youth that have the time or resources to scount a unit. They can usually show up the night before the hunt to get after it. I still have never met a youth hunter that would rather shoot a two point than a four point. So with our youth in mind why wouldn't we want to grow our deer herds to give them the best possible hunt available.
I agree with you that hunting is what we make it and the youth will have fun if the people that they go with make it fun. But next time you are talking to a youth hunter give them a picture of a 2 year old two point and a 4 year old four point and ask them what deer they would rather shoot. I am not saying it has to be a 180 4 point. Just a small 22 inch four point. I think that we both know what deer they would rather shoot. So why not give them a Good chance at making this happen..
 
Cache, it does go to show that what your taught when young tranfers through when your older. You said you were taught to put led in the air and put whatever buck down you saw and be excited with a spike or forky. Well you still subscribe to this to this day and are happy with sub par deer herds with low buck numbers and dont want anything better.
Besides you guys got what you wanted in that the DWR are suggesting 14 out of the 30 units be at 15-17 buck/doe ratio.
 
Wiley and Cache-- sorry I got you all worked up about this-- but-- I have had as much fun with my kids when they took a 2 point as when they took a 4 point-- That really is not the "point" of my concerns. The "opportunity" to find a buck of any size is what is important and even more important is that the herds are flourishing and growing within habitat restrictions.
By the way-- I haven't talked to Don Peay for years. But I do respect their efforts to make hunting better and do what they can to get the herds growing again. You can disagree with the methods or the politics or whatever, but they are trying to make a difference and reverse the direction that the deer numbers are going right now.
Getting the herd numbers growing is vital to creating more chances of success. We already have lots of opportunity and was well stated already. It may not be "your" chosen type of opportunity but being able to hunt and be in the outdoors is available in many, many ways. If your definition of opportunity is only tied to deer hunting then I can see why you have heartburn over the limiting of deer hunting generally. But, none of us has more "right" than the other person to be able hunt when, where or what, than the other guy or what kind of opportunity we think is best.
One last thing-- The term that I used-- "sacrifice area" was taken directly from a comment by a DWR biologist in a public meeting concerning proper management of deer and how to satisfy those who want more hunting opportunity. It took place years ago, but it is still in play today in regards to some areas. Not saying that it is wrong or right to look at some areas that way,but I disagree with the premise that it should enter into the decision of how to manage a particular area.
I really hope that the efforts that the DWR and other groups are trying to put into place will get us ove the hump in regards to increasing and growing deer numbers-- that will come if we can get fawn survival increasing dramatically.
Thanks for your passion and concern. It may not go exactly in the direction you would like it to go but hopefully we can help get it going in a way that will be good for the health of the deer herds and good for more opportunity to hunt what we want-- any buck, small bucks, big bucks, typical,non-typical-- whatever gets your adreneline pumping and makes memories.
 
Hooner I respect what you are saying. If that's the way you feel and want to set that standard for you and your's give it heck man. BUT it ain't fair to me and mine to try and make us play by the same rules. It's not fair for me to define what a "Quality Buck" is for you, Nebo or Cache. Especially when my definition pretty much guarantee's that one, if not more, of your group will be sitting home.

We can debate whether cutting tags in a moderate way will result in more deer, ( which it won't and hasn't anywhere it's been tried, see Nevada for a glaring example ) or even cutting permits by 20,000 more ( see the Henry or Pauns units ) hell if it was a proven way to go we should have 200,000 deer on these two units alone. Tags are so limited on these two units and have been for years and the herds are still flat.

You want more deer, more bucks?? Quit worrying about killing bucks and start worrying about bringing doe's and fawns to breeding age at a higher rate than we have been and you'll have more deer and more bucks. Carrying 5 more excess buck deer per unit ain't gonna pay off.








2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
WIley, again I have no clue what you are talking about. How did cutting tags not help the Paunsugaunt and the Henry's. We shut these units down for 5 years to regrow the herd. NO hunting at all. That is how they helped the herd recover. I do not believe that this is what we need to do with our deer herd but lets not pretend that the deer on these units just magically recovered to what they are today with no tag cuts. Also do your homework on the Paunsugaunt there is a serious roadkill issue and many of these deer are being hunted in Utah and then Arizona is hunting them in the late season.

You act like other states have not had success cutting tags. Explain Colorado to me? Years ago they cut over 25,000 tags state wide. This was to help the herds grow and recover. This worked like a charm for them and turned this state into a premeir destinatin for trophy hunters and opportunity hunters alike.. Now you look at Colorado at this very moment and say the numbers are down. You are correct but it is becasue mother nature came in with a nasty winter in 2007 and caused one of the worst if not the worst winter kill scenario the Western Unites States has seen. That is why the deer herds are down in Colorado. Guess what they cut tags to regrow the herds in the Gunnison basin and adjoining units. If you call the biloogist on these units today they will tell you the herds are recovering very well and they are seeing a lot more deer. Wierd how that worked for our friends in Colorado.

Wiley you need to read my post I could give a rats ass about buck to doe ratio. That is your thing because you care more about your tag in hand every year than the deer herd. I care more about the deer population. We need more deer flat out. To get there we are going to have to combine cutting tags with predator control, habitat, isolated managment(units,etc.

I pray that for my childs sake someone understands the need to grow the deer population in Utah. You will not regrow a herd by not cutting tags and having a low buck to doe ratio. The formula does not work.
 
nevada for example??? some of nevadas worst deer units are better than most our le hunts in utah.. its not rocket science kill less deer you have more deer the proofs in the pudding, henrys look at the vernon when they shut it down for 5 years theyre was no deer after 5 years quality and quantity was there strong,now we been hunting it to hard the deer herd is going down hill again out there..and if you are so worried about your kids hunting you might wanna get a little worried because if we keep hunting them at the rate we are there wont be no deer to hunt for your kids . its gunna take sacrifice from all for a while to get the numbers back where they need to be..utah is the laughing stock of the west for deer hunting we have better genetics than anywhere a ton of country to hunt.. for the guy smartin off about nevada , you really shouldnt comment on something you have absolutely no clue about, its pretty obvious you dont...nevada and colorado are the only states that have theyre ##### together as far as raising deer.
 
Grey...... Wrong. Wrong. And wrong again.

Nevada has been a draw only state for years
And their herds are not growing. Pick a GMU
In Colorado since they cut tags and tell me what
The population trends are on 95% of them. They are flat
Or declining. You are pulling these fantasies out
Of your back pocket. The numbers don't back up
What you are saying.

Now if we want to turn the entire state in to
The Vernon or Henries you are going to cut
Tags by about 75% at a minimum. Where is
The funding going to come from to manage the
Resource?? Following your flawed B. S. places
Like antelope island should be full of deer, by
The thousands it don't work that way pal.

Back up your B. S. with some data instead of
The magic you regurgitate. I'll be happy to
Provide all the data you need to show you
Are mistaken.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/muledeer.pdf

"More than 6 years have passed since
the implementation of the first state-wide post-hunt
buck ratio objective of 30, and some hunters continue
to have concerns about the absence of large bucks,
leading one to conclude that this conservative strategy may not be providing the desired result."


http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

"Excessive deer harvests have been proposed as another primary cause of declining mule
deer herds. If deer populations were being hunted so intensively that populations were
kept well below carrying capacity of deer habitats, reproductive rates of does should be
high and mortality rates of fawns should be low. Studies show exactly the opposite
patterns. On the other hand, hunting has been a major factor contributing to reductions in
numbers of bucks throughout Colorado deer herds over the past 3 decades. Some believe
that current buck numbers are so low that many does are not being bred each year and
poor breeding success causes fawn production to decline. Yet, available evidence fails to
substantiate that declining deer populations can be attributed to low buck numbers.
Reproductive rates measured in a recent study of does on the Uncompahgre Plateau of
southwestern Colorado are as high as reproductive rates from earlier studies despite much
lower numbers of bucks today."

"However, the relationship of deer harvests to the mule deer populations and declining mule
deer numbers is unclear. Annual deer harvests are only crude reflections of overall deer numbers.
Deer abundance, annual variation in deer distribution and weather at the time of the hunt, changes
in hunting regulations, timing and duration of seasons, hunter numbers, varying skill levels, and
myriad other factors all interact to affect the size of the annual deer harvest. The 2 predominate
trends observed in the harvest data may reflect nothing more than the learning curve of deer
managers as they sought a stable, sustainable harvest objective.
Two bodies of evidence suggest that excessive hunter harvest has not been responsible for the
decline in mule deer numbers. When deer populations are reduced below the food capacity of their
habitats, characteristically they respond with increased reproductive rates and decreased mortality
rates. Ratios of fawns per 100 does began declining just after deer harvests peaked (Fig. 5). If
excessive hunter kill was the primary cause of declining mule deer numbers, ratios of fawns per
100 does should have been increasing rather than decreasing."






2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
#1- Some guys think that carrying more bucks means they are carrying more deer, which is true by the numbers.

#2- Some guys think carrying more doe which can produce more fawns is the definition of carrying more deer.

My vote is for mindset #2. More doe and fawns are the key to more deer. Buck hunters have little to do with where the doe and fawns are going, no matter the state.
 
WIley,
It is obvious that you and I will never agree. The report from above is very long report and to be honest I don't really have time to continue to go back and forth with you. Honestly I feel that you are so closed minded you will not change. I pulled the below from your report. If I felt that I could enlighten you I could pull more information from this report but I don't think that it is worth my time. I believe you are a lost cause. Hopefully the WB, Rac, and DWR have more common sense.

What Caused Deer Numbers to Decline?
In 1976, following an earlier western-wide decline in mule deer numbers, a symposium
was held in Logan, Utah to discuss both the extent and causes of the decline. Mule deer
researchers and biologists implicated at least 5 major factors believed to be responsible for the
decline: 1) decreases in amounts and quality of critical deer habitats, 2) competition with elk and
other grazing livestock, 3) diseases, 4) predators, and 5) hunting. Again, in 1999 the same factors
have been suggested as causes of the current mule deer decline. A discussion of the evidence
supporting each of these potential factors follows.


There is little doubt that Colorado bucks have declined over the past 2-3 decades and that
hunting played a major role in that decline. Prior to 1966, bucks comprised slightly over ? of the
annual deer kill. Between 1966 and 1998 the buck kill had risen to the point that bucks comprised
75% of the annual deer kill statewide. The percentage of bucks in the annual harvest increased
because there were no limits on availability of buck licenses while availability of doe licenses was
increasingly restricted.
At the same time, hunter numbers were growing. During the period 1949-1965, numbers of
deer hunters average about 150,000 per year. For the period 1966-1998, average number of
people hunting deer annually increased by nearly 20%


ENOUGH SAID
 
wiley, anyone can cherry pick some old study to prove thier point. Make a call to a biologist in the state of Colorado and ask them how thier deer herds are doing in the regions that got blasted by winter kill 4-5 years ago. They cut buck tags in half and the herds are recovering and on the upward trend. Ask yourself how the gunnison basin units and the eagle county units deer herd got so big to begin with? They had conservative hunting coupled with 35-40 buck doe ratio and before that winter kill had a huge deer herd with mutiple hunting oppurtunitys that people could draw some tags in those units for 1-2 points. If you have ever hunted Nevada or Colorado I dont know why you would choose Utah's deer management over thiers.
 
Really hope the suggested elk quota gets approved. One more non-ressy bonus tag in the area I applied for should mean good things with my points!
 
Hooner and Hog, has it worked in Utah since we've gone from
over 200,000 hunters to roughly 90,000??

I don't have the answers, I know that history and data from pretty
much every western state shows that trying to grow deer herds by eliminating BUCK hunters doesn't work. You may have a few area's that essentially are closed for a few years that rebound slightly for the short term but in the big sustainable picture for GENERAL SEASON UNITS trying to grow herd size by saving bucks is by far the least efficient way to go about this.




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

let's go back to 200,000 tags, and see how long before the deer are extinct after all that's what you want right OPPORTUNITY!!!!!
 
lol i dont need your papers i hunt all the areas i speak about. which by the way most of the time all these studies and numbers which are pulled are usually behind the curve 5 to 7 years ecspecially goverment studies its no secret that deer numbers have been going down in the west for a long time now the difference is these other states have tried to do theyre parts to help some things cant be helped winterkill, drought,ect ect not utah and people like yourself and yes you can say what you want but nevadas deer hunting is much much better than utah both numbers and quality..except the henrys and pauns gee i wonder why..tags need to be cut drastically state wide until these deer start bouncing back..then we can start raising tag numbers again,,
 
Wiley, I have a serious question for you. Have you ever hunted Colorado? In my opinion Colorado does the best job of all the western states to provide quality and opportunity to resident and non resident hunters. I am trying to understand where you are coming from and how you have come to your conclusion.
 
Hooner Colorado and Utah ain't even close to
An apples to apples comparison. They have about
Two and a half times as many deer as Utah and the
Habitat is totally different. You can compare the total
Population trends by percentage and see the same
Slide down as Utah and the other western states.
It's a fact look it up.

I am not pushing to go back to 200,000 hunters. I am not
Pushing to go to 30,000 hunters either, cause that's where you'd
Need to be for this management plan to work.

Every western state is watching mule deer decline. Even the
States that restrict permits severely.

Like I said I've been waiting since 1994 for the magic that
Comes from reducing opportunity to kick in. I'm still waiting.
It hasn't worked yet and it won't work now.





2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-12 AT 04:47PM (MST)[p]Ridgetops,

Actually the 1,000 tags you are referring to since 2009 WERE NOT ADDED. Those were tags that were given back to the region. In 2004, the Central Region tags were cut from 13,000 to 12,000. Since the 3 year average buck/doe ratio for the Region was above the 15, then the 1,000 tags were given back to the Region as per the Mule Deer Managment Plan. So, there were no tags added, they were just given back. Not a big deal, but I thought I'd put it straight.

Also, the reason there is another 3,000 tags recommended in the Central is that the 16,000 statewide archery tags were not originally counted by Region. Now that Archers are confined to a unit, these archery tags (now recommended to be 17,300) are now split between the 30 units and counted within the total for each region. So, really the 3,000 is not an addition, but rather are just the amount of archery tags now being counted in the region. Prior to the 2012 recommendations, they were not included in the region allotment of tags, since they were a statewide tag. In reality, the Central region most certainly recieved a tag cut in the 2012 recommendation from the number of archers, muzzle hunters, and rifle hunters that hunted the region in 2011 and years prior.

FYI - Since the RAC process was started back in 1994 (after the big winter kill that previous winter) general season tags were capped at 97,000. The numbers below were the tags alloted for each Region specified by the Wildlife Board. These are the alloted tag numbers for each region until the Wildlife Board changed the buck/doe ratios and changed to 30 unit management starting in 2012.

Original Allotment of deer tags By Region and Statewide Archery
Archery - 16,000
Northern - 23,000
Northeast - 14,000
Central - 13,000
Southeast - 13,000
Southern - 18,000
TOTAL TAGS = 97,000

Note the region alloted tags do not include the satewide archery tags. Those tags in the past have been taken off the top, before the remaining 81,000 tags were divided up by regions. Again, with the new unit by unit management and the change from statewide archery, the archery tags are now counted in the region totals.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12 AT 05:33AM (MST)[p]still no does for bucks to have 15-20 bucks .build herds up first then hunt bucks.WHY
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-12 AT 08:49AM (MST)[p]Reply to:

Wileywapati post #52.




I don't believe the last paragraph at all. If it was true and feed was the main factor in how fast deer herds grow. Then why does it take so long to bounce back from a bad winter kill? The feed that was there feeding say 10,000 deer is still there. But the herd after the winter kill is at 2,000 deer. Then you should be able to almost perdict the year that the herd will be back to 10,000 deer. If you don't have another bad winter kill.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-12 AT 08:39AM (MST)[p]Rackster, so any tag increase from now on is just giving back from what has been reduced sinse 1994. Give me a break!
Here's the 2011 hunter afield numbers:http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/hunters_afield_2011.pdf
Right here in the document. It says they will reduce tags on low buck to doe units.
Now check out the DWR recommended numbers: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-04_packet.pdf
Units 19a, 19c and 18 are not seeing a reduction in tags at all, even though they are lower than the objectives.
What really scares me, is that the DWR is propossing to sell all undersubscribed archery tags as muzzleloader and rifle tags. Which will only add over harvest on many units. Especially unit 18, jumping from 340 archery tags to 500.
Nebo and Bullsnot please do the right thing and propose these three units be reduced by 20% from the current DWR proposal.

Thank, Ridge
 
Another thing. Do you guys think that a (hunter to available buck) ratio should be concidered in the formula used in determining tag numbers. I think it should be no lower than a 1:1 ratio but would like to see a 1(hunter) : 2(buck) ratio on the units that are having poor fawn survival ratings. This would be post hunt buck numbers. Leave this years fawns out of the equation. I'm guessing back in the 80s with over 200,000 hunters the ratio was around 1(hunter) per 3(bucks) but I'm only guessing. Any thoughts?
 
I'd like to bottom line this.

I didn't hunt in the 60's or the 70's.

I can tell you, when you go to the same places you went to in the 90's and all the sudden the elk out number the deer in total numbers and in branch antlered animals, you got a problem.

Those elk numbers haven't grown all the much, but they have grown.

There has been something of a drought over the long term.

It has changed and now we are dealing with different rules. I only went the last couple of times because it was a chance to go with the larger group we traditionally went with.
Now the group size has been reduced, it will never be the same.

I personally don't want to hunt Utah in the condition it is in now. I am sure I am not alone.

If you want to go camping, just go camping and don't pay the fee for the tag.

Maybe reduce the tags (actually reduce the tags), bring up quality and take youth hunters together as a group and rotate the tag amoung the youth. This may be the only way or you going to lose many more than just the youth.
 
I just wanted to comment on the "hunter/buck ratio".

There is no way that they could afford to reduce the tags that much $$$$$. Heres a little scenario of what the ratio is now:

North Slope- 6,200 deer
20/100 B/D ratio- 1,240 bucks after the hunt, 1,488 before
Suggested permits- 3,600

The suggested ratio is around 2.5Hntr/Buck A 35% success rate would damn near wipe out the bucks. The DWR must be factoring for a 15% succes rate???

Archery 10-15% success (20% of permits)
Muzzleloader 15-25% success (20% of permits)
Rifle 20-30% success (60% of permits)

Permit recommendations seem a little out of balance unless they are worrieed about going over the carrying capacity. Really makes me wonder how the numbers work. The hell with their cash flow.

This unit should not have over 2,500-2,800 permits in my opinion. Once the permits are decreased the quality will come back.keep an extra 300 bucks on the mountain each year and you will start to notice the qualtiy improvement within 3-5 years.



And why are they proposing to abolish the BP rule?$$$$$? If you dont apply you lose your points. For hells sake do something to speed up this point creep and point plug!
 
Ridgetops,

In answer to your question on weather I'll give you a break. Sure I'll give you a break.But before I do, I'll just point out one more thing. As late as 2004, the number of tags given out was still at 97,000 (the cap that was set in 1994). With the recommended tag numbers for 2012, there is an 11,000 tag cut since 2004. This 11,000 tag cut was at the expense of rifle hunters. The majority of that 11,000 tag cut has happened since 2010. Although, this may not matter much now since management is now changed for 2012. In my original post on this thread, I was only clarifying what NEBO posted. The rifle hunters have taken a huge hit in the last few years. The 1,800 decrease in rifle tags he mentioned was just in comparing 2011 to 2012 and does not show the big picture of tag cuts in the last 3 years. If you compare tag numbers in 2010 to tag numbers recommended for 2012, it is a huge cut to rifle hunters. The 1,800 NEBO stated is misleading to what has actually taken place the last couple of years. Ok, now I'll give you a break.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

743658C7-3127-4918-B705-511EC130A006.jpeg
Antelope Hunt 2019
2CAF768B-1337-406A-956A-5902E270209B.jpeg
38053C10-AC66-468E-B4F4-C004D7007C10.jpeg
501 copy.jpg
387CD8D3-26D6-45EE-BDD5-3D0F528F3D6A.jpeg
9A0124AF-D33F-47A4-85E1-6790AF4E5415.png
654C99FF-F3AB-4CE3-8201-43D7199B6AAA.jpeg
F3A0A21F-359F-4111-82F6-8A6A0DC64F71.jpeg
12CAD10A-8AEA-4B4F-8CFA-5650F8D3A4FA.jpeg
20200922_182118.jpg
C03595E5-06E5-442C-B933-DB49FB50377B.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom