Panguitch Utah Doe Hunt
- Thread starter bowhunt
- Start date
L
LOWCOUNTRY
Guest
Not a hunt. Its a shoot 5 minutes off I-15. I wish a few over passes were there and alot more habitat restoration instead of a yearly doe slaughter. This sux.
R
rperkins
Guest
What wrong with relocating them, maybe to the Dutton. I will help, for free....
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,431
L
LOWCOUNTRY
Guest
More than willing to help also for free truck and trailer. The reality is though they'll just killem until there is none. To damn bad.
huntinfanatic
Active Member
- Messages
- 777
If you guys that are upset take the time to listen to the minutes from this months Southern Region RAC meeting they talk about this doe hunt quite extensively, and the issues that are occuring in the cottonwood area. Might put the issue into perspective for some of you.
R
rperkins
Guest
sorry killing does is the wrong way to do it, if you kill 150 does, how many deer to you think you killed. if these does have fawns, thats about 125 fawns you also kill, plus the 150 does or maybe they are trying to bring the doe count down to meet the buck count.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-20-12 AT 11:36PM (MST)[p]Really? Seriously? You're playing the "They're killing does to bring the buck to doe ratio in line" card? Ridiculous, hyperbolas, uneducated nonsense. Listen to the RAC meeting.
Facts are a good starting place to form an opinion.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
Facts are a good starting place to form an opinion.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
>sorry killing does is the wrong
>way to do it, if
>you kill 150 does, how
>many deer to you think
>you killed. if these does
>have fawns, thats about 125
>fawns you also kill, plus
>the 150 does or maybe
>they are trying to bring
>the doe count down to
>meet the buck count.
Maybe you're right. Let's do it the right way and shoot 150 bucks in a special late buck hunt! That will bring the current 17.4 buck to doe ratio down to the recommended 15-17 ratio without killing those 125 fawns. And, after all, we're just trying to remove some of those mouths that are eating up the habitat and bucks eat it too. And if we wait until the 12/1 date, most of the breeding is done and we don't need them anymore. Also, it will add 150 buck tags to the unit without overcrowding the general hunts. Wahoo!!!
>way to do it, if
>you kill 150 does, how
>many deer to you think
>you killed. if these does
>have fawns, thats about 125
>fawns you also kill, plus
>the 150 does or maybe
>they are trying to bring
>the doe count down to
>meet the buck count.
Maybe you're right. Let's do it the right way and shoot 150 bucks in a special late buck hunt! That will bring the current 17.4 buck to doe ratio down to the recommended 15-17 ratio without killing those 125 fawns. And, after all, we're just trying to remove some of those mouths that are eating up the habitat and bucks eat it too. And if we wait until the 12/1 date, most of the breeding is done and we don't need them anymore. Also, it will add 150 buck tags to the unit without overcrowding the general hunts. Wahoo!!!
L
LOWCOUNTRY
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-12 AT 05:43PM (MST)[p]
Let's shoot all the elk while were at it save the sage since they are not starving to death.
Let's shoot all the elk while were at it save the sage since they are not starving to death.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-12
>AT 05:43?PM (MST)
>
>
>
>Let's shoot all the elk while
>were at it save the
>sage since they are not
>starving to death.
Sure, why not, but only if you'll be first in line to get a tag and let me be last in line since I've never seen an elk of any kind in that area in the 23 years I've lived here in Enoch and since I don't know anyone who has.
>AT 05:43?PM (MST)
>
>
>
>Let's shoot all the elk while
>were at it save the
>sage since they are not
>starving to death.
Sure, why not, but only if you'll be first in line to get a tag and let me be last in line since I've never seen an elk of any kind in that area in the 23 years I've lived here in Enoch and since I don't know anyone who has.
L
LOWCOUNTRY
Guest
You don't get out enough bud. There's elk there too let's just killem all. I picked up two rag horn elk sheds in cottonwood did a deer drop those too? They may not be as far down they are there though.
K
klbzdad
Guest
I was on the division tour elkfromabove was on with members from other groups and the BLM. I've spent considerable time there over the last several weeks since both scouting and hunting turkey along the front and up into cottonwood canyon and into mineral canyon and along other trails. Yup, plenty of elk in there along with deer and predators including a lion or two and a few coyotes (a few less after I was done last week). But its pretty discerning when everyone decides they hate the idea of issuing that many tags when not all of them will be filled when we really need to fill each one and then some.
It is late April and yesterday there was still at LEAST 300 - 400 deer in the area (BY MY VISUAL COUNT) where the division and BLM took members of sportsmen groups and the media to see what was being done to the winter range by the deer themselves. There is huge fawn recruitment right now but they all look like crap. Those does that aren't big and fat and old have at least two fawns with them. When you get through the canyon and up to the other side, the forage is just now coming up and turning green so as those fawns continue to transition from winter forage to spring and summer forage it will be a slow transition and one and that might not be good for them but lets hope for the best. That habitat has gone through a fire in recent years and a control burn the evening of the Southern RAC last week. I've been all over that canyon and the habitat looks miserable. Period. There are some juniper and pinion stands that are healthy but the forage that the deer and elk need to build fat reserves is pathetic. It needs some relief and because its popular to vilify the division every time they either want to cut tags or increase them, we sportsmen are saying it for them, at least a couple of us are.
THERE IS A HABITAT PROBLEM THAT TOSSING A TON OF MONEY AT RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOING TO FIX. The hunting pressure of issuing up to 400 tags along that area from SR 20 to Summit Canyon Road for a late season hunt or restricting the hunt boundaries a little more by itself will keep the pressure on the animals while they still have enough reserves to allow the forage to maintain so they stay in the higher pre-winter staging areas and off the winter range. In order for that range to improve to capacity for the animals (including the relatively small elk herd) that use it for winter range year after year we need to cull the herd just to sustain it. That is what needs to be done to benefit the deer. The deer did it to themselves. We are the stewards and are responsible. SFW will research and if viable trans-relocation can be done a COR will be issued and we will hope for the best. Its not cost effective but if they are willing to try new methods and technology and the division doesn't spend any money, why not? I support them fully!
I don't want to kill the does and the division doesn't want the pathetic $3,500.00 generated by the sale of those tags as that doesn't put a pimple in the butt of the problem the deer themselves are causing. So, before anyone gets all butt hurt that the "evil division" is out the kill more animals and make gobbs of moolah while the "Utah Herd" is dying... consider its one unit, its a small chunk of winter range for a whole lot of deer, its not the "Utah Herd" its the Parawan Front Winter Range Herd that comes from Unit 28 (by the way, these micro units....yeah, been around since 1997). Tree, elkfromabove, and others that have either been on the tour or have received reports from first hand accounts on this issue and aren't out to hurt the deer. If we don't do this, and this winter range is destroyed beyond repair, the Panguitch Lake herd of 9100 animals will begin to deplete and it will take decades to get the numbers back...one match and a good fire and we will see that number cut in half in only a couple of years. So, the division will give you a tour, I hope to get picture posted unless to many on this site become nasty and I bag it and never come back, but due diligence is warranted if you're going to be critical. Oh, and one of the elk up there right now still hasn't shed one of his crazy antlers and no, I didn't fill my turkey tag....I am bitter about that.
Feel free to challenge me on this and I'll call you out for not having seen the damage or the condition of the animals and I will win this pissing contest that I really wish none of us were a part of. Have at it......I really am not happy about having to post a response to all the criticism....culling animal herds to maintain their habitat is responsible management if the animals are the ones doing the damage to their own habitat. Argue that!
It is late April and yesterday there was still at LEAST 300 - 400 deer in the area (BY MY VISUAL COUNT) where the division and BLM took members of sportsmen groups and the media to see what was being done to the winter range by the deer themselves. There is huge fawn recruitment right now but they all look like crap. Those does that aren't big and fat and old have at least two fawns with them. When you get through the canyon and up to the other side, the forage is just now coming up and turning green so as those fawns continue to transition from winter forage to spring and summer forage it will be a slow transition and one and that might not be good for them but lets hope for the best. That habitat has gone through a fire in recent years and a control burn the evening of the Southern RAC last week. I've been all over that canyon and the habitat looks miserable. Period. There are some juniper and pinion stands that are healthy but the forage that the deer and elk need to build fat reserves is pathetic. It needs some relief and because its popular to vilify the division every time they either want to cut tags or increase them, we sportsmen are saying it for them, at least a couple of us are.
THERE IS A HABITAT PROBLEM THAT TOSSING A TON OF MONEY AT RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOING TO FIX. The hunting pressure of issuing up to 400 tags along that area from SR 20 to Summit Canyon Road for a late season hunt or restricting the hunt boundaries a little more by itself will keep the pressure on the animals while they still have enough reserves to allow the forage to maintain so they stay in the higher pre-winter staging areas and off the winter range. In order for that range to improve to capacity for the animals (including the relatively small elk herd) that use it for winter range year after year we need to cull the herd just to sustain it. That is what needs to be done to benefit the deer. The deer did it to themselves. We are the stewards and are responsible. SFW will research and if viable trans-relocation can be done a COR will be issued and we will hope for the best. Its not cost effective but if they are willing to try new methods and technology and the division doesn't spend any money, why not? I support them fully!
I don't want to kill the does and the division doesn't want the pathetic $3,500.00 generated by the sale of those tags as that doesn't put a pimple in the butt of the problem the deer themselves are causing. So, before anyone gets all butt hurt that the "evil division" is out the kill more animals and make gobbs of moolah while the "Utah Herd" is dying... consider its one unit, its a small chunk of winter range for a whole lot of deer, its not the "Utah Herd" its the Parawan Front Winter Range Herd that comes from Unit 28 (by the way, these micro units....yeah, been around since 1997). Tree, elkfromabove, and others that have either been on the tour or have received reports from first hand accounts on this issue and aren't out to hurt the deer. If we don't do this, and this winter range is destroyed beyond repair, the Panguitch Lake herd of 9100 animals will begin to deplete and it will take decades to get the numbers back...one match and a good fire and we will see that number cut in half in only a couple of years. So, the division will give you a tour, I hope to get picture posted unless to many on this site become nasty and I bag it and never come back, but due diligence is warranted if you're going to be critical. Oh, and one of the elk up there right now still hasn't shed one of his crazy antlers and no, I didn't fill my turkey tag....I am bitter about that.
Feel free to challenge me on this and I'll call you out for not having seen the damage or the condition of the animals and I will win this pissing contest that I really wish none of us were a part of. Have at it......I really am not happy about having to post a response to all the criticism....culling animal herds to maintain their habitat is responsible management if the animals are the ones doing the damage to their own habitat. Argue that!
S
SMELLYBUCK
Guest
Thanks for taking the time to give some additional insite.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 00:45AM (MST)[p]>I was on the division tour
>elkfromabove was on with members
>from other groups and the
>BLM. I've spent considerable
>time there over the last
>several weeks since both scouting
>and hunting turkey along the
>front and up into cottonwood
>canyon and into mineral canyon
>and along other trails.
>Yup, plenty of elk in
>there along with deer and
>predators including a lion or
>two and a few coyotes
>(a few less after I
>was done last week).
>But its pretty discerning when
>everyone decides they hate the
>idea of issuing that many
>tags when not all of
>them will be filled when
>we really need to fill
>each one and then some.
>
>
>It is late April and yesterday
>there was still at LEAST
>300 - 400 deer in
>the area (BY MY VISUAL
>COUNT) where the division and
>BLM took members of sportsmen
>groups and the media to
>see what was being done
>to the winter range by
>the deer themselves. There is
>huge fawn recruitment right now
>but they all look like
>crap. Those does that aren't
>big and fat and old
>have at least two fawns
>with them. When you get
>through the canyon and up
>to the other side, the
>forage is just now coming
>up and turning green so
>as those fawns continue to
>transition from winter forage to
>spring and summer forage it
>will be a slow transition
>and one and that might
>not be good for them
>but lets hope for the
>best. That habitat has gone
>through a fire in recent
>years and a control burn
>the evening of the Southern
>RAC last week. I've been
>all over that canyon and
>the habitat looks miserable.
>Period. There are some
>juniper and pinion stands that
>are healthy but the forage
>that the deer and elk
>need to build fat reserves
>is pathetic. It needs some
>relief and because its popular
>to vilify the division every
>time they either want to
>cut tags or increase them,
>we sportsmen are saying it
>for them, at least a
>couple of us are.
>
>THERE IS A HABITAT PROBLEM THAT
>TOSSING A TON OF MONEY
>AT RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOING
>TO FIX. The hunting
>pressure of issuing up to
>400 tags along that area
>from SR 20 to Summit
>Canyon Road for a late
>season hunt or restricting the
>hunt boundaries a little more
>by itself will keep the
>pressure on the animals while
>they still have enough reserves
>to allow the forage to
>maintain so they stay in
>the higher pre-winter staging areas
>and off the winter range.
> In order for that
>range to improve to capacity
>for the animals (including the
>relatively small elk herd) that
>use it for winter range
>year after year we need
>to cull the herd just
>to sustain it. That is
>what needs to be done
>to benefit the deer.
>The deer did it to
>themselves. We are the
>stewards and are responsible.
>SFW will research and if
>viable trans-relocation can be done
>a COR will be issued
>and we will hope for
>the best. Its not
>cost effective but if they
>are willing to try new
>methods and technology and the
>division doesn't spend any money,
>why not? I support
>them fully!
>
>I don't want to kill the
>does and the division doesn't
>want the pathetic $3,500.00 generated
>by the sale of those
>tags as that doesn't put
>a pimple in the butt
>of the problem the deer
>themselves are causing. So,
>before anyone gets all butt
>hurt that the "evil division"
>is out the kill more
>animals and make gobbs of
>moolah while the "Utah Herd"
>is dying... consider its one
>unit, its a small chunk
>of winter range for a
>whole lot of deer, its
>not the "Utah Herd" its
>the Parawan Front Winter Range
>Herd that comes from Unit
>28 (by the way, these
>micro units....yeah, been around since
>1997). Tree, elkfromabove, and
>others that have either been
>on the tour or have
>received reports from first hand
>accounts on this issue and
>aren't out to hurt the
>deer. If we don't
>do this, and this winter
>range is destroyed beyond repair,
>the Panguitch Lake herd of
>9100 animals will begin to
>deplete and it will take
>decades to get the numbers
>back...one match and a good
>fire and we will see
>that number cut in half
>in only a couple of
>years. So, the division
>will give you a tour,
>I hope to get picture
>posted unless to many on
>this site become nasty and
>I bag it and never
>come back, but due diligence
>is warranted if you're going
>to be critical. Oh,
>and one of the elk
>up there right now still
>hasn't shed one of his
>crazy antlers and no, I
>didn't fill my turkey tag....I
>am bitter about that.
>
>Feel free to challenge me on
>this and I'll call you
>out for not having seen
>the damage or the condition
>of the animals and I
>will win this pissing contest
>that I really wish none
>of us were a part
>of. Have at it......I
>really am not happy about
>having to post a response
>to all the criticism....culling animal
>herds to maintain their habitat
>is responsible management if the
>animals are the ones doing
>the damage to their own
>habitat. Argue that!
Ooops, It appears I do know someone who's seen elk there, though not down on the flats, but I'll still step to the end of the line, 'cause the elk aren't the problem. There's not enough of them to make a difference. And, yes I need to get around more, but apparently most of you do too!
klbzdad, I know you dislike this forum with all the name calling and raunchy language even more than I do and I'm sorry you had to come on here and support me, but thanks. I'm even more sorry you didn't score on the turkey.
>elkfromabove was on with members
>from other groups and the
>BLM. I've spent considerable
>time there over the last
>several weeks since both scouting
>and hunting turkey along the
>front and up into cottonwood
>canyon and into mineral canyon
>and along other trails.
>Yup, plenty of elk in
>there along with deer and
>predators including a lion or
>two and a few coyotes
>(a few less after I
>was done last week).
>But its pretty discerning when
>everyone decides they hate the
>idea of issuing that many
>tags when not all of
>them will be filled when
>we really need to fill
>each one and then some.
>
>
>It is late April and yesterday
>there was still at LEAST
>300 - 400 deer in
>the area (BY MY VISUAL
>COUNT) where the division and
>BLM took members of sportsmen
>groups and the media to
>see what was being done
>to the winter range by
>the deer themselves. There is
>huge fawn recruitment right now
>but they all look like
>crap. Those does that aren't
>big and fat and old
>have at least two fawns
>with them. When you get
>through the canyon and up
>to the other side, the
>forage is just now coming
>up and turning green so
>as those fawns continue to
>transition from winter forage to
>spring and summer forage it
>will be a slow transition
>and one and that might
>not be good for them
>but lets hope for the
>best. That habitat has gone
>through a fire in recent
>years and a control burn
>the evening of the Southern
>RAC last week. I've been
>all over that canyon and
>the habitat looks miserable.
>Period. There are some
>juniper and pinion stands that
>are healthy but the forage
>that the deer and elk
>need to build fat reserves
>is pathetic. It needs some
>relief and because its popular
>to vilify the division every
>time they either want to
>cut tags or increase them,
>we sportsmen are saying it
>for them, at least a
>couple of us are.
>
>THERE IS A HABITAT PROBLEM THAT
>TOSSING A TON OF MONEY
>AT RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOING
>TO FIX. The hunting
>pressure of issuing up to
>400 tags along that area
>from SR 20 to Summit
>Canyon Road for a late
>season hunt or restricting the
>hunt boundaries a little more
>by itself will keep the
>pressure on the animals while
>they still have enough reserves
>to allow the forage to
>maintain so they stay in
>the higher pre-winter staging areas
>and off the winter range.
> In order for that
>range to improve to capacity
>for the animals (including the
>relatively small elk herd) that
>use it for winter range
>year after year we need
>to cull the herd just
>to sustain it. That is
>what needs to be done
>to benefit the deer.
>The deer did it to
>themselves. We are the
>stewards and are responsible.
>SFW will research and if
>viable trans-relocation can be done
>a COR will be issued
>and we will hope for
>the best. Its not
>cost effective but if they
>are willing to try new
>methods and technology and the
>division doesn't spend any money,
>why not? I support
>them fully!
>
>I don't want to kill the
>does and the division doesn't
>want the pathetic $3,500.00 generated
>by the sale of those
>tags as that doesn't put
>a pimple in the butt
>of the problem the deer
>themselves are causing. So,
>before anyone gets all butt
>hurt that the "evil division"
>is out the kill more
>animals and make gobbs of
>moolah while the "Utah Herd"
>is dying... consider its one
>unit, its a small chunk
>of winter range for a
>whole lot of deer, its
>not the "Utah Herd" its
>the Parawan Front Winter Range
>Herd that comes from Unit
>28 (by the way, these
>micro units....yeah, been around since
>1997). Tree, elkfromabove, and
>others that have either been
>on the tour or have
>received reports from first hand
>accounts on this issue and
>aren't out to hurt the
>deer. If we don't
>do this, and this winter
>range is destroyed beyond repair,
>the Panguitch Lake herd of
>9100 animals will begin to
>deplete and it will take
>decades to get the numbers
>back...one match and a good
>fire and we will see
>that number cut in half
>in only a couple of
>years. So, the division
>will give you a tour,
>I hope to get picture
>posted unless to many on
>this site become nasty and
>I bag it and never
>come back, but due diligence
>is warranted if you're going
>to be critical. Oh,
>and one of the elk
>up there right now still
>hasn't shed one of his
>crazy antlers and no, I
>didn't fill my turkey tag....I
>am bitter about that.
>
>Feel free to challenge me on
>this and I'll call you
>out for not having seen
>the damage or the condition
>of the animals and I
>will win this pissing contest
>that I really wish none
>of us were a part
>of. Have at it......I
>really am not happy about
>having to post a response
>to all the criticism....culling animal
>herds to maintain their habitat
>is responsible management if the
>animals are the ones doing
>the damage to their own
>habitat. Argue that!
Ooops, It appears I do know someone who's seen elk there, though not down on the flats, but I'll still step to the end of the line, 'cause the elk aren't the problem. There's not enough of them to make a difference. And, yes I need to get around more, but apparently most of you do too!
klbzdad, I know you dislike this forum with all the name calling and raunchy language even more than I do and I'm sorry you had to come on here and support me, but thanks. I'm even more sorry you didn't score on the turkey.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>sounds to me a fire would
>help the place..... get rid
>of the Worthless pj and
>create more habitat. preventing sage
>and pj to over grow
>is also our stewardship oft
>the land.
A fire would decimate the range. There is next to zero recruitment of new growth sage and browse that the deer need to sustain during the winter because of hove and consumption damage. It can take up to a decade for sage to become productive and in the mean time, you have invasive species to keep at bay like cheatgrass. I'll try to post a few pictures tomorrow that will demonstrate semi-healthy browse sage and that which will not recover and has been browsed on to the point where it will not seed again. It will eventually die and become fuel for a potential fire.
Again, that is one element to the reason why just 150 tags (not all will be filled) is the recommendation of the division. They didn't want to shock anyone because of the social pressure aspect. I personally asked, with everyone present, "If nobody's feelings were to get hurt, how many animals [does] need to be removed in order to for the range to see some kind of recovery, if any?" They didn't even want to answer that kind of question but I insisted and the number shocked everyone but made sense. They aren't asking to to take productive does either, there are plenty of dry does (the big fat ones who retain reserves better than those with fawns) that could be removed.
The groups also discussed boundaries and also discussed allocating a larger bulk of the tags to youth hunts to work on youth hunter retention and education. So, instead of "holy crap, lets hang the Utards that want to murder them does! String a rope!" the solution, or solutions, lay entirely where the problem is and that is at the mouths that are creating the problem to begin with. Don't thin the wintering herd, they will thin themselves hurting fawn recruitment by damaging the habitat. Its that simple. Light a match and burn the jp? It takes to long for these kinds of habitats to rebound from fires that hot and the terrain isn't fertile soil, its full of rocks and is habitat to small critters too. If is was that easy, and the division was as dumb as everyone wants to think they are, don't you think they would have already smoked a doob and lit the place up? Its a compound situation that can't be fixed overnight or with money. It will take time. Just as the SFW's proposition with take time to put together and if successful, could begin to replace the tags with trans-location tags in an even swap. THAT would be ideal in my book but I won't hold my breath. Picture to come, as soon as I figure out how to do that.
elkfromabove, you can stand you own my friend! I just have a big mouth that needed run.
>help the place..... get rid
>of the Worthless pj and
>create more habitat. preventing sage
>and pj to over grow
>is also our stewardship oft
>the land.
A fire would decimate the range. There is next to zero recruitment of new growth sage and browse that the deer need to sustain during the winter because of hove and consumption damage. It can take up to a decade for sage to become productive and in the mean time, you have invasive species to keep at bay like cheatgrass. I'll try to post a few pictures tomorrow that will demonstrate semi-healthy browse sage and that which will not recover and has been browsed on to the point where it will not seed again. It will eventually die and become fuel for a potential fire.
Again, that is one element to the reason why just 150 tags (not all will be filled) is the recommendation of the division. They didn't want to shock anyone because of the social pressure aspect. I personally asked, with everyone present, "If nobody's feelings were to get hurt, how many animals [does] need to be removed in order to for the range to see some kind of recovery, if any?" They didn't even want to answer that kind of question but I insisted and the number shocked everyone but made sense. They aren't asking to to take productive does either, there are plenty of dry does (the big fat ones who retain reserves better than those with fawns) that could be removed.
The groups also discussed boundaries and also discussed allocating a larger bulk of the tags to youth hunts to work on youth hunter retention and education. So, instead of "holy crap, lets hang the Utards that want to murder them does! String a rope!" the solution, or solutions, lay entirely where the problem is and that is at the mouths that are creating the problem to begin with. Don't thin the wintering herd, they will thin themselves hurting fawn recruitment by damaging the habitat. Its that simple. Light a match and burn the jp? It takes to long for these kinds of habitats to rebound from fires that hot and the terrain isn't fertile soil, its full of rocks and is habitat to small critters too. If is was that easy, and the division was as dumb as everyone wants to think they are, don't you think they would have already smoked a doob and lit the place up? Its a compound situation that can't be fixed overnight or with money. It will take time. Just as the SFW's proposition with take time to put together and if successful, could begin to replace the tags with trans-location tags in an even swap. THAT would be ideal in my book but I won't hold my breath. Picture to come, as soon as I figure out how to do that.
elkfromabove, you can stand you own my friend! I just have a big mouth that needed run.
E
elkun
Guest
something is really wrong if it is going to take decades to fix' who do you think should get tarred and featherd for this. dwr. blm?
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 02:55PM (MST)[p]>something is really wrong if it
>is going to take decades
>to fix' who do you
>think should get tarred and
>featherd for this. dwr. blm?
>
Whoever put I-15 where it currently runs. Try tarring and feathering them! Had that nice little stretch of commerce been put where biologists suggested and most people wanted it in the first place (closer to Lund) then a bunch of deer wouldn't be hurting themselves and to be honest, we'd have a really successful unit that would actually play host to a higher b/d ratio without much argument even from me. Hell, the effect of better placement of that freeway would have benefited multiple units along its path and even would have fiscally worked out in the long run for communities not to mention I personally wouldn't throw up a little in my mouth when someone used the phrase "abundant mule deer". So, NOPE...again its not the farmer, BLM, DWR, SFW, UWC, COYOTES, LION, TIGER, and BEARS. Its encroachment and the fact that there are too many mouths to feed because there is a stretch of freeway that limits them to a tiny stretch of winter range that is getting hammered. ANY wildlife biologist with moxy and knowledge of this area in question that has set foot and toured the ground there will agree. The dry does and even a couple productive ones need to go. Its a hated and unpopular thing to say and I hate to be the jerk to say it, but we need to get ahead of the inevitable. Actions, not finger pointing. Thank you for asking a very valid question.
>is going to take decades
>to fix' who do you
>think should get tarred and
>featherd for this. dwr. blm?
>
Whoever put I-15 where it currently runs. Try tarring and feathering them! Had that nice little stretch of commerce been put where biologists suggested and most people wanted it in the first place (closer to Lund) then a bunch of deer wouldn't be hurting themselves and to be honest, we'd have a really successful unit that would actually play host to a higher b/d ratio without much argument even from me. Hell, the effect of better placement of that freeway would have benefited multiple units along its path and even would have fiscally worked out in the long run for communities not to mention I personally wouldn't throw up a little in my mouth when someone used the phrase "abundant mule deer". So, NOPE...again its not the farmer, BLM, DWR, SFW, UWC, COYOTES, LION, TIGER, and BEARS. Its encroachment and the fact that there are too many mouths to feed because there is a stretch of freeway that limits them to a tiny stretch of winter range that is getting hammered. ANY wildlife biologist with moxy and knowledge of this area in question that has set foot and toured the ground there will agree. The dry does and even a couple productive ones need to go. Its a hated and unpopular thing to say and I hate to be the jerk to say it, but we need to get ahead of the inevitable. Actions, not finger pointing. Thank you for asking a very valid question.
K
klbzdad
Guest
This is an example of browsed down sage that is barely able to produce forage.
And this is typical of what is becoming more common of the sage that is being over browsed or is beyond age capacity and cannot produce anymore forage along the front.
I wish I could upload a better resolution photo, but within this small frame facing the freeway is not only aged and browsed down sagebrush and in the distance competing cheatgrass but there is also approximately 100 - 150 head of deer including the fawns and dry does. This particular photo was taken while driving around the opening morning of Utah's 2012 LE Turkey hunt and there were many more outside of the camera's frame and along other parts of the road. The majority of these deer travel and spread across the Panguitch Lake Unit (#28). Some are easy to see up close while most are difficult to make out in the photo due to color hue and resolution but they are definitely there! Here is that photo...MM also downsizes the photo to enable uploads so it becomes grainier.
And this is typical of what is becoming more common of the sage that is being over browsed or is beyond age capacity and cannot produce anymore forage along the front.
I wish I could upload a better resolution photo, but within this small frame facing the freeway is not only aged and browsed down sagebrush and in the distance competing cheatgrass but there is also approximately 100 - 150 head of deer including the fawns and dry does. This particular photo was taken while driving around the opening morning of Utah's 2012 LE Turkey hunt and there were many more outside of the camera's frame and along other parts of the road. The majority of these deer travel and spread across the Panguitch Lake Unit (#28). Some are easy to see up close while most are difficult to make out in the photo due to color hue and resolution but they are definitely there! Here is that photo...MM also downsizes the photo to enable uploads so it becomes grainier.
R
rperkins
Guest
this is the deer winter range and its been their winter range since 1940 or longer and their used to be hundreds of deer every winter their, take a picture in the summer and post it.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
a fire does not take long to produce browse dude! if a huge section of pj was burned it would not even touch anything the deer even eat its so thinck nothing grows there anyway, within a year that burn would do wonders. sage always looks like your pic in the winter.
R
rperkins
Guest
just keep killing does and you won't have to plant srubs, these deer will move back in to their summer range and every thing will grow back on their winter range, mother nature will do her part.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
>just keep killing does and you
>won't have to plant srubs,
>these deer will move back
>in to their summer range
>and every thing will grow
>back on their winter range,
>mother nature will do her
>part.
well there is a point that they can damage the the winter ground but my heil the winterground needs an overhaul. fires have been so poorly portrayed everyone thinks they ruin everything! anyone that has experience with burns knows they do alot of good! I can tell ya a thickly wooded pj is about as damaging to the forage and ecosystem then anything! they suck up all the water do not allow springs to refill and allow no grasses and forbs to grow!
Its weird to me that sage is so abundant everywhere in this state yet our deer herd is struggling..and our winter range sucksa55.. hmmmmmmm ..... go figure! build a few under and overpasses and let the cottonwood deer across to the vast sea of sage on the west side of 15 and see if that helps....
>won't have to plant srubs,
>these deer will move back
>in to their summer range
>and every thing will grow
>back on their winter range,
>mother nature will do her
>part.
well there is a point that they can damage the the winter ground but my heil the winterground needs an overhaul. fires have been so poorly portrayed everyone thinks they ruin everything! anyone that has experience with burns knows they do alot of good! I can tell ya a thickly wooded pj is about as damaging to the forage and ecosystem then anything! they suck up all the water do not allow springs to refill and allow no grasses and forbs to grow!
Its weird to me that sage is so abundant everywhere in this state yet our deer herd is struggling..and our winter range sucksa55.. hmmmmmmm ..... go figure! build a few under and overpasses and let the cottonwood deer across to the vast sea of sage on the west side of 15 and see if that helps....
K
klbzdad
Guest
>this is the deer winter range
>and its been their winter
>range since 1940 or longer
>and their used to be
>hundreds of deer every winter
>their, take a picture in
>the summer and post it.
>
I surely will. And I'm sure you've been on that range and have like pictures and have discussed with habitat and wildlife biologists that have ZERO concern over what they (assuming they have actually set foot on this same ground since 1940).
Concerning the fire, I'm sure you've spent time with the BLM biologists who are NOT funded by tag sales or grazing permits who also share the same concern with regard for all the work they have done on this range. There is a study area they have assembled. I could chronicle everything up there but I'd prefer people actually stop running their pie holes and take the time to see for themselves before passing judgement on those who know first hand what is being discussed here. That is the only reason I came out of the woodwork on this topic. Seems there are as many opinions on this as there are....yeah. Action does more than cheap talk. A juniper fire will not do any good in there for forage or they would have already lit it, talk to the BLM guys and gals responsible in this district. There have been fires there and where those fires burned, it looks like crap.
>and its been their winter
>range since 1940 or longer
>and their used to be
>hundreds of deer every winter
>their, take a picture in
>the summer and post it.
>
I surely will. And I'm sure you've been on that range and have like pictures and have discussed with habitat and wildlife biologists that have ZERO concern over what they (assuming they have actually set foot on this same ground since 1940).
Concerning the fire, I'm sure you've spent time with the BLM biologists who are NOT funded by tag sales or grazing permits who also share the same concern with regard for all the work they have done on this range. There is a study area they have assembled. I could chronicle everything up there but I'd prefer people actually stop running their pie holes and take the time to see for themselves before passing judgement on those who know first hand what is being discussed here. That is the only reason I came out of the woodwork on this topic. Seems there are as many opinions on this as there are....yeah. Action does more than cheap talk. A juniper fire will not do any good in there for forage or they would have already lit it, talk to the BLM guys and gals responsible in this district. There have been fires there and where those fires burned, it looks like crap.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>>just keep killing does and you
>>won't have to plant srubs,
>>these deer will move back
>>in to their summer range
>>and every thing will grow
>>back on their winter range,
>>mother nature will do her
>>part.
>
>
>well there is a point that
>they can damage the the
>winter ground but my heil
>the winterground needs an overhaul.
>fires have been so poorly
>portrayed everyone thinks they ruin
>everything! anyone that has experience
>with burns knows they do
>alot of good! I can
>tell ya a thickly wooded
>pj is about as damaging
>to the forage and ecosystem
>then anything! they suck up
>all the water do not
>allow springs to refill and
>allow no grasses and forbs
>to grow!
>Its weird to me that sage
>is so abundant everywhere in
>this state yet our deer
>herd is struggling..and our winter
>range sucksa55.. hmmmmmmm ..... go
>figure! build a few under
>and overpasses and let the
>cottonwood deer across to the
>vast sea of sage on
>the west side of 15
>and see if that helps....
>
We discussed that during the tour. It comes down to money and the training of the animals to go to new winter grounds. On the opposite side of the mountain there is excellent winter range that is quite healthy and ready to be pounded on....only problem is there aren't near the number of animals. You'll remember one of the most successful overpass studies done was the first Beaver animal overpass. To this day I still remember a trip from Moab to St. George where I had to pull over after going under that overpass just to watch the huge number of elk passing over that thing early in the morning! But it took time to educate them to utilize it. Studies show that they do work. However, as one member of the RAC who was on their tour pointed out, you then have obstacles on the other side of the freeway and not as much winter range. You also then run into private property damage at those obstacle points even if you fence the private property in to channel the deer there's no guarantee they will ever use it.
On habitat specialist on this tour (I'm terrible with names, if you want them, contact Gary the DWR habitat biologist at the Southern District office) but didn't work for DWR talked about how hove damage limited the recruitment of new forage including sage. Even a good seeding will not take because of the number of animals in that area. They've been watching and working on that area for a long time and the concern is that the age of the browse in now catching up with the use. I would love nothing more, personally, than to see a better alternative than to culling this herd and growing it. But once more, if a herd of ANY animal is doing damage to the habitat it relies on then RESPONSIBLE management it to cull that herd to numbers that will allow the habitat to adjust. Lets do it responsibly and find ways to benefit youth hunters. In the mean time, if SFW's efforts in trans-location provide fruitful, AWESOME! If smaller control burns are prescribed by the BLM, GREAT! But those take time and as you can see on most of the threads here, people don't have time enough to let the division or anyone else work on what's best for the animals before they criticize anyone actually willing to do the work or see for themselves what the issues really are. Again, lots of sage and other forage, yet the deer will not go there, they are in some terms, creatures of habit (almost a bad pun)
>>won't have to plant srubs,
>>these deer will move back
>>in to their summer range
>>and every thing will grow
>>back on their winter range,
>>mother nature will do her
>>part.
>
>
>well there is a point that
>they can damage the the
>winter ground but my heil
>the winterground needs an overhaul.
>fires have been so poorly
>portrayed everyone thinks they ruin
>everything! anyone that has experience
>with burns knows they do
>alot of good! I can
>tell ya a thickly wooded
>pj is about as damaging
>to the forage and ecosystem
>then anything! they suck up
>all the water do not
>allow springs to refill and
>allow no grasses and forbs
>to grow!
>Its weird to me that sage
>is so abundant everywhere in
>this state yet our deer
>herd is struggling..and our winter
>range sucksa55.. hmmmmmmm ..... go
>figure! build a few under
>and overpasses and let the
>cottonwood deer across to the
>vast sea of sage on
>the west side of 15
>and see if that helps....
>
We discussed that during the tour. It comes down to money and the training of the animals to go to new winter grounds. On the opposite side of the mountain there is excellent winter range that is quite healthy and ready to be pounded on....only problem is there aren't near the number of animals. You'll remember one of the most successful overpass studies done was the first Beaver animal overpass. To this day I still remember a trip from Moab to St. George where I had to pull over after going under that overpass just to watch the huge number of elk passing over that thing early in the morning! But it took time to educate them to utilize it. Studies show that they do work. However, as one member of the RAC who was on their tour pointed out, you then have obstacles on the other side of the freeway and not as much winter range. You also then run into private property damage at those obstacle points even if you fence the private property in to channel the deer there's no guarantee they will ever use it.
On habitat specialist on this tour (I'm terrible with names, if you want them, contact Gary the DWR habitat biologist at the Southern District office) but didn't work for DWR talked about how hove damage limited the recruitment of new forage including sage. Even a good seeding will not take because of the number of animals in that area. They've been watching and working on that area for a long time and the concern is that the age of the browse in now catching up with the use. I would love nothing more, personally, than to see a better alternative than to culling this herd and growing it. But once more, if a herd of ANY animal is doing damage to the habitat it relies on then RESPONSIBLE management it to cull that herd to numbers that will allow the habitat to adjust. Lets do it responsibly and find ways to benefit youth hunters. In the mean time, if SFW's efforts in trans-location provide fruitful, AWESOME! If smaller control burns are prescribed by the BLM, GREAT! But those take time and as you can see on most of the threads here, people don't have time enough to let the division or anyone else work on what's best for the animals before they criticize anyone actually willing to do the work or see for themselves what the issues really are. Again, lots of sage and other forage, yet the deer will not go there, they are in some terms, creatures of habit (almost a bad pun)
S
SMELLYBUCK
Guest
klbz,
Regardless of the fact you have given this considerably study and thought, it looks like you will have little traction with this crowd. You will be dismissed as someone who just wants to kill deer into extinction no matter what; therefore, you have no credibility.
Sorry and thanks!
Regardless of the fact you have given this considerably study and thought, it looks like you will have little traction with this crowd. You will be dismissed as someone who just wants to kill deer into extinction no matter what; therefore, you have no credibility.
Sorry and thanks!
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 11:23PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12
>AT 02:55?PM (MST)
>
>>something is really wrong if it
>>is going to take decades
>>to fix' who do you
>>think should get tarred and
>>featherd for this. dwr. blm?
>>
>
>
>Whoever put I-15 where it currently
>runs. Try tarring and
>feathering them! Had that
>nice little stretch of commerce
>been put where biologists suggested
>and most people wanted it
>in the first place (closer
>to Lund) then a bunch
>of deer wouldn't be hurting
>themselves and to be honest,
>we'd have a really successful
>unit that would actually play
>host to a higher b/d
>ratio without much argument even
>from me. Hell, the
>effect of better placement of
>that freeway would have benefited
>multiple units along its path
>and even would have fiscally
>worked out in the long
>run for communities not to
>mention I personally wouldn't throw
>up a little in my
>mouth when someone used the
>phrase "abundant mule deer".
>So, NOPE...again its not the
>farmer, BLM, DWR, SFW, UWC,
>COYOTES, LION, TIGER, and BEARS.
> Its encroachment and the
>fact that there are too
>many mouths to feed because
>there is a stretch of
>freeway that limits them to
>a tiny stretch of winter
>range that is getting hammered.
> ANY wildlife biologist with
>moxy and knowledge of this
>area in question that has
>set foot and toured the
>ground there will agree.
>The dry does and even
>a couple productive ones need
>to go. Its a
>hated and unpopular thing to
>say and I hate to
>be the jerk to say
>it, but we need to
>get ahead of the inevitable.
> Actions, not finger pointing.
> Thank you for asking
>a very valid question.
I'll be even more of a jerk by repeating what the DWR and BLM reps and Lynn Kitchen, the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) District Conservationist (the person klbz couldn't remember) told us. 150 removed/killed/translocated deer isn't enough to even stop the RATE of decline, let alone reverse it. We've had 150 doe tags on this hunt for the last 4 years and it just keeps getting worse. 150 is the highest politically correct number the DWR thought they could get through the system, but they actually need 400+ per year for the next few years in order to give the habitat time to begin to recover and for the deer to establish new feeding habits with new water sources, cover and/or plantings. And even then it may take more than 150 each year to keep up. We were told that any tag increase recommendations would have to come from the sportsmen, not from them. Whether you would consider that a cop-out, I don't know, but they have to play politics more than we do in order to get the financing they need to do their jobs.
Now, one other thing we haven't mentioned is that the high fence isn't just next to the freeway. In places, it also goes inward (east) towards the mountain to protect some of the agricultural fields. So the deer not only don't have quality natural forage, they also don't have much of the home grown stuff either.
Underpasses/overpasses? We're talking about a 25 mile stretch of
freeway at about $1.3 million per each underpass/overpass. And all we'd be doing is moving the problem to the other side of the freeway because there isn't much natural forage there either. It's now homes and fields.
Translocating? That's a possibility, but it isn't successful enough to merit a DWR expense of about $1,000 per animal at the capture site. SFW has offered to pursue this option, but since it isn't approved by the DWR, they'd have to come up with the money outside of the 90% of conservation tag revenues going back to the DWR or DWR approved projects. However, if that happens, I'll be one of the first in line to help.
Controlled fires? Also possible, but first off, lots of paperwork considering there is private land there and now, lots more homes. Second, cheatgrass fires burn hotter and more often than natural grass and brush fires and destroy more sagebrush and sagebrush seeds. Third, WE GOT WIND, LOTS OF WIND in that valley area and fires are tough to control. Fourth, we were told that area is in a rain shadow and doesn't get as much rain as we think because of the mountains to the west, so any new growth from the fires takes longer to get established and by the time some of the desirable stuff comes up the cheatgrass is already in full swing sucking up the moisture.
Bottom line, if we don't have to kill all those does, so much the better, but the alternatives aren't looking very good.
As I told some RAC's and the Wildlife Board, we can either make a tough decision and deal with this problem on our terms now or continue what we're doing and let nature deal with it on her terms later.
PS. Personal Opinion!
>AT 02:55?PM (MST)
>
>>something is really wrong if it
>>is going to take decades
>>to fix' who do you
>>think should get tarred and
>>featherd for this. dwr. blm?
>>
>
>
>Whoever put I-15 where it currently
>runs. Try tarring and
>feathering them! Had that
>nice little stretch of commerce
>been put where biologists suggested
>and most people wanted it
>in the first place (closer
>to Lund) then a bunch
>of deer wouldn't be hurting
>themselves and to be honest,
>we'd have a really successful
>unit that would actually play
>host to a higher b/d
>ratio without much argument even
>from me. Hell, the
>effect of better placement of
>that freeway would have benefited
>multiple units along its path
>and even would have fiscally
>worked out in the long
>run for communities not to
>mention I personally wouldn't throw
>up a little in my
>mouth when someone used the
>phrase "abundant mule deer".
>So, NOPE...again its not the
>farmer, BLM, DWR, SFW, UWC,
>COYOTES, LION, TIGER, and BEARS.
> Its encroachment and the
>fact that there are too
>many mouths to feed because
>there is a stretch of
>freeway that limits them to
>a tiny stretch of winter
>range that is getting hammered.
> ANY wildlife biologist with
>moxy and knowledge of this
>area in question that has
>set foot and toured the
>ground there will agree.
>The dry does and even
>a couple productive ones need
>to go. Its a
>hated and unpopular thing to
>say and I hate to
>be the jerk to say
>it, but we need to
>get ahead of the inevitable.
> Actions, not finger pointing.
> Thank you for asking
>a very valid question.
I'll be even more of a jerk by repeating what the DWR and BLM reps and Lynn Kitchen, the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) District Conservationist (the person klbz couldn't remember) told us. 150 removed/killed/translocated deer isn't enough to even stop the RATE of decline, let alone reverse it. We've had 150 doe tags on this hunt for the last 4 years and it just keeps getting worse. 150 is the highest politically correct number the DWR thought they could get through the system, but they actually need 400+ per year for the next few years in order to give the habitat time to begin to recover and for the deer to establish new feeding habits with new water sources, cover and/or plantings. And even then it may take more than 150 each year to keep up. We were told that any tag increase recommendations would have to come from the sportsmen, not from them. Whether you would consider that a cop-out, I don't know, but they have to play politics more than we do in order to get the financing they need to do their jobs.
Now, one other thing we haven't mentioned is that the high fence isn't just next to the freeway. In places, it also goes inward (east) towards the mountain to protect some of the agricultural fields. So the deer not only don't have quality natural forage, they also don't have much of the home grown stuff either.
Underpasses/overpasses? We're talking about a 25 mile stretch of
freeway at about $1.3 million per each underpass/overpass. And all we'd be doing is moving the problem to the other side of the freeway because there isn't much natural forage there either. It's now homes and fields.
Translocating? That's a possibility, but it isn't successful enough to merit a DWR expense of about $1,000 per animal at the capture site. SFW has offered to pursue this option, but since it isn't approved by the DWR, they'd have to come up with the money outside of the 90% of conservation tag revenues going back to the DWR or DWR approved projects. However, if that happens, I'll be one of the first in line to help.
Controlled fires? Also possible, but first off, lots of paperwork considering there is private land there and now, lots more homes. Second, cheatgrass fires burn hotter and more often than natural grass and brush fires and destroy more sagebrush and sagebrush seeds. Third, WE GOT WIND, LOTS OF WIND in that valley area and fires are tough to control. Fourth, we were told that area is in a rain shadow and doesn't get as much rain as we think because of the mountains to the west, so any new growth from the fires takes longer to get established and by the time some of the desirable stuff comes up the cheatgrass is already in full swing sucking up the moisture.
Bottom line, if we don't have to kill all those does, so much the better, but the alternatives aren't looking very good.
As I told some RAC's and the Wildlife Board, we can either make a tough decision and deal with this problem on our terms now or continue what we're doing and let nature deal with it on her terms later.
PS. Personal Opinion!
K
klbzdad
Guest
>klbz,
>
>Regardless of the fact you have
>given this considerably study and
>thought, it looks like you
>will have little traction with
>this crowd. You will
>be dismissed as someone who
>just wants to kill deer
>into extinction no matter what;
>therefore, you have no credibility.
>
>
>Sorry and thanks!
Sad but probably true! It appears the moment anyone says anything about managing animals they then become "murdering mule deer bastards!". Yeah, that's me. I have plenty of tags I haven't filled because I'm a KILLER and not a HUNTER...odd. There are plenty of folks who do know who I am and what I am about and they know my reach is far beyond this or any other forum. They are also aware of just how deeply I care about mule deer, wilderness and animals in general. I'm thick skinned enough to really not give a crap who wants to judge me. Again, actions speak louder than words to me and the reason I don't have a million posts on this site is because of the negative crap and easy dismissal by most anytime someone says anything that isn't either "DOWN WITH THE DON", "THE DIVISION SUCKS", or "SFW IS EVIL" or even the flip side of, "I LOVE SFW SO POUND SAND!". Those who ##### and moan and spend time discarding those who actually do the work for big game in Utah are the ones that hold no credibility with folks like me, the real "AVERAGE JOES and JANES" who look at these forums and ask, "if these people spent as much or a little more time turning a shovel, mowing their lawn, or hugging their kids our neighborhoods, wildlife and wilderness would be fantastic!" I'm here to represent what I saw on the BLM/DWR tour and after during my turkey hunt, nothing more. Discard what I say here or the proof I'm willing to venture out and collect or people I'm willing to talk to and bring to the table, I could care less because those are the people who show they are only interested in what serves them and not the animals. Eventually, some moron will go out there and light a match and in ten years, someone will say, "there was that one jerk on MM who said this fire thing wouldn't work." Well it wasn't me, it was people smarter than me, I'm just the messenger.
On another note, I did do some research on JP stands and that person is correct in that they do sap up water from the water table. There are places where a good lop and scatter would work to do wonders in that regard but a burn isn't going to be the best solution. Again, I'm only a messenger, talk to the BLM guys and gals and most of the juniper stands are actually on Forest Service ground. I will talk to them soon too.
>
>Regardless of the fact you have
>given this considerably study and
>thought, it looks like you
>will have little traction with
>this crowd. You will
>be dismissed as someone who
>just wants to kill deer
>into extinction no matter what;
>therefore, you have no credibility.
>
>
>Sorry and thanks!
Sad but probably true! It appears the moment anyone says anything about managing animals they then become "murdering mule deer bastards!". Yeah, that's me. I have plenty of tags I haven't filled because I'm a KILLER and not a HUNTER...odd. There are plenty of folks who do know who I am and what I am about and they know my reach is far beyond this or any other forum. They are also aware of just how deeply I care about mule deer, wilderness and animals in general. I'm thick skinned enough to really not give a crap who wants to judge me. Again, actions speak louder than words to me and the reason I don't have a million posts on this site is because of the negative crap and easy dismissal by most anytime someone says anything that isn't either "DOWN WITH THE DON", "THE DIVISION SUCKS", or "SFW IS EVIL" or even the flip side of, "I LOVE SFW SO POUND SAND!". Those who ##### and moan and spend time discarding those who actually do the work for big game in Utah are the ones that hold no credibility with folks like me, the real "AVERAGE JOES and JANES" who look at these forums and ask, "if these people spent as much or a little more time turning a shovel, mowing their lawn, or hugging their kids our neighborhoods, wildlife and wilderness would be fantastic!" I'm here to represent what I saw on the BLM/DWR tour and after during my turkey hunt, nothing more. Discard what I say here or the proof I'm willing to venture out and collect or people I'm willing to talk to and bring to the table, I could care less because those are the people who show they are only interested in what serves them and not the animals. Eventually, some moron will go out there and light a match and in ten years, someone will say, "there was that one jerk on MM who said this fire thing wouldn't work." Well it wasn't me, it was people smarter than me, I'm just the messenger.
On another note, I did do some research on JP stands and that person is correct in that they do sap up water from the water table. There are places where a good lop and scatter would work to do wonders in that regard but a burn isn't going to be the best solution. Again, I'm only a messenger, talk to the BLM guys and gals and most of the juniper stands are actually on Forest Service ground. I will talk to them soon too.
S
soutahhunter
Guest
This is just another way to show that the buck to doe ratio is what they are say it is. You are right they do not care about that much money but they do want us to believe their buck to doe ratio is what they are telling us. I have heard time after time that increasing the bucks will not bring back the deer herd, so explain to me how killing off does who produce fawns bring back the deer herd, I am confused.
H
HillbillyNnevada
Guest
The DWR lost its credibility regarding antlerless objectives years ago by overshooting a lot of units. I saw first hand what happened to the Plateau antelope unit. Now when it sounds like there is a real need and science for a doe hunt, DWR has no support due to its past history.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>This is just another way to
>show that the buck to
>doe ratio is what they
>are say it is.
>You are right they do
>not care about that much
>money but they do want
>us to believe their buck
>to doe ratio is what
>they are telling us. I
>have heard time after time
>that increasing the bucks will
>not bring back the deer
>herd, so explain to me
>how killing off does who
>produce fawns bring back the
>deer herd, I am confused.
>
This has nothing to do with B/D ratios. It has solely to do with habitat destruction and restoration. Again, vilifying the DWR isn't a solution to this because the BLM was there too. The BLM has modified and even reduced to almost nothing the number of grazing permits on this winter range to help. Vilify the freeway, vilify mother nature, and vilify the deer themselves. The damage is extensive but with time and a reduction of hove and mouths in the interim can allow for recruitment in perennials and sagebrush that will sustain long term. But with the numbers on unit 28 at 9100 this year and over 1200 more last year and good fawn recruitment it appears so far this year, this is going to be an immediate problem with no popular immediate solution so the available winter forage is in crisis. PLEASE READ: There are plenty of dry does to cull. And just because the division issues a tag does not guarantee that that tag will be filled. The pressure alone of hunters in the field will allow some time for last season seeding to occur by perennials and even allow time for the animals to remain in the upper staging areas where they can continue to store fat instead of change over into roughage on the winter range. It also takes time for forbes to establish. You can't just fly over and lay seed or we'd again, have already fixed the deer population with habitat. Man created a big part of this issue, we have the responsibility to manage it properly. I'm sure anyone else who the division would take out there and had a better plan or idea would be well received. But this is the best plan of a terrible situation.
>show that the buck to
>doe ratio is what they
>are say it is.
>You are right they do
>not care about that much
>money but they do want
>us to believe their buck
>to doe ratio is what
>they are telling us. I
>have heard time after time
>that increasing the bucks will
>not bring back the deer
>herd, so explain to me
>how killing off does who
>produce fawns bring back the
>deer herd, I am confused.
>
This has nothing to do with B/D ratios. It has solely to do with habitat destruction and restoration. Again, vilifying the DWR isn't a solution to this because the BLM was there too. The BLM has modified and even reduced to almost nothing the number of grazing permits on this winter range to help. Vilify the freeway, vilify mother nature, and vilify the deer themselves. The damage is extensive but with time and a reduction of hove and mouths in the interim can allow for recruitment in perennials and sagebrush that will sustain long term. But with the numbers on unit 28 at 9100 this year and over 1200 more last year and good fawn recruitment it appears so far this year, this is going to be an immediate problem with no popular immediate solution so the available winter forage is in crisis. PLEASE READ: There are plenty of dry does to cull. And just because the division issues a tag does not guarantee that that tag will be filled. The pressure alone of hunters in the field will allow some time for last season seeding to occur by perennials and even allow time for the animals to remain in the upper staging areas where they can continue to store fat instead of change over into roughage on the winter range. It also takes time for forbes to establish. You can't just fly over and lay seed or we'd again, have already fixed the deer population with habitat. Man created a big part of this issue, we have the responsibility to manage it properly. I'm sure anyone else who the division would take out there and had a better plan or idea would be well received. But this is the best plan of a terrible situation.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>The DWR lost its credibility regarding
>antlerless objectives years ago by
>overshooting a lot of units.
>I saw first hand what
>happened to the Plateau antelope
>unit. Now when it
>sounds like there is a
>real need and science for
>a doe hunt, DWR has
>no support due to its
>past history.
I would agree that there have been mistakes made in the past and no doubt that some influence by sportsmen groups have provided oversight that was needed for DWR. And on this particular issue, I'm going to go out on a heavy branch here and say that they are aware that this needed to come from sportsmen and not from them. Thus the conservative recommendation of 150 tags to maintain the range instead of the needed number of 300+ to make a difference.
Look, the best thing anyone could do is to go take a look for yourself. Maybe we need to organize a range ride and get several sportsmen groups together and really show what it looks like in there. Its a case example that might help the creditably issues some have with the division and we can bring in the BLM and Forest Service because it is a very diverse little stretch of land. Also, the migration of these animals is complex as well. Their dispersal is wide reaching and therefore the effect of taking any number of animals has to be carefully considered. We get that. I have never taken a female animal other than cow elk. And even then my primary target has been the "pisscutter" spike, as one member here would call him. I'm not a fan of just shooting anything just because. I'm passionate about this because unit 28 is the unit I have chosen to spend my time on with my family. The unit I love to hunt most on. The unit I fish on. And it just so happens that these are the deer that migrate from my favorite unit. elkfromabove might have names and numbers of the folks from the tour, but you can always get them from Jason, the wildlife bio from DWR who was on the tour or from Gary the habitat bio from DWR and they can direct you to the range management specialists at the BLM if you don't trust the DWR guys. Oh, and ask either Gary or Jason to email you the map of the property lines. Its not much ground but on this issue, I'd like to see more support them.
>antlerless objectives years ago by
>overshooting a lot of units.
>I saw first hand what
>happened to the Plateau antelope
>unit. Now when it
>sounds like there is a
>real need and science for
>a doe hunt, DWR has
>no support due to its
>past history.
I would agree that there have been mistakes made in the past and no doubt that some influence by sportsmen groups have provided oversight that was needed for DWR. And on this particular issue, I'm going to go out on a heavy branch here and say that they are aware that this needed to come from sportsmen and not from them. Thus the conservative recommendation of 150 tags to maintain the range instead of the needed number of 300+ to make a difference.
Look, the best thing anyone could do is to go take a look for yourself. Maybe we need to organize a range ride and get several sportsmen groups together and really show what it looks like in there. Its a case example that might help the creditably issues some have with the division and we can bring in the BLM and Forest Service because it is a very diverse little stretch of land. Also, the migration of these animals is complex as well. Their dispersal is wide reaching and therefore the effect of taking any number of animals has to be carefully considered. We get that. I have never taken a female animal other than cow elk. And even then my primary target has been the "pisscutter" spike, as one member here would call him. I'm not a fan of just shooting anything just because. I'm passionate about this because unit 28 is the unit I have chosen to spend my time on with my family. The unit I love to hunt most on. The unit I fish on. And it just so happens that these are the deer that migrate from my favorite unit. elkfromabove might have names and numbers of the folks from the tour, but you can always get them from Jason, the wildlife bio from DWR who was on the tour or from Gary the habitat bio from DWR and they can direct you to the range management specialists at the BLM if you don't trust the DWR guys. Oh, and ask either Gary or Jason to email you the map of the property lines. Its not much ground but on this issue, I'd like to see more support them.
I have a question-- If the habitat is degrading rapidly in that area-- why are the deetr still coming into it ? Don't they have any other areas that they can migrate into that has better forage. Why are they doing so well with fawn survival rates. I am not questioning whether or not the habitat is degrading, just wondering why they would continue to move into that area. Is there no other adjacent areas that could support more deer. If there isn't, then it seems to me that what is trying to be done is to allow the hunters to take the deer out before nature does. It also seems that once the numbers are drastically reduced they won't be increasing again anytime soon.Those hunters that hunt in the areas that these animals reside in during the summer and fall are going to see less bucks and less deer. Hopefully this is not a micro-cosm of the belief that Anis holds that we are basically at our carrying capacity and we shouldn't expect any appreciable increase in spite of all we are trying to do-- habitat, predator removal etc.
R
rperkins
Guest
Lets relocate them, move them to the Dutton Unit and the Monroe Unit, their lots of sportmans that will help, make it a DH project. I will help for free, will the DWR get out of their soft chair and help for free ?
S
soutahhunter
Guest
i agree Perkins, we sit and complain about being no deer, yet go out and shoot them in these small areas because there is no feed. Lets relocate them even if only half survive better than being down 150 more deer. It is also strange to me that if a deer is starving why it does not move to a new location, guess mule deer are not very smart.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>I have a question-- If the
>habitat is degrading rapidly in
>that area-- why are the
>deetr still coming into it
>? Don't they have
>any other areas that they
>can migrate into that has
>better forage.
>Why are they
>doing so well with fawn
>survival rates.
>I am not
>questioning whether or not the
>habitat is degrading, just wondering
>why they would continue to
>move into that area. Is
>there no other adjacent areas
>that could support more deer.
>If there isn't, then it
>seems to me that what
>is trying to be done
>is to allow the hunters
>to take the deer out
>before nature does. It also
>seems that once the numbers
>are drastically reduced they won't
>be increasing again anytime soon.Those
>hunters that hunt in the
>areas that these animals reside
>in during the summer and
>fall are going to see
>less bucks and less deer.
>Hopefully this is not a
>micro-cosm of the belief that
>Anis holds that we are
>basically at our carrying capacity
>and we shouldn't expect any
>appreciable increase in spite of
>all we are trying to
>do-- habitat, predator removal etc.
>
There is better habitat on the other side of the mountain. Its because this is the side the does have learned to come to. It takes years to change those habits and there isn't a tried or true way to re-educate mule deer. Whitetail, some say are easier to modify in winter range behavior but mule deer are very sensitive to where they winter. An example of what the current winter range could look like is to head just north a couple of miles and there you have zero new winter forage and plenty of cacti and cheat grass. Between SR20 and where they currently are spending the winter is where they used to winter but as they use up the vegetation. They move southerly so yes, as they use the resource, they move to where it is available but won't go from one side of the mountain to the other. There is more forage south of there close to Summit but again there are private lands as obstacles and moving the problem from one place to another, even temporarily doesn't give a long term solution.
A light winter last year and heavy water year the previous year resulted in high yeild of available summer and fall forage resulting in an easier time for fawns. They didn't have to use as much of their reserve fighting through snow this year. But a bio can answer that in more detail than I can. There are several out there that will offer their oppinion. I'd find one that has been to this area and spent time in the southern region if you don't want to take the DWR's word. Jason isn't fluffing anything for you in the southern district office. He'll shoot straight with you if you don't want to talk with Anis.
As far as holding capacity, the Panguitch unit, even taking these animals can sustain. Do the math without emotion and capacity will remain around 9000 animals without effecting a single buck especially if it is done with the intent of helping the habitat and giving the youth a chance and hand at hunting. By being selective even with does and having to learn what to chose from it will help them cross over into the bucks as they start down their hunting paths. Predators, sure we need to look at that, I shot two coyotes off the front while debating going back for an evening turkey hunt. They came in quickly and tried to circle just like any other so they are there. I also found lion sign up Mineral that was fresh. But there are folks running dogs in there even now. Again, anyone who wants to take the tour, absolutely should request it and go out if they can. I recommend it. And be skeptical and ask hard questions but don't be rude to the DWR folks. They didn't create the problem, they are looking for solutions, just like all of us.
>habitat is degrading rapidly in
>that area-- why are the
>deetr still coming into it
>? Don't they have
>any other areas that they
>can migrate into that has
>better forage.
>Why are they
>doing so well with fawn
>survival rates.
>I am not
>questioning whether or not the
>habitat is degrading, just wondering
>why they would continue to
>move into that area. Is
>there no other adjacent areas
>that could support more deer.
>If there isn't, then it
>seems to me that what
>is trying to be done
>is to allow the hunters
>to take the deer out
>before nature does. It also
>seems that once the numbers
>are drastically reduced they won't
>be increasing again anytime soon.Those
>hunters that hunt in the
>areas that these animals reside
>in during the summer and
>fall are going to see
>less bucks and less deer.
>Hopefully this is not a
>micro-cosm of the belief that
>Anis holds that we are
>basically at our carrying capacity
>and we shouldn't expect any
>appreciable increase in spite of
>all we are trying to
>do-- habitat, predator removal etc.
>
There is better habitat on the other side of the mountain. Its because this is the side the does have learned to come to. It takes years to change those habits and there isn't a tried or true way to re-educate mule deer. Whitetail, some say are easier to modify in winter range behavior but mule deer are very sensitive to where they winter. An example of what the current winter range could look like is to head just north a couple of miles and there you have zero new winter forage and plenty of cacti and cheat grass. Between SR20 and where they currently are spending the winter is where they used to winter but as they use up the vegetation. They move southerly so yes, as they use the resource, they move to where it is available but won't go from one side of the mountain to the other. There is more forage south of there close to Summit but again there are private lands as obstacles and moving the problem from one place to another, even temporarily doesn't give a long term solution.
A light winter last year and heavy water year the previous year resulted in high yeild of available summer and fall forage resulting in an easier time for fawns. They didn't have to use as much of their reserve fighting through snow this year. But a bio can answer that in more detail than I can. There are several out there that will offer their oppinion. I'd find one that has been to this area and spent time in the southern region if you don't want to take the DWR's word. Jason isn't fluffing anything for you in the southern district office. He'll shoot straight with you if you don't want to talk with Anis.
As far as holding capacity, the Panguitch unit, even taking these animals can sustain. Do the math without emotion and capacity will remain around 9000 animals without effecting a single buck especially if it is done with the intent of helping the habitat and giving the youth a chance and hand at hunting. By being selective even with does and having to learn what to chose from it will help them cross over into the bucks as they start down their hunting paths. Predators, sure we need to look at that, I shot two coyotes off the front while debating going back for an evening turkey hunt. They came in quickly and tried to circle just like any other so they are there. I also found lion sign up Mineral that was fresh. But there are folks running dogs in there even now. Again, anyone who wants to take the tour, absolutely should request it and go out if they can. I recommend it. And be skeptical and ask hard questions but don't be rude to the DWR folks. They didn't create the problem, they are looking for solutions, just like all of us.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>Lets relocate them, move them to
>the Dutton Unit and the
>Monroe Unit, their lots of
>sportmans that will help, make
>it a DH project. I
>will help for free, will
>the DWR get out of
>their soft chair and help
>for free ?
I'm going to refer you to a great thread on this very thing. SFW has suggested trans-relocation. DWR has said they will sign the COR but will not fund the project so SFW will have to fund it outside of the conservation funds they provide. There are techniques and other methods that have worked but are very area specific. There are real bios there discussing it that have a steak in the success of a project like this.
Here is the link to the thread:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=19372&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
>the Dutton Unit and the
>Monroe Unit, their lots of
>sportmans that will help, make
>it a DH project. I
>will help for free, will
>the DWR get out of
>their soft chair and help
>for free ?
I'm going to refer you to a great thread on this very thing. SFW has suggested trans-relocation. DWR has said they will sign the COR but will not fund the project so SFW will have to fund it outside of the conservation funds they provide. There are techniques and other methods that have worked but are very area specific. There are real bios there discussing it that have a steak in the success of a project like this.
Here is the link to the thread:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=19372&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
K
klbzdad
Guest
>i agree Perkins, we sit and
>complain about being no deer,
>yet go out and shoot
>them in these small areas
>because there is no feed.
> Lets relocate them even
>if only half survive better
>than being down 150 more
>deer. It is also
>strange to me that if
>a deer is starving why
>it does not move to
>a new location, guess mule
>deer are not very smart.
>
Again, I'll refer you to discussion on trans-relocation. Its good discussion going on. I'm not a part of it but there are real biologists who have either worked or studied area specific data and projects concerning moving mule deer. Here ya go:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=19372&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
>complain about being no deer,
>yet go out and shoot
>them in these small areas
>because there is no feed.
> Lets relocate them even
>if only half survive better
>than being down 150 more
>deer. It is also
>strange to me that if
>a deer is starving why
>it does not move to
>a new location, guess mule
>deer are not very smart.
>
Again, I'll refer you to discussion on trans-relocation. Its good discussion going on. I'm not a part of it but there are real biologists who have either worked or studied area specific data and projects concerning moving mule deer. Here ya go:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=19372&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 12:37PM (MST)[p]>This is just another way to
>show that the buck to
>doe ratio is what they
>are say it is.
>You are right they do
>not care about that much
>money but they do want
>us to believe their buck
>to doe ratio is what
>they are telling us. I
>have heard time after time
>that increasing the bucks will
>not bring back the deer
>herd, so explain to me
>how killing off does who
>produce fawns bring back the
>deer herd, I am confused.
>
No need to be confused. Killing does does not bring back the deer herd. That's the point! This specific small winter range already has more deer than it can handle, so why would we want to increase the numbers? We're talking about an already existing problem in a specific situation that only has a limited number of solutions and we need to find the best one that will work in the long term. All we're doing now is kicking the can down the road, but in this case, the can is now a 5 gallon bucket and will become a 55 gallon drum if we keep kicking. And don't throw this issue into the statewide deer management plan. We're managing on a unit by unit basis, remember?
Per the DWR's April RAC agenda highlights:
" 12)We are recommending a reduction in antlerless deer permits in 2012. Almost all of our antlerless deer permits are designed to deal with depredation. The only exception is on the Panguitch Lake Unit where we recommend 150 antlerless permits to deal with habitat damage on rangeland."
In other words, this hunt is the only one that they can't mitigate and/or pay off because the problem isn't farmers complaining about deer eating their crops. It's about too many deer on the (winter) rangeland period!
And killing 150 does is going to raise the buck/doe ratio in this unit population of 9,100 deer by a whooping .2 bucks per 100 does, ie; From 17.4, which is already above objective, to 17.6. So, yeah, I guess they are doing it to justify their buck to doe ratios! NOT!
And a reduction of non CWMU antlerless deer permits of 1,785 in 2010 to 290 this year still isn't enough? Or did you buy into the SFW's 3 year double the mule deer population recovery plan with its "No Doe Hunts For Any Reason" policy? If you did, where's the outcry for the 90 doe permits on the Box Elder unit or the 50 doe permits on the Monroe unit that the DWR says are for depredation only?
Now I'm confused!
>show that the buck to
>doe ratio is what they
>are say it is.
>You are right they do
>not care about that much
>money but they do want
>us to believe their buck
>to doe ratio is what
>they are telling us. I
>have heard time after time
>that increasing the bucks will
>not bring back the deer
>herd, so explain to me
>how killing off does who
>produce fawns bring back the
>deer herd, I am confused.
>
No need to be confused. Killing does does not bring back the deer herd. That's the point! This specific small winter range already has more deer than it can handle, so why would we want to increase the numbers? We're talking about an already existing problem in a specific situation that only has a limited number of solutions and we need to find the best one that will work in the long term. All we're doing now is kicking the can down the road, but in this case, the can is now a 5 gallon bucket and will become a 55 gallon drum if we keep kicking. And don't throw this issue into the statewide deer management plan. We're managing on a unit by unit basis, remember?
Per the DWR's April RAC agenda highlights:
" 12)We are recommending a reduction in antlerless deer permits in 2012. Almost all of our antlerless deer permits are designed to deal with depredation. The only exception is on the Panguitch Lake Unit where we recommend 150 antlerless permits to deal with habitat damage on rangeland."
In other words, this hunt is the only one that they can't mitigate and/or pay off because the problem isn't farmers complaining about deer eating their crops. It's about too many deer on the (winter) rangeland period!
And killing 150 does is going to raise the buck/doe ratio in this unit population of 9,100 deer by a whooping .2 bucks per 100 does, ie; From 17.4, which is already above objective, to 17.6. So, yeah, I guess they are doing it to justify their buck to doe ratios! NOT!
And a reduction of non CWMU antlerless deer permits of 1,785 in 2010 to 290 this year still isn't enough? Or did you buy into the SFW's 3 year double the mule deer population recovery plan with its "No Doe Hunts For Any Reason" policy? If you did, where's the outcry for the 90 doe permits on the Box Elder unit or the 50 doe permits on the Monroe unit that the DWR says are for depredation only?
Now I'm confused!
BattleBorn
Active Member
- Messages
- 185
Obviously the whole purpose of the new unit model for the general deer hunt is so management can be more herd specific. On the surface this looks to be exactly what is taking place regarding the Panguitch Unit and these doe tags. There seems to be quite a bit of distrust with UDWR and their biologists / recommendations, which is a shame.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
>i agree Perkins, we sit and
>complain about being no deer,
>yet go out and shoot
>them in these small areas
>because there is no feed.
> Lets relocate them even
>if only half survive better
>than being down 150 more
>deer. It is also
>strange to me that if
>a deer is starving why
>it does not move to
>a new location, guess mule
>deer are not very smart.
>
It's not that they aren't "smart". It's just that they are creatures of habit/instinct, big time! They have a strong matriarchal (Big Mamma) order and wherever the herd leader goes, the rest follow. And this is passed down from generation to generation. This is also one reason, but only one, they don't do well when relocated. The herd gets broken up and placed in an area that even the herd doe (if she's included in the capture) doesn't know. That's the reason they scatter. They're confused and stressed and are trying to get back to their home range which makes them more vulnerable to predation, dehydration, roadkill, starvation, disease and hypothermia. Also, the resident deer don't accept them very well and drive them off.
Also, it would be GREAT if half of them survive, but the reality is that the survival rate is currently only about 3%-5%. That means only about 5 to 8 of the 150 will be or become a mature deer. And remember that 150 is only the social number that the DWR feels they can get through the RAC and WB system. The biological number needed to actually solve the problem is more than twice that.
Add to that the costs involved (About $1,000 per animal at the capture sight.) and it isn't quite as simple as we may think! While it's refreshing to know SFW is willing to head the effort to do the relocation with an eye to making some progress with the technology and methods, it remains to be seen whether or not it becomes more cost effective with a higher survival rate. Thankfully, they'll likely see plenty of volunteers (me included) who are interesting in solving this problem without the antlerless hunts. Let's hope we can figure this out.
>complain about being no deer,
>yet go out and shoot
>them in these small areas
>because there is no feed.
> Lets relocate them even
>if only half survive better
>than being down 150 more
>deer. It is also
>strange to me that if
>a deer is starving why
>it does not move to
>a new location, guess mule
>deer are not very smart.
>
It's not that they aren't "smart". It's just that they are creatures of habit/instinct, big time! They have a strong matriarchal (Big Mamma) order and wherever the herd leader goes, the rest follow. And this is passed down from generation to generation. This is also one reason, but only one, they don't do well when relocated. The herd gets broken up and placed in an area that even the herd doe (if she's included in the capture) doesn't know. That's the reason they scatter. They're confused and stressed and are trying to get back to their home range which makes them more vulnerable to predation, dehydration, roadkill, starvation, disease and hypothermia. Also, the resident deer don't accept them very well and drive them off.
Also, it would be GREAT if half of them survive, but the reality is that the survival rate is currently only about 3%-5%. That means only about 5 to 8 of the 150 will be or become a mature deer. And remember that 150 is only the social number that the DWR feels they can get through the RAC and WB system. The biological number needed to actually solve the problem is more than twice that.
Add to that the costs involved (About $1,000 per animal at the capture sight.) and it isn't quite as simple as we may think! While it's refreshing to know SFW is willing to head the effort to do the relocation with an eye to making some progress with the technology and methods, it remains to be seen whether or not it becomes more cost effective with a higher survival rate. Thankfully, they'll likely see plenty of volunteers (me included) who are interesting in solving this problem without the antlerless hunts. Let's hope we can figure this out.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
can someone tell me why i find90% my deer sheds on bald grassy/weedy hills, burns and ridgetops. why i never find sheds deep down in thick overgrown sagebrush flats where nothing but sage and only sage grows? can someone tell me why we dont have 10,000,000 (10 million for you tards)deer in utah with the amount of sagebrush we have? can someone please tell me why there single file trails through sage brush for 2 miles that lead straight to a hayfield, bald hill or burn?, can someone telll me why people think deer prefer to eat sagebrush when given a choice?
We have so much freakin sprawling sagebrush habitat here yet our winter range is struggling hmmm deer must love and do well on sage huh!
We have so much freakin sprawling sagebrush habitat here yet our winter range is struggling hmmm deer must love and do well on sage huh!
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 02:38PM (MST)[p]>can someone tell me why i
>find90% my deer sheds on
>bald grassy/weedy hills, burns and
>ridgetops. why i never find
>sheds deep down in thick
>overgrown sagebrush flats where nothing
>but sage and only sage
>grows? can someone tell me
>why we dont have 10,000,000
>(10 million for you tards)deer
>in utah with the amount
>of sagebrush we have? can
>someone please tell me why
>there single file trails through
>sage brush for 2 miles
>that lead straight to a
>hayfield, bald hill or burn?,
>can someone telll me why
>people think deer prefer to
>eat sagebrush when given a
>choice?
>We have so much freakin sprawling
>sagebrush habitat here yet our
>winter range is struggling hmmm
>deer must love and do
>well on sage huh!
And perennials. Not just sage. But us "tards" also know that the sheds happen in the mid staging areas and not always on the winter range because that is where the bucks go during the winter. Again, I'm not a biologist but I've read about every book on the planet concerning mule deer. I've read every publication published by members of the Mule Deer Working Group and while I've never spent time shed hunting because it doesn't appeal to me just like some prefer rifle tackle over archery and they all suggest that very thing. Bucks don't spend the winter competing with does and fawns. They tend to spend it a little higher and in tougher country. There are always exceptions, even it "tardville", but that is generally what I've found in my winter excursions. If you'll excuse me, I need to go and eat my sloppy joe, apple sauce, and celery stick with peanut butter and raisins before I miss out. Even "tards" need to eat....oh, by the way, my oldest son has brain damage from his birth mother using meth during her pregnancy. Glad he doesn't have to read this crap.
>find90% my deer sheds on
>bald grassy/weedy hills, burns and
>ridgetops. why i never find
>sheds deep down in thick
>overgrown sagebrush flats where nothing
>but sage and only sage
>grows? can someone tell me
>why we dont have 10,000,000
>(10 million for you tards)deer
>in utah with the amount
>of sagebrush we have? can
>someone please tell me why
>there single file trails through
>sage brush for 2 miles
>that lead straight to a
>hayfield, bald hill or burn?,
>can someone telll me why
>people think deer prefer to
>eat sagebrush when given a
>choice?
>We have so much freakin sprawling
>sagebrush habitat here yet our
>winter range is struggling hmmm
>deer must love and do
>well on sage huh!
And perennials. Not just sage. But us "tards" also know that the sheds happen in the mid staging areas and not always on the winter range because that is where the bucks go during the winter. Again, I'm not a biologist but I've read about every book on the planet concerning mule deer. I've read every publication published by members of the Mule Deer Working Group and while I've never spent time shed hunting because it doesn't appeal to me just like some prefer rifle tackle over archery and they all suggest that very thing. Bucks don't spend the winter competing with does and fawns. They tend to spend it a little higher and in tougher country. There are always exceptions, even it "tardville", but that is generally what I've found in my winter excursions. If you'll excuse me, I need to go and eat my sloppy joe, apple sauce, and celery stick with peanut butter and raisins before I miss out. Even "tards" need to eat....oh, by the way, my oldest son has brain damage from his birth mother using meth during her pregnancy. Glad he doesn't have to read this crap.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
first off what does your son having brain damage have to do with this?? Second ive always thought deer shed during winter range months?? january to march is still winter range, .... everywhere i shed hunt i see does in as well.... I dont always believe the books i read, or even the biologists as alot of biologists( not all) have very little field experience and learned everything from a book. After my own personal experiences of watching deer year round i do not find sage brush to be such a holygrail of winterfeed. the only reason deer eat it is because they have to. we have let our range get so overgrown with pj and sage there is no room for anything else to grow. Fire suppression is a major contributor imo. Everything i have seen fires are nothing but good. even ones with cheatgrass are better than pj covered hills and ill explain.
2 reasons cheatgrass is better than pj. 1. though not the most nutritious of feeds its often one of the first plants/grass/feed to become green. second its life span is short as the moment it growns awns it is no longer useful to the animals. #2. pj and sage soak up soooo much water it starves everything else. sage brush begins soaking up water the moment it touches the sagebrush, pj is so overgrown it drinks all the water before it can reach anything including replenishing the springs. it covers the floor and voila no water or sunlight for 1 blade of grass/forb anything! no water for springs nothing but pj and sage. There are several plants that do well against cheatgrass.
lets look back at history in the US shall we. before 1930 an estimated 30 million acres would burn annually by the 1960s it was between 2-5 million annually because of fire suppression! now we are lucky to get 1million acres burned annually. so there goes millions of acres of habitat not being allowed to rejuvinate itself eveery dng year. we have millions and millions of acres long overdue to have the natural rejuvination process. its no wonder our deer have decline more and more everyyear! loss of habitat! the stupid freakin joke of an idea that sage brush must be saved to allow deer to survive. Sage brush is a last resort food. its all they can eat because its all that grows! its no dang wonder the deer are declinging everyone thinks sage is godsend for deer. When i watch deer winter they are often in open or bald hills, rocky ridges, and areas where sagebrush is thinner. I see deer eating the green stuff coming up in the middle of sage(maybe thats why people think they eat so much sage) often they are eating the stuff growing up inside the sage and it looks like they are eating sage. they likely eat some sage yes, but its not the staple everyone proclaims imo. maybe im an idiot i dont know but all my observations prove otherwise.
2 reasons cheatgrass is better than pj. 1. though not the most nutritious of feeds its often one of the first plants/grass/feed to become green. second its life span is short as the moment it growns awns it is no longer useful to the animals. #2. pj and sage soak up soooo much water it starves everything else. sage brush begins soaking up water the moment it touches the sagebrush, pj is so overgrown it drinks all the water before it can reach anything including replenishing the springs. it covers the floor and voila no water or sunlight for 1 blade of grass/forb anything! no water for springs nothing but pj and sage. There are several plants that do well against cheatgrass.
lets look back at history in the US shall we. before 1930 an estimated 30 million acres would burn annually by the 1960s it was between 2-5 million annually because of fire suppression! now we are lucky to get 1million acres burned annually. so there goes millions of acres of habitat not being allowed to rejuvinate itself eveery dng year. we have millions and millions of acres long overdue to have the natural rejuvination process. its no wonder our deer have decline more and more everyyear! loss of habitat! the stupid freakin joke of an idea that sage brush must be saved to allow deer to survive. Sage brush is a last resort food. its all they can eat because its all that grows! its no dang wonder the deer are declinging everyone thinks sage is godsend for deer. When i watch deer winter they are often in open or bald hills, rocky ridges, and areas where sagebrush is thinner. I see deer eating the green stuff coming up in the middle of sage(maybe thats why people think they eat so much sage) often they are eating the stuff growing up inside the sage and it looks like they are eating sage. they likely eat some sage yes, but its not the staple everyone proclaims imo. maybe im an idiot i dont know but all my observations prove otherwise.
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 05:27PM (MST)[p]>first off what does your son
>having brain damage have to
>do with this?? Second ive
>always thought deer shed during
>winter range months?? january to
>march is still winter range,
>.... everywhere i shed hunt
>i see does in as
>well.... I dont always believe
>the books i read, or
>even the biologists as alot
>of biologists( not all) have
>very little field experience and
>learned everything from a book.
>After my own personal experiences
>of watching deer year round
>i do not find sage
>brush to be such a
>holygrail of winterfeed. the only
>reason deer eat it is
>because they have to. we
>have let our range get
>so overgrown with pj and
>sage there is no room
>for anything else to grow.
>Fire suppression is a major
>contributor imo. Everything i have
>seen fires are nothing but
>good. even ones with cheatgrass
>are better than pj covered
>hills and ill explain.
>2 reasons cheatgrass is better than
>pj. 1. though not the
>most nutritious of feeds its
>often one of the first
>plants/grass/feed to become green. second
>its life span is
>short as the moment it
>growns awns it is no
>longer useful to the animals.
>#2. pj and sage soak
>up soooo much water it
>starves everything else. sage brush
>begins soaking up water the
>moment it touches the sagebrush,
>pj is so overgrown it
>drinks all the water before
>it can reach anything including
>replenishing the springs. it covers
>the floor and voila no
>water or sunlight for 1
>blade of grass/forb anything! no
>water for springs nothing but
>pj and sage. There are
>several plants that do well
>against cheatgrass.
>
>lets look back at history in
>the US shall we. before
>1930 an estimated 30 million
>acres would burn annually by
>the 1960s it was between
>2-5 million annually because of
>fire suppression! now we are
>lucky to get 1million acres
>burned annually. so there goes
>millions of acres of habitat
>not being allowed to rejuvinate
>itself eveery dng year. we
>have millions and millions of
>acres long overdue to have
>the natural rejuvination process. its
>no wonder our deer have
>decline more and more everyyear!
>loss of habitat! the stupid
>freakin joke of an idea
>that sage brush must be
>saved to allow deer to
>survive. Sage brush is a
>last resort food. its all
>they can eat because its
>all that grows! its no
>dang wonder the deer are
>declinging everyone thinks sage is
>godsend for deer. When i
>watch deer winter they are
>often in open or bald
>hills, rocky ridges, and areas
>where sagebrush is thinner. I
>see deer eating the green
>stuff coming up in the
>middle of sage(maybe thats why
>people think they eat so
>much sage) often they are
>eating the stuff growing up
>inside the sage and it
>looks like they are eating
>sage. they likely eat some
>sage yes, but its not
>the staple everyone proclaims imo.
>maybe im an idiot i
>dont know but all my
>observations prove otherwise.
I'm really kind of tired of the use of "tard" to describe people with an opinion that doesn't favor those who think they are wiser than anyone else. THAT is what my son's brain damage has to do with this.
You cannot become a biologist by reading a book. And biologist who specialize in mule deer, nay, ungulates or ruminants can't just read a book and say, "I'm special and know what I'm talking about!". There is a whole lot of hands on biology that goes with that. That includes field study and field work and while I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, I venture to say that I spend as much if not more time "in the field" than most on this or any other forum verifying what I read because I'm skeptical about that information. I would point you to one biologist I happen to respect, Dennis Austin. He spent 30 years working IN THE FIELD for DWR on mule deer, specifically. And he talks about the challenges discussed here in his book. I won't plug it but if someone wants to know what it is, they can google his name and buy it or get it at the library. Also, wouldn't you know it, he mentions that mule deer will eat the ends of juniper branches. Weird. And perennials and forbes do grow among sage brush. Take a trip along the Red Desert sometime or even Dry Lakes where you'll find plenty of dandelion and yarrow mixed in with the sage. There are other spring succulence that grow among the sage that deer munch on and grow their fat reserves with but not on the winter range. Sage brush covers most of unit 28. But they don't eat it all year round. I would recommend you take a trip with the BLM guys and learn more about the sage during the winter.
We agree on the fire issue. I know fire does wonders when you have other areas for the deer to go to eat and winter but that isn't the case here. And fire in this area will take decades to recover from because of the topography and looming cheatgrass because it isn't a large area for as many deer that come here to winter. Cheatgrass is not viable for mule deer for the very reason you stated, it turns brown and all animals loose interest because it goes from 25% nutrition to fibrous and 5%. Biologists don't like it and neither to the cattlemen. The perennial grasses would be great and there is a chance for them on this range with reduced hove damage. Again, this is one of many managed units that have been around since 1997 and the deer are going the damage here themselves. Once you've taken the tour on this particular winter range and bent the ear off the DWR and BLM biologists that spend most of their time IN that very field, then we can play tit for tat but I'm certain you'll want to explore more viable alternative than hunting OR you'll understand better why that herd needs to be culled and why the recommendations are being established and WILL be increased as the habitat dictates. Mother nature will ultimately win with game, we must find the best way to manipulate and manage her. THAT is the hardest part of this equation. I hope you'll take the tour and join forces to find better ways of helping unit 28's Parowan Front winter range herd.
>having brain damage have to
>do with this?? Second ive
>always thought deer shed during
>winter range months?? january to
>march is still winter range,
>.... everywhere i shed hunt
>i see does in as
>well.... I dont always believe
>the books i read, or
>even the biologists as alot
>of biologists( not all) have
>very little field experience and
>learned everything from a book.
>After my own personal experiences
>of watching deer year round
>i do not find sage
>brush to be such a
>holygrail of winterfeed. the only
>reason deer eat it is
>because they have to. we
>have let our range get
>so overgrown with pj and
>sage there is no room
>for anything else to grow.
>Fire suppression is a major
>contributor imo. Everything i have
>seen fires are nothing but
>good. even ones with cheatgrass
>are better than pj covered
>hills and ill explain.
>2 reasons cheatgrass is better than
>pj. 1. though not the
>most nutritious of feeds its
>often one of the first
>plants/grass/feed to become green. second
>its life span is
>short as the moment it
>growns awns it is no
>longer useful to the animals.
>#2. pj and sage soak
>up soooo much water it
>starves everything else. sage brush
>begins soaking up water the
>moment it touches the sagebrush,
>pj is so overgrown it
>drinks all the water before
>it can reach anything including
>replenishing the springs. it covers
>the floor and voila no
>water or sunlight for 1
>blade of grass/forb anything! no
>water for springs nothing but
>pj and sage. There are
>several plants that do well
>against cheatgrass.
>
>lets look back at history in
>the US shall we. before
>1930 an estimated 30 million
>acres would burn annually by
>the 1960s it was between
>2-5 million annually because of
>fire suppression! now we are
>lucky to get 1million acres
>burned annually. so there goes
>millions of acres of habitat
>not being allowed to rejuvinate
>itself eveery dng year. we
>have millions and millions of
>acres long overdue to have
>the natural rejuvination process. its
>no wonder our deer have
>decline more and more everyyear!
>loss of habitat! the stupid
>freakin joke of an idea
>that sage brush must be
>saved to allow deer to
>survive. Sage brush is a
>last resort food. its all
>they can eat because its
>all that grows! its no
>dang wonder the deer are
>declinging everyone thinks sage is
>godsend for deer. When i
>watch deer winter they are
>often in open or bald
>hills, rocky ridges, and areas
>where sagebrush is thinner. I
>see deer eating the green
>stuff coming up in the
>middle of sage(maybe thats why
>people think they eat so
>much sage) often they are
>eating the stuff growing up
>inside the sage and it
>looks like they are eating
>sage. they likely eat some
>sage yes, but its not
>the staple everyone proclaims imo.
>maybe im an idiot i
>dont know but all my
>observations prove otherwise.
I'm really kind of tired of the use of "tard" to describe people with an opinion that doesn't favor those who think they are wiser than anyone else. THAT is what my son's brain damage has to do with this.
You cannot become a biologist by reading a book. And biologist who specialize in mule deer, nay, ungulates or ruminants can't just read a book and say, "I'm special and know what I'm talking about!". There is a whole lot of hands on biology that goes with that. That includes field study and field work and while I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, I venture to say that I spend as much if not more time "in the field" than most on this or any other forum verifying what I read because I'm skeptical about that information. I would point you to one biologist I happen to respect, Dennis Austin. He spent 30 years working IN THE FIELD for DWR on mule deer, specifically. And he talks about the challenges discussed here in his book. I won't plug it but if someone wants to know what it is, they can google his name and buy it or get it at the library. Also, wouldn't you know it, he mentions that mule deer will eat the ends of juniper branches. Weird. And perennials and forbes do grow among sage brush. Take a trip along the Red Desert sometime or even Dry Lakes where you'll find plenty of dandelion and yarrow mixed in with the sage. There are other spring succulence that grow among the sage that deer munch on and grow their fat reserves with but not on the winter range. Sage brush covers most of unit 28. But they don't eat it all year round. I would recommend you take a trip with the BLM guys and learn more about the sage during the winter.
We agree on the fire issue. I know fire does wonders when you have other areas for the deer to go to eat and winter but that isn't the case here. And fire in this area will take decades to recover from because of the topography and looming cheatgrass because it isn't a large area for as many deer that come here to winter. Cheatgrass is not viable for mule deer for the very reason you stated, it turns brown and all animals loose interest because it goes from 25% nutrition to fibrous and 5%. Biologists don't like it and neither to the cattlemen. The perennial grasses would be great and there is a chance for them on this range with reduced hove damage. Again, this is one of many managed units that have been around since 1997 and the deer are going the damage here themselves. Once you've taken the tour on this particular winter range and bent the ear off the DWR and BLM biologists that spend most of their time IN that very field, then we can play tit for tat but I'm certain you'll want to explore more viable alternative than hunting OR you'll understand better why that herd needs to be culled and why the recommendations are being established and WILL be increased as the habitat dictates. Mother nature will ultimately win with game, we must find the best way to manipulate and manage her. THAT is the hardest part of this equation. I hope you'll take the tour and join forces to find better ways of helping unit 28's Parowan Front winter range herd.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 08:48PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 08:47?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 08:42?PM (MST)
>can someone tell me why i
>find90% my deer sheds on
>bald grassy/weedy hills, burns and
>ridgetops. why i never find
>sheds deep down in thick
>overgrown sagebrush flats where nothing
>but sage and only sage
>grows? can someone tell me
>why we dont have 10,000,000
>(10 million for you tards)deer
>in utah with the amount
>of sagebrush we have? can
>someone please tell me why
>there single file trails through
>sage brush for 2 miles
>that lead straight to a
>hayfield, bald hill or burn?,
>can someone telll me why
>people think deer prefer to
>eat sagebrush when given a
>choice?
>We have so much freakin sprawling
>sagebrush habitat here yet our
>winter range is struggling hmmm
>deer must love and do
>well on sage huh!
We have a winner ! Even if I'm not sure he meant to be. Mule deer do prefer many plants over sagebrush, but there isn't any (or much) on this range, primarily because of the cheatgrass, but also because of the P/J invasion and the age of the sagebrush. (And the freeway, and the human encroachment, and the weather, and ?, and ?)
The cheatgrass is called that for a reason, several actually. It's life cycle is opposite (cheat #1) of native grasses. It generally germinates in the late fall through the winter and is usually done by mid-summer. Meanwhile, it sucks up the ground moisture (cheat #2) that the forbs, native grasses and brush need to germinate, to send out leaders and runners and to thrive. It also mats up and smothers (cheat #3) some of the new shoots from other plants and the matting also prevents many seeds from reaching the ground (cheat #4) in the fall. It also burns hotter (cheat #5) and more often (cheat #6) when it catches on fire. And it's pretty useless as forage (cheat #7).
Deer do like to eat the tender nutritious leaders produced by sagebrush and other brush, but there is very little other brush (bitterbrush, oakbrush, buckbrush, etc.) and the Wyoming sagebrush that is so prevelent is old and doesn't produce many leaders, so the deer eat the old leaves, woody twigs and bark which doesn't have much protein or nutritional value and to get the stuff they need, they have to eat a more than they would otherwise which only increases the problem.
The P/J invasion isn't a real big problem down in the valley, but the adjacent hillsides are pretty thick, so I'm not sure how much a lop and scatter, chaining, burning or bullhogging would accomplish. And they do need some cover with the cold winds that blow there.
And much, if not most, of the fields are high fenced, so there aren't many 2 mile trails to haystacks.
This is ugly winter range and is getting uglier every year, but the deer just keep coming and at some point this small population will crash for one reason or another. UNLESS! (But that's what were talking about, aren't we?)
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 08:42?PM (MST)
>can someone tell me why i
>find90% my deer sheds on
>bald grassy/weedy hills, burns and
>ridgetops. why i never find
>sheds deep down in thick
>overgrown sagebrush flats where nothing
>but sage and only sage
>grows? can someone tell me
>why we dont have 10,000,000
>(10 million for you tards)deer
>in utah with the amount
>of sagebrush we have? can
>someone please tell me why
>there single file trails through
>sage brush for 2 miles
>that lead straight to a
>hayfield, bald hill or burn?,
>can someone telll me why
>people think deer prefer to
>eat sagebrush when given a
>choice?
>We have so much freakin sprawling
>sagebrush habitat here yet our
>winter range is struggling hmmm
>deer must love and do
>well on sage huh!
We have a winner ! Even if I'm not sure he meant to be. Mule deer do prefer many plants over sagebrush, but there isn't any (or much) on this range, primarily because of the cheatgrass, but also because of the P/J invasion and the age of the sagebrush. (And the freeway, and the human encroachment, and the weather, and ?, and ?)
The cheatgrass is called that for a reason, several actually. It's life cycle is opposite (cheat #1) of native grasses. It generally germinates in the late fall through the winter and is usually done by mid-summer. Meanwhile, it sucks up the ground moisture (cheat #2) that the forbs, native grasses and brush need to germinate, to send out leaders and runners and to thrive. It also mats up and smothers (cheat #3) some of the new shoots from other plants and the matting also prevents many seeds from reaching the ground (cheat #4) in the fall. It also burns hotter (cheat #5) and more often (cheat #6) when it catches on fire. And it's pretty useless as forage (cheat #7).
Deer do like to eat the tender nutritious leaders produced by sagebrush and other brush, but there is very little other brush (bitterbrush, oakbrush, buckbrush, etc.) and the Wyoming sagebrush that is so prevelent is old and doesn't produce many leaders, so the deer eat the old leaves, woody twigs and bark which doesn't have much protein or nutritional value and to get the stuff they need, they have to eat a more than they would otherwise which only increases the problem.
The P/J invasion isn't a real big problem down in the valley, but the adjacent hillsides are pretty thick, so I'm not sure how much a lop and scatter, chaining, burning or bullhogging would accomplish. And they do need some cover with the cold winds that blow there.
And much, if not most, of the fields are high fenced, so there aren't many 2 mile trails to haystacks.
This is ugly winter range and is getting uglier every year, but the deer just keep coming and at some point this small population will crash for one reason or another. UNLESS! (But that's what were talking about, aren't we?)
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-12 AT 09:22PM (MST)[p]+1 elkfromabove
He took notes on the tour and knows his sage being a very accomplished speed goat hunter. Anyway, despite it being ugly winter range, before those wanting to discredit the call to manage this particular herd of mule deer come out of the woodwork, they need to take the range tour and understand that nobody would advocate taking from the herd a single animal unless it was a benefit to the animals themselves. So, if we must do this as a responsible management practice, why not make the best of it and make it a youth hunt?
And after some study tonight on sagebrush, the "green" you see growing out of the sage is the sage itself. So again, the deer and mother nature are the tick tock we here are now listening to loud and clear and we can work faster than mother nature to correct this but she will work must faster to create havoc. Thanks again elkfromabove for your explanations!
He took notes on the tour and knows his sage being a very accomplished speed goat hunter. Anyway, despite it being ugly winter range, before those wanting to discredit the call to manage this particular herd of mule deer come out of the woodwork, they need to take the range tour and understand that nobody would advocate taking from the herd a single animal unless it was a benefit to the animals themselves. So, if we must do this as a responsible management practice, why not make the best of it and make it a youth hunt?
And after some study tonight on sagebrush, the "green" you see growing out of the sage is the sage itself. So again, the deer and mother nature are the tick tock we here are now listening to loud and clear and we can work faster than mother nature to correct this but she will work must faster to create havoc. Thanks again elkfromabove for your explanations!
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
first off the slang for a utahn is a utard. I dont call mentally hanicap people retards so back off.
second the green growing in sage is not the sage its the grasses and weeds. 3 if deer eat the pj than why is the range so bad? pj andd sage are last resorts. 4 cattle men do not like cheatgrass but it is still better than pj and sage. cheatgrass at least produces some feed albeit for a short time its still better than pj and sage for a cattlemen. tell me why a burn on rugged pj wouldnt do much good? I can take you to areas that used to be pure pj (rugged as H)and not one blade of grass. couldnt keep a cow up there let alone a deer or elk. now its a lush wildlife mecca. deer elk cows , spirings are running better and ponds are actually getting water in them from runoff.
imo blm biologists are about as dumb as they come at least the ones we deal with. the range con we have is a complete idiot. one example of his knowledge, cows will not go on a steep rocky hillside to eat, well i have pictures of oodles of cows on both the hills he told us cows would not go on at all. ( maybe these blm biologists are a bit smarter than ours idk.... but they dont allow any habitat restoration in our neck of the woods. Im sure there are some decent ones but alot are idiots so i take what most say with a grain of salt.
Im not by any means saying the area your refering to is not being degraded, havent been over there in a couple years.im arguing the point you said one match and the whole area is gone. maybe thats what needs to be done! burn some of it. didnt say get rid of all pj etc just make some habitat....
second the green growing in sage is not the sage its the grasses and weeds. 3 if deer eat the pj than why is the range so bad? pj andd sage are last resorts. 4 cattle men do not like cheatgrass but it is still better than pj and sage. cheatgrass at least produces some feed albeit for a short time its still better than pj and sage for a cattlemen. tell me why a burn on rugged pj wouldnt do much good? I can take you to areas that used to be pure pj (rugged as H)and not one blade of grass. couldnt keep a cow up there let alone a deer or elk. now its a lush wildlife mecca. deer elk cows , spirings are running better and ponds are actually getting water in them from runoff.
imo blm biologists are about as dumb as they come at least the ones we deal with. the range con we have is a complete idiot. one example of his knowledge, cows will not go on a steep rocky hillside to eat, well i have pictures of oodles of cows on both the hills he told us cows would not go on at all. ( maybe these blm biologists are a bit smarter than ours idk.... but they dont allow any habitat restoration in our neck of the woods. Im sure there are some decent ones but alot are idiots so i take what most say with a grain of salt.
Im not by any means saying the area your refering to is not being degraded, havent been over there in a couple years.im arguing the point you said one match and the whole area is gone. maybe thats what needs to be done! burn some of it. didnt say get rid of all pj etc just make some habitat....
K
klbzdad
Guest
>first off the slang for a
>utahn is a utard. I
>dont call mentally hanicap people
>retards so back off.
>second the green growing in sage
>is not the sage its
>the grasses and weeds. 3
>if deer eat the pj
>than why is the range
>so bad? pj andd sage
>are last resorts. 4
>cattle men do not like
>cheatgrass but it is still
>better than pj and sage.
>cheatgrass at least produces some
>feed albeit for a short
>time its still better than
>pj and sage for a
>cattlemen. tell me why a
>burn on rugged pj wouldnt
>do much good? I can
>take you to areas that
>used to be pure pj
>(rugged as H)and not one
>blade of grass. couldnt keep
>a cow up there let
>alone a deer or elk.
>now its a lush wildlife
>mecca. deer elk cows ,
>spirings are running better and
>ponds are actually getting water
>in them from runoff.
>imo blm biologists are about as
>dumb as they come at
>least the ones we deal
>with. the range con we
>have is a complete idiot.
>one example of his knowledge,
>cows will not go on
>a steep rocky hillside to
>eat, well i have pictures
>of oodles of cows on
>both the hills he told
>us cows would not go
>on at all. ( maybe
>these blm biologists are a
>bit smarter than ours idk....
>but they dont allow any
>habitat restoration in our neck
>of the woods. Im sure
>there are some decent ones
>but alot are idiots so
>i take what most say
>with a grain of salt.
>
>
>Im not by any means saying
>the area your refering to
>is not being degraded, havent
>been over there in a
>couple years.im arguing the point
>you said one match and
>the whole area is gone.
>maybe thats what needs to
>be done! burn some of
>it. didnt say get rid
>of all pj etc just
>make some habitat....
I know the Utard thing...I'm really not that uptight:/
North of the primary winter range is where they used to migrate and that has been decimated two fold. Poor management by not keeping JP fingers to bring the deer and elk down and by the higher number of deer the unit used to hold. They have moved south as the habitat has diminished. South of where they are now, is a tiny 100 yard sliver between cliffs and high fenced private property (alfalfa and other farmed fields) that would funnel them down to better habitat. there are a few number of deer that do take that route, but their winter habits are still to spend the winter in the Cottonwood area along the front. There is no doubt that if the entire area burned, they would move to parts of that area, but a good majority would stay and starve or be put on a feeding program which is unsustainable for the sheer number of them that range there during the winter. Because of the fires in the JP stands above the lower range where they winter and just below the mid staging areas where the bucks spend their winters it is just like you say where cattle will not go and really you will see deer moving through in the early spring but that is it. There is nothing there, not even young growth sage or perennial OR cheatgrass. I don't know why. I do know its ugly and old with lots of fire fuel and I'm sure a good burn would be called for but just as elkfromabove stated, this is a rainshelter area with very little rain even if a storm passes right over and a small creek runs year round through a rock creek bed. There is no water in the higher old winter range and the close water source is anther element to why there is so much hove damage. They don't have to eat snow, there is year round water where there isn't north or south. You see, this is why a range tour is important for those not supportive of culling deer to go on. Its very complex, this winter range. It has nothing to do with selling tags, nothing to do with saving someone's job, nothing to do with a dumb biologist trying to look smarter, and nothing to do with anyone trying to open up more opportunity to hunt. This is about helping the deer fix 1. an issue we handed them through encroachment of the freeway and developement and 2. doing responsible habitat management by taking mouths out that are detrimental to the habitat they rely on to get through the winter. I believe you could show me some range in your neck of the woods and I could show you some on mine and we'd know almost every inch of it. I've not always been supportive of the BLM but the range specialists have reduced grazing permits to help....how many of them do that? Pretty rare, if you ask around.
Spot burning might be explored but that is a question that someone needs to ask after going on a ride with the bios both wildlife and habitat and it would be good to arrange with both BLM and DWR. I can't get Forrest Service to call me back just yet, but they will. They are open to real solutions but it has to come from people who are willing to see this unique and not so big chunk of ground. I still hold hope that moving them or even the pressure of the hunt with limited harvest will give relief to the range.
>utahn is a utard. I
>dont call mentally hanicap people
>retards so back off.
>second the green growing in sage
>is not the sage its
>the grasses and weeds. 3
>if deer eat the pj
>than why is the range
>so bad? pj andd sage
>are last resorts. 4
>cattle men do not like
>cheatgrass but it is still
>better than pj and sage.
>cheatgrass at least produces some
>feed albeit for a short
>time its still better than
>pj and sage for a
>cattlemen. tell me why a
>burn on rugged pj wouldnt
>do much good? I can
>take you to areas that
>used to be pure pj
>(rugged as H)and not one
>blade of grass. couldnt keep
>a cow up there let
>alone a deer or elk.
>now its a lush wildlife
>mecca. deer elk cows ,
>spirings are running better and
>ponds are actually getting water
>in them from runoff.
>imo blm biologists are about as
>dumb as they come at
>least the ones we deal
>with. the range con we
>have is a complete idiot.
>one example of his knowledge,
>cows will not go on
>a steep rocky hillside to
>eat, well i have pictures
>of oodles of cows on
>both the hills he told
>us cows would not go
>on at all. ( maybe
>these blm biologists are a
>bit smarter than ours idk....
>but they dont allow any
>habitat restoration in our neck
>of the woods. Im sure
>there are some decent ones
>but alot are idiots so
>i take what most say
>with a grain of salt.
>
>
>Im not by any means saying
>the area your refering to
>is not being degraded, havent
>been over there in a
>couple years.im arguing the point
>you said one match and
>the whole area is gone.
>maybe thats what needs to
>be done! burn some of
>it. didnt say get rid
>of all pj etc just
>make some habitat....
I know the Utard thing...I'm really not that uptight:/
North of the primary winter range is where they used to migrate and that has been decimated two fold. Poor management by not keeping JP fingers to bring the deer and elk down and by the higher number of deer the unit used to hold. They have moved south as the habitat has diminished. South of where they are now, is a tiny 100 yard sliver between cliffs and high fenced private property (alfalfa and other farmed fields) that would funnel them down to better habitat. there are a few number of deer that do take that route, but their winter habits are still to spend the winter in the Cottonwood area along the front. There is no doubt that if the entire area burned, they would move to parts of that area, but a good majority would stay and starve or be put on a feeding program which is unsustainable for the sheer number of them that range there during the winter. Because of the fires in the JP stands above the lower range where they winter and just below the mid staging areas where the bucks spend their winters it is just like you say where cattle will not go and really you will see deer moving through in the early spring but that is it. There is nothing there, not even young growth sage or perennial OR cheatgrass. I don't know why. I do know its ugly and old with lots of fire fuel and I'm sure a good burn would be called for but just as elkfromabove stated, this is a rainshelter area with very little rain even if a storm passes right over and a small creek runs year round through a rock creek bed. There is no water in the higher old winter range and the close water source is anther element to why there is so much hove damage. They don't have to eat snow, there is year round water where there isn't north or south. You see, this is why a range tour is important for those not supportive of culling deer to go on. Its very complex, this winter range. It has nothing to do with selling tags, nothing to do with saving someone's job, nothing to do with a dumb biologist trying to look smarter, and nothing to do with anyone trying to open up more opportunity to hunt. This is about helping the deer fix 1. an issue we handed them through encroachment of the freeway and developement and 2. doing responsible habitat management by taking mouths out that are detrimental to the habitat they rely on to get through the winter. I believe you could show me some range in your neck of the woods and I could show you some on mine and we'd know almost every inch of it. I've not always been supportive of the BLM but the range specialists have reduced grazing permits to help....how many of them do that? Pretty rare, if you ask around.
Spot burning might be explored but that is a question that someone needs to ask after going on a ride with the bios both wildlife and habitat and it would be good to arrange with both BLM and DWR. I can't get Forrest Service to call me back just yet, but they will. They are open to real solutions but it has to come from people who are willing to see this unique and not so big chunk of ground. I still hold hope that moving them or even the pressure of the hunt with limited harvest will give relief to the range.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
My, oh my! Such a fuss over .1% of Utah's deer living on .06% of Utah's deer habitat. I've already made my proposal to remove 300 does from this area to 4 of the RACS and to the Wildlife Board and to the DWR. And I plan on making it one more time at the Board meeting, but I didn't expect such rigid resistance to a simple solution to a simple problem. I'm sorry to see that.
It's late and I have to prep tomorrow for a colonoscopy Wednesday morning! Whoopee! I'm outa here! Carry on, folks.
It's late and I have to prep tomorrow for a colonoscopy Wednesday morning! Whoopee! I'm outa here! Carry on, folks.
U
UtahArcher77
Guest
I don't want to offend klbzdad, but I am fairly confident that his mentally challenged son would have a much easier time understanding/comprehending this than many of those posting negative comments. Can you read and retain more than a few words at a time? Klbzdad and EFA have laid it out so clearly, my 6 year old would understand it. I don't post here often because of the same reasons others don't, but after reading through this thread, I had to say something. It was as if those who are critical of this plan weren't even reading the carefully written and thought out posts by klbzdad and EFA. I will try and make it easier.
Kill a few does to save the whole herd.
"why not transfer" - many of the does cannot reproduce and are just another mouth to feed and the cost of transfer is a waste.
"why not burn" - it is small area, does not get much rain, cheatgrass will over run it, deer do eat parts of JP, JP is not in flats where sage is.
"sage is everywhere" - but not beneficial/browsable sage, especially in this area.
"DWR dumb" - based on the response of some of you, you making this claim holds no water.
The proposed 150 tags is not much more than 1% of the DOE population on this unit. For those with the theory they are killing the does to boost the B/D ratio, they might get a .05% boost. For those of you who struggle with numbers, that ain't much. From the sound of it, they aren't giving enough tags just to appease you nay Sayers. So if this unit crashes because they didn't kill enough does, you all will come back and say it is because the DWR killed those 150 does.
Kill a few does to save the whole herd.
"why not transfer" - many of the does cannot reproduce and are just another mouth to feed and the cost of transfer is a waste.
"why not burn" - it is small area, does not get much rain, cheatgrass will over run it, deer do eat parts of JP, JP is not in flats where sage is.
"sage is everywhere" - but not beneficial/browsable sage, especially in this area.
"DWR dumb" - based on the response of some of you, you making this claim holds no water.
The proposed 150 tags is not much more than 1% of the DOE population on this unit. For those with the theory they are killing the does to boost the B/D ratio, they might get a .05% boost. For those of you who struggle with numbers, that ain't much. From the sound of it, they aren't giving enough tags just to appease you nay Sayers. So if this unit crashes because they didn't kill enough does, you all will come back and say it is because the DWR killed those 150 does.
S
soutahhunter
Guest
Those on here that say there is no feed in the winter are full of bull. I will take you to many spots on the beaver where the deer can winter that are full of bitter brush. This winter the deer were in those areas all winter because the snow did not drive them any lower. Not enough deer to even start to eat off what is in these areas. I am tired of hearing that there is no feed.
The problem is there is no deer to eat the feed, so lets fix that problem. Shooting 150 deer off the Panguitch Lake does not make any sense at all. Bottom line is when you don't have enough of something you cannot continue to kill at the rate you have always killed. Something has to give and all Anis is doing is trying to keep the hunter who wants a camping trip happy. Put all those hunters in one unit, he even said it wont kill off the deer herd so what will it hurt. Let the other hunters who care about their units try some things to help, less tags of course, shut down units that need it, we are willing to do that why is Anis not willing?
The problem is there is no deer to eat the feed, so lets fix that problem. Shooting 150 deer off the Panguitch Lake does not make any sense at all. Bottom line is when you don't have enough of something you cannot continue to kill at the rate you have always killed. Something has to give and all Anis is doing is trying to keep the hunter who wants a camping trip happy. Put all those hunters in one unit, he even said it wont kill off the deer herd so what will it hurt. Let the other hunters who care about their units try some things to help, less tags of course, shut down units that need it, we are willing to do that why is Anis not willing?
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
ok so your saying by having a hunt on this overpopulated area you think there is a chance even one of those tags go unfilled? this is shooting fish in abarrel imo.
Ok so if your plan is to scare the deer outta the area and into another with use of hunting doe, why not use helicopters, flares, and other deterrents to keep them from coming into the area.
1% of the panguitch population. first off i guarantee not all killed with be dry old does. now some math!150 does lets give them 5 breeding seasons with 1.5 fawn crop each year for 5 years.
year 1 225 less fawns. now just going off the original 150 does killed for 5 seasons 225x5= 1125 fawns lost throughout a five year period! thats just the production lost from the original does not the fawns that become does during that span and still reproduce more besides that just the original does!
now for the 400 recommended 600x5 = 3000 fawns from just the original 400 killed.
ok so problem A :the deer are overrunning a tiny portion of a big unit. your answer kill a sizeable amount of the does in the area to encourage them to move on= dead does and nothing more.
another option: how about just using deterrents to pressure them outta the area, rehab the range with fires and reseeding.= Using money from the conservation permits that is supposed to be used for things like this + saving does. there are plenty of dedicated hunter hours that can be used for rehab! thats what the ded hunter is for also!
Ok so if your plan is to scare the deer outta the area and into another with use of hunting doe, why not use helicopters, flares, and other deterrents to keep them from coming into the area.
1% of the panguitch population. first off i guarantee not all killed with be dry old does. now some math!150 does lets give them 5 breeding seasons with 1.5 fawn crop each year for 5 years.
year 1 225 less fawns. now just going off the original 150 does killed for 5 seasons 225x5= 1125 fawns lost throughout a five year period! thats just the production lost from the original does not the fawns that become does during that span and still reproduce more besides that just the original does!
now for the 400 recommended 600x5 = 3000 fawns from just the original 400 killed.
ok so problem A :the deer are overrunning a tiny portion of a big unit. your answer kill a sizeable amount of the does in the area to encourage them to move on= dead does and nothing more.
another option: how about just using deterrents to pressure them outta the area, rehab the range with fires and reseeding.= Using money from the conservation permits that is supposed to be used for things like this + saving does. there are plenty of dedicated hunter hours that can be used for rehab! thats what the ded hunter is for also!
S
soutahhunter
Guest
I wonder if those dumb mule deer would stay their if the winter groung was just rock and dirt? Come on these deer will migrate where there is feed. This hunt is not about to many deer in an area, we have not had to many deer in an area for years unless you ask Anis.
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-12 AT 09:15PM (MST)[p]>I wonder if those dumb mule
>deer would stay their if
>the winter groung was just
>rock and dirt? Come
>on these deer will migrate
>where there is feed.
>This hunt is not about
>to many deer in an
>area, we have not had
>to many deer in an
>area for years unless you
>ask Anis.
You're obsession with Anis is obsurd. He's clearly more educated that any ten of us on this site with the exception of a few other BIOLOGISTS. Uhmmmm, as I said before, you can take me to hell and high water. I'm not the problem, the deer are and there is a social structure at work there that also prevents them from being successfully trans-relocated so they don't just show up and say, "damn, there was a fire, lets all go to Denny's". I'm going to agree with you so tighten your depends...THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH WINTER FEED IN UTAH....IN FACT, THERE IS PLENTY! The issue that many can't seem to put into their pea sized brain is that its not a UTAH HERD! There are serveral herds within Utah. And serveral herds within each unit. They've been managed this way since 1997 cooperatively with the other land agencies assisting with habitat issues when needed.
I'm sure you could grow a great herd of pet mule deer there on your favorite spot on the Beaver Unit but this isn't the Beaver Unit we're talking about. This is Unit 28 and its the deer that winter on the the Parawan Front. Some of which just may include a doe or two from the other side of SR20! Holy crap! Your damn doe is killing my damn doe's habitat! Give me a break!
Look, it makes perfect sense to take up to 500 does off this unit during a specific time that they might be in this specific area. It just that people will cry that we're "KILLIN' THE HERD!" and its not THE herd, its the wintering herd along the Parawan Front on Unit #28 for hell's sake! And even though it is a low percentage of the overall population, it will be enough of this wintering population to allow the habitat, which there isn't much of, time to adjust while allowing new habits to form due to hunting pressure and responsible management of the DEER, that are doing the DAMAGE to their own HABITAT.
SO, you'd rather SHUT DOWN #28? HUH? And a camping trip? WHAT? Take a range ride with Jason or Gary before spouting off with rhetoric about how stupid the DWR is. That argument is in and of itself tired and boring. I know this because if you disarm them by allowing them to actual talk to you like a biologist, suddenly you learn something and it will make sense. Go at them like you're 1,000 word vocabulary hillbilly that's smarter then they are and they'll give you one word answers as not to become a part of your evening meal.
UtahArcher77....well put, not offended at all. Sometimes I think he's smarter than the people on here. Hell, sometimes the mule deer are smarter than some of the folks who try to vilify people they don't like because they don't say what they want to hear. So thanks. Its a deer vs habitat issue. We can either intervien or let it happen. I chose to do something even if it is unpopular.....and no, I don't expect to get a tag, I'd like the youth to get them.
>deer would stay their if
>the winter groung was just
>rock and dirt? Come
>on these deer will migrate
>where there is feed.
>This hunt is not about
>to many deer in an
>area, we have not had
>to many deer in an
>area for years unless you
>ask Anis.
You're obsession with Anis is obsurd. He's clearly more educated that any ten of us on this site with the exception of a few other BIOLOGISTS. Uhmmmm, as I said before, you can take me to hell and high water. I'm not the problem, the deer are and there is a social structure at work there that also prevents them from being successfully trans-relocated so they don't just show up and say, "damn, there was a fire, lets all go to Denny's". I'm going to agree with you so tighten your depends...THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH WINTER FEED IN UTAH....IN FACT, THERE IS PLENTY! The issue that many can't seem to put into their pea sized brain is that its not a UTAH HERD! There are serveral herds within Utah. And serveral herds within each unit. They've been managed this way since 1997 cooperatively with the other land agencies assisting with habitat issues when needed.
I'm sure you could grow a great herd of pet mule deer there on your favorite spot on the Beaver Unit but this isn't the Beaver Unit we're talking about. This is Unit 28 and its the deer that winter on the the Parawan Front. Some of which just may include a doe or two from the other side of SR20! Holy crap! Your damn doe is killing my damn doe's habitat! Give me a break!
Look, it makes perfect sense to take up to 500 does off this unit during a specific time that they might be in this specific area. It just that people will cry that we're "KILLIN' THE HERD!" and its not THE herd, its the wintering herd along the Parawan Front on Unit #28 for hell's sake! And even though it is a low percentage of the overall population, it will be enough of this wintering population to allow the habitat, which there isn't much of, time to adjust while allowing new habits to form due to hunting pressure and responsible management of the DEER, that are doing the DAMAGE to their own HABITAT.
SO, you'd rather SHUT DOWN #28? HUH? And a camping trip? WHAT? Take a range ride with Jason or Gary before spouting off with rhetoric about how stupid the DWR is. That argument is in and of itself tired and boring. I know this because if you disarm them by allowing them to actual talk to you like a biologist, suddenly you learn something and it will make sense. Go at them like you're 1,000 word vocabulary hillbilly that's smarter then they are and they'll give you one word answers as not to become a part of your evening meal.
UtahArcher77....well put, not offended at all. Sometimes I think he's smarter than the people on here. Hell, sometimes the mule deer are smarter than some of the folks who try to vilify people they don't like because they don't say what they want to hear. So thanks. Its a deer vs habitat issue. We can either intervien or let it happen. I chose to do something even if it is unpopular.....and no, I don't expect to get a tag, I'd like the youth to get them.
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-12 AT 09:37PM (MST)[p]>ok so your saying by having
>a hunt on this overpopulated
>area you think there is
>a chance even one of
>those tags go unfilled? this
>is shooting fish in
>abarrel imo.
>Ok so if your plan is
>to scare the deer outta
>the area and into another
>with use of hunting doe,
>why not use helicopters, flares,
>and other deterrents to keep
>them from coming into the
>area.
>
>1% of the panguitch population. first
>off i guarantee not all
>killed with be dry old
>does. now some math!150 does
>lets give them 5 breeding
>seasons with 1.5 fawn crop
>each year for 5 years.
>
>year 1 225 less fawns. now
>just going off the original
>150 does killed for
>5 seasons 225x5= 1125 fawns
>lost throughout a five year
>period! thats just the production
>lost from the original does
>not the fawns that become
>does during that span and
>still reproduce more besides that
>just the original does!
>now for the 400 recommended
>600x5 = 3000 fawns from
>just the original 400 killed.
>
>
>ok so problem A :the deer
>are overrunning a tiny portion
>of a big unit. your
>answer kill a sizeable amount
>of the does in the
>area to encourage them to
>move on= dead does and
>nothing more.
>
>another option: how about just using
>deterrents to pressure them outta
>the area, rehab the range
>with fires and reseeding.= Using
>money from the conservation permits
>that is supposed to be
>used for things like this
>+ saving does. there are
>plenty of dedicated hunter hours
>that can be used for
>rehab! thats what the ded
>hunter is for also!
It just occured to me....everyone is so pissed off that we're killing does. Let me do this first. Your math is very good. In a perfect world good. Predation, road kill, winter kill, etc...assuming perfect fawn retention each year and assuming each of those does killed survived every year of those five years you'd be correct....IN a perfect world. But lets run with your numbers. At that growth rate, in a perfect world, those animals continue to come back to this particular piece of ground at about 1100 per year to be conservative without culling any of them. that's another 5500 mouths on this tiny stretch alone, in a perfect world and there is no way we would take Unit #28 that high (only counting this winter range herd) above capacity and then assuming, in a perfect world, those same does returned and then started reproducing themselves. Hmmmmm.....now we have a problem with capacity on this piece of property so thanks for pointing that out.
By your own admission, we would eventually over populate this winter range which is what is beginning to happen, thus the request for tags at an ultra conservative low number. The range needs relief, not maintanace. I would agree that we could do herd re-education and attempt to push them to newly reseeded areas over time but the key word is time. So, by your plan we could definately rehabilitate habitat north of there by reseeding and planting but the yeild will not come right away, these hunts would have to happen to keep the deer not only off the current range for a time, but also off the new range to allow for recruitment of new forage. Again, I'm just a messenger, take that ride with one of the bios and let them explain without being critical of them. They are NOT Anis if that is your issue and they will bring the BLM guys with them to explain their efforts too. Then, bounce suggestions off of them and collectively maybe something will pop out that will work, but calling the deer stupid, and suggesting the obvious that there is plenty to eat, and then saying that the tags don't make sense when in fact, they do...that isn't productive guys and gals. Solutions require planning and action. I'll even go on the range ride with you so you can poke my eyes out if I'm full of it! I'll even buy lunch AND you can poky out my eyes if I'm full of it after the range ride! If there was a better solution, I would definately advocate that first! This is the unit I chose to spend my and my families time on. I'm invested greatly in its success so why would I do something stupid to hurt it. So many are passionate about the units they love, this is me being responsible, despite the pain, for the unit I love. Trust me, this isn't an easy solution to come by.
>a hunt on this overpopulated
>area you think there is
>a chance even one of
>those tags go unfilled? this
>is shooting fish in
>abarrel imo.
>Ok so if your plan is
>to scare the deer outta
>the area and into another
>with use of hunting doe,
>why not use helicopters, flares,
>and other deterrents to keep
>them from coming into the
>area.
>
>1% of the panguitch population. first
>off i guarantee not all
>killed with be dry old
>does. now some math!150 does
>lets give them 5 breeding
>seasons with 1.5 fawn crop
>each year for 5 years.
>
>year 1 225 less fawns. now
>just going off the original
>150 does killed for
>5 seasons 225x5= 1125 fawns
>lost throughout a five year
>period! thats just the production
>lost from the original does
>not the fawns that become
>does during that span and
>still reproduce more besides that
>just the original does!
>now for the 400 recommended
>600x5 = 3000 fawns from
>just the original 400 killed.
>
>
>ok so problem A :the deer
>are overrunning a tiny portion
>of a big unit. your
>answer kill a sizeable amount
>of the does in the
>area to encourage them to
>move on= dead does and
>nothing more.
>
>another option: how about just using
>deterrents to pressure them outta
>the area, rehab the range
>with fires and reseeding.= Using
>money from the conservation permits
>that is supposed to be
>used for things like this
>+ saving does. there are
>plenty of dedicated hunter hours
>that can be used for
>rehab! thats what the ded
>hunter is for also!
It just occured to me....everyone is so pissed off that we're killing does. Let me do this first. Your math is very good. In a perfect world good. Predation, road kill, winter kill, etc...assuming perfect fawn retention each year and assuming each of those does killed survived every year of those five years you'd be correct....IN a perfect world. But lets run with your numbers. At that growth rate, in a perfect world, those animals continue to come back to this particular piece of ground at about 1100 per year to be conservative without culling any of them. that's another 5500 mouths on this tiny stretch alone, in a perfect world and there is no way we would take Unit #28 that high (only counting this winter range herd) above capacity and then assuming, in a perfect world, those same does returned and then started reproducing themselves. Hmmmmm.....now we have a problem with capacity on this piece of property so thanks for pointing that out.
By your own admission, we would eventually over populate this winter range which is what is beginning to happen, thus the request for tags at an ultra conservative low number. The range needs relief, not maintanace. I would agree that we could do herd re-education and attempt to push them to newly reseeded areas over time but the key word is time. So, by your plan we could definately rehabilitate habitat north of there by reseeding and planting but the yeild will not come right away, these hunts would have to happen to keep the deer not only off the current range for a time, but also off the new range to allow for recruitment of new forage. Again, I'm just a messenger, take that ride with one of the bios and let them explain without being critical of them. They are NOT Anis if that is your issue and they will bring the BLM guys with them to explain their efforts too. Then, bounce suggestions off of them and collectively maybe something will pop out that will work, but calling the deer stupid, and suggesting the obvious that there is plenty to eat, and then saying that the tags don't make sense when in fact, they do...that isn't productive guys and gals. Solutions require planning and action. I'll even go on the range ride with you so you can poke my eyes out if I'm full of it! I'll even buy lunch AND you can poky out my eyes if I'm full of it after the range ride! If there was a better solution, I would definately advocate that first! This is the unit I chose to spend my and my families time on. I'm invested greatly in its success so why would I do something stupid to hurt it. So many are passionate about the units they love, this is me being responsible, despite the pain, for the unit I love. Trust me, this isn't an easy solution to come by.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
ok serious klbzdad you just lost all credibility with me by saying anis is smarter than 10 of us wow! now that guy is a complete idiot he contridicts everything he says. i think anis is dwrs weak link.
now watch what your saying about hillbillies geez thats as bad as the utard thing. talk about hypocrite.
im not saying that area is not struggling but lets explore an alternative to setting the panguitch deer herd back ten years
now watch what your saying about hillbillies geez thats as bad as the utard thing. talk about hypocrite.
im not saying that area is not struggling but lets explore an alternative to setting the panguitch deer herd back ten years
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
not every fawn is going to necessarily go back the exact winter ground. also i know the whole mortality idea of wiinter loss pred, etc, thats why i said 5 breeding seasons and 1.5 fawns per doe.
im not saying the area is not degraded im not doubting you on that at all in fact i believe you because i think all our winter range is degraded due to fire suppression mainly as well as the nasty drought we had in the early 2000's most is starting to recover from the drought now. Im saying there has to be an alternative to slaughtering deer. plain and simple. has to be an a way to improve there habitat as well. planting 4 wing saltbush, perenials, bitter brush etc on burned areas would help. i realize bitter and salt brush need a couple years to mature but seeing how the deer wont go there because they are trained to go to the cottonwood area i think they wouldnt find it anyway right?
im not saying the area is not degraded im not doubting you on that at all in fact i believe you because i think all our winter range is degraded due to fire suppression mainly as well as the nasty drought we had in the early 2000's most is starting to recover from the drought now. Im saying there has to be an alternative to slaughtering deer. plain and simple. has to be an a way to improve there habitat as well. planting 4 wing saltbush, perenials, bitter brush etc on burned areas would help. i realize bitter and salt brush need a couple years to mature but seeing how the deer wont go there because they are trained to go to the cottonwood area i think they wouldnt find it anyway right?
K
klbzdad
Guest
>ok serious klbzdad you just lost
>all credibility with me by
>saying anis is smarter than
>10 of us wow! now
>that guy is a complete
>idiot he contridicts everything he
>says. i think anis is
>dwrs weak link.
>now watch what your saying about
>hillbillies geez thats as bad
>as the utard thing. talk
>about hypocrite.
>
>im not saying that area is
>not struggling but lets explore
>an alternative to setting the
>panguitch deer herd back ten
>years
This is a ten year plan.....It includes reducing the tags as recruitment of new growth happens and as other habitat rehabilitation takes place in the area. Also, SFW has begun to research trans-relocation to see if there is a way to make it viable with these animals. The numbers will start out slow, but if successful with new methods, you bet I'm more in favor of them taking and moving them. Right now its only a 3-5% success rate. Some would say, that's better thank killing them, but the strees they experience and the waste of a resource. Its better to recruite young hunters into the fold and humanely take them out of the herd as SFW works to find ways of making relocation work. If it doesn't we wait for the habitat to work.
The overall unit is good even though there could be more deer. As I've said, there are plentiful stands of winter forage on the other side by the Knolls and by Sage Hen Hollow but there are also small winter herds already in place there. The effects of introducing new herds there suddenly not only hurts new deer but the existing deer. Education takes time. I've gone through the research fro USU and UofU along with that from The Mule Deer Working group and some of the really old studies on relocation of mule deer. Its tricky but where some have worked it was location specific....same altitude, climate, habitate, forage, predator levels, harassment levels, etc....nothing for them to really adapt to. That word, harassment is key during the winter for mule deer. Even during the turkey hunt, I went in hardly slowing down as not to bother them. The last attempt to relocate mule deer they had less that 10% of their capacity, in other words, they were dead deer walking. Any energy they had left, they needed to get to spring, summer, and fall range especially if they were pregnant.
Anyway, you're right. Options need to be explored but immediate need outwieghts emotion. We need to take these deer starting next winter. I would like to see higher numbers but I'm okay with the recommendations of the divison because I understand they have a daunting take of trying to please everyone while still being kicked in the butt no matter what they do. I champion for them because I am in the field alot on my own and I see them there alot. Have a great evening....Again, a great book, google Dennis Austin. I'm not tring to hauk his book but its something about hunters and landowners guide to something.....I used to loan my copy out but it would disappear and I reference it all the time. Get it, its a good source of info even in the field. Also, the mule deer working group has info on forage and habitat. great info there.
>all credibility with me by
>saying anis is smarter than
>10 of us wow! now
>that guy is a complete
>idiot he contridicts everything he
>says. i think anis is
>dwrs weak link.
>now watch what your saying about
>hillbillies geez thats as bad
>as the utard thing. talk
>about hypocrite.
>
>im not saying that area is
>not struggling but lets explore
>an alternative to setting the
>panguitch deer herd back ten
>years
This is a ten year plan.....It includes reducing the tags as recruitment of new growth happens and as other habitat rehabilitation takes place in the area. Also, SFW has begun to research trans-relocation to see if there is a way to make it viable with these animals. The numbers will start out slow, but if successful with new methods, you bet I'm more in favor of them taking and moving them. Right now its only a 3-5% success rate. Some would say, that's better thank killing them, but the strees they experience and the waste of a resource. Its better to recruite young hunters into the fold and humanely take them out of the herd as SFW works to find ways of making relocation work. If it doesn't we wait for the habitat to work.
The overall unit is good even though there could be more deer. As I've said, there are plentiful stands of winter forage on the other side by the Knolls and by Sage Hen Hollow but there are also small winter herds already in place there. The effects of introducing new herds there suddenly not only hurts new deer but the existing deer. Education takes time. I've gone through the research fro USU and UofU along with that from The Mule Deer Working group and some of the really old studies on relocation of mule deer. Its tricky but where some have worked it was location specific....same altitude, climate, habitate, forage, predator levels, harassment levels, etc....nothing for them to really adapt to. That word, harassment is key during the winter for mule deer. Even during the turkey hunt, I went in hardly slowing down as not to bother them. The last attempt to relocate mule deer they had less that 10% of their capacity, in other words, they were dead deer walking. Any energy they had left, they needed to get to spring, summer, and fall range especially if they were pregnant.
Anyway, you're right. Options need to be explored but immediate need outwieghts emotion. We need to take these deer starting next winter. I would like to see higher numbers but I'm okay with the recommendations of the divison because I understand they have a daunting take of trying to please everyone while still being kicked in the butt no matter what they do. I champion for them because I am in the field alot on my own and I see them there alot. Have a great evening....Again, a great book, google Dennis Austin. I'm not tring to hauk his book but its something about hunters and landowners guide to something.....I used to loan my copy out but it would disappear and I reference it all the time. Get it, its a good source of info even in the field. Also, the mule deer working group has info on forage and habitat. great info there.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-12 AT 09:55PM (MST)[p]your right if it is degraded so badly deer need to be moved out dead or alive i understand that. but if your saying hunting pressure will move them out why not do a mock hunt and shoot flares, or something to scare some outta there. i think we all kno w as hunters once pressure begins in an area the deer move out into a less pressured canyon.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>not every fawn is going to
>necessarily go back the exact
>winter ground. also i know
>the whole mortality idea of
>wiinter loss pred, etc, thats
>why i said 5 breeding
>seasons and 1.5 fawns per
>doe.
>
>im not saying the area is
>not degraded im not doubting
>you on that at all
>in fact i believe you
>because i think all our
>winter range is degraded due
>to fire suppression mainly as
>well as the nasty drought
>we had in the early
>2000's most is starting to
>recover from the drought now.
>Im saying there has to
>be an alternative to slaughtering
>deer. plain and simple. has
>to be an a way
>to improve there habitat as
>well. planting 4 wing saltbush,
>perenials, bitter brush etc
>on burned areas would help.
>i realize bitter and salt
>brush need a couple years
>to mature but seeing how
>the deer wont go there
>because they are trained to
>go to the cottonwood area
> i think they wouldnt
>find it anyway right?
I promised I would shut up and get of the puter...yes, those are the kinds of plantings we talked about. especially the perennial grasses. They actually do well and there is a particular kind that the BLM guys suggested outcompetes the cheatgrass quite well. The issue, hove damage and over browsing of the existing range. These animals eat it up and ARE moving south. which is NOT what we want them to do, if they do move south, it will completely ruin that small cooridor they pass through and that will be like colesterol in an artery. No, it will cause a heart attack because the deer will not have any idea how to get back to the migration route because if they habituate the that tiny 100 yard wide path, they will ruin it in only a couple of years and eventually there will be nothing to lure them back to the route at all. They will cut themselves off and that will be bad, and then they will be stuck on the old winter range again. bandaid with more ruined forage to clean up. we need to be smart.
I don't have time, but with a range ride, there are spots within the front where planting might take with a burn if there was a good churn of the ground and THEN a seeding and planting. its rocky though. I would be in favor of that but we'd almost have to fence it in to allow it to yeild....might be worth it though. Hell, it might worth it build two master winter ranges that are alternated every year with high fencing within the fences that are there....never thought of that.
>necessarily go back the exact
>winter ground. also i know
>the whole mortality idea of
>wiinter loss pred, etc, thats
>why i said 5 breeding
>seasons and 1.5 fawns per
>doe.
>
>im not saying the area is
>not degraded im not doubting
>you on that at all
>in fact i believe you
>because i think all our
>winter range is degraded due
>to fire suppression mainly as
>well as the nasty drought
>we had in the early
>2000's most is starting to
>recover from the drought now.
>Im saying there has to
>be an alternative to slaughtering
>deer. plain and simple. has
>to be an a way
>to improve there habitat as
>well. planting 4 wing saltbush,
>perenials, bitter brush etc
>on burned areas would help.
>i realize bitter and salt
>brush need a couple years
>to mature but seeing how
>the deer wont go there
>because they are trained to
>go to the cottonwood area
> i think they wouldnt
>find it anyway right?
I promised I would shut up and get of the puter...yes, those are the kinds of plantings we talked about. especially the perennial grasses. They actually do well and there is a particular kind that the BLM guys suggested outcompetes the cheatgrass quite well. The issue, hove damage and over browsing of the existing range. These animals eat it up and ARE moving south. which is NOT what we want them to do, if they do move south, it will completely ruin that small cooridor they pass through and that will be like colesterol in an artery. No, it will cause a heart attack because the deer will not have any idea how to get back to the migration route because if they habituate the that tiny 100 yard wide path, they will ruin it in only a couple of years and eventually there will be nothing to lure them back to the route at all. They will cut themselves off and that will be bad, and then they will be stuck on the old winter range again. bandaid with more ruined forage to clean up. we need to be smart.
I don't have time, but with a range ride, there are spots within the front where planting might take with a burn if there was a good churn of the ground and THEN a seeding and planting. its rocky though. I would be in favor of that but we'd almost have to fence it in to allow it to yeild....might be worth it though. Hell, it might worth it build two master winter ranges that are alternated every year with high fencing within the fences that are there....never thought of that.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-12 AT 10:23PM (MST)[p]ive seen rocky burns do very well in fact some things like bitterbrush do very well in rocky as well as several other perennials. although bitterbrush doesnt usually do very great on fresh burns. i dont think we need to fence off the burn the animals will just begin to find and utilize it. anyway we all have a diff opinion and id like to advert from killing deer if possible. i have not been to thje area lately but maybe ill take a ride out and looky
H
Hooner
Guest
I have been watching this post for a while and I have a few questions. I have spent plenty of time in the area that you guys are talking about. Now I did not take the tour but I did talk to a couple of people that did. Here are a few questions that I have for those that are wanting to move forward with the doe hunt.
80% of the deer on this unit winter on this part of the winter range? That is what the DWR believes. Now I really like Jason and I think that he works hard. However how do they have any clue where the deer winter on this unit. From my hunble studies the deer on this unit winter on many areas. By panquitch, on the beaver, hatch, drop off into zion and kanab. Also how did they figure 80% of the deer. Are we tracking them? I wish.
I have not seen any deer on this range starving to death. Do we think that these deer are starving?
If the deer are starving to death (I HIGHLY disagree). Why would SFW spend the money to relocate does. It would be money well spent to setup a feeding program similar to what is done in other states. I don't think that a feeding program is necessary but better than trying to relocate deer.
80% of the deer on this unit winter on this part of the winter range? That is what the DWR believes. Now I really like Jason and I think that he works hard. However how do they have any clue where the deer winter on this unit. From my hunble studies the deer on this unit winter on many areas. By panquitch, on the beaver, hatch, drop off into zion and kanab. Also how did they figure 80% of the deer. Are we tracking them? I wish.
I have not seen any deer on this range starving to death. Do we think that these deer are starving?
If the deer are starving to death (I HIGHLY disagree). Why would SFW spend the money to relocate does. It would be money well spent to setup a feeding program similar to what is done in other states. I don't think that a feeding program is necessary but better than trying to relocate deer.
U
UtahArcher77
Guest
In this case, a feeding program would be like a bandaid on an arterial bleed. It would do nothing but prolong the inevitable.
Theox, I understand the impact that killing does has on future fawn production, which is why taking does out of the herd makes that much more sense. At this point it is a matter of population control. If something isn't done, the whole herd could crash, then how many Deer, not just does, will we lose? How long will it then take to get numbers up? A lot longer than if we preempt it by taking a few out now.
As klbzdad pointed out, only about 5% of deer that are transplanted survive. So a little math, at $1000 bucks a head, you are paying a little over $21000 per surviving deer. I think that money would be better served building up the habitat so deer numbers rebound more quickly and can be sustained.
Gator, you propose shutting down a unit? Why, so it can follow what has happened with the Books, Henries, and Vernon and upon reopening be a LE unit with very limited tags. Hell, let's just shut the whole State down and reopen it in a few years with 3000 tags (that is with a generous 100 tags per unit). My 6 year old might get one tag in her lifetime. Anyone who advocates shutting down a unit has to be nuts, oblivious to history, or has a lot of cash to buy one of the SFW conservation permits that would follow...
Theox, I understand the impact that killing does has on future fawn production, which is why taking does out of the herd makes that much more sense. At this point it is a matter of population control. If something isn't done, the whole herd could crash, then how many Deer, not just does, will we lose? How long will it then take to get numbers up? A lot longer than if we preempt it by taking a few out now.
As klbzdad pointed out, only about 5% of deer that are transplanted survive. So a little math, at $1000 bucks a head, you are paying a little over $21000 per surviving deer. I think that money would be better served building up the habitat so deer numbers rebound more quickly and can be sustained.
Gator, you propose shutting down a unit? Why, so it can follow what has happened with the Books, Henries, and Vernon and upon reopening be a LE unit with very limited tags. Hell, let's just shut the whole State down and reopen it in a few years with 3000 tags (that is with a generous 100 tags per unit). My 6 year old might get one tag in her lifetime. Anyone who advocates shutting down a unit has to be nuts, oblivious to history, or has a lot of cash to buy one of the SFW conservation permits that would follow...
K
klbzdad
Guest
I don't like answering within someone's post but I'm gonna try with my limited time this morning....
>I have been watching this post
>for a while and I
>have a few questions. I
>have spent plenty of time
>in the area that you
>guys are talking about. Now
>I did not take the
>tour but I did talk
>to a couple of people
>that did. Here are a
>few questions that I have
>for those that are wanting
>to move forward with the
>doe hunt.
>
>80% of the deer on this
>unit winter on this part
>of the winter range? That
>is what the DWR believes.
>Now I really like Jason
>and I think that he
>works hard. However how do
>they have any clue where
>the deer winter on this
>unit. From my hunble studies
>the deer on this unit
>winter on many areas. By
>panquitch, on the beaver, hatch,
>drop off into zion and
>kanab. Also how did they
>figure 80% of the deer.
>Are we tracking them? I
>wish.
That is a question for Jason to answer. And to a degree you are correct because there are six or seven trophy bucks that I catch on different cameras that come from three different winter ranges every year. Two come from the Knolls/Lower Mammoth Creek wither range area, One of the biggest comes Straight up from outside of Glendale, two others cross over 14 and literally come up through deeper snow across Zion, I catch them on Websters and then again they end up on my favorite hunting spots on the 28, the final One I have yet to determine and can only guess he comes up from this area because I don't monitor this winter ranging herd. He must be one of those unicorn ones that just show up. However, Those are bucks and generally the buck population is clearly easier for you and I to track as sportsmen and even for DWR than the does. It would be great to snag them using a safe method during their healthy time on the summer and fall ranges and give them some pretty jewelry to help, wouldn't it? I'll bring that up today when I call him. Sportsmen could definitely help keep track of does if they were ear tagged with numbers or color codes and I don't know how that would hurt them.
>
>I have not seen any deer
>on this range starving to
>death. Do we think that
>these deer are starving?
Not yet. They look like crap but that could just be that they haven't been "motivated" to get out of there. Another thing I'll ask Jason about today. Besides some perennials trying to come up, if they weren't eating them right now, the could grow better and beat the cheatgrass and spread, there's nothing helping them this early spring unless they are trying to get some more reserves and working on their fawns rumen transition to green in order to begin the migration. I'm thinking of a last ditch turkey effort this evening.....and maybe not.....some more pictures if I do. Requests?
>
>If the deer are starving to
>death (I HIGHLY disagree). Why
>would SFW spend the money
>to relocate does. It would
>be money well spent to
>setup a feeding program similar
>to what is done in
>other states. I don't think
>that a feeding program is
>necessary but better than trying
>to relocate deer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Feeding them long term as the herd grows depends on the weather and harvest yield of the browse. This is true of not only the winter range but of the spring, summer, and fall areas they occupy as well. Remember, its not only Jason and Gary monitoring these deer, there are other guys and gals at work trying to gather data (SFW isn't the only bunch that likes data...I just don't want to do the math on the data...math sucks!). So, maybe something overlooked when they started this 30 unit management model was how to track them inexpensively in regard to winter range use only. Ear tags. I'm liking that more and more every second. That way, if someone sees a doe with two blue ear tags and lets DWR know. We know that that doe is going to such and such a winter range every winter. Back to feeding....its very pricey. And deer become very dependent on in every short term and its not the way to go except for in an emergency only. The only way SFW or any other group or DWR wants to feed would be in a true starving situation and not with an entire winter range. It would be too late to get a good number of folks out this year before the WB tag meeting. But I'm going to ask Jason and Gary to get a really good number of folks together and get ready to answer hard questions (no, "I hate Anis" call to arms) to brainstorm. I'd like to see MDF, I'm a member, show up this time, SFW I'm sure would show, RMEF (cardholder), and UWC (cardholder), maybe a pick-a-nic...I don't know. But to see this and then maybe get the forest service to show up and go see some of the fire sites about on a quad ride would be good and to discuss what can be done about the JP stands. I just think that many hands make light work and even though sometimes five brains only......make.......a......half....yeah, its still more than they were before. Would you or anyone else be interested in actually spending an afternoon on the front after the does and fawns hit the summer range looking at this issue, bringing quads and running up the canyon, bringing family to make a day of it, and discussing issues that would benefit this range. I think it would be a stepping stone in bringing folks and groups together to benefit other units as well. I'm certain UWC would coordinate the groups and get reps there but it would be nice to see people show up even if they don't belong to a group. I'm rambling...off to work.
>I have been watching this post
>for a while and I
>have a few questions. I
>have spent plenty of time
>in the area that you
>guys are talking about. Now
>I did not take the
>tour but I did talk
>to a couple of people
>that did. Here are a
>few questions that I have
>for those that are wanting
>to move forward with the
>doe hunt.
>
>80% of the deer on this
>unit winter on this part
>of the winter range? That
>is what the DWR believes.
>Now I really like Jason
>and I think that he
>works hard. However how do
>they have any clue where
>the deer winter on this
>unit. From my hunble studies
>the deer on this unit
>winter on many areas. By
>panquitch, on the beaver, hatch,
>drop off into zion and
>kanab. Also how did they
>figure 80% of the deer.
>Are we tracking them? I
>wish.
That is a question for Jason to answer. And to a degree you are correct because there are six or seven trophy bucks that I catch on different cameras that come from three different winter ranges every year. Two come from the Knolls/Lower Mammoth Creek wither range area, One of the biggest comes Straight up from outside of Glendale, two others cross over 14 and literally come up through deeper snow across Zion, I catch them on Websters and then again they end up on my favorite hunting spots on the 28, the final One I have yet to determine and can only guess he comes up from this area because I don't monitor this winter ranging herd. He must be one of those unicorn ones that just show up. However, Those are bucks and generally the buck population is clearly easier for you and I to track as sportsmen and even for DWR than the does. It would be great to snag them using a safe method during their healthy time on the summer and fall ranges and give them some pretty jewelry to help, wouldn't it? I'll bring that up today when I call him. Sportsmen could definitely help keep track of does if they were ear tagged with numbers or color codes and I don't know how that would hurt them.
>
>I have not seen any deer
>on this range starving to
>death. Do we think that
>these deer are starving?
Not yet. They look like crap but that could just be that they haven't been "motivated" to get out of there. Another thing I'll ask Jason about today. Besides some perennials trying to come up, if they weren't eating them right now, the could grow better and beat the cheatgrass and spread, there's nothing helping them this early spring unless they are trying to get some more reserves and working on their fawns rumen transition to green in order to begin the migration. I'm thinking of a last ditch turkey effort this evening.....and maybe not.....some more pictures if I do. Requests?
>
>If the deer are starving to
>death (I HIGHLY disagree). Why
>would SFW spend the money
>to relocate does. It would
>be money well spent to
>setup a feeding program similar
>to what is done in
>other states. I don't think
>that a feeding program is
>necessary but better than trying
>to relocate deer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Feeding them long term as the herd grows depends on the weather and harvest yield of the browse. This is true of not only the winter range but of the spring, summer, and fall areas they occupy as well. Remember, its not only Jason and Gary monitoring these deer, there are other guys and gals at work trying to gather data (SFW isn't the only bunch that likes data...I just don't want to do the math on the data...math sucks!). So, maybe something overlooked when they started this 30 unit management model was how to track them inexpensively in regard to winter range use only. Ear tags. I'm liking that more and more every second. That way, if someone sees a doe with two blue ear tags and lets DWR know. We know that that doe is going to such and such a winter range every winter. Back to feeding....its very pricey. And deer become very dependent on in every short term and its not the way to go except for in an emergency only. The only way SFW or any other group or DWR wants to feed would be in a true starving situation and not with an entire winter range. It would be too late to get a good number of folks out this year before the WB tag meeting. But I'm going to ask Jason and Gary to get a really good number of folks together and get ready to answer hard questions (no, "I hate Anis" call to arms) to brainstorm. I'd like to see MDF, I'm a member, show up this time, SFW I'm sure would show, RMEF (cardholder), and UWC (cardholder), maybe a pick-a-nic...I don't know. But to see this and then maybe get the forest service to show up and go see some of the fire sites about on a quad ride would be good and to discuss what can be done about the JP stands. I just think that many hands make light work and even though sometimes five brains only......make.......a......half....yeah, its still more than they were before. Would you or anyone else be interested in actually spending an afternoon on the front after the does and fawns hit the summer range looking at this issue, bringing quads and running up the canyon, bringing family to make a day of it, and discussing issues that would benefit this range. I think it would be a stepping stone in bringing folks and groups together to benefit other units as well. I'm certain UWC would coordinate the groups and get reps there but it would be nice to see people show up even if they don't belong to a group. I'm rambling...off to work.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-12
>AT 10:23?PM (MST)
>
>ive seen rocky burns do very
>well in fact some things
>like bitterbrush do very well
>in rocky as well as
>several other perennials. although bitterbrush
>doesnt usually do very great
>on fresh burns. i
>dont think we need to
>fence off the burn the
>animals will just begin to
>find and utilize it. anyway
>we all have a diff
>opinion and id like to
>advert from killing deer if
>possible. i have not been
>to thje area lately but
>maybe ill take a ride
>out and looky
+1
Let me know when. If our kids are with the others and I don't have commitments in St. George and can get my quad out there I'll make the trip with you.
>AT 10:23?PM (MST)
>
>ive seen rocky burns do very
>well in fact some things
>like bitterbrush do very well
>in rocky as well as
>several other perennials. although bitterbrush
>doesnt usually do very great
>on fresh burns. i
>dont think we need to
>fence off the burn the
>animals will just begin to
>find and utilize it. anyway
>we all have a diff
>opinion and id like to
>advert from killing deer if
>possible. i have not been
>to thje area lately but
>maybe ill take a ride
>out and looky
+1
Let me know when. If our kids are with the others and I don't have commitments in St. George and can get my quad out there I'll make the trip with you.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>In this case, a feeding program
>would be like a bandaid
>on an arterial bleed. It
>would do nothing but prolong
>the inevitable.
>
>Theox, I understand the impact that
>killing does has on future
>fawn production, which is why
>taking does out of the
>herd makes that much more
>sense. At this point it
>is a matter of population
>control. If something isn't done,
>the whole herd could crash,
>then how many Deer, not
>just does, will we lose?
>How long will it then
>take to get numbers up?
>A lot longer than if
>we preempt it by taking
>a few out now.
>
>As klbzdad pointed out, only about
>5% of deer that are
>transplanted survive. So a little
>math, at $1000 bucks a
>head, you are paying a
>little over $21000 per surviving
>deer. I think that money
>would be better served building
>up the habitat so deer
>numbers rebound more quickly and
>can be sustained.
>
>Gator, you propose shutting down a
>unit? Why, so it can
>follow what has happened with
>the Books, Henries, and Vernon
>and upon reopening be a
>LE unit with very limited
>tags. Hell, let's just shut
>the whole State down and
>reopen it in a few
>years with 3000 tags (that
>is with a generous 100
>tags per unit). My 6
>year old might get one
>tag in her lifetime. Anyone
>who advocates shutting down a
>unit has to be nuts,
>oblivious to history, or has
>a lot of cash to
>buy one of the SFW
>conservation permits that would follow...
>
Well put! Although I will give SFW credit for wanting to explore options outside of the box at their expense (I KNOW, but don't want this thread to turn into that argument). DWR has committed to issuing the COR if the plan is put together and submitted and the division doesn't spend a dime. Other groups have committed labor its up to SFW to fund it. Outside BIOs are not catching wind of the opportunity so there is momentum and I hope I've sent them in the right direction. If new methods are found for trans-relocation in Utah. Its a feel good for SFW, its a feel good for our state, and its a bonus for the deer. But it too is going to take time. Thanks again for a great summary. I to support Anis because I understand his job and the politics involved. He also is a hunter and doesn't make crap for a living so he's not getting a $295,000.00 tag to hunt mule deer every year, sorry. But he's also no the guys on THIS unit doing the work and asking for help. THOSE folks I'd like to see a little more support for while bringing the sportsmen groups closer to actually working together while maintaining their uniqueness. Its what make our country great! I was supposed to be leaving for work! Great...
>would be like a bandaid
>on an arterial bleed. It
>would do nothing but prolong
>the inevitable.
>
>Theox, I understand the impact that
>killing does has on future
>fawn production, which is why
>taking does out of the
>herd makes that much more
>sense. At this point it
>is a matter of population
>control. If something isn't done,
>the whole herd could crash,
>then how many Deer, not
>just does, will we lose?
>How long will it then
>take to get numbers up?
>A lot longer than if
>we preempt it by taking
>a few out now.
>
>As klbzdad pointed out, only about
>5% of deer that are
>transplanted survive. So a little
>math, at $1000 bucks a
>head, you are paying a
>little over $21000 per surviving
>deer. I think that money
>would be better served building
>up the habitat so deer
>numbers rebound more quickly and
>can be sustained.
>
>Gator, you propose shutting down a
>unit? Why, so it can
>follow what has happened with
>the Books, Henries, and Vernon
>and upon reopening be a
>LE unit with very limited
>tags. Hell, let's just shut
>the whole State down and
>reopen it in a few
>years with 3000 tags (that
>is with a generous 100
>tags per unit). My 6
>year old might get one
>tag in her lifetime. Anyone
>who advocates shutting down a
>unit has to be nuts,
>oblivious to history, or has
>a lot of cash to
>buy one of the SFW
>conservation permits that would follow...
>
Well put! Although I will give SFW credit for wanting to explore options outside of the box at their expense (I KNOW, but don't want this thread to turn into that argument). DWR has committed to issuing the COR if the plan is put together and submitted and the division doesn't spend a dime. Other groups have committed labor its up to SFW to fund it. Outside BIOs are not catching wind of the opportunity so there is momentum and I hope I've sent them in the right direction. If new methods are found for trans-relocation in Utah. Its a feel good for SFW, its a feel good for our state, and its a bonus for the deer. But it too is going to take time. Thanks again for a great summary. I to support Anis because I understand his job and the politics involved. He also is a hunter and doesn't make crap for a living so he's not getting a $295,000.00 tag to hunt mule deer every year, sorry. But he's also no the guys on THIS unit doing the work and asking for help. THOSE folks I'd like to see a little more support for while bringing the sportsmen groups closer to actually working together while maintaining their uniqueness. Its what make our country great! I was supposed to be leaving for work! Great...
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
As will I!
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
I like jason i think he is a great biologist. I dont doubt this area needs some help i just would rather try another solution before killing all these does off. try scare tactics to push them to another part of the range... etc if a hunt will pressure them out why wouldnt a mock hunt pressure them out
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-12 AT 11:16PM (MST)[p]>I like jason i think he
>is a great biologist. I
>dont doubt this area needs
>some help i just would
>rather try another solution before
>killing all these does off.
>try scare tactics to push
>them to another part of
>the range... etc if a
>hunt will pressure them out
>why wouldnt a mock hunt
>pressure them out
Maybe, but what do we do next year when they come back with their offspring? And the year after that?
We're just kicking the can down the road, except it's now a 5 gallon bucket, soon to be a 20 gallon barrel, then a 55 gallon drum, a 200 gallon vat, and finally a 1000 gallon tank before it breaks.
We're jumping all around the obvious biological solution simply because it's too hard for some of us to accept emotionally.
So much for the 7th Sister of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
>is a great biologist. I
>dont doubt this area needs
>some help i just would
>rather try another solution before
>killing all these does off.
>try scare tactics to push
>them to another part of
>the range... etc if a
>hunt will pressure them out
>why wouldnt a mock hunt
>pressure them out
Maybe, but what do we do next year when they come back with their offspring? And the year after that?
We're just kicking the can down the road, except it's now a 5 gallon bucket, soon to be a 20 gallon barrel, then a 55 gallon drum, a 200 gallon vat, and finally a 1000 gallon tank before it breaks.
We're jumping all around the obvious biological solution simply because it's too hard for some of us to accept emotionally.
So much for the 7th Sister of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
well if you chase them into better and different winter ground quite possibly some will return to that area. if it doesnt work then explore another option. its not ruling off emotion, its called trying everything before doing something stupid. ranchers e move their livestock to another pasture when the feed gets low maybe sportsmen should do the same?
R
rperkins
Guest
If all the work is donated, show me where it cost $1000 a deer to move them to another Unit. A where did you get this that only 5% make it ? Other ststes do it, why can't Utah ? What we need is a over haul in who manage our deer.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>If all the work is donated,
>show me where it cost
>$1000 a deer to move
>them to another Unit. A
>where did you get this
>that only 5% make it
>? Other ststes do it,
>why can't Utah ? What
>we need is a over
>haul in who manage our
>deer.
Costs a lot more than $1000.00 actually. But this is outlined in a different thread. Other states do it is a tired battle cry. This is Utah and the other states that have success with trans-relocation have site specific guarantees that limit the impact on the deer...ie. same altitude, same forage and habitat, same predator and harassment concentration, same topography, no need to migrate, same weather patterns, small and concentrated ranges that overlap (summer/winter/fall/spring), and no competing or existing mule deer herd to begin with. That's why the success rate is so crappy. And you have to take them when they are consolidated which is when they are at their worst condition in order to keep cost down. Here's the link to the other thread. I think I've posted it for you before. But here it is again:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=19372&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
>show me where it cost
>$1000 a deer to move
>them to another Unit. A
>where did you get this
>that only 5% make it
>? Other ststes do it,
>why can't Utah ? What
>we need is a over
>haul in who manage our
>deer.
Costs a lot more than $1000.00 actually. But this is outlined in a different thread. Other states do it is a tired battle cry. This is Utah and the other states that have success with trans-relocation have site specific guarantees that limit the impact on the deer...ie. same altitude, same forage and habitat, same predator and harassment concentration, same topography, no need to migrate, same weather patterns, small and concentrated ranges that overlap (summer/winter/fall/spring), and no competing or existing mule deer herd to begin with. That's why the success rate is so crappy. And you have to take them when they are consolidated which is when they are at their worst condition in order to keep cost down. Here's the link to the other thread. I think I've posted it for you before. But here it is again:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...z=show_thread&om=19372&forum=DCForumID5&omm=0
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
>ill bet the reason it doesnt
>work in utah is because
>the dwr does not relocate
>them next to water. ill
>bet they put them in
>a random area. maybe try
>to place them next to
>a water source and they
>will live. just a thought
>
Dang! Are we now to the point that we have to reach for straws to justify our position. If so, I've got a funner one. It must be aliens that have some kind of tracker beam and they need more stock for their universal zoological specimen business.
BTW, I'll take your bet. What's up for grabs? A week's salary? Dinner for two? Maybe an apology or concession?
>work in utah is because
>the dwr does not relocate
>them next to water. ill
>bet they put them in
>a random area. maybe try
>to place them next to
>a water source and they
>will live. just a thought
>
Dang! Are we now to the point that we have to reach for straws to justify our position. If so, I've got a funner one. It must be aliens that have some kind of tracker beam and they need more stock for their universal zoological specimen business.
BTW, I'll take your bet. What's up for grabs? A week's salary? Dinner for two? Maybe an apology or concession?
K
klbzdad
Guest
>ill bet the reason it doesnt
>work in utah is because
>the dwr does not relocate
>them next to water. ill
>bet they put them in
>a random area. maybe try
>to place them next to
>a water source and they
>will live. just a thought
>
DWR isn't the villain here. I did speak with Jason today. They will do another tour if they can get around 15 people to commit to showing up. The other issue is its getting green out there with cheatgrass and the changeover in other shrubs, trees, and what have you and the deer are on the move finally. Kind of hard to get the gist of the damage with everything looking like its growing just fine when really its not. But still there is alot that could be learned by a ride with these guys and they'll still do it. As far as water, guzzlers aren't a big deal. Trans-location is too complex to just show up, grab a bunch of mule deer and move them somewhere. Doesn't happen that way. Their digestive system is very sensitive and complex. Anyway, for those wishing to do a range visit, contact Jason at 435-865-6100 or you can ask for Gary as well and let either of them know you're interested in doing a range ride. At least they can get your name and number and put you down for the next one. Or elkfromabove and I would be more than willing to go out with you too if we can arrange it.
>work in utah is because
>the dwr does not relocate
>them next to water. ill
>bet they put them in
>a random area. maybe try
>to place them next to
>a water source and they
>will live. just a thought
>
DWR isn't the villain here. I did speak with Jason today. They will do another tour if they can get around 15 people to commit to showing up. The other issue is its getting green out there with cheatgrass and the changeover in other shrubs, trees, and what have you and the deer are on the move finally. Kind of hard to get the gist of the damage with everything looking like its growing just fine when really its not. But still there is alot that could be learned by a ride with these guys and they'll still do it. As far as water, guzzlers aren't a big deal. Trans-location is too complex to just show up, grab a bunch of mule deer and move them somewhere. Doesn't happen that way. Their digestive system is very sensitive and complex. Anyway, for those wishing to do a range visit, contact Jason at 435-865-6100 or you can ask for Gary as well and let either of them know you're interested in doing a range ride. At least they can get your name and number and put you down for the next one. Or elkfromabove and I would be more than willing to go out with you too if we can arrange it.
R
rperkins
Guest
Why is it that back in the 50's, 60's, 70's we had twice as many deer in this winter range and they made it through the winter and why is it so complex to relocate deer, you have sportmans ready to help the DWR, your not talking to a young pup I been around a long time and lived in the Beaver Unit, Panguitch and the Dutton Unit, my family ran cattle their, it seem to me that the DWR don't want to put the effort out to relocate the deer. So when you say its to complex, maybe we should try to get some one that can do the job. Or is it just to easy just to kill them.
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-12 AT 07:12PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-12 AT 06:41?PM (MST)
>Why is it that back in
>the 50's, 60's, 70's we
>had twice as many deer
>in this winter range and
>they made it through the
>winter and why is it
>so complex to relocate deer,
>you have sportmans ready to
>help the DWR, your not
>talking to a young pup
>I been around a long
>time and lived in the
>Beaver Unit, Panguitch and the
>Dutton Unit, my family ran
>cattle their, it seem to
>me that the DWR don't
>want to put the effort
>out to relocate the deer.
>So when you say its
>to complex, maybe we should
>try to get some one
>that can do the job.
>Or is it just to
>easy just to kill them.
>
Maybe you would wonder on over there and ask the deer to follow you. It must be that simple, right? Hell, if it was so damn easy we should be doing it all over the place! I can't for the life of me imagine what we're waiting for with all those twin fawns running around right now! They're stupid, don't know any difference in the actual ranges right now. Lets invite them into the back of some trailers and rush em up to some nice spring and summer range, fatten them up and then hope like hell they figure out where to go for the winter. Maybe some signs or we can drop some pamphlets down on em. COME ON!!!!!!
I'm a patient guy but really? For crying out loud, follow the link I posted for you and read it. There are drugs that can kill a human just by touching your skin involved with tranquilizing them, there's quarantining procedures, blood work for decease testing, sexing of fawns, ultrasounds of does, body composition assessments, and then the logistics of people and machinery? Its not a show up and git er done project. And then you need to read them a nice book at night so they don't fall into cardiac arrest from the stress of creepy humans probing and handling them. Do I need to be any more obnoxious about how this isn't an easy task? Bottom line. In your earlier years, there WAS more range over there but the bigger numbers of deer ruined the range, that damage is done and if you go over there with Jason and Gary, they'll show you the irreversible damage from those years and what is happening now. Also bottom line, deer must be and will be removed from this winter range in order to begin to make headway in maintaining forage and the number of those removed must be increased in order to benefit the habitat and make headway in improving it. So, as the population of 28 and surrounding units rebound, so will the number of does that need to be harvested from this winter range. What is a best case solution? A magic wand where we can move the freeway to the other side of the valley over to Lund and rewrite history. But that isn't practical. SO, how many grandchildren do you have that are ready to learn to hunt and can we get them signed up for a doe hunt on unit #28?
>Why is it that back in
>the 50's, 60's, 70's we
>had twice as many deer
>in this winter range and
>they made it through the
>winter and why is it
>so complex to relocate deer,
>you have sportmans ready to
>help the DWR, your not
>talking to a young pup
>I been around a long
>time and lived in the
>Beaver Unit, Panguitch and the
>Dutton Unit, my family ran
>cattle their, it seem to
>me that the DWR don't
>want to put the effort
>out to relocate the deer.
>So when you say its
>to complex, maybe we should
>try to get some one
>that can do the job.
>Or is it just to
>easy just to kill them.
>
Maybe you would wonder on over there and ask the deer to follow you. It must be that simple, right? Hell, if it was so damn easy we should be doing it all over the place! I can't for the life of me imagine what we're waiting for with all those twin fawns running around right now! They're stupid, don't know any difference in the actual ranges right now. Lets invite them into the back of some trailers and rush em up to some nice spring and summer range, fatten them up and then hope like hell they figure out where to go for the winter. Maybe some signs or we can drop some pamphlets down on em. COME ON!!!!!!
I'm a patient guy but really? For crying out loud, follow the link I posted for you and read it. There are drugs that can kill a human just by touching your skin involved with tranquilizing them, there's quarantining procedures, blood work for decease testing, sexing of fawns, ultrasounds of does, body composition assessments, and then the logistics of people and machinery? Its not a show up and git er done project. And then you need to read them a nice book at night so they don't fall into cardiac arrest from the stress of creepy humans probing and handling them. Do I need to be any more obnoxious about how this isn't an easy task? Bottom line. In your earlier years, there WAS more range over there but the bigger numbers of deer ruined the range, that damage is done and if you go over there with Jason and Gary, they'll show you the irreversible damage from those years and what is happening now. Also bottom line, deer must be and will be removed from this winter range in order to begin to make headway in maintaining forage and the number of those removed must be increased in order to benefit the habitat and make headway in improving it. So, as the population of 28 and surrounding units rebound, so will the number of does that need to be harvested from this winter range. What is a best case solution? A magic wand where we can move the freeway to the other side of the valley over to Lund and rewrite history. But that isn't practical. SO, how many grandchildren do you have that are ready to learn to hunt and can we get them signed up for a doe hunt on unit #28?
Castnshoot
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,111
klbzdad, Interesting thred and info. For about $20,000 in materials you could fence off three 5 acre catch pens that would work for at least three seasons.
Set them up in late fall in the heavy use areas of the winter ground and start baiting [sweet bait] and provide water inside the trap. Put the haul trailers in place at the same time so as to condition the deer to to the whole set up.
Trailers should be some what padded and blacked out. When conditions are best catch as many as you can. Take them over to the Minerals[Milford fire area] or the Bald Ridges area [Greenfield bench burn]. They would not be in the trailer much more than 2 hours. Plenty of low level habitat with the same kind of feed they are used to.
Find a can do type bioligist if you really have to have one and 20 or 30 volunteers. Forgo all the probing, testing, tagging, tranquilizing, and quarantining. Through a cup of sheep dye on there back and let them go.
If it works keep on doing it, if it don't then start blasting.
No need moving the freeway.
Set them up in late fall in the heavy use areas of the winter ground and start baiting [sweet bait] and provide water inside the trap. Put the haul trailers in place at the same time so as to condition the deer to to the whole set up.
Trailers should be some what padded and blacked out. When conditions are best catch as many as you can. Take them over to the Minerals[Milford fire area] or the Bald Ridges area [Greenfield bench burn]. They would not be in the trailer much more than 2 hours. Plenty of low level habitat with the same kind of feed they are used to.
Find a can do type bioligist if you really have to have one and 20 or 30 volunteers. Forgo all the probing, testing, tagging, tranquilizing, and quarantining. Through a cup of sheep dye on there back and let them go.
If it works keep on doing it, if it don't then start blasting.
No need moving the freeway.
theox
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,278
LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-12 AT 10:19PM (MST)[p]
>The other issue is its
>getting green out there with
>cheatgrass and the changeover in
>other shrubs, trees, and what
>have you and the deer
>are on the move finally.
> Kind of hard to
>get the gist of the
>damage with everything looking like
>its growing just fine when
>really its not.
sounds like it is not too damaged to me if stuff is growing still? hmm. if it looks like its in good shape and growing why wouldnt it be?
>The other issue is its
>getting green out there with
>cheatgrass and the changeover in
>other shrubs, trees, and what
>have you and the deer
>are on the move finally.
> Kind of hard to
>get the gist of the
>damage with everything looking like
>its growing just fine when
>really its not.
sounds like it is not too damaged to me if stuff is growing still? hmm. if it looks like its in good shape and growing why wouldnt it be?
R
rperkins
Guest
Sorry my grandsons will never kill a doe or a spike or a two point or a three point, a lot of people has lost faith in the DWR and the only thing they can manage is the dollor sign in the doe eye's and are they going to mount the doe heads for the youth. You know and I know that them deer been going their for the last 30 years and the feed will grow back this summer. But lets kill our does that will build our herd back.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>Sorry my grandsons will never kill
>a doe or a spike
>or a two point or
>a three point, a lot
>of people has lost faith
>in the DWR and the
>only thing they can manage
>is the dollor sign in
>the doe eye's and are
>they going to mount the
>doe heads for the youth.
>You know and I know
>that them deer been going
>their for the last 30
>years and the feed will
>grow back this summer. But
>lets kill our does that
>will build our herd back.
>
THEM deer have been ruining range for the last 30 years and its caught up with them. I will introduce other young hunters to the fold. Sorry I couldn't persuade you to understand this important situation. Again, there isn't one HERD in Utah there are many. And as long as they are managing multiple HERDS on multiple UNITS then this is something that has to take place to benefit this one particular HERD on this particular UNIT. Good luck in the draw.
>a doe or a spike
>or a two point or
>a three point, a lot
>of people has lost faith
>in the DWR and the
>only thing they can manage
>is the dollor sign in
>the doe eye's and are
>they going to mount the
>doe heads for the youth.
>You know and I know
>that them deer been going
>their for the last 30
>years and the feed will
>grow back this summer. But
>lets kill our does that
>will build our herd back.
>
THEM deer have been ruining range for the last 30 years and its caught up with them. I will introduce other young hunters to the fold. Sorry I couldn't persuade you to understand this important situation. Again, there isn't one HERD in Utah there are many. And as long as they are managing multiple HERDS on multiple UNITS then this is something that has to take place to benefit this one particular HERD on this particular UNIT. Good luck in the draw.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>klbzdad, Interesting thred and info. For
>about $20,000 in materials you
>could fence off three 5
>acre catch pens that would
>work for at least three
>seasons.
>
>Set them up in late fall
>in the heavy use areas
>of the winter ground and
>start baiting [sweet bait] and
>provide water inside the trap.
>Put the haul trailers in
>place at the same time
>so as to condition the
>deer to to the whole
>set up.
>
>Trailers should be some what padded
>and blacked out. When conditions
>are best catch as many
>as you can. Take them
>over to the Minerals[Milford fire
>area] or the Bald Ridges
>area [Greenfield bench burn]. They
>would not be in the
>trailer much more than 2
>hours. Plenty of low level
>habitat with the same kind
>of feed they are used
>to.
>
>Find a can do type bioligist
>if you really have to
>have one and 20
>or 30 volunteers. Forgo all
>the probing, testing, tagging, tranquilizing,
>and quarantining. Through a cup
>of sheep dye on there
>back and let them go.
>
>
>If it works keep on doing
>it, if it don't then
>start blasting.
>
>No need moving the freeway.
>
>
Castnshoot,
This is the kind of input needed for SFW's plan and also needs to be submitted on the range rides. The trans-location will be SFW's baby financially but there won't be a shortage of those wanting to donate labor and likely material. Yes, there are places that these pens could be set up and there are designed that white tail farmers use that would require next to zero human interaction to pen up deer. We would still be held by the requirements of the COR and that means a CWD assessment and I'm certain data will still be wanted associated with the range via body composition. Plus, it doesn't do any good to trans-relocation a dry doe so the ultrasounds are probably necessary. Regardless, that is something worth looking into. In the interim, mouths still have to come off until the process is mastered. That isn't going to change.
And as far as it greening up. Even an unattended garden turns green in the spring. Doesn't mean there's anything there worth eating and it doesn't mean there's going to be anything of value there when the deer return. It amazes me that some of you can't see past your swollen beaks sometimes. So quick to be judgmental and spiteful but so slow to come up with something substantive like this pen idea. Even green, you can see where the burns failed. Everywhere they tried to burn, its still dead except for small stands of weed and the cheatgrass is winning. Still willing to show up and ride along out there...just make the calls to Jason and get your friends to show up.
>about $20,000 in materials you
>could fence off three 5
>acre catch pens that would
>work for at least three
>seasons.
>
>Set them up in late fall
>in the heavy use areas
>of the winter ground and
>start baiting [sweet bait] and
>provide water inside the trap.
>Put the haul trailers in
>place at the same time
>so as to condition the
>deer to to the whole
>set up.
>
>Trailers should be some what padded
>and blacked out. When conditions
>are best catch as many
>as you can. Take them
>over to the Minerals[Milford fire
>area] or the Bald Ridges
>area [Greenfield bench burn]. They
>would not be in the
>trailer much more than 2
>hours. Plenty of low level
>habitat with the same kind
>of feed they are used
>to.
>
>Find a can do type bioligist
>if you really have to
>have one and 20
>or 30 volunteers. Forgo all
>the probing, testing, tagging, tranquilizing,
>and quarantining. Through a cup
>of sheep dye on there
>back and let them go.
>
>
>If it works keep on doing
>it, if it don't then
>start blasting.
>
>No need moving the freeway.
>
>
Castnshoot,
This is the kind of input needed for SFW's plan and also needs to be submitted on the range rides. The trans-location will be SFW's baby financially but there won't be a shortage of those wanting to donate labor and likely material. Yes, there are places that these pens could be set up and there are designed that white tail farmers use that would require next to zero human interaction to pen up deer. We would still be held by the requirements of the COR and that means a CWD assessment and I'm certain data will still be wanted associated with the range via body composition. Plus, it doesn't do any good to trans-relocation a dry doe so the ultrasounds are probably necessary. Regardless, that is something worth looking into. In the interim, mouths still have to come off until the process is mastered. That isn't going to change.
And as far as it greening up. Even an unattended garden turns green in the spring. Doesn't mean there's anything there worth eating and it doesn't mean there's going to be anything of value there when the deer return. It amazes me that some of you can't see past your swollen beaks sometimes. So quick to be judgmental and spiteful but so slow to come up with something substantive like this pen idea. Even green, you can see where the burns failed. Everywhere they tried to burn, its still dead except for small stands of weed and the cheatgrass is winning. Still willing to show up and ride along out there...just make the calls to Jason and get your friends to show up.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>I live down the road in
>Paragonah. From my porch I
>can easily few around 50
>deer everyday during the winter
>and now. Those deer like
>to feed out in the
>big open flat where there
>is NO sage, snow or
>no snow.
I'm not sure where exactly you're talking about. There are areas close to Paragonah where perennial grasses grow and in some of those wide open fields there have been crop harvests prior to the winter but that doesn't make up a majority of their diet. We're not talking about just the sage damage. There is no recruitment of new forage. They are on just the sage now with little to compete with cheatgrass. What sage there is isn't growing to capacity or is aged and doesn't carry the nutrition levels needed either in the spring or winter. New growth gets trampled on and cannot become mature and older growth ends up getting hedged so badly some of it dies. Speaking of snow, if there is any during the winter on this range, that makes it that much harder on the deer and the forage. We were lucky this year and while that means good news for the fawns who will we hope make it through the spring and summer, that also means they are going to come back with mom this next winter. More mouths, more hoves, more competition with an estimate of 50% of them being bucks (the fawns) so we aren't hurting the bucks or the does. It would again, be nice to see more people out on these range rides asking tough questions instead of being critical of those that either did go, those who put the rides together (DWR and BLM), and those trying to offer solutions. Some good discussion here, though.
>Paragonah. From my porch I
>can easily few around 50
>deer everyday during the winter
>and now. Those deer like
>to feed out in the
>big open flat where there
>is NO sage, snow or
>no snow.
I'm not sure where exactly you're talking about. There are areas close to Paragonah where perennial grasses grow and in some of those wide open fields there have been crop harvests prior to the winter but that doesn't make up a majority of their diet. We're not talking about just the sage damage. There is no recruitment of new forage. They are on just the sage now with little to compete with cheatgrass. What sage there is isn't growing to capacity or is aged and doesn't carry the nutrition levels needed either in the spring or winter. New growth gets trampled on and cannot become mature and older growth ends up getting hedged so badly some of it dies. Speaking of snow, if there is any during the winter on this range, that makes it that much harder on the deer and the forage. We were lucky this year and while that means good news for the fawns who will we hope make it through the spring and summer, that also means they are going to come back with mom this next winter. More mouths, more hoves, more competition with an estimate of 50% of them being bucks (the fawns) so we aren't hurting the bucks or the does. It would again, be nice to see more people out on these range rides asking tough questions instead of being critical of those that either did go, those who put the rides together (DWR and BLM), and those trying to offer solutions. Some good discussion here, though.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-12 AT 10:37AM (MST)[p]>I live down the road in
>Paragonah. From my porch I
>can easily few around 50
>deer everyday during the winter
>and now. Those deer like
>to feed out in the
>big open flat where there
>is NO sage, snow or
>no snow.
What are they feeding on? What's the fawn/doe ratio and how do they look?
>Paragonah. From my porch I
>can easily few around 50
>deer everyday during the winter
>and now. Those deer like
>to feed out in the
>big open flat where there
>is NO sage, snow or
>no snow.
What are they feeding on? What's the fawn/doe ratio and how do they look?
S
soutahhunter
Guest
I think we all need to keep Klbzdad name in mind as he fixes this deer mess by shooting more does. Remember his name so when the deer herd gets better we can thank him.
K
klbzdad
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-12 AT 08:59AM (MST)[p]>I think we all need to
>keep Klbzdad name in mind
>as he fixes this deer
>mess by shooting more does.
> Remember his name so
>when the deer herd gets
>better we can thank him.
>
Would you like me to spell that for you? K L B Z D A D
Now, there is no such thing as THE HERD. There are HERDS (notice the "S" at the end of HERD. That denotes that the word HERD is plural.) There are also not just one HERD on any one UNIT there are HERDS on each individual UNIT as well, especially during the winter. We're talking about one such wintering herd on a single unit, unit 28 and the need for relief on the winter range that the deer themselves are causing. So, either douche bags like me who want to actually do something beside complain about Anis (who is smarter and you and I, sworry) step in and do something now, or mother nature will do her thing and we'll have to listen to you ##### and moan about nobody stepping in and doing anything about taking does later. I'd rather do something now than spend decades listening to the boobing about wasting money on habitat when we "should have done something to fix it then."
Again, K L B Z D A D. But I don't want thanks for anything. I'd just like for you to go out there and look for yourself and then come up with something beside complaints. Not too much to ask, if you ask me.
>keep Klbzdad name in mind
>as he fixes this deer
>mess by shooting more does.
> Remember his name so
>when the deer herd gets
>better we can thank him.
>
Would you like me to spell that for you? K L B Z D A D
Now, there is no such thing as THE HERD. There are HERDS (notice the "S" at the end of HERD. That denotes that the word HERD is plural.) There are also not just one HERD on any one UNIT there are HERDS on each individual UNIT as well, especially during the winter. We're talking about one such wintering herd on a single unit, unit 28 and the need for relief on the winter range that the deer themselves are causing. So, either douche bags like me who want to actually do something beside complain about Anis (who is smarter and you and I, sworry) step in and do something now, or mother nature will do her thing and we'll have to listen to you ##### and moan about nobody stepping in and doing anything about taking does later. I'd rather do something now than spend decades listening to the boobing about wasting money on habitat when we "should have done something to fix it then."
Again, K L B Z D A D. But I don't want thanks for anything. I'd just like for you to go out there and look for yourself and then come up with something beside complaints. Not too much to ask, if you ask me.
You guys crack me up. KLBZDAD actually has the training, the knowledge, a plan and the ability to execute that plan and he gets little more than complaints and coments about how he is decimating the entire Utah deer herd. Very little else has been suggested that is based on science, knowledge on the subject or practicallity. Heck, one guy even thinks that becasue it's green it must be ok.
KLBZDAD, I am sure you have had to fight through this before and may be used to it. But since you are the one making these decisions and therefore responsible for them, do what you feel is right and pay little attention to the complainers. Good luck to you. It must not be easy being the scapegoat for all that is wrong with game herds in Utah. If it wasn't you it would be SFW.
KLBZDAD, I am sure you have had to fight through this before and may be used to it. But since you are the one making these decisions and therefore responsible for them, do what you feel is right and pay little attention to the complainers. Good luck to you. It must not be easy being the scapegoat for all that is wrong with game herds in Utah. If it wasn't you it would be SFW.
K
klbzdad
Guest
>You guys crack me up.
>KLBZDAD actually has the training,
>the knowledge, a plan and
>the ability to execute that
>plan and he gets little
>more than complaints and coments
>about how he is decimating
>the entire Utah deer herd.
> Very little else has
>been suggested that is based
>on science, knowledge on the
>subject or practicallity. Heck,
>one guy even thinks that
>becasue it's green it must
>be ok.
>
>KLBZDAD, I am sure you have
>had to fight through this
>before and may be used
>to it. But since
>you are the one making
>these decisions and therefore responsible
>for them, do what you
>feel is right and pay
>little attention to the complainers.
> Good luck to you.
> It must not be
>easy being the scapegoat for
>all that is wrong with
>game herds in Utah.
>If it wasn't you it
>would be SFW.
Thanks. Yeah, stupid SFW and their wanting to figure out how to trans-relocate some of the animals. Seriously. I'm not a professional at anything but being a smart butt. I do care as much as the next guy about what is happening with ALL mule deer in Utah but one person can't fix issues everywhere. I can have an impact here, where I live and hunt. And because DWR is now managing both hunters and mule deer on the micro unit model, why not focus on that and not the BIG HERD that includes every single mule deer in Utah? There's a lot smarter folks in this forum than me, and I am more than willing to listen even to the complainers but when that is all they offer, I get numb to it just like anyone else would. There's nothing like going to a RAC and hearing the same bullcrap you heard at the last one where one guy tries to interrogate Anis into some kind of courtroom admission that bucks in fact do have vaginas and give birth when common sense and any third grader can prove, they DO NOT!!! Time for solutions on a per unit basis. If taking these does ruins the mule deer population on Unit 28, I'll stop hunting mule deer in the state of Utah! I'll start growing my herd of jackelope.
>KLBZDAD actually has the training,
>the knowledge, a plan and
>the ability to execute that
>plan and he gets little
>more than complaints and coments
>about how he is decimating
>the entire Utah deer herd.
> Very little else has
>been suggested that is based
>on science, knowledge on the
>subject or practicallity. Heck,
>one guy even thinks that
>becasue it's green it must
>be ok.
>
>KLBZDAD, I am sure you have
>had to fight through this
>before and may be used
>to it. But since
>you are the one making
>these decisions and therefore responsible
>for them, do what you
>feel is right and pay
>little attention to the complainers.
> Good luck to you.
> It must not be
>easy being the scapegoat for
>all that is wrong with
>game herds in Utah.
>If it wasn't you it
>would be SFW.
Thanks. Yeah, stupid SFW and their wanting to figure out how to trans-relocate some of the animals. Seriously. I'm not a professional at anything but being a smart butt. I do care as much as the next guy about what is happening with ALL mule deer in Utah but one person can't fix issues everywhere. I can have an impact here, where I live and hunt. And because DWR is now managing both hunters and mule deer on the micro unit model, why not focus on that and not the BIG HERD that includes every single mule deer in Utah? There's a lot smarter folks in this forum than me, and I am more than willing to listen even to the complainers but when that is all they offer, I get numb to it just like anyone else would. There's nothing like going to a RAC and hearing the same bullcrap you heard at the last one where one guy tries to interrogate Anis into some kind of courtroom admission that bucks in fact do have vaginas and give birth when common sense and any third grader can prove, they DO NOT!!! Time for solutions on a per unit basis. If taking these does ruins the mule deer population on Unit 28, I'll stop hunting mule deer in the state of Utah! I'll start growing my herd of jackelope.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-12 AT 11:37AM (MST)[p]>I think we all need to
>keep Klbzdad name in mind
>as he fixes this deer
>mess by shooting more does.
> Remember his name so
>when the deer herd gets
>better we can thank him.
>
I'm crushed that you ignored me! Especially since I personally along with the DWR and the BLM and the NRCS think we need to shoot (or remove) even more in order to save the habitat that is being destroyed by the deer themselves.
Now, does this thank you apply to the 289,000 member deer herd in the whole state or even other states which are also in trouble or are we just talking about managing the little mini-herd wintering and destroying the habitat in the 25-30 square mile area on the Parowan Front which is in line with the whole so-called reason we pushed so hard for the 30 unit deal.
And don't give Klbzdzd (and/or me) all of the credit 'cause we would only get to shoot 1 of them each. 148 of you guys or gals are going to have to shoot the rest! Maybe we ought to get your names too so we can thank you! And don't forget the 90 in the Box Elder unit and the 50 in the Monroe unit and the 10 hunters in the Junction Valley CWMU shooting 2 does each. We'll need their names too. And we'll need the names of the 5 Pauns Management hunters who are shooting the deer simply because their antlers aren't big enough.
Even after all these posts hashing over the science, options, offers to visit the area to see for yourself, and emotional snide remarks on both sides, I have to refer you back to the author's original post. Some of you still don't get it!
>keep Klbzdad name in mind
>as he fixes this deer
>mess by shooting more does.
> Remember his name so
>when the deer herd gets
>better we can thank him.
>
I'm crushed that you ignored me! Especially since I personally along with the DWR and the BLM and the NRCS think we need to shoot (or remove) even more in order to save the habitat that is being destroyed by the deer themselves.
Now, does this thank you apply to the 289,000 member deer herd in the whole state or even other states which are also in trouble or are we just talking about managing the little mini-herd wintering and destroying the habitat in the 25-30 square mile area on the Parowan Front which is in line with the whole so-called reason we pushed so hard for the 30 unit deal.
And don't give Klbzdzd (and/or me) all of the credit 'cause we would only get to shoot 1 of them each. 148 of you guys or gals are going to have to shoot the rest! Maybe we ought to get your names too so we can thank you! And don't forget the 90 in the Box Elder unit and the 50 in the Monroe unit and the 10 hunters in the Junction Valley CWMU shooting 2 does each. We'll need their names too. And we'll need the names of the 5 Pauns Management hunters who are shooting the deer simply because their antlers aren't big enough.
Even after all these posts hashing over the science, options, offers to visit the area to see for yourself, and emotional snide remarks on both sides, I have to refer you back to the author's original post. Some of you still don't get it!
K
klbzdad
Guest
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-12
>AT 11:37?AM (MST)
>
>>I think we all need to
>>keep Klbzdad name in mind
>>as he fixes this deer
>>mess by shooting more does.
>> Remember his name so
>>when the deer herd gets
>>better we can thank him.
>>
>
>I'm crushed that you ignored me!
>Especially since I personally along
>with the DWR and the
>BLM and the NRCS think
>we need to shoot (or
>remove) even more in order
>to save the habitat that
>is being destroyed by the
>deer themselves.
>
>Now, does this thank you apply
>to the 289,000 member deer
>herd in the whole state
>or even other states which
>are also in trouble or
>are we just talking about
>managing the little mini-herd wintering
>and destroying the habitat in
>the 25-30 square mile area
>on the Parowan Front which
>is in line with the
>whole so-called reason we pushed
>so hard for the 30
>unit deal.
>
>And don't give Klbzdzd (and/or me)
>all of the credit 'cause
>we would only get to
>shoot 1 of them each.
>148 of you guys or
>gals are going to have
>to shoot the rest! Maybe
>we ought to get your
>names too so we can
>thank you! And don't forget
>the 90 in the Box
>Elder unit and the 50
>in the Monroe unit and
>the 10 hunters in the
>Junction Valley CWMU shooting 2
>does each. We'll need their
>names too. And we'll need
>the names of the 5
>Pauns Management hunters who are
>shooting the deer simply because
>their antlers aren't big enough.
>
>
>Even after all these posts hashing
>over the science, options, offers
>to visit the area to
>see for yourself, and emotional
>snide remarks on both sides,
>I have to refer you
>back to the author's original
>post. Some of you still
>don't get it!
E L K F R O M A B O V E And he is actually almost as smart as Anis is. And takes better notes! Unfortunately he is correct yet again in that some just aren't going to get it. I remember someone once said you could freeze gold fish and then thaw them out and bring them back to life. Guess what, THAT doesn't work but I was the only one not willing in my group to try. I had that damn goldfish for three years, thanks. Its not about the kill, its about what makes sense.
>AT 11:37?AM (MST)
>
>>I think we all need to
>>keep Klbzdad name in mind
>>as he fixes this deer
>>mess by shooting more does.
>> Remember his name so
>>when the deer herd gets
>>better we can thank him.
>>
>
>I'm crushed that you ignored me!
>Especially since I personally along
>with the DWR and the
>BLM and the NRCS think
>we need to shoot (or
>remove) even more in order
>to save the habitat that
>is being destroyed by the
>deer themselves.
>
>Now, does this thank you apply
>to the 289,000 member deer
>herd in the whole state
>or even other states which
>are also in trouble or
>are we just talking about
>managing the little mini-herd wintering
>and destroying the habitat in
>the 25-30 square mile area
>on the Parowan Front which
>is in line with the
>whole so-called reason we pushed
>so hard for the 30
>unit deal.
>
>And don't give Klbzdzd (and/or me)
>all of the credit 'cause
>we would only get to
>shoot 1 of them each.
>148 of you guys or
>gals are going to have
>to shoot the rest! Maybe
>we ought to get your
>names too so we can
>thank you! And don't forget
>the 90 in the Box
>Elder unit and the 50
>in the Monroe unit and
>the 10 hunters in the
>Junction Valley CWMU shooting 2
>does each. We'll need their
>names too. And we'll need
>the names of the 5
>Pauns Management hunters who are
>shooting the deer simply because
>their antlers aren't big enough.
>
>
>Even after all these posts hashing
>over the science, options, offers
>to visit the area to
>see for yourself, and emotional
>snide remarks on both sides,
>I have to refer you
>back to the author's original
>post. Some of you still
>don't get it!
E L K F R O M A B O V E And he is actually almost as smart as Anis is. And takes better notes! Unfortunately he is correct yet again in that some just aren't going to get it. I remember someone once said you could freeze gold fish and then thaw them out and bring them back to life. Guess what, THAT doesn't work but I was the only one not willing in my group to try. I had that damn goldfish for three years, thanks. Its not about the kill, its about what makes sense.
>LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-12
>AT 10:37?AM (MST)
>
>>I live down the road in
>>Paragonah. From my porch I
>>can easily few around 50
>>deer everyday during the winter
>>and now. Those deer like
>>to feed out in the
>>big open flat where there
>>is NO sage, snow or
>>no snow.
>
>What are they feeding on? What's
>the fawn/doe ratio and how
>do they look?
I am not a botanist but I would say perennial grasses and forbs, they are not feeding in the ranchers fields. There was still green under that snow this year. They look good, no ribs sticking out. Buck ratio on my particular patch this winter is about 8 bucks per 100. Fawn count I'd say was about 40 per 100 going into winter. If they got a problem 5 miles down the road because of old growth, then it sounds to me like they should chain some of the pj and sage and re-seed. At least that is a better long term solution otherwise we'll be shooting does every year forever. But, my buddy in Beaver says he'll come down and shoot one given the chance.
>AT 10:37?AM (MST)
>
>>I live down the road in
>>Paragonah. From my porch I
>>can easily few around 50
>>deer everyday during the winter
>>and now. Those deer like
>>to feed out in the
>>big open flat where there
>>is NO sage, snow or
>>no snow.
>
>What are they feeding on? What's
>the fawn/doe ratio and how
>do they look?
I am not a botanist but I would say perennial grasses and forbs, they are not feeding in the ranchers fields. There was still green under that snow this year. They look good, no ribs sticking out. Buck ratio on my particular patch this winter is about 8 bucks per 100. Fawn count I'd say was about 40 per 100 going into winter. If they got a problem 5 miles down the road because of old growth, then it sounds to me like they should chain some of the pj and sage and re-seed. At least that is a better long term solution otherwise we'll be shooting does every year forever. But, my buddy in Beaver says he'll come down and shoot one given the chance.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
>>LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-12
>>AT 10:37?AM (MST)
>>
>>
>>What are they feeding on? What's
>>the fawn/doe ratio and how
>>do they look?
>
>I am not a botanist but
>I would say perennial grasses
>and forbs, they are not
>feeding in the ranchers fields.
>There was still green under
>that snow this year. They
>look good, no ribs sticking
>out. Buck ratio on my
>particular patch this winter is
>about 8 bucks per 100.
>Fawn count I'd say was
>about 40 per 100 going
>into winter. If they got
>a problem 5 miles down
>the road because of old
>growth, then it sounds to
>me like they should chain
>some of the pj and
>sage and re-seed. At least
>that is a better long
>term solution otherwise we'll be
>shooting does every year forever.
>But, my buddy in Beaver
>says he'll come down and
>shoot one given the chance.
>
Ah, Someone who actually does get it! We do need to begin work on that habitat, though I'm not sure if this is the best approach because I'm no botanist either. But regardless of what we do to improve it, we're still going to have to remove those deer for a few years so that our efforts will have time to show results. And we're going to have to remove more than are recruited, if we expect to make headway.
And even when we get this and the other herds back up, we'll still have to control the numbers so we don't keep repeating the cycle. I just received the 1962 Big Game Harvest Report from a GRAMA request and there were a total of 130,556 deer killed that year and that's a lot of deer, in fact the 2nd highest ever. BUT, 55,092 (43.2%) of them were does!! So even then it was necessary to kill does to save the habitat in 42 of the 62 (Yes, 62!) units.
This hunt would make a great youth hunt, but I'm not sure it would happen per the potential age discrimination issue. In any case it's good to hear someone isn't intimidated by all the flack thrown down on the thread. It sounds like two people get it, not just one!
It would be interesting and informative to know what those deer you see from your window are eating. They seem to be doing quite well. Coordinates, directions or general location?
>>AT 10:37?AM (MST)
>>
>>
>>What are they feeding on? What's
>>the fawn/doe ratio and how
>>do they look?
>
>I am not a botanist but
>I would say perennial grasses
>and forbs, they are not
>feeding in the ranchers fields.
>There was still green under
>that snow this year. They
>look good, no ribs sticking
>out. Buck ratio on my
>particular patch this winter is
>about 8 bucks per 100.
>Fawn count I'd say was
>about 40 per 100 going
>into winter. If they got
>a problem 5 miles down
>the road because of old
>growth, then it sounds to
>me like they should chain
>some of the pj and
>sage and re-seed. At least
>that is a better long
>term solution otherwise we'll be
>shooting does every year forever.
>But, my buddy in Beaver
>says he'll come down and
>shoot one given the chance.
>
Ah, Someone who actually does get it! We do need to begin work on that habitat, though I'm not sure if this is the best approach because I'm no botanist either. But regardless of what we do to improve it, we're still going to have to remove those deer for a few years so that our efforts will have time to show results. And we're going to have to remove more than are recruited, if we expect to make headway.
And even when we get this and the other herds back up, we'll still have to control the numbers so we don't keep repeating the cycle. I just received the 1962 Big Game Harvest Report from a GRAMA request and there were a total of 130,556 deer killed that year and that's a lot of deer, in fact the 2nd highest ever. BUT, 55,092 (43.2%) of them were does!! So even then it was necessary to kill does to save the habitat in 42 of the 62 (Yes, 62!) units.
This hunt would make a great youth hunt, but I'm not sure it would happen per the potential age discrimination issue. In any case it's good to hear someone isn't intimidated by all the flack thrown down on the thread. It sounds like two people get it, not just one!
It would be interesting and informative to know what those deer you see from your window are eating. They seem to be doing quite well. Coordinates, directions or general location?
K
klbzdad
Guest
>>>LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-12
>>>AT 10:37?AM (MST)
>>>
>>>
>>>What are they feeding on? What's
>>>the fawn/doe ratio and how
>>>do they look?
>>
>>I am not a botanist but
>>I would say perennial grasses
>>and forbs, they are not
>>feeding in the ranchers fields.
>>There was still green under
>>that snow this year. They
>>look good, no ribs sticking
>>out. Buck ratio on my
>>particular patch this winter is
>>about 8 bucks per 100.
>>Fawn count I'd say was
>>about 40 per 100 going
>>into winter. If they got
>>a problem 5 miles down
>>the road because of old
>>growth, then it sounds to
>>me like they should chain
>>some of the pj and
>>sage and re-seed. At least
>>that is a better long
>>term solution otherwise we'll be
>>shooting does every year forever.
>>But, my buddy in Beaver
>>says he'll come down and
>>shoot one given the chance.
>>
>Ah, Someone who actually does get
>it! We do need to
>begin work on that habitat,
>though I'm not sure if
>this is the best approach
>because I'm no botanist either.
>But regardless of what we
>do to improve it, we're
>still going to have to
>remove those deer for a
>few years so that our
>efforts will have time to
>show results. And we're going
>to have to remove more
>than are recruited, if we
>expect to make headway.
>
>And even when we get this
>and the other herds back
>up, we'll still have to
>control the numbers so we
>don't keep repeating the cycle.
>I just received the 1962
>Big Game Harvest Report from
>a GRAMA request and there
>were a total of 130,556
>deer killed that year and
>that's a lot of deer,
>in fact the 2nd highest
>ever. BUT, 55,092 (43.2%) of
>them were does!! So even
>then it was necessary to
>kill does to save the
>habitat in 42 of the
>62 (Yes, 62!) units.
>
>This hunt would make a great
>youth hunt, but I'm not
>sure it would happen per
>the potential age discrimination issue.
>In any case it's good
>to hear someone isn't intimidated
>by all the flack thrown
>down on the thread. It
>sounds like two people get
>it, not just one!
>
>It would be interesting and informative
>to know what those deer
>you see from your window
>are eating. They seem to
>be doing quite well. Coordinates,
>directions or general location?
55,092 DOES!!!! Them old timer "Utards" were just out to murder THE HURD, elkfromabove!!!!
Great info my friend! If I'm not mistaken they managed back then based on winter range herds or at least those were used as "units" of sorts. So that number sounds correct but the winter ranges were larger because there was wider dispersion at the time. I might be mistaken, but didn't they also use a very different management model called "population objective" way back in the day too? I think this would work on some units better than the b/d ratio...but haters gonna hate! Not here on this thread to discuss that. Unit 28 has it's own crisis and its good to learn some old numbers and hear some interesting down range information too.
>>>AT 10:37?AM (MST)
>>>
>>>
>>>What are they feeding on? What's
>>>the fawn/doe ratio and how
>>>do they look?
>>
>>I am not a botanist but
>>I would say perennial grasses
>>and forbs, they are not
>>feeding in the ranchers fields.
>>There was still green under
>>that snow this year. They
>>look good, no ribs sticking
>>out. Buck ratio on my
>>particular patch this winter is
>>about 8 bucks per 100.
>>Fawn count I'd say was
>>about 40 per 100 going
>>into winter. If they got
>>a problem 5 miles down
>>the road because of old
>>growth, then it sounds to
>>me like they should chain
>>some of the pj and
>>sage and re-seed. At least
>>that is a better long
>>term solution otherwise we'll be
>>shooting does every year forever.
>>But, my buddy in Beaver
>>says he'll come down and
>>shoot one given the chance.
>>
>Ah, Someone who actually does get
>it! We do need to
>begin work on that habitat,
>though I'm not sure if
>this is the best approach
>because I'm no botanist either.
>But regardless of what we
>do to improve it, we're
>still going to have to
>remove those deer for a
>few years so that our
>efforts will have time to
>show results. And we're going
>to have to remove more
>than are recruited, if we
>expect to make headway.
>
>And even when we get this
>and the other herds back
>up, we'll still have to
>control the numbers so we
>don't keep repeating the cycle.
>I just received the 1962
>Big Game Harvest Report from
>a GRAMA request and there
>were a total of 130,556
>deer killed that year and
>that's a lot of deer,
>in fact the 2nd highest
>ever. BUT, 55,092 (43.2%) of
>them were does!! So even
>then it was necessary to
>kill does to save the
>habitat in 42 of the
>62 (Yes, 62!) units.
>
>This hunt would make a great
>youth hunt, but I'm not
>sure it would happen per
>the potential age discrimination issue.
>In any case it's good
>to hear someone isn't intimidated
>by all the flack thrown
>down on the thread. It
>sounds like two people get
>it, not just one!
>
>It would be interesting and informative
>to know what those deer
>you see from your window
>are eating. They seem to
>be doing quite well. Coordinates,
>directions or general location?
55,092 DOES!!!! Them old timer "Utards" were just out to murder THE HURD, elkfromabove!!!!
Great info my friend! If I'm not mistaken they managed back then based on winter range herds or at least those were used as "units" of sorts. So that number sounds correct but the winter ranges were larger because there was wider dispersion at the time. I might be mistaken, but didn't they also use a very different management model called "population objective" way back in the day too? I think this would work on some units better than the b/d ratio...but haters gonna hate! Not here on this thread to discuss that. Unit 28 has it's own crisis and its good to learn some old numbers and hear some interesting down range information too.
