Antlerless deer hunts are bad?

E

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
2,098
This year I shot a doe on a friend's farm using a depredation tag/voucher (one of ten or twenty) he received from the DWR as compensation for the loss of approximately $30,000 (per bale count) from his alfalfa hay fields and an unknown amount of corn from his feed corn fields. Needless to say, he was happy about it, I was happy about it, the DWR was happy about it, the butcher was happy about it, and the two families I gave the meat to were happy about it. However, some of you were not happy about it and I'd like to know specifically why and what your alternatives are to the problem. I don't need to hear how terrible, stupid, irresponsible, immature, etc. I am, I've already heard that. So please just tell me/us how terrible, stupid, irresponsible, immature, etc. the rules, laws, and policies are. And, more importantly, what are our options. Ready, set, go!
 
Your a freaking a hike,dirty rotten.....

Kidding.

My son turns 12 on 26th, he is hunting a cow that day on friends farm. And critters eat a lot of his feed

The only thing I wonder, and it applies to us as well, it seems like cow/doe after the rut is killing possibly 2, plus that buck/bull wasted a lot of energy getting it on.

As for him, I've heard him tell the local DWR he would rather have them give him an LE(Manti) every 5 years or so for his own use, instead of depression. He allows a lot of guys access.

We would lose more animals than just a couple if they couldn't feed his farm.






"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
I don't have a problem with the situation you describe. My problem with antlerless hunts is the way it is done.
In my state of MT FWP issues thousands of antlerless tags good region wide. There is no restrictions or incentives to insure that does are taken where does need to be harvested. What happens is that does herds on public land bare the brunt of the harvest year after year and far too few are taken on the private ag fields where does need to be killed.
 
My brother-in-law lost $30,000 worth of hay to jack rabbits one summer in Mud Lake, Idaho back in the 1980's. They completely wiped out one field next to the desert. That winter, they started eating at the edge of his haystacks in other fields. They would eat enough hay to undermine the stacks and make them tip over.

Me and two friends helped him out just a little by shooting around a thousand of them in one weekend. We shot up almost 5000 rounds of 22 shells doing it. We just drove around from stack to stack at night and shot as many rabbits as we could with a hand held spotlight. It was a lot of fun even though it was 17 below when we finally quit for the night just before dawn.

Later that winter, they had a rabbit drive on his farm and killed over 20,000 rabbits. The next year there was a lot less rabbits, and after that, there were hardly any (more due to disease than hunting).

I know this doesn't have anything to so with doe hunting, but it just shows how much damage animals can cause when they are not kept under control.
 
I don't have a problem with it, IF there are to many deer or elk. And they keep it under control without destroying the numbers. In too many cases though the problem is localized and not region wise. I can remember about 15 years ago, region F in Wyoming (Cody area) there were a decent number of deer but it was already way down from years earlier. One of the drainages we hunted had about 100 - 150 deer feed at night in a hay field and some would stay in the field all day while others would migrate up the drainage to spend the day in it. We always saw deer in it and usually some bucks. Then one year the rancher got depredation permits and they killed most of those deer. The next year you could count the number of deer in that field and drainage on one hand. And you were hard pressed to find a buck. The last time I hunted that region it was pathetic compared to what it used to be. The Hoodoo ranch that used to have lots of deer on it was basically devoid of deer. When we asked wdfg how they thought the deer numbers were they said, ? Oh, there down a little from objectives?. I thought a little. They obviously haven't been hunting up the South Fork on public land lately. I absolutely loved hunting that area, but haven't been back for a couple of years hoping I'd hear some good reports, but I haven't been. I feel if the deer or elk can't handle the depredation hunts, then it's up to the rancher to keep them off. Either by installing high fences to keep critters out or getting permission to harass them off their land. Wdfg should be willing to let them do that.
 
As a land owner with several hundred acres along the mountains, I've experienced the damage deer and elk can cause. It can hit the pocket book pretty hard. However; I like most farmers that make a living off the land do what it takes to keep game animals from causing damage and costing money. We take the necessary precautions to keep deer and elk out of our hay stacks. We don't see a big problem during the summer with the exception of a few resident deer that never leave. We consider them pets more than game animals. They make first timer kids happy on the last day of the hunt. Overall The cost of damage from deer isn't as bad as hunters trespassing! Fences cut, sprinkler lines run over, etc but that's another subject. Here's what I see with doe hunting. There's no way in heck a few does or cows could possibly compensate for $30,000 in damage. If it cost you that much, you'd better invest in some better fences! There's a land owner down the road from me who does absolutely nothing but let thistles grow on his land, but yet there he is with a bunch of buddies shooting up a bunch of does every year. The fact that he doesn't live around here makes it even worse. He could care less about his land other than collecting grazing fees from a local sheep man, and shooting up a bunch of deer. It's his land and he can do what he wants. But to a fifth generation farmer, that's not responsible landownership. I know not everyone has the same circumstances as me. But if your land means something to you, you'll do what it takes to protect it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-17 AT 08:50PM (MST)[p]FWIW, the doe I shot this year is from a small herd that lives yeararound on the farm which actually surrounds our little subdivision on 3 sides so those deer aren't readily available to the general public. But Brent, along with some other farmers, also has hay and corn fields over by Quitchipah Lake/Flats. Those fields are nightly invaded by deer from other private lands and BLM land and the last minute Quitchipah antlerless hunt was created by the DWR because they couldn't issue enough depredation vouchers to deal with all those properties.

Also, over the years, I've also legally shot does on the Parowan Front, on the Zion unit and out by Enterprise, all on public land because they were eating themselves out of house and home and destroying their winter habitat. Do you feel any differently about those dead does?
 
Most readers on this forum were not hunting back in the day when deer tags in most western states were all either sex. Anyone could shoot a doe the last day of the hunt if they wanted the venison. A good number of folks did just that.
Now days, state game departments try to manage deer herds much more precisely but they have to do it for the benefit of many stake holders. Hunters are only one of the stake holders along with Ranchers, Farmers, and Landowners, who all have a seat at the Wildlife board table.
If an antlerless hunt is approved, it's benefiting one of the stake holders, and the area wildlife biologist has signed off on the need.
I am a hunter and so I will always side for limiting antlerless hunts, but I am never going to second guess the professional that is trying to represent everyone.
 
IF population objectives aren't met, pulling the trigger isn't going to help. If population objectives aren't met and winter range can't handle the lower numbers then pulling the trigger isn't going to help. If population objectives have been surpassed, it doesn't matter.
 
>I don't have a problem with
>the situation you describe. My
>problem with antlerless hunts is
>the way it is done.
>
>In my state of MT FWP
>issues thousands of antlerless tags
>good region wide. There is
>no restrictions or incentives to
>insure that does are taken
>where does need to be
>harvested. What happens is that
>does herds on public land
>bare the brunt of the
>harvest year after year and
>far too few are taken
>on the private ag fields
>where does need to be
>killed.

I'm not familiar enough with Montana's deer management to make any comment about their doe hunts, but I do know that Utah's DWR is VERY specific about the areas, numbers and dates they want targeted does removed. If there's a doe hunt going on somewhere in the state, there's a need!
 
Once 800,000 to 1.2 million mule deer in Utah now 300,000 to 350,000 mule deer in Utah. And justification from the DWR, farmers, ranchers and others hunters like Lee the whole way down. It's actually a tragedy, very sad.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 10:52AM (MST)[p]I really like DBLung's comments. All businesses have inherent risks (theft, bad debts, etc). It is typically up to the business owner to mitigate against those risks. I don't see how this is any different. Put up protective fences or farm in low density wildlife areas or figure out another way.

I'm sure there are some special cases, but given the overall health of mule deer herds in the west, I don't support doe harvest. Elk and whitetails are a different topic.

Having said that, I don't think you're an awful person for killing a doe :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 10:21AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 10:18?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 10:15?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 10:11?AM (MST)

>I feel if the
>deer or elk can't handle
>the depredation hunts, then it's
>up to the rancher to
>keep them off. Either by
>installing high fences to keep
>critters out or getting permission
>to harass them off their
>land. Wdfg should be willing
>to let them do that.
>

Deer proof fences: https://www.howmuchisit.org/game-fencing-cost/
Yes, it's costly, but possible to fence it all. But in most cases, the initial fencing is just the beginning of the costs. That fence has to be maintained, especially if cattle or horses are inside or if it's along a public road or in a flood area or along a vegetated waterway or etc. Additionally, there may be restrictions on fence heights or compositions. And finally, since the fields have become part of the deers' range, you've now just reduced their habitat, putting further stress on what's left.

The Utah DWR does allow the rancher to harass the animals off their land. But what does that entail? And does it actually work?
While the following website isn't specific to deer, it shows the challenges people face while trying to chase wild animals away without harming them. http://www.icwdm.org/ControlMethods/Hazing.aspx In any case, it's nearly impossible to come up with a single long-term hands off technic. And, though it may not be directly costly in terms of money, it sure can be time consuming and to a farmer, time is money. And, again, even if it works, you're simply reducing the available habitat and putting further stress on what is available.

Edited: I'm having trouble getting a direct link to the second website. Sorry!
 
>Once 800,000 to 1.2 million mule
>deer in Utah now 300,000
>to 350,000 mule deer in
>Utah. And justification from
>the DWR, farmers, ranchers and
>others hunters like Lee the
>whole way down. It's
>actually a tragedy, very sad.
>

So, now we know WHO to blame, please tell us WHAT'S to blame. And, more importantly, other than placing gag orders on the DWR, farmers, ranchers and other hunters like me (whatever that means), what's your solution?
 
I believe there are two different doe hunts, one is for depredation on farms near or on cultivated fields (most of us would say these depredation hunts are agreeable) and the unit wide doe hunts (most of us would say this needs to end when deer populations are down). The unit wide hunts kill the public land does that are the baby makers. Lumping these into one hunt will definitely start debates.
 
Government held Wildlife easements, that pay the landowner "one time" for future free access of any and all big game to that piece of land, similar to a mineral lease.

Government pays for those easements out of funds paid to the government by every deer/elk/ moose hunting tag that's sold in the State.

Once an easement is sold no landowner, present or in the future can ever block access or remove big game from his property accept by licensed hunters. He may high fence or protect his property as he sees fit but no more money and no more removal of big game. The easement is written into the deed and anyone looking to buy or sell the property in the future is aware of the easement the same as mineral rights are.

There are lots of other ways, if creative minds were turned loose to address the issue. They just need to let bright people get to work on it.

DC
 
>Government held Wildlife easements, that pay
>the landowner "one time" for
>future free access of any
>and all big game
>to that piece of land,
>similar to a mineral lease.
>
>
>Government pays for those easements out
>of funds paid to the
>government by every deer/elk/ moose
>hunting tag that's sold in
>the State.
>
>Once an easement is sold
>no landowner, present or in
>the future can ever block
>access or remove big game
>from his property accept by
>licensed hunters. He may
>high fence or protect his
>property as he sees fit
>but no more money and
>no more removal of big
>game. The easement is
>written into the deed and
>anyone looking to buy or
>sell the property in the
>future is aware of the
>easement the same as mineral
>rights are.
>
>There are lots of other ways,
>if creative minds were turned
>loose to address the issue.
> They just need
>to let bright people get
>to work on it.
>
>DC

lumpy - What makes you think your idea has not been suggested many times in the past?

I suppose the best way to do this is to pass a law through your state legislature that would mandate landowners be required to enter into access easements.

See how far ya get with that one.

ClearCreek
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-17 AT 09:15PM (MST)[p]I've mentioned many times in the past at all levels with in the system, so it for sure has been mentioned many times, for a fact.

Lots of ideas take time to percolate. And....... I said....... there are other ideas, smarter people than me could come up with, if they got any encouragement from the "system".

Your a pretty bright person, what would suggest, other than killing more of your base herd stock pile?

DC

By the way, I have never suggested nor even considered making it a mandate. I would never make that suggestion nor would I support it. When the need is there for the land owner and the offer for the easement is fair or maybe even more than fair, I believe many landowners would be very happy to sell a big game easement.
 
I don't know where you are located but here in the good ole Uintah basin, there is not any deer to speak of so no to the doe tags. I'm a farmer and there is no way in hell deer can eat 30,000 in hay. Somebody is pulling your chain. Maybe he's getting a thousand dollars a bale
 
If objectives are over capacity and the habitat won't handle all the deer, then we do need to control numbers by anterless hunts. I think those areas are few and far between as far as public land goes. How many of us hunt public land and are ever wondering? wow, there are too many deer?. Usually it's quite the opposite. Especially when some of us old timers can remember or we hear stories of how many deer there used to be. I think if it's a local herd on private property and they don't migrate on and off of public ground, then it's a different scenario. I personally hate to see does getting shot when it's animals that are on public ground all summer and fall. If it's a case like yours on private all the time then have at it.
 
I work in Agriculture, and while I know how hard farmers/ranchers work I don't have too much simpathy here. If you own land near the mountains or near winter range that's part of the risk of production. No different than other farm ground that has different risks...water supply, etc.

Here in Idaho some big ranchers are part of the Fish and Game Commission so they pushed changes to the amount of depreciation hunts this year in response to last years winter. In my opinion it's an excessive knee jerk reaction. I know the deer populations are not above target.

I believe there are different options available. I hate to hear landowners complain about wildlife destroying their crops, but then again won't allow hunting on their property during the fall . That doesn't make sense to me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-17 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]Well, so far you've all validated the dead does I've taken and the suggestions you've given for the problem have and/or are already being used or reviewed in Utah. Any more ideas?
 
Lee,
Obviously you are concerned or you wouldn't be looking for justification. Does in Utah should be off limits until our herds get back to the levels they should be. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. 800,000 to 300,000.
 
>Lee,
>Obviously you are concerned or you
>wouldn't be looking for justification.
> Does in Utah should
>be off limits until our
>herds get back to the
>levels they should be.
>Just because it's legal doesn't
>make it right. 800,000
>to 300,000.

Yes, I'm concerned alright! I'm concerned that you and others refuse to follow the Statewide Mule Deer Plan and the Unit plans in an effort to turn the whole state into Limited Entry Trophy Units, thus reducing and limiting opportunities for those of us who don't care about the number of inches on the heads of big game animals. You can't seem to understand that not everybody thinks like you or hunts like you or wants to hunt like you. And that's the majority of Utah hunters.

I can play psychiatrist, too. You tell me why you are NOT down here shooting does!
 
When I was 12, I couldn't understand why a grown man would want to wax a doe. Several decades later, I still can't understand why a grown man would want to wax a doe. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
Lee,
I don't care about inches. I never have. Thats just the copout that you use to justify shiity mismanagement of our deer herds. I care about a healthy balanced herd which includes more mature bucks than the state chooses to manage for. Poor management and living too close to the edge costs us when predators have an upswing, when a bad winter hits, when we go through drought years. This has all lead to an overall tragic loss of our deer herd. The truth is "most" hunters in the state of Utah don't give two shiiits about what the state does with the deer herd. They just roll with it. But guys like you keep screaming you are the majority so the state takes the easy route and keeps issuing tags. Grow up and recognize we have passed the tag in our pocket every year stage and we have lost enough deer that all of our focus should be on restoring our herds. Not justifying shooting the deer that can help restore the resource. The mule deer plan is watered down and a joke thanks to individuals like yourself. If it wasn't for the few that push for safer herd management our herds would be even worse and you call them out as only concerned with inches. You're a clown for your thought process and you don't even know it. Keep shooting does Lee it fits you like glove!
 
Antlerless deer hunts are bad if they are used, as so many biologist seem to be doing now days, to manage the buck to doe ratio.
Simple math...if you have a fenced in area that has 99 does and 1 buck, and you want to get a 1 to 1 buck to doe ratio, you shoot 98 does and - congratulations, you have a 1 to 1 buck to doe ration! BUT YOU ONLY HAVE TWO DEER LEFT DOH!

The only time I can see to validity of a doe hunt is for population control. I'm not too sure there are very many spots in which the herd numbers of mule deer are exceeding the carrying capacity of the land?
 
>This year I shot a doe
>on a friend's farm using
>a depredation tag/voucher (one of
>ten or twenty) he received
>from the DWR as compensation
>for the loss of approximately
>$30,000 (per bale count) from
>his alfalfa hay fields and
>an unknown amount of corn
>from his feed corn fields.
>Needless to say, he was
>happy about it, I was
>happy about it, the DWR
>was happy about it, the
>butcher was happy about it,
>and the two families I
>gave the meat to were
>happy about it. However, some
>of you were not happy
>about it and I'd like
>to know specifically why and
>what your alternatives are to
>the problem. I don't need
>to hear how terrible, stupid,
>irresponsible, immature, etc. I am,
>I've already heard that. So
>please just tell me/us how
>terrible, stupid, irresponsible, immature, etc.
>the rules, laws, and policies
>are. And, more importantly, what
>are our options. Ready, set,
>go!

This is a flawed statement because you described a doe hunt on an isolated piece of property. When a state issues doe tags they are unit or zone specific. Killing does that are causing no problems at all is mismanagement and detrimental to the overall heard.
 
>Most readers on this forum were
>not hunting back in the
>day when deer tags in
>most western states were all
>either sex. Anyone could
>shoot a doe the last
>day of the hunt if
>they wanted the venison.
> A good number of
>folks did just that.
>Now days, state game departments try
>to manage deer herds much
>more precisely but they have
>to do it for the
>benefit of many stake holders.
> Hunters are only one
>of the stake holders along
>with Ranchers, Farmers, and Landowners,
>who all have a seat
>at the Wildlife board table.
>
>If an antlerless hunt is approved,
>it's benefiting one of the
>stake holders, and the area
>wildlife biologist has signed off
>on the need.
>I am a hunter and so
>I will always side for
>limiting antlerless hunts, but I
>am never going to second
>guess the professional that is
>trying to represent everyone.

I have no problem second guessing because of the influence of those stakeholders and the need for operating $. And just bc sometimes harvest numbers generated by computers don't take some things into account.
 
>Antlerless deer hunts are bad if
>they are used, as so
>many biologist seem to be
>doing now days, to manage
>the buck to doe ratio.
>
>Simple math...if you have a fenced
>in area that has 99
>does and 1 buck, and
>you want to get a
>1 to 1 buck to
>doe ratio, you shoot 98
>does and - congratulations, you
>have a 1 to 1
>buck to doe ration! BUT
>YOU ONLY HAVE TWO DEER
>LEFT DOH!
>
>The only time I can see
>to validity of a doe
>hunt is for population control.
>I'm not too sure there
>are very many spots in
>which the herd numbers of
>mule deer are exceeding the
>carrying capacity of the land?
>

"SEEM to be doing"? And you came to this opinion based on what information? And from where?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-17 AT 02:54PM (MST)[p]>When I was 12, I couldn't
>understand why a grown man
>would want to wax a
>doe. Several decades later,
>I still can't understand why
>a grown man would want
>to wax a doe.


Maybe to help save a friend's lifestyle and livelihood? Or to keep a herd from destroying their winter range? Or to help the DWR keep down their expenses and reduce their time having to manage/kill unwanted deer? Or to help keep a stranger from losing their landscape/garden? Or to help prevent a deer-vehicle collision? Or to help prevent a human/deer encounter? Or to help keep predators out of neighborhoods? Or to help prevent the spread of ungulate diseases and parasites? I'm sure there are other reasons for a grown man to wax a doe, but the first one listed is all I need.

"Different strokes for different folks" is right!

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-7_antlerless_harvest.pdf

Https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-9_urban_issues.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-19_mule_deer_nutrition.pdf

(You might want to read the other 17 Fact Sheets.)
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-17 AT 03:48PM (MST)[p]>>This year I shot a doe
>>on a friend's farm using
>>a depredation tag/voucher (one of
>>ten or twenty) he received
>>from the DWR as compensation
>>for the loss of approximately
>>$30,000 (per bale count) from
>>his alfalfa hay fields and
>>an unknown amount of corn
>>from his feed corn fields.
>>Needless to say, he was
>>happy about it, I was
>>happy about it, the DWR
>>was happy about it, the
>>butcher was happy about it,
>>and the two families I
>>gave the meat to were
>>happy about it. However, some
>>of you were not happy
>>about it and I'd like
>>to know specifically why and
>>what your alternatives are to
>>the problem. I don't need
>>to hear how terrible, stupid,
>>irresponsible, immature, etc. I am,
>>I've already heard that. So
>>please just tell me/us how
>>terrible, stupid, irresponsible, immature, etc.
>>the rules, laws, and policies
>>are. And, more importantly, what
>>are our options. Ready, set,
>>go!
>
>This is a flawed statement because
>you described a doe hunt
>on an isolated piece of
>property. When a state issues
>doe tags they are unit
>or zone specific. Killing
>does that are causing no
>problems at all is mismanagement
>and detrimental to the overall
>heard.

Again, I ask, where did you get this information?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-17 AT 11:57PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-17
>AT 03:48?PM (MST)
>
>>>This year I shot a doe
>>>on a friend's farm using
>>>a depredation tag/voucher (one of
>>>ten or twenty) he received
>>>from the DWR as compensation
>>>for the loss of approximately
>>>$30,000 (per bale count) from
>>>his alfalfa hay fields and
>>>an unknown amount of corn
>>>from his feed corn fields.
>>>Needless to say, he was
>>>happy about it, I was
>>>happy about it, the DWR
>>>was happy about it, the
>>>butcher was happy about it,
>>>and the two families I
>>>gave the meat to were
>>>happy about it. However, some
>>>of you were not happy
>>>about it and I'd like
>>>to know specifically why and
>>>what your alternatives are to
>>>the problem. I don't need
>>>to hear how terrible, stupid,
>>>irresponsible, immature, etc. I am,
>>>I've already heard that. So
>>>please just tell me/us how
>>>terrible, stupid, irresponsible, immature, etc.
>>>the rules, laws, and policies
>>>are. And, more importantly, what
>>>are our options. Ready, set,
>>>go!
>>
>>This is a flawed statement because
>>you described a doe hunt
>>on an isolated piece of
>>property. When a state issues
>>doe tags they are unit
>>or zone specific. Killing
>>does that are causing no
>>problems at all is mismanagement
>>and detrimental to the overall
>>heard.
>
>Again, I ask, where did you
>get this information?

I think he pulled out of his azz.

ClearCreek
 
It seems to me that some hunters would like to "help" the deer herd mostly just complain about how its managed by the DWR. I know that anti hunters will draw a tag and then obviously not hunt so in there minds they are saving a deers life. This is great in the fact that they are contributing money to deer management. Hunters can do the same, put in for a doe tag you don't agree with and don't hunt but report to the DWR that you did kill a deer. When you do you save the baby makers life and made a conservation contribution at the same time. Put your money where your mouth is!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18 AT 10:54AM (MST)[p]Another angle on this-- I have often felt that the DWR should not count animals that are on private ground in the overall population numbers if the general public is not allowed to have access or hunt those animals that are located there. They should also not include those population numbers in the overall population management objectives in the various unit plans. I applaud those private landowners that use public hunters to control and disperse wildlife populations. I also feel that any private landowner who ( for whatever reason) does not allow public hunting on their property should also not receive compensation from wildlife damage funds.
 
>>Antlerless deer hunts are bad if
>>they are used, as so
>>many biologist seem to be
>>doing now days, to manage
>>the buck to doe ratio.
>>
>>Simple math...if you have a fenced
>>in area that has 99
>>does and 1 buck, and
>>you want to get a
>>1 to 1 buck to
>>doe ratio, you shoot 98
>>does and - congratulations, you
>>have a 1 to 1
>>buck to doe ration! BUT
>>YOU ONLY HAVE TWO DEER
>>LEFT DOH!
>>
>>The only time I can see
>>to validity of a doe
>>hunt is for population control.
>>I'm not too sure there
>>are very many spots in
>>which the herd numbers of
>>mule deer are exceeding the
>>carrying capacity of the land?
>>
>
>"SEEM to be doing"? And you
>came to this opinion based
>on what information? And from
>where?

Well,,,for one, Amber Munig. (AZ Biologist) She has targeted the north Kaibab for her pet project. As per her own words...reduce the overall population, through antlerless hunt, and therefore increase the buck to doe ratio. Just contact some of the local "long timers" and see what they think of this management practice (Hatch, Bundy, Woodruff,)
 
Nebo, I like your frame of thinking. I agree, wildlife on private property should not be counted for public, I have been battling this for several years in our area, all the bucks are on private property, but are counted in winter for our buck to doe ratio. But on public property the buck to doe ratio is horrible.
 
Post #1 - Hossblur

How was your son's cow hunt? I hope he got one and that you all appreciate those delicious steaks and hamburgers.

Though it may concern you that killing a cow/doe after the rut is killing possibly 2 (or 3), that's actually the point! We're trying to remove the extra mouths that are creating the problem. What good would it do to remove 1 mouth (buck) every 5 years only to leave 10 or 15 more new mouths in the remaining 4 years? That's not solving the problem. It's adding to it.

As for the buck/bull wasting energy getting it on, I suspect we wouldn't hear any complaints in that department!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18 AT 10:59PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18 AT 10:58?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18 AT 10:55?PM (MST)

Post #2 - antlerradar
Post #4 - NECALI
Post #14 - Outdoordan
Post #28 - Deerdon
Post #20 - NECALI

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and other states may normally allow unit-wide general doe hunts, but Utah does it differently. We want more control of the problem deer than that. Any general doe hunts on public lands are specific to areas, dates and numbers.
From the Region Advisory Council and Wildlife Board meeting packet (See 2017 DEER HERD STATUS AND ANTLERLESS DEER PERMITS and some of the maps.):
https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2017-11_rac_packet.pdf
Also:
https://dwrapps.utah.gov/huntboundary/hbstart?SP=Deer&SE=Antlerless&TB=true


As you may notice there aren't enough does killed in any unit to make a difference in the buck to doe ratios. Utah doesn't kill does in order to increase the buck to doe ratio!

The private land depredation tags are also very specific:
R657-44 - Big Game Depredation
https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-...lations/973-r657-44-big-game-depredation.html

Even though some of the units with doe tags are over population objectives, the hunts still target problem deer and areas.
 
If there is a Doe Problem in TARDville!

Transplant them!

Don't become a Doe Shooter just to Justify Total BS Allegations!









It Won't Be Long and a 22" PISSCUTTER will be known as a Trophy that will be put on the Wall!




90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-18 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]>If there is a Doe Problem
>in TARDville!
>
>Transplant them!
>
>Don't become a Doe Shooter just
>to Justify Total BS Allegations!
>
>
So, what do you know about transplanting deer and why would this be a better solution?


Edited:
Justify - verb:
1- show or prove to be right or reasonable
- to be a good reason for
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-18 AT 11:12AM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18
>AT 10:59?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18
>AT 10:58?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-18
>AT 10:55?PM (MST)
>
>Post #2 - antlerradar
>Post #4 - NECALI
>Post #14 - Outdoordan
>Post #28 - Deerdon
>Post #20 - NECALI
>
>Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and other states
>may normally allow unit-wide general
>doe hunts, but Utah does
>it differently. We want more
>control of the problem deer
>than that. Any general doe
>hunts on public lands are
>specific to areas, dates and
>numbers.
>From the Region Advisory Council and
>Wildlife Board meeting packet (See
>2017 DEER HERD STATUS AND
>ANTLERLESS DEER PERMITS and some
>of the maps.):
>https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2017-11_rac_packet.pdf
>Also:
>https://dwrapps.utah.gov/huntboundary/hbstart?SP=Deer&SE=Antlerless&TB=true
>
>
>As you may notice there aren't
>enough does killed in any
>unit to make a difference
>in the buck to doe
>ratios. Utah doesn't kill does
>in order to increase the
>buck to doe ratio!
>
>The private land depredation tags are
>also very specific:
>R657-44 - Big Game Depredation
>https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-...lations/973-r657-44-big-game-depredation.html
>
>Even though some of the units
>with doe tags are over
>population objectives, the hunts still
>target problem deer and areas.
>

Sorry about that 1st link. It should have been:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2017-04_rac_packet.pdf
 
>Lee,
>Stop shooting does and whining about
>the flack you get for
>it.

Nah! I'd much rather follow the Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan:
https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan.pdf
Which was drafted by:
voting members:
Mike Laughter - MDF
Mike Christensen - Utah Legislature
Dave Freiss - CWMU's
Byron Bateman - SFW
Spencer Gibbons - Utah Farm Bureau
Robin Naeve - BLM (biologist)
Ben Lowder - UBA
Lee Tracy - UWC
DeLoss Christensen - At Large
Randy Larsen - BYU (biologist)
Eric Thacker - USU (biologist)
Rusty Aiken - So. RAC
Randy Dearth - NE RAC
Kris Marble - Cen RAC
Robert Byrnes - No. RAC
Kevin Albrect - SE RAC
Steve Dalton - Wildlife Board
Kreig Rasmussen - NFS (biologist)
non-voting members:
Kent Hershey - DWR (biologist)
Dax Mangus - DWR (biologist)

And the individual unit plans which you can log onto via the DWR website. They all call for antlerless hunts as the most effective and efficient method of controlling populations.
 
>>>Antlerless deer hunts are bad if
>>>they are used, as so
>>>many biologist seem to be
>>>doing now days, to manage
>>>the buck to doe ratio.
>>>
>>>Simple math...if you have a fenced
>>>in area that has 99
>>>does and 1 buck, and
>>>you want to get a
>>>1 to 1 buck to
>>>doe ratio, you shoot 98
>>>does and - congratulations, you
>>>have a 1 to 1
>>>buck to doe ration! BUT
>>>YOU ONLY HAVE TWO DEER
>>>LEFT DOH!
>>>
>>>The only time I can see
>>>to validity of a doe
>>>hunt is for population control.
>>>I'm not too sure there
>>>are very many spots in
>>>which the herd numbers of
>>>mule deer are exceeding the
>>>carrying capacity of the land?
>>>
>>
>>"SEEM to be doing"? And you
>>came to this opinion based
>>on what information? And from
>>where?
>
>Well,,,for one, Amber Munig. (AZ Biologist)
>She has targeted the north
>Kaibab for her pet project.
>As per her own words...reduce
>the overall population, through antlerless
>hunt, and therefore increase the
>buck to doe ratio. Just
>contact some of the local
>"long timers" and see what
>they think of this management
>practice (Hatch, Bundy, Woodruff,)
>

That's what biologist learn in school. It's just math and there's computer software to plug numbers to create forecast models for best case scenarios and worst case scenarios with max and min harvest numbers. It never takes into account an accumulation of WTF scenarios that sees natural mortality rates sky-rocket and fawn recruitment rates bottom out in the linear models when trying to run off averages. The controls aren't in place and the system isn't set up to be anywhere near perfect.

And also when you manage for ratio like that by cutting population down you cut out the number of truly large deer that can be produced. Average should stay relatively the same, but quantity of outlier bucks will decrease with population.
 
So shooting does it the best way to manage a population that was once over 800,000 and is now under 350,000. That makes a lot of sense.

Mule Deer Plan....watered down and ornamental at best!!!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-18 AT 01:23PM (MST)[p]>So shooting does it the best
>way to manage a population
>that was once over 800,000
>and is now under 350,000.
> That makes a lot
>of sense.
>
>Mule Deer Plan....watered down and ornamental
>at best!!!!!!!

We now manage deer on a unit by unit basis, thus those statewide numbers and comments are irrelevant!!!!!!!!!
 
So now the numbers are irrelevant? 800,000 plus deer and now under 350,000 but lets call it irrelevant as you continue to justify killing does. Lee you are not a sportsman or conservationist. You are a taker and nothing more. You never got involved until you lost your yearly archery statewide tag and now you are complaining because some, who have been involved for 40 years don't agree with shooting does in a herd that has lost more than 60% of its numbers. Its pathetic at best!!! You are a perfect example of the type of person that has lead us down this path, check that you have never lead anything, you are the excuse that that others have used to lead us down this path. So wave your flag proud Lee, and keep whacking those does!!!
 
Hey EFA!

Go Shoot a Rock!

A Target!

A Beer Can!

To BRAGG You Shoot Does & Then Give the Meat away is a Joke!

Being a Doe Shooter Ain't Helping the Problem with the Deer Herd!

I Don't Care Who Justifies it!

It's TOTAL BS!








It Won't Be Long and a 22" PISSCUTTER will be known as a Trophy that will be put on the Wall!




90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-18 AT 08:56PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-18 AT 08:15?PM (MST)

>
>Hey EFA!
>
>Go Shoot a Rock!
>
>A Target!
>
>A Beer Can!
>
>To BRAGG You Shoot Does &
>Then Give the Meat away
>is a Joke!
>
>Being a Doe Shooter Ain't Helping
>the Problem with the Deer
>Herd!
>
>I Don't Care Who Justifies it!
>
>
>It's TOTAL BS!
>
>
Since you apparently believe you know more than all the wildlife biologists in the western states and don't care who justifies the killing of does, the following links are for are those who do care.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-5_carrying_capacity.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-7_antlerless_harvest.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-9_urban_issues.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-11_disease_parasites.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-14_fertility_control.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-19_mule_deer_nutrition.pdf

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/mdwg/mdwg-20_mule_deer_manag_&_public_process.pdf

Of course, nearly every western state, if not all, with mule deer also has antlerless hunts to control unit populations, depredations, and habitat damage. To refuse to deal with those issues in the most effective and efficient manner is irresponsible mule deer management and will come back to bite us.
 
Lee,
The fact that you don't understand how harvesting the mature males out of a herd is less harm than harvesting the producers. Especially when you are wanting to grow the herd. Again back to the 800,000 plus then and under 350,000 now. If you really are legitimately asking that question then it's just shows you truly don't understand conservation.
 
>>
>>Hey EFA!
>>
>>Go Shoot a Rock!
>>
>>A Target!
>>
>>A Beer Can!
>>
>>To BRAGG You Shoot Does &
>>Then Give the Meat away
>>is a Joke!
>>
>>Being a Doe Shooter Ain't Helping
>>the Problem with the Deer
>>Herd!
>>
>>I Don't Care Who Justifies it!
>>
>>
>>It's TOTAL BS!
>>
>>
>And shooting a trophy buck and
>bragging about it and hanging
>it on some wall is
>helping the deer herds? How
>so?

So EFA?

Let's Say somebody shot a Mature Buck!

How many Deer did that Person Kill?

Let's say You shot a 2 year old Doe!

How many Deer did you Kill?

PLEASE DO SPLAIN!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-18 AT 09:55PM (MST)[p]>>>
>>>Hey EFA!
>>>
>>>Go Shoot a Rock!
>>>
>>>A Target!
>>>
>>>A Beer Can!
>>>
>>>To BRAGG You Shoot Does &
>>>Then Give the Meat away
>>>is a Joke!
>>>
>>>Being a Doe Shooter Ain't Helping
>>>the Problem with the Deer
>>>Herd!
>>>
>>>I Don't Care Who Justifies it!
>>>
>>>
>>>It's TOTAL BS!
>>>
>>>
>>And shooting a trophy buck and
>>bragging about it and hanging
>>it on some wall is
>>helping the deer herds? How
>>so?
>
>So EFA?
>
>Let's Say somebody shot a Mature
>Buck!
>
>How many Deer did that Person
>Kill?
>
>Let's say You shot a 2
>year old Doe!
>
>How many Deer did you Kill?
>
>
>PLEASE DO SPLAIN!
>
To the readers: I originally posted the text mentioned above, ie; "And shooting a trophy buck........", but soon decided I didn't have the look-up time or interest needed to explain my remark, especially since some posters seemed to have made up their minds, no matter what I wrote. So I started a complete edit including a delete, but shortly was called to dinner by my family and when I got back to the computer to finish writing the new post I didn't realize Muley73 and elkassassin had already responded. In any case, I went ahead with my homework on the original post thus the following:

elk, Let's say we stick with reality and include all statewide harvest numbers instead of just isolating the hypothetical 2 deer killers in the hypothetical scenario you propose which is obviously a set up! (I had to use the 2016 data because the 2017 DWR Annual Big Game Report isn't out yet.) And so,

Let's say I and my fellow antlerless deer killers each kill one antlerless deer. How many deer are killed?

Let's say somebody and his/her fellow buck deer killers each kill one mature buck. How many deer are killed?

The answer to the first question is impossible to answer with any accuracy because of the many variables. It could be one or many. The variables:
1) Is the antlerless deer a buck or doe? I know at least one button-buck that was killed, my daughter's. How many more small bucks were there?
2) If the deer was a doe, was it pregnant? About 3% to 5% of the does each year aren't.
3) If the doe was pregnant, was it carrying a single or twins? Most does carry singles their first pregnancy, but twins thereafter.
4) If pregnant, was/were the fetuses male ore female. It's about 50/50.
5) Were the fetuses delivered? Most are, but not all.
6) Did the fawns survive their first year? As you are aware, there was a very low first year fawn survival rate in Northern Utah this last winter due to winterkill, only 10% to 20%. Even a 60% fawn first year survival rate is high
7) Finally, how many years does a doe live and continue to produce fawns? Wild mule deer life expectancies are about 7 to 9 years at the most, which means that many does quit producing after 5 to 6 years of doing so.
So the answer to question #1 is, we don't know for sure.

And how many antlerless deer were initially killed in 2016?
473 on General Unit DWR hunts
19 on CWMU's
2,000 (about) on depredation/landowner hunts.
That's about 2,492

Does it make a negative difference to the growth of hunted herds. NO! ALL of those deer are removed from areas where growth of the deer herd in those areas is NOT WANTED! The farmers and ranchers don't want more deer in their crops and pasturelands. The cities and communities don't want more deer on their streets, parks, neighborhoods, and cemeteries. The BLM and NFS doesn't want more deer in areas where the forage and cover is depleted and/or degraded. The DWR doesn't want more deer in the above areas or areas that allow them to grow accustomed to people and their surroundings. Hunters are pretty much the only ones who bristle at the thought of killing does, no matter where the are. But, as littlebighorn mentioned in post #7, hunters aren't the only stakeholders in this issue and, frankly, we're not #1 either nor should we be. We're the only ones who want to increase the population in these areas. Everyone else wants to maintain the current level or reduce it. Yes, let's increase the herd, just not in these areas!

On to question #2. How many bucks were killed in 2016? According to the Report,
31,315 on General Unit DWR hunts
1,126 on LE Unit DWR hunts
1,561 on CWMU hunts
That's 34,002
In other words, the buck hunters killed over 13 times more the number of deer than the antlerless hunters killed. And if this keeps up for the next 5 years, antlerless hunters will kill 14,952 deer in areas they aren't needed or wanted, while buck hunters will kill 204,012 deer in areas where we want them.

Now, FWIW, 9 of the current 38 habitat (not hunting) managed units are above population objectives (including 3 where I've shot does, ie; Pine Valley, Zion and Panguith Lake.). Also, in 22 of those units the populations are growing, 4 are stead, while 12 are dropping.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-18 AT 09:38PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-18 AT 09:33?PM (MST)

800,000 plus deer down to less than 350,000 and you're still trying to justify shooting the producers. This whole tread sums up the type of hunters that have enabled and contributed to those numbers. Thanks Lee we all owe you a big thank you.

Could you please break down exactly how much each doe needs to eat to equal the 30,000 dollars lost by your friend. Could you also please break down the number of years the deer have been on this area compared to the farm.

Also are you saying we should cut back on the numbers of bucks shot? You are 100% correct that if we shoot less bucks our overall numbers will be higher.
 
So Tell us EFA?

Most Body Size on the Herd is way Smaller than they used to be!

Wondering How much Meat you get in the Finished Form (Cut,Wrapped & Packaged!) off of a Button Buck/MOTL/PISSCUTTER?

Must be Tender?

Please SPLAIN your Intentions!

Is it:

"I Got My Deer"?

"I Filled My Tag"?

"I Helped the DWR Decimate a Deer Herd"?

"I needed the Meat"?

"My Neighbor needed the Meat"?

"I Killed a Deer (Many Deer when you Shoot a Doe!) Then gave it away,Stuck a Feather in your Cap & Now you're the Great White Hunter"?
 
> So Tell us EFA?
>
>Most Body Size on the Herd
>is way Smaller than they
>used to be!
>
>Wondering How much Meat you get
>in the Finished Form (Cut,Wrapped
>& Packaged!) off of a
>Button Buck/MOTL/PISSCUTTER?
>
>Must be Tender?
>
>Please SPLAIN your Intentions!
>
>Is it:
>
>"I Got My Deer"?
>
>"I Filled My Tag"?
>
>"I Helped the DWR Decimate a
>Deer Herd"?
>
>"I needed the Meat"?
>
>"My Neighbor needed the Meat"?
>
>"I Killed a Deer (Many Deer
>when you Shoot a Doe!)
>Then gave it away,Stuck a
>Feather in your Cap &
>Now you're the Great White
>Hunter"?
>

Since you love seeing and hunting big bucks so much, why don't you let one live in your living room? My motive is to remove a deer (or many future deer) from an area where they are not wanted or needed.

If you don't like the way deer are managed, bring your arguments up at the RAC's and Wildlife Board 'cause I don't make the rules or establish policies. I just follow them.
 
Well EFA!

I Have Several Deer not far from the Living Room!

Yup!

I Could WHINE to the DWR for Depredation Tags!

And Could Kill Them All!

But Instead!

I've Got Hay Set Aside to Help them through the Winter if they need it!

So Far it's been an Easy Winter!

But that could Change Quick!

I've got a few Friends with the Same Attitude!

We can't Fix all the Problems!

But We're gonna save a few Deer!











It Won't Be Long and a 22" PISSCUTTER will be known as a Trophy that will be put on the Wall!




90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-18 AT 02:25PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-18 AT 02:23?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-18 AT 02:06?PM (MST)

>Well EFA!
>
>I Have Several Deer not far
>from the Living Room!
>
>Yup!
>
>I Could WHINE to the DWR
>for Depredation Tags!
>
>And Could Kill Them All!
>
>But Instead!
>
>I've Got Hay Set Aside to
>Help them through the Winter
>if they need it!
>
>So Far it's been an Easy
>Winter!
>
>But that could Change Quick!
>
>I've got a few Friends with
>the Same Attitude!
>
>We can't Fix all the Problems!
>
>
>But We're gonna save a few
>Deer!
>
>
Like I said, take that attitude to the Wildlife Board and get them to force that attitude on the rest of us! Or maybe you could call me a few more names or insult me a few times more or try to pin me into a corner or try to embarrass me into submission or even get rid of me on this forum in order to prove your point, but for heaven's sake don't listen to anyone who has a different view of these unwanted deer. I've given you and the other readers of this thread all the links and answers I need to give. Do whatever you think you need to do with that information and I'll do the same!
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-18
>AT 02:25?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-18
>AT 02:23?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-18
>AT 02:06?PM (MST)
>
>>Well EFA!
>>
>>I Have Several Deer not far
>>from the Living Room!
>>
>>Yup!
>>
>>I Could WHINE to the DWR
>>for Depredation Tags!
>>
>>And Could Kill Them All!
>>
>>But Instead!
>>
>>I've Got Hay Set Aside to
>>Help them through the Winter
>>if they need it!
>>
>>So Far it's been an Easy
>>Winter!
>>
>>But that could Change Quick!
>>
>>I've got a few Friends with
>>the Same Attitude!
>>
>>We can't Fix all the Problems!
>>
>>
>>But We're gonna save a few
>>Deer!
>>
>>
>Like I said, take that attitude
>to the Wildlife Board and
>get them to force that
>attitude on the rest of
>us! Or maybe you could
>call me a few more
>names or insult me a
>few times more or try
>to pin me into a
>corner or try to embarrass
>me into submission or even
>get rid of me on
>this forum in order to
>prove your point, but for
>heaven's sake don't listen to
>anyone who has a different
>view of these unwanted deer.
>I've given you and the
>other readers of this thread
>all the links and answers
>I need to give. Do
>whatever you think you need
>to do with that information
>and I'll do the same!
>

EASY EFA!

As Far as I Can Recall the only Name I mighta sent your way was 'Doe Shooter'!

Only because: 'If the Shoe Fits'!

You're a little Touchy on the Subject & So Am I!

Take My Attitude to the Wildlife Board?

I'll Protect Deer on My Own Property as I Please!

And NO!

There Won't be any Doe Shootin going on!

You need to COOL It a little Bit!

You Started this Thread!

Did You Think every Hunter in the State was gonna agree with you 100%?
 
Lee,
Don't whine about being picked on. You jumped up on your stump all on your own and kept crowing. Can't be mad that you woke up Bess and he came out and swatted ya.

At least you'll be able to legally go shoot a doe again this year to make yourself feel better. Thanks for you keen conservation efforts here in the state of Utah.

Hammering you is getting old and honestly it's sad all the way around. Your attitude and the lose of our loved resource.
 
I don't get this thread at all. Lee invites anyone to step up and argue with him about him hunting does but when he gets pushed around a little, then it's not fair and people are being mean.
Here's a quote from Lee from the "got my elephant" thread:
"Now that's an OIAL hunt!! Ya done good, kid."
So I guess it's OK to be a trophy hunter as long as you do it on the other side of the world or maybe just not in the units that Lee is applying for or hunting in.

Get ready for change because it's going to happen!
 
I don't agree with antlerless hunts. Does make more deer, more deer is the goal. Kill off the spikes n 3 points first. Same with cows- cows make elk, more elk is the goal..... IMO
 
> So Tell us EFA?
>
>Most Body Size on the Herd
>is way Smaller than they
>used to be!
>
>Wondering How much Meat you get
>in the Finished Form (Cut,Wrapped
>& Packaged!) off of a
>Button Buck/MOTL/PISSCUTTER?
>
>Must be Tender?
>
>Please SPLAIN your Intentions!
>
>Is it:
>
>"I Got My Deer"?
>
>"I Filled My Tag"?
>
>"I Helped the DWR Decimate a
>Deer Herd"?
>
>"I needed the Meat"?
>
>"My Neighbor needed the Meat"?
>
>"I Killed a Deer (Many Deer
>when you Shoot a Doe!)
>Then gave it away,Stuck a
>Feather in your Cap &
>Now you're the Great White
>Hunter"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

This is what I always wonder. There are lots of reasons, some of which are far less noble than others.... if it's about the meat, and you happen across a good sized doe, than I don't have a problem. Still.... like everybody has pointed out, you never know how many deer you're offin' when you take a doe.


My biggest worry is that after I'm dead my wife will sell my hunting gear for what I told her I paid for it!
https://GearLobo.com
 
Utah will never ever get to 800,000 mule deer. The carrying capacity does not and will not ever exist with our build build build mentality. Here's an idea make it mandatory to allow public hunters on landowner property if they want any type of compensation the DNR can call people with antlerless tags and the landowner to try to set up hunt dates every weekend.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
I respectfully disagree. "Most" of the 30 deer units have very little new development. South of Payson, with is the majority of the State, there has been very little development that will limit deer populations that can grow far beyond where they presently are.

If you want more tags, grow more deer. numbers. Ask our friends on private ranches if it can be done. It simply a matter of desire not lack of potential.

Just my opinion of course. We each see what we want to see, as we consider future opportunities. One man knows it's hopeless........ while another man is doing it.

DC
 
IMO there is nothing wrong with harvesting meat whether it is a buck or a doe. However the ranchers needs should not be put above the wildlife. If you don't want to deal with wildlife don't be a rancher. If area deer numbers are really strong great have a doe hunt but far to often fish and game are to liberal with there rules to create revenue. My father could hunt archery and rifle both anywhere in the state "Oregon" and doe tags were not to hard to get. My youth to pick between rifle or archery but hunt where you want. Now it's archery or rifle and all rifle is draw and doe tags are almost none existent. I think doe hunts are fine but lets be conservative to make sure our normal seasons stay around as long as possible.
 
I'm no game biologist. Just the son of one, so a few things rubbed off on me over the decades, but I don't presume to understand all facets.

I've heard many points of view against harvesting does. I can't recall any one that was biologically sound from what I understand. Most is emotional, and the rest have been misunderstandings. Does should be part of the harvest mix in a measured and managed way on all units anywhere near carrying capacity.
 
Of course they should. But Utah is no where near carrying capacity. And even those numbers have been skewed over many years of mismanagement.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-18 AT 05:53PM (MST)[p]>I'm no game biologist. Just the
>son of one, so a
>few things rubbed off on
>me over the decades, but
>I don't presume to understand
>all facets.
>
>I've heard many points of view
>against harvesting does. I can't
>recall any one that was
>biologically sound from what I
>understand. Most is emotional, and
>the rest have been misunderstandings.
>Does should be part of
>the harvest mix in a
>measured and managed way on
>all units anywhere near carrying
>capacity.

If you dive off into deer management and carrying capacity then every elk and all other competition should be slaughtered for taking up resources. That won't happen, some sort of balance will be sought, so you'll get half***ed mgmt of everything scientifically & economically.....but it's about all you can do without causing a PR nightmare.
 
>I'm no game biologist. Just the
>son of one, so a
>few things rubbed off on
>me over the decades, but
>I don't presume to understand
>all facets.
>
>I've heard many points of view
>against harvesting does. I can't
>recall any one that was
>biologically sound from what I
>understand. Most is emotional, and
>the rest have been misunderstandings.
>Does should be part of
>the harvest mix in a
>measured and managed way on
>all units anywhere near carrying
>capacity.


And Remind us which General Units are near carrying Capacity?

Most General Units Are F'D Up due to Over Hunting/GREED/And PISS POOR Management!
 
>And Remind us which General Units
>are near carrying Capacity?


Every one of them. It is basic biology of every species that they overproduce, as has been understood since the days of development of Darwin's hypothesis. Its foundational to why we can even hunt at all. If it were not so, mulies would have been out-competed and become extinct long ag, or every drought and bad winter would have permanently reduced total populations permanently. It we can observe the principal in the short term, seeing relatively quick rebounds from natural disasters. It is simply basic biology that all species fill their niche to carrying capacity. And prey species generally do so rather quickly - couple years or less.

If the land/predator/climate/competition/etc mix would actually allow for greater numbers of deer, then their numbers would rapidly increase to fill the void. Just because past conditions did allow for greater numerical abundance does not mean such is sustainable now. It is only below carrying capacity when unusual circumstances occur. Amd those dips are relatively short lived. Droughts, harsh winters, etc are included as primary factors directly determining the carrying capacity of the land.

Perhaps there is focus on the difference in the gender mix and maturity between general and LE units confounding perceptions? However its our prederences and biases coloring that understanding, not reality. If we were to value does as we do bucks, we likely would think general units were nothing less than amazing! Even better than LE units due to abundance, age structure, etc. It is purely our bias forming our attitudes towards the situation, not empirical evidence.

As was mentioned in a post above, it used to be common to hunt does as well as bucks in most all western states. And people refer to those days as the glory days of deer hunting. Correlation? Even causation? This irrational fear of killing a doe could very well be a causal factor in complaints about lack of bucks. Yes, while it is true that each doe removed removes an ability to produce fawns, it is also true that every doe that lives occupies a place in the habitat that can't be filled by a young and upcoming buck because of environmental constraints. Its a balance, and the way I see it, the pendulum of current bias has swung well too far away from balanced harvest between the sexes.

Tired of typing on the phone, so I'll quit now. My appologies for any typos.
 
This may be true if the herd reaches a number that can quickly rebound. However if you knock the herd down to low enough number that pushes the balance out of whack your herds will not bounce back. If you always walk to close to the line things like , predators, winter, drought, road kill, hunting all keep the overall number lower than is needed to rebound.

Shut the hunting down on several units and focus largely on the predator population. Will the herd grow, yes it will. It will continue to grow until lack of food starts to balance out the herd. We claim we are at that point now. Yet I'd bet a shiney nickel that if you applied the above senario to almost any unit on the state the overall number of deer on that unit would increase and level out drastically. So no we are not at carrying capacity on most units. Our biologist and DWR claim this because it is the status quo and the easiest route to manage Utahs herds.

Shooting does is needed in a healthy well managed herd. Utahs is not healthy or well managed. So injecting doe harvest into this unbalanced herd would have negative results. It has had negative results and no groups or individuals are willing to step up and make the sacrifices to manage it properly.
 
kind of weird how 73 and his pop say they don't care one bit about private lands deer. they don't want them counted. they don't care if they are all shot. yet an old dude in his 70s shoots a doe in a farmer's field and all hell breaks loose.

now 73 wants you all to know that if the crap biologists at the fish and game really cared about deer they would stop hunting them and we'd have 800,000 deer again. because we all know that there are so many doe tags keeping herd numbers down. we could close the cache. stop killing all those town deer and the unit would have tens of thousands of deer running around. 73 would have you believe the doe slaughters killed the herd last year. nothing to do with the weather. nothing to see here. carrying capaci what? move along.

an old dude shoots a doe in a farmer's field and the herd is destroyed. asinine.
 
Muley, can you or can you not provide refutation to the principle of overproduction of species? And that all species naturally and rapidly trend towards the carrying capacity of their environment and circumstances? Pointing to historical population estimates compared to today's population estimates is neither compelling nor informative for today's environment and circumstances. I am eagerly and honestly wanting to learn more and more than willing to understand that I'm wrong. But I've seen nothing in this thread (or anywhere else) that actually addresses that principle as inapplocable to deer, which is central to an understanding of whether taking of does is harmful or not.
 
Come on the DWR is saying we have reached the best hunting era since the 70's..We have deer everywhere. Deer are so thick they are getting hammered on highways. Deer falling out of trees now days, because we have so many, we need more hunts.
 
2 point,
Where did I say that I don't care if every deer on private is shot? Can you please show me that or are you just lying??? I acknowledge that weather plays a major roll. And I am well aware that it is a much bigger factor on some units more than others, ie the Cache.

The management of Utahs deer herd overall has been asinine. One old dude shooting a doe in a farms field is just a tiny example of the asinine state of it.
 
Charina,
If you allow a herd to always survive on the low end you will take longer to rebound. When you push the numbers to a certain point, predator numbers have the ability to keep those numbers from expanding naturally. Yes if you create a true natural balance then the predators will starve and give the herds a chance to bounce back. However with the injection of the humans, you are swaying that balance away from nature. You can not use biological natural balance models when you go in and allow hunters to throw the herd out of natural balance every season.

Please name the herds in the state that are truly at carrying capacity. That number is nothing more than a number created by DWR who's focus is not growing more deer as a #1 priority. This the same DWR that claims 5 buck per 100 does is ok ( is that biologically natural). They are using the same models that showed 2000 head of pronghorn on the Parker Plateau. So they issue over 500 doe permits. When pressured to actually fly the unit its revealed that the unit has 200 head. Oops. How about the Fishlake elk herd. They shoot it out in one season so bad that the unit has to be closed for a couple of years. No to claim Utahs deer herds are at carrying capacity is nothing more than irresponsible laziness. But like I said my new stance is Utah should open up over the counter either sex permits. If the DWR approves it, it must be the right thing to do...right?
 
So. . . absolutely nothing to refute foundational biological principles necessary for the understanding of the actual effects of the taking of does. I didn't really expect anything, since this has been studied ad nauseam and never refuted as it relates to deer. Which in turn tells you that every single unit in UT is at or very near carrying capacity for the habitat and circumstances present.

Every point I have read of yours (and everyone against doe take) in this post has been emotionally laden, anecdotal, and unsubstantiated. It is not persuasive nor informative in determining if doe harvest is good, bad or neutral.
 
Plenty of biological science within my explanation. I'm not surprised that escapes you. All good , shoot all the does you want in Utah. I don't expect our management to improve anytime soon.
 
>Come on the DWR is saying
>we have reached the best
>hunting era since the 70's..We
>have deer everywhere. Deer
>are so thick they are
>getting hammered on highways. Deer
>falling out of trees now
>days, because we have so
>many, we need more hunts.
>

Ya!

Show Me where We can add anymore Deer Hunts!

JUDAS!
 
your dad said
If the public can't hunt the deer populations it finds and protects, then we should not continue to fund or protect them, other than to keep them from spreading disease to public land deer. Private land owners and CWMU operators should be fully supportive of having total control over the deer that are only accessible to their clients and or families.

many farmers would like that plan and kill every deer or elk that came on their land. we have seen enough of your posts to know you think the same as your dad.

a dude thinking that a guy shooting a doe on a hay field is asinine is asinine.
 
Duecy,
I have never said that. You're pulling that out of your asss. What my dad said had nothing to do with what I said on this issue. If you're gonna jump in at least have some truth.
 
>>And Remind us which General Units
>>are near carrying Capacity?
>
>
>Every one of them. It is
>basic biology of every species
>that they overproduce, as has
>been understood since the days
>of development of Darwin's hypothesis.
>Its foundational to why we
>can even hunt at all.
>If it were not so,
>mulies would have been out-competed
>and become extinct long ag,
>or every drought and bad
>winter would have permanently reduced
>total populations permanently. It
>we can observe the principal
>in the short term, seeing
>relatively quick rebounds from natural
>disasters. It is simply basic
>biology that all species fill
>their niche to carrying capacity.
>And prey species generally
>do so rather quickly -
>couple years or less.
>
>If the land/predator/climate/competition/etc mix would actually
>allow for greater
>numbers of deer, then their
>numbers would rapidly increase
>to fill the void. Just
>because past conditions did allow
>for greater numerical abundance does
>not mean such is sustainable
>now. It is only below
>carrying capacity when unusual circumstances
>occur. Amd those dips are
>relatively short lived. Droughts, harsh
>winters, etc are included as
>primary factors directly determining the
>carrying capacity of the land.
>
>
>Perhaps there is focus on the
>difference in the gender mix
>and maturity between general and
>LE units confounding perceptions? However
>its our prederences and biases
>coloring that understanding, not reality.
>If we were to value
>does as we do bucks,
>we likely would think general
>units were nothing less than
>amazing! Even better than LE
>units due to abundance, age
>structure, etc. It is
>purely our bias forming our
>attitudes towards the situation, not
>empirical evidence.
>
>As was mentioned in a post
>above, it used to be
>common to hunt does as
>well as bucks in most
>all western states. And
>people refer to those days
>as the glory days of
>deer hunting. Correlation? Even causation?
>This irrational fear of killing
>a doe could very well
>be a causal factor in
>complaints about lack of bucks.
>Yes, while it is true
>that each doe removed removes
>an ability to produce fawns,
>it is also true that
>every doe that lives occupies
>a place in the habitat
>that can't be filled by
>a young and upcoming buck
>because of environmental constraints. Its
>a balance, and the way
>I see it, the pendulum
>of current bias has swung
>well too far away from
>balanced harvest between the sexes.
>
>
>Tired of typing on the phone,
>so I'll quit now. My
>appologies for any typos.

"Every unit it near it's carrying capacity"? I'm going to just throw out a guess here...but I'm thinking you read that in a book somewhere???? Do you have any real life experiences that would lead you to a statement like that?
 
>I'm going to just
>throw out a guess here...but
>I'm thinking you read that
>in a book somewhere???? Do
>you have any real life
>experiences that would lead you
>to a statement like that?

I'm not going to engage in the personal drama of posts that are nothing but sarcastic retorts without factual substance. I'll reply now, but will not engage in it, and have no intent to waste my time with it. And no, it's not about thin skin, I'm very comfortable in my skin despite snide remarks or even straight out attacks, but I know it's not worth engaging in as it has no beneficial outcome to any discussion.

Tell me this, if deer are not at carrying capacity for the habitat and circumstances, then why not? What are the specific causal factors, or even substantiated anecdotal hypotheses? Tell me how the population of mule deer in UT are not regulated by the most foundational concepts of biology?

Very simply put, every species fills it's niche to capacity, even over-capacity if there are not sufficient checks. Prey species moreso than long-lived predators. And yet we still see the same principle in play in those long-lived predators. We can discuss the management, predator loads, winter range constriction, fecundity interference, and all the other circumstances that are preventing deer from over-populating themselves to starvation, but the fact remains - deer, like every other species over-populates and fills any void to the point of excess. Just because hunting shaves off the over-population peaks that lead to starvation does not mean that the deer are not quickly filling any void up to carrying capacity.

What is the average annual recruitment rate of UT mulies? And why do you suppose it is as low as it is? You can't blame winters and you can't blame droughts, as those are determining factors in the carrying capacity and to do so would be a circular argument proving that the population is at carrying capacity for the environment and circumstances. Every time a hunter decries of loss due to winter, drought, etc, they are arguing that the caps on capacity have been bumped against.

Take this one facet of recruitment a bit further. I'm thinking of one particular study, but have heard of (but not read) others that may be more applicable. If you introduce young into an established population of wildlife, first year survival rates are low. Have you asked yourself why that is? And yet, if you introduce young into a habitat where competition from established members of the species or direct competitors (e.g. elk in the case of deer) have been removed or are naturally absent, recruitment rates instantly jump despite all the other factors (weather, predation, etc). The presence of coyotes, courgars, and bears, while they certainly DO have an impact on recruitment, (and a disproportional impact with severely depressed populations - such as a new introduction), they are not the predominate determining factor in recruitment! It's almost always food - specifically food in winter.

This is the very reason that introduction of Bison to Henries and Book Cliffs, and sheep to all sorts of ranges is successful!!! Recruitment is high because of lack of competition, and there is lack of competition from established adults because the population is below carrying capacity (which is inclusive of specific constraints - such as winter). Accordingly, the population grows, despite predator loads. But once carrying capacity is approached, recruitment begins to fall to the normal low levels of an established population. Given the undisputed fact that species over-populate, low recruitment like we observe in our deer herds is the observation of the direct effect of bumping against carrying capacities.

If you want to poke a hole in the premise that herds can sustain (and even thrive with) doe take (limited in proportion, not unlimited of course) in addition to buck harvest, then show how recruitment rates do *not* vary inversely to the % of carrying capacity of a population, or how natural doe loss rates are in excess of average fecundity, or that UT mule deer don't operate on the same fundamental principles known to govern wildlife, etc.
 
>>I'm going to just
>>throw out a guess here...but
>>I'm thinking you read that
>>in a book somewhere???? Do
>>you have any real life
>>experiences that would lead you
>>to a statement like that?
>
>I'm not going to engage in
>the personal drama of posts
>that are nothing but sarcastic
>retorts without factual substance.
>I'll reply now, but will
>not engage in it, and
>have no intent to waste
>my time with it.
>And no, it's not about
>thin skin, I'm very comfortable
>in my skin despite snide
>remarks or even straight out
>attacks, but I know it's
>not worth engaging in as
>it has no beneficial outcome
>to any discussion.
>
>Tell me this, if deer are
>not at carrying capacity for
>the habitat and circumstances, then
>why not? What are
>the specific causal factors, or
>even substantiated anecdotal hypotheses? Tell
>me how the population of
>mule deer in UT are
>not regulated by the most
>foundational concepts of biology?
>
>Very simply put, every species fills
>it's niche to capacity, even
>over-capacity if there are not
>sufficient checks. Prey species moreso
>than long-lived predators. And
>yet we still see the
>same principle in play in
>those long-lived predators. We
>can discuss the management, predator
>loads, winter range constriction, fecundity
>interference, and all the other
>circumstances that are preventing deer
>from over-populating themselves to starvation,
>but the fact remains -
>deer, like every other species
>over-populates and fills any void
>to the point of excess.
> Just because hunting shaves
>off the over-population peaks that
>lead to starvation does not
>mean that the deer are
>not quickly filling any void
>up to carrying capacity.
>
>What is the average annual recruitment
>rate of UT mulies?
>And why do you suppose
>it is as low as
>it is? You can't
>blame winters and you can't
>blame droughts, as those are
>determining factors in the carrying
>capacity and to do so
>would be a circular argument
>proving that the population is
>at carrying capacity for the
>environment and circumstances. Every
>time a hunter decries of
>loss due to winter, drought,
>etc, they are arguing that
>the caps on capacity have
>been bumped against.
>
>Take this one facet of recruitment
>a bit further. I'm
>thinking of one particular study,
>but have heard of (but
>not read) others that may
>be more applicable. If
>you introduce young into an
>established population of wildlife, first
>year survival rates are low.
>Have you asked yourself why
>that is? And yet,
>if you introduce young into
>a habitat where competition from
>established members of the species
>or direct competitors (e.g. elk
>in the case of deer)
>have been removed or are
>naturally absent, recruitment rates instantly
>jump despite all the other
>factors (weather, predation, etc).
>The presence of coyotes, courgars,
>and bears, while they certainly
>DO have an impact on
>recruitment, (and a disproportional impact
>with severely depressed populations -
>such as a new introduction),
>they are not the predominate
>determining factor in recruitment!
>It's almost always food -
>specifically food in winter.
>
>This is the very reason that
>introduction of Bison to Henries
>and Book Cliffs, and sheep
>to all sorts of ranges
>is successful!!! Recruitment is
>high because of lack of
>competition, and there is lack
>of competition from established adults
>because the population is below
>carrying capacity (which is inclusive
>of specific constraints - such
>as winter). Accordingly, the population
>grows, despite predator loads.
>But once carrying capacity is
>approached, recruitment begins to fall
>to the normal low levels
>of an established population. Given
>the undisputed fact that species
>over-populate, low recruitment like we
>observe in our deer herds
>is the observation of the
>direct effect of bumping against
>carrying capacities.
>
>If you want to poke a
>hole in the premise that
>herds can sustain (and even
>thrive with) doe take (limited
>in proportion, not unlimited of
>course) in addition to buck
>harvest, then show how recruitment
>rates do *not* vary inversely
>to the % of carrying
>capacity of a population, or
>how natural doe loss rates
>are in excess of average
>fecundity, or that UT mule
>deer don't operate on the
>same fundamental principles known to
>govern wildlife, etc.

Um...you didn't answer my question.
 
I only go by is what I see, and have seen, over 50 years of hunting and living is a rural area.

First: I ran on to a young DWR biologist during the fall by Glenwood, UT. He was telling us how there were too many deer on the Monroe in that area. I asked what he based it on and he told me that they(the deer) were making it into town. Looking at the browse in the foothills a little higher, it was overgrown and old. This same area over the years has held 5 to 10 times the winter deer herd that we see now. I asked if he didn't think hunting deer and mainly elk until January would bring the deer into town. He said he didn't think so. I asked if more predators wouldn't bring the deer to the town (more and more cougars are being seen in town). By this time he wanted to end the conversation and believe me I was calm and civil to him.

Second: The Durfey's on the FishLake used to winter a large herd, now very few deer winter there. Browse to your shoulders.

Third: "Predators do not have the main influence on deer herds". I don't know how many times I have heard that from a DWR Biologist. It depends on the unit. Years ago, the deer were few and far between, on the Henries. They made a concentrated effort to shoot mountain lions on that mountain. I think they shot 50 or 60 in a week or month and the deer herd immediately started to explode in numbers.

Forth: They had their doe hunt and left over deer, which is the remaining herd, are still in town where they are safe.

Fifth: I was warned about it when we were trying to get three-point and better in the state by a DWR employee. He told me we were concentrating in the wrong area. He told me the division was trying to kill all of the doe and this was several years ago. He was right.

This story can be repeated in units and areas all over the State of Utah - when will they wise up? When the deer are all gone!!! Probably!!!
 
>I only go by is what
>I see, and have seen,
>over 50 years of hunting
>and living is a rural
>area.
>
>First: I ran on to
>a young DWR biologist during
>the fall by Glenwood, UT.
> He was telling us
>how there were too many
>deer on the Monroe in
>that area. I asked
>what he based it on
>and he told me that
>they(the deer) were making it
>into town. Looking at
>the browse in the foothills
>a little higher, it was
>overgrown and old. This
>same area over the years
>has held 5 to 10
>times the winter deer herd
>that we see now.
>I asked if he didn't
>think hunting deer and mainly
>elk until January would bring
>the deer into town.
>He said he didn't think
>so. I asked if
>more predators wouldn't bring the
>deer to the town (more
>and more cougars are being
>seen in town). By
>this time he wanted to
>end the conversation and believe
>me I was calm and
>civil to him.
>
>Second: The Durfey's on the
>FishLake used to winter a
>large herd, now very few
>deer winter there. Browse
>to your shoulders.
>
>Third: "Predators do not have
>the main influence on deer
>herds". I don't know
>how many times I have
>heard that from a DWR
>Biologist. It depends on
>the unit. Years ago,
>the deer were few and
>far between, on the Henries.
> They made a concentrated
>effort to shoot mountain lions
>on that mountain. I
>think they shot 50 or
>60 in a week or
>month and the deer herd
>immediately started to explode in
>numbers.
>
>Forth: They had their doe
>hunt and left over deer,
>which is the remaining herd,
>are still in town where
>they are safe.
>
>Fifth: I was warned about
>it when we were trying
>to get three-point and better
>in the state by a
>DWR employee. He told
>me we were concentrating in
>the wrong area. He
>told me the division was
>trying to kill all of
>the doe and this was
>several years ago. He
>was right.
>
>This story can be repeated in
>units and areas all over
>the State of Utah -
>when will they wise up?
> When the deer are
>all gone!!! Probably!!!



You're Perty Much Right cannonball!

PISS POOR DEER Management since 1972!

Will it come back?

After 45 Years?

Not a F'N Chance when it's managed for nothing more than $$$ & GREED!
 
I do not think they shoot to many doe's in utah.

What I do not like is when they shoot doe's to get a buck to doe ratio where they like it.even when numbers are down that don't make sense.

They should not worry about buck to doe ratios until there is enough deer to worry about it.

But last time I checked I never made it through college so I could be wrong!!! But i find that common sense is more important then a collage degree!!!
 
>I do not think they shoot
>to many doe's in utah.
>
>
>What I do not like is
>when they shoot doe's to
>get a buck to doe
>ratio where they like it.even
>when numbers are down that
>don't make sense.
>
>They should not worry about buck
>to doe ratios until there
>is enough deer to worry
>about it.
>
>But last time I checked I
>never made it through college
>so I could be wrong!!!
>But i find that common
>sense is more important then
>a collage degree!!!

I don't know where you live or where you hunt deer, but in Utah we DO NOT shoot does for the purpose of creating an acceptable buck to doe ratio. We shot does because they increase deer populations in defined specific areas where they are biologically or economically or socially not wanted!
 
One of the major reasons fawn recruitment is so low that nobody has mentioned ifs roadkill.

No the herds aren't at objective or carrying capacity...

Deer congregate on farms because they have good food, water and safety. Most (not all) farmers refuse access for millions of different reasons then turn around and make the state pay for their pets....

Don't count deer on private land. Don't pay for damages, unless enrolled in walk in access. Manage the deer herd for public land and public accessible places and the model will be accurate instead of (analogy) counting someone else's money as your own.

4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
Ummm... You utah guys ever hear of NE Wyoming? Your friendly neighbor to the north? They're usually begging ppl to shoot a few does. And them funny looking ones with the white tail ends are pretty tasty. If meat is what you're after and a doe will do, I'd head there...
 
>Ummm... You utah guys ever hear
>of NE Wyoming? Your friendly
>neighbor to the north? They're
>usually begging ppl to shoot
>a few does. And them
>funny looking ones with the
>white tail ends are pretty
>tasty. If meat is what
>you're after and a doe
>will do, I'd head there...
>

Great idea! But don't tell anyone you're doing it.
 
There are few things more useless than a female that can no longer conceive. They need to go. Ranchers cull that kind of cattle from their herd in a big hurry. With deer and elk, its a lot tougher to cull the right animals from the herd, so a lot of prime young does and fawns die instead. Then the whole herd suffers just like we see all over Utah right now.
 
Does schmoze,
We all know only bucks give birth in Utah.

Waiting for the spike buck only napkin meetings to start up.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 

Similar threads

M
Nevada Elk Incentive or Damage Crop Tags?
Replies
12
Views
674
wstrntines
wstrntines
Servehim
Easter, why its so special
Replies
22
Views
774
Togwotee
T
M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

1D3866B5-B1BE-4025-B7A3-8B210741FE2A.jpeg
IMG_0772.jpg
IMG_5139.JPG
IMG_4326.jpg
20200719_101917.jpg
C02C6539-5902-4172-8044-33110695644C.jpeg
BA7F02CA-53CC-4EF0-9D89-E295A5F47528.jpeg
FE2A148D-0333-41F3-881B-16E8BD06C763.jpeg
P2060004.jpg
6092B76E-102D-4857-9ADE-93A5817B502E.jpeg
PXL_20240308_224909381.jpg
5978F653-88A8-43EB-91F5-6EEABD98471A.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom