Mule deer Populations

cantkillathing

cantkillathing

Very Active Member
Messages
1,458
LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-15 AT 09:52PM (MST)[p]What I noticed is that we need to transplant 5000 deer from the zions unit and put them on san juan elk ridge.

Is there someone on the wildlife board that hunts that unit or something? To be over 5000 and have no doe hunt, but when another unit is close to objective we kill doe's.

Don't get me wrong that is fantastic, but if I hunted Zions I would make sure they up that population objective number before you have a doe slaughter house.

Still don't buy the deer population on the san juan.

HOw about the areas you guys hunt, do you think the numbers are close or over exaggerated?
 
Im sorry my number were wrong, they are over 6000.

I noticed that through some miracle that some units double in the last 3 years in populations. How does a unit that has 1,500 head on it in 2011 have 3,500 in 2014, an increase of 2000 in 3 years.
But a Unit that has 11000 deer in 2011 only increase by 1500 head in a 3 year span.
I might be and idiot but these publications that are put out only increase my strong opinion that nobody has a clue about what the deer numbers are.
There needs to be a better way to count the deer populations, and not just see the trends of the populations.
For those that haven't been to meetings about this, the data shows the trend of the herd whether it is increasing or decreasing, but if I start the trend by making a magical number up of what I fictionally believe I am not worried about that fictional number but whether the herd is staying stable, or decreasing, or increasing.
So some how instead of making up a number that we all know are far fetched, lets get a better count and start from there, atleast you will have more sportsmen believing what is coming out of your mouth.
 
Hey cant!

We need them Worse on the Uinta's!

They are Jumping Up & Down this last Fall here Claiming they counted 18 Bucks Per 100 Does!

I wanna know how many of the 18 Bucks were Mature Bucks?

And How GAWD-DAMNED many Deer Were Counted Total!

The Total Number must be a Secret?

We didn't have enough Snow this Year for any kind of a somewhat accurate Count!

But!

The DWR has Flown for Years!(They got a clue!)

And Hunters get a Feel for How many Deer We Have(No Actual Deer Numbers but it Ain't hard to Figure out rather there's Good Numbers/Bad Numbers!)

I know what you're sayin about SJ!

Ya!

We know there's still a couple Good Bucks pulled out of the Wood Work each year!

We also know what it could be if managed Properly!

Book Cliffs Deer Herd is in Trouble again also!

They can't Blame it on Bad Winters for several years now!

It's called Over Hunting & PISS POOR Management & GREED!

They've Thinned a lot of Lions out of the Book Cliffs for several years,The Deer number has still decreased,WTH?Everybody said the Lions were killing all the Deer,WTH?

In this State Money is more Important than a Strong Mule Deer Herd!

If you can't see the Writing on the Wall you haven't seen what I've seen in the last 43 years of POOR Deer Herd Management here in TARDville!

There's So Many Problems related to Utah's Poor Deer Herd We can't even Scratch the Problems!

Even if a few Big Bucks somehow Survived some SOB would Poach them!







We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-25-15 AT 09:59AM (MST)[p]>
>Hey cant!
>
>We need them Worse on the
>Uinta's!
>
>They are Jumping Up & Down
>this last Fall here Claiming
>they counted 18 Bucks Per
>100 Does!
>
>I wanna know how many of
>the 18 Bucks were Mature
>Bucks?
>
>And How GAWD-DAMNED many Deer Were
>Counted Total!
>
>The Total Number must be a
>Secret?
>
>We didn't have enough Snow this
>Year for any kind of
>a somewhat accurate Count!
>
>But!
>
>The DWR has Flown for Years!(They
>got a clue!)
>
>And Hunters get a Feel for
>How many Deer We Have(No
>Actual Deer Numbers but it
>Ain't hard to Figure out
>rather there's Good Numbers/Bad Numbers!)
>
>
>I know what you're sayin about
>SJ!
>
>Ya!
>
>We know there's still a couple
>Good Bucks pulled out of
>the Wood Work each year!
>
>
>We also know what it could
>be if managed Properly!
>
>Book Cliffs Deer Herd is in
>Trouble again also!
>
>They can't Blame it on Bad
>Winters for several years now!
>
>
>It's called Over Hunting & PISS
>POOR Management & GREED!
>
>They've Thinned a lot of Lions
>out of the Book Cliffs
>for several years,The Deer number
>has still decreased,WTH?Everybody said the
>Lions were killing all the
>Deer,WTH?
>
>In this State Money is more
>Important than a Strong Mule
>Deer Herd!
>
>If you can't see the Writing
>on the Wall you haven't
>seen what I've seen in
>the last 43 years of
>POOR Deer Herd Management here
>in TARDville!
>
>There's So Many Problems related to
>Utah's Poor Deer Herd We
>can't even Scratch the Problems!
>
>
>Even if a few Big Bucks
>somehow Survived some SOB would
>Poach them!
>
>
>
I wonder why the DWR hasn't figured out that all they have to do to get an accurate count is to just survey local (or non-local) hunters! And for that matter, a perfect management plan, accurate permit numbers, correct buck to doe/bull to cow ratios, sustainable age objectives and correct predator numbers. In fact, it looks like we'd have been better off without them all these years!

And since we now manage unit by unit, let's do what one of the volunteers on the Parowan Front said we're supposed to be doing and forget the 5 year plan and manage every unit year by year.
 
Science is only as good as the data. When they count, they forget to take into account that some of the units contain migratory herds. The chalk creek is chuck full of deer now, not because they did a great management job, but because deer out of the uintas and wyoming head down the mountain. I believe this is true in EVERY unit in the state.

Thats also the stupidness behind doe/buck ratios. Only a blind man could honestly say there are more overall deer today than 5 years ago. A ten minute ride down the back roads will prove that wrong. So the ratio will swing wildly, not because of over hunting, or pred, or whatever, its simple ratios. We act in Utah as if we are overpopulated so we doe hunt, try to manage for buck/doe. The result is what we have now, no deer, and wild swings and BS in buck ratios.

I am not a wildlife genius, but I'll take a 50% increase in overall deer numbers, I don't care about buck/doe ratios, with an increase in population, there is a natural percentage that will be bucks, thusly you see more bucks. Until we are overun by deer, current managment is stupid.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-15 AT 03:08PM (MST)[p]>Science is only as good as
>the data. When they
>count, they forget to take
>into account that some of
>the units contain migratory herds.
> The chalk creek is
>chuck full of deer now,
>not because they did a
>great management job, but because
>deer out of the uintas
>and wyoming head down the
>mountain. I believe this
>is true in EVERY unit
>in the state.
>
>Thats also the stupidness behind doe/buck
>ratios. Only a blind
>man could honestly say there
>are more overall deer today
>than 5 years ago.
>A ten minute ride down
>the back roads will prove
>that wrong. So the
>ratio will swing wildly, not
>because of over hunting, or
>pred, or whatever, its simple
>ratios. We act in
>Utah as if we are
>overpopulated so we doe hunt,
>try to manage for buck/doe.
> The result is what
>we have now, no deer,
>and wild swings and BS
>in buck ratios.
>
>I am not a wildlife genius,
>but I'll take a 50%
>increase in overall deer numbers,
>I don't care about buck/doe
>ratios, with an increase in
>population, there is a natural
>percentage that will be bucks,
>thusly you see more bucks.
> Until we are overun
>by deer, current managment is
>stupid.
>
>
>
>"The only thing that stops a
>bad guy with a gun
>is a good guy with
>a gun"

Wow, I hope you feel better getting that off your chest! But I have to say I find your post is way too generic to be useful! You mention "EVERY unit" but you go into a diatribe that apparently includes the whole state of Utah and all of the DWR employees.

First of all, why would you think the DWR personnel forget to consider the migration of deer onto or from units. They may add them to the population "count" simply because they were there when the classification took place, but they are considered when the permit numbers and hunts are recommended. In fact, several of the hunts, both buck and doe, are scheduled around their migration.

Second, counting deer from the ground is the least effective way of doing it and a simple 10 minute drive down the back roads would prove nothing other than your vehicle is capable of doing it on those particular roads at that particular time. The numbers may not match your expectations but our DWR employees are using the latest technics, technology and models available to classify deer and the data being collected is currently as good as it gets.

And yes, we in Utah act as if we are overpopulated with deer and are shooting does but only on some of those units (or areas in some units) that are, in fact, overpopulated (Panguitch Lake, Pine Valley, Beaver, North Slope, Mt Dutton, Monroe, Box Elder, some CWMU's). On other units that are overpopulated, we're doing nothing (Chalk Creek, Henry Mtns, Current Creek, Avintaquin, Zion). It's true we haven't met our statewide goal of 425,400, but we're no longer managing regionwide any more, let alone statewide and some deer are just in the wrong unit at the wrong time and have to be removed. And transplanting all 21,500+ deer that are currently in the wrong places at the wrong time isn't feasible at $30,000+ and approximately 15 hours per 100.

Finally, since we are overrun with deer on 10 units, then maybe we're only partially stupid and need to leave the 10 alone and look at what we're doing wrong on the other 25.
 
The Beaver Unit is 2,800 over objective and the Monroe has an area that has a depredation problem. Like all doe hunts, the boundaries are limited and the seasons are specific. We're only removing some of the deer that are in the wrong place at the wrong time. And as I wrote, the numbers can't be exact and may not be what you expected (or want), but that doesn't mean the hunts shouldn't happen.
 
elkfromabove,

If the sportsmen complained, from the mis-handling of the mule deer numbers, as much as the farmer who only wants money from the DWR coffers, you would have to have your phone turned off.

Beaver over objective - RIDICULOUS.
 
Kinda like the Orgasm they're having here on the South Slope Boasting they counted 18 Bucks Per 100 Does!

JUDAS!

I wanna know how many 100's of Does were counted!





We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
ELKFROMABOVE, do you always drink the DWR cool aide, you cant honestly say to us all that the deer herd is doing well, or as well as they are stating? If so explain to us your logic.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15 AT 01:39AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15 AT 01:38?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-15 AT 10:12?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-27-15 AT 10:12?PM (MST)

>elkfromabove,
>
>If the sportsmen complained, from the
>mis-handling of the mule deer
>numbers, as much as the
>farmer who only wants money
>from the DWR coffers, you
>would have to have your
>phone turned off.
>
>Beaver over objective - RIDICULOUS.

So, since the same Southern Region crew classified the Zion, Pine Valley, Panguitch Lake, SW Desert, Fillmore, Paunsaugunt, Mt Dutton, Monroe, Plateau, and Kaparowits the same way they classified the Beaver, am I also an IDIOT for accepting those other numbers as well? Moreover, does that mean we should cut proposed buck permits and shut down the doe hunts until you all decide the DWR has the numbers right?

And, FWIW, Fullthrottle, I appreciate the compliment. For 18 years I worked as a Teacher's Aide as an aquatics therapy and swimming instructor for the Special Ed Department Iron County School District and most of those young people are the most truthful, honest and loyal friends I have. And, believe me, I've heard all the words used to describe them and I long ago realized that but for a missing or extra gene, difficult birth, illness or accident, there go I.
 
>ELKFROMABOVE, do you always drink
>the DWR cool aide, you
>cant honestly say to us
>all that the deer herd
>is doing well, or as
>well as they are stating?
> If so explain to
>us your logic.

I explained some of my logic in post #5, but to go into more depth, I'll repeat some of it and elaborate. However, I don't have much hope of changing your minds, but for the sake of others who are following, maybe it will make sense.

First of all, the DWR was given the task by the Mule Deer Committee of coming up with an increased statewide population objective of 425,400 deer in the next 5 years and that's what they did. Of course they had to divide it up into the 38 deer management units per Option #2 so that's where we got the population objectives. I'm not sure what the criteria was for each unit but each unit received a new population objective.
Whether or not you like the ones given is something I won't address at this time, but for now they are what they are.

Second, I'm not the one doing the counting! We've hired trained professionals to do that and all I'm doing us using their data to follow the 5 year plan which the Mule Deer Committee came up with and which the Wildlife Board approved. And as I stated in the other post, they are using the best available equipment, technics, technology and models to come up with the numbers. It's certainly not perfect, but it's as close as it gets and is close enough for hunter management.

Third, we don't "count" deer because we can't. They are too elusive, scattered and mobile. We can only "classify" deer using some sample counts. And even then, counting deer is as much an art as a science. We also know that counting them from the ground is the least accurate way of doing it and even by aircraft it's difficult. Counting elk by aircraft is usually simpler because of their size and color and because they move and stay herded up, but deer stay hidden or scatter when pursued by aircraft. As an example, I've been on every session of the Parowan Front deer transplant and sometimes we get to see from the ground the netting and pickups, but this year with no snow on the ground for weeks at a time, there were no deer close enough to see the nettings and pickups. Yet the chopper crew came in with three deer at a time much faster than last year when some of the deer were close enough to see. In fact, I took 2 reporters each on a short tour of the area where we first took the range ride to show them the 2 exclosures where they could see the difference between the range as it would be without deer or cattle, the range where it would be with deer but no cattle and the open range with cattle and deer (Quite a contrast, by the way). In any case, we didn't see a single deer on either tour. But the chopper crew had no trouble finding them and I suspect the DWR observers didn't have much trouble finding them either.

Finally, I can only think of 5 reasons the numbers would be so far off as you indicate and I have trouble deciding which one is at fault.
1) The procedure is to blame. But the same procedure was used on all the other units and I don't hear you complaining about those counts. Are they inflated as well? If so, why so silent?
2) The counters are at fault. They are undertrained or lazy or too tired or ? Per a conversation with Teresa, some of those employees did more than one unit so I guess we'll have to see which ones did the Beaver and Monroe and find out of they screwed up on any others. And because of the weather, some of those units were done twice just to make sure of the numbers. I guess the third time is the charm?
3) The model is the culprit. Again, the sample numbers on all units were plugged into the same model, but only the Beaver and Monroe are screwed up. How does that happen?
4) There is some kind of conspiracy going on and the DWR employees are all in on it. But only for the Beaver and Monroe units. But, for the life of me I can't come up with a motive that would benefit them all enough to keep quiet about it. UNLESS, of course, it's all about the money! That extra $80,000-$90,000 in permit fees would buy a couple of new trucks, or full up the old ones for a few days or buy donuts & milk for a few months. That must be it, huh?
5) Fill in the blank. I'm out of logical ideas! You tell me why you don't drink the DWR's "cool aide" as you put it!
 
>Bess your south slope herd is
>only 200 under objective....so things
>are going good on that
>unit...lol

So cant?

By Next year we should be over Objective & They'll Issue more Tags?

JFP!!!






We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
>>ELKFROMABOVE, do you always drink
>>the DWR cool aide, you
>>cant honestly say to us
>>all that the deer herd
>>is doing well, or as
>>well as they are stating?
>> If so explain to
>>us your logic.
>
>I explained some of my logic
>in post #5, but to
>go into more depth, I'll
>repeat some of it and
>elaborate. However, I don't have
>much hope of changing your
>minds, but for the sake
>of others who are following,
>maybe it will make sense.
>
>
>First of all, the DWR was
>given the task by the
>Mule Deer Committee of coming
>up with an increased statewide
>population objective of 425,400 deer
>in the next 5 years
>and that's what they did.
>Of course they had to
>divide it up into the
>38 deer management units per
>Option #2 so that's where
>we got the population objectives.
>I'm not sure what the
>criteria was for each unit
>but each unit received a
>new population objective.
>Whether or not you like the
>ones given is something I
>won't address at this time,
>but for now they are
>what they are.
>
>Second, I'm not the one doing
>the counting! We've hired trained
>professionals to do that and
>all I'm doing us using
>their data to follow the
>5 year plan which the
>Mule Deer Committee came up
>with and which the Wildlife
>Board approved. And as I
>stated in the other post,
>they are using the best
>available equipment, technics, technology and
>models to come up with
>the numbers. It's certainly not
>perfect, but it's as close
>as it gets and is
>close enough for hunter management.
>
>
>Third, we don't "count" deer because
>we can't. They are too
>elusive, scattered and mobile. We
>can only "classify" deer using
>some sample counts. And even
>then, counting deer is as
>much an art as a
>science. We also know that
>counting them from the ground
>is the least accurate way
>of doing it and even
>by aircraft it's difficult. Counting
>elk by aircraft is usually
>simpler because of their size
>and color and because they
>move and stay herded up,
>but deer stay hidden or
>scatter when pursued by aircraft.
>As an example, I've been
>on every session of the
>Parowan Front deer transplant and
>sometimes we get to see
>from the ground the netting
>and pickups, but this year
>with no snow on the
>ground for weeks at a
>time, there were no deer
>close enough to see the
>nettings and pickups. Yet the
>chopper crew came in with
>three deer at a time
>much faster than last year
>when some of the deer
>were close enough to see.
>In fact, I took 2
>reporters each on a short
>tour of the area where
>we first took the range
>ride to show them the
>2 exclosures where they could
>see the difference between the
>range as it would be
>without deer or cattle, the
>range where it would be
>with deer but no cattle
>and the open range with
>cattle and deer (Quite a
>contrast, by the way). In
>any case, we didn't see
>a single deer on either
>tour. But the chopper crew
>had no trouble finding them
>and I suspect the DWR
>observers didn't have much trouble
>finding them either.
>
>Finally, I can only think of
>5 reasons the numbers would
>be so far off as
>you indicate and I have
>trouble deciding which one is
>at fault.
>1) The procedure is to blame.
>But the same procedure was
>used on all the other
>units and I don't hear
>you complaining about those counts.
>Are they inflated as well?
>If so, why so silent?
>
>2) The counters are at fault.
>They are undertrained or lazy
>or too tired or ?
>Per a conversation with Teresa,
>some of those employees did
>more than one unit so
>I guess we'll have to
>see which ones did the
>Beaver and Monroe and find
>out of they screwed up
>on any others. And because
>of the weather, some of
>those units were done twice
>just to make sure of
>the numbers. I guess the
>third time is the charm?
>
>3) The model is the culprit.
>Again, the sample numbers on
>all units were plugged into
>the same model, but only
>the Beaver and Monroe are
>screwed up. How does that
>happen?
>4) There is some kind of
>conspiracy going on and the
>DWR employees are all in
>on it. But only for
>the Beaver and Monroe units.
>But, for the life of
>me I can't come up
>with a motive that would
>benefit them all enough to
>keep quiet about it. UNLESS,
>of course, it's all about
>the money! That extra $80,000-$90,000
>in permit fees would buy
>a couple of new trucks,
>or full up the old
>ones for a few days
>or buy donuts & milk
>for a few months. That
>must be it, huh?
>5) Fill in the blank. I'm
>out of logical ideas! You
>tell me why you don't
>drink the DWR's "cool aide"
>as you put it!

Ok, I thought of another possibility!
6) A simple typo! In which case, I'll ask them to check their notes and issue new numbers and an apology. Or maybe even re-fly the unit.
 
elkf.above

Lets make it from my simple point of view. I have spent over 50 years hunting and I have hunted every unit you mentioned above. While Monroe and Beaver have come back some, they are still not up to par. Over those years we like to spend an extraordinary time, after the season, in the foothills when the deer are concentrated to see how many deer are packing big horns.

The rub is this: Where we used to count 500 deer, then 400 and year after year down the count went and now we can count 100 to use as an example. This is every where we go and I mean we are out there a lot. Other locals say the same thing. This is happening every unit we go to and everyone we talk to.

Wouldn't you say something is flawed somewhere? Everyone, but the DWR and method of counting deer can't be wrong. Man if this was private enterprise and I was the CEO I would be looking for different answers and input or the company would be out of business!! Or in other words we would be running out of deer.

This ain't Northern Utah and we aren't getting a bang for our buck with their counts.
 
I don't believe any of the units are overpopulated, but I know the beaver & Monroe sure as hell aren't overpopulated with deer. Most everyone on here is sick and tired of the division blowing rays of sunshine up everyone's ass. We hunt, scout, spend more time then ever watching the deer. The numbers ARE NOT THERE, quit selling this crap to the public. You don't need all your fancy graphs, choppers, planes, whatever to see that! Maybe you should use good old fashion common sense. I mean do you really think the deer herds are overpopulated in these area's? Come on, you can't really believe that crap. The deer are obviously headed in the right direction, that has very little to do with the management practice's of our F&G. Thank you Mother Nature for giving us 4 dream winters in a row. Please help this trend continue up and don't bring it down before it gains some traction. I do have one question for you geniuses running the show, are these population counting methods the same ones you are using to destroy the wasatch elk herd? If so maybe you should look at some other options.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15 AT 02:31PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-15 AT 02:27?PM (MST)

>elkf.above
>
>Lets make it from my simple
>point of view. I
>have spent over 50 years
>hunting and I have hunted
>every unit you mentioned above.
> While Monroe and Beaver
>have come back some, they
>are still not up to
>par. Over those years
>we like to spend an
>extraordinary time, after the season,
>in the foothills when the
>deer are concentrated to see
>how many deer are packing
>big horns.
>
>The rub is this: Where
>we used to count 500
>deer, then 400 and year
>after year down the count
>went and now we can
>count 100 to use as
>an example. This is
>every where we go and
>I mean we are out
>there a lot. Other
>locals say the same thing.
> This is happening every
>unit we go to and
>everyone we talk to.
>
>Wouldn't you say something is flawed
>somewhere? Everyone, but the
>DWR and method of counting
>deer can't be wrong.
>Man if this was private
>enterprise and I was the
>CEO I would be looking
>for different answers and input
>or the company would be
>out of business!! Or
>in other words we would
>be running out of deer.
>
>
>This ain't Northern Utah and we
>aren't getting a bang for
>our buck with their counts.
>
>
Nobody is saying the deer herds haven't decreased over the last 40 years (or whatever), but at what point are we par? Will it take you seeing 500 deer at your viewing spots before you can support an increase in permits? I suspect that will never happen so are we stuck with the numbers we had last year even if the population increased? This is about doe permit numbers isn't it?

And what makes you think that the DWR hasn't been looking for answers all these years? Besides the various public events you're invited to and may know about, there are numerous emails, phone calls, letters and meetings with other state and federal agencies and organizations and universities that you aren't privy to. The DWR officials don't live in a vacuum and aren't trying to throw wildlife or hunters under the bus. as you surmise. Most of them are hunters too and have to go through the draw system just like you do.

Trying to compare the DWR with a private enterprise is ludicrous! Of course you would do it your way if you were a CEO of a private company. You'd be a fool not to! But, per the RACs, Wildlife Board, Governor, Attorney General, Legislature, State Treasurer and who knows who else, the DRW doesn't have that option. And, frankly, some of the biggest challenges come from the hunters and fishermen who want to harvest trophies, but want someone else to pay the prices in terms of money, policies and permits it takes to grow those trophies. Option #2 was not a recommendation from the DWR. The loss of statewide archery was not a recommendation from the DWR. Raising population objectives and/or buck to doe ratios are not recommendations from the DWR. Cutting permits for social reasons are not recommendations from the DWR. Shortening seasons is not a recommendation from the DWR.
In other words, the DWR isn't allowed to do it their way and maybe you think that's good, but I don't.

Maybe there is a flaw in the classification, but I haven't identified it and apparently, neither have you. I'll keep looking, but until I find one, I'll go with the current numbers!
 
>I don't believe any of the
>units are overpopulated, but I
>know the beaver & Monroe
>sure as hell aren't overpopulated
>with deer. Most everyone
>on here is sick and
>tired of the division blowing
>rays of sunshine up everyone's
>ass. We hunt, scout, spend
>more time then ever watching
>the deer. The numbers ARE
>NOT THERE, quit selling this
>crap to the public. You
>don't need all your fancy
>graphs, choppers, planes, whatever to
>see that! Maybe you should
>use good old fashion common
>sense. I mean do you
>really think the deer herds
>are overpopulated in these area's?
>Come on, you can't really
>believe that crap. The deer
>are obviously headed in the
>right direction, that has very
>little to do with the
>management practice's of our F&G.
>Thank you Mother Nature for
>giving us 4 dream winters
>in a row. Please help
>this trend continue up and
>don't bring it down before
>it gains some traction. I
>do have one question for
>you geniuses running the show,
>are these population counting methods
>the same ones you are
>using to destroy the wasatch
>elk herd? If so maybe
>you should look at some
>other options.

I'll play the game. The "geniuses running the show" (I'm certainly not one of them.) have given us their numbers and you don't like them on either end. So, how about those numbers from you geniuses who aren't running the show but would like to? Populations? Buck to doe ratios? Buck permit numbers? Doe permit numbers? Doe hunt areas and seasons if any?
 
..............and I couldn't agree more.

In fact let me added a few more things the DWR did not recommend:

They didn't recommend "Buck only hunting", the State Legislature forced that one, Representative Duane Washburn specifically.

They didn't recommend closing the Henrys, the Pauns, the Browse, the Book Cliffs. Sprotsman pressure via the Utah Board of Big Game Control.

They didn't recommend a muzzleloader hunt, Sportsmen pressure via the Utah Board of Big Game Control.

They didn't recommend the present Wildlife Board. State Legislature due to pressure on the Governor via sportsmen, specially the Utah Wildlife Federation, Jerry Mason and Jerry Jensen.

They didn't recommend predator control, the Utah Legislature via the Utah Legislature "Cowboy Caucus, Rep. Brad Johnson and Rep. Met Johnson.

They didn't recommend consolidating the predator and the big game boards into a single Wildlife Board, Sportsmen, via the Utah Wildlife Federation and the Utah Legislature, Jerry Mason and Jerry Jensen.

They didn't recommend the Five Region System, Sportsmen via Utah Wildlife Federation Jerry Mason, Jerry Jensen Rep. Brad Johnson

They didn't recommend limiting one buck tag a year rather than a either sex archery tag and a second muzzleloader or a rifle tag. Sportsmen via The Utah Wildlife Federation Bob Valentine, Jerry Mason, Jerry Jensen.

They didn't recommend CWMU system, Sportsmen via the Utah Wildlife Federation and the Board of Big Game.

They didn't recommend discontinuing Over The Counter tag sales, Sportsmen via Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Don Peay, SFW, Bill Christensen RMEF, and Governor Leavitt.

They didn't recommend the Dedicated Hunter Program, Sportsmen via Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Don Peay and Governor Leavitt.

They didn't recommend a reduction in antlerless mule deer hunts State wide, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Don Peay, Byron Bateman, maybe Tony Abbott the Utah Legislature and the Utah Wildlife Board.

They didn't recommend and underpass at Beaver through I-15. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Don Peay.

They didn't recommend the predator specifically coyote/fawn survival studies. Sportsmen for Fish and Wiidlife, Byron Bateman.

They didn't recommend recommend the State wide coyote bounty program. Sportsmen via Sportsmen for Fish and Game Byron Bateman, Don Peay, Byron Bateman, Bryce Pilling and the Utah Legislature Senator Ralph Okerlund and State Rep. Kay Mcciff.

They didn't recommend the transfer of deer from over used habitat ranges to under populated locations, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Byron Bateman, Bryce Pilling, Troy Justison, Don Peay.

They didn't recommend put and take pheasant hunts. Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Troy Justinson, Byron Bateman.

NOT TO MENTION A FEW DOZEN OTHER THINGS THE DWR "VEHEMENTLY" OPPOSED TO THE POINT OF REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE ACTION, BIG GAME BOARD ACTION, AND PRESENT WILDLIFE BOARD. MANY OF THE THINGS THE SPORTSMEN "FORCED" THE DWR TO DO ARE NOW SOME OF THEIR PROUDEST ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

I'm not going to list all the things they "did" recommend, that sportsmen opposed. They are self evident.

Now, to the current situation. I believe Director Sheenen and Assistant Director Mike Fowlks are outstanding leaders and administrators but they have his hands full cleaning up years of DWR recommendations. It will take time, I believe they are up to the task and will, in time, clean up many of these problems that you folks are disagreeing over today, such as the deer number estimates, over population fallacy, etc.

DC
 
Bam, take that ELKFROMABOVE, I think 2Lumpy just smacked you....anyhow Thanks for your replies, this is good stuff. But what your missing ELKFROMABOVE is that whether you want to believe it or not, the only people seeing the increase in deer numbers is the DWR

The DWR has even admitted that they don't know the numbers, and they will say they really don't care about the numbers, its the trend of the DATA that they are more concerned about.

What sportsmen are concerned about is numbers, we want the true number or atleast something that is closer to the truth. I have not yet found a person that is believing the population numbers
in the area's they are familiar with.

I know for the san juan and lasal mtns. I think they are still way off in what is really there, because those are the 2 units I am familiar with. I will tell you I count more bear than deer on the lasals.
 
>..............and I couldn't agree more.
>
>In fact let me added a
>few more things the DWR
>did not recommend:
>
>They didn't recommend "Buck only hunting",
>the State Legislature forced that
>one, Representative Duane Washburn specifically.
>
>
>They didn't recommend closing the Henrys,
>the Pauns, the Browse, the
>Book Cliffs. Sprotsman pressure
>via the Utah Board of
>Big Game Control.
>
>They didn't recommend a muzzleloader hunt,
>Sportsmen pressure via the Utah
>Board of Big Game Control.
>
>
>They didn't recommend the present Wildlife
>Board. State Legislature due
>to pressure on the Governor
>via sportsmen, specially the Utah
>Wildlife Federation, Jerry Mason and
>Jerry Jensen.
>
>They didn't recommend predator control, the
>Utah Legislature via the Utah
>Legislature "Cowboy Caucus, Rep. Brad
>Johnson and Rep. Met Johnson.
>
>
>They didn't recommend consolidating the predator
>and the big game boards
>into a single Wildlife Board,
>Sportsmen, via the Utah Wildlife
>Federation and the Utah Legislature,
>Jerry Mason and Jerry Jensen.
>
>
>They didn't recommend the Five Region
>System, Sportsmen via Utah Wildlife
>Federation Jerry Mason, Jerry Jensen
>Rep. Brad Johnson
>
>They didn't recommend limiting one buck
>tag a year rather than
>a either sex archery tag
>and a second muzzleloader or
>a rifle tag. Sportsmen
>via The Utah Wildlife Federation
>Bob Valentine, Jerry Mason, Jerry
>Jensen.
>
>They didn't recommend CWMU system, Sportsmen
>via the Utah Wildlife Federation
>and the Board of Big
>Game.
>
>They didn't recommend discontinuing Over The
>Counter tag sales, Sportsmen via
>Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
>and the Rocky Mountain Elk
>Foundation Don Peay, SFW, Bill
>Christensen RMEF, and Governor Leavitt.
>
>
>They didn't recommend the Dedicated Hunter
>Program, Sportsmen via Sportsmen for
>Fish and Wildlife, Don Peay
>and Governor Leavitt.
>
>They didn't recommend a reduction in
>antlerless mule deer hunts State
>wide, Sportsmen for Fish and
>Wildlife, Don Peay, Byron Bateman,
>maybe Tony Abbott the Utah
>Legislature and the Utah Wildlife
>Board.
>
>They didn't recommend and underpass at
>Beaver through I-15. Sportsmen
>for Fish and Wildlife Don
>Peay.
>
>They didn't recommend the predator specifically
>coyote/fawn survival studies. Sportsmen
>for Fish and Wiidlife, Byron
>Bateman.
>
>They didn't recommend recommend the State
>wide coyote bounty program.
>Sportsmen via Sportsmen for Fish
>and Game Byron Bateman, Don
>Peay, Byron Bateman, Bryce Pilling
>and the Utah Legislature Senator
>Ralph Okerlund and State Rep.
>Kay Mcciff.
>
>They didn't recommend the transfer of
>deer from over used habitat
>ranges to under populated locations,
>Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
>Byron Bateman, Bryce Pilling, Troy
>Justison, Don Peay.
>
>They didn't recommend put and take
>pheasant hunts. Sportsmen for
>Fish and Wildlife Troy Justinson,
>Byron Bateman.
>
>NOT TO MENTION A FEW DOZEN
>OTHER THINGS THE DWR "VEHEMENTLY"
>OPPOSED TO THE POINT OF
>REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE ACTION, BIG GAME
>BOARD ACTION, AND PRESENT WILDLIFE
>BOARD. MANY OF THE
>THINGS THE SPORTSMEN "FORCED" THE
>DWR TO DO ARE NOW
>SOME OF THEIR PROUDEST ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
>
>
>I'm not going to list all
>the things they "did" recommend,
>that sportsmen opposed. They
>are self evident.
>
>Now, to the current situation.
>I believe Director Sheenen and
>Assistant Director Mike Fowlks are
> outstanding leaders and administrators
>but they have his hands
>full cleaning up years of
>DWR recommendations. It will
>take time, I believe they
>are up to the task
>and will, in time, clean
>up many of these problems
>that you folks are disagreeing
>over today, such as the
>deer number estimates, over population
>fallacy, etc.
>
>DC

Very eloquent and convincing! I'm sold!

So, where does that leave the 80% of Utah's big game/deer hunters who have hunting further down their list of priorities and just want to hunt a few weekends per year, but aren't organized and aren't represented at those policy making meetings? You know, the ones who are providing the vast majority of DWR's budget, but in individual increments of $100-$200? The ones who want to hunt deer more than once every 3 to 5 years! The ones who want to continue to hunt as a family, but have a hard time getting tags in the same place! The ones who don't have the time or inclination to scout or view the animals that some of you seem to have. Where (or when) do they fit into your plans?
 
Now we are getting to your real beef of the subject, you feel like you should be able to hunt deer each year, you and all your family, in same units, in same way of the old days....the little people are getting cut out of the hunting....

I am on the same boat, I would love to have those days back, but buying into the fact there is nothing wrong with our deer herds are not going to solve that problem.
 
< elkfromabove wrote: Very eloquent and convincing! I'm sold!

So, where does that leave the 80% of Utah's big game/deer hunters who have hunting further down their list of priorities and just want to hunt a few weekends per year, but aren't organized and aren't represented at those policy making meetings? You know, the ones who are providing the vast majority of DWR's budget, but in individual increments of $100-$200? The ones who want to hunt deer more than once every 3 to 5 years! The ones who want to continue to hunt as a family, but have a hard time getting tags in the same place! The ones who don't have the time or inclination to scout or view the animals that some of you seem to have. Where (or when) do they fit into your plans>


You just don't get it do you? Mule deer are on the slide. A few ups on a chart don't make a success. It's the long range graph that will show the trend. What is going to happen if we get a bad winter? Eventually most people will not be hunting mule deer every year, in fact most people will not be able to hunt mule deer all if we continue the way we are going.
 
The way your going can't substantially be changed. It's more like the way it is.

Like the supposedly stupid biologist always says, it's all about habitat.

Elk are the big game of the present, and antelope to a lesser degree.
That's the way it is, and humans aren't going to change that fact.

I would love to have the good old days of muley hunting back, but their gone, that's just the way it is
 
Gonna SPLAIN something to you Boys!

It wouldn't be hard to See/Know rather the Deer Herd was doing Well or not!

After all Hunts were Done and they Drag on for Months & Months!

And You see a Fair Number of Mature Bucks that Survived the GREED of DWR/TARDS & a Fair Number of Does You'll know the Mule Deer Herd is doing better!

Rather Than Trying to Sell/Kill every GAWD-Damn PISSCUTTER in the State for a Nominal Fee OK!!!


We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
CAT, I had a QUALITY rant all typed it was just begging to have the enter button smacked.

One question... Are we arguing about more targets on the mountain or more deer on the mountain??





"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
I spend a fair amount of time on the Zion unit and I sure haven't seen any sign of an extra 5,000 deer in the late couple years. I think with the mild winter, the deer may be hanging more in the areas where the counts are being done. Most of my time is spent on the West Zion side, so maybe all the extra deer are on East Zion. All I know, is with all the private ground, even if the DWR gave out 10,000 more tags on the unit, it won't bring down the buck/doe ratio much but will only cause a terrible over crowding problem on public lands.


There's always next year
 
Hey ww!

You know what the DWR wants!

I'll Remind you though!

More $$$!

If they can sell a few extra Spikes/Milk on the Lip Bucks/PISSCUTTERS what you think their gonna do?

Offer them to the Opportunists of Course & Generate a few more $$$!

And PISS on the Future of the Herd!

43 years & Countin wiley!

What you Think?



We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
>CAT, I had a QUALITY rant
>all typed it was just
>begging to have the enter
>button smacked.
>
>One question... Are we arguing about
>more targets on the mountain
>or more deer on the
>mountain??
>
>
I love how you call a buck "a target".
I prefer to refer them as wildlife.
Something I'd like to hunt, take pictures of and even watch as they sneak away from another hunter that doesn't even know it was there.
But a "target" shows it the respect is deserves.


There's always next year
 
Hold on to your hats cause hell is about to freeze over.

The mule deer study $FW is helping fund, good job $FW, damn that hurt
Is finding some interesting things. Fawn survival to 6 months is 55%.
Of the 45% loss, half are predator driven, canine or feline. The other half
Are attributed to other causes with abandonment / unfit does at the top
Of that list. The doe's don't have enough left in the tank to provide for their
Offspring, they dry up or don't survive themselves either way these fawns ain't recruited.

Predators..... Whatever, kill em all if you think that will bring a historically different result. Efforts and substantial amounts of cash are flowing that way and any gain is good.

So back to the non predator loss, specific nutrient deficiency was #2 at 3%.
This leaves 19.5%, roughly, as a loss by doe's that were physically unable to
Provide sustenance to their offspring.

So yeah Ridge, my question stands. Are we interested in growing more targets
Which in turn will compete for resources in growing deer or are we interested in
Growing more deer?



"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
>So yeah Ridge, my question stands.
>Are we interested in growing
>more targets
>Which in turn will compete for
>resources in growing deer or
>are we interested in
>Growing more deer?
>

Gordy, I hope you don't mind me rephrasing your question 'cause I want to know the answer too.

First off, we keep talking about the number of permits being issued, but the conversation jumps all over the place because I don't know whether the persons responding to my posts or yours are upset about doe permits or buck permits or both. Buck permits have little to do with growing the population numbers and doe permits have very little to do with changing the buck to doe ratios other than it increase them.
First question: Which is it? Doe tags or buck tags you want to remove or keep low?

(I've got some other questions I'd like answered, but I'll save them for later.)
 
The deer are on a slight upswing thanks to 4 years of favorable weather. Guys like seeing the deer population headed in the right direction. We obviously aren't where many including myself think we should/could be. I really don't think many of us care what is increased, buck or doe. It would be nice to have a few more mature bucks in the herd doing the breeding, I personally believe it would make for a more healthy diverse herd. I also think if we had a respectable number of 3 or 4 year old bucks running around your casual hunters might be more willing to let some yearling bucks walk, instead of pounding the first one they see. And In the end maybe they score maybe they don't but atleast it would naturally give some young bucks a chance to grow and become more elusive.
 
>The deer are on a slight
>upswing thanks to 4 years
>of favorable weather. Guys like
>seeing the deer population headed
>in the right direction. We
>obviously aren't where many including
>myself think we should/could be.
>I really don't think many
>of us care what is
>increased, buck or doe. It
>would be nice to have
>a few more mature bucks
>in the herd doing the
>breeding, I personally believe it
>would make for a more
>healthy diverse herd. I also
>think if we had a
>respectable number of 3 or
>4 year old bucks running
>around your casual hunters might
>be more willing to let
>some yearling bucks walk, instead
>of pounding the first one
>they see. And In the
>end maybe they score maybe
>they don't but atleast it
>would naturally give some young
>bucks a chance to grow
>and become more elusive.

Huh? I'm sure you think there's a workable answer in there somewhere but I couldn't find it and I suspect the biologists couldn't either! Unless, of course, it's your statement about not caring what is increased, buck or doe, which I interpret to mean both and you really want to stop or curtail ALL tag increases. Is that it?

Then again, after the "buck or doe" statement all you talk about are mature bucks or allowing young bucks to grow up before they are shot. Or is that the answer?

Anybody else care to tackle Gordy's question?
 
If I had to choose between Option #1-having a herd of 250 deer with 40 of them being buck and half of those 40 being bucks over 3 years old like we have now or Option #2- having a herd of 520 deer and only 20 of those being bucks and about 20% of those being 3 years or older, like we had in the early 90s.
Well, I pick Option #1.
A larger herd with less overall bucks is not always a good thing, IMHO.
I'm looking forward to one of the best hunting seasons in a long, long time.



There's always next year
 
>If I had to choose between
>Option #1-having a herd of
>250 deer with 40 of
>them being buck and half
>of those 40 being bucks
>over 3 years old like
>we have now or Option
>#2- having a herd of
>520 deer and only 20
>of those being bucks and
>about 20% of those being
>3 years or older, like
>we had in the early
>90s.
>Well, I pick Option #1.
>A larger herd with less overall
>bucks is not always a
>good thing, IMHO.
>I'm looking forward to one of
>the best hunting seasons in
>a long, long time.
>
>
>
>There's always next year

WOW!!

So after one year you cut those bucks down by 20-25% from hunting. Some die naturally, a few are predated. So next year you have 195 deer, but some are bigger bucks, the cycle continues. The next year you have 160 deer, but some are bucks.
Yeah I got my biology degree at Weber State, but I remember distinctly the discussion about how FEMALES produce offspring. Not one of those 30" bucks you all wet yourselves over will EVER produce a single fawn.

Next. Elk, YES a simple ride will prove there aint deer. I grew up hunting Manti. In fact I grew up hunting the Face. In fact I grew up hunting Millers and Shands farms. I get that specific to make a point. 20 years ago they grew a little alphalfa, but mostly weeds and sagebrush. Their fields would be loaded with deer, most of the winter. Today they grow almost entirely alphalfa, and CORN, and there isn't 20% what there was. You can duplicate this up and down the Manti.

I hunt elk, and spend the summer on the North Slope. If the deer herd on the Manti is not good, the North Slopes is almost non existant. So when I hear you talk about it being overpopulated, it becomes laughable.

Are all DWR lazy, NO. But yeah there are some. Who is the private company that was hired. How are they compensated? Who made the model? Is there more than one used so as to get a more accurate baseline, or are we tying management to one, and hoping its right? Why are the buck/doe RACs so close to the hunts that there is NO way any field, or game check data is complete to use as a counterbalance againt the model?

Now, in support of you. Clowns, children, and alpha males. YES, the DWR is supported by license fees. YOU NAILED THEM! So, follow along. If you have 150,000 less hunters than you did during the "golden age",and EACH one of them bought a tag. YOU SOLD 150,000 LESS tags. You geniuses keep wanting to cut out more and more hunters, so you cut out more and more tags. THE DWR GETS LESS AND LESS MONEY!! Now, I know you all will talk the "I would gladly pay more...." line, well, DO IT. There isn't any rule that says you can't scratch the DWR a check to help out with costs. DO IT. When all the big time, alpha male, trophy hunters start volunteering up extra scratch, perhaps the DWR will not need to "sale more tags for revenue". But because you all want a $40 tag(same as me), but also want 50,000 "hard core hunters" not the pumpkin patch we have now, the DWR HAS TO DO SOMETHING.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
HOssblur, We are not asking for the DWR to cutt tags, we are simply asking for them not to increase the tags, in my opinion that is different. When a unit is under population objective and that unit reaches the magical number of 15 bucks per 100 does or slightly go over that they (DWR) wants to add more hunters, more tags to that unit. We are again SAYing, Ill type it slow for you, we dont want the increase of hunters just because there are now 10 more bucks on the unit.

The only reason to increase hunters in a unit is if the deer are over populated.
 
All you guys sound so intelligent! I'm just awestruck!

I would gladly pay $50.00 more, but I'm afraid my money wouldn't go very, YA see most hunters don't walk the talk and I find my self there more and more each day. I was and am in favor of the smaller units, but not to count bucks and does, but to increase herds. In a sense to take away excuses from those in charge, but now the excuses turn into pick a unit and show how the numbers are going up, or give out bad counts, while forgetting the other units. It seems those in power cannot multi-task, so buck to ratio trumps the number of the total deer herd. I guess Tony Abbott was right when he said number of deer was what was important, not buck to doe ratios. That's why some of the old work plugs had blinders on, so they could not see what was going on around them. If we can only see one thing we better go back to total number of deer in each unit and forget buck to doe ratios.
 
Over objective does not = overpopulated. Objectives are set for a number of reasons such as ranching or urban encroachment.

If the herd is below objective cut tags. If it is above objective, increase tags.

If the DWR manages above objective, the ranching community will complain the deer are taking their feed.
 
Aren't the big time, alpha male, trophy hunters that you are referring to already writing big checks to support the big game in utah? What do you think those high $$ auction tags are at the expo you jackass! Not to mention the hard working average joes donating to organizations like the Mule Deer, Turkey, Elk foundations. All supported by people willing to donate time and money to help improove a resource. It's not like guys aren't donating time and money for the cause.
 
This is a response to several posts, but I'll let one of the biologists do the talking.

On Saturday, I emailed Teresa Griffin, Southern Region Big Game Coordinator, asking about the classification. About 4 hours later (Yes, on a Saturday) she emailed the following: (Corrected for a few English errors.)

"The deer tell us when to start classifying by the beginning signs of the rut when they begin to congregate in large numbers. Typically, classifying occurs between mid November until mid December, but it could be a few weeks on either side.

Biologists go to as many areas as possible to classify deer and record everything we see. This is done in the early morning and late afternoon when the bucks and does are most visible and most likely to be together. We classify a minimum of a certain number which makes for a statistically significant sample size per unit. (Usually a minimum of 400, but up to thousands per unit).

From the data collected, we equate the number of bucks per 100 does, fawns per 100 does, and we record each buck's points.

Population size is from using the data plus harvest data, winter severity and a number of other factors.

Based on unit deer plans that define how each unit is managed and depending on where the 3 year average of buck to 100 does is, permit recommendations should go up or down. If the 3 year average b:d ratio is 22 on a unit, per the plan, DWR must recommend increasing permits to come into compliance with the plan. If the 3 year average b:d ratio on a unit is 14, DWR must recommend a decrease in permits.

Biologists are biologists. We are not accountants and money never enters our minds at recommendation periods! We get paid the same wage regardless of permit numbers. Buying ammunition across the nation brings us more money than permits through Pittman-Robertson dollars.

The biologists are also avid sportsmen and love big and more bucks as much as anyone, if not more. If they could unilaterally manage deer, I would anticipate seeing far fewer permits. But we are mandated to follow our deer plans and make recommendations accordingly.

I hope this helps clarify a little. Take care, Teresa"

I still have a few items I'm not sure of and I'll ask her about them when I get back home next week, but for now I think I'll stay with the DWR's numbers and the unit plans when we go to the RAC meetings.
 
So elkfromabove?

Let's use the Book Cliffs as an Example!

LE Unit Right?

It's been Headed down Hill for Years Now!

You're Tellin me the Biologists can't see this?

Or if they are seeing it the Rest of the DWR don't Give a Damn!

Too many Tags Issued!

For too GAWD-DAMNED many Years!

99% JUNK Bucks doing the Breeding out there now!

Ya!

Bucks that nobody will Shoot!

A Few Years Back they Blamed the Lions!

What's the Excuse now?

Should We Hunt them until the Unit has to be Closed again?





>This is a response to several
>posts, but I'll let one
>of the biologists do the
>talking.
>
>On Saturday, I emailed Teresa Griffin,
>Southern Region Big Game Coordinator,
>asking about the classification. About
>4 hours later (Yes, on
>a Saturday) she emailed the
>following: (Corrected for a few
>English errors.)
>
>"The deer tell us when to
>start classifying by the beginning
>signs of the rut when
>they begin to congregate in
>large numbers. Typically, classifying occurs
>between mid November until mid
>December, but it could be
>a few weeks on either
>side.
>
>Biologists go to as many areas
>as possible to classify deer
>and record everything we see.
>This is done in the
>early morning and late afternoon
>when the bucks and does
>are most visible and most
>likely to be together. We
>classify a minimum of a
>certain number which makes for
>a statistically significant sample size
>per unit. (Usually a minimum
>of 400, but up to
>thousands per unit).
>
>From the data collected, we equate
>the number of bucks per
>100 does, fawns per 100
>does, and we record each
>buck's points.
>
>Population size is from using the
>data plus harvest data, winter
>severity and a number of
>other factors.
>
>Based on unit deer plans that
>define how each unit is
>managed and depending on where
>the 3 year average of
>buck to 100 does is,
>permit recommendations should go up
>or down. If the 3
>year average b:d ratio is
>22 on a unit, per
>the plan, DWR must recommend
>increasing permits to come into
>compliance with the plan. If
>the 3 year average b:d
>ratio on a unit is
>14, DWR must recommend a
>decrease in permits.
>
>Biologists are biologists. We are not
>accountants and money never enters
>our minds at recommendation periods!
>We get paid the same
>wage regardless of permit numbers.
>Buying ammunition across the nation
>brings us more money than
>permits through Pittman-Robertson dollars.
>
>The biologists are also avid sportsmen
>and love big and more
>bucks as much as anyone,
>if not more. If they
>could unilaterally manage deer, I
>would anticipate seeing far fewer
>permits. But we are mandated
>to follow our deer plans
>and make recommendations accordingly.
>
>I hope this helps clarify a
>little. Take care, Teresa"
>
>I still have a few items
>I'm not sure of and
>I'll ask her about them
>when I get back home
>next week, but for now
>I think I'll stay with
>the DWR's numbers and the
>unit plans when we go
>to the RAC meetings.








We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
>So elkfromabove?
>
>Let's use the Book Cliffs as
>an Example!
>
>LE Unit Right?
>
>It's been Headed down Hill for
>Years Now!
>
>You're Tellin me the Biologists can't
>see this?
>
>Or if they are seeing it
>the Rest of the DWR
>don't Give a Damn!
>
>Too many Tags Issued!
>
>For too GAWD-DAMNED many Years!
>
>99% JUNK Bucks doing the Breeding
>out there now!
>
>Ya!
>
>Bucks that nobody will Shoot!
>
>A Few Years Back they Blamed
>the Lions!
>
>What's the Excuse now?
>
>Should We Hunt them until the
>Unit has to be Closed
>again?
>
>
Define "Headed down Hill". I don't know what you're referring to.
 
So?

You Don't Read/Know enough about the Unit to know the Quality of the BC Herd has become JUNK due to Over Hunting/POOR Management AKA Headed Down Hill for Several Years?

Remember when LE Units Had some Decent Quality to them?

Don't tell me the Unit hasn't been Ground Pounded!

Deer = $$$!

Some Deer are worth more $$$ than others!

This: "Let's Sell them as PISSCUTTERS" is total BS!

Oh But BY GAWD the Opportunity!






We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
I am really having a hard time understanding where the disconnect is coming from.

The sportsmen see what they are seeing - - -

The DWR is counting what they are seeing - - -

They are not the same. Are the DWR personnel counting what they consider 10%, 30%, or what? Or is it just age and gender classification? What the heck is it? Does anyone know?
Lumpy research this out and let me know. Will ya?

Someone has blinders on, but who?
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-15 AT 04:32PM (MST)[p]My research is no better that yours or anyone else's. This is just a perpetual argument. It will never be won, by anyone, regardless of the information shared, or not. Frankly I'm fed up with it and wish I could find another interest.

Regarding your question:

Are the DWR personnel counting what they consider 10%, 30%, or what? Or is it just age and gender classification? What the heck is it? Does anyone know?

I would suggest you re-read Teresa Griffin's e-mail to elkfromabove again. She pretty much spelled it out for you.

She said,


- ?Biologists go to as many areas as possible to classify deer and record everything we see.? I HAVE NOT IDEA IF THIS IS 100% ACCURATE, OR IF THE BIOLOGISTS COUNT DEER UNTIL THEY AND THIER SUPERVISOR BELIEVE THEY HAVE COUNTED ENOUGH, TO HAVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS A STATISTICALLY VALID FIELD SAMPLE. (IF THE WEATHER PERMITS I SUPPOSE THEY COULD COUNT MORE, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANOTHER TASK CALLING THEM OFF THE COUNT.)

- ?We classify a minimum of a certain number which makes for a statistically significant sample size per unit. (Usually a minimum of 400, but up to thousands per unit)?. THEY MAKE A JUDGEMENT CALL BASED ON WHAT SOME BIOLOGICAL PROFESSOR HAS DETERMINED IS A SOUND STATISTICAL NUMBER, BASE ON SOME SET OF CRITERIA REGARDING, CALCULATED POPULATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, GEOGRAPHICAL REALITIES, AND MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS THEY TRUST TO BE RELIABLE.

- ?From the data collected, we equate the number of bucks per 100 does, fawns per 100 does, and we record each buck's points.? THEY BASICALLY BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN CALCULATE MATHEMATCIALLY, THE ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF DEER ON A UNIT BY GATHERING A STATISTICAL VALID SAMPLE SIZE, FROM THE SAMPLE THEY SEPARATE THE DOES, THE FAWNS, THE BUCKS AND THE ANTLER SIZE (POINTS) OF THE BUCKS IN THAT SAMPLE SIZE, FACTOR IN THE NUMBER OF HUNTERS, THE NUMBER OF BUCKS THEY HARVESTED, THE NUMBER OF POINTS ON EACH BUCK HARVESTED (TO DETERMINE IF THE BUCK WAS A YEARLING, OR AN OLDER THAN A YEARLING BUCK), WTIH THAT DATA THEY CAN DO "SOMETHING LIKE THIS":

SAY WE HAD 1000 HUNTERS ON THE UNIT. THOSE HUNTERS KILLED 420 BUCK DEER. 360 OF THOSE DEER WERE YEARLINGS (THIS COMES FROM THE HARVEST SURVEY'S THEY CONDUCT AFTER THE HUNT). DURING THE CLASSIFICATION DATA COLLECTION LET'S SAY THEY COUNTED 500 DEER ON THE UNIT (FIGURING THAT WAS A STATISTICAL VALID NUMBER). IN THAT COUNT THERE WERE 280 DOES, 170 FAWNS AND 50 BUCKS (A BUCK/DOE RATIO OF 17.85 AND A FAWN/DOE RATIO OF 60.7 . WITH THAT SET OF DATA AND RATIOS THEY GO TO THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS:

-?Population size is from using the data plus harvest data, winter severity and a number of other factors?. THEY FEED THE ABOVE DATE, FROM THEIR COUNTS, AND THE BUCK HARVEST INFORMATION, INTO THE MATH FORMULA (DONE ON A COMPUTER) WHICH INCLUDES FACTORS THAT ADD OR INCREASE THE FACTORS BASED ON THE PAST WEATHER CONDITIONS, NATURAL MORTALITY, PREDATION, DIEASE, NON-NATURAL MORTALITY SUCH AS ROAD KILLS, ETC. AND THE FORMULA GENERATES AN ESTIMATED POPULATION SIZE. THEY THEN AVERAGE IT OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS TO MEASURE THE TREND, UP OR DOWN.

-?Based on unit deer plans that define how each unit is managed and depending on where the 3 year average of buck to 100 does is, permit recommendations should go up or down. If the 3 year average b:d ratio is 22 on a unit, per the plan, DWR must recommend increasing permits to come into compliance with the plan. If the 3 year average b:d ratio on a unit is 14, DWR must recommend a decrease in permits.? THE DWR IS BOUND BY EACH UNIT PLAN. THEY WILL RECOMMEND MORE OR LESS TAGS BASED ON THE PLAN REQUIREMENT (COME HELL OR HIGH WATER, IF THEY WANT TO), WHICH IS A BUCK DOE RATIO, AND THAT BUCK DOE RATIO COMES DIRECTLY OFF THE COUNTS THEY MAKE IN THE FALL, AFTER THE HUNT IS OVER.

BUT........DON'T FORGET, THEY ARE BOUND BY THE PLAN BUT THE DWR HAD FINAL SAY ON WHAT THE PLAN RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD IS. THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE IT?S OUR PLAN OR THE WILDLIFE BOARD PLAN??..WELL??NOT SO MUCH, IT?S THE DWR?S PLAN, WITH OUR INPUT AND THE WILDLIFE BOARDS APPROVAL OR NOT. IT?S A KNOW FACT THAT THE WILDLIFE BOARD SUPPORTS THE DWR RECOMMENDATIONS, AS THEY SHOULD, IF THE DWR IS DOING WHAT IT SHOULD BE DOING. THE SAME AS ANY BOARD THAT SETS POLICY FOR ANY ORG. BE IT GOV. OR PRIVATE SECTOR. A BOARD ONLY MAKE MAJOR CHANGES IF A ORG IS NOT RESPONDING TO THE WILL OF THE SHAREHOLDER AND THE BOARD MEMBERS. SO DON?T FORGET, THEY DWR IS BOUND BY THE PLAN BUT IT?S PRIMARILY THEIR PLAN.

HERE IS HOW IT WORKS, BASED ON MY OBSERVATION: THE SPORTSMEN AND OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS GIVE THEIR INPUT AND VOTE ON WHAT THEY WANT IN THE PLAN, WITH INPUT FROM THE DWR BUT IN THE END THE DWR RECOMMEND WHAT THEY WANT IN THE PLAN AND THE WILDLIFE BOARD EITHER SUPPORTS THE DWR'S PLAN OR CHANGES IT TO THEIR LIKING. THE BOARD TAKES INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AT THE RAC MEETING BEFORE THEY MAKE THEIR FINAL DECISION. ONCE THEY DO, THE DWR WILL RECOMMEND MORE OR LESS TAGS, BASE ON THE BUCK DOE RATIO, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE ARE 50 DEER ON THE UNIT OR 50,000 DEER ON THE UNIT. THE BUCK DOE RATIO, FROM THE FALL DWR COUNTS IS WHAT DETERMINES A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF TAGS ISSUES ON THE UNIT, WE THEY UP OR BE THEY DOWN.

SO.................THE OVER ALL POPULATION OF DEER ON THE UNIT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHAT EVER TO DO WITH WHETHER THERE IS AN INCREASE OR A DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TAGS. SO LIKE I JUST SAID, IF YOU HAVE 50 DEER ON A UNIT AND THE PLAN CALLS FOR A 15 BUCK PER HUNDRED DOE RATIO AND THE DWR FALL COUNT COMES IN WITH 18 BUCK/100 DOE, AND IT THAT PUTS THE 3 YEAR AVERAGE AT 17 BUCK PER 100, THEY ARE BOUND TO AS REQUEST AN INCREASE IN TAGS. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT IF THE PLAN CALLS FOR 5000 DEER ON THE UNIT AND THERE ARE ONLY 50? BECAUSE THERE IS NO CALL IN ANY PLAN TO FOR A COORILATION WITH THE BUCK DOE RATIO THE POPULAITON OBJECTIVE. AND, THEY BELIEVE KILLING THE BUCKS HAS NOTHING WHAT EVER TO DO WITH INCREASING THE OVER ALL POPULATION OF THE HERD, SO LONG AS MOST ALL THE DOES ARE BRED IN NOVEMBER EARLY DECEMBER. SO IF THE RATIO IS HIGH, MORE TAGS, IF IT?S LOW, LESS, SIMPLE AS THAT. POPULATION NUMBERS ARE NOT PART OF THAT PARTICULAR DECISION MAKING PROCEDURE.

SPORTSMEN SCREAM THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE ISSUING MORE TAGS IF THE POPULATION IS DOWN. THERE IS NO CONCERN OF BUCK HARVEST VS AN UNDERPOPULATION. IT'S NEVER CONSIDERED AND IT NEVER WILL BE. BECAUSE BUCK DON'T GIVE BIRTH. (COURSE, I?VE NEVER KNOWN A DOE TO FAWN WITH OUT A BUCK BUT WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW?)

IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DEER ON A UNIT, YOU FIRST NEED TO READ THE UNIT 5 YEAR DEER PLAN. IF THAT PLAN CALLS FOR 7,500 TOTAL DEER, AS IT DOES ON THE MONROE, AND WE ARE, BASED ON THE FORMULA MENTIONED ABOVE, OVER 7,500 DEER ON THE UNIT, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO CALL FOR MORE ANTLERLESS TAGS, IF IT'S UNDER 7,500 THEY WON'T (IN THEORY) (DEPREDATION TRUMPS ALL THE PLANS, BY STATE STATUE).

SO.............BUCK TAGS AND DEER POPULATIONS, (OVER OBJECTIVE OR UNDER) ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE DECISIONS AND ARE NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE JOINED, IN ANY DECISION MAKING PROCESS, UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM.

SO FAR AS THE BEAVER AND THE MONROE ARE CONCERNED..............HANG ON YOU YOUR HAT, THE MONROE PLAN CALLS FOR (THE OLD ONE AND THE NEW ONE THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED RIGHT NOW) 7,500 TOTAL DEER ON THE UNIT. THE MONROE IS IN FACT, BASED ON THE 5 YEAR PLAN, (LIKE IT OR NOT) OVER-OBJECTIVE THAT RIGHT NOW, BASED ON THE ACCEPTED FORMULA USED TO ESTIMATE DEER NUMBERS. NOT OVER OBJECTIVE BASED ON YOUR AND MY MEMORY OR OUR PRESENT DESIRE BUT BASED ON WHO EVER DECIDED THE MONROE SHOULD HAVE AN OBJECTIVE OF 7,500., AND???..MY GUESS IS, THAT IS NUMBER DWR TOLD THE LAST COMMITTEE THE UNIT SHOULD HAVE. SO THAT IS WHAT THE 2008 COMMITTEE ACCEPTED AND THE WILDLIFE BOARD APPROVED. SO??.WE ARE STUCK WITH IT, UNLESS YOU WANT TO UNLEASE HELL AND ALL IT?S DEVILS TO GET IT INCREASED? RIGHT NOW I DON?T BELIEVE THE SOUTH RAC OR THE WILDLIFE BOARD WOULD DO IT, EVEN IF HELL WAS UNLEASED, SO GET OVER IT. THE STARS ARE NOT IN LINE.

APPARENTLY THE BEAVER AND A NUMBER OF OTHER UNITS ARE, ACCORDING TO THE 5 YEAR UNIT PLAN, OVER OBJECTIVE AS WELL. THESE PLANS HAVE CONSEQUENCES NOW DAYS.

WILL THERE BE ANTLERLESS TAGS RECOMMENDED ON THESE UNITS THIS YEAR, COME TIME FOR ANTLERLESS DRAWS. YOU CAN BET YOUR OLE HINNEY ON IT, DWR IS BOUND.

COOL, HUH?

HERE'S ANOTHER BIT OF INFORMATION, NOT A SINGLE SPORTSMEN OR SPORTSMEN'S ORGANIZATION, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AS RECOMMENDED THE WE INCREASE THE POPULATION OBJECTIVES ON THESE UNITS, SO WE COULD, IF WE WANTED TO, INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DEER ON THEM. AND YOU CAN BET YOUR SWEET BACK SIDE THAT NO ONE IS GOING TO AND EITHER IS THE DWR.

WHY? NO ONE GIVE AS A RATS ASS ABOUT DEER ANY MORE. IF THEY DID THEY'D BE ON INCREASING THE UNIT OBJECTIVES ON THESE UNITS, THIS LIKE STINK ON THE CESSPOOL. IF I'M WRONG, SHOW ME A SINGLE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS FORUM OR ANY WHERE ELSE WERE ANYBODY IS EVENT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE FIVE YEAR UNIT PLAN DEER HERD OBJECTIVES. THE ONLY COMMENTS I SEE OR HEAR ARE PEOPLE COMPLAINING OVER MORE OR LESS BUCK TAGS. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE DWR, IF THEY WANT MORE BUCKS, WOULD BE RECOMMENDING HIGHER POPULATION OBJECTIVES ON THESE UNITS. THEY'RE GREAT AT RECOMMENDING WHAT THEY ARE BOUND TO, MAYBE NOT SO GOOD AT RECOMMENDING WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING. I'VE SAID FOR YEARS, THEY SHOULD BE LEADING US, GUIDING US, HELPING US, CARING THE BANNER FOR MORE DEER. WHAT ARE YOU HEARING. SILENCE. THE DWR'S SILENCE AND THE PUBLIC'S SILENCE IS DEFEATING.

-?We get paid the same wage regardless of permit numbers. Buying ammunition across the nation brings us more money than permits through Pittman-Robertson dollars?. DON'T KID YOURSELF, THEY PARLEY WHAT THEY CAN, JUST LIKE WE ALL DO.

I THOUGHT THAT PITTMAN-ROB. WAS BASED ON LICENSE SALES TOO BUT MAYBE NOT.

-?If they could unilaterally manage deer, I would anticipate seeing far fewer permits. But we are mandated to follow our deer plans and make recommendations accordingly?. WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY WOULD DO, IF THERE WERE NO MANDATES. TERESA'S GUESS IS AS GOOD AS YOURS OR MINE.

Teresa, and all the other folks at DWR are a nice people, I like them. It's the culture there that's jumped the track, many, many years ago, no one or two individuals are to blame. It's the system and the culture that's grown up out of the system.

Somewhere, 40 or 50 years age the sportsmen and the agency got out of sync, maybe it was back when sportsmen first wanted to end either sex hunting and the division didn't. We went to the legislature and forced it. Maybe that was the beginning, I didn't know, but some where, some time ago, the thing came unhinged and it keeps getting worse.

I am going to take a new path, at least for me. I'll just set out on the back porch and howl but I've attend my last meeting, written my last letter. I emptied my clip during the State Five Year Mule Deer Plan, I've go nothing new to offer or suggest, they heard it all. It's over, fini, done. No more. No longer my concern.

I've done what I thought was right for mule deer for the last 40 years, it's someone else turn now.

DC
 
>HOssblur, We are not asking
>for the DWR to cutt
>tags, we are simply asking
>for them not to increase
>the tags, in my opinion
>that is different. When
>a unit is under population
>objective and that unit reaches
>the magical number of 15
>bucks per 100 does or
>slightly go over that they
>(DWR) wants to add more
>hunters, more tags to that
>unit. We are again SAYing,
>Ill type it slow for
>you, we dont want the
>increase of hunters just because
>there are now 10 more
>bucks on the unit.
>
>The only reason to increase hunters
>in a unit is if
>the deer are over populated.
>

There isn't a deer unit in the state that is overpopulated. There may be small micro niche areas that have a few too many, but meeting a Buck/doe ratio and overpopulation are not the same.

I have 3 kids. If we keep the tags the same, you cut out hunters. Only an idiot thinks not increasing the number of hunters in the field is good for the future of hunting.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>Aren't the big time, alpha male,
>trophy hunters that you are
>referring to already writing big
>checks to support the big
>game in utah? What do
>you think those high $$
>auction tags are at the
>expo you jackass! Not
>to mention the hard working
>average joes donating to organizations
>like the Mule Deer, Turkey,
>Elk foundations. All supported by
>people willing to donate time
>and money to help improove
>a resource. It's not like
>guys aren't donating time and
>money for the cause.
>

That $399,000 AI tag didn't do anything to support the deer out there. They were there before, will be after. Thats just a big shlong contest.

If we keep losing hunters, and the statistics back me up, the tiny number of Denny Austads won't make up for the loss. Tag numbers are stagnant because deer populations are too low. Want more buck, have more does. This isn't rocket science, having a higher b/d ratio is meaningless if you don't have enough does. Until we have enough deer, ratios are just a bookkeeping trick to take away your attention.

Said it before, will again. If your over 30 yrs old, you know there ain't near the deer. We have the cart way out in front of the horse. WE NEED MORE DEER, not more bucks, unless you can get fawns out of bucks, who cares. Concentrating more and more hunters on fewer and fewer deer isn't management, its homicide. We need 100,000+ more deer before we worry about how many are bucks.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Who said anything about the AI tag? I was referencing all the other auction tags money that is or should be used to help our big game. Like I said before it's not like guys aren't willing to donate their time and money. Of course there could be more donated, but don't act like there isn't people donating. I totally agree that the deer herds should be allowed to increase, more does would be great.
 
>
>
>
>
>So?
>
>You Don't Read/Know enough about the
>Unit to know the Quality
>of the BC Herd has
>become JUNK due to Over
>Hunting/POOR Management AKA Headed Down
>Hill for Several Years?
>
>Remember when LE Units Had some
>Decent Quality to them?
>
>Don't tell me the Unit hasn't
>been Ground Pounded!
>
>Deer = $$$!
>
>Some Deer are worth more $$$
>than others!
>
>This: "Let's Sell them as PISSCUTTERS"
>is total BS!
>
>Oh But BY GAWD the Opportunity!
>
>
OK, so now we're not talking about the either the population nor the buck to doe ratios, but the size of the antlers ratios!

You got me on my knowledge of that unit! No, I haven't hunted that unit nor do I know much about it. And I have to admit that I've never hunted any Limited Entry deer unit and don't have a strong desire to do so. Since I can only apply for either a Limited Entry deer, elk or antelope tag and since I prefer to hunt antelope and elk for trophies, I may have 2 or 3 LE deer points. If I end up having waiting periods for both elk and antelope then I'll apply for LE deer but something closer to Cedar City. In the meanwhile, I'll apply for an archery general deer tag and hunt Panquitch Lake or Zion where I already know there are some P&Y bucks.

But, getting back to your issue! Are you saying that the DWR/Wildlife Board needs to stop ground pounding the "quality" bucks and reduce tags and increase the buck to doe ratio and the draw odds which is likely to raise your hackles. Or should we provide some management/pisscutter buck tags and increase the opportunity which you don't seem too happy about either? (BTW, that's on the DWR's current study list.) Maybe both? Or is it something entirely different? It takes genetics, nutrition/health, and age to grow the trophies you're willing to shoot and the number of LE tags will only manage the age. Maybe its time to look at other options besides the tags.
 
I think one thing that would help with accurate counts is having a manditory harvest report. I have been in meeting where SFW said they would pay for the expense to so this. THey have it on LE hunts now. Some other states have this. If you don't report you don't get a tag for next year.

Now they do phone surveys which also cost money, try to figure out a success rate. Estimate how many bucks were killed. Do some classifications, buck to does, fawn to doe count, etc. throw the info into a computer model and that gives us the total population.
Wrong info in, wrong info out as mentioned.

I wonder if the DWR want accurate numbers or not sometimes?
 
LE Units were never set up to Shoot PISSCUTTERS that took somebody wanting a little better Quality 10-15 Years to Pull a Tag and then find out the Unit has become JUNK due to POOR management!

But Oh the Opportunity!

They Satisfied a Few Whiners & destroyed the Unit/Units!

GAWD that makes a lot of Sense now don't it?

Ya!

Let's now add a Management Hunt & Kill every Buck left!

I agree there's some JUNK Bucks/Bucks that nobody will shoot!

So let's leave only JUNK Bucks to do the Breeding,GEEZUS!

Kill the JUNK Bucks in the Book Cliffs & You'll perty much finish them off!

43 years & Counting efa!

43 Years of PISS POOR Management!

You Think it'll change?

I don't,not after 43 years of the BS!




>>
>>
>>
>>
>>So?
>>
>>You Don't Read/Know enough about the
>>Unit to know the Quality
>>of the BC Herd has
>>become JUNK due to Over
>>Hunting/POOR Management AKA Headed Down
>>Hill for Several Years?
>>
>>Remember when LE Units Had some
>>Decent Quality to them?
>>
>>Don't tell me the Unit hasn't
>>been Ground Pounded!
>>
>>Deer = $$$!
>>
>>Some Deer are worth more $$$
>>than others!
>>
>>This: "Let's Sell them as PISSCUTTERS"
>>is total BS!
>>
>>Oh But BY GAWD the Opportunity!
>>
>>
>OK, so now we're not talking
>about the either the population
>nor the buck to doe
>ratios, but the size of
>the antlers ratios!
>
>You got me on my knowledge
>of that unit! No, I
>haven't hunted that unit nor
>do I know much about
>it. And I have to
>admit that I've never hunted
>any Limited Entry deer unit
>and don't have a strong
>desire to do so. Since
>I can only apply for
>either a Limited Entry deer,
>elk or antelope tag and
>since I prefer to hunt
>antelope and elk for trophies,
>I may have 2 or
>3 LE deer points. If
>I end up having waiting
>periods for both elk and
>antelope then I'll apply for
>LE deer but something closer
>to Cedar City. In the
>meanwhile, I'll apply for an
>archery general deer tag and
>hunt Panquitch Lake or Zion
>where I already know there
>are some P&Y bucks.
>
>But, getting back to your issue!
>Are you saying that the
>DWR/Wildlife Board needs to stop
>ground pounding the "quality" bucks
>and reduce tags and increase
>the buck to doe ratio
>and the draw odds which
>is likely to raise your
>hackles. Or should we provide
>some management/pisscutter buck tags and
>increase the opportunity which you
>don't seem too happy about
>either? (BTW, that's on the
>DWR's current study list.) Maybe
>both? Or is it something
>entirely different? It takes genetics,
>nutrition/health, and age to grow
>the trophies you're willing to
>shoot and the number of
>LE tags will only manage
>the age. Maybe its time
>to look at other options
>besides the tags.








We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
I can't remember the last time a statewide mule deer plan
Called for less deer.

Now, since the replies, with the exception of DC, has nothing to do
With growing more deer, it's really irrelevant where we go from here.
I predicted 5 years ago these units would breed "Friends of the Paunsagunt"
Type lynch mobs for each one. Looks like phase 2 is well under way. The rural
RACs ought to be a sight to see.

Consider for just one minute if hunters gave "A RATS ASS" about increasing deer
Herds the way they do about whether the scumbag from up north killed "MY" buck on Tidwell Flats. Cause that's basically where we're at. Once fawn to doe ratios and herd fecundity dynamics get a bit of effort y'all will just keep arguing about important topics like genetics, crowding, bow vs rifle vs muzz and my favorite, and in my opinion the reason we are exactly where we are, North vs South.

DeLoss is right. The system is broken.







"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
JUDAS ww!

I've told you it's been Broken for 43 years!

Anybody Listening?

So ww?

"""If The South Woulda Won?""":D

>I can't remember the last time
>a statewide mule deer plan
>
>Called for less deer.
>
>Now, since the replies, with the
>exception of DC, has nothing
>to do
>With growing more deer, it's really
>irrelevant where we go from
>here.
>I predicted 5 years ago these
>units would breed "Friends of
>the Paunsagunt"
>Type lynch mobs for each one.
>Looks like phase 2 is
>well under way. The rural
>
>RACs ought to be a sight
>to see.
>
>Consider for just one minute if
>hunters gave "A RATS ASS"
>about increasing deer
>Herds the way they do about
>whether the scumbag from up
>north killed "MY" buck on
>Tidwell Flats. Cause that's basically
>where we're at. Once fawn
>to doe ratios and herd
>fecundity dynamics get a bit
>of effort y'all will just
>keep arguing about important topics
>like genetics, crowding, bow vs
>rifle vs muzz and my
>favorite, and in my opinion
>the reason we are exactly
>where we are, North vs
>South.
>
>DeLoss is right. The system is
>broken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"The future is large scale auction
>tags.
>The majority of the tags should
>go up
>for auction anually. It MIGHT even
>be
>good to allow second sales of
>auction
>tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
>
>and then re-selling them to the
>public."
>TRISTATE 8/17/2012








We laugh, we cry, we love
Go hard when the going's tough
Push back, come push and shove
Knock us down, we'll get back up again and again
We are Members of the Huntin Crowd!
 
Who have you been telling. It just doesn't cut it with the half of a dozen people here on the forum. Oh, and then of course there is another bunch with the pre-fix of elk in their handle. Wiley, if I get your drift, about the smaller units, you just maybe right. I have a hard time in believing that the smaller units will not help though. The larger units certainly did not. If we could ever get to the point of a realistic base herd number in each unit, having a buck to doe ratio as a SECONDARY citeria, we could make it.

Wiley, North to South, rural area RAC's - - What is that suppose to mean? Years ago the DWR said that deer herds would bounce back a lot easier in the North than the South when the numbers went down. They said that the Southern region had different problems.

This is far out and may be hard to connect the dots, but the one thing I have seen over the years is that the Ranchers have got their way thru money and persistence. It never slowed them down from calling a DWR Representative at nights and on Sundays or making friends with large Sportsmen s groups - I will buy your vote, by allowing you to hunt or fish on my land.

It has got to go beyond this forum.

Ya know Lumpy, you do have it right. My kids like to hike, bike, ski, go wheeling, go camping and recently not so much hunting. I am to that age, I rather talk about than do it. Save your money and take up art it's more gratifying.
 
"
Wiley, North to South, rural area RAC's - - What is that suppose to mean? Years ago the DWR said that deer herds would bounce back a lot easier in the North than the South when the numbers went down. They said that the Southern region had different problems."

CBALL, great question.

right now the system is rigged upside down.
The Southern, South East and North East
Regions make up 20% of all license sales in the state.
The RACs are obviously 3-2 favoring rural and the Wildlife
board is 4-3 favoring rural.

So if we are going to be fair the North and Central Regions
Should have the majority of representation in the rule making
Process, by a substantial amount like 75-25%.

I mean hell if we can't drag ourselves out of the old hunter dividing
Pissing matches at least lets balance the system accurately.


"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
Deer are the red headed stepchildren in this state, they have been the whipping child from the get go. I wish they would quit having other RAC vote on issues outside the region they are in. Souther RAC should vote on Southern units, Central RAC should vote on Central units, SouthEastern RAC should vote on south eastern Regions. Anyhow I seen this over and over while I was on th RAC that each RAC will agree with the DWRs proposals, and the RAC in the particular area will not agree with what the DWR is proposing, but since 4/5 RAC voted with the DWR they will go with it, but in reality I know that Southeeaster RAC had no clue as what was going on in the Northern Region, and the Northern Region had no clue as what was going on in the Southern region. I had Anis Auodi Personally tell me this, that when we voted somthing in our Southeastern RAC that it didn't bother him because the other 4 region will vote in his favor.
So how do we fix this problem.
 
>Deer are the red headed stepchildren
>in this state, they have
>been the whipping child from
>the get go. I
>wish they would quit having
>other RAC vote on issues
>outside the region they are
>in. Souther RAC should
>vote on Southern units, Central
>RAC should vote on Central
>units, SouthEastern RAC should vote
>on south eastern Regions.
>Anyhow I seen this over
>and over while I was
>on th RAC that each
>RAC will agree with the
>DWRs proposals, and the RAC
>in the particular area will
>not agree with what the
>DWR is proposing, but since
>4/5 RAC voted with the
>DWR they will go with
>it, but in reality I
>know that Southeeaster RAC had
>no clue as what was
>going on in the Northern
>Region, and the Northern Region
>had no clue as what
>was going on in the
>Southern region. I had
>Anis Auodi Personally tell me
>this, that when we voted
>somthing in our Southeastern RAC
>that it didn't bother him
>because the other 4 region
>will vote in his favor.
>
>So how do we fix this
>problem.

What problem? Some don't view this as a problem! At least, it doesn't seem to be a problem as long as those in any particular RAC are allowed to vote on other region units. It only becomes a problem when the other RACs are allowed to vote on their region units.
 
"harvest data" I'm still trying to figure out Teresa's harvast data comment... I've been hunting deer in Utah for 30 years and I have NEVER been contacted by the DWR asking if I "harvested a deer" am I the only one that has never been contacted???
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
M
JCR, statistics, counts, objectives and harvest reports
Replies
33
Views
2k
mightyhunter
M
F
1.8 Satisfaction rate for Thousand Lakes
Replies
34
Views
2k
SS!
SS!

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

book cliffs buck pack out.jpg
IMG_3337.jpeg
buck me.jpg
IMG_27741.jpg
IMG_20200325_171302_163.jpg
Big Bull Elk
20211119_181620.jpg
Screenshot_20231001_143451_Gallery.jpg
High Country Wyoming Buck
363E8595-12C1-474A-A676-61EC0EA802EE.jpeg
IMG_1393.jpeg
20210105_121646.jpg
Back
Top Bottom