Another Proposal to Improve Utah's Deer Hunting

[SureShot]

Brian recently made a proposal to improve the quality of deer hunting in Utah. As I was sitting here reading the latest round of comments on the Arizona situation, a thought occurred to me. Rather than trying to prevent the same situation from occurring in Utah, maybe we could use it to improve the deer herds here.

Now, before you stone me to death, let me explain.

Utah currently allows approximately 90,500 general season deer permits. (I assume the limited entry tags account for approximately 6,500, bringing the total permits to the 97,000 number we hear about. I'll limit this proposal to the general tags, but the same principle probably applies to the LE hunts, as well.) Residents pay $35 for a tag; non-residents pay $208. That's almost six times as much for non-residents. Last year's quota for residents and non-residents broke down as follows:

- Residents were allotted 80,450 tags (89%) with revenue potential of $2.8 million.

- Non-residents were allotted 10,073 tags (11%) with revenue potential of $2.1 million.

So, it looks like the state is hoping to raise almost $5 million off of the general season deer permits.

If we didn't separate the quotas for residents and non-residents and kept the revenue target at $5 million, for every additional non-resident that was successful we could essentially cut the number of permits available by five--if the biologists thought it would help the herds. At first, the total number of permits would go down, but it would result in less pressure, more bucks, higher success rates and bigger deer taken.

Wait a minute! Bigger deer taken? How do you figure? If there are fewer hunters--less competition--those that are lucky enough to get a tag will most likely hold out for a nicer buck. They know they may not get to hunt every year, so they'll take advantage of the opportunity. It's the same principle that applies to the LE hunts today. How many hunters settle for a two-point on the Book Cliffs or the Paunsaugunt?

Eventually, we would reach a balance where permit numbers could rebound a little bit and the state would actually generate more revenue. However, the overall mindset of hunters would be permanently changed and the quantity and quality of bucks would go up, thus continuing to feed the idea that you should pass on the little guys and wait for a nicer buck to show up--because he most likely will.

OK, now you can stone me to death.

 

[COSA]

Why not just cut the # of tags and keep the res/nonres quota the same? I think that Utah needs to look at Nevada as a role model. How often do you here NV residents complain about NDOW? We have accepted the fact that we may only get a deer tag every 3 years or so, but at least we have a quality experience.

 

[RACKMASTER]

every hunter I know from NV hates the fact they can't hunt big game in their own state and has no choice but to hang on for years to hunt and hate NDOW!
Why does NV see the highest 4pt harvest of most western states?(and its a revenue market). Nevada does not allow many hunters on avg!
Seems every year I run into a few more folks from the silver state in B-zone in CA hunting our BLACKTAIL DEER but they seem better off and happier than other state non res hunters like say some hunters I ran into in Wyoming and Colorado most were from the south and thought they owned every thing did what they wanted!
RM

 

[Oakbuck]

As a Nevada resident I think NDOW does a great job and getting a deer tag isn't that hard. I get a tag three out of four years on average for rifle or muzz hunts. Or somtimes I just buy a point and go with my son or daughter on the youth hunt.

Most residents I hear complaining about never getting a NV deer tag only put in for rifle hunts in one or two of the more popular areas.

There are plenty of critics of NDOW but overall they do a pretty good job and aren't the pimps you find in some states.

 

[RACKMASTER]

Oakbuck-
glad you hunt offen in NV!
yes you will always have critics!
and some states have as you very well put have "pimps"!
some state do the best they can!
and some treat it as a source of state revenue!
RM

 

[ktc]

SureShot,

You too make some valid points. Why can't someone with a "brain" put some ideas together and come up with a final plan? Surely something here would help.

I find it odd that there is so much talk about "fixing" the problem. To hear the DWR talk we are doing well and hunters should do fine. To hear groups speak, we are rebounding. To hear the opportunist speak, there are plenty to go around.

Someone, please, just do something! Ignoring the problem will not fix it.

ktc

 

[2_Point]

Or we could just sell 60+ tags at $80,000 each and let the guys hunt from Sept 1 to Dec 31. 60+ tags could also get raffled off to the public. Then we could all drive the winter range and dream of hunting them one day if only we were lucky enough to draw a tag..... Oh wait, that already happens only with elk.

No offense but, How does cutting opportunity result in "Improving Utah's Deer Herd"? Once again the "Solution" to Utah's deer problem deals with the least important component of the herd, bucks. If there are enough bucks to breed the doe population then Buck numbers are not the problem. (And there are enough bucks.) Drought and winters then predators and development are the problems, not shooting an extra 2,000 bucks statewide.

Please don't use Nevada as a Good Example on how to manage mule deer. Their deer herd has declined even worse than Utah's. Nevada is not what hunters should want there herds to look like.

 

[ktc]

2 point,

I can understand your view on enough bucks to breed does. That is one important factor. The problem is that these bucks are not mature. Very few become mature in Utah. 97,000 tags, and by F&G numbers, about 40,000 bucks. To me this is over-selling the product. If you paid for a product at Wal-Mart and you went to pick it up after you had paid and they told you too bad we are out. Would you stand for that? I certainly wouldn't. The numbers I am using are the total population of about 225,000 deer and a 15-100 buck-to-doe ratio. Eliminate the L.E. units and the numbers are even more staggering.

Could someone please offer, from a scientific standpoint, a ratio of bucks to allowed hunting tags to maintain a healty herd? A herd with plenty of bucks to does, a herd with mature bucks, a herd that utilizes the habitat where they live? Leave the emotion of opportunity out of the mix. Focus on the deer herd, then worry about opportunists.

What is wrong with having a herd with so many mature bucks to doe ratio?

 

[SureShot]

2 Point,

I don't disagree that there are other (probably more important) factors involved in a healthy deer herd. However, controlling the number of hunters is the one the DWR has the most control over.

To answer your question, "How does cutting opportunity result in improving Utah's deer herd?", just look at the LE units. They limit hunting opportunity and, magically, there are more mature bucks and a better hunting experience for those that do have a tag. It does work.

My biggest request to the DWR is to see more mature bucks. Even if we had the exact same success rates, if we could just migrate those kills to a higher age class, I think MOST people would be happier. One way for that to happen is for hunter's to WANT to pass on little bucks. We know that doesn't happen with many hunters on general units today, but it does happen on LE units.

Another way to accomplish that goal is to outlaw shooting small bucks via 3-point or better units. I've heard a lot of criticism over that management technique, but the fact is, I remember hunting in such a unit in Utah. I hunted it the last two years it was 3-point or better and then the next four or five years after the restrictions were lifted. I remember seeing a few dead 2-points that had been shot and left, but I also saw a lot more mature bucks when it was 3-point or better. The quality of the deer herd went down quickly after it was opened up.

 

[muleyguy]

I have to disagree with 2 point, restricting tags will have an immediate, positive impact on both the quantity and quality of mule deer bucks. There is ample proof of this all over the place. Look at private ground that controls the amount of hunters on it....it always better than the public ground. EVERY unit in the West that is a special entry type of unit has better buck to doe ratio's etc than general draw units. I could go on and on....but restricting tags works!

Habitat issues are long term issues that will not get solved in the short run. In addition there are vast areas of the West that have not changed at all habitat wise in the last 20 yrs, but mule deer have still declined. Certainly some of the southern mule deer states have some habitat issues.....but there are millions of acres of productive mule deer habitat that still have poor numbers of animals and horrible age structures. Big areas of the West are currently in a structural, long term drought. When Mother Nature throws this at mule deer, we cannot just keep on harvesting as many animals as we used to.


Too many animals are being killed, both by hunters and predators. Predators get the fawns and hunters take the bucks. Somehow, you have to reduce both of those problems. We can't do anything about droughts, it is just a fact of life.

 

[DallanC]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-04 AT 03:46PM (MST)[p]>I have to disagree with 2
>point, restricting tags will
>have an immediate, positive impact
>on both the quantity and
>quality of mule deer bucks.

I'm inclined to believe 2pt here. Immediate results? There are many more factors in this than just the human component. But you do bring up a good point:

> There is ample proof
>of this all over the
>place. Look at private
>ground that controls the amount
>of hunters on it....it always
>better than the public ground.

Ok so lets assume we agree public ground is overcrowded. Those hunters who hunt public ground want to hunt... but where can they go besides the forest? I still think there is a huge percentage of ground in Utah that individually is just shy of being able to equalify for CWMU status. These places are currently under hunted due to unavailability of tags. Its ironic.

Lets say that the minimum size to qualify as a CWMU was lowered. More areas would enter the program, making for more available tags to the public (the landowners would hunt there rather than competing with everyone else for other tags), thereby reducing the amount of people hunting public ground thereby reducing harvests there, while MAINTAINING the CURRENT amount of tags / hunters.

For example: I know of 1 private ranch in a prominent LE elk unit thats around 1000 acres yet litterally has around 8-10% of the entire unit population on it. Its an LE unit and currently, the landowner hasnt drawn a tag to hunt his own ranch. No-one else is allowed to hunt. So here is a small ranch, elk bursting at the seams with no-one hunting it. Were it to be a CWMU with say, 2 tags issued a year that would be 2 more opportunities for people to hunt and 2 more people off the public ground.

Multiply that by who knows how many more ranches in the same situation and there could be a huge amount of hunting opportunity made available to people with little to no downside, lessening pressure on public lands across the state.


> EVERY unit in the
>West that is a special
>entry type of unit has
>better buck to doe ratio's
>etc than general draw units.
> I could go on
>and on....but restricting tags works!

I read a statistic that more deer are killed during the winter in my home town area via cars than harvested via hunters. Reducing tags in that area would only increase deer killed via cars.

Also, in alot of developed areas, deer herds are already at the natural carring capacity of the habitat. Reduced harvests could spell disaster for those areas.

>Habitat issues are long term issues
>that will not get solved
>in the short run.

Sad but true.

>In addition there are vast
>areas of the West that
>have not changed at all
>habitat wise in the last
>20 yrs, but mule deer
>have still declined. Certainly

Go read Lewis and Clark journals... even back then when the whiteman first explored this country Mule Deer were fairly rare. I think the initialy settlement of areas and decimation of predators caused a major population boom in Muleys. Weather, subsequent development and diminished predator control has lead to a fall off in populations.


>some of the southern mule
>deer states have some habitat
>issues.....but there are millions of
>acres of productive mule deer
>habitat that still have poor
>numbers of animals and horrible
>age structures. Big areas
>of the West are currently
>in a structural, long term
>drought. When Mother Nature
>throws this at mule deer,
>we cannot just keep on
>harvesting as many animals as
>we used to.
>
>
>Too many animals are being killed,
>both by hunters and predators.
> Predators get the fawns
>and hunters take the bucks.
> Somehow, you have to
>reduce both of those problems.
> We can't do anything
>about droughts, it is just
>a fact of life.

I think predators are widely overlooked atm as a cause of lower deer and other wildlife populations. I cant think of another time in my life than right now, where I've seen LESS coyotes and Cougars. It seems everytime I go out I see or hear them... which is just about every weekend.


-DallanC

 

[30inchbucks]

They never really gave the 3-point or better unit thing time enough to fully catch on and when it was finally starting to improve they changed it back. There was also little enforcement of the law and illegal kills were prominant the first year or two but when it was finally catching on they changed it back. Any proposal they try to do they need to give it enough time to work and then also enforce the law. Three years isn't enough time obviously because it takes 5 years for a buck to mature. Someway we need to reduce success rates enough in order for the herd to rebound and grow. I don't know all the answers but something needs to be done because over the last 10 years in my general hunting areas there has been no improvement. Still no deer on the winter range where I used to see thousands. The buck to doe ratio needs to be higher along with a higher percentage of mature bucks in order to breed and support a healthy herd. If we're going to continue to give out 97,000 tags then someway we need to entice hunters to stop shooting all the 2X2's or anything with a horn and let some of them live long enough to grow and breed. If the answer is to decrease tags or institute a 3-point or better law or restrict ATV use or change season dates,times,lengths,unit boundaries,etc. or put limitations on technology or eliminate doe hunts or make it mandatory to fill out harvest questionaires and failure to do so hunting privileges are lost or increase fines for failure to tag and enforce the laws instead of driving the new truck up and down the oiled roads or etc. etc. etc. ATLEAST TRY SOMETHING INSTEAD OF NOTHING!! WHEN SOMETHING IS BROKEN LAST TIME I CHECKED, CONTINUING TO IGNORE THE PROBLEM DOESN'T MAKE IT GO AWAY, IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE AND WORSE!!!

 

[SureShot]

>I still think there
>is a huge percentage of
>ground in Utah that individually
>is just shy of being
>able to equalify for CWMU
>status. These places are currently
>under hunted due to unavailability
>of tags. Its ironic.

Not a bad idea, but this could be implemented in addition to the current proposal.

>I read a statistic that more
>deer are killed during the
>winter in my home town
>area via cars than harvested
>via hunters. Reducing tags in
>that area would only increase
>deer killed via cars.
>
>Also, in alot of developed areas,
>deer herds are already at
>the natural carring capacity of
>the habitat. Reduced harvests could
>spell disaster for those areas.

There wouldn't be any need to decrease permits in areas where the deer herds are already at carrying capacity. However, that is not the case in most of the units in Utah right now.

 

[2_Point]

"I remember seeing a few dead 2-points that had been shot and left, but I also saw a lot more mature bucks when it was 3-point or better."
I don't agree that "a few dead 2-points" is worth the 3 point or better rule. It was a joke. People shot first and counted second. If you found "a few dead 2-points" on your own then how many more were left lay?? I had a friend who found 6 dead yearling bucks on the second weekend in the Book Cliffs on the second weekend of the hunt before the Books were shut down. 3 point rules also put too much pressure on the older age class bucks. I really dislike statements that blow-off poaching, "but I also saw a lot more mature bucks when it was 3-point or better."

--Ok guys lets look at the reality. If we stop hunting will it increase bucks. YES. BUT, will it make the overall health of the herd better?? Probably not. If the doe population is bred by the bucks remaining after the hunt then bucks ARE NOT a reason for the poor health of the herd. Utah's deer herd has held stable for the past 4-5 years with the same buck hunting pressure.

When tags are given out on a limited basis, such as limited entry units, success rates go up considerably. Two reasons for this, hard core hunters take the time to apply for LTD entry tags and less pressure allows hunters a higher success. To decrease permits to a level low enough to allow say 25% or 5,000 bucks to live the permits would have to cut from 97,000 to around 50,000. Permit numbers 10 years ago were at 250,000.

As for LTD areas, many are way down. The Vernon is off, and the Pauns struggles to produce 200 bucks a year. The Elk Ridge can't hardly keep pace with less than 50 tags. Also success rates are so high that only a limited number of hunters can get a tag.

Habitat, Drought, Winters, and predators. All the rest is window dressing. There are enough bucks to breed the doe population.

Do we want a system like our ELK LTD Units. 1 tag every 20 years? That is what these "tag solutions" would create.

The question is how do we increase the herd by 100,000 animals?? 30inchbucks had some starting points. Technology restrictions, (how far does that new inline ML shoot or the new cam and 1/2 bow?), ATV closures (a few spoiled apples...), mandatory reporting, habitat improvement.

Oh yeah, pray for nice spring/summer rains and decent winters.

 

[ktc]

I am with you on the 3 pt or better rule. It ended up that is what people got most of the time, a 3 pt. Not a good rule in my eyes.

Many areas are struggling, but it begs to question, why has the tag numbers decreased on LE units, while the general hunt remains the same?

I don't know for certain that there are or are not enough bucks to breed the does, but I do know that the vast majority of those that are breeding are small, unmature, baby bucks. So putting the breeding issue aside, doesn't one want to see the maturity of the bucks increase? You cannot kill them all and then hope it happens. What would be wrong with having supply slightly higher than demand? Rather than demand higher than supply?

I have to go back to the issue of more than twice the tags are sold than existing bucks. Does anyone see a problem with this? This is both a legal and ethical issue in my eyes. Why would they issue enough tags to decimate the herd. It won't happen, but it is possible.

Anyone who wants a trophy in Utah needs to find those far and few between bucks that happen to slip through the cracks for 4 or 5 years. This doesn't likely happen either, but the possibility of that happening keeps me going out.

 

[30inchbucks]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-04 AT 06:56PM (MST)[p]I for one do not want a system for our deer like our limited entry elk system. One tag every 20 years would suck, but one every 2 or 3 years would be ok. I don't know if it would even work. Alot of what 2_Point said makes sense about enough bucks to breed the does and he posed an excellent question. "How do we increase the herd by 100,000 animals?" Tag numbers do need to be managed depending on the herd condition and numbers, but that is not the only answer. We need to figure out ways to lower hunter success rates and also increase fawn survival rates. How about increasing the archery tags and lowering significantly the rifle and muzzleloader tags (example Arizona)or conduct mandatory surveys in order to determine accurate harvest rates and determine whether hunt dates need to be moved to lower success rates or place limitations on technology like what Idaho is doing with tradition muzzleloader seasons or restrict ATV use in alot of areas or stop killing does. This list could go on and on. We do need rain and lots of it. We need to control the predators especially on the winter ranges. Maybe we could offer incentives for so many coyotes killed. It doesn't have to be money. It could be a tag or license for so many killed. We need to do something besides praying for rain. We need to control what we can control and try some things like mentioned above and in other posts that would possibly work. Simply doing nothing is obviously not working.

 

[COSA]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-04 AT 07:46PM (MST)[p]Even if Utah did not manage the general areas for "trophy" deer, wouldn't it be better to take a 20" 3-4 point and have a descent possibility of a nice 26" buck every other year. Nevada has a special youth draw where kids 12-16 can hunt deer all three seasons and are virtually guaranteed a tag. Utah could start something like this. When folks get to hunt every other year, they tend to let the forkies pass. Maybe non res. would be limited too every 4 years instead of every other year. At least you would know when you ar going to draw.

 

[2_Point]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-04 AT 08:30PM (MST)[p]KTC- The DWR sells 97,000 tags because they figure it takes that many tags with a 25% (or so) success rate to kill the "surplus" bucks. It is like cow elk tags. The DWR issues more tags than the number of elk they want killed because the success rate is not 100%. Colorado and Wyoming also bank on hunters not being successful. We buy a hunting license for the opportunity to hunt, not a guaranteed kill. If we were all successful then that would be a definate problem.

This has been a good discussion. Just think how good the hunting would be if the past 6 years had not been the worst drought in 500 years.

 

[ktc]

I can understand your philosophy 2 point. I just have a hard time accepting that if there are roughly 25,000 bucks killed each year, leaving 10-15,000 bucks, Those bucks carry over and they are the ones killed, we never see bucks mature. We see many bucks killed in the teeny-weeny to 22" range. Why can't we manage to have Wyoming type herds. I know, they are struggling too. My point is, when you hunt Wyoming, you are not guaranteed a big buck, but with some time and luck a few bruiser's are there. In Utah, unless you hunt the borders of closed or LE area, or have private ground, the bruisers are few and far between.

I have hunted many places in Utah and travel by horseback away from the roads. Shouldn't there be a few big ones around? To look at? To hunt? I am not talking around every corner, but a few would be nice.

I struggle with the predator problem. I can hunt Wyoming and see more coyotes in one deer hunt than I will see in 5 years in Utah. I know they have an impact, but is it really that big of one?

The 97,000 number gets tossed around here a lot. If they would change tag numbers by even one here and there I would actually think they were watching the situation, but the number never changes. We have a "dust-bowl" type drought and yet, still, 97,000. I just don't get it.

Where I hunt, I know a gentleman that hunted there in the 60's. The bucks that they used to get are unbelieveable. Big, big bucks. In 12 years I have never seen one there. 26" is the best one yet. I have only seen one or two of these and they aren't that great of bucks. The moose seem to be doing well. The goats are everywhere. Elk are doing well. The deer, well, it is a pathetic sight.

I don't think this needs to turn into a once in 20 year scenario. I think thing could easily happen in a once every 2 to 3 years type of set up. Promote youth tags, take a kid out, help your buddy or family out on some hunts. I have been helping a friend in Vernon and have been having a ball. Just because we cannot kill does not mean we cannot participate and enjoy the hunting.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

The idea that Brian threw out is a good idea IMO. Hunters would be able to hunt every year but would only be allowed to harvest one buck in that two year period. Everyone keeps talking about the guys that need to kill something, even if it is only a baby (or yearling buck). The idea of allowing everyone to hunt but restricting harvest works. Once some bucks make it thru their first year they will become much smarter and increase their ability to survive more than one hunting season. Brian's proposal allows for doe deer permits in areas where deer are causing damage problems or are high enough they warrant harvesting. This allows those that are in such dire need to obtain venison still an opportunity to fulfill their needs.

2-Poiint and a few others keeps asking how will this help our deer herds? As the overall age of bucks increases you will see a shortening in the length of the rut. This will allow for does to be bred in a shorter period of time, allow fawns to hit the ground earlier, allowing them to avoid prolonged periods of depredation as new born fawns, allow them more time to gain weight thus increasing their opportunity to survive once winter arrives. In addition, I have read posts on MM where people have mentioned seeing several bucks of various ages traveling together. This is also an important factor for the development of bucks. Yearlings spend their first year traveling with their mother, sisters, aunts, etc. After they have survived the first season they will pair up with other bucks. As most of you know bucks and does use the same habitat but use it differently and at different times. Frankly, most of the western states are still managing mule deer for maximum sustained yield. This means that most are capitalizing on the number of young produced rather than managaing for a specific target. I have stated for a long time another thing that would greatly benefit Utah's mule deer herds is to require mandatory harvest reporting. I hunt in Idaho as well as some of you. Does it really offend anyone that you must send in a harvest report? May it doesn't bother me but may bother some of you. I know that the information I provide allows the state agency to better manage MY resources. How many would voluntarily provide information? I would bet that most would. However, I know that if everyone doesn't participate the only option the states have is to extrapolate the data which isn't as effective an allows for mistakes to occur.

If you truly want to improve quality and quantity the plan that Brian proposed will greatly benefit Utah's deer herd. If you even wanted to go one better you could flat out limit buck deer hunting to an every other year. Cut the number of buck hunters in half or allow hunters to chose even or odd for the years they would like to hunt. This is more restrictive and would probably be the preferred choice of the DWR rather than trusting hunters to only take one deer in a two year period. I believe some hunters would take advantage of Brian's proposal; however, I also know that in todays hunting environment most hunters would be more inclined to report such activites than a decade or more ago.

Keep tossing ideas around and you will find a solution. However, do not hold out for a perfect solution as one is highly unlikely to be found that doesn't impact someone or some group. Ultimately, it comes down to us as hunters influencing how our natural resources are managed. I feel I can accurately state that most of the animal rights groups could care less what happens to any animal that is hunted. They would prefer that we didn't even hunt anyway so they are not going to find a solution to our dilema. Who else cares enough about it to make the necessary sacrifices to benefit OUR resources?

Keep up the good, positive debate. It is refreshing to see something positive on this site.

 

[ktc]

Smokestick,

You fill in some answers to questions about how limiting the kill will affect the overall herd. I for one believe that 2 point makes a good argument about harvesting surplus bucks. However, we are over harvesting the surplus, because at the end of the year, not many mature bucks exist. Therefore, in my opinion, we have an over-harvest. A true harvest of surplus bucks would show at the end of the year, plenty of bucks, of all ages, going into the winter.

Now how does action take place, within reason, to DO something? Does SFW tackle this issue? This is the reason I joined SFW. To see action take place in regards to the deer herd. Or, is it a pointless effort to try and convince the Fish and Game?

Brian's idea? ;-)

 

[DallanC]

>You fill in some answers to
>questions about how limiting the
>kill will affect the overall
>herd. I for one believe
>that 2 point makes a
>good argument about harvesting surplus
>bucks. However, we are over
>harvesting the surplus, because at
>the end of the year,
>not many mature bucks exist.

What areas are you referring to? I spend alot of time each winter photographing or videoing a couple different wintering herds here in Utah. Last year in a single 1 square mile spot I video'd a 8x4 (really cool buck till he broke an antler), couple 4x4's, couple 4x3's, couple 3pts, 20 or more 2pts and spikes. Thats a pretty small area.

I dont think thats typical of the state but I also dont think its completely dire statewide.

>Therefore, in my opinion, we
>have an over-harvest. A true
>harvest of surplus bucks would
>show at the end of
>the year, plenty of bucks,
>of all ages, going into
>the winter.

Ok question then. What percentage of a herd should in your opinion, be 4pts or better, 3pts 2pts etc etc. Lets get on the same page for what *you* think an optimal herd should be composed of.

>Now how does action take place,
>within reason, to DO something?
>Does SFW tackle this issue?
>This is the reason I
>joined SFW. To see action
>take place in regards to
>the deer herd. Or, is
>it a pointless effort to
>try and convince the Fish
>and Game?
>
>Brian's idea? ;-)


Problem with MM (and other internet sites)... is it might actually be part of the problem.

We talk about ATV use, technology, over harvesting etc etc. But how many people come here for help and walk away successfully harvesting something due to that advice? Those people might not have harvested something without the help of people here. We know the F&G oversells tags as they assume a certain success rate. Are we hurting ourselves when telling someone "Hey go try canyonXYZ, theres a ton of 2pts running around". Without the knowledge being public only a few people would actually hunt canyonXYZ, causing more animals to survive creating larger deer there next year!

This is something I got thinking about last night.

We see posts like "OMG THERE IS A MONSTER BUCK WINTERING AT AF CANYON!" and the next day its a damn circus with yahoo's running around the hills trying to take a picture, but they dont realize they are stressing and harassing the animals they admire.

Its an interesting thought question actually, are we hurting what we most desire? /shrug


-DallanC

 

[muleyguy]

yes, we are hurting our deer herds with sites like this. Now before everybody gets all up in arms, sites like MM can also do a lot of good. But, it goes along with the big discussion awhile ago about how technology has influenced our deer herds. I can now do almost all of my research/applications etc online. It used to be a small challenge just to assemble all of the maps, the individual states applications, harvest reports etc. Now, I can do that in a few hours on the internet. If we also look at other technologies that are now available, we can also see how deer hunting has become "easier" in many respects. I can get in my 2004 3/4 ton chevy, chain up all fours, and go just about anywhere I want to, and I can stay warm doing it. I can then take my Swarvoski spotting scope and I can look over 80,000 acres effectively a day. And, if I can't get there in my pickup, I can get on my chained up four wheel drive four wheeler and go where I want to.

My point here is that all of these individual technology advances add up to people being able to harvest deer easier. You can't outlaw pickups, you can't outlaw websites, etc. It is a fact of life that to do the research and to put yourself in the middle of mule deer country has never been as easy.

My definition of what is a proper amount of mature bucks is one that is very simple and would probably hold up biologically. The majority of does should be bred by 4.5 yr old bucks or better. Right now, I would bet that 80% of the mule deer does in the general hunting areas are being bred by mostly 2.5 yr old bucks. I have hunted a lot in the rut over many states, and it is completley pathetic to see how many 16 inch three points are doing all the breeding. Looking at the "quality" of mule deer bucks on the wintering range is NOT a true measure of what is out there. Wintering ranges concentrate the bucks from a wide geographical area into a condensed one. That is going to skew all reality of what is really going on. That is like me going to Florida for college spring break and looking at all the pretty ladies and thinking that it should be no problem for me to get one of my own!!

There are two major problems with our mule deer herds and many times on this site, it all gets lumped into one issue. First issue is the quality or the biological makeup of the herd. While there are enough bucks to breed the does, the age structure of the bucks is horrible. This needs to be fixed not only because us hunters want the chance to harvest more mature animals, but because when mature bucks do the breeding it results in healthier fawns, and when younger bucks run with older bucks in their bachelor groups, the herd is healthier and probably "smarter". Essentially, these little bucks have no "dads". It is like single mothers rasing sons, to put it in our terms. How healthy would the human population be if 13 yr olds where fathering all of kids in the world.....

The second issue is herd size. While some areas might be a their holding capacity, much of the West is far below it, even with the droughts effects. To get more deer, you have to let more does live and get better fawn recruitment. Fawn recruitment is a tough one because it is really a predator and habitat and weather situation. So, we can't do a whole lot about those things, and they are long term solutions anyway.

The only answer to the above problems that can be carried out in the short term are restrictions on harvesting bucks, and restrictions on harvesting does. The sad reality of all of this is that NOTHING is going to happen. We all keep looking for some new "fancy" rule or something to make it all better, when the answer is reduced hunting opportunities. And that is not going to happen because it is too politically "unpaletable".

 

[ktc]

Good grief Dallan, do you honestly believe that the great example of winter range deer is healthy? A concentration of "One cool 8X4, a couple of 4X4's, a couple of 4X3's, a couple of 3 points and 20 babies" is acceptable? A 4X4 can be about anything Dallan. Are these mature? Or, are these the run of the mill willow horned 20" variety that are 2.5 years old? The 20" ones that every dipwad around goes and looks at and calls it a 30"er.

What do *I* think should happen? Well it sure as hell isn't what IS happening, which is nothing. One cool 8X4, in what seems to be a healthy concentration in your opinion, is certainly not what I would term healthy.

You cannot honestly believe that this website is killing off the deer herd. I saw that buck in AF Canyon and I saw him before the post was put up here on MM. It was a damn circus then. Why was it a circus? Let me tell you why, because you have thousands of sportsman who would give anything just to get a glimpse of a mature buck in Utah. He wasn't that damn big, but a whole hell of a lot bigger than people are used to seeing around here.

I think the technology problem is on a larger scale than a stupid internet site. Lets talk about bows that need one pin out to 50 yards. Lets talk about roads and ATV's. Lets talk about muzzleloaders that are accurate out to 200 yards. Ultra magnums, and anything else you can think of. Go show Cheif Big Feather a Mathews bow and I bet he wouldn't even know what in the hell it was. In-line Muzzies, sabots, Pyrodex pellets, the list goes on. These so called primitive weapons are not even close to primitive. I am not bashing bowhunters, I am just giving some examples, because everyone of us will use cutting edge technology to our advantage including me.

What would success rates be if recurves, 30-30's, and flintlocks were used? Do you think that if things were like they used to be that deer would be more abundant? Or, do you think MM is killing the deer? Go back to the old primitive weapons and you sure could offer more tags, because success would go down. I scouted out to Vernon a few weeks ago. Where the roads ended and hiking or horse riding began, now 4 wheelers travel the entire range with two-wheel tracks extending across the top of each and every ridge. You used to walk away from people, now, you get ran over by a damn Honda.

 

[DallanC]

You know what, I just realized something.

If cutting tag / hunting opportunities is the sole best solution atm, then why arent herds located within our states National Parks thriving? They are not hunted at all. While I've seen alot of wildlife in our national parks here in utah, I dont remember seeing a noticable difference of mature populations vs outside the park.

If "overharvesting" is whats truely keeping herd numbers down and limiting mature bucks statewide, then why arent herds within the parks absolutely thriving? Logically this would follow... unless (drum roll), overharvesting is not the true problem.

1) Drought. Affects both animals inside and outside the parks. We have little control over this although watering tanks can be placed in areas to help out... ala the chuckar units placed out in the west desert.

2) Habitat. Remains moderately constant inside parks, outside its loss is accelerating. Its highly doubtful the F&G or other wildlife groups can ever do much about this as developed ground is just worth too much money ($100,000 to $250,000 per half acre near where I live, right in prime wintering grounds).

3) Winterkill. Affects both animals inside and outside parks, goes hand in hand with habitat loss. Perhaps more research can be done with regards to supplimental feed that doesnt have detrimental effects (ie: enzymes dying within the deer, causing them to not be able to digest normal browse once spring comes and dying). There are a few areas that are overcrowded and when we have moderate winters the winterkill really escalates due to lack of forage.

4) Predators. Affects both animals inside and outside parks. This is definitely something we have control over. Coyotes are varmints and can be shot at will. Cougar tags are available over the counter now in some areas. I read once a mature cougar kills 1 deer a week? Thats alot.

Herds have yet to recover to traditional levels from the '93 winter both inside and outside nat parks. Animals inside are not hunted, animals outside are. Is this significant? I'm not sure but offhand it makes me doubt overharvesting is truely the problem.



-DallanC

 

[DallanC]

Oh come on, I never said I was a biologest. I am someone however who doesnt sit on his ass in the offseason. I spend alot of time behind a spotting scope watching animals, its fun and enjoyable.

>Good grief Dallan, do you honestly
>believe that the great example
>of winter range deer is
>healthy?

Is it healthy? Beats the hell out of me, *I* never said it was. *I* asked what people thought a healthy herd should be comprised of. You are putting words in my mouth with your post. I was just saying that there are mature bucks making it through the hunts now in at least the area by my house.

I clearly said I didnt think that is typical of the state though. Guessed you missed that part.

>A concentration of "One
>cool 8X4, a couple of
>4X4's, a couple of 4X3's,
>a couple of 3 points
>and 20 babies" is acceptable?
>A 4X4 can be about
>anything Dallan. Are these mature?

Yes the big ones were mature bucks, real bruisers. I've seen big deer but the 4x8 was indeed "cool". Look I'm really sorry my word "cool" offends you so much as it obviously has. Perhaps someone a bit more level headed might have asked "what made it so cool?" Then I would have answered the one side forked at the main beams, then each G point forked again, no stickers. It honestly was cool looking.

>Or, are these the run
>of the mill willow horned
>20" variety that are 2.5
>years old? The 20" ones
>that every dipwad around goes
>and looks at and calls
>it a 30"er.

This some form of a failed attempt to call me a dipwad? LOL

>What do *I* think should happen?
>Well it sure as hell
>isn't what IS happening, which
>is nothing. One cool 8X4,
>in what seems to be
>a healthy concentration in your
>opinion, is certainly not what
>I would term healthy.

No genious, I never said it was healthy. I just said THAT IS WHAT WINTERED IN A SINGLE SMALL AREA. Lordy I hate trying to discuss stuff with shallow minded people who make up stuff in an attempt to strenghen their position. I didnt say it, dont say I did as it only makes you look stupid.

>You cannot honestly believe that this
>website is killing off the
>deer herd. I saw that

Killing off the herd? No. Increasing harvest success? Yes. In a significant amount? No. All internet sites combined? /shrug

Muleyguy understood what I was getting at, technology in general has increased success rates. That includes the fancy 300RUM, internet, ATVS, spotting scopes, sattalite weather forcasts etc etc.


>buck in AF Canyon and
>I saw him before the
>post was put up here
>on MM. It was a
>damn circus then. Why was
>it a circus? Let me
>tell you why, because you
>have thousands of sportsman who
>would give anything just to
>get a glimpse of a
>mature buck in Utah. He
>wasn't that damn big, but
>a whole hell of a
>lot bigger than people are
>used to seeing around here.

Agreed.

>I think the technology problem is
>on a larger scale than
>a stupid internet site. Lets
>talk about bows that need
>one pin out to 50

Agreed.

>yards. Lets talk about roads
>and ATV's. Lets talk about

Agreed.

>muzzleloaders that are accurate out
>to 200 yards.

No. Civil War snipers were documented at making 1000 yard shots.

>Ultra magnums,
>and anything else you can
>think of. Go show Cheif
>Big Feather a Mathews bow
>and I bet he wouldn't
>even know what in the
>hell it was.

True.

>In-line Muzzies,

Inline Muzzloaders predate the traditional hawkin sidelock by 100 years. Germany, 1734.

>sabots, Pyrodex pellets, the list
>goes on. These so called
>primitive weapons are not even
>close to primitive. I am

True.

>not bashing bowhunters, I am
>just giving some examples, because
>everyone of us will use
>cutting edge technology to our
>advantage including me.

True.

>What would success rates be if
>recurves, 30-30's, and flintlocks were
>used? Do you think that

They would be lessened no doubt. But its a fine line of making the hunt challenging and still retaining the hope of a "clean kill". I'd rather see diminished tags and using what we have no, than say going fully retro to the point people wound and loose more.

>if things were like they
>used to be that deer
>would be more abundant? Or,
>do you think MM is
>killing the deer? Go back

Again, You missed the point of what I was trying to say.

>to the old primitive weapons
>and you sure could offer
>more tags, because success would
>go down. I scouted out

Muzzleloading is my prefered choice of weapon. It has been for 20 years now.

>to Vernon a few weeks
>ago. Where the roads ended
>and hiking or horse riding
>began, now 4 wheelers travel
>the entire range with two-wheel
>tracks extending across the top
>of each and every ridge.
>You used to walk away
>from people, now, you get
>ran over by a damn
>Honda.

I dont doubt it. However keep in mind most trail abuse is caused by non-hunting joyriders.


-DallanC

 

[SMOKESTICK]

DallanC,

Contrast private property with National Parks and you will also notice that a lot of private property though it is extensively hunted has healthy populations of wildlife. Most National Parks do not allow grazing which actually improves the health of plant communities in done properly. Another thing that happens on private property is that most manage or at least attempt to mange predator numbers which National Parks don't do either. As you mentioned, most factors are the same inside and outside of the National Park; however, one thing that happens very little within a National Park is habitat manipulation. If you want to talk about specific areas we can do that, but I have been talking in general terms with broad application. Anytime you get down to specific areas or regions some factors my fall out all together or increase/decrease in magnitude of impact.

If you want to talk about over harvest just look at the average age of deer harvested. It has been a while since I have worked a public check station but from what I recall the average was about 1.5-2.0 average age of harvest. The fact that most deer harvested are yearling bucks dictates that most of your harvest is supported by the previous years production. This allows for maximum sustained harvest. Obviously, as the deer get older the cohort or age class shrinks due to natural mortality and man caused mortality. Depending on where you want the mean age of your bucks to fall is dependant on how many bucks you want to take. Most ranches that are enrolled in the CWMU program restrict hunter numbers. Limited Entry units restrict hunters as well. Not everyone feels nor needs to feel like the must hunt trophy animals. However, everyones actions, collectively impact our resources and subsequent opportunity.

I have stated before that the problems mule deer face won't fix themselves. I believe most on this site would agree that there are some short term solutions we could implement anytime we decided too. Long term solutions will require more time to actually realise any benefit. I will ask again, if mot our generation then whose generation will fix the problem? I once heard a high ranking biologist within the BLM state that wildlife was a four letter word in that agency. Until some attitudes change mule deer will continue to suffer the same fate they do today. The BLM isn't concerned as much about problems with mule deer as they are about the listing of sage grouse. However, it is because of the concern of sage grouse that sagebrush steppe zones will be getting a lot more attention. Will we live long enough to see the benefits of todays actions? Probably not; however, I would like to leave a legacy for my son and my grandchildren. It all needs to start with us. I can tell you that I served on a primitive weapons committee and can agree that we are the biggest contibutor to most of the problems mule deer are facing. I have often wondered what it would be like if we were to get a few sizeable areas to impose some kind of techno ban. How much more opportunity would be afforded if we limited our technological advances? Who would be willing to do it? Look around this site and you will find most are trying to gain an advantage.

No where have heards recovered to the 1993 levels that I am aware of today. Most of todays limitations are directly related to the overall health of our rangelands. IMO too much protection from fire has hurt their health. Todays fores burn much larger areas and at a hotter temperature. Most fires result in a complete conversion to noxious weeds which only compound our problems. We are smart enough to accomplish amny things. We can accomplish more if we all decide to place our focus on improving the things that we value. A lot of this will come down to politics. Unfortunately, I have learned that more attention is given to politics than what is important biologically. Sportsmen need to become engaged in the political process. Jobs are important, so is health care. Is it any wonder why so little attention is given to wildlife issues when you look at all of the crises our country is facing. Like I have said before we can either make a decision to be part of the solution or let the next generation deal with the problems (some of which are our own making).

 

[ktc]

Boy Dallan, you got a burr-up-your-ass?

No the word "cool" does not offend me. You telling me I sit on my ass does. You telling me I am stupid does even more.

Put words in your mouth? Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I never called you a dipwad.

No mature "bucks" are not making it through the hunt. One mature buck made it through the hunt in one small area according to your story.

What the hell is a genious? You are the one who looks stupid.

Do you want to debate the issues or sling mud, genius?

 

[DallanC]

>Boy Dallan, you got a burr-up-your-ass?
>
>
>No the word "cool" does not
>offend me. You telling me
>I sit on my ass
>does. You telling me I
>am stupid does even more.

Here we go again. Please read what I wrote. I said *I* dont sit on *MY* ass, I spend alot of time getting out watching wildlife. Seeing whats out on winter ranges gives a good idea of whats living through the hunts and whats not.

>Put words in your mouth? Those
>in glass houses shouldn't throw
>stones. I never called you
>a dipwad.

True, just like I didnt say you sit on your ass. Lets agree we both minunderstood each other over these two points.

>No mature "bucks" are not making
>it through the hunt. One
>mature buck made it through
>the hunt in one small
>area according to your story.

Sure there are, we see pictures posted here on MM each year of them. The question is how do we get more. Most people in this state shoot small bucks. If they didnt shoot small ones we'd have more big ones. But they do shoot small ones so what does that say about their goals? Hard to manage for older bucks when the core hunters are happy with a yearling.

>What the hell is a genious?
>You are the one who
>looks stupid.

LoL HEAVENS TO BETSY, I ADDED AN EXTRA "o"!!! OH NO!

>Do you want to debate the
>issues or sling mud, genius?

There has been some great discussions up above with some terrific points made. Your post was the first that really took a nasty belittling turn IMO, I just reponded to that.


-DallanC

 

[ktc]

No belittling here, just debating the issues the best I can with lots of years of observation. Everyone will have an opinion on the issues, but which one works best for the deer?

 

[DallanC]

>No belittling here, just debating the
>issues the best I can
>with lots of years of
>observation. Everyone will have an
>opinion on the issues, but
>which one works best for
>the deer?

First off, lets try to agree on a goal. I asked above and have yet to get a response from anyone.

What should a herd population of say 100 animals in a defined area be comprised of? What percentage does, (buck) yearlings, 2-3yr olds, 4+ etc.


-DallanC

 

[ktc]

Ok Dallan,

I would like to offer my personal opinion on what I would like to see post hunt. I could be way off base, just some thoughts.

Post hunt;
20 minimum buck to doe ratio.
20% of these bucks being mature 4 or 5 years old +
30% 3 years old.
50% can be young or whatever. ( I don't know deer age too well)
Cut tags or limit (as Brian says) kills to reduce harvest 50%?
Use a goal to get deer herds up opportunity to follow.
10% of tags to youth.
Offer adult hunters ability transfer their tag to youth if they are the legal guardian of that youth.
Run general draw off of true preference point system.
Draw general hunts last, those who draw anything are out. Unless undersubscribed tags exist.

Just some thoughts. I agree objectives and goals need to be set. Then action taken and a plan set forth to reach these goals. I was planning to give you these thoughts earlier and kind of blew up Dallan.

 

[ktc]

Smokestick,

Wyoming obviously has a plan and sticks to it. Are you privy to the plan? Can you suggest to Utah that they implement a similar plan?

I will never forget the biologist in Wyoming who told me on the phone, when implying about good areas in Wyoming in which to apply. He said 'Where are you from?" I told him Utah. He said "Oh, we don't have one of those Paunsagaunt things. We manage our state so all areas are good. Pick a place you want to hunt and apply. There are good bucks in all areas of Wyoming." I never forgot this because I was in disbelief. I was wondering, how could this be?

Dallan, check your PM. Hopefully I cleared the air a bit.

 

[DallanC]

Good starting point. 20 to 1 ratio: out of the hypothetical 100 deer herd thats 5 bucks.

1 would be 4-5yrs old
1.5 would be 3yrs old
2.5 yearings.

So assuming 50% harvest that means we need a 10 to 1 buck doe ratio going into the hunt. But what prevents the hunters from taking the top 50% bucks agewise?

What about a reverse point restriction. I mean there would be 2 types of tags issued for deer like the elk. With elk we have spike or open tags. It almost seems like we need to control just what people are killing, not the amount of killing itself. So what about a spike / 2pt tag and a 3pt or better tag. People with the former couldnt shoot mature bucks, satisfying those who only want to hunt and bag a meat buck. The "Mature" tag be the same but in reverse where they can only harvest a mature deer.

Wouldnt this give the tools / control to manage not just deer populations, but buck age within a herd? We dont want 10 hunters going into an area that contains 20 bucks and killing the 10 oldest bucks. They could be given say an even split. Now we know that post hunt there should be 5 mature bucks growing even older.

Just a thought.


-DallanC

 

[ktc]

Dallan,

I messed up.

20 bucks to 100 does. I did not clarify that. That was my thought.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

ktc,

The reason Wyoming is able to do waht they is because of th populatio density of people. Wyoming has around 500,000 people living in the state. Utah has around over 4 times that many people. Wyoming also has a lot of areas where access is minimal or difficult, as well as areas with high levels of access. Wyoming also feeds a lot of their elk, allowing winter range to be more available to deer and pronghorn, etc. Utah probably has a higher percentage of mule deer habitat than Wyoming but Utah is also a bit smaller than Wyoming. You must also know that most Wyoming hunters are die-hard elk hunters and opportunistic about mule deer. Utah has a high numer of mule deer enthusiast (I call them mule deer nuts, but that may get confusing) tht eat, sleep, breath, drink, and dream about Mossy Horned Mammoths from some era long passed. Because of the amount of mule deer nuts living in Utah, it has caused more attention to be directed towards quality rather than quantity. When I worked at Deseret we had always managed for quality experience. Our buck:doe ratios were 65 bucks/100 does pre-season and usually around 40-45 bucks/100 does post season. IMO, the question is how far does Utah want to go towards producing quality hunting? Not everyone wants to or needs to hunt trophy mule deer. I know the most enjoyable hunting I every had was when I was hunting Deseret. I was able to pass up a lot of bucks because I knew there were enough bucks available and some quality bucks to boot. I have passed bigger deer than I have ever killed because I didn't want to end my hunt by taking a mediocre buck. Two or three problems (situations) prevent your average hunter from being able to do what I was able to do. 1-Most hunters have the mind set that if it has antlers (horns for those laymen) you had better shoot it before the next hunter beats you to it. 2-Those that have attempted to allow yearlings to escape usually hear a hunter from the next ridge kill the one they let go. This causes them to second guess themselves. 3-Most hunters don't have the mind set that passing anything will lead to an overall improvement of existing conditions; mainly because of situation #2. This is mainly because at Deseret most hunters had the same goal; that of harvesting a trophy animal. Trophy's differ in just about everyones mind, but nonetheless, a trophy is whatever a trophy is. One thing about Brians proposal is that it would begin to establish a standard. I don't know about most of you but I have seldom killed a buck. Personally, I believe that a hunter should always strive to kill bigger and better (usually equates to older animals as opposed to babies) animal than previously taken. That is my philosophy. Some feel entitled to kill a buck every year, even if it is only a year old. To each there own, right? By forcing hunters to restricted their actions (killing a buck) by allowing them to kill one buck in a two year period means that at some point in time the hunters which feel as though they must kill a deer are forced into passing a buck once every other year. By doing this we should see more bucks surviving into their second year. This is what spike elk hunting accomplishes, just in a different manner. Once you start getting more 20-24 inch bucks available to hunters you will see less hunters killing yearling bucks. In order for people to pass on deer it must be that something else is available. I have mentioned before that most states manage deer for maximum sustained harvest. This means the most bucks you can harvest in any given year. This is what was happening when Utah issued 250,000 deer licenses. Every year a few bucks survived the hunting season allowing for a few mature bucks to be available to following year. Once the population fell too low hunting pressure didn't ease up soon enough. Utah placed a cap of 97,000 in the early to mid-1990's. However, I believe and appears that some others also agree that though it was a significant reduction it wasn't enough. Where should it be? I'm not sure; however, I do believe that implementing Brian's proposal would greatly benefit mule deer and still allow the maximum number of hunters to participate. Before guys are willing to pass up deer there needs to be a reason to do so. Under todays system if you pass a buck more than likely he will be dead before he gets over the mountain top. If everyone could only harvest one buck in a two year period it would greatly benefit mule deer first and foremost, and hunters would reap benefits but not at the expense of our resource.

I am gald to see that you and DallanC are back on topic. The internet is a great tool, but I have learned it is not the best communication tool available. It is too easy to read things into what others are saying and it is easy for people to imply things that weren't intended. I enjoy the debate. As you can see, although I no longer work for the MDF I still am very empassioned about mule deer. As I told Don Peay ealier I didn't believe one state could fix the mule deer problem, but I do believe that Utah will play an critical role in mule deer recovery efforts. Hopefully, we can start getting a handle on some of the long term tings that need to happen. The BLM has indicated they are now going to do something to help our sagebrush steppe zone recover for several years of neglect. Keep in mind that when I state neglect I am not placing the blame on those which graze our public lands (winter ranges). The environmentalists have stopped a lot of habitat practices which are known to be beneficial to wildlife (chaining). Southern Utah has been over run by cheat grass because of the manner in which we have addressed fire suppression.