DWR estimated numbers and mandatory harvest report

huntin50 · Mar 21, 2018

If you look at the DWR's estimated population report. It shows the Cache deer unit ESTIMATE'S post 2016 is 18,800. We had a hard winter last year, especially on the Bear Lake side of the unit. Emergency feeding took place. DWR's 2017 post population estimate is 17,200. This means the population by their own numbers ONLY decreased by 1,600. Current population Estimate 17,200. Herd Objective 25,000. According to many sportsmen, myself included. The Cache population is under 8,000. Some believe well under 8,000.

We need to have a mandatory harvest report, to get better numbers in the computer models. Bad numbers in, equal bad numbers out.

Who would be willing to have mandatory harvest report on general deer tags, like limited entry tags? Would it help produce better population estimate numbers? Would it help with management? Some have said the DWR might not want to know the real numbers? It may limit flexibility with tag numbers.

What's your thoughts?

fullthrottle · Mar 21, 2018

I think that's a great idea, I would be all for it. Anything to shed some more light on the actual populations. The divisions charts and graphs are a joke.

Deerlove · Mar 21, 2018

I think its a great idea also, had a buddy kicking around bear lake yesterday and he's still finding winter kill.

mtnrunner260 · Mar 21, 2018

It seems that a simple phone app could be used to accomplish this.
I'm not sure how to ensure people are reporting the truth but perhaps with such a large sample size it wouldn't matter?

huntin50 · Mar 21, 2018

The DWR is already spending money on phone surveys. The DWR already does this for limited entry permits. A simple survey, how many day's hunted? Did you harvest? What unit? How many points did the antlers have? Rate your hunting experience. etc.

Tikka · Mar 21, 2018

He!! yes, I've been saying this for years... They have no idea how many "general season deer" are harvested each year...

heartshot · Mar 21, 2018

I'm all for 100% mandatory reporting for general hunts.

3blade · Mar 21, 2018

LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-18 AT 05:03PM (MST)[p]I'm all for it for all species that requires a tag. Make it internet based, log into your account, click the appropriate buttons and hit submit. easy peasy

hossblur · Mar 21, 2018

LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-18 AT 05:56AM (MST)[p]I agree with the crowd, I think is a great idea as well.

But I'm not sure how it will fix the problem you discussed. It will tell them the age class of the bucks taken, where it should be apparent there is a hole where those bad winter games were wiped out. But it won't help them with herd numbers.

I don't frequent the area and a loss of only 1600 deer to that winter seems highly unlikely given reports from just across the border.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

schoolhousegrizz · Mar 22, 2018

Count Me In

Vanilla · Mar 22, 2018

I am okay with mandatory reporting for any tag you receive, any species.

If you don't report, you're disqualified from that specifies the next year.

deadibob · Mar 22, 2018

The way this state does population estimates is the biggest farce I've ever seen. They have no clue what is out there for wildlife numbers. There would have to be a big improvement in the process to even call it a joke. The only thing that comes close is managing for a buck-doe ratio rather than carrying capacity.

Mandatory harvest reporting would be a good start. I can't understand why the DWR has fought having accurate herd assesments tooth and nail for decades. Every time they are called out on their numbers, which has been nearly every RAC meeting I've attended, they throw a hissy fit and start spewing B.S.,

I don't think it is laziness, I don't think it is incompetence. I believe the DWR likes to pad the numbers to increase tag sales and revenue. I can't see any other reason for why they do this. Just about anyone who spends real time afield, knows DWR population numbers aren't even close. We know it's B.S., they know it's B.S., yet they still do it.

Robiland · Mar 23, 2018

I like the idea of harvest report. Infact, a few years ago at the RAC, I suggested this. I was told they couldnt do it because too many old people wont be able to figure it out. I told them that was BS since they have to apply by computer, they can answer a few questions by computer. NOT HARD! But they said no. This was the Central Rac.

elkfromabove · Mar 23, 2018

>The way this state does population
>estimates is the biggest farce
>I've ever seen. They have
>no clue what is out
>there for wildlife numbers. There
>would have to be a
>big improvement in the process
>to even call it a
>joke. The only thing that
>comes close is managing for
>a buck-doe ratio rather than
>carrying capacity.
>
>Mandatory harvest reporting would be a
>good start. I can't understand
>why the DWR has fought
>having accurate herd assesments tooth
>and nail for decades. Every
>time they are called out
>on their numbers, which has
>been nearly every RAC meeting
>I've attended, they throw a
>hissy fit and start spewing
>B.S.,
>
> I don't think it is
>laziness, I don't think it
>is incompetence. I believe the
>DWR likes to pad the
>numbers to increase tag sales
>and revenue. I can't see
>any other reason for why
>they do this. Just about
>anyone who spends real time
>afield, knows DWR population numbers
>aren't even close. We know
>it's B.S., they know it's
>B.S., yet they still do
>it.

So, please tell us how the counts/classifications should be done.

deadibob · Mar 23, 2018

send every tag holder out with a paintball gun for 9.3 days. Count every deer you tag. If a deer is already marked, you can't retag or count it. Tally up the total of deer tagged and multiply by pie. This will get you numbers accurate within 2.67%.

Muley_73 · Mar 23, 2018

I'm all for this!!!!!!!

I broke down some numbers last week. The DWR make zero sense if they are actually following any kind of plan.

2015 total deer 384,000- Tags issued 87,000
2018 total deer 363,000- Tags issued 91,000
all the while with and objective of 453,000 deer state wide.

Couple more interesting stats:
Cache unit according to the DWRs own numbers has 2648 bucks and issues 6,600 tags to hunt those bucks. I wonder how many of those 2648 bucks are living on private most if not all of the hunt?

Monroe unit according to the DWRs own numbers has 816 bucks, according to the harvest data there were 758 bucks harvested in 2017. So that leave a grand total of 58 buck deer on the Monroe unit? But they are issuing 1,200 tags in 2018???

Its no wonder Utahs deer herd can never recover. We once had 800,000 PLUS deer. Its not lack of habitat or predators or weather. Those are all crutches. Not to mention the most difficult issues to address. The easiest factor to address is over harvest of bucks by hunters and it is the last thing that the DWR wants to address.

hossblur · Mar 24, 2018

>I'm all for this!!!!!!!
>
>I broke down some numbers last
>week. The DWR make
>zero sense if they are
>actually following any kind of
>plan.
>
>2015 total deer 384,000- Tags issued
>87,000
>2018 total deer 363,000- Tags issued
>91,000
>all the while with and objective
>of 453,000 deer state wide.
>
>
>Couple more interesting stats:
>Cache unit according to the DWRs
>own numbers has 2648 bucks
>and issues 6,600 tags to
>hunt those bucks. I
>wonder how many of those
>2648 bucks are living on
>private most if not all
>of the hunt?
>
>Monroe unit according to the DWRs
>own numbers has 816 bucks,
>according to the harvest data
>there were 758 bucks harvested
>in 2017. So that
>leave a grand total of
>58 buck deer on the
>Monroe unit? But they are
>issuing 1,200 tags in 2018???
>
>
>Its no wonder Utahs deer herd
>can never recover. We
>once had 800,000 PLUS deer.
> Its not lack of
>habitat or predators or weather.
> Those are all crutches.
>Not to mention the most
>difficult issues to address.
>The easiest factor to address
>is over harvest of bucks
>by hunters and it is
>the last thing that the
>DWR wants to address.

I was with you until that last paragraph. Until a buck has fawns, worrying about buck/doe ratios is useless. You don't build a herd killing does. Lumpy was correct every time he said it, counting deer that live on private ground is useless.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

Muley_73 · Mar 24, 2018

Hoss,
Look at a naturally healthy heard. It's buck to doe ratio is higher than 15-20 buck per hundreds doe. By over harvesting we are riding the line constantly.

If you agree with the above how can you not agree with that last paragraph. The last paragraph sums up why the first paragraphs are what they are.

Packout · Mar 24, 2018

If you guys are going to break down the UDWR's numbers, then at least use something in the ballpark of what the UDWR says is truth. Looks like some Common Core math is being used on this thread.

The UDWR says there are 6,000 deer on the Monroe with a buck to doe ratio around 14 and fawn to doe ratio around 60 for post season 2017. For every 100 doe there are 14 bucks and 60 fawns. Off those ratios there would be approx 3,400 doe, 2034 fawns, and 476 bucks. Approx half the fawns are bucks so there will be approx 1,000 yearling bucks + 476 carry overs for next hunt. Figure in a 20% winter mortality and 1476 bucks goes down to around 1,200 bucks available to hunt.

Notice that it is to hunt, not harvest. 1,200 tags at a 50% success rate and that leaves 600 bucks post season to breed 5,000 doe. Or one buck per every 8.3 doe.

If the herd is not growing, then the bigger problem is where have those 1000 doe fawns gone? Why are they not recruiting into the herd to have more fawns? It sure isn't because there are too few bucks.

And no complaints from me about mandatory harvest reporting.

Muley_73 · Mar 24, 2018

Packout,
I was waiting for that. Yes I agree most of the "bucks" left to hunt will be yealrlings...by a huge margin. Better hope one bad winter doesn't wipe out all the fawns. Cause I'd bet a shiney nickle they wouldn't cut tags in half if all the fawns winter kill.

cannonball · Mar 25, 2018

I agreed when they pushed for small units, but as I expected buck to doe ratios took first chair over numbers. NUMBER OF DEER on a unit should have been in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. The DWR can twist numbers around like they all graduated from Enron's school of accounting.

hossblur · Mar 26, 2018

>Hoss,
>Look at a naturally healthy heard.
> It's buck to doe
>ratio is higher than 15-20
>buck per hundreds doe.
>By over harvesting we are
>riding the line constantly.
>
>If you agree with the above
>how can you not agree
>with that last paragraph.
>The last paragraph sums up
>why the first paragraphs are
>what they are.

If you have a 50:100 buck to doe ratio, yet only have 100 does, WHO CARES?

That ratio is meaningless, until your at capacity for deer. We aren't. You can maintain a ratio on a declining herd number. We are short a ton of deer, and only does can remedy that.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

Vanilla · Mar 27, 2018

Muley, when you say you were waiting for that (what Packout posted), are you acknowledging you made a mistake you realized already but chose not to correct because it would not help your position, or that you purposefully made the numbers up to support your position?

huntin50 · Mar 27, 2018

A few years ago the DWR flew the Cache and counted elk and deer. They counted about 2,300 deer, with good snow pack, deer were on winter range. They also figured harvest numbers were around 2,200- 2,500 bucks. Got data from phone survey, hunter success, etc. Buck to doe ratio is probably the most accurate numbers for models.

I know it is more difficult to count deer than elk. We need to have a better idea on populations.

If you count 2,200 deer on winter range, and there are no feed and deep snow on the summer ranger. Where are the other 20,000 deer hiding?? There was two feet of snow on the foothills and 6-10 feet on summer range.

When snow conditions are good, like last year, we need to be able to count deer better. If we have mandatory harvest information, we would have better information on harvest. This information with Buck to doe ratios would give us a better idea on population.

Just a few thoughts.

Muley_73 · Mar 27, 2018

No, I'm going off of the numbers. I was waiting for Packout to point out that the vast majority of the bucks left are actually fawns at the time of the count. Had stated that myself it would have been blown off as you guys think I'm always pushing some hidden trophy hunter agenda. With Packout pointing it out I figured it might sink in a little more that a huge percentage of our bucks left post hunt are actually still fawns and very vulnerable to not making it into your next hunting season.

Muley_73 · Mar 27, 2018

Hoss,
I don't disagree for one second but a healthy herd at capacity is not something we have on almost any unit in the state.

cannonball · Mar 28, 2018

Well Boys and Girls, you can't poison predators and the DWR isn't willing to butt heads with the lion hunters nor the anti-deer(animal rights) people. Also the DWR are deaf and dumb as to the number of deer on the mountain so we over hunt most units. Tne day in the near future you need to be thinking about another sport.

BrowningRage · Mar 28, 2018

I couldn't agree more that private land deer numbers are not only irrelevan5 to general season deer numbers, but also dishonest.

While harvest numbers are nice, a survey only goes so far. LE reporting is more valid because of tooth data. And that would require quite a bit more money to do for general season.

Of course, maybe every DNR employee doesn't need a 2018 Duramax, maybe..?

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

cantkillathing · Mar 28, 2018

I have come to the conclusion that Utahs deer herd is as good as it will ever get. Once you come to this realization then we will stop fighting the up hill battle that you cant win.
I was in a meeting a couple weeks ago about the deer numbers in our area. 13,000 deer, 22 bucks per 100 does. We are at the prime of hunting, and there is no improving it. I will never believe the numbers, I am out enough to know that this is crap, but nobody is willing to challenge it. Not enough people care to fight.
So just drink the cool aide and enjoy what we don't have. The deer herd will always suck. I know for one I am done fighting it, its not worth it anymore. I do see it all coming to an end, the kings will continue to enjoy what Utah has offered them, but average joe will be eliminated.

huntin50 · Apr 2, 2018

From what I have heard the DWR is now considering on having mandatory harvest reports on general deer units. It will be interesting to see how or if the data on populations and harvest changes.

why · Apr 5, 2018

just got back northeastern rac meeting did not want to listen to pubic input on there numbers are to high on harvest. its all about the money and will every last animal .

elkassassin · Apr 8, 2018

The Deer Herd in Northeastern Utah SUCKS!

It Ain't Easy being Me!

cantkillathing · Apr 8, 2018

The Deer herd in Utah will always be crappy. Face it boys it is as good as it will ever get, enjoy it. Not enough people that give a damn. There is no Group out there that wants to fight the issues. Until someone comes up with a better module to use to count deer in the western states, we will keep getting the same results. TheY physically have to fly and count elk, but wont for deer, I think if people seen the real numbers on the deer there would be a mad dash to do something, but we will continue to believe the numbers and brush it under a rug, and pray that they will eventually rebound.

hossblur · Apr 9, 2018

>The Deer herd in Utah will
>always be crappy. Face
>it boys it is as
>good as it will ever
>get, enjoy it. Not
>enough people that give a
>damn. There is no
>Group out there that wants
>to fight the issues.
>Until someone comes up with
>a better module to use
>to count deer in the
>western states, we will keep
>getting the same results.
>TheY physically have to fly
>and count elk, but wont
>for deer, I think if
>people seen the real numbers
>on the deer there would
>be a mad dash to
>do something, but we will
>continue to believe the numbers
>and brush it under a
>rug, and pray that they
>will eventually rebound.

First. Counting deer on private, or from private is useless. Meaning most of the deer # in N Utah is useless.

Next, I disagree about people caring. Don't forget $fw original claim was to represent average Utah hunters with the DWR and "save the deer". MDF is in that same mode. Both 100% burned "average" hunters. I believe most of us may not like DWR #, but 100% don't trust "groups" that are associated with deer in Utah.

To be fair, the top of Utah, and more the bottom can't hold big numbers of deer so our overall # will stay lower.

I'm a big fan of mandatory reporting. Works for lots of other species.

Last. I think we could still cut units smaller so they are easier to manage. I hunt Manti/San Rafael. You could easily cut it in 3rds. The deer in Fairview and the deer in Mayfield, ain't the same, why manage them that way?

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

Shadow · Apr 9, 2018

I like the smaller units, always thought the original 5 were too large to manage effectively. And I agree with breaking some units even smaller still. 4,5,6 isn't much better than the original northern region. When the lions share of deer are congregated on private/CWMU lands, you have 90% of the hunters pounding 10% of the unit because that's all they can access and the herds on public really don't have much of a chance.

Muley_73 · Apr 9, 2018

If you go look at old DWR info you will see that they use to acknowledge 60 units in the state. It should be now and it should be managed yearly in each individual unit. But.......no way is the DWR going to change anything without a huge public push. And don't expect any group in Utah to support or help with the push. It's fixable but not by the DWR left to their own devices.

cannonball · Apr 12, 2018

Do you suppose they over estimate deer numbers and under estimate cougar and bear numbers? bet ya they do!

huntin50 · Apr 12, 2018

about 15 years ago they started the harvest quota for cougars. The estimated population was 60-70 on the Cache unit. They had a quota of 35. The biologist didn't think they would fill the quota. In three weeks they filled the quota the first year. The second year they filled another 35 quota in about 3 weeks. 72 dead lions in two years time. Remember females with kittens are protected. They were quite a bit off their estimation on lion populations.

There needs to be a good balance deer to lion population. Better harvest numbers may help.

RutnBuck13 · Apr 13, 2018

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-18 AT 02:42PM (MST)[p]>about 15 years ago they started
>the harvest quota for cougars.
> The estimated population was
>60-70 on the Cache unit.
> They had a quota
>of 35. The biologist
>didn't think they would fill
>the quota. In three
>weeks they filled the quota
>the first year. The
>second year they filled another
>35 quota in about 3
>weeks. 72 dead lions
>in two years time.
>Remember females with kittens are
>protected. They were quite
>a bit off their estimation
>on lion populations.
>
>There needs to be a good
>balance deer to lion population.
> Better harvest numbers may
>help.

So if the answer is killing lions then in the last 4 years in the bookcliffs and in unit 21 "bordering the bookcliffs unit" they have killed 200+ lions why arent those units deer population exploding? Do the math guys if you kill 50 lions a year and lions eat a deer a week thats 2600 deer saved a year so in 4 years the population should be exploding I spend ALOT of time in the bookcliffs year round and the deer population is still struggling so anybody blaming lions is obviously a misinformed fool people need to start looking at the big picture which is deer are overhunted alot of the feed for deer is being ate by wildhorses shed horn hunters applying pressure to fatigued deer herds in the spring coyotes eating fawns and in my opinion since lions target weaker animals "older deer and also deer with disease" I think im safe to say that disease will spread more and also old weak deer that have no contribution to the deer herd eating feed will hurt the population also so the division of wildlife and the average deer hunters crusade on mountain lions is a laughable joke to me P.S. i am a guy who loves to hunt all species from big to little so i have no biased opinion and want all species to thrive. Except for wildhorses, they need to die.

elkassassin · Apr 13, 2018

>LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-18
>AT 02:42?PM (MST)
>
>>about 15 years ago they started
>>the harvest quota for cougars.
>> The estimated population was
>>60-70 on the Cache unit.
>> They had a quota
>>of 35. The biologist
>>didn't think they would fill
>>the quota. In three
>>weeks they filled the quota
>>the first year. The
>>second year they filled another
>>35 quota in about 3
>>weeks. 72 dead lions
>>in two years time.
>>Remember females with kittens are
>>protected. They were quite
>>a bit off their estimation
>>on lion populations.
>>
>>There needs to be a good
>>balance deer to lion population.
>> Better harvest numbers may
>>help.
>
>
>So if the answer is killing
>lions then in the last
>4 years in the bookcliffs
>and in unit 21 "bordering
>the bookcliffs unit" they have
>killed 200+ lions why arent
>those units deer population exploding?
>Do the math guys if
>you kill 50 lions a
>year and lions eat a
>deer a week thats 2600
>deer saved a year so
>in 4 years the population
>should be exploding I spend
>ALOT of time in the
>bookcliffs year round and the
>deer population is still struggling
>so anybody blaming lions is
>obviously a misinformed fool people
>need to start looking at
>the big picture which is
>deer are overhunted alot of
>the feed for deer is
>being ate by wildhorses shed
>horn hunters applying pressure to
>fatigued deer herds in the
>spring coyotes eating fawns and
>in my opinion since lions
>target weaker animals "older deer
>and also deer with disease"
>I think im safe to
>say that disease will spread
>more and also old weak
>deer that have no contribution
>to the deer herd eating
>feed will hurt the population
>also so the division of
>wildlife and the average deer
>hunters crusade on mountain lions
>is a laughable joke to
>me P.S. i am a
>guy who loves to hunt
>all species from big to
>little so i have no
>biased opinion and want all
>species to thrive. Except for
>wildhorses, they need to die.
>

If the DWR thought they could avoid the Tree Huggers,I Mean Horse Huggers We'd have one more Hunt!

But that'd be Government fighting Government!

But that ain't gonna happen!

How Many F'N Wild Horses do we Need?

Everybody can Blame everything but what is really Happening to Our Deer Herds!

PISS POOR MANAGEMENT/OVER HUNTING/$$$/$$$/$$$!

It Ain't Easy being Me!

iluvrax · Apr 14, 2018

I'm all for mandatory reporting, it will help. But as so many have stated above, it won't solve the over inflated numbers from private lands! I still like the idea of busting some of these bigger units up, again, as many have stated above!

elkassassin · Apr 14, 2018

The Problem I See with Busting them up even smaller is!

They Couldn't Manage 5 Units!

And They Haven't Managed 30+ Units worth a Damn Neither!

You Think Anything besides More Deer Killed & More Money Earned/More Tags Sold would come from more Units?

We Doing Enough Killing/Pressuring already!

It Ain't Easy being Me!