Tag increases despite winter kill???

Well rumor has it that despite this being the 2nd year in a row with higher than normal fawn mortality annd last year significant doe mortality, they are looking to increase license numbers once again in the NW. last year some hunt codes saw a 300% increase moving from 5 tags to 15 for 4th season hunts. Other hunts were increased from 200 to 250 etc.

This year they are again looking at increases in the NW. D not know exact numbers yet, but I have been told that over deer population has not increased. Thus they will likely be hiding behind Buck to Doe ratios.

Something seems wrong in the system where tag numbers increase, despite there being no increase in population?

Does it seem like a good management to kill off more bucks because you have fewer does? Or would a strong practice be to keep the bucks up and focus efforts on doe recruitment?

In the NW I have been watching the quality dwindle. I would say that in 10/11 we started seeing some pretty nice bucks and had a decent age class. But since that time incremental tag increases is leading to a down turn in in buck maturity.

Sadly with CPW it seems like they want either a once in a lifetime trophy unit or to manage for sheer numbers. Not much in between.

I still feel that units like 11, 211 are along ways from what they should be and Unit 21 and Unit 22 were really good but every year they are slipping. Units 3, 301 and 4 have been loved to death and the average bucks in those unit are not that great, but they kill lots...

Hate to rant but why can they not let us have a few middle tier units that take a bit to draw but have some really great animals?

Also anyone else know or can cite a study where a higher buck to doe ratio is bad for herd recovery?

I think the highest in the area last year was like 3.5 bucks per 10 doe. with most being under 2 bucks per 10 does.

I know the buck population did not grow last year, which can only mean the the doe population has shrank?

If they are not increasing tags. Do you still feel buck to doe ratios are more important than over all population?

Here's my theory elks, they know how many bucks it takes to breed the existing does so they figure they can harvest the excess bucks or risk losing them to a severe winter. We all know this last winter was hard on em and if we want to increase the population we shouldn't be killin does till they've come back to where we want that number to be. Doe tags should be cut to the bone in those areas with low densities. And they'll be harvesting the excess bucks. Like it or not it is what it is.

>Here's my theory elks, they know
>how many bucks it takes
>to breed the existing does
>so they figure they can
>harvest the excess bucks or
>risk losing them to a
>severe winter. We all know
>this last winter was hard
>on em and if we
>want to increase the population
>we shouldn't be killin does
>till they've come back to
>where we want that number
>to be. Doe tags should
>be cut to the bone
>in those areas with low
>densities. And they'll be harvesting
>the excess bucks. Like it
>or not it is what
>it is.

So is there any science that shows a buck ratio of 25 bucks per 100 doe is bad? We have had them cut the doe lic. way down.

Also if entire deer herd is not at carrying capacity or population goal, a hard winter should have only a 1 year effect and the rest of the population should grow. Last year the NW saw anywhere from a 10% to 30% tag increase depending on the unit, but there was not a 10% or 30% increase in populations, in fact it went the opposite.

I just do not buy that there is any science in this area. Areas like the Henry mountain in Utah were being managed for 50 to 100. Does that mean that all the bucks were just dead every harsh winter? While the Henry mountains are a bit extreme, it also does not make sense why we need to push for for low teens on our ratios either. In years past the best units in the state were maxing out around 30 doe per buck. Maybe we could see what deer hunting is like if all units were pushed for a 20 to 1 ratio or even a 18:1 ratio when over all population is at objective, but if the overall population is a below, maybe we could decrease all tag numbers some in order to keep what we have?

buck to doe ratio 25 to 100 with good age structure is healthy.

buck to doe ratio 20 to 100 might be better if population is near carrying capacity, more does, more fawns,better recruitment.

40-100 is stock piling bucks for trophy hunting. Not a good idea with most units. Maybe OK for a few trophy units that are not prone to winter kill, it provides a once in a life time hunting experience like the Henry's, that some obviously want.

"I still feel that units like 11, 211 are along ways from what they should be and Unit 21 and Unit 22 were really good but every year they are slipping. Units 3, 301 and 4 have been loved to death and the average bucks in those unit are not that great, but they kill lots..."

Couldn't have said it better myself. I spent nearly a week roaming around some of these units during peak rut (not hunting just scouting and looking at deer numbers and quality) and was disappointed overall.

As they say follow the money trail and I'm sure you will find an answer......

It's economics. CPW is suffering from budget shortfalls and needs cash. They are squeezing every bit they can from the herd to help offset the shortages. In NW Colorado's economy too in a way I am kind of thankful. Lots of people are hard pressed to make ends meet around here and increased tag numbers does help.

"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."

>If they are not increasing tags.
>Do you still feel buck
>to doe ratios are more
>important than over all population?
>

You manage for ratio after population objectives are met. It's a lot easier to work with what you have than what you don't have and complete screw-ups are easier to correct.

My current situation precludes me from caring about your opinion but go ahead and give voice to it anyway...

They have a license to print money, and they have control of their own review (the counts)why would any of this surprise you? Here they have figured out that an inflated total, and inflated buck/doe ratios easily justify endless tag increases.

It is kinda funny if you figure that killing more deer is what the population needs, but horn hunters chasing deer is destroying the population, try coming to those conclusions in any but a government setting.

13 years ago my son shot his first buck Mule Deer. I estimated there was 165 deer in the group, stretched out for about a mile in one drainage. I have been hunting this area for most of my life and there have always been a lot of deer. All of the deer were small buck and deer in this particular drainage. Since that time I have noticed a steady decline in numbers and quality bucks and many more hunters. I set up game cams all over the mountain to attempt to get a better understanding for the decline. After 8 years of study this is what I found.

About 505 deer tags, 281 deer harvested
Two mountain lions. one male one female w/ kittens overlapping territory = 104 dead deer @ one per week

Winters are never bad

Coyotes kill tons of fawns even though I hunt them almost every week. Last year I found 5 fawns dead during a 3 mile hike, killed that day. Hiked 7.6 miles this past weekend

Last season I counted total 34 deer, hunted 2nd, helped during 4th. The year before wasn't much better.

I think between hunting, coyotes and cats the deer are getting hammered.

I agree coyotes kill a load of deer, and cats take there toll also. Cats from what I have seen the last few years are waaaayyyy over populated in many areas. Seems like I see them everywhere I go. Not like they are the most visible critter around either. Come on houndsmen, get after it!

I have been hunting the cats for along time with no luck, I finally found a houndsman that would run them for free and we only had enough snow twice this year to try. I hunt coyotes almost every weekend, I have either killed a majority of them of they have learned to stay away from me. I have email the DOW to voice my concerns. so we will see.

Here's my thought after keeping records for past 6 years in my local area. The winter survival rate is pretty much the same every year, and I find an average of 3 winter kills every spring.

I have not noticed any drastic increase or decrease in deer deaths because of colder or milder winters. Hunting is regulated closely in my area and has not pressured the deer populations. The buck to doe ratio does remains steady every year in my area which is adjacent to an easy accessible hunting area. I know the game moves back and forth between the two and whitetails are starting to move in. I've found a few of their sheds with 5pts a side, which represents a mature whitetail in my opinion.

I've also observed a good age mix among the deer population, with several older age branch antlered bucks surviving (found sheds) and younger fork-horns as well as mature does and yearlings. I estimate the ratio at 25/100 or maybe 33/100 in this area.

2f350s: Hunt hard, hunt ethically.

I know a rancher in the Flat Tops that I talk to every year, I drive a county road next to his ranch to go to my fly fishing place. I have been driving this road for 30 years, we planned our trips to drive by his place during morning or evening hours just to look at deer/elk. In the last 8 years I have seen 2 does. Last year I talked to the rancher about why I don't see animals on his place any longer. The rancher told me because the bear population has exploded and they kill all the young deer/elk. Last year at fishing camp there was a dead cow with bears on it daily, got some good video, big blonde with black face.