2016 UT Deer Harvest Charts

wstrntines

Very Active Member
Messages
1,714
I've herd a few units brought up on here that people feel absolutely don't live up to potential. Monroe I've seen alot on the forums. Check out the success rates on some of these followed by the winter last year. It's not that hard to figure out what is going on with mule deer herds and this is just the filled tags reported. Some of those success rates combined with some other factors have done some damage wow.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos_2017/61292016gsdeerharvest.pdf


"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
Surprised at how high some of the success rates are for general units. It would be nice if it had age data, I don't know if they collect any like they do for the limited entry units. Going to be hard to sustain it on some of those high succes rate units.
 
It's nuts I did not realize it was that high. I'll bet 3/4 were young 2 points, 1/8 2 year olds, 1/16 was 3, and 1/32 4-5 yrs and 1/32 was 5+ years. Dump 60+ percent in a unit there isn't much carryover to the next year. Not saying there aren't some big bucks on GS because there are and some giants as well. But success rates like that will knock genetics and age class out real quick. I will bet 2017 has a lower success rate which will be a reflection of the winter.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
Hey wstrn!

I'll Make You a Guarantee there Ain't 1/32 4-5 years & not 1/32 5+ Years old in the General Unit where I Hunt!

They worry about 2 Things!

$$$!

And Buck to Doe Ratios,The Very Worst Way to Manage a Herd of anything!

But BY GAWD We've got a 14 Bucks Per 100 Does and every F'N one of them left are PISSCUTTERS Sucking on & Breeding their Mothers!

Ya Think the Huntin was PISS POOR around here this year?

Just wait till next year!











She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-17 AT 01:39PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-17 AT 01:36?PM (MST)

Whoa there! Take a deep breath! Those are some nebulous complaints, conclusions and predictions based solely on one report.

First of all, how about explaining what y'all mean by: "don't live up to potential" (define "potential"), "done some damage" (damage to what?), "Going to be hard to sustain it" (what's "it"?), "It's nuts" (How so?), "And Buck to Doe Ratios, The Very Worst Way to Manage a Herd of anything" (How so? and what's the better alternative?) Just what are we talking about on these units that are supposed to be managed for opportunity?

Second, How about looking at the other data available which show a different perspective. You know, the same data that the DWR is required to gather and look at before making proposals and setting tag numbers like: Yearly classifications where they gather buck to doe ratio info and population numbers, the latest yearly harvest numbers, and Statewide and Unit Mule deer management plans among other things. Management isn't done on just the harvest success numbers. Get the whole enchilada!
 
>Hey elk what's wrong with breeding
>your mother???


So Travis?

You Invented the MILF,Right?







She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-17
>AT 01:39?PM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-17
>AT 01:36?PM (MST)

>
>Whoa there! Take a deep breath!
>Those are some nebulous complaints,
>conclusions and predictions based solely
>on one report.
>
>First of all, how about explaining
>what y'all mean by: "don't
>live up to potential" (define
>"potential"), "done some damage" (damage
>to what?), "Going to be
>hard to sustain it" (what's
>"it"?), "It's nuts" (How so?),
>"And Buck to Doe Ratios,
>The Very Worst Way to
>Manage a Herd of anything"
>(How so? and what's the
>better alternative?) Just what are
>we talking about on these
>units that are supposed to
>be managed for opportunity?
>
>Second, How about looking at the
>other data available which show
>a different perspective. You know,
>the same data that the
>DWR is required to gather
>and look at before making
>proposals and setting tag numbers
>like: Yearly classifications where they
>gather buck to doe ratio
>info and population numbers, the
>latest yearly harvest numbers, and
>Statewide and Unit Mule deer
>management plans among other things.
>Management isn't done on just
>the harvest success numbers. Get
>the whole enchilada!


Here Ya go EFA!

In The Last 7 Days I've Run 1,400+ Miles Looking/Glassing trying to just see a Decent Buck!

Excluding time I Spent on the Henry Mountains I Have FAILED Big Time!

Here in NE Utah it's Pitiful!

Total Deer Numbers are Down!

Now is the Time to see maybe just a few Mature Bucks that have survived but to No Avail!

Hopefully You Don't Fall for the Buck to Doe Ratio BS?

They Count anything with a Nub on it's head as a Buck!

Show me some Mature Buck Numbers Please!

Show Me Total Deer Numbers Please!

Most of the Bucks I've seen are too Young to tell if they'd ever grow in to anything & the PISSCUTTER 3's & Few 4's are JUNK and will never be anything!

If the DWR can not see what I'm seeing they are very Blind!

I'm not going by any Success Rate!

I'm telling you this Region of the State is in PISS POOR Shape!









She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Ya they cut buck tags by a whole 1600. Yet doe tags went from 750 to 1500. That makes a whole lots of sense. Got to kill more doe's, so the ratio stays in check. Awesome
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-25-17 AT 03:56PM (MST)[p]> One more thing?
>
>Anybody know how many Deer Tags
>were Cut in Utah in
>2017?
>
>Other States Noticed a Decline &
>Cut Permit Numbers!
>
>I'm not saying Utah didn't Cut
>Permit numbers,I'm asking if somebody
>knows how many were cut
>& Where?
>
>Thanks!
>
>https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46204290&n...mited-in-western-us-states-after-tough-winter
>
>
Permits cut:
Box Elder -200
Cache -500
Manti -425
Nebo -100
Ogden -200
Oquirrh-Stansbury -200
Boulder/Kaiparowits -100
Fishlake -100
South Slope/Bonanza/Vernal -150
South Slope/Yellowstone -100
Wasatch Mtns East -250
Wasatch Mtns West -100
Total -2,425

Permits added:
Beaver +200
Fillmore +200
Pine Valley +100
San Juan Abajo +100
Zion +100
Total +700

Most of the cuts in the Northern and Northeastern Regions. Most of the increases in the Southern Region.
 
Elk I believe you the basin has garbage buck to doe ratios. And that 1/32" is me giving a generous number IMO. I took a drive on the 4/5/6 unit last night and the area I looked over we saw 12 bucks to probably 100 does. Not saying there isn't some slammer bucks on that unit, just think that tags and winter had a big factor. And not one buck was a slammer. A couple decent ones but age class didn't seem to be very old from last nights observation.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
>> One more thing?
>>
>>Anybody know how many Deer Tags
>>were Cut in Utah in
>>2017?
>>
>>Other States Noticed a Decline &
>>Cut Permit Numbers!
>>
>>I'm not saying Utah didn't Cut
>>Permit numbers,I'm asking if somebody
>>knows how many were cut
>>& Where?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46204290&n...mited-in-western-us-states-after-tough-winter
>>
>>
>Permits cut:
>Box Elder -200
>Cache -500
>Manti -425
>Nebo -100
>Ogden -200
>Oquirrh-Stansbury -200
>Boulder/Kaiparowits -100
>Fishlake -100
>NorthSlope/Bonanza/Vernal -150
>NorthSlope/Yellowstone -100
>Wasatch Mtns East -250
>Wasatch Mtns West -100
>Total -2,425
>
>Permits added:
>Beaver +200
>Fillmore +200
>Pine Valley +100
>San Juan Abajo +100
>Zion +100
>Total +700
>
>Most of the cuts in the
>Northern and Northeastern Regions. Most
>of the increases in the
>Southern Region.

And Not One Cut on the South Slope/Yellowstone?

UN-F'N-REAL!!!








She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-25-17 AT 04:11PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-25-17 AT 03:57?PM (MST)


>
>And Not One Cut on the
>South Slope/Yellowstone?
>
>UN-F'N-REAL!!!
>

Opps! There were cuts on the South Slope/Yellowstone (100 tags), but I misprinted the list and put North Slope/Bonanza and North Slope/Yellowstone instead of South Slope. So sorry! I'll edit it.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-25-17
>AT 03:57?PM (MST)

>
>
>>
>>And Not One Cut on the
>>South Slope/Yellowstone?
>>
>>UN-F'N-REAL!!!
>>
>
>Opps! There were cuts on the
>South Slope/Yellowstone, but I misprinted
>the list and put North
>Slope/Bonanza and North Slope/Yellowstone. So
>sorry! I'll edit it.

So EFA!

Thanks for the numbers!

No,I'm not a Biologist!

We Lost a few thousand Deer Last Winter & They Cut Tags by 100?

Wasn't Just the Bad Winter!

The Bucks Got Smacked Perty Damn Hard on the 2016 Hunts as well!

And They Cut Tags by 100?

Don't know if you work for the DWR?

I've always liked You & Always will!

I Just logged over 1,700 Miles/Driving/Looking/Spotting in the last 9 Days!

Excluding Henry Mountain Bucks I Have Not seen one Mature Buck with any Does doing any of the Breeding!

No,I'm Not Claiming I'm seeing all the Bucks but By GAWD I've covered enough ground I shoulda seen a couple of Mature Bucks!

If I Can't find them during the RUT,what's My chances of finding one come season?

Again:

The NE Deer Herd is in PISS POOR Shape!














She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
>Ya they cut buck tags by
>a whole 1600. Yet doe
>tags went from 750 to
>1500. That makes a whole
>lots of sense. Got to
>kill more doe's, so the
>ratio stays in check. Awesome
>

If I remember correctly, several years ago, we decided to manage deer herds (actually hunters) on a unit by unit basis, so your statewide numbers are irrelevant. If you care to discuss your issues on a unit by unit basis, then I'm willing to do that. Otherwise, spin on!
 
Here's what Really hurts EFA!

For alot of Years in My Earlier Day!

((I've Spent Countless Time & Money Watching Our Local Deer Herd!))

It Seemed about every 3-4 years We'd Have a Half decent Hunt!

But on that 4th Year the Bucks would get hit So Hard it would take 3-4 years to somewhat Recover!

But the Recovery kinda got Stretched!

2004 We had a Decent Herd/Some Decent Bucks!

But they Got Smacked Hard!

This time it took 12 Years to somewhat Recover and last year/2016 they Got Smacked Hard again with a fairly Bad Winter to Top it all off!

If Recovery takes 12 Years I Ain't got many Good Hunts left on the South Slope!

Cutting Tags by 100 Ain't gonna Fix it!







She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Bess,
Let's remember it's not about anything other than having a tag in your pocket.

Guys like you worry about the health of the herd and guys like Lee had multiple antlerless tags last season.

Bess when was the last time you punched a hole in a doe?
 
Question, are the Dedicated success rate numbers also found in the success rate numbers found in archery, any weapon,and muzzy numbers?

If so that paints a rosier picture than what it is.

Also how do they come up with those success rates?

Can some one post up a link to the written details of how they come up with all this info?

Or is that even made public?
 
>Question, are the Dedicated success rate
>numbers also found in the
>success rate numbers found in
>archery, any weapon,and muzzy numbers?
>
>
>If so that paints a rosier
>picture than what it is.
>
>
>Also how do they come up
>with those success rates?
>
>Can some one post up a
>link to the written details
>of how they come up
>with all this info?
>
> Or is that even made
>public?
I too would like to know how they get their numbers??? In my family my boys have drawn multiple deer tags the last five years... nobody?s called for harvest reports, nor have they sent any paper work requiring harvest reports...

So how do they get the success percentage??? I know the unit we hunt numbers aren't correct because we've never reported...
Interesting...
 
>Bess,
>Let's remember it's not about anything
>other than having a tag
>in your pocket.
>
> Guys like you worry about
>the health of the herd
>and guys like Lee had
>multiple antlerless tags last season.
>
>
> Bess when was the
>last time you punched a
>hole in a doe?

Well Muley!

I've Never Helped Destroy an Already Suffering Deer Herd By Punching a Hole in a Doe!

NEVER EVER!








She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-17 AT 05:38PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-17 AT 05:36?PM (MST)

>Bess,
>Let's remember it's not about anything
>other than having a tag
>in your pocket.
>
> Guys like you worry about
>the health of the herd
>and guys like Lee had
>multiple antlerless tags last season.
>
>
> Bess when was the
>last time you punched a
>hole in a doe?

Bess,
Let's remember that it's not about anything other then putting another trophy on the wall.

Guys like you worry about the health of the herd and guys like Cody want to allow the units and areas that are already overpopulated and have range and/or crop depredation issues to continue to add even more deer to the herd, thus making the problem even worse.

And, like you, Bess, I've never helped destroy an already suffering deer herd by punching a hole in a doe.
NEVER EVER!

Edited: FWIW, I never had multiple antlerless deer tags last year. Nor did anyone else, 'cause it's illegal. You're only allowed one per year.
 
>>Bess,
>>Let's remember it's not about anything
>>other than having a tag
>>in your pocket.
>>
>> Guys like you worry about
>>the health of the herd
>>and guys like Lee had
>>multiple antlerless tags last season.
>>
>>
>> Bess when was the
>>last time you punched a
>>hole in a doe?
>
>Bess,
>Let's remember that it's not about
>anything other then putting another
>trophy on the wall.
>
>Guys like you worry about the
>health of the herd and
>guys like Cody want to
>allow the units and areas
>that are already overpopulated and
>have range and/or crop depredation
>issues to continue to add
>even more deer to the
>herd, thus making the problem
>even worse.
>
>And, like Bess, I've never helped
>destroy an already suffering deer
>herd by punching a hole
>in a doe.
>NEVER EVER!

Well EFA!

Here where I Hunt on the South Slope it has never Produced many Trophy Bucks for many,many Years!

But it sure would be Nice to See some Mature Bucks make it through the Hunts and live past age 3,but it doesn't happen much here anymore!

I'll tell you how SAD/BAD it's got around here!

Me & Jr let a few Bucks go that needed a couple more years!

2 of the 22" 4 Points were Harvested by other Hunters & Them Bucks are going on their Walls!

I Guess that's what it's came to!

I Gotta do something else!












She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-17
>AT 05:38?PM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-17
>AT 05:36?PM (MST)

>
>>Bess,
>>Let's remember it's not about anything
>>other than having a tag
>>in your pocket.
>>
>> Guys like you worry about
>>the health of the herd
>>and guys like Lee had
>>multiple antlerless tags last season.
>>
>>
>> Bess when was the
>>last time you punched a
>>hole in a doe?
>
>Bess,
>Let's remember that it's not about
>anything other then putting another
>trophy on the wall.
>
>Guys like you worry about the
>health of the herd and
>guys like Cody want to
>allow the units and areas
>that are already overpopulated and
>have range and/or crop depredation
>issues to continue to add
>even more deer to the
>herd, thus making the problem
>even worse.
>
>And, like you, Bess, I've never
>helped destroy an already suffering
>deer herd by punching a
>hole in a doe.
>NEVER EVER!
>
>Edited: FWIW, I never had multiple
>antlerless deer tags last year.
>Nor did anyone else, 'cause
>it's illegal. You're only allowed
>one per year.

This is laughable... show me, us one unit that is truly over foraged and or over ran by deer....
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-17 AT 08:40PM (MST)[p]>
>This is laughable... show me, us
>one unit that is truly
>over foraged and or over
>ran by deer....

I certainly could do that and you know it (Think 3 years of me personally participating and updating on this forum the Parowan Front deer transplants.), but I will not play your foolish internet game. It's the DWR that determines when a unit or area is over-forged and/or overrun by deer enough to issue doe permits, not me. I suggest you show up at a RAC or Wildlife Board meeting in April when the permit numbers are determined and ask them to explain why they issue doe permits where they do. They would have a much better answer than I would and would be more likely to get you to understand the issue. However, if you don't or won't believe them, then what makes you think I would be foolish enough to try to persuade you with pictures or information on this forum when you've already made up your mind. Besides, that'll give you 4 months to laugh your head off! You're welcome. :)

Edited: for Bess: No, I do not work for the DWR and never have. I'm just an old retired high school custodian who likes to read and study a lot about wildlife among other things.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-26-17
>AT 08:40?PM (MST)

>
>>
>>This is laughable... show me, us
>>one unit that is truly
>>over foraged and or over
>>ran by deer....
>
>I certainly could do that and
>you know it (Think 3
>years of me personally participating
>and updating on this forum
>the Parowan Front deer transplants.),
>but I will not play
>your foolish internet game. It's
>the DWR that determines when
>a unit or area is
>over-forged and/or overrun by deer
>enough to issue doe permits,
>not me. I suggest you
>show up at a RAC
>or Wildlife Board meeting in
>April when the permit numbers
>are determined and ask them
>to explain why they issue
>doe permits where they do.
>They would have a much
>better answer than I would
>and would be more likely
>to get you to understand
>the issue. However, if you
>don't or won't believe them,
>then what makes you think
>I would be foolish enough
>to try to persuade you
>with pictures or information on
>this forum when you've already
>made up your mind. Besides,
>that'll give you 4 months
>to laugh your head off!
>You're welcome. :)
>
>Edited: for Bess: No, I do
>not work for the DWR
>and never have. I'm just
>an old retired high school
>custodian who likes to read
>and study a lot about
>wildlife among other things.

Ahh Parowan, yes you got me on that one... can you answer my question above about harvest surveys???
 
Of course it's all just my opinion.

Over forage is subject to option Tikka. It's easily find an example of what some believe is over foraged areas, if you really want to justify the behavior. The Pawawan unit comes to mind right off, and the city of Bountiful is another, You can justify anything, including some pretty heinous human behavior, if you use the right logic.

When you set an objective number, an arbitrary number, that some group of guys decide is acceptable, to those at that table, at that moment in time, and the population exceed it, you are, by that groups decision, over foraged.

What BobCats problem is, is that management by buck doe ratio is not management by carry capacity, herd health, fawn recruitment, total population, environment/weather anomalies, harvest anomalies, private land ownership changes, etc, etc. So.......... a deer herd can go from healthy, from at near carry capacity, due to a killing snow, extended draughts, and heavy or low hunter harvest, and all we look at is to make sure we haven't exceeded the arbitrary objective number and the arbitrary buck doe ratio.

So....... we can have fawn survival/population recruitment rates at under 50 fawns per hundred, and no change in management.

..........we can have huge winter loss, little to no change in management, and then only based on a three year average.

.........we can have five years of draught, no change in management, and then only based on a three year average.

.........we can have a random weather condition that creates a far heavier than normal harvest, and no management change.

.......... we can go from 10,000 deer on a unit to 2,000, and regardless of why, be it predation, weather, private land owner changes (new owner that won't tolerate any deer to winter on his property) and all we do, in Utah, is see if the buck doe ratio is according to the management plan for that unit. We NEVER consider that we have lost 80% of the population. We only react if we exceed the unit objective, or if we exceed the buck doe ratio objective.

So...... if it is not below the buck doe ratio objective, we kill and we keep killing, regardless of how many total deer we have on the unit.

BECAUSE: we manage for maximum recreational opportunity, whether we have a million deer or 300,000.

Buck doe ratio management was FIRST started in 1984, when sportsmen throw a royal fit because our deer herds were running an average of under 5 buck per 100, even though, in 1984, we had in excess of a million deer in the State. At that time no one, sportsmen or biologists with the DWR had any inkling we would ever loose 80% or our deer herd and drop to a fawn survival rate at under 70 per 100 doe, all we (sportsmen) were worried about "THEN" was the lack of bucks in the herd, after the hunting season was over. SINCE that time, we've managed only by buck doe ratio and essentially ignored everything else that is happening with our deer herd dynamics.

Why?

BECAUSE THE STATE CURRENTLY MANAGE BY WHAT THEY ARE FORCED TO MANAGE BY, THEY DO NOT MANAGE BY NEED, ANYMORE THAN THEY DID IN 1984. THEY WERE FORCED, BY EXTERNAL FORCES, TO MANAGE BY BUCK DOE RATIO IN 84, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MANAGE BY BUCK DOE RATIO, UNTIL SOME "GROUP", BE IT SPORTSMEN, A GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE, A JUDGE, THE LAWN-OWNERS ASSOCIATION "FORCE" THEM TO MANAGE BY SOME OTHER METHOD. It was the same in 1984 as it is today so...... once buck.doe populations were increased to what they are today, there is no significant change to how we management our deer herds today, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN "FORCED" TO MANAGE FOR A DIFFERENT NEED THAN WE HAD IN 1984. If a unit was 10,000 and it drops to 2,000 but the buck doe ratio is still over 15 per 100, no one cares if the total populations is next to nothing and some sportsmen will jump a every opportunity to kill a deer, regardless of the total population on a unit and believe they are doing the right thing for the life style, the future of the sport, for the DWR and god and his angels. And there is no point in attempting to tell them otherwise, because, some group says they are right.

May not be nice to say it but it is what it is......

DC
 
As always lumpy, thank you for your informative posts... I can tell you the unit I hunt has a plethora of food for deer, but for some reason it's pretty sparse on actual deer...
 
Ya!

If We're down to only 115 Deer Total!

And 15 of them are MOTL Bucks!

Everything is Peachy!









She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17 AT 03:43PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17 AT 02:39?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17 AT 02:01?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17 AT 12:05?PM (MST)

>Of course it's all just my
>opinion.
>
>Over forage is subject to option
>Tikka. It's easily find
>an example of what some
>believe is over foraged areas,
>if you really want to
>justify the behavior. The
>Pawawan unit comes to mind
>right off, and the city
>of Bountiful is another,
> You can justify anything,
>including some pretty heinous human
>behavior, if you use the
>right logic.
>
>When you set an objective number,
>an arbitrary number, that some
>group of guys decide is
>acceptable, to those at that
>table, at that moment in
>time, and the population exceed
>it, you are, by that
>groups decision, over foraged.
>
>What BobCats problem is, is that
>management by buck doe ratio
>is not management by carry
>capacity, herd health, fawn recruitment,
>total population, environment/weather anomalies, harvest
>anomalies, private land ownership changes,
>etc, etc. So.......... a
>deer herd can go from
>healthy, from at near carry
>capacity, due to a killing
>snow, extended draughts, and heavy
>or low hunter harvest, and
>all we look at
>is to make sure we
>haven't exceeded the arbitrary objective
>number and the arbitrary
>buck doe ratio.
>
>So....... we can have fawn survival/population
>recruitment rates at under 50
>fawns per hundred, and no
>change in management.
>
>..........we can have huge winter loss,
>little to no change in
>management, and then only based
>on a three year average.
>
>
>.........we can have five years of
>draught, no change in management,
>and then only based on
>a three year average.
>
>.........we can have a random weather
>condition that creates a far
>heavier than normal harvest,
> and no management change.
>
>
>.......... we can go from 10,000
>deer on a unit to
>2,000, and regardless of why,
>be it predation, weather, private
>land owner changes (new owner
>that won't tolerate any deer
>to winter on his property)
>and all we do, in
>Utah, is see if the
>buck doe ratio is according
>to the management plan for
>that unit. We NEVER
>consider that we have lost
>80% of the population.
>We only react if we
>exceed the unit objective, or
>if we exceed the buck
>doe ratio objective.
>
>So...... if it is not below
>the buck doe ratio objective,
>we kill and we keep
>killing, regardless of how many
>total deer we have on
>the unit.
>
>BECAUSE: we manage for maximum
>recreational opportunity, whether we have
>a million deer or 300,000.
>
>
>Buck doe ratio management was FIRST
>started in 1984, when sportsmen
>throw a royal fit because
>our deer herds were running
>an average of under 5
>buck per 100, even though,
>in 1984, we had in
>excess of a million deer
>in the State. At
>that time no one, sportsmen
>or biologists with the DWR
>had any inkling we would
>ever loose 80% or our
>deer herd and drop to
>a fawn survival rate at
>under 70 per 100 doe,
>all we (sportsmen) were worried
>about "THEN" was the lack
>of bucks in the herd,
>after the hunting season was
>over. SINCE that time,
>we've managed only by buck
>doe ratio and essentially ignored
>everything else that is happening
>with our deer herd dynamics.
>
>
>Why?
>
>BECAUSE THE STATE CURRENTLY MANAGE BY
>WHAT THEY ARE FORCED TO
>MANAGE BY, THEY DO NOT
>MANAGE BY NEED, ANYMORE THAN
>THEY DID IN 1984.
>THEY WERE FORCED, BY EXTERNAL
>FORCES, TO MANAGE BY BUCK
>DOE RATIO IN 84, AND
>THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MANAGE
>BY BUCK DOE RATIO, UNTIL
>SOME "GROUP", BE IT
>SPORTSMEN, A GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE,
>A JUDGE, THE LAWN-OWNERS ASSOCIATION
>"FORCE" THEM TO MANAGE BY
>SOME OTHER METHOD. It
>was the same in 1984
>as it is today so......
>once buck.doe populations were increased
>to what they are today,
> there is no significant
>change to how we management
>our deer herds today, BECAUSE
>THEY HAVEN'T BEEN "FORCED" TO
>MANAGE FOR A DIFFERENT NEED
>THAN WE HAD IN 1984.
> If a unit was
>10,000 and it drops to
>2,000 but the buck doe
>ratio is still over 15
>per 100, no one cares
>if the total populations is
>next to nothing and some
>sportsmen will jump a every
>opportunity to kill a deer,
>regardless of the total population
>on a unit and believe
>they are doing the right
>thing for the life style,
>the future of the sport,
>for the DWR and god
>and his angels. And
>there is no point in
>attempting to tell them otherwise,
>because, some group says they
>are right.
>
>May not be nice to say
>it but it is what
>it is......
>
>DC

It is what it is? I thought this was just your opinion. However, if you're going to claim that it is what it is, then first you ought to tell the truth and second, do it without embellishing it or conjuring up some exaggerated scenario in order to invoke an emotional response. We're talking science, not National Inquirer.

Here's what it is:
https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/plans/deer_09.pdf

Comment: Note the Land Ownership Chart. The math on the total numbers is wrong, but if you work the numbers, you'll find that only about 15% of the 2,240,641 total acreage is critical yearlong/winter range that is readily managed by the DWR with the cooperation of the BLM or the NFS. The rest of it is either summer range which isn't so critical, private property, or tribal lands or LE unit (Diamond Mountain) which are managed for trophies, but are not huntable by the general public. Also note that much of the management deals with the 2003 sagebrush die off and the areas now dominated by cheat grass. Also note that further information from range trend study sites, doe and fawn collaring studies, Oil and gas specific habitat biologists, etc. determine the population numbers not some arbitrary number set at an emotional napkin meeting. There's other stuff in the plan that you can pick out yourself, but it sure isn't what some of you would like it to be.

AND then there's this. (Sorry, no link, this is from the Utah Game Warden Magazine, Summer 2017 Edition, By DWR Wildlife Biologist/DWR Assistant Wildlife Manager, currently working in the South Slope and Yellowstone biology districts.):

Quote: "Understanding Deer SURVIVAL
As wildlife biologists, we want to know everything we can about a species we manage, especially when it's a species as important as mule deer in Utah. Understanding deer survival is key to effectively managing deer populations. Deer die many different ways. They may be hit and killed by cars, caught in fences, starved during harsh winters, harvested by hunters, poached, impacted by diseases and parasites, and, of course, killed by predators. Knowing how many deer die each year helps wildlife managers monitor how herds are doing. In 2009, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources started the Mule Deer Annual Survival Monitoring Project by radio collaring doe deer and doe fawns each fall. This monitoring project has significantly increased the Division's understanding of our deer herds and has enabled us to get much better estimates of population sizes."

Comment: The DWR biologists are passionate about their job but are put on the spot by many sources to get the science right. And they are like us. Some are trophy hunters and some are not, but their hunting style takes second (or third or fifth or tenth) place on their list of priorities with their career/job ahead of it.

Quote: "The primary purpose of this study is to track survival and monitor changes in deer populations. While bucks play an important role in breeding each fall, they don't have babies in the spring, so they are not collared. Bucks don't drive changes in the population. A few bucks can cover many does and ensure they're all bred. We manage all our deer herds for a postseason buck to doe ratio that ensures more than an adequate number of bucks to breed all the does, Ultimately, it's the survival of the does that determines the size of our deer populations."

Comment: Please re-read that paragraph several times! It's basic biology. Bucks don't have babies in the spring.

Quote: "Seven Wildlife Management Units were chosen to represent the survival rates for the different areas of the state. Those units are Cache, Monroe, Oquirrh-Stansbury, Pine Valley, San Juan, South Slope, and Wasatch-Manti."

Comment: Note that your beloved Monroe and South Slope are in the project, so it should hit home. The article goes on to say they collar does and doe fawns each fall and monitor them throughout the year, and the fawns are collared with expandable collars so that when they survive into adulthood, they are added to the total doe numbers. The radio collars last for 5 years.

Quote: "Most of the monitoring units have well over 100 collared deer to give us a good sample of both fawn and adult doe survival. Those survival rates are then used in conjunction with production and sex ratio data from ground classification and harvest data from hunter surveys to calculate the deer population size for each herd unit across the state"

Comment: It mentions ground classification which means they do see what you see, Bess, but they keep closer counts per sex and age. Additionally, they include the hunter surveys which ask for the number of antler points on each side along with the days hunted, day and location of kill, any deer wounded but not recovered, and hunter satisfaction. I got separate calls this year on both my archery deer and archery elk hunts. FWIW, those calls are contracted out to a private call center and are chosen totally at random per your DWR customer ID number from the list of tag holders in each unit. They are just a sampling and you may get lucky (or unlucky depending on how you look at it) and get called 3 or 4 years in a row or you may never get called. In any case, the caller knows only your name, contact phone number, and tag info. FWIW, Bess, button bucks are counted as fawns, not bucks per their lack of 5" antlers and the stubbier snout of fawns.

Edited: Continuing:

Quote: "The great part about this survival data is that it gives biologists a real measure of survival that takes into account all the causes of mortality. ...... By having good survival estimates for each part of the state, we can measure how hard or mild winters impact parts of the state differently. ...... Getting survival data for various parts of the state has greatly increased our understanding of how the units are doing and how these deer herds can best be managed."

Comment: Self explanatory.

Quote: "During the capture process and while we have the deer in hand, we also gather some additional information. When the adult does are captured, they are brought to a nearby staging area where they are weighed, checked for pregnancy, measured for body fat, tested for diseases, and fitted with collars. A few of these does are then recaptured in the spring to see how much body fat they lost during the winter. This gives us (an) idea of which summer and winter ranges are in good shape and which need more habitat work."

Comment: So, the biologists not only check the habitat for damage, but also the deer themselves for fat loss. One thing I learned on the Parowan Deer Transplant is that deer a very much creatures of habit and they will pass up good habitat to get to the poorer habitat where they went last year and the year before that and where their mother took them before that. We can point out all kinds of great habitat that look good to us, but the deer don't use it for their own reasons, not ours. They are a highly structured matriarchal dominated group and the group goes where Big Mamma goes. That's why Tikka can see a plethora of food with no deer using it or Lumpy thinks he can accuse the DWR of twisting the facts for their own justification. We have to manage deer on their terms, not ours.

Quote: "Another great advancement that's giving us even more information on our deer herds is the addition of GPS radio collars. ..... These GPS collars take an exact location one to two times a day for each deer.........This movement information is critical for the Division to identify migration routes, seasonal habitat use, etc."

Comment: Self explanatory.

Quote: "One of the other benefits to the GPS collar is that they notify the biologists when a deer dies..... When the biologists are notified, they can often get to the carcass fast enough to determine the cause of death. Biologists can them determine exactly what killed the deer. On hard winters, like the one we just had, we often find fawns simply curled up under a tree, dead from starvation. While hard winters and resulting starvation is the most common cause of death, other common causes of mortality we've documented are cars, fences, and predators."

Comment: This study is up to date. The article goes on to talk about several deer which traveled various distances and directions from the South Slope. It ends with "The more information we get from these deer, the better we can manage them."

I won't address the other false statements and assumptions stated by the OP, but just know that neither I nor the DWR have or would EVER propose tag numbers without first and foremost considering and determining the best interest of the wildlife. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17
>AT 03:43?PM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17
>AT 02:39?PM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17
>AT 02:01?PM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-27-17
>AT 12:05?PM (MST)

>
>>Of course it's all just my
>>opinion.
>>
>>Over forage is subject to option
>>Tikka. It's easily find
>>an example of what some
>>believe is over foraged areas,
>>if you really want to
>>justify the behavior. The
>>Pawawan unit comes to mind
>>right off, and the city
>>of Bountiful is another,
>> You can justify anything,
>>including some pretty heinous human
>>behavior, if you use the
>>right logic.
>>
>>When you set an objective number,
>>an arbitrary number, that some
>>group of guys decide is
>>acceptable, to those at that
>>table, at that moment in
>>time, and the population exceed
>>it, you are, by that
>>groups decision, over foraged.
>>
>>What BobCats problem is, is that
>>management by buck doe ratio
>>is not management by carry
>>capacity, herd health, fawn recruitment,
>>total population, environment/weather anomalies, harvest
>>anomalies, private land ownership changes,
>>etc, etc. So.......... a
>>deer herd can go from
>>healthy, from at near carry
>>capacity, due to a killing
>>snow, extended draughts, and heavy
>>or low hunter harvest, and
>>all we look at
>>is to make sure we
>>haven't exceeded the arbitrary objective
>>number and the arbitrary
>>buck doe ratio.
>>
>>So....... we can have fawn survival/population
>>recruitment rates at under 50
>>fawns per hundred, and no
>>change in management.
>>
>>..........we can have huge winter loss,
>>little to no change in
>>management, and then only based
>>on a three year average.
>>
>>
>>.........we can have five years of
>>draught, no change in management,
>>and then only based on
>>a three year average.
>>
>>.........we can have a random weather
>>condition that creates a far
>>heavier than normal harvest,
>> and no management change.
>>
>>
>>.......... we can go from 10,000
>>deer on a unit to
>>2,000, and regardless of why,
>>be it predation, weather, private
>>land owner changes (new owner
>>that won't tolerate any deer
>>to winter on his property)
>>and all we do, in
>>Utah, is see if the
>>buck doe ratio is according
>>to the management plan for
>>that unit. We NEVER
>>consider that we have lost
>>80% of the population.
>>We only react if we
>>exceed the unit objective, or
>>if we exceed the buck
>>doe ratio objective.
>>
>>So...... if it is not below
>>the buck doe ratio objective,
>>we kill and we keep
>>killing, regardless of how many
>>total deer we have on
>>the unit.
>>
>>BECAUSE: we manage for maximum
>>recreational opportunity, whether we have
>>a million deer or 300,000.
>>
>>
>>Buck doe ratio management was FIRST
>>started in 1984, when sportsmen
>>throw a royal fit because
>>our deer herds were running
>>an average of under 5
>>buck per 100, even though,
>>in 1984, we had in
>>excess of a million deer
>>in the State. At
>>that time no one, sportsmen
>>or biologists with the DWR
>>had any inkling we would
>>ever loose 80% or our
>>deer herd and drop to
>>a fawn survival rate at
>>under 70 per 100 doe,
>>all we (sportsmen) were worried
>>about "THEN" was the lack
>>of bucks in the herd,
>>after the hunting season was
>>over. SINCE that time,
>>we've managed only by buck
>>doe ratio and essentially ignored
>>everything else that is happening
>>with our deer herd dynamics.
>>
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>BECAUSE THE STATE CURRENTLY MANAGE BY
>>WHAT THEY ARE FORCED TO
>>MANAGE BY, THEY DO NOT
>>MANAGE BY NEED, ANYMORE THAN
>>THEY DID IN 1984.
>>THEY WERE FORCED, BY EXTERNAL
>>FORCES, TO MANAGE BY BUCK
>>DOE RATIO IN 84, AND
>>THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MANAGE
>>BY BUCK DOE RATIO, UNTIL
>>SOME "GROUP", BE IT
>>SPORTSMEN, A GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE,
>>A JUDGE, THE LAWN-OWNERS ASSOCIATION
>>"FORCE" THEM TO MANAGE BY
>>SOME OTHER METHOD. It
>>was the same in 1984
>>as it is today so......
>>once buck.doe populations were increased
>>to what they are today,
>> there is no significant
>>change to how we management
>>our deer herds today, BECAUSE
>>THEY HAVEN'T BEEN "FORCED" TO
>>MANAGE FOR A DIFFERENT NEED
>>THAN WE HAD IN 1984.
>> If a unit was
>>10,000 and it drops to
>>2,000 but the buck doe
>>ratio is still over 15
>>per 100, no one cares
>>if the total populations is
>>next to nothing and some
>>sportsmen will jump a every
>>opportunity to kill a deer,
>>regardless of the total population
>>on a unit and believe
>>they are doing the right
>>thing for the life style,
>>the future of the sport,
>>for the DWR and god
>>and his angels. And
>>there is no point in
>>attempting to tell them otherwise,
>>because, some group says they
>>are right.
>>
>>May not be nice to say
>>it but it is what
>>it is......
>>
>>DC
>
>It is what it is? I
>thought this was just your
>opinion. However, if you're going
>to claim that it is
>what it is, then first
>you ought to tell the
>truth and second, do it
>without embellishing it or conjuring
>up some exaggerated scenario in
>order to invoke an emotional
>response. We're talking science, not
>National Inquirer.
>
>Here's what it is:
>https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/plans/deer_09.pdf
>
>Comment: Note the Land Ownership Chart.
>The math on the total
>numbers is wrong, but if
>you work the numbers, you'll
>find that only about 15%
>of the 2,240,641 total acreage
>is critical yearlong/winter range that
>is readily managed by the
>DWR with the cooperation of
>the BLM or the NFS.
>The rest of it is
>either summer range which isn't
>so critical, private property, or
>tribal lands or LE unit
>(Diamond Mountain) which are managed
>for trophies, but are not
>huntable by the general public.
>Also note that much of
>the management deals with the
>2003 sagebrush die off and
>the areas now dominated by
>cheat grass. Also note that
>further information from range trend
>study sites, doe and fawn
>collaring studies, Oil and gas
>specific habitat biologists, etc. determine
>the population numbers not some
>arbitrary number set at an
>emotional napkin meeting. There's other
>stuff in the plan that
>you can pick out yourself,
>but it sure isn't what
>some of you would like
>it to be.
>
>AND then there's this. (Sorry, no
>link, this is from the
>Utah Game Warden Magazine, Summer
>2017 Edition, By DWR Wildlife
>Biologist/DWR Assistant Wildlife Manager, currently
>working in the South Slope
>and Yellowstone biology districts.):
>
>Quote: "Understanding Deer SURVIVAL
>As wildlife biologists, we want to
>know everything we can about
>a species we manage, especially
>when it's a species as
>important as mule deer in
>Utah. Understanding deer survival is
>key to effectively managing deer
>populations. Deer die many different
>ways. They may be hit
>and killed by cars, caught
>in fences, starved during harsh
>winters, harvested by hunters, poached,
>impacted by diseases and parasites,
>and, of course, killed by
>predators. Knowing how many deer
>die each year helps wildlife
>managers monitor how herds are
>doing. In 2009, the Utah
>Division of Wildlife Resources started
>the Mule Deer Annual Survival
>Monitoring Project by radio collaring
>doe deer and doe fawns
>each fall. This monitoring project
>has significantly increased the Division's
>understanding of our deer herds
>and has enabled us to
>get much better estimates of
>population sizes."
>
>Comment: The DWR biologists are passionate
>about their job but
>are put on the spot
>by many sources to get
>the science right. And they
>are like us. Some are
>trophy hunters and some are
>not, but their hunting style
>takes second (or third or
>fifth or tenth) place on
>their list of priorities with
>their career/job ahead of it.
>
>
>Quote: "The primary purpose of this
>study is to track survival
>and monitor changes in deer
>populations. While bucks play an
>important role in breeding each
>fall, they don't have babies
>in the spring, so they
>are not collared. Bucks don't
>drive changes in the population.
>A few bucks can cover
>many does and ensure they're
>all bred. We manage all
>our deer herds for a
>postseason buck to doe ratio
>that ensures more than an
>adequate number of bucks to
>breed all the does, Ultimately,
>it's the survival of the
>does that determines the size
>of our deer populations."
>
>Comment: Please re-read that paragraph several
>times! It's basic biology. Bucks
>don't have babies in the
>spring.
>
>Quote: "Seven Wildlife Management Units were
>chosen to represent the survival
>rates for the different areas
>of the state. Those units
>are Cache, Monroe, Oquirrh-Stansbury, Pine
>Valley, San Juan, South Slope,
>and Wasatch-Manti."
>
>Comment: Note that your beloved Monroe
>and South Slope are in
>the project, so it should
>hit home. The article goes
>on to say they collar
>does and doe fawns each
>fall and monitor them throughout
>the year, and the fawns
>are collared with expandable collars
>so that when they survive
>into adulthood, they are added
>to the total doe numbers.
>The radio collars last for
>5 years.
>
>Quote: "Most of the monitoring units
>have well over 100 collared
>deer to give us a
>good sample of both fawn
>and adult doe survival. Those
>survival rates are then used
>in conjunction with production and
>sex ratio data from ground
>classification and harvest data from
>hunter surveys to calculate the
>deer population size for each
>herd unit across the state"
>
>
>Comment: It mentions ground classification which
>means they do see what
>you see, Bess, but they
>keep closer counts per sex
>and age. Additionally, they include
>the hunter surveys which ask
>for the number of antler
>points on each side along
>with the days hunted, day
>and location of kill, any
>deer wounded but not recovered,
>and hunter satisfaction. I got
>separate calls this year on
>both my archery deer and
>archery elk hunts. FWIW, those
>calls are contracted out to
>a private call center and
>are chosen totally at random
>per your DWR customer ID
>number from the list of
>tag holders in each unit.
>They are just a sampling
>and you may get lucky
>(or unlucky depending on how
>you look at it) and
>get called 3 or 4
>years in a row or
>you may never get called.
>In any case, the caller
>knows only your name, contact
>phone number, and tag info.
>FWIW, Bess, button bucks are
>counted as fawns, not bucks
>per their lack of 5"
>antlers and the stubbier snout
>of fawns.
>
>Edited: Continuing:
>
>Quote: "The great part about this
>survival data is that it
>gives biologists a real measure
>of survival that takes into
>account all the causes of
>mortality. ...... By having good
>survival estimates for each part
>of the state, we can
>measure how hard or mild
>winters impact parts of the
>state differently. ...... Getting survival
>data for various parts of
>the state has greatly increased
>our understanding of how the
>units are doing and how
>these deer herds can best
>be managed."
>
>Comment: Self explanatory.
>
>Quote: "During the capture process and
>while we have the deer
>in hand, we also gather
>some additional information. When the
>adult does are captured, they
>are brought to a nearby
>staging area where they are
>weighed, checked for pregnancy, measured
>for body fat, tested for
>diseases, and fitted with collars.
>A few of these does
>are then recaptured in the
>spring to see how much
>body fat they lost during
>the winter. This gives us
>(an) idea of which summer
>and winter ranges are in
>good shape and which need
>more habitat work."
>
>Comment: So, the biologists not only
>check the habitat for damage,
>but also the deer themselves
>for fat loss. One thing
>I learned on the Parowan
>Deer Transplant is that deer
>a very much creatures of
>habit and they will pass
>up good habitat to get
>to the poorer habitat where
>they went last year and
>the year before that and
>where their mother took them
>before that. We can point
>out all kinds of great
>habitat that look good to
>us, but the deer don't
>use it for their own
>reasons, not ours. They are
>a highly structured matriarchal dominated
>group and the group goes
>where Big Mamma goes. That's
>why Tikka can see a
>plethora of food with no
>deer using it or Lumpy
>thinks he can accuse the
>DWR of twisting the facts
>for their own justification. We
>have to manage deer on
>their terms, not ours.
>
>Quote: "Another great advancement that's giving
>us even more information on
>our deer herds is the
>addition of GPS radio collars.
>..... These GPS collars take
>an exact location one to
>two times a day for
>each deer.........This movement information is
>critical for the Division to
>identify migration routes, seasonal habitat
>use, etc."
>
>Comment: Self explanatory.
>
>Quote: "One of the other benefits
>to the GPS collar is
>that they notify the biologists
>when a deer dies..... When
>the biologists are notified, they
>can often get to the
>carcass fast enough to determine
>the cause of death. Biologists
>can them determine exactly what
>killed the deer. On hard
>winters, like the one we
>just had, we often find
>fawns simply curled up under
>a tree, dead from starvation.
>While hard winters and resulting
>starvation is the most common
>cause of death, other common
>causes of mortality we've documented
>are cars, fences, and predators."
>
>
>Comment: This study is up to
>date. The article goes on
>to talk about several deer
>which traveled various distances and
>directions from the South Slope.
>It ends with "The more
>information we get from these
>deer, the better we can
>manage them."
>
>I won't address the other false
>statements and assumptions stated by
>the OP, but just know
>that neither I nor the
>DWR have or would EVER
>propose tag numbers without first
>and foremost considering and determining
>the best interest of the
>wildlife. To claim otherwise is
>ludicrous.


Well EFA!

There's No Doubt In My Eyes that Tags Shoulda been Cut Way More than 100 on the South Slope!

You wanna come up North I'll take you for a Ride!

You got any Numbers on How Many Fawns were Lost this last Winter?









She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
Does anyone know the how they get there harvest info??? I know I've asked a couple of times so sorry if that seems redundant... I called today to try and get my answer and all I got was ?I'm not sure who you would need to talk with about that... leave your name and number and someone will get back with you...?
 
>Does anyone know the how they
>get there harvest info??? I
>know I've asked a couple
>of times so sorry if
>that seems redundant... I called
>today to try and get
>my answer and all I
>got was ?I'm not sure
>who you would need to
>talk with about that... leave
>your name and number and
>someone will get back with
>you...?


They Usually have the University of Utah(College Students maybe?) make Random Calls to collect Info!

Alot of people Ain't Truthful!

And they don't call everybody!

So I Think it's kind of an Average type a Deal?











She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
> Well EFA!
>
>There's No Doubt In My Eyes
>that Tags Shoulda been Cut
>Way More than 100 on
>the South Slope!
>
>You wanna come up North I'll
>take you for a Ride!
>
>
>You got any Numbers on How
>Many Fawns were Lost this
>last Winter?
>

OK, let's do the numbers.

The Bonanza/Vernal unit is managed for a 15-17 buck to doe ratio and a 15,000 population objective. It was at a 3-year 17.4 buck to doe ratio and an 11,100 population status at the time the 2017 tags were determined. Since we know that the bucks do not effect the population numbers, in this case, we only need to adjust the tags to the buck to doe ratio with the population number we have.
The math:
The goal: 17bucks/117does = 14.5% bucks x 11,100 population = 1,610 bucks that should be on the unit after the hunt.
The situation: 17.4/117.4 = 14.8% bucks x 11,100 = 1,642 bucks that will be on the unit after the hunt.
That's 32 more bucks than there should be. So, to get the buck to doe ratio down to the allowed maximum, we should have ADDED 80 tags assuming we had a 40% success rate. Instead, we CUT 100 tags.

The Yellowstone unit is managed for an 18-20 buck to doe ratio and a 13,000 population objective. It was at a 3-year 22.1 buck to doe ratio and a 9,900 population status at the time the 2017 tags were determined. Again, we only need to adjust the tags to the buck to doe ratio with the population number we have.
The math:
The goal: 20bucks/120does = 16.7% bucks x 9,900 population = 1,653 bucks that should be on the unit after the hunt.
The situation: 22.1/122.1 = 18.1% x 9,900 = 1,792 bucks that will be on the unit after the hunt. That's 139 more bucks than there should be. So, to get the buck to doe ratio down to the allowed maximum we should have added 348 tags assuming we had a 40% success rate. Instead, we added 0. That's a total of 528 tags we could have added that we didn't.

Now, having written all of that, I too think we could have cut more tags, because we likely lost quite a few adult deer also, as well as the fawns. Plus they also consider the trends of the buck to doe ratios and populations and many of them are now trending down. In any case, the DWR has stated at the RAC meetings they are going to look very closely at the survival numbers and make the adjustments as needed, especially in the northern half of the state. We didn't do so bad down here, but the projected 70% to 90% fawn losses in your country were pretty grim. And who knows what this year's winter will hold! And, no, whether it matters to anyone or not, I will not insist on sticking strictly to the buck to doe ratios on units that are chronically below population objectives. Those above may be another matter.

As far as the numbers go, the DWR is just beginning to do the classifications. I hope to hook up with Josh or Jason down here to spend one day in the truck (and in the field if I can) to help out. We probably won't notice any difference down here from years past, but we'll see. I'll get back to you in a few weeks.
 
We Done Our Own Deer Counts last Year!

HINT:

The Buck to Doe Ratio wasn't 22 Bucks Per 100 Does!









She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
> We Done Our Own Deer
>Counts last Year!
>
>HINT:
>
>The Buck to Doe Ratio wasn't
>22 Bucks Per 100 Does!
>

Well, my friend, I guess you need to go to the Vernal DWR Office and tell them that! Along with the other things you don't agree with, which seems to be everything.

As for me, I think I'll just take them at their word since they've been educated, trained and have experience in such matters. Besides, it don't matter to me that much and I don't have the time, energy, money, or desire to do all the traveling you do just so you can have another "good" hunt. I already had several good hunts this year including 3 and a half days in Parleys Canyon with my 14 year old grandson without even seeing a buck of any size. He loved it too! We'll kill one next year.
 
>> We Done Our Own Deer
>>Counts last Year!
>>
>>HINT:
>>
>>The Buck to Doe Ratio wasn't
>>22 Bucks Per 100 Does!
>>
>
>Well, my friend, I guess you
>need to go to the
>Vernal DWR Office and tell
>them that! Along with the
>other things you don't agree
>with, which seems to be
>everything.
>
>As for me, I think I'll
>just take them at their
>word since they've been educated,
>trained and have experience in
>such matters. Besides, it don't
>matter to me that much
>and I don't have the
>time, energy, money, or desire
>to do all the traveling
>you do just so you
>can have another "good" hunt.
>I already had several good
>hunts this year including 3
>and a half days in
>Parleys Canyon with my 14
>year old grandson without even
>seeing a buck of any
>size. He loved it too!
>We'll kill one next year.
>

When a Deer Herd is in PISS POOR Shape I'm not Gonna Lie to anybody about it!

And I'm Not Gonna Make Excuses!

The South Slope Herd is Suffering Big Time!

And Cutting Tags by 100 Ain't gonna Fix it!

Maybe while You're Collecting all this Info & Numbers EFA?

Get the Mature Buck Numbers that were counted Post Season 2016 on the South Slope will you?










She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
>>> We Done Our Own Deer
>>>Counts last Year!
>>>
>>>HINT:
>>>
>>>The Buck to Doe Ratio wasn't
>>>22 Bucks Per 100 Does!
>>>
>>
>>Well, my friend, I guess you
>>need to go to the
>>Vernal DWR Office and tell
>>them that! Along with the
>>other things you don't agree
>>with, which seems to be
>>everything.
>>
>>As for me, I think I'll
>>just take them at their
>>word since they've been educated,
>>trained and have experience in
>>such matters. Besides, it don't
>>matter to me that much
>>and I don't have the
>>time, energy, money, or desire
>>to do all the traveling
>>you do just so you
>>can have another "good" hunt.
>>I already had several good
>>hunts this year including 3
>>and a half days in
>>Parleys Canyon with my 14
>>year old grandson without even
>>seeing a buck of any
>>size. He loved it too!
>>We'll kill one next year.
>>
>
>When a Deer Herd is in
>PISS POOR Shape I'm not
>Gonna Lie to anybody about
>it!
>
>And I'm Not Gonna Make Excuses!
>
>
>The South Slope Herd is Suffering
>Big Time!
>
>And Cutting Tags by 100 Ain't
>gonna Fix it!
>
>Maybe while You're Collecting all this
>Info & Numbers EFA?
>
>Get the Mature Buck Numbers that
>were counted Post Season 2016
>on the South Slope will
>you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>She Don't Just Rain She Pours!
>
>
>That Girl Right There's The Perfect
>Storm!
>
>
>
>
90087hankjr.jpg


I'll see what I can do, but I think you're trying to get something out of a unit that's not currently capable of meeting your expectations nor is it supposed to be managed to meet them. In almost every post you've made on this thread you've thought of and referred to the size of deer antlers, whether big or little.

It's a bit troubling to me to see us keep edging the general units further toward the LE units with increasingly higher buck to doe ratios, late LE muzzy hunts on all the general units, claims of overcrowding and even the questions about antler sizes on the hunter phone surveys. If we are willing to allow these things to keep happening, at what point will we say enough is enough. Or can we?
 
When a Herd is in Trouble it's Past Time to do something about it!

After all Hunts are Over With We Still need a few Mature Bucks around that pack Good Genetics to Pass them Good Genetics on down the Line during the Rut!

Little Bucks doing the Breeding Ain't such a Big Deal as Long as some of them are Packing Good Genetics!

But Guess What?

Little PISSCUTTERS Still Running with their Mothers With JUNK Genetics is a PISS POOR Way to Raise a Herd of any Species!

Show me One Good Rancher in this State that won't Tell You a Good Bull is Very Important for Future Herds!

I Used that as an Example!

I'll Get Jumped for saying it but that's OK!

When You Finally Figure out that it's all about $$$ EFA You'll See what I'm trying to say.Well Maybe!

General Units don't need to be like LE Units as you claim,But BY GAWD they could easily be much better than several of them are!













She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-17 AT 11:36AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-17 AT 11:28?AM (MST)

Bess, When I was on the RAC it was very clear that Utah manages GS units for yearling bucks. They did a survey and that is what the majority of the hunters wanted, opportunity vrs. quality. The survey could have been misleading, but that is what majority wanted.

I have disagreed with the numbers the DWR is putting out for a long time. I wanted to see what the success rate was on our unit and I asked all locals to give me what they had as far as success. It was darn near exaclty what the DWR is saying, which is a pretty high success rate 45-50%.

I havent seen many big quality bucks this november, lots of little and medium bucks doing the breeding.

ElkFromAbove: I thinks somehow we could accommodate both ways, opportunity and quality. If they just added in the post season buck to doe count that yearling bucks shouldn't be counted or only 25% of the bucks counted can only be yearling bucks, I havent looked into it much, but can a yearling buck breed?

Also, Bess there is a battle that we wont win that is we will never win the battle of what the Buck to doe count is, nor will we win the population numbers they put out, been there done that, and never have won. So I am trying a different approach with our local DWR and have asked since they believe our buck to doe ratio is above our limit, and they believe our population is at the objective, that we look at changing our objective to a higher number, because we can add more deer down here. So that is what we are trying to do, change our population objective.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-17 AT 11:34AM (MST)[p]> When a Herd is in
>Trouble it's Past Time to
>do something about it!
>
>After all Hunts are Over With
>We Still need a few
>Mature Bucks around that pack
>Good Genetics to Pass them
>Good Genetics on down the
>Line during the Rut!
>
>Little Bucks doing the Breeding Ain't
>such a Big Deal as
>Long as some of them
>are Packing Good Genetics!
>
>But Guess What?
>
>Little PISSCUTTERS Still Running with their
>Mothers With JUNK Genetics is
>a PISS POOR Way to
>Raise a Herd of any
>Species!
>
>Show me One Good Rancher in
>this State that won't Tell
>You a Good Bull is
>Very Important for Future Herds!
>
>
>I Used that as an Example!
>
>
>I'll Get Jumped for saying it
>but that's OK!
>
>When You Finally Figure out that
>it's all about $$$ EFA
>You'll See what I'm trying
>to say.Well Maybe!
>
>General Units don't need to be
>like LE Units as you
>claim,But BY GAWD they could
>easily be much better than
>several of them are!
>


Well, friend, Ya won't get jumped on by me, that's for sure. But I would like you to give us a more precise explanation of your "It's all about money." statement. You've used it several times on this thread and others without an explanation and now I'd like to see one, so that I do know what you're trying to say. Money is certainly part of the solution, but I don't believe it's part of the problem nor do I believe it's ALL about money. However, I'm open for other options.

As for your rancher example, before I can flesh it all out, you're gonna hafta tell me whether the rancher is raising a herd for breeding stock or for beef. Otherwise, I won't know which ones to harvest or which ones to leave for breeding.

I do know that in both cases, the rancher will need both good summer range and good winter range and he'll need to control the size of the herd to sustain the ranges and/or improve the ranges for a larger herd. He'll also need some genetically good cows, ways of keeping the cattle off the roads, out of the neighbor's pasture and out of Grandma's garden. He'll also have to control any predators, diseases, parasites or cattle thieves that could invade the herd. He'll have to gather customers and then keep them happy to retain them. Of course he'll have to meet all Federal, State and Local regulations related to animals and plants that may be in his ranges. And, since he can't do all this stuff by himself, he'll have to get some hired hands to help. Finally, he'll also need to kill enough excess stock to raise the money to do all this stuff. (And the DWR also has to deal with several other governmental agencies, a Wildlife Board, many conservation groups (both friendly and hostile), some private parties and the general public.) Simple solution? I really wish it were.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-17
>AT 11:36?AM (MST)

>
>LAST EDITED ON Nov-28-17
>AT 11:28?AM (MST)

>
>Bess, When I was on
>the RAC it was very
>clear that Utah manages GS
>units for yearling bucks.
>They did a survey and
>that is what the majority
>of the hunters wanted, opportunity
>vrs. quality. The survey
>could have been misleading, but
>that is what majority wanted.
>
>
>I have disagreed with the numbers
>the DWR is putting out
>for a long time. I
>wanted to see what the
>success rate was on our
>unit and I asked all
>locals to give me what
>they had as far as
>success. It was darn
>near exaclty what the DWR
>is saying, which is a
>pretty high success rate 45-50%.
>
>
>I havent seen many big quality
>bucks this november, lots of
>little and medium bucks doing
>the breeding.
>
>ElkFromAbove: I thinks somehow we
>could accommodate both ways, opportunity
>and quality. If they
>just added in the post
>season buck to doe count
>that yearling bucks shouldn't be
>counted or only 25% of
>the bucks counted can only
>be yearling bucks, I havent
>looked into it much, but
>can a yearling buck breed?
>
>
>Also, Bess there is a
>battle that we wont win
>that is we will never
>win the battle of what
>the Buck to doe count
>is, nor will we win
>the population numbers they put
>out, been there done that,
>and never have won.
>So I am trying a
>different approach with our local
>DWR and have asked since
>they believe our buck to
>doe ratio is above our
>limit, and they believe our
>population is at the objective,
>that we look at changing
>our objective to a higher
>number, because we can add
>more deer down here.
>So that is what we
>are trying to do, change
>our population objective.

So, where is "down here"? The DWR has already increased the population objectives of several units near Cedar City and I'm curious to know if your unit is one of them. I'll comment on that when I know more, but in general, I'm against this tactic because there is no set stopping point and the numbers are driven by hunters who have their own agenda which may not be compatible with the State or unit management plans.

Additionally, it could easily lead to increasing the buck to doe ratios as well. That's also been done down here.

And, finally, if you don't accept the DWR numbers now, what makes you think you can believe them no matter what the objectives are? It's puzzling to me to think that so many people would think that the trained DWR employees would be unable to do their job better then them or, worse, would intentionally inflate or deflate the numbers for some conspiratorial hidden purposes. I guess we don't really need them classifying if that's the case. All we need is another public survey. NOT!
 
EFA: Its not that I dont believe the DWR employees and what they are working with. They themselves have admitted that their numbers can be off by thousands, but the tool they use is the best they know how to do the count. Down here is on the abajo unit. The numbers that are put out says there is 13,500 deer, which to me is a stretch. But again its the best form of counting deer they have. IF the numbers are close or correct then there is plenty of room to increase our population objective, we can sustain 5,000+ more deer if we are at our objective. We dont have homes in our winter ranges, or in our mountains. Although our drought conditions may cause some problems.
 
I have read through all of the comments. I have hunted deer on Utah General Deer units my whole life, mainly in Northeastern Utah.I know for certain that if you are a serious deer hunter Utah General is not the place to do it and never will be,because of all the reasons cited in the previous argument. In my case I am fed up with Utah General hunting and just consider it more of a reason to get out in the hills and maybe get lucky, and have decided to take my time and money to other states like Colorado and Wyoming where the Hunting and the deer herds are by far better then anything Utah has to offer in a General unit.
 
My biggest question for the DNR is what is Colorado & Wyoming doing to produce so many big deer. And they have much more of an elk population than we do. So how are they growing so many deer, and so many trophy bucks. Colorado has a little more than twice the people we do. Utah is estimated at 375k deer, colorado is at 408k with an objective of a little over a half million deer. Now if the elk argument comes up here's some numbers on that, we have an est. 81,000 elk, Colorado has about 279,000 elk. Size of state Utah is 84,899 sq miles, Colorado is 104,185 sq miles. Wyoming is doing things right to, now the winter didn't help them out for deer. I think wyoming is easy to answer on lot less people with alot more winter range. So I don't think elk are our problem with mule deer population and quality of bucks.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
If cant Says they've counted more Deer than what there is on that Range I'll Believe Him!

He Lives there!

He's in the Mountains quite a bit!

And Gets a Feel for the Actual Deer Numbers!

No Doubt,Total Deer are Hard to Count!

But If We Lose Several Thousand Head of Deer Don't Cut the Tags by 100!







She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
>EFA: Its not that I
>dont believe the DWR employees
>and what they are working
>with. They themselves have
>admitted that their numbers can
>be off by thousands, but
>the tool they use is
>the best they know how
>to do the count.
>Down here is on the
>abajo unit. The numbers
>that are put out says
>there is 13,500 deer, which
>to me is a stretch.
> But again its the
>best form of counting deer
>they have. IF the
>numbers are close or correct
>then there is plenty of
>room to increase our population
>objective, we can sustain 5,000+
>more deer if we are
>at our objective. We
>dont have homes in our
>winter ranges, or in our
>mountains. Although our drought
>conditions may cause some problems.
>

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the civility this thread is hanging onto. It's somewhat rare on this forum.

It's true that the numbers may be off per the model they use, but as you stated it's the best they have. And it's pretty much the same as all the other western states use for their classifications. Having admitted that, then my question to you remains the same. Why do you think or assume your model/count/classification is more accurate than theirs and why do you base your recommendations, proposals, decisions and plans on your numbers rather than theirs? I, for one, don't feel I should second guess them any more than I should second guess my cardiologist. Of course, my hunting is not as important as my arrhythmia, but I'll just leave some decisions up to the experts.

You also believe that there is "plenty of room" for 5,000 more deer and there truly may be, but is that room suitable habitat for deer and would they use it? If they are not using it all now, why not? And if they haven't already increased to the point they need to, why not?

Now, with that in mind, I have good news. The Abajo is nearing its population objective AND it's growing, from 9,850 in 2013, to 10,600 in 2014, to 11,900 in 2015, to 12,700 in 2016. AND the annual buck to doe ratio went from 19.8 in 2014, to 24.0 in 2015, to 23.4 in 2016, a bit of a dip, but since the buck to doe ratio objective is 15-17, that's quite a significantly high 3-year average of 22.4 bucks per 100 does. We have added 250 buck tags since 2014, but even with that the numbers keep rising. Maybe we just need to be a bit more patient!

For all readers, I think I need to clear up another bit of information pertaining to this thread. The success rates you see are the rates for hunters in the field, but since not all those who have tags actually hunt, the success rate for permit holders is lower. In the case of the Abajo, the overall success rate as calculated would be listed as 47.4%, but according to the number of tags issued, it's 39.3%. That's important to know when we're talking about how many tags we issue as opposed to how many deer are killed. We issued 2,667 Abajo buck deer tags, but we only had 2,210 hunters in the field. 457 of them we no-shows.

Of course, not all units are growing in numbers, but the Abajo is getting there.
 
Let's say I do believe the count, and they are right on. I still think we could sustain 5000 more deer.
The model is only used to see the trend of the deer whether they are increasing or decreasing. So let's say the division started the model using a guess and started the Abajo unit with 9,000 deer and with tracking the trend they say it's increasing and by x amount. Well in reality the deer numbers when first started was 5000 deer. As long as the trend is increasing then the Division doesn't care. Even if the numbers they have are off. So in my opinion the DWR should re-evaluate the population numbers they say we have. I am doubtful of having 12,800 deer on Abajo unit. Remember it's the trend they are watching.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-17 AT 00:52AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-17 AT 00:37?AM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Nov-29-17 AT 00:21?AM (MST)

Dah! I think I've figured out the problem by remembering something I heard from Leslie on the Parowan Front transplant. During a necropsy (autopsy) for a doe that died on the processing table who had a very low body fat measurement, I asked about her cause of death and Leslie said it would be considered a winterkill. She said that most adult winterkill deaths don't happen until early spring because it takes a while before malnutrition/anemia does enough damage to organs to cause them to malfunction, especially for pregnant does. Also, this problem affects older bucks as well. Additionally, weakened adult deer are more susceptible to predation. Here's some interesting reading:
www.altitudeoutdoors.com/mule-deer-winter-kill-means-hunting-season
www.nevadaoutdoorsman.com/winter-kill-for-nevada-mule-deer-hunting-nevada-2017
www.gohunt.com/read/life/will-the-winter-kill-of-2017-be-one-for-the-records

So, what's Utah's problem. Well, it's not money as Bess claims. At least not on the sense he's making that claim. The problem is TIMING! The DWR begins to classify the deer in November, during the rut and right after the hunts, but you hunters don't usually do it until late spring or summer and by then, the true winter kill numbers show their ugly faces.

Meanwhile, the DWR begins the application and draw process without the tag numbers, but when they finally set the numbers, they are based upon the classification that took place before winter set in. In other words, their numbers are correct and so are yours. It's just that they use old numbers while yours are up to date.

Many times over the years, we've asked them about the early timing of the application/draw process which requires us to apply for hunts without even knowing the tag numbers. And I've heard several explanations including; "We want to be the first to get commitments from hunters before the other states do." and "It gives hunters more time to plan their hunts" and "We need to allow the Nevada computer company that conducts the draw time to do all they are contracted to do." Maybe it's time to change computer companies.

As for the money, I suspect the DWR isn't necessarily trying to get more money from us individually, but trying to keep their costs down by contracting with the lowest bidder for the draw because they're afraid if they increase tag prices, they'll lose customers which they can't afford to do. Their sources of income are somewhat complicated, but most of it depends on the number of individual customers (hunters and fishermen) they have. Not only do they get the money from the individual licenses and tags themselves (46% of the DWR Budget), but the State and Federal Funds (9% and 32% of the DWR Budget) depend on our individual participation as well. And, in spite of what some people would have you believe, you carry as much weight with those State and Federal funds as does the owner of the Antelope Island deer tag because individuals who buy licenses, tags and COR's are counted, not their licenses, tags or COR's

So how do we fix the problem? Maybe it's time to ask the DWR to do a later classification and draw and to find another draw contractor who can do a faster draw. And that's something nearly all Utah hunters would welcome. But we must be willing to pay for it. Would we? I hope so.
 
I am already paying 4 times the fees and traveling way farther distances to hunt in Colorado and Wyoming, so I don't think that would be an issue for most serious hunters.
 
>I am already paying 4 times
>the fees and traveling way
>farther distances to hunt in
>Colorado and Wyoming, so I
>don't think that would be
>an issue for most serious
>hunters.

So, if we were able to get-er done with the DWR, would that keep you hunting in Utah? :)
 
I hate to see the hunting industry die because it has become to expensive. We would loose more hunters than gain and that would hurt us more in the future. Sale more bear permits to get the money.
 
>I hate to see the hunting
>industry die because it has
>become to expensive. We
>would loose more hunters than
>gain and that would hurt
>us more in the future.
> Sale more bear permits
>to get the money.

They're already Selling more Bear Permits to get more money!

Most People are gonna Pay whatever they wanna Charge for a Permit!

Let's See:

2K-8K Rifle!

1K-3K Scope!

500.00-3.5K Bino's!

800.00-4K Spotter!

60K-80K Belcher!

20K-80K Toy Hauler!

10K-50K worth of ATV's/UTV's!

1 Week-4 Weeks off of Work!

500.00-2K Rangefinder!

Wear & F'N Tear,Who knows?

And all the other MISC BS that goes with it!

Tag 50.00-125.00!

A Guy here in the NE Region took a 22" 4-Point this year!

He Kept the Back Straps & Took the Rest to the Butcher!

Don't know what that Cost but He got 32 lbs of Meat Back in the Finished Product!

Figure that out at Per lb!:D

I See the Price of the Tags,even if the raised the price as Minimal to most TARDS!
















She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
>>I hate to see the hunting
>>industry die because it has
>>become to expensive. We
>>would loose more hunters than
>>gain and that would hurt
>>us more in the future.
>> Sale more bear permits
>>to get the money.
>
>They're already Selling more Bear Permits
>to get more money!
>
>Most People are gonna Pay whatever
>they wanna Charge for a
>Permit!
>
>Let's See:
>
>2K-8K Rifle!
>
>1K-3K Scope!
>
>500.00-3.5K Bino's!
>
>800.00-4K Spotter!
>
>60K-80K Belcher!
>
>20K-80K Toy Hauler!
>
>10K-50K worth of ATV's/UTV's!
>
>1 Week-4 Weeks off of Work!
>
>
>500.00-2K Rangefinder!
>
>Wear & F'N Tear,Who knows?
>
>And all the other MISC BS
>that goes with it!
>
>Tag 50.00-125.00!
>
>A Guy here in the NE
>Region took a 22" 4-Point
>this year!
>
>He Kept the Back Straps &
>Took the Rest to the
>Butcher!
>
>Don't know what that Cost but
>He got 32 lbs of
>Meat Back in the Finished
>Product!
>
>Figure that out at Per lb!:D
>
>
>I See the Price of the
>Tags,even if the raised the
>price as Minimal to most
>TARDS!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>She Don't Just Rain She Pours!
>
>
>That Girl Right There's The Perfect
>Storm!
>
>
>
>
90087hankjr.jpg


Amen!
Just skip McDonald's a couple of times a year!
 
Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) I predict 2017 success rates will be similar or higher on southern units than 2016. More than half of the people I know that hunted filled their tags. The b/d ratio management is working in that part of the state.

2) Less than 30% of the deer I know of harvested were yearlings.

3) They put new doe hunts in agricultural areas. I slow down in Circleville, Angle (hit a doe there in a truck), Antimony, Quitchipa, Cedar, New Harmony. These have high concentrations of deer in their fields. Most of these are new hunts. I'm confident that the Pine Valley, Boulder, and Dutton Units will not suffer from these tags. Tags are only allowed in small areas.

4) We have not had winter weather yet and the deer are not concentrated on the winter range like they usually are. Our party saw 8+ mature bucks on the last Saturday of the hunt. I'm not worried. If the winter storms hit and I'm still not seeing deer, I'll worry.
 
>Here are my thoughts on the
>matter:
>
>1) I predict 2017 success
>rates will be similar or
>higher on southern units than
>2016. More than half
>of the people I know
>that hunted filled their tags.
> The b/d ratio management
>is working in that part
>of the state.
>
>2) Less than 30% of
>the deer I know of
>harvested were yearlings.
>
>3) They put new doe
>hunts in agricultural areas.
>I slow down in Circleville,
>Angle (hit a doe there
>in a truck), Antimony, Quitchipa,
>Cedar, New Harmony. These
>have high concentrations of deer
>in their fields. Most
>of these are new hunts.
> I'm confident that the
>Pine Valley, Boulder, and Dutton
>Units will not suffer from
>these tags. Tags are
>only allowed in small areas.
>
>
>4) We have not had
>winter weather yet and the
>deer are not concentrated on
>the winter range like they
>usually are. Our party
>saw 8+ mature bucks on
>the last Saturday of the
>hunt. I'm not worried.
> If the winter storms
>hit and I'm still not
>seeing deer, I'll worry.

Hey Johnny!

When You say Mature?

Are you Talking 6 or plus years old?

Or are We Talkin a Mature Buck like in the Basin that made it somehow to 3 years old?

It's Got So Bad up here You hear Average Joe's saying:

"He's a Mature Buck"

I'm Like Ya:

He Just Graduated from MOTL!










She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
No, I'm not talking about 6+ years old. Perhaps we have a different definition of a crappy hunt. My extended family had 12 tags. 6 focused on the west side of the unit, 6 on the east. West side killed 1 yearling 3 pt, decent 4x5, decent 4x3, & a heavy 4x4. East side killed a decent 4x4, decent 3x3, & a yearling 3x3. We missed a few others. A lot of deer were also passed that were not yearlings. I doubt any of them were 6+ years old - so guess its a lousy hunt in your book, but I'm super content.
 
This is the problem with the mind set in Utah , We manage the herd for the happy family party hunter, like the decent 6 bucks mentioned in the previous post. I would like to know if one of those bucks scored 170" or above. I agree with elkassain that in the general units I hunt which are in Northern and northeastern Utah any and all bucks will be shot if they stick there neck out. I see it every year, someone will pass a small 2-4 year old buck one day and then the next day you see it on the back of side by side being paraded down the mountain like they just shot a 200"er.

I just went through my last year and need to re apply for dedicated hunter but I don't think I am going to waste any more time or money chasing the Utah Trophy. To many other good places to hunt where you can have much better success and hunt.
 
MuleyKiller,

I'm not going to comment on if there was a 170 buck. Apparently, I've already said too much in that regard. I'm okay with the current management system. 20 bucks to 100 does post season leaves a reasonable chance of decent deer the next year. Admittedly, that's just my preference & unfortunately it doesn't align with yours. I will say I know of some very large deer killed this year by anyone's standard.

I have no doubt that some units had it rough this year. There was winter kill and it will be a few years before it comes back. If the hunt was too trammatic & the b/d ratios are too low, the dwr will cut tags again.

My question is where did these high expectations come from? Where & when was it that good? I hardly knew a person that spoke in terms of inches before the year 2000. We pass a lot of deer now. In the late 90's hardly anything would have been passed and we would have been content with filling our tags with a couple of yearlings. My first hunt I missed a 2 point the last day. It was 1989. That's the only buck I saw out of 100's of deer. My daughter had her first hunt this year. She passed two little bucks and killed a nice three. The units I hunt are as good as they ever were in my lifetime.
 
>This is the problem with the
>mind set in Utah ,
>We manage the herd for
>the happy family party hunter,
>like the decent 6 bucks
>mentioned in the previous post.
>I would like to know
>if one of those bucks
>scored 170" or above. I
>agree with elkassain that in
>the general units I hunt
>which are in Northern and
>northeastern Utah any and all
>bucks will be shot if
>they stick there neck out.
>I see it every year,
>someone will pass a small
>2-4 year old buck one
>day and then the next
>day you see it on
>the back of side by
>side being paraded down the
>mountain like they just shot
>a 200"er.
>
>I just went through my last
>year and need to re
>apply for dedicated hunter but
>I don't think I am
>going to waste any more
>time or money chasing the
>Utah Trophy. To many other
>good places to hunt where
>you can have much better
>success and hunt.

And I Quote:

I agree with elkassain that in the general units I hunt which are in Northern and northeastern Utah any and all bucks will be shot if they stick there neck out. I see it every year, someone will pass a small 2-4 year old buck one day and then the next day you see it on the back of side by side being paraded down the mountain like they just shot a 200"er.

We Seen the Same thing this Year!

We Know for a Fact that at least 90% of the Bucks We let go/that needed another year or two to maybe become Shooters got Shot!

And the Sad Part is!

They Paraded them around like they had Shot 200"ers!

And Johnny!

I'm a little Different than the DWR!

A 2-3 Year Old PISSCUTTER Ain't a Mature Buck in My Eyes!

He's Gotta Hit the 6 Year Mark for Full Potential!

Now Just How GAWD-DAMNED Many Bucks do you See Dead or Alive that Qualify?








She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
I know three people who have killed around 30". I don't know if that's 6 yrs old or not, I assume it is. I know of a few others killed, but I don't know the shooters personally. I think its unreasonable to to expect the general units to manage for a 6 year age class. MuleyKiller is wise to move on if that's what he's expecting out of a general unit. One person in our party passed two decent 4-points opening day and killed a heavy 2x3 in later in the season. (There is another buck I forgot about it.) I don't see anything wrong with that & think its a good thing. I'm just glad my units are doing way better now than in the late 90's. We're just contending preference now. I wish you well in finding your 6-yr old buck and I hope your unit has a speedy recovery.
 
Does anyone think we can and have the carrying capacity to reach 400,000 deer like Colorado. And is it unrealistic to think we can grow another 30+ thousand deer in 5 years if the winters are not to horrible to meet 400,000 deer and will the DNR allow those numbers. I feel if we can get to that number we can and will kill more big deer.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
> Does anyone
>think we can and have
>the carrying capacity to reach
>400,000 deer like Colorado. And
>is it unrealistic to think
>we can grow another 30+
>thousand deer in 5 years
>if the winters are not
>to horrible to meet 400,000
>deer and will the DNR
>allow those numbers. I feel
>if we can get to
>that number we can and
>will kill more big deer.
>

The answer to all of your questions is: It all depends!

Do we have the potential and the carrying capacity to reach 400,000 deer statewide? I think we do, but since the numbers you're asking about are statewide numbers and since we now manage habitat, populations, buck to doe ratios, hunter entry, permits, and success rates on a unit by unit basis, per Option #2, your statewide questions and suppositions are not easily answered.

The statewide population goal is nothing more than the sum total of the unit population objectives and that total is currently 453,100, while the current population estimate totals 374,450. That's a difference of 78,650. In any case, the DWR is not going to stop at 400,000 even if we reach that number.

And they certainly won't stop if the 400,000 deer are not in the right places. It won't change a thing if the growth ends up in Current Creek, Zion, Oquirrh, Morgan, South Rich, East Canyon, Diamond Mtn, Delores Triangle, Box Elder, or some of the other units/areas where hunters don't have much access. And it would even be bad for units that are already over population objectives.

As to whether or not we could kill more big deer also depends on where the growth comes and what the buck to doe ratio objective is and whether not it's over or under that objective. And all of this depends on whether or not the DWR follows the Statewide and Unit mule deer plans as well as what the weather holds.

So, it all depends!
 
The link above didn't work.

It's nice to FINALLY stumble upon a thread where the subject doesn't change and doesn't get sidetracked or the bickering ends a good discussion.

I think we are getting somewhere in regards to population counts in November where a die off takes place afterwards. I think more needs to be discussed on that issue including possible solutions.




"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
What Cracks Me up is when TARDS say the Dedicated Hunters are doing all the Damage!

Well!

They're not where I Hunt!
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom