>
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!