Tag Increase Another Thought

[cantkillathing]

Just wondering if anyone is taking in consideration the fact the the wildlife board passed that the muzzleloaders can now hunt with better optics. This alone is going to cause an effect on the buck populations this next season. This will have a higher success, and it will have more wounded animals. I would rather watch this play out before we ask for the increase of tags this year.

 

[Tikka]

That is a fact... I bet they never even brought that up...

 

[tx_packmule]

Not sure it'll result in more wounded animals.

 

[Robiland]

One sad thing to think about also, and was brought up in the RAC last night in the central region was; can we stock pile bucks? What if we have a bad winter next winter and we lose 30 or 40 or %50 (for tristate) of the deer or bucks? If that happens, then we wasted all of that. Hunt what we have when we have it. I didnt quite agree with large tag increase, but a tag increase was fine for me. After seeing what the numbers are, its a good idea.

 

[cantkillathing]

I don't understand that argument of loosing bucks during winter by stockpiling them. You'll still loose them with lower buck to doe ratio.

 

[BrowningRage]

tx_packmule -

With powered optics, there will be many out there taking longer shots with their muzzleloaders. As you increase the probable range of a weapon, you increase the likelihood of shot attempts. Statistically speaking, that would include an increase in wounded animals.

The flip-side of that, is you are also likely to have higher success rates and fewer wounded animals out to about 100 yards.

So, you kind of have to decide if hunters are more likely to get within 100 yards or 300 yards of an animal. It is far more likely to get within the 300 yard mark, and therefore, we can expect an increase in wounded animals.

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

 

[Birdman]

I think that the reason was, if there are extra hunt them. Less deer on winter range to fight over food. May mean more deer will survive a bad winter with less competition for feed and more hunters will have a chance to hunt.

 

[Robiland]

How do you lose those bucks with a lower buck to doe ratio? Besides getting killed during the hunt, I guess I dont get what you are getting at. If the success rate is %40, and they give out 4000 more tags, thats only 1600 more dead deer. Look at fawn recruitment, and its at 68 per 100 does. The heard will continue to grow with those #'s. I really do think its going to be just fine.

 

[cantkillathing]

By your argument we shouldn't stock pile bucks because if we have a bad winter those bucks would die off, so we should shoot them anyway. My point is if you have a harsh winter you will still loose deer no matter the ratio. Your trying to say we will save deer by killing deer.
Excess bucks are only bad for the herd or population if they are at carrying capacity. In which we are not.

 

[nebo12000]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-16 AT 11:06AM (MST)[p]They showed at the RAC last night the success of the new muzzleloader hunts that started last year. It was about 90% success. Good point brought up here in regards to use of optics. If I remember correctly, general muzzleloader success last year was at 34%. It will be interesting to see if that increases this year.

 

[Kwalk]

The argument you are throwing around about harsh winters is one that is more than tangentially related to carrying capacity. If a winter is bad, that generally means the deer aren't able to get proper nutrition due to freezing temps and deep snow. Thus, due to the winter conditions carrying capacity for the winter range is reduced.

Logic follows that if, as you stated, excess bucks are bad for the herd in a situation where carrying capacity is limited(by harsh winter conditions in this example) then buck tags shouldn't be limited. Bucks are harvested during the hunt and does are given a better chance to survive and have good fawn recruitment.

 

[Deerlove]

Well success rates WONT be going down now that every swinging d k will be launching 300 yard shots. That scope cluster was very short sited.

 

[Robiland]

>By your argument we shouldn't stock
>pile bucks because if we
>have a bad winter those
>bucks would die off, so
>we should shoot them anyway.
> My point is if
>you have a harsh winter
>you will still loose deer
>no matter the ratio. Your
>trying to say we will
>save deer by killing deer.
>
>Excess bucks are only bad for
>the herd or population if
>they are at carrying capacity.
>In which we are not.

Thats now what I am saying. I am saying that either mother nature kills them, or let us have an opportunity to kill them with the tag numbers that are given in the mule deer plan. Follow the plan. The dwr cant follow rules to save their a$$. Just look at the expo fiasco. They couldnt follow a fat kid on his way to the candy store if they were tied to his shoe laces. So follow this plan, the mule deer plan. If it says we have 25-100 Buck-doe ratio and we need to be at 18-20, then lets hunt them. Saving them for another year or 2 or 3 or 4 wont solve anything except more bucks. More bucks dont give birth to fawns. These units are or opportunity not trophy quality. Trust me, Id love to see 40/100 ratios and big bucks every where. But hunting every 5+ years is not what I want.

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-16 AT 11:42AM (MST)[p]It's about overall population increase and decline.It's exponential, because does will have 50% or so doe fawns, which multiplies when you consider multiple years of offspring compounded.

Harsh winter basically reduces your carrying capacity. So if you have say, 10,000 deer on a unit, 3,000 of which are bucks, they will compete for feed, thermal cover etc.

Here's the layman math and 2 scenarios under a 30% winter mortality:

Scenario #1 - 30/100 B-D ratio - 3,000/7,000 does X .30 = 900 dead bucks/2,100 dead does and fawns.

Total remaining deer - 2,100 bucks/4,900 does.


Scenario #2 - 15/100 B-D ratio - 1,500 bucks/8,500 does X .30 = 450 dead bucks/2,550 dead does.

Total remaining deer - 10,050 bucks/5,950 does.



3 year exponential herd growth (Without avg. winter mortality and buck harvest and with the minimum assumption of 1 fawn per doe(Half of which are doe fawns).)

Scenario#1:

Year 1 - 1.5 X 4,900 = 7,350

Year 2 - 1.5 x 7,350 = 11,025

Year 3 - 1.5 X 11,025 = 16,537.5 (The .5 = pigmy deer)


Scenario #2 :

Year 1 - 1.5 X 5,950 = 8,925

Year 2 - 1.5 x 8,925 = 13,378.5

Year 3 - 1.5 X 13,378.5 = 20,081.25 (.25 = midget pigmy deer with congenital birth defects.)



3 year year difference:

30/100 B-D - 16,537.5

15/100 B-D - 20,081.25

In 3 years we would have grown over 20%/3500 more deer by not "stockpiling" bucks. So as far as deer populations are concerned, the lowest amount of bucks it scientifically takes to breed all does is the best number to have in the population to grow more deer.

I own a small herd of cattle. I own one bull and 19 cows. He covers them just fine and I don't have to winter feed multiple bulls.

 

[huntin50]

Tree is correct IMO.

You want to have enough bucks with age structure to breed all does during the first cycle, so all fawns will drop about the same time instead of over a 3 months period.

A high buck to doe ratio is OK on a few trophy units, but not what we want on general season units.

The Gunnison basin units that had 40-50 bucks per 100 does contributed to winter kill. More buck fighting to breed does. More does competing for feed from excess bucks, leads to higher doe mortality and more aborted fawns.

18-20 bucks fer 100 does is a good number for production and improving over all deer numbers.

Stock piling bucks especially in Northern Utah with bad winters every few years is a bad idea.

 

[nebo12000]

With more bucks as shown in your scenarios, wouldn't the hunter success rates increase dramatically so that more bucks are being killed. Currently we are at 42% success rate, if that increased to 55% to 60%, what does that do to the increase? Just wondering what you think.

 

[nebo12000]

"the lowest amount of bucks it scientifically takes to breed all does is the best number to have in the population to grow more deer."
According to DWR biologists, it only takes 5 bucks /100 does to do that. Are we okay with that?

 

[huntin50]

The DWR are full of beans, if they think 5-8 bucks could do the job in the first cycle. 18-20 is more like it. Back when the DWR thought 5-8 was enough we were at or over population objectives. We are under in most units. Also we used poison to control coyotes, we don't now making it more important to have higher buck to doe ratio, so fawns won't drop over a 3 month period. If does don't get bread early, coyotes kill more fawns and smaller fawns won't survive the next years winter as well.

 

[cantkillathing]

Lets get back to the original topic though, dont we think this muzzleloader hunt with higher success will bring it back down?
I think that it will, its going to push us back to the management plan.

 

[Packout]

It makes sense that the variable scopes on MLs will increase the success rates. But (always a but) will that equate to more dead deer? Would the buck now killed at 250 yards with an ML have survived the rifle hunt? Just because it is killed on the ML does not mean it would have survived the Any Weapon hunt.

Also, the ML hunt is 15% of the total tags. So if we increase ML success to 50% (up from 35%ish) then that means MLs will increase the kills by 3% of the total hunters afield. So it isn't a huge impact statistically. I am not a fan of scoped MLs, but that is water under the bridge now.

Now back to the hijack-- yep 5 bucks to 100 doe will breed most doe populations. But why does that matter? Utah's Plan has a minimum of 15 bucks on some units, while other units' minimums are 18 or 25. 5 is not even on the table.

 

[wileywapati]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-06-16 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]NEBO

Absolutely a true statement. But not realistic if any of us wish to hunt.

The old plan, which was managed by subunit had a trigger of 12 B to D ratio before restrictions were triggered on the unit. As in the Oquirrhs and the South Slope.

So my SWAG on this is 12 bucks will get it done successfully and management should be this plus buck loss plus a certain percentage. IE 15 to 100 minimum.

Anything higher is competition and trending to a point of diminishing return.

WTF do I know, I've only been screaming this biological law for the last 20 years.

It's called herd fecundity.






"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16

 

[cannonball]

5 bucks is nuts. We've already proven that doesn't work for either the hunters and the deer. I have not heard the DWR say that as an optimum number. If they have, I would like the person's name in the division who said that. I'm sure he graduated from Trump University.

 

[Tikka]

>5 bucks is nuts. We've
>already proven that doesn't work
>for either the hunters and
>the deer. I have
>not heard the DWR say
>that as an optimum number.
> If they have, I
>would like the person's name
>in the division who said
>that. I'm sure he
>graduated from Trump University.


His name is wileywapati... He just posted above...

 

[tx_packmule]

>tx_packmule -
>
>With powered optics, there will be
>many out there taking longer
>shots with their muzzleloaders. As
>you increase the probable range
>of a weapon, you increase
>the likelihood of shot attempts.
>Statistically speaking, that would include
>an increase in wounded animals.
>
>
>The flip-side of that, is you
>are also likely to have
>higher success rates and fewer
>wounded animals out to about
>100 yards.
>
>So, you kind of have to
>decide if hunters are more
>likely to get within 100
>yards or 300 yards of
>an animal. It is far
>more likely to get within
>the 300 yard mark, and
>therefore, we can expect an
>increase in wounded animals.
>
>"Therefore, wo be unto him that
>is at ease in Zion!"
>2 Ne. 28: 24


Likely true, but you also have folks already slinging lead farther than they should with open sights.

 

[tx_packmule]

>5 bucks is nuts. We've
>already proven that doesn't work
>for either the hunters and
>the deer. I have
>not heard the DWR say
>that as an optimum number.
> If they have, I
>would like the person's name
>in the division who said
>that. I'm sure he
>graduated from Trump University.

Yeah, that's probably only suitable for a unit managed for opportunity/hair tags.

You run into issues with the high buck to doe ratio with CC and natural mortality (mortality isn't as noticeable bc the numbers will still be there), low end ratio your yearling class of bucks and 2yos are going to catch heck trying to breed everything with nutrition going to development instead of fat storage.

 

[wileywapati]

Pretty sure this is exactly what I posted.

"IE 15 to 100 minimum."

Carry on TikkaPeay.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16

 

[Vanilla]

nebo12000 said- "With more bucks as shown in your scenarios, wouldn't the hunter success rates increase dramatically so that more bucks are being killed. Currently we are at 42% success rate, if that increased to 55% to 60%, what does that do to the increase? Just wondering what you think."

Richard, can I get some clarification? What specifically are you referring to with the 42% success rate? Are you saying the overall success rate across the state with all seasons accounted for is 42%?

 

[nebo12000]

According to the regional big game manager at the Central RAC, he showed a slide showing that muzzleloaders success at 34% in 2015, anyweapon/rifle was 42%, and I think archery was 23%. I was expecting something for rifle in the high 20's or low 30's. I was surprised that the success rates were that high.
Sorry Packout, wasn't trying be part of hijacking the thread, just trying to answer some questions.

 

[Vanilla]

nebo12000,

Interesting. I don't have 2015 data as that has not been published yet. But according to 2014 numbers, we either had a huge increase in harvest rate or they are using funny math. My guess is that latter is more likely closer to the truth. Even in their annual big game reports the skew the data to show more favorable results. They tell you how many permits were issued, how many hunters were afield, how many bucks were harvested, then give harvest percentage. But as I ran some numbers this morning, I figured out they give the percentage off hunters afield, not the actual permits drawn. It makes a noticeable difference, too. Here are the 2014 numbers:

General Any Weapon: 37,798 tags; 12728 bucks harvested; 33.5% success rate.

Youth Any Weapon: 10,362 tags; 4485 bucks harvested; 43.2% success rate.

General Muzzy: 15,825 tags; 4093 bucks harvested; 25.8% success rate.

General Archery (includes harvest on extended): 16,459 tags; 2728 bucks killed; 16.5% harvest rate.

Dedicated Hunter: 5,437 tags; 1795 bucks harvested; 33.0% success rate.

Overall Numbers: 85,881 tags; 25,829 bucks killed; 30.1% success rate.

This does not include any LE or CWMU tags, as this is a discussion focused on general season permits only. So those numbers are not relevant. So in answer to your question- no, increasing buck to doe ratios will not get us to those increased success rates that you asked about. Not even close.

And in answer to the original question about magnification scopes on muzzleloaders evening this out---again, no. The success will probably increase. But they are not magically going to get better than the overall rifle success rates. And even if you apply the rifle success rates to the muzzleloader (which I don't believe they'll be that high) you are still taking about ~1200 bucks statewide. As mentioned before, some of those are bucks that would have been harvested on the rifle the next month, so number becomes lower than that.

I would be willing to wager that we won't see more than 200-300 more bucks killed due to magnification. But we'll never know that, it is purely speculation.

 

[Packout]

Nebo- I meant no offense to you with my hijack comment and was just referring to Cantkill's comment. I tried to give him my perspective on his question and then was throwing in my 2 cents on BD ratios and how no one is calling for anything below 15/100.

 

[elkfromabove]

Referring back to the OP, what specifically is your concern? Where are you going with this? Are you worried about the effects any possible additional dead bucks will have on the total population? Or on the buck to doe ratios? Or on the ratios of trophy bucks vs pisscutters? Or on the number of deer you'll likely see in a day? Or on the number of bucks you'll likely see in a day? Or is it something else entirely? Your assumption seems to be that it could make enough of a difference to merit changing the mule deer plan by not issuing the number of tags called for in the plan, but that may not be the case at all, and your fears are unfounded. Let's hear from you, if you don't mind.

 

[nebo12000]

Lee, show me in the MDP that says how many must be issued when certain thresholds are met. I personally have not seen what that number would be. If the MDP does state that then why are some units that are at objective not having an increase in tags this year? I believe that the MDP states that the DWR may propose increasing tags. I hope that the MDP in the future will never tell the DWR they have to increase tags by a certain amount. If that should ever happen then the public and the RACs are irrelevant in the discussion. I believe the Mule Deer Committee never intended to tell the DWR exactly how many tags to increase or decrease, I believe that is left up to them. I believe the MDP is mainly designed to protect the b/d ratios from spiraling downward without a requirement to cut tags to help avoid that scenario again.

 

[elkfromabove]

>Lee, show me in the MDP
>that says how many must
>be issued when certain thresholds
>are met. I personally have
>not seen what that number
>would be. If the MDP
>does state that then why
>are some units that are
>at objective not having an
>increase in tags this year?
>I believe that the MDP
>states that the DWR may
>propose increasing tags. I hope
>that the MDP in the
>future will never tell the
>DWR they have to increase
>tags by a certain amount.
>If that should ever happen
>then the public and the
>RACs are irrelevant in the
>discussion. I believe the Mule
>Deer Committee never intended to
>tell the DWR exactly how
>many tags to increase or
>decrease, I believe that is
>left up to them. I
>believe the MDP is mainly
>designed to protect the b/d
>ratios from spiraling downward without
>a requirement to cut tags
>to help avoid that scenario
>again.

You're correct! Sorry, I was tired when I wrote that and I mis-worded my question. There are no specifics on the number of tags that can or should be issued at any one time, but the intent of the plan is to bring and keep the unit buck to doe ratios within their assigned parameters (top and bottom) which ARE specific. There are extenuating circumstances on some of the units which are unavoidable, uncontrollable and justifiable (private property, migration, inaccessibility, fires, etc.), but the purely social reasons we keep hearing shouldn't be any of them! IMHO, of course! And in the opinion of the majority of Utah sportsmen per the Deer Committee survey!

 

[fullthrottle]

I'm surprised the talk on the muzzleloader change is about the "number" of bucks that are going to be killed and not the "quality". There is going to be a lot of big mature deer getting shot the end of September with high powered muzzleloader's this year. That is my concern, the effect this change is going to have on the mature bucks that would have survived and by the the time the rifle hunt gets here many are buried in there buck cave. I'm excited because I know the potential of 300 yards in September, but extremely disappointed with the decision for magnification on a muzz and how it will effect our big deer and eventually future opportunity. Terrible rule change in my eyes.

 

[Tree]

>Lee, show me in the MDP
>that says how many must
>be issued when certain thresholds
>are met. I personally have
>not seen what that number
>would be. If the MDP
>does state that then why
>are some units that are
>at objective not having an
>increase in tags this year?
>I believe that the MDP
>states that the DWR may
>propose increasing tags. I hope
>that the MDP in the
>future will never tell the
>DWR they have to increase
>tags by a certain amount.
>If that should ever happen
>then the public and the
>RACs are irrelevant in the
>discussion. I believe the Mule
>Deer Committee never intended to
>tell the DWR exactly how
>many tags to increase or
>decrease, I believe that is
>left up to them. I
>believe the MDP is mainly
>designed to protect the b/d
>ratios from spiraling downward without
>a requirement to cut tags
>to help avoid that scenario
>again.

From conversations I've had with division, it seems like another simple math problem to get them back down to the bigger number in the B/D ration. Here's another arbitrary example, using the diminished number of .5 buck fawns per doe.

Unit X:

- Post season buck count 25.

- Buck population 2500 (10,000 does)

- Post season management target 18-21.

- Current tag allocation 3000.

- Average harvest percentage 30%.

- Projected harvest .30 x 3,000 = 900

Net result? Doesn't matter!! Issue the number of tags multiplied by success rate that will project the B/D ratio to get back Under 21.

It's bucks. Everything over the necessary amount to get your girls bred is completely arbitrary and solely for consumption, which is ok. If we maintained 7/100 ratios, none of us would get to hunt them, which isn't what we want. Wiley uses a very conservative minimum #IMO.

There is a cusp, threshold, tipping point, whatever you want to call it, that starts dramatically reducing opportunity. From observation (it's a changing target, especially in N Utah) I think somewhere in the 17-20 post season range is a pretty good sweet spot. Some years weather and other factors are conducive to a higher harvest percentage, some less. We count the buggers in the spring and make adjustments according to available extrapolated information, not the emotional rantings of the ignorant.

 

[elkfromabove]

>I'm surprised the talk on the
>muzzleloader change is about the
>"number" of bucks that are
>going to be killed and
>not the "quality". There is
>going to be a lot
>of big mature deer getting
>shot the end of September
>with high powered muzzleloader's this
>year. That is my concern,
>the effect this change is
>going to have on the
>mature bucks that would have
>survived and by the the
>time the rifle hunt gets
>here many are buried in
>there buck cave. I'm excited
>because I know the potential
>of 300 yards in September,
>but extremely disappointed with the
>decision for magnification on a
>muzz and how it will
>effect our big deer and
>eventually future opportunity. Terrible rule
>change in my eyes.

Frankly, I too am surprised because most of these type of threads revert to talking about the loss of "trophy" bucks. (I mean "quality" bucks or are they now "mature" bucks? It's hard to keep up with political correctness!) If you are taking about Limited Entry deer hunts, you have a point. But if you are talking about GENERAL deer hunts, (You know, the ones that are managed for OPPORTUNITY/NUMBERS OF TAGS!) then your concern is not applicable. In any case, the number of additional deer taken with the new Muzzy regulations isn't likely to impact the Any Weapon hunts with any significance. And if it does, that's just part of the game that trophy hunters will have to play to get the big one. They're NEVER going to be as easy to take as "normal" deer.