Utah Article

P

Prism

Guest
Just got my "Huntin Fool" magazine in the mail and read Adam Bronson's article on Mule Deer. Great read and Adam nailed it on the head. It's good to hear it from somebody that use to work for Utah's DWR and knows what he's talking about.

Great read Adam!!!


Wake up UTAH! Our deer management SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
HEY Paul!!!

YOU'RE ABOUT AS HAPPY WITH THE DEER MANAGEMENT AS ME!!!

THEY'VE (UDWR!!!) TURNED THE ELK INTO BIG BUSINESS HERE IN UTARD!!!

YOU GOT MONEY???

YOU CAN TAKE A 400"+ BULL!!!

A LITTLE TOUGHER TO DO ON THE DEER THOUGH!!!

MOST OF THE LE DEER UNITS SUCK!!!

AND HAVE SUCKED SINCE ELK HAVE INVADED THEM!!!

I THINK WE SHOULD MANAGE A FEW UNITS FOR "MONSTER MULEYS"!!!

THEN EVERY UTARD IN THE STATE WOULD EXPECT A PERMIT!!!

WAFJ!!!

I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS!!!

BUT I DO KNOW!!!

IF WE KEEP MANAGING DEER HERDS LIKE WE HAVE BEEN PISSCUTTERS (DINKS!!!) WILL ONLY GET SMALLER & FEWER BY THE YEAR!!!

469ff2b8110d7f4e.jpg


THE ONLY bobcat THAT KNOWS ALOT OF YOU HAVE HAD THIS IMAGE IN YOUR PEA BRAIN BUT DUE TO POOR SHOOTING TACTICS I'M STILL KICKIN!!!
 
Man I would really like to read what Adam has to say. Is there any way to read it without paying the $100 subscription fee?

Dax
 
I agree that deer management in Utah sucks, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PRODUCT THEN DON'T BUY IT. I have not bought a utah deer tag since 2002 and that was only because I drew a LE permit and before that the last one I bought was in 1998. As long as they keep selling out permits nothing will change.
 
Prism,

I think its ironic you complain that the state has managed elk for tropheys then your turn around and complain that the mule deer are not managed right. The DWR would have to cut tags and increase prices to get more trophey deer, just the same as LE elk. I think you're just mad that there aren't more trophey deer in Utah. I'm confident you find plenty of decent bucks 4-point bucks in your scouting trips - just not a ton of 30+ inchers. I'm sure you have a lot of skill regarding mule deer; however, your observations and predicitons are continuing to lose credibility in my book. Last year you complained regarding the lack of deer in Utah and predicted a lousy general hunt (if I remember due in part to the "'04 "slaughter.") I couldn't figure out what you were talking as I saw a lot of yearlings and mature bucks during my few summer scouting trips. A lot of nice deer were killed last year and we saw a lot of respectable general Utah bucks cross this website. You ate crow regarding your prediction.

I've hardly been out looking this year, but again I have seen some decent bucks without even trying and a lot of yearlings. I'm wondering if you've just set your sights so high to find and commercialize super trophey bucks, that there will "NEVER be ENOUGH."

I'm just an average hunter with a below average record, and I don't think there is much to complain about regarding deer. Filling a deer tag with a general Utah deer tag is an achievable feat with some scouting. A mature 4-point takes some more scouting and a little luck. Finding a true trophey is a difficult task and we should not stoop to blaming the government for not providing more trophey mule deer. We've already done that for elk, they delivered, and now you are complaining.

Just remember, a 20" 3-point is enough for many hunters and makes a great memory and a great meal.

ci
 
Robb,
Would you send me the article also?
I respect Adam Bronson's opinions. However, if I have to pay any money to Garth I'll have to pass on reading it.
Thanks in advance.
 
SMELLYBUCK,

We're all entitled to our own opinions, and I respect yours.

In my opinion Utah has abused it's mule deer herds long enough. We continue to issue the same amount of tags even though our herds can't handle it. I was told face to face by one of the state's top biologist that the reason we sell so many tags is because of one thing-MONEY.

I'm confused as to how last year was a great year on Utah's general deer units though??? I know of a couple of great bucks killed, but very very few.

If I'm eating crow it sure isn't enough to make a meal out of......

I think most of Utah's serious mule deer hunters would agree that 2004 was very hard on our deer herds, and that "overall" our mule deer herds continue downward.

Sure there will always be some great deer shot on our general season units, but it's just a shadow of it's true potential.

In concern to our elk herds, it's obvious that we're doing a great job growing trophies, but I think we could be doing just as well with more hunting opportunity for everyone.

Anyone that knows me or that has hunted with me knows that I'm not all about big antlers, but I have "had enough" of Utah's continued lack of commitment to its mule deer herds for the AVERAGE hunter.

It's fairly obvious that Utah hunters just want to hunt. We continue to purchase deer tags even with the lack of quality animals.

Good luck on your hunts!
 
I forgot to add that I think we can be creative with tag allocations. I personally don't think we need to reduce tag numbers a whole bunch. But we do need to do things differently.......
 
Prism,

I agree with you a 110%. The dwr is money hungry. They are receiving more money now than ever before. I personally feel they need to micro manage units in the state. It would eliminate lots of pressure in areas that cant handle it.
 
Prism,

You have to eat a little more crow than that. You said on your post last year showing your Utah kill "It looks like there were a lot of nice deer shot this year in Utah." You constantly complain about management, fawn counts, bla bla bla; yet you consistantly find and take nice bucks. I have plenty of gripes regarding the DWR; but I have the sucky success rate to back it up!!! I just can't figure you out. You have as many posts and successes on this site as anyone yet you frequently make posts on how bad everything is. Sounds like there is some sort of alterior motive.

I guess my main concern is if Utah starts to change things more we will see more fee increases, and it will be increasingly more difficult to plan hunts with friends.

I've been pretty happy with the quality and amount of deer I've seen the past few years, and I can't help but think any more changes will result in less and less of a traditional family hunt in conjunction with higher fees.

ci
 
SMELLYBUCK,

If you want to fault me for wishing Utah had better deer management, deer hunting, and more opportunity for the average guy to kill big deer then guess what-

I'm GUILTY!

As for me killing nice deer I've been very fortunate the last few years to hunt some decent private ground in Utah, and it would appear that I'm going to be able to hunt private land for years to come. So why should I give a rats #$@$#@ about our general season hunts?

My motive is plain and simple. I want better deer hunting in Utah for all of us-private, public, general season, limited entry, etc......and that being said I don't think the Utah DWR is doing a good job. Until our general deer herds and hunts are made a top priority we'll continue down the current path of mediocrity.

I have seen what can happen when a state manages it's mule deer for older age class bucks, higher buck to doe ratios, etc...and I want you, me, and every other Uah deer hunter to experience it.

Seriously I don't have much more to say. If you think Utah's deer hunting is great, then good for you.

I'll continue to voice my opinion that I think it stinks, and hope that more and more of us start to complain!

I hope you have a successful season and kill the buck you're looking for. I'll say it one more time. Utah has some great deer in the general units, but we're leaving a ton of potential on the ground.
 
Prism,
Great post. I agree 100%. I live and hunt in Colorado. Over the last 10 years Colorado has done some amazing things with our deer herds. When I first started hunting deer when I was 13 we had a 3 point or better point restriction and you had to hunt hard to find a three point. Since then Colorado has done away with the point restriction and made every deer tag a draw tag. They also shut down doe hunting in certain areas for a few years to bring deer number back up. They lowered the tag numbers and raised the tag prices a little. Nobody is crying though. Now you can drive our roads and see 185 inch deer and better. When before you rarely saw a good four point. From what I have seen in Utah it seems a lot the way that Colorado used to be. I don't believe that Utah's deer hunting is what it could be. Right now people in Colorado are consistantly killing great deer. I feel that most units in Colorado you could kill a decent buck in. If you havn't hunted Colorado you may not know what I'm talking about. Most hunters and outfitters and the DOW had make some sacrifices to get where we are right now. We can't get tags every year and outfitters couldn't book hunters consistantly until there clients got some points built up. And the DOW lost some money buy not having as many hunter with tags. Utah's deer hunting doesn't compare to Colorado's. And it will not until differnt management takes place.
Liked Adam's article, and glad to see the subject brought up!
JC
 
Prism,

We need mass habitat improvement on public land if the overall hunt is to truly improve. Nobody wants to attempt this - it takes time and money. Everything else is just a quality/quanity equation that we can argue about for life as some people would prefer to hunt average stuff every year while others would prefer to hunt big stuff every few years. Can't have it both ways unless the habitat improves.

I appreciate your polite straight-forward talk, but I still have questions about your approach. Frankly I think you often exagerate how bad things are in order to get people to listen. Do you think Utah has't improved since the winter kill of '92-'93? Does it really keep getting worse? What report has shown that we have fewer deer now than 5 years ago?

What do you suggest the game departments do differently to improve the hunts? I tire of people jumping on this website and mindlessly commenting on how bad the hunt is and that the DWR needs to cut tags or "re allocate". To me that is nothing more than stealing from Peter to pay Paul. That is the approach the DWR has taken. I love the hunting culture Utah has. Everytime we cut tags to give one special person a trophey, we lose more of our hunting culture. We are making it a past time of a few fanatics.

I know I'm being a stinker on this one, but I'm going to nip your heals until I can see some real ideas for improvement instead of hype.

Thanks for your time and good luck on your hunts also.

CI
 
Anybody that truly thinks utahs deer hunting is fine needs to take a trip accross the border into colorado to see what we are missing out on due to poor management. Ive hunted units that take 0 points to draw and have seen twice the number of mature bucks,twice as many deer for the fact than I do hunting the general seasons in utah. If utah could implement a management program similar to colorado, it would benefit all hunters not just trophy hunters.
 
325wsm,

0 points to draw, and twice the deer of Utah? That's the first post that has perked me up.

ci
 
prism,

i read that article. very good read and exciting to hear someone with adam's knowledge to say it like it is. great post and heads up to utard muley hunters.
 
Smelly,
I'm not sure how much time you spend in the woods but I have no doubt that you have seen and harvested bucks in Utah. I know Paul is spoiled by hunting other states, but so am I. I also know Paul would be the first to cut the "high priced" tags and give more opportunity to the average joe. Having hunted outside the great state of Utah I can tell you that Utah has A LONG WAY TO GO before they have bragging rights of improving herds. The buck to doe ratio has improved and if that;s what you mean by improvement then yes you are right. However, don't let from 7/100 up to 17/100 buck to doe ratio that the SFW and MDF publish, fool you. I assume their numbers are right but they don't count the number of mature bucks in that number. I have seen a total of 31 bucks since July 1st. Of that 31 I have seen only 3 that I would call "mature bucks". The 4 "mature bucks" ranged anywhere from 24-27 inches and I would guess not one was over 180. The thing that is frustrating (and I'm sure Paul would back me on this one) is Utah has the potential to have the quality of deer that Colorado and Wyoming have yet they drag their feet. Dispersment is the key here not cutting back necessarily. The idea of dividing up the HUGE general areas into smaller areas is spot on! They need to close some of the roads in these areas to eliminate the LAZY ROAD HUNTERS too but that's another thread.


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Smellybuck, you may want to switch sites to yearlingbucks.com as this is monstermuleys.com. Seriously dude, you keep this up and the Utah dwr is going to want to hire you to manage our deer herd.
It's almost comical to talk with hunters who think it is there God given right to hunt every year. Hunting is a privledge.
You have critisized Prism for being an advocate of growing a few big deer as well as filming trophy hunts. He has fewer trophies on his DVD's than most of the big hunting DVD's, yet he has a good following because he portrays the hunt as much as the trophy.
And lastly if you think Utah is doing a great job of managing our deer herds,I got some ocean front property in St George I want to sell ya.

Mike
 
I don't understand how raising the age class on deer could lessen anyone's opportunity to hunt.The key word here is "SACRIFICE".After 2 years of sacrificing a little opportunity,(tags,general licenses,etc.),the "opportunity" to hunt would be back,with a more diverse age class as a bonus!JMO.
 
i have hunted utah for 13 years. i never saw a real herd of deer until about my 9th year. i would agree that utah needs to do something about it's declining hunt quality. the need to issue less tags is not specific enough. utah has a bow hunt and buying a archery tag allows you to hunt anywhere in the state(save cwmu's etc.) for the entire bow season. the area where i hunt is over run with hunters. this is the irst year that utah has ever sold out of archery tags. alng with limiting the tag numbers, they need to limit the archery season and do a more rigorous draw.
 
I would like to hear some of your ideas for improving the management of deer in Utah. I read the thread, and I see more units, less tags, two year layoff . . . Etc.

Those are good suggestions, but more specifics. My guess is someone at DWR looks at this website - maybe a suggestion or two would get someone thinking (is that possible?).

Do you divide the whole state into Units, or just certain areas. Do you have a spike only or two point or less only area. Do you have an any buck area? These sound like the ELK strategies that have worked. Just asking.

My proposal would be to add 3-7 new LE units. Divide the state into about 10-15 general units. Limit all (archery - muzz - rifle) tags in the general units to a total statewide of between 50,000 and 70,000 (I think we are at 90,000 now just for rifle). Charge $100.00 per general tag (still a bargain at any income level and actually more revenue for DWR). Try this for 5 years and see what happens. My guess is there would be general units that were tougher to draw and would take 2-3 preference points before you were garuanteed a tag. Other units would sell over the counter permits every year - just like now. There would be no "lack of opportunity" if you were willing to hunt new ground. Keep the system where the most preference points get all the tags. If there is no draw - so be it. You wait - you get rewarded.

Right now - under the current system my wife and I manage a southern tag every year. Its automatic if you work the system correctly. In other words I get a preference point in even years and she gets preference point in odd years. There are many other opportunities to "hunt" in Utah other than mulies. Ie, many spike and cow elk tags available today. I think I would give up a year or two to see better herds and horn growth. Just my .02 (actually like .10).
 
My usual disclaimer -I am a regional wildlife manager for Idaho F&G.

I too read Adam's piece. However I see a discrepancy between some of the points made and the actual herd performance in Colorado. While it is true that buck ratios increased dramatically in Colorado by removing roughly 1/2 of the hunters, all the information I've heard is that total deer populations did not not change much and that fawn ratios actually declined. In essence, fawns were replaced with bucks. I'm not placing a judgement on that at all, just trying to put relevant information on the table.

Part of the analogy about buck ratios and compressed fawn drop leading to increased fawn survival is based on elk research (but keep in mind elk have a much different social/breeding ecology than mule deer). That type of research has not been conducted for mule deer and drawing the same conclusion from elk data is questionable. Further, although higher bull ratios definitely lead to an earlier, more compressed rut in elk, the link to increased calf survival has not been made. In fact, reasearch on calf weight gain shows that late-born calves can actually catch up to early-born calves by winter unless summer forage conditions are quite poor.

The research regarding pregnancy rates in mule deer and fawn ratios/survival have yet to document a lower threshold for buck ratios that lead to measurable changes in herd productivity - even into the lower single digits for buck ratios. My point is that making a biological argument about the need for high buck ratios to increase population size or fawn survival are not supported by the research. Again, I'm not making a judgement about wanting higher buck ratios, but the argument should be based on human social desires for a deer population's structure.

Idaho is smack in the middle of revising our mule deer management plan and need the input of our hunters. The biological needs of the herds for bucks are far below the human social desires, so it is up to hunters to guide the social management direction. The critical aspect is recognizing the trade-offs among various management approaches and that not all desires can be met on every piece of ground. The survey of deer hunters in Idaho basically indicated our hunters want more and bigger bucks and they want to be able to hunt every year with a centerfire rifle. Unfortunately, that combination is not really possible. There are a number of management tools that can be applied, but all involve some kind of trade-off...less efficient weapons, antler point restrictions, fewer hunters (=less chance of hunting), etc. Everyone needs to reallistically evaluate the trade-offs in light of their own desires as well as the future of deer hunting (recruiting and retaining hunters and our socio-political relevance in this country).

Tom Keegan
Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
Good post Tom. It's refreshing to have a game Manager encourage public involvement. I get an email a few times a month from CDOW wanting my in put on certain issues as well as informing me of public wildlife meetings and I don't even live in CO. It seems to me that they value the publics involvement. My question is were were the Hell is Utah when it comes to public input.
 
Tom,

If you can get people to understand the concept of tradeoff, I'd like to know your secret. I have some environmentalist friends who watched a movie last fall about electric cars, how environmentally friendly they are, and the big conspiracy theory to get rid of them. They were pretty rattled by the whole thing. I asked them if the movie proposed an idea to produce more electricity other than with coal, hydro, or nuclear to meet the energy demand that electrical cars would surely create. They said the movie didn't address that. (Basically people just get their power from an outlet.) ##### Armey said demagoguery (emotion) beats data. I think he's right. I see too many people hop on this site who will not acknowledge their ideas have a downside. They just think the government should manage for their own personal preferences and that everything would then be great.

ci
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-07 AT 09:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-07 AT 09:02 PM (MST)

Tom-- That was an excellent post. I have not read the article by Adam. (If anyone wants to email me the article I would appreciate it). I would like to see a comparison of Utah to Nevada. Nevada micromanages and is a desert, yet we hear nothing about their huge mule deer increases. Nevada has some big deer (so does Utah), but I have family there who wait 3-6 years between tags for average units. Are Nevada's units that much better than Utah's?

What buck to doe ratio do people want in Utah? 25 per 100? I hear that number bantered about. (Using 2005 data) Of the 8 Utah limited entry units, 2 have a buck doe ratio less than 25 and 3 are at 25. Only the Pauns, Henrys, and Books are over 25. So to make the overall state have a 25 per 100 ratio we would have to cut tags how drastically? By 50%? Maybe 80%?

How productive (population increases) are Utah's limited entry units, with the higher buck to doe ratios? (Not talking inches) Fawning data published by the UDWR shows that most of the limited entry units have equal to less productivity (fawns per doe). The Nebo, with all 12 bucks per 100 doe, had the same fawning rate as the Books, with 3x the number of bucks (approx 38 per 100). The data shows that decreasing hunter numbers will not increase the productivity of the herd. I am not trying to make it black and white, but a quick look at some data shows an overall picture.
 
Salmonfg,

Did you attend the meeting in Pocatello?

If I am not mistaken, Rick Kahn (From CO G&F) stated that the area which showed a decrease in fawn production was running a post-season buck:doe ratio of 60%.
 
I haven't read the article, but after all of the Banter, I am not sure whos side I am on. I certainly side with Prism that for trophy class deer Utah does a poor job of management, but for opportunity with a rifle. They may do better than most states. I currently live in Arizona and to actually hunt the prime mule deer habitat in this state it will take you 10 plus years. To hunt elk it is very similar. I have spoken to numerous people here who used to be hunters, support hunting etc., but as time has passed and they realized that they can only hunt the animal they love to hunt in their home state once every 10 years they have now given up the sport altogether. Remember Arizona has javelina, and coues deer that you can hunt every year. But if your passion is mule deer hunting and you don't have the time or money to go out of state then we have lost another advocate of hunting. I travel to different states and enjoy trying to attempt hunting large mule deer and Utah sucks in this regard, but I am very concerned about the diminishig population of hunters. Yes we could be selfish, as less and less hunters can get on private land and have a great experience and less opportunity, means bigger bucks for the minority, which probably includes most of us here on this site, but in reality it will probably also mean that our children and their children will not hunt. If they don't hunt, they will probably take your trophy rack and sale it at a yard sale or take it to the DI. They may even laugh their heads off that you even cared that much to spend so much time killing an innocent little animal. Boys it is a chain reaction, once we lose hunters, we lose legislation etc., etc.
I think a state has to be very sensitive to this issue and allow as much management for opportunity as they do for trophy status. Also remember that the trophy hunters will be the most vocal and probably will get things changed as the opportunity hunter doesn't usually have time to be an all out advocate like we do. I have met with several trophy hunters and it seems that the more success they have on private land and the bigger the ego gets, the less and less they remember the rank and file deer hunter, which in the end is what really gives them their rights and success in the first place. So in the end look at all sides of the issue and try not too be too myopic as my wish is that my children will also someday have many opportuniies to hunt.

T
 
I am always just a reader of this forum until this subject came up. I feel that Utah does in fact have some overhauling of it's deer management to do, in fact I agree with awholelottabull dispersment is the key to better herd management. We need to at least have 25 different deer units in our state, But I will take it a step farther, It should be MANDITORY to report on harvest, where you killed, what size and what date, the state of Utah has absolutly no idea if the deer were slaughtered off one mountain and got past all the hunters on another, I think the number of hunters is not the problem, the state of utah just doesent know how many hunters it is putting on one mountian or another.


HUNT HARD EVERY DAY!
 
Sorry Mike---and the rest that have requested a copy of the article... Daxter got it but I can't send it out anymore....infringement issue.....better safe than sorry..

Robb
 
Toole has some legit arguments, Founder mentioned the one deer every two years might be an option for some areas.
 
Keep tag numbers the same and reduce motor vehicle access by 80-90%, end of discussion.

To illustrate the extreme's...one could give 25 tags to hunt Timpanogos and let people gun bucks down from helicopter's (complete motor vehicle access) or they could give 500 tags and make it roadless from Cedar Hills to Sundance (little access). The FS chooses to allow trucks around to the face of the mountain, and that fact single handedly reduces the survivability of each buck on the entire mountain greatly. Because 500 people hunt the mountain and there is great vehicle access, very few bucks survive to see 5 or 6 years of age. This scenario is true for every canyon and mountain across the West with a ATV and/or truck path that can be used during hunting season.

I will always support reduced harvest ability per hunter (most easily accomplished by minimizing motor vehicle access) than fewer hunters afield. I want to hunt every year and have to work for a nice deer instead of being able to hunt near a road and expect to kill a nice buck (which is how Utah's limited entry areas are managed, especially elk). I dont want an easy hunt every 2-4 years in Utah, I want to hunt every year and have many areas with no vehicle access to choose from.

Could you imagine the deer hunting on Monroe Mountain if the road density was reduced by 90%? The place is a deer factory, but unfortunately an ATV paradise as well, making it the land of the 2-point death.

-RPinenut
 
There was some discussion in Idaho about allowing people to hunt every year, but requiring those that actually harvest a buck to set out the following year or two. I believe this is a pretty good concept that should be developed a bit more. Idaho hunters said they wanted to hunt every year, but that they would like to see more, bigger buck mule deer available.

If everyone knew that they would be required to sit it out for a year or two do you think hunters would be a bit more selective about what they shoot?

Another idea that I have thought a lot about is simply trying to teach hunters how to discearn an approximate age of an animal before they actually harvest. This would no doubt lead to some animals escaping as hunters would need to spend more time observing an animal before pulling the trigger or releasing an arrow. Hunters need to know the results of their actions. The resource can not allow everyone to hunt every year unless we can figure out a way to leave more animals on the hill. The only other alternatives I can think of are: severly limiting access (which is already occurring on most private lands), expanding hunting seasons that limit hunter harvest (archery or muzzleloader), imposing harvest specific average age of harvest for specific regions or hunt areas, limiting the number of hunters afield (but having more then one season similar to Colorado), eliminating over the counter sales statewide (as do Colorado and Nevada).

One thing remains obvious, if we continue doing the same thing and expect a different result is the definition of insanity
 
I read Adam's article, and agreed with some of his ideas. My personal bias would be to manage for a little higher quality deer hunting in UT ( NOT the same level of quality we manage for with elk in UT! ). However, Adam also made some claims that just don't have much information to back them up. For example he talked a lot about deer pops in CO, but NV has super high buck to doe ratios in lots of their units and still don't have high fawn recruitment rates. The LE units in UT that have high buck to doe ratios don't necessarily have higher fawn recruitment rates than some of the areas within the general season units.

I tried to find data from CO that showed an increase in productivity due to increased buck numbers. There have been a couple of studies done in Colorado looking at relationships between buck to doe ratios and fawn to doe ratios. One of the studies published in 2001 (White et al. Effect of adult sex ratio on mule deer and elk productivity in Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:543-551) showed that increasing from a buck to doe ratio of 10/100 to 40/100 would result in an additional 7.4 fawns per 100 does. Do you realize what kind of hunter reductions would be necessary to move a deer herd from 10 bucks per 100 does to 40? Huge tag cuts would be necessary to grow an additional 7.4 fawns per year, is it worth it?

Another study published in 2005 (Bishop et al. Effect of limited antlered harvest on mule deer sex and age ratios. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(2):662-668) showed that limiting hunter numbers and the subsequent increase in buck to doe ratios actually resulted in a decrease of 7.51 fawns per 100 does. In that study, the area they looked at went from an average of 3,277 hunters every year to 653 hunters every year. That is a lot of hunting opportunity given up, 2,600 hunters had to find new units or quit hunting mulies, and in this case it didn't even result in an increase to the deer population. It did increase the buck to doe ratio, buck age class, and hunter success and satisfaction rates. In a unit with habitat limitations reducing buck harvest could actually slow population growth. Additional bucks would out-compete fawns and does for resources, which would slow reproduction and fawn recruitment.

I almost wish I could find more data that backed up what Adam was saying, as reducing hunter numbers would be an easy fix to our deer population problems in the west. I just think there is so much more to it than that. Weather is probably the biggest driver of mule deer population dynamics and only Al Gore and his groupies think we have any control there. This would be a neat area to see the F&G do more research and experimentation in, but for now there just isn't a lot of information to support some of the ideas Adam shares. I do wish we didn't hunt our deer quite so hard in UT, but that is based on personal preference, not biology.

Overall, it was a good read with an interesting perspective.

Dax
 
Smokestick, no, I did not attend, but did help develop some of the presentation materials. And, yes, the information on buck ratios and fawn recruitment was part of what I (and Daxter since) was trying to point out: high buck ratios do not necessarily increase fawn ratios, and in Colorado's case, the reverse has been observed.

Tom Keegan
Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
From Packout: "So to make the overall state have a 25 per 100 ratio we would have to cut tags how drastically? By 50%? Maybe 80%?"

It depends on current buck ratios, population potential (fawn recruitment), and current hunter numbers, but 70-90% reduction in hunter numbers is not an unreasonable estimate. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I believe Utah reduced statewide hunter numbers by something like 50-55% in the mid 1990s.

Part of the problem is that hunter success and buck harvest do not respond to hunter numbers in a 1 to 1 (linear) way. In most all situations, dropping hunter numbers causes increases in hunter success, so you have to cut hunter numbers disproportionately more to actually see a decline in harvest.

If you look at the best case scenario Daxter referenced (Gary White's modelling work in CO) with an increase of 7.4 fawns when buck ratios go from 10 to 40 and do the math assuming a stable population, you'll find that although there would be more bucks on the hill and the fawn ratio is higher, there are actually FEWER total fawns produced. And that matches what has actually happened in CO on the ground - the extra bucks replace some does and fawns and you can end up in a downward spiral because overall herd produciton is actually going down. Note, this assumes that habitat is limiting population size.

Tom Keegan
Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
Tom-- Excellent post. That is exactly what I was trying to say in my post. Every time hunter numbers are significantly reduced, the success rate increases (Utah limited entry units for example). And (according to Utah's published numbers) the units with the highest buck to doe ratios do not produce more fawns than the units with the lowest buck to doe ratios. That is why I feel, for Utah to reach a buck doe ratio of 25 (from 15) we would have to cut at least 50% of the tags and maybe as high as 80%. Again, great post.

-------------------------
www.sagebasin.com
-------------------------
 
What about older hunters, like my parents, who need that access to enjoy hunting like us youngsters? What makes you think the anti's and treehuggers will stop there? You will be playing their game and they would love to shut it all down. Access, hunting, trapping, hounds, ect... The national forests are PUBLIC land for everyone, not just hardcore hunters like us. Sucks but true! Let's not ruin it for older or handicapped folkes who cannot(notice i didnt say wont) hike in ten miles.
 

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