Instead of point restrictions!

cantkillathing

Very Active Member
Messages
1,453
We have had the debate a milion times on this site about point restrictions and it goes in circles.

What about this idea, if everyone is wanting to see more quality bucks on the general season units, why dont we work on getting the buck to doe ratio up, the plane is 15 bucks per 100 does on general season units, Lets up that to 25 bucks per 100 does and then everyone will be satisfied, more deer, more bucks, and more quality.

Change the LE units from the 25/100 to 35/100. When you draw a LE tag it should be something worth drawing for, Like the Henry's, there is no reason that our LE units shouldn't be producing more 200+inch bucks Lets get utah back on board with bigger bucks. We already have the big stinky bulls, top state when it comes to bulls.
 
That sounds great, but I have sat in a RAC meeting and heard the biologist say that they manage the General Season Units to make sure that there is enough bucks to breed the does for the next year. One guy brought up the fact that some units wasn't even close to the buck to doe ratio.The Biologist said that the bucks could still breed all the does and it wasn't a concern.
 
i went out saturday morning and evening looking for deer. i seen around 250 deer. 3 bucks in all. a one horned spike, a spike and a two point. whats up with that?


GO BIG or GET OFF the Mountain!
 
Sounds like you found the Doe's, What is stupid is that the DWR are going to make their recommendations in the RACS this month with out getting a count on the buck to doe ratio. Shouldn't they discuss next years hunting after they have had a valid count of the deer herds and what the Buck/doe ratio is?
 
A couple questions for you.

1)If the buck/doe ratio goes up, how does this mean "more deer"? I would think this would mean in 'most' cases fewer deer.

2)The RAC's that start tomorrow is NOT where they recommend tag numbers, nor is it where they decide buck/doe ratios. Tag numbers are recommended in the spring, and buck/doe ratios are decided by the Deer Management Committee that will start meeting in January. So, when should the Bucks and Bulls RAC's be held? Before or after the proclamations come out? Counts are done in March generally, to do counts now would be unwise and costly. The deer/elk are still being hunted, and the animals are scattered more so than in March when they are on winter range, which is more wide open and easier to get accurate counts.

3)Higher buck/doe ratios would mean FEWER tags issued. It would also mean FEWER deer on MOST units/regions. Is this the direction we really want to go?

PRO
 
PRO,

Are there any limited entry areas that have seen a decrease in total herd population since buck to doe ratios were set at a minimum of 25/100?

Just curious, I don't know the answer.
 
The fact is that the biologist job as a biologist is to make sure that mule deer herds are at at least minimum ratios
( buck/doe), and within total numbers that the habitat can sustain successfully. Anything over 2 bucks per 100 does is considered excess bucks in biological terms. That is where you and I come in to the management discussion. We are the customer, our $$$ fund the major portion of the DWR budget.
If the majority of the hunting public wants higher buck/doe ratios we must be proactive in demanding the type of restrictions that will help that to occur. Increasing higher buck/doe ratios is actually very beneficial to deer herds up to a certain level. According to V. Geist, does will choose to breed with the biggest, most impressive buck, simply because of the innate mechanism in a doe which tells her that this buck has the best genes that will help the species to have the best chance to survive.

The DWR tries to balance the state so that those who just want to hunt - opportunity- and those who want to hunt bigger bucks - quality-.
As long as we are willing to sacrfice opportunity in some areas, higher buck/doe ratios can be achieved responsibly without compromising herd health. But I believe that the DWR must be willing to have additional smaller management units within each region that can be managed for higher ratios. I believe it can be done without eliminating alot of opportunity overall. This is a good time to get out and get some momentum on this going because the process is just starting to rewrite the 5 year deer management plan that will be implemented in '08.
 
Prism, I am not sure. One thing to remember, I believe the LE units are below herd population carrying capacity and have little/no depredation issues. On an area where the herd is close to carrying capacity and where depredation is an issue, the number of deer is LIMITED, if you have a higher buck/doe ratio on such as area, there would be fewer does, which would mean fewer fawns born each year. Good question, I'll see if I can find an answer for you.

Nebo, good post as usual.

PRO
 
I'm not a biologist (one class short from USU for a biology minor though). But what I do have is a lot of in the field experience throughout most of the western states.

From my own experience, units and areas with high buck to doe ratios have healthier herds. There's a better mix of age structure within a herd, recruitment seems to be better, the deer just seem to be healthier with most does having twin fawns, etc. etc.....

Why Utah wants to reinvent the wheel when it comes to deer management doesn't make sense when Colorado has made it plain and simple what it takes to grow deer, big deer, little deer, and everything in between.

Colorado faces the same habitat issues we do. They face the same predation issues we do.

They (CDOW) just had the nads to do what needed to be done. Sure it pissed a lot of people off at first, but you sure don't see many people complaining now.
 
proutdoors, I dont see how raising the buck to doe ratio will limit the amount of deer, it would if it were an outragoues number like the elk herds, but when the deer herd is at a minimum of buck to doe ratio it is not going to hurt the deer population to raise it to 25/100.
The five day hunt has been working in southeastern region, but I agree it needs to be smaller units to help the herds meet that objective, I dont think they need to go as small as colorado, but southeaster region could be split into 3 units easily, the blue mountains as the southern part, la sal the central and up by price as a northern.
Supposively the san juan area was at the 20 buck per 100 does this year, but thanks to the publication from the DWR the deer got the crap knocked out of them and probably dropped it way below objective now.
Anyway prout you seem to have all the ideas, what is your plan to meet the sportsmans needs, hunters want more bucks in the field, and they want more opportunity, how does not raising the bucks to 25 per hundred meet that objective?
 
Prout and I am not attacking you, just wanting to know what your agenda is for the deer herds.

you wouldn't have to limit hunters afield to meet this objective,

Again it sounds as though several areas in the state were already above the 15 bucks, if we continue on the same path we could reach a higher goal,or tweek the plan a little without decreasing the amount of tags given. The DWR only wanted to go to the 9 day hunt because we were already above the 15/100. The funny thing now is that they have issued some study saying that a 5 day hunt did more harm than good, that wasn't what they were saying when they wanted to go back to the 9 day hunt, they said that the 5 day had helped the buck to doe ratio and that going to a 9 day hunt wouldn't hurt the herd much because we could afford to take more bucks now, since that didn't work out they have issued some study, probably false study, to try and push through a 9 day hunt.
 
Prism, I'm not a biologist either, though I did take many biology classes/seminars over the years.

I agree that having a good mix of different age classes in the herd is healthy, and DOES indeed increase fawn recruitment, due mainly to does being bred during the first estrus cycle. The problem is, MOST Utah deer hunters want to hunt every year, and are NOT as concerned with antler size as they are on the ability to hunt. I am NOT part of this group or mindset, but do we manage for the vocal minority, or the silent majority?

Colorado has a deer herd double the size of Utah's and issues basically the same number of tags, to do the same here, we would have to cut general buck tags to less than 50,000, meaning 40,000-50,000 hunters would NOT be able to hunt that can currently do so know. What do you do with them? Colorado has unlimited OTC elk tags to 'appease' the hunters unable to get a deer tag. Utah hunters do NOT have that option. Colorado has habitat way different than Utah, Colorado has nowhere near the amount of desert that Utah has, water is a MAJOR limiting factor for deer health/numbers in Utah.

PRO
 
cantkillathing wrote: "Prout and I am not attacking you, just wanting to know what your agenda is for the deer herds."

Right, that is why you use "prout", all on the up and up.;-)

My "agenda" for the deer herds is to help them be healthy and be utilized in ways to allow the maximum number of tags that will allow the herds to be healthy and provide some 'trophy' class bucks on general season hunts. How best to do that is open for debate. I do NOT think our deer should be managed like the elk are. That would reduce way to much opportunity for the average hunter. We have to look at ways that will allow for a good well balanced herd w/o taking away opportunity. I think that is possible, but it will not be easy. I have seen many suggestions that are good starts, others that I believe would take the deer and the deer hunters in the wrong direction.

PRO
 
PRO-

You hit the nail on the head with Colorado's deer herd size and tag numbers.....it really isn't that scientific to see why they have the best mule deer hunting in the World.

I'll agree somewhat on the habitat issue, but not 100%.

I don't think that cutting tag numbers in half in Utah is the right thing to do either, but I do think we should seriously look at cutting the amount of deer harvested. There's a lot of ways to accomplish this.

I don't buy into the DWR saying that more deer are killed during a 5 day hunting season than a 9 day season. If this is the case then why not make the hunt longer than 9 days? Why not split the seasons like Colorado then??? Reduce some of the overcrowding by spreading out the hunters over a longer time period.

The trend is starting to change. More and more of Utah's hunters want quality deer hunting.

Like I've said before, all good intentions are just that. It's going to take SFW or/and the MDF to get any major changes pushed through the RACS, and it seems most attention goes to elk, OIL species, and making money......
 
I agree that there are ways to reduce the harvest numbers w/o losing opportunity, and we NEED to work on getting that done.

I also agree with the 5 vs 9 day hunt harvest numbers. I REALLY like how Colorado had an archery season, a muzzy season that takes place during the archery season, and FOUR rifle seasons. These reduces over-crowding, makes it a more enjoyable hunt while lowering the harvest numbers. First season is 7 days, second season is 5 days, then a 'rest period', third season is 5 days, and fourth season is 7 days. GREAT IDEA!

PRO
 
in my opinion i think the number of general buck rifle tags in southern Utah should be dropped from 18,000 tags to something way lower. but i dont see that happening in the future because the fish'n game will lose money and we all know they dont want that.


GO BIG or GET OFF the Mountain!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-07 AT 06:28PM (MST)[p]>We have had the debate a
>milion times on this site
>about point restrictions and it
>goes in circles.
>
>What about this idea, if everyone
>is wanting to see more
>quality bucks on the general
>season units, why dont we
>work on getting the buck
>to doe ratio up, the
>plane is 15 bucks per
>100 does on general season
>units, Lets up that
>to 25 bucks per 100
>does and then everyone will
>be satisfied, more deer, more
>bucks, and more quality.
>
>Change the LE units from the
>25/100 to 35/100. When you
>draw a LE tag it
>should be something worth drawing
>for, Like the Henry's, there
>is no reason that our
>LE units shouldn't be producing
>more 200+inch bucks Lets get
>utah back on board with
>bigger bucks. We already
>have the big stinky bulls,
>top state when it comes
>to bulls.

+1000.

Utah's general deer hunt is a JOKE! I haven't bought a general deer tag since 1999 and I won't until something changes. The DWR's claims on their post-season buck:doe ratios is WAY off. I'd say the 3:100 case is closer to accurate. Some serious tag cutting needs to be done. If cutting tags in half is what's needed, then do it. And don't tell me about the whiners who then won't have the opportunity to hunt. Too bad. What about those of us who aren't interested in shooting a baby? Where's our opportunities? Oh, the Henry's, I forgot.
 

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