Utah deer hunt changes cont.

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-09 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]I don't like cutting opportunity to go deer hunting, I like to go every year put in my time work my butt off for a chance at a good buck, hasn't happened yet but when it does it will be all the better.

We can manage every unit in the state to equal or better than the Henry mtns. But that means you hunt deer in Utah every 5 to 10 years or more. I'm not willing to do that.

I want a 200 inch buck as bad if not more than anyone here but I'm not willing to give up hunting every year for it. Its going to turn even more into a money game! Let's keep it so more people have the chance to hunt every year and put in for premium tags for the chance at a buck of your dreams.

Btw deer herds in the southern and southeast are above capacity that's why doe hunts are being implemented. Don't believe everything you read on here. Take the time and call your local dwr office and talk to a biologist they will be more than happy to answer any and all of your questions.

 

[need4x4]

What ever anyone says, the deer herd in the southern zone is not at capacity!!!

I don't believe that.

It might be at objective, those are very different numbers.

 

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-09 AT 08:03PM (MST)[p]Capacity is only as much as winter range can support! Its at capacity and doe tags will start to inch up in numbers till the herd gets back to objective.

 

[Christian]

justr_86

You're talking common sense, so be careful.

The same thing happened here in Idaho in the early 90's. F&G listened to hunters cry about not enough big bucks blah blah blah so F&G offered to end our general deer season in October rather than mid-November in exchange for opening more late buck hunts. We bit and now we'll never enjoy a good general season in Idaho again (many on this site say Idaho's is the worst.)

The late buck hunts we were promised have odds of less than 5% and the general sucks for most people. Everyone is now crying for point system which will not help a bit for these high odds hunts.

For most southern Idaho our buck:doe ratios didn't improve as promised with the closure of our November dates; all we did is create a premium opportunity for a few permit holders.

Two of our biologists here in the Upper Snake region admit the November closure did not work (Daryl Meints and Justin Naderman (ret)).

My point, justr_86 is right. Think hard and do research before you jump on the bandwagon of sacrificing opportunity so you can have a better chance at a big buck. It didn't work very well here.

Look at how much opportunity had to be sacrificed to make the Henry's the area that it is. Virtually none of you reading this post will ever draw there. Even if an area could have half the big deer the Henrys have, the number of hunters able to hunt there would be nill and draw odds terrible- just like Idaho's late buck hunts and unit 45.

I'm not saying Utah shouldn't act, just don't be decieved that giving up hunting opportunity for several years will make getting a big buck easier.


The Christian

 

[JakeH]

I cant speak for the south, but up here in the NorthEast the deer numbers are way down, I dont care what anyone says they are, and there is room for more.




Jake H. SHED OR DEAD IT DONT MATTER TO ME!!!

 

[Muley_73]

The reason for doe tags down south is to make the landowners happy. NOT cut numbers. The numbers are way down. To make a comment about getting your info from the DWR kind of discredits anything said! To make a comment like that is really unbelievable. Yet again another hunter letting has personal need to hunt Utah's general hunt every year sway better judgement. I really do not think we will make positive changes in this state with the mind set of our general sportsmen. We are unwilling to make sacrifices and we will leave nothing for our children. SAD SAD SAD!!!

 

[Skeet]

If you want great buck hunting follow Colorado's lead. You must limit the harvest of bucks to increase buck doe ratio's and to increase the number of mature bucks available to harvest. Its common sense. There are more and more guys wanting a quality hunt, not just a trophy hunt but a quality hunt. This being a large number of bucks in the field to hunt. A sacrifice has to be made somewhere to make this possible.

 

[justr_86]

Jake, Deer in the Northeast are about 60-70 percent objective.

Muley, Do you have any idea how much money the state pays to landowners for property damage due to deer? There is 1 full time employee and 1 part time seasonal employee handling this, go out spotlight and count deer in the field of who is complaining, Get an average deer number in the field and pay so much per buck,doe,fawn. You have to be able to prove deer numbers to implement a doe hunt and that has been done! Why cant the state make money on the deer instead of paying money out? That makes sense to me.

Skeet, Ya you must limit the harvest of bucks to get mature bucks, That is common sense. Nobody has said a word about cutting the amount of tags. Just making smaller units. And shorter hunts with no scientific facts that shorter hunts leave more deer.

I dont want to lose my opportunity to go hunting every year. Its what I live for! Not everyone is a head hunter and alot of people like to hunt for time in the mtns and time with family. Its an excuse to get out and go camping for alot of people and if you make it so damn hard to go then people will quit going! That is not good for our sport! Eventually working our way into not being able to hunt!

 

[muley75]

I have to agree that we need to change the way that deer herds are being managed. I find it interesting justr_86 that you said that you spoke to the DWR about objective and deer numbers. The biologist I have spoke too say they have never done a official deer count in Utah ever. They simple pulled a number out of thin air 20 years ago and plugged it into there computer system. I live in southern Utah. I used to see thousands of deer, then hundreds, and now if you go you see 10-20 deer. I asked Anis Aoude the Big Game Coordinator about there proposal this year to the Wild Life Board if this would help or hurt the deer herd. He said "he didn't know or care we only manage for opportunity." You bring up opportunity. Because of mismanagement the Henry's exist today. In the 1960's the Henry's was incredible unit, but then they let sportsman shoot it completely out. At one time you could shoot 2-5 deer some say up to 11 deer on that unit. Then all of a sudden the deer were gone and the unit had to be closed. We are on the same path through out the state. I am willing to do what every it takes to get deer herds increasing. Each area has unique issue, such as winter range, freeways, housing development, predators. The only way to manage is to divide the areas so they can be manage. justr_86 I agree with you on the point that not every unit needs to be managed for 200 inch deer I oppose that completely as well and I think most of us pushing for smaller units would agree. But until deer numbers start increasing something has to change!

 

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-09 AT 11:18AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-09 AT 10:37?AM (MST)

I agree that something needs to change but I don't think this is the way to do it. I do stay pretty up to date from friends working for the Dnr both in the northeast and southern.

The biologists we have know what they are doing and know what it takes to have a healthy deer herd but its sportsman and sportsmans groups that are uneducated in managing deer herds calling the shots. A deer herd that is 50/100 ratio is an unhealthy herd, they can't recover as fast after a bad winter, poaching, predator problems, etc. Any biologist will tell you bucks are only good for 2 things breeding does, making money for the state other than that all they do is eat food does need to raise fawns. Then you run into overgrazing with too many deer. We have more summer range than will ever be needed but winter range is in short supply and getting smaller by the day.

There are other ways of managing for more deer without shortening the season.

1. Too many elk. They are over running the deer, they are bigger take more food and who wins the competition for food?

2. Poaching has to stop! Make a mandatory 30 days in jail and $10,000 fine and double that for every animal after and no hunting rights ever after that!

3. Habitat enhancements. Fences on highways. Guzzlers to draw deer to less inhabited areas.

4. Units need to be managed by unit not by state. Utah needs to work on this. (not by making smaller units. This concentrates hunters.)

5. Work on more walk in acccess to private property to take care of problem deer.




Its been proven shorter hunts don't decrease the amount of deer taken. It just makes it harder for people to go and people that just like to go but don't eat breathe and sleep hunting are suffering and so is the sport of hunting. I fully believe we are working our way towards not being able to hunt anymore!

 

[Muley_73]

justr,
All valid points on what will help the herd. But I don't believe anybody is asking for 50/100 ratio. But how can you say that 5 or 10/100 is health.

The DWR has only managed for money in the past. This is the words right out of their own mouths. I have seen them make decisions completely oppisite of what their own boilogists have proposed. Smaller units only puts more pressure if you put to many hunters on that unit. Well easy fix, don't put as many hunters on that unit. That would be actual managment as opposed to what we have seen in the past.

I am sure you are kept in the loop better than most due to your father in law, but past history shows our herd are shrinking and they have allowed this to happen. They could have made changes for years but have not. They have just buried their heads and said "no it is all good". Well I think the numbers show that they were wrong, whether it was for the reasons you listed or any other, the bottom line is they were wrong!

 

[nebo12000]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-09 AT 11:06AM (MST)[p]IF a management unit is only at 50- 60% of management objective what does it matter if the increase is in the number of bucks. Until a unit gets to its carrying capacity more bucks do not create winter range competetion with does and fawns. If we manage deer biologically to maintain them as a viable species there is no need to have more than 3-5 bucks / 100 does. Is that okay with you if you get to hunt evcery year ? In Geists' Mule Deer book he states that does will choose to breed with the biggest and strongest bucks-- the competetion between mature bucks is essential in getting the best genetics passed on. He even state that bucks with the most impressive headgear will almost always be chosen by the does. The area between what is absolutely needed for the survival of the species and the imploding of the species because of overpopulation is what the DWR grapples with in making management decisions.

 

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-09 AT 11:33AM (MST)[p]How do they not overpressure a unit without cutting tags or moving them to another unit overpressurring that unit? Cutting tags takes opportunity.

15 to 20 per 100 is what's recomended by biologists. We can get back to those numbers without cutting the hunt. Deer will reproduce that's what they have to do to survive. The only sensible way is habitat enhancement and slow or stop winter range development! We don't have the winter range to support deer herds like we had in the 60s. Those were the glory days and that's what everyone wants right? We gotta do a lot for habitat for that to happen.

I think changes are very needed in a very bad way. We are just going the wrong direction!

 

[tstewy]

jstr_86

They need to something they say that the north east is 60-70 percen of its objective that is 40 percent below cut tags = less harvest less harvest = more deer and until we are at or close to objective than they need to cut tags the ne had a huge winter kill so what was the anwser cut tags by 1000 that the increased the year before. they need to make smaller units let those that want to hunt every other or third year have quality and those that want every year have the oppurtunity imo they kill way to many deer on the extended archarey hunt. and the only people who benifit are landowners.imo if you want to go every year apply to differnt states they have to increas the pop.

 

[southslope82]

Something to keep in mind, This applies especially to the NE region I haven't spent as much time in the rest of the state. But Everything is compared to the 100 does 15/100 Buck to Doe ratio or whatever.. It doesn't take a biologist to see that finding the 100 is getting harder and harder the fact is deer are nose diving, Those 100 does aren't doing so well either. Deer as a whole in utah aren't doing so good. Another thing to keep in mind is that Those problem deer don't become problem deer until winter and migration occurs. I am not saying that there doesn't need to be compensation for damage etc.. cause of deer. I think people need to keep in mind that alot of those deperdation property damage does harvested are also the same does that are carrying the future of the herd inside them especially on the winter range cause they are knocked up at this time of the year. Compensation yes but just kill them cause they are a problem at that short time of the year?? NO I agree something needs to be done I just don't know the right answer.

 

[swbuckmaster]

the deer and elk that are getting killed on the depredation units is a bunch of crap.

If you draw one of those tags just try and go to the land owners and get permission. they will tell you to stuff it where the sun dont shine.

go to the the manti extended elk and ask a landowner who has elk allegedly doing damage to his hay fields if you can hunt his property. he will tell you where to go also.

its not about the damage the elk/deer are doing its about getting paid/free government money

if it was about the elk then these property owners would let the average guy on the property anytime. some of these landowners will also receive a le bull tag every year. they however don't have to hunt their own land they get to hunt the whole unit.

Archery is a year round commitment!!

 

[destroyer350]

The problem with Idahos deer numbers isn't loss of opportunity, IT IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE LATE HUNTS!!!!! IDGF gives out far to many late permits for buck and doe hunts. It's to the point in the upper snake river region even the late hunts totally suck! Yes you my be able to find a desent buck but thats a BIG MAYBE! Our deer numbers and quality are terrible.
Before they started late hunts here you could go out and see some very good bucks during the general season, if you weren't hand enough to get one, that was your own fault. No opportunity lost there. If he survived, he bred does and was there for next years hunt. Now he dies because his guard is down,( even an idiot can kill him if he gets enough shots) during this drive by shooting down on the desert! If you're a good hunter, or just get lucky you WILL GET YOUR OPPORTUNITY DURING THE GENERAL SEASON!
Idaho should discontinue any and all late hunts that aren't designed to help controll over populations. If some of these bucks die of old age, more power to'em! I would say same for Utah. Once again OPPORTUNITY DURING THE GENERAL SEASON,EQUALS NO OPPORTUNITY LOST!!!!!

 

[Muley_73]

Southslope,
I agree. The 100 does use to be 10,000 does. We are not near carrying capacity on any units that I know of. Justr is trying to apply a priciple that might work on a health deer herd, but Utahs deer herd is far from healthy. 20/100 is fine, if you have 400,000 deer, but 20/100 when there is only 4/20 actual numbers is terrible!

But hey lets all keep worrying about our opportunity instead of what is right for the deer. Hell, go hunt elk on the general and draw a cow tag. That will give you months in the field! People act like the Utah General Deer Hunt is the only hunting opportunity in the state. It is one of many and it needs a rest right now or we will lose it all together!

 

[Muley_73]

SW,
Wow I might need a second to recover here. I think that might be the first time I have agreed with an entire statement you have posted. Ok I'm better now it passed. Great point I think you hit it on the head!

 

[justr_86]

Late hunts are stupid, agreed.

Cutting tags would be a better way to go than cutting the hunt but that isn't even an option.

Extended archery in the basin should go away for a while. I know I'm going to catch a lot of krap over that statement but its true. Wasatch extended should stay it may be the only healthy deer herd in the state.

The problem we are running into is lost habitat. Where in the state can support a herd of 10,000?

All I'm saying is improve and make better habitat and the herds will come back just as fast as cutting the hunt. They will be better sustained too.

The state should take more steps in letting sportsman hunt problem animals instead of throwing money we supposedly don't have at the problem.

 

[Christian]

Destroyer350,
You said "Before they started late hunts here you could go out and see some very good bucks during the general season,"

I would agree as I originally posted, however, I'm referring that we used to be able to hunt the first week or two of November (season closed on second Sunday of November so between the 8th and the 15th) during the general season. It's my opinion that is one reason our general was better. Now, our season closes when it used to open (the 3rd Wednesday in October). My point is the general is worse in part because of the time of year we're hunting. Look at the success rates between Colorado's 2nd and 3rd seasons for an example. 3rd season almost always has better harvest rates.

We gave up a good time to hunt deer on the hope of having really late hunts when the bucks were easier to get. I agree, now they're too easy to get for the few permit holders lucky enough to draw while the rest of us sit out so they can have a good hunt.

Talk to some of the cow elk hunters in 66 and 69. Most will tell you they see nice to great bucks then and wonder where they were during the general. It's because a good part of that cow season is early and mid-November when we used to be able to hunt general deer. My point, the general does suck, but I think it's due a lot to when the general is. Your thoughts?

For you Utahns, how does all this relate? Many of you are posed to give up general season opportunity. I'm just trying to show you one state where it didn't work. Hopefully it will for you.

The Christian

 

[destroyer350]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-09 AT 06:12PM (MST)[p]>Destroyer350,
>You said "Before they started late
>hunts here you could go
>out and see some very
>good bucks during the general
>season,"
>
>I would agree as I originally
>posted, however, I'm referring that
>we used to be able
>to hunt the first week
>or two of November (season
>closed on second Sunday of
>November so between the 8th
>and the 15th) during the
>general season. It's my
>opinion that is one reason
>our general was better.
>Now, our season closes when
>it used to open (the
>3rd Wednesday in October).
>My point is the general
>is worse in part because
>of the time of year
>we're hunting. Look at
>the success rates between Colorado's
>2nd and 3rd seasons for
>an example. 3rd season
>almost always has better harvest
>rates.
>
>We gave up a good time
>to hunt deer on the
>hope of having really late
>hunts when the bucks were
>easier to get. I
>agree, now they're too easy
>to get for the few
>permit holders lucky enough to
>draw while the rest of
>us sit out so they
>can have a good hunt.
>
>
>Talk to some of the cow
>elk hunters in 66 and
>69. Most will tell
>you they see nice to
>great bucks then and wonder
>where they were during the
>general. It's because a
>good part of that cow
>season is early and mid-November
>when we used to be
>able to hunt general deer.
> My point, the general
>does suck, but I think
>it's due a lot to
>when the general is.
>Your thoughts?
>
>For you Utahns, how does all
>this relate? Many of
>you are posed to give
>up general season opportunity.
>I'm just trying to show
>you one state where it
>didn't work. Hopefully it
>will for you.
>
>The Christian

I do remeber the general in the 1970's going into mid-november, then we had a winter kill in early 80's and they moved the season back to end in Oct., there was one unit (60) that went into the first week of Nov. We killed a few very good bucks late, but most were killed in Oct. Some of these bucks were huge. When they started the late hunts (unit 60A) there has been some great bucks killed over the years, but it has steadily declined in quality and numbers. Since the winter kill in 1992-93 hunting up here has basically sucked. And I have actually talked to a feller with a unit 69 late buck tag this year, he said it didn't taste very good. He said with all the late cow tags and people running around everywhere, the hunt sucked.
All I'm saying to Idaho & Utah is for awhile anyway lets hunt them early, get 10 days of opportunity then leave them alone for awhile until some numbers and quality come back. Maybe thats to simple!

 

[tagsoup]

If Idaho still had a general season that last between the 8th and 15th of november there would be no deer left.

 

[destroyer350]

Christan

I guess my point is, that all these buck are there for everyone to hunt when they are not so easy to find and kill, but everyone gets the opportunity that the division wants to give.

 

[justr_86]

If we go to smaller units which units will be the hamburger units? Pine valley? South slope vernal? Beaver? Panguitch? Wasatch?

What's your plan for that? Or have you thought of one?

 

[Muley_73]

You are correct that some units will probably have too much pressure to start with. But as they manage each unit you would be able to more clearly see which units can handle the added pressure. Right now the entire state is a "hamburger unit". That is what it seems you do not think of?

 

[justr_86]

Its just gonna get worse cause they won't cut tags just move them around.

We are headed in the totally wrong direction with this.

 

[Muley_73]

I believe they should cut tags. But you started this post saying that there was no need to cut tags and you wanted to hunt every year. I am glad you have finally seen the light. Welcome aboard.

 

[swbuckmaster]

You guys will take this as an elitists post but you don't have to cut opportunity or tags you just have to redistribute the way Utah allots the tags. If you cut the rifle tags and increased the archery tags you can still allow the same amount of hunters to hunt every year you just limit their range of weapons and success rates.

still give out 90,000 permits but you allot them 33%rifle/33%muzzy/33%archery

practically every other state in the USA is over the counter archery and Le for rifle.

Archery is a year round commitment!!

 

[JakeH]

SSSSSRRRREEEEECCCCCCHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Good way to bring this topic to a screaching hault SW.

And this is the point of this thread where it goes in a compleatly differnt direction....

VVVRRROOOOOMMMMM!!!

Ohh there it goes....


LOL.


Muley73 I noticed his change of thinking as well, geezz would you make up your mind justr_86.



Jake H. SHED OR DEAD IT DONT MATTER TO ME!!!

 

[swbuckmaster]

sorry back on topic!
the division sucks! we need to cut tags across the board. cut our nuts off while were at it. lol

ooo we need to make smaller units and we need to give out more handicap tags so we can all shoot 4 points out our truck window in November. lol

I know I'm a bad apple

change is hard especially for guys that know how this whole process works. Once we go down the path of smaller units, less tags, we will be looking at our hunting opportunities go down the toilet. you will start hearing people complain it took me five to eight years to draw this general tag and all I saw was 3x4's. this is what is happening already on the book cliffs.

have a good one Jake it is 12:00 and the kids are in bed. got to get busy with the santa gifts.

merry Christmas fellas!!

Archery is a year round commitment!!

 

[justr_86]

That was taken wrong, I dont want tags cut. I meant it as that is the only way it will work and thats another reason not to do it..

I urge everyone to call, get updated on what is really happening instead or rumor and hearsay. Its getting ridiculous! There is gonna be alot of people that jump on the bandwagon and look back and think damn, This aint working. Now the deer hunt sucks and theres really no going back..

 

[Muley_73]

I disagree, don't get on the phone. You will be fed a truth with a spin. Go out and look for yourself. The guys that have been doing this regularly for the past 30 years are the ones screaming there are no deer. I think I'll believe what they are saying over a paid employee with a money intrest in whole affair!

SW,
You are right that more primative tags and less rifle would help. So would changing the muzzy back to a primative hunt ie sidelock open sights. However knowing that you are and archer, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!

 

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-09 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]The truth with what twist? Everybodys best interest instead of a private groups best interest is the only twist I can think of.

Not everyone is a trophy hunter. I try to be. Ate tag soup the last couple years. I don't want my opportunity to leave there are better ways to do this.

Call you won't regret it.

 

[swbuckmaster]

what does be carefull what you wish for mean?

if it is more people will be hunting with a bow and I will have competition?

if that is so then I would welcome it. I already hunt one of the most crowded areas in utah. I never see anyone on the hill! I scouted and hunted this year for 40+ days. In that time I only saw 10 guys on the hill who were hunters. Those 10 guys were all pretty cool. They all asked me where I was going to hunt and we went our separate ways to not bother each other. I get away from the crowds. I mostly hunt on off days. I usually choose to not hunt the weekends and fight the masses.


you guys always label me as a guy that only chooses archery cause Im a die hard archer. that is so far from the truth. If I could hunt with a gun for 4 months a year every year with an over the counter tag and chase/kill monster bucks i would do that in a heart beat! I am pro gun! I own guns! I hunt with guns! I dont want to take away guns!

I however have learned archery is the only way you can have mass opportunity, long seasons, and quality. This is what you all desire. You die hard rifle guys just want to only do it with a rifle.

The only way to have quality, long seasons, for deer with a rifle is to cut tags! The higher quality you want the more tags you have to cut! This is a fact! There are no other ways you can do it. making smaller areas wont do it. cause when you finally see that it didn't work you have to cut tags! You cant do it with shorter seasons either. If I only had 3 days to hunt I would shoot the first buck with horns on it.

Look at the big picture Utah only has a few areas with good habitat for deer. there is a lot of private property. Now look at how many guys can hunt the bookcliffs for the quality it cranks out what 300 rifle tags. now make more of these units all over the state. you will end up with about 5 more units the size of the book cliffs? So what 1,500 guys can hunt with a rifle for bookcliff quality. GET REAL there are 90,000 rifle deer hunters in this state! Ill take it the way it is now and go get a good buck on the rifle/bow hunt.

so I say be careful what you trophy hunters wish for!

Archery is a year round commitment!!

 

[justr_86]

+1 sw.

I also love to bowhunt but won't pass the chance for a rifle hunt.

 

[Muley_73]

SW,
You automatically hole me as a trophy hunter. All I have stated is we need to support a movement to increase overall numbers. I facted there was a time that I only archery hunted and that was for one reason. Better chances for big bucks with less pressure! That has changed for several reasons, one being the area I hunted being slammed with hunters. The other being lack of time to scout and shoot at that time of year due to other commitments. So I started rifle hunting again and started to see the drastic decline in ovrall deer.

You say bring on more hunters as you get away from them in the area you hunt. Well what about if that changes some day and you can not access those areas. Will you still welcome more hunters? You seem to make your judgement off of a small area you hunt instead of looking at the big picture. I still can find big bucks to hunt every archery season, that does not mean I think the herd is health. I think you are more concerned with your personal opportunity than the health of the herd? If this is the case your views will lead to poorer opportunities for my children and I would have to disagree with them.

That being said I believe the best chance for a big buck now and in the future in this state is with a bow. I believe in the future there wil be more opportunity with archery than rifle. Which is the exact reason my 11 year old son got a new Mathews this morning from Old Saint Nick!

 

[swbuckmaster]

muley73
my comments are not directed at you. They are general broad statements.
It is hard to type on the computer and get your point across sometimes.
I am all for increasing the deer herds! lets get them to carrying capacity.

I am for increasing the buck to doe ratio but I am not for cutting back on tags just yet. I know once we go down that road we will never get them back.

This is why instead of just cutting back tags across the board I would rather see them distribute them differently.

I think the division is already managing the units in this state with micro management. look at the nebo unit they cut the days you can hunt. this unit is already in a unit that is located in a much larger unit called the central unit. one thing that get tiring in Utah is you will see a program implemented and the next year the whole program is changed. It never has a chance to get started and the division throws in the towel and starts over.

I am looking out for the future and my kids. if we cut tags then how can you ever get your kids excited about hunting if they can only draw a tag every 5 or more years. heck I cant get excited if that were the case.

Utah does have great opportunity right now. Utah has quality right now. you just might have to work for it or draw the Le tag.
every year you see people with huge bucks on general units. this year to 12 year old boys shot 220 type bucks on general units.

last year a friend of mine and i went looking for a place to hunt with our kids. we looked at a mountain that I thought would have loads of people and poor quality. I saw 6 four points and several other smaller bucks. I also only saw around 10 does. This was all from the truck. we chose to hunt a different area strawberry! we still saw bucks and still got shots. we had a lot of fun!

Archery is a year round commitment!!

 

[Packout]

SW Wrote- "I think the division is already managing the units in this state with micro management. look at the nebo unit they cut the days you can hunt. this unit is already in a unit that is located in a much larger unit called the central unit. one thing that get tiring in Utah is you will see a program implemented and the next year the whole program is changed. It never has a chance to get started and the division throws in the towel and starts over." Everything is correct Scott, except for the fact it is the Wildlife Board that is always changing it. The Wildlife Board accepted the Mule Deer Plan just 5 months ago. Now they are revamping it again- WITHOUT even looking at the current data from this year's hunt.


If a sub-unit or region is already meeting its buck to doe ratio objective, what will micro-management accomplish? The UDWR is going to use the same data to manage.

Once the state of Utah is cut into micro-managed units, each unit will be lobbied for by special interest groups. It will not be long before many units are managed on high-end trophy quality and low-end opportunity. Utah has a different lobbying system than other states. When is the last time one of the major groups has lobbied for increased hunter opportunity? Even when studies show it will benefit the animals? Shouldn't be too hard to figure that one.

I look into my crystal ball and here is what I see happening with MicroUnits in Utah:
-Less opportunity to hunt.
-More bucks, not more doe.
-Slightly higher success rates (they become higher as hunter numbers drop, even if herds remain low).
-Longer waits to draw.
-Less hunter recruitment.
-More Conservation Permits.
-No more statewide archery.
-Less impact to local economies.
-Less families hunting together.
-Slower herd recovery after a winterkill.
-Higher permit fees.
-My kids and grandkids not being able to hunt but every 5 or so years. (The youth opportunities only work for 5 years, then they are lumped in with the rest of us)

 

[c3]

Carrying capacity is based on winter range. More deer require more winter range. How do we get more winter range for our deer?

Buck to doe ratio's are soley determined by tag numbers and harvest rates between weapon types. How do we keep buck to doe ratios without reducing tags or moving tags to weapon types with lower harvest rates?

If these statements are true we have only two things we can do in this state. Buy up winter ground and in the mean time spread tag numbers to lower harvest rate weapons.

Any other option is the loss of opportunity and therefore quality of life for all of us.

Cheers,
Pete

 

[muleystopper]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-09 AT 03:42PM (MST)[p]>Carrying capacity is based on winter
>range. More deer require
>more winter range. How
>do we get more winter
>range for our deer?
>
>Buck to doe ratio's are soley
>determined by tag numbers and
>harvest rates between weapon types.
> How do we keep
>buck to doe ratios without
>reducing tags or moving tags
>to weapon types with lower
>harvest rates?
>
>If these statements are true we
>have only two things we
>can do in this state.
> Buy up winter ground
>and in the mean time
>spread tag numbers to lower
>harvest rate weapons.
>
>Any other option is the loss
>of opportunity and therefore quality
>of life for all of
>us.
>
>Cheers,
>Pete

Well it seems like alot the states funds are used up paying for property damage, as someone stated. It should not be the states responsibility for property damadge in my opinion. The tax dallors we spend on property damages should be used for winter properties and management and development restrictions.
Not paying for someones fence. Also providing adequate winter ranges could divert deer and elk herds from
private properties to state funded ranges witch would result in less private property damages. But more needs to be done than just proper winter ranges.

 

[justr_86]

Some landowners are legit in their requests. Elk get on a property and there is alot of damage to the fields, fences, water troughs, and any tree close.

Most other landowners are just looking for a free handout.

Think long and hard on this proposal before you say yes or no at the meetings.

 

[need4x4]

Way up there, a statement was made along these lines

"smaller units will cause crowding."

This is false.

Smaller units would only get so many tags, so crowding would not be worse. If you have a tag for that unit, then that is the unti you hunt. Very simple.

Also, the units that are hamburger will only be hamburger for a while, if you limit the tags. Just ask Colorado.

Many of you have objective and capacity confused. The one person who said they haven't done a deer count is correct, they just picked a number and called it the objective.

The big deer get killed when some folks have three seasons to get it done. Funny how you don't hear much about that.

 

[justr_86]

How often do you get to hunt Colorado? Every year? Every other? More?

I still don't see how micromanaging won't take away opportunity. You move tags around now the unit you will be able to hunt is across the state.

However you look at this your making it harder for people to go, so they won't. That is not good. You lose money and support.

Why not spend money to improve habitat. Everybody wins. Its not going to happen overnight but it will and it will be awesome when it does.

 

[swbuckmaster]

well said packout! that is exactly what I wanted to say but it never comes out right.
You must be looking into the same crystal ball im looking into.

Archery is a year round commitment!!

 

[utfireman]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-27-09 AT 06:46PM (MST)[p]If the mico units will manage the amount of people on a given unit then I am all for it. As it stands right now, all central tag holders can hunt one specific area.

There are alot of hunters who move hunting area's based on their internet "scouting", and other reports from the past year. They flood to these new area's and take alot of the younger bucks, because they don't want to go home empty handed.

I don't think they need to decrease tag numbers, but they need to regulate the amount of hunters on a given unit at a given time.

 

[JakeH]

+1 ut Fireman, they need to make it so you cant hunt on one mountin one day and then go to another mountain the next.

As is now the hunters flock to where the deer are, shooting out an area and moveing on to the next to do the same thing.



Jake H. SHED OR DEAD IT DONT MATTER TO ME!!!

 

[bigthree]

Packout you make some good points but lets 1st look at you're kids drawing out less, My son drew out 3 times from age 14 to 18 so if you think that the same plan in is better than mirco units it cant be any worse than what we have now, us as dads brothers have to do a good job to keep are kids interested in hunting, 2nd you talk about the nebo unit they changed the days to 5 and in the middle of the week .So what did that do, it put more pressure on the rest of the central unit.we can sit here and think micro units don't work, they do work in colorado and they have good deer #s and elk #s they both can coexist. I do agree that divison does jump to soon out of the unit.that they aretrying to make better and by the way were we hunt alot of extra pressure was in our area so now they can make it three day like they use to have. after to much pressure.

 

[swbuckmaster]

once you guys go down the road with micro managment/Le tags It is going to cost you your opportunity and the trophy hunters wont be satisfied with the 15 bucks per 100 does. lets face it we all don't care about the does so to speak we want bucks to shoot. So saying micro managment will fix the problem is a farce. It wont do anything for buck numbers especially if you keep the tag numbers the same. the only way it has been proven in Utah to increas buck numbers and quality is by limiting hunters "le units" or weapon range archery only areas.

managing these micro areas for better than 15 bucks to 100 does will cost you a considerable amount of opportunity. all you have to do is look at the bookcliffs and see they are what 25 bucks to 100 does. that whole area only has about 300 tags and those rifle hunters already complain it isn't good enough.

 

[Hornhog2]

I don't see how micro-managing smaller units hurts opportunity?
It may cost opportunity in small areas for a small amount of time, but those tag numbers could go to another thriving unit. You don't have to sacrifice opportunity, but you have to control execessive pressure in struggling areas.

I don't feel I have to kill a deer every year. But when I go hunting, I would like a good experience and a chance at a decent buck. As far as opportunity goes, if I don't get to go deer hunting in Utah one year or two, I'll go elk hunting or something else. There is ample opportunity for a good hunting experience in Utah.

 

[utfireman]

Scott, micro units does not have to mean a loss of hunting. All it will do is control the amount of people on a given unit. There can still be 96,000 tags given. Sure some people might have to shift their hunting units, but everyone at sometime or another has had to change how or where they hunt.

Right now there is no regulation on the amount of people allowed on a given area. Area's get shot out when people "hot spot", In Utah this has happened in the Deep Creeks, Book Cliffs, Henries and many other places. Wyoming is facing the same issue with the resident hunters. Here in Utah when this happens an area is turned into a LE to keep it from being shot out again. Right now we have some area's that are close to having this happening again. The Stansbury, Nebo and Oquirrh Range are close to being shut down due to low buck-to-doe ratio.

You talk about losing opportunity, I think shooting out and area will do more harm then a having a little hunter managment. Again, 96,000 hunters could still be allowed to hunt. They just need to limit how many hunters go into a certain area.

 

[Packout]

Bigthree- In my first post I already stated that the youth get an opportunity for 5 years, then they are lumped in with the rest of us. I also agree with you, the mid-week start for the five day hunts was a poor decision. I disagree with your Colorado analogy. Colorado has some big bucks and some great units (so does Utah). Colorado is also much different than Utah in both habitat, escapement, and management. Colorado has bigger bucks, more bucks, because they issue 80,000 permits for a herd of 450,000+. Micro-units did not bring back Colorado, rather it was issueing far fewer permits. Colorado issues 1 tag for every 5+ deer while Utah issues one tag for every 3 deer. Utah would have to cut permits by about 30,000+ to see Colorado's quality. That is where the real opportunity will be lost, when permits are cut to increase buck numbers, which will do nothing to increase deer herd productivity. Carrying more bucks does not create a more productive herd-- just ask biologists from Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, and even Utah.

UT- The Nebo is no where close to being shut down. It is currently meeting the objectives and is back to the established length. We have all see what happened when elk micro-units were created. The herd was never allowed to be managed to the objectives. Special interest groups lobbied for each unit to be conservative. Now we sit with over age objective, smaller bulls (than 5 years ago), and 20+ year waits to draw. That is the road we are headed down. Utah's management system is different than all the other states, where lobbying plays a larger part in management than does biology.

Finally, I'll ask the question again: If a sub-unit or region is already meeting its buck to doe ratio objective, what will micro-management accomplish? The UDWR is going to use the same data to manage. If the Wasatch sub-unit is at 15+ bucks per 100 doe with 5,000 hunters then it will still have 5,000 hunters. Those hunters can hot-spot within the unit.

The system can not be changed because hunters question the data, while using the same data to managed the "new" system.

 

[utfireman]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-09 AT 11:58PM (MST)[p]>>>>If the Wasatch sub-unit is at 15+ bucks per 100 doe with 5,000 hunters then it will still have 5,000 hunters. Those hunters can hot-spot within the unit.>>>>>

Pack- I meant Monroe instead of Nebo.

As it stands right now, the DWR does not regulate the amount of people on a sub-unit. Tag numbers are set unit wide. If you look at the Central unit there is around 15,000 hunters between the rifle and muzzy seasons. Those 15,000 hunters come and go every year, they move units and they take their toll on deer in some area's.

I have seen it first hand when a unit gets shot out. People hear about an area and the flock to it, this has happened to the Deep Creeks, Stansbury, and above Alpine. Hunters come to these area's, they hunt them for a couple of years and then they are off to the new hot spot. Meanwhile the extra pressure and extra hunters have taken a toll on the deer. Most of these hunters are willing to take anything with horns so that they don't go home empty handed. Now add in a harsh winter or two and you now have a subunit that is in real trouble. It's facing human harvest and winter kill, your buck to doe ratio just went down even more.

I am not for taking away those 97,000 general season tags, but I do think they need to limit those 97,000 hunters a little more then to the 5 units that we have now . It would be nice if we could keep your 5000 hunters in certain areas each year, But both you and I know that it doesn't and wont happen.

 

[nebo12000]

Packout- according to the DWR's own website the Nebo unit objective is 22,600. The 2007 count was 10,900 2008 count was 11,000. I think there is room for more animals, even if you think that the population objective is too high. At this point doing what we can for the next few years to increase buck numbers really won't cause a situation where bucks are competeing with does and fawns for winter forage. The real key here though is to figure out how to increse the herd size. I personally believe that increasing predator removal on this unit is without a doubt the key. There are not any doe permits on the unit except in a small area on agricultural lands near Levan, so hunters are not really having an impact on doe numbers. That leaves other predators as the main culprit in dwindling herd numbers. I am sure that the majority of predator kills are does. A great number of them would be pregnant does, so they are killing 3 deer in many instances. Until we can get the production numbers up, I see no reason to not allow the buck numbers to increase by limiting tags and season lengths.

 

[Packout]

Nebo- Come on, you are better than putting words in people's mouths on an internet forum. I think there is room for more deer also, never said I didn't. Don't put those words on my back. Why arn't there more deer on the Nebo? Elk or habitat? Predators? Cars and net fencing? Last time I checked, bucks do not have fawns. Carrying more bucks will do nothing to increase the productivity of Utah's mule deer herd. What you propose would simply eliminate thousands of hunters' opportunity to hunt. It will not put more fawns on the ground. How do we put more fawns on the ground and keep them alive to have fawns? That is the million dollar question. Now predators, that is a whole different thread.

Micro-Units have not even been put in place yet and we have lobbying to reduce hunters on individual units.

 

[justr_86]

Limiting season lengths doesn't effect the number of deer taken. Shorter seasons make people feel pressured to take any buck.

 

[Muley_73]

I believe shorter seasons will save deer. I hope the weather is terrible on the first three days and it will lower harvest even more. Shorter seasons will not affect opportunity they just limit pressure. If they do not why only a 9 day hunt all of these years instead of a 25 or 30 day like Idaho? I will decrease harvest and pressure.

 

[nebo12000]

>Nebo- Come on, you are better
>than putting words in people's
>mouths on an internet forum.
> I think there is
>room for more deer also,
>never said I didn't.
>Don't put those words on
>my back. Why arn't
>there more deer on the
>Nebo? Elk or habitat?
> Predators? Cars and
>net fencing? Last time
>I checked, bucks do not
>have fawns. Carrying more
>bucks will do nothing to
>increase the productivity of Utah's
>mule deer herd. What
>you propose would simply eliminate
>thousands of hunters' opportunity to
>hunt. It will not
>put more fawns on the
>ground. How do we
>put more fawns on the
>ground and keep them alive
>to have fawns? That
>is the million dollar question.
> Now predators, that is
>a whole different thread.
>
>Micro-Units have not even been put
>in place yet and we
>have lobbying to reduce hunters
>on individual units.
Packout-- sorry if you thought I was trying to put words in your mouth. I wasn't trying to. I thought it would be helpful to have the numbers the DWR uses.
Be assured that the Wildlife Board will be taking a hard look at implementing some strategies to increase herd numbers and buck numbers. There are a number of units in the state that are really struggling and some of them have no real winter range habitat problems. The Nebo unit is experiencing a very low fawn/doe ratio also. Fawn production is struggling on the unit. Do you have any suggestions on how to increase production ?

 

[Packout]

Nebo- It is good to see population objective numbers. Can you imagine what the buck quality and opportunity would be if those population objectives were attainable. I really believe that the plan set forth by the deer committee will protect our buck herd enough to offer opportunity while protecting a reproductive buck herd. I am a believer in managing Sub-units within a Region using shortened hunts (not implemented as before) and 10% permit reductions in regions. I just wish the plan had a chance to be used, rather than scrap it within 6 months of its adoption.

The problem is the confusion between carrying more bucks and herd productivity, including fawn production. Controlling hunters only helps the buck numbers, which do not help herd reproduction (if there were already enough bucks to breed the doe population). Colorado and Nevada have studies showing that increased buck numbers does not increase herd productivity, in fact too many bucks can hurt a population.

Predator management, vehicle loss, removing net fencing, and habitat improvment are the quickest ways to grow a herd. Cougars were killing the sheep on Timp so they shot 40+ cats From Dry Creek in Alpine to Provo canyon. The following years that deer herd increased, all during the 500 year drought. Growing the herd's productivity does not start by cutting buck hunters (if there are enough bucks to breed the doe population)

 

[swbuckmaster]

I totally agree with packout on this. the only way you will see increased buck numbers is cutting out hunters = Loss of opertunity. spreading them out is a band-aide.

Cougars are a major factor
All you have to do is look at the draw odds on this sight to see that the Nebo central area is one of the best and most sought after cougar permits. This to me means they are killing p&y and b&c toms. people that are hard core cougar guys dont kill female cats. They want trophy cats! When you have trophy anything you have loads of throw a way cats. I dont care what the cat guys say we need to thin them out in that unit.

Archery is a year round commitment!!