Close the deer hunt?

fishon

fishon

Very Active Member
Messages
1,052
This is what I hear everyday from people. "Close the hunt for 2-5 years and then cut the tags in half and it will fix everything".

Gentlemen that statement could not be further from the truth.

If you close the deer hunt statewide for 2 years it will save roughly 24,000 BUCKS.

SO over 2 years that will be about 48,000 Bucks.

It will not grow 1 more doe or fawn.

So it will put more bucks pushing does around and harassing them, it will put more bucks on the winter range eating food and it will stress the deer out more all the while doing NOTHING for the overall health of the herd. It will also feed the lions and coyotes and let them explode as well.

So it will make more bucks but it won't help the dire situation deer are in.

The Henry Mountain is a prime example. Shut it down for 5 years then open it and only let 40 people hunt it. Sure there are 42 bucks per 100 does and giant bucks but you only have 1000 does. And NO ONE gets to hunt it unless you are rich or have 15 deer bonus points.

Can't you see that? BUCKS DON'T MATTER!!!!!

Someone please admit they understand this. WE NEED MORE DOES not bucks if we are gonna save the deer herd. If you build the population then the big bucks will be there..... GUARANTEED!

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
 
JUDAS FRICKEN PRIEST!

Yes we need more Does!

But tell me this?

Why the Hell all the Doe permits over the years?

Couldn't the MDF see this years ago & stop all the BS Doe Hunts?

God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
 
I agree with B-BOP.....about who should of been cutting doe tags, MDF, SFW, UBA and other groups are to blame in my opinion you are our voice and in most situations its not our voice being herd its those who are over these groups. I agree to cut tags the hunting doesn't need to stop and quit killing does unless there is a huge problem not a budget issue, oh and increase the damn lion permits and kill them all and lets put a bounty on coyotes and make it worth it!
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-10 AT 06:22PM (MST)[p]I mentioned one specific unit. It was decimated once before then closed. The unit was the best in the world when it reopened, now they have 70 rifle tags. I would be all for the closer, but leave the management hunt open. The big deer will return.
 
I read a study from when they shut the bookcliffs down. Atleast I think it was the bookscliffs. I remember it was one of the units that they shut down in utah for awhile. But the one thing that the bio's didn't expect was the doe population to increased. Well guess what it did. They figured it was because there was more bucks to breed does. And these bucks were breeding does first cycle. So almost all the fawns were hitting the ground at the same time. So less were lost to predators. Not only were there more bucks but there were more does too.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-10 AT 07:43PM (MST)[p]Not saying I disagree with cutting doe tags, but......

Cutting mitigation tags to landowners could get very expensive. Landowners have 2 choices right now, 1 doe tag or $250. Certain landowners get double and even triple digit tags allocated for their crop damages, at 250 bucks a pop, the division could be shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to landowners.

Alpinebowman knows the exact number of tags given through the draw, I believe it was 1600, with a certain percentage being for private land, I believe it was around 20%. saving 1600 does from being killed isn't going to save our herds, but it couldn't hurt.

I'd be interested to see what the actual populations are in areas where doe permits have been given in the last 20 years. Were they overpopulated in these specific areas? Doing damage to agriculture? Close to urban areas?

Closing the deer hunt? Asinine.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
Why is it that Chalk Creek, Lost Creek, Have great herds and historically have? Is the Habitat really that much different from Soapstone or Smith and Morehouse.

How about the Oquirrhs. I worked at Kennecott for awhile and have been on a few cow hunts and there deer seem to be abundant and lots of great bucks. I would guess the North end of the Oquirrhs has worse winter range and they also shoot doe's. Heck also add elk into the mix. In Contrast you go to the south end of the Oquirrhs down by Manning or Pole and it sucks, Is the habitat really that different? They aren't killing any doe's on the south end?

What is the secret recipe?
 
While I am a proponent of reducing hunting pressure, I am NOT a fan of closing areas unless there is a drastic winter kill or the area has gotten so bad that drastic measures like that are required. The Book Cliffs closure, to my understanding, had more to do with an out of balance herd rather than the decrease in population. Too many bucks. That's not saying the numbers were not down. At the time of the closure the predator problem on the Books was way out of hand too. Bears, lions and coyotes everywhere you looked. I remember bowhunting out there when it was 3 point or better. There were bucks running everywhere but you were pretty hard pressed to find a doe. I also remember the first year they lifted that 3 point or better rule. It was a complete slaughter and people were mad. That was the divisions plan the whole time. They needed to thin out the deer herd but it went a little too far and they had to close it. I think the Book Cliffs is a good model to go off of. Good numbers of deer and the age class of bucks is all over the place.

I also understand the agricultural side of it. Like Tree said, I don't think we can afford to NOT allow farmers to kill a few does and keep them out of their fields and haystacks. I don't think we should thin those tags down. I also don't think they are hurting the herd at all either. However, I don't think any other does need to be shot. Honestly, how many people do antlerless hunts because they NEED the meat? I would dare say it's less than 10%. Don't get me wrond, I love venison as much as the next guy but I'm not willing to sacrifice my hunting future just to satisfy my taste buds now. I have 5 freezers full of game meat and I would be willing to part with any and all of it if someone really NEEDED it to survive. We need a practical approach. We are beyond the days of the annual October family reunion on the mountain. When the division even put that into their proposal it made my heart sink. Including that into your justification for a proposal just goes to show how short sighted these guys really are. The big game board and the RAC's have your hunting in the palm of their hands and they are accountable to no one. Everyone complains about the special interest groups but the buck stops with these guys. Someone needs to make them accountable for their irresponsibility. It's coming boys. It will come to a point when enough is enough and I really think that time is just around the corner.


It's always an adventure!!!
 
My wish would be 29 units. Keep the same number of tags, but if we need cuts lets convert those tags over to primitive weapons instead of getting rid of them completely. I would be fine with 7000 more archery tags taken from the any weapon pool.
 
Good luck with increasing archery tags. It makes perfect sense concerning harvest vs. opportunity, archery is a great hunter management tool. In Utah, The 'fairness issue' seems to always come up and put a kibosh on ideas of increasing archery tags.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com
 
fishon doe's have little doe', they just don't have all bucks and go to the Henry and see all the doe's and fawn-- get real fishon.
 
Tony, bare in mind i went to SJ high school so my math might not be as good as someone who when to a school say in Utah county but...you said

"SO over 2 years that will be about 48,000 Bucks".

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't that just increase our overall population by 48,000? I understand what you are saying, it all starts with the fawns, but it does take a few bucks to make fawns at least that is what i learned in my biology 101 class. Just what the magical number/ratio is and how having mature bucks do the bulk of the breeding remains to be tested on a large scale but I still can't help but wonder if having a few more bucks out there relates to a healthier more fit population. I could be wrong but boy would i sure like to test it for 10 years or so.

Hang in there.....

Here's hoping it will get better....

Todd Black
BTO
 
>So it will put more bucks
>pushing does around and harassing
>them, it will put more
>bucks on the winter range
>eating food and it will
>stress the deer out more
>all the while doing NOTHING
>for the overall health of
>the herd.

Thats the dumbest argument yet! I hope your not serious with this logic. If we dont have enough feed to feed anymore bucks than where are we going to find the food for the does your going to magicly create. Those 2 points chase around does more than mature bucks because the does would rather breed with a mature buck and will stand sooner for a mature buck according to Val Geist.

It will also
>feed the lions and coyotes
>and let them explode as
>well.

WTF.More does that are created will feed more lions too wont it?
Unless you think lions and coyotes only eat bucks? Your loosen it.

>Can't you see that? BUCKS DON'T
>MATTER!!!!!

I think the majority of deer harvested are bucks. Soo we only want enough bucks to breed but no surplus to hunt? If all hunters see is 2 and 3 points I can guarantee that the board wont have to cut tags cause you wont sellout tags.

P.S. BUCKS BREED DOES SO DOES WILL GET PREGNANT AND HAVE FAWNS.
 
Tree,
Seeings as we are usually on opposing sides I figured I'd better jump in and agree when the rare occasion arises. I agree that an increase in archery tags could give more oppurtunity without added harvest. I think it is an option that should get some serious consideration in the future and I can assure you I will support you on this option going foward!

Wow did I just type that, it must have been from listening to my XM radio this morning. I passed a Greatful Dead station and hesitated for a second and now I am agree with you! I better be more careful about that in the future!

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Ok now to shake my head clear and reread the original post. Yep, read it again and still can not understand the logic.


fishon,
If we did not hunt deer at all would that not be the most biologically balanced herd? What would the buck to doe ratio be? I think it would be close to 50/50? Maybe I am up in the night because I have not searched out a study to back my opinion on this one.

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
The plan is for getting more Bucks and a healthier herd by balancing it out, So closing down units and rotating them every couple of years makes sense to me.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
Hey Todd or any of you answer these 3 questions.

Did closing down the San Juan unit fix the deer herd?

Did closing down the Henry's fix the deer herd?

Did closing down the Pauns fix the deer herd?







Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
certainly didnt hurt em!

Everyone knows that it takes more than just closing a unit to make a difference. Nobody is saying its that simple so dont imply thats the thing we are saying. If closed it can take pressure off struggling herds and give it a break from constant harrasment. Look at what closing down the kaibab and wiping out the predators did to population growth. They just took it too far and didnt use hunting as a managment tool until it was too late. But talk about population explosion.
 
C'mon Brutus, you can't use the DWR numbers only when they back your arguments but ignore them when they don't.

So it's one way or another, do you want to use DWR numbers or not?

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Absolutly not! Thats my point your using DWR numbers to say that we have 15-22 bucks per hundred does on alot of our general season units wich I dont think is the case. We our using DWR numbers to base most of the managment on. We our trusting the same biologist that came up with these numbers to say a healthy herd only needs 8-10 bucks/100 does to be healthy right. Not all biologist subscribe to that thinking. Thats been my point all along. Why are some people cherry picking certain facts that from UDWR biologist come up with to suit they're own goals. I am being sarcastic whenever I use any UDWR numbers to back my view.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-10 AT 03:28PM (MST)[p]Tony

1--Closing down elk ridge for all those years in the early 80's did wonders for the population out there, yes as a matter fact it did. We went from virtually having no deer to issuing over 300 permits in a matter of a few years. However with the increasing elk herd and likely harvesting too many deer (bucks and does) along with predation and several years of drought all contributed to is downward trend in the late 90's early 2000. I will say though i have noticed a big come back in subsequent years. Point being closing it down for a few years did good but not addressing the other issues didn't help the situation. Second point of the importance of proper management and adjusting harvest (bucks and does) based on what you have from year to year.

2-I don't know on the Henerys.

3-when were the pauns closed?

A buck can breed more than 10 does so a buck to do ratio isn't as important to me as who is breeding the does.

Here's your question....

How did mule deer evolve to have big (short and fat long tall what ever) antlers?

Given this evolution are these things still important to the species today?

Given a choice (which is likely how mother nature decided it would be) what age class of buck or what quality of buck would a mule deer doe breed with?

Given this choice and evolution if a mature buck is not available to you think breeding with a yearling buck is good for the health and fitness of that individual? What about the population?

What is better for a mule deer population here in Utah, to have all their fawns born early in the year (late May early June)or from June through August?

Does a fawn born in late May early June have a better chance to survive our UT winters than one born in late July August?

Again, too me its not so important as what our buck to doe ratio (you can get the desired ratio simply by killing a few does) is as who is doing the bulk of the breeding. Here in lies the problem IMO.

Tony, I have told you before, I'm not for the loss of opportunity but I firmly believe this opportunity should be defined on what is available (a sustainable resource, a surplus of the population). The bigger questions are who decides what is available? (sportsman, politics, economics, or biology) what is it based on? how accurate is it? Once these factors are know, I believe we can provide all the opportunity that is wanted with different harvest strategies.

Todd

Todd Black
BTO
 
Brutus

I have never said I believe there is 15-22 bucks per 100 doe's statewide. I did say I believe 15 bucks to 100 doe's is close from what I have seen. And that is very different form 22 bucks per 100 doe's.

Also the 8-10 bucks to 100 doe's needed to successfully breed a doe population is not a Utah number only.

Look at he WAFWA numbers on how many bucks it takes to successfully breed doe's. That is a study from all the Western States.




Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-10 AT 04:15PM (MST)[p]Tony,

So you're saying closing the Bookcliffs, Henries, and Vernon for five years didn't help the population and overall quality of bucks on those units? I'll bet if you asked anyone who got to hunt them the first year or two they were reopened they'd tell you otherwise. The DWR simply gives too many tags to maintain the quality on all but the Henries.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but closing units, limiting tags, pulling tags from "special interest" groups, killing a bunch of lions, and throwing the book at poachers sure would be a good start!
 
closing the hunting season will help mule deer period. a better buck to doe ratio makes a healthy herd, as for bucks chasing and harrassing does.. i about fell out of my chair. if she's tired dont worry she will give up and then get the bone, its not like the buck is some idiot chasing down a one horned buck in a snow mobile to try and get it to drop.
its simple less deer that die = more that live.
 
if she's tired
>dont worry she will give
>up and then get the
>bone,

That's funny ##### GntShedz.. And I still don't understand when a person says "more bucks doesn't mean more deer", I just don't get it. I don't know what the buck to doe ratio is honestly, and I'm sure 1 buck could breed 10 does, but what I've seen lately is 1 2 point trying to breed 25 does. I bet he ain't gettin it done. Logic would tell me there needs to be more bucks on the scene. So if there were more bucks having the chance to breed more does, wouldn't that produce more deer? I don't know what the answer is. So fishon, no I don't understand this. I'm not saying you're wrong and I agree that we need more does, but I think we could use more bucks too.
 
>My wish would be 29 units.
> Keep the same number
>of tags, but if we
>need cuts lets convert those
>tags over to primitive weapons
>instead of getting rid of
>them completely. I would
>be fine with 7000 more
>archery tags taken from the
>any weapon pool.


+1
 
"And 1 buck can successfully breed 10 does. THIS IS A PROVEN FACT."

i say wrong! 1 MATURE buck can succesfully breed 10 does!i doubt one yearling buck can
 
Someone asked.

"Did closing down the San Juan unit fix the deer herd?

Did closing down the Henry's fix the deer herd?

Did closing down the Pauns fix the deer herd?"

It seems answering these three questions could depend on what the person asking the question means by the term "fixed". If "fixed" means, were there more deer on these units the year after they re-opened them to hunting, the answer to all three is: Yes.

If "fixed" means, have the over all number of deer declined since we re-opened them, I don't know, I'm not on those units often enough to know for sure. Others that guide or are on those units year round could tell us. If your willing to check DWR counts, that might give you some insight. Personally, I'm guessing, and it's a guess based on the reports I've heard from others that claim to know, the herds on the Henry's and the San Juan have lost some deer since we re-opened them to hunting. The Pauns is arguable. I'd have to defer to Couch or some of the passionate folks that live on the Pauns, they could tell us for sure. I do know this about the Pauns, last year deer were dying for lack of water in the water tanks south of the highway and a couple of us sent the "friends of the pauns" $300 to haul some water out during the rut in November and we live nearly 200 miles away from the unit, which they were already doing because "guess who" wasn't.

If "fixed" means did closing unit so that we could sell everyone that wanted a tag when it re-opened the answer is, No.

Desert units only have a limited amount of habitat for a limited number of deer, they will never grow enough total deer to allow every hunter to hunt them every year. Actually, no unit in any of the 5 regions will allow every hunter to hunt every year, they are all too small to allow that, that is why we are going to regulated them, so hunters can hunt surplus animals, not base herd animals. (Does harvesting surplus animals rather than base herd animals have any validity in this discussion?)

If "fixed" means after the unit is re-opened we are going to issue "naked rock throwing permits" then I take back what I said about never having enough deer on the desert units to allow everyone that wants to go on a "naked rock" mule deer hunt to go. It's that's what you mean by fixed, all three units are "fixed", we'll have the Board establish a "naked rock throw hunt" and we'll sell over the counter tags, to resident, non-resident and extra-terrestrials, $3.00 a tag and you can hunt the "granite rock season" the "lava rock season" and the "flint rock season" (as long as you hunt naked and don't have anyone else throw your rock) hunt from August 1 through April 15th, we'll keep you off them during the fawning period, don't want anyone walking up on a day old fawn and dropping a boulder on it while it's still
try to figure out how to stand to nurse.

I'm sorry for the last paragraph folks, I can't help be a little sarcastic, well I could but it's does get a little crazy for both sides here so I guess it's therapy for all of to take pot shots, not harm intended, we're still all wanting to hunt and to help mule deer too, even us extra-terrestrials.

Having a Merry Christmas, hope ya'll are too.

DC
 
> if she's tired
>>dont worry she will give
>>up and then get the
>>bone,
>
> That's funny ##### GntShedz.. And
>I still don't understand when
>a person says "more bucks
>doesn't mean more deer",
>I just don't get it.
>I don't know what the
>buck to doe ratio is
>honestly, and I'm sure 1
>buck could breed 10 does,
>but what I've seen lately
>is 1 2 point trying
>to breed 25 does. I
>bet he ain't gettin it
>done. Logic would tell me
>there needs to be more
>bucks on the scene. So
>if there were more bucks
>having the chance to breed
>more does, wouldn't that produce
>more deer? I don't know
>what the answer is. So
>fishon, no I don't understand
>this. I'm not saying you're
>wrong and I agree that
>we need more does, but
>I think we could use
>more bucks too.


i agree!
 
I'd love to see a "naked rock throwing hunt" on the outdoor channel. Maybe Fred Eichler could host. Now that would beat the hell out of Surviver all day.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-10 AT 08:26PM (MST)[p]>I'd love to see a "naked
>rock throwing hunt" on the
>outdoor channel. Maybe Fred Eichler
>could host. Now that would
>beat the hell out of
>Surviver all day.


Worries me a little that you'd rather have Fred Eichler host it than say Tiffany Lakosky or Pam Zaitz.

Just sayin'..

tiffany.jpg


pam.jpg


fred.jpg
 
In the cache unit you could shut the hunt down for 5 years and still end up with less bucks than you started with if good old mother nature keeps giving us winters like 2007.
So Yes I Agree!
Tony for president!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-25-10 AT 10:47PM (MST)[p]>In the cache unit you could
>shut the hunt down for
>5 years and still end
>up with less bucks than
>you started with if good
>old mother nature keeps giving
>us winters like 2007.
>So Yes I Agree!
>Tony for president!

And if you kill another 1,000 bucks (hypothetically) over those five years on top of the winter kill, where's that leave you?..
 
I'd Like to respond to the question of whether closing the Paunsaugunt unit "fixed" the herd.

First to qualify my info, I was born and raised on the Pauns, and currently live in my home town of Glendale on the western edge of the unit.

The unit was closed in 1979 if I remember correctly, due to a struggling deer herd. Locals were pissed and hated the decision. I hunted with my dad for the first time in 1978 and we saw only one buck the entire season, which was a spike, and my dad promptly killed it. It was the only buck taken by our family which consisted of over 24 hunters.

What happened over the next 7 years was interesting to say the least. We began to see deer, and there were some nice bucks. At the end of the 7 year closure it was astounding to see the amount of truly monsterous bucks and sheer numbers of deer roaming the hills from top to bottom on the Pauns. My family, and many, many families in our area, would drive out several times a week to watch the bucks and enjoy seeing the deer doing their thing. Remember these bucks had not been legally hunted in 7 years and they were pretty docile. These bucks spilled over onto the surrounding general units, with some dandies being taken. My best buck to date was killed on the general unit to the west and the buck was crossing the highway each day from the Pauns to chase does.

The Pauns thrived for several years until too many tags were given for does, and too many tags were given for bucks. Quality and numbers dwindled. I think some years over 500 does were being killed on the unit.

It is now a unit where most hunters will kill a 160"-170" 4x4, with a few lucky or hardcore hunters taking bucks on up from there.

Here is the real reason I want you guys to read this: I believe that this closure, and the resulting deer explosion was responsible for recruiting more hunters from this area, and areas around the state than any other thing that has been done. Why? Every guy that grew up during that time and went out and saw the monster bucks was hooked for life. We watched them, we hunted their sheds, we filmed them, we spotlighted them, we saw them from the school bus rutting does in every field along the river, we saw our friends,family,neighbors, nonresidents, northerners, and others with the toads in the backs of their trucks during the hunts, and dropping them off at the meat lockers.
In my hometown and several of those surrounding towns the only hunters left that are still passionate about hunting and are teaching their kids about hunting are those that grew up during the boom time on the Pauns. Don't believe it? Do a little research. More guides, outfitters, magazine editors,wildlife artists,biologists, taxidermists, butchers, and outright passionate hunters were born and bred during the Pauns boomtime than any other time since the 60's in this area.

My point it this: I don't think we need to close deer units to fix them. All I am saying is that people don't get recruited to hunting by killing two points and only killing two points. They get recruited to hunting by being outdoors and seeing big bucks. Big bucks means shed hunters are recruited. Big bucks bring photographers, videographers, and people who want to see something more than just a dink juvenile deer. It creates a passion like nothing else can do. It gives us a reason to keep hunting. Even guys that claim they are meat hunters would give their left nuts to kill a big buck. I would quit hunting if all I could muster was a two point. Big bucks, and plenty of them recruit hunters like nothing else can or will. Look at Colorado. Five years ago when Colorado's deer peaked, every guy in the country was headed over there to get in on it. If you grow them, the hunters will come.

I personally like the idea of the 29 units because each unit needs to be managed independently from the others. I don't like to be restricted from some of my spots that lie in different units, but we have to protect the deer from over harvest. The Pauns is losing deer by the hundreds on the highways. It is losing them to lions, coyotes, and other predators by the hundreds. Managing this unit and the Zion unit independently will help stop overhunting on extreme weather years. ie, on years where it snows a whole bunch and the deer have migrated onto the Zion unit from the Pauns, and the Cedar mountains, hundreds if not thousands of general hunters flock to the sands to take advantage of their good fortune. They kill the hell out of the bucks that are on winter range, and they return to their homes with many bucks strapped to their trucks and trailers, thus putting much undue pressure on the area. This has happened several times over the last ten years, and I've witnessed it. My taxidermy shop sits on highway 89 and I see the trucks and trailers heading south, then days later heading north with buck after buck loaded up. Effectively screwing the herd over in one season. Micro managing will put an end to this nonsense. Not only here, but in other areas like Beaver mtn, Enterprise, and several other areas that are prone to this type of disaster.

I'm not against northern hunters either. You guys have every right to apply for southern units. We have lots of habitat and could sure use a lot more deer to fill it up like it used to be just a few years ago. The fields around my country are void of deer now, where as a young man I would see hundreds of does, with several good bucks in each field. Times have changed, and you can't convince me that closing it down wouldn't have the exact same effect that it did in the 80's.

Ok. I'm done with my explanation now. Sorry it took a full novel to get it done. I swore off Monster Muleys two weeks ago because I was sick and tired of reading all the whining and pissing and moaning from Utah guys. This is the first time I've been on here since then. Seems like everyone has their way to fix the herds, and everyone's idea seems to be different. I think I could fix them too if we could use poison, and if I could do a few other things like using more short range weapon hunts and less rifle hunts. I just want to see more big bucks out there in the hills. I miss the good ol' days when there really were some big deer around here. There still are a few, but not like it used to be.

I know somebody is going to tell me I'm an idiot, and I am clueless, and bucks don't have fawns, and closing deer units isn't the answer etc.........

Long live the mule deer.

DeerBeDead
 
No you are not an idiot.

But You are wrong in saying hunting and killing 2 points and small bucks does not recruit hunters and kids.

The VAST majority of people on this site never killed a monster buck and the ones that did killed that buck many years into their hunting adventures.

My son who is hooked for life killed a 1 antlered 3 point when he was 11 in New Mexico and he is locked in FOR LIFE.

The size of the buck or the number of bucks should mean nothing compared to the opportunity to hunt when it comes to recruitment.

As far as your pauns analogy goes you would have more "hands on " experience than me. I do know that there was favorable weather during the times you mentioned which is the MOST important factor.

There is no clear answer but there is no study or logic that says cutting buck tags fixes a deer herd.

It is a nice bandaid though for all of you that just want "a better hunt" AKA more bucks.





Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
deerbedead,
I know your passion. I'm a product of the same generation of mule deer enthusiasts. You reference your biggest buck to date was taken on the Zion unit, but was a product of the Paunsagaunt. My story is the same. I have hunted the Pauns twice. However, the three biggest bucks of my personal collection came from the Zion unit, all commodities of the Pauns.

I would toss in all the hunts I'll ever have from here on out, just to have one week of the good old days we locals enjoyed. I always knew it wouldn't last. Very much like Lee's Ferry fishing during the same era. Wow... that's another topic. However, the same principles could apply.

I like the twenty-nine units. It is an opportunity to "micro-manage" and hopefully be able to do a better job of staying on top of the game. With that said, I do worry about the Utah Fish & Game having the necessary man power and the clout to implement management plans. I'm not bagging on Jim K. and his squad but even with the smaller unit idea, politics will still be a major issue and likely will not be overcome. As example, the "Kings" herd. (Not my phrase, but you get it.) Regardless of what a F&G biologist decides, the king will call the shots. Money will trump sound biology, despite the consequences.

I have witnessed as years go by, numerous young game wardens (biologists) come into this area. When they get here they are enthusiastic and can't wait to get on the ground and make a difference. Not all of them, but most within a short period, drop all interest and move on. There is something wrong with that picture.

As far as Tony's thoughts on hooking young hunters, my kids have little or no interest in hunting. That is my fault. I have encouraged them to find other things to be passionate about. I suggested that if they became ingrained in the world of hunting, that they would be frustrated. I forgot that young eye's offer new perspective. My mistake, I guess...

Did you get my 160" Pauns 4x4 boiled? LOL!
 
My observations are this regarding youth hunters and retaining them for their life times. I've watched a lot of Dad's take their children hunting deer over the last 50 years.

The first few years youngster need to see deer, and have reasonable chances at shooting at them. Any deer will do, doe, young buck or mature buck. They need action of some kind. A camp fire, Uncle BobCat and Grandpa SureShot"s stories of past conquests, frosty mornings, blister busting hikes, burnt marsh-mellows, and rolling rocks into the canyons, is not enough to keep them coming back, year after year.

Our youth are hooked deeper and for long if they see hundreds of deer, lots of bucks and some mature bucks. As hunters age, many but not all, start to be more selective and desire a few opportunities at more mature bucks which explains why some hunter have quit hunting when they say they are no longer interested in harvesting yearling deer.

A camp fire, Uncle BobCat and Grandpa SureShot"s stories off past conquests, frosty mornings, blister busting hikes, burnt marshmellows, and rolling rocks into the canyons might interest youth in summer camping but not in long term deer hunting.

While it is not completely fair to compare pheasant hunting to deer hunting, for this discussioN it works. 25 years ago there was as much excitement in our youth for the pleasant hunt as there was for the deer hunt. After the decision was made not to stop the decline in the pheasant population, pheasants disappear form most parts of Utah. Today you see very few youth or even their fathers hunting pheasants. Why? Going pheasant hunting just because it's an OPPORTUNiTY TO HUNT IS NOT WHAT THE YOUTH OR THEIR DADS ARE WILLING TO DO. IF THE OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT INCLUDE HARVEST ACTION BEYOND BUYING A TAG AND PACKING A WEAPON THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE.

It would be a very revealing question to as the youth wHy they started and then stopped hunting. I'm willing to guess 70% or more would say, we got bored because of the lack of deer and the lack of HARVEST OPPORTUNITY.

DC
 
Tony,
I appreciate your opinion on the youth recruitment idea that two points do in fact recruit and retain hunters. I agree that in some instances it does the job. However, the most effective recruitment tool there is, is a father that takes the kids hunting and helps them be successful. You understand that, and I understand that. We both do it for our kids. The problem lies herein: Dad doesn't want to kill two points any more. He wants to kill old cagey bucks, and to keep dad excited enough to keep hunting and lighting the fire within the youngsters it's going to take a big one or two.

I know everyone isn't cut out to kill big deer. It is like everything in life. The lucky and the talented are the ones that take most of the big ones home. From my experience recruitment of hunters is far more lasting, and far more dynamic when game is plentiful, and the bucks are larger than meat buck size.

I still take my kids hunting, and I allow them to choose what size of buck they kill. My oldest daughter has had 4 deer tags in her life so far. Two in Utah, and two in Colorado. She has passed up countless bucks, including some 170" deer. I felt bad for her last year that she didn't kill a deer, but she told me that she didn't want to kill just a deer. She wanted to kill one that meant something to her. The last day of the rifle hunt in Utah last year she passed a chip shot at two point. I urged her to shoot it. She declined. I told her she needed to learn how to kill them to get really good at it. She told me she wanted to let it grow up so we could hunt it next year. We left, and to tell you the truth, I was very proud of her decision. It takes guts to let an animal live because you want to see it grow another year. Too bad more people don't have this mentality in this state.
To top the story off, she hunted the archery hunt this year in Utah and couldn't get on a buck that would do it for her. Saw some bucks, but not one that was "the one". She and I went to Colorado for her hunt and we hunted hard in rain and snow. We put in our time, and with a little luck we found a buck that was "the one". She promptly killed it with her .270 and we had a mini celebration and some quick work to get it quartered and caped for a mount. (It was in a blizzard.) It's a 190" 4x4 and she is the happiest hunter on earth right now. Her friends at school shot two points and the antlers are gone, or in the back yard getting chewed up by the dog. She will have hers on the wall as a reminder of the hunt, the dedication, the persistence, and the feelings that come with the kill. The photos will be passed around, the story retold for generations to come. She cut it up into jerky and it's been devoured by the family of 8 she resides with. Next year she will apply again for the hunts. This hunter is hooked for life. There is nothing that stirs the inner soul of the hunter more than taking a mature animal fair and square. She will want her future kids to experience the hunt, as she did. Now the younger siblings are more excited than ever to get their chance to hunt. It will be easy to recruit them.

I don't begrudge anyone their two point, but I wish we could find a way to provide an opportunity for us to experience the thrill of the hunt for an older age class buck. It would probably surprise some of you how much different it feels than it does to kill a two point.

And..... if closing an area doesn't make the population grow, why did it make the population grow on the Pauns, the Books, Pine Valley, Browse, and several others? If you let more bucks live, it allows the does more of a chance to stay alive because the predators will eat a few more bucks percentage wise. This will allow more does to live, and more fawns to be born. When more fawns are born, more survive. The more that survive, the more does are able to produce fawns. It's not that complicated.

Control predators, shoot less deer, fix the highway/deer mortality, which by the way kills way more does and fawns than bucks, and you will see the deer population grow. When the population is large enough to produce an excess, let the hunters take the cream off the top, not the cow that gives the milk.

Long live the mule deer,
peace on earth.

DeerBeDead
 
Tony-
This is not an insult or a direct challenge, but I feel it is necessary to point out the difference between your lifestyle and most others on this site.

You previously posted that your child was hooked for life, when another member posted that we can't keep new hunter retention by killing yearling bucks.

I have watched your son harvest a decent buck with R&K on a huntin show. What a B-day present. The hunt and emotions were awesome to watch.

All I am saying is that we all cant give the same opportunity you are able to. Please keep this in mind while trying to address the average joe and plead your case.

Everybody has their own motives depending on their financial, special ties, and physical abilities!
 
Buck/Doe Ratios-

I feel that proper buck/doe ratios for breeding must be established on bucks 3 pt. or greater. This percentage is given on the annual report. I feel this is the proper # to use when comparing bucks to does.
Our current stats use all bucks in the ratio.
I strongly believe the breeding should not include young bucks doing the deed once a doe realize a bigger buck is not available. This results in later fawn births.
 
Tony, shutting down the hunt, or cutting back hunter numbers, to half of what they were this year will not fix the deer herd. You are right on that count! There are just too many other factors involved that account for today's mule debacle.

But your simple minded approach, of basically keeping things the same, as they are now, will definitely not fix the herd, and in my estimation, damage it to a point where my son and grandsons, will be lucky to ever get a permit.

I truly believe you are way off base with your approach and feelings about buck ratios and breeding. I personally think, that for a healthy herd, it takes more than just 10/15 bucks to 100 does. If you want a healthy deer herd, I believe one must have a decent ratio of older class, or at least mature bucks, in the herd. I think we need a good sampling of age class both in the females and males, if we what a good stable herd.

But Utah will never find that out, unless they allow a few of the younger bucks to get some age, and that was not happening and will not happen under past management practices.

There are few guys that post on this site that are anymore disappointed in the management practices of Utah?s elk herds than I am. There are very few around that despise the despicable practice of choosing the RAC members and the Wildlife Board than I. And I would be last to okay anymore permits for sale to the highest bidder. So it hurts to me to see the mess we are in right now, but in spite of all that, I see no other way, at this point in time, than to cut tags back. In fact I don't think the board went far enough or made deep enough cuts.

For those of you who can't see what's happening to Utah's deer herds, it's time to pull your heads out of the sand and make the tough, hard choices. The days have past, when Utah can allow everyone, who wants to hunt, to be able to have a tag every year. I know that hurts all of us, but its time to accept that as a fact and move forward in a positive way so we can to assure, most will get to hunt as often as possible, even though for most, it won't be every year.

Happy New Year. BB
 
BB,
I agree with your views. However I really don't understand how everybody believes not getting a DEER tag every year means they will have to set out a year of hunting.

My 12 yr old shot Blue grouse, Ruff Grouse, Chukar, Pheasant, Rabbits, Elk, and Deer in Utah this year. I know for a FACT that if he does not get a DEER tag in 2012, WE WILL STILL GO HUNTING IN THE FALL!!!!!!!!!!!! Whether it is DEER in another state or we hunt elk, or maybe we spend a few more days out chasing birds. I promise you we will be hunting and most of it will be in the state of Utah!!!!!!!!!!!

The deer need a break from hunters pounding them year in and year out. It is not a RIGHT we are born into. It is a previlage we get due to conservation effort of other sportsmen years ago. The deer were gone and sportmen brought them back. We should respect the forward thinking of our fore fathers when they put a stop to unlimited hunting for fear of lossing deer forever. The numbers are low enought now we must use the same foward thinking. Deer hunting in Utah should never be the only determining factor on hunter recruitment. To do so is not a fair burden to put on one species!

I'll ask this question again. I am sure hoytme, fishon, sidehill and the like will not respond but I'll ask anyway.

WHAT IS THE BUCK DOE RATIO OF HERD OF DEER THAT IS NOT HUNTED BY HUMAN HUNTERS? ALSO IS THIS THE MOST BIOLOGICALLY SOUND HERD?

Gentlemen, please answer, even if it is with your own spin on it. I'm guessing it is higher than 1 to 10 on buck ratio? But then again I choose to chug a lug a different flavor of kool aid then some gents!

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
buglinbilly,

Regard you post on the "close the deer hunt" and other ACTION items.

Many, many sportsmen in Utah agree with every word you have said. It didn't have to be this way but "it is what it is" however the door has now been opened to start doing something more what has been done about it in the past. The mule deer plans are good stuff, now that we can more specifically target them to each unit more good for the re-growth of our suffering herds can be done, without destroying those few herds that are still robust.

I believe we must begin to establish "friends of the pauns" type task forces on every unit, immediately, not wait for the agency folks to see what they want to do but get started right now. Invited DWR biologists into your "friends" circle, invited Federal agents, gov. trappers, primary landowners, bow hunters, mountain men, and rifle hunters. Include CWMU operators, your wives and girl friends, your youth.

Find out from the gov trappers what your predators are doing and what you can do to help and where and when to do it. Go over your deer habitat issues with Forest Service ad BLM agents, have then tell you what the feed situation is at. Get with the DOT people and look in what kind of highway mortality you have, where it's the worst and what they think would help fix it. Get your DWR Conservation Officer involved, find out if you can help reduce poaching and harassment activities. Look into watering systems that can carry deer through a drought. See if there would be any way to have rapid feeding programs in place if the winter requires it. Line up people that care, that can donate time and money, on short notice so your ready to move quickly if you need to feed on short notice.

Encourage the local DWR folks to lead, if they will, if they won't, then you lead. Don't get discouraged with people when they say you can't or shouldn't be meddling with deer management. As these unit by unit regulations roll out the RAC and the Wildlife Boards are going to be looking to the "friends of YOUR unit" to provide input and offer recommendations.

It's going to be different now. A RAC from one area will have no reason to want to over ride a decision made by a RAC from across the State because the units, the biology, and the hunt/harvest strategies will no longer be pushed and pulled by huge unrelated regions or by State wide decisions. Season dates, the length of the season, the kinds of weapons, the buck/doe ratios, the fawn/ratios can NOW be independent and will effect only a single herd of deer.

REMEMBER, there is no central leadership in this MOVEMENT, the hunters from each unit are going to have to rise up on their own and take control of their deer herd. The hunters in Vernal are not going to get anything out of the hunters in Cedar City. Same with the hunters in Price, don't expect much from the sportsmen in Delta. etc. etc.

If this management tool is going to grow more deer YOU have to be the one to do it. The deer can't do it without YOU and you've seen what has happened if you wait for a State agency to do it without your help.

Nobody is going to step out of the trees and save your deer, YOU have to be the one.

Call a meeting THIS WEEK, get started NOW, start with a few passionate hunters, invited the pros, push them, work with THEM and work for them, enlarge you "friends" make it happen in your back yard.

DO NOT WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE RACS AND THE BOARD AND THE DWR WILL DO, START TODAY! BECOME A FORCE FOR MULE DEER TODAY!!!!

WE CAN DO THIS!!!

DC
 
Well said boys. I for one am excited to see some positive motion in regards to the deer management. It's about time we stepped up to do something about the mess. This first step may not be the answer to all the problems, but it will allow us to deal with each unit and address its specific needs. It might take a few tries to get it right, but we will get it.

Step up if you really care and get involved with your local unit/units and have a say in what happens. You might be surprised at what you have been missing out on.

I thought I was up on things around here until I spoke with a local deer nut about the friends of the Paunsaugunt. They are getting their stuff together and having a say in the outcome of the ideas and management of this area. I think I'd like to be involved as well. It's time to get on board and be a part of the solution.

Long live the mule deer.

DeerBeDead
 
Cody

I guess as Bill Says my "simple minded approach" does not allow me to understand your question.

But I will take a guess that you are hinting that an un-hunted herd has even buck and doe numbers? IS that what you are getting at?

If that is what you are getting at then my opinion and all the studying I have done would say that is a very un-healthy and un-balanced herd if there are equal number of males and females in an ungulate population?

If this is not what you are referring to then please explain to me what it is you are asking so I can answer it.

And my spin is only based on my experience and travels throughout the West meeting with all the states on their deer herds. SOmething I was fortunate enough to do for 5 years and am grateful for it.

But hey, you and Deloss are able to spin stuff pretty good yourselves so don't give me all the credit.



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Muley 73,

Not exactly the info you asked for, but , touches on the subject.

Colorado 1999
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

"Nonetheless, available evidence does not support the conclusion that low buck numbers have
been responsible for the drop in ratios of fawns per 100 does over the past 25 years. Buck:doe
ratios from the Uncompahgre Plateau herd are among the lowest in the state. During this decade
they have varied from 8-20 bucks per 100 does after the hunting season. Yet, a 1999 study
indicated that 93% of does examined from the Uncompahgre Plateau were pregnant. The average
number of fetuses carried per doe (1.72) did not differ from does studied elsewhere in the state
before ratios of fawns per 100 does had begun to decline (Fig. 22). If low buck numbers were
responsible for the observed decline in fawn:doe ratios, both pregnancy rates and the average
number of fetuses per doe observed in the 1999 study of does on the Uncompahgre Plateau should
have been much lower."

IDAHO 2008
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/plans/muledeer/mdpnosum.pdf

Buck:doe ratios are an important measure for ensuring
a biological minimum number of bucks for breeding
purposes. White et al. (2001) did not find a threshlold
buck:doe ratio where productivity declined significantly,
even with ratios <5 bucks:100 does. Similarly, data from
Idaho and Montana does not demonstrate a reliable
relationship between buck:doe ratio and fawn:doe ratios,
or over-winter fawn survival (IDFG unpubublished
data). Existing information suggests the biological
minimum for mule deer is <5 bucks:100 does.


One more thing from the Idaho study:
"Hunter numbers are declining in the United States, with
poor hunter recruitment (new hunters starting to hunt)
and poor hunter retention (previous hunters continuing
to hunt) as important factors (Enck et al. 2000). Since
1970, Idaho?s population has increased 106%, while the
number of resident deer tags sold has decreased 24%.
The proportion of Idaho residents purchasing a deer
tag has dropped from 23% in 1970 to fewer than 9% in
2006. This decline is attributable primarily to a changing
culture, but is more pronounced in recent years because
of lower mule deer numbers."



Happy New Year.
 
Tony,
Nope, I'm really asking what you think it would be. I think that bucks are more vunerable post rut to predators. I think you would lose more to fighting in the rut with a higher buck doe ratio. So no I don't think it would be 50/50. I have not read any studies on it to give a number. However since we are all arguing the biology of this I think it is a fair question to ask. I believe it would be over the 25 max that has been discussed?

Thanks for responding. I look forward to your answer. And yes I believe we are all spin doctors at some level so thanks for the props.

Hope you had a great Christmas.

Cody




Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Kenny

Why are you doing all the work for them? Don't you know they will just discredit whatever you put up here if it does not support them?

There are countless studies that back what this one says but they don't want to hear it.

Keep the faith Brotha, the ground swell from the "average hunter" is huge right now. I know lots of people on here don't think I am average but I am. And it is a 4 to 1 ratio of "average hunters" wanting to fix the problem the right way and hunt, rather than put a band-aid on the issue and convince people that more bucks equals a healthy heard.

Those people that think that are the minority by far and will never be happy until half the current mule deer hunters are driven from the sport we love.

Put the boots on Kenny we are going to get dirty.

Happy Holiday's man



Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-10 AT 11:36PM (MST)[p]Cody

I am not sure I can answer your question as stated. I think if we had an even distribution of all age class bucks then the minimum number would be about 10 bucks per 100 doe's to do an efficient job breeding.

What I mean by that is my opinion based on what I have learned would be like this

3 bucks 1-2 years old
3 bucks 3 years old
2 bucks 4 years old
2 bucks 5+ years old.

Now if there are no 4 or 5 year old bucks I would think you would need 15- 20 bucks per 100 doe's

Just like if all the bucks were 4+ years old I think you could do it with 5-7 bucks per 100 doe's.

So yes, age class matters depending how many bucks are available. The more bucks you have the younger the age class can be to successfully breed the doe's.

The less bucks you have I would say you would need a higher age class to get the same results.

Again this is my opinion based on the experience I have.

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Thanks for the numbers. I have seen what the minimum is on other studies.

My question still stands. What is the most biologically sound number of bucks to does? I believe that is a different question than what is the minimum number we can get by with?

Another question answered carefully, with a study to back it! Impressive yet still not addressing the issue, man we are all getting really good at this!

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Hey Conch

Go read my Story on my daughters hunt this year in the Hunter Adventure forum.

You tell me if she is hooked?


Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
I could not answer that in absolute fact. How ever I believe the buck to doe ratio would be quit high my guess would be somewhere around 35 to 40 bucks per 100 does. As to the second question no in my opinion it would not be a more biologically healthy herd.
 
Tony,
That is the spin I was talking about. You gave the minimum number according to studies you have found. Thank you. But that was not the question that was asked.

What is the biologically correct number?

You said 10-15 can get it done. Why would we choose to hover at the low end. This seem irresponsible, should we not strive to hover closer to top end of what is biologically correct. If we go over the high end it is much easier to have hunters trim the bucks back to a biologically correct number. This would be much easier than hovering on the low end and trying to bring the numbers up if we fall below biologically safe numbers?



Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
Cody I did not spin it you just did. I did not say 10-15 can get it done, I said it is based on the age class of buck and gave a scenario where 10 bucks to 100 doe's would be "enough".

So under that same scenario of age class if you had 15 bucks per 100 doe's that would look like this

6 bucks ages 1-2
4 buck ages 3
3 bucks age 4
2 bucks 5+ years of age

To me that is "biologically" sound based on what I have seen and read if that is the age class of the bucks.

You would get 90% of the doe's bred by bucks age 3+ and probably 75% bred by the 4 and 5 year olds.

Under every scenario a few doe's will be bred by younger bucks, that is just nature.

So yes, if the age class of bucks is what I put above that would be "biologically sound".

And as I mentioned, if the age class was more younger bucks than the number of bucks needs to increase, and if all the bucks are older than the number of bucks can be decreased.

Again Cody this is in a "perfect world" that none of us live in.

And under this scenario it would MAXIMIZE opportunity and still have the good genes passed on and not cut out hunters.

Now I am sure this is not what you were looking for when you asked the question but this is what my study's tell me.







Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com
The next buck to have a fawn will be the
1st.
 
Tony,
I did not spin any numbers? I just stated I would think it more biologically sound to state closer to the high end of what is biologically correct. Obviouly you feel we should stay closer to the bottom end. That is fine and I do understand your numbers, just don't agree.

Step 1 is always the hardest!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-10 AT 09:38AM (MST)[p]Well Doctor Abbott, closeing the Deer hunt sure didnt seem to hurt the Book Cliffs deer herd to bad did it. Restricting the number of hunters sure has helped maintain the quality. Why do other states use 3pt.or better sub-units to mannage their Deer herds for more numbers. And when they reach thier objective on numbers, they switch to a 4pt or better unit to maintain. Wyoming and Idaho both do this type of management plan. Sure seemed to work in the Malad unit in Southern Idaho. You often speak of Colorado....I'd like to see a split season with the number of hunters capped for each hunt............less pressure..maybe less impact on the Deer herd. Personally I would just like to see the Utah DWR grow some balls and tell everyone they will manage the Deer herd instead of constantly switching around their management plan. They dont keep anything in place long enough to see if it works. If they cant do their job well enough....replace them. If my co-workers dont do their job satisfactory, they are replaced with someone else. I think some of the Board positions should be voted on by sportsmen. And if the Utah DWR wants to save money...get the hell out of that 5 story building down their in Salt Lake......have they pissed off so many hunters they really need a sucurity guard working the entry door.
 
deerbedead/Travis,

I am glad you did not leave, I have enjoyed reading your post's over the years. You have handed out some very good information on this site, and I appreciate it. I agree with every thing you have said, and hope we can bring the deer herds back. I know where I live they are in very bad shape, and I have decided that I am going to do every thing I can to help.

Ross
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
1k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
D
Beware of Guided Mule Deer Hunts in Huntsville UT
Replies
97
Views
5k
wstrntines
wstrntines
M
Helping Deer in Region G (and everywhere in WY)
Replies
10
Views
854
Stillwater165
Stillwater165

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1436.jpg
Sportsman Deer.jpg
DB18E78D-12D1-44DE-8176-86357A90092A.jpeg
A23AD345-8793-4045-99DC-DA0B372981CC.jpeg
Screenshot_20210802-093249_Photos.jpg
FB_IMG_1514767085581.jpg
IMG_9517.jpeg
thumbnail_image2.jpg
Screenshot_20210925-230458.png
Mike's '23 Muley.jpg
20220608_220013.jpg
012CD579-DE47-477E-8DF7-B0D7EF5F843D.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom