The reason I hate Option 2

[TheElitehornhunter]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 12:59PM (MST)[p]Option #2

1.Does nothing to increase the overall health of the deer herd. We should be addressing the issues as to why we have low fawn survival rates then worrying about our buck numbers in the herd.

2. Fewer hunters will be hunting with Option 2. You people who are in favor of option 2 will be standing around 3 to 8 years without a tag in your hands complaining why you cannot hunt in Utah anymore.

3. Its destroys hunting with families.

4. What has been said is that they are pushing for 18:100 ratios, this is partially true. If you read through it and have listening at the RACs, the proposal is actually for 18-25:100 ratio, which in my mind is a big difference and leaves too much grey for certain people to interpret and manipulate.

How many tags would be available statewide under 25:100? I'd say under 15000.

Any idea what the odds of drawing a tag would be under that scenario? I have an idea.

5. Increasing the buck/doe ratio isn't going to grow more bucks because fewer bucks will be born every year because fewer does= fewer fawns and LESS OPPORTUNITY.

6. It doesn't focus on habitat which should be one of our major concerns. Without good deer habitat we won't have a good deer herd.

 

[fishon]

Someone that is logical and not selfish.

+1

Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

If the increase in buck/doe ratio is such a good thing when why hasn't the Henry Mtns deer herd exploded? It should be the healthiest deer herd on the planet according to a lot of posts, but the Henry Mtns deer herd is growing very slow? WHY?

The Bookcliffs is below population objective. WHY?

 

[brutus]

Sellfish is throwing a fit if you cant hunt every year. The DWR said they spent $60,000,000 on habitat restoration in the last 5 years and $3,000,000 on predator control and havent seen a difference, so you want to throw more money at habitat? Switch those 2 numbers around, then you'll see a difference. Of course predator control doesnt raise as much money as habitat so its a tougher sell for oh i dont know... Organazations like the MDF.

 

[NVdrhntr]

I think THINK that DWR can walk and chew gum at the same time.
These options address hunting issues.
Surely there are habitat projects; predator projects etc.
going on also aren't there?
These projects will hopefully help with overall deer herd health and numbers.
The hunting options are only 1 aspect of deer recovery.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

Habitat restoration doesn't improve things over night. It takes years to see the results. People aren't selfish if they like to hunt every year either.

 

[NVdrhntr]

by the way, why does everyone in the family deer camp have to have a tag the same year? I know one family that had 22 tags in camp?
Do you have to have a tag to have a good family outing?
If half had tags this year and the other half next year, is that such a big problem.
If they go with option 2, I'll bet deer camp will have just the same amount of family in it, just not tags for grandma and mom
and the wife and all those other non hunters that some people fill tags for. The old southern utah tradition.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 02:02PM (MST)[p]You make me laugh from your post. I don't believe it's that way at all. Also how are all those 22 people drawing a Southern tag every year if it's impossible?

 

[justr_86]

I hate option 2. It says on the website that none will increase overall deer numbers. This will be the end of hunting in utah, if people can't get tags they won't go, they won't spend any money and they won't put in for tags losing all money and support for our sport. Back out of these options. Pick one that will up numbers for a healthier herd and bigger bucks will follow that you will be able to hunt every year! This is the opposite direction we need to be going with dwindleing deer herds. This will hurt the herds! BAD!

 

[BowHuntr]

Elite,

Just wondering, if any, what option you were in favor of? Since none of them address the key issue.

BowHuntr

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 02:36PM (MST)[p]Im in favor of option 4 Common Sense.

Habitat is the most important key to having mule deer. Without good mule deer habitat than all other methods use to manage deer are just bandaids. Also without good mule deer habitat then mule deer cannot survive.

This is taken out of a book called "In Seach of Big Heads" written by Jim Bonds.

When a deer population "explodes" or increases twenty-fold, thirty-fold, forty-fold in a matter of ten to fifteen years, it is the result of good browse habitat. Proceeding any big game build-up of mule deer population there is a period of twenty to thirty years during which time the browse gets a head start on the deer. In other words, DEER POPULATIONS CAN BUILD UP AT A RATE FASTER THAN BROWSE CAN GROW.

What happens when a deer population increases beyond carrying capacity of any range?

(1) If they are not harvested by hunters they take the browse
(2) When the browse is gone; the deer die, often 95% of them.
(3) Then, everything is lost-the browse plus the deer
(4) And we start all over. Its takes from 15 to 40 years for the browse to come back

Good management means regulated harvest. There is one concept in good deer management that is gaining ground by leaps and bounds

(1) Pay MINIMUM ATTENTION to the actual numbers of deer;
Pay MAXIMUM ATTENTION to the condition of the browse, the range. If you have good browse, you cannot help but have mule deer.

(2) Mule deer's worst enemy is overpopulation.

If you are satisfied that the range is in excellent condition-with a huge deer population thriving on a large health browse plants then demand that the DWR harvest 40% of ALL the deer every year for thirty years.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

People would cry if we harvested 40% of ALL the deer annually for thirty years.

 

[AZDirtNap]

Common Sense
I dont see it in this post.
You cant have a WIN-WIN here.

How do you expect the herd to come back and keep everyone hunting each year? Something has to give. Looks like your hunters are winning and the deer are losing.

Most of the deer posts i read about utah (besides LE deer and some to) go like this. " too many people, no deer, only little bucks, wtf dwr."

Managing small units is a start but the only way that you will get your numbers back up is to cut your tags by 50% for 5 years.
Sure some people will have to wait a few years to hunt so what. Pick up a bow and go hunt.

For all of those that are bitching but not being able to hunt or hunt with their famlies for deer: Why dont you try this. Go hunt coyotes, bears, mountain lions, and help with wildlife projects.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[BowHuntr]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 02:53PM (MST)[p]So,

In other words..we need to know nothing else about our deer herd, but the condition of their habitat?

BowHuntr

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

We need to focus more on the deer habitat. Why isnt the deer herd numbers higher? It's not because we are shooting bucks.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

"Common Sense
I dont see it in this post.
You cant have a WIN-WIN here."

Then you didnt read my post. We are constantly saying we need to close down areas or cut down the number of tags and none of that has worked.

I will write up my whole common sense proposal. Its better than the options (bandaids) that we have right now.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

"Managing small units is a start but the only way that you will get your numbers back up is to cut your tags by 50% for 5 years.
Sure some people will have to wait a few years to hunt so what. Pick up a bow and go hunt."

This is pure BS. We have already cut the number of tags down and it never helped one bit. Maybe we need to address other issues besides cutting down tags.

 

[fishon]

In 1983 there was 228,907 buck deer hunters.

in 2009 there were 94,000 buck deer hunters

We have cut out 134,907 hunters

In 1983 we killed 82,552 bucks

in 2009 we killed approximately 23,000 bucks

So we have been saving 59,552 bucks every year since 1994 when we limited buck hunters.

So 1,012,384 less bucks have been killed by hunters.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? And where are all the deer you say we will grow by cutting hunters.


Tony Abbott
www.myfreehunts.com

 

[NVdrhntr]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 04:00PM (MST)[p]let's see some are lifetimes some are dedicated some are lucky
and there's 40 frickin people in the family applying. I didn't say the same 22 were drawing every year.

 

[NVdrhntr]

Is anyone arguing that the option chosen is the end all beat all?
I'm sure not. It's only 1 facet of a multiple solution.
habitat improvement. predator control. And you do need some help from mother nature too.
I cannot believe after what I saw on the southern hunt that their are too many bucks taking the food out of does mouths on the winter range. no way.

 

[archery01]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 04:41PM (MST)[p]Unfortunatly none of these options were created to help the overall deer herd. They are to create more bucks for people to harvest and supposedly increase hunter satisfaction

Better habitat is what we need for helthier deer herd, and when we have another 110,000 deer with a 12/100 buck doe ratio there will be the about the same amount of bucks.

I would rather see 200 deer and 20 bucks then 100 deer and 18 bucks.

Plus this is post hunt so them extra 98 does will have a bunch of bucks to be harvested the next year

 

[ELKOHOLIC]

Sooo Fishin, Do you reccomend that we go back to 228,000 tags?

 

[need4x4]

You can burn and you can set up sprinkler systems, that I am sure would bring back the browse??? (I'm joking of course)

The condition of the browse for the short term is not going to be changed,except by nature (this is long term). Even with this arguement (that it's all about browse), I think it is logical to reduce the number of hunters or the total harvest. The wildlife people know a little bit about what is happening.
Colorado looks successful to me and they reduced tags. You can still hunt there if you want a tag.

This is not some crazy over the top reduction. It makes sense given the circumstance to manage it differently.

Would be great to get everyone into taking a coyote or two, this would help at least to a degree.

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

I figured Elite would pipe off when he seen how the NE Region voted!

All 3 of these Options SUCK!!!

For 38 years I've seen PISS POOR DEER MANAGEMENT!

Did I Studder?

Will & Have things changed?

Yes,Gettin Slowly Worse by the year!

Winter of 08 knocked a few deer down,but they ain't recovering,WTF?

I SWEAR TO GAWD!LET'S JUST OPEN IT UP YEAR AROUND & GET IT OVER WITH!

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!

 

[ktg]

>Sooo Fishin, Do you reccomend that
>we go back to 228,000
>tags?

Maybe that's what he'll recommend, then use all the funds in excess of what was sold this year, for habitat and predator control. Heck, I wouldn't care. Can't get much worse now.

 

[BIG]

Do people shed hunting on the Henry's and Paunsagaunt come across lots of fawns that have died of starvation?

 

[nutsaboutbucks]

>Common Sense
>I dont see it in this
>post.
>You cant have a WIN-WIN here.
>
>
>How do you expect the herd
>to come back and keep
>everyone hunting each year?
>Something has to give. Looks
>like your hunters are winning
>and the deer are losing.
>
>
>Most of the deer posts i
>read about utah (besides LE
>deer and some to) go
>like this. " too many
>people, no deer, only little
>bucks, wtf dwr."
>
>Managing small units is a start
>but the only way that
>you will get your numbers
>back up is to cut
>your tags by 50% for
>5 years.
>Sure some people will have to
>wait a few years to
>hunt so what. Pick up
>a bow and go hunt.
>
>
>For all of those that are
>bitching but not being able
>to hunt or hunt with
>their famlies for deer:
>Why dont you try this.
> Go hunt coyotes, bears,
>mountain lions, and help with
>wildlife projects.
>
>Just my 2 cents.


That is the best post yet! Nice DirtNap

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 10:25PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 08:46?PM (MST)

>LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10
>AT 12:59?PM (MST)
>
>Option #2
>
>1.Does nothing to increase the overall
>health of the deer herd.
>We should be addressing the
>issues as to why we
>have low fawn survival rates
>then worrying about our buck
>numbers in the herd.
>
>2. Fewer hunters will be hunting
>with Option 2. You people
>who are in favor of
>option 2 will be standing
>around 3 to 8 years
>without a tag in your
>hands complaining why you cannot
>hunt in Utah anymore.
>
>3. Its destroys hunting with families.
>
>
>4. What has been said is
>that they are pushing for
>18:100 ratios, this is partially
>true. If you read through
>it and have listening at
>the RACs, the proposal is
>actually for 18-25:100 ratio, which
>in my mind is a
>big difference and leaves too
>much grey for certain people
>to interpret and manipulate.
>
>How many tags would be available
>statewide under 25:100? I'd say
>under 15000.
>
>Any idea what the odds of
>drawing a tag would be
>under that scenario? I have
>an idea.
>
>5. Increasing the buck/doe ratio isn't
>going to grow more bucks
>because fewer bucks will be
>born every year because fewer
>does= fewer fawns and LESS
>OPPORTUNITY.
>
>6. It doesn't focus on habitat
>which should be one of
>our major concerns. Without good
>deer habitat we won't have
>a good deer herd.

Hey, half of this is plagiarized!

Option 2 guys, please answer me this one question:

How many fawns have you seen fall out of the backside of a buck in your lifetime?????

I've hunted Sonora on several occasions, what they have is a lot of big bucks and very low deer densities, which is how they like it and at 12-20k a deer, I can see why. The difference is that they are private animals, not property of you and me.

All of this pissing and moaning about "managing" on a unit basis to improve deer herds. HOGWASH! The proposals on the table are strictly HUNTER MANAGEMENT and again, unit HUNTER management will do ZERO to improve deer numbers and as has been stated, stand to be a detriment more than anything.

Utah could give out 150,000 tags this year for all regions and the overall deer numbers would not be affected by hunters. Weather? sure. Predators? maybe.

As Tony has posted, Statistics STILL show that overall harvest rates on bucks do not change much with drastic reductions or increases in tag numbers. A FEW more big bucks running around if they chop tags by a third, sure, but based on a recent survey conducted by the DWR, that is clearly not what the public wants and since this proposal has nothing to do with biology, the public should get their way!!!!

Shut down a unit to hunting, aint gonna grow one more deer than if 60,000 hunters were to hunt it in any given season.

I believe whole heartedly that we are simply seeing a return to balance in deer numbers due to a healthier ecosystem (save the out of whack elk numbers). I don't see how anyone can dispute the decline in deer numbers coinciding with the elimination of poisons to control and/or eradicate predators, practical grazing policies that don't maim the whole mountain and big game seasons that last 6 months out of the year, not to mention drought and severe winter. Not to mention deer numbers haven't fluctuated much in the last 10 years.

Given all of these variables and factors, the only reason that we are seeing these proposals (2 #$%^ing weeks before the RAC's) is because a handful of people who heavily influence a crookedly managed system in Utah, knew they could slip it in and benefit financially from this crock of ##### set of proposals we have on the table.

There is currently a plan in place based on BIOLOGY that is set up to increase DEER NUMBERS, not buck numbers.

Slice it any way you'd like, every single one of these proposals is set to do 1 thing:

-Raise big antlered deer, and proposal 2 is blatant and does it on a grand scale.

And you just wait, this is the first of many things to come that will have you all shaking your heads. You can write that ##### down, because it's coming.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail......



www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[Tree]

>
> The wildlife people know
>a little bit about what
>is happening.

Damn straight! The "wildlife" people aren't the ones pushing for this change! The "wildlife" guys already have a management plan in it's infancy and are not being allowed to even reach a point to where they can gather data because they are railroaded over and over again!

www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 08:54PM (MST)[p]>
>For 38 years I've seen PISS
>POOR DEER MANAGEMENT!

Gotta have a scape goat B_bop. What makes you think that they can CONTROL things? You've made a great point regarding doe hunts, but many of the past doe hunts were warranted, I don't think anyone will disagree, but other than that, Why the f#ck would you point fingers at the division for their management practices?



www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[nutsaboutbucks]

>In 1983 there was 228,907 buck
>deer hunters.
>
>in 2009 there were 94,000 buck
>deer hunters
>
>We have cut out 134,907 hunters
>
>
>In 1983 we killed 82,552
>bucks
>
>in 2009 we killed approximately 23,000
>bucks
>
>So we have been saving 59,552
>bucks every year since 1994
>when we limited buck hunters.
>
>
>So 1,012,384 less bucks have been
>killed by hunters.
>
>WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? And
>where are all the deer
>you say we will grow
>by cutting hunters.
>
>
>Tony Abbott
>www.myfreehunts.com


Fison lets talk about the urban creap since 1983 to 2009
all the homes built in winter and summer range, do you not think that this has taken a toll on mule deer numbers. Cutting tags is the only option, cut the tags in half, double the tag fee, draw for even and odd numbers. Even numbers hunt even years,odd hunt odd years.

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

Never said they could control anything cuzz they can't!

Would be nice if we could MANAGE!

Don't tell me all the Doe Slaughters were warranted over the years!

Does = EASY MONEY in several places!

Now we got people wondering why we ain't got as many deer as we should have!

GEEZUS!

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!

 

[SoxHunter]

I understand that habitat is important, but I have been hunting for 20 years in areas where there is great habitat for deer and the only thing that changes is there are more hunters and less deer from year to year.

If anything over these 20 years the habitat has improved, thanks to the DWR providing more water opportunities and Juniper removal.

Managing smaller units and cutting tags is the only way to improve herd numbers (bucks and does). I know weather and predators have major influences on herd numbers, but thats where micromanagement can help. If an area needs help recovering from a hard hunt or winter then its a lot easier to manage year to year.

Some people claim it will take 5 to 8 years to draw a tag if tags are cut, I find that to be a stretch but if its the case, im ok with it and Im sure im not the only one. Im willing to wait 15 years to hunt the Henry's, and willing to wait 8 to hunt colorado, if its going to help, im willing to wait.

just my thoughts

 

[BowHuntr]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 10:21PM (MST)[p]Tree,

You speak of a current plan in place that is supposed to raise deer numbers? Is this the DWR's management plan that hasn't changed in umpteen years...as the deer herd has continued to decline...despite the DWR's claims that the population hovers around 300,000 deer (+/- 5,000) ever year?

Every year more sportsmen continue to speak their voice regarding the lack of deer being seen in different areas throughout the state. Yet, somehow the numbers reported by the division never seem to change much. Hell, even numbers reported by previous bioligists were never accurately represented.

The CURRENT plan is not working. Why are the people in charge of the mule deer management not investing enough resources to gain a better understanding of what's really happening on the ground. Upgraded deer inventories, enhanced data analyses, mangagment/research studies etc... No revenue? Well, lets get creative and generate some to fund these kinds of things.

What's it going to take to get something changed in this state?

The DWR contines to claim that there will be no drastic change because people want opportunity.

I'm all for opportunity, but at what cost?

The health and viability of the deer in this state should be the #1 priority.

BowHuntr

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 10:29PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 10:29?PM (MST)

The current management plan was devised by the mule deer committee and was implemented just over a year ago. So no, it isn't the plan that hasn't changed in "umpteen years".

And I agree, the deer herd health should be #1. None of the options address this, but option 2 does unnecessarily reduce more opportunity than the others, with no positive consequences regarding herd health.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Tree, if the unit management system is apparently the "Devil in disguise", why does it work in Wyoming, Arizona, and Colorado? Would you still be opposed to unit management if the tag numbers stayed the same? This has obviously become an opportunity issue. I can't believe that someone still thinks we should have the fall family reunions every year with a tag in every pocket. I don't think a reduction in tag #'s is really the issue. It's the dispursment of pressure. You know damn well that the vast majority of the hunters on the Wasatch spend their time in the Waters and Yellow Jacket areas. Why not force them to spread out? It's not the sole solution but it would help in areas that are way overhunted. This thread is based on "common sense". Maybe I don't have any but it sure would seem to me that spreading hunters out would help in reducing pressure. Like has been said, there is not a complete proposal up there. Hell, these aren't even bandaides. Option 2 is a good start in the right direction but it will do no good without some other supporting factors like predator control and the continued habitat improvement along with seasonal road closures. Common sense would dictate that we attack this problem from all sides not just throw out some proposals that get everyone wound up.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[BIG]

Tree,

Why does one end of the Oquirrhs have a great deer herd while the other one doesn't?

The good end has doe hunts, worse winter range (depending on where they go), more elk, and they don't kill any predators.

Can you tell what the missing factor is? Could it be hunting pressure?

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 10:53PM (MST)[p]Jim,

The reduction of tags under the guise of growing more deer is the first and foremost thing I am against. I don't family hunt, hell I typically hunt alone, but that still doesn't change the fact that reducing tags will do nothing to grow more deer. Also, does concentrated pressure on bucks during hunting season have an effect on deer populations other than bucks? Everything I've heard, read and pondered point to 'no'.

But again, if it's biologically sound to go to unit management, great! But reducing tag numbers for bucks has a negligible effect on harvest unless it is drastic and that is what I fear.

Again, this has nothing to do with deer herd health. The wildlife board came to the division and Anis and demanded that they come up with 2 proposals to join their proposal (option 2) that will take the statewide buck to doe ratio to 18-25:100. I like to hunt big bucks and every year let smaller ones walk, but opportunity at the expense of asininity is something I will continue to swing at.

Lastly, in your opinion and others, what motive does the division (Not the wildlife board) have in skewing statewide deer #'s? Money? They reduced resident elk and deer tag prices a few years back to a loss of roughly 1.4 million dollars and could probably easily get them raised again, so I don't think that's an issue. What is it?

>Common sense would dictate that we attack this problem from all sides not just >throw out some proposals that get everyone wound up.

To the above, I completely agree.

T

www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[BIG]

Option 2 only cuts a few more tags than option 1, You guys act like all the opportunity will be gone, but it won't. All the micro managing does is spread the pressure evenly.

Bucks do grow fawns when there are enough around to breed all the does!

 

[AZDirtNap]

It all comes down to money. Opportunity=money.

It started here in Arizona 2 years ago. They created all kinds of hunts to create more funding and to create more opportunity for those that were bitchin about not getting a tag.

It is like the economy how long can this continue before it crashes.

I drew the Henrys management hunt last year. It was unreal how many deer i saw. does and huge bucks. I hunted Colorado this year and it wasnt the Henrys but it was better then any unit in Arizona and Utah i have hunted.

IMO I hunted southern utah in 2002 and it was a joke and stupid to have 5000 people hunting a unit. I know it is a huge area but it seem that half were hunting by the pink coral sand dunes.

I think Colorado has the best plan for deer IMO.

small units less tags and 2 maybe 3 seasons.

What up with your antelope on the plateua? Sounds like too many tags in the past finally came full circle.

Tony what is the solution on the antelope? Oh i forgot more hunters.

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-10 AT 11:29PM (MST)[p]Cutting 1 tag is asinine!

So now we need 18 bucks to efficiently breed 100 does? From what journal did that originate?

If biologists say that massive tag cuts and micromanagement will improve deer numbers, I'll be the first to ride that train, but so far, All they are saying is to the contrary.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

I'm not saying they purposefully skew numbers. I do think they are a lazy bunch! They used to get their numbers from actual field counts not models. Unless they are flying in helicopters paid for by conservation groups they don't do it. They use models. That's exactly like saying we can manage the Wasatch the same way we manage the west desert.

Tell me this, if option #2 didn't cut tags and had a big habitat intitiative as well as a predation plan attached, would you be for it then. I have a sneeky suspician that BOY and UBA wouldn't because it would put the statewide archery at risk. Everyone has an alterior motive and a selfish aspect. Me, I just want my kids to be able to hunt in their home state and actually see deer. You spend a lot of time on the Wasatch how many deer did you see this year?



It's always an adventure!!!

 

[BIG]

I don't think we should cut tags either, but I would like to see the cuts they are going to make converted into archery and muzz tags. That wont happen though I would imagine.

The bucks comment didn't originate from any journal, just an opinion and observation that areas with higher buck ratios seem to have better deer populations. Areas like Chalk Creek, Lost Creek, CWMU's, Limited entry units.

Can you answer my question about the Oquirrhs?

Is your biologist named PRO?

 

[Tree]

I saw roughly about the same amount of deer as I usually do, though in areas where elk are more dense, They seem to be fairly scarce.

I would support option 2 if it wasn't based on raising buck to doe ratios in conjunction with what you laid out, minus statewide archery. There is no logical reason to eliminate it. I'm a HUNTER long before a bow hunter and I don't think my way is any more valid than the rest, BUT realistically, archery doesn't make much of a dent when held in comparison to any weapon hunts and is a great management tool while maintaining opportunity.

Regarding elk; The area I hunt deer in traditionally has held quite a few deer and come rut time, several big bucks. 6 years ago, I saw my first elk in this area (Open bull), today there are over 200 head in one canyon that I hunt (It is quite large) and I'd estimate 3-400 that winter in the lower portion. As the elk population has boomed the deer have moved out. It has been very plain to see that the elk have displaced the deer from where they traditionally inhabited.

To me, this is an indicator of how elk may be diminishing elk numbers, at least in this area. Statewide as a rule of thumb? Don't know, but it's what I have observed.

www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-10 AT 00:29AM (MST)[p]>I don't think we should cut
>tags either, but I would
>like to see the cuts
>they are going to make
>converted into archery and muzz
>tags. That wont happen
>though I would imagine.
>
>The bucks comment didn't originate from
>any journal, just an opinion
>and observation that areas with
>higher buck ratios seem to
>have better deer populations.
>Areas like Chalk Creek, Lost
>Creek, CWMU's, Limited entry units.
>
>
>Can you answer my question about
>the Oquirrhs?
>
>Is your biologist named PRO?

Sorry, didn't notice your Oquirrh post. I'd say there could be a number of reasons. Pressure? Sure, but it may have just displaced the animals to areas with less roads, private property etc. The same goes with CWMU's, LE etc. Why wouldn't animals move to areas less pressured? To me that's hunting 101, where do animals go when people move in? Places where they aren't bothered. Honestly, I don't have the answer, but 30 more bucks on that end sure as hell isn't going to make a dent in the overall population.

Listen, I'm not claiming to have all of the answers, but I do know, according to biologists and literature siting many studies regarding mule deer management that the proposals that we have on the table are purely political and have spawned from a group of fellers that have no checks and balances regarding their hinderance to biologists doing their job. They threw out a curve ball 2 weeks before a RAC meetings that had no hunter management change on the table beforehand, other than season date proposals.

It left me to ask myself why they would blindside the division, hunters and the mule deer committee with something that hadn't really been in the picture before then. Anyone remember the non-action season date proposals that were debated heavily at last years bucks and bulls RACs? Where did they go?

Why did the mule deer committee, comprised of biologists from the division, sportsman's groups as well as a myriad of other consumptive and non-consumptive representatives, who spent hundreds of hours on research etc. waste their time to come up with a management plan that was going to be scrapped before any data could even be collected?

Knee jerk at best and it stinks of special interest and unfortunately in Utah, biology takes a back seat to politics time and time again.




www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

Is your Biologist Pro?

LMMFAO!

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!

 

[Muley_73]

Tree,
The division is the one saying to do this you have to cut 13,000 tags. This tells me they believe we are over harvesting somewhere? I promise my support is to grow more deer. Maybe big bucks will come later and that is great. But that should not and does not have to be the point of Option 2! If you we use the 29 unit option correctly it will grow more deer and provide more opportunity in the future!
If losing the statewide hunt is your main concern or the option to hunt evey year, then be honest! Don't hide behind biology. If the biology is applied to each unit we will be more successful than trying to apply it to the whole state or even region. That is just plain common sense!

There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.

 

[Tree]

WRONG! The folks at the division are NOT the ones that instigated tag cuts. They are simply following directions from the wildlife board who ordered them to come up with options that would bring the buck to doe ratios up to a minimum of 18:100. The division has no such "plans" until the wildlife board bombarded them shortly before the bucks and bulls RACs.

Misinformation and apathy are THE problem(s) regarding public input in this state.

And no, as stated before (If you care to comprehend) if any of this were biologically driven and was to grow more deer, I'd be behind it. Did you attend any RAC meetings? Talked with any DWR employees? One of the FIRST things in Anis' presentation at every RAC is a disclaimer that NONE of these plans will grow more deer!!!





www.bowhuntersofutah.com

 

[Packout]

Awholelotta-- Wyoming does not unit-by-unit manage. They allow residents to hunt statewide, non-residents hunt by regions, and they have some limited-entry units. Hmmm, sounds a lot like UTAH.

It seems like Option 2 guys want "Colorado or Nevada Quality". So lets take a look at the tag allotments under those wishes--

-If Utah goes to Nevada's ratios then Utah would give approx 35,000 total buck permits.

-Under Colorado's system Utah would have around 45,000 buck tags.

It is currently a 2-3 year wait to hunt three of Utah's five regions. How long is that wait going to be if we cut tags in 1/2 or by 2/3s?

Under Option 2 people will not see great increases in buck numbers. All units but 3 are at or above 15 bucks per 100 doe. You guys think going to 18 will make a huge difference? What about the units in the 20s for buck to doe ratios? WIll those guys hunting a 20+ buck unit be happy when the UDWR increases tag numbers?

All this fighting over bucks. What a waste of time and energy. We already have over 40 units in the state which can be manipulated by predator control, seasonal road closure, season length, micro-struggling units, etc... Of course nobody is fighting for the doe herds, they don't have enough "inches". See all you guys at the Antlerless meetings-- yeah right.

 

[wileywapati]

Jim Wyo. runs a management plan just like the one developed a few months back by the committee.. Colorado and every other state in the west are IN DECLINE NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF MANAGEMENT IS USED!!!

Option 2 will not work!!! You cant grow deer by cutting BUCK HUNTER NUMBERS





*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.

 

[brutus]

For all those like tree and fishon that are obsessed with biology and numbers and cant stand the thought of not having a deer tag every year, here ya go.
At the current divisions population #s (wich are quite possibly the biggest pull a number out of a hat ever, using they're scientific diagram BS, but lets use them anyway)

302,000= curent population of deer in the state

60,400= 20% of wich are bucks wich is a pretty close average according to DWR #s

350,000= carrying capacity according DWR "biological estimate"

35,000= 10% of wich are bucks cause thats all that are "biologicaly" needed.

If they're issuing roughly 90,000 tags for 60,400 bucks, then we'll be fighting for a whopping 52,000 tags for your "biologicaly" phenominal deer herd at 35,000 bucks. NOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE PROGRESS TO ME.

The DWR already said they cant control the population so why do you "biology majors" (fishon,tree) say they can?

If we cut tags for a few years to bring the buck population up to even 25% because after all thats what hunters are hunting when they're hunting deer and the DWR said they can grow more bucks by limiting hunters.BTW 13000 less tags is at least going to be 2600 more bucks in the population, wich last time i checked was 2600 more deer than the year before. Wich slowly but surely builds the population and since were under carrying capacity it will not negativly affect the herd health.Personally i,d wish they would cut tags in half to speed up the process but that wont happen sooo. By the time the population reached 350,000 we would have 87,500 bucks (roughly 25/100 ratio) they could issue 129,000 buck tags wich is the same ratio. That sounds to me like more oppurtunity. But i guess that would mean not hunting for a few years so that wont work either. We better just leave it the way it is right.

PS this habitat thing is sounding more and more like global warning. The educated people know thats only fix there is but rest of us are to stupid know better! So i guess we'll just have to trust you.

 

[Muley_73]

Packout,
Yes I was at a RAC meeting. And yes I listened to Anis. His numbers are spun and everybody that is not on that wagon knows it. He claimed 310,000 deer in Utah? His biologist don't even agree with that. He refrenced his model, THE SAME MODEL THAT SLAUGHTER THE PARKER PRONGHORN HERD. Give me break. Yes I listened and anytime an actual question was asked Anis gave a tape recorder response or avoided it.

As far as the the WB springing this on everybody at the last second BS, and you know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DeLoss asked Anis that exact question at the Central RAC and the RAC would not allow Anis to answer. Why was that? Could it be because the truth was not being presented about when DWR agreed to changes last year! Does can, an should be managed better with micro units, if they are not that is just the DWR continuing to fail that their job.

I sure hope when you get a chance to make a difference you actually listen! I hear your chance may be coming?

There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.

 

[wileywapati]

BRUTUS you are smoking crack if you think these tags are ever coming back... They won't. The Crybabies down south already feel overcrowded. They won't allow any more hunters down that way.
Trying to grow herds by cutting hunters that harvest bucks will take around 30 years to bring the North back.

They keep dividing hunters under one guise or another and this time they have sold ya'll a doozie and ya'll have gone clear up to the sinkers.

Since you hate numbers BRUTUS why don't ya hit the Colorado Fish and Game site and look at all of the pretty graphs. Look at the trend since Colorado went this way back in the early 90's.

There is no improvement







*****************************************
Wiley,
I am nominating that for post of the
century on Monster Muleys!

Your are spot on.

 

[Muley_73]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-20-10 AT 04:07PM (MST)[p]Wiley,
The RACs voted and suddenly their is going to be a big Option 1 party hosted by Tony and it is the south that is crybabies!!! The Northern RAC only had 12 people make comments and only 6 were for Option 1. The southern SE and NE had almost 40 comments and they were heavy heavy in favor of option 2. Sound like to me that the North was kind of indifferent unitl they didn't get their way. So you tell me who is being crybabies?

There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.

 

[brutus]

Geez i guess yer right wiley, colorado huntin sucks.
Just keep huntin here cause its the bestes durn huntin in the west.

I'm just using your DWR's numbers to show the educated idiots that they're numbers dont make sense with 10/100 even if the DWR somehow could actually figure out how to save does from continully shrinking wich to this point they havent. I would hate to have colorado's mule deer herd then we'd really be in trouble would'nt we.

I'd trade their deer herd and their fish and game for ours in a second!

BTW just curious what do you think is going to bring the herd back short of not hunting does anymore, poisons on coyotes, killing off as many predators as possible, and naturaly occuring things such as wet years and mild winters? Habitat restoration? Ya because that has worked so well in bringing the herd back the last 5-10 years that we've been riding that train or gravy train if you ask sportmens organizations.

I'll i'm saying is it seems like the whole time the biologists have been preaching habitat everyone has a habitat project going on somewhere and it still hasnt made a difference. Everytime we see a upward trend its because of the suppossed habitat restoration and when we have a downward trend its just nature taking its course, Was'nt our fault. Come on pull your head out.

 

[Packout]

Muley- I am not going to validate the numbers. They may be right or they may be wrong. That is the whole issue here-- this proposal does 0 for the herd. It is completely spun for CERTAIN buck hunters. It does nothing, 0, zip, nada to address your issues with the UDWR's data. Even if the data is wrong, how does this current proposal change anything? This whole dog and pony show is only there to restrict the harvest of bucks. All any of these options do is address BUCKS. This whole process has further divided and alienated hunters on both sides.

Again-- I don't get how guys can't understand that the Mule Deer management Plan already has the state divided into 40+ units which can be manipulated on every level if they are not meeting objectives: predator management, seasonal road closures, season length, micro-units not meeting objectives, etc..... I guess they have not read the Plan.... All this effort protecting 1-3 bucks on units already meeting the buck objectives. What a waste. Where are the fawns going?

You already have an avenue to help the doe herd on the current micro-units. Yet here we are fighting over units which are already meeting their buck objectives. (And the ones which do not meet those objectives are slated to be addressed- the Monroe included)

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

While Wyoming may manage on a similar model as the one we are supposed to be using they dispurse their hunting pressure pretty evenly. They still have a lot more units/regions than we do to dispurse the hunting pressure. I've hunted several Region tags in Wyoming and there is no where near the hunter numbers as there are in Utah. You see 10 times the deer as well. Do you think there just might be a little correlation to hunter numbers vs the amount of deer seen. I'm no biologist (like I've said 100 times) but I'm a hunter. And I would like to think that I spend a lot more time in the mountains than the average guy. I promise, I'm not sleeping when I'm hunting in Utah. I use the same optics and usually the same tactics that I use in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. So what is the difference. Do we honestly think that Utah has more predators, worse habitat, and more open roads/atv trails than Wyoming and Colorado? If you think that, you've never hunted out of this state.

You guys can throw out all the numbers you want to throw out. I don't care what model you use or how you go about getting your numbers. Until the DWR, wildlife board, and the RAC get this deer herd turned around, they are all CHUMPS!!!!! Worthless, politically manipulated chumps! And Anis is the chief chump. They need to be called out. They need to do their damn jobs, instead of constantly trying to justify them with worthless studies and bogus counts. So if Tony's grand standing or Don's lobying gets it done, GREAT! Just somebody get it done. It doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to be politically correct. I don't care if it pisses off half the hunters in the state. Get it done.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[ktg]

>
>You guys can throw out all
>the numbers you want to
>throw out. I don't
>care what model you use
>or how you go about
>getting your numbers. Until
>the DWR, wildlife board, and
>the RAC get this deer
>herd turned around, they are
>all CHUMPS!!!!! Worthless, politically
>manipulated chumps! And Anis
>is the chief chump.
>They need to be called
>out. They need to
>do their damn jobs, instead
>of constantly trying to justify
>them with worthless studies and
>bogus counts. So if
>Tony's grand standing or Don's
>lobying gets it done, GREAT!
> Just somebody get it
>done. It doesn't have
>to be pretty, it doesn't
>have to be politically correct.
> I don't care if
>it pisses off half the
>hunters in the state.
>Get it done.
>

+1

 

[Muley_73]

+10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are not enough deer in Utah...FOR REAL.

 

[huntut]

I am from wyoming and now live and enjoy to hunt in utah as much as anyone. One simple thing they implemented in wyoming that really helped is they would implement a 4 point or better requirement in some areas.....meaning you could not kill a buck unless it had at least 4 points on one side!

Some areas this rule would be in place perminantely and some areas they would go 2 years on and 2 years off or something like that. This would really increase the number of bucks that live with the same number of permits.

Then i suggest to allow archery hunters to kill does if they want. Maybe then people would quit killing the 2 and 3pt bucks. Also do away with state wide archery...hunt the areas you put in for!!!!

The thing I do like about the 29 units is it would spread the hunters out and allow a certain amount of pressure on a specific herd.