Utah deer statistics are trash

[Hooner]

Help me understand. I Went to the Southern Rac meeting. After the meeting I had a few questions. I felt that the buck to doe ratio numbers in many units are inaccurate. Looking at the numbers I highlighted the Southwest desert knowing that there is definetly something wrong with that b/d count.
Today I went in and talked with the Biologist in S. Utah. He was real honest and willing to answer my questions. I asked him why the buck to doe ratio is so high on the South West desert unit. Knowing myself that there is no way we have 29 buck per 100 doe in that unit. He told me himself that they only surveyed 137 deer. In the population counts they put Indian peaks at 1600 deer. That means that they surveyed 8.5 percent of the total population.
Is it just me or is that insane. I am a dedicated hunter. I then asked if I could go out and help with the counts and also receive credit for the dedicated hunter program. I was told not by the biologist but by someone else that there is no way they would let that fly. The officers that they have are trained in how to count and do not need my help but that if I want to go for a ride along I could. WOW.
Seriously how long can we deal with the bogus counts. I vote for the option that gives us true deer counts so we know what we are dealing with!

 

[Sidehill]

Here is a perfect example of why none of the option's will do anything for our deer herds including option #2.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

Some people believe that with Option #2 then someone from the DWR will wave their magic wand and all the counts will be accurate.

 

[Hooner]

Looking at the three options it appears that if we really want true numbers we may need to move to option 2. Don't see how option 1 and 3 would help change the way we count deer or classify them.

 

[TheElitehornhunter]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-23-10 AT 06:54PM (MST)[p]Please explain how option 2 will be better if the same people are counting and the same model used to estimate populations?

Please answer me this?

The DWR will still come up with their 1600 deer and figure buck to doe ratios and permit numbers and people will still complain that we have no bucks.

 

[brutus]

Okay elite why dont you explain to me how your going to change the educated idiots minds on deer counting so they'll take more accurate counts. Then tell me how your going to get them to swallow they're degree,s and grow the deer herd. Personally I think they know how many deer we have, They're just scared to release the real #s. If they attacked the real problems facing the deer herd and not the problems their text books and they're professers told them affected mule deer we might get somewhere. Now we have to have a 5 yr study to find out elk eat brush in winter, coyotes will only eat deer till they're full, bears sh@t in the woods, ect. Go back to cause and effect maybe even common sense, actual #s not theories and bilology BS that is come up with in a lab under a contolled enviroment studied by a bunch of labcoats that have never set foot in the actual enviroment that they're supposed to be studying. I dont think they know why the deer herd is shrinking cause they've tryed everything their textbooks said with habitat after habitat project and still no results. Now they're panicing. But not bad enough yet to admit they're wrong,They still know more than the public.

 

[brutus]

Just looked up population objective on DWR website and according to them most of southern region is full of deer.

Pauns is over by 500

Zion is over by 600

Panguitch takes the prize they're over by 2000

Beaver is full too. Its at obj.

Pine Valley is over by 600

And not sure why we our all so worried about Monroe they're only short 400 head.

I dont know bout any of you but i cant even began to think that were headed in the right direction. I wish elite would get em straightened out on they're counts or southern's in trouble when they start issueing permits for micro-units or region wide. Either one.

Hell were drowning in deer down here. WAJ!!!

 

[Hooner]

elitehunter, it's simple. Accountability. If you have a smaller micro managed unit correct counts are vital. The theory with the current system is that everything is broken into regions and leaves more room for error. If there is a bad count in one area the DWR hopes that the overall region count will compensate.
For example you take the Southwest desert. The DWR shows low deer numbers but it also has the highest doe to buck ratio in the state. If you have been in this area you know for a fact that this a bogus deer count and a radical buck to doe ratio statistics. You also know that it is not a habitat or winter range issue. However you have the pine valley and the Zion unit in this same region so it doesn't matter if they screw up in the Southwest desert because in the DWR's eyes the supporting region deer numbers compensated for the error.
If you have smaller sub units you can't afford to have error and you are forced to have more accurate numbers. Takes you right back to that big word Accountability.

 

[stillhunterman]

Are you serious? It's guys like you that have NO clue as to what the micro management system is that will be the cause for another delay in getting things right! There may be 5 regions, but the damn micro units will be basically the same size AS THEY ARE NOW! There is only going to be ONE difference, and I bet you don't even know what that is.

It's all mute anyway, as all three choises do NOTHING for the health of the herd, they are STRICTLY FOR HUNTER MANAGEMENT! The counts will be done the same way, by the same people, for the same reasons, no difference....geeze

 

[Sidehill]

I agree it is simple.Accountability.If you have smaller micro managed unit correct counts are vital indeed. However what you don't realize is that deer counts will be done the same way they are right now on there same model which actually does no more than estimate the overall deer population in the 29 subunits within the five regions we currently have now. I believe that any of the options proposed will not do a darn thing accepts for further complicate everything. Yes and you can come back and say that it will even out hunting pressure and give the deer a better chance the fact of the matter is my friend won't do little if anything until the dwr hits the ground running with both feet and starts to collect proper field data and do away with there model on there desk that estimates deer population's. Look what happened on parker mountain unit this year with antelope you still don't have accountability do you fact is there still pissin in the wind!

 

[brownie]

Sounds like you didn't drink the koolaid. Good job!

Thanks

Brownie

 

[brutus]

SERIOUSLY, how do you propose we fix the deer counts? I really want to know. I have'nt heard how, I've just heard why nothin will help. Are we just stuck with what we currently have? Cause currently according to their counts the south has plenty of deer. I still say opt#2 is best of 3 but, I agree its not going to help with their current counting system. Can the wildlife board make them change the way they conduct counts? Who makes that decision? Does anyone know? Or who do we hold accountable for faulty counts? SERIOUS, i'd like know if you guys have any answers.

 

[Sidehill]

I truly believe that option #2 could do more harm than good taken into consideration the way they conduct current counts and us there models to estimate population and the buck to doe ratio's really scare me if they manage for 15-18 bucks per hundred does and for example you have a micro unit that has say 32 bucks and 190 does there at objective and they have no accountability its managed right to were they said it would be. In my opinion I think they need to get harvest data from every single tag they issue and gather alot more field data from winter range on head counts browse doe fawn ratios age class of bucks post season and overall health of the herd ect. I am quit certain they don't have near the resources to properly manage for option #2 in Utah it will just be what some might say there educated guess lol! how many tags to give for each micro unit and you can bet that number will be high so they don't further pissoff the public and then hunters will be more evenly spread and they'll really pound the deer herds. I think it is time to go over there heads and start flooding the governors office with letters phone calls emails about the whole situation if people really want to get something accomplished.

 

[brutus]

Faulty counts will affect the deer herd no matter what option is implemented. micro-managing is the best way to control the things that affect individual deer herds. Tryed and trued. But truly it doesnt matter if they have blatently faulty counts. I agree on the last part

 

[Utahelkaholic]

Are you serious? It's guys like you that have NO clue as to what the micro management system is that will be the cause for another delay in getting things right! There may be 5 regions, but the damn micro units will be basically the same size AS THEY ARE NOW! There is only going to be ONE difference, and I bet you don't even know what that is.

Obviously you don't know what the difference is. The micro units are not going to be basically the same size! Each micro unit is going to have to meet the set goal of buck to doe ratio and deer heard objective in that SMALL UNIT if they do not then they will cut back on tag numbers for that unit. The current plan we have allows the fish and game to factor in large regions where you get a vague idea of that regions quality and the numbers are favorable because they include private lands and limited entry hunt areas to boost numbers of buck to doe ratio for that region so maybe you should get a clue before you run your mouth