ONE DOE!

S

sageadvice

Long Time Member
Messages
11,849
I have seen where some have recommended to their brothers in vain, not to take a Doe from a particular unit or area because, for whatever reason, the herd is way down. Well, lets talk about that Doe.

Under normal circumstance, a Doe, let's call her our Queen, will have two fawns a year for from 5-10 years but to keep the numbers down, we'll talk about her having five crops of fawns. Our Queen Doe has two fawns, say, one female and a male. The next year, that female fawn has her own twins, again, a male and female, this followed by the same for 3 more years...5 Does and five bucks being born from that first born female of our Queen doe.

Then we must consider our Queen doe giving birth to twins again her second year. Yep, for average sake we'll see a doe fawn and a buck fawn. This doe fawn has her babies for five years and again from her alone we have 5 buck fawns and 5 doe fawns. Figure the third, fourth, and fifth year of our Queen doe the same, 5 and 5 each year.

From that one queen doe that some one did shoot or decided that maybe they didn't need to shoot, she was or hypothetically could have been directly responsible for 50 deer being born in about a five year period, 25 bucks and 25 other Does. All that from the ONE DOE!

Yes, i believe that there are times and places where a Doe hunt may be warranted. Large Private holdings, limited entry units where the herd may be eating themselves from groceries, or even some General units where the herd is doing well. I do though believe that there are times and places where, even though a Doe hunt is legal, because of the dwindling herd, it should not have been granted, or legal, and it is up to the Sportsman to decide or to be recommended by others, not to take that ONE DOE!

Joey



"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
You guys are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to vilify somebody, take it out on the UDWR, not the hunters who legally obtain tags and harvest Does.


2a0fcsk.gif
 
Sage,
That is a great post!!!! The UDWR has proven time and again they make poor decisions. Sometimes we as hunters must self regulate. Shooting a doe in the state of UT right now should be on par with poaching a big buck IMO!!!
 
totally agree

People that are shooting the does on units that are under objective have no idea what kind of harm they are doing to a unit.

The division should be held more accountable for screw ups like this. Meaning they should loose their job!

They always wait until the deer herds are decimated before they do anything and then it takes years if not more then ten years to fix a screw up on their part.


avatar_2528.jpg
 
257tony---Just because the tags are sold by the DWR doesn't mean that a hunter can't look into things (self regulate as one member stated)and decide to pass on the doe tag because nobody is holding a gun to his head and making him buy the tag!!!
 
Good post sage. I was giving that same logic to my wife the other night and she probably was listening as intently as the DWR.

That being said if I remember right, last year it seems like towns wanted to/or did remove doe's during the winter up on the wasatch. If that being the case I would rather hunters get the opportunity, especially youth. However, it could be a slippery slope b/c as posted it doesn't take much to make a big impact and put what is said to be a thriving herd into a hurting herd.
 
It was bountiful that had the doe hunt. It was a stupid idea! the deer that are the problem are the ones living in TOWN ALL YEAR LONG. So if you want to affect the population of the wild deer then when is the worst time to do it "THE WINTER!"

Now think when is it the best time to affect the native deer that are causing the problem "THE SUMMER TIME" Another DWR screw up!!

The rest of the front is not over objective!!!! Its under objective! Any does you shoot will affect the future of the front!!! Why is this so hard to understand for the division. Why is this so hard to understand for the guys hunting it right now is beyond me as well.

avatar_2528.jpg
 
Thanks for all the thoughtful replies guys! By now some of you probably figured out that my math was a little off. In actuality, each Doe born of the Queen Doe, and her descendant Does, is a Queen Doe herself and can be directly responsible for 50 or more, in the case of both fawns being female, fawns being born.

Chusker, use your head that God gave you! If you have a tag, the herd is not in decline, and that is your wish...by all means, do so.

I know a guy who knew where all the quail on his ranch roosted at night. he'd sneak under the roost trees in the late evening and shoot their heads off with a 22. He killed them all! i saw him last time down visiting with the folks and he said he still has no quail on his place...40 years later. Take some, leave some!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
>Guess you dont have any predators
>where your disney,fantasy doe lives..
>

Which makes it more one reason to not shoot the does!

avatar_2528.jpg
 
Sage,
appreciate your post, really, but your math only works if nothing else (predators, highway, disease) is killing those does.

I agree at the end of your post where you say we can hunt does (over objective units, private, etc.) and that is all I'm really saying, too.

I'm definitely not for doe hunting across the board, I'm just for doe hunting if someone choses to do so in a unit that can handle it. That's all.

I guess the real issue here is whether the Wasatch hunt (the post "tired.." that got all this started) can biologically support a doe hunt.

So far all I've read is opinions that it can't.

The Christian
 
Christian, Yes, i purposely held out any mention of the mortality of deer because i wanted to particularly point out what the deer themselves have the natural ability to do.

Of course there are predators, auto's, bad winters, hunting, habitat loss, and disease to name some of the deaths that do and will occur. Cattlemen well understand the math! Unfortunately for them, not many cattle yearly produce twins but no Cattleman worth his salt will sell off his heifers if he is wanting to build his herd.

You said, "I guess the real issue here is whether the Wasatch hunt (the post "tired.." that got all this started) can biologically support a doe hunt."

No, not really. Sure, you can include some places more than others but i've long held my belief's for any area, State, Unit, or Zone that allows the taking of Mule Deer Does when the herd is depleted of deer or becoming so.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
totally agree with the theory of what your saying. Until the last sentence. Is the DWR not doing there job and that we as hunters need to take it upon ourselves to know wich deer herds are healthy enough to hold a doe hunt for? I have never taken a doe or will ,just not my cup of tea. However I also think if the dwr issues a tag for a species the hunter should have the right to go and try and fill it, with out being blasted for doing so.
 
MOst, if not all, of the units with doe tags can easily sustain the harvest without significantly effecting the herd. There are always exceptions, of course.
You arm chair quarterbacks are forgetting to figure in the political pressures from farmers with too many deer, etc. The unit may not be over population objective, but as one reply hinted, if you have 200 deer in your alfalfa patch at night you may look at things a bit differently. It isn't that the whole county is over objective, but the farmer may certainly think there are too many deer on his place.
Doe hunts serve there purpose. They relieve a little pressure in areas with high deer density, and most commonly, the doe hunters aren't wandering too far afield taking deer from less populous locations.
Like this entire thread, this is just a generalization. If we can't keep the rural folks (farmers, ranchers) happy with some limited population control, we will see even more limited population objectives on the units. It isn't nearly as black and white as so many think.
Bill
 
These guys and their predators.

Sage, you hit the nail on the head. RIGHT ON.

Christian, you are right....that deer that will produce 50 babies may lose 20 of them to a car or a coyote so just kill her today and take all 30 of the potential babies that would survive right out of the mix.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
I hunted a CWMU this year. The deer herd was AMAZING!!!

The public land in the area was very tough to find a good buck on. Guss why. They shoot a lot of does around there to keep the population down. Well, the 20,000 acres of private is THRIVING.

Right on Sage.

PS....I am buying the same tag next year....you can hunt on your pulic land all day long...it's time to demand more deer from these pathetic biologists.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
+1 on no doe hunts on areas that cannot sustain it!

It does not support killing does to say what about all of those that will die by other means. In fact it is just another reason not to kill them as they are needed to help make up for those losses.

Bill

Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
 
Anne,

You are missing the most important point. CWMU's have a financial incentive to maintain healthy, trophy populations of deer. The Landowner WANTS a high population, simply due to profit motive. This isn't a bad thing at all, just a fact.

Public land has no such incentive, and many ranchers / farmers do NOT want high populations. While we as hunters may want a deer behind every bush, the rancher trying to make ends meet has an entirely different agenda. Not every last acre can be enrolled in a CWMU (Thank God), and the political carrying capacity of the public land is something that few on this forum seem willing to discuss.

Bill
 
Bill, Lamma mod, I'm going to retort your post, mostly because I think it is mostly BS and lastly because I think you are smart enough to know better. Also, i believe that it is you that is missing the point.

First, you sound as if you are referring to Utah where I was not. I'm taking anywhere that there is a harvest of Mule Deer Does. Second, Your statement, ?MOst, if not all, of the units with doe tags can easily sustain the harvest without significantly effecting the herd.? Goes against what many, what I consider ?informed? members here have plainly stated and I value their as well as my own opinion. Lastly, I did mention large tracks of privately held lands, farmers and ranchers, so I was not slighting or forgetting the management needs of those so fortunate.

Seems to me, you're grasping at straws here in support of Doe hunts in a post that Clearly, only talks of not having Doe hunts in Areas, Zones, States, and Units, that can not support them, where the Muley herd is in decline and in danger of becoming more so. I'm not sure of your agenda here but it certainly looks as if, from your statement, ?They relieve a little pressure in areas with high deer density, and most commonly, the doe hunters aren't wandering too far afield taking deer from less populous locations.? That you are willing to forgo the good of the Mule Deer herd especially if it doesn't interfere with your trophy hunt in the back country.

That's how I see it, of course, this is just a Generalization. 



"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Great post,Joey.Really puts things into easy-to-understand terms for everyone.Of course,the one thing no one has mentioned is "carrying capacity" for the particular unit or range in question.I remember back in the early '90's when Wyoming started handing out multiple doe tags for deer and antelope.In 1991,a hunter could kill a total of 13 deer if he applied for and received the proper licenses.2 bucks and 11 does.Yes,that is correct.You could also take a total of 9 antelope,7 of which were does.Wy G&F were concerned about the "carrying capacity" of the winter ranges.22 animals per hunter.In region G,which was comprised of units 135-137,143-145,and 147,G&F handed out a total of 8000 additional doe or fawn tags.In '92,that number was 6500.Now,keep in mind that's a two-yr period,and just in region G.14,500 does.Does that seem like a little overkill?The Wyoming Range herd NEVER recovered from those years.Another 3,000 of those were offered in 1990.In '93,there were zero additional doe tags.OOPS!!Looks like we may have overdone it!Back then,there were literally deer everywhere in region G.G&F handed out almost 20,000 doe permits in a three-yr period.According to Joey's figures for potential fawn recruitment(which seems fairly logical),how many deer did we lose by doing that??G&F received mucho criticism for that,and have never lived down that fiasco in the eyes of many of us that were hunting back then.Couple those figures with a fairly tough winter in '92-'93,and you can see how quickly things can go from bad to worse with poor management decisions.G&F stood fast by their decision to kill all these deer for the next few years,then publicly admitted they had screwed up,and publicly apologized.Like I said,the herd has never recovered.I'm not advocating never killing does.As Joey and others have stated,there is definitely a time and place for that.I will also admit that I took part in the killing of some of those does.I probably killed 3 or 4 over that 3 yr period,while taking one buck during the same time frame.Since that time,G&F has lowered the herd objective for the Wyoming Range herd,because they know it will never recover to previous numbers.Draw your own conclusions from this info.Just giving you some factual data to peruse and think about.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-11 AT 12:27PM (MST)[p]Thanks Guys!! Some great background there nontypical, +1!

It is Sooo easy to sell the tags. It is MUCH harder to bring back a depleted herd to habitat holding capacity. With all that mule deer have deal with to survive and then, hopefully thrive, taking of that ONE DOE on public land should be fairly considered before doing so.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
nontypical,
thanks for the Wyoming example, which I used in part on another thread.

Question,
what are your thoughts on this, as I've heard it from both sides.

Winter of 92/93 is what stopped all the doe hunts because of die off; would we have had more deer left over after that hard winter had not the doe tags been offerred?

Thanks

The Christian
 
Christian, the answer to your question is NO.

The deer herd can and will survive on the land at higher numbers than they had at the time.

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Christian-Excellent question!Unfortunately,no one will ever know the answer to that.Only opinions can be offered up.Yes-I saw your reference to the winter of '92-'93 on the other post.My opinion is this:The G&F made a judgement error on this.In trying to outguess mother nature,they had two choices to make.Either hope we didn't have a big die-off,or try to be pro-active and issue the extra tags,trying to fend off what they thought could be a heavier mortality rate.In reality,they were probably screwed either way in the public's eye.I am of the opinion that maybe we shouldn't have been quite so gung-ho and issued so many tags.Really-13 deer??Who needs 13 freakin' deer?But,I digress.I find it ironic that G&F tried to be pro-active in this instance,but since then have never shown me to be the slightest bit pro-active in any of their management.In fact,the opposite is true.20 years ago,our deer herds were outstanding.I'm not saying G&F is resposible for the decline totally.In fact,there is no doubt that mother nature is in charge and always has been.Maybe G&F is reluctant to be pro-active because of that winter...but who knows?Maybe more deer would have survived if they would have left them alone.They themselves admitted they made a mistake,but again,who really knows?20 years ago,deer herds in all of the west were so much different than things are now.Why put more pressure on a shrinking resource?I don't see how anyone can think that killing does does not affect herd growth in areas where numbers are low to begin with.
 
AspenAdventures,
Thanks for answering the question posed.

If I worded it right: "would we have had more deer left over after that hard winter had not the doe tags been offerred?"

You answered "NO"

If we are on the same page, then that is my point in offerring doe hunts WHEN BIOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE. We would have lost all those deer (and possibly more) had not the hunts been offerred.

These hunts Nontypical referenced during a time when the deer were greatly over capacity (not my opinion, but was considered "fact" at the time) we would have lost more deer than we did.

Nontypical points out we'll never know, and I'd have to conceed, but most biologists agree that if you are above carrying capacity, winter will take more than hunters.

Nontypical says G&F regretted their decision and I admit that is the first time I've heard that, but I take his word for it.

I'm in no way advocating doe hunts across the board in this post or the other.

I'm only trying to point out that there are cases and areas where doe hunts are beneficial. That's all.

Thanks for the discussion. I've learned along the way.

The Christian
 
Christian is saying, "I'm only trying to point out that there are cases and areas where doe hunts are beneficial. That's all."

Part of my post #1 of this thread, "Yes, i believe that there are times and places where a Doe hunt may be warranted. Large Private holdings, limited entry units where the herd may be eating themselves from groceries, or even some General units where the herd is doing well."

Christian, i believe that point was already made! No?

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Joey,
I'm well aware you are from WY and were not being state specific. If you like the cyclical argument, then yes, I agree there should not be doe hunts in units that can't sustain them. That's pretty obvious.
I do "generally" support the use of doe hunts to help mitigate damage problems or potential overpopulation. For the most part, this is the rational used for doe hunts by F+G in any state.

My point was that a farmer in one portion of a unit may feel he has a depredation problem, while other portions of a unit are under objective. Thus, the game department compromises and may offer some limited doe tags. Yes, if the hunters go to the other part of the unit and harvest the does, it might hinder recovery or depress the population in that area. However, hunters taking their does in the above farmers fields may reduce his complaints and allow the overall unit population to rebound. F+G has a difficult job balancing the needs of farmer A to reduce depredation, and increase the population in other areas of the unit. In case I'm not being clear enough, the population across a unit is generally not uniform.

Hunter distribution is very hard to manage in a given unit, but most doe hunters take the easy way out, and will hunt in the areas with the highest population. Again, this is only generally true, as some hunt their traditional spots, close to home, etc.

To a greater extent, my main point was to try to encourage folks to look at all the influences effecting game department policies. We all tend to disagree with at least some of their motivations (I certainly don't agree with the bunny hugger constituency). F+G overall does a pretty decent job listening to everyone and making sound biological decisions. There are obvious mistakes made sometimes as well. Trying to crucify doe hunters isn't the solution.

Full disclosure - I enjoyed my doe hunt in WY unit 157/170 this year. The Walk-in area I hunted was over populated and the farmer was very happy to see us remove a few does from his land. In other portions of the unit I hardly even saw a track.

Bill
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-11 AT 00:10AM (MST)[p]Hey Bill, I well understood your point the first time. I'm sorry but i must insult you a bit here, not everybody here has as thick a head as you have or you would have believe. Also, however well aware you might think you are, i'm NOT from Wyoming.

If you want to hi-jack a thread for your own agenda, please don't, start one of your own!!

edit; "Trying to crucify doe hunters isn't the solution."

No where in my/this thread has anyone tried to "crucify" anybody, until now anyway, let alone a guy with a doe tag in his pocket!! You are a piece of work, how you ever got chosen as a mod is beyond me!!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Christian, do you really trust the DWR, especially in Utah, to manage the deer properly?

Maybe the DWR in Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, but not in Utah. Utah has a horrible track record in regards to its over management, undermanagement, lack of management, of our deer herds. They try to sale tags, worry about giving away tags to hunting groups and special intrests, over populate elk herds at the expense of deer.....the list is endless.

These guys should not be offering doe tags until they can prove to manage the buck tags. PERIOD.


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-11 AT 06:57AM (MST)[p]Non,

Interesting about Wyoming. I remember attending a lecture by a Utah biologist who said when he measured the range condition and the animal counts in the early 90's that he calculated the herd above carrying capacity.

He recommended 5000? (memory serving) doe tags. He said the Division wouldn't do it because the sportsmen would freak out. (That's hard to believe.) They lost 90% of the herd in that area in 92/93.

Two states used two different approaches to doe management. The end result was the same.

Additionally, Utah gives out far more cow tags with far less population base. Why are the elk doing fine?

We all understand population dynamics and exponential growth. You guys have not reconciled your Disney Doe with the reality of what is going on. The real question is why is the herd not growing given the reproductive capabilities of female deer? Do you really think it is doe hunts across the state that are the cause?
 
AspenAdventures,

I don't trust the DWR just because they are in charge. That is why I've been asking questions about this debate on doe hunts, to try and find some fact in the matter.

I don't trust many hunters either. They are usually so emotional they won't look at facts. It's whatever makes sense to them must be the right way, but that's not always true and is why I debated the doe hunt issue.

I understand from many of you that your DWR doesn't manage Utah the way you think they should.

To me, the best balance is when the managing department works with hunters to some degree.
 
Christian, how about looking at what other states have been able to accomplish in similar environmental conditions?

Why do states like Nevada, Wyoming, Arizona, and Colorado have more deer per acre and higher buck to doe ratios?

I too like to look at the facts :)

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Christian, you should also ask of our DWR why our buck to doe ratios goals have been set at 18:100 for our general units. You should also ask why many other states are able to achieve 30:100 or 40:100 in their general areas.

The "goal" of 18:100 is PATHETIC! More does = more bucks

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
A ton of good points above and a few I must disagree with.

First, for private land depredation to dictate game management is wrong IMO. I feel for those ranchers having problems however if herd objectives are down and certain ranches are still getting hit it is probably because we have encroached on their wintering areas. Many beef ranchers have public land grazing access and encroach further on our herds habitat. I believe it goes with the business to give a little and take a little in the grazing/habitat world.

The recent trend in game depts. of lower buck to doe ratios is disturbing to me, in CO this year we were told by the warden that the current population in 54 is healthier than in 06 when we were there when the buck to doe ratio was an amazing 68 to 100. I read or heard nothing of overbrousing the habitat or starvation prior to the two tough winters that decimated those herds after that year. I cannot buy the opinion that the herd was not healthy at that time because I was there and not only was it abundant but every doe was attended by a couple of fat little deer.

Bill

Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
 
Bill
nothing will destroy a deer heard faster than a winter. When you have a deer heard that is at objective with a 65/100 ratio it wont recover as fast as a heard that has a ratio 20/100. The older bucks and the fawns are the loosens everytime in the winter. So you have higher mortalities.

In 20/100 heards at objective the heard will bounce back faster because it has a higher reproductive factor.




avatar_2528.jpg
 
AspenAdventures,
You asked

"Why do states like Nevada, Wyoming, Arizona, and Colorado have more deer per acre and higher buck to doe ratios?"

Leave out Wyoming for a minute as they don't manage resident hunters for the most part- just non residents.

The other states you mention manage overall hunter numbers for deer, not just buck hunters.

Look at most units West of I-25 in Colorado (which is the Colorado Plateau that comprimises much of Eastern Utah and Western Colorado, similiar environments) and you'll see most units in that part of Colorado offer doe hunts.

They are managed strictly as both you and I agree they should be. Colorado also manages buck hunters, starting in 1999. That is why they have good buck:doe ratios. You can balance a buck:doe ratio when you can harvest does more effectively than a "bucks only" strategy like Idaho has. Again, for everyone, this is when a unit can sustain doe harvest, not when it is below herd number objective.

Nevada and Arizona are very similiar in managing all hunters, not just banning doe hunts. I don't know how many doe hunts they have, though as I don't hunt those states.

Back to Wyoming: the only part of Wyoming I really know is Region G and H. They have a good buck:doe ratio simply because of the rugged terrain (and both areas are down right now due to 07/08 and 10/11 winters.) Put roads all over that country like Idaho's unit 66A and 76 which border that part of Wyoming and you'll see a much lower buck doe ratio, and we do (I'm in Idaho).

Idaho manages for 15 bucks per:100 does in many units. We are above that most places if the areas aren't roaded.

We shoot relatively few does in SE Idaho (only youths can shoot them) and our deer herd is still in the tank in large part due to those winters I mentioned above.

In 2007, after many mild winters but very similiar season structure, we were in much better shape for bucks than we are now. Even a few 40" deer were coming out of our general hunts. Some will argue that if the youths didn't hunt does, we'd be in better shape after those winters. I tend do disagree.

Whew! We're really getting into this stuff. Thanks for the civil discussion.


The Christian
 
Smellybuck said, "We all understand population dynamics and exponential growth. You guys have not reconciled your Disney Doe with the reality of what is going on. The real question is why is the herd not growing given the reproductive capabilities of female deer? Do you really think it is doe hunts across the state that are the cause?"

Sorry there smelly but many in another thread were of the impression that a Doe was only responsible for a few fawns being born and no more important to the herd than a young buck. Instead of arguing with such, i started this thread to point out some simple math.

No i don't necessarily believe Doe hunts are the big evil. They are though, the wrong thing to do where the herd is in serious decline. This has already been gone over. Please read the thread. There have been hundreds of threads on why the deer herds numbers are down and, even more seemingly, on how to fix the deer herds!. This one thread is about a way that WON'T fix the herd, by killing that ONE DOE.

Lastly, anyone who has a lot of faith in their Game dept listening to your concerns and combining those with sound Biological decisions... I have such a nice bridge for you that i can let go cheap!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Amen sage great post. There are some factors that can be controlled to help grow a herd not shooting doe's is one thing we can control. Between cars cougars coyotes and snow storms from hell more than enough Doe's are slaughtered in those variables arrows and bullet don't need to be in that mix.
 
Joey,

I don't know the thread you are referring to, so forgive my disconnect. My point is not to contend with your suggestion to leave the anterless alone in areas where the herd struggles. That is a good suggestion; however, I think there way more to the problem than doe tags. Additionally, I think they have pretty much slashed all the doe tags they can.

I just see a lot of guys worked up on this thread about doe hunts when from my point of view the DWR has done a great job of whittling doe tags down. They used to give out a lot more tags. The only hunts available now are in ag or other areas where they cause problems or where there is poor winter range. The reality is we share this world with other people and doe hunts are never going to disappear completely. Its a great management tool that I think hunters would embrace.

There are a lot of areas where there are no doe hunts and the herd is shrinking. If we apply your reproductive math to 100,000 does and 2,500 doe tags; we are left with 97,500 does That should result in 500,000 in a few short years according to your math. (What about "the other 99%" that aren't being shot?)

I'm just saying reality is not reflecting your theory. It is a good theory, but it isn't working for some reason. I'm concerned from some of the comments on here that people think doe hunts are THE problem.
 
Good post,SMELLY.There are so many factors causing deer herds to go dowhill.As a few pointed out on here,vehicle collisions take a terrible toll on deer,especially in wintering areas.When Wyoming constructed underpasses for deer in the Nugget Canyon area,deer mortality went from 200+ per year to less than ten.That's quite a decline!Now we are doing the same thing(actually a deer OVERpass)north of Daniel on the migration route.Predators,development,oil&gas exploration and drilling..Just to name a few,are taking a heavy toll on the deer.You alluded to the fact that cow elk hunts are not lowering elk populations.Question:How many more elk would there be without cow hunts?I'm sure you'll agree that cow hunts are the mechanism used to control the populations,just as doe hunts are.I am of the opinion that habitat change over the last 50-60 years is the biggest reason why deer are going downhill while elk populations are on the rise.Loss of quaking aspen and sagebrush,especially.I am also of the opinion that if we want more deer,we need to kill more elk.30 years ago it was fairly hard to kill an elk;now they show up in areas where you never saw elk 20 ;even 10 years ago.Bottom line is this:it doesn't really matter what management practices you use if the habitat is not there to support the critters.Doe hunts are a useful tool in places;in others they should not take place at all!Winter already takes plenty.Do we really need to kill more?Why not give them a chance to live?See what happens?Here's one more of my opinions:Sometimes I think G&F depts are more interested in revenue producing than they are in herd viability;to the point that they will err on the side of selling more tags as opposed to selling less(when either answer is in question).Nowdays,I won't kill a doe.That is my personal choice.My reasons may be flawed;maybe not.For those that want to kill a doe-why not kill a cow elk?Way more meat-and many would agree-much tastier!
 
I'm concerned you cant see that doe hunts were part of the problem.

The division for years gave out doe tags riding the money train. Now look what were stuck with. No deer and no doe hunts! There are a few doe hunts still going on on private land but the does getting shot of the private land are summering in public land where they can be hunted. Guess what the deer on the public side are going away.

Its just like some one said they new a guy that used to go where all the quail gathered for the night and shoot them with his 22. he hasn't been able to hunt quail for 10+ years. the deer getting nailed on the winter grounds is just like those quail.

Once the deer herds numbers get below a certain point the predators make it impossible for the deer to recover without out wiping them out as well. This wont happen anymore without poison.

I don't care what anyone says ive seen the damage a doe hunts can do with my own eyes. It sounds bad but Id rather see a doe die on a winter rang or get hit by a car. At least they have a chance to survive. Once you issue the tags they have a death sentence!


avatar_2528.jpg
 
Well said Sage!!!

But, how do you think the Utah DWR is going to hit it's new Buck-to-Doe ratio objectives...?
 
Smelly said in summation, "I'm just saying reality is not reflecting your theory. It is a good theory, but it isn't working for some reason. I'm concerned from some of the comments on here that people think doe hunts are THE problem."

Good post Smelly, i find it hard to disagree with most that you have said. Again, you must be being Utah specific in your stance and i assure you that Doe hunts in other states have had a negative impact on some specific herds.

Also, your final sentence "...that people think doe hunts are THE problem."

Sure, I believe that is correct too but it IS one tool or way, by stopping unwarranted Doe hunts, along with aggressive predator control, that can be done to help improve dwindling mule deer herds, everywhere, in a realistic and cost effective manner.

I keep thinking back to the guy that righteously claimed that his group came in and helped the rancher with the Does on his property in a area that was otherwise void or near void of deer. If that thought doesn't disturb some here, then this thread is mostly in vain.

Joey

"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Non,

How many elk would there be without cow tags? A lot more. We have about 60,000 elk. About 9,000 cow tags are given out and it doesn't shrink the population. That is my point. SOMETHING BIGGER IS HAPPENING with deer. We have 250,000+ deer and give out about 2,000 doe tags. The population shrinks anyway. You would think with the reproductive capabilities that Sage pointed out the herd could grow. Something else is going on. Deer are struggling even in areas where there are there are few elk. Deer are struggling in the great habitat areas that are regenerating after wildfires. Nothing adds up to my satisfaction. Its a puzzle I consider often.

SW,

I wouldn't say doe hunts have never been part of the problem, but I think there is a bigger problem than 2000 doe permits in Utah. If you kill all the quail or deer then they are gone and don't come back. I get it. We haven't killed all the deer and they should be able to recover at some point. Just think if you got married at age 2 and had a kid every year. Your kids got married at 2 and had a kid every year. How big would your family be now? Add some more wives by age 5. Now how big? It seems the population would recover from the Winter of 92' by now.

You might be right about a population threshold and preditors. I don't think wolves in Yellowstone have decreased even though the herd is 75% smaller.

Sage is right. One doe can make a big difference. We should be light on anterless tags when trying to grow a herd. No debate with those generalities. The mystery to me is why aren't 100,000 does making much of a difference.

Its been good boys. I have a buddy who wants some help on a cow hunt this weekend. I need to shut up and get some work done!!

Smelly's Out
 
Sage,
I've been preaching this (and preached to from my Grandpa-who was a farmer) my whole life.

If you want to have deer around, you can't kill your does.

On his 2500+/- acres farm/ranch here on the Oregon Coast, we self managed it to maintain maximum buck/bull ratio. We NEVER killed does and very rarely shot cow elk. Between family and friends we killed 25-40 fork or better (mostly better) bucks per year-every year for 20+ years until we sold the ranch. We had post season buck/doe ratios of almost 50/100. The herds were healthy and we killed predators on site. Of course back then we could run hounds and cougars were rare. Opening day of archery elk season there were usually 20-25 branch antlered bulls on the place.

I think the "shoot the does" to build a balanced herd is simply east coast management where there is a massive over balance. We do not have that in Oregon, far from it. While some areas here do have deer on agriculture-those areas need to be dealt with individually with damage hunts. Culling deer on public ground will not remove the deer off the farmers fields.
 
SMELLY-I also see "something bigger happening";I hope it's not the final evolution of a species,but fear it could be.My point(and I think everyone else's,too),is basically that a dead deer will reproduce nothing.At least a live one has a better chance of turning mule deer decline around.Have a good elk hunt.
 
Is SMELLYBUCK a DWR Employee?

There shouldn't be a f'n Doe Hunt anywhere in the State!

If there is a problem area(besides the whole Utah herd!)let's do something besides letting the Great White Doe Shooter putting a Feather in his hat!

40 years & countin boys & girls...............

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Wanted and nontypical, +1 , Bess, thanks for chipping in!!

Yes Smelly, there are lots of reasons why my simple math example isn't working. So many that there have been hundreds and hundreds of threads on the topic. Again, this thread was never meant to "fix" the problem or be the answer of all the big questions. One thing that for sure won't hurt though, is giving more fawns a chance to be born.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
The UDWR preach the Buck to Doe Ratio!

Which I agree with,We do need so many Bucks per so many Does!

But when the whole Utah Herd is pounded out it ain't gonna matter what the Buck to Doe Ratio is!

They best start Managing the Deer Herd in this state the Right way!

But like I've said many times,40 years & countin..............

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
If doe hunts are for depredation in a certain specific area the boundaries should the that specific area. I was on a cow hunt that was setup specifically for depredation, we couldn't get 1 farmer/rancher to let us hunt without paying trespass fees. The dnr was paying them by the head for the elk. They wanted them there.... It was extra money in their pocket... If they aren't willing to let hunters have access to help THEM, they should not get anything...


4b1db2ac644136c4.jpg
 
As you know justr,it's all money related,every damn thing related to hunting is and has been related to somebody trying to turn Game in to money!

So let's do some Arithmetic:

The DWR sells the Doe tag for let's say 35.00(I have no idea what they sell for?)

They get their 35.00!

Let's go reasonably as sage did & figure it costs them 50 Deer/ Does & Bucks by decimating the one Doe!

35.00 divided by 50 = a Whoppin .70 Fricken cents!

GOOD GAWD(Sorry HJB!) A MIGHTY!

Now that right there makes 'Cents' don't it?

No I'm not a Brainwashed DWR Biologist!

No I'm not a Math Professor!

No I wouldn't sell Big Game animals for .70 cents a piece if I was the DWR!

40 years & countin...................




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-11 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]I'm really wondering how you just came up with that formual of dividing $35 by 50 lost deer when you kill that one doe. Is that the new math being used there? I would think you would multiply the $35 times 50 deer lost to come up with the proper figure if you're just talking the money angle that each may be worth to the DWR!
 
Pay Attention TopGun!

They sold one Doe tag @ 35.00!

They killed the Doe that coulda produced more Deer!

They killed at least 50 future Deer!

They coulda charged 35.00 each for 50 more Deer if they hadn't of killed the one lone Doe!

Get it?

GEEZUS!!!

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-11 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]Geezus my ass you big dildo! If you MULTIPLY the 50 deer times $35 a piece just like I said, you would come up with what the DWR lost by letting that one doe be shot in your scenario---it comes to $1750! GET IT? No wonder they call you guys UTARDS, LOL!!!
 
Wake TFU TopGun!

You still don't get it!

What coulda been 1750.00 was an easy/quick 35.00 (in hence the DWR made .70 a piece rather than 35.00 a piece!)

You work for the DWR too?

If you were running a Business,would you look at a quick 35.00 or a future 1750.00?



Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-11 AT 07:45PM (MST)[p]One more thing you RACIST Bastard,lol!

Are all JACKASSES In MI this Bright?

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
I think what I stated is what you just verified in your followup post, LOL! Your way of figuring the math is exactly backwards of the way it should be done, but I think we are both agreeing that the DWR screwed up and lost money and deer! Now are you happy? I think I'll just give up and will just say if you are calling that a racist statement you are really a dildo! PS: I don't know what race you are and, therefore, it and this aren't racist comments. It's just stating that you're a dumb dildo with all your posts on this and other subjects and you just happen to live in---oh, forget it, LOL!!!
 
Dryboot said, ...and just so you both know, One Doe does not=50! So your both wrong!"

Oh, is this a challenge i see or the words of a some drunken dimwit?

Boot, first i'll ask you to read the whole thread paying particular attention to the content of my posts and the simple math i used to base my hypothetical but possible summation. Given i only based the numbers on 5 years worth of fawns, with only 50% being female, i believe my premise sound.

Please elaborate on how only you are right and we are so wrong?

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
So wet_boot?

I went easy like sage did and went with a very reasonable number of 50,we all know the True number would be way more than that!

That ought to frost TopGuns Panties!

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
The day I let you frost my panties is the day I quit this site and that will be a long time from now, LOL!!! Let's just drop all this hypothetical math and just agree that it sounds like most of you out in Utah think the DWR is off base in allowing any does to be shot because of deer numbers not being up to what most think they should be.
 
So TopGun?

You're not gonna call me a TARD today?



Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
I knew you'd figure it out TopGun!

All I was trying to say was:

They might as well of issued 50 Doe tags @ .70 each!

They accomplished the same thing either way!

In TARDville us TARDS have TARDology that's a little different TopGun but we do know what the final Big picture looks like!

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
If there is an overpopulation in a specific winter range, why not trap them and relocate them to a different area?

I know, I know it's all about money.
 
Well a few buddies and I took our kids out and we killed 5 does this year. So I guess we killed 250 deer. Give me a break.
 
An opinion is one thing. Playing armchair biologist quite another. How many of you guys that KNOW doe and/or cow hunts are actually hurting a herd in an area/state that allows it, do anything except ##### about it on an internet forum? mtmuley
 
People on this forum don't understand why we hunt does in certain areas because they lack the education and aren't willing to research the facts.
 
Well sage my post didn't involve you so why do you feel the need to puff up your chest? Drunkin dimwit? Do you really feel it necessary to call childish names? Or does it make you feel better about yourself? I know you feel your right all the time and you hate to have someone question your big EGO, but sorry sage were talking about the real world here, not some disney doe setting where every doe lives and every doe has twins every year and they all just stand in a circle singing. Yes in a fantasy world your numbers might work and if your numbers really worked then it would be easy to fix the heards.
Your One doe model is comparable to that of the DWR models they use. And you wonder why they suck at bringing back the herds? Because they use fairytale models to predict what the herd should be, then issue tags based on that fairytale model without and factual proof.
I agree with what your saying or trying to get across, but one Doe=50 I'm not drinking your koolaid! Not nearly in the time span your saying anyways.
So go ahead and keep calling childish names, puff up your chest, whatever makes you feel better about yourself!
 
>Well a few buddies and I
>took our kids out and
>we killed 5 does this
>year. So I guess we
>killed 250 deer. Give me
>a break.

Just keep adding to the Problem Elite,just keep Slaughtering Does,that'll fix Utah's Deer Herd!

It's people like You Elite & the DWR,if there was only 5 head of Deer left in Utah the DWR would sell at least 3 Permits & you'd Proudly be Braggin you killed the last few!

Wake the Hell up!

40 years & countin.......................



Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Boot, Saying that anything on this thread doesn't involve me is like saying that the egg doesn't involve the chicken. As i thought, you, and a few others, would have us believe the math won't work in the real world. Guess what, NOBODY SAID IT WOULD! All it is, is some numbers to open a person's eyes up to the fact that, left alone with no outside influences from NATURE, predators, disease, auto-deer encounters,... the deer could repopulate areas of dwindling numbers.

They certainly can not repopulate when you shoot the does!

Now go back and plug in a Does normal lifespan and the number of female fawns she may have and each of those being a Queen Doe herself, then her fawns with each of her fawns females being a Queen doe...50 deer POSSIBLY being born from that one Doe is a small number, it could be far higher!

Those with States, Areas, Zones, and units that allow Doe hunts with high Mule Deer population, good on you, go gettem!. Certainly, it is a sure way to cut down the population to "manageable numbers".

Joey






"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Yep we killed all the does. We saw hundreds of does that day, but now the herd is hurting. Maybe we need to stop driving cars because cars kill more deer every year. Farmers are also nasty people because they don't want deer eating there crops.
 
well put sage,the only hunters that should be harvesting does are the youth in a area that has plenty of oppurtunity,if #s are down shut down the youth hunt,still have not seen a buck pop out a set of fawns.
 
I choose not to hunt Does but I understand where the Biologists are coming from by having Doe hunts.

The Population Dynamics model is derived from the realm of mathematics called Differential Equations. This is a level of math that only Engineers, Biologists, and Mathematicians study. Its no surprise that the majority doesn't understand the 3 dimensional multi-varialbe nature of population growth or decline, because it is not in the curriculum most of the time. The simple exponential example that was given in the original post is facetious and can never happen in nature. If we were growing tomatoes than it would be that simple, but we are discussing a dynamic system when dealing with Deer population.

California has no Doe hunts in most of the units. The deer population and quality is way worse than the states that have regular doe hunts. Why would this be?

Yes, I realize I am in the minority on here and expect to get flamed....LOL
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-10-11 AT 02:17PM (MST)[p]Rizzy said, "...The simple exponential example that was given in the original post is facetious and can never happen in nature. If we were growing tomatoes than it would be that simple, but we are discussing a dynamic system when dealing with Deer population."


I agree, we all agree, tell us something we don't know or has not been mentioned. It won't prove true because of all the variables that deer have to survive. How many times do i have to say this? I agree!! Still though, there is a pyramid effect and fawns can not be born and areas can not recover from being depleted by all these variables, when you shoot the does that have managed to survive all the other variables.

I feel this is like the old saying, "some would piss in a glass and many would claim it a rare and tasty vintage while i would hand them spring water and those same would act as if it were poison"

As far as education and credentials, i have them! Do i need to list off my fields of study in collage and after? Yes wildlife Biology was my passion and field of study at University but more importantly, it has been my life long passion and study for going on 40 years...and i'm not talking some eastern school with the emphasis on whitetails. Now, do i know it all? No! If only it were that easy.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Booner, ya know, i looked at that word a second time and let it be. Proof, i do not know it all!! :)

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Sage, I don't disagree with the angle I think your taking of every Doe that's alive is like an investment in the future. I just don't understand why a state like California that has no Doe hunts is in worse shape than states that do. This conflicts with the notion that harvesting Does is what is depleting the herds.
 
California has no doe hunt and the deer heard is still failing? Sounds like you need a doe hunt to put the nail in the coffin faster. Did I get that right?
 
Rizzy, I would love to discuss Calif's deer herd status with you but we have been trying to stay non-state specific in this thread. My thoughts were intended to be in general and only where the herds are in decline. Maybe, we could discuss our thoughts in the Cali forum, a lively place with a wide variety of opinions.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
MOUNTAIN LIONS!!!

Kali's decision to protect lions at a time when the deer population was declining is proof that just when you think they can't get stupider........

Once a population of deer is to a certain point the number of deer produced cannot keep up with normal predatuon let alone an over abundance of predators.

Bill

Look out Forkie, FTW is watching us!
 
Joey, no disrespect intended as I am in the trades myself, but if you studied wildlife biology, why the heck are you a plumber? I'm not gonna join the pissin match over this, but I do believe doe hunts are warranted in certain states/areas. I see a lot of guys blaming their respective wildlife agencies for unneccessary doe hunts, but at least where I live, herd dynamics change fairly quickly with weather, disease and ever increasing predator pressure, so it takes a little time to establish whether or not certain hunts are justified. I have witnessed over population first hand where does needed culled, and I've taken part in hunts I no longer choose to. Purely personal choices. Hunters attacking each other over issues such as this certainly will not help. mtmuley
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-11 AT 09:06AM (MST)[p]Muley, There were no "Game Warden" Majors at the U of Arizona when i attended and i was a Science Guy through out before getting there so Wildlife Biology and Natural Resource Recreation were my choices. Would have been nice to know that Cali WILL NOT hire a Color blind person as Warden beforehand. From that Day of my first interview, i went to work out of my field and didn't look back. Always thought i'd have made a hella decent Game Warden, Bad color blind or no.

I hope you noticed that MY topic and main theme is/was to reduce or do away with Mule Deer doe hunts in areas, states, zones,...that are declining in Mule Deer or that the herd has been decimated and needs to be restored. And at that, i only posted this thread because of several bone heads in another thread that would have you believe that Mule Deer Does are not important to a declining herd, no more so than a buck, and i didn't care to argue the points with those unwilling or unable to listen and talk over the points of view at least in a fairly intelligent debate.

Seems you guys in your area have it pretty good and if i remember back correctly, you were mostly harvesting Whitetails and lopes. If your herds are doing well, great! As far this thread, just getting the word out where in times and places it's needed...IMO, that's one of the things this place is for. Have a good one!!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Joey, I wish I had pursued a career in wildlife. Being a Game Warden kinda appeals to me, especially after some of the crap I've witnessed in recent years. Yep, I've culled some whiteys and antelope does, and some muleys too. I do understand your main point, and although our local mule deer herds are strong, I've since changed my mind some on the doe harvests of them. Touchy and complicated subject for sure. mtmuley
 
It does not take a college degree to figure out why the herds are in trouble, But it does take common sense! Something alot of those calling the shots are lacking!
Ive never been much of a Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, sci fi kind of guy, thats why I dont see using a Fantasy Doe or numbers that can never work in real life, to say what if. well, what if will never happen. YES I understand what your trying to say as Most every person with a little bit of that common sense says the same thing, and that is we need DOe's to build a herd. And if that herd is struggling, then dont kill them. Again, Common sense!
I had no intention of jumping in this thread as I know how you react if someone give's their opinion that doesn't reflect yours 100%. Were mostly on the same page, im just not a fan of Twilight and Harry Potter.
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
709
nfh
nfh
nontypical
Winter range report
Replies
72
Views
6k
nontypical
nontypical
Robiland
Very good podcast.
2
Replies
135
Views
3k
Vanilla
Vanilla

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20210403_133350.jpg
FB_IMG_1669057874555.jpg
9F1B00BE-C57A-4804-B283-C7D75EAA5BB3.jpeg
37DAFCB5-D571-496C-AF70-BAA321DBF0ED.jpeg
1919448_105984316082840_7110416_n.jpg
HUNT0107 - Copy.JPG
4714BAAC-BD79-49A6-B480-95467413F9D8.jpeg
31FFE8B1-C504-4410-87D6-8FE7571A0026.jpeg
8C5C88E9-4516-4B51-B0EF-2EE1FC60C0AC.jpeg
Looking like a taker!!
IMG_8768.jpeg
6704A658-5FE3-48A2-9E99-9EA32060FA12.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom