DWR Board Members

AspenAdventures

Very Active Member
Messages
2,889
Gentlemen, I have heard that you will be considering the mule deer ratios soon. You would benefit from considering what other states have done better than Utah. Not just a little better?..much better.

Our wildlife board has consistently sold the public and the state hunters a bag of goods that ends up being empty while other states are reaping the benefits of wise management of mule deer.

In the early 80?s Utah had an estimated 150,000 mule deer bucks. In one year in the 80?s the DWR allowed 82,000 bucks to be taken. 60% OF THE BUCKS WERE SHOT IN ONE YEAR!!!!

That is not management?..that is a DWR that is hungry to sale tags to keep state employees working. Bucks in other states are at 40 per 100 does. Most units in the states of Nevada have 30 bucks for every 100 does.

Utah finally voted to manage herds at 18 to 25 bucks per 100 does. Which is better than before but NOWHERE NEAR WHAT THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHING IN OTHER STATES. You gentlemen have a responsibility to manage the bucks for the hunters. Without revenue from tag sales the DWR will cease to exist. So, cut the tags but raise the price. This has been done in other states with a lot of success. The average guy can afford $75 for a deer tag. It costs nearly that much for dinner and a movie with my wife so surely the average guy can afford to pay $75 for a tag.

The point is: the herds need to be at 18 to 25 bucks per 100 does?..AT A MINIMUM. Do not lower the quota to 15-18 per 100. Raise your standards, the other states have, and it is time for Utah to catch up.
_______________________________

I just sent them all this message....you can too

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/board-members.html


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
They made a "mistake" 30 years ago and the effects of it still persists? Never mind a couple of hard winters in 83 & 93. Never mind tags were cut over 100,000 17 years ago. Which "state" has a growing mule deer population? Sure a couple of them manage for trophy hunting, but which state has increased the herd? Your letter of concern smacks with special interest, not indisputable logic.
 
The only special intrest I have is finding a buck that I would like to shoot with my 16 year old son...8 year old son...and my nephews. I think Sportsmen For Fish & Wildlife and others like them are robbing the public of tags.....me with a special interest....NOT HARDLY BUCKO

The deer population came back in a BIG BIG way in Colorado after they CUT TAGS and split the state into over 101 units.

Did they make a mistake 30 years ago.....yup.....did they ever try to let the deer recover.....nope!!!!

So are we still seeing the affects of 30 years of bad management? YUP!!!!!!!!

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Tags were cut by 100,000 17 years ago.....but how much has the harvest gone down from say...1990 compared with today?


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
That first post is filled with misinformation. Idaho has 40 bucks per 100 doe? False. Colorado and Arizona has 40 per 100? False. Wyoming? Nope. New Mexico and Oregon and Washington? Not even. There were 60% of the bucks killed in one year? So what. That means 40% - 60,000 - survived to be hunted the next year + the surviving fawns which were bucks gives an additional 100,000. They killed all those bucks and ONE year later we lost 90% of the herd in some areas to the winter. Sure would have been great to not shoot those bucks so they could die in the winter. Laughable, AA.

25 per 100 will get us about 30,000 buck tags statewide. 4,000 of those tags will be taken by lifetime licensees, 5,000 by Dedicated hunters, and another 6,000 by youth. That means the average joe will get to hunt deer once every 6 years or so (and those youths become on of us in 5 short years and they might only draw every other year or so with such low permit numbers). I'd rather hunt than kill. The only guys who want high buck to doe ratios are either concerned about score or have private land/CWMUs. Those are the only people who will benefit such high ratios. And it is foolish to believe the deer herd benefits by having more bucks. The Henry Mountains is not bursting at the seems with deer, nor is the Book Cliffs.

When will people realize the problem with our deer herds is not revolving around bucks? When will people realize we can not stock pile bucks? Mother Nature will just steal them every so often if we stopped hunting them.
 
17 years ago the tags were cut by 100,000. The only thing that was cut was the sell of 250,000 tags. We still have the same amount of hunters in the field as we did 20 years ago. The only diff, is not every hunter has 2 or 3 tags in his back pocket. We havent cut anything except for the sell of a tag. Come on guys you all remember 20 years ago guys buying tags for grandma and grandpa and relatives that went camping with the family but didn't hunt. All those dam tags were filled every year, but not by the tag holder. So really we haven't cut hunters in the field, just the number of tags sold is all we cut.
 
I love the way you think!!!! Utah is very poor managed to say the least! The heards are down due to way over hunting and very poor mismanagement. So what do they do? insted of solving the problem do to the loss of the mighty dollar they place blame on the predators!!!!! Being a houndsmen it is not as easy as people think to catch a lion you got to find one first! The only way to solve a problem is to start at the top!!! The only way that the DWR IS GOING TO EVEN OPEN AN EAR TO THE PUBLIC IS TO NOT BUY THEIR B.S TAGS!!!!
 
I have sent letter after letter to Wild Life Board and RAC to at least keep it to 18 to 25 per 100 does and raise the tags to make up the difference, I just hope the other sports man do the same. Their are a lots of bucks on the Henrys, real good bucks their.
 
Difference in perspective is one thing, emotionally charged rhetoric and misinformation is another.

Be sure to write the board and thank them for their decision to actually use unit management in a comprehensive manor, by agreeing to consider adjusting ratios on a case by case basis, instead of blanket managing the whole state.
 
2point,
Very good post! It is hard to believe that some people cannot understand what you are saying. They think the solution is killing less bucks. NOT GONNA FIX IT!
 
What some of you don't realize is that buck deer are highly immoral and will regularly breed more than one doe. Even in the same day! Dirty bucks they are. As long as you have enough bucks to breed all the does (15 is more than enough) you are maximizing your deer herd. There is no way to breed more deer than to have every doe getting bred every year! Bucks to not produce bucks through binary fission or regeneration or any other asexual mechanism. The only things a higher buck:doe ratio will accomplish is easier hunting and fewer tags. Others have mentioned the Henry mountains as an example: High buck:doe ratio, very few tags. Very easy to find a 4-point buck. Same with the Book Cliffs or any other area with limited tags. My point is that we ALREADY HAVE areas with high buck:doe ratios, what we don't need is for the whole state to be managed that way. Most people want to hunt every year so most of the state should be managed for them. A few people want an easy hunt at the expense of waiting a long time for a tag, so a few areas should be managed for them. We also have a fair number of hunters that are in between - they would rather hunt less often and have better quality, but not to the extreme of waiting 10 years. THAT is the niche the new management strategy will hopefully fill.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-11 AT 09:26AM (MST)[p]AspenA,
How can you say that SFW and others are robbing you of tags when your proposal is to cut tag even further? You'd take more tags out of the pool in one year than SFW will in 20 years!
I commend you on your passion for our sport but I think a couple of your comments are fueled more by passion than fact.
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-11 AT 09:48AM (MST)[p]2 point and El Matador are right on. Cutting a lot of tags across the state is not the answer in getting our deer herd back. We need to have enough bucks with adequate age structure to breed our does in the first cycle.

Weather, Habitat,road kills, coyotes, and cougars have much more effect than hunting on deer herd recruitment.
 
2point and the rest ....

I was not talking about Idaho.

Colorado and Nevada have many many many areas that have buck to doe ratios of over 20 or 25 or 30 or 35 per 100

How did it work in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mountains when tags were cut? How did things go in Colorado when they cut tags in 1999?

Yeah, deer numbers went up and the hunting got better.....A LOT BETTER! You can all hunt Utah....as for me...I will draw a tag in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and then hunt Idaho this year.....good luck with your 15:100 in Utah...and 14 of those are 2 points

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-11 AT 10:43AM (MST)[p]Hmmm...Colorado. A couple things:
1) The number of deer hunters in Colorado dropped from an average of 185,000 per year in the 80s and early 90s to roughly 90,000 per year from 1999 to 2010. So, that is almost a loss of 100,000 hunters. That must mean that some hunters are either not getting to hunt, or they simply quit hunting altogether.
2) The deer population peaked in the late 80's early 90's at around 800,000 deer in Colorado. In 2006, the estimated deer population was 611,000, in 2007 the estimate for Colorado was 539,000, and in 2008 the estimate was 466,000. Since 2008, the population has hovered around 466,000. Since its peak, Colorado has dropped from around 800,000 deer to 400,000 deer. During this time period, Colorado has also drastically cut tags....and you guys call that success? No, actually, what you call it is good hunting...who gives a damn about the herd's status.

As for Nevada, since they started cutting tags, their population has also dropped significantly...and for the same reasons as Colorado..too many bucks outcompeting fawns and does during critical times...
 
AA,

Isn't freedom of choice a wonderful thing?

With any limited entry (that's what you're proposing) there will be winners and lots of losers.

IF you get a tag there will be less hunting pressure and higher buck numbers but you will need to wait 5-10 years between hunts.

If you can't get a tag you'll not hunt at all... or go elsewhere.

If you can't hunt it matters little how many bucks are on the hill. (we all want more bucks but most important is a healthy, growing herd)

There are plenty of places with lots of bucks. The problem is that they're limited entry and we can't hunt there with any regularity.

Zeke
 
Aspen,

Your information is so selective. LE has worked great on the Henrys. How old are you going to be when you draw that tag? What about 1000 Lakes? What about Comanche? What about Browse? These are limited entry areas that quietly go back to the general hunt because they didn't exactly turn out like the Henrys.

I understand where you are coming from to a degree. If we stop shooting as many bucks, then there will be more bucks,bigger bucks, and fewer hunters to compete with if and when you draw. It sounds nice, but is purely a trophy mentality.

The biological fact is does grow the herd.

The sociological/politcal fact is this: I think pure trophy hunting is a waste of a resource & perhaps a sin. It pisses me off when people I know kill a big one and then start asking if I want some deer meat. Maybe I should express that vocally more than in writing.

I'm not opposed to trophy hunting. I've passed a number of deer in hopes of something better. I look forward to an occasional limited hunt; however, the day trophy hunting becomes the only form of deer hunting in Utah is when I become an anti-hunter. There should be more to the hunt than antlers, unless you hunt for sheds.
 
Aspen Aspen Aspen I don't know what to say too a carpet bomb like that.

avatar_2528.jpg
 
Smellybuck your right about those units not producing other then 1 look at 1000 lake and i will tell you why it didnt work look at the number tags they have for that unit there is not alot but once you factor in 400 other hunters from loa fremont torry and bicknell thats why that one didnt work i know way off subject
 
Okay, Okay guys....you got me.

Have fun in Utah.

If you want some good hunting...come with me to Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming.....etc


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Big6,

Thanks for your thoughts. I've heard Oak Creek has a similar problem with early winters and local hunters. Browse is the biggest mystery. It doesn't winter kill and hasn't had much for development or access. It declined after it went to limited entry. It used to be a deer factory.
 
It is hard for me to here people say killing bucks is not hurting the deer herd. If you kill off over 60% of the bucks you will probably not have 15 bucks per 100 doe. I went and looked at an area in Southern utah that used to be full of deer. I counted 125 doe and two bucks. That does not quite make the 15 to hundred doe ratio we are looking for. The bucks are not their because of lack of feed or cougar kill or road kill, they are not their because to many hunters have killed them off year after year. We need to look closely at these areas witht he new management system and have the guts to say these areas need to be sharply cut in tags given out. The question is so they have the guts to do it?
 
The Oak Creek is a mystery, what is up with this place? Why would it decline after it went to limited entry? I can remember driving around this unit in the winter and see thousands of Deer, now you will see very few? I wonder why this unit can not recover, and hope the rest of the new units in Utah don't go in the direction this one has.
 
Is there good feed still on the oak creek unit? Or have large portions of it burned up and been replaced with cheat grass or grass in general? I know t5he lion harvest wnet way down after many cats were killed the first few years it was quota. Is there still alot of predation, highway mortality. I dont nor ever will have the want to hunt there Ive just heard quite a few people say its in bad shape. Just wondering.
 
What hunters don't under stand or don"t know is that DWR lets out a lot of depredation permits for does, all over the state.
They give a lot of land owners permits and then their a lot of auction permits, some that bid at $300,000.00 and $280,000.00 and most of them go for $1,000.00 to 10,000.00.
On these depredation permits, why can't they capture these deer and move them to another unit that needs more deer, like Oak Creek Unit, instead of just killing them, are we the only state that can't tranquilize deer and move them, other state do.
Could this be another reason our deer heard is down, not enough does and not enough mature bucks to breed the does we do have.
 
I agree rperkins, why are we having depredation hunts in the first place when DWR says it is not the bucks that are low, but it is the deer herd in general. They claim that having more hunters and more tags does not decrease the buck herd. This must be their thinking on a doe hunt also. If they give out 100 doe permits and the hunters kill 100 percent which I am sure they do, somehow that does not decrease the deer population. I am not sure how they do their math, but that would decrease the total by a 100 where I went to school.
 
Response from a board member:

Mr. ****:

The following is a copy of an email I sent to another individual who made very similar, with some additional, inputs to yours:

" Thank you for the inputs you made last weekend.
Ernie Perkins here, vice chair of the Wildlife Board. One of my assigned duties is to respond to public inputs. I apologize to you for the delay in responding to your input, I thought I would be able to get some additional data/information by now, but the holiday season is not a good time to find people in the office & to be able to respond quickly. So, I'll give you a more general response, but get it to you now.

I surely agree with you that our mule deer herds are not where we want them to be ? because their populations are below our short and long term objectives. All of our stakeholders ? all sportsmen, DWR biologists & employees, conservation groups, CWMU owners & operators, wildlife watchers, related/dependent businesses, etc., easily agree that the clear and agreed upon top ?management? goal for deer is to build the herd populations.

It is also easily recognized that the herds have declined significantly in the past 50 years; habitat loss and degradation, human expansion (numbers & encroachment), predator control practices, highway mortalities (more roads/vehicles/higher speeds), and farming & ranching practices have all contributed. Some of these factors have been limiting our deer populations for more than 50 years, and all have had negative impacts for multiple decades. There is a massive State effort underway in Utah (the Watershed Restoration Initiative ? started in 2005), which clearly and greatly exceeds that of any other state (perhaps even all other states) in the West, to counteract these problems and rebuild the herds. Just in this program?s habitat work alone, Utah has completed over 800 projects projects that will benefit deer on well over ? of a million acres at a cost of over 700 million dollars. See what is going on and learn more about the many important issues and factors at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/learn-more/mule-deer.html

Now, let me switch to Buck to Doe ratios & management of those ratios. First off, from a biological perspective, something under 15 bucks to 100 does satisfies the breeding requirements of the does in estrus at any given point in the breeding cycle. Also, being bred by a buck with massive four point antlers does not provide a genetic advantage over being bred by that same buck, as a forked horn, some years earlier. In other words, there is no biological advantage to a higher buck to doe ratio. So, the desire for more and bigger bucks is a social question - versus a relatively black & white science question.

The clearest (perhaps the only) scientifically gathered information we have on Utah?s sportsmens deer hunt desires was the 2008 Mule Deer Survey of Hunter Preferences that went to just under 18,500 sportsmen who hunt deer. The data was stratified by weapon type, dedicated hunter (or not), & GS/LE. The pertinent question in the survey asked participants to indicate ?Why do they hunt Mule deer? - what factors were important to them. The top 5 responses (% of respondents who indicated it was important to them) were:

? ?Getting away from it all? (75%)

? ?Being with friends? (73%)

? ?Being close to nature? (70%)

? ?Doing something with my family? (67%)

? ?Bringing back pleasant memories? (65%)

? ?Harvesting a large buck? got only a 53% response ? ranking # 10 of the 20 options

? ?Harvesting any buck? got only a 25% response ? ranking it # 17 or the 20 options.

Clearly, opportunity to get in the field was the major desire/need expressed by our Utah sportsmen in this survey ? vs. harvesting a buck or a big buck. The wide spectrum of responses clearly identify that our Wildlife Board members have multiple social motivations, needs and desires to satisfy (while protecting the biological resource).

My personal goal as a board member has been to recognize those differing goals/needs & to seek a fair compromise for all of our sportsmen by ensuring the pendulum does not swing to far toward either extreme. I must admit that I am personally dismayed by the continual effort to move the pendulum towards trophy hunting by limiting tags and opportunity. I find it a divisive distraction from concentrating on two areas that should be getting 98% of our attention, energy & focus; these are increasing our deer herd populations and recruiting more sportsmen and wildlife supporters/enthusiasts. Building a larger pie (more deer) is far more productive rather than fighting over what group gets more of the pie; building the herd, however, is a lot tougher to do and takes a lot of supporters who are willing to advocate for resources. The social push for more trophies, less permits, and re-dividing the pie is also contributing to driving sportsmen away from hunting and active support for hunting and hunters. It is very counter-productive to gaining the political support we will need in the decades to come. At any rate, there is my personal perspective and conclusions on cutting hunters, once again, by implementing 18-25:100 buck to doe ratios on every general season unit.

My purpose in providing this response to you is not to convince you that opportunity is right & big-rack hunting is wrong, or that you need to agree with what I have stated. Rather, my purpose is to state to you the significant differences and desires of our sportsmen, and the need for all of us to respect and support all of these large groups. This current ?reconsideration? of having set the buck to doe ratio at 18-25:100 is just that ? a reconsideration. It will be interesting to follow the development of alternatives and then to watch and listen as it goes thru the public process (the RACs).

One comment you made that I personally hope you will reconsider is that the Board and DWR sell excessive tags to bring in additional funds to benefit the DWR ? to the detriment of our Utah sportsmen. In my opinion, that observation has no reasonable basis in fact or biology, nor any evidence to support it. If I thought the comment had any merit, I would not have volunteered many years of my time and energy in the Utah wildlife management system. I would encourage you to get to know your DWR people better ? to volunteer and work with them on deer and other projects so as to better understand their drive and motivations, & how our funds are being used.

I assure you that each member of the Board takes their responsibility very seriously and is passionate about finding the best solutions for Utahn?s and our sportsmen. I will also assure you that the Board members will not always individually agree on these complex, socially driven, issues. At the same time, we all appreciate the many inputs we get from concerned citizens, but wish we had a much larger percentage of our citizens involved. "

Best regards,

Ernie




>>> <.com> 12/17/2011 6:26 PM >>>

Hello, I have read that you will be considering the mule deer ratios soon. Please consider what other states have done better than Utah. Not just a little better?..much better.
The herds need to be at 18 to 25 bucks per 100 does?..AT A MINIMUM. Do not lower the quota to 15-18 per 100. Raise your standards and cut tag numbers, the other states have, and it is time for Utah to catch up.
 
I think what Ernie and the boys don't understand is that crappy overcrowded hunting conditions are what turns most people away from deer hunting,I don't care where you are, Its just not like the good ol days anymore, everyone is everywhere, the deer that do survive are harder to get, the lack of mature bucks is overwhelming, and its just not a quality experence most of the time. Aspen doesn't have all his facts right either, the 40-100 buck to doe ratio he refered to is what Wyoming brags about and thats not really how it is, also he talks about Colorado and even before the die off a few years ago Colorados deer numbers weren't that much higher than before, the number of mature bucks was, but not the overall numbers. The Oak creek herd was hurt many years ago by the freeway from what I understand, it cut off their historic migration route, fires and the cheat grass invasion are noticeable changes in that unit also
 
GEEZUS!

If they don't get this fricken Buck to Doe Ratio out of their heads and start worrying more about getting the total herd numbers up & some age class to some of the Bucks you can Kiss this TARDville Deer herd Good-Bye!

No,I'm not a Brain-Washed Biologist & further more I don't think you need to be one to figure it out!

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Piper, well said.

I hunted in Colorado recently...in a unit that only took 2 points to draw...I saw bucks that made my head spin in country that held 0 other hunters.

Thats right...0....other hunters.

We had an entire drainage to ourselves. I had the same experience in Nevada. Why?

Because they manage their hunts on a smaller unit basis...and now Utah will to this year. It will be nice to see how it goes. In my opinion the units are still too large but lets hope we can start to get some larger seasons too.

When I hunt Wyoming I hunt for 45 days.....not too bad.

So, lets make those who want to hunt for fun and not for racks happier too by limiting all the other hunters they have to contend with.......

Once again....limit the tags


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
So all of you you numbnutz want to make the whole state the Henry Mountains.... At least we are finally being honest!!



2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
No, numbnutz....we just dont want to be crawling all over each other for the 2 bucks in a 575 mile radius.

We want 18-25 bucks per 100 does...and a healthy doe population.

Here is a clue bud....if you spend all your money...you shouldnt go buy a new car on credit...you should save till you comfortably have enough money to purchase the car.

Well, we lost a lot of our dee (money) in 93 and 97 and we still kept saling tags like it was candy. We need to pull back on tags for a while until we get our savings (deer population) back to where it should be. Then let the tags sales get back to normal....when the population is back to "normal".

If you want to know what normal is just ask the DWR...they say in their deer plan that the population should be X...lets get to X before we kill does and slaughter 60% of the bucks each year.....

Got it numbnutz?


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Don't you have respect for the Board Members in 2010 that voted in the 18 to 25 bucks per 100 does, Erine----why not try it, it might work.
 
AA you do understand that a buck will never have a fawn, let alone twin fawns right??? You do understand that the Henry Mountains unit with HIGH buck to doe ratios hasn't seen an increase in overall population right?? You do understand that we went from 250 BUCK tags to 94K tags over 15 years ago and our herds are still suffering right??

Sounds like the cut buck tag philosophy is a real winner right??

Like I said and you confirmed, you don't want hunter competition




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Wiley, I think your looking at it all wrong. Sure the herds have not grown much in the last 15 years but I can't imagine how bad the buck to doe ratio would be right now in most units if we still had around 200k hunters. Also, how do you know that the herd numbers may even be lower if less does were being bred, do to a very low buck to doe ratio?

Ernie, you quoted:

Getting away from it all? (75%)

? ?Being with friends? (73%)

? ?Being close to nature? (70%)

? ?Doing something with my family? (67%)

? ?Bringing back pleasant memories? (65%)

I would have marked these too but it does not mean I don't support the current changes. I or anyone else can do any of these things without packing a weapon and having a tag in my pocket. I hunt very hard and go a long ways into the backcountry to find mature bucks but I don't think it's fair to ask everyone to do it. What about those who just want to see a few two or tree year old bucks while out on a family camping trip? What about those who are not physically able to get along way from a road or atv trail? I think everyone should be able to take their family out for a sunday drive in early fall and see a few decent bucks on any one of the 30 new units. Right now, that is not the case.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-27-11 AT 09:44AM (MST)[p]Just a personal observation and opinion.---
I hunted during the days of 250,000 hunters. The crowding was as bad then as it is now, even though there are only about 90,000 hunters on the general season deer hunt now.
It seems to me that one of the reason that there seems to be alot of crowding is because hunters are crowded into those areas where there are deer. I have been back to some of my old boyhood hunting areas the past couple of years and there are few if any hunters in prime habitat areas. The problem is as I see it, is that there are so few deer in comparision to what it was when there were 250,000 hunters in the field. Because of the low deer numbers they don't seem to be in much of the same prime habitat that they did back 30 years ago. So, hunters get concentrated into areas that hold more deer, so maybe that it is why it seems like there is so much overcrowding.I regularly see predators and /or signs in those areas. One particular cougar seemed to have a regular route that it followed over a several day period. I checked different springs for deer signs regularly and it seemed that I would see new cougar tracks at those springs every few days. I suppose deer would avoid being in those areas and go where they felt less like a possible meal.
No question about it-- if we can get the overall deer numbers increasing, much of our belly-aching would subside. The folks who want to be able to harvest any buck and the trophy hunters, would be much happier.
Ernie, I appreciate your work on the WB. There are certainly many times when there are no clear cut answers to many of the decisions you are ask to make. But, thank goodness for folks who care about our wildlife heritage. I have a son in Hungary and he said that gun ownership and hunting there is very tightly controlled and very very expensive. You have to pay a fee to just have ammunition in your house-- the list goes on and on. In spite of our different view points concerning wildlife management, we are very fortunate in comparison to Europe.
 
Hey AA,

First of all I want to thank you for this "sky is falling" thread. It's been very entertaining. I am also glad that you are concerned for Utah's herd.

Do you know what a minimum sustainable buck to doe ratio is? It is 4:100, so as you can see there is plenty of room for error if the DWR issues too many tags.

Colorado and Utah have very different habitat acreage and feed quality so comparing population by examinig tag allocation does not lead to the direct conclusion of bad management.

Bucks are expendable and nearly half of newly recruited fawns show up for roll call pre-season as 2 points or spikes. Buck to doe ratios are counted Post season, which means that buck to doe ratios are actually alot higher pre-season. By allocating more tags and eliminating the expendable variety of deer the reproductive deer have less competition on the winter range.

By producing lower post-season ratios your final product is higher pre-season ratios and an increase in overall population... Make sense?
 
Reactor, no it don't make sense, 4:100 does gets you less fawns production, 25:100 does gets you great fawn production, and you still have plenty of feed for the winter and also brings more tags.
 
>Hey AA,
>
>First of all I want to
>thank you for this "sky
>is falling" thread. It's been
>very entertaining. I am
>also glad that you are
>concerned for Utah's herd.
>
>Do you know what a minimum
>sustainable buck to doe ratio
>is? It is 4:100, so
>as you can see there
>is plenty of room for
>error if the DWR issues
>too many tags.
>
>Colorado and Utah have very different
>habitat acreage and feed quality
>so comparing population by examinig
>tag allocation does not lead
>to the direct conclusion of
>bad management.
>
>Bucks are expendable and nearly half
>of newly recruited fawns show
>up for roll call pre-season
>as 2 points or spikes.
>Buck to doe ratios are
>counted Post season, which means
>that buck to doe ratios
>are actually alot higher pre-season.
>By allocating more tags and
>eliminating the expendable variety of
>deer the reproductive deer have
>less competition on the winter
>range.
>
>By producing lower post-season ratios your
>final product is higher pre-season
>ratios and an increase in
>overall population... Make sense?

I guess if that's your thing, shooting 2 points and spikes.
 
In 1st grade I learned 100-4=96 and 100-25=75...

Then in 6th grade I learned that instead of girls having cooties some of them were pretty dang cute.

When I hit high school I would not have minded breeding 25 of them in a 2 week span of time. I certainly was capable.

I don't know of any management plan that can result in 98 bred does when you only have 75 does unless there was some type of buck that could change his gender and get bred by his buddies...

If you have 40:100 or anything above 20:100 then you have a sausage fest and an overload of testosterone and then you have rut/post rut and winter mortality that over exhausts the bucks.
 
Ktg Wrote: "I guess if that's your thing, shooting 2 points and spikes."

Survival of the fittest is the best way to manage for trophy quality outside of a high fence. So, the overall population increases and quality also increases....

What else do you want? Multigender deer?
 
KTG, respectfully thats what you and Mr. AA can't grasp. Look at Mr. Perkins numbers and you can see that most people want to hunt. They could care less if it's a 2 point or the new world record. 3 out of 4 hunters feel this way.

rperkins please just stop while you are behind, please.











2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Wiley, I bet if a new survey was given 10 years from now. Most people would want to keep things the same and not go back to statewide or 5 region hunting.
Just like how the elk survey turned out.
Also, when talking about buck to doe ratios. 20:100 means 20 bucks and 100 does, not 20 bucks and 80 does or 100 deer total. Is this correct.



There's always next year
 
He didn't get past 1st grade, he was looking at the girls and he's still just looking.

We need more matured bucke and more does and the only way you get that is to cut bucks tags and end the doe tags.
 
One more thing I want to pass along to Ernie and the other board members. The thing that I personally like about the new changes is that finally the struggling units can get some real relief from hunting pressure. All this delayed starts, 3 day hunts and then 5 day hunt and then... really stinks. If you remember, three years ago we had the delayed start on Wed. for the Oquirrh/ Stansbury to help relieve hunting pressure but at the same time the DWR added 1,000 tags to the Central Region. We saw between a 25-50% increase in pressure that year. Then the next year it went to a 3 day hunt, which really helped(mainly becuase of the big snow storm that hit opening day) but then we went back to a 5 day hunt last year, which resulted in a higher success rate. So now we're back to sqaure one.

Anyway, I personally would rather hunt ever three years or so with a 9 day hunt and higher buck to doe ratios, than hunt a 3 day season every year with a lower buck to doe ratio. I know others feel the same way too.
 
Mr. wileywapati,

You dont get it......

THE POPULATION AND THE BUCK TO DOE RATIOS ARE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY BELOW THE GOAL.

I am not expecting a world class buck.....just a healthy population of deer.

What do you want....unregulated slaughter....maybe we ought to go back to the 250,000 hunters we had 10 years ago......then they could all have the "opportunity".

I guess you and I differ on tow things:

1. I want a healty population of deer
2. I think we could at least try to do better with our buck to doe ratios that one of the surrounding states

Is that toooo much to ask? .......Apparently it is

Have fun in Utah. I will draw a Region G Wyoming, hunt the Smokies in Idaho, and get a point for the Rubies, get a point for Gunnison, and draw a rifle tag or buy a land owner tag in Utah......

Enjoy your 2 points

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
Mr. AA I do get it. The confusion comes with your philosophy
that is shared by you and many others. Harvesting excess buck deer has pretty much nothing to do with overall mule deer populations.

I do agree there MUST be a line drawn as far as buck to doe ratio's. I believe 15 - 100 is plenty to get the job done and provide for hunters opportunity. These are POST HUNT numbers.

It is proven EVERY TIME this tactic is employed. Look at Nevada, The Henry's and on and on.

BUCK DEER HUNTERS are pretty far down the list of causes in the decline of our herd populations. What you need to wrap your head around is fawn recruitment. If you put another buck on winter range that buck will compete for what little is left to feed a doe carrying twin fawns. This reduces overall population exponentionally over time and per buck vs doe. Figure the 10 extra bucks you are advocating untill we can increase tags again
and you are not feeding that many pregnant doe's on winter range
and not bringing that many fawns through their first year.

It's easy to get all emotional about this and just say I want to see more bucks on the hunt. Nothing wrong with that but don't think at the same time these additional bucks are not competing with the baby making and herd increasing doe's.

Hopefully that clears it up.








2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-11 AT 06:22PM (MST)[p]What if predators used to prey more on worn out bucks after the rut during winter, and now the buck-doe ratio is so bad that predators prey on fawns and does more these days? What if the lack of mature bucks results in late fawns and low survival rates? Since deer have evolved over many thousands of years without the management of modern man, and now we come along and kill the biggest and largest horned bucks every year,year after year, is it possible that by doing that we are hurting the reproductive ability of deer herds in ways we don't understand? Nevadas herds are very weather dependent and no state has had bigger recent changes in forage types and habitat conditions.
 
Ridge,

I hope you are not in government. Reps are always explaining to us what we want. "Just do what I say, you'll like it, trust me." No thanks.

I've seen the tag cuts, I've seen the regions, I've seen 15 years later. We were wrong. There is a bigger problem and the cuts are a side show.
 
Ridge,

I like that the new changes will put a stop to the date changes, you have a point there.
 
PIPER that's a valid argument and is shared by a biologist friend of mine. Mature bucks make better fathers. That being said a mature buck will never carry a fawn or twins.

Keep in mind the numbers used in buck to doe ratio's are post hunt. So if a unit was carrying 15 bucks after the hunts in my opinion that's enough to service the does.

Look at a Unit Like the Wasatch Extended. It gets pounded
from August till the middle of December. It ain't the best habitat and it is the highest human density in the state, meaning a ton of range usage and cars. It is either sex for archers for four months and open to rifle and muzz hunters as well. I would put this general season unit up against any other G.S. unit in the state and it's always pretty damn close to objective.

Why is this unit maintaining and providing a TON of opportunity?? Access restrictions and it's pretty damn vertical.
I'd rather see a few ATV's go away than watch BUCK licenses go away. If I knew I could hunt every year but I'd be on foot I'd take hiking every time.

What sends people over the edge is to hear management decisions based on what Keele Johnson, Jake Albrect, or Del Brady saw out in the fields last week compared 1979. Lotta science and fact behind those observations.







2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Let's take a real life example that I'm familiar with. The Book Cliffs used to have deer literally everywhere you wanted to go. That was in the early 80's and before. Then they made it a 3-point or better area. That brought almost everyone out there to hunt whereas before, there were relatively few hunters. 3-point or better didn't work so they opened it up to any buck again. That brought out everyone and their dogs. In only a couple years, it was relatively hard to find a doe, let alone a buck. They closed the book cliffs for only a few years and magically, there were deer everywhere again. Just doesn't make sense, does it?
 
So KTG you'd be in favor of 100 - 150 tags per unit???






2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
> So KTG you'd
>be in favor of 100
>- 150 tags per unit???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>2010 TOTALS
>P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
>UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS
>GONE


Where did I say that?
 
I follow threads like this and must admit that I don't know for sure what is right or wrong and honestly don't think any others here do either but I have a question for the 15:100 or less crowd.

Why is it that naturally roughly half of the fawns born are bucks and half are does?

Could it be that mother nature knows wtf she is doing?

Also is ANY of Utah above carrying capacity for a normal winter?

If not than the buck eating all the fawns food is a bull chit argument.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Also forgot to add, why (as in Mr. Perkins comments about what the public wants) should we let what public opinion sway us from proper management?

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Proper management is the way to go-----right now we don't have enough deer, we have to bring our herd back---more mature bucks---more does in each unit-----quit all these doe hunts---their other ways to remove problem deer.
 
I have no idea what all the answers are for our deer herd., But I do know one thing.
Our fawns in the central part of Utah have a very hard time making it a year old. Late winter the last few years I have seen a lot of dead fawns. Just watch for crows or eagles then hike over and there will be a dead fawn, sometimes two or three in a day. It don't seem to have much to do with weather, we have had a lot of different type winters the last few years, but the fawns are still not doing well. I spend a fair amount of time on the Pauns., and every time I am down there I am amazed at how many fawns and how big they are. I have no idea if they have a late winter problem, but they are way more healthy going into winter then the fawns in central Utah. So what will help the fawns?

1. BETTER GENETICS
2. BORN EARLIER
3. BETTER HABITAT
4. PREDATOR CONTROL
5. HIGH FENCE HIGHWAYS
6. SMALLER UNITS
7. LESS ELK
8. LESS ATV ROADS
9. LESS SHED HUNTERS
10. LESS PICTURE TAKERS
11. FEWER FIRE WOOD CUTTERS
12. FEWER HIKERS
13. FEWER TURKEY HUNTERS
14. MAYBE NOT BE HUNTING FROM AUGUST TO JANUARY
 
>I follow threads like this and
>must admit that I don't
>know for sure what is
>right or wrong and honestly
>don't think any others here
>do either but I have
>a question for the 15:100
>or less crowd.
>
>Why is it that naturally roughly
>half of the fawns born
>are bucks and half are
>does?
>
>Could it be that mother nature
>knows wtf she is doing?
>
>
>Also is ANY of Utah above
>carrying capacity for a normal
>winter?
>
>If not than the buck eating
>all the fawns food is
>a bull chit argument.
>
>Bill
>
>Kill the buck that makes YOU
>happy!


Bingo

X2
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-11 AT 11:02AM (MST)[p]I believe that the biggest reason behing low recrutment is forage conditions, we may look around and see plenty to eat and think its fine, but I don't think it is. Long term changes in the climate and changing habitat- forage conditions are the biggest factors, and its not something that can be fully fixed. Its never going to be like the good old days of 50- 60 years ago, its never going to be like it was 30 years ago either. Working on the habitat is fine, but don't expect to make a huge impact, its just to big. Why not take care of the herds that exist , I don't think it makes much sense to beat the bucks down by selling tons of tags, its bad for hunter recrutment on the younger generation, and probably bad on herd recrutment. I believe one good quality hunting experience is much better three or four dissapointing ones.
 
Another question aren't antelope direct competition for mule deer on winter range (serious question I really don't know the answer) and if so aren't they doing GREAT in most areas?

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
No, Antelope aren't in direct competetion with mule deer, elk aren't either, Elk and antelope are doing better in the changing habitat in most of the west, you can't force animals to thrive, and you can't change reality. The browse species that deer favor have greatly declined since the middle of the last century, thats just the way it is.
 
Thanks Piper, although I am no deer expert my knowledge of speedgoats is near nil.

Are there any answers to my other questions above?

1-Why ma nature chooses to make half of the annual fawns bucks if not the best plan?

2- Is any of Utah above carrying capacity for NORMAL winters?

3- Why should we let public opinion about management get in the way of sound management if they are not the same?

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
Mother nature does know what she is doing... That is why she created the Mountain lion that is selective and prefers to harvest male deer. Unfortunately we dont really allow the mountain lion to do its job, because we like to do the work.
 
I can only answer the first question.

It's been proven that bucks have a much higher mortality rate than does. Mother nature takes care of this deficit by producing about equal part. The surplus, above required numbers to breed, is what we get to hunt.

BTW: elk don't compete with deer for food... very much, but they do compete for space and water sources. I've watch elk chase deer. Especially during critical times.

Zeke
 
Their is plenty of winter forage on the Beaver, Panguitch Lake, Dutton, to feed the deer through the winter .What we need is more mature deer for stronger fawns, you don't want a yearling bull to breed your cows you want a mature bull, just like you do with deer, you want a matured buck to breed the does. I wish they could close the whole state down to hunting, for 2 years at least and do a count on the deer and then set up a management plan, for each unit and set it up for 18-25:100 does and you will see more bucks and a lot more does, we just can't keep going the way it is now, we got to make a big change, and now is the time to do it, before its to late.
 
Zeke I guess that is part of my point if mother nature has factored in a higher mortality for bucks then what is her plan for a proper buck to doe ratio? That is what we need to shoot for but only AFTER the carrying capacity for the environment is reached. Before that we should be limiting all losss as best we can even if it means higher than necessary buck to doe ratios or vice versa.

But this will mean the public might not necessarily be pleased.

To squabble over buck to doe ratios before the population is up is foolish because that buck is only going to take food out of that fawns mouth if there is not enough food for all.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-11 AT 04:42PM (MST)[p]Are you SERIOUS??????? Good lord rperkins!
 
'reactor. take your mother nature. and your lions. and you know what to to with them....predtors will eat till there is no deer left. what do you think mr kitty cat. does when the deer get down to none. turn veggie..
 
stillahuntin, lets here how you would bring the deer herd back? When they start to say that the bucks will eat fawn forage thats a bunch of BS. now lets here what you have to say.
 
haha...i could give ya a list, but maybe you are right. can you show us why your ideas will work? (backed up by science of course)....i'll give ya the benefit of the doubt to back up your thoughts. tada! its your stage for now.
 
no stillahuntin, lets here what you have you say about bringing the deer herd back.
 
WOW, I appreciate all the talk about this issue....that is important to all of us. There have been some very good points so far here are a few that I have really appreciated and a few I will add....

1. Wiley - you said the Front Extended Bow Hunt would stack up to other units even though it gets hunted so hard....it still has great bucks and is close to quota for population and the reason it does well is it is vertical and low puclic roads........BS!!!!

I can prove you wrong on this one for sure. I hunt just over the ridge to the south....the population sucks and the deer are hurting....according to DWR #'s. So, it is just as vertical...it is a wilderness area with the same amount of roads as your area...it is on the same mountain for heavens sake....guess what the difference is? RIFLE HUNTERS!!! In fact...on my side of the mountain there is better winter range and less houses....but the hunting is WORSE!? MORE HUNTERS IS THE DIFFERENCE BUD. THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT.

2. Wiley - why cant we just try to catch up to the other states? Why do we have to be in last place?

3. You asked someone above who wanted it to be like the Book Cliffs and just have 150 tags.....By the way there are more than double that many tags on the Books....Just a little FYI

4. How have other units performed when the hunting is shut down for a few years? THE POPULATION EXPLODES! So, what is the difference between when hunting was going on and when the population explodes? HUNTERS!!! We have all seen it happen....yet some still deny it!!

5. Why not shut down the state till it reaches quota? Will the DWR run out of money? Yup, so instead of managing the deer they are managing their budget......THEY CANT RUN ON LESS MONEY......SO DECREASE THE TAGS AND UP THE COST!!! Pretty simple

If you want to seriously get to quota with the population then shut down hunting until that happens.....or severely limit it,........or in exxence....put your money where your mouth is bud.

6. Huntindad4 - Your points of.....1 mother nature provides a buck to doe ratio of 50/50......and.....2. if the population is below capacity in a unit then the bucks cant be eating the fawns forage........right on bud.....these are indisputable points.

7. I hunted on private land this year next to public.....THE DIFFERENCE WAS ASSSSSSSSSSSSSTOUNDING!!!!!!!! I cant tell you how much different it was .....I paid $4000 to hunt the private land and it was the first private land or guided hunt I have ever had in my life. I saw over 40 bucks per day!!! Per day!!!! 40 per DAY!!! and guess what....the public land next to it had 0....that is right....0 bucks that I saw.....not once did I see a buck on the land next to the private...... and guess what!!!!!????

A. The private land was overgrazed by SHEEP AND CATTLE.
B. The privaet land users were running all over the place in their ATV and UTV's. The roads were everywhere!
C. I saw lion tracks every day on the private...and i actually saw the yotes...they were everywhere too!!!
D. Between the deer and the sheep and the cattle and the yotes and the lions you would think the land was overgrazed.....there was NO...NONE....ZIP...alfalfa or watered crops on the private....it pretty much was desolate low hills like Antelope Island type stuff.....

AND THERE WERE DEER AND BUCKS EVVVVVERYWHERE!!!!!

Guess what the difference was?

Guess?

Come on just GUESS?

I know the land and feed and predators were bad but there deer were EVERYWHERE!!!!

Guess why?


Come onnnnnnnnn?


Guess dang it!

Yup

Hunters....there were about 20 hunters on the private.....and over 200 on the public.

HUNTERS ..... that was the difference...

Hmmmmm....who knew


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
AA DAD4, rperkins

http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/muledeer.pdf

Pg. 4
"When mule deer populations failed to
respond positively even 4 and 5 years after the winter
of 1992 - 1993, many people began to question the
then Division of Wildlife?s management of mule deer.
In an effort to ?save? mule deer and return to the
?quality? hunts of the 1980s, conservative quotas were
implemented, with post-hunt buck ratio objectives of
30 and higher. More than 6 years have passed since
the implementation of the first state-wide post-hunt
buck ratio objective of 30, and some hunters continue
to have concerns about the absence of large bucks,
leading one to conclude that this conservative strategy may not be providing the desired result.

For DAD4 Page 5
In 2004 Nevada has more mule deer than it
did 100 years ago, but Nevada?s mule deer populations are currently in the midst of a 15-year downturn. Mule deer declines are not unique to Nevada; in
fact, mule deer populations are depressed throughout
much of their range.
Simply put, populations of animals decline
when mortality (death) exceeds natality (births).
Therefore, we can conclude that either survivorship
or fecundity (or both) of mule deer has somehow
decreased. Decreased survivorship equates to
increased mortality. In the case of mule deer, the
increase in mortality could be caused by any number
of factors, most of which will be discussed within this
document. Fecundity is a term that applies to the
number of offspring an individual can contribute to a
population throughout their lifetime. Therefore,
decreased fecundity means fewer animals are being
conceived, carried to full term, and/or living long enough to become part of the population. If the age
to sexual maturity, or breeding age, was delayed or if
the age of sexual senescence (the age at which reproductive potential decreases) was reduced, a decrease
in fecundity would be the result. To demonstrate, consider a scenario in which a normal healthy doe mule
deer could conceive at 2 years old and continue producing fawns until she was 10 years old. If, due to
poor body condition, a particular doe was unable to
conceive until 3 years of age and could no longer conceive after 8 years of age, the population to which she
belonged would be experiencing a decrease in fecundity. A decrease in the incidence of twinning is another example of decreased fecundity.
Knowing that decreased survivorship and
decreased fecundity are the causes of population
declines and what is meant by the two terms, it is
now possible to examine the data as it relates to each.
Measures of reduced survivorship are virtually nonexistent, though we can sometimes index survival
from fawn ratios and buck ratios. Mortality can discriminate by age class or gender or it can affect all
segments of a population. Vehicle collisions, and a
whole host of other sources of mortality seldom target specific segments of the population. Predation
and starvation can differentially affect fawns but are
difficult to measure. Sport harvest targets specific
gender and age segments of the population, and consequently can be carefully monitored and regulated
by monitoring buck ratios.
Contrary to what many people believe,
wildlife biologists do not count deer to derive population estimates. Wildlife biologists classify deer according to gender and age. It is the gender and age data
that are monitored for changes from year-to-year, to
determine the status of the population. If a source of
mortality was affecting all gender and age segment
of the population proportionally, ratios in and of themselves, would be insufficient to demonstrate reduced survivorship. However, at some point, if the mortality was
significant enough, survey sample size would reflect the
population decrease.

DAD4 can also read page 7 to address his myth concerning buck doe competition.







2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Quote all the reports and science you want, but tell me what happened to the deer populations on the Paus, Book Cliffs and the Henry's (all of which were in worse shape than any general unit in Utah right now) when they were closed down for only a few years. Now are there any examples of units which were closed to hunting that didn't rebound in a period of years? I know of none. And don't bring up the lame argument 'so do you want to manage all units like the Henry's?" That's not the point.
 
I only read the copy and paste and will read the rest later on the computer Wiley but your copy and paste is FULL of IFs and COULDs. Re read it and count them and weigh it against FACTS.

No answer for my MYTH? of half of the fawns are bucks by natures choice or to the question of how a buck is sniping food from a healthy fawn or doe if there is enough for both?

I dont give scientific merit to any THEORY that doesn't contain factual info, the cut and paste only contains the fact that survivorship is down (no chit) and fecundity can be reduced by poor doe body condition(again no chit). Oh and the fact that when mortality exceeds fecundity the population decreases, AMAZING!
There are no facts given to support the IDEA OR THEORY that this is what's going on. Not saying it's not but where are the facts?

Until I see some facts given to support the theory of too many of ANY age or gender of mule deer in an area to be supported by the feed for an average winter the rest is the tru MYTH of this discussion, thanks for trying.


Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
I have been hunting deer for 50 years (since I was 16)so I am an old hunter. I don't need any scientific proof that our mule deer herd has dwindled drastically. I have my own eyes for proof and the many hours that I spend in the mountains. If my eyes are failing me and there is someone out there that can show me anywhere near to an 8 buck to 100 doe ratio, I want a date with them to prove this, but ofcourse you may have a hard time finding the 100 does.(excluding the Henry's and the Pausaugunt of course) COMMON SENSE,tells us that something drastic has to be done, and done NOW, if we are ever going to get Utah's mule deer herd respectable. I won't see it in my lifetime, but I would like to have my grandchilden know what a herd of deer and nice bucks look like out on the mountain range and not have to go to the zoo to see them. My two oldest grandsons were so discourage when the hunt was over this year, that they made the comment that they were going to put in for hunts out of state. I think this is the way our young generation is thinking. Amen to you Mr. piper and rperkins, way to go,you are on track.and to you AA for speaking for ushunters who love the sport. I wish DWR would only listen. And to you WILEY, yes you know your simply math 100-4 is 96, but the mule deer herd problem is not simple anymore, its gone on to ALGEBRA 2 ,by the way are you a hunter? Too few of bucks=late born fawns, which don't do good in hard winters. Fewer bucks and fewer does=some does not having any fawns at all,Fewer and fewer bucks and does= less and less fawns. Yes 1/2 fawns are bucks, but more and more hunters are taking two points.spikes (they have the right as they have their tags),but what will replace the older ones that are killed or die of old age? Too many tags leads to one day not enoughdeer to go around,eventually, none at all, and we are very close to the 0 count. By the way how do we know that 13,000 tags is all that needs to be cut? How did the deer count come out? AND WHY are we hashing over the buck ratio? wasn't it already voted on? No respect for the board? Then why have a board if we can wait a few months and veto what they have already voted on?
 
You guys still arguing this crap? Now some are claiming limited entry units are producing healthier herds. What a crock. The Book Cliffs herd is down. Don't believe me? Well believe your compadres who lobbied to reduce permits last year because the herd is struggling. How about the San Juan? That unit sure has done well with 40 - FORTY - buck tags a year over the past decade- all while being a limited entry unit for 2+ decades. The Vernon is bursting at the seams with doe fawns and bucks. Hilarious. Yeah, the Paunsagant is doing better- because Mother Nature blessed the area with great conditions (and the UDWR issued doe tags there just a few years ago and the herd still increased).

So have at it guys. Lets carry 30 bucks per 100 doe and have hunting like Nevada. That means we'd get about 30,000 buck tags and have a stagnant to declining deer herd. Sounds like a great time! Wait 2-10 years to hunt and have 50% success rates.

You guys missing all the posts of how Colorado has gone in the tank? Did you miss how Wyoming's herds are down so bad Garth and Guy won't even recommend their clients try to draw WY tags- not even in their limited units. You want a herd like New Mexico? Laughable. I'll take Utah 110% over NM, WA, OR, ID, AZ, CA. Been there and done that.

We all want more deer, but arguing if we have 20 or 30 bucks per 100 doe is not going to help. It will just piss everybody off and the deer will do whatever mother nature allows them to do.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-31-11 AT 05:42PM (MST)[p]Whats your point? two point, The deer herds start thriving if you just pound the mature bucks enough? The hunting is good in the Utah general units, we just need to get off the fourwheelers? Young people are excited to go out, and they have a good chance to kill a two point, if they hunt hard enough?
 
your having nightmares 2-point.
piper, not many young people here in cowboy country is satisfied with a 2-point and anyway isn't it sad that we have to hunt real hard to find a 2 point
 
Hey guys,

I get it that we want to hunt every year....I hope we can

I have an 8 year old boy

I have a 16 year old young man (son)

I want them to hunt every year with me. This year we hunted on private land with bucks everywhere. The only difference on that land was the number of hunters compared to the deerless public land. We had A BLAST! We were driving wheelerrs right up to the deer.

I also hunt hard....we take a pack string and wall tents and wood burning stoves and 10 to 15 guys up on the Wasatch every year. I hunt 2000 vertical feet above my deer camp every day. I stay for 6 days straight and then go back on the rifle. I have been a dedicated hunter. I wake up at 4 am to get to the peak and go to bed at 10 after cooking dinner. I get off the wheeler.

BUT

On the private ground...where the hunters are limited.....I saw and my wife shot a 4 point....practially from the dirt road....we were seeing bucks EVERYWHERE.

What was the difference?

HUNTING PRESSURE. We were at 500,000 residents not long ago in Utah....now we are at 2,500,000 and growing faster than most states in the US. Not all of us are going to get the same bucks and seasons that they did in the 60's.

So, I say put your money where your mouth is......if there is capacity on the units then close down the state....and dont go hunting until our hers can AFFORD it....meaning we start taking the surpluss.

If my math is right there are about 40,000 deer harvested statewide each year. After 3 years we would have 120,000 more deer. No more depradation hunts for does....no more

We cant shut the state down.....I get that....I dont want it anymore than you do....but you and I both know how to get 40,000 more deer next year....dont we?


"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
>GEEZUS!
>
>If they don't get this fricken
>Buck to Doe Ratio out
>of their heads and start
>worrying more about getting the
>total herd numbers up &
>some age class to some
>of the Bucks you can
>Kiss this TARDville Deer herd
>Good-Bye!
>
>No,I'm not a Brain-Washed Biologist &
>further more I don't think
>you need to be one
>to figure it out!
>
>Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
>

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!! Who gives a flying crap about a ratio if you don't have deer??? WE NEED 150,000-200,000 more DEER!! WE HAVE A DEER PROBLEM not a buck problem. Look around, there are NO FREAKING DEER ANYWHERE!! It is Jan., go for a drive and it will shock you how fewer the deer there are than even 5 years ago. Why are we depredating? Why are we killing does?? Especially ANY DOE AFTER OCT. Every doe we kill after Oct. is AT LEAST 2 deer. Not to mention that all the time and energy spent breeding that doe was wasted. Why don't we have a Bull problem? Why isn't the bull vs. cow ratio made a big deal? BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EVER INCREASING NUMBER OF ELK!! The DWR talks about management by killing does. Management is for herds at or near carrying capacity, not herds in some places below 50% carrying capacity.

Proof: Antelope Island.

Until SFW bought their hunter a tag, Antelope Island was a nice mule deer lab. Do you know the buck to doe ratio out there? I don't, but I would bet it is 30% or better. How is it possible that there are a bunch of big bucks out there? Because there are a bunch of deer out there. If there were only 10 deer, that 30% would mean 3 bucks.

Simple FREAKING MATH, if you want more bucks, get MORE DEER!! With 200,000 deer(probably about what we really have), 18% bucks means you have 36,000 bucks, of those most will be yearlings and 2 year olds. IF we have 400,000 deer we would have 72,000 bucks. WE NEED MORE DEER!!!!





When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
AA DAD4, I went to the Nevada study because I know you wont believe data from Utah. Pick any western state and read their deer plan white papers. They all say basically the same thing. Reducing EXCESS BUCK HARVEST does pretty much nothing to increase
population.

DAD4 the fecundity data speaks for itself.

This data goes back for more than 50 years and Nevada has been draw only since 1975!!!! You all can try and argue this with emotion and idiocy of "close the whole state down" lunacy and it will never stand up to the HARD PROVEN DATA from our neighbors that have tried this and not seen the results..

These are general season units if you plan on turning the whole state in to the Book Cliff's or the Henry Mtn unit plan on hunting deer about every 15 years.

Thank God that 70% of Utah's hunters don't buy this B.S.
















2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
AA you are wrong in your assumptions and WW you and the data and research is correct.

As long as you have enough bucks to breed does during their first cycle the over all deer population will not be helped with limiting hunting. There are some thoughts that you need adequate age structure in your buck population for the does to be bred in their first cycle.

AA you can find pockets of deer in private land. More bucks and does.

Units in CO and NV that have 30- 35 bucks per 100 does still are below population objectives, with limited hunting.

A in SE Idaho 78 has been limited entry for 3 years. I hunted it this year with a friend. The number of bucks seen were more than on the Cache unit, but over all numbers were poor in both places.

A USU study done collaring 101 does showed how the deer died. Cars were the highest motality cause. 34 out of 100 were killed by cars. Predator and weather related deaths were significant. Two does were poached. Hunting has little effect on the over all population if you have adequate bucks.

The Cache Unit is one of the poorest places to hunt in Utah. I still see a decent buck to doe average on the Cache and greater buck to doe ave on private land in the Cache. The over all population is still the pits. Will closing the season to hunting help the over all population. I don't think so. The research dosen't show that it will.

Have some good weather. Have less road kills, and predator kills will help.
 
Wiley as I stated above I only read the copy and paste initially and the fecundity data therein was nil, it simply explained what the term meant and gave "examples of what could happen if",IMO.

Then today I read the rest of the report as it pertained to fecundity and found factual data that was informative. So I will apologize and say on the issue of fecundity you're right the data is there and supports the theory that feed and how it effects body condition of does and how that effects fecundity are most likely VERY much a part of the decline in mule deer. This is not to surprising to me the info just wasn't in the part printed here, but Wiley did tell me to read the rest and I should have before commenting on fecundity, sorry Wiley.

I did not find anything in it to change my mind on excess bucks effecting the fawn or overall population given there is enough feed for all. The condition of the feed seems to be the problem in the report (I may have missed it) not the amount and all the animals are just gonna eat till full and if the feed is of low quality it will effect body condition, but I may have missed something therefore I will not argue it.

I recommend to all here to read the report and I will read it all when I have more time.

Thanks Wiley you have definitely answered some of my questions in this debate.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
One simple question.

When they close a unit for a few year to hunting, does the population go up....or down?

Simple one word answer of "up" or "down" will be sufficient.....thanks

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
 
LMAO........typical response to an educated debate where one is running out of ammunition. Good grief AA, if you think the problem is so simple as to be solved by a simple question/answer, you are even more off kilter than I gave you credit for.... Oh well, at least you are trying, and that's a whole lot better than sitting on the sidelines ;-)



www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-12 AT 06:03PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-12 AT 06:02?PM (MST)

AA let me ask you a couple questions.

1. Do you know the difference between General Season and Limited Entry???

2. Do you think that closing the state to deer hunting would prevent Doe's from getting shot out of farmers fields every winter??



2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
what we need is adequate count of bucks and does, I don't think we are getting a good count from the DWR. I'm in the mountain 8 months out of the year on the Beaver Unit and Dutton and these unit do not and I mean do not have adequate bucks and does, I want the DWR to show me the count on these Units and they won't and i would like to go on one of their count.
 
>what we need is adequate count
>of bucks and does, I
>don't think we are getting
>a good count from the
>DWR. I'm in the mountain
>8 months out of the
>year on the Beaver Unit
>and Dutton and these unit
>do not and I mean
>do not have adequate bucks
>and does, I want the
>DWR to show me the
>count on these Units and
>they won't and i would
>like to go on one
>of their count.


110% agree I have hunted the Dutton for almost ten years now and this year alone I spent over a hundred days on the rock pile as I had an LE elk tag this year... And would love to see there count of this year, years past and years to come. In my opinion this unit holds some dam good deer for sure but no doubt should be shut down... The yotes down there r out of control!!!! The elk are dwindling just as fast as far as what it used to be...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-12 AT 08:40PM (MST)[p]>what we need is adequate count
>of bucks and does, I
>don't think we are getting
>a good count from the
>DWR. I'm in the mountain
>8 months out of the
>year on the Beaver Unit
>and Dutton and these unit
>do not and I mean
>do not have adequate bucks
>and does, I want the
>DWR to show me the
>count on these Units and
>they won't and i would
>like to go on one
>of their count.

Call the southern office and ask to go on a range ride while they do classifications.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
According to the numbers compiled by the DWR, their projections are that we are down roughly 25% in total deer numbers across the state. THAT IS TOTAL DEER NUMBERS. We argue about trophy vs. oppurtunity. We have a population problem. We don't have nearly enough deer PERIOD. Yes hunting kills deer, so do cats, highways, etc.. Whatever it is we need more fawns. We can only get them by allowing does to carry them to spring. EVERY DOE KILLED IN THE FALL IS AT LEAST 2 DEAD. Not to mention that there are does not bred by bucks that were busy breeding does that were killed in "management". Someone explain this to me. Why don't we kill hen pheasants? Sow's with cubs? Why are we killing does? Regardless of tag numbers, the mule deer in Utah will cease to exist if we don't quit killing does. There is no biological reason to do so until the carrying capacity is reached, and WE AIN'T CLOSE!!


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
I cant believe the DWR would say they are down 25%. Just a year ago, Anis Auode in a Beaver Rac meeting told everyone in the meeting that the deer were in the hills, we just needed to get out and look harder. Maybe it is him that needs to finally admit the deer herd is declining. Why in the heck do we have any doe hunt if our deer herd is declining by 25%. Sounds like it is already being taken care of, yet they continue to have more doe hunts. It is time to cut tags, or even shut down units until they can figure out how to manage the herds for an increase. You cannot keep hunting so few bucks with many hunters and expect an increase. Whoever says cutting tags does not help the buck population is up in the night. Take a unit and shut it down and then take another unit and open it to all hunters and see which one produces more bucks.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom