Mule Deer Continue To Decline in So.Central Utah

2lumpy

2lumpy

Long Time Member
Messages
7,989
Mule deer populations continue to slide in areas in South Central Utah. Since 1975 or before, we have known most of the reasons our mule deer have been declining in numbers. Reversing the decline is complex and proven difficult but for many of us attempting to restore mule deer populations is worth the effort.

I would like to invite every sportsman in Utah and else where to do all they can, through what ever means they choose, to help save mule deer and mule deer hunting.

SFW is doing what they can as well. All sportsmen and women who would like to give SFW their ideas and hear SFW's ideas on what they are attempting to do to help mule deer are invited to Richfield this Tuesday evening as per the following:

Mule Deer Town Hall meeting start times 7:00 p.m. January 3rd, 2012.

Court House (Down stairs Conference Room)
400 East 200 South
Richfield, Utah
84701

Folks,
To our friends in Utah,

In December we announced a major campaign by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Big Game Forever to fix Utah?s Mule Deer Herds. We have been meeting with sportsmen all over the state in formal town hall meetings for the last several months.

We are hearing the same things everywhere we go. Sportsmen are watching our Mule Deer herd disappear and they want to fix it. The energy and passion is there from the sportsmen all over the state. People are ready to roll-up their sleeves and do whatever it takes to restore abundant Mule Deer across Utah. There are some great examples of success stories already. We will be sharing more of what we are learning in coming weeks.

We want to share some of our ideas and hear from you as well. We are holding two more meetings this week and one on January 17th.

Richfield
7pm-January 3rd, 2011
400 East 200 South
Richfield, Utah
84701

Come join with us to learn how we can return abundant Mule Deer to the state of Utah.
--
Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/
[email protected]
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly what I thought when I read this a few hours ago...if the wolves aren't controlled, who gives a rats ass what else you try cuz it aint going to matter!!

~Z~
 
I'd like to see a lot more BUCK tags taken away and buck to doe ratios raised to 90 - 100.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
20 years and millions of $$$ later S.F.W. is still wanting 'ARE'
Ideas of how to fix the problem WFJ!



hornkiller.jpg
 
If You Guys don't get the "BUCK TO DOE RATIO" Bullsshit out of your heads and worry more about total Herd Numbers We'll be Screwed!

Oh,did I mention We are already Screwed?

So wiley?

When the Whole TARDville Herd is down to 5,000 head,We'll still be Ok as long as We're holding the 90 Bucks per 100 Doe Ratio?:D

Quit worrying about the Wolves,the ones that don't get shot will starve to death in this state if Deer Numbers keep dropping like they have for the last 40 years!

40 years & counting......................!




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
IMO it is not the wolves, herd numbers, or buck doe ratio that is the problem you have in utah..

It is all the utards that want to have their cake and eat it too - good luck on fixin that!!

I doubt you guys will ever get it right but I hope so.

Good luck with your problem.
 
First things first. you cant control the wolf that are in utah unless they are removed off the endangered species list. there is only a very small corner up by ogden that is open to the UDWR to manage any wolfs in that area. the rest of utah is controled by the USFG until they delist them of the endangered species list.
although i do think wolves are a very important to manage. they are not the problem right now as to why mule deer are declining. wolves typically prey on moose and elk right now until they are gone. if you talking about a predator coyotes are the biggest problem. to increase deer population you have to have fawn survive.
 
Huntinforever your are correct about the wolves. What I ment was about them talking about introducing the Mexican wolf there now also. Or at least that is my understanding that they want them there in Utah where they have never been from my understanding. Please correct me if I am incorrect.
 
SFW has been so confident that their tag cutting/habitat approach was the answer for the past 2 decades. I wonder what has brought on this seemingly humble and open approach. I just might show up to the meeting out of curiosity.
 
The out-of-towners can't go to the meeting if they can't find it. Lumpy, I'm out of town and don't have an address, but could you correct if for those who may need a correct address.
 
Thanks CB, your right the location was incorrect for the SFW mule deer meeting location. The address is:

Old County Court House 250 North Main, Richfield

Meeting is tonight at 7:00 PM. January 3rd, 2012.

Besides other issues, Utah wolf management will be discussed but so will other efforts to help deer right now.

See you tonight.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-12 AT 08:39AM (MST)[p]SMELLYBUCK, I hope you come and unload your frustrations. SFW has collected a lot of money and put in a lot of time and our money to be in a position to help mule deer. It's time they put all the guns to work on what started the organization in 1993.

I believe they intend to do just that. Lets go and air out some frustrations and try to get together on some efforts that can help these deer.

Willey, you know the way to Richfield, come on down tonight and empty your frustrations along with everybody else and then lets try to put the pass in the pass and get something done so your dreams and mine for a healthy deer herd and more hunters afield can be realized.

Together, we can make a difference.

DC
 
you have to laugh at the wolves coments, reminds me of when my wife and I get in a argument, she quickly changes the subject to something that has nothing to do with the original subject. I would say that if you listed 50 different reasons in order of importance on why mule deer are declining in Utah, wolves wouldn't even make the list. I would imagine the biggest reason is habitat. Climate, and human disturbance, auto collisions, hunting, poaching, building ect. are big, but habitat forage conditions are the biggest reason for the ongoing decline.
 
piper, thank you for your passion and your comments. Let me inform you so you and others might understand where I'm coming from.

First I live in South Central Utah. I've been here for 36 of my 64 years. I've been a mule deer advocate for 36 of 36 years.

I know for a fact that many millions of dollars have been invested in habitat on the Monroe and the Fishlake units in the last 15 years. Been closely involved in those activities. Millions of pounds of new forage are currently being produced due to the efforts of the Utah DWR, the US Forest Service, the BLM and SFW.

I know this for a fact. It's right out side my back door, 5 minutes from my house.

I just spent 3 months working on a elk management plan with the private landowners, the Federal Lands livestock leasers, the USFS, the BLM and the local sportsment. In those meetings this is what we were told by the Federal agencies and the landowners, leasers and the Utah DWR all agreed, to a man/woman.

This is a quote, not an "I would imagine". "We do not need any additional money to do any additional winter range habitat restoration. The efforts of the last 15 years have produced more forage than we currently have livestock and wildlife to use. We now need to begin work on the summer range and aspen encroachment by conifers. The range is in the best shape it has been in for many many years."

Now, I can't speak to other areas of Utah or of areas in other States because I'm not in the business of expressing what I imagine to be the case, only what I know and I know what kind of habitat effort has been made here and the results of the effort.

We have a serious fawn recruitment issue in South Central Utah and it's no longer an issue of habitat. We are still loosing more of our deer population every year. We have few predator hunters left on our mountains because the sheepmen and their poison are gone. We have coyotes in abundance as well as other large predator populations.

Something beside a lack of habitat is hammering our deer, we know "Climate, and human disturbance, auto collisions, hunting, poaching, building ect. are big" but we can do something about the predator, like we did with out habitat and we are going to try.

Laugh or whine if you want to, some of us are going to keep at it. If you'd like to try too, come to the meetings and get involved.

DC
 
2lumpy-

Do you have a cheatgrass issue there? I ask this because it is a widespread problem below ~8000 feet (thus affecting all of winter range) over large expanses of the west. I can speak for CO, WY, NV and MT anyways, but i just haven't spent enough time in UT.
 
OK, I imagine its the wolves, Seriously, I hope you can make a dent in the predators that are getting so many fawns, maybe that and the recent wet spring and winter conditions of the last few years can give the deer a welcome boost. Im a nonresident or I would come.
 
Doug, yes there is a cheek grass issue here. I have gone to locations where our local DWR biologists have experimented with new kinds of cheek grass poison and it appears they might be starting to make some in roads on it. They Danish Harrowed a few hundred acres about 500 yards above my home last fall and reseeded. (Now we had one of the driest Decembers in recent history, naturally Mother Nature will often throw her nasty curve ball.) If we get some moisture so the new seeds can germinate we will get to see how effective the effort to over come the cheek grass issue can be.

I doubt we'll get is solved immediately but there is a lot of effort here locally to fight off cheek grass and I know these government agencies through the western States are working together to find a solution. It's one of the "big" problems for winter habitat, no doubt. Cheek grass effects livestock as well as wildlife so it's one of the places otherwise conflicting parties can work together for a solution.

DC
 
I'd like to see the doe tags cease--it's never made sense to me as to why they allocate so many tags per unit when there aren't any units that are anywhere close to meeting target objectives???? Let's meet the target objectives THEN re access the number of does.
 
DC:

Yes, cheatgrass is one of the critical pieces of the puzzle in many areas. It's inedible for the deer during most of the year (including the most critical coldest months); if left unchecked it grows rapidly (worst after fires) at the expense of other native grasses and browse that the deer prefer. Not only that, it can prevent sage-type communities from reestablishing after fires. These sage communities provided not only key nutrition during the cold months (and year-round in some areas) but also shelter from cold winds. Sage communities also reduce loss of snow to wind, and this is crucial in vast high-desert communities that mule deer once thrived in. All of the plants depend on every bit of moisture mother nature can squeeze out in these areas in order to to survive.

The list goes on and on....cheatgrass burns so hot and fast that seeds and roots from native plants are essentially lost forever due to these fires. Cheatgrass itself can reestablish rapidly, and the cycle to another hot fire is inevitable. In a healthy sage community, fires are smaller and cooler, leading to a healthy regeneration of sage.

It's good to hear that some of the UT effort is going into reducing this cheatgrass epidemic. My suspicion is that most hunters don't even realize that today the plant communities look completely different than they did in these high deserts compared to 25+ years ago. It's no coincidence that mule deer numbers peaked when the sage communities were still dominant.
 
more worthless meetiings, nobody wants to tackle the issue that there are too many lions, bears, and coyotes, and bobcats, we will continue to blame habitat and weather.

History has shown that there were no deer when there were lots of predators. Get ride of some predators and you will see an increase.

Yes, Kill lIons, Bears, and coyotes, and bobcats. They all should be under the same control, shoot on site.
 
another thing is that there is RAC meetings every month and you know how many of you concerned deer hunters ever make it to the meetings.

I will say that when we have big game RAC that there might be 20 people that attend the SE region RAC.

When it comes to predators, there might be 5 people that attend and 4 of the 5 are houndsmen always asking to decrease the amount of cougar tags, and bear tags.

If there were 97000 deer hunters that would attend the RAC or Wildlife Board meeting demanding them to do something about the deer herds, kill predators, Lions and Bears shouldn't be a draw, they should be over the counter tags, we will never kill them all, but we can keep them in balance by allowing us to hunt them.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-12 AT 01:54PM (MST)[p]Your right cantkillathing, however, I believe there are a few groups and individuals that have a good chance at making a difference in the issues you've mentioned. This group of meetings is being held by a group that I believe at least has some chance to do some of things you believe need to be done. So.........I'm going to attend and try to help them make it happen.

What are the chances of success? Slim, yes, history tells us all that, however, if these folks get fired up and stay fired up, something good for deer can happen. I want to try to keep them fired up. If we don't try, we both know what will happen to deer and deer hunting.

I've tried and failed so many times, with so many different organizations, I've stopped counting but if you get hit and stay down, it's over. As long as you keep getting up there is a change you might get a lick in.

I hope you'll try again. It's worth the effort!

DC
 
Sorry if this is hard to read, I'm just typing as fast as I can without re-reading everything. Hope you can understand where I'm coming from

Deerlove, not enough $$$, from all sources including the Expo, has been going to help deer. That need to change, I believe it can and these meeting better be the re-start of that very concept. I will attend because I want them too and I want to do what you want push the collectors of the $$$ raised wildlife to be spent on mule deer. I can't do that if I stay home or avoid the guys with the $$$, I can only influence the $$$ if I show up and use my influence to push more $$$ and more effort toward mule deer. I've never stopped doing that and have not intent to stop until I consider it too far gone or I'm to far gone. (Yea, I know, I'm already too far gone!)

I know this for a fact. There is more to helping mule deer than spending directly on projects. That I mean is something like this: If a guy can spend $10 (or a million) to get $10,000.00 (or a hundred million)for wildlife (mule deer, I'm willing to spend the $10,000 or the million on peoples salaries and politics in order to the 100 million for the projects and the on the ground projects that come out of the work the people do with the money they raise at the Expo and other fund raising events.

I understand there are folks that disagree using Expo and other funds raised by conservation tags and Expo tags to fly people around the country to meet with politician and bureauocrates. I'm not, it fact, I believe it is absolutely essential because it isn't SFW or MDF or RMEF that have deep enough pocket nor are the powerful enough to bring legislative change that is required to preserver wildlife and sport hunting. Use the funds to hire specialists in these areas is what I believe needs to be done. Take a million of our dollars and parleying that million into a 100 million seems like a wise thing to do, especially when you consider that the Federal Department of Interior has more power than all of us together and without working with them, in their face, in Washington DC and else where takes thousand of dollars and skilled negotiations.

Deerlove, I have no doubt about your love for the lifestyle and wildlife. Not doubt at all. If you know of anyone or and thing that I can do to better use my limited $$$ and have greater influence, I'm your huckleberry. Until I see a better more capable way, I'm going to work with the current power structure and try to fund it the best I can.

Good luck to you in this years hunts, I know you'll have a great year because you always make sure you do.

Respectfully,
DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-12 AT 06:23PM (MST)[p] "We do not need any additional money to do any additional winter range habitat restoration. The efforts of the last 15 years have produced more forage than we currently have livestock and wildlife to use. We now need to begin work on the summer range and aspen encroachment by conifers. The range is in the best shape it has been in for many many years."

Deloss, I can't imagine what your talking about. I just don't see it on the ground. Take a hike across Bell Rock and the BLM rehab. They ripped out needed cover, lots of oak, and planted thistle and grass. I personally talked to the contracter. He said the seed mix did not have forbs rather was a cattle mix. What's up with that? Take a hike across Thompson Basin Winter Range. Where are the forbs? I see lots of grass and of course cheatgrass invasion where they disturb the Junipers. Where is this 15 year hab improvement that they claim? Poverty Flat an ideal situation for post fire rehab. I don't see the mitigation. Above Annabella where the fire raged....the sage isn't even coming back but lots of cheat grass. There's bitter brush there? Not that i've ever seen. Why is it that the deer in the last 15 years have become valley dwellers. Is it because the range stinks? I'm not trying to be negative here....I just don't see these great ranges nor do I see rehab for deer. The Forest has pandered to the cattle. Thats what I see from the ground. Just wondering what Mr. Greenwood thinks?
 
Grizz, I'm off to the meeting at 7:00 but I'll try to reply later this evening or tomorrow if thats okay.

DC
 
SFW was founded to help fix the mule deer issue and they have FAILED miserable because they aren't focusing as much on our deer herds.SFW has been focused more on elk and sheep then on our mule deer unless we talk about the Henry mtns. WHY??? Because SFW is more focused on lining their pockets with money.

More meetings to waste the time of people and cloud their minds. SFW meetings are full of BS and sugar coated. You can see where SFW stands on the deer issue since they were the founders of the tag reductions. Until SFW starts focusing on fawn recruitment instead of the number of bucks in the herd then none of their sugar coated meetings will matter.

SFW wants general season units like the Bookcliffs. The Bookcliff only issues around 600 deer tags so you can see that a lot of hunter opportunity will be lost under this idea. Then people will be complaining that it takes to long to draw a deer tag, but for trophy hunters then will be AWESOME and conservation tags buyers.

The bookcliffs doesn't even have a high fawn recruitment rate which proves that focusing on increase the buck population doesn't increase a mule deer herd.
 
A Lawyer and an Old Money Man..... What could possibly go wrong??

GMAFB!!!





2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
So how did the meeting go, did you hear that it was lack of habitat and bad weather? Did anyone ever admit that we need to attack the predators harder, my bet it is the same song and dance that habitat restoration and weather is what is doing it. One day we will focus on the predators. When everything else has failed.
 
What came out of the meeting?

I wrote this about the Spike Elk tags in another forum in September, but feel that the same principals apply so I will repost here. I will post again after researching the numbers and the Mule Deer initiative doctrine.

After much self debate I decided I would weigh in on this topic.
The problem as I see it is that there are far too many hunters period. Let just play with some numbers here.

The estimated elk population in Utah is 68,000 head. That's from the DWR page so I'll claim nothing for the accuracy (http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf). Their elk initiative states that they are trying to obtain a population of 80,000, but those numbers are statewide. They also make some blanket statements about maintaining elk populations based on areas or herd and not on wholes.

If you read through the document and if you crunch the numbers you find that just considering the "Any Bull", "Spike", and "Archery" hunts in 2008 the DWR issued 38,000 permits and 5,166 animals were harvested that is a success rate of 13.6% total. Let us just suppose that including the LE hunts there is an overall success rate of 12% for the entire population, that would be 8,160 total elk harvested every year. So we know that the population has to reproduce at a level slightly above that every year. Now there are several other factors such as winter loss, drive hunting (hit by a car), old age, disease, predators, etc. So including hunting and all of these factors lets consider that there is a total population impact of 20% every year, now the number is 13,600 elk retired annually. In order for the population to grow to 80,000 elk in 5 years (which is what the elk initiative calls for), 16,000 elk need to be born and 2,400 of those need to survive every year for 5 years.

These numbers are looking at things as a whole though. As we have seen demonstrated, some habitats are capable of sustaining much larger populations than others. Recently we've seen that they have had to change their philosophy on the mule deer "areas" because of a lack of healthy and sustainable populations, much less trophy bucks. I see the same thing coming for the elk populations as the amount of land for "Open Range" for cattle and the deer population increases, also with the encroachment of man. I like many dream of having the cabin in the mountains away from the city folk (for me people in general).

The reality is that we are decreasing the amount of sustainable habitat in the "General" hunting areas and therefore overpoplating the "Limited Entry" areas in the interest of showing the public that there is gain in the total numbers and achieving success on the "Elk Initiative." The way they make up for the overpopulating is by throwing spike and cow tags at people in the LE areas in order to not diminish the amount of trophy bulls.

In my honest opinion they need to start looking at things through the lens of small area or herd management and not total numbers management. Short of having to take a fish and game officer along with you to the field and him telling you what you can shoot; I would encourage us as hunters to contact the division wildlife biologists and ask where the populations need the most management, and maybe putting in for the cow or spike tag for that area. If you are hunting in an area that quite frankly doesn't need any herd management then perhaps it's more about you than the elk or the hunt (I am not speaking about Trophy hunting here, so don't get your knickers in a knot).

Back to my original statement about there being too many hunters; lets face it this is about money to manage the wildlife and then about wildlife. As I see it if there is only a 12% success rate yearly then we either have a whole bunch of hunters hunting in lowly populated open areas (and mostly from the truck I might add) with a fairly high harvest rate considering, or very few hunters on large populations in LE areas and private lands (Don't even get me started on the CWMU hunts!!) with a fairly low success rate, but I thinks it's both. I agree that there needs to be some difinitive changes on WHEN and WHERE the spike and cow hunts occur along with Archery, Muzzleloader, and Rifle but they still need to occur on the highly populated areas. In my opinion they need to decrease the total amount of tags and concentrate them on more specific areas, which will reduce the amount of pressure from people, which will reduce the stress on the animals and allow them to spread out more thus increasing the amount of sustainable habitat, at the same time increasing the amount of trophy bulls and improving the hunt success across the board. Regardless of the method you choose to hunt with the hunting seasons need to be concentrated around game management and not the two weeks they give you in the field. If they increased the amount of total time in the field and decreased the total tags but had say a 60% success rate I think you would see a total improvement in the trophy elk populations. You would get a decrease in the car hunters and more serious hunters in the field. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
As it seems that this topic is stagnant and ready to really begin the debate/dialog on actual ideas to help the deer populations and still maintain a high level of suitability for the hunters I will throw a few out there. I'm sure that after this is done you will all hate a part of me equally. And just in case you don't make it fully through this post, on account of how many words are in it, let me thank you now for your opinions.

Let's just cut right to the chase. Reducing the units to 30 instead of 5 was a start, but in reality they should have been reduced to something more like 70 or 80 and that's being conservative. If you are going to make the statement that you are managing tags based on buck to doe ratios then at least have the common decency to reduce the size of the area you are accounting for to a serviceable number! Examples - ANY of the LE or Premium LE units. They boast buck to doe ratios of 40 to 50 per 100 and 50 to 60 for the Premium LE units. Now this is based on the belief that there is something to the notion that does will produce more female offspring if the buck count is above a certain percentage, and nothing more. And while we are at it, why does every piece of land in the state have to be a part of the hunt boundaries? That brings me to another point (don't stop reading yet, this will really get people stirring).

If you legally own land that is not within a zoned city or non-firearm discharge ordinance then you can purchase a maximum of two tags per year for your land at the same price as a CWMU permit. These tags are registered to WHOMEVER YOU WANT TO at the time of purchase. Some people own an acre, some own a thousand. I DON'T CARE! If you own land and you want to hunt it every year then please do so. Some caveats here though. You cannot transfer/sell/party hunt your tags. You also cannot allow any other tag holders to hunt on your land, PERIOD. Let's be real about this some people have owned land forever, in some really prime hunting grounds, and they want to hunt it! Honestly it's not going to make a huge difference. As long as we are talking about limiting tags let me stay on that topic.

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERMITS, PERIOD! Hunt success is 24% according to the 2010 report. Look at the success rate on the LE units alone, the average is 85%. Now I don't think that you have to limit tags by enough to see that high of a success rate, 65% would suffice, but I do think that the rate is low because the units are too big and there are a ton of hunters crammed in to small areas of these large units. If you reduce the area size and have a manageable number of animals you can then accurately manage the amount of hunters in that area and maintain your acceptable kill losses, oh and maintain your buck to doe ratios. But that's not enough.

If the unit has a habitable population below 75% of its DESIRED amount, THEN IT'S NOT OPEN FOR HUNTING regardless of ratio! And then the unit will only be issued enough tags to sustain a level greater than 70% of the desired population. There should also be some limiting factors per unit based on percentage of surviving fawns and a charted percentage of population growth of no less than 5% per year. This will both take into account the unique characteristics of that habitat and the predator issues surrounding it. Which bring me to my next point.

Attempt in some way to manage the predators and keep counts of them at the SAME TIME AS managing deer herd populations. This stuff isn't rocket science is it? Wildlife biologists have some pretty substantial evidence on how many of what species of predator will reduce the surrounding game (it's food) numbers by annually. And in my humble opinion, HUNT THEM UNTIL BOTH THEY AND THE DEER ARE MANAGED! Speaking of hunting, isn't that what we all really want to do?

Increase the amount of hunting days in the field, OH NO HE DIDN'T JUST SAY THAT, Oh yes he did. If you've responsibly issued tags based on manageable loss numbers then why not? Also, if you don't draw a tag, but still want to share in the experience of hunting annually BUY A CAMERA AND GO ANYWAY! Or maybe post on MM that you are a lonely white male in search of high adventure with copper, brass and gunpowder, but you regrettably didn't tag out this year so you are willing to mope along on someone's hunt just for the pleasure of putting a smile on their face. Not trying to put a guide out of work here, but it is true that many people get more satisfaction through helping others. There are a bunch of hunters, myself included, who never really learned the art of hunting and would relish the opportunity to!

Keep the CWMU's if they are willing. Landowner can't hunt it though. It's either his two tags or the state's managed tag number, sorry. Also, reduce the price to that of the general tags. Don't worry my next point will make up the difference in the money.

If you would like the opportunity to receive an extra bonus point every year until you've reached 10 points or more then listen up. (My ignorance will show through here, let me apologize in advance). If you put in for an LE unit AND a General tag you have the option to earn an extra bonus point for an extra fee. Three ways to do it, first if you want to earn an extra bonus point toward a General unit, but not have the annoying inconvenience of losing your LE preference points when you draw out then check the box on the left, and pay an extra $10. If you would like the opportunity to receive an extra bonus point for an LE unit AND a general unit, which will reset your points to zero if you draw out either, then check the box in the middle and pay an extra $20. And lastly if you would like to purchase that extra bonus point for an LE unit but not lose your total points towards the General then check the box on the right and pay an extra $100. That's right a hundred bucks, what's it worth to you? Some caveats here though, you can put in for the General hunt the year after you drew out your LE but you cannot put in for another LE hunt for 2 years. Who am I kidding though, if they adopted the 80 unit plan they would all be LE's (GASP).

Okay, so that last part was just silliness and it was intended. Please feel free to pick and prod and debate or just say intentionally rude and ignorant things. This is just the start of my idea list and I can think of many many more. The problem as I see it is everybody wants to implement ONE thing and call it the solution, when as I recall it takes five things to create a habitat, why wouldn't it take at least that to maintain the animals who live in it?
 
Hi All,
Hope your holidays were good, here are some more thoughts:

We have to create MORE DEER, not More Bucks.

-29 units will not fix a declining Deer Herd, 80 units will not, neither would 1000 units. Is Idaho's Deer Herd recovering with 79 Units??? NO NO NO. It will fix a declining Buck to Doe ratio, since they have mandated an increase...but it will not increase Deer numbers. Hey it is fun to see a herd of 5 deer and have 3 be bucks, but I would rather see 25 deer and have 3 be bucks.
Killing less bucks, and micro managing will not create more DOES, or more Deer. That cannot be argued.


-The FG does a great job! I think they have identified the causes of the declining herds very well. WE JUST NEED TO FIX IT.
We cannot fix it by business as usual, and by business at current prices.

-New technology, new ways of handling the declining FEMALE DEER POPULATION, have to be created and deployed FAST!

Predators, we need a new way of controlling Coyotes. We called in 23 coyotes in one day this year. how can a fawn survive?
Winter, we need new and cheaper ways of feeding.
Range, we need cheaper and faster ways of fixing it.
Roads, fence them and build overpasses.

We have lived with the old way of managing Deer for 50 years. At the same time, we have changed the way we do everything else. It is time to change.

It is going to take, MONEY, and Politics to get it done.
Our Western Leaders, Primarily Governors, need to understand that we will not re-elect them unless it is fixed.

We have WAY less hunters in the State now, then ever before, but it still seems crowded. WHY? Because we can't hunt half the state.
Book Cliffs closed
Vernon closed
Henries closed
Oak Creek closed
Paunsagant closed
on and on.

I am not saying we need to open those areas, but we cannot continue down the path of LE units every time there is a problem. We have to fix the Deer Numbers!
 
Grizz, thanks for being patient. My stubby little figures are about wore down the knuckles.

I'll put your questions back up so I can try to answer them one at a time.

To get the most accurate information I would highly recommend you ask these questions to Kraig Rasmussen at the US Forest Service office, Larry Greenwood with the BLM office and Vance Munford the local DWR biologist. Vance has done a number independent habitat restoration on his own. Vance is one of the good guys and is really digging in to help deer here on he Monroe unit I know he would be delighted to take you to see what he has done in the area.

Now, I'll give you the best I can but follow it up with the other guys because they gave a more perfect answer to your inquiry.

Deloss, I can't imagine what your talking about. I just don't see it on the ground. Take a hike across Bell Rock and the BLM rehab. They ripped out needed cover, lots of oak, and planted thistle and grass. THEY DID RIP OUT A LOT OF COVER BUT THEY LEFT THOUSANDS OF ACRES A FEW ABOVE 100 YARDS ABOVE AND BELOW THE REHAB.

I personally talked to the contracter. He said the seed mix did not have forbs rather was a cattle mix. What's up with that? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE SEED MIX BECAUSE I HAVEN'T ASKED. KRAIG RASMUSSON, USFS, CAN GIVE US THE SPECIFIC AND WHAT DEAL WITH THAT WAS.

Take a hike across Thompson Basin Winter Range. Where are the forbs? I see lots of grass and of course cheatgrass invasion where they disturb the Junipers. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE NOR PLANNED IN THOMPSON BASIN. LARRY GREENWOOD WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER TO THAT ONE.


Where is this 15 year hab improvement that they claim?
I THINK THE NUMBER WAS 72,000 ACRES. HERE ARE THE LOCATIONS I KNOW OF, I'M SURE LARRY AND KRAIG WILL KNOW OF MORE.

THE SAND LEDGES WHICH USED TO HAVE THOUSANDS OF DEER IN THE WINTER. I DON'T ACRE NUMBERS BUT IN THE LAST 15 YEARS THEY HAVE REHAB'ED FROM THE SAND LEDGES CLEAR TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN OF KOOSHAREM. BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, BACK TO WHERE THE CANYONS START. I'D SAW IT COVERS SOME 15-20 MILES LONG AND A COUPLE MILES WIDE. I WALKED THROUGH IT WITH VANCE MUNFORD AND JIM LAMB (DWR) THIS SPRING AND THERE IS A HEAVY GROWTH OF BROWSE MIXED WITH THE GRASSES AND SAGE. TO DARN BAD THERE ARE SO FEW DEER LEFT TO EAT IT.

THEN, FROM GREENWICH TO OTTER CREEK RES. ANOTHER 20 MILES I'D GUESS. THIS WAS THE FIRST REHAB PROJECT AND WAS DONE ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO DURING THE DROUGHT YEARS AND THE SEED DID NOT GERMINATE WELL AT ALL. HOWEVER, THIS SPRING WHEN WE WENT UP TO LOOK IN SOME OF THE LOWER CANYON AREAS THE BROWERS WAS FINALLY GET A FOOT HOLD, THANKS TO OUR LAST TO WET YEARS. THEY THINKING SOME OF THIS AREA MIGHT NEED ANOTHER SEEDING, THEY LEARNED A LOT ABOUT BEST PRACTICES AFTER DOING THIS AREA.

I THINK THERE ARE MORE AREAS ABOVE MARYSVALE BUT I DIDN'T PERSONALLY VISIT THEM SO I CAN'T RESPOND ON HOW THEY ARE DOING EXCEPT TO SAY THAT DURING THE ELK MANAGEMENT MEETINGS LARRY AND KRAIG SAID THEY DIDN'T NEED ANYMORE MONEY FROM SFW FOR ANYMORE WINTER RANGE PROJECTS ON THE MONROE UNIT.

OF COURSE THERE IS ALL THE REHAB THEY'VE DONE ON THE FISH LAKE AND THE PARKER BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MONROE SO NO NEED TO DICUSS THOSE AREAS I GUESS.

Poverty Flat an ideal situation for post fire rehab. I don't see the mitigation.
VANCE AND THE DWR HAVE BEEN DOING SOME WORK ON THE CHEEK GRASS IN MESS IN POVERTY FLATS, SMALL PLOTS AS OF YET BY I WAS IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY LEARNED AND VANCE TORE UP EVERYTHING FROM THE GLENWWOD FISH HATCHERY HALF WAY BACK TO THE HIGHWAY, SOME 400 ACRES, LAST MONTH AND ARE GOING TO USE WHAT THEY LEARNED ON THE POVERTY FLAT EXPERIMENTS ON THE 400 ACERS TO SEE IF THEY CAN WIN ONE BACK FROM THE CHEEK (CHEAT) GRASS. HOW IT WORKS BECAUSE HALF THE DEER ON THE NORTH END OF MONROE SPEND EVERY NIGHT ON MY BACK LAWN. (NOT THAT I MIND BUT THE TOWN DOGS WORK ON THEM ALL WINTER.)

IF THERE IS ONE AREA THAT STILL NEED REHAB IN MY OPINION AND THAT'S POVERTY FLATS, IT WOULD HOLD WHAT FEW DEER ARE LEFT ABOVE MONROE A WINTER RANGE THAT FIRE TOOK 20 YEARS AGO. NO DOUBT, THAT AREA IS STILL A MESS AND IF WE EVER GET A DEER HERD BACK IT WILL NEED THOSE ACRES.

Above Annabella where the fire raged....the sage isn't even coming back but lots of cheat grass. There's bitter brush there? Not that i've ever seen.
HAVEN'T LOOKED IT THIS AREA BUT THAT AREA JUST EAST OF THE OLD ANNABELLE DUMP THAT GOT RAILED 15 YEARS AGO HAS BROWSE HEAD HIGH THAT HAS NOT BEEN TOUCHED FOR 10 YEARS. WE HAD OVER 2500 DEER IN THAT AREA 15 YEARS AGO, NOW YOU MIGHT COUNT 100 IF YOU SPENT ALL DAY OUT THERE. THATS IS ONE AREA THAT IS A PREFECT EXAMPLE OF NO NEED FOR MORE REHAB WORK UNLESS WE GET THOSE DEER BACK.


Why is it that the deer in the last 15 years have become valley dwellers.
PRIVATE LAND, LIGHT HUNTING PRESSURE, FEWER PREDATORS, YEAR ROUND FEED, NO NEED TO MIGRATE UP THE MOUNTAIN IN THE SUMMER???? MAYBE OTHER REASONS????

Is it because the range stinks?
THE PRO SAY NOT. I'M NO PRO, I JUST TELL YOU WHAT THEY TELL ME AND WHAT THEY SHOWED ME. THE LANDOWNERS AND LIVESTOCK LEASERS SEEMED TO BE IN AGREEMENT. NOW THE STOCKMAN WANT SUMMER RANGE WORK ON THE PINE ENCROACHMENT IN THE QUAKIE GROVES.

I'm not trying to be negative here....I just don't see these great ranges nor do I see rehab for deer. The Forest has pandered to the cattle.
THEY HAVE PANDERED TO CATTLE, PARTLY BECAUSE ON ONE IS PUSHING THEM FOR SHEEP HABITAT, TOO BAD, SHEEP AND DEER THRIVE ON THE SAME GOODS.

THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHAT HAS SFW FRURSTRATED, THEY HAVE CHANNELED NEARLY 100 MILLION INTO HABITAT, WHERE THE HABITAT PRO TOLD THM IT WAS NEED.....................AND STILL NO DEER, ACTUALLY FAR LESS DEER THAN BEFORE THE REHAB PROJECTS........................SO THEY ARE GOING TO REFOCUS AND TRY TO CHANNEL MORE OF THESE LIMITED FUNDS INTO A DIFFERENT PROBLEM, IE; PREDATORS.

WILL SFW STILL HELP WITH REHAB, THEY SAY THEY WANT TO, SO I GUESS THEY WILL BUT MAYBE NOT SO ENTHUSIASTICALLY AS THEY HAVE FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS. TIME WILL TELL, THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH MONEY TOO GO AROUND.

Thats what I see from the ground. Just wondering what Mr. Greenwood thinks?
ASK HIM IF WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU IS FACTUAL AND REPORT BACK TO THE MM FOLKS.

DC
 
I had an idea is there a computer model that you can use to caculate the impacts etc of the diffrent factore ie buck to doe ratio, hwy mortality, Winter Kill, etc maybe if we had a computer model we could follow the model to see what would help the most. Just a thought.
 
I had the one the DWR used three or four years ago. A regional biologist from Cedar City gave it to me before he passed away. Some where I heard they are using a different one now days. If your interested let me know and I'll try e-mail it to you. If I remember correctly it's an Excel spreadsheet calculator.

DC
 
Thanks DC for your comments. They are helpful. I'll be interested to check this out on the ground. It's a huge thing if some in these agencies are proactive.

What I find most intriguing is your statement that follows......

"Another discussion that came up in the SFW Richfield meeting last night was the number of fawns that had survived on the Monroe unit. As I recall the DWR biologist said that last year it was 20 fawns per 100 does, this year 38 per 100. He said the current fawn recruitment rate would not allow the herd to grow. He said he believed more coyote control and more habitat improvement would help mule deer recovery."

This is very interesting. This sure points to some possible solutions with predators. I hope they quickly do some demonstration projects to see if the numbers improve!

Lastly DC I hate to bring this up....but given the fact that you are headed toward retirement ...may I suggest we need an alternative to SFW. It make be time for a new organization that doesn't carry Peays baggage. Yes they have done good but along the way they have feathered their own nests with public money. They no longer are relevant for most sportsman. Good or bad, its water under the bridge. Integrity is not something these fellows have. A day late and a dollar short.....don't mess with sportsman. They can see a predator coming from along ways off. Just a suggestion Dc that someone could start something credible. It is really needed if we're going to get this thing going in the right direction.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-12 AT 06:50PM (MST)[p]"Another discussion that came up in the SFW Richfield meeting last night was the number of fawns that had survived on the Monroe unit. As I recall the DWR biologist said that last year it was 20 fawns per 100 does, this year 38 per 100. He said the current fawn recruitment rate would not allow the herd to grow. He said he believed more coyote control and more habitat improvement would help mule deer recovery."

This is huge when you consider that a mature doe can have twins year after year. And if fawns aren't surviving you have to find out why? Is it not enough does being bred or did the fawns not survive winter? If they didn't make it thru the winter, was it the weather that killed them or was it predators? Once thats figured out then it can be corrected and the deer numbers will come back, imo.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-12 AT 07:30PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-12
>AT 06:50?PM (MST)
>
>
>And if fawns aren't surviving
>you have to find out
>why? Is it not enough
>does being bred or did
>the fawns not survive winter?
>If they didn't make it
>thru the winter, was it
>the weather that killed them
>or was it predators? Once
>thats figured out then it
>can be corrected and the
>deer numbers will come back,
>imo.

3blade +1
that is exactly the issue at this point
 
We need to kill off all mule deer preditors. I mean kill every cat, coyote and bear within sight. Shoot, trap or poison every last one. Then drastically reduce tag numbers or shut the hunt down for a 5 years and I would bet they start to come back. I forgot to mention to control the weather so we don't have hard winters. Pretty simple
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 10:02PM (MST)[p]Grizz, this post

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID6/22734.html

nebo12000 went with a wildlife biologist on a deer count a couple weeks ago in the Central unit. The biologist had so far come with a count of 7-8 bucks per 100 does and 30 fawns per 100 does. soutahhunter has been out 4 times this yr in the southern unit and is coming up with 6 bucks per 100 does. He didn't mention any fawn counts.

Now my question is, whats the success ration for mule deer? 30% between all 3 weapon types? Oh there's no way to tell is there? The dnr does not do harvest return cards for general hunters do they, so they have no clue what the heck is going on.

But if 30% is about right, we didn't start out with 15 bucks per 100 does in 2011 to start with. We were down to 12 bucks per 100. I bet half of those bucks are spikes or forkies so now you have 6 bucks trying to breed 100 does, 16 does per buck... it ain't gonna happen. I think they can probably breed 10 does a yr, the size of the average elk harem. Maybe I'm wrong so if anyone knows how many does a buck can breed, by all means chime in.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-12 AT 00:02AM (MST)[p]>nebo12000 went with a wildlife biologist
>on a deer count a
>couple weeks ago in the
>Central unit. The biologist had
>so far come with a
>count of 7-8 bucks per
>100 does and 30 fawns
>per 100 does.

So did I...we saw double the numbers you are quoting. In fact here are the exact numbers we counted on the Nebo unit in a two hour ride:

134 does, 71 fawns, and 21 bucks, 6 bucks being mature 4 point or better (1 reeeaaallll dandy!) Approximately 75 deer that we couldn't classify due to darkness or being in cover too dense to tell what the animals were.

I gotta be honest...I was suprised at how many deer we saw on this unit in a 2 hour ride in the truck. About half of the deer classified were on private ground. They were in big clumps so once you found them you found A LOT.

It will likely come in around 14-15 bucks per 100 does and will go LE. Fawn production is encouraging though.
 
It is hard for me to swallow all of the money they spend going into habitat also. As I regularly go into and area once full of deer and look at the habitat 40 years ago, nothing has changed except less deer. The bitter brush is in good shape and yes there are new plants growing all over the place. One DWR officer told me the trouble was plants are old and have no nutrients in them. There are some that I am sure are old, because no deer to eat them. It is hard for me to watch them put all this money into habitat and then put way to many hunters in the field and have doe hunts. How can you are saying out one side of your mouth you are trying to help deer come back, but out the other side of your mouth you put way to many tags in the field and continue to shoot doe. I can't see where you can do both things and accomplish the goal of increase deer population.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-12 AT 09:02AM (MST)[p]Deer herds are the worst I've ever seen them up here in the NW...They are still shooting the does. Gotta keep the buck to doe at an acceptable level I guess...
 
I need to clarify an earlier post on another thread- The actual number was 105 does, 95 fawns, 17 bucks. The 30 fawns/100 does was from another area. sorry for the mix up.
However-- The buck doe ratio as I was told by Anise in a RAC meeting is based on total number of deer counted, whether or not it was a fawn or mature doe compared to bucks with antlers. So, you would add fawns and does together and then come up with the buck/doe ratio.
I specifically ask Anise if they assumed that half of the fawns were bucks and then figured the ratio. He said no, if they don't have antlers they are considered in the total doe count. So, as I understand it fawns are considered a doe in the ratio. Total number of non-antlered animals / number of antlered animals.
 
nebo12000, so one area looks good and the other one doesn't? If thats the case, then busting up the units into 30 units and managing each unit individually should help.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-12 AT 04:18PM (MST)[p]Predators are never a huge problem and thats dumb... they are a sign of a herd that is healthy and doing well if they are present... they usually move on to a healthier population of prey or theyre numbers die off if the herd isnt doing great. Wolves are different and run in packs and can be very destructive to a herd and are one to keep an eye on. The main problem lies in us... more and more people. Obviously we dont have a herd that can support every hunters needs and it will never be that way and it will only get worse the more people that get envolved in the sport. People driving the roads and running them over, hunting them (for years it has been that many hunters will shoot the first buck they see with antlers and shoot small immature deer and its a pattern that hinders a good herd because many bucks that can be breeding does in the future are killed)... the small ones never get to the mature age and actually do the breeding of the herd when they get older and know whats going on. Allow more bucks to age and you have something to work with and to create fawns and more deer. You have to have a good number of mature bucks to do the breeding in the rut or many does go without being pregnant. Mature bucks are the foundation of creating more does. Also people living in their winter range, harassment of the game... especially in late winter when shed hunters comb the hills and push the deer around, it causes stress on the animals. All this collectively makes it harder for a deer population to be strong. Its called encroachment and its hard to fix and manage.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-12 AT 04:27PM (MST)[p]I would say a big thing we can do is pass on small bucks and a little will go a long ways if everybody does it. Let the small ones get to an age that actually produces fawns. Its common sense.... just eat a little tag soup one year. Youll be doing some good for the herd and will be playing a part in helping to manage the herd by allowing for some bucks to age and do some work in the rut.
 
tf---It doesn't work quite that way. If there is a buck around, that doe will get bred whether he's 2 years old or 5. Also, he will pass his genetic makeup to the doe that becomes pregnant by his semen regardless of how old he is until he's too old to no longer breed. One buck can breed quite a few does, although I'm not sure what the general rule of thumb goes as far as mulies are concerned.
 
TG- I know how the rut goes and very few 2 year old bucks know what the crap is going on and follow does around or make a huge dent or cover many does if any... have you ever followed bucks in the rut... young bucks do little and havnt learned yet. Do you understand what I mean... they cover more does the older they are because the older bucks know whats going on. An older buck will move on after his job is done with one doe and a young will stick around and play.
 

Similar threads

Stillwater165
Mule Deer hunt ideas ?
Replies
14
Views
1k
jims
J
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
1k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
V
Looking for a great mule deer unit in Colorado for youth (my son) with 5 points (last year as a youth)
Replies
4
Views
1k
VWiddi1
V

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

13325F8A-6CD0-44C3-828B-4763EB50BA6E.jpeg
20220610_151946.jpg
59B37502-3B58-43AC-94E5-7C94B360300F.jpeg
3F8F72DC-EEF3-4986-8586-47F6B17B5568.jpeg
IMG_5428.MOV
FD657EEB-66C9-49D4-802A-3EF2E4CF9C74.jpeg
115F9424-3155-4D64-9F46-0DBFBD2BA420.png
2B7F6C45-08C0-4A63-9AB8-8175FEE281A8.jpeg
20231124_092141.jpg
20210930_180557 (2).jpg
1000006621.jpg
IMG_0481.JPG
Back
Top Bottom