Comment From A Legislator

[2lumpy]

This is a copy of an e-mail from Representative Mciff, a Utah Legislator who lives in Richfield. Rep. Mciff is an avid sportsman, born and raise and live his entire life hunting and fishing the mountains of South Central Utah. This is his response to our inviting him to the SFW meeting in Richfield. I would have posted it yesterday but I was not comfortable doing that without his permission. This afternoon he told me I could send it to whom ever I wished. It's very insightful as far as I'm concerned.

His e-mail, in it's entirety, for better or worse.

"Thanks for the heads-up about tonight's meeting. As indicated, I am obliged to be in Salt Lake in the early a.m. for a task force chaired by the Lt. Governor. Otherwise, I would be at the meeting. I have watched with almost disbelief as our deer herds have been reduced to a tiny fraction of what they were 30 years ago. The negative impact on the economy of rural Utah has been major, and the compromise of our life style has been disheartening. The various deer hunts now span some five months and the areas of refuge have given way to our increased ability to penetrate virtually very acre of the range. Our mountains lack the depth, our population contains the breadth, our weaponry the sophistication, and our predators the expanse to virtually wipe out the remaining animals, or to disrupt their reproduction and migration patterns to an extent that it will be difficult to reestablish a reasonably reliable base population. I do not presume to have all the answers, but I have become convinced that we need to manage what remains in a manner to ensure survival even if it substantially alters revenue from license sales and reduces the number and length of hunts and the number of participants. I know we have put significant resources in predator control but we appear to be falling further behind. The only positive footnote to what has happened is that we are now less likely to hit a deer on the highway because the population has been thinned to a point as to substantially reduce the risk.

I will be interested in what surfaces in your meeting and will work with you and other concerned citizens and sportsmen, as well as big game officials, in trying to find solutions.

Best! Kay McIff"


DC

 

[TOPGUN]

If you had a whole bunch like that legislator that you could get together with, maybe something positive could get accomplished.

 

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-12 AT 07:26PM (MST)[p]Truth is, we have TopGun.

This effort has got more legs than some folks think. There will be ample resistance. As we have seen so many times in the distance and recent past, the resistance is very talented. Like I've said so many times already, they are a large agency, with a lot of friends, they aren't quitters, they are fighters and they are damn good at it. They will rally their resources and you can be darn sure it won't happen without casualties. We've been at this a long, long, long time.

Do we like the fight, or enjoy the heart ache it causes for otherwise good people, hell no. But.........if we are going to keep a surplus producing deer herd, it has to be done, heart ache or no!

DC

 

[piper]

At least someone gets it , and very well said.

 

[bowhunt]

I am glad he is on board, and sees a problem, but cutting hunting is NOT the answer.
So what if we have more bucks! That is NOT the problem.
If SFW is for FIXING THE NUMBER OF TOTAL DEER, I am on board.
If they are for reducing hunting pressure, I am out.

We need MORE FEMALE DEER.

Predators have to go
Range must be fixed
Roads fenced
Winter, we must feed.

We cannot loose DOES.

 

[RisingSun]

Just a quick question/comment, I know that it is easy to say that everybody who talks about Buck doe ratios just wants to see more bucks. I've heard it a lot given my recent posts, but could it have more to do with the notion that does will produce bucks if there is a shortage and does if there isn't? I have absolutely no scientific data to back this up at all. It just seems to be a comment thrown out by many that if it has merit would stand to the reasons to push a Buck to doe ratio in tout of increasing total population.

I would type more but I'm doing this from my phone.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

bowhunt - this is not to incite a fight. It is a simple question. IYO, why wouldn't reducing hunting pressure help? Seems to me, if you follow recent history, that reducing hunting pressure (including but not limited to closing areas) substantially increased the amount of deer in that area after a 5 year stoppage, i.e. Book Cliffs and Vernon units for example. These 2 units were "shot out" and after a 5 year closure, were opened back up with many deer running all over the place. I was on the Vernon unit the first year they opened it. It was like night and day. Then the DWR gets greedy and gives out way too many tags initially and severely hampers the numbers again. It seems awfully coincidental that before the closure there was very few deer and after a 5 year closure there was a drastic increase. So why not a reduction in pressure? Just curious as to your thoughts.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[Gator]

It would be great if the rotate a unit closing down for a 1-2 year period, THEN re-open with a limited amount of tags(amount depends on the buck to doe ratio). They do it statewide after a few years, I think you would see a huge jump in the amount of deer in each unit.
SE if they would fence that piece of HWY between Balanding and Monicello sure would save a ton of deer also.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[cantkillathing]

Yes fence the road between blanding and monticello it kills about 1 deer a day on average, that highway kills more deer than any other road in the state.

 

[Rackster]

Interesting that he said "the deer hunts span some five months". He states this as if hunting that long is a major factor in the loss of our deer herds. On our general units, or even our limited entry deer units, do the hunts span five months? If you factor archery into it, then you almost get there. It is just curious to me, because I keep hearing that archery hunting has no effect on the buck/doe ratio. If you take archery hunting out of the picture, then you get 16 days of hunting (rifle & muzzle) on our general units. The same on our limited entry units.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see more deer, more bucks, more mature bucks, and I also am willing to take a tag reduction (hunt every two years) to get there. But archery tags need to be cut as well, not just rifle & muzzle. And by the way, this is coming from a guy that has a bow and likes to have the opportunity to hunt the extended hunts just as much as the next bow hunter.

 

[2lumpy]

Step one was to separate as many units from each other as possible. So what's done on one unit does not adversely effect units next to it.

Step two is to assess each unit for every possible condition that is hamper or helping the deer on each unit. Every unit is different, every unit MUST be micro managed, not macro managed or managed by averages, assumptions, or by suppressions. If and when we get back to a thriving, robust herd that is generating surplus, year after year, you may have the luxury of going back to macro management but you certainly can't at this time.

Step three, with an accurate assessment in place, we will develop unique solutions to specific problems on each unit. Neighboring unit will most likely require very different solution, (I say, maybe, because the unit the assessment is complete we won't know how different the solutions need to be.)

Step four, re-assess and adjust against know results.

Regarding the question or concern for hunting opportunity, the number of tags, the length of seasons, the social factors, the weapons of use, these are all just part of the total solutions factors along with every other and any other condition that is hampering or helping the deer on the unit.

We want all the opportunity we can get, that is, after all is said and all is done, the only reason hunting sportsmen are engaged in this effort. If we didn't want all the opportunity possible, why would we care if we had growing deer herds. How ever, if we learn, through assessment, we are providing too much opportunity, we will need to make appropriate adjustments to that factor as well.

Now then??..one of the proven methods of assessment, particularly when it is difficult to develop an accurate assessment through other means, experimentation is what is used to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Smaller units rather than the larger regional areas will allow us to use these methods of assessment/experimentation without over restricting opportunity or endangering large numbers of deer herds or deer hunters unnecessarily.


DC

 

[piper]

Thats nothing new, they have been doing that in Nevada for years, in fact they probably have useful info to share, Colorado does the same thing, they have areas where predators have been targeted, places where they have drasticly cut permits for several years, Colorado has useful biological info to share also. There is a lot of informanion on predators, plants, weather,and hunting pressure out there already for anyone thats interested. I know everyone thinks biologists don't do anything but in reality lots of things have been done, like I said, manipulating nature is not an easy thing to do, and then there are political realities to deal with. Huge hunt units and lots of pressure from the opportunists is going to make things challenging.

 

[bowhunt]

Lotta,
How are you?

Good question about the bookcliffs.

I have some questions also.

Why is the Henrys herd on the decline, with virtually no hunting?
Same question applies to the Oakcreeks, the Thousand Lake....

Take a look at the data for the Monroe Mountain.
100 does had 120 fawns. 8 made it to maturity. None of those deer are getting killed by hunters, so how will reducing hunting pressure fix that?

Anyway, maybe in some units the does are not all getting bred.

Take care.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

I''m good man how bout yourself! If I was a betting man (and I am on occasion when the odds favor a win), I would say that on the Oak Creek Unit it would be more of a habitat and a predator problem vs hunters. Not sure about the Monroe. My friend 2lumpy knows that country a lot better than me. The Henries is a complete mismanagement for deer IMO unless you are strictly in it for a 250"+ deer. I really believe that the Henries could be a breeding ground for deer but there are way too many bucks down there to sustain a healthy herd. You're right, its not hunting pressure, it's managed only for trophy class mulies for the rich and lucky. However, the Wasatch unit is another story. Talk about a pumpkin patch on the general season! If a buck makes it through the hunt on this unit it's only because he fell and hit his head knocking him out. By the time he woke up, the hunt is over and wallah! he survived. Seriously though, I honestly believe a reduction in pressure would make a difference in the increase in population. I would dare say the 20,000 of the 97,000 hunters were on the Wasatch. Even though we aren't killing does for the most part, the pressure can't help but affect their breeding patterns and overall health. Just a thought. It's exactly the reason I supported the smaller units. I really believe that dispursing the pressure throughout the state instead of people hunting strictly out of convenience will alleviate some of the stress on these deer. It can't help but make it a more enjoyable hunt for those that have a tag in their pocket. For those that can't bear to not deer hunt a year then I would say you're selfish. JMO. Glad you're still pushing the issues!


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[Muley_73]

Go ask the locals about the Oak City unit. I would place a wager that they will tell you it has to do with the boundary. I know a lot of bucks leave that unit and are shot on the general unit. From the numbers I have heard that number exceeds the draw permits some years. So just another example of how each unit has it's own issues.

The thousand lake unit, predators are super tough on that unit. Not to mention that you can hunt the private sections of that unit with a southern tag. Many bucks are shot on that unit on the private wiu general tags. So how limited is that unit really??? No controll of how many bucks are actually taken each year. Again a unit with unquie issues.

The Henrys is a mountain isolated by desert. Hunting pressure and predators pushed that unit back to 300 deer total. It is now 1500. I would accept that kind of recovery on any unit in the state! But again it has it's own issues that are causing it to be what it is or isn't???

Throwing those units in to a regional average would cloud the water as to what each unit needs. I thunk that has been the case with many of our units.

 

[El_Matador]

The LE units recovered quickly for a few reasons, probably the least of which was hunting pressure. If a unit can support 1500 deer but only has 300, those deer have all the food and cover they can handle. Population growth follows a logistic curve, with the growth rate tied to how far it is from carrying capacity. When you have 1/5 the deer a unit can handle you will see rapid growth whether bucks are being killed or not.

Closing units for a time period may sound like a great idea. "Just look at how well the Henry's are doing!" In my opinion, the Henry's have never been worse!!! Before the closure I could hunt them, now they are off limits. There may as well be zero deer on the Henry's for all the good it's doing me. Spike only regulations worked the same way. We were all told that was a temporary change that would only last until population objectives were met. Going on 20 years later I have yet to see a unit changed back to open bull, and most herds are in fantastic shape. If they were to close a general unit for "1-2 years" it will create another trophy unit that takes 10 years to draw.

 

[bowhunt]

Lotta, you are a GOOD MAN!

Here are my thoughts about the Deer in Utah, and what we need to do:

-Quit accepting excuses!
-Get funds available to fix the problems, the State cannot afford, nor can hunters afford loosing this revenue stream, and we are on the verge of loosing it. LOOK AT IDAHO.

What are the problems, and in no particular order:

- Predators, we have to reduce Coyotes, with no more excuses that we cannot without 1080, we need a new plan

- Winter Kill: Feed the deer in more areas, when winter gets bad. We can figure out a cheap way to get it done.

- Habitat, we have to figure out a cheaper way to make it better fast. We figured out how to get rid of Fragamite, let's figure out how to get rid of cheat grass and replace it.

- Roads Kill, get overpasses made, and fences installed NOW.

Lastly, there may be too few bucks, so lets SELECTIVELY reduce some pressure.

How can you reduce pressure? Hmm??

Today with less hunters is seems more crowded..WHY? Because we are only really hunting half the state.

Take care.