DH Program

H

Hola270

Guest
Just for conversation....I was wondering how much impact the DH program has had on our local herds. I was born and raised in Sevier County and hunted the Pahvant my whole hunting life. Mostly from Corn Creek north to White Pine on both the East and West sides. 15 years ago there was a good number of mature bucks in that area. Most of the people I know that hunt this area are part of this program. They are great hunters!! I have noticed that every year certain bucks get targeted and are hunted until they are killed. The number has dwindled each year until there is almost none left at all. I spend tons of time scouting. Talking with all locals I know it's in the worst shape they have every seen. I BELIEVE there's a ton of other issues the Mule Deer face....But for that local group of deer I have seen them decline terrible....BTW, there's no way that there is 9,000 deer on that unit right now!!!
 
I agree the Herd is in Trouble!

Not just here!

Not just there!

But you're trying to say that DH Hunters are what wiped them out?

I agree,we don't need the extra pressure on the Deer!

DH Hunters can only take 2 Deer in 3 years,unlike all the PISSCUTTER Pounders that have got to fill their Tags with Dink Bucks every year just so they can feel Macho & Bragg that:"I filled MY Tag!"

Might as well Blame the Youth Hunters too while you're at it!

As I've said a Million times!

There are 20+ reasons why the TARDville Deer Herd is Struggling!

Is the DH Program adding to the Hurt,Maybe?


Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
STTM, That's not what I'm saying at all. I was wondering if you guys thought that it could have an effect on small local herds. If you read lower in the post I stated that I know there's lots of different reasons the deer herd is dwindling. Most of my friends are in DH program as well. Your right, we can only take 2 deer in 3 years. What used to be a good group of mature buck is just now a few. We have all hunted the same area for years and same bucks. I agree that in Utah, alot of the hunters are the problem, we want tags every year and shoot the 1st two point we can find. I think that as Hunters we need to change too and quit blaming the decline on everything else. Things have got to change for sure or we will be looking just pictures in the future.
 
take a look at who are killing all the biger bucks in utah. d h no. cwmus yes. outfiters. yes. big money hunters y es.extended bow hunt yes. wake up guys.you want more deer bigger deer . get rid of the top 3 things that wasnt here 20 years ago.....greed a nd all the new goodies are are what you need to look at. not the hunters that take less and give more.....
 
+1
Isn't any tag opportunity? As hunters...if there's a tag we will put in for it.
 
Of course giving the most dedicated hardcore hunters all three seasons to hunt is going to devastate the bigger bucks, and then combine that with all the modern technology that can be purchased,doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whats going on. They can only kill two bucks in three years?, gee that should fix it.
 
Todd, I'm not sure what your saying. Do you think these specialty hunts hurt the game totals or is it other issues that need fix'in.

Bytheway...thats great video & an awesome hunt with a great perspective.

Just curious how are the muleys doing down there? Do you have cheat grass, coyotes, overgrazing, or just lots of pressure?
 
The TARDville Herd was heading down hill long before the DH Program,WTF?


Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-12 AT 06:06PM (MST)[p]>STTM, That's not what I'm saying
>at all. I was wondering

. If
>you read lower in the
>post I stated that I
>know there's lots of different
>reasons the deer herd is
>dwindling. Most of my friends
>are in DH program as
>well.

Showme Tard....doesn't read well. Your question is a good one. Especially when these DH hunters focus on a traditional area and are good hunters and have a high standard then you can see how this is going to deplete the quality bucks.

but the kicker still is that these same herds rebounded year after year in previous times. What has changed since those old days especially when were losing our doe herd and not killing does. Why are they no longer resiient? That 9000 is ridiculous.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-12 AT 06:27PM (MST)[p]Grizz et al..

Mostly being sarcastic. So many on here all they talk about and care about is opportunity and what's in it for me. Clearly under certain circumstances hunting can be a limiting factor. If you think about it long and hard enough, most all of our perceived and real reasons for decline of our mule deer populations throughout the west are directly or indirectly man caused. Hunting in some cases is just one of them.

Do I think that 10,000 DH in Utah killing 20,000 deer in 3 years is having a negative impact on our herds. It could be but certainly not anymore than the other 20,000 harvested annually by other hunters.

Do I think CWMUs are and Outfitters are--when you look at the numbers and the harvest rate at which CWMUs harvest (5-15%)it is significantly lower than adjoining public lands. Outfitters, again, they are good at what they do I guess but having them and their hunters harvest 100% fails in comparison to the general tag unguided success rate.

So I would have to say that it is completely the most uneducated opinion to think that DH, CWMUs and Outfitters are a big reason why our deer herds are declining. The reality check is, its likely just opposite. I would be willing to bet a bunch of money that if you took CWMUs, DHs, and Outfitter harvest and compared that to the general public/non-guided hunters on shear total numbers of animals harvested it would be less than 20% of the total.

Bess--AMEN to both of your statements.... Thanks

Todd Black

Visit our YouTube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/bulls4bto?feature=mhum
 
did anyone read the original post? did he say the whole herd was being wiped out by DH hunters? re-read it.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-12
>AT 06:06?PM (MST)

>
>>STTM, That's not what I'm saying
>>at all. I was wondering
>
>. If
>>you read lower in the
>>post I stated that I
>>know there's lots of different
>>reasons the deer herd is
>>dwindling. Most of my friends
>>are in DH program as
>>well.
>
>Showme Tard....doesn't read well. Your
>question is a good one.
> Especially when these DH
>hunters focus on a traditional
>area and are good hunters
>and have a high standard
>then you can see how
>this is going to deplete
>the quality bucks.
>
>but the kicker still is that
>these same herds rebounded year
>after year in previous times.
> What has changed since
>those old days especially when
>were losing our doe herd
>and not killing does.
>Why are they no longer
>resiient? That 9000 is
>ridiculous.

You're a real brainstorm if you don't think this state hasn't shot 10's of thousands of Does out over the years!




Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
>did anyone read the original post?
> did he say the
>whole herd was being wiped
>out by DH hunters?
>re-read it.

STFU piper!


Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-12 AT 07:18PM (MST)[p]ShowmeTard...where did you learn your manners? I would guess your a young buck hick who just found out he has marbles. It's ok to show a little class !!
 
Grizz, He is minding his manners!

If you think the DH's are the problem your off base! Most the DH's I know take less deer then if they had to choose just one hunt and could kill every year. Then the lesser bucks would be targeted and slaughtered just like every other tard with a rifle. Go back and look at how many DH's actually kill deer a year. or how many actually kill 2 deer in 3 years. LOOK UP THE NUMBERS!!!! Ill bet it is far less then 10,000 deer killed a year and alot of the hunters dont kill 2 in 3 years
 
1 boot
I don't disagree with him..... just his approach to getting his message out there

by the way....I know lots of dh hunters that kill 3 every 3 years just by cutting the corners. The stats won't show this but it is unfortunately what happens in the field
 
Where did I say that the DH program was the problem with the deer herd in Utah? DH are way down on the list. About everything you could imagine and then some is against the herds. I was talking about a small area 10 sq miles at best and a group of bucks that has had way to much pressure on them. Once that group of bucks was at couple of hundred and now 10-15, 2000-2500 in the early 80's. In the last 10 years alot of that pressure was put on them by DH. Most of I know. You guys are way too much sometimes....
 
griz . if you know someone takeing then turn them in, what a joke,. and todd you are as phoney as they come...you dam well know whos killing most of the big heads in this state., and who gets the money.the reg. hunter just gets tag cuts. makes your tags worth more money dont it...
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-12
>AT 07:18?PM (MST)

>
>ShowmeTard...where did you learn your manners?
> I would guess your
>a young buck hick who
>just found out he has
>marbles. It's ok to
>show a little class !!
>

Cowboy-Up Cupcake!

We don't need your BS!

You ca\laim people are breaking the Rules,I'm sure a few are,as with anything else anywhere there's gonna be JACK-ASSES not playin by the Rules!

Like elkun said,if you know of all this illegal activity why ain't you turnin their Asses in?

Most Dedicated Hunters that don't Poach,don't break the Laws/Rules don't Kill 3 f'n Deer in 3 years,get it?

Hell Sakes Grizz,if they are Low enough to kill 3 on their DH Program I'll bet they are Poachin SOB's that doing all kinds of Game Violations!

Wake the Hell Up!

Or sit there with your Thumb up your Ass & do nothing,that'll help fix the Deer Herd!






Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can
 
Dedicated hunters combined with all other hunters have resulted in to many tags. We cannot continue to give out the same number of tags to a declining deer herd. Then to top it off the DWR admits the herd is not increasing and they have a doe hunt over by Parowan, now that should really help increase the herd. If giving out to many tags and having doe hunts help the deer population grow, I must not understand at all how this works.
 
I agree soutahunter we have to cut all tags, DH, genral Tags, High Dollar Tags ( Land Owner Tags--Auction Tags ), if they give out land owner tags, they have to hunt on their own land and not public land, DWR is making land owners rich.
 
rperkins, ill go along with that, but every body gets cut. not just the gen hunter,,,,,,
 
Hey guys I don't post on here alot, but I'll give you my two cents.

My numbers may be off a little but, in the eighties there were about 200,000 hunters in the hills. Grandma, sisters, grandpa, and so on and so forth. Lets say in one camp there were six tags. There were probably a couple nice bucks taken, then towards the end of the trip, tagging out was the priority. This is when our deer herds started to decline. At this time there was still plenty of deer to support the hunters, predators, road kill, and so on and so forth. By the late eighties into the early nineties we all noticed the heard was in bad shape. The DWR decided to reduce deer tags and start the draw system. The predators were still in large numbers due to the fact for the last several years or decades they had plenty to eat.

The early nineties Utah was booming, building homes in areas where deer were used to winter. Habitat loss, predators, hunters, and everything that threatens deer are targeting fewer deer. The result is the deer are getting pounded every which way.
IMHO opinion, our deer herd will not stabilize until the cycle completes. There isn't enough habitat to support the deer we had in the seventies. The predators will be drastically reduced due to not enough to eat. Habitat will slowly come back because few deer are eating. Hunters are reduced due to alot of us will quit hunting due to lack of animals, tags, ect. The cycle will start all over.

Tell me if I'm way off here. We as hunters, cars, and our homes are just another problem our deer now face. Nature has always had a cycle of prey and predators. Its going to take alot of work from our hard headed, money hungry DWR. Also IMO we as hunters all need to step back and be humble. What do we really want? To have a good hunting experience, right? All of us has our own mind what that is. IMO we need to even further cut tags, maybe only hunt every other year or even every three years. I think we enjoy the out doors enough, we would all still go with our friends and family that have a tag. The deer will not come back until they hit the "rock bottom" and the cycle favors their recovery.

David
 
I agree everyone needs to take the necessary cuts, no more making exceptions because of who they are. Cut what needs to be cut and manage each unit by the unit needs. You can't just say we are going to cut 7,000 tags divide them up evenly in the 30 units and think you have done ok. Some units from the sounds of most of us on here need to be shut down or cut by over 50%.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 01:24PM (MST)[p]I asked this question on a different post but seeing as how it only generated one response, I'll try again.

Does the DH program provide more opportunity or limit opportunity?


It's a serious question and I'll like you to give the program a few minutes of thought then tell us if you believe it provides more or less opportunity.


Grizz-ShowMe is a good old hand, we all love him, (well maybe JackRussell not so much) he has most likely helped more sportsmen with their hunts than anybody on MM but he has this special way about communicating with us all. You'll eventually understand his posting style. He will be the first to jump to pack your load if you every need help. Stay with us for a little longer and he'll grow on you, like a............well, you know.


DC

Utah Mule Deer
1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000
BRING IT ON
 
You forgot to mention poachers! Also the fact that some hunters shoot/wound multiple deer until they finally kill one.
 
Deerlove, was the AR 301 a limited entry archery hunt for elk?

If so, I'm guessing was a set up on a draw. Could a sportsmen put in for the AR 301 and a regular limited entry archery hunt, in the same year.

If they couldn't then the answer would be, no loss of opportunity, they simply applied for a different hunt.

If they could apply for two draws, ie: the AR 301 and another limited entry elk hunt, in the same year, the answer would be yes, not because the sportsmen had more opportunities to hunt limited entry elk, but he had more limited entry elk hunts to apply for. So the lost of opportunity would have been the lost of opportunity to apply for a AR 301 tag but not a loss of opportunity to hunt more often.

On the other hand, if you can only hunt limited entry elk once every five years, then I believe there was no loss of opportunity for either scenario, in as much as the most you could do was hunt limited entry elk once every five years regardless of which tag you drew.

Now, your turm.......DH, more or less opportunity?

DC
Utah Mule Deer
1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000
BRING IT ON
 
>Hey guys I don't post on
>here alot, but I'll give
>you my two cents.
>
>My numbers may be off a
>little but, in the eighties
>there were about 200,000 hunters
>in the hills. Grandma, sisters,
>grandpa, and so on and
>so forth. Lets say in
>one camp there were six
>tags. There were probably a
>couple nice bucks taken, then
>towards the end of the
>trip, tagging out was the
>priority. This is when our
>deer herds started to decline.
>At this time there was
>still plenty of deer to
>support the hunters, predators, road
>kill, and so on and
>so forth. By the late
>eighties into the early nineties
>we all noticed the heard
>was in bad shape. The
>DWR decided to reduce deer
>tags and start the draw
>system. The predators were still
>in large numbers due to
>the fact for the last
>several years or decades they
>had plenty to eat.
>
>The early nineties Utah was booming,
>building homes in areas where
>deer were used to winter.
>Habitat loss, predators, hunters, and
>everything that threatens deer are
>targeting fewer deer. The result
>is the deer are getting
>pounded every which way.
>IMHO opinion, our deer herd will
>not stabilize until the cycle
>completes. There isn't enough habitat
>to support the deer we
>had in the seventies. The
>predators will be drastically reduced
>due to not enough to
>eat. Habitat will slowly come
>back because few deer are
>eating. Hunters are reduced due
>to alot of us will
>quit hunting due to lack
>of animals, tags, ect. The
>cycle will start all over.
>
>
>Tell me if I'm way off
>here. We as hunters, cars,
>and our homes are just
>another problem our deer now
>face. Nature has always had
>a cycle of prey and
>predators. Its going to take
>alot of work from our
>hard headed, money hungry DWR.
>Also IMO we as hunters
>all need to step back
>and be humble. What do
>we really want? To have
>a good hunting experience, right?
>All of us has our
>own mind what that is.
>IMO we need to even
>further cut tags, maybe only
>hunt every other year or
>even every three years. I
>think we enjoy the out
>doors enough, we would all
>still go with our friends
>and family that have a
>tag. The deer will not
>come back until they hit
>the "rock bottom" and the
>cycle favors their recovery.
>
>David


Good post mutley!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
When they cut tags, if they really do, they need to cut all of the out of state tags and this will help in cutting tags.
The DH hunters is a good program, they get lots of project done for the DWR that wouldn't get done.
 
The division paying attention to finances is a bit of a tight spot. The division is one of the only state run agencies that actually funds itself. All of the others depend pretty much on legislatively dictated budgets and end up being leveraged much more than the division. This ends up being a catch 22. Do they rely on selling product to stay in business? Yes, but would the alternative of being completely controlled by legislative appropriation be a better thing? I personally don't think so. So the tight spot is the division having to create scenarios where they have to more or less walk a tight rope. On one side of the rope are budget shortfalls, which could and would adversely affect a lot of things that could potentially increase deer numbers. On the other is over-taxing the resource. I think currently they are really paying attention to both and doing their best to stay on the rope. It's a tough world when there's a lot of special interest wanting things several different ways. Fall off one side of the rope, piss a bunch of folks off, fall of the other and piss the a bunch of people off. Not to mention a governing body (WB) that only takes into account the recommendations from the division. None are necessarily right or wrong, they're simply spawned from differing philosophies.

A lot of the debate that goes on is never going to be resolved, because there is no right or wrong answer, especially considering the social aspect of hunter management. Some want opportunity, some want higher quality. I don't think either would tend to have much affect on deer numbers unless opportunity were cut drastically. Then we are more or less stuck with statewide LE and then really, only one philosophy ends up being catered to.

For the record, if slashing tag numbers to that degree were an agreed upon viable answer to drastically increase deer numbers, I'd be in favor.

I don't think any of us would want the division to be run more like a government agency than it already is.

Maybe I'm wrong.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
Lets raise the price of the tags and if they close lt, how about a donation tag $50 plus for a point, limit to 2 points $100 plus.
 
We could manage according to percentages, whatever they might be. So if 60% wanted lower buck to doe ratios (15-18/100) and 40% wanted the 18-25 type management, we could charge something like a 100 bucks for the higher buck to doe/less opportunity units. That way people that are willing to restrict income could be accountable for their choices.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 09:19PM (MST)[p]
For those of us considering the discussion regarding mule deer management in this thread.

Consider this comment:

"Some want opportunity, some want higher quality."

Why do you think the statement was worded that way?

See........they're are some folks that would like to get us to believe that this movement and this effort is about having to pick between hunting every year, or hunting less so you can hunt deer with large antlers. In their world, high quality is large antlers, yes?

Ask yourself this. WHY DON'T THEY SAY, "Some want opportunity, some want to stop the decline of our deer populations." or at the very least, "Some want opportunity, some want higher quality, and some want to stop the decline of our deer populations".

See, the truth is, based on the discussions across the State of Utah, thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of sportsman are more concerned over the decline of our deer herds than they are over either opportunity or higher quality (larger antlers). These folks know it and that is why they so clearly avoid that fact in their discussions. They would have you believe it's only antlers or days a field.

If that tactic doesn't concern you and cause you to consider which side of this issue you want to be on, nothing will.

Face it my good friends, all you archers, muzzleloaders, rifle hunters, we had over 1,000,000 mule deer very few years ago, we now have under 300,000. While we fight over quality or opportunity, we have ALLOW, YES, YOU AND I ALLOWED, our system to lose over 900,000 deer. AND THE DECLINE HAS NOT STOPPED, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, Oh YES THEY DO!

Utah Mule Deer
1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000 TO GO
BRING IT ON
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12
>AT 09:19?PM (MST)

>
>
>For those of us considering the
>discussion regarding mule deer management
>in this thread.
>
>Consider this comment:
>
>"Some want opportunity, some want higher
>quality."
>
>Why do you think the statement
>was worded that way?
>
>See........they're are some folks that would
>like to get us to
>believe that this movement and
>this effort is about having
>to pick between hunting every
>year, or hunting less so
>you can hunt deer with
>large antlers. In their
>world, high quality is large
>antlers, yes?
>
>Ask yourself this. WHY DON'T
>THEY SAY, "Some want opportunity,
>some want to stop the
>decline of our deer populations."
> or at the very
>least, "Some want opportunity, some
>want higher quality, and some
>want to stop the decline
>of our deer populations".
>
>See, the truth is, based on
>the discussions across the State
>of Utah, thousands (maybe tens
>of thousands) of sportsman are
>more concerned over the decline
>of our deer herds than
>they are over either opportunity
>or higher quality (larger antlers).
> These folks know it
>and that is why they
>so clearly avoid that fact
>in their discussions. They would
>have you believe it's only
>antlers or days a field.
>
>
>If that tactic doesn't concern you
>and cause you to consider
>which side of this issue
>you want to be on,
>nothing will.
>
>Face it my good friends, all
>you archers, muzzleloaders, rifle hunters,
>we had over 1,000,000 mule
>deer very few years ago,
>we now have under 300,000.
> While we fight over
>quality or opportunity, we have
>ALLOW, YES, YOU AND I
>ALLOWED, our system to lose
>over 900,000 deer. AND
>THE DECLINE HAS NOT STOPPED,
>AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT,
>Oh YES THEY DO!
>
>Utah Mule Deer
>1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000 TO
>GO
>BRING IT ON


Great post 2Lumpy
When is it going to stop? Unfortunately, with the DWR running on license sales, most likely when the antis step in and point out how few deer we really have and go to the feds. Then we will be in a fight to the death trying to hunt when the numbers finally rebound.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 09:32PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12
>AT 09:16?PM (MST)

>

>See........they're are some folks that would
>like to get us to
>believe that this movement and
>this effort is about having
>to pick between hunting every
>year, or hunting less so
>you can hunt deer with
>large antlers. In their
>world, high quality is large
>antlers, yes?
>
>Ask yourself this. WHY DON'T
>THEY SAY, "Some want opportunity,
>some want to stop the
>decline of our deer populations."
> or at the very
>least, "Some want opportunity, some
>want higher quality, and some
>want to stop the decline
>of our deer populations".

So is it mysticism that leads you to believe a 25/100 buck to doe ratio and higher is going to drastically improve our deer numbers? Sell me on it with some facts and I'll stop hunting deer until we have a "million" deer once again. You know, like we had "very few" years ago.

Do you honestly believe, without divisive intent, that this is the solution to doubling or tripling the statewide estimates?

You saying that this is all dissonant code talk is no different than someone saying that we had a million deer "a few" years ago. You stated yourself that your words are propaganda. So what is it? It is propaganda to sell people on what you might call "opportunists" as they who want to be out in the field at all cost? What I see most of the time is people not buying the nonsense that goes against any scientific information available and secondly, a difference in philosophy.

Balance and rational thought, Deloss. Show me a viable way and I'll jump on your wagon and ride it wherever you take me.

Lastly, what are we giving vs. what we are gaining? I don't know anyone who wouldn't sit out hunting mule deer if they thought it was the solution.

Do you only want to give credit for words that fit under the umbrella of your agenda, no matter how noble it may be? Again, it's a difference in philosophy. You see certain ways to get there, some see another.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 09:31PM (MST)[p] 2lumpy- Do you have any statistics available showing where there were over a million deer in Utah not long ago? I didn't know that and I can't remember reading that anywhere before.
 
we dont have enough room for 1000000 deer. hard winters nuked the herds several times when we had huge herds. we have room for improvment but not by that much.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 10:16PM (MST)[p]I have an idea. If we want 25 bucks per 100 doe's and still want opportunity, dont cut the buck tags, lets just issue doe tags until the buck number comes up to 25/100. Isnt that how they do it now??? If the buck numbers are low just kill off doe's to make it look better.
 
I just tried to respond to the "what will closing a unit to killing bucks do to save more fawns. If your interested, you might see what that logic looks like. Could lack "Balance and rational thought" as suggest. Like I've said, I'm willing to open my kimona in an effort to be transparent about my logic, balanced or otherwise. It's under the Deer threads

Like I said folks, read the discussions, compare the statements and opinions against what you have seen yourself while your in the field, make up your own mind.

Who is trying to help deer and who is defending the status quo?

Utah Mule Deer
1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000 TO GO
BRING IT ON
 
There are biological issues and there are social issues. From a biological standpoint EVERYBODY is concerned with growing more deer. From a social standpoint there are lots of deer hunting regulations that we discuss that have nothing to do with growing more deer. Sure sometimes one effects the other but discussing buck to doe ratios targets that are well above the biological needs of herd production is a social issue pure and simple.

Just because social issues are discussed and addressed doesn't mean one doesn't also address the biological issues.

So if one discusses, "opportunity vs quality" anyone accusing that person of not being concerned about growing more deer is simply out of touch with the issue that is being discussed or has an agenda.

From a biological standpoint we all agree...we want to grow more deer but deer hunting still exists in Utah and social issues that have no biological impact should be addressed.

We can sit here all day and argue how opportunity hurts deer herds but the truth is going from 15:100 to 18:100 is purely a social issue and will NOT biologically benefit deer no matter how bad we want to believe it will! If we are below objective on a unit....I full supoort tag cuts. Otherwise we are doing nothing more than arguing about who gets the biggest piece of pie after dinner and that has NOTHING to do with growing more deer.
 
We started this discussion two years ago and turned it up last Dec when the Wildlife Board move to unit management.

The grass movement NEVER asked for a change in buck doe ratios. You know that. Read the minutes.

The DWR made three recommendations, we were forced to pick one of those recommendation by the Director because he claimed the three recommendations were all the RACs voted on and all the public gave input on, REMEMBER, YOU WERE ALL THERE!

The DWR chose recommend to include an increase in the buck doe ratio so they could claim they would have to cut tags. The did it to create exactly what we are doing, causing negative public reaction, in order to try to keep the Board from voting for unit management.

No one forced the DWR to offer the recommendations they gave. The were asked for a plan to consider and told the Board was going to do SOMETHING, if the agency didn't. The DWR asked if they could offer alternatives. They were told, yes, go head with other alternatives to stop the decline of mule deer. They were never told to raise buck doe ratios, NEVER.

They could have made any recommendation they wanted to. THEY WHERE RECOMMENDATIONS, SO THEY COULD HAVE RECOMMENDED WE GO BACK TO OVER THE COUNTER UNLIMITED TAGS OR RECOMMENDED THAT WE TRIPLE THE TAG PRICES, the Board wanted to know what the agency wanted to do about a problem they would not admit too until the Director spent a weekend last summer reviewing that data they never did admit it to this day. He sent the e-mail out sounding the alarm. You read it. And you boys still don't believe it, how many ways can you think of to say it.

THE DWR CHOSE WHAT THEY WANTED TO RECOMMEND, NOT US. THE SPECIFICS AND DETAIL IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION WHERE THEIR. NOT OUR. WE ASKED FOR HERD UNIT MANAGEMENT, PERIOD, PERIOD, PERIOD.

THAT IS WHERE THIS DISCUSSION STARTED AND THAT IS STILL YOUR ISSUE AND PRETENDING IT'S A SOCIAL VS A BIOLOGICAL ISSUE IS UTTER NONSENSE AND YOU KNOW IT.


Utah Mule Deer
1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000 TO GO
BRING IT ON

DC
 
I have hunted for over 50 years and have seen some great deer hunting, we were ranchers that lived in the mouth of Circleville Canyon on HY 89, we would see any where from 200 to 300 head of deer in our field going to their winter range and now you might see a doz. if your lucky, our deer hunt should be shut down for a year and committies form for each unit, so we can get a honest count in each unit of how many deer we have in each unit, so we know how many tags we can put in that unit. We need to bring back our doe herd and our buck herd, and have enough bucks to satisfy the meat hunter and the trophy hunter, it will take a lot of work, by cutting tags and shuting units down and trying to work together. We as hunters are killing way to many deer off. Lets let the Wildlife Board know what we want, before they set the tags in may.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-11-12 AT 11:13AM (MST)[p]2_Lumpy

Who are you saying is "we" in your last post? You say the DWR was never asked to increase buck/doe ratios. That is absolutely false!! I cannot count how many times I heard from the public at the RAC's I attended and at the Board meetings that they (Public commenters) wanted to see the buck/doe ratio increased. I do agree that nearly everybody is concerned over the mule deer decline both "opportunitsts" and "trohpy hunters". However, this population decline is not mutually exclusive to Utah. All western states have expereinced this same decline. What is mutually exclusive to Utah is the low # of mature bucks in the population compared to surrounding states.

Also, you are correct that there was only 3 choices to choose from by the Board. If a new option was decided upon by the Board during that particular Board meeting, then the Board would have circumvented the RAC process. That new option would need to go back to all the RAC's to get public comment. So you can see why the Director said that the 3 choices were the only ones to pick from at that particular Board meeting.
 
Rackster, I hunted in co. wy. and had family hunt in mt.and id. all reports were conclusive, lack of mature bucks in all states. In fact Utah was as good or better than wy, mt, and id. CO. was a little better but I hunted a l/e unit that took 6 years to draw an archery tag. Point is all western states are struggling with this issue.
 
Sounds like you get around. Thats good! I do as well. I also hunt Wyoming (several years)and Colorado (several years). I've never hunted Idaho or Montana, but I've hunted Nevada several times. I've hunted Utah nearly every year of my life since I was 16.

My experience is different than yours. I see more bucks in Wyoming, Colorado, and Nevada than Utah. And a lot more mature bucks in those States than Utah general season units. One thing to remember about Idaho is that a lot of that state is over the counter sales for deer....managed somewhat like general season units in Utah. So, my point there is that I would expect a lack of mature buck in Idaho as is in Utah.

I disagree on the lack of mature bucks in surrounding states, but I will agree that those states have also seen a decline in population. The population decline is western wide. There have been several forums on what to do about the mule deer decline in the west. Those forums I know were held in the early 90's and contnue to be held. They likely started before the 90's, but I don't know for sure.
 
I also have been in Nevada and Colorado, they have more deer and opportunity for more quality. I agree rperkins, we need to shut areas down until DWR comes up with a plan. Just coming out and saying you are going to cut 10,000 tags is not going to work. Some units in Nevada may only have 2 tags. Until we actually make true counts in each unit how can they put a number on the tags to cut. Some units I am guessing need to be shut down all together, and if that is the case so be it. Lets dig in together and keep the heat on the wildlife board to really make some changes that may work.
 
Deer population estimates and objectives by management unit / subunit, Utah 2006?2010.
Unit Subunit Current
objective
Winter population estimate
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
1 Box Elder A Box Elder 20000 13400 13400 14300 16100 17100
2 Cache A Cache 25000 14500 15800 13700 15050 16500
3 Ogden A Ogden 11000 6500 7500 5500 6900 9150
4 Morgan-South Rich A Morgan-South Rich 12000 9600 9500 6100 8000 9900
5 East Canyon A East Canyon 7000 7000 6800 6200 8500 9100
6 Chalk Creek A Chalk Creek 10500 10500 8900 7500 8100 8500
7 Kamas A Kamas 8000 7500 6800 6300 6400 5950
8 North Slope A North Slope 6200 5000 5100 4800 5950 6200
9 South Slope A Yellowstone 13000 11200 11500 9300 10300 10000
9 South Slope BC Vernal / Diamond Mtn. 13000 10100 10300 11300 13200 12000
10 Book Cliffs A Book Cliffs 15000 7200 7350 8300 8050 7000
11 Nine Mile A Nine Mile 8500 2950 4150 3800 4900 4600
12 San Rafael A San Rafael 1000 ? ? ? ? ?
13 La Sal A La Sal 18100 10850 11100 7400 7800 6600
14 San Juan A San Juan 20500 13700 15400 12800 16400 12900
15 Henry Mountains A Henry Mountains 2000 900 1080 1500 1400 1200
16 Central Mountains A Manti 38000 26600 24400 19800 20900 19900
16 Central Mountains B Nebo 22600 21579 10900* 11000 11500 11800
17 Wasatch Mountains A West (Diamond Fork / Heber /
Timpanogos) 20600 23004 19100 15000 16500 18000
17 Wasatch Mountains A Salt Lake 2000 2813 1650* 1400 1650 1800
17 Wasatch Mountains B Currant Creek 15000 11300 10700 8100 9500 10000
17 Wasatch Mountains C Avintaquin 3200 1700 1650 1700 1700 1700
18 Oquirrh-Stansbury A Oquirrh-Stansbury 10600 12521 8650 9000 8000 8700
19 West Desert A West Desert 11200 8309 7700 8000 8100 8800
20 Southwest Desert A Southwest Desert 3200 1400 1450 1600 1600 1400
21 Fillmore A Fillmore 12000 8000 9300 10000 9500 9000
22 Beaver A Beaver 11000 9000 10200 8000 11000 10900
23 Monroe A Monroe 7500 7000 7500 6700 7100 4800
24 Mount Dutton A Mount Dutton 2700 2000 2300 2500 2400 1800
25 Plateau A Plateau 25000 17000 15800 12000 15500 12500
26 Kaiparowits A Kaiparowits 1000 400 400 1000 400 400
27 Paunsaugunt A Paunsaugunt 5200 6500 6600 6000 5800 4900
28 Panguitch Lake A Panguitch Lake 8500 8925 8700 10000 10500 8100
29 Zion A Zion 9000 7000 7350 9500 9600 9900
30 Pine Valley A Pine Valley 12800 12500 13400 13400 13400 12600
Statewide totals 411900 318451 302430 273500 301700 293700
*In 2007, several population models used to estimate abundance were adjusted to more accurately reflect the population
dynamics of that deer herd. Therefore, what appears to be a significant decrease in population size is actually the result of this
adjustment and not necessarily an indicator of a decreasing trend.
 

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