Closing Units DOESN'T Raise Deer Numbers???

  • Thread starter coolspringoutfitters
  • Start date
C

coolspringoutfitters

Guest
I must be an idiot, but how does cutting tags help grow a herd? I mean, I understand that you need to have enough bucks to breed the does, but I am trying to understand all of the posts that say we should close units... WHY? We need to be worrying growing does (girl deer) NOT a ton of bucks... Lots of does (girl deer) = a healthy herd... Until we figure out why we are losing so many does (girl deer) there will be a problem. We all need to rally together and get something done about the number of does (girl deer)... They are the ones that have the fawns, not bucks ! ! !
I'm going to say this slowly so that everyone can understand:
Increase the number of does (girl deer), the deer numbers will go up. As the deer numbers increase so will the amount of bucks example: If you have 9000 deer and the buck to doe (girl deer) ratio is 15-100, there would be 1350 bucks, if the number of deer increases to 18000, there would be 2700 bucks. That would DOUBLE the amount of huntable bucks therefore increasing tags... Remember, bucks don't have fawns, they are there to reproduce. We don't need to shut down units, there may be some cases where tags need to be reduced to get the buck numbers up a bit, but the whole reason we went to the smaller units was to control the number of hunters on each herd. Now, they can just reduce the tag numbers and not shorten the days of the hunt. Understand that we need to INCREASE THE DOE (girl deer) herd before we do anything else...
OK, lets hear all the bashing... Or even better, lets hear you all agree with me, cause I'm right :)

CSO

It's all about the good times...

MonsterMuleysLogo.png
 
I notice you have put "girl deer" in parentheses 7 times in 1 post. Hopefully everyone now understands what a doe is.

It may seem obvious that increasing does will increase the herd size, but how do you "increase does"?. What you really need to increase is the carrying capacity of the habitat. Then the herds will naturally increase in size. Carrying capacity is a function of many variables: predators, disease, winter range, nutrition in feed, stress, yada yada.

You do have a good point about buck harvest, I agree with that. I think a lot of people associate the good hunting in our LE units with the closures that took place on those units. Cutting tags or closing a unit WILL make the hunting better, it just means you can't hunt there as often. As far as I know, cutting tags this year was done to that end: make the hunting experience better. It was not a move to grow more deer.
 
Again the reason we hunt is to manage deer. if our deer are not being manage correctly and we are truly at a all time low on deer then why are we out killing them? I dont believe we are at a all time low but if we are like alot of you say then we need to stop harvesting animals and get the herds under control. Just because your hunting bucks doesnt mean your not pressuring does. my main point is quit whineing about not seeing deer just becasue your not harvesting big bucks, lets be real thats the real problem here. everyone wants a buck on their wall like granpa has and until you get it you will blame everyone else for your failure.
 
It is true that the more does you have the more deer you have. I think the issue is more mature bucks? If you have 15 bucks and only one is a mature breeding buck, then the majority of the does are getting bred by forkies, which makes for a bad gene pool. I know that we have some of the best genetics here in Colorado very near the Jicarilla and in the 90s you couldnt find a mature buck, well guess what 22 yrs later we have a bunch of big fork horns with zero eyegaurds, not all but the genes are off whack now. Its very common to find 4x2 4x3 2x2 with no eye guards, in the 80s this was rare. I guess your right though if you want just more deer have more does...... if you want to fix the deer problem get hold of the people who run the herds on the Jicarilla, they stopped hunting, killed preditors, limited hunting.... check out their website.
I dont know the answer but in my area, once we went to a draw the hurds bounced back, just a thought.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-12 AT 07:32PM (MST)[p]Most of us agree with you. The big issue is however NOT just the does .....but the ability of does to have fawns at a rate that will increase the herds. This hasn't been happening. Finally the dwr biologist have hopefully pinpointed a specific issue that does effect herd sustainability. So why are we losing fawns? Coyotes are an obvious answer....way out of control. Lions I'm not sure. The opinion is divided. Lion chasers say lions are at a low but most hunters out in the field are seeing more lions than ever before. Who do we trust? I would also add my personal opinion that some fawn loss comes from inferior habitat ravaged by suburban growth, cheatgrass, and Federal agencies promoting grazing habitat and grossly ignoring deer habitat. There are of course stellar exceptions where land managers are stepping to the plate. To really make a difference, we the hunters have to use our political capital that will cause these agencies to make mule deer a high priority.
 
You NEED MEN DEER to breed the WOMEN DEER, not boy deer and girl deer, we need more MATURE BUCKS AND DOES to have better fawn production, what wrong with 25 bucks t0 100 does, our deer herd is at its worst.
 
If you have 15
>bucks and only one is
>a mature breeding buck, then
>the majority of the does
>are getting bred by forkies,
>which makes for a bad
>gene pool.

Are you talking about yearling deer when you say "forkies"? Do yearlings have different genes than mature bucks? I can understand the argument with them getting bred in the first estrus cycle, though there is no research to validate this. But I'm pretty sure that genes don't change with age.


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
you can have many more deer if you don't hunt them, most of the deer being killed by hunters would still be alive, If you have 500 deer, hunters kill 150 bucks and predators kill 100 any deer in the winter, next summer you will have 250 deer, if you don't hunt them, have 500 deer and predators kill 100 any deer, then next summer you have 400 deer. The buck doe ratio will be higher in the unhunted area, but there will still be more does in the unhunted area. This is because predators kill both bucks and does, in fact bucks that are weakened from the stress of the rut are more vulnerable than the females, That is how the species evolved, thats why half of the fawns will be bucks and half does, yet even in unhunted herds, does will outnumber bucks. This is why keeping herds at the minimum buck to doe ratio is usually a losing game for the deer herds
 
if habitat will only support 18000, I'd rather have 6000 and 12000; if that gap shrunk to say 8000-10000 it would be even better. OF course bucks will consume more due to their higher body weights so realistically it would need to get cut down to about 5000-10000. Then to try to limit the potential damange of winterkills keep it a little lower than range carrying capacity and bump it to 4000-8000. And there you would have a healthy herd, does not aborting fawns due to overrun habitat, bucks not as susceptable to winterkill (although fighting mortalities will increase) from being run ragged chasing tail. It would take a lot of time and effort, but there's no overnight fix for something that should take close to a decade to get fixed right.
 
First of all I will start by saying I love to hunt every year with friends and family......But one thing I think we can all agree on is in the early nineties we all had a honey hole we loved to hunt. I'll throw mine out there, Twelve Mile canyon in the Manti La Sal's. I would see plenty of deer everyday. The word got out and pretty soon the number of hunters was ridiculous.

Fast forward to around 2005. Your lucky to see a few bucks on a hunt and very few deer. Whether I like to admit it or not, I believe we, yes we as hunters are the biggest problem. Now you factor predators which their population was very large due to the large numbers of deer. Now very few deer for the predators to feed on. Which means the few are being harassed constantly by the predators, which results in low fawn survival.

I don't believe the deer will come back until the predators are balanced and the hunter numbers are drastically cut back to allow the deer time to rebound.
 
I don't know of any research that strongly supports it but some wildlife biologists have speculated that higher buck/doe ratios and higher percentages in older bucks result in earlier and healthier fawns as well as more multiple births.

My anecdotal observations support the multiple birth theory on the Range Creek unit as I remember and have old pics of lots of does with twin fawns in the 90's when buck doe ratios were approaching 40:100 and now I can't remember the last time I saw twin fawns or a 4 point buck and the buck:doe ratio is closer to 18:100.

I recently have seen a fair number of twin fawns on the UT and CO Bookcliffs where sex ratios are high and bucks get a little older than average. On the Colorado side the predator numbers are the highest I've seen anywhere, yet fawn recruitment has been reasonable, despite a rough couple of winters on top of lots of predators.

I hear a lot of people throw out numbers as low as 5-10 bucks per hundred does as being perfectly adequate. The question I have is "At what density?"

Let's say you have two groups of 100 does and 5 bucks capable of reproduction. You take one group and put them in a 10 acre pasture with good feed and cover and leave them alone. I bet every doe gets bred in the first or second estrus and a high percentage produce one or more fawns.

Then you take the other group and scatter them unevenly on 100,000 acres (156.25 square miles) with poor feed, high human activity, predators, etc. Do you think 5-10 bucks find all 100 does and get them bred the 1st cycle?

Density matters, and it matters even more on stressed deer herds with low sex ratios.

My last point is this: If the deer herds are going to be in bad shape anyway and the habitat can really support more deer, then why not have a worthwhile hunting experience when you get the chance? Why would anyone want a small population AND a low sex ratio? Just so you can say you went hunting? That seems super self-serving to me.
 
AND

since 14 yr old girls are now having babies by other 14 yr old boys, they are having midget retarded children that reproduce other midget retarded children.

and Adam the 2 point(boy deer) begat jehosephat the two point (boy deer) who begat a midget retarded two point (boy deer).

then there were lots of two points (boy deer) multipying and replenishing upon the face of the land. therefore they only begat midget retarded two points (boy deer).

amen




It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
I do not have solution. And for that I apologize for posting, but here are some thoughts for the discussion.
There is research that shows that the younger sperm and eggs (I hope I don't get nuked for those terms) are much more viable and therefore produce a stronger off-spring (high fawn success rate). Does carry the antler genetic (yes that's right, UT's management hunts are about opportunity, not making bigger bucks!)

I know a lot more hunters are seeing sign of lions and dogs (but there are a lot more people paying attention in my opinion). This is a problem.

The is pressure on UT deer heards 24-7-365--whether it be scouting, tracking a buck, shedding, hunting other species, checking cameras, going for a atv ride/hike, building a home, or just plain hunting; and for this we are all guilty. There is a lot of big money and small money greed. By this I mean everyone wants to do the list of activities I listed above that puts pressure on the deer herds, and no one feels they are at fault, but we all are. And again there is big money greed that convinces people to do thing that I believe they would not do otherwise (poach, camp on animals, steal trail cameras, even/maybe block road). All recreational activities have an impact; some have more than others!
Additionally most of us are also looking for a good if not great experience. As a point of clarification (and a topic that is highly argued on this site) different people are seeking different experiences. That is to say a 2-point hunter may walk away just as satisfied from a hunt where they harvest a 2 point as a trophy hunter walks away from a hunt where they may or may not have even hunted or harvested a trophy. IMO there needs to be a level of respect between hunters for their preferences.
I know I am over simplifying this when I say that our problem is simplify a function of numbers, but it is.
We have too many people, predators, money, technology (insert yours here), and not enough habitat or deer to meet the need. In other word UT does not have the supply to meet the demand (deer and experience). And for this I can see way the DWR is squirming in their seats. A revenue based agency (for the most part) not being able to meet the supply and demand business model would make anyone uncomfortable. Plus they are always wrong! In addition to that they have given all the seats at the table to the public ( a somewhat elected public). I am not saying that the public should not direct where we go with big game management, but the biologist for the DWR are restricted to making recommendations based on what is in the plan and then if the group of board member does not like what they are saying they can completely ignore the recommendations of the DWR biologist, and the dwr biologist are at fault! ( I understand there is question about their counting, but to hire, pay, and request data from a professional person out of tax and tag dollars, and then ignore them seems to undermine the process). Finally, "let it be" long enough to see if it is working! I know this is tough on when to pull the plug on a plan, but shifting deer management plans frequently is not helping. I hope UT sticks to this plan long enough to see if it is working. I think we all agree that the deer herds seem to be dwindling.
I believe that the choices the DWR, land managing agencies, board members, and hunting groups need to make are tough and therefore they will need strong leadership to make them. Also for that same reason I am not sure they will make them.

Again I apologize for not providing a solution to the problem and still posting. Unfortunately this is the point where people begin to bash instead of mesh and solve. Bash away...
3p2
 
AGREE 100%. The Henry's unit is a prime example. Plenty of monster bucks, very FEW tags and no population boom in how many years???







2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
I usually stay out of these discussions. That being said, some of you guys need to take a few courses in wildlife mgmt before you start figuring out to manage game. There are a few points that are over-looked by backyard managers (or guys on the internet). I'll say this really slow, so you understand.

Zone x, y, z, has enough forage to feed 500 deer over a bad winter. (OK, that is as annoying to type as it is to read).
Let's say the buck to doe ratio is 15/100. This gives us 75 bucks and 425 does, right?
Now, when it comes to fawns, statistics show that typically 49% will be bucks and 51% will be does. What this means is that when you remove a buck, half the time it will be replaced with a doe. So, if you only kill bucks, your population will slowly reduce the number of bucks in the herd because of natural selection.
Another misconception is that if you have more does, you will have more deer. The problem with this is that many of the does in the herd are beyond breeding age. So, you are essentially feeding them from the carrying capacity of your winter range, without any benefit. Also, a mature doe will out compete a fawn for food. This isn't like your loving mama that will take food from her mouth so that the little ones will survive. It is 'survival of the fittest' and quite often, it is that little buck that dies.
Too often, one hears the arguement that a rancher doesn't kill his breeding stock. However, a rancher does one thing that Mother Nature doesn't do.....he artificially feeds his animals throughout the winter.
In order to have more deer, you first need to have habitat (this means no summer homes on wintering grounds); you have to have a balanced herd by removing the non-breeding does, as well as bucks and you need to minimize depredations (from predators, vehicles and yes, shed hunters!).
What guys don't realize is that in a deer's life, it is a struggle for the healthiest deer to make it from one Spring to the next. No deer end the winter "fat and sassy".
Really, I could go on, but you get the idea. Volumes have been written about this and yes, the biologists do have a bit more understanding of this than most guys think.
 
Ok Wiley. Lets say im an anti. I obviosly wouldnt want you out killing poor bambi. So now I take the state to court and say that what your doing is inhumane, and is animal abuse.

Your argument is no we have to do this to manage wildlife so we dont lose mass amounts of animals to disease starvation and to avoid depredation.

My argument back is a little chuckle and "well I have thousands of witnesses on this monstermuleys website that all say the deer herds are in terrible shape so you must not be doing a good job managing these deer herds."

What do you do now?
 
I'm pretty sure that there were less deer in the bookcliffs and the henry's in the years leading up to the closures versus post-closures.

Cutting tags can definitely be a tool to help increase a population...WHEN that population has reached a point where a loss of a MALE or FEMALE from the population is reducing overall survivability.

When populations numbers are over estimated in some areas, which a lot of us agree they are, there is a good chance that that specific area/population is being over hunted. The DNR are basing tag numbers on deer numbers that don't exist. It's a fairly simple concept.

We issue more total deer tags in Utah, than Colorado does. They have more deer and more deer habitat.

Great Post Nick...a valid point that never even gets any attention. It's nice to see some people understand what's going on.

BH
 
Sora help me understand this a little better lets say you have 1 mature buck out of 10 bucks but yet there is a 1 year old buck that came from a genetically outstanding doe and buck that was a 240 in monster here is the kicker the mature buck is a crabby forked 140 in 4 point with willow horns and he is in his prime. but from your post your saying you would rather have the matuure buck breed the doe rather then the year old because he has bad genes untill he is mature. YOUR JOKING RIGHT IM PRETTY SURE A DEERS GENES STAY THE SAME FOR HIS LIFE.
 
Not all bucks carry the genes, not all does carry the genes, you need mature bucks that carry the genes to breed your does. You don't have a yearling bull breed you cows, he has't to prove him self first.
 
Let's face it- it's not about deer numbers, it's about quality buck numbers... That's what we want... Do any of us want a deer herd of 500,000 does...?? No. We want bucks, and we want mature bucks. Anyone who claims different shouldn't be a member of a site promoting MONSTER Muleys...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
Ir the statistics are right and it is said that we need 15 bucks per 100 doe to breed, then from what I have observed and most of you say there is not 15 bucks per 100 doe. How many of you have went out during the rut and seen group after group of doe with no buck in it. Why would a buck during the rut not want to be with the doe. Might be because there are not enough bucks to cover the doe herd. My guess is that we are around 5 to 7 bucks per 100 doe. So how does not killing bucks increase the deer herd? By increasing our buck herd to 30 bucks per 100 doe there is a better chance of having a buck in all the doe herds during the rut and maybe more doe get bred with better chance of having fawns increase. Pretty simple unless you agree that we have 15 bucks per 100 doe in all of our areas.
 
Thats one of the long term problems having human predators do most of the killing as opposed to natural predators. Humans kill the biggest antlered bucks or the best animals first and have no way of selecting the older weaker females in a herd. Natural predators will select the weaker older animals first, they can sense things in their prey we cannot. Thats the natural order of evolution between prey and predator.
 
rperkins i agree with you but as some have stated and i know it to that in some of our areas we have yearlings and young immature deer breeding our does so in my example i used a mature buck with horrible genes and deer that is genetically bound to be a big deer i know that if i had my choice on it i would want that immature year old buck to breed the doe but by nature we all think the older deer needs to because he is mature and not some dinky 2 point. point is we can see a 2 point in the field breeding a doe and think well theres some shi**Y genes going into the herd when in reality that could be your next state record going into the gene pool WE JUST DONT KNOW but in a state that we allow people to shoot whatever they want and THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BECAUSE IT IS THERE TAG. we will never know what that 2 point could have turned into if we dont let him reach his mature stages. but again you could be taking a deer with horrible genes also so overall it is a toss up.

as for people saying we have to manage the does and get the old does that arent producing any fawns out of the herd because they are a wast of space well you are right but can you go out this time of year and look at a doe and say k she is infertile and sterile lets kill her. but what happens when you shoot her and open her up you find a young fetis or even 2 now you just killed 3 deer. so we just need to look at an area and say k this area can handle 10,000 deer and account for the older deer that arent going breed or carry a fawn and set our objective at 8000 deer and when you meet your objective of 8000 then you can start decididing ok do we need a doe hunt or management hunt or do we just let natural selectin occur. BUT UNTILL WE CAN REACH OUR OBJECTIVES WHY DO WE KEEP KILLING DOES AND WE ALL KNOW EVEN THE DWR KNOWS THAT THE STATE IS WAY BELOW OBJECTIVE.
 
I too went up and looked at deer during the rut...pre-rut-peak-post and there were alot of groups (not alot of deer because I didnt see alot of deer) but alot of groups of does without a buck. If you are in the peak of the rut, and there's enough bucks to cover the does....there will be a buck around. There certainly was not fighting of bucks over does where I live. I don't think 15 bucks per hundred does exist, and no I'm not convinced that's enough bucks to cover the does when deer numbers are so few and scattered so bad.
 
We are way below objective in every unit and have been telling them this for years. We need to grow the herd both bucks and doe. If you don't have enough doe, you want have enough fawn, so it is not all about big bucks. We need the doe herd to be large also, but if we continue to shoot off all the bucks we will never breed all the doe, so the doe end up being no good if they cannot produce fawn. Bottom line is we need to increase both, as we agree they are both very low. So, by reducing tags or shutting down units, we are at least helping the male part of it. Not allowing any doe hunts will help the female part of it. Lets at least do something we know will help rather than guess at what might help.
 
Here's an idea that could work:

Everybody that is currently planning on hunting buck deer in 2012 should be sure and put in for a doe tag.

Then, when the doe tag shows up in the mail, just tear it up and throw it in the trash. After the doe hunt, fill out your survey stating that you harvested a doe. - You just saved one.

Also, when the buck season opens, go out and film/photograph every buck you see, but don't shoot any. I'm sure you won't find one big enough anyway. - There, you just saved at least one buck too.

After all of the hunts are over and you're sitting at home being bored, get out there and do some serious predator hunting. It's a blast, and it's good to thin out the coyotes.

If enough of us do this, the herd will have a chance to come back no matter what the stupid "MANAGERS" decide to do.
 
Closing units helps the herd size big time. The Vernon, Pauns, Henries were all units that were closed and then opened. the Dwr back in 1996 wanted to open the vernon to general tag hunting. Rep, Mike Styler got wind of that and said what are the reasons for that. Dwr said there is no deer so lets open it up to general season hunting. He then told them if it is that bad then lets close it for 5 years. Well they did and it opened back up in in the year 2001 my parent both drew tags for the first year open. In our Scouting trips i could not believe the amount of deer we were seeing all over the whole unit. On july 3rd 2001 in Harker Canyon we counted 75 bucks in one canyon. Also in our scouting we saw a 37 inch 5x6 that would make your jaw drop. i couldn't believe it i had never seen deer like that in my life time in one unit. Dad took a 29in 5x4 with the muzz and my mom killed a 31 in 3x3 with 5 inch eye guards. In my opinion closing units Helps the herd size very much. Well the dwr issued way to many tags the next 4 years and the rest is history.
 
Seen a yote dead on the road hit by a car. Good on ya for not braking. To Bad it don't happen to the dogs more and less for the deer.
 
RP
Sorry I used "girls" instead of "women"... You're right, we need men and women... :)

CSO

It's all about the good times...

MonsterMuleysLogo.png
 
Edward you are right the one thing we really do know is that closing a unit helps. So lets close units that need it and from what I am hearing it sounds like all areas need it. We are beyond cutting a few tags across the state and then equally dividing them up among the 30 units. Units have got to relieved of hunting pressure as a start, and lots of other good ideas given on here to help the herd increase.
 
missalot sorry but i think you wrong a bit. first it is 50/50 odds of male female not 49-51. basically you figure 50 female 50 bucks oout of 100. i know 1% not a big deal but what i learned was 50-50. not a big deal.


2nd not all ranchers feed their cattle.

3rd with good habitat a deer/elk/cow can come out of winter fat and in good shape. It is unlikely in many places but its possible it depends on weather and habitat.
 
I agree with soutahunter we need to close some units down and manage unit by unit, lets do what it takes to bring the deer herd back.
 
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.
 
Idont know big, just saying that if u put 5 bucks in an area and one is mature he will do most of the breeding, do to his dominance...kinda of how nature works. I just know that we have alot of weird looking bucks here and a few miles away in the Jicarilla those bucks are amazing. I guess my point is if you have 100 bucks and 2 of those bucks score 200 and they get shot what are the odds of the other bucks producing 200 inch class deer?
 
rperkins then answer me this since you haven't before. WHY is the henry mtns, San juan, bookcliffs all have low fawn survival rates? GAY BUCKS????
 
rperkins you need to take a few biology classes. A fawn carries the exact same genes as his father and mother. A buck never receives any new genes as he grows older. When you were a fetus in your mother's womb then you had all the genes that your ever going to have. You don't receive more genes by improving yourself.

Heaven help us if people like you make decisions.
 
> Let's face it- it's not
>about deer numbers, it's about
>quality buck numbers... That's what
>we want... Do any
>of us want a deer
>herd of 500,000 does...?? No.
>We want bucks, and we
>want mature bucks. Anyone who
>claims different shouldn't be a
>member of a site promoting
>MONSTER Muleys...
>
>
>"Therefore, wo be unto him that
>is at ease in Zion!"
>2 Ne. 28: 24

Mmmmmmmm.
So, I'm hunting with one of my sons which have only killed one buck a piece.
Son-Dad, look there is a two point. Can I shoot it?
Dad-No son, that buck is too small.
Son-Dad please, we have been hunting for four days and its the only buck we've seen. Please dad I'm really getting bored.
Dad-Well son we need to look for a bigger buck.

Two days later without seeing another buck we go home.....
Next year:
Dad-Son, get your stuff packed we are going deer hunting.
Son-Dad, I'd like to go but, I'm getting bored with hunting and would rather stay home and hang out with Freddy.

I'm sorry but your post seems very selfish. We are losing a bunch of kids every year due to hunting being difficult for our younger generation. Not all "hunters" have killed multiple bucks back when you could choose your buck. The more kids we lose do to not seeing animals the quieter OUR voice gets in the long run. I only hope WE can figure this out before its to late.

David
 
"Zone x, y, z, has enough forage to feed 500 deer over a bad winter. (OK, that is as annoying to type as it is to read).
Let's say the buck to doe ratio is 15/100. This gives us 75 bucks and 425 does, right?"

Being one of those "stupid managers," I hesitate to enter the discussion, but I will say "wrong" to the above math unless you are including male fawns as bucks and female fawns as does. By convention, at least wheer I manage (Idaho), fawns are not included in the B:D ratio. In the above scenario of 500 total deer, the absolute number of bucks and does will depend on the fawn production/numbers. For example, if we're looking at a reasonably productive herd that has 80 fawns:100 does in December and 15 bucks:100 does, the absolute numbers would be
38B:256D:205F. At a ratio more typical of fair habitat with 50 fawns:100 does, the numbers would be 45B:303D:151F.

There are a number of implications in those numbers. Perhaps most importantly, the influence of low productivity. The first herd of the same size puts roughly 100 bucks out, but the second herd puts out only 75. Of course, those numbers decrease through the year due to mortality, but fawn production/survival (along with adult female survival) are the key factors drving mule deer population dynamics.

Hope that helps without ticking people off.

Tom Keegan
IDFG Salmon Region Wildlife Manager
 
>Thats one of the long term
>problems having human predators do
>most of the killing as
>opposed to natural predators. Humans
>kill the biggest antlered bucks
>or the best animals first
>and have no way of
>selecting the older weaker females
> in a herd. Natural
>predators will select the weaker
>older animals first, they can
>sense things in their prey
>we cannot. Thats the
>natural order of evolution
>between prey and predator.



That's funny because you complained earlier about hunters killing the first 2 point they see...


It was a big bodied 2 point. (this is my signature)
 
"But I'm pretty sure that genes don't change with age."

I beg to differ Tye! I used to wear a 29" waist. Now it's up to a 32. It's gotten bigger with age brother!

Seriously though, I'm not a biologist but I think our deer have really gotten to the point of scary numbers. Worse than any biologist, SFW or MDF want to admit. It is disheartening to see every fall. I really believe that the numbers are low enough to warrant a closure in certain areas. I would dare say that there are does not getting bred every fall because of the lack of numbers. I know that Tony and Elite and several others have touted the "bucks don't have fawns" statement over and over. I agree with that statement and if our deer herds were at a normal lever, or at their carrying capacity (which they are not) then there would be no reason to reduce tags or close units. I honestly believe that this is where the smaller units come in to play. You can close a certain area, or reduce tags in a certain area and alocate those tags to another unit that is doing better without losing "opportunity". Whether that type of management happens is yet to be seen but it's logical. I just think that a resource gets to a point where you have to quite using it, or reduce you usage, and allow it to recover. JMO



It's always an adventure!!!
 
Sora ya i know the mature buck would do the breeding but the point that people say we need to kill the fork horns is insane unless you can clearly see that it is a full grown mature buck then sure get those genes out but i was jusy saying i would prefer it that way but what i prefer dont mean jack diddley

also to answer your question if you have 100 bucks and 2 are 200 in deer then it just depends on the genetics those other bucks carry and if they breed with a doe that has good genes then you would have a good chance but if you shoot all the fork horns then you will never know what the chance is of them producing a 200 inch deer
 
You hit it right on the head mutley when you said it is a two point and it is the only buck you have seen in 4 days. That is the problem, everyone thinking they have to fill a tag because they are just grateful to see a buck. That is the said shape we are in, so we must all have some disipline, even the youth and not shoot the remaining few that are left. It is about saving a deer herd, not about recruiting new hunters at this point, sad but true.
 
One thing to keep in mind when people are throwing out ideas about genetics and what hunters refer to as bad genetics is this. Most people are talking about antler size, one small minor genetic attribute that humans have put an artificial scoring system on based on a preconceived notion of what is desirable. Now I will agree that there is probable some correlation to it as antler size does have its benefits. But what we do not know about any individual deer is what the full genetics of that deer actually are. Does it have a better ability to withstand cold, bigger body mass, higher stamina, thicker fur, better at breeding, etc, etc. I think using the term bad genetics based on one characteristic is flawed at best. Maybe we get a bunch of bucks with 30? racks but they all die during any type of inclement weather with the first heavy snow because although they had good genetics (for antler size) they had poor survivability genes. Not the best example but I hope it relates what my point is. Please carry on.

Joe
 
We have lost most of the Old Roman Nose Deer, that could with stand the all of these elements, we have to try to bring them back and quit killing them off. Would going to 3 point or better help? ( Just a Point ).
 
>It is true that the more
>does you have the more
>deer you have. I think
>the issue is more mature
>bucks? If you have 15
>bucks and only one is
>a mature breeding buck, then
>the majority of the does
>are getting bred by forkies,
>which makes for a bad
>gene pool. I know that
>we have some of the
>best genetics here in Colorado
>very near the Jicarilla and
>in the 90s you couldnt
>find a mature buck, well
>guess what 22 yrs later
>we have a bunch of
>big fork horns with zero
>eyegaurds, not all but the
>genes are off whack now.
>Its very common to find
>4x2 4x3 2x2 with no
>eye guards, in the 80s
>this was rare. I guess
>your right though if you
>want just more deer have
>more does...... if you want
>to fix the deer problem
>get hold of the people
>who run the herds on
>the Jicarilla, they stopped hunting,
>killed preditors, limited hunting.... check
>out their website.
>I dont know the answer but
>in my area, once we
>went to a draw the
>hurds bounced back, just a
>thought.


Reading posts like this make me want to slap a teacher. LISTEN UP!!!

The genes that are in a FREAKING SPOTTED FAWN, are the same as they will be in it as a 40" 8yr old buck. YOUR GENES DON'T CHANGE MAGICALLY BECAUSE YOUR HORNS GROW!!! PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. That "forkie" will produce the same genetically similar offspring as a forkie as he will when he is a 4-point. DID YOU CATCH THAT?? HORN GROWTH DOES NOT AFFECT GENETIC OUTPUT!!!!

The reason, in nature that does(or other female mammals) seek to reproduce with the biggest and strongest, are two in short.

1. Protection. Seems easy enough to understand that bigger and stronger provide this.

2. Proof of genetic superiority. If your 1 1/2yr. old and are that "forkie" you may have a genetic flaw which makes you more succeptible to disease, early death, etc. If your 4 1/2yr old, most likely some genetic flaw would have manifested itself.

REMEMBER, REPRODUCTION IS TO CREATE HEALTHY OFFSPRING, CAPABLE OF FURTHERING THE EXISTANCE OF THE SPECIES, NOT MAKING BOONE AND CROCKET POINTS!!

Horn growth, in general is like the size of your feet. Are you less capable of producing healthy offspring than me because I wear 13's and you wear 10's?? Health of the species IS NOT DEPENDENT ON HORN SIZE, it IS dependent on healthy offspring!!!

I now believe that if we want to improve mule deer, we should slap a biology teacher!!!


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
I don't think Utah is going to have to worry about big racked bucks being the dominant type of animal in the gene pool, Im quite sure years and years of selective breeding have fixed that problem.
 
OH MY GAWD. Reading this post proves that a lot of you shouldn't be breeding BECAUSE YOUR GENES ARE INFERIOR!!!

AGAIN!!

1. Genetic makeup doesn't change due to horn(antler) growth.

2. Antler growth is influenced by genes, BUT also nutrition, injury, age, climate etc. Take the fawn of a perfect 40" buck and cut out a testicle, HE WILL BE A FREAK!

3. Still waiting for that perfect 40" buck to carry a fawn to term.

4. Carrying capacity is a measure of environmental factors such a food, water, shelter, etc.. In some cases this changed in urban areas, however most of the west really hasn't changed much, yet the deer numbers are down.

5. Mule deer are VERY POOR competitors. They are finicky eaters. They don't compete well with other wildlife, elk especially, but also whitetail.

6. Mule deer, especially in the west were migrating herds, the interstate system changed this, cutting many of the herds off from there historical wintering areas, thusly concentrating them in marginal winter areas where they must compete with others(see #5).

7. Al Gore. Yup I said it. Weather you buy climate change/global warming or not, there has been a change in weather patterns. We are in a cycling weather pattern(i don't buy global warming). These patterns HAVE affected the climate. Aspens are dying, beatle infestations(helped by winter patterns), sage die off, etc. All of which are now affecting the weakest of the big game animals, MULE DEER.

8. US. We are more effective killers. Optics, compound bows, lasers, flat shooting calibers, ballistic bullets, inlines, etc.. Yeah grandpa killed some nice deer, the other side he doesn't talk about is how many he missed with that old 30-30. On top of this we HARRASS deer year round. Any harrassment, especially during the rut, and late winter are detrimental to the herds.

9. Predators, easy to understand.

In short, the mule deer is the "canary in a coal mine". It is more susceptible to all the factors listed above because it is evolutionarily challenged. Horn growth has nothing to do with anything. It is not proof a genetic superiority. It doesn't prove herd health. It is a meaningless(biologically) measure. That "garbage" 30" 2-point, that we "have to eliminate to improve the herd", is every bit as healthy as the 30" 4 point that he is standing next to. I have size 13 feet, I am no more or less healthy, than you with your size 11 feet.

Personally I believe that we are just witnessing evolution in progress, accelerated by perhaps by man. Are we willing to tear up I-15 to allow migration to the desert? You gonna move off the bench? I think we can increase doe numbers, thusly increasing herd size, but like much of the west, we are seeing a rapid change, all of which are effecting the mule deer.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
SFW has claimed to have spent millions since 2006 on habitat projects that help deer. Are we better off in 2012 than we were in 2006.According to population numbers were down about 100k deer.We have very very few doe hunts in the state. Infact most if not all the doe permits are issued due to crop depradation.But even at that, they are very few.I agree with the orignal poster that we need a healthy population of does to grow bucks, however, hunters kill bucks not does. Hunters want more bucks, and more mature bucks.One way to achieve this is by reducing tag numbers and micromanging deer herds.We have virtually no winter kill here in southern Utah. Lions and coyotes are pursued agressively in my part of the state (southern region). Habitat projects seem to be abundant, yet deer numbers are still on the decline. I think we are on the right path with the current changes in 2012, and it pains me to say that, because I would like to hunt every year.I really think the many years of macro managing our deer has hurt us.

It's rash to say closing units don't increase deer numbers when one considers how many deer, hunters harvest on an annual basis. Look at the book cliffs and henery mountains.Both were closed until recovery occured. In contrast look at the unit once known as Browse. It boasted some of the best trophy mule deer hunting in the west in the 80's.The overall deer herd was healthy. In the early 90's, the herd began to decline, many say due to lions, which could have been the main culprit as this area at the time had a ton of lions. Eventually the numbers got so low that they dropped it from a limited entry status and opened it to a general season unit. The numbers have never recoverd. The unit should have been closed until numbers recovered. Areas like this should be closed until a sustainable recovery has occured.
 
Until we get that pesky biology down allowing a buck to carry a buck, every doe we kill is AT LEAST 8 deer dead(average number of fawns one could expect if the doe survives with an average number of breeding years). Lets just say that would mean 3 bucks in those 8. WE ARE NOT AT CARRYING CAPACITY. The numbers from the DWR from 2007 to 2010 prove it.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
which is countered with the does that throw twins. Again, when we want to improve duck numbers, we don't kill hens, we don't kill sows, we don't kill hen pheasants/quail/chukars. Why?? Because to improve there numbers you have to have wombs.


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 
So which one has a better chance of surviving in a tough winter...one of those many barren does or those two little fawns? Talk all you want...its free, just take your head out of the bag and do a little reading before you answer.
 
I think closing a unit should be the very last option. I think that those areas they did close down for 3-5 years were due to huge wildfires. The DWR and other agencies were probably worried about too high of a success rate and too many new roads and trails created by trucks and atvs.
cabinfever, I used to spend all my time on the Browse in the late 80s and early 90s. Yes, there were a lot of lions and coyotes on that unit at the time but I read somewhere that it was a desease that wiped them out and I think the predators have kept the herd from growing since then. The herd from across I-15 (Kanarra Mnt. and Kolob) crashed at the same time. Probably because many of those deer migrate across I-15 around Black Ridge and mix in with the East Pine Valley deer.
BTW, they did close the Browse for a few years in the mid 90s but just didn't give it a long enough chance to recover.IMHO


There's always next year
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-12 AT 09:09AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-12 AT 09:06?AM (MST)

>"But I'm pretty sure that genes
>don't change with age."
>
>I beg to differ Tye!
>I used to wear a
>29" waist. Now it's
>up to a 32.
>It's gotten bigger with age
>brother!
>
>Seriously though, I'm not a biologist
>but I think our deer
>have really gotten to the
>point of scary numbers.
>Worse than any biologist, SFW
>or MDF want to admit.
> It is disheartening to
>see every fall. I really
>believe that the numbers are
>low enough to warrant a
>closure in certain areas.
>I would dare say that
>there are does not getting
>bred every fall because of
>the lack of numbers.
>I know that Tony and
>Elite and several others have
>touted the "bucks don't have
>fawns" statement over and over.
> I agree with that
>statement and if our deer
>herds were at a normal
>lever, or at their carrying
>capacity (which they are not)
>then there would be no
>reason to reduce tags or
>close units. I honestly
>believe that this is where
>the smaller units come in
>to play. You can
>close a certain area, or
>reduce tags in a certain
>area and alocate those tags
>to another unit that is
>doing better without losing "opportunity".
> Whether that type of
>management happens is yet to
>be seen but it's logical.
> I just think that
>a resource gets to a
>point where you have to
>quite using it, or reduce
>you usage, and allow it
>to recover. JMO
>
>
>
>It's always an adventure!!!


Jim, that's BS and you know it. No way that's a 32" waist. :D

I've never contended that we don't have areas/units that could stand tag numbers cut. I had issue when the division (At the request of hunter) reduced the days in some units to 5 and 3. They knew it wasn't going to do anything, but hunters had the perception that it would. Well, harvest was about the same and yearling harvest went up, so not much change.

The issue I do have is dividing the state up under the guise of better control and being able to manage each unit individually and then setting buck to doe ratios the same across the board. Makes no sense. The limiting factors to deer numbers vary from unit to unit or should I say; area to area, cause the "live, breed and die" language that Jake used is nonsense. Yes, some have low B/D ratios, some have low F/D ratios, some have limited winter range, some have limited summer range, some have much higher highway mortality, some have deer density issues, some have higher disease occurrence, some have higher predation, some live in areas where human conflict isn't conducive to having higher deer numbers (Wasatch extended and several agricultural areas), some have higher competition with elk for thermal cover and winter feed and the list goes on. Very few of these can be solved with an increase in bucks per 100 does.

Bottom line; we need more bucks per 100 does on a hand full of units, let's do what it takes to achieve this. We have some people who want to hunt bigger bucks less frequently; let's manage some units for them. We have some that want the opportunity to be in the field; let's manage some units for them as well.

While we are doing the above, how about let's stop arguing about how we hunt deer and focus money and energy on how we grow them, because for the most part, they are not the same thing.

More study would be a great first step. Public education would be another, cause there are some pretty wild and outlandish notions about deer management flying around.
 

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