RAC Mtgs
- Thread starter Trix4me
- Start date
P
polar_bear
Guest
Hi guys, I'm new on the forum. Thought I could respond to this thread.
I was at the Price RAC. The RAC proposed to change the buck:doe ratio on the San Juan and the Manti from 15-17 to 18-20. That would result in approximately 1300 tags cut on the Manti and 400 on the San Juan. Additionally, they proposed that limited entry bull tags on the Manti be cut from 482 to 360. Aside from those two items, everything was accepted as recommended by the Division.
I was at the Price RAC. The RAC proposed to change the buck:doe ratio on the San Juan and the Manti from 15-17 to 18-20. That would result in approximately 1300 tags cut on the Manti and 400 on the San Juan. Additionally, they proposed that limited entry bull tags on the Manti be cut from 482 to 360. Aside from those two items, everything was accepted as recommended by the Division.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
and UWC tried pushing to kill more doe deer on the panguich area, wanted to kill if I remember right 500 doe deer.
noluck
Member
- Messages
- 61
I was at the Southern Rac, and let me clarify two items.
First in the southern Rac. SFW asked on the Monroe unit to decrease bull tags to 110, which the Rac Approved. And SFW supported the division in all other Recommendations. So in clarification "SFW" did not ask for a decrease in any deer tags, although individuals in the room belonging to many diffrent groups asked for decreases in some areas and increases in others.
Second: UWC did not ask for 500 does on Panquitch. the stuck with the DWR proposal as is 150 does. And the 150 does passed as recommended by the division.
I went on the field trip with the division to look at conditions in this area where the doe hunt is recommended and has been occuring for many years. The Habitat is in poor condition. I asked the RAC, representing only the Beaver SFW chapter, that we would look at the boundries of this hunt and try to isolate the hunt to the area of damage this was voted on with a split vote and the chairman had to make the final vote for a 7 to 6 in favor of keeping the current boundries.
One interesting note. I have been to the rac discussing this issue for 4 straight years now. To date SFW is the only group that has attempted to offer solutions to shooting these deer. We suggested a transplant, fencing, tunnels under the hwy. THis year it appears with 100% funding by SFW, not conservation money, that the division is going to allow us to attempt to transplant some of these deer and see if we can do it succesfully.
In our field trip UWC offered to help with labor to improve this situation. Reality is we need Labor and a whole lot of money. Guess who the only group was, as usual to offer money, SFW. This transplant may or may not work but at the end of the day the only group trying to fix this situation and bringing money to the table to fix this is, SFW.
Where is the Mule deer foundation???? As stated earlier I've been to this meeting 4 straight years now as well as countless other racs. I have yet to see a rep from the MDF. According to Randy's recent article the only group that cares about mule deer is MFD. Well I haven't seen them, and this is a mule deer issue.
First in the southern Rac. SFW asked on the Monroe unit to decrease bull tags to 110, which the Rac Approved. And SFW supported the division in all other Recommendations. So in clarification "SFW" did not ask for a decrease in any deer tags, although individuals in the room belonging to many diffrent groups asked for decreases in some areas and increases in others.
Second: UWC did not ask for 500 does on Panquitch. the stuck with the DWR proposal as is 150 does. And the 150 does passed as recommended by the division.
I went on the field trip with the division to look at conditions in this area where the doe hunt is recommended and has been occuring for many years. The Habitat is in poor condition. I asked the RAC, representing only the Beaver SFW chapter, that we would look at the boundries of this hunt and try to isolate the hunt to the area of damage this was voted on with a split vote and the chairman had to make the final vote for a 7 to 6 in favor of keeping the current boundries.
One interesting note. I have been to the rac discussing this issue for 4 straight years now. To date SFW is the only group that has attempted to offer solutions to shooting these deer. We suggested a transplant, fencing, tunnels under the hwy. THis year it appears with 100% funding by SFW, not conservation money, that the division is going to allow us to attempt to transplant some of these deer and see if we can do it succesfully.
In our field trip UWC offered to help with labor to improve this situation. Reality is we need Labor and a whole lot of money. Guess who the only group was, as usual to offer money, SFW. This transplant may or may not work but at the end of the day the only group trying to fix this situation and bringing money to the table to fix this is, SFW.
Where is the Mule deer foundation???? As stated earlier I've been to this meeting 4 straight years now as well as countless other racs. I have yet to see a rep from the MDF. According to Randy's recent article the only group that cares about mule deer is MFD. Well I haven't seen them, and this is a mule deer issue.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
Well in the SE RAC UWC said 150 doe deer was not enough, needed to kill more.
And Yes SFW did also come up and say they will cover all the cost to transplant the deer and atleast if we transplant and a couple survive then atleast a couple survived.
And Yes SFW did also come up and say they will cover all the cost to transplant the deer and atleast if we transplant and a couple survive then atleast a couple survived.
SFW did what? I open it up to everyone here on MM for input on what SFW has done for Utahs deer and elk herds, and I will start it off:
?
?
?
?
Oh sorry I can't think of anything but take tags and sell them for thousands of dollars and increase tags on limited entry elk units so they can benefit from it, and now they want to cut tags and make it look like this was their idea, you gotta be $hitting me what a freaking joke, I think we all know that tags need cut and it really pisses me off that SFW thinks their heading this topic, get a clue SFW and please leave the wildlife situation in Utah up to professionals which is us the public hunters and put some duct tape over your mouths!!
Sorry for the ignorance but these special interests groups are in it for one reason: Special treatment.
?
?
?
?
Oh sorry I can't think of anything but take tags and sell them for thousands of dollars and increase tags on limited entry elk units so they can benefit from it, and now they want to cut tags and make it look like this was their idea, you gotta be $hitting me what a freaking joke, I think we all know that tags need cut and it really pisses me off that SFW thinks their heading this topic, get a clue SFW and please leave the wildlife situation in Utah up to professionals which is us the public hunters and put some duct tape over your mouths!!
Sorry for the ignorance but these special interests groups are in it for one reason: Special treatment.
E
Elitehoghunter
Guest
You got one thing right spotit1st you are ignorant in your comments. Do a little research before you type instead believing the UWC and others on here that just want a witch hunt.
Tree, man the UWC had a couple guys at the southern rac and voiced there concerns and likes just like everyone else. The rac voted the way both people that mailed in and took the time to come to the rac wanted.
Dont make more out of it than it is.
Tree, man the UWC had a couple guys at the southern rac and voiced there concerns and likes just like everyone else. The rac voted the way both people that mailed in and took the time to come to the rac wanted.
Dont make more out of it than it is.
S
ShowThemToMe
Guest
If the UWC is recomending a Doe Tag of any kind,anywhere in this State they can KISS MY TAIL!
Killing Does in TARDville is BULLLSSHITT!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
Killing Does in TARDville is BULLLSSHITT!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-12 AT 05:43PM (MST)[p]>You got one thing right spotit1st
>you are ignorant in your
>comments. Do a little research
>before you type instead believing
>the UWC and others on
>here that just want a
>witch hunt.
> Tree, man the UWC had
>a couple guys at the
>southern rac and voiced there
>concerns and likes just like
>everyone else. The rac voted
>the way both people that
>mailed in and took the
>time to come to the
>rac wanted.
> Dont make more out of
>it than it is.
I listened to the entire meeting and received several reports of what transpired. I have more than a few sources of information from the meeting. I listened to Anis have to explain over and over again that increasing buck numbers wouldn't do anything for overall deer populations, even then people wanted to argue and claimed that their reasons for wanting less tags was to help the deer herd. I listened to Deloss Yelling at and villifying the division and Anis. I listened to RAC members except for one, say that the input they received was in favor of opportunity, not cutting tags. I also listened to our rep suggest that if they had to give out all of these doe tags, which they do, to earmark them for youth and to have the proceeds go to youth programs to recruit and retain new hunters to our fold. I listened to them pass a recommendation that 4 units go to 20-25 bucks per hundred does at the recommendation of people connected to SFW.
Reps from SFW, UWC and other interests took the tour of the front and listened to the optimal number of deer being removed as 400-600 deer annually to avoid severe range depletion and potential catastrophe. I'm all for transplants if they are plausible and responsible and I have no desire to see a single doe killed, but something needs to be done in that area.
My only question in regards to feasibility is, Where is the line in relation to cost vs benefit on transplants? Do we support transplanting deer that ultimately cost 10 to 20 thousand dollars a piece because it makes us feel good? I'm not settled on an answer for this question, but something needs to be done.
Voicing your concern is one thing and I am glad we have a platform where everyone can play a part in how things are determined, but the lack of education and the number of people choosing to believe what they need to believe is almost comical.
Go ahead and be combative.
I'm open to being wrong.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
>you are ignorant in your
>comments. Do a little research
>before you type instead believing
>the UWC and others on
>here that just want a
>witch hunt.
> Tree, man the UWC had
>a couple guys at the
>southern rac and voiced there
>concerns and likes just like
>everyone else. The rac voted
>the way both people that
>mailed in and took the
>time to come to the
>rac wanted.
> Dont make more out of
>it than it is.
I listened to the entire meeting and received several reports of what transpired. I have more than a few sources of information from the meeting. I listened to Anis have to explain over and over again that increasing buck numbers wouldn't do anything for overall deer populations, even then people wanted to argue and claimed that their reasons for wanting less tags was to help the deer herd. I listened to Deloss Yelling at and villifying the division and Anis. I listened to RAC members except for one, say that the input they received was in favor of opportunity, not cutting tags. I also listened to our rep suggest that if they had to give out all of these doe tags, which they do, to earmark them for youth and to have the proceeds go to youth programs to recruit and retain new hunters to our fold. I listened to them pass a recommendation that 4 units go to 20-25 bucks per hundred does at the recommendation of people connected to SFW.
Reps from SFW, UWC and other interests took the tour of the front and listened to the optimal number of deer being removed as 400-600 deer annually to avoid severe range depletion and potential catastrophe. I'm all for transplants if they are plausible and responsible and I have no desire to see a single doe killed, but something needs to be done in that area.
My only question in regards to feasibility is, Where is the line in relation to cost vs benefit on transplants? Do we support transplanting deer that ultimately cost 10 to 20 thousand dollars a piece because it makes us feel good? I'm not settled on an answer for this question, but something needs to be done.
Voicing your concern is one thing and I am glad we have a platform where everyone can play a part in how things are determined, but the lack of education and the number of people choosing to believe what they need to believe is almost comical.
Go ahead and be combative.
I'm open to being wrong.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-12 AT 05:53PM (MST)[p]>Well in the SE RAC UWC
>said 150 doe deer was
>not enough, needed to kill
>more.
>
>And Yes SFW did also come
>up and say they will
>cover all the cost to
>transplant the deer and atleast
>if we transplant and a
>couple survive then atleast
>a couple survived.
You are right, he did say that, but it wasn't a UWC idea. Per the division, we need to kill 400-600 deer a year to avoid bigger problems. If SFW will foot the bill for al of these deer to be transplanted, please, let's not kill a single doe.
I think it's awesome that SFW has offered to spend money on an alternative to killing them. Does anyone from SFW know when these will be taking place and how many deer will be transplanted? I was at the meeting when Kevin Bunnell said that they'd get a COR signed to get it done, but I haven't heard anything further.
I wish it were as simple as putting a moratorium on all doe hunts statewide, but it's not and there are areas that there are an overabundance of deer for the range conditions and available habitat.
I'm 100% in favor of alternative solutions.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
>said 150 doe deer was
>not enough, needed to kill
>more.
>
>And Yes SFW did also come
>up and say they will
>cover all the cost to
>transplant the deer and atleast
>if we transplant and a
>couple survive then atleast
>a couple survived.
You are right, he did say that, but it wasn't a UWC idea. Per the division, we need to kill 400-600 deer a year to avoid bigger problems. If SFW will foot the bill for al of these deer to be transplanted, please, let's not kill a single doe.
I think it's awesome that SFW has offered to spend money on an alternative to killing them. Does anyone from SFW know when these will be taking place and how many deer will be transplanted? I was at the meeting when Kevin Bunnell said that they'd get a COR signed to get it done, but I haven't heard anything further.
I wish it were as simple as putting a moratorium on all doe hunts statewide, but it's not and there are areas that there are an overabundance of deer for the range conditions and available habitat.
I'm 100% in favor of alternative solutions.
http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
S
ShowThemToMe
Guest
DeLoss Chewin some DWR Ass Huh?
LMAO!
I'll buy that Guy A COLD DEW!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
LMAO!
I'll buy that Guy A COLD DEW!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
noluck asks, "Where is the Mule Deer Foundation"? I see a lot of posts by Utahans asking the same thing.
They're in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and south Dakota, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Kansas, Nebraska and yes, they're even in Utah. Believe it or not, Utah is not the only state MDF operates in. Don't expect them to come running every time some Utard starts crying about their deer problems.
They're in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and south Dakota, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Kansas, Nebraska and yes, they're even in Utah. Believe it or not, Utah is not the only state MDF operates in. Don't expect them to come running every time some Utard starts crying about their deer problems.
E
Elitehoghunter
Guest
Ya cause anis has done such a great job at building our herds so far. The only units that were suggested to go into a 20-25 category were the ones that were already at or over 20 bucks per hundred does. Buy whatever management practices you want but the best hunting I've ever experienced is in Colorado on a 2 point unit. 2007 Colrado issued a lil over 85,000 buck tags and had a poulation well over 400,000. Utah wants to issue 87,000 buck tags with a total deer population of 286,000.
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
The ignorance up in here is outstanding.
DC, 73, backing away from the 25 B to D is a good
Start but there is more to do.
Elite you need a huge dose of education on
What exactly Anis can and can't do. Keep shooting
The koolaid pal!!
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
DC, 73, backing away from the 25 B to D is a good
Start but there is more to do.
Elite you need a huge dose of education on
What exactly Anis can and can't do. Keep shooting
The koolaid pal!!
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
S
ShowThemToMe
Guest
JUDAS wiley!
They've been FRICKEN around with BS Buck to Doe Ratio's for a long time!
It has FAILED!
It FAILED again wiley!
It will FAIL some more wiley!
GEEZUS!
Until Management Hones in on Deer Numbers this State will never change!
Sure there's Oppotunity!
But I just can't seem to get excited over a PISSCUTTER Buck wiley!
KEEP shootin em!
Keep killin them Milk on the Lipps Bucks!
For GAWDS Sake don't let any Buck in TARDville live past age 3!
There is one thing good in this State that's works out good for the Opportunists,There sure the HELL ain't NO Bucks dieing of old age!
What a Shame!
With Proper Management Utah could still produce a Fair number of Big Bucks!
But with UDWR & TARDology doesn't look like much will ever change!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
They've been FRICKEN around with BS Buck to Doe Ratio's for a long time!
It has FAILED!
It FAILED again wiley!
It will FAIL some more wiley!
GEEZUS!
Until Management Hones in on Deer Numbers this State will never change!
Sure there's Oppotunity!
But I just can't seem to get excited over a PISSCUTTER Buck wiley!
KEEP shootin em!
Keep killin them Milk on the Lipps Bucks!
For GAWDS Sake don't let any Buck in TARDville live past age 3!
There is one thing good in this State that's works out good for the Opportunists,There sure the HELL ain't NO Bucks dieing of old age!
What a Shame!
With Proper Management Utah could still produce a Fair number of Big Bucks!
But with UDWR & TARDology doesn't look like much will ever change!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
First off ask your self this, Do you believe the Divisions stated numbers in your unit. I posted up over all deer populations once before and everyone said that the division is about 50%-60% accurate on the population count.
So why would the buck to doe ratio that they submitted be any closer than thier population module.
So in reality we have right now 7-8 bucks per 100 does and 9-10 bucks per 100 does.
I as a sportsmen in upset that our deer herds suck period, yes having more bucks is not going to bring back the herd.
Atleast with the tag cutts the dwr will start to hear sportsmen and do something about the deer herd. Once they fill the financial impact maybe they will start to listen.
So why would the buck to doe ratio that they submitted be any closer than thier population module.
So in reality we have right now 7-8 bucks per 100 does and 9-10 bucks per 100 does.
I as a sportsmen in upset that our deer herds suck period, yes having more bucks is not going to bring back the herd.
Atleast with the tag cutts the dwr will start to hear sportsmen and do something about the deer herd. Once they fill the financial impact maybe they will start to listen.
E
Elitehoghunter
Guest
wily, I think your the only one drinkin koolaid. I cant believe you actually think Anis has a clue how to grow a deer herd? Its funny when you read through Colorado's unit management plans they try and manage each unit individualy and not blanket them all into the same category, no wonder they have better draw odds, better deer herds, and better management period!
They start thier buck/doe ratios suggestions in even the highest oppurtunity units at 20-25. What they understand more than Utah DNR is most hunters hunt bucks and currently in most every unit in Utah a few more bucks are not gonna starve out does or fawns like Anis would have us believe.
You and Anis are two peas in a pod, you both insist that what the DNR is doing is best when it hasnt worked for 20 plus years. Oh yeah just because someone feels the DNR is not doing a good job and wants a change it does'nt mean they agree with everything the SFW does.
They start thier buck/doe ratios suggestions in even the highest oppurtunity units at 20-25. What they understand more than Utah DNR is most hunters hunt bucks and currently in most every unit in Utah a few more bucks are not gonna starve out does or fawns like Anis would have us believe.
You and Anis are two peas in a pod, you both insist that what the DNR is doing is best when it hasnt worked for 20 plus years. Oh yeah just because someone feels the DNR is not doing a good job and wants a change it does'nt mean they agree with everything the SFW does.
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
Alright Elite I guess I'm as good as any to, like the CAT says, splain it to ya. First off Anis will take the DWR plan to the RAC's. PEAYDAY and the crew will find a group of saps, like you and the CAT and convince them that excess bucks do in fact give birth to twin fawns every year and you idiots will argue that fantasy to the bitter end at the RAC's. Anis will try to explain that bucks do not have ovaries and can not in fact produce any deer to supplement Utah's mule deer population.
You SFW koolaid drinking idiots will state that the DWR is incompetent while the fact of the matter is that the RACs adopt exactly what the SFW crew has to sell...Has since 1994.
Elite how much has cutting 170,000 buck tags back in 1994 helped??? It's the same type of B.S. you and the tag cutters keep wanting to do. Tell me how many more tags we have now than back in 1994??
CAT I'm glad you are honest enough to admit that what you want ain't got squat to do with growing more deer... Your plan and wishes are that the whole state become the Henry Mountain Unit with a total of 50 hunters statewide.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
You SFW koolaid drinking idiots will state that the DWR is incompetent while the fact of the matter is that the RACs adopt exactly what the SFW crew has to sell...Has since 1994.
Elite how much has cutting 170,000 buck tags back in 1994 helped??? It's the same type of B.S. you and the tag cutters keep wanting to do. Tell me how many more tags we have now than back in 1994??
CAT I'm glad you are honest enough to admit that what you want ain't got squat to do with growing more deer... Your plan and wishes are that the whole state become the Henry Mountain Unit with a total of 50 hunters statewide.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
E
Elitehoghunter
Guest
Funny I didnt ever say 20-25 buck/doe ratio would build a deer herd any faster than 15-20. You just assumed it.
If youd take the blinders off and look around you would understand Anis and the DNR has been in charge of the deer herd no matter how much you want to blame someone else they have had the job of managing our deer herds. They havent got any herds to grow and most of the ones that are at objective have had the objective lowered so they look better.
OK pay attention, if there is room for more deer in a unit why cant some of our units be 20-25 and 25-30 buck/doe ratio? The deer herd isnt going to grow any slower. Hunter satisfaction will go up and if you got rid of this seperate deer unit crap (ie limited entry and general units) and made everyone pick if they wanted oppurtunity or quality and had more seasons with less tags everyone would be happy. People like you could draw your low buck/doe ratio units and people like me could draw units with higher buck/doe ratios.
The problem with you people is if you want something, you want everyone to want it to. People like me just wont put in for the units i dont like and dont care what you do with your points. The difference between 15-17 and 18-20 is nothing. But its people like you that thinks if there is over 15 bucks per 100 does the deer herd is going to die off cause those damn bucks are beatin women and kids.
Serious question, What has the DNR done to make you think they can handle the job of growing our deer herd when they put so much emphasis on revinue and selling as many deer tags as possible? What did you think about Anis's brillant idea of selling leftover archery tags as muzzleloader tags and then rifle tags so they could get the revinue? Maybe there is a reason there is leftover tags in that area, maybe its because its one of your 10-15 buck per 100 doe units and nobody wants to hunt it!!!
If youd take the blinders off and look around you would understand Anis and the DNR has been in charge of the deer herd no matter how much you want to blame someone else they have had the job of managing our deer herds. They havent got any herds to grow and most of the ones that are at objective have had the objective lowered so they look better.
OK pay attention, if there is room for more deer in a unit why cant some of our units be 20-25 and 25-30 buck/doe ratio? The deer herd isnt going to grow any slower. Hunter satisfaction will go up and if you got rid of this seperate deer unit crap (ie limited entry and general units) and made everyone pick if they wanted oppurtunity or quality and had more seasons with less tags everyone would be happy. People like you could draw your low buck/doe ratio units and people like me could draw units with higher buck/doe ratios.
The problem with you people is if you want something, you want everyone to want it to. People like me just wont put in for the units i dont like and dont care what you do with your points. The difference between 15-17 and 18-20 is nothing. But its people like you that thinks if there is over 15 bucks per 100 does the deer herd is going to die off cause those damn bucks are beatin women and kids.
Serious question, What has the DNR done to make you think they can handle the job of growing our deer herd when they put so much emphasis on revinue and selling as many deer tags as possible? What did you think about Anis's brillant idea of selling leftover archery tags as muzzleloader tags and then rifle tags so they could get the revinue? Maybe there is a reason there is leftover tags in that area, maybe its because its one of your 10-15 buck per 100 doe units and nobody wants to hunt it!!!
Then when Bessy gets his wish and all of Utah becomes one big Henrys unit he'll be on here squalking like a little girl about how he can't get a tag.
Hey Bessy, isn't it the Wildlife Board the ones making the Decisions in your state? Maybe your comments should be directed at them.
Hey Bessy, isn't it the Wildlife Board the ones making the Decisions in your state? Maybe your comments should be directed at them.
S
ShowThemToMe
Guest
LMMFAO wiley!
50 Buck Tags Statewide!
Keep Poundin PISSCUTTERS like we have for the last 40 years & it'll only take a few more years and that's where We'll be!
With 0 LE Deer Points wiley I highly doubt I'd have a chance even if there was a Buck Big enough to shoot!
KEEP POUNDIN THE MILK ON THE LIPP/PISSCUTTER BUCKS Boys!
Another few years of PISS POOR Management & She'll be done!
Carry on............................!
You could put 12 Coyotes in an 8' X 8' Enclosed Kennel & the DWR could tip em over within 2 weeks with Poor Management,GEEZUS,We got too many Dogs per Bitches,so they'd shoot 5 of the Dogs,SOB,now we got too many Bitches per Dogs,so then they'd shoot the 6 bitches,SOB,We got one Dog left,it ain't no good without a #####,shoot it Boom,they're Extinct now!
>Alright Elite I guess I'm as
>good as any to, like
>the CAT says, splain it
>to ya. First off Anis
>will take the DWR plan
>to the RAC's. PEAYDAY and
>the crew will find a
>group of saps, like you
>and the CAT and convince
>them that excess bucks do
>in fact give birth to
>twin fawns every year and
>you idiots will argue that
>fantasy to the bitter end
>at the RAC's. Anis will
>try to explain that bucks
>do not have ovaries and
>can not in fact produce
>any deer to supplement Utah's
>mule deer population.
>
>You SFW koolaid drinking idiots will
>state that the DWR is
>incompetent while the fact of
>the matter is that the
>RACs adopt exactly what the
>SFW crew has to sell...Has
>since 1994.
>
>Elite how much has cutting 170,000
>buck tags back in 1994
>helped??? It's the same
>type of B.S. you and
>the tag cutters keep wanting
>to do. Tell me how
>many more tags we have
>now than back in 1994??
>
>
>CAT I'm glad you are honest
>enough to admit that what
>you want ain't got squat
>to do with growing more
>deer... Your plan and wishes
>are that the whole state
>become the Henry Mountain Unit
>with a total of 50
>hunters statewide.
>
>2010 TOTALS
>P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
>UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS
>GONE
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
50 Buck Tags Statewide!
Keep Poundin PISSCUTTERS like we have for the last 40 years & it'll only take a few more years and that's where We'll be!
With 0 LE Deer Points wiley I highly doubt I'd have a chance even if there was a Buck Big enough to shoot!
KEEP POUNDIN THE MILK ON THE LIPP/PISSCUTTER BUCKS Boys!
Another few years of PISS POOR Management & She'll be done!
Carry on............................!
You could put 12 Coyotes in an 8' X 8' Enclosed Kennel & the DWR could tip em over within 2 weeks with Poor Management,GEEZUS,We got too many Dogs per Bitches,so they'd shoot 5 of the Dogs,SOB,now we got too many Bitches per Dogs,so then they'd shoot the 6 bitches,SOB,We got one Dog left,it ain't no good without a #####,shoot it Boom,they're Extinct now!
>Alright Elite I guess I'm as
>good as any to, like
>the CAT says, splain it
>to ya. First off Anis
>will take the DWR plan
>to the RAC's. PEAYDAY and
>the crew will find a
>group of saps, like you
>and the CAT and convince
>them that excess bucks do
>in fact give birth to
>twin fawns every year and
>you idiots will argue that
>fantasy to the bitter end
>at the RAC's. Anis will
>try to explain that bucks
>do not have ovaries and
>can not in fact produce
>any deer to supplement Utah's
>mule deer population.
>
>You SFW koolaid drinking idiots will
>state that the DWR is
>incompetent while the fact of
>the matter is that the
>RACs adopt exactly what the
>SFW crew has to sell...Has
>since 1994.
>
>Elite how much has cutting 170,000
>buck tags back in 1994
>helped??? It's the same
>type of B.S. you and
>the tag cutters keep wanting
>to do. Tell me how
>many more tags we have
>now than back in 1994??
>
>
>CAT I'm glad you are honest
>enough to admit that what
>you want ain't got squat
>to do with growing more
>deer... Your plan and wishes
>are that the whole state
>become the Henry Mountain Unit
>with a total of 50
>hunters statewide.
>
>2010 TOTALS
>P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
>UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS
>GONE
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
S
ShowThemToMe
Guest
shotgun1!
Just so you know!
I ain't gettin no deer Tag!
I'm 18 Points down as we speak!
I've said it's over with!
Unless you want a PISSCUTTER!
Keep killing all the MOTL Bucks,that'll fix it!
>Then when Bessy gets his wish
>and all of Utah becomes
>one big Henrys unit he'll
>be on here squalking like
>a little girl about how
>he can't get a tag.
>
>
>Hey Bessy, isn't it the Wildlife
>Board the ones making the
>Decisions in your state? Maybe
>your comments should be directed
>at them.
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
Just so you know!
I ain't gettin no deer Tag!
I'm 18 Points down as we speak!
I've said it's over with!
Unless you want a PISSCUTTER!
Keep killing all the MOTL Bucks,that'll fix it!
>Then when Bessy gets his wish
>and all of Utah becomes
>one big Henrys unit he'll
>be on here squalking like
>a little girl about how
>he can't get a tag.
>
>
>Hey Bessy, isn't it the Wildlife
>Board the ones making the
>Decisions in your state? Maybe
>your comments should be directed
>at them.
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
I have a question-- If the habitat is so poor in the Panguitch area and they say they need to remove does--
So if the habitat is in such poor condition-- Why are the deer still there in an overabundance? I have heard many times from DWR biologists that where the habitat is poor the deer move to find better forage and/or they simply do not produce enough fawns to sustain herd numbers.
Sometimes it can get a little confusing when you hear that the herds can't grow because of poor habitat conditions and in fact will decrease in numbers and then I hear there are too many deer in an area that has poor habitat conditions and the number of does need to be decreased. Are deer that stupid that they will continue to stay in areas that have poor feed or will they move until they find better feed ? Panguitch sounds more like a depredation issue than a purely habitat problem. Probably living off private land and crops.
One other thing -- the DWR, the Wildlife Board or the RACs are not surrogates of SFW, UWC,UBA etc. They all have there say and they all have their champions on every RAC. But you can be assured that every RAC is more concerned with how to get our herds growing more than anything else. No doubt that much of what we are voting for are temporary band-aids. THERE IS NO ONE SILVER BULLET TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY. We will never be able to implement a predator control system that will be as effective as 1080 poison of the 50's and 60's. Cheat grass will continue to be an invasive nightmare on our wintering grounds. The only real hope of being able to increase herd numbers lies in our ability to minimize those factors that take their peice of the deer pie. Until we reduce the factors that kill deer and stagnate herd growth-- the piece of the pie we have to harvest deer from, will continue to get smaller and smaller and our opportunity will decrease with it.
A big thanks to those groups and individuals who are stepping forward and doing what they can to get our herds turned around.
So if the habitat is in such poor condition-- Why are the deer still there in an overabundance? I have heard many times from DWR biologists that where the habitat is poor the deer move to find better forage and/or they simply do not produce enough fawns to sustain herd numbers.
Sometimes it can get a little confusing when you hear that the herds can't grow because of poor habitat conditions and in fact will decrease in numbers and then I hear there are too many deer in an area that has poor habitat conditions and the number of does need to be decreased. Are deer that stupid that they will continue to stay in areas that have poor feed or will they move until they find better feed ? Panguitch sounds more like a depredation issue than a purely habitat problem. Probably living off private land and crops.
One other thing -- the DWR, the Wildlife Board or the RACs are not surrogates of SFW, UWC,UBA etc. They all have there say and they all have their champions on every RAC. But you can be assured that every RAC is more concerned with how to get our herds growing more than anything else. No doubt that much of what we are voting for are temporary band-aids. THERE IS NO ONE SILVER BULLET TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY. We will never be able to implement a predator control system that will be as effective as 1080 poison of the 50's and 60's. Cheat grass will continue to be an invasive nightmare on our wintering grounds. The only real hope of being able to increase herd numbers lies in our ability to minimize those factors that take their peice of the deer pie. Until we reduce the factors that kill deer and stagnate herd growth-- the piece of the pie we have to harvest deer from, will continue to get smaller and smaller and our opportunity will decrease with it.
A big thanks to those groups and individuals who are stepping forward and doing what they can to get our herds turned around.
L
LOWCOUNTRY
Guest
Nebo the range on the parowan front is pretty hammered in places and other places its not bad but is being used. This totally sux killing doe's on a unit that is by DWR numbers 400 deer under objective (I believe its in far worse shape than that). There were several large (1000+ acres) clearings in the foothills done a number of years ago and I have seen a small amount of Bitterbrush growing back in it but 0 sage. I dont know if it was seeded or just a wish it would fill in. Maybe alot more Pinyon juniper removal would help but it needs to be seeded with it to speed it up. Or maybe a large overpass to get them over I-15 its a tough one to solve for sure.
L
LongRangeBangin
Guest
STTM! Your a riot! Whats a MOTL?
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
Show Me Your CAT!!! You goofy sumbitch!!!
Don't you know that to find your elusive nomad pregnant
Buck you are going to have to get off your 4 wheeler!!!
Once we get to 40 bucks to 100 does you can whine like
You do about the elk herds not having any big bulls.
Same shiz different species. Damn and it only took 18 months
To admit that you want to do with deer on general units what Utah
Has done with elk.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
Don't you know that to find your elusive nomad pregnant
Buck you are going to have to get off your 4 wheeler!!!
Once we get to 40 bucks to 100 does you can whine like
You do about the elk herds not having any big bulls.
Same shiz different species. Damn and it only took 18 months
To admit that you want to do with deer on general units what Utah
Has done with elk.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
S
ShowThemToMe
Guest
goofy sumbitch?
I'd have to get on a Wheeler before I'd need to get off of one!
18 months?
JFP!
It's been near 40 years of PISS POOR Deer Management in Utah!
It's a done Deal wiley!
Keep huntin your MOTL PISSCUTTER Bucks!
MOTL = Milk On The Lipps for you Newbies!
Hunt em every year wiley!
Don't let any of them live past age 3 wiley!
Keep Shootin Does,that'll fix it!
GOOD GAWD A MIGHTY!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
I'd have to get on a Wheeler before I'd need to get off of one!
18 months?
JFP!
It's been near 40 years of PISS POOR Deer Management in Utah!
It's a done Deal wiley!
Keep huntin your MOTL PISSCUTTER Bucks!
MOTL = Milk On The Lipps for you Newbies!
Hunt em every year wiley!
Don't let any of them live past age 3 wiley!
Keep Shootin Does,that'll fix it!
GOOD GAWD A MIGHTY!
[font color=red size=redsize=18"face"]SHOW THEM TO ME![/font]
If You Love Your Country,SHOW THEM TO ME!
It's been a long hard ride
Got a ways to go
But this is still the place
That we all call home
J
jbigb30
Guest
well fellas how look at it it doesnt matter what sfw says what the division says what mossback himself says and what the average joe says it all comes down to who has the $$$$$$$$ am i right we've all wanted to see the herds rebound do this do that and yet we keep forking out the money im not pointing fingers but lets face it were screwed until someone or something steps up with the right words and the right amount of cash what or who that is i have no clue. lets just remeber money talks and they all want our money
S
SMELLYBUCK
Guest
Elite,
"If youd take the blinders off and look around you would understand Anis and the DNR has been in charge of the deer herd no matter how much you want to blame someone else they have had the job of managing our deer herds. They havent got any herds to grow and most of the ones that are at objective have had the objective lowered so they look better."
You just lost a bunch of credibility in my book. I'd completely agree with your comment if you crossed out DNR and replaced it with SFW. If you'd look at the record, virtually everything SFW proposes gets passed by the board. Not so with the DWR. That is why the state looks so much like a limited entry trophy hunt now.
"If youd take the blinders off and look around you would understand Anis and the DNR has been in charge of the deer herd no matter how much you want to blame someone else they have had the job of managing our deer herds. They havent got any herds to grow and most of the ones that are at objective have had the objective lowered so they look better."
You just lost a bunch of credibility in my book. I'd completely agree with your comment if you crossed out DNR and replaced it with SFW. If you'd look at the record, virtually everything SFW proposes gets passed by the board. Not so with the DWR. That is why the state looks so much like a limited entry trophy hunt now.
H
Hooner
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-17-12 AT 09:24PM (MST)[p]WIley and you other Opportunist.
I have a serious question for you. If having a higher buck to doe ratio is so bad. When I say higher B/D Ratio I mean higher than 15. (I would like to see 20 B/D but that is my opinion) Back to my question.
If having a low buck to doe ratio is so great for the deer herds what other state is managing the majority of its herd with this ratio? Colorado? NOPE. Nevada? NOPE. So what state is managing the majority of its mule deer for a 10-15 buck to doe ratio?
I have a serious question for you. If having a higher buck to doe ratio is so bad. When I say higher B/D Ratio I mean higher than 15. (I would like to see 20 B/D but that is my opinion) Back to my question.
If having a low buck to doe ratio is so great for the deer herds what other state is managing the majority of its herd with this ratio? Colorado? NOPE. Nevada? NOPE. So what state is managing the majority of its mule deer for a 10-15 buck to doe ratio?
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
Hoon that is a fantastic question. I'm
Not opposed to higher buck to doe
Ratios. They have been proven to
Not increase deer population. Now having
A buck to doe ratio of 15 provides tags for
Hunters and most importantly breeds every
Doe that is willing every year. You have units
With high buck to doe ratios, ya want to hold
Out for one of them for 10 years knock yourself
Out. But don't take Utahs general season hunt
And try and turn it in to the Henry's or Book
Cliffs. Back when Lumpy, 73 and SFW started
This crap everybody knew I'd didn't have #####
To do with increasing deer numbers. Now they
Are at least being honest enough to admit it.
Look at Colorado and Nevada. Their herds are
Not doing any better than Utahs. Colorado
Has twice the number of deer total than Utah
But the population ain't growing. Nevada?? Seriously
?? I'd rather hunt more than once every 5 years.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
Not opposed to higher buck to doe
Ratios. They have been proven to
Not increase deer population. Now having
A buck to doe ratio of 15 provides tags for
Hunters and most importantly breeds every
Doe that is willing every year. You have units
With high buck to doe ratios, ya want to hold
Out for one of them for 10 years knock yourself
Out. But don't take Utahs general season hunt
And try and turn it in to the Henry's or Book
Cliffs. Back when Lumpy, 73 and SFW started
This crap everybody knew I'd didn't have #####
To do with increasing deer numbers. Now they
Are at least being honest enough to admit it.
Look at Colorado and Nevada. Their herds are
Not doing any better than Utahs. Colorado
Has twice the number of deer total than Utah
But the population ain't growing. Nevada?? Seriously
?? I'd rather hunt more than once every 5 years.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
H
Hooner
Guest
Wiley,
Thanks for not answering my question. I don't know where you get your info. A non resident can hunt some great units in Nevada every year or every other year.
I am not asking for the Henries Model on every unit. You said that not me. As I mentioned above I really like 20 B/D ratio. Colorado deer numbers are down due to a massive winter kill in 07. Biologist in the area of the winter kill documneted that 90% of fawns were aborted in that year. Those same biologist will tell you that the herds are currently on the rebound and numbers are increasing.
Again please show me a state that is managing the bulk of its Mule Deer herd with a 10/15 B/D ratio?
Thanks for not answering my question. I don't know where you get your info. A non resident can hunt some great units in Nevada every year or every other year.
I am not asking for the Henries Model on every unit. You said that not me. As I mentioned above I really like 20 B/D ratio. Colorado deer numbers are down due to a massive winter kill in 07. Biologist in the area of the winter kill documneted that 90% of fawns were aborted in that year. Those same biologist will tell you that the herds are currently on the rebound and numbers are increasing.
Again please show me a state that is managing the bulk of its Mule Deer herd with a 10/15 B/D ratio?
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
Hoon sorry didn't mean to be deceptive in not answering your question.
No states manage for 10 - 15 B to D ratio's. Including Utah.
Utah is at a 15 MINIMUM B/D ratio. Once a unit falls below that the unit is restricted. Just like the Stansbury unit has been.
Now my question to you Hoon is. If it takes 10 - 12 bucks to breed every receptive doe on the mountain and 70% of your customers are telling you that harvesting a large buck is ranked
near the bottom of the list when it comes to the hunting public's opinion, how would you manage???
Believe it or not ya'll are not the majority here.. People want to hunt, plain and simple. This plan will fail to increase Utah's
mule deer populations and be modified.
Second question for ya Hoon. Why is it that a unit like the Wasatch Front Extended can support hunters from August through December 15th. All weapon types, Either sex for the duration of all those months and still be arguably one of the best units in the state?? Crap for habitat, high highway mortality, multiple use, and still maintain a stable population with a few MONSTERS coming off of it every year???
1 word my brotha ACCESS!!!
Finally an intelligent debate..
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
No states manage for 10 - 15 B to D ratio's. Including Utah.
Utah is at a 15 MINIMUM B/D ratio. Once a unit falls below that the unit is restricted. Just like the Stansbury unit has been.
Now my question to you Hoon is. If it takes 10 - 12 bucks to breed every receptive doe on the mountain and 70% of your customers are telling you that harvesting a large buck is ranked
near the bottom of the list when it comes to the hunting public's opinion, how would you manage???
Believe it or not ya'll are not the majority here.. People want to hunt, plain and simple. This plan will fail to increase Utah's
mule deer populations and be modified.
Second question for ya Hoon. Why is it that a unit like the Wasatch Front Extended can support hunters from August through December 15th. All weapon types, Either sex for the duration of all those months and still be arguably one of the best units in the state?? Crap for habitat, high highway mortality, multiple use, and still maintain a stable population with a few MONSTERS coming off of it every year???
1 word my brotha ACCESS!!!
Finally an intelligent debate..
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
H
Hooner
Guest
Wiley,
Where did you pull the info that 70% of the state is telling you that harvesting a large buck is ranked near the bottom of the list when it comes to public opinion? I have not seen this info fromt he DWR.
>Believe it or not ya'll are
>not the majority here.. People
>want to hunt, plain and
>simple. This plan will fail
>to increase Utah's
>mule deer populations and be modified.
Don't understand how the plan can fail if done correctly. Other states are having success with a unit by unit managing process. The biologist that I have talked to in both Utah and Colorado have told me that if we really want to break the deer herd down and micro manage the herds this is the only way to do it. Last year 3 of the 5 racks voted to have unit by unit managment.
>Second question for ya Hoon. Why
>is it that a unit
>like the Wasatch Front Extended
>can support hunters from August
I am not a expert on the Wasatch. I have hunted it a couple of times but not really my cup of tea. Here is my answer for you. I beleive that the Wasatch has a large CWMU that is managed for trophy animals. These animals summer on the CWMU and then move into the winter range. That helps. You also have other private areas that are your two year olds are not being hunted and those deer are being able to grow to an older age. That also helps. As you mentioned access on the Wasatch can be brutal. That also helps.
I am on the road with little access to all of my informaiton but can you tell me what the division has the Wasatch B/D ratio?
Where did you pull the info that 70% of the state is telling you that harvesting a large buck is ranked near the bottom of the list when it comes to public opinion? I have not seen this info fromt he DWR.
>Believe it or not ya'll are
>not the majority here.. People
>want to hunt, plain and
>simple. This plan will fail
>to increase Utah's
>mule deer populations and be modified.
Don't understand how the plan can fail if done correctly. Other states are having success with a unit by unit managing process. The biologist that I have talked to in both Utah and Colorado have told me that if we really want to break the deer herd down and micro manage the herds this is the only way to do it. Last year 3 of the 5 racks voted to have unit by unit managment.
>Second question for ya Hoon. Why
>is it that a unit
>like the Wasatch Front Extended
>can support hunters from August
I am not a expert on the Wasatch. I have hunted it a couple of times but not really my cup of tea. Here is my answer for you. I beleive that the Wasatch has a large CWMU that is managed for trophy animals. These animals summer on the CWMU and then move into the winter range. That helps. You also have other private areas that are your two year olds are not being hunted and those deer are being able to grow to an older age. That also helps. As you mentioned access on the Wasatch can be brutal. That also helps.
I am on the road with little access to all of my informaiton but can you tell me what the division has the Wasatch B/D ratio?
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
"Where did you pull the info that 70% of the state is telling you that harvesting a large buck is ranked near the bottom of the list when it comes to public opinion? I have not seen this info fromt he DWR."
Hoon back in 08 the Division sent out a hunter satisfaction survey while they were re working the new five year plan. They asked several questions to find out what was more important, Quality or Opportunity. They asked the same question with different wording two or three times. It was over 70% that wanted to hunt every year.
They also asked to rank several different options in order of importance. Things like hunting with friends and family all the way down to harvesting a large buck. Harvesting a large buck wasn't in the top TEN.
Hoon the area I am talking about... especially the one area that
produces the pigs is several miles from any type of private land
or CWMU. I'm talking basically from I-80 north to Brigham.
I don't have the exact B/D ratio for the front but I want to say it was around 17. More importantly the overall population has been pretty steady. SWBUCKMASTER will argue that with me but in my trips up there I have not noticed any less deer.
I may still have the 08 survey, I'll look for it.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
Hoon back in 08 the Division sent out a hunter satisfaction survey while they were re working the new five year plan. They asked several questions to find out what was more important, Quality or Opportunity. They asked the same question with different wording two or three times. It was over 70% that wanted to hunt every year.
They also asked to rank several different options in order of importance. Things like hunting with friends and family all the way down to harvesting a large buck. Harvesting a large buck wasn't in the top TEN.
Hoon the area I am talking about... especially the one area that
produces the pigs is several miles from any type of private land
or CWMU. I'm talking basically from I-80 north to Brigham.
I don't have the exact B/D ratio for the front but I want to say it was around 17. More importantly the overall population has been pretty steady. SWBUCKMASTER will argue that with me but in my trips up there I have not noticed any less deer.
I may still have the 08 survey, I'll look for it.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
H
Hooner
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-12 AT 03:21PM (MST)[p]WIley,
With all due respect I don't think that it is even worth your time to use the survey from 2007. Things have changed a lot from that year and a survey from 5 years ago really does not hold much sand. I am guessing that the survey was published in 07 but it was taken during the 2006 season. That would put us six years back.
I want to be clear that I believe that the B/D ratio is only a small factor in managing a deer population. However I looked at the B/D ratio in the Wasatch and it is currently at 19.4 B/D ratio for the 17 A Wasatch unit and 16.7 for the 17B 17C.
With that being said I have watched you guys rave about the Wasatch and how opportunity and trophy hunters can both hunt this unit. This is true but lets not fool ourselves in thinking that this unit is being managed for 10 B/D.
Also I know that you mentioned that you are not hunting private when you hunt this unit. My argument is that there is a lot of summer ground private where a lot of the smaller bucks are given a chance to mature. These older bucks then have the opportunity to roam the front looking for ladies. This older buck roaming for ladies is what has made the front an appealing hunt for so many. It is also true that there is substantial winter ground that is private on this unit. This factor also allows the deer to grow to an older age.
Wiley there has been some recent studies done by biologist in the Colorado Gunnison Basin. In the studies they believe that 23 B/D is the optimal number. This allows the older 3-5 year old buck to do the majority of the breeding. These older animals have a larger fat reserve than the two year old buck. They are physically more capable to breed the does in a timely manner.
The older buck has the physical capability to breed the does and then survive through the winter. The issue that the Colorado biologist team has with the 2 year old breeding all of the does is that they do not have the fat reserve or the physical abilities to breed a large group of does in a timely fashion and then have the ability to survive the winter. It depletes what fat reserve they have and this animal is more likely to die duting the winter. They look at this as a lose/lose situation. Your does are not breed as quick decreasing the fawn survival rate and your survival rate on the young buck goes down also.
You can find the studies on the Colorado website under Gunnision Basin. All of these studies have taken place since 2005 to the current date. As you can see I have a man crush on the way that Colorado does things. If you have ever hunted in the state you will understand why I like the way they do things in Colorado.
With all due respect I don't think that it is even worth your time to use the survey from 2007. Things have changed a lot from that year and a survey from 5 years ago really does not hold much sand. I am guessing that the survey was published in 07 but it was taken during the 2006 season. That would put us six years back.
I want to be clear that I believe that the B/D ratio is only a small factor in managing a deer population. However I looked at the B/D ratio in the Wasatch and it is currently at 19.4 B/D ratio for the 17 A Wasatch unit and 16.7 for the 17B 17C.
With that being said I have watched you guys rave about the Wasatch and how opportunity and trophy hunters can both hunt this unit. This is true but lets not fool ourselves in thinking that this unit is being managed for 10 B/D.
Also I know that you mentioned that you are not hunting private when you hunt this unit. My argument is that there is a lot of summer ground private where a lot of the smaller bucks are given a chance to mature. These older bucks then have the opportunity to roam the front looking for ladies. This older buck roaming for ladies is what has made the front an appealing hunt for so many. It is also true that there is substantial winter ground that is private on this unit. This factor also allows the deer to grow to an older age.
Wiley there has been some recent studies done by biologist in the Colorado Gunnison Basin. In the studies they believe that 23 B/D is the optimal number. This allows the older 3-5 year old buck to do the majority of the breeding. These older animals have a larger fat reserve than the two year old buck. They are physically more capable to breed the does in a timely manner.
The older buck has the physical capability to breed the does and then survive through the winter. The issue that the Colorado biologist team has with the 2 year old breeding all of the does is that they do not have the fat reserve or the physical abilities to breed a large group of does in a timely fashion and then have the ability to survive the winter. It depletes what fat reserve they have and this animal is more likely to die duting the winter. They look at this as a lose/lose situation. Your does are not breed as quick decreasing the fawn survival rate and your survival rate on the young buck goes down also.
You can find the studies on the Colorado website under Gunnision Basin. All of these studies have taken place since 2005 to the current date. As you can see I have a man crush on the way that Colorado does things. If you have ever hunted in the state you will understand why I like the way they do things in Colorado.
cantkillathing
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,455
Hooner you are the man, I like that last post.
>Hooner you are the man, I
>like that last post.
I agree! This is also what I said a while back. 20 to 25 bucks would give a broader age class of bucks and the older bucks could do the breeding instead of the 2 points. More deer survive winter, fawns are born early instead of late and the herd would grow. Then, do the range improvements with predator control as planned. How can you loose other than lost opportunity for a few years?
>like that last post.
I agree! This is also what I said a while back. 20 to 25 bucks would give a broader age class of bucks and the older bucks could do the breeding instead of the 2 points. More deer survive winter, fawns are born early instead of late and the herd would grow. Then, do the range improvements with predator control as planned. How can you loose other than lost opportunity for a few years?
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
"The older buck has the physical capability to breed the does and then survive through the winter. The issue that the Colorado biologist team has with the 2 year old breeding all of the does is that they do not have the fat reserve or the physical abilities to breed a large group of does in a timely fashion and then have the ability to survive the winter. It depletes what fat reserve they have and this animal is more likely to die duting the winter. They look at this as a lose/lose situation. Your does are not breed as quick decreasing the fawn survival rate and your survival rate on the young buck goes down also."
I agree 100%. BUT a lot depends on the ability of the doe to come in to estrus in the first breeding cycle that we are looking for. Some may not and like bucks making through the winter the same applies to the doe's. If doe's are in a state where they can't make it through the winter they will either not breed or breed
and not have the reserves. Nevada did a fecundity study that showed that carrying excess bucks are one of the reasons that doe's are late in breeding, never come in to heat or don't carry fawns to full term. Fecundity and carrying excess bucks also have an effect on the fawns that do have feet on the ground.
Look we are arguing two different points here.
If we want more bucks to kill then reducing permits and not killing bucks is the way to do it.
If we are talking about growing our herds, like everyone sells
when they talk restrictions, then we need to concentrate on keeping the fawns that hit the ground alive. Which depends a lot on the day they are born which depends on receptive doe's in the first estrus cycle.
we need to worry less about killing bucks and worry more about growing deer.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
I agree 100%. BUT a lot depends on the ability of the doe to come in to estrus in the first breeding cycle that we are looking for. Some may not and like bucks making through the winter the same applies to the doe's. If doe's are in a state where they can't make it through the winter they will either not breed or breed
and not have the reserves. Nevada did a fecundity study that showed that carrying excess bucks are one of the reasons that doe's are late in breeding, never come in to heat or don't carry fawns to full term. Fecundity and carrying excess bucks also have an effect on the fawns that do have feet on the ground.
Look we are arguing two different points here.
If we want more bucks to kill then reducing permits and not killing bucks is the way to do it.
If we are talking about growing our herds, like everyone sells
when they talk restrictions, then we need to concentrate on keeping the fawns that hit the ground alive. Which depends a lot on the day they are born which depends on receptive doe's in the first estrus cycle.
we need to worry less about killing bucks and worry more about growing deer.
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
H
Hooner
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-12 AT 06:01PM (MST)[p]Wiley,
Interesting concept but here is my issue with your ideas. You are talking about something that we as sportsman can't control. We can't control when the doe goes into estrus. So in my opinion your ideas posted above really don't mean much. I like to look at what we can control and how we can affect the herd. You could argue that better habitat will help the doe hit estrus at the right time. But I am yet to see an animal in Utah starving to death. ( This is a completely differnt topic so I will steer clear)
Answer this for me. In 1999 when Colorado went to the unit system to manage deer they cut the tags in half. The reason for the cut is so that they could create larger healthier herd/buck population. The local sprotsman in Colorado along with the division pushed for this change. This was a huge success for Colorado.
Currently wyoming is looking into cutting tags. In the past there has never been a cap on the tags. They are going to cut tags to help stabalize and grow the deer herd.
With that being said my question to you is if other states who's managment plans have proven success in the past cut tags when the herd is declining why are some so against cutting tags?
Sure a buck does not have fawns but they are a big contributor to the process. There are also those with a lot more experience than myself that would say the does will not go into estrus cycle on time and will hold out for an older mature deer to come along. If you have your does waiting for an older more experienced lover than your fawn cycle is going to be messed up. Just a little food for thought?
Interesting concept but here is my issue with your ideas. You are talking about something that we as sportsman can't control. We can't control when the doe goes into estrus. So in my opinion your ideas posted above really don't mean much. I like to look at what we can control and how we can affect the herd. You could argue that better habitat will help the doe hit estrus at the right time. But I am yet to see an animal in Utah starving to death. ( This is a completely differnt topic so I will steer clear)
Answer this for me. In 1999 when Colorado went to the unit system to manage deer they cut the tags in half. The reason for the cut is so that they could create larger healthier herd/buck population. The local sprotsman in Colorado along with the division pushed for this change. This was a huge success for Colorado.
Currently wyoming is looking into cutting tags. In the past there has never been a cap on the tags. They are going to cut tags to help stabalize and grow the deer herd.
With that being said my question to you is if other states who's managment plans have proven success in the past cut tags when the herd is declining why are some so against cutting tags?
Sure a buck does not have fawns but they are a big contributor to the process. There are also those with a lot more experience than myself that would say the does will not go into estrus cycle on time and will hold out for an older mature deer to come along. If you have your does waiting for an older more experienced lover than your fawn cycle is going to be messed up. Just a little food for thought?
Wiley,
I'm curious as to what the study determined as excess bucks? 30, 40, 50 per 100. Nevada manages for 25 per 100 so that can't be it can it?
""With that being said my question to you is if other states who's managment plans have proven success in the past cut tags when the herd is declining why are some so against cutting tags?""
Because everyone wants to hunt every year, deer or no deer.
I'm curious as to what the study determined as excess bucks? 30, 40, 50 per 100. Nevada manages for 25 per 100 so that can't be it can it?
""With that being said my question to you is if other states who's managment plans have proven success in the past cut tags when the herd is declining why are some so against cutting tags?""
Because everyone wants to hunt every year, deer or no deer.
S
scoutdog5
Guest
Wiley, sorry buddy, but you are wrong. Oregon has a number of units where the management objective for bucks is 12/100 does. this is NOT a minimum, it is the goal. Most of the remaining units have an MO of 15/100 does. Again, not a minimum, but the goal. A very few units have an MO of 25/100.
The issue is NOT how many bucks you have as a percentage of does. There are two variables that impact whether or not a population grows.
1. Density. If you have a million acres, and 100 deer, you could have a buck ratio of 30/100, and it would be likely that some does would not be bred during the first estrus cycle. We all read the stats and assume that ratio applies across the entire unit. That is not what actually happens. Private lands typically have far higher ratios than public land, Fish and wildlife does counts on both, arrives at an average, and we assume things are fine. They aren't. As a population in a fixed area decreases, and fewer deer are spread out over a large area, you will need more bucks if your goal is to breed all the does during the first estrus cycle.
2. Far more important is breeding does during the first estrus cycle, resulting in the vast majority of fawns being born in late May-early June. Multiple studies have shown the importance of this occurring to limit the levels of predation, and have the largest possible fawns going into winter. When does are bred across two or three estrus cycles, which is a common occurence in Oregon, the birthing season extends from late May til late July, and predators, particularly coyotes have a field day. Recently studies on other species have found that fawns born late and/or small typically have trouble breeding at 1.5 years of age, which is the norm for mule deer. That also impacts population growth.
The second part of breeding does during the first estrus cycle is that females typically won't mate with immature males during the first estrus cycle. You are absolutely right that you don't need more than 15 bucks per 100 does to breed those does. If you are going to breed them during first estrus cycle, a large percentage of your 15 bucks had better be mature, 3.5, 4.5 years old or older. Although I have yet to hunt Utah, I have done enough research to be pretty confident that you do not have the numbers of mature bucks it would take to get this done.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to accept the fact that if we are going to have dynamic, growing populations of mule deer, we are going to have to leave a significant number of mature bucks alive after hunting season to do the breeding. There are multiple ways to get there, limited entry, shorter seasons, more restrictive access, more primitive weapons tags (not sure muzzleloaders in Utah qualify given the rules), hunt every other year, etc.
Scoutdog
The issue is NOT how many bucks you have as a percentage of does. There are two variables that impact whether or not a population grows.
1. Density. If you have a million acres, and 100 deer, you could have a buck ratio of 30/100, and it would be likely that some does would not be bred during the first estrus cycle. We all read the stats and assume that ratio applies across the entire unit. That is not what actually happens. Private lands typically have far higher ratios than public land, Fish and wildlife does counts on both, arrives at an average, and we assume things are fine. They aren't. As a population in a fixed area decreases, and fewer deer are spread out over a large area, you will need more bucks if your goal is to breed all the does during the first estrus cycle.
2. Far more important is breeding does during the first estrus cycle, resulting in the vast majority of fawns being born in late May-early June. Multiple studies have shown the importance of this occurring to limit the levels of predation, and have the largest possible fawns going into winter. When does are bred across two or three estrus cycles, which is a common occurence in Oregon, the birthing season extends from late May til late July, and predators, particularly coyotes have a field day. Recently studies on other species have found that fawns born late and/or small typically have trouble breeding at 1.5 years of age, which is the norm for mule deer. That also impacts population growth.
The second part of breeding does during the first estrus cycle is that females typically won't mate with immature males during the first estrus cycle. You are absolutely right that you don't need more than 15 bucks per 100 does to breed those does. If you are going to breed them during first estrus cycle, a large percentage of your 15 bucks had better be mature, 3.5, 4.5 years old or older. Although I have yet to hunt Utah, I have done enough research to be pretty confident that you do not have the numbers of mature bucks it would take to get this done.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to accept the fact that if we are going to have dynamic, growing populations of mule deer, we are going to have to leave a significant number of mature bucks alive after hunting season to do the breeding. There are multiple ways to get there, limited entry, shorter seasons, more restrictive access, more primitive weapons tags (not sure muzzleloaders in Utah qualify given the rules), hunt every other year, etc.
Scoutdog
wileywapati
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,808
Fella's here is the link from the Colorado F&G.
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/HerdManagementDAUPlans/Pages/HerdManagementDAUPlans.aspx
I pulled this report several months back as an example that raising B/D ratio's wouldn't have a sustainable upward trend
for overall population.
I went through EVERY GMU at that time and 95% were static or declining. Just like Utah.
Scout I agree with your point about the biggest and best doing the breeding. No argument. My argument is that pretty much all data shows that we are breeding the doe's succesfully.
I'll stick with my real world examples of the HenrY Mtn's
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/HerdManagementDAUPlans/Pages/HerdManagementDAUPlans.aspx
I pulled this report several months back as an example that raising B/D ratio's wouldn't have a sustainable upward trend
for overall population.
I went through EVERY GMU at that time and 95% were static or declining. Just like Utah.
Scout I agree with your point about the biggest and best doing the breeding. No argument. My argument is that pretty much all data shows that we are breeding the doe's succesfully.
I'll stick with my real world examples of the HenrY Mtn's
2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
H
Hooner
Guest
WILEY,
I don't think you really understand the Colorado model. They have 425,000 deer. That is twice as many as Utah. They are the premier state for Mule Deer hunting in the Western United States. They already grew their deer herd in 1999. You neeed to look at page 7 of the Data Unit Managment Plan for any deer unit from the link that you posted. They cut or add tags depending on the current population/Buck to doe ratio. That is the plan that they use to grow/manage herds. Keep in mind that they have a little different herd situation in Colorado than Utah. Also they have a very high buck to doe ratio on the units to help with the does being taken care of in a timely manner
You always refer to the Henrie Mtns as your proof in the puddin unit. Do you realize that Utah had to shut down the Henries for five years just to grow a managable deer herd. With that being said are you suggesting that we follow this model and shut down the GU units in Utah to grow the herds? Is that what you mean when you say that the Henries is your example unit?
Just playin with you but you should think about what unit you refer to. The Henries may not be a good example for you.
I don't think you really understand the Colorado model. They have 425,000 deer. That is twice as many as Utah. They are the premier state for Mule Deer hunting in the Western United States. They already grew their deer herd in 1999. You neeed to look at page 7 of the Data Unit Managment Plan for any deer unit from the link that you posted. They cut or add tags depending on the current population/Buck to doe ratio. That is the plan that they use to grow/manage herds. Keep in mind that they have a little different herd situation in Colorado than Utah. Also they have a very high buck to doe ratio on the units to help with the does being taken care of in a timely manner
You always refer to the Henrie Mtns as your proof in the puddin unit. Do you realize that Utah had to shut down the Henries for five years just to grow a managable deer herd. With that being said are you suggesting that we follow this model and shut down the GU units in Utah to grow the herds? Is that what you mean when you say that the Henries is your example unit?
Just playin with you but you should think about what unit you refer to. The Henries may not be a good example for you.
S
scoutdog5
Guest
Wiley, that is a great link, very helpful info for planning a hunt. Thanks
I opened about ten of the reports for herd units. They ranged from 2002 to 2011. Looks like they redo 4 or 5 per year. The trick is figuring out which ones are more recent.
Almost without exception, if you look at the buck ratio and overall population charts, you will see that when the buck ratio goes up, the population goes up. When the buck ratio goes down, the population goes down.
In every case I looked at where the data was less than 5 years old, the unit was in decline at the end, both from a buck ratio and a population stand point. Obviously winter kill was a part of that in some units in 2007-2008, but I think the more significant factor was the adding of a fourth buck season in most units starting around 2003-2004. This hunt was a rut hunt scheduled in mid November. Add in the loss of bucks during that tough winter, and it is not surprising the herds are declining. My observation having hunted deer in Colorado four times in the past 10 years is that the buck ratios are still high, but the percent that are mature bucks is down considerably.
When they changed their system in 1999, they went to two rifle seasons, 2nd in late October with a 7 day season, 3rd season in early November also 7 days. Population exploded, and they added a 5 day fourth season in most units. Absolutely slaughtered mature bucks for 3-4 years. Now the population is in decline, below the level of 1999, and what have they done? Added two days to the 3rd season, and continued the 4th season.
Colorado is the poster child for what works if you want to build your deer herd to management objective, and what NOT to do if you want to keep it there.
Deer populations are always going to fluctuate based on a variety of factors. In my opinion, when populations are high and buck numbers are at objective, there is nothing wrong with increasing buck tags prior to the rut. Given the effectiveness of modern weapons, and the skills and abilities of the types of hunters who draw those tags, there is NEVER a justification for issuing buck tags in the heart of the rut.
By the way, according to the statistics posted by Colorado, they harvested 1,222 bucks during the fourth season in 2011. I guarantee you most of those were mature bucks in the middle of breeding does when they were harvested.
Scoutdog
I opened about ten of the reports for herd units. They ranged from 2002 to 2011. Looks like they redo 4 or 5 per year. The trick is figuring out which ones are more recent.
Almost without exception, if you look at the buck ratio and overall population charts, you will see that when the buck ratio goes up, the population goes up. When the buck ratio goes down, the population goes down.
In every case I looked at where the data was less than 5 years old, the unit was in decline at the end, both from a buck ratio and a population stand point. Obviously winter kill was a part of that in some units in 2007-2008, but I think the more significant factor was the adding of a fourth buck season in most units starting around 2003-2004. This hunt was a rut hunt scheduled in mid November. Add in the loss of bucks during that tough winter, and it is not surprising the herds are declining. My observation having hunted deer in Colorado four times in the past 10 years is that the buck ratios are still high, but the percent that are mature bucks is down considerably.
When they changed their system in 1999, they went to two rifle seasons, 2nd in late October with a 7 day season, 3rd season in early November also 7 days. Population exploded, and they added a 5 day fourth season in most units. Absolutely slaughtered mature bucks for 3-4 years. Now the population is in decline, below the level of 1999, and what have they done? Added two days to the 3rd season, and continued the 4th season.
Colorado is the poster child for what works if you want to build your deer herd to management objective, and what NOT to do if you want to keep it there.
Deer populations are always going to fluctuate based on a variety of factors. In my opinion, when populations are high and buck numbers are at objective, there is nothing wrong with increasing buck tags prior to the rut. Given the effectiveness of modern weapons, and the skills and abilities of the types of hunters who draw those tags, there is NEVER a justification for issuing buck tags in the heart of the rut.
By the way, according to the statistics posted by Colorado, they harvested 1,222 bucks during the fourth season in 2011. I guarantee you most of those were mature bucks in the middle of breeding does when they were harvested.
Scoutdog
