See Ya 25 - 100 B/D Ratio

W

wileywapati

Very Active Member
Messages
1,808
Unanimous vote to go with the 15 - 17 and 18 - 20 B/D ratio's
today by the Wildlife Board.

Good Riddance.

Step One Complete


2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Heck Hoon I may have to change my signature
Once I see the final permit numbers.



2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Thats to bad.

I live in WA state where mule deer are managed for 25/100. Must units are right at objective, and that is with all but just a couple units giving out OTC tags for all weapons and must units have late november permit hunts for must weapons on top of the OTC tags.

I can't imagine such low buck to doe ratios.
 
Tagsoup; I hear you. Most states in the west manage the deer herds for a B/D ratio of 20+ bucks per 100 does. However in Utah there are some that are more worried about having a tag every year than the actual deer herd.

Hopefully some day we will figure it out but who knows. Look at it this way. We are better off today with the units and an actual attempt at deer managment than we were last year with no units.
 
>However in Utah
>there are some that are
>more worried about having a
>tag every year than the
>actual deer herd.

There lies the problem. The more people you have to try to please the harder it is to make progress.
 
TX_ God forbid hunters having a voice
Let alone having their voices heard.

Worst post in MM history


2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
That is good to read.

I, like many, many others are tired of spending our Utah earned money on non-ressy tags so we can get to hunt each fall.

Thanks for all your countless hours and effort ww....

Robb
 
Once again, common sense wins over emotion. Biologist and people that have an understanding of mule deer have said that having buck to doe ratios higher than 20 bucks per 100 does doesn't help grow deer herds. Maybe now that we have the buck to doe ratios set then we can focus on the REAL issue that is affecting our mule deer herds. Killing fewer bucks isn't the answer.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 07:40PM (MST)[p]"Wiley,
I am guessing you mean good riddance to the deer herd!"

Hooner hahaha this is the stupidest comment ever because bucks don't have fawns and you don't need buck to doe ratios higher than 20/100 to have a healthy deer herd otherwise the bookcliffs, San Juan, Vernon, Henrys etc populations would be exploding. The numbers for these units show some low fawn survival rates.
 
"geez typical utah crap! dont give anything a chance "

I know we have never followed a deer management plan for decades because we keep changing it because of emotion that never helps our deer herds.
 
>TX_ God forbid hunters having a
>voice
>Let alone having their voices heard.
>
>
>Worst post in MM history
>

That bad, huh?

I can't even get 20 ppl on a lease (that they hunt for free) to agree on a management plan; how in the world is an entire state going to agree.


Heck maybe they should just offer LE doe hunts to get the ratio down to 1:3 then let then shut down for a cpl yrs...reopen to LE doe hunts again and shoot down to 1:2....shut down a few more years then open back up to LE auction tags. You really want my voice heard or should some folks not speak in public?
 
>"geez typical utah crap! dont give
>anything a chance "
>
>I know we have never followed
>a deer management plan for
>decades because we keep changing
>it because of emotion that
>never helps our deer herds.
>

lol, yep, it changes every year!
 
Lets see how this plan works, only cut 500 tags across the state that should really save a declining deer herd. You new they would not really go into each unit and manage because that would have cut to many tags and revenue out of their pockets.
 
"Lets see how this plan works, only cut 500 tags across the state that should really save a declining deer herd. You new they would not really go into each unit and manage because that would have cut to many tags and revenue out of their pockets."

You simply just dont get it, do you? Killing fewer bucks doesn't grow a deer herd. Fawns surviving to adulthood and producing future offspring grows a deer herd. We need to quit focusing on the number of bucks we harvest because data shows that does are getting bred, but fawn survival rates are very low. This is the reason our deer herds are declining. Again if killing fewer bucks helps grow the deer herds then the LE units would be exploding with deer, but even the henry mtns is below population objectives. Many LE also have low fawn survival rates even with all the mature bucks breeding the does during their 1st estrus cycle.

AS SOON AS WE QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF BUCKS AND START FOCUS ON FAWNS THEN WE WILL HAVE MORE DEER AND MORE BUCKS BECAUSE BUCKS ARE A BYPRODUCT OF FAWN SURVIVAL RATES.
 
How many bucks does it require to go into lockdown mode of around 48 hours with each doe (assuming they actually take the first go-around)? the fewer bucks, the fewer does get bred, the later a lot of does will get bred, the later fawns hit the ground, the fewer of them that will survive. Plus all them little forkies have to deal with the pecking order & not being able to jump on the first thing smelling. Get that ratio down tight and fawn recruitment typically skyrockets.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-12 AT 08:11PM (MST)[p]A lot of studies show that 7 bucks can bred 100 does. General Season units are managed for atleast 15/100 which is more than enough bucks to bred the does. Again, higher buck to doe ratios do not grow deer herds and LE units prove this point. Some LE units have lower survival rates than a lot of GS units. Look up the facts.

So your saying the ratio needs to be more down tight, so I guess even the Henry mtn buck to doe ratios suck because the fawn survival rates isn't skyrocketing. MAYBE WE SHOULD ONLY ISSUE ONE HENRY MOUNTAIN DEER TAG because the survival rate is not very good.

Maybe a lot of bucks on the Henry mtns are GAY.

Focus more attention on why fawns are dying before adulthood and quit worrying about the number of buck tags issued.
 
You know that leads to line breeding and genetically lowered fertility rates?

If 7 bucks breed 100 does and a biologist says that's good, he's/she's a quack. The only way 7 is breeding 100 is in a very controlled environment where they can be on them the few hours they can actually take and there's absolutely no competition for them; none of which is good.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-12 AT 08:43PM (MST)[p]You just have proven to me that you know nothing about mule deer and your full of hot air. Educate yourself and look up the facts. The DWR manages deer at a much higher ratio.
 
This is from the rancher that didnt know mule deer eat sagebrush and bitter brush.
 
I'm more educated on the topic than you think. No competition in any herd, except livestock where you are lining genetics (and hogs..the fewer the better), is a bad thing. You can't run experiments in uncontrolled environments because you can't control your variables and establish concrete relationships; that's why anything from habitat, predation to vehicular harvest is the leading problem and nothing gets fixed.
 
I'm reading every word, as an educated person. LE units generally don't emphasize doe harvest and GS generally doesn't emphasize any kind of a selective harvest. Competition gets brought up because its a necessity emphasizing health within the population and structure within that population that is extremely important. There's a difference in managing and trying to appeal to everyone; you can't do both and basically that's what's happening because there's folks not as knowledgeable saying the equivalent of "don't kill the cows if you want a full pasture" and it's a completely different beast to tangle with.
 
habitat, especially winter range will always be more important.

lower b/d ratio will definately lower trophy quality, but I guess UT wants to be home of the 2pt. I am glad I live in CO
 
"but I guess UT wants to be home of the 2pt"

PURE BS!!! If you manage areas for 15-17 and 18-20 buck ratios then many hunters will have chances of harvesting mature bucks. If you're just seeing two points during the hunt then you need to put both twinkies in each hand down and get off your 4-wheelers and get yout fat ass hiking off roads.
 
Tx packmule has this one IMO.

The sooner people stop believing the BULLCHIT put off by state hired/owned "biologists and mule deer experts" whose objective is to make the state more money and keep their jobs which means NEVER significantly cut tags or tag dollars the sooner you may see an improvement in herd health.

Elite I would like to see how the DOW is assessing fawn survival, are they counting the total number of faws dropped and then making another count during the fall? If not then when are they counting? Are the real counts done when fawns have made it to the critical age when survival is a pretty safe bet? Are does that have fawns more visible and therefore easier to count than does that do not have fawns thereby skewing numbers on early fawn counts (you know don't they tend to stick around and not run off and leave their fawn) only to count survivors later when all the deer are hangin together giving you a more thorough look at the entire doe population. Maybe just maybe the does aren't all getting bred at all??? Or at the optimum time for survival.

The best hunts I have been on had high buck to doe ratios and also ( I know it is hard to believe) had great overall herds with plenty of fawns and great overall age structure. Even on units with low overall populations.

Cut tags and the population will INSTANTLY RISE just by the nature of not killing as many deer. If your bucks aren't eating all the groceries off of your winter range in the average year thereby killing fawns then why kill them if you want to grow population. In other words if the carrying capacity of a given winter range is above what the population is on an average year then keep growing DEER not just DOES.

Don't buy the old you can't bank deer for the future because Ma Nature will just take them in a bad winter BULLCHIT either because if all you do is keep numbers down where the hard winters will still feed em then you will lose your herd completely. Winters take age classes not just excess or a percentage so if you start with higher numbers you come out the other side with high numbers PERIOD!!!


Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
LAST EDITED ON May-05-12 AT 10:28AM (MST)[p]"Elite I would like to see how the DOW is assessing fawn survival, are they counting the total number of faws dropped and then making another count during the fall? If not then when are they counting? Are the real counts done when fawns have made it to the critical age when survival is a pretty safe bet? Are does that have fawns more visible and therefore easier to count than does that do not have fawns thereby skewing numbers on early fawn counts (you know don't they tend to stick around and not run off and leave their fawn) only to count survivors later when all the deer are hangin together giving you a more thorough look at the entire doe population. Maybe just maybe the does aren't all getting bred at all??? Or at the optimum time for survival."

The have postseason and spring counts. Studies that been done on the Monroe that has a low buck to doe ratio and the study shows that 97% of the does checked were pregnant.



The best hunts I have been on had high buck to doe ratios and also ( I know it is hard to believe) had great overall herds with plenty of fawns and great overall age structure. Even on units with low overall populations.

SURE, HIGH BUCKS RATIOS WILL MAKE FOR A BETTER, THAT'S A NO BRAINER. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE LE UNITS. MANY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO COMBINE LE UNITS WITH GS UNITS. ONE IS FOR QUALITY AND ONE IS FOR QUANTITY. I HAVE KILLED MANY MATURE BUCKS ON GS UNITS, BUT YOU DON'T KILL THEM BY DRIVING YOUR TRUCKS OR 4-WHEELERS UP AND DOWN THE ROADS. YOU NEED TO GET OUT AND HIKE.

Cut tags and the population will INSTANTLY RISE just by the nature of not killing as many deer. If your bucks aren't eating all the groceries off of your winter range in the average year thereby killing fawns then why kill them if you want to grow population. In other words if the carrying capacity of a given winter range is above what the population is on an average year then keep growing DEER not just DOES.

CLOSING DOWN UNITS ARE JUST BANDAIDS. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND ONCE YOU OPEN THE UNIT BACK UP THEN MANY BUCKS ARE SLAUGHTERED. AGAIN KILLING BUCKS ISN'T THE ISSUE AS LONG AS DOES ARE GETTING BRED.

YOU NEED TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LE UNITS AND GS UNITS. ONE IS FOR A QUALITY HUNT THAT TAKES YEARS TO DRAW AND THE OTHER IS FOR OPPORTUNITY. IF YOU WORK HARD AND GET OFF THE ROADS THEN YOU CAN FIND MATURE BUCKS, BUT iM GLAD MOST OF YOU DON'T BECAUSE IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME.
 
Keep drinking the koolaid!

They seem to be all over the mule deer problem there. Much better than say CO or NV. So I guess it will be fine if they don't change a thing. I'm sure it will be easy to convince DOW to spend money on the things that MAY help even though they won't give up a dime by losing tag sales to do something that WILL help.

If you read my post the units I hunted with high buck to doe ratios had better overall herd health not just bucks for hunting. Now I know I'm not a govt. bio with a bunch of "facts" on paper, I prefer facts you can see. You know like the FACT that CO has been the go to state for over a decade and even after a huge die off is still higher on most hunters' list than UT, excepting of course the LE hunts there.

Oh and yeah I know anybody who doesn't drink the koolaid and wants better herds and hunts is a fat azz road hunter who can't hunt like you, right? PLEASE!!! I have hunted GS far more than LE and know the difference well. I have had success on both and see the positives and negatives of both. There are places that are fine as GS because of resilient herds in rough environment but that doesn't make GS a successful option everywhere. Just like LE isn't the answer everywhere.

I don't think you can capture and study ten does and get an accurate assessment of pregnancy percentages nd if they captured more than that then they probably aborted more than a few.

I know there are NUMEROUS problems facing deer herds and cutting tags will not erase them, but when the herd is in trouble then everything that could possibly help should be addressed. Kill the predators, improve winter range. Etc. etc. but keep pounding the deer and you won't be using all the tools to recover the herd.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
I have also hunted Colorado a lot and I have killed some very nice bucks, but in Utah on GS units and I can also kill the same caliber of buck so the only thing that Colorado does for me is give me another opportunity to chase bucks. The last two winters have been very good for the mule deer and mule deer are in a lot better shape in the spring then in previous years. I'm more positive then all the doom and gloomers on this forum. 15-17 and 18-20 ratios are great for GS units and as John said in the meeting that people shouldn't panic.
 
Well Said Huntingdad4. Elite likes to say that if you can't find deer get off the road. BLAH BLAH BLAH. You wait give him a minute and he will post a picture of him with a mid 160 buck and he will tell you see there are big bucks in Utah just get off the road. It's kind of amusing to watch.

I hope that for future generations Utah will figure this deer thing out. It amuses me that we are not smart enough to look at Colorado and see what they are doing and just copy the system. Residents in Colorado can hunt awesome units every year. High buck to do ratio. (23/100) and very high populations. This is beneficial for all types of hunters.

Elite and others. Look at the other states around us. When the herd is declining they cut tag numbers. Not us we sell the idea of we don't need lots of bucks to maintain or increase the herd.
No need to reinvent the wheel when other states are having more success that us.
 
Hahaha that isn't the only buck that I have killed. I have killed a lot bigger. Hooner don't whine and complain because your part of the statistic of unsuccessful hunters. We can't all be successful.

So ONE of the ONLY ways to get a healthy deer herd is to manage deer herds at 23/100? Where is the rolling on the floor laughing icon? So your saying 15-20 bucks per 100 does isn't enough to breed does?

Again, cutting buck tags only benefits a deer herd if there isn't enough bucks to breed all the does. If there is enough bucks to breed does then cutting tags only reduces hunter opportunity.
 
Wily , Great news man! I can now sleep at night knowing that the 18-25 b/d is put to bed. Thanks to everyone who helped make this happen. To manage a general season unit for more than 20 bucks per 100 does is absurd.

Those that think we only took 500 permits away this season need to realize that last years tag cuts were substantial in some units. Last years cuts need to be associated with this year and secondly there were thousands of rifle tags taken this year that got reapplied to other weapons.
 
To say that by simply killing less BUCKS will undoubtedly raise the total population really shows your ignorance in the overall scheme of things. Mother nature will always have the last say in how many deer we can handle.Not us as buck only hunters.I personally got to experience a 3 day hunt in 2010. It rained or snowed for 2 1/2 of those 3 days. There were more bucks left on the mountain than ever before. So please enlighten me with reasons why the very next season this same unit had the lowest number of successful hunters in history. How can this be if the answer is as simple as saving more bucks by taking people off the mountain? We should of had a banner year the buck to doe ratio raised by 14 in one year yet we still had a record low harvest the very next season. If our does are getting bred with the bucks we have now how would we be getting anywhere by limiting oppurtunity and leaving a few more bucks to bred does that are already getting bred? There is definitely no science in that and that's why the 18-25 blanket ratio got shot down in the end.
 
>Hahaha that isn't the only buck
>that I have killed. I
>have killed a lot bigger.
>Hooner don't whine and complain
>because your part of the
>statistic of unsuccessful hunters. We
>can't all be successful.
>


Elite, I am starting to think that you have a little crush on me. Like I told Huntingdad4 above you post a lot of BLAH BLAH BLAH on your post. A lot of I hunt the back country, I kill big bucks,you guys are part of the unsuccessful hunters. Come on Kid I aint on here to compare sticks with you. I have my own personal hunting goals and don't really care to compare.

At the end of the day it is ok to disagree with people. But it shows a lack on intelligence and a lot of ignorance when all you do is act like a 4 year old when someone disagrees with you. Change your perspective. I promise you are not the only one getting it done in Utah.

My point is look around at the states around us. When the herds are declining they cut tags. That includes, NV,WY, and CO to name a few. So why are we gonna isolate ourselves and not follow suit. You know what else we do that other states don't do is EXPO and CONSERVATION tags. How is that working for us? Just sayin.
 
Hoon back in 94 we cut 160,000 hunters out of the hunt....

Just saying my man.

TX_ you are assuming that the herd numbers are a static
figure when they are not. You can't compare a corral with
7 males and 100 females to a mule deer herd with the ability to
move as they wish. Thinking does are always breeding the same 7 bucks in the wild isn't reality.




2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
WW,
94 they cut 160,000? You know that is a BS #! Sounds good to say though. Truth is that half of that number had stopped hunting before the cap. Cause the hunting was so bad!!!

I've decided that UT is content to slowing eliminate the deer herd until it is a non issue. Reminds me of a comment that a DWR employee made some years back when sportsmen were upset about the herd and lack of deer. It went something like this......

I'll be glad when they are all gone and we can quit worrying about it!

Well we are on about step 30 of that process!

Step 2 getting the statewide archery back? That might clear up that terrible diaper rash you've been dealing with for 18 months?
 
For any 7 to breed 100 those deer all need to be together in a pen because there's not enough time for them to get bred bc of the does ability to move freely. Under that scenario, the bucks would have to be concentrated on breeding so much that they don't have much time to eat, which is kind of important if they want to see the following Spring. The ratio needs to be the static figure. It preserves more of the buck population during the bad times and leaves you with the dynamics to actually formulate a game plan in regardtomsk tsing good dynamics in regard to CC because it will get more does bred during the first estrous cycles and give those fawns more nutrition and better BWs heading into winter. Will most people see it as trophy management; You betcha. Are the herds usually healthier under those forms of mgmt; You betcha. Can there be more opportunity for hunters to keep the herd at CC and maintain the desired ratio; you betcha. Would a healthier herd with better fawn recruitment please everyone; nope.

FTR, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-06-12 AT 11:05AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-06-12 AT 11:01?AM (MST)

More BS!! It's also funny you keep using the figure 7 bucks to breed 100 does when NONE of our units have ratios that low. Most units are about double that ratio plus some.

You also said "If 7 bucks breed 100 does and a biologist says that's good, he's/she's a quack. The only way 7 is breeding 100 is in a very controlled environment where they can be on them the few hours they can actually take and there's absolutely no competition for them; none of which is good."

Again, your wrong because does are down on the winter range along with the bucks and the does don't travel for miles and miles. They pretty much stay in the same general areas. You also mentioned that bucks can only be on them for several hours.

Do you know how long the estrous cycle is for mule deer? 22 to 28 days depending on how fit the doe is and her age. Estrus is 24 to 36 hours which is more than a few hours like you said. NOT all does come into estrus the same day. Bucks seek out the hot does in the herd and then move to the next. Bucks have very good sense of smell which enable them to find the hot does as well.

BTW how many times does a buck need to jump on a doe until she becomes pregnant?

Again, maybe you need to use real numbers in your ratio when trying to prove your point because most GS units are much higher than 7 bucks per 100 does.
 
You brought up 7, so felt you had made the discussion a lot easier on my part. So even if crawfishing to a lower ratio, it still yields the same concerns at 15/100 bc some will breed less and some more, too many getting bred late or not at all.

Are does on winter range during first cycle, second cycle, third? What kind of weather is expected this Fall/Winter?

It seems you're confusing a 17-28 (22-28 more typical) day estrous cycle as that being the timeframe for them to breed; she's only receptive one day/few hours every cycle when ovulation occurs... and there's no guarantee she'll take, but she'll tie a buck up for a few days.

Ratios from 1:1.5-1:3.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-06-12 AT 12:16PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-06-12 AT 12:08?PM (MST)

"You brought up 7, so felt you had made the discussion a lot easier on my part. So even if crawfishing to a lower ratio, it still yields the same concerns at 15/100 bc some will breed less and some more, too many getting bred late or not at all."

Because you brought up the question in post 18, but I guess you don't even read your own questions. So what do you believe the magic ratio number should be? If 15 bucks per 100 does isn't enough. You are making this easy for me.

"It seems you're confusing a 17-28 (22-28 more typical) day estrous cycle as that being the timeframe for them to breed; she's only receptive one day/few hours every cycle when ovulation occurs... and there's no guarantee she'll take, but she'll tie a buck up for a few days."

It appears you can't read so I will type slower for you.

Here is what you missed.

The Estrous cycle is 22 to 28 days depending on how fit the doe is and her age. Estrus is 24 to 36 hours which is more than a few hours like you said.

You wrote "The only way 7 is breeding 100 is in a very controlled environment where they can be on them the few hours they can actually take and there's absolutely no competition for them; none of which is good."

Where I come from 24 to 36 hours is more than just a few hours.

We will use real numbers now that are on units. If a buck to doe ratio is 15/100 then a buck would only need to breed (we will round up) 7 does in 22 to 28 days which they are capable of breeding more. In units where the buck to doe ratios are 20/100 then one buck would only need to breed 5 does which they are capable of breeding more in 22 to 28 days. Since some bucks will be yearlings in this ratio. The mature bucks can breed 10 to 20 does during the Estrous period of 22 to 28 days.
 
BTW as I type this very slow for you....

More than one ovum can occur during ovulation. If conception doesn't occur the estrus cycle will repeat itself several times depending on how fit the doe is and her age.
 
TX_ lets go real world example here. The Monroe Unit is about
as low a B/D ratio as you'll find in the state. Several studies are underway on the Unit. Last fall 69 doe's were checked. 68 of those were pregnant. Conversely Units like the Book Cliffs, Henry's and the Vernon with HIGH B/D ratio's are far from what anyone in their right mind would consider having a population explosion. Why is that?? Tags are severely limited, B/D ratio's are immense and the herds aren't growing. This is your philosophy and it's been proven NOT to increase HERD populations.

73 I don't have red ass over statewide archery. I considered that
move a when not if.

What I do have a problem with is a handful of guys from "The People's Republic Of Southern Utah" dictating how myself and my family will hunt. News flash for all of you. 7 out of 10 licenses are sold to hunters along the Wasatch Front. We pay to manage "Your Deer" We pay to enhance "Your" habitat. We pay to fight the fires that come every summer. We pay for you to access SITLA Lands. We pay to patrol apprehend and prosecute trespassers and
poachers. To hear that these deer and their management should be up to those that live only in the area must change.







2010 TOTALS
P.E.T.A. = 0 HUNTERS GONE
UTAH WILDLIFE BOARD = 13,000 HUNTERS GONE
 
Elite, are you a college educated bio? A lot of science book Info in your typing and very little common sense and real world biology. IMO.

During rut/estrus most deer are in the transition zone of their habitat and are dispersed over a wide area making it very difficult for too few bucks to breed them in their first cycle which is critical to fawn survival if they are breeding in the second or third cycle then there are not enough bucks for the job at hand.

Wiley, herds in the Gunnison basin were at 60+ per 100 prior to the winter kill and the population was growing so there is MORE to the Henries etc. failure to grow population than BD ratios IMO.

Also I'm not sure it's a Wasatch versus southern UT only battle here. I'm sure non-resident hunters have thrown a dollar or two into that management fund too.
I think the important thing here is deer not us.

As tx_packmule said there is a reason bucks die from winter and range conditions at a higher rate than does, the rut is much harder on them than does. I have asked this here before and never gotten an answer logical or not.

Why does Mother Nature produce a near 50/50 buck/doe split of fawns born?

Probably some common sense in there but I'm sure I will get a textbook answer from someone that has no common sense and it will somehow include depleted winter range and out of control predators and road kill and other man made disasters.

Cache, what do you propose kill em all now while we have them? Your type of can't bank em for the future mentality is much more ignorant than the suggestion that less bucks killed in some Mule deer herds will improve numbers.

This topic always inspires a lot of debate and a little common sense and a little scientific fact and always, always the common ground that we ALL want the deer herd to be healthy. It is easy to forget that and digress into name calling or finger pointing. My apologies if offense is taken to my posts as none is intended.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
LAST EDITED ON May-06-12 AT 01:27PM (MST)[p]"Elite, are you a college educated bio? A lot of science book Info in your typing and very little common sense and real world biology. IMO."

I use more common sense in my little pinky than you use in your whole cranium.

"During rut/estrus most deer are in the transition zone of their habitat and are dispersed over a wide area making it very difficult for too few bucks to breed them in their first cycle which is critical to fawn survival if they are breeding in the second or third cycle then there are not enough bucks for the job at hand."

Yet, there hasn't been one study done that shows that the majority of the does are getting bred in their second or third cycle. We also see that many GS units have better fawn survival rates then most LE units. Less pressure on the bucks on LE units and higher buck to doe ratios, but yet lower survival rates. Check mate!! Maybe you ought to look at a few facts before piping off.

"Why does Mother Nature produce a near 50/50 buck/doe split of fawns born?" If you knew anything about biology then you would know why. Why does the DWR find that most fawns that have wintered killed are bucks?
 
Elite, uh-huh....... Common sense, you have it alright.

You're the bio, so tell me why more bucks than does are born and why more buck fawns die on the winter range? First time I have EVER heard that one by the way.

Please respond with intelligence and common sense, not more BULLCHIT and finger pointing, attempts to gegrade others. It does little to help your argument and nothing to improve deer herds.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
"As tx_packmule said there is a reason bucks die from winter and range conditions at a higher rate than does, the rut is much harder on them than does. I have asked this here before and never gotten an answer logical or not"

One reason you see this is because of inflated buck numbers so high that there is to much competition to breed the hot does that bucks wear themselves out. I have seen elk do the same thing. A few year ago the DWR found several bucks in the Bookcliffs that had died during the rut because of injuries and exhaustion. We want high buck numbers on the range because we want to kill big bucks, but yet this can also be harmful when buck numbers are extremely high. Yes, bucks should compete, but we have made it worse with our higher buck to doe ratios.
 
"Yes, bucks should compete, but we have made it worse with our higher buck to doe ratios."

Sounds like you would like to see even lower b to d ratios than what it already is? What ratio would be ideal?
 
I was talking about LE units, there is no reason to have ratios like the henry mtns. The ONLY reason there is a high ratio on the Henry mountains is because hunters want to kill giant bucks so we issue very few permits and carry excessive bucks on this unit. Same goes for other LE units.

I believe 15-20/100 like what was passed is a very good healthy ratio.

We manage our elk herds the same way. We carry excessive bulls that hunters can pull up and shoot bulls on our Utah LE elk farms meanwhile we shoot cows to create more room for bulls.
 
But if a unit is at capacity, wouldn't it make more sense to carry a higher number of bucks and less does so you could issue more tags? I do think anything over 30 per 100 is to much tho. I mean a deer is a deer, they all gotta eat in the winter, less does would allow more bucks on units that are at capacity... right?
 
By receptive, means a doe will actualy let the buck mount her, that mess isn't going on for 36 hours, but he's likely to try as many times as he can as long as she'll let him.

In regards to Gunnison Basin; good gosh that was wonderful prior to 2008. There were a ton of bucks, but there was a whole lot more does. If I had to make an educated guess they had surpassed CC; which is the greatness of managing for an adequate ratio...you get to actually manage it by pulling the trigger instead being at the mercy of the weather from year to year. Speaking of, I don't recall seeing many fawns at all this past year. One that stood out though was still sporting spots in late Oct.

Competition isn't what takes it's toll on bucks; if that were the case our bucks sitting at a 3:1 ratio would be dropping like flies. They die because their nutritional intake sucks when they're concentrated on rutting from Oct-Feb (a lot of times into March) because there's not enough bucks around to get the job done early on. They want high energy carbs instead of proteins. It gives them energy but they burn the mess off in a hurry and provides basically no nutritional value. That's why you want them off breeding and back on fat storage early.

You can't compare elk & deer breeding. They're more similar to cattle because of the herding nature of the bulls.
 
There is zero evidence supporting does not getting bred in the first cycle when minimum ratios are maintained. If a doe comes into estrus, there is a very high likelihood (95+%) that she will get bred. Per many bios comments, nutrition is the typical culprit of late estrus and late birth. A doe not coming into estrus has nothing to do with the number of bucks or density of deer.

If someone has contrary evidence, go ahead and post it up.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
Huntin4dad I've never had a "kill em all" mentality but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. As a matter of fact I let lots of bucks walk every season. And by the way you can bank all the bucks you want, hell you could shut my unit down completely to all hunting what so ever and if mother nature blesses us with a winter such as the 2007 or the 2010 for that matter and you could have less bucks than you started with. Banking bucks in the cache or Ogden units is a investment with very small rate of return. Bottom line if we have good (mild) winters we will have more deer if we continue get get long cold winters we will have less deer no matter how many people you take off the mountain.

Btw Where is all this speculation that all of our does are getting bred on the 2nd and 3rd cycle. Please enlighten me with some facts stating this is factual and not just something your saying because it sounds good because all the facts I've seen say other wise.
 
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about at this point. It's over, already! The fat lady sung and received a unanimous applause!
 
Glad someone like Hooner and perkins and others understand what is going on.

First off there is not already 15-20 bucks per hundred doe. I have counted deer in many locations with many other hunters and the average is around 6-7 bucks per hundred doe. How many of you go out and see a doe herd with not one buck in it. If there are 15-20 bucks per hundred doe they are not in with the doe. Someone said maybe they are gay, I am starting to think like that.

The problem is the count is not correct so if there are not enough bucks to cover the doe, then yes we do need to grow more bucks, and to grow more buck so we can have more fawns, we need to cut more tags so more of them survive. As was stated earlier, look around you at other states who have went to smaller units to manage tags and it has worked. What does Utah do, add more units but do not cut any tags, so all they will do is issue more tags in an area they think has more bucks and pretty soon all areas will have no bucks.

And to top it off, in order to grow the herd the tactic of shooting doe's comes into play. So the combination of shooting Doe's and not cutting tags should help increase the deer herd. I have a hard time buying into that plan.
 
Strange. I did a count in an alpine basin last July and counted 17 bucks and no does. You're right, their numbers are off......

Did you do a drive by habitat analysis while you were at it?


I saw a parking structure being built down by cabelas that seemed to be short on rebar as I drove by the other day. Gonna go give those idiot engineers and contractors a piece of my mind.




http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON May-07-12 AT 02:25PM (MST)[p]Tree, what was the ratio on that herd during the rut? Did you see any of those same 17 bucks during the rut? If so how many does were they with?

During the rut and on the winter grounds I'm pretty much seeing the same thing that Soutahunter is seeing in the area I kick around in.
Maybe 8 per 100 on a good day.

Ofcourse looking at those same deer in the summer time many miles away some times I see some areas where I see almost nothing but bucks. And in other places I see almost nothing but does.

I can't figure that out. Strange
 
>Glad someone like Hooner and perkins
>and others understand what is
>going on.
>
>First off there is not already
>15-20 bucks per hundred doe.
> I have counted deer
>in many locations with many
>other hunters and the average
>is around 6-7 bucks per
>hundred doe. How many
>of you go out and
>see a doe herd with
>not one buck in it.
> If there are 15-20
>bucks per hundred doe they
>are not in with the
>doe. Someone said maybe
>they are gay, I am
>starting to think like that.
>
>
>The problem is the count is
>not correct so if there
>are not enough bucks to
>cover the doe, then yes
>we do need to grow
>more bucks, and to grow
>more buck so we can
>have more fawns, we need
>to cut more tags so
>more of them survive.
>As was stated earlier, look
>around you at other states
>who have went to smaller
>units to manage tags and
>it has worked. What
>does Utah do, add more
>units but do not cut
>any tags, so all they
>will do is issue more
>tags in an area they
>think has more bucks and
>pretty soon all areas will
>have no bucks.
>
>And to top it off, in
>order to grow the herd
>the tactic of shooting doe's
>comes into play. So
>the combination of shooting Doe's
>and not cutting tags should
>help increase the deer herd.
> I have a hard
>time buying into that plan.
>

Of course the DWR's estimate is wrong! And yours and Hooner's and Perkins' ground count is right so why don't you guys get together and publish a study so that we can refer to it later when the subject comes up again. Don't forget to tell us where, when, and how you counted them and whether or not you saw every buck in the area. Or if you have to use a computer model for an estimate, tell us what that was. I'm sorry it's too late for this year, but the new 5 year plan will be developed by the end of 2013 and we could sure use your input!

And be sure to look at Nevada's system where they have 110 units and issue about 157 (147 resident) buck tags per 1,000 deer. That way we can cut 41,598 tags (48%) and will only have to wait 5 or 6 years to get a general tag. (Unless we hunt archery and then it's only about 3)

Or you can look at Colorado's system where they have 185 units and issue 213 (136 resident) buck tags (mule deer and/or whitetail) per 1,000 mule deer. That way we can cut 25,582 tags (30%) and will only have to wait 4 years to get a general tag.

While you're at it, be sure to check whether or not these other systems are working to increase the herds.
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-07-12
>AT 02:25?PM (MST)
>
>Tree, what was the ratio on
>that herd during the rut?
>Did you see any of
>those same 17 bucks during
>the rut? If so how
>many does were they with?
>
>
>During the rut and on the
>winter grounds I'm pretty much
>seeing the same thing that
>Soutahunter is seeing in the
>area I kick around in.
>
>Maybe 8 per 100 on a
>good day.
>
>Ofcourse looking at those same deer
>in the summer time many
>miles away some times I
>see some areas where I
>see almost nothing but bucks.
> And in other places
>I see almost nothing but
>does.
>
>I can't figure that out. Strange
>

I don't know. I only do my buck to doe ratio counts when bucks are by themselves, so I can be right about my belief about high buck to doe ratios. Being objective and using cross sectional data collection is for idiot biologists and their liberal left wing agendas.

If those biologists had their way, the world would probably up in flames and we'd all be on our hands and knees. The good news is that those who really know what the ratios are according to personal observation would be able to tell us where Enoch ran off to.......


http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON May-07-12 AT 05:58PM (MST)[p]GEEZ elkfromabove. I never said anyting about a ground count. You just feel like pickin on me or what.

However there is no doubt that Colorados system works. I know you are going to say look at the numbers they are declining. But you also need to factor in a massive winter kill and the 4th season tags. They are taking away a lot of the 4th season tags this year.

Also if you are a resident in Colorado you can hunt every year in some awesome areas. Hell as a non resident you can be in Colorado almost every year in some neat areas. Also when look at what the Mule Deer numbers were in 1999 when Colorado had unlimited tags and compare that to what they have today. They have shown the model to increase deer herds, increase hunt quality for both trophy and opportunity hunters, and increase revenue for the state. Dont know why everyone would not want what Colorado has.

As for Nevada it is a little unfair to comapre Utah to a state that has about 1/3 the habitat. Plus they have to deal with the Mustangs. Don't know what is worse a mustang or a wolf.

You guys can continue to fight the lower tag/buck to doe ratio numbers. But let me ask you a honest question do you fight the lower tag numbers because you want a tag or is it because you are concerned about the deer numbers?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-07-12 AT 08:15PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON May-07-12
>AT 05:58?PM (MST)
>
>GEEZ elkfromabove. I never said anyting
>about a ground count. You
>just feel like pickin on
>me or what.
>
> However there
>is no doubt that Colorados
>system works. I know you
>are going to say look
>at the numbers they are
>declining. But you also need
>to factor in a massive
>winter kill and the 4th
>season tags. They are taking
>away a lot of the
>4th season tags this year.
>
>
> Also
>if you are a resident
>in Colorado you can hunt
>every year in some awesome
>areas. Hell as a non
>resident you can be in
>Colorado almost every year in
>some neat areas. Also when
>look at what the Mule
>Deer numbers were in 1999
>when Colorado had unlimited tags
>and compare that to what
>they have today. They have
>shown the model to increase
>deer herds, increase hunt quality
>for both trophy and opportunity
>hunters, and increase revenue for
>the state. Dont know why
>everyone would not want what
>Colorado has.
>
> As
>for Nevada it is a
>little unfair to comapre Utah
>to a state that has
>about 1/3 the habitat. Plus
>they have to deal with
>the Mustangs. Don't know what
>is worse a mustang or
>a wolf.
>
> You
>guys can continue to fight
>the lower tag/buck to doe
>ratio numbers. But let me
>ask you a honest question
>do you fight the lower
>tag numbers because you want
>a tag or is it
>because you are concerned about
>the deer numbers?

I won't speak for anyone else, but I suspect most who oppose the general season tag cuts do so because, #1) It's an ongoing battle that only serves one segment of the hunting population, trophy hunters who seem to want more, easier to find trophies, #2) It is promoted under false pretenses because killing excess bucks has nothing to do with the deer population numbers since the post season buck to doe ratios are more than biologically sufficient to get 95% or more of the does bred, #3) It will trigger the continual rise in permit prices, #4) It keeps increasing the time it takes to draw, #5) It drives more and more current hunters out of the sport, #6) It drives the necessity of providing more special hunts (Youth, Buck/bull, Management) in order to recruit and keep hunters, #7) It is divisive and pits various segments of the hunting community against one another. #8) It reduces the incentives to have family hunts.

I know you only gave me two options, but neither of them fit. Would I like a tag? Sure, that's why I put in every year, but is it the prime reason? Hardly! I prefer hunting elk and pronghorn.
Am I concerned about the deer numbers? Absolutely! But I know that leaving excess bucks on the hill WILL NOT improve the long term numbers and may, in fact, reduce them with more bucks competing with does and fawns on the winter range. It's fawn survival that grows herds, not buck/doe ratios.

And no, I'm not picking on you, just your logic. You say Colorado's system is working, but admit the numbers are declining and give winter kill as one of the reasons, so how come you don't cite that as one of the reasons Utah's herd is in decline. And Utah also has mustangs, but ours don't count as part of the problem? And while Nevada may, indeed have 1/3 of the habitat Utah has, they also only have 1/3 the mule deer (106,000) Utah has, but their TOTAL deer permit count in 2011 was less than 1/5 Utah's (16,662), not 1/3. And Colorado has 60% more mule deer than we do but their TOTAL tag number is about the same as ours. And 36% of those are non-resident, so that's why a non-resident gets to hunt so often. Maybe they don't have as many resident applicants as we do in Utah, I don't know, but their system wouldn't work here the same as it does in Colorado. Based on the deer count, we would end up with 38% fewer total tags (53,630) and 36% of them would be non-resident, leaving 34,323 resident tags. I suspect you know a lot more people than you think who wouldn't want that! I know I wouldn't.

And FWIW, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, and Oregon also have lower permit numbers per 1000 mule deer than Utah, (I couldn't find Idaho's numbers), but their herds have also been in decline, though some say they have recently stabilized or sightly increased due to the weather. In other words, unless they are below the biological ratio needed to breed all the does, reducing buck tags to grow more bucks isn't the answer to growing the herds. It may fill a social need for a segment of the hunting community, but it won't help grow the herds. Plus that segment of the hunting community already has LE and Premium LE units to fill that need.

This post is too long, even for me. Sorry.
 
Elkfromabove, You say that leaving excess bucks on the mountain will not grow a herd. I disagree. Many feel that with a higher B/D ratio your does are more likely to breed the first estrus cycle giving your fawns a better chance on survival. After all you are the one that said fawns grows herds. So why not give them the best chance possible to survive. Not my opinion but actual study info pulled off the Colorado website.

One real concern that I have with a low B/D ratio is that if you barely have enough bucks to breed your does what happens if there is a real successfull hunt or a freak winter storm that kills you bucks. If you keep the minimum amount to breed your does, how do you handle the unexpected? Do you end up with a unit similar to the Monroe and the rifle hunters take it in the shorts with a three day hunt?

I have another question for you. Can you show me a study from a western state that shows that a low B/D ratio unit or area that has increased the overall deer population while maintaining a low b/d ratio all while not cutting tags? Lets say around 15 bucks. I have never seen one. Colorado and Nevada have some great studies but they don't manage for low buck to doe ratios.
 
I agree Hooner, when have you ever seen or heard of a low buck count helping the deer herd increase, or when have you ever heard of killing of a does herd in a unit increasing a deer herd. Bottom line is tags need to be reduced maybe even units shut down for a period of time. We have seen this method work on limited entry units. I am not saying make every unit limited entry but I am saying that is something we know works. It is like you said to many people not willing to give up a tag in order to help save the deer heard, so be it if we have to give up 30,000 tags for a year or two or three, it is about saving a heard not about making saving the almighty tag.
 
"Elkfromabove, You say that leaving excess bucks on the mountain will not grow a herd. I disagree. Many feel that with a higher B/D ratio your does are more likely to breed the first estrus cycle giving your fawns a better chance on survival. After all you are the one that said fawns grows herds. So why not give them the best chance possible to survive. Not my opinion but actual study info pulled off the Colorado website"

I know this was directed to Elkfromabove, but no one seems to be able to answer this.....

WHY is the fawn survival rate sometimes lower on LE units then on General season units? LE units have a lot of good habitat. Bookcliffs, Vernon, San Juan, and Henries have fewer road kills. They have a much much higher buck to doe ratio so the does should be getting bred on their first cycle, but yet a lot of GS units have better fawn survival rates. WHY??????

This tells me that the the majority of the does on GS units are getting bred on their first cycle.

So this is a NON-ISSUE.
 
So and Ho, you guys bring up something which should be considered.

The only real problem with your discontent is the management goals double or triple the biological low needed to breed the does. The goal is to manage deer at 15-17 and 18-20 on general season units. That will breed them x2 or x3.

Hard to understand how people can be so upset when well over half the state can be managed for 20+ bucks per 100 doe. If your issue is over the way deer are counted, then change the way they get their number.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-08-12 AT 02:44PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-08-12 AT 02:40?PM (MST)

>
>Elkfromabove, You say that leaving
>excess bucks on the mountain
>will not grow a herd.
>I disagree. Many feel that
>with a higher B/D ratio
>your does are more likely
>to breed the first estrus
>cycle giving your fawns a
>better chance on survival. After
>all you are the one
>that said fawns grows herds.
>So why not give them
>the best chance possible to
>survive. Not my opinion but
>actual study info pulled off
>the Colorado website.
>
>
>One real concern that I
>have with a low B/D
>ratio is that if you
>barely have enough bucks to
>breed your does what happens
>if there is a real
>successfull hunt or a freak
>winter storm that kills you
>bucks. If you keep the
>minimum amount to breed your
>does, how do you handle
>the unexpected? Do you end
>up with a unit similar
>to the Monroe and the
>rifle hunters take it in
>the shorts with a three
>day hunt?
>
>
>I have another question for
>you. Can you show me
>a study from a western
>state that shows that a
>low B/D ratio unit or
>area that has increased the
>overall deer population while maintaining
>a low b/d ratio all
>while not cutting tags? Lets
>say around 15 bucks. I
>have never seen one. Colorado
>and Nevada have some great
>studies but they don't manage
>for low buck to doe
>ratios.
>
>
And there are just as many, or more, who think that a high buck to doe ratio and/or the first estrus breeding has nothing to do with the fawn survival. And that includes some Coloradoans;
www.wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollec...mmals/Deer/EffectOfLimitedAntleredHarvest.pdf

"Based on our analysis, limited buck harvest had a NEGATIVE effect on December fawn:doe ratios (-7.51 fawns:100 does) and was not an effective tool for increasing fawn recruitment. Our data suggest that factors other then buck harvest caused the observed decline in recruitment in Colorado mule deer populations."....."Future buck harvest restrictions should be framed as an issue of quality hunting management rather than population productivity. Factors other then buck harvest appear to be limiting fawn recruitment in Colorado. In fact, our study suggests that limited harvest could reduce population productivity. Limited harvests will likely increase buck numbers but require hunter numbers to be reduced."

and some Arizonans;
www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/MuleDeerAntlerGrowthAndHuntingManagement.pdf

"Setting hunting seasons and allowable harvest is an important aspect of wildlife management under the authority of state wildlife management agencies. Seasons and harvest are routinely based on biological data and social desires. For instance, research indicated that mule deer buck to doe ratios must drop below 4-7:100 before reproductive capability of the herd is limited biologically (White et al. 2001), Bishop et al. 2005). ..... Hunters express interest in a wide variety of hunt types (Manfredo et al.2004) yet VOCAL proponents are often interested in higher buck to doe ratios with fewer hunters (Bishop et al 2005, Wakeling and Watkins in press). In other words, social restraints are generally greater than are biological restraints on hunting."

And Texans;
www.texasdeerassociation.com/article_info.php?articles_id=265

"Myth: Wide buck:doe ratios result in fewer mule deer fawns.
Truth: Reproductive success is sometimes thought to be directly related to buck:doe ratios, or the number of bucks available to breed does. Research does not support this and has not identified a biological meaningful relationship between buck:doe ratios or buck age structure and fawns on the ground. In a few correlation analyses in Arizona, a low number of bucks:doe in the winter was unrelated to the fawn recruitment the following year in both desert and Rocky Mountain mule deer." (You can read the rest for more insight.)

And Everyone else;
www.createstrat.com/muledeerinthewest/harvest.html.
(Too long and involved to quote.)

NONE of our 30 general units are at or below the biological limit of 7 bucks:100 does and the majority (23) are double that, or more.

And the reason Colorado and Nevada (and the other states, including Utah) manage for higher (and higher) buck to doe ratios is SOCIAL based on the VOCAL public input and has little to do with the biology. Some of us on this and other forums are working to modify that. Units with high buck:doe ratios certainly have their place, just not every place.
 
EFA OK Some good info. There are also links that show the contrary on the same websites that you provided. Look into Gunnison Basin studies from 2003 - 2012. I agree that is is hard to please both the trophy hunter and the opportunity hunter.

My original question was can you show me a Mule Deer unit or area in the Western US that grew it's deer herd, all while having a low B/D ratio, and not cutting tags? I am not even asking for a entire state increase just a unit.
 
>EFA OK Some good info. There
>are also links that show
>the contrary on the same
>websites that you provided. Look
>into Gunnison Basin studies from
>2003 - 2012. I agree
>that is is hard to
>please both the trophy hunter
>and the opportunity hunter.
>
>My original question was can you
>show me a Mule Deer
>unit or area in the
>Western US that grew it's
>deer herd, all while having
>a low B/D ratio, and
>not cutting tags? I am
>not even asking for a
>entire state increase just a
>unit.

Those are rather narrow perimeters, but I'll see what I can do. But, whether or not I find such a study, if it even exists, the point of this whole thread will still be that there are those who want the whole state to become trophy hunter units per their continual push for the hunter oriented 30 unit breakup, the reduced opportunities for archers, the high buck to doe ratios and the limited tags and there are those who don't per their resistance to those things. I'm one of the latter.

Note that I'm not trying to make the whole state into opportunity units, I'm not pushing for more tags than the herds can handle, I'm not trying to lower the buck to doe ratios and I'm not trying to reduce opportunities for rifle and muzzy hunters, I'm just trying to stop others from doing the opposite. In fact, I think that Utah has actually done quite well managing for both the trophy hunter and the opportunity hunter under the circumstances we find ourselves in. And I'd fight just as hard for the Henries, the Pauns, Vernon, Book Cliffs, Elk Ridge, Oak Creek, Diamond Mtn and Dolores if someone tried to turn them into general units.

Our problem is the low number of mule deer and socially manipulating buck hunter numbers will not fix or increase the habitat, change the weather, reduce predation, stop the road kill, control the diseases, or prevent poaching which are the real causes of the decline. We hafta fix those things before either one of us will see the progress we'd like.
 
EFA, fair enough. I think that there is a big misconception that I want the entire state to look like the Henrys. That is not true. However I would like the state to look like the Zion Unit. They have a 23 B/D ratio and are at population capacity. Now that there is a lot of private on this unit and this does help the herd as a lot of private property hunters don't shoot a lot of deer per square mile as public. However under the new system of units we should be able to manage this unit different than others. Maybe a late season archery hunt, early rifle, Etc.

I just feel that the real goal for Utah is to grow the deer herds and I can't find any informaiton that supports the theory of a low B/D ratio in and of its self growing the population.

In most cases that I have seen it is a increase in the B/D ration combined with a decrease in animal harvest that will grow your herd.
 
Actually, Utah hunters are not killing to many deer. A while back I did a little digging on harvest rates and such, here's what I found from last yr.

Colorado has a herd numbering 400k. They gave out 85k tags and had a 43% success rate so they killed 36k deer or 9% of the herd.

Nevada has 110k deer. They gave out 14k tags, have a 42% success rate so they killed 6k deer or 5% of the herd.

Oregon, although they have blacktails, has 548k deer. They give out 180k tags, have a 23% success rate so they killed 40k deer or 7% of the herd.

I can't find a total herd count for Washington but they have a 25% success rate and killed 31k deer. Idaho has predator problems along with Montana and Wyoming so I didn't bother. But I don't doubt the numbers come in the same.

Utah has 286k deer. They give out 87k tags and have a 28% success rate and killed 24k deer or 8%. So they are in line with other states at under 10% which should be more than sustainable and should still allow the herd to grow.

Now how many deer are being killed on the highways? 1%, which is 2860 deer or is it higher? 2% maybe bringing the total to 10% deer killed a yr? I would think that the herd should still be able to compensate and grow in spite of that kind of kill rate.

I think most of the problem is habitat. Look at the situation on unit 28 with the dwr wanting to remove 400 does because the winter range will not support the number of deer there now. You can only support as many deer as the winter ranges will allow, period. Thats Nevada's problem, the winter ranges over the last 10 yrs have burned so bad they will no longer support the larger herds even if you wanted them too. At the same time in Nv the state could support 50k elk because of the long term over growth of pj and other timber. The winter range in Unit 28 is covered in pj, pj sucks up water like there's no tomorrow and crowds out browse plants that deer eat. There needs to be some serious chaining and reseeding going on if you want to grow a deer herd. On top of that, I can only speak for the Beaver and Panguitch units, there are plenty of areas in both units where the timber grows so thick you can't even walk through the stuff, it is wasted habitat not to mention a fire disaster waiting to happen, they need to bring back logging. If you have ever flown over Oregon you would see a checkerboard of clearcuts. With a 548k deer herd and the second largest elk herd in the lower 48, responsible clear cutting works.

just my .02
 
Sorry, Beaver and Panguitch can support more deer, all they show you is around water holes. Build more water holes. The habitat is just fine, how do you think it supported twice as many deer in the 50', 60's, 70's, same old hill and they more had jp then. PJ's is their protection. sorry I live in that place for 70 years. It's just killing to many deer and #### poor management.
 
i agree Perkins, the habitat no worse in the past 50 years I have been in the hills, in fact more of it because no deer to eat it. These area can hold twice the amount of deer so lets make sure Beaver and Panguitch Units are increased. That is what they say going to units is for is to individualize units to their own special needs. So to say there are the number of deer they claim on these to units is totally false, almost all hunters I have talked to say the deer herd is way down, so how can you come back year after year with the same total and same buck to doe ratio. That is the reason we have poor management, no one willing to step up and say the deer herd is in terrible shape.
 
>i agree Perkins, the habitat no
>worse in the past 50
>years I have been in
>the hills, in fact more
>of it because no deer
>to eat it. These
>area can hold twice the
>amount of deer so lets
>make sure Beaver and Panguitch
>Units are increased. That
>is what they say going
>to units is for is
>to individualize units to their
>own special needs. So
>to say there are the
>number of deer they claim
>on these to units is
>totally false, almost all hunters
>I have talked to say
>the deer herd is way
>down, so how can you
>come back year after year
>with the same total and
>same buck to doe ratio.
> That is the reason
>we have poor management, no
>one willing to step up
>and say the deer herd
>is in terrible shape.

So, tell us how you would double the herd on these two units?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-09-12 AT 05:39PM (MST)[p]>Sorry, Beaver and Panguitch can support
>more deer, all they show
>you is around water holes.
>Build more water holes. The
>habitat is just fine, how
>do you think it supported
>twice as many deer in
>the 50', 60's, 70's, same
>old hill and they more
>had jp then. PJ's is
>their protection. sorry I live
>in that place for 70
>years. It's just killing to
>many deer and #### poor
>management.

So, tell us how you would double the herd on these two units?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-09-12 AT 08:15PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-09-12 AT 07:50?PM (MST)

Elkfromabove, Let me take a stab at this.

First off I kind of agree with rperkins and soutahunter.

I'm just going to talk about the Beaver unit west of I-15.

A lot more water holes out there would be great. Doe don't go far from water while nursing fawns. Preditors know that and key in on the fawns there. More water would spread the deer out and maybe save a few fawns.

Some people my not like this but any new water holes put in for the deer, should have a no Deer hunting zone of say a 200 yard radius. Local dedicated hunter projects funded with Tag money.

Over the last 15 or 20 years HYWs 21 and 130 have seen a lot more
traffic due to new development of things like; The pig farms out west, Plastics factory out in Milford, Copper King Mine, Wind farm in Milford, Geo thermal projects out West, and others.

Most of these have shift work. There employees are driving roads at the worst times. Not to mention the big rig traffic. I have been told that the pig farms are shipping close to a million pigs a year now.

There are a couple of sections of HYWs 130 and 21 that kill a lot more deer than they used to because of all that night traffic that it did not use to have. There is one 5 mile section of 21 between the Minersville dam and Minersville that can take 50 or more head out of the winter herd every year.

Maybe some non-profit org. with the right approach might talk some of these companies into funding some traffic/deer midagation projects. Tax rightoff!

Have a High School Coyote killing competion between Beaver High and Milford high with some scholership moneys provided to the winners. They might get that from SFW tag sales. Also let the kids involved collect the $50.00 bounty. Keeps the next generation involved in hunting.

Here is another one some people might not like, but get rid of the growing Elk population in the Beaver unit west of I-15. Give half those tags to the kids.

I'm not a lion hunter, But I see a lot more lion sign the last few years. Maybe shoot a few more lions.

And yes cut back on tags until the unit is alittle closer to it's
holding capacity. And yes IMO this areas Buck to doe ratio is way too low.

Each little area should do what each little area can. That is what the smaller units are all about.
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-07-12
>AT 08:15?PM (MST)
>
>>LAST EDITED ON May-07-12
>>AT 05:58?PM (MST)
>>
>>GEEZ elkfromabove. I never said anyting
>>about a ground count. You
>>just feel like pickin on
>>me or what.
>>
>> However there
>>is no doubt that Colorados
>>system works. I know you
>>are going to say look
>>at the numbers they are
>>declining. But you also need
>>to factor in a massive
>>winter kill and the 4th
>>season tags. They are taking
>>away a lot of the
>>4th season tags this year.
>>
>>
>> Also
>>if you are a resident
>>in Colorado you can hunt
>>every year in some awesome
>>areas. Hell as a non
>>resident you can be in
>>Colorado almost every year in
>>some neat areas. Also when
>>look at what the Mule
>>Deer numbers were in 1999
>>when Colorado had unlimited tags
>>and compare that to what
>>they have today. They have
>>shown the model to increase
>>deer herds, increase hunt quality
>>for both trophy and opportunity
>>hunters, and increase revenue for
>>the state. Dont know why
>>everyone would not want what
>>Colorado has.
>>
>> As
>>for Nevada it is a
>>little unfair to comapre Utah
>>to a state that has
>>about 1/3 the habitat. Plus
>>they have to deal with
>>the Mustangs. Don't know what
>>is worse a mustang or
>>a wolf.
>>
>> You
>>guys can continue to fight
>>the lower tag/buck to doe
>>ratio numbers. But let me
>>ask you a honest question
>>do you fight the lower
>>tag numbers because you want
>>a tag or is it
>>because you are concerned about
>>the deer numbers?
>
>I won't speak for anyone else,
>but I suspect most who
>oppose the general season tag
>cuts do so because, #1)
>It's an ongoing battle that
>only serves one segment of
>the hunting population, trophy hunters
>who seem to want more,
>easier to find trophies, #2)
>It is promoted under false
>pretenses because killing excess bucks
>has nothing to do with
>the deer population numbers since
>the post season buck to
>doe ratios are more than
>biologically sufficient to get 95%
>or more of the does
>bred, #3) It will trigger
>the continual rise in permit
>prices, #4) It keeps increasing
>the time it takes to
>draw, #5) It drives more
>and more current hunters out
>of the sport, #6) It
>drives the necessity of providing
>more special hunts (Youth, Buck/bull,
>Management) in order to recruit
>and keep hunters, #7) It
>is divisive and pits various
>segments of the hunting community
>against one another. #8) It
>reduces the incentives to have
>family hunts.
>
>I know you only gave me
>two options, but neither of
>them fit. Would I like
>a tag? Sure, that's why
>I put in every year,
>but is it the prime
>reason? Hardly! I prefer hunting
>elk and pronghorn.
>Am I concerned about the deer
>numbers? Absolutely! But I know
>that leaving excess bucks on
>the hill WILL NOT improve
>the long term numbers and
>may, in fact, reduce them
>with more bucks competing with
>does and fawns on the
>winter range. It's fawn survival
>that grows herds, not buck/doe
>ratios.
>
>And no, I'm not picking on
>you, just your logic. You
>say Colorado's system is working,
>but admit the numbers are
>declining and give winter kill
>as one of the reasons,
>so how come you don't
>cite that as one of
>the reasons Utah's herd is
>in decline. And Utah also
>has mustangs, but ours don't
>count as part of the
>problem? And while Nevada may,
>indeed have 1/3 of the
>habitat Utah has, they also
>only have 1/3 the mule
>deer (106,000) Utah has, but
>their TOTAL deer permit count
>in 2011 was less than
>1/5 Utah's (16,662), not 1/3.
>And Colorado has 60% more
>mule deer than we do
>but their TOTAL tag number
>is about the same as
>ours. And 36% of those
>are non-resident, so that's why
>a non-resident gets to hunt
>so often. Maybe they don't
>have as many resident applicants
>as we do in Utah,
>I don't know, but their
>system wouldn't work here the
>same as it does in
>Colorado. Based on the deer
>count, we would end up
>with 38% fewer total tags
>(53,630) and 36% of them
>would be non-resident, leaving 34,323
>resident tags. I suspect you
>know a lot more people
>than you think who wouldn't
>want that! I know I
>wouldn't.
>
>And FWIW, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, New
>Mexico, and Oregon also have
>lower permit numbers per 1000
>mule deer than Utah, (I
>couldn't find Idaho's numbers), but
>their herds have also been
>in decline, though some say
>they have recently stabilized or
>sightly increased due to the
>weather. In other words, unless
>they are below the biological
>ratio needed to breed all
>the does, reducing buck tags
>to grow more bucks isn't
>the answer to growing the
>herds. It may fill a
>social need for a segment
>of the hunting community, but
>it won't help grow the
>herds. Plus that segment of
>the hunting community already has
>LE and Premium LE units
>to fill that need.
>
>This post is too long, even
>for me. Sorry.


+1000000 You all just kinda found out what EFA used to do for a living. Now happily retired, he's like the Yoda of statistics on something we all have passion for. Good job LT!
 
>i agree Perkins, the habitat no
>worse in the past 50
>years I have been in
>the hills, in fact more
>of it because no deer
>to eat it. These
>area can hold twice the
>amount of deer so lets
>make sure Beaver and Panguitch
>Units are increased. That
>is what they say going
>to units is for is
>to individualize units to their
>own special needs. So
>to say there are the
>number of deer they claim
>on these to units is
>totally false, almost all hunters
>I have talked to say
>the deer herd is way
>down, so how can you
>come back year after year
>with the same total and
>same buck to doe ratio.
> That is the reason
>we have poor management, no
>one willing to step up
>and say the deer herd
>is in terrible shape.

Here we go again with THE DEER HERD. I see lots of great bucks on the Beaver and Panguitch Units and plenty of does and this year a lot of fawns too. I also see lots of potential winter range NOT BEING USED and a tiny piece of winter range being pounded which will eventually isolate a good number of fawns during the winter if nothing is done. A plan is in place, and it will work because it is based on biology and not emotion. You and perkins, I'm convinced, are up in the night. I'm not sure if you're hunting mule deer or unicorn at this point.
 
You do what each individual unit should do. That is what the units are for. First of all lets don't classify deer for a count and just say we have 18 bucks per hundred doe. I have heard over 90 percent of the people on here say the bucks are lower than 10 per 100. So lets really get out and find out how many bucks per doe is in each unit and see if we have enough to breed all of the doe's. Another good dedicated hunter project for each unit.

As painful as it sounds to you, tags need to be cut. You cannot continue to put that many guns in a unit and not cut down the herd. So tag cutting is going to hurt but must be done, and in some units maybe the whole area will need to be shut down for a few years.

No doe killing at all, lets work on trying transplanting them with our dedicated hunter program and see if some success can be obtained. Seems silly to shoot a bunch of deer just because one tiny area of habitat is being ruined. There is so much feed in other places, we need to see if we can tap into those areas for their winter feed.

Quit hunting from Mid August to The first of November. Hunts are way to long, again allowing to many hunters to kill or wound to many deer.

Just a few areas we can improve on, but have to be willing to sacrifice for the deer herd give up a few things.
 
>
>+1000000 You all just
>kinda found out what EFA
>used to do for a
>living. Now happily retired,
>he's like the Yoda of
>statistics on something we all
>have passion for. Good
>job LT!

A gentle warning! You're more than welcome to skip this post if you don't like delving into philosophy!

Thanks, Shawn for acknowledging my approach to these issues, but I hope you readers don't think I'm a Yoda of anything. I do like working with numbers a lot (Too much, my family says!), but I certainly recognize there's much more to hunting and life than just numbers! While hunting has a lot of numbers (muzzle velocity, buck:doe ratios, hunter success percentages, yadda, yadda, yadda), how do you put a number on buck fever or your pride when your son, daughter, grandson or dad take their first or biggest animal or the frustration of a miss or the heartbreak of a wounded animal you can't find or the laughter of some stupid conversations around the campfire?

I'm more inclined to state my case with stats because equations don't change, just the numbers. But I know it's not the only viable approach, feelings/opinions count too. But because feelings and opinions change from person to person and from time to time, I just think it's too hard to rely on them when planning for the future and for a large diverse group of people.

By the same token, in order for the equations to work, you gotta have the right numbers. I guess that's a big part of this debate as well! I like using the DWR's numbers because they are the ones trained and hired to get them and from my experience working with them, I have no reason to believe they would deliberately falsify those numbers. They may not be as accurate as any of us would like, but I believe they are as close as we are able to get at this time. I know some of you think otherwise, but I can't plug "lots more", "not enough", "BS", like in the 50's or 60's" or "tell the truth" into any buck:doe ratios nor into any management plans. Sorry!

There now, wasn't the fun? (I told you not to read it!)
 
I don't think their numbers are accurate, they will for sure work if numbers are over-estimated which I think a lot of folks feel they are, for trying to maintain CC, but getting an exact number is a costly endeavor bc of the manpower required. If end goals are the same, there's more than one way to skin that cat and the goal should be to address all problems instead of sinking money in one area and causing it to take longer to show improvement (or show nothing) bc other areas aren't being addressed as well. I'm a big fan of a very balanced buck to doe ratio, but I also understand that proteins are a huge part of life development and know that nutrition/habitat needs to be addressed as well. When those 2 can be combined predation rates will lower because of fawn saturation, but predation still needs to be addressed because it's still taking away from hunter opportunity. My goal for every state would be to provide more opportunity in the long run for the harvest of both sexes and have herds that have great turnover rates so that they don't become stagnant and just use up resources instead of being productive.....with hunters being the ones keeping things in check instead of everything else. It's a long, costly process, but would like folks to know that just bc someone tosses out ideas usually associated with LE and trophy mgmt practices that may not be the results they're actually looking for.
 
So let me summarize what we know Utah has done to improve their deer population.

1. Spent almost 80,000,000 dollars on habitat improvement projects over the past 9 years. The population went down.

2. Spent 47,000,000 dollars on road improvements to limit road kill. The population went down.

3. Spent an unknown amount, I think around 500,000 a year, on Coyote control. The population went down.

4. Went to a 5 day season in 2010. 1,000 more hunters killed 4,000 less bucks. Abandoned the plan in 2011, before enough time passed to measure the results of lowering harvest.

5. Voted to go to 30 units, raise buck ratios, and reduce tags by 13,000 starting in 2012. Caved in when setting seasons for 2012, except for the 30 units.

Those of you who rant about all that matters is that does get bred need to do a little research. The key to a healthy big game herd is that females get bred DURING THE FIRST ESTRUS CYCLE.
Multiple studies on multiple species have documented that females WILL NOT breed with immature males during the first estrus cycle. Can spike bulls and forked horn bucks breed females? Absolutely, but not until the second or third estrus cycle. Multiple studies have found that fawns/calves born late never recover, do not achieve the same physical size as those born early, and are not effective breeders compared to those born early.

Buck ratios as measured by fish and game departments currently is a meaningless statistic. What matters is how many mature bucks/bulls, generally thought to be 4.5 years of age and older are in the population, and what the density of the population is compared to the physical size of the area. For example, Steens Mountain unit in Oregon has a decent number of mature bucks for the total population, but the population is so small, and scattered over such a wide area, that it is doubtful many of the does are getting bred during the first estrus cycle.

The problem with ratios is they ignore the real numbers. If your MO for the unit is 1,000 deer, and you have a 1,000 deer, and a buck ratio of 25/100, you likely have 10 mature bucks per 100 does, with good deer densities in the unit, and your does get bred. Assuming fawns at 40/100 in the spring, you have 60 mature bucks to breed your 600 does. If you have 100 deer in that same unit, and a ratio of 25 bucks/100 does, and a fawn ratio of 40/100, your ratios are the same but your 100 deer are scattered across the same area you had 1,000 deer in, and 6 bucks cannot possilby get to the 60 does during the first estrus cycle. Areas with low deer numbers need higher mature buck ratios to get does bred than areas with high deer numbers. As populations drop in physical areas, buck ratios should be increased. Instead, Fish and Game depts tend to do the opposite, because they need the money.

Oregon is the king at managing for low buck ratios, and ending up with deceasing populations. Utah is a strong second. The only good news I can see for you is there is no chance you will catch Oregon. Given what is happening, there is also virtually no chance things will get better.

Scoutdog
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-12 AT 08:32AM (MST)[p]I think everyone should take a little break and go do a google search on the mule deer working group.

I'm sure some here have read it but I'm gambling most haven't.

There are so many variables in mule deer herd health that trying to base everything on buck/doe ratios or fawn/doe ratios is fruitless.

Healthy buck/doe ratios are around 20/100. But if you want a deer herd to grow you have to have fawns suriving past 6 months of age. You also have to have good predator control happening around the time fawns are dropping. Starting a month before and continuing until they are old enough to get away from predators. Its such a fine balance, there is no cure all answer. The 3bar study here in Arizona show without a doubt that predators have a huge impact on fawn survival. The study showed that in a drought situation, if all predators are removed the fawn/doe ratio was 90/100. AND thats in a drought situation. Just outside the enclosure the fawn/doe ratio was 25/100. Everyone here can play armchair biologist but the fact is 7 bucks can breed 100 does. its proven, not arguable! Scoutdog does make very valid points about mature bucks being present and that is one of the variables I'm speaking about.

It benefits EVERYONE to have healthy deer herds. The depts included. We can all sit a bash our depts but if you take a logical approach you would realize that they want healthy deer herds as much as we do.

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
 
I would agree with you AZ, about the mule deer working group and those who haven't explored it. But, there are those that will just dissmiss it as being old and not relevant today. You're right, there are a ton of variables and I have a hunch the game departments around the west are taking them into account as much as they can. Get the fawns to live passed 6 months and the herds will start to grow.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-11-12 AT 09:32AM (MST)[p]Weird, EFA and I have posted numerous studies from the MDWG and Anis is a member of the group that meets every year. Colorado and Arizona are members of that group that also get mentioned quite often on all the forums as, "we should do what they do in _______________". If the answer was simple, and the division was motivated by selling tags, it would have been fixed so that tons of tags could be sold. If the answer was simple, and the division was motivated by issuing tags for opportunity, we'd be well over 400,000 of them by now. If the answer was simple, and the division was motivated by some other self interest it would be more clear than the overall decline across ALL WESTERN STATES than just in Utah. Some just can't let go of the "good ol days" and the fact that time can't be turned back. We have to move forward with new ideas and try new methods to get issues to work. You can't manage every unit as THE HERD....each unit has to be managed as its own herd now.

Great post AZWALKER!!!!!!
 
Oh you want to hear something really funny?!?!?

We had a ranking guy with the MDF at a recent water project. He was speaking to a few guys off to the side and he said that he wanted to see some of the desert units closed to hunting for a few years! Now, the deer populations are down in these areas but the buck/doe ratios average 30/100. I nearly fell off my shovel! This guys is supposed to know mule deer and he doesn't know squat! I of course didn't bother arguing with him but it goes to show what old dogmatic opinions are still out there. People would rather have opinions than knowledge.

One thing I wanted to add. Range quality has as much to do with fawn survival as anything. Guys like to go out and look and say there's plenty of food out there. But... Is it quality forage? You can have good winter moisture but if it doesn't rain in the spring, all that forage is dried out and low quality. Then you end up with low birth weights. Small fawns don't always mean late born fawns guys! Small fawns could just as easily be the result of very low birth weight.

I would encourage everyone that reads this to read the research. I you have the facts to back up your claims the depts will actually listen to you. If you come off half cocked throwing opions out and talking about closing units down, they know you're uneducated and you will be dismissed. Assist your depts in managing deer so they don't have to waste time and resoucres managing you!


"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_3713.jpg
Screenshot_20200715-220420_Facebook.jpg
IMG_20151027_091036.jpeg
812BF896-AA02-44BC-9FFD-15E1B008466E.jpeg
IMG_3302.png
A Little Height on this Buck!
DB272DCB-10FB-4BA6-8252-5C041785D592.jpeg
STC_0530 - Copy.JPG
Packout (3).JPG
99DE7B56-9E50-48B4-937A-ADEC9023DD23.jpeg
20220608_220013.jpg
IMG_1241 2.JPG
Back
Top Bottom