Pahvant Deer Hunting......... Help me Plz

P

Psc_Thompson

Guest
Hello fellow hunting brothers. I am a avid hunter and one in the last 5-6 years has really took a turn for the worse. While I love hunting all things, big game is by far my favorite. I love to deer and elk hunting but I must say I am a much better elk hunter than I am deer. I have been hunting elk and deer on the pahvant unit now for 6 years. I have had a lot of success hunting elk, L.E. Tags with friends and family. We started deer hunting the pahvant in hopes of learning the area for elk hunts. That mission was a success. Harvesting bulls and creating many great memories. The first few years in 2008 and 2009 we had some pretty good deer hunting as well. Archery deer hunting I must add. In the years since then the deer hunting has faded off very hard. The deer numbers down and the quality bucks almost gone. We have never had much luck during the muzzleloader or rifle hunts locating bucks. A few small bucks but the bucks that we've seen on the archery hunts are nowhere to be found. I need to add to that in the last few years I have taken on a new job and also added a son to my young family. Needless to say I don't have a ton of time for scouting. I am not a road hunter and find a high point to glass for deer in the morning and then set off on foot until I return that night. Just going wherever it is my personal inner gps takes me, and for deer is in all the "wrong" areas... I do not wish to have anyone disclose any honey holes or such but am seeking maybe a little advise on this unit for deer. especially in muzzleloader and rifle season. Last year on the muzzleloader/rifle hunts I put in days in which I hiked 10miles each day, and seen 4 does, 3 mountain lions, 3 wild turkey, few nice bulls, and 10 miles of beautiful mountain range. Is there anyone that is familiar with this unit and could give me some tips or general area's in which maybe I could locate few more bucks? I hunt around SunSet peak/white pine area currently and find decent bucks during archery, but the other seasons they are gonzo..... Any help would be much appreciated.

Good luck this season,
 
I hunt the exact same areas you do and have observed the exact same thing. Good bucks are hard to come by on the pahvant. This year couldn't even find a good buck to hunt. My suggestion for muzz hunt is to hunt the north sides of the mountain in thick timber thats were the good bucks go and stay. Also you have to get down in the bottom of those big azz draws and hope somebody runs something into you. Although this year was the worst year I have ever seen on the pahvant, wishing now I could hunt a diff unit but I'm stuck there the next 2 years with dedicated hunter. Good luck
 
Thanks for the tip on the north slopes. Me and my hunting crew are in same boat with the next 2 years there dedicated. I love the area that's what brings me back but is a bit of a drive for me. I am torn as if should leave this unit or stick it out when I need to reapply.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
I live 6 miles from the Pahvant, on the Monroe Unit. I spend a good deal of time on the Pahvant because a good friend hunted mule deer his entire life on the Pahvant. He's 73 years old and can out climb most guys in their 30's. He knows that unit from Scipio to Joseph and every nook and cranny in between. He drags my butt up there numerous times a year.

Now there are folks hereabouts that will tell you that I don't think there is a heathy and growing deer herd in south central Utah so you can disregard my opinion because I've got old cynical man syndrome. I've been intentionally vocal about my concern over mule deer decline, won't de-nigh that for a minute.

Here are my observations and opinions on what your seeing on the Pahvant with regards to mule deer.

There's not one deer in 5 or maybe even one in ten than there were in the late 80 and early 90's. It seemed to bottom out about 10 years ago and has sat there every since..

The Pahvant was like the Beaver thirty years ago, the home of thousand and thousand of deer and the combination of climate, feed, and soil produced very large antlered mule deer. Same on the Beaver Unit. More so than other of the south center deer Units. In the early 1990's this unit's mule deer numbers dropped like a rock. Why? I don't care to get into that at this time, but they started to decline and they kept at it for the next 20 plus years.

Yes, each year a summer mule deer guide/scout/average joe would find a pocket of bucks and the airways would be filled with stories about the Pahvant being on it's way back. Not true. A few pockets of summer bachelor bucks do not and have not constituted a growing population of deer on the Pahvant. The bottom line is this: You're not seeing many deer on the Pahvant because they simply are no longer there. Respectfully, my suggestion for you is this: Believe your own eyes!

The deer haven't moved or changed their patterns, they do not exist.

Sportsmen and the UDWR have been transplanting deer onto the Pahvant for two years, in an effort to try to reestablish a viable hunting population. In the "old days" we closed units when these conditions developed, but not anymore. The concept that "bucks don't birth fawns" (therefore there is no harm in continuing to hunt bucks) has replaced the logic of unit closures now days. I can't even imagine how low the numbers of deer would have to become on a Unit in Utah today, before we would even consider closing it to hunting. I've asked how low, know body I've asked will even entertain an guess.

As to your question or comment that your seeing deer on the archery hunt: This is my 38 years of observation (I'm 66) on the Pahvant All the roads on the Pahvant lead to the top of the mountain. The only cross mountain roads are at the highest elevation of the unit. Mule deer summer as high as they can get in most of the Rocky Mountains. When they summer as high as they can get on the Pahvant, they are literally standing on the road. So you see them early in the morning and late evening when they are out feeding. As the season passes from the archery hunt and the road traffic increases as archers apply pressure and others start scouting for the muzzleloader and rifle hunts these deer get the ideas and move off the top into those deep, nasty canyons. In the 1980 and 90's we would follow them down because even though it was rugged and rough, with thousand of deer on the unit, we could always find a few, in spite of the terrain. (I've filled more than one boot with blood from my feet crawling back out of some of those hell holes.) Now that there are very few deer on the Unit, the terrain simply absorbs them, so even though you might dive off into Cottonwood, or the Devils Arm Chair, or Pea Vine, Red Creek, or Corn Creek, or Chokecherry, or White Pine, it is very unlikely you'll locate a buck. It's unlikely you'll find a yearling, let along a buck old enough to justify the packout associated with shooting one down in one of those canyons.

So.....what your seeing, for better or worse, on the archery hunt, on the top of the mountain, is all there is on the unit. They aren't holed up in some secluded pasture somewhere between the top and bottom. They aren't there. (Did I already say that?) ;-)

Having said that, a couple or three hunters will find or stumble on a old mature buck this fall and tag a beauty. I see a few every November on the winter/rut range and I did again this December, but............it's one in ten, based on the experience I've had on the unit.

Hopeful we can kill some coyotes again this winter on the Pahvant, it can't help but save a few does and a few fawns. The unit needs a ton of help. Some sportsmen's group should adopt it and give it the attention it needs.

Best of luck in your inquiry, there's a lot of other folks on MM that know the Pahvant as well or better than I do, they could very well see it differently.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-14 AT 08:22AM (MST)[p]Thank you for your reply. I have to say it confirms sadly what I already know, just can't stand the truth of the matter. Me and my hunting crew all joke that I'm a "elk" guy. That I suck at deer hunting. The truth is I'm a "elk" guy by default. You can't hunt successfully what the mountain doesn't have to offer. Deer are a very declined member of the family these days. I always say " I have the best optics, I have young sharp vision. I've been glassing this morning and I've found a few elk, few coyotes, few mountain lions, dozen blue jays, 2 dozen hunters, but I can't find one deer?" I can spot a bird on a tree across a canyon a mile and a half. But find a deer? Now that's tough. But, you can't find what's not there.....

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
If there is adequate winter range for more deer on the Pahvant (I think there is) then the problem is predators-- no other way to say it.
 
It seems that you guys have to many elk in a lot of the units there in Utah and the deer can't compete with them. Elk seem to always win. But that's good for elk hunting!
 
I agree one of the "many" problems is predators. It is a entire state of
Utah problem. I have to add.... We hunters are also in the predators category. Entirely to many hunters now days. From my hunting experience, elk pressure doesn't have a ton of effect of deer numbers in that they eat completely dif diets. But I will say that elk do pressure deer, and possible push them from their areas, maybe perhaps making them more easy prey to a predator. Our deer herd is in my option in a state of emergency and should be subject to shutting down hunting until it's healthy.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
X2 on what 2lumpy has said. You can hunt all you want for something, but if it isn't there. Well I don,t think your a bad hunter. The deer aren't there like they use to be. I shot my last deer on the Pahvant in 2004 with my two boys. It was a nice buck just under the 180 mark. Here is a picture.
66862004holdenbuck.jpg

I picked up my biggest shed on the Pahvant in 2002 while elk hunting . A 100" shed. I saw the buck late that year rutting. He would go from the Missori flat cwmu on to public property where I found his shed.
I don't know the answer to what has happened to all of the deer. But I would assume it's more then one thing.
 
Bigjohnt, thanks for your reply, and for sharing your pic with us. Nice memory and your boys there to boot.... Congrats

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
i love those mountains down there and i have spent the last ten years down there and i to have seen a huge change, the big opening day snow storm in 2007 didnt help the big bucks got slaughtered everyonr i saw had a dandy buck in the back of there truck that weekend. our group killed 10 great bucks that year. in 2010 my son had a tag and we covered every inch of the south end and we saw one buck and he killed it. the elk have also gone down hill not as bad as the deer. this year i helped 2 elk hunters down there. one on the archery and while down there i covered the whole south end and saw 7 deer but good numbers of elk. the 2nd was a late rifle elk and i saw the most deer i have seen since 2007. from fillmore canyon to I70 i saw 150+ does and 20+ bucks but they were all young but one and it was november. i also saw in my time down there several lions and could hear coyotes every night. i agree something has to be donethat mountain needs help. i believe one major factor is all the roads and all the atvs. those animals get pressured all summer long and into the fall cuz that mountain is covered in roads. the few deer that do livr there live in deep dark canyons away from the traffic. i keep hoping something will change down there i miss chasing deer down there. i dont know what to tell ya such a beautiful place i hope my observation helps. i think it comes down to predators,traffic, an dthe fact there is more elk than deer and they cant compete
 
HNTNFSH,
Thanks for your reply. I agree the road access does not help the unit. That is something the state of utah has a problem with. Good luck this season. Maybe I'll run into you.....

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
2lumpy:

You could not have said it better and that sums up most of the state. I for one have watched the Beaver unit do the same thing. Still plenty of habitat, so that cannot be the reason the herd is dying. I won't get into the reason either, but as you said I thought the goal of these new regions was to bring the buck to doe ratio up and if it did not come up they would close the unit or reduce the tags. Reducing tags by a 100 or so does not do much good when the numbers are so low. I hope those in charge see the same way we do and believe what they see with their own eyes.
 
Soutahhunter,

Thanks for your post. From my experience with the deer numbers since the new units. When I've brought up that a unit it low on the buck to doe ratio, and tags should be lowered. One answer I have got is that they have to take a three year avg of the ratio, and the three year avg has to be below the objective. Also I know here in my local area, the dwr gets the deer count on the winter range, which in some areas is limited when they count to some fields basically in town. To me that's a flawed way of getting accurate count of the units deer population.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-14 AT 10:21AM (MST)[p]I do think deer numbers are down in most areas around this state. The main reason in my book is high elk numbers and predators. Areas where I see high elk numbers I dont see deer. This is why I call elk "Big Orange Land Carp". So if your a good elk hunter and a poor deer hunter it might not be your fault.

I personally feel the deer herds have leveled out and the data shows that they have leveled out for the last 10 years. There is a thing called carrying capacity. Some biologist, Higher up SFW chief, or other hunting chief can say the number of deer should be higher but nature is telling you it cant for some reason. This is why it has been stable for about 10 years.

Now im all about hunter management for the deer we already have. The last thing I want to see is the herd crash because of human or predator miss management. I think Utah is doing as good as it can in this department. The facts are right in this link

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2013/2013_gs_deer_hr.pdf

The archery hunt success rate for the Pavant for 2013 is %23.
Rifle success rate is %39.2
Muzzy is %38.4

Good hell am I out of my mind for saying a rifle hunt and muzzy hunt with a %40 success rate is pretty good for people to come on here complaining they cant find a buck to shoot? I guess we could cut out another 10,000 hunters out of that unit so the success rate would go up to a %100 percent for rifle, muzzy, and bow but that would increase the waiting periods substantially!

I personally think if you shoot the "Land Carp" herd down %50 and keep it down the %50 for ten years you will see the deer herd numbers go up and you could increase deer permits but hey what do I know.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-14 AT 12:06PM (MST)[p]Swbuckmaster,

Thanks for your your thoughts. "Land Carp" I like that. One thing I struggled with for a while is that if we cut 10,000 tags that would help but then you also lose revenue. So there has to be some kinda compromise. I will say I wish we would manage our wildlife for the best interest of wildlife. Not manage it for the "opportunity". If we had a healthily deer numbers, the opportunity part would take care of its self. It's hard for us to bring youth up and have them be at all interested in hunting when the deer hunt at times can just be a tag you pay for to go camping.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
My post sounds like im mad but im not. Typing is hard for me at times

I have a problem with what you said about managing our wildlife for wildlife and not for the "opportunity". First off I think its a false statement! I believe Utah is managing our herds for the good of our herds. If they weren't the deer herd numbers would be going down but instead the last ten years data shows a stable to slightly increasing heard across the state. Sure there are ups and downs but the trend is slightly up.

You mentioned kids above. How is a %40 chance at a buck with a rifle/muzzy not good enough for our youth? When does our youth have to have Le quality 4 point or better %100 success rate to have a good hunt?

Sure there are units right now that I think have been over harvested with the new unit boundaries BUT I think they will even out when we get more data. For heck sakes they just started the units a few years ago and the units need a three year trend before anything can be done. You see nature can spike the herd numbers up or down numbers faster then anything we as hunters can do. If the trend shows the buck numbers are down tags will get cut! Thats just how it works!

Do I think we will increase the deer numbers on any given unit with hunter management by killing less bucks? NO! The only real way you will affect the over all deer numbers +/- is if you go out and kill does or find a way to keep more does and fawns alive. You kill does and fawns and the herd fall faster then your drawers did on your honey moon!

Im a trophy buck guy. I try and only harvest mature animals and I've been pretty lucky in the last 10 years meeting my goals as a deer hunter but I am against turning every unit we have into high success rate trophy units because some people cant kill a buck on a %40 success rate unit.

Wish you all the best this year on your hunts!

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
Maybe a %40 success rate sucks if you look at the big picture when some rifle guys cant hunt but every 2-3 years on general units. It may make it even worse if those guys have a trophy mentality and the units aren't managed for trophy bucks.

There are however ways around the three year waits though so it makes eating a tag not so hard. Archery and muzzy hunts are one way around the waits. Youth can get a deer tag every year if they don't draw a rifle tag. All they have to do is pick up a bow. My daughter loves the bow hunt! I choose archery as my first choice. I may not kill a buck every year but im at least hunting every year. You have the dedicated hunter program and last but not least there is an actual flaw in the draw process that allows you to draw every year if you know how to use it.

If I had a total rifle hunting trophy buck attitude and wanted to hunt every year id look at applying for LE hunts in Utah and LE hunts in other states. This way you could be hunting better units more often.


avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-14 AT 05:11PM (MST)[p]My comment towards managing wildlife for wildlife, I guess I should explain. This stems from a meeting that I had with the local dwr. In that meeting we discussed the deer numbers for here where I live ( manti ) unit. We discussed statewide deer numbers and the objective on statewide numbers. I can't remember the exact numbers from this meeting, but I think the state is tryin to manage for 420,000 deer. At the time the deer population the dwr said was around 300,000 deer statewide. But they were still proposing a tag increases. Our group of sportsmen told them that we felt raising tag numbers state wide when we were well over 100,000 deer below objective was not okay. They told yes we understand but we have listened to the public, and majority of people just want the opportunity to hunt. They don't care if they see anything just want to have a tag. I know the dwr has a rough road of trying to please opportunity hunters and also trying to please trophy hunters. They told us if we cut tags like you want to, you won't get to hunt every year. Which we stated that's fine, we would rather hunt every couple years and have quality deer than have a tag every year. Which they said yeah your okay with that but everyone else isn't. I think they try to do the best they can. They have a thankless job. Someone is always not happy. Utah is a opportunity state. You said your self you can work the system and have a tag every year.

My youth comment stems from personal experience. Having many hunting youth in our family. Seeing there frustration of us hiking their guts out year after year and most time struggling to even find a few does. Let alone a decent buck to go after. I've seen my family youth interest in hunting suffer because of the quality of out deer numbers. I will say I do think we are headed in a good direction. I hope the future is bright. Maybe part of my problem is that as I stated in my opening post. I suck at hunting deer? ?



Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
I forgot to add that utahs deer management plan is a 5 year plan. It somewhat restricts what changes can be made to help a deer herd. If we had a real hard winter ( which we haven't) and deer took a big winter kill. It restricts what changes can be made to help a unit. I wish they would make changes to the plan on a yearly basis. So year to year they could make adjustments. I think Wyoming manages yr to yr.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
If utah had a really bad winter and lost a ton of deer there would be cuts after it. They don't always have to follow a trend.

Now what makes you think the deer should be managed by the few like yourself instead of the many? Im all for what the majority wants. You will always find whiners on both ends of the spectrum.

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
Your statement backs my option of being a opportunity state, and that we don't manage wildlife for their best interest, we care more about everyone having a tag every year. There are units in the state that are half of objective, yet we keep tag numbers the same, and in some cases increase them still. As a trophy hunter I would live to see better quality, but that aside. When your deer numbers are so far below objective statewide, I think sacrifices for the deer herd should be made for herd numbers sake. Not opportunity sake. I would love to see more bucks and quality bucks but more than that I want to just have more deer period. If we would get closer to objective on actual deer numbers, quality would take care of itself. As well would the opportunity.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
Again I will say that I know there is a fine line on cutting tags. There needs to be a balance so that we can keep our revenue. We need it for transplants. Deer studies. Fawn survival studies. Predator control ect. It's a sensitive subject. I don't claim to have the answers. These are simply my opinions.

Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-14 AT 11:05PM (MST)[p]You can say im an opportunist. I don't care. What I am is a fact sort of guy. I try to not vote or make decisions with my emotions.

The thing you don't understand is the 420,000 is a number that has been pulled out of someone's butt. Its what they would like to see. It doesn't mean it will get that high ever again. Utah manages its deer with buck to doe ratios. Tag numbers set off of the 300,000 deer they have now so we shouldn't kill enough to drop bellow 18-20 per 100 does. If it does tags will be cut.

Bucks are expendable in a herd to a certain extent. Meaning above 10 or so per 100 does is all you need to get the does pregnant. We have double that number. Despite what you think all the studies suggest the does are getting pregnant. So as long as they are reproducing and winters and predators aren't killing the fawns and does you should have a growing herd. But is still all comes down to carrying capacity.

Its the same reason you can have one bull breed all the cows on a farm. The farmer "hunter" can sell or harvest most of its herd every year and still have the same number of cows to do it all again the next year. Now if the farmer wanted to grow its herd it wouldn't kill or harvest any of its cows. This doesn't mean though that his herd is going to grow though because if he cant afford to feed them they will just die of starvation. its all about carrying capacity. You increase the carrying capacity you will seem more deer which will mean more bucks and possibly more bigger bucks.

This is all fact. Its not emotion.

If you want to become a better deer hunter you should avoid your elk honey holes like the plague. Because despite what you think deer and elk compete with each other just like sheep compete with elk and deer and cows compete with elk and deer.

The only thing issuing less tags does is increase hunter success rates and increase waiting periods for getting tags. It doesn't do a thing to grow overall deer numbers. If it did the henry mountains would have a hundred thousand plus deer and it doesn't. In fact that deer herd is probably only growing as fast as the rest of the deer herds in Utah despite hundreds of thousands of dollars of habitat improvement and predator control.

You want to see more deer shoot more elk! How many elk did Utah have when the deer numbers were at an all time high?

I was on the oak creek unit this year with friends. Every time We went to the gas station to get fuel I saw multiple 4 door 4x4 trucks with bucks off the Pavant. Most of the bucks were young 4 points. I cant remember even seeing a dink deer. Started thinking the oak creek unit sucked compared to the Pavant.
 
>I forgot to add that utahs
>deer management plan is a
>5 year plan. It somewhat
>restricts what changes can be
>made to help a deer
>herd. If we had a
>real hard winter ( which
>we haven't) and deer took
>a big winter kill. It
>restricts what changes can be
>made to help a unit.
>I wish they would make
>changes to the plan on
>a yearly basis. So year
>to year they could make
>adjustments. I think Wyoming manages
>yr to yr.
>
>Happy Hunting
>Psc_Thompson


5 year plan?

Laughin!!!

That's why they just started a new 5 year plan after giving the last 5 year plan only 2 years. I'm guessing this 5 year plan won't last 5 years either.
 
The area on the Beaver unit has not changed its carrying capacity in 30 years. The habitat is in abundance and no deer to partake of it. You say you are a numbers guy and 400,000 is just a number they pull out of a hat. Well I would say the number of deer they claim to have now is just that a fake number they have pulled out of a hat. There is not 10 bucks per 100 does, and what is worse is when you go out and find herd after herd of 15 or 20 does with no bucks in with them. We have all these regions and some people want opportunity and some want some kind of quality and return of deer population. Why can't we give 2 or 3 units to those who want opportunity just give them a tag and let them hunt those units all they want. According to you there will still be plenty of bucks for hunters to harvest. Let the rest of us try and save the deer herd, by cutting tag numbers if needed and by paying an increased tag price if needed, and maybe only hunting every 2nd or 3rd year if needed in order to help the deer herd return.
 
You already have 3-4+ other units with higher buck to doe ratios. There called le units.

Funny thing is most of the loud vocal guys wanting to increase buck to doe ratios on the general units are lifetime license holders. Wonder why? Because they don't have to wait in line like everyone else.

Saving the herd by cutting tags on a 18-20 buck to doe areas. Ha ha that's a good one.


avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
I have hunted that mountain my entire life. And I can say without a doubt it has gone WAY down hill. It use to be nothing to go up and see over ten 160 + class bucks a day now all you see is two or three does and a two point. It's a joke the amount of hunters has blown up ten years ago there was very little pressure were I hunt. I'm not saying it is all hunting pressure that is the problem as someone above said its a combination of things. In the area I hunt the doe population has completely dropped. It kills me to see this caliber of a unit go to waste. I personally believe if you closed that mountain off for a few years it would be a better unit then the Henry's. That is just my opinion though. I hope it's just been an "off" few years but I don't think it's that easy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-14 AT 09:30AM (MST)[p]Now were saying shut the whole hunt down so it can be as good or better than the henry's. O boy

Its a general unit! Its not managed for henry class deer!

DC/2lumpy this is an honest question. What do you want that unit to look like? Do you want it to look like the henry mountains' s. Do you want it shut down? How many buck per hundred does do you want to see for general units?


avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
If you had seen this unit in the late 80's and early 90's you would be saying SHUT IT DOWN. I have hunted the mountain my whole life. Last year I only seen 4 bucks bigger than a 2 point in five days of hunting. The mountain has never been the same since the big wither kill and the removal of 3 point or better.
 
I have hunted in the 80's and 90's!

Your comparing our deer numbers we have now to an all time high in history deer numbers. The fricken forage isn't the same! We have been in a drought for about the last 12-14 years! We have cheat grass! The bitter brush has been practically decimated in some areas! The sage is mostly old sage! The pine in a lot of areas are dying! The quaky trees are shrinking all across the west! We also had 1080 which killed just about any predator! We have way more elk now then we had in the 80's. We have way more bears, coyotes ect. There isn't any rabbits for anything to prey on!

YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO COMPARE OUR DEER TO AN ALL TIME RECORD HIGH! Im afraid we will never see those record deer numbers again in our live and its not because of over hunting the bucks!!

We had way more hunters in the 80's and 90's then we have now! In the 80's there was party hunting. We even had doe hunts!

Do you know what happened to the winter forage when that all time high deer herd was on it? They ate it up! It still hasn't recovered in some areas!

I could go on! Wake up! It aint over hunting the bucks driving the deer numbers down!!! Sure it might be driving the buck numbers down but this unit is not managed for LE quality deer!!!!


avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
"DC/2lumpy this is an honest question. What do you want that unit to look like? Do you want it to look like the henry mountains' s. Do you want it shut down? How many buck per hundred does do you want to see for general units?"

SW- Sorry I didn't get back to check this thread until tonight or I'd have tried to answer you earlier.

Not sure I've forgiven you yet for wishing you'd been there to see me "nearly come to tears" in a Central RAC Meeting a few years back but I'm working on it! ;-) By the way, whoever it was that told you the story misjudged my emotion, I wasn't ready to bawl I was so fricking pissed off I was damn near speechless, which you've come to know is not my nature. The lost of speech, I mean! I get pissed off all the time.

Your question: What do you want that unit (Fillmore-Pahvant) to look like?

First, I want it to like every other general unit, every unit including the LE units, in this regard:

I want deer populations safely below maximum carrying capacity of the unit. I want every deer the unit can support but not so many that some catastrophic event like a serious drought or a severe winter will kill too many. To do that I believe you need a buffer between the population and the totally available forage.

I believe every deer unit in the State shouldat that level or being aggressively managing to get there as quickly as possible. Why? Simply because I want as many deer in Utah as we can stand, for one reason, and only one reason, I want you and me and our grandkids and everybody else to hunt as much as possible. If people just want to see deer and enjoy their beauty and splendor, a good zoo and a few hundred deer here and there around the State would be adequate. Seriously, I want more deer, so you can hunt, kill, and eat them.

Would I trade elk for deer? I have my reasons for believing mule deer are a more valuable hunting species than elk, so, if you can prove to me, and I don't believe you can, yet, yes, I would remove some elk, if I KNEW it would allow for more deer. (I know, I have a species bias, it's not that I don't like elk, I do, I've killed a ton of elk and I like to hunt them, but I prefer deer, and I have my reasons but that's another discussion for another day.)


"Do you want it to look like the henry mountains' s."

The Fillmore-Pahvant. The Henry Mountain Range is an extreme desert unit, it can feed very fewer deer, by comparison to most other units in the State. I want the Fillmore-Pahvant better than the Henry's. Tongue in cheek!

I think your asking if I want an extremely high percentage of mature 5/6 year old bucks, like the Henrys. I'll answer this way, which is a bit of a dodge but it's a more complicated question to answer than your first one: you've said over the years, basically, there are as many mature bucks on the Wasatch Front unit as there are on the Henrys, probably more. I want more mature bucks in Utah. I believe it's possible, without loosing the opportunity for sportsmen to hunt. So, as to the Pavhant specifically, I would have to say the Pahvant is one unit in thirty and needs to play one part in a State wide effort, what that part should be will depend on that is being done on all the other units. Does that make any sense. Yes, I know why there are mature bucks on the Front unit. I have no problem with that.

"Do you want it shut down?"

The Fillmore-Pahvant. I believe I would, but since I've thought it was out of the question I have not studied the actually data, that is; the harvest numbers and the fawn survival percentages, and compared current population estimates to the estimated population during the 1980/90 so before I do more than just shoot my mouth of in a general way on MM I'd want to do some serious homework but based on my personal eyes on the ground observations, the unit needs a rest.

I have cognitive dissonance when I see us transplanting deer onto the unit because it's in such a sink and hunting/killing deer at the same time. I know bucks don't have fawns but I've yet to see a doe birth a fawn without a buck.

I believe this, in a fawn producing/survival contest, take two herds of deer with equal numbers, hunt one herd (buck only) and leave the other herd alone, just rest it, for five years. At the end of five years I believe you will have more does on the rested unit than you will on the, buck only, hunted unit. I would like to test that theory some where, some day. I believe there is more going on in this mule deer production dynamic than just getting the does breed.

"How many buck per hundred does do you want to see for general units?"

Buck/doe ratio management? Geez, Scotty, you're making me squirm.

Do you know why Utah manages by buck doe ratio? Your going to make me admit to being narcissistic now. (Ya, I know, it's no secret.)

In 1983, the Boulder, the Fish Lake, the Monroe, the Beaver and Pavhant averaged 4 buck per hundred doe. Some units were down to two buck per hundred doe. (It's all on record, somewhere in the Division's archives, I'm sure.) A sportsman by the name of K.K, (no need to name names without permission) and I raised holy hell, we then organized hundreds of sportsmen and pushed for a change and one of the outcomes was the Division established a State wide buck/doe manage objective. It was 15 buck per 100 doe, on very general season unit, State wide.

That was then, this is now. Now that our buck/doe ratos have improved, State wide, I've come to detest managing by buck/doe ratios and the so called "automatic triggers" that have been part of the tool. I especially dislike it now that we are managing with 30 units rather than 5 regions. I believe we need to change the way we look at things and do some things differently, again.

It is not 1983 anymore and our deer herd demographics are nothing like they were in 1983. I believe the Division and sportsmen will develop a better way to determine tag numbers than automatic buck/doe triggers. Each unit is unique and can now be manage more uniquely, rather than the one size fits all method.

Okay, I've stripped down pretty bare and feeling a little exposed so that's all you get for tonight. I've try to stay out of the corners because in the end I really believe the answer to your questions are fluid and there is no single, end of story answer, except for the first question, I'm pretty hard coded on that one.

Cheers SW,
Dc
 
DC thanks for the response

DC first off I have no idea what you are talking about when you said "I wished Id been there to see you "nearly come to tears" in a Central RAC Meeting". Seriously if I had ever said anything like that it was before Ive got to know you and your family. I could see myself saing "I wish I had went to the rac" or something like that but any way as far as Im concerned you and your family are a-ok!

The doe transplants were not intended to add deer to the pavant because the herd is crashing. The only reason those deer were choose to go there is they had no where else to put them at the time. It was an experiment sfw wanted to do. If it adds additional fawns or growth "bonus".

Did you know that even with low buck to doe ratios on the general units all the data taken with captured does suggest the does are all getting pregnant. So if it takes two to tango the does are getting tangoed. Should mean growing herd.

Now im no fool,I know for a fact if the deer numbers are under objective of what "nature" sets on a unit and if you let the bucks live the herd will look larger because it will have more bucks in it but that doesnt mean that herd is more productive.

However if nature is setting the objective having more bucks could impact the fawns by taking the food out of their mouths. Right now im not so sure nature hasn't already set the objective because the herds have been stable for nearly 10 years. "The 10-12 year drought were in could have something to do with that objective imho." I would bet if we were in a wet cycle at the correct times of year the herd would grow! Besides what good is a unit you can look at and not hunt. We both know you will see more bucks and have an easier and funner hunt if the tags are cut. But is is worth the added wait?

DC do you and your family have life time licenses? May the hunting gods and karma hit you with poor hunting for generations to come if you lie or mislead me on this question lol.

I honestly believe if the whole state got rid of all the general units and life time licenses and made all the general units LE units with a preference point system. Then made you choose elk or deer as a species to hunt you could be hunting bookcliff buck to doe ratios every other year BUT I would want to see the Henry mountains and other Premium unit brought down to the same bookcliff age class and buck to doe ratios. Same for elk! I get so tired of seeing units with oil waiting periods and only seeing the rich get to hunt these units every year while I waste years of my life waiting for my chance!

DC good luck in the draws this year! It may be my year as ive been in the top pool for three years now for my deer. Sad thing is is I still have the same odds as the rest of the years because of point bailing rifle guys. If I flip a coin enough with a 50 50 chance ill eventually get a heads unless its rigged right lol.

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
The forage is just fine. In fact there is to much of it because of the decline of population. You cannot use that as an excuse for the deer herd declining. Whatever the reason for the decline, my point is we need to do something about it. If you really wanted to help out the herd why not try something on these units that have dropped so fast in population. I have walked through bitter brush up to my neck on this unit, and it is abundant throughout the unit. Please don't use that as the reason. The fact is the deer population is much lower than the number pulled out of the hat, so now what is going to happen to help bring it back?
 
Get rid of lifetime licences??
How has that hurt the deer #s
Please enlighten us.
 
Because the pie holes complaining the most about poor buck numbers are the ones with them. Its just one reason they feel they can cut out the competition.
If all the units are called le units they go away and everyone is on an equal playing field.

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
>The forage is just fine.
>In fact there is to
>much of it because of
>the decline of population.
>You cannot use that as
>an excuse for the deer
>herd declining.

In fishing the fish concentrate in certain areas. The edges! Just because you have miles and miles of thick weeds doesnt mean the fish population should be higher. Its the same thing for deer. If you are a smart deer hunter you don't go looking in the thick stuff because you know the areas they prefer. The problem with a lot of the edges is there packed full of land carp!


avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
DC you mentioned that you don't like the buck to doe ratios and trigger factors to manage deer. How is anyone going to manage a population of deer without a way to issue tags without hurting the buck population?

You have to have something or some way to manage 90,000 deer hunters and their affect on the population. You cant just go out on a unit and say it looks good there are 4 point bucks every where ill let 50 guys hunt it this year.

What is your solution? Whats the fix?

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
The bookcliffs, vernon, oakcreek, and other LE units are also not as high in population as they were in the 80's and early 90's. So its a stretch to tell me increasing the bucks on any unit will increase the deer herd back to the glory days. These units have had nearly 20 years to prove it should. These units have also had loads of habitat improvements as well. Thats more then any deer experiment or 5 year aaa mean 2 year mule deer plan we have ever had and it still hasn't brought back the glory days.

The bookcliffs has what 250 rifle tags issued? Now make the rest of the general units look like the bookcliffs and the 3,000 life time licenses will be the only ones in Utah hunting general units. Its not anywhere near my line of thinking!

No ill gladly take myself out and dig/work a decent buck out of the hills. Gladly take my girls out and let them chase yearling bucks every year. I have had more fun watching my oldest chase dinks then I ever did killing any of my largest bucks. My oldest has also had her chances at good bucks as well and were not hunting the front.



avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
SW, I've got a meeting this morning so I've got to run, but I will get back to you.

Do I or my family have a life time license. No. Wish we did. We were too poor to pay the $500.00 when those were available. But......they are going away. Death is a pretty reliable reality to that tar baby. There are few less folks with those deals every year, it will fix itself eventually, if other deer hunt management decisions don't limit it's impact before the holders pass.

DC
 
I have two buddies that are biologist and they tell me all the time if a lot of elk move in or grow they push deer right out, I believe them
 
EXPLAIN - HOW lifetime license holders are to blame for the deer
decline in utah.THEY must be the reason there are no pheasants here either.!! Hey and dont forget sage grouse are the lifetimers responsible for their decline also. WAFJ

IF the ELK #s are to high we better get the lifetimers
on them so they can do to the elk WHAT they did to the
deer. ???? LOL
 
DoctorD I already said the problem with the lifers!!! Are you slow at reading and comprehending? wafj yourself!!!

Let me say it slower just for you

Theee Liferssss arentttt killingggg anyyyyy moreeee deerrrrr thannnn theeee restttt BUT theyyyyy areeeeee theeeee loudesttttt bitcherssssss abouttttttt poorrrrrrrr qualityyyyyyyy! Allllllll theyyyyyy wanttttttt toooooooo dooooo issssss cutttttt theeee competitionnnnnn soooooo theyyyyy cannnnn stilllll gettttt aaa taggggg everyyyyyy yearrrrrr whileeeee everyoneeeeee elseeeee sitssss!!! Theyyyyy thinkkkkk cuttinggggg tagsssss growssssss deerrrrr butttttttt thereeeee issssss actualllllll scientificccccc dataaaaaa thattttttt provessssss otherwiseeeeeee!!


avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
Thats funny I dont remember hearing ANY lifetimers say that.!!
JUST YOU. DO mm posters have an asterick* next to their screen name that means they are lifetime license holders????
Im pretty sure your not the spokesman for that group.
 
Well, most lifers are old guys because the lifetime tag is old buy deal that ended a long time ago (20/25 years????) They are a relatively small group and I have never come up for or against them at any decision making meetings. At best, every time changes are proposed for deer, somebody, (usually not a lifer) say's how do we deal with the lifers. I could be wrong but can't think of anything in the last four or five years where lifers ended up causing any more than a blip in the final decision. SW....you might have seen something I missed. But like I said, bluntly, most all them won't be hunting house fly in a few years.

And, yes SW you're right, as others have mentioned, older hunters, especially guys that coughed up 500 bucks twenty years ago have shoot a lot of deer and tend to be looking for older deer. (That's good, they leave a lot of bucks for the other folks every year.) I will say this Scotty, as your girls grow and move on, having families of there own, and you find yourself hunting by yourself again, you'll come to a time in your life when the hills are too steep, the canyons too deep, the knees too ground down, the lungs a little less large, you'll find out that some old guys just want to shoot any deer again, like they did in their "bullet proof-ten foot tall" days. So.....not every old "fart" lifer (maybe that'd who farted ;-) ) is holding out for a mature buck.

DC
 
I cant speak for others - But i bought a lifetime license for my son (he was 3)at the time. Best money i ever spent at the time.
Im in my early 50s he is 27 so it will be awhile (lord willing)
that is.
I was making 3.25 hr it was tough!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-14 AT 09:25PM (MST)[p]
The mentor program is just another way another generation can abuse or take advantage of the lifer program.

The lifers i know are my age. They have nothing but doom and gloom stories how bad it is and how they want to cut tags and make all the units look like the bookcliffs. Funny this is the same thing I hear from sfw. The problem is it hasn't increased the deer numbers anywhere any more then any general area. It just restricts everyone else.

Dc you still havent told me a better way to manage deer then buck to doe ratios and natural triggers?
 
>I cant speak for others -
>But i bought a lifetime
>license for my son (he
>was 3)at the time. Best
>money i ever spent at
>the time.
>Im in my early 50s he
>is 27 so it will
>be awhile (lord willing)
>that is.
>
> I was
>making 3.25 hr it was
>tough!!!

Surprise surprise

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
Okay Scott, let me wade into this........Geez, you and I need to get a life. Wish there was Sunday Football year round. And these fricking winter night............too damn long!



"as far as Im concerned you and your family are a-ok!"

Back at you, you are a family man, first. If every father in this country could take a page out of your book, we'd all be better off. In the most important things in life, deer hunting takes a back seat to family, you got that concept knocked-out!

The doe transplants were not intended to add deer to the pavant because the herd is crashing. The only reason those deer were choose to go there is they had no where else to put them at the time. It was an experiment sfw wanted to do. If it adds additional fawns or growth "bonus".

"Did you know that even with low buck to doe ratios on the general units all the data taken with captured does suggest the does are all getting pregnant. So if it takes two to tango the does are getting tangoed. Should mean growing herd."

Getting all the does breed is only part of the survival equations. The date they are breed is actually more critical than if a does get breed. A doe breed in December or January has almost zero chance of birthing a fawn that will survival the winter. Is a doe that raises a fawn that has no chance to survive an asset or liability, in the big picture? She and her fawn take forage and space on the unit and give back nothing. At least, she's a liability until she raises a fawn that survives. An encouraging thing the data seems to demonstrate, on these higher buck doe ratios is that the does get breed in November so we're fawning in June, which absolutely critical to winter survival. Late birth is almost a guarantee mortality in any winter in Utah. (low body fat in fawns equal spring die off)

We're meeting with the USU biologists that are doing the fawn survival study on the Monroe tomorrow night at 6:00 p.m. Hope to get some good new fawn survival findings out of that meeting. Wish you could come down and share the discussion.

"Now im no fool,I know for a fact if the deer numbers are under objective of what "nature" sets on a unit and if you let the bucks live the herd will look larger because it will have more bucks in it but that doesnt mean that herd is more productive."

Your certainly are no fool.

If you check my wording you'll see I said there would be more does in the herd that was not hunted. I figured we could assume there would be more bucks if we didn't kill any by hunting them. While bucks are necessary, we need more fawns to be born and then survive if we're to grow the herd. If we assume a "standard % of fawn and doe mortality, that is we estimate that a % of the does and fawns will die from old age, highways, predation, disease, etc. we can quite accurately calculate how made fawns need to survive every year, year after year, to grow more deer than we loose to what I call non-hunting mortality. If you run those math calculation using the "what if" tables, you'll see that we need a fawn survival of between 75-80 fawn per hundred down for the size of the herd to increase. If you look back at the data from the 1960, 1970 and early 1980's, most units in Utah were over 70 fawn per 100 does. As you said, the last 10 years or so the herd size has remained about the same, at 300,000 State Wide, give or take 15,000, probably weather related fluctuations. Why has the herd stabilized at that number? If you pull the fawn/doe data you will find, on average, the ratio is under 65 fawns per hundred does on most units. At 60/100 you are flat, you hold stable but you can't grow. You might inch up or down if you get an ideal weather pattern for a year or two together but the minute you get a negative weather pattern, boom, you loose all you gained. So, we sit at or near 300,000 year after year, wondering why we aren't getting some of the deer numbers back, like we had in the 80/early 90's.

We've got to do what ever it takes to push fawn survival over 70/100, preferable as close to 80 as we can get. That is a 10 to 20 percent increase over what we've been averaging for the last 10/15 years. If you compound a 15% percent increase in fawn survival, see how fast your money (I mean deer numbers) grows. If we have 300,000 does now, and can push the fawn survival up from 60/100 to 75 per hundred, we grow to 430,000 in five years. If we can hold that rate for ten years we jump to 618,000. Compare the hunting/harvest opportunity if we can get the herd size from 300,000 to 600,000. It's too late for me, but you and your girls are going to enjoy it.

"However if nature is setting the objective having more bucks could impact the fawns by taking the food out of their mouths. Right now im not so sure nature hasn't already set the objective because the herds have been stable for nearly 10 years. "The 10-12 year drought were in could have something to do with that objective imho." I would bet if we were in a wet cycle at the correct times of year the herd would grow! Besides what good is a unit you can look at and not hunt. We both know you will see more bucks and have an easier and funner hunt if the tags are cut. But is is worth the added wait?"

Nature is setting the objective but we can alter nature. We do it all the time. A domestic sheep wouldn't survive a month without man altering nature. Humans have been doing it for 12,000 years. +/-

A surplus buck will only eat the food out of a fawn or a does mouth, if the area is at or over carrying capacity. Whereas, parts of the Wasatch Front and a smaller part of the Wasatch Back, from Logan to Spanish Fork and about 20 miles wide. Then a few hundred acres in the desert around St. George. The rest of State is nearly identical so far as habitat as it was 50 yeras ago, with exception to the thousand of acres that have been improved through habitat restoration projects. So, with few expectations, there aren't many fawms missing a meal because there are too many bucks. Even on the Henrys and Pauns units, which are desert, desert, desert units, we have room to grow deer herd numbers, granted, those acreages can't carry as many deer as the Nebo, Manti, Fish Lake, Beaver, etc. but even with the high buck/doe ratios, there safely room for more.

"DC do you and your family have life time licenses? May the hunting gods and karma hit you with poor hunting for generations to come if you lie or mislead me on this question lol."

I told the truth, so now what may the gods do............I've got 7 general season deer points. No....not LE points, general season. I'm the old guy who farted, then left seven young bucks for your kids and my grandkids to shoot. Or .........for one of those old lifer's that wants one more before they strap him to a cot in a care center!

"I honestly believe if the whole state got rid of all the general units and life time licenses and made all the general units LE units with a preference point system. Then made you choose elk or deer as a species to hunt you could be hunting bookcliff buck to doe ratios every other year BUT I would want to see the Henry mountains and other Premium unit brought down to the same bookcliff age class and buck to doe ratios. Same for elk! I get so tired of seeing units with oil waiting periods and only seeing the rich get to hunt these units every year while I waste years of my life waiting for my chance!"

Well Bubba........they are going to mine the hard rock one of these days. I guarandamnteeya things are going to change. I can truthful say, "I can't even imagine what this is going to look like in a couple of years, accept to say, there will be a lot of grunt because there some really big canyons to cross and deep river to ford". The landscape is different now than it's ever been, which creates new opportunities as well as new snares in places we haven't even considered yet.

Guys like you, that think deep and wide at the same time, need to keep throwing out ideas and fleshing out possibilities like you just did regarding the general season/LE business. In my opinion, there are a lot of different ways to get a bunk of shingles on the roof and we need the folks to consider as many as they can. Don't get pissed off, just keep thinking of solutions and letting the folks hear from you. I hope the long term outcome will be more deer in the field, more tags for more people, shorter waiting periods for everyone, for deer hunts.

Here's another guarandamnteeya, "no matter what they do, flip the world on it's ear, go back to any deer, any where, over the counter deer tags, or leave it same as it is (God forbid.). As the MM'ers with a firm grip on reality always say, "someone will think its stacked against them, regardless of the outcome". And.....I guess, that's normal too.

I wouldn't get my hopes up on the rich folk buying a ticket to set in first class, it is, and always has been they way of the world. I guess, if getting to fly first class wasn't available, no one would want to put out the extra effort to "get ahead". If we'd just started using the phrase, "work hard so you can GET AHEAD", they'd be talking about deer and elk tags.

"DC good luck in the draws this year! It may be my year as ive been in the top pool for three years now for my deer. Sad thing is is I still have the same odds as the rest of the years because of point bailing rifle guys. If I flip a coin enough with a 50 50 chance ill eventually get a heads unless its rigged right lol."

Scotty, you don't need to draw a LE deer tag, you can kill as big or bigger buck on the Front, every year. Leave those LE tags for slackers like me and Muley73, we need the advantage to stay even with guys like you!! :)

Come on down tomorrow night, I want to put you in a head lock for a while, for want'en ta see me bawl!

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-14 AT 00:02AM (MST)[p]"Dc you still havent told me a better way to manage deer then buck to doe ratios and natural triggers?"


I haven't answered because I don't know of a better way and I'm hedging will I try to spin something up.

I just don't like either tooth age managing for elk tags or buck deer ratios to drive deer tags. Somebody smarter than me might have to work on that mess until I can come up with a new mouse trap.

I have an idea, why don't you work on it with me and we'll see what's out there in the ozone, that might work better? I got a good friend that has great ideas......oh, nope that probably wouldn't work but......we could try, if your willing ;-)

I'm done for the night, it's finally bed time........damn winter nights!

DC
 
I wish I could come down but im headed to south korea to eat some labrador ha ha. If i can find a can over there ill send you a white elephant gift. Lol

Dc I honestly do try and think outside the box. I actually think im an independent voter when it comes to this because I find myself on both sides of the fence.
Im a trophy guy at heart that's reaching a different stage of hunting in my life. Im looking for easy lol. With all the points ive built up and the different types of animals I want to mark off my bucket list I wont be hitting the utah general deer hunts like a mad man to much any more. I can actually see myself on the general hunts as a road hunter, spotter or camp cook.

avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
X2 Dc,

Studies show that you only need as low as 3 bucks per 100 doe to get them all covered. However recent studies also do show that it is critical for fawn survival that they get covered on the 1st cycle, not 2nd and 3rd cycle. If they can get covered on the 1st cycle the survival rate is a lot higher. You need higher buck ratios to do this. In the end I think most of us want the same thing. More deer, quality hunting for the future. So our kids and grandkids can enjoy this that we hold sacred to us. If we would happen to improve the quality of the bucks, that's just a little bonus. ?


Happy Hunting
Psc_Thompson
 
Bottom line is that I have not heard of anyone come on here and say "The unit I hunt on is increasing, and things are looking good". If every unit is dropping in population, then some changes have to be made. The area on the Beaver mountain is not losing deer due to lack of habitat. So lets not use that excuse anymore. All I am saying is if we need to close some units for a few years or reduce tags lets do it for the sake of a future deer herd.
 
Psc......you're right on. There are a very few that are fearful and a smaller number that are outright blinded by rage over some individuals and how they attempt to preserve what is sacred to us, but the vast major want the same thing, we're just putting the shingles up on the roof in different ways, some use a front end loader, some walk'em up there on a ladder.

DC
 
Bla bla bla
southhunter do you know what stable and slightly increasing for 10 years means?

It means the sky is not falling! It means the hunt doesn't need to be shut down.

To the rest
You would think the le units would be busting at the seams with baby fawns and 80% recruitment with the way higher buck to doe ratios and so called early breed does. The problem is there not. There is something larger out there affecting the overall big picture.



avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-14 AT 09:21AM (MST)[p]SW, you be careful over there. "Don't let the dog bit ya"

Your growing through the stages of a typical modern day sport hunter's life Scotty. I've done it a head of you and I wouldn't change much of what I've done or how I've done it. Family first, always. Teaching our families the values of the outdoors, nature, human interaction, for better or worse is a priceless gift we can give our children.

Well, you're off to Korea, and I'm off to the cattle auction in Salina, won't be buying anything, I'll just be entertain myself with an old friend that enjoys watching the world as she turns.

Be safe, and I'll try to give you an update on what the Ph.Ds share with us tonight.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-14 AT 11:12AM (MST)[p]Here are a few discussions anyone on here anyone can read if they want. It all has to do with what has been discussed on this thread. I took a different stance then I have with this post. I was arguing for tag cuts. Arguing against acid rain theories ect. Arguing for coyote bounties. Basically saying the same thing as you guys are on this thread. Except none of you have mentioned anything about selenium deficiencies! I wanted someone smarter then me to prove their side. Like I said im a fence sitter trying to see both sides of the story. I want to understand the big picture instead of shooting from the hip with emotionally driven temporary solutions.

A few quotes from the links

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/55506-mule-deer-population-problems-solutions.html

"We know habitat improvements increase deer, and if Utah is a leader in habitat improvements, why do we not see a significant increase in the deer trends, on all habitat improvements? And why are the long term trends not improved over areas with no improvements?

Sagebrush is still down like 12% over the last decade, but in 2012 mule deer increased across the West. This was in places with habitat improvements, and areas without. This was in Utah, and in other states.

Side note: Sagebrush declines across the West, coincide with decreases in human fertility. ~1% decline over the last 15 years.

So what makes "quality" habitat? We know that particular plants are preferred by mule deer, and this is for many reasons. But ultimately it comes down to nutrition, protein, carbs, vitamins, and minerals. Weather plays a large role in growing these plants, but the soil is where all of the nutrients come from. And that is ultimately as, or more, important than the plants themselves. The plants are in a way just conduits for the nutrients that deer need. The dirt, and other conditions and factors, dictate the quality of the plants. It is the ignored part of "habitat".

In the '50s and '60s deer numbers were high, and stable. And reintroduction efforts with bighorn sheep were making great headway. In the early and mid eighties, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, all experienced declines, this occurred again in the early '90s, and again in the early 2000s. All species, everywhere in the west. To bighorns as an example: The Whiskey mountain bighorn herd in WY was the largest native bighorn herd in the lower 48, until the early 1980s, when they began to experience steep declines. In the late '90s it was determined that selenium deficiencies were suppressing the herd. Selenium supplementation was shown to halt declines, but not reverse the trend. In Montana, the Thomson Falls bighorn herd was once 500+ strong after being reintroduced in the 1950s. They now number ~50 sheep. Besides suffering from reproductive declines, these sheep suffer high deaths from collisions on the highway. They congregate along the road, and lick anti ice salts, specifically magnesium chloride off the pavement. This began in the early '80s, and has increased ever since. This is occurring at the mouth of American fork canyon, with the struggling Prove peak herd, that has experienced declines from pneumonia. And this spring there was a bighorn ewe, that was hit on the highway near Wallsburg, at a point in the road where magnesium chloride use would have been higher(bend on an incline). this was also 500 yards from where the local sheep herder had placed salt for their sheep. Salt for domestic sheep, is selenium amended, unlike other livestock salts.

Selenium and other mineral deficiencies are in essence habitat deficiencies. We don't notice or pay attention to them, because we don't see them. If we plant sagebrush, or bitterbrush, we can see it, its tangible, palatable, and tactile. If a lion or coyote eats a deer, we can see it, we can see in real time, the population declining by one animal, even if it is only perception, and does not contribute to the long term trends."


Do more bucks make fawns?
Copied from a DWR employee
The link is several pages long and covers a few topics but it has good info

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/40916-prove-lonetree-wrong.html

"Yes, they do in fact make fawns, but they actually make fewer fawns if they represent 40% of the herd rather than 20%. Additionally, they will out compete fawns for limited resources further impacting the overall health of the herd.

The theory that bucks ratios were high at the height of the mule deer boom is a myth. I have found no evidence to support that notion. That may be because that data was not collected, but annectodal data does not support that hypothesis. Most bucks killed were yearling bucks. More big bucks were killed, but that was primarily a result of much higher deer numbers.

Biological data indicates that 5-7 bucks per doe is sufficient to breed the population. I accept that it is socially necessary that numbers be managed to a higher ratio than that. However, are ratios north of 20-25:100 necessary? Worse, are they healthy? I've not seen data that supports anything of the kind. Colorado's own biologists will happily inform you that high buck:doe ratios have contributed significantly to the crash in deer numbers they have experienced following recent heavy winters."

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/41905-impact-coyote-removal-after-one-year.html


One thing I have come to realize is nature is very complicated. Just because you can see habitat doesn't always mean its good habitat! Just because you kill coyotes and just because you have high buck doe ratios necessarily mean you will have better fawn production. Temporary fixes like coyote removal and higher buck to doe ratios seem to address social issues or feel good issues than actually solve the root of the problem.



avatar_2528.jpg


who farted?
 
Here's my two cents for what its worth. My cousin and I bow hunted the Pahvant in 2012 and we came away very discouraged with the number of mature bucks we found. We spent a full week all over the unit, burned many miles hiking in as far away from the roads as we could get, and spent countless hours behind 15's on tripods. We saw tons of does and plenty of small bucks. I would guess we counted between 60-70 bucks over the week and yet we only found one small four point and several (5-7) small threes over the entire hunt. My cousin hunted the unit again the following year and had a very similar experience. Lots of does and small bucks, but very few mature bucks. I don't claim to be an expert on mule deer hunting, but my conclusion was that the unit was being overhunted and that predators are likely a secondary problem. It seemed like fawn recruitment was pretty good because we saw lots of fawns with the does. It seems to me that too many small bucks are being harvested every year and that very few get a chance at living past year 2.
 
There were a good number of decent bucks as recently as 2007...when an untimely snowstorm helped fill the freezers of an unusually high number of hunters. The herd demographic has not been the same since then. Consequently, until the number of bigger/older bucks is returns to pre-2007 levels, hunters naturally lower their sites and harvest more of the smaller bucks.

40% success when 95% of those are 2 points vs 40% success when 70% are 2 points is pretty significant. These numbers are not factual, but merely to make a point in hunter behavior when scarcity is a reality.

Until a critical mass of the smaller bucks survive beyond their second year, the quality of bucks surviving and harvested will be down. Yes, we may still see 40% success (quantity) from season to season, but that number alone is not an indicator of unit quality or even of herd robustness and viability.

Disclaimer: I do not hold a lifetime license and I have not been a dedicated hunter since 2002. I have only hunted this unit maybe 15 years since the late '80's. I am really only in it for my kids now. The last shot I took on the unit was in 2009; the last shot taken by one of my kids was at a 130 class 4x4 in 2003. I will be there this year with my 3 youngest kids...their expectations are based on our experience of seeing next to nothing. They have learned to say "...but its not about the deer is it, dad, its about the time together." They cannot comprehend or even believe it when I tell them that the first year I hunted (16 yrs old back then), my dad and brothers had our 5 tags filled before noon on opening morning.
 

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