Future West Desert Management Plan

ridgetops · Feb 25, 2012

In reguards to three units west of I-15 that are really struggling with low buck to doe ratios and very low fawn to doe ratios. I propose giving these three units some much needed relief. In reguards to the WEST DESERT-WEST, WEST DESERT-TINTIC and the OQUIRRH/STANSBURYS.

I'm proposing that there be a 40% cut on tags for the Oquirrh/Stansbury and a 60% cut on the other two units for the next two years. At that point, if the buck to doe ratio has gone up to the desired quota and the fawn to doe ratio starts to increase, with the increased predator controls and habitat restoration projects going on. Then start to increase tag numbers by 10% each year until a good balance can be found.
What's your thoughts on these units and my ideas?

Tree · Feb 25, 2012

Koby,

They've definitely got some issues and probably warrant that kind of attention. I'm not sure about percentages, but raising objectives on these areas, especially the Tintic, is probably warranted. To what degree is definitely debatable.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

stillhunterman · Feb 25, 2012

I agree, something is going on out there, to the point it may need a bit more scrutiny ridge. Like Tree said, not sure to what degree objectives could/should be changed to at this point.

In looking at the F/D ratios, it would seem there have been pretty fair drops from post counts to spring counts, not too good. What info do you have on the units Koby? Have you had a chance to talk to the local Bio out there?

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org

treedagain · Feb 26, 2012

from my experiance on the deep creeks, they need all the help they can get....

Balldragginmuley · Feb 26, 2012

How big of a concern are the "no antlered bucks" when it comes to breeding? In the West Desert Tinic unit this past fall there were numerous no antlered bucks. From what I saw, there were more of them than mature "antlered" bucks doing the breeding.

Muley_73 · Feb 26, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-12 AT 01:08AM (MST)[p]ridge,
Intresting that those guys will come on and acknowledge that those units have issues, yet the UWC recommends them for lower buck doe ratio???

Your story is the same as many I have heard regarding the units that other hunters spend lots of time on. Yet groups like the UWC and for that matter the SFW feel the need to make recommendations on all the units! I firmly believe we need to have more groups like the The Friends of the Paunsagaunt that truly spend time on the units and have an understanding of the deer herd status and its needs. Groups that could help count and classify, monitor road kill, predation, and winter kill. Include the biologist with these groups, Im sure they would love the help and input. But once a biologist puts a number out there then the DWR should stick to that number regarless of what it does to tags sells in that unit. If this actually happened I think it would solve many issues.

Cutting harvest does not do damage to the deer herd! Over harvest can and will cause damage to any deer herd, let alone a struggling deer herd! The line must be drawn somewhere and I say 293,000 is way below the line!!!

And yes I know bucks don't have fawns, but I think they do play a role in that whole situation.

ridge I think you get the big picture. I truly hope that the units you love to hunt will return to what they once where or better. It can be done with proper managment.

PleaseDear · Feb 26, 2012

With cutting 13,000 tags maybe they will address those 3 units and a few other units (with in the 30 units)??

Simple math would show dropping tags by 433 in each of the 30 units.

Or 145 tags per the 3 weapon of choice in each of the 30 units.

I guess will just have to see how it plays out come late March?? when the tag numbers are set.

Robb

Packout · Feb 27, 2012

I hunt the West Desert Units and the buck to doe ratio is too low. If it is increased from where it is at today, up to the 15-18 range then that will double the buck numbers. Interesting that we counted 1.05 fawns per doe in October while hunting in the West Desert, seeing an average of 40+ deer a day in that desert country. The doe population is bred-- Where the heck are all the fawns going????

Muley_73 · Feb 27, 2012

Please,
If they where really going to cut tags 13,000 then yes your math could be right. However I do not believe they will actually cut 7,000 tags let alone 13,000.

Packout,
Just a question, do you think that by any chance the survival rate of fawns has anything to do with fawns being born late? You would still see those fawns in Oct but you may lose them through the winter. Predators key on the weak or sick first??? Young fawns may fall into that catagory?

Cutting tag numbers will not hurt the deer on that these units. So why not drastically cutting tags in an area like this??? See what the effects are?

Califelkslayer · Feb 27, 2012

As a non-resident that has never hunted deer in Utah, the regions to 30 units seems like a great idea. Easier to manage or improve a specific area without affecting an area that is doing fine on the other side of the region.

But i see several states that have what I refer to as "revenue units." They overhunt those units for revenue. If his helps other units, it might not be a bad thing. I think Utah has taken a huge step towards increasing the quality of deer BUT it still needs to be managed correctly. This change was enough to get me to start building bonus points for general deer in the hope Utah uses this system to improve their deer herds.

Good luck to you guys that hunt Utah general hunts each year.

Packout · Feb 28, 2012

Muley- First, I do want more bucks in those units. My honest guess is some fawns die because they were born late, but I believe that to be true on every unit (even the LTD units). I hunt different than most guys. I spend as much time analyzing the doe and fawns as I do bucks. But I am not a biologist, although I have spent my life ranching/raising/observing animals, so my guesses are just like yours and sometimes theirs-- just guesses. I never saw a tan fawn, but I did see a couple fawns that were smaller than others. There were 4 smaller fawns which were with 1 doe and all 4 attempted to nurse- looked like Quadruplets. In late Sept, I see a spotted fawn on occasion, but I would say I see far more mature (3+ year old) bucks than I see spotted fawns.

In a different "Unit" I hiked into a basin and, over the course of 2 hours, I saw 33 doe, 29 fawns, and 1 2 point. Every fawn was fat and large. Most guys would be upset they did not see enough bucks that day. I was elated to see that many fawns! Although I never saw them that morning, there were 2 bull-dozer mature bucks hanging in that basin the morning prior, but I wasn't good enough to kill one on that trip.

Maybe you can answer a question for me-- I have 19 bucks on my farm right now (and for the last 3 months) and between 20-30 doe and fawns. Why did I see bucks fighting (some which had shed their antlers) over and then breeding a doe last week?

Tree · Feb 28, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-12 AT 11:27PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-12 AT 11:21?PM (MST)

>LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-12
>AT 01:08?AM (MST)
>
>ridge,
>Intresting that those guys will come
>on and acknowledge that those
>units have issues, yet the
>UWC recommends them for lower
>buck doe ratio???
>
>Your story is the same as
>many I have heard regarding
>the units that other hunters
>spend lots of time on.
> Yet groups like the
>UWC and for that matter
>the SFW feel the need
>to make recommendations on all
>the units! I firmly
>believe we need to have
>more groups like the The
>Friends of the Paunsagaunt that
>truly spend time on the
>units and have an understanding
>of the deer herd status
>and its needs. Groups that
>could help count and classify,
>monitor road kill, predation, and
>winter kill. Include the
>biologist with these groups, Im
>sure they would love the
>help and input. But
>once a biologist puts a
>number out there then the
>DWR should stick to that
>number regarless of what it
>does to tags sells in
>that unit. If this
>actually happened I think it
>would solve many issues.
>
>Cutting harvest does not do damage
>to the deer herd!
>Over harvest can and will
>cause damage to any deer
>herd, let alone a struggling
>deer herd! The line
>must be drawn somewhere and
>I say 293,000 is way
>below the line!!!
>
>And yes I know bucks don't
>have fawns, but I think
>they do play a role
>in that whole situation.
>
>ridge I think you get the
>big picture. I truly
>hope that the units you
>love to hunt will return
>to what they once where
>or better. It can
>be done with proper managment.
>

What makes you think SFW or UWC doesn't have members and input from all of the units? That being the case, isn't that a valid reason to give statewide input?

And, there are several units that are below 15-17 or 18-20 that UWC recommended for these numbers, thus creating reason to cut more tags in below objective units.

Here's a question 73:

The west desert (Unit 19 sub-unit) has a 3 year buck to doe average of 9/100, which is the lowest 3 year average of any unit by 4 bucks, yet the 3 year fawn to doe recruitment average is 70/100, which is the 10th highest F/D ratio of the 30 units. They will be cutting tags drastically in this unit even if the it is managed for a 15-17/100 objective.Guess what? With a relatively high fawn recruitment and a low tag allocation, the buck population will grow.

On the flip side, the 3 year buck to doe average on Anthro is 27/100 and the fawn recruitment 3 year average is 57. Where does this fit in with the mantra you are pitching?

How about the SW desert? 28/100 3 year buck to doe average, yet the the 3 year fawn to doe average is a measly 47/100.

Even your own Cache unit, 16/100 3 year buck to doe average. Low fawn recruitment, right? Nope, second highest 3 year average in the state at 78/100.

Something doesn't add up, but I am open to new information.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

Muley_73 · Feb 28, 2012

Tree,
I could not comment on most of those units as I do not spend time on them. Nor should I probably comment. I believe the best info for each unit would come from the unit biologists and locals that spend many hours on the units yearly. That is why I feel smaller localized groups could be utilized. If you live in Ogden but usually like to hunt the Fishlake, then by all means get involved and go spend time on the unit. Most that are not local can not or will not make that commitment, however I would dare say you could find locals for each unit that would love to have that involvement.

The Cache unit, I do know a little about. I know that the post season counts are done on private land. I believe that the Cache does have quite a bit of private land that is managed well. So the post season counts on that unit do not surprise me. To bad that the public land is managed off of those counts as most of those deer will never be huntable on the public portion of that unit. One question, is the 78/100 doe a pre winter count or post winter count???

Muley_73 · Feb 28, 2012

Packout,
I can not answer that question on your one doe that was being bred? I am sure there is an occasional doe that slips through the gaps and can be an exception. However I wonder if maybe she was bred late last year and if this did not push her cycle back this year. If you do some research you can see that in 1970s Alabama was having major issues with their deer herds. They were actually having fawns born year round. They found that the #1 issue of this was that fact that their buck doe ratio had fallen too low. This would not likely happen in UT as the climate is not as mild as AL. The doe would just skip until next year??? However it does make me think the possibilty. If a doe is bred late then more that likely her body is not read to carry another fawn for a year. So once we start this cycle it is hard to break. Higher buck doe ratios, again will not do damage to a herd unless Mother Nature is wrong??? Lower buck doe ratios, at a minium is arguble!

I'll keep saying it until we are offically over carrying capacity on every unit in the state. I'D RATHER WE ERROR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

Tree · Feb 28, 2012

>Tree,
>I could not comment on most
>of those units as I
>do not spend time on
>them. Nor should I
>probably comment. I believe
>the best info for each
>unit would come from the
>unit biologists and locals that
>spend many hours on the
>units yearly.

These numbers come directly from unit biologists. I think there are very few from the public that are qualified to make useable observations, myself included.

That is
>why I feel smaller localized
>groups could be utilized.
>If you live in Ogden
>but usually like to hunt
>the Fishlake, then by all
>means get involved and go
>spend time on the unit.
> Most that are not
>local can not or will
>not make that commitment, however
>I would dare say you
>could find locals for each
>unit that would love to
>have that involvement.
>
>The Cache unit, I do know
>a little about. I know
>that the post season counts
>are done on private land.
> I believe that the
>Cache does have quite a
>bit of private land that
>is managed well. So
>the post season counts on
>that unit do not surprise
>me. To bad that
>the public land is managed
>off of those counts as
>most of those deer will
>never be huntable on the
>public portion of that unit.
> One question, is the
>78/100 doe a pre winter
>count or post winter count???
>

I'm not sure, probably pre-winter. I'll find out. All of the numbers are relative to one another (Fawn/doe ratios statewide) and the relative number is high. The buck to doe ratios are post hunt counts. You probably knew that but most don't.

I'd be happy to email you the classifications, but I'm not sure why you'd believe them at this point vs. every other time you've discounted their numbers.

http://unitedwildlifecooperative.org

Muley_73 · Feb 28, 2012

I believe that the numbers are pre winter counts on the fawns? I believe the fawn count numbers just fine. I am just concerned with the post winter counts. I firmly believe that we have many does being bred to late in the winter. This puts the fawns behind for the coming winter. Yes they are there in the fall counts, but they are gone come spring. If buck doe ratios were higher, I believe that more does would be bred in the first cycle and you would have an older fawn going into the next winter. I know the weather also plays a huge role in survival, especially on the Cache unit. That is something that we can not control. The buck doe ratio is. So I will say again. I would rather error on the side of caution and leave more bucks to do the breeding. It is not about more bucks to shoot, I find bucks every year. Its about having more left over to breed the does in their first cycle. I know that some of the LE units have low fawn survival rate even with higher buck ratios. I am sure there are other issues on each of those units also. But I also know for a fact that when harvest was reduced or stopped on the Henrys and Book Cliffs the herds exploded. Have they dropped back down again? Yes they have. However they have not dropped even close to the numbers they were before closing. I believe most if not all units in the the state would show similar results. So why not try it and see if our numbers jump. If they do then great, its a win, more deer, more bucks, more oppurtunity. I guess I'm willing to sacrifice to give this a try, but many are not. If I am wrong, what did we lose? A few years of hunting. If I am right we gain for deer. If you are wrong, what do we lose? Our deer herd!!!!! If you are right what do gain? Nothing we didnt already have!!!!

One last thought, we do not have to reduce tags to increase buck ratios. You could do it and add more tags than we currently have. The problem is we are unwilling to think out side of the traditional general season box. All of our ideas are just moving the same numbers around in the same box with the same results.

Packout · Feb 29, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Feb-29-12 AT 07:11AM (MST)[p]Muley- Thanks for the answer. My guess is there are ALWAYS a few doe which will -not come in heat their first cycle, get missed no matter how many bucks are present, abort their embryo and rebreed, ect... This happens on every unit in the State. This happens with domestic herds and wild herds. That doe had been with a ratio of 70+ bucks to 100 doe her whole breeding life (private land). I brought this up to show that Late fawns happens. As for using whitetail deer studies to base your mule deer opinions, I'd just say that is a dangerous road. The species differ.

I do agree with you that "Lower buck doe ratios, at a minium is arguble!" Where we are differing is- What is too low? I am not a member of the UWC, but I do agree with their push to lower the top end down from 25. My personal thoughts are to manage the units at 16-18 and 18-20.

"I'll keep saying it until we are offically over carrying capacity on every unit in the state." Ahhh, but who gets to decide what "Carrying Capacity" is??

coondog · Mar 16, 2012

what does it mean when you go for a wheeler ride in november and see 50 does and no bucks ? i'm no dwr expert but i think that means that their are no bucks don't cut tags back shut it down!!

hopper · Mar 17, 2012

I am curious,how many people that are writing on this comment post actually hunt out there?? I see a ton of deer and shoot nice bucks out there every year. I took a drive 4 weeks ago and counted 18 4-point or better bucks and over 30 bucks total, and that was not getting out of the truck or using a spotting scope. I am not so sure that their counts are really accurate.

ridgetops · Mar 17, 2012

Hopper, we're not talking about the Vernon Unit.

30plus · Mar 23, 2012

The fawn doe ratio on the west desert units has not been counted in the spring for years. The best they have was on the oquirrh with only 39/100 way below what is needed to sustain let alone grow the herd. The DWR has no idea how many deer are there or what the fawn survival is. it is obvious the survival is low as the herd continues to decline.

hopper I'm sure it was just a typo but you may want to correct the statement " and shoot nice bucks out there every year" if that is true it may not be the smartest thing to be boasting about on a hunting sight with as many ethics police as frequent this site.

hopper · Mar 26, 2012

I agree and understand that, but, I have lived there my whole life, I know the area, I know the deer heard and where to go to find them. Accusing me of being on the Vernon unit is plain stupid. Ethics police have nothing on me, I have a lifetime license, get my tag every year, and hunt the same 2 mountain ranges every year. And I agree, I do not believe even for a minute that there is a count on the deer, while some areas in the unit suffer, other areas are doing absolutely GREAT! I have witnessed only 4 fishcops in 13 years of hunting out there. Pretty sad indeed

30plus · Apr 3, 2012

I wasn't talking about the Vernon it was the plurality of "bucks every year" I was bein a bit sarcastic about it also.

MBM · Apr 4, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Apr-04-12 AT 12:53PM (MST)[p]I have hunted one of the above units mentioned, unit 18, a lot the last 13 years and I agree that tags need to be dropped. Deer numbers have been dropping the last several years. I hoped that by going to Option 2 this unit could receive some help.

I was very suprised though at the the propsed tag numbers the DWR just put out. Based on the propsed numbers and the number of hunters they say hunted in 2011 it looks like the number of tags are actully increasing. Proposed 500/500/1500= 2500 across bow/ml/rifle compared to 2011 numbers 342/340/1401 =2,083 how is increasing the amount of tags by 417 going to help this already struggling unit? Plus they are going back to regular season dates for 2012 instead of the shortened dates that were in place on this unit the last few years. I do not understand how this will help bring the buck to doe ratio from 13 up to the 15-17 range they desire (I think 15-17 is too low a goal to shoot for though).

I think there needs to be at least a 20 - 30% drop in the propsoed tag numbers for unit 18 from what is being propsed for 2012. I have emailed my concerns to the Central RAC members and plan on doing the same to the Wildlife Board. I hope to attend both meetings as well.

Mark