SFW is Listening

C

cabinfever

Very Active Member
Messages
2,382
Good News For Sportsman. SFW is listening. I had a nice little chat with Don P on the phone last night and they are taking a hard look at micro managment and listening to Sportsman who want to see changes in our Deer herd. If you are ready to see this happen we need to get organized now and let Don or other SFW or MDF members know how we feel. If you are for Micromanagement please send me an email [email protected] or call me @ 435-229-1674 I would like to compile a list of Sportsman who are in favor of this movement. My intention in posting this on an open form is to finally do something about our deer herd. Your opinions are welcome and respected, but please keep it positive.

Mike Nielson
 
Your e-mail doesn't work. I sent you a PM.

"Keep yer powder dry n yer eye on the skyline!"
 
You'll have much better luck getting something accomplished through the SFW, because the RAC process is as useless as t*ts on a boar hog.

If Don will listen to my rantings about lions, he'll listen to pretty much anyone. ;-) At least the SFW can get something done.

The RAC's will say, "There is a problem with the deer? Huh, when did that start? Now deer are the big animals that bugle right?"

Ya, good luck with them. The SFW is your best shot for sure.

See, I kept it positive!! ;-)
 
You want do micro units fine, but Step #1 better damn well be restricting archers to those or existing units. Allowing 20 thousand archers to hunt anywhere in the state while pushing the other weapon types to even smaller units is B S !!!


-DallanC
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-06 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]I would like to know your beef with archery hunters, It is proven that they have far less of an inpact on the animals and habitat then the rifle and muzzleloader hunters. They do not scare they animals in to the deep dark timber that the guns do. So how are these archery hunters hurting you?
Utah already has limited archery season as it is, take in account not only the other states in the west but in almost the whole damn country. The other states have longer seasons and more opportunity for archery hunters.
Yor beloved hunting area is only over run with 4wheelers on the hunts, not very many people get off the 4wheelers. Also the archery hunt is during the last of the summer and during the first of the part of the main holidays. So you have not only some hunters raod hunting but also weekend warriors camping and enjoying the outdoors. Are you going to put a restriction on these people because they are taking your mountain away from you? Show us where the state wide archery hunt is hurting your area, besides the weekend warrior burning up the road on their 4wheeler.
 
> I would like to know your beef with archery hunters,

Hey I archery hunt.

This thread is about making "micro management units", units where they can manage the number of hunters better in response to herd populations, harvest percentages etc etc. WHAT GOOD ARE THEY IF YOU DONT RESTRICT ALL HUNTER TYPES???

Either A) include archers in these new micro units or B) Screw the idea of micro management units and leave it as is.


-DallanC
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-06 AT 03:35PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-06 AT 02:45?PM (MST)

Well I agree with you on that somewhat. I believe that dedicated hunters need to stick to their area, but those that put in and get the state wide archery should still be able to hunt statewide. There is only about 3,000 that put in for this tag during the application process. All the other tags get bought up after the draw and right before the season.
 
houndawg,
SFW is the reason the RAC system is useless as ##### on a boar pig. About 8-10 years ago Daddy Don came up to the Cache and said he was going to fix the deer problem up there. Honestly, it ain't happened. The Micro management thing came up a few years back, and while it is a good thing on paper, the Division will not cut any tags reguardless of what the herds can handle.
This is just another ploy for them to say that they are trying to do something, and in reality all they are doing is giving themselves more time to do nothing.

For those of you that think that the statewide archery hunt is unfair or a bad thing, then give us on here, one biologically sound reason as to why it should be no more. Then while you are at it please explain to us how you can increase opportunity through out Utah using guns. One of the largest problems facing hunters in Utah is lack of opportunity, primitive weapons, archery tackle, and primitive muzzleloaders are a way to fix that problem.
 
>For those of you that think
>that the statewide archery hunt
>is unfair or a bad
>thing, then give us on
>here, one biologically sound reason
>as to why it should
>be no more.

Well I for one don't think that its currently unfair, but perhaps someone else can explain how they intend to help herds by implementing a micro-management plan, yet still allow 20,000ish archery hunters to go anywhere they please?

The very idea of micro management is to limit hunting in a specific area according to the population of the animals there. How on earth does it make sense to create some new area where the population is declining, limit the number of tags there for ML and rifle hunters, yet still allow any number of archery hunters? Doesn't make sense.

Its not a slam to the archery buffs, it doesn't make sense to even begin talking about micro management areas while still allowing statewide archery. Now they could do something like restrict archers to some micro-unit AND still allow them the ext-archery on the front as part of their unit.


> Then
>while you are at it
>please explain to us how
>you can increase opportunity through
>out Utah using guns.
>One of the largest problems
>facing hunters in Utah is
>lack of opportunity, primitive weapons,
>archery tackle, and primitive muzzleloaders
>are a way to fix
>that problem.

Absolutely, undeniably one thing is clear, hunting opportunities in Utah are only diminishing and will continue to do so. There is nothing on the horizon that will change that.


-DallanC
 
Can you provide more information other than "Micro managing the deer herds"

Is SFW proposing this? What's DWR's stance on this? What biological data do you have that supports micro management?

Thanks
 
IMHO There is nothing wrong with the archery hunts. It's some of the so called "Archery Hunters." How many times have you heard, even from the same hunter. "I flipped a few arrows at some deer this season and stuck 'em. However, I couldn't find my animal. I feel so bad."
Well if you feel that bad, HOW COME YOU KEPT HUNTING AFTER YOU STUCK THE FIRST ANIMAL? That's the only problem with statewide archery season. Sorry just had to get that off my chest. :)

"Keep yer powder dry n yer eye on the skyline!"
 
Dallen, In other states that micromanage the archers put in for their specific unit. No state wide roaming. However archers have a very low success rate, but would be included in the equation.

Mike
 
Dallen, the fact that SFW is willing to listen is a step in the right direction. We are in the begining stages of establishing a new management plan and if we can get some form of micromangement in place we will see more oppurtunity.

Mike Nielson
 
Dave I had a nice talk with you on the phone. SFW would be proposing it to the DWR, but they would need the support of the Sportsman of Utah to make it happen. I heard my email was not working. Try [email protected]

Mike
 
Apparently there are some that are not familiar with micromanagement so I will attemp to explain it in a nut shell. To explain Micromanagement one must under stand Macromanagement. Utah currently Macromanages their deer herds. They have 5 large regions and all the deer that fall within the geographical boundries of a given region are managed as one herd. With Macromanagement you are managing hunters within a geographical area not deer. In contrast,with Micromanagement you take an individual herd and manage it to acheive a certain goal (i.e. 5000 deer on XYZ unit with 30 bucks per 100 does, 10 bucks being yearlings, 10 bucks being 2-3 year olds and 10 bucks being considered mature with 50 fawns per 100 does). Based on the goals that are set for that unit, the DWR would issue "X" amount of permits in order to maintain that goal. With the current plan, no single unit in Utah can ever get good because when the word gets out that the deer hunting on XYZ unit is exceptional we experience a large shift of hunters to that unit. Under the current system, if XYZ unit can only handle 1000 hunters in order to maintain a balance of buck to does, it does not matter because 13000+ hunters can hammer that unit if they choose to do so. If you want to see if micromanagement you need not look further than our own state. The paunsaguant, henery mtns, book cliffs, oak creek vernon and all the limited entry elk units that are full of big bulls. All these units are micromanaged.

Mike N
 
I like the idea of smaller management units. Here are my suggestions to help this work better:

These smaller units should be set up so the boundaries encompass both summer and winter habitat in a large migration area so that the animals that live and migrate in that unit pretty much stay in that unit all year long.

Each unit should be managed by a small team of Conservation officers that know and keep track of the habitat trends and carrying capacity of their unit from season to season and year to year.

They should manage the herd unit to maintain a reasonably high population of animals that is sustainable in that habitat system.

The type of unit should be determined by factors such as animal population, hunter demand, and habitat structure.

They should manage some units as "OPEN BUCK" units so it is easy for hunters to obtain a permit at low cost. These units will be more crowded with hunters, but the hunters will need to be willing to make this trade off - hunt nearly every year at low cost but in very crowded conditions.

They should manage some units as "TROPHY BUCK" units. They will obviously need older age class bucks in these units. This can be accomplished by tightly restricting the number of "TROPHY BUCK" permits issued to allow the bucks on the unit to get old. These permits will obviously need to cost much more and hunters will need to be willing to make this trade off - hunt in uncrowded conditions, but pay big money for this rare oppurtunity.

They should manage the buck/doe ratio for a healthy balance based on science. If the overall population is getting too high, issue doe permits. If the population of bucks is too low, issue fewer buck permits. If the population of young bucks on a "TROPHY BUCK" unit gets too high, they could issue early season "MANAGEMENT BUCK" permits to hunt spikes, 2 pts, or 3 pts on these units.

No matter which way the individual unit is managed, if permits remain after the drawing, this means that hunters are unwilling to participate and the management methods on that unit will need to be adjusted to suit the current demand. It is like a free market type of system. Give the market what it wants, and the money will follow.

If the managers aren't performing well in their duties, replace them.

If the managers do their jobs properly, there will be a demand for all of the available permits. If a "TROPHY BUCK" unit sells too many buck permits, the buck population and quality will drop off and hunters will lose interest in applying for those permits.

All participating hunters should be required to fill out a post season questionaire to help inform managers of hunter satisfaction, current trophy quality trends, etc.

I have a whole bunch of other ideas, but this post is already too long, so I'll cut it off here.
 
I would like to see the DWR step up and PROVE to me that they are even macromanaging. Dunno bout you guys, but I spend a darn lot of time in the woods and I have NEVER met,seen, or heard of a biologist. I'd like to see the Big Game Coordinator prove me wrong and show me the time cards and places his biologists have actually done herd counts (other than winter). I'm fairly certain most of the management is done by computer model based on those winter counts. How do they know what fawn mortality is unless they are out in the field???

It cracks me up when they say the herd is at such and such a level and that they want it at such and such a level. They have no idea what the herd level is. It pisses me off when they use winter counts to justify tag numbers for the unit....especially when those of us who follow the deer know that the winter counts include deer from other areas.


Also, to micromanage it would seem to me that there needs to be a form of harvest reporting. A friend of mine in Nebraska mentioned that in her state, EVERY deer taken has to be reported and checked. Now I know that would be a pain, and DWR probably does not have the personnel to handle that right now, but it sure would go a long way in really really understanding where the hunter impact is and is not and formulate a plan with SOUND BIOLOGICAL, not POLITICAL reasoning.

My .02

Pred
 
I know you probably don't want to hear from an "out of stater"
but, as a former utah resident who now lives in nevada, I think you need look no further than your neighbor to the west for a great model of how to "micromanage" your herds.
It also includes mandatory reporting of harvest which is no big deal, done online or by mail.
Issue tags for each smaller region by what you want to achieve in that region. Trophy areas would be managed with higher buck to doe ratios. (fewer hunters in that region.)
I've always said I wished Nevada had utah's habitat with Nevada's currrent system of issuing tags.
With your habitat and genetics and add proper management your hunting could be phenomemal!
 
On the LE elk hunt this year I ran into three different biologists on the mountain. Kinda ticked me off when they would bugle to get the elk out in the open to do a count while we were trying to move in on the elk. I say counts done during the 'off' seasons is better than during the hunts. Hard to get real numbers before/during the hunts.
I would like to see deer units about the same size as the elk units, just managed differently for the deer than the elk.
 
Your Email isn't working....'no such account found yahoo'

Pretty simple to do this without much hassle..

Split the current regiions by 1/2....they are huge already! maybe this isn't so 'micro' as needed?

Combine Preference points and Bonus points into one deer point pool..

Get rid of the deer waiting period...

Use/lose your points on 1st choice drawn tag, earn a point if not drawn 1st choice, no points used/gained for 2nd thru 5th choice tag...

Get rid of the one species rule... odds that suck already aint going to get hurt much... and do the deer draw 1st, if ya draw 1st choice deer your out of the elk and/or antelope draw if ya applied..

Make it draw by weapon choice just like the current LE deer units.

Yes, keep the 50% max rule on tag allocation....

Robb
 
I agree with Robb. You can't have Limited Entry units and General Units with a micro managed approach. Just like Colorado, There could only be deer units.

Another can of worms with this type of system is the Conservation tags. Right now there are no general season deer tags going to the conservation tag system. But if you divide the state into similiar units, then maybe there would be conservation tags for every unit or no conservation tags at all.

Everyone realizes that there are already 32(?) deer units in Utah, right? These units are located within 5 regions and are managed seperatley from one another. If a unit dips below objective then the unit can be manipulated to recover. For example, they shortened the Nebo sub-unit hunt a few years ago. It did help and the herd recovered to objective and has remained there ever since.

I personally don't see a major advantage to the micro-units. Unless you change the objectives of each sub unit to higher ratios, then you are accomplishing nothing. You will still have 14-18 bucks per 100 doe, but you will only be able to hunt a smaller area. Just trying to look at it from another point of view.
 
dleonard3

I like your ideas and basicly you are on track and understand how it works. We need more guys like you. Send me your email so I can make sure your involved.

Mike
 
Hey rob try posting your email in my PM box and I will send you an email. Your ideas sound a lot like our neighbor to the east. Oh how I want to duplicate them. Your on the right track.

Mike
 
Packout, I think I know where you are coming from. I think they should disolve the term limited entry on deer units just like in CO. The Henery mountains would be a deer unit just like any of the newly created units. You would keep the same management objectives in place for the paunsaguant and henery mtns ect. You would have to pick a unit and apply, and by doing so it would increase odds of hunting a quality unit more frequently. Under Utah's current management plan, how can you manipulate a herd in a unit the size of New York. For example you have multiple herds within the Southern region. If the pine valley herd is suffering, the dwr has no way to limit the amount of hunters on that unit.Like wise, if the zion unit is over objective how do you issue more tags for that unit. There were 16200 any weapon and muzzy permits sold in 2005 and 1800 NR permits and than add 14400 state wide archery permits and 1600 NR state wide archery permits. I think you get the picture. The southern region is the most sought after region and units like the pine valley and zion, and fishlake units just get pounded year after year. If the Zion uint is the hot spot, there will be a huge shift to that unit and if this unit can only sustain 1000 hunters, yet has 5000 hunters. There is nothing the DWR can do about it.

Mike Nielson
 
I am really mixed on this proposal. I think that there are some real benefits that may be derived from this approach and there are some potential pitfalls. Success or failure will be determined in how the plan is managed. The way I look at it elk are already being micromanaged and that is what we would be looking at for deer. If tags are significantly limited as elk tags currently are, the plan is a no go for me.

Packout...there are currently conservation tags given on the general units; I bought a central tag from MDF this year.

dleonard3, I believe you have put forth some good ideas. Except the management tag concept, I agree with your ideas.

The trophy areas already exist. Elimination of LE deer units would provide that the Henries, Pauns., Book Cliffs, Vernon, etc. remained trophy areas. The biggest obstale with this will be finding a way to appease those who have accumulated bonus points. Micromanagement makes no sense if these units are kept separate from the plan.

The benefits are obvious, micro management allows the state to better control deer herds in small areas by controlling both hunters and herds. Areas that traditionally get hammered will have permit numbers controlled to better prevent overharvest. Biologists should be better able to assess the health of the deer as well as the habitat they are dependent on.

To be successful, micromanagement would have to require that hunters with all weapons will have to be restricted to a specific region. However insignificant primitive weapons harvest may be, this system cannot function properly if a all hunters are not restricted to the unit they draw for (Wasatch Front is probably an exception to this). This leads to the point that all hunters must be required to file a harvest report. This will provide much needed data to the UDWR regarding deer herds. I would also like to see the UDWR designate some walk-in/horseback only areas (ie Book Cliffs Little Creek).

So, what are the downfalls? If in an effort to maintain revenues, the UDWR pushes tags from a under quota region to an above quota unit, this management plan will do nothing to improve deer herds. It will simply be musical chairs. Each unit must be managed as an independent, stand alone unit.

Opportunity will most likely decrease in several ways. Currently, there are areas that hold deer that recieve very little pressure. Micromanagement will ensure that most of these will be discovered. You may not be able to get a tag for areas that you traditionally hunt. I live in Heber (Central Unit). I can be in the NE region in 10 minutes and the Northern region in 15 minutes. I'm now forced to choose between areas that a grew up hunting all in the same season. Micromanagement will do this to everyone.
 
Ditto what predator said!

Has everyone forgotten this is the same reasoning given to break up the state into the existing 5 regions? "we can finally manage by region and herds will improve!" Now we sit here 12 years later with herds in decline and the solution is even smaller subunits? The very fact that this is being discussed is due to FAILURE of the current "region" concept. Show me true proof this will help, because all I see is a reduction in hunting opportunity.

I am against micro units because I hunt across a wide area of the existing region I choose to hunt. I sometimes travel 75 miles from one location to another depending on weather and other factors. It would suck to be shoehorned into a tiny area where you still might not see a damn thing due to a possible fire or something having happened during the summer.

Show proof how this will help because if nothing else, we can statistically prove that the current regions had little to no effect. All this will do is put us on the road to drawing a tag every few years... then it will be every 10 years... then it will be like LE Elk, a once in a life time opportunity.

I'd rather hunt every year, I know where to find the deer, I see alot every year, I harvest one every year as does my wife.

PS: I love Packouts comment about there already being 32 deer management units... we need how many more?


-DallanC
 
Dahlmer- You have to keep up on things. The new conservation tag program excludes general deer tags, sandhill crane, etc. There will be no more general season deer tags given as conservation tags. No more Central tags auctioned at the Midway banquet for $200. But if all units are viewed as limitied entry then you could very well see an increase in deer tags for the conservation
tag program.

Now, the DWR can manipulate the subunits located within each of the 5 regions in 3 ways. Like I said before, there are currently 32(?) sub units within the 5 regions.

1- A subunit may be shut down and made as a limited entry unit, such as the Book Cliffs, Henry Mtns, etc. When reopened these units never live up to the previous hunter opportunities. Rather the trophy status is raised and we get few hunters harvesting bucks at a high success rate. The Book Cliffs once supported 5,000+ hunters at a 25% success rate = 1,250 dead bucks. Today there are only 400 hunters at a 90%+ success rate = 360 dead bucks at less than 10% of the previous opportunity.

2- The region as a whole can have its tags reduced. This means that there is still hunter opportunity, at a lower success rate, but can spread the hunter numbers. For example, cutting 1,000 buck tags in the Central Region saved over 250 bucks.

3- Sub units within the larger regions may have shortened seasons. The Nebo is a perfect example. We went before the RACs and asked the Nebo season be shortened to 5 days. At the time the Nebo herd had 11 bucks per 100 doe. 3 years later the Nebo sub unit had over 17 bucks per 100 doe. The Southern Region has also seen post season increases in the buck/doe ratio. But the Southern RAC asked to keep the shortened season one more year to solidify the herd.

One thing is certain, the doe population is getting bred by the bucks. Fawn to doe ratios are outstanding on many units. The buck element isn't the biggest problem in the equation of growing back our deer herds. These are just my opinions. I gave SFW credit for their previous stance against the micro units. I would hope they continue with that position.
 
Packout is Exactly correct.

Unless the Buck Doe ratios post season are raised from the current plan of 15, are we are doing is shuffling the same deck of cards. Ie. Pavant deer unit is 20 bucks, Fish lake is 10. So, DWR cuts tags in Fish lake, increased them on Pavant. Theoretically, they both are 15. ONe is worse, one is better.

What must be done to have bigger bucks is to get units up around 25.

If you look at the southern region right now, they are all between 12 and 18, without smaller units.

Here is the process folks.

1. IN Feb. if the DWR doesn't do it on its own, SFW will ask them to form a deer working group, just like hte elk group.

2. Over 5 months, the groups, with lots of folks input, MDF, SFW, RMEF, UBA, local clubs, DWR biologists, etc. would look at options, pros, cons, etc.

3. A proposal would be developed.

4. It would go to RACs and Board in November of 2007. Would become effective in 2008.

The reason SFW did not support breaking the state into smaller regions, was exactly what packout said, reshuffling the same deck, only taking away hunters ability to hunt in more places.

If the goal is to increase buck doe ratios, have more deer, bigger bucks, and it can be done, SFW members and Board would look very seriously at that.

Just look at San Juan deer unit. it has been micro managed for 15 years. for ten years the number of deer, the number of permits, the size of the bucks all declined.

the last two years, with much better water, lots less predators, and extensive coyote control, lots more deer, thus more bucks and in the future, bigger bucks.

just micro management of hunters does not grow deer herds.

just micro management of deer units does NOT produce big bucks.

higher post season buck doe ratio objectives allows more big bucks.

don
 
Dallen, I'm confused which side of the fence you are on. In your earlier post you said you were for micromanagement as long as the state wide archery guys were included. Now you are saying you are against smaller units. If you have to kill deer every year and hunt the same unit every year with declining quality, micromanagement is probably not for you. If you want to see and hunt big bucks every 2-3 years and have a outstanding hunt micromanagement is the answer. CO is a prime example of the success of micromanagement. I know a group of guys that hunt an undersubscribed unit in CO every year and they always kill bucks that we could only dream of shooting here in Utah on public lands. I have hunted my whole life in Utah, yet my two biggest bucks were killed in the last couple of years in CO. Proofs in the pudding. Micromanagement works.Yes, oppurtunities to hunt every year would decrease at first, but as herds improve so would the oppurtunities. If we insitute a program similar to other western states there would still be oppurtunity to hunt every year. Just not our favorite area. My other question is why do you need to jump from area to area to area in a given unit. I suspect it is because you are not finding what you want in your 1st area. I'm pretty sure if you were seeing an abundance of deer and particularly good bucks you would stay in your primary area. I personally don't have to hunt my favorite area every year and I don't have to kill something every year. I am currently enrolled in the dedicated hunter program and hunt all three seasons. I feel like I hunt as hard as any guy out there. It is not uncommn for me to see 50+ bucks from the archery hunt to the rifle hunt. Unfortunately, most these bucks are 1-3 year olds with willow horns and 1-4 points per side. I would be tickled just to shoot a 170 class buck in Utah but even these bucks are rare on public land. If we want to continue to manage for this age class of buck I guess we can just keep doing what were doing. Micro management isn't just for the trophy hunter. All age class of bucks are represented well. The question is do we do nothing or something? I'm for the latter. Complaining gets us no where

Mike Nielson
 
Packout, yes there are small things the DWR can do to reduce harvest like reducing the hunt to 5 days. But this doesn't target the problem. For example, if the Zion unit is way under objective and the DWR says lets shorten the hunt to 5 days (which they actually did in this unit).What have you achieved? You still have the same number of hunters (which is way to many) pounding the unit for 5 days instead of 7 days. Yes, I believe were savng a few bucks but not nearly enough to stay at objective. As for shutting down units, when is the last time this happened (bookcliffs). You can also reduce tags region wide but for what purpose. Maybe the area you hunt is under objective and an area that is 70 miles away is over objective. Does it make since to manage these deer as one herd. You can't tell hunters, "dont hunt in that unit we are under objective, or please hunt this unit we are over objective. Where is the logic in this? We are under objective in most units in Utah and it is going to take the sacrifice of all sportsman to get are deer herd back to were it should be.We can do something or nothing. I choose the latter. Complaining gets us no where.

Mike
 
Predator, you make a great point. We need more sound biological data. With micromanagement biologist would actually have to do field work and would take an active role in this plan.They would have to focus on individual herds. With regions as big as they are, they have it to easy. I think our biologist are taking an active role in habitat restoration but I'd like to see more in the way of harvest data and specific goals to acheive and maintain healthy objectives.
 
>Dallen, I'm confused which side of
>the fence you are on.
>In your earlier post you
>said you were for micromanagement
>as long as the state
>wide archery guys were included.

Ah, I should have phrased it differently I guess. My point was that you cant micro manage areas and still allow a significantly sized group of people to hunt anywhere in the state. I'm against it just like I was against the initial 5 region divisions. I like to hunt all over, not just a specific tiny area.


>Now you are saying you
>are against smaller units. If
>you have to kill deer
>every year and hunt the
>same unit every year with
>declining quality, micromanagement is probably
>not for you.

How does this affect the "meat hunters" then?

> If you
>want to see and hunt
>big bucks every 2-3 years
>and have a outstanding hunt
>micromanagement is the answer. CO
>is a prime example of
>the success of micromanagement.

I'm not convinced. First off the deer on average I've killed over the past 8 years are much larger than what I've killed previous to that.

Secondly, I have a brother in law that lives in Reno whos family hunts. I talked with his brother a while back and he said it was taking about 5 years to draw a tag and when they last drew, not a single person from his party even saw a buck (drew in the Rubys). THAT is what I dont want to happen here, a long wait to hunt a tiny area where you still may not find a deer.

I have no trouble even with todays "declining herds" in finding a buck, nor does my wife who hunts as well. Even the years we've failed to draw "general season", we've still both picked up bows and shot deer.

> I know a group of guys
>that hunt an undersubscribed unit
>in CO every year and
>they always kill bucks that
>we could only dream of
>shooting here in Utah on
>public lands. I have hunted
>my whole life in Utah,
>yet my two biggest bucks
>were killed in the last
>couple of years in CO.
>Proofs in the pudding. Micromanagement
>works.Yes, oppurtunities to hunt every
>year would decrease at first,
>but as herds improve so
>would the oppurtunities.

Just like the elk? They are thriving but what good is it if you cant draw a tag. I've said it before but I'd rather shoot a small bull than never hunt a monster. Unlike it seems alot of other people, I'm just happy to get out and hunt. I do not need a 200inch mule deer to stroke my ego ... I just want to enjoy the fall with my boy and wife, big deer or small deer be'damned.

>My other question
>is why do you need
>to jump from area to
>area to area in a
>given unit. I suspect it
>is because you are not
>finding what you want in
>your 1st area.

Why do I need a reason? I hunt one area because its where my dad grew up and I enjoy hiking around and seeing 50 year old names carved in some rare trees. I hunt a different area because I love the view from above the treeline. I hunt yet another area because its family property. Another I hunt because its close to my home and I can get there after work. Why should it matter the reason I hunt different places?

> I'm pretty
>sure if you were seeing
>an abundance of deer and
>particularly good bucks you would
>stay in your primary area.

How little you know me LOL!


>I personally don't have to
>hunt my favorite area every
>year and I don't have
>to kill something every year.
>I am currently enrolled in
>the dedicated hunter program and
>hunt all three seasons. I
>feel like I hunt as
>hard as any guy out
>there. It is not uncommn
>for me to see 50+
>bucks from the archery hunt
>to the rifle hunt. Unfortunately,
>most these bucks are 1-3
>year olds with willow horns
>and 1-4 points per side.
>I would be tickled just
>to shoot a 170 class
>buck in Utah but even
>these bucks are rare on
>public land. If we want
>to continue to manage for
>this age class of buck
>I guess we can just
>keep doing what were doing.

No, we manage for trophy bucks in areas for YOU. They are the Henerys, the Pauns, how many CWMUs. There ARE areas for horn hunters like you. My question is why do you feel the need to force this on the rest of the state, expecially when the current management regions arent making a major difference?

>Micro management isn't just for
>the trophy hunter. All age
>class of bucks are represented
>well. The question is do
>we do nothing or something?
>I'm for the latter. Complaining
>gets us no where
>
>Mike Nielson


I'm for changes that will work. I fail to see the different dividing the existing management regions into even smaller regions will help. Wanting to help the deer population is a good thing, but its the "what to do" that people still havent decided on.


-DallanC
 
I can understand your viewpoint. I just don't see things the same way.

You said, "We are under objective in most units in Utah". This is false information. I don't know where you got this information, but MOST units are at or above the buck doe ratio objective. This is the only objective that matters when talking about hunter numbers. Hunters are only harvesting the surplus bucks which are not needed to breed the doe population. Actually, the Henry Mtns and the Paunsagaunt are UNDER objective by not meeting the 5 year old age status, yet they are micromanaged. It all depends on how the objectives are set. If objectives are set too high then you will never meet them and you will have a mess such as the 100+ bulls per 100 cows on the San Juan.

You state, "reducing the hunt to 5 days...this doesn't target the problem." Actually it does target the problem. The target is to reduce harvest off a specific unit. You can do that by limiting tag numbers, closing units, or limiting the days in which the bucks can be harvested. It has worked in the past and I have seen it with my own eyes. I stood at the Central RAC, along with another fellow, and asked for the Nebo to be put on a 5 day hunt. They did it and the unit rebounded to objective and that is a fact.

You said, "As for shutting down units, when is the last time this happened (bookcliffs)." That is a good thing, seeing as this is the last resort option to stabilize overall herds. I would like to remind everyone that the 3 point or better restrictions were part of the cause for closing the Book Cliffs.

"You can also reduce tags region wide but for what purpose." To save a certain number of deer. It does help. There is factual evidence to show that it serves the purpose of reducing buck harvest.

Finally, you tell us "We can do something or nothing. I choose the latter. Complaining gets us no where." I have never liked it when anyone takes the preverbial "High Road". If you think that disagreeing with you is doing nothing then you are sorely mistaken.
 
Don, my idea of micromanagement is not to reshuffel the deck but to create a new one. New objectives. higher buck to doe ratios which means fewer tags. issuing the same amount of tags with more units is fruitless as you have said. Lets try and revive some "good ole day" units like the browse. I think this unit needs to be shut down. Biologist need to do some field research to come up with a plan of attack. I don't understand why they just opened this unit to the public after it was in such bad shape.
 
Packout, didn't intend to offend you. I'm sorry if I did. Your points are valid. We just have differnt priorities and that is ok. Your right, buck to doe ratios are at objective in many units but overall deer numbers are not. In fact they are way down in most units. A unit that has 5000 does will have approx 750 bucks. that is enough to get the breeding done but not enough bucks for 3000 guys to hunt. That is our problem in Utah right now. I'd also like to see the buck to doe ratio up to around 25.

Mike Nielson
 
Dallen, you have some great points.The DWR does have units for horn hunters. Unfortunately trying to draw a permit is like trying to win the lottery. If I had it my way we would cut tags in half, up the buck to doe ratio to 25 and micromange the units to meet and maintain these objectives. I, however, know not everyone thinks the way I do and has the same priorities as I do. And thats ok! As sportsman we need to some how meet in the middle. If we could even get tags cut by 1/3 that would be a step in the right direction.

Mike
 
Some very interesting reading on all the posts.

Gives a guy a chance to get some different perspectives from individuals that are very pro-mule deer and opportunity.

Robb
 
Good discussion I do agree with much of what is being said.
I do know that SFW is working on mule deer in many ways.
I have been pushing micro man. to them for a while. The board does listen to there members and that is one reason they have not pushed micro man. on the deer herd. They do not want any more lost oppurtunity, perceived or real.
If it was me writing the proclomation for '07 this is what you would get.

at least 32 units
archers, MZ, and rifle would have to draw a unit
Some units may be combined for archery.
every unit would be L.E.
General season preference points would be converted to bonus points. (This would be great for me as I have plenty Pref. points) Only one draw as it now is 50% to max etc. If you draw with 2nd choice you do not lose points.
All units that are not currently L.E. would be managed for 18+ bucks per 100 does post season. This number would dictate hunter numbers it is not so high that it would be overly restrictive but it would give everyone a good quality hunt.
I would look at making 3 seasons on the Wasatch Archery only early (Sept.) Middle (Oct.) and Late (Nov.)
The deer draw would be last and you would be ineligible for the draw if you draw any elk or OIL tag until the 2nd choice draw.
There would be some units highly restricted maybe even closed for the first year or two to get to objective.
The way I see it if a few of the big mountains around utah county had 18+ bucks per 100 it would take draw pressure from the LEs
Have to run the kids to school so I will continue later.
Dave W
 
Ok, now we can understand more where you are coming from. Essentially, you want to see 25 bucks per 100 doe throughout the state. The vehicle to get us there would be to micromanage units in the state and cut hunter opportunity. Some biologists feel that to get us to 25 bucks per 100 doe we must cut hunter opportunity in half or more. Once you cut 45,000 deer tags, how can the state deal with the income shortfall, the hunters who give up the their hunts, the loss of public support, etc? The Central Region is already a 2 year wait to draw, the Southern is a 2 year wait to draw. Now it will be 4-6 years? All for the sake of a few people harvesting slightly larger antlered deer?

The Oak Creek, 1000 lakes, Vernon, all have a 25 buck to 100 doe objective. All are micro-managed. NONE are increasing their overall deer population more than surrounding general deer units. Remember, total population means nothing when it comes to hunting as it relates to the health of the herd. All you need are enough bucks to breed the doe population. (Of course I do not want to manage units to that number.) So if the micromanaging isn't working to increase deer numbers on the units we already have, why should we go to it statewide?

I personally feel that every region should take a 10% hit in tags for all weapon types. Cutting 10,000 tags would save over 3,000 bucks statewide. When we hit the middle ground of our 15-20 buck objective then put the 10% back in.
 
There currently is a Deer Management Working group that has been formed to look at the management of the deer herds in the Cache unit. This is probably one of the owrst buck to doe ration herds in Utah and needs to be looked at before any other units. If we cannot work to improve this unit, then nothing will work on the other units.

For information on this working group, please call Mike Laughter (Regional Director of the MDF) at 801-391-0567.
 
Packout, at least we agree one thing. Cut tags! Micromanagement works better on some units than others. It is a mystery to me why. But I promise you most units would benifit. CO currently has a few units with 50-58 bucks per 100 does and most those bucks are 4 point or better. By the way you can draw this tag with 1-2 points.Cdow is trying desprately to reduce the number of bucks in this unit. What a bad problem to have. I have talked with a few guys that hunted this unit before it was micromanged and they couldn't find a good buck to save their lives. Right now I'm for any program that will at least cut tags and allow more bucks to reach maturity, yet provide oppurtunities for our younger generation.

mike
 
You want bigger bucks and bulls? Then you need less hunter opportunity. That's the trade off. some people want a tag every year, some are willing to go without a tag, knowing that when they do draw they will have quality.
 
What would be the problem with simply making the current LE elk units ..... LE deer units too......

Combine the gen deer Pref. points with the LE Bonus points and have one simple deer draw....

Lose your points on 1st choice drawn.... but not on 2nd thru 5th choice....

All weapons of choice tag allocations....drawn...

Robb
 
If you guys are serious about micromanagement, then you need to stop thinking like macromanagers. That means you need to relinquish some control and give it to the locals and the hunters in the specific areas.

Nobody can speak intelligently about Utah's deer herds on a statewide basis. The issues are interactive and too complex. But everybody keeps talking like they don't know better.

Those of us who have hunted and lived in the same places for a few decades know more than anybody about those small areas.

There's such an area within the central unit that I know. The management decisions that need to be made there are straight forward. But bringing the good old boys up to speed in a backroom with the Board isn't any more realistic than making headway through the central RAC.

Micromanagement - sure. But I doubt the sincere willingness of any of the conservation orgs, and SFW specifically, to adopt a true micromangement philosophy. Decisions would need to be made that you likely wouldn't understand or approve of. You'd have to trust to someone else's wisdom. Are you willing to do that?

On the dreamy side, I'd love a chance to prove the effectiveness of real micromanagement.
 
There is clearly a point of diminishing returns to micro management.

For example, Kreig Rassmussen, Forest Service biologist and avid hunter showed me his deer classifications on the Monroe Unit. Some drainages on the Monroe unit had 7 bucks per 100 does, some had 15, one had 22.

To get them all the same, You would have to divide the Monroe into 20 drainage units. but of course, how do you know where the bucks are in the huning season, because they travel to rutting grounds?

Should we split each of the 30 deer units into 20 sub units so there are 600 sub units ?

There are lots of options, and lots of factors that influence growing more deer, and managing to have more big bucks.

It will be a fun process to look at in 2007

Don
 
LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-06 AT 06:19AM (MST)[p]>There is clearly a point of
>diminishing returns to micro management.

Agreed. That point is where the data becomes faulty. There is an area in the Central region where the deer herd is thriving. But once it is included in the overall numbers for the entire region, the data doesn't support the fact. So the data is faulty. Faulty data = faulty decisions.

>but of course,
>how do you know where
>the bucks are in the
>huning season, because they travel
>to rutting grounds?

We need to identify their rutting grounds and their winter range as well. Those would be the factors that determine unit boundaries rather than roads or fencelines.

Anticipating the problem with gathering that sort of detailed data, why not require service hours of every big game hunter similar to the current DH program except with a buy-out option for those who have more money than time?
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_0772.JPEG
35F850DF-CA27-4BFC-AC4F-02B33291F705.jpeg
IMG_5986 3.jpg
Bookcliffs 1978
IMG_20190918_182855.jpg
2FFD4DC2-A5DE-42C0-9C7F-C6069931CBC0.jpeg
IMG_6652.jpeg
18508.jpeg
CE9F32BB-2D08-4BB3-91D0-2F8AAC8F58BC.jpeg
8123-181e50dde3fd5853fba53956dfb83793.jpg
WEBPAGE_20200902_104054.jpg
received_2036918646558319.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom