Tag Cuts Upon Tag Cuts

Sorry, I meant superior in this region.

There are no fences keeping them out, no special hunts removing them nor regulations saving them, why aren't they thriving naturally here?

I searched online and cannot find a single bit of evidence that whitetail deer were ever established in Utah and or "lethally stopped".

If you can provide something that states otherwise, I'd love to read it.
Whitetail deer have been steadily expanding their range across the west for several decades now. Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming all have mtn based whitetail deer herds.

They may not do AS well in the mtns, but they still grow in populations when other species falter.

My superior species comment was mostly in jest, but the fact is whitetail deer out compete mule deer, survive and grow in hostile environments. Mule deer do not.
 
Whitetail deer have been steadily expanding their range across the west for several decades now. Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming all have mtn based whitetail deer herds.

They may not do AS well in the mtns, but they still grow in populations when other species falter.

My superior species comment was mostly in jest, but the fact is whitetail deer out compete mule deer, survive and grow in hostile environments. Mule deer do not.
I certainly wouldn't mind the options of either species ?
 
@slamdunk

How often do you beat your wife?

A similar question to "where would we be without them".

I will point out your example, is one that raises "alarms"

MDF spent all sorts of time and money on the Pauns? Great. How many hunters does that benefit?

It benefits the deep pocket guys and their guides, who in turn, buy tags from MDF.

I'll notice you didn't point to the same efforts and input on places like the North Slope, or Central Nebo, or even Monte. Places where the majority of the hunting public, hunts.

What Hawkeye said I think is true. $fw is a special interest group. It's not surprising that as deer struggle, the units their donors buy tags on, aren't really(minus the Henry's). But they are, PR whores. If they could have fixed it statewide, they would have.

At 49 I'm in the middle generation. I remember the tail end of the great deer years. But I also live in the West of 2023.

We waste so much time and money on old complaints, and bogus math, that we don't address the way things actually are.

There will never be what Muley and Elk push. Never again. Like me, they chose to have kids. Utah isn't some backwoods state anymore.

Somewhere south of 400k is going to continue to be the best we can do given our growth.

So in my opinion, where do we get the most bang for our buck? A handful of LE units, and very restricted tags.

Or making hunting hard, by limiting tech, and having hunting open to the avg guy.

I know where I stand
 
@slamdunk

How often do you beat your wife?

A similar question to "where would we be without them".

I will point out your example, is one that raises "alarms"

MDF spent all sorts of time and money on the Pauns? Great. How many hunters does that benefit?

It benefits the deep pocket guys and their guides, who in turn, buy tags from MDF.

I'll notice you didn't point to the same efforts and input on places like the North Slope, or Central Nebo, or even Monte. Places where the majority of the hunting public, hunts.

What Hawkeye said I think is true. $fw is a special interest group. It's not surprising that as deer struggle, the units their donors buy tags on, aren't really(minus the Henry's). But they are, PR whores. If they could have fixed it statewide, they would have.

At 49 I'm in the middle generation. I remember the tail end of the great deer years. But I also live in the West of 2023.

We waste so much time and money on old complaints, and bogus math, that we don't address the way things actually are.

There will never be what Muley and Elk push. Never again. Like me, they chose to have kids. Utah isn't some backwoods state anymore.

Somewhere south of 400k is going to continue to be the best we can do given our growth.

So in my opinion, where do we get the most bang for our buck? A handful of LE units, and very restricted tags.

Or making hunting hard, by limiting tech, and having hunting open to the avg guy.

I know where I stand

The Pauns was just an example, not a 30,000ft view of conservation as a whole which is why I posted the screens hot of one single project board showing multiple projects.

I also always share the link to the WRI site where anyone can see literally hundreds of projects, past, present and future.

And for the record, there are major projects happening on Diamond Mountain far too large for the scope of volunteers and committee members.

Don't forget about the Cinnamon Creek acquisition which is now public land.
Screenshot_20230508_120004_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
Slammy-

Thanks for the response. You ask: "where would we be without these efforts by conservation groups?"

That is a good question. I acknowledge that most of these groups engage in some good activities and projects that benefit wildlife. I sincerely wonder, however, what return the average sportsmen sees in exchange for the numerous conservation and expo permits used to fund these groups. One answer is that although our deer herds in Utah are still struggling 30 years later, they would be much worse off without these tags and the conservation groups. Perhaps that is true. But I have not been able to see a significant difference in the quality of hunting in Utah compared to other states who have not adopted the Utah model.

My questions in Post 198 were not intended to turn this thread into an SFW or conservation organization bash. However, I seriously want people to consider the fact that SFW has done their best over the last 30 years with millions of dollars to work with, and we still are where we are today. I don't blame SFW solely for the current state of our deer herds but I also recognize that if any group has had the opportunity to solve the problem it is SFW. The reality is this is a complex, multi-faceted problem that no western state has solved. Only time will tell if anyone will be successful in turning the tide on our declining deer herds.

Thanks for what you do and for getting involved in something you care about. I would like to catch up with you some time to discuss these issues in more detail. I may even try to make it to your upcoming golf event.


Hawkeye
 
Last edited:
Slammy-

Thanks for the response. You ask: "where would we be without these efforts by conservation groups?"

That is a good question. I acknowledge that most of these groups engage in some good activities and projects that benefit wildlife. I sincerely wonder, however, what return the average sportsmen sees in exchange for the numerous conservation and expo permits used to fund these groups. One answer is that although our deer herds in Utah are still struggling 30 years later, they would be much worse off without these tags and the conservation groups. Perhaps that is true. But I have not been able to see a significant difference in the quality of hunting in Utah compared to other states who have not adopted the Utah model.

My questions in Post 198 were not intended to turn this thread into an SFW or conservation organization bash. However, I seriously want people to consider the fact that SFW has probably done their best over the last 30 years with millions of dollars to work with and we still are where we are today. I don't blame SFW for the current state of our deer herds but I also recognize that if any group has had the opportunity to solve the problem it is SFW. The reality is this is a complex, multi-faceted problem that no western state has solved. Only time will tell is anyone will be successful in turning the tide on our declining deer herds.

Thanks for what you do and for getting involved in something you care about. I would like to catch up with you some time to discuss these issues in more detail. I may even try to make it to your upoming golf event.

Hawkeye

Hawkeye
Much respect Hawkeye ?

I try to hard sometimes to defend conservation efforts and I will never win with everyone, but I appreciate your comments, views and acceptance for what we do and are trying to "help".

The golf tournament is going to be an absolute blast, and all the money raised will stay in Utah county local projects, not a general fund.
Hope to see you there my friend.
 
Winter range is in continual flux. The WRI has helped to try and improve winter range but it will be a long and continued process to maintain.

And the deer boom in the 1950's and '60s was created by a pretty unique series of events. The results were massive die offs in the late 40's caused by over utilization of the winter ranges. This demanded population control and Utah returned to either sex hunting to try and correct the problem.

They probably waited a bit too long to end that practice before going back to predominately buck only hunting. The history shows a boom or bust cycle is pretty common for mule deer.
 
Winter range is in continual flux. The WRI has helped to try and improve winter range but it will be a long and continued process to maintain.

And the deer boom in the 1950's and '60s was created by a pretty unique series of events. The results were massive die offs in the late 40's caused by over utilization of the winter ranges. This demanded population control and Utah returned to either sex hunting to try and correct the problem.

They probably waited a bit too long to end that practice before going back to predominately buck only hunting. The history shows a boom or bust cycle is pretty common for mule deer.
Not to mention, compound 1080, lack of access to the back country, less wildfire prevention, lack of certain invasive weeds, way smaller interstate highways with a fraction of the traffic that currently is going up and down these corridors, less roads, less homes, huge amounts of cattle grazing that happened well before the boom that gave way to the sage brush mecca our state once was (sort of still is).

The unique set of circumstances was unique in so many ways it will never ever happen again. Short of the human population dying off in large numbers and our culture reverting to the values and needs it had 70-100 years ago...... what we see now will likley continue.
 
Did they cut 500 tags I swear I saw them add 500? Am I up in the night here?
The wildlife board made the decision not to follow the dwr recommended 2500 tags and set it at 2000, the same as last year. They said since the O/S was the only unit with an increase in the central region. They felt it should be the same as the others.
 
Not to mention, compound 1080, lack of access to the back country, less wildfire prevention, lack of certain invasive weeds, way smaller interstate highways with a fraction of the traffic that currently is going up and down these corridors, less roads, less homes, huge amounts of cattle grazing that happened well before the boom that gave way to the sage brush mecca our state once was (sort of still is).

The unique set of circumstances was unique in so many ways it will never ever happen again. Short of the human population dying off in large numbers and our culture reverting to the values and needs it had 70-100 years ago...... what we see now will likley continue.
Bullseye ?
 
The Pauns was just an example, not a 30,000ft view of conservation as a whole which is why I posted the screens hot of one single project board showing multiple projects.

I also always share the link to the WRI site where anyone can see literally hundreds of projects, past, present and future.

And for the record, there are major projects happening on Diamond Mountain far too large for the scope of volunteers and committee members.

Don't forget about the Cinnamon Creek acquisition which is now public land.View attachment 109855

Agree or not, you always provide the best answer you can, that's standup?
 
Agree or not, you always provide the best answer you can, that's standup?
I try too hard sometimes.

For the record, I don't beat my wife.
I don't even have one, but if you know any prospects that love to fish, plant bushes and hang out at the Expo, I'm looking!!?
 
Hawkeye,
I understand your thoughts and agree with a lot of them . But I do see things differently on others.

MDF…habitat organization…a good one…but not the group that’s gonna make huge push for changes outside of habit..that is admitted and by design.

SFW…great intentions to start…some great help along the way…never willing to actually push hard enough to move the need and for many years now unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it …so back to DWR management.

That’s why I asked about private management. You look at the Monroe when they pumped a huge amount of money into coyote control. The following years the fawn survival was over 90%. Why’d they stop and not do it more on other units? Look at areas that burn and create feed, look at the areas that habitat has been improved. A private company that is controlling the income and budgets will put dollars into the right places and actually drive to increase the deer numbers if that’s what they are paid to do or they lose their money or “contract” with the state. What’s the DWRs current budget? What could a private company generate?

Yes a slippery slope and no I don’t totally agree with that model or direction. The only reason I bring it up is that I don’t believe that Utah can care 350,000 mule deer. I still believe they could carry 600,000. But it would take a group of professionals without the influence and pressure of the general public to do it .
 
Muley-

I would contend that SFW has had the power, influence and control, and has exerted plenty of pressure on wildlife issues over the past 30 years. Sure, the DWR makes recommendations based upon biology, but SFW has largely controlled the WB, which is the body that sets wildlife policy in the state and and essentially dictates the marching orders for the DWR. In addition, I know from personal experience (;)) that SFW and its lobbyists also have deep and established relationships with key legislators and the governor's office. In short, SFW knows how to play the game and has played it well. If SFW actually knew what needed to be done to grow our deer herds, then why didn't they do it over the last three decades? Were they really worried about stepping on toes or biting the hand that feeds them? I don't think so. The reality is SFW and their folks on the WB have gone against recommendations and and suggestions from the DWR on many occasions with no reprisal.

I think the real issue is that nobody really knows how to realistically and consistently grow our deer herds. Sure, Utah and the conservation groups have thrown a ton of money at projects and seen temporary growth in mule deer numbers but then a drought or a bad winter comes along and we are right back at square one. In short, I don't see things getting significantly better in the long term. And heaven forbid we ever privatize wildlife management in the state of Utah. Frankly, Utah has come the closest of any western state to doing just that with the amount of money, power and influence we have turned over to certain conservation groups. I personally think the tail has been wagging the dog for the last 20 years with little, if any, positive results for mule deer.

Hawkeye
 
Hawk,
I guess I base my views on knowing when and what the SFW would actually push for. What they were willing to support when the push back came…which was not always seen publicly. There was a time they did do more than any other organization in the state for wildlife. (No shade on MDF because I feel they have really picked up their game in the past few years). However I also feel mule deer have always been taboo to deal with in the state and SFW learned that a long time ago and stopped making the big push if it challenged the DWR plan.
Just this year everyone saying the WB is run by the SFW…..sure didn’t seem like it in the meeting last week …did it?

Anyway…all I’m saying with private is I believe they would run it better. Would it cost more…with out question! Is the resource worth more than we charge for ir…absolutely…are there better ways to manage ir..yes. Want more tags, grow more deer and commit to it. If you don’t then you shouldnt put pressure to have a tag or more tags added. According to most posting we can’t grow more deer and mostly likely are going to lose more…but they are screaming for more tags. That is irresponsible on a conservation side of things anyway you cut it. Especially when you don’t really know one way or the other on some decisions …like Buck/Doe ratios….nature says it should be 100/100…
 
Hawk,
I guess I base my views on knowing when and what the SFW would actually push for. What they were willing to support when the push back came…which was not always seen publicly. There was a time they did do more than any other organization in the state for wildlife. (No shade on MDF because I feel they have really picked up their game in the past few years). However I also feel mule deer have always been taboo to deal with in the state and SFW learned that a long time ago and stopped making the big push if it challenged the DWR plan.
Just this year everyone saying the WB is run by the SFW…..sure didn’t seem like it in the meeting last week …did it?

Anyway…all I’m saying with private is I believe they would run it better. Would it cost more…with out question! Is the resource worth more than we charge for ir…absolutely…are there better ways to manage ir..yes. Want more tags, grow more deer and commit to it. If you don’t then you shouldnt put pressure to have a tag or more tags added. According to most posting we can’t grow more deer and mostly likely are going to lose more…but they are screaming for more tags. That is irresponsible on a conservation side of things anyway you cut it. Especially when you don’t really know one way or the other on some decisions …like Buck/Doe ratios….nature says it should be 100/100…
Would the private company be responsible for damages that wildlife cause.
 
Hey hossy?

I'll Answer You First Question!

He Can't & Doesn't Beat His Wife!

@slamdunk

How often do you beat your wife?

A similar question to "where would we be without them".

I will point out your example, is one that raises "alarms"

MDF spent all sorts of time and money on the Pauns? Great. How many hunters does that benefit?

It benefits the deep pocket guys and their guides, who in turn, buy tags from MDF.

I'll notice you didn't point to the same efforts and input on places like the North Slope, or Central Nebo, or even Monte. Places where the majority of the hunting public, hunts.

What Hawkeye said I think is true. $fw is a special interest group. It's not surprising that as deer struggle, the units their donors buy tags on, aren't really(minus the Henry's). But they are, PR whores. If they could have fixed it statewide, they would have.

At 49 I'm in the middle generation. I remember the tail end of the great deer years. But I also live in the West of 2023.

We waste so much time and money on old complaints, and bogus math, that we don't address the way things actually are.

There will never be what Muley and Elk push. Never again. Like me, they chose to have kids. Utah isn't some backwoods state anymore.

Somewhere south of 400k is going to continue to be the best we can do given our growth.

So in my opinion, where do we get the most bang for our buck? A handful of LE units, and very restricted tags.

Or making hunting hard, by limiting tech, and having hunting open to the avg guy.

I know where I stand
 
Always Amazes Me When The Excuse is:

Lack Of Habitat!

Which In Places It's True!

But That Excuse Doesn't Work For Everywhere!

Put It On The List Of 50+!
 
Muley, I'd be interested in where you came up with the theory of nature saying B/D ratios should be 100/100.

I haven't seen any evidence that indicates bucks are not actively seeking multiple does.
 
Elk, All I ask is you define how much good winter range habitat exists in Utah today.

If you need a definition try reading this. Starts on page 32.
Would it fix every problem? No. But it would reduce a ton of factors in your hell right.


How many animals starved to death this winter? That only happened because there were too many animals for the winter range to support.

Was this an exceptional year? For sure. But the bottom line is they died because they didn't have enough feed to survive,

The question should be is there any chance to change that? It hasn't happened yet in the history of deer in Utah.
 
The Habitat/Vegetation Probably Isn't As Good Anywhere As It Once Was!

But Don't Tell Me There Ain't Enough Habitat Around The Henry Mountains To Not Grow More Deer Than There Is!

Lots Of Reasons Why!

But Most People Blame One Item!





Elk, All I ask is you define how much good winter range habitat exists in Utah today.

If you need a definition try reading this. Starts on page 32.
Would it fix every problem? No. But it would reduce a ton of factors in your hell right.


How many animals starved to death this winter? That only happened because there were too many animals for the winter range to support.

Was this an exceptional year? For sure. But the bottom line is they died because they didn't have enough feed to survive,

The question should be is there any chance to change that? It hasn't happened yet in the history of deer in Utah.
 
So you believe it’s as good as it’s gonna get?

Nope, I didn’t say that. You should stop assuming you know the answers. You suck at this game.

Yes, I believe the mule deer situation can be better in Utah. No, I do not believe private oversight could create what you’re asking.

600k mule deer is not sustainable in today’s Utah.

And with help from folks like you, maybe we can get that number down to 100k! Well done on all that involvement. Again, thank you!
 
Ther
Muley, I'd be interested in where you came up with the theory of nature saying B/D ratios should be 100/100.

I haven't seen any evidence that indicates bucks are not actively seeking multiple does.


Outside of humans(and that's questionable), monogamy isn't a thing.

There's zero zoological evidence to back up 1:1 ratios.

Just another of the crap biological statements he makes, then pretends it's the gospel truth.

Not even in controlled environment do you get 1:1.
 
Here’s a question for everyone gathered.

If Utahs deer herd was managed by a private company . Could charge what they wanted for tags but had to show a set increase of overall herd numbers each year. Once they reached a set number they were required to maintain that number. Let’s set the number at 600,000. Could it be done?
I say NO! That's a lot of IF's! But the biggest one is the first one. Allowing, contracting, securing, monitoring, and auditing a private company to manage a statewide public resource would require so many legal, legislative and regulatory changes that there would not be enough support from state officials, thousands of landowners and stakeholders and the general public to make it happen. And making the logistical and physical changes necessary to grow and maintain the herds, flocks, and schools at the levels required would cost far more than a private company could ever collect from hunters and fishermen, especially since they would also lose Federal funding.

Imagine plugging a private company into the work the DWR is now doing, but relying only on the free market system to finance and get the hands-on and field work done! Also, a private company would NEVER get the cooperation from stakeholders the DWR now gets.

There certainly are many things we can do to possibly increase the deer herds, but I don't think turning the management of public resources over to a private company is one of them.

Now, having said that, if there is one thing I think q private company could do to make a huge difference is for Utah to find and hire a private company to control cheatgrass. Cheatgrass has ruined more deer habitat than could ever have been imagined. It's nasty stuff and controlling it would open up thousands of acres of viable wildlife forage. I don't know of anyone who wants cheatgrass on any of their property and most would cooperate in it's eradication. Kill cheatgrass and grow native grasses, forbs and brush and the wildlife will grow with them.
 
Ther


Outside of humans(and that's questionable), monogamy isn't a thing.

There's zero zoological evidence to back up 1:1 ratios.

Just another of the crap biological statements he makes, then pretends it's the gospel truth.

Not even in controlled environment do you get 1:1.
In 2008, a QDMA survey showed the average fawn recruitment rate in the United States was 0.83 fawns per adult doe. The rate ranged from less than 0.5 fawns per adult doe in Arizona and Oklahoma to 1.2 fawns per adult doe in Illinois and Iowa. The fawn recruitment rate isn’t the number of fawns born but the number that survive to about 6 months of age and are recruited into the fall deer population. At this rate there will be 75 fawns (about 38 bucks and 37 does; fawn sex ratios often slightly favor bucks). These won’t be added to the adult population until the following year, but last year’s fawns get added this year

Hmm it actually shows it’s slightly higher for males. Which is not uncommon with mammals. Humans run 105 males to 100 females.

Fact after m fact could slap you all in the face and you’ll all ignore them if it justifies more tags. Unless for some reason SFW did actually find the cure and added more tags….then those tags might be bad….that’s a 50/50 gamble.
 
I say NO! That's a lot of IF's! But the biggest one is the first one. Allowing, contracting, securing, monitoring, and auditing a private company to manage a statewide public resource would require so many legal, legislative and regulatory changes that there would not be enough support from state officials, thousands of landowners and stakeholders and the general public to make it happen. And making the logistical and physical changes necessary to grow and maintain the herds, flocks, and schools at the levels required would cost far more than a private company could ever collect from hunters and fishermen, especially since they would also lose Federal funding.

Imagine plugging a private company into the work the DWR is now doing, but relying only on the free market system to finance and get the hands-on and field work done! Also, a private company would NEVER get the cooperation from stakeholders the DWR now gets.

There certainly are many things we can do to possibly increase the deer herds, but I don't think turning the management of public resources over to a private company is one of them.

Now, having said that, if there is one thing I think q private company could do to make a huge difference is for Utah to find and hire a private company to control cheatgrass. Cheatgrass has ruined more deer habitat than could ever have been imagined. It's nasty stuff and controlling it would open up thousands of acres of viable wildlife forage. I don't know of anyone who wants cheatgrass on any of their property and most would cooperate in it's eradication. Kill cheatgrass and grow native grasses, forbs and brush and the wildlife will grow with them.
Elk,
Nope the private group would be responsible for it all. It’s would be their job to grow more deer. Whatever that took.

However that is a good list of obstacles that’s in many ways become more important to the state agency than the actual resource.
 
Last edited:
In 2008, a QDMA survey showed the average fawn recruitment rate in the United States was 0.83 fawns per adult doe. The rate ranged from less than 0.5 fawns per adult doe in Arizona and Oklahoma to 1.2 fawns per adult doe in Illinois and Iowa. The fawn recruitment rate isn’t the number of fawns born but the number that survive to about 6 months of age and are recruited into the fall deer population. At this rate there will be 75 fawns (about 38 bucks and 37 does; fawn sex ratios often slightly favor bucks). These won’t be added to the adult population until the following year, but last year’s fawns get added this year

Hmm it actually shows it’s slightly higher for males. Which is not uncommon with mammals. Humans run 105 males to 100 females.

Fact after m fact could slap you all in the face and you’ll all ignore them if it justifies more tags. Unless for some reason SFW did actually find the cure and added more tags….then those tags might be bad….that’s a 50/50 gamble.
This seems apples to oranges. Farm deer in the Midwest to mounatin deer in the west. Are they even comparable
 
This seems apples to oranges. Farm deer in the Midwest to mounatin deer in the west. Are they even comparable
Oklahoma and Arizona are farm deer? Have you spent time in those areas around the deer there?

It you look at “deer” across the board they range form 1:1 to about 1:1.74 so 100-100 down to about 100-60ish. But way way way above 100-10.

It’s funny how you all pick and choose the biology you chose to look at. This all started with biology biology biology…until it doesn’t support more tags….is that correct???
 
Last edited:
The Habitat/Vegetation Probably Isn't As Good Anywhere As It Once Was!

But Don't Tell Me There Ain't Enough Habitat Around The Henry Mountains To Not Grow More Deer Than There Is!

Lots Of Reasons Why!

But Most People Blame One Item!

You certainly are in that group that blames only one, you just choose to blame one that has nothing to do with anything!
 
In 2008, a QDMA survey showed the average fawn recruitment rate in the United States was 0.83 fawns per adult doe. The rate ranged from less than 0.5 fawns per adult doe in Arizona and Oklahoma to 1.2 fawns per adult doe in Illinois and Iowa. The fawn recruitment rate isn’t the number of fawns born but the number that survive to about 6 months of age and are recruited into the fall deer population. At this rate there will be 75 fawns (about 38 bucks and 37 does; fawn sex ratios often slightly favor bucks). These won’t be added to the adult population until the following year, but last year’s fawns get added this year

Hmm it actually shows it’s slightly higher for males. Which is not uncommon with mammals. Humans run 105 males to 100 females.

Fact after m fact could slap you all in the face and you’ll all ignore them if it justifies more tags. Unless for some reason SFW did actually find the cure and added more tags….then those tags might be bad….that’s a 50/50 gamble.


Thanks professor. Now, to reach your 1:1 in the real world, where we actually kill bucks, you'd need to have 140-150: to 100 in fawns?

Further, in your fantasy world, males are biology needed for 1 thing. Sperm. So in the real world, were there are habitat limits, especially in winter, you would be directly competing with deer producers to feed animals that don't produce. Or, because math is hard, you REDUCE herd size, to create a bumper crop of older bucks.

There's a reason livestock producers trying to grow and even maintain their herds, don't have 1:1 ratios
 
Oklahoma and Arizona are farm deer? Have you spent time in those areas around the deer there?
Just seems odd you couldn't find a study with surging numbers in Wyoming Colorado or Nevada. I would think those would be more comparable to Utah than Oklahoma or Illinois
 
Again I didn’t say we have to manage at 1:1. I stated that is nature. What I argue is we harvest to close to the line that can hurt the herd when all factors involved.

Also our deer herds are not a controlled farmed situation …if all the does where rounded up into pens at the end it the year then sure you could sperm them up a helluva lot easier with less males. But let’s be honest that is not reality.

As far as professor …no…didn’t claim to be one. Just backed up my comment. As usual you’re too blinded to even recognize reality.
 
Oklahoma and Arizona are farm deer? Have you spent time in those areas around the deer there?

It you look at “deer” across the board they range form 1:1 to about 1:1.74 so 100-100 down to about 100-60ish. But way way way above 100-10.

It’s funny how you all pick and choose the biology you chose to look at. This all started with biology biology biology…until it doesn’t support more tags….is that correct???


You literally googled human birth rates, negated the "why" and now talk about biology?

Next, IN BIOLOGY the more variables, the less reliable the outcome.

Oklahoma, that YOU cited is in a different climate, geology, biome, etc, and since you didn't separate it, I'll assume included whitetail numbers.

IN BIOLOGY, the rut takes place in November primarily, sending bucks injured and nutritionally depleted to deal with winter= higher death rates.

Excess bucks exasperate that condition.

And while I don't know the number, I'm sure there is one, more time fighting=less time breeding, and more dead, injured, and depleted without breeding efficiency.

IN biology, we care about %of bred does. Not how many bucks try.

IN BIOLOGY, we don't compare the habitat, and human interference of the 60's to 2023, then try to extrapolate anything.

The golden age, the one you are so obsessed with, was AN ACCIDENT. There was very little deer "management". There was few people, and MASSIVE predator kill off for the livestock producers.


But again, for the umpteenth time, what is the conspiracy?

You've yet to explain it. Why are biologists, whose job is biology, so dead set on destroying deer hunting?

I won't hold my breath
 
No that’s not correct hoss, but it sounded good to type right?

To answer your question…it’s not really what their job is. Their job is to keep the state run agency happy and keep the public off their bosses case. Unfortunately the bosses have to react to unhappy hunters wanting more tags more than they want a healthy resource.
 
Deseret Land and Livestock is about at "Farm" as a natural free ranging deer and elk herds can get, yet are managed as two completely different beasts....as they are.

The elk can be and are managed to 1:1 ratios because elk are not nearly as susceptible to negative impacts of weather's varying annual impacts.

Tightly controlled tag allotments and cull tags for both inferior bulls and overall cow numbers can achieve those goals for elk, whereas the mule deer up there are more at Nature's mercy.

Very limited buck tags that allow for trophy quality and older age classes by limiting kills and high prices save young bucks from the meat bags.

Deseret has extremely prime habitat for mule deer, yet they are just as vulnerable as a public land herd by nature.
 
Let's see if we can get back on target. The main point that I and many others are trying to make in these posts is that hunters are not the limiting factor for our mule deer herds. The reality is that the current general unit buck-to-doe ratios are generally higher than they have been in the last 30 years and are more than sufficient to ensure that the does get bred in a timely manner. Therefore, the current fighting about increasing buck-to-doe ratios has more to do with increasing the quality and number of bucks than it does with growing our mule deer herds. The problem with that logic, at least to me, is it will require us to eliminate more hunters.

If we want to grow our deer herds then we need to increase the number of does and the numbers of fawns that are born and survive. Stockpiling additional bucks above the general unit 15-17 and 18-20 standards will not grow our herds and may even limit herd growth if those bucks are competing with does and fawns for limited resources.

I like to hunt and kill big animals . . . even though I have limited success in that area. I personally have not shot a small buck (3x3 or smaller) in over 20 years. However, I do not support cutting tags from our general unit hunts in an effort to stockpile more bucks and climb above the buck-to-doe ratios in the Mule Deer Plan. If the biologists tell us to cut tags in order to maintain a proper ratio - so be it. But I am not a fan of the current push by many sportsmen to continue to eliminate general season tags with the hopes that the entire state can someday achieve LE-type quality. Often times, the most vocal proponents of this push have a vested interest in increased quality (guides, outfitters, lifetime license holders, etc.). Increased trophy quality state-wide would be a lot of fun but at what cost? The loss of tens of thousands of additional hunters.

Hawkeye
 
Deseret Land and Livestock is about at "Farm" as a natural free ranging deer and elk herds can get, yet are managed as two completely different beasts....as they are.

The elk can be and are managed to 1:1 ratios because elk are not nearly as susceptible to negative impacts of weather's varying annual impacts.

Tightly controlled tag allotments and cull tags for both inferior bulls and overall cow numbers can achieve those goals for elk, whereas the mule deer up there are more at Nature's mercy.

Very limited buck tags that allow for trophy quality and older age classes by limiting kills and high prices save young bucks from the meat bags.

Deseret has extremely prime habitat for mule deer, yet they are just as vulnerable as a public land herd by nature.
Slam,
I agree. Not to mention that elk are way easier to bounce back with poor management. They can mess up big time and in a couple to a few years be right back on top with elk.
 
No that’s not correct hoss, but it sounded good to type right?

To answer your question…it’s not really what their job is. Their job is to keep the state run agency happy and keep the public off their bosses case. Unfortunately the bosses have to react to unhappy hunters wanting more tags more than they want a healthy resource.
Screenshot_2023-05-09-08-14-59-82_680d03679600f7af0b4c700c6b270fe7.jpg


Yeah?

So wait. Your saying their job is to perpetuate hunting? I'll be damned.
 
View attachment 109892

Yeah?

So wait. Your saying their job is to perpetuate hunting? I'll be damned.
Hoss,
The study I pulled was based on mammas, I also looked at deer along with other ungulates. So show nothing in nature comes close to the line we chose to manage to. Looks like your search showed the same number I came across when searching. What did you see on deer and ungulates…or was that info not enough inline with your narrative that you missed it?
 
I’ve yet to see Hoss or Vbag suggest anything other than more tags more tags more tags.

So am I to understand that shooting more Dee each year or going to add to the overall numbers?

Or do you both not really have any ideas and are just more addicted to crying on the interweb?

You both have SCREAMED that SFW completely controls the WB…I’ll ask again…what happened last week???
 
I’ve yet to see Hoss or Vbag suggest anything other than more tags more tags more tags.

So am I to understand that shooting more Dee each year or going to add to the overall numbers?

Or do you both not really have any ideas and are just more addicted to crying on the interweb?

You both have SCREAMED that SFW completely controls the WB…I’ll ask again…what happened last week???
After 4 decades of less tag based management, maybe they are on to something?
 
We need our does to have twins and even triplets this year, but after such a harsh winter, I'm afraid higher miscarriages will be the result.
Slam,
I agree. So many factors that we have very little to no control off…. Yet we fight and scream the loudest about the exact thing we have the most control of . And we allow ourselves to ride the line very close. Lots and lots of options to address it and many only want more and for a way to justify it.
 
Hoss,
The study I pulled was based on mammas, I also looked at deer along with other ungulates. So show nothing in nature comes close to the line we chose to manage to. Looks like your search showed the same number I came across when searching. What did you see on deer and ungulates…or was that info not enough inline with your narrative that you missed it?


Now your comparing multiple species across multiple biomes?

Dude.

SERIOUSLY. If your going to play biologist , at least understand basics.

You googled the human rate. The next few paragraphs explain the WHY.

That's always the issue with the stuff you post. You read data sets, extrapolate that to huge areas, then act like you don't get why it's not working.

Some of the best deer work in Utah, is being done on the Cache.

Here's what it's going to show. Near zero fawn recruitment.

Now, if I'm you, I see that, apply it statewide, and demand tag cuts.

An actual biologist, say on the Manti for example, will look at his roughly 80% rate, compare it to long term trends, and might, just might come up with a different number.

A biologist, might also factor in other variables.

In fact, an honest biologist will realize the data set is likely skewed because its based either from collar studies, or observational study, and both are flawed because generally, these animals are selected from concentrated populations, ie, winter grounds.


But, again, to simplify.

There are very basic principles in biological science.

You skip past all of them, cherry pick a couple, then extrapolate that across regions.

No. No amount of "professional" management will counteract loss of huge swaths in Utah to development. No amount will counteract I-15, I-84, highway 6, 40, 89.

No amount of pros will counteract complete deadzones covered in beetlekill, in your own neighborhood.

Or, we could just pretend, it's 1960, and none of that's happened.

600,000 is a pipe dream, and not one reputable biologist believes it's possible.

Its funny, you followed your dad around the state. How was biology in 1950-60 for deer.

The golden age wasn't managed into existence.

It was stumbled into.
 
I’ve yet to see Hoss or Vbag suggest anything other than more tags more tags more tags.

So am I to understand that shooting more Dee each year or going to add to the overall numbers?

Or do you both not really have any ideas and are just more addicted to crying on the interweb?

You both have SCREAMED that SFW completely controls the WB…I’ll ask again…what happened last week???

First, learn to read.

Where did I scream for more tags?

I've screamed to quit cutting them.

More specific I've asked you to show me the proof of any success in cutting 2/3 of hunters.

Show the numbers the year $fw started. Show them today.
 
Now your comparing multiple species across multiple biomes?

Dude.

SERIOUSLY. If your going to play biologist , at least understand basics.

You googled the human rate. The next few paragraphs explain the WHY.

That's always the issue with the stuff you post. You read data sets, extrapolate that to huge areas, then act like you don't get why it's not working.

Some of the best deer work in Utah, is being done on the Cache.

Here's what it's going to show. Near zero fawn recruitment.

Now, if I'm you, I see that, apply it statewide, and demand tag cuts.

An actual biologist, say on the Manti for example, will look at his roughly 80% rate, compare it to long term trends, and might, just might come up with a different number.

A biologist, might also factor in other variables.

In fact, an honest biologist will realize the data set is likely skewed because its based either from collar studies, or observational study, and both are flawed because generally, these animals are selected from concentrated populations, ie, winter grounds.


But, again, to simplify.

There are very basic principles in biological science.

You skip past all of them, cherry pick a couple, then extrapolate that across regions.

No. No amount of "professional" management will counteract loss of huge swaths in Utah to development. No amount will counteract I-15, I-84, highway 6, 40, 89.

No amount of pros will counteract complete deadzones covered in beetlekill, in your own neighborhood.

Or, we could just pretend, it's 1960, and none of that's happened.

600,000 is a pipe dream, and not one reputable biologist believes it's possible.

Its funny, you followed your dad around the state. How was biology in 1950-60 for deer.

The golden age wasn't managed into existence.

It was stumbled into.
Hoss,
If that’s a fact and we stumbled into it…would it not say we stumbled into opportunity for 240k to hunt? If your biology says we can’t have 600,000 then we can’t have even 120k hunters. We hand 335,000 so 67k is not that far off. Let’s also be honest that when we had 240k hunters we had 3-4 buck per 100 does. So is that the number you’re ok with?
 
So Berry, how many tags.
As many as hunter satisfaction numbers can support. Right now we have 600,000~applicants in this state. We are servicing 13% of them with general season deer. I’m betting we could go back to 100,000+ without seeing a meaningful down turn in survey satisfaction. There’s always a loud subsection that will complain, no matter what we do. Let them whine.

We also need to exterminate, murder, eliminate, or whatever other distasteful verbiage you dream up, every single urban deer in the state.

Private land only deer tags should also be a thing along the same lines as elk.

And finally, as God of all, I’m taking a deep dive into base level model science. I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that the model errs on the wrong side of the standard deviation. Meaning we have a few more deer lost to predation, vehicles, hunters, nature, etc etc than we think. So when the proverbial pendulum swings, it’s not in managements favor. 1-2% in all of those things makes the management model unsustainable when something out of our control happens.

You want to talk about privatization? Well step one of the supply and demand curve that dictates how any business functions is figuring out your customer base. You can do that one of two ways or a combo of both, raise prices until cost outweighs demand, or issue permits until supply exceeds demand. So any company that comes in to take over management from the state is going to increase permits and cost until applications stagnate. That’s business 101. Privatization=more permits. At least at the outset anyways, the steady trend after establishing baseline is cutting costs and increasing revenue. So you do the math there.
 
Hoss,
If that’s a fact and we stumbled into it…would it not say we stumbled into opportunity for 240k to hunt? If your biology says we can’t have 600,000 then we can’t have even 120k hunters. We hand 335,000 so 67k is not that far off. Let’s also be honest that when we had 240k hunters we had 3-4 buck per 100 does. So is that the number you’re ok with?

Did we have 240k hunters based on anything? Other than that's how many tags got bought in a state with a tiny population?

We managed the landscape in 1950 for sheep, then cows.

So should we also bump there numbers back up to achieve your fantasy population?

And, let's be honest.

YOU SAID there should be a 1tag for each buck. Then, because as usual you skip biology, you got reminded that there's a whole crop of bucks BORN this year.

I'll need to see your 3-4 bucks per hundred does data.

Cuz based off your million plus population you spew, that's pretty wild
 
Did we have 240k hunters based on anything? Other than that's how many tags got bought in a state with a tiny population?

We managed the landscape in 1950 for sheep, then cows.

So should we also bump there numbers back up to achieve your fantasy population?

And, let's be honest.

YOU SAID there should be a 1tag for each buck. Then, because as usual you skip biology, you got reminded that there's a whole crop of bucks BORN this year.

I'll need to see your 3-4 bucks per hundred does data.

Cuz based off your million plus population you spew, that's pretty wild
Hoss that was the DWR count during the 80s.
Also when I have counted with the DWR biologist I was told they count fawns and split it 50/50. So that’s the info I’m going off of…is your info based off of actual knowledge or did you just jump on Elkfromaboves numbers because they fell in line with your narrative?
 
Hoss that was the DWR count during the 80s.
Also when I have counted with the DWR biologist I was told they count fawns and split it 50/50. So that’s the info I’m going off of…is your info based off of actual knowledge or did you just jump on Elkfromaboves numbers because they fell in line with your narrative?
Just another observation you say we shouldn't use DWR numbers but you keep going back to them. So are they good numbers or bad numbers
 
Hoss that was the DWR count during the 80s.
Also when I have counted with the DWR biologist I was told they count fawns and split it 50/50. So that’s the info I’m going off of…is your info based off of actual knowledge or did you just jump on Elkfromaboves numbers because they fell in line with your narrative?

I simply read your numbers and wait for you to contradict them.

Which 80's

83? 84? 89?

Yeah, there's a difference and we both know what it is.

When you counted. Via road? On winter range? Desert? Forest? Traditionally producing unit, or struggling?

So if I remember correctly your roughly 45-50?

So your biological expertise is based upon your knowledge and retention from when you were 5-11?
 
Sorry, are you back to pro sfw? Hard to remember day to day.
Hoss I’ve always been pro Mule Deer. When SFW was doing more than anyone then yes I support them on some issues. Other times I have not.

Still waiting on what happened last week?
 
I simply read your numbers and wait for you to contradict them.

Which 80's

83? 84? 89?

Yeah, there's a difference and we both know what it is.

When you counted. Via road? On winter range? Desert? Forest? Traditionally producing unit, or struggling?

So if I remember correctly your roughly 45-50?

So your biological expertise is based upon your knowledge and retention from when you were 5-11?
Hoss,
3-4 bucks was pre antler restriction in the early 80s.

My counts and conversations with biologist were post season winter range. In my 30s and early 40s. Now days I spend more time working and making money so can have other hunting options for myself and kids.

You can throw as many rocks as you like Hoss. I have grown up in the middle of the meetings and battles, I’ve listened to both sides and 17 more every year on every subject. You can laugh or poke holes all you want, it honestly doesn’t phase me at all.

Mismanagement has hurt our herds and opportunity has always been the battle cry of those that have supported the poor management.
 
Just another observation you say we shouldn't use DWR numbers but you keep going back to them. So are they good numbers or bad numbers
81,
I’m only using DWR numbers because the current crowd is claiming we should listen to the DWR Biologist. So I’m using their numbers to try and keep the discuss in the same arena.
 
I totally remember back in the 80's if you had an archery tag you could also use your rifle or muzzleloader tag to take a second deer.

I wasn't involved in the biological end of things back then and didn't care because deer were plentiful.
I don't recall what the total estimated deer numbers were, but tag numbers were over 220k compared to today's 65k.

A lot has changed since then, it's tough to point fingers at one thing but a few come to mind.
Quadruple the number of elk, more winter range and less highway mortality.
 
Last edited:
Hoss,
3-4 bucks was pre antler restriction in the early 80s.

My counts and conversations with biologist were post season winter range. In my 30s and early 40s. Now days I spend more time working and making money so can have other hunting options for myself and kids.

You can throw as many rocks as you like Hoss. I have grown up in the middle of the meetings and battles, I’ve listened to both sides and 17 more every year on every subject. You can laugh or poke holes all you want, it honestly doesn’t phase me at all.

Mismanagement has hurt our herds and opportunity has always been the battle cry of those that have supported the poor management.


I grew up in LDS churches as well. By no means am I a book of Mormon scholar.


Yup.

Opportunity concentrated tens of thousands of hunters on ever shrinking acreage.

Opportunity created the biggest corporate hunting state in the west.

Management means taking the conditions AS THEY ARE, and doing the best you can.

It doesn't mean 40 years ago you heard 2 differing opinions in some meeting somewhere thus the DWR has no clue.

The facts remain.

The golden age ended with the winters of the 83. Not because we had too many tags in 82'. They suffered because multiple hard winters hit. Same as we will if next winter is rough. Elk exploded on the landscape, because their was a demand, by hunters. You know, the opportunists.

$fw came about to "save the mule deer", and, I agree, started well.

The creation of artificial conditions to even create that age, was a byproduct of livestock interests chaining off large swaths, eradicating anything with teeth. Not some deer management strategy.

We see the same declines throughout the west. Did they all follow the mismanagement of Utah?

That's the problem with you cherry picking biology.

Freshman in zoology 1001, know more about, and have access to more science and data than the big game coordinator had during the golden age, by huge factors.

It's just laughable, to read your numbers, then watch you 180 and contradict them, them talk about management, while offering really nothing of proven substance, spouting how you lived in meetings in the 80's, yet did so at 40.

I've not been able to ever put my finger on it.

Did you not get hired by the DWR? Couldn't get a zoology or chem degree?

You really have some odd issue, what is it really?
 
You really have some odd issue, what is it really?

His issue is he is a dishonest person that hitched his wagon to a dishonest cause, and has now realized both are true. Commendable that he’s figuring it out. Maybe there is hope for him one day after all?
 
Muley73
If the deer management was privatized there would not even be close to 600k I doubt we would have 350k. The privatized hunting would be quality only. There would be diffently higher buck to doe ratio and the percentage of mature bucks would be higher but total number of deer would be drastically lower.
Privatized management would focused on the good habitat for deer and not worry about the struggling habitat.
Pure economics
 
Muley73
If the deer management was privatized there would not even be close to 600k I doubt we would have 350k. The privatized hunting would be quality only. There would be diffently higher buck to doe ratio and the percentage of mature bucks would be higher but total number of deer would be drastically lower.
Privatized management would focused on the good habitat for deer and not worry about the struggling habitat.
Pure economics
That why I was very specific about how the contract would work. If you read through the entire thing you would have understood that.
 
His issue is he is a dishonest person that hitched his wagon to a dishonest cause, and has now realized both are true. Commendable that he’s figuring it out. Maybe there is hope for him one day after all?
Vanilla you don't even know me. To call me dishonest is actually dishonest...because you have no idea.
 
That why I was very specific about how the contract would work. If you read through the entire thing you would have understood that.


You weren't.

And notdon nailed it. Marginal and poor habitat would get abandoned. Again. You can't put manage God or mother nature. No matter how many meetings you went to
 
Nah I was pretty clear that % increases would need to be met yearly until the 600,000 was reached. If that wasn't clear enough for you I'll work on a visual graph.

I will say you and Vanilla are persistent...DOWN WITH THE EXPO... how was the turn out this year....TAKE THE TAGS FROM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS...who has the tags.....NO MORE TAG CUTS...how did the WB vote this year? Hats off for still giving it helll!

Getting late here gents. But I'll end by asking again. What happened with SFW and the WB last week?
 
Last edited:
I've been involved with the process since the mid-90s and I have never met a biologist who counts half the fawns as bucks and puts that into the bd ratio. Now- maybe it happened in the 80s (biologists I know from the 80s said that claim wasn't true), but even if some did it then, that is not the way they are doing it now. It is true that they base survivability of fawns as possible bucks for the next year- which they are. But not BD ratios.

Who thinks Dax wants the mule deer herd to fail? Who thinks he recommends numbers that will stall or harm the resource? The dude loves deer. He wants more deer. He is a mule deer nut. And he loves to hunt, but I doubt the hunting passion supersedes the passion for the health of the herd. I know Dax well enough that if his superior said to increase tags at the expense of the deer herd, the superior would be told no.....

Here is the rub- based on the UDWR numbers, we have around 200,000 doe. Each doe averages birthing 1.5-1.8+ fawns per year. That equals 300,00-360,000+ fawns born each year. Yet by the end of winter we have 100,000 fawns remaining. Answer where those 200,000-260,000+ missing fawns went and you won't have to argue over cutting 200 buck tags on this unit or increasing 150 buck tags on that unit.

Herd growth is all about doe fawns being recruited as successful reproducers into the deer herd.
 
I've been involved with the process since the mid-90s and I have never met a biologist who counts half the fawns as bucks and puts that into the bd ratio. Now- maybe it happened in the 80s (biologists I know from the 80s said that claim wasn't true), but even if some did it then, that is not the way they are doing it now. It is true that they base survivability of fawns as possible bucks for the next year- which they are. But not BD ratios.

Who thinks Dax wants the mule deer herd to fail? Who thinks he recommends numbers that will stall or harm the resource? The dude loves deer. He wants more deer. He is a mule deer nut. And he loves to hunt, but I doubt the hunting passion supersedes the passion for the health of the herd. I know Dax well enough that if his superior said to increase tags at the expense of the deer herd, the superior would be told no.....

Here is the rub- based on the UDWR numbers, we have around 200,000 doe. Each doe averages birthing 1.5-1.8+ fawns per year. That equals 300,00-360,000+ fawns born each year. Yet by the end of winter we have 100,000 fawns remaining. Answer where those 200,000-260,000+ missing fawns went and you won't have to argue over cutting 200 buck tags on this unit or increasing 150 buck tags on that unit.

Herd growth is all about doe fawns being recruited as successful reproducers into the deer herd.
Packout,
That could be how the count goes, I would not argue that. I was not how understood it. But that could have been my misunderstanding.

I don't know Dax personally but I do have personal experience where biologists have been told to change numbers or recommendations. I also know they are not in the same positions if they pushed back. Dax could very well say no and maybe the leadership has changed recently and that is respected. But that was not the case in the past.

I agree 100% on your numbers and agree that has a much bigger impact on the herd than buck hunters. More deer overall is a win for everyone. My concern is the fact that hunters are the most controllable factor and we choose to ride very close to the line and risk our future resource.
 
And You Are Full Of BULLSSHIT!

Maybe You Should Take Another Look At HELL-F'N-RIGHT!

You'll Find More Than One Reason/Issue Within It!



You certainly are in that group that blames only one, you just choose to blame one that has nothing to do with anything!
 
When You Boys Get That BS Buck to Doe Management That You've All Been Brain-Washed With Out Of Your Pea Brains & Start Doing Something For Deer Numbers Maybe We'll See Something Change!

The BS Management Has Been Going on For Decades & The Deer Herd SUCKS More By The F'N Year!
 
When You Boys Get That BS Buck to Doe Management That You've All Been Brain-Washed With Out Of Your Pea Brains & Start Doing Something For Deer Numbers Maybe We'll See Something Change!

The BS Management Has Been Going on For Decades & The Deer Herd SUCKS More By The F'N Year!
What's your solution to get deer numbers up on the general units bess? Don't spout off about hell right, give us some detailed solutions.

I tried to get you to fix the Henerys, but you seemed content with that unit, so what you going to do for our general season units.
 
Well,

I started reading through this post. But there were tons of long winded answers full of hyperbole, and conjecture…..

So excuse me if this was discussed, and please tell me if it has been. Cause I know this may ruffle some feathers.

I as well as many others have watched a rather boisterous bunch of you argue like a bench of old hens at the salon for years, always criticizing the others “plan” while none of the involved parties usually lay out any real plan.

So for all you “old folks” that lived through the “hay days”.

1. When did they switch the management from just general herd numbers to buck to doe ratios?

2. What would your estimates of buck to doe ratios be during the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc, what ever your “hay days” were?

3. Whats a logical solution to curb this decline?

Some of this has been brought up out of the blue, some has been dedicated threads to “call” another out, but there never seems to be an intellectually honest conversation on the matter.
 
What's your solution to get deer numbers up on the general units bess? Don't spout off about hell right, give us some detailed solutions.

I tried to get you to fix the Henerys, but you seemed content with that unit, so what you going to do for our general season units.

There was even a thread about it! Did he give any helpful ideas? (Spoiler alert…he was as helpful as muley73 has been the last 40 years before I knew there was a resource out there.)

https://www.monstermuleys.info/xf/threads/bessy-here-is-your-chance-fix-the-henry’s.201123/

Anyone see this gem in that thread?

I Told You I Can't Fix It Alone!

Given a chance to have unlimited resources and literally do ANYTHING he wanted to do to fix the Henry Mtns herd, this is the best he could come up with.

Oh, and tag cuts.
 
Hey JakeH!

I'm Not Content With The Henries!

I'll Never Hunt The Bucks On The Henries!

But I Feel For The Guys & Gals That Have Spent 1/3 Or a 1/2 A Lifetime Trying To Get A Tag!

We've Seen What It Can Be!

We Also Know What It is Today!

There's 50+ reasons Why Jake!

Everybody Wants To Try One PISSCUTTER Of A Change,That Fixes NOTHING!

Horsecorn Mentioned CLOSURE!

But Everybody BAWLED!

They've Skimmed The Top End Forever!

Sad To Have That Few Of Deer Numbers On A Mountain Range Of That Size!

Even If Somebody Had a 100% Fix The F'N Opportunist Would Whine & BAWL!

If The DWR Had The Fix,Which They Don't,Would They Get The WB to Accept It?

This State Will Produce Quality Bucks & Bulls Just About Anywhere When Managed Properly!

It Can Also Be Destroyed Quickly By MONEY,GREED & PISS POOR Management,We've Al Seen It!

I Don't Think There Should Be CLOSURES Anywhere and There Wouldn't Have To Be If the WildLife Was Managed Properly,But Here The Hell We Are!

Kinda Weird That All Them Units That Were Closed Bounced Back With Nothing More Than The Lack Of TARDS Hunting Them To Death!

There Was Still Lions Eating Them!

There Was Still Coyotes Eating Them!

There Was Still Bears Taking a Few!

But Thew TARDS Couldn't Kill/Slaughter Them For about 5 Years & The Bounced Back Some!

Ain't That Kinda Hard To Imagine Or Figure It Out?

But Then We Went Back To Hunting Them To Death,Again!

If There's A Big Buck Or Bull in This State He Has A Name & A F'N Price Tag On His Head!

I Can't Fix It Jake!

But I Sure As Hell Wouldn't Keep Doing The STUPID Sshitt We've Been Doing For Decades In Hopes It Will Magically Fix Itself!









What's your solution to get deer numbers up on the general units bess? Don't spout off about hell right, give us some detailed solutions.

I tried to get you to fix the Henerys, but you seemed content with that unit, so what you going to do for our general season units.
 
Ya!

OK!

OK For The DWR To Cut A Few Tags That I Didn't Know About Until JakeH Posted They Had Already Cut A Few Tags!

But You're Not PISSED At Them Because You Claim Them To Be Pro's!

Wake The F Up Niller!

You Won't Cut Your Tag Up Like hossy Has Requested!

I Mentioned Cutting 10 Tags!

The DWR Had Already Cut 10 Tags!

How Many Tags Did Your Savior DWR Bunch Just Cut?

Put That In Your F'N Pipe & Smoke It!

There was even a thread about it! Did he give any helpful ideas? (Spoiler alert…he was as helpful as muley73 has been the last 40 years before I knew there was a resource out there.)

https://www.monstermuleys.info/xf/threads/bessy-here-is-your-chance-fix-the-henry’s.201123/

Anyone see this gem in that thread?



Given a chance to have unlimited resources and literally do ANYTHING he wanted to do to fix the Henry Mtns herd, this is the best he could come up with.

Oh, and tag cuts.
 
Well,

I started reading through this post. But there were tons of long winded answers full of hyperbole, and conjecture…..

So excuse me if this was discussed, and please tell me if it has been. Cause I know this may ruffle some feathers.

I as well as many others have watched a rather boisterous bunch of you argue like a bench of old hens at the salon for years, always criticizing the others “plan” while none of the involved parties usually lay out any real plan.

So for all you “old folks” that lived through the “hay days”.

1. When did they switch the management from just general herd numbers to buck to doe ratios?

2. What would your estimates of buck to doe ratios be during the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc, what ever your “hay days” were?

3. Whats a logical solution to curb this decline?

Some of this has been brought up out of the blue, some has been dedicated threads to “call” another out, but there never seems to be an intellectually honest conversation on the matter.
Give this a try and see if it helps answer some of your questions.

 
To get the age class back up on the Henry's. No vehicles aloud during the hunt on the mountain. All hunters must keep their vehicles on the desert floor. All motorized, gas, electric stay on the desert floor, No matter what.
 
Hey hogg?

You Sayin You're Gonna Make These Lazy Bastards Hike To Hunt Them Steep Mountains?:D

To get the age class back up on the Henry's. No vehicles aloud during the hunt on the mountain. All hunters must keep their vehicles on the desert floor. All motorized, gas, electric stay on the desert floor, No matter what.
 
I Can't Imagine Any Of These DRATS Breaking That Law!

Tell A DRAT He Can't Do Something & He'll Prove To You He Can & Will!

That's Where The Fines In HELL-F'N-RIGHT Come In To Play That Nobody Likes!
 
Nah I was pretty clear that % increases would need to be met yearly until the 600,000 was reached. If that wasn't clear enough for you I'll work on a visual graph.

I will say you and Vanilla are persistent...DOWN WITH THE EXPO... how was the turn out this year....TAKE THE TAGS FROM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS...who has the tags.....NO MORE TAG CUTS...how did the WB vote this year? Hats off for still giving it helll!

Getting late here gents. But I'll end by asking again. What happened with SFW and the WB last week?

You might want to, because you'll be the only guy? capable of playing make believe.

I am excited though. I grew up hunting on a section west of Manti. Used to kill heavy horned bucks. Then I-15 cut off their migration. 1080 was ceased. Earth movement sealed off the 2 springs.

Ain't no deer there no more. So imagine my excitement that there is a management solution to earthquakes, and freeways, that only YOU know of?

What happened? You're pretty excited about a single WB meeting in 30 years.

The way I saw it, the WB bucked the educated biologists. You?
 
We should close roads on all Units during the Deer hunts, Bess.. And Yes, Enforce it.
Also, NO bitchin about No Vehicles.
If you can't Hike in, figure something else out.


Let's be honest.

No trophy hunter cares about age class. They ain't shooting a 9yr old 2 point, but would gun down a 4 yr old 30" buck.

"Age class", like "quality" is a myth
 
And Because Of Your Beliefs:

Watch Out PISSCUTTERS!


I guarantee you passed older bulls on the San Juan than the one you were looking for.

Ain't my beliefs, we have a "management" hunt in trophy areas killing old bucks with bad genetics.

Trophy hunters aren't about age class, they are about genetic freaks.
 
Takes A Little POST PISSCUTTER Age As Well hossy!

I guarantee you passed older bulls on the San Juan than the one you were looking for.

Ain't my beliefs, we have a "management" hunt in trophy areas killing old bucks with bad genetics.

Trophy hunters aren't about age class, they are about genetic freaks.
 
Hey JakeH!

I'm Not Content With The Henries!

I'll Never Hunt The Bucks On The Henries!

But I Feel For The Guys & Gals That Have Spent 1/3 Or a 1/2 A Lifetime Trying To Get A Tag!

We've Seen What It Can Be!

We Also Know What It is Today!

There's 50+ reasons Why Jake!

Everybody Wants To Try One PISSCUTTER Of A Change,That Fixes NOTHING!

Horsecorn Mentioned CLOSURE!

But Everybody BAWLED!

They've Skimmed The Top End Forever!

Sad To Have That Few Of Deer Numbers On A Mountain Range Of That Size!

Even If Somebody Had a 100% Fix The F'N Opportunist Would Whine & BAWL!

If The DWR Had The Fix,Which They Don't,Would They Get The WB to Accept It?

This State Will Produce Quality Bucks & Bulls Just About Anywhere When Managed Properly!

It Can Also Be Destroyed Quickly By MONEY,GREED & PISS POOR Management,We've Al Seen It!

I Don't Think There Should Be CLOSURES Anywhere and There Wouldn't Have To Be If the WildLife Was Managed Properly,But Here The Hell We Are!

Kinda Weird That All Them Units That Were Closed Bounced Back With Nothing More Than The Lack Of TARDS Hunting Them To Death!

There Was Still Lions Eating Them!

There Was Still Coyotes Eating Them!

There Was Still Bears Taking a Few!

But Thew TARDS Couldn't Kill/Slaughter Them For about 5 Years & The Bounced Back Some!

Ain't That Kinda Hard To Imagine Or Figure It Out?

But Then We Went Back To Hunting Them To Death,Again!

If There's A Big Buck Or Bull in This State He Has A Name & A F'N Price Tag On His Head!

I Can't Fix It Jake!

But I Sure As Hell Wouldn't Keep Doing The STUPID Sshitt We've Been Doing For Decades In Hopes It Will Magically Fix Itself!
So you're saying they slaughtered the deer on the henerys and the bookcliffs after the closures, and that is why both units are in the state they are in???

They haven't given a doe tag on either of those units in 30 years. Yet both herds have struggled and nether herd has development issues wiping out critical winter range.

So is your solution to close down units for 5 years like they did the bookcliffs and henerys?
 
Let's be honest.

No trophy hunter cares about age class. They ain't shooting a 9yr old 2 point, but would gun down a 4 yr old 30" buck.

"Age class", like "quality" is a myth

There isn't trophy 2 1/2 yr olds either. They need more time to genetically reach potential. Most bucks don't live past 16 months.
 
So you're saying they slaughtered the deer on the henerys and the bookcliffs after the closures, and that is why both units are in the state they are in???

They haven't given a doe tag on either of those units in 30 years. Yet both herds have struggled and nether herd has development issues wiping out critical winter range.

So is your solution to close down units for 5 years like they did the bookcliffs and henerys?

Jake, do you think our does are to old??
Could that be a problem??
 
Jake, do you think our does are to old??
Could that be a problem??
The data I've seen has not suggested that, not with deer anyway.

There has been data suggesting that very thing with the elk herd on the bookcliffs, they have had collared cows living past 20 years old and after a certain age they are less productive with calves. Instead of giving birth every year they start skipping years of pregnancy.

I have not seen any studys saying they have seen that issue in the deer herds, in fact since they have started pregnancy checking does they are seeing extremely high pregnancy rates (upper 90% range) in every unit in the state general season or otherwise which has me questioning Muley_73's claims that we are riding on the edge of biological viability with our Buck: Doe ratios.

I will say our herds are in bad shape in certain areas of the state, and almost no area has the same issues as another, there are numerous issues in each area that is contributing. If it's not drought, it's hard winters, if it's not development on critical winter range, it's severe winter range degradation due to other factors, in some areas its an over abundance of elk, or poor grazing practices with cattle and sheep.

I actually agree with Bess, there are 50+ things negativelyeffectingour deer herds, but where I disagree is that hunting is one of the main causes, to me its not even in the top 10 reasons, if it was we have definitely addressed it by cutting 70% of our deer tags over the last30 years.
 
I do believe the biologists should study the doe deer age like they have cow elk. I don't personally believe all does get pregnant. I don't like the formulas they use to get their data either. I'll bet some bucks and does are sterile, they can't reproduce. Maybe more are sterile than we know. I do appreciate the information we have seen the last few years with their hard work.
 
As You Already Know JakeH I'm Not Claiming Just One Thing Or Item Why The Deer Herd Is Where It's At Today,Try a Combination of Many Things!

CLOSURE Surely isn't An Option I Like To See!

But Think about It The Way Horsecorn looks at it:

If They Did Close It For 5 Years There'd Be Some Decent Hunting Until it Was Wiped Out Again!

Versus a Continuation of PISS POOR Hunting Year After Year!

Take Just The DRATS Out Of The Equation & All The CLOSED Units Bounced Back Some!

Didn't Take Long To Destroy it Though!

People Like The KING Worried About Cutting Tags Would Really Have His/Their Panties In a WAD if Closures came around again!

CLOSURES Are The Very Last Thing I'd Wanna See!

But Keep Doing What We've Been Doing To Them & They'll Close Their-selves!

You're Probably Too Young to Remember Or know Jake,but There Was Several other Units Closed as Well!

SAD!









So you're saying they slaughtered the deer on the henerys and the bookcliffs after the closures, and that is why both units are in the state they are in???

They haven't given a doe tag on either of those units in 30 years. Yet both herds have struggled and nether herd has development issues wiping out critical winter range.

So is your solution to close down units for 5 years like they did the bookcliffs and henerys?
 
Hey JakeH!

I'm Not Being a PRICK When I Say There are 50+ Reasons Why!

Glad You Are Seeing It As Well!

How Do We Fix 50+ Issues/Problems?

We Never Will!

The Changes Would Have To Be So Severe People Like The KING Would BAWL!



The data I've seen has not suggested that, not with deer anyway.

There has been data suggesting that very thing with the elk herd on the bookcliffs, they have had collared cows living past 20 years old and after a certain age they are less productive with calves. Instead of giving birth every year they start skipping years of pregnancy.

I have not seen any studys saying they have seen that issue in the deer herds, in fact since they have started pregnancy checking does they are seeing extremely high pregnancy rates (upper 90% range) in every unit in the state general season or otherwise which has me questioning Muley_73's claims that we are riding on the edge of biological viability with our Buck: Doe ratios.

I will say our herds are in bad shape in certain areas of the state, and almost no area has the same issues as another, there are numerous issues in each area that is contributing. If it's not drought, it's hard winters, if it's not development on critical winter range, it's severe winter range degradation due to other factors, in some areas its an over abundance of elk, or poor grazing practices with cattle and sheep.

I actually agree with Bess, there are 50+ things negativelyeffectingour deer herds, but where I disagree is that hunting is one of the main causes, to me its not even in the top 10 reasons, if it was we have definitely addressed it by cutting 70% of our deer tags over the last30 years.
 
There isn't trophy 2 1/2 yr olds either. They need more time to genetically reach potential. Most bucks don't live past 16 months.

That's true, but that's not the goal of trophy hunting crowd. They'd shoot a 2 1/2yr old genetically gifted buck over a downhill 9yr old buck every day of the week.

So the constant "age class" drum beat us bullchit.
 
As You Already Know JakeH I'm Not Claiming Just One Thing Or Item Why The Deer Herd Is Where It's At Today,Try a Combination of Many Things!

CLOSURE Surely isn't An Option I Like To See!

But Think about It The Way Horsecorn looks at it:

If They Did Close It For 5 Years There'd Be Some Decent Hunting Until it Was Wiped Out Again!

Versus a Continuation of PISS POOR Hunting Year After Year!

Take Just The DRATS Out Of The Equation & All The CLOSED Units Bounced Back Some!

Didn't Take Long To Destroy it Though!

People Like The KING Worried About Cutting Tags Would Really Have His/Their Panties In a WAD if Closures came around again!

CLOSURES Are The Very Last Thing I'd Wanna See!

But Keep Doing What We've Been Doing To Them & They'll Close Their-selves!

You're Probably Too Young to Remember Or know Jake,but There Was Several other Units Closed as Well!

SAD!

Here's what I want from you Bess.

It's called THEN FRICKIN WHAT.


You just got your way..


Then what?

How many tags got cut. How many units closed?

What number or metric opens said unit?

How is it financed at the DWR?


Let see your results
 
HINT hossy:

Surely Not The STATUS QUO For How Many F'N Decades Now?

You are Gonna Demand Hunters To Cut Their Tags Up!

How Many Takers You Got Lined Up To All of a Sudden Fix The Deer Herd With Your Plan?

Here's what I want from you Bess.

It's called THEN FRICKIN WHAT.


You just got your way..


Then what?

How many tags got cut. How many units closed?

What number or metric opens said unit?

How is it financed at the DWR?


Let see your results
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom