5000 deer tags cut a year too soon...

[stillhunterman]

UNITED WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Utah Department of Wildlife Resources To Cut 5000 Tags a Year Early

April 11, 2011, Salt Lake City, Utah- The Utah Department of Wildlife Resources announced today they will be making a recommendation to cut 5000 deer tags for the 2011 season in order to soften the impact of cutting approximately 13,000 deer tags in 2012 from Utah hunters. "We don't know for sure yet," says Anis Aoude, big game coordinator for the DWR, "but the board may decide to cut general season buck deer permits
by as many as 13,000 by 2012." UDWR officials indicated 2000 tags would be eliminated from the Southern Region, 1000 from the Southeastern Region, and 2000 from the Northeastern Region.


In response to the UDWR news release, the United Wildlife Cooperative announced it was extremely disappointed and concerned that UDWR officials are seeking to implement plans scheduled for 2012 a full year early, with virtually no public warning before the RAC meetings are scheduled to begin. The first RAC meeting will be held April 12, 2011 in Beaver. ?We understand that the division must comply with the mandates of the Wildlife Board,? says Tye Boulter, president of the UWC, ?but moving things ahead like this a full year before the cuts would have taken place is a hard pill to swallow. There are going to be an awful lot of angry deer hunters when this news gets out.? The UDWR has made it clear on several occasions that raising the buck to doe ratio?s from 15 to 18 bucks per 100 does will not help grow Utah?s deer herd, and that the new ratio is the primary reason the UDWR is cutting tags, per the Wildlife Board?s decision the end of 2010. Additional information can be accessed via the UDWR website, www.wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/

With 5000 tags planned to be taken from Utah hunters this year, the UWC strongly urges hunters to attend their local RAC meeting, and voice their concerns over losing more tags yet again over social issues and not biological ones. The UWC is a grass roots non profit organization formed earlier this year in an effort to bring representation to the every day sportsmen and sportswomen who represent a majority of hunters in the state. Additional information about the United Wildlife Cooperative can be obtained through their website at www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org . Inquiries may be sent via email to [email protected]

 

[PleaseDear]

Thanks for the info.

Robb

 

[LOWCOUNTRY]

5000 isnt even a start.

 

[400bull]

What's wrong with wanting to cut some of the tags this year? If you cut 5000 tags this year that would mean that you would have around 2000 more deer in the herds next year. The more deer your leave in the system this year would mean fewer tags cut next year. Please help me understand why cutting 5000 tags this year is a bad thing.

400bull

 

[Cam@strawberry]

Ya bigbull gotta say that this is not making my view of UWC any better....to say that the tag cuts are a result of social pressure rather than biological is ignorant and uninformed.....Utah's deer herd is in a state of disarray. Your not gonna get hunters back by throwing more tags out there to hunt deer that don't exist.....

Hopefully UWC has an intelligent and informed answer to this posistion cause to me it seems awful poor.

 

[LOWCOUNTRY]

BB I gotta agree with you 100% it is in dissarray down south where I live for sure. I was hunting yotes in late November (PEAK RUT) in dog valley which is the south end of the beaver mountain saw around sixty head of doe's and not one Buck yes not one. So if all can answer how many fawns are going to be produced in that region since I hear you dont need a buck to have a fawn from all the people thrilled with killing all the deer off and somehow think its a viable solution i'll die happy.
I will become a fan of UWC when I see them hand sowing bitterbrush and sage, and agreeing we cant have more tags than bucks. Another interest group.

 

[justr_86]

>I will become a fan of
>UWC when I see them
>hand sowing bitterbrush and sage,



Theres 2 different service projects in the Northeastern region planting trees and forage for deer, ducks, pheasant, quail, turkey etc.. Love to see you come help. Saturday April 16th, we are meeting at Davis Jubilee (IGA) on mainstreet in Roosevelt.

Over 1000 trees/shrubs.

 

[cantkillathing]

it would be nice to see projects on public ground not private

 

[goofyelk]

Just my opinion,,But , I would have been very disappointed if reductions in
low fawn areas didnt start this year..These reductions are a result of low fawn numbers
PLUS units with the LOW buck to doe ratios...

And BECAUSE of regional management , the entire region has to take the cut,,,
instead of SPACIFIC units!!!Thank gawd next year we can target tag cuts (or increases)
on individual units.....

And it's full steam ahead with opt 2..The new 2012 unit boundaries are set for
next months RAC meetings and finalized at the June board meeting..

Then Dec 1 the new hunt tables and hunting dates will be set at that board meeting

 

[brutus]

The UWC is preaching that they want overall numbers of deer to grow in Utah but start b!tchin about tag cuts not being warranted and they never say one frickin word about the 100 doe permits to be issued on the monroe when they had to shorten all the deer hunts last year cause their was NO FRICKEN DEER up there!! Their shouldnt be any doe hunts in Utah until we have are deer numbers back.

For the UWC to throw a fit over buck tags being reduced and say nothing about doe permits being issued tells me all I need to know about their motives!

 

[bullsnot]

The service project last month was on public ground. We cleaned up several tons of garbage on public grounds in the central region. The DWR asked us if we would participate in the NE region project because it was on critical wintering habitat. In other words the project will benefit deer and elk that you can hunt on public grounds in the fall.

We haven't seen one shred of biological evidence that says raising buck to doe ratios from 15:100 to 18:100 will have ANY biological benefit to deer herds. We would like to see the 2008 mule deer plan work for the 5 years it was intended to work for. We do support tag cuts if buck to doe ratios drop below the 15:100 buck to doe ratio as set in the 2008 mule deer plan.

We are also open to listening to other ways of managing mule deer that does have a biological benefit.

Despite the rhetoric and the detracters the truth is there are still plenty of deer in Utah for hunters and success rates prove that. It's true that the winter of 2009-2010 was hard on deer in the southern part of the state and some tag cuts are probably warranted however cutting 5,000 tags is obviously targeted at raising buck to doe ratios above the 15:100 minimum as set in the 2008 plan.

To those that say that the division does counts based on hunter surveys and models only are simply incorrect. In the fall of 2010, after the hunts, the division flew several units, took reps from sportsmen org reps to see the counts and they tracked the flight by GPS to show that they covered every canyon and ridge in the unit. I was in a meeting with the division and SFW reps (Don P, Dave W, and John B) and not one person in the meeting questioned the counts in the areas that were covered. Not one person question the population models as they were presented to us. The division is currently flying several units in the southern region as we speak. The division is also inviting sporstmens orgs to tag along on range rides in May, winter kill counts, classification, and even going into bear dens.

The key is focus on fawn survival rates and doing what we can to increase those rates. After a relatively mild winter throughout much of the state many units are reporting the highest fawn:doe ratios in 5 years. Again the southern region is a bit low due to the harsh winter of 2009-2010.

If you are unhappy with how things are being managed I encourage you to get involved with a sportsmens org and work towards changing the management plans, as the UWC is doing. The DWR manages to those plans and all of them have gone through the public process and have been approved by the WB. Get involved if you want to make a difference!!

 

[bullsnot]

>The UWC is preaching that they
>want overall numbers of deer
>to grow in Utah but
>start b!tchin about tag cuts
>not being warranted and they
>never say one frickin word
>about the 100 doe permits
>to be issued on the
>monroe when they had to
>shorten all the deer hunts
>last year cause their was
>NO FRICKEN DEER up there!!
>Their shouldnt be any doe
>hunts in Utah until we
>have are deer numbers back.
>
>
>For the UWC to throw a
>fit over buck tags being
>reduced and say nothing about
>doe permits being issued tells
>me all I need to
>know about their motives!

We asked about the 100 doe permits on the Monroe and it did surprise us. These doe hunts both mitigation and regular doe hunts are for Sevier Valley deer. Deer that live along the sevier river in the valley near the towns of Joseph, Elsinore, Annabella, and Glenwood among others. They are NOT mountain deer but resident deer. That is why the hunt is held in September and not later...to keep from shooting mountain does.

In other words this hunt is focused on animals that are doing crop damage. We were concerned about this hunt and did ask questions but the explanation makes sense.

 

[justr_86]

>it would be nice to see
>projects on public ground not
>private

Habitat is habitat. When a project comes up on public ground we will assist there too!

 

[never_satisfied]

>What's wrong with wanting to cut
>some of the tags this
>year? If you cut 5000
>tags this year that would
>mean that you would have
>around 2000 more deer in
>the herds next year. The
>more deer your leave in
>the system this year would
>mean fewer tags cut next
>year. Please help me understand
>why cutting 5000 tags this
>year is a bad thing.
>
>
>400bull

Rather its a good or are bad thing depends on what each individual sportsman is wanting to achieve
But non the less cutting 5000 tags would in no way save 2000 more deer for next year.Even if they put all 5000 tag cuts in the any weapons season that would be closer to 1000 deer for the next year.But I'm sure they will disperse them threw all 3 seasons so that would be much closer to 500 animals for the next seasons herd
Rather then making 5000 sportsman stay home to cut back on the 25,000 deer that get killed each year in the hunting season
Maybe we need to get them to focus on the 200,000+ deer that get killed each year by predators,auto collisions and fawn mortality

 

[LOWCOUNTRY]

Justr glad to see you are hand sowing some beneficial seed up north good for the northern boys to get a little habitat work in.

"says raising buck to doe ratios from 15:100 to 18:100 will have ANY biological benefit to deer herds."

Bullsnot if you can provide me with evidence
that the damn 15 to 100 was working I would love to see it. Maybe it was up north I dont hunt there therfore I do not see it. I however hunt the ever living piss out of the southern region and it is poor poor poor I cant stress that enough.

When i see over sixty does in peak rut and not a mature buck or even two point thats a problem. Correct me if Im wrong but the southern took the brunt of those cuts and for good reason which is the over 95% sentiment I witnessed at the southern rac we are freaked the hell out about the deer down here and there is not plenty of them.

 

[Hooner]

BULLSNOT- You talk about using the 2008 plan of 15-100 as a minimum. The problem with this is not one of the units are at 15-100. We are not at carrying capacity, our buck to doe is all screwed up. How are we oging to improve the deer herd by doing nothing for the deer? The UWC always talks about how the average hunter is going to be mad if we cut tags. What about the deer? When are you going to say that we are agianst something to benefit the deer?

 

[Daxter]

Lowcountry, you can't judge buck to doe ratios based on what you saw one day while coyote hunting with a sample size of 60 does in one small area.

This will be hard to swallow for some, but I think the actual general season buck to doe ratios are HIGHER than what the DWR reports. The DWR data is based on observations and counts and should be seen as a minimum ratio. There are most likely more bucks that aren't seen by DWR biologists.

Because DWR biologist are trying to get good geographic coverage on the units and get adequate sample sizes during a relatively short window of time they typically classify in areas that are easily accessible. They don't spend as much time classifying less accessible areas where the buck to doe ratios are likely higher.

Also, I know that many bucks, even during the rut, are practically nocturnal. I think more bucks come out at night, and that lots of the actual breeding occurs at night. In the thousands of hours that I have spent watching bucks in the rut during the day I have only seen breeding occur a handful of times.

I wish UWC luck in their pursuit to maintain opportunity on general season units. However, I think it may already too late. I enjoy a quality hunt as much as anyone, but if I had to choose between being able to hunt every year on a unit that wasn't managed for high quality or only being able to hunt once every few years on a unit with mediocre quality, I would rather hunt every year.

I don't think most hunters realize what they are going to have to give up, and also I think the guys really pushing for unit by unit and increasing b/d ratios from 15 to 18 have unrealistic expectations regarding the increase in quality. I hope I am wrong and we all get to hunt on a regular basis in units with better quality. I also hope I can have my cake and eat it too.

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[bullsnot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-12-11 AT 11:49PM (MST)[p]>What about the
>deer? When are you going
>to say that we are
>agianst something to benefit the
>deer?


Glad you brought it up. This is what we are trying to say...focus on things that actully HELP deer herds. Hunters have a very minimal effect on deer production and overall deer numbers therefore cutting hunters only hurts hunters, it doesn't help deer. This is what we support and would like to see more of. Focus on fawn mortality factors. Road kill, predators, habitat, research, emergency feeding to name a few. More fawns = more does having fawns = more bucks. Lots more work to do but we need to focus on the right things. The Manti this year has a 15:100 buck to doe ratio and fawn:doe of 72:100. The San Juan has a 40:100 buck to doe ratio and a 59:100 fawn:doe ratio. There are other units that say something different but clearly we've got to quit thinking that more bucks is going to mean more deer.

This is info from Jim Karpowitz.

1.Habitat ? We are conducting the most massive effort to restore mule deer habitat conditions ever undertaken in Utah, or in the West. In the last five years, the Division, along with its many partners, has improved mule deer habitat on more than 600,000 acres at a cost of more than $70 million. Habitat improvement projects often take a few years before they begin to pay off, but I am confident that in the long term they will result in healthier deer populations throughout the state. Our deer management plan has an objective to improve another 500,000 acres of habitat in the next five years.

2.Predators ? The Division recognizes that coyotes and other predators can cause significant mortality, especially among mule deer fawns, and that predator control is an important part of a deer management program. In the last five years, the Division has provided almost $3 million to Wildlife Services to control coyotes in areas that are important to our deer populations. Last year alone, Wildlife Services killed more than 1,700 coyotes in critical deer habitat areas with funding and guidance provided by the Division. The Division would like to expand our predator control efforts if we can obtain new funding.

3.Highway Mortality ? Deer-auto collisions are responsible for the death of thousands of deer annually. We are working closely with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) to reduce highway mortality, and we appreciate their cooperation in addressing this serious issue. In the past five years, UDOT has spent more than $45 million on fencing and highway bypass structures around the state for both mule deer and elk. The Division is also providing funding to Utah State University for a study to further identify the most effective types of highway bypass structures for both deer and elk.

4.Poaching ? The Division has stepped up our law enforcement efforts and put more resources into catching poachers who steal many deer from Utah sportsmen each year. Several high-profile arrests have recently been made of poachers who have unlawfully killed multiple deer. Information we receive from sportsmen, alerting us to illegal activity, has been a key to our law enforcement success.

5.Disease ? Diseases can cause significant mortality in deer populations. The Division has expended more than $1 million in the last five years in the surveillance and research of chronic wasting disease and other diseases that affect mule deer.

6.Research ? The Division has initiated numerous research projects in recent years to better understand the factors that are negatively affecting our mule deer populations. Last winter, the Division embarked on an extensive statewide radio telemetry study to better understand over-winter survival of both does and fawns. Hundreds of deer will be collared over the next few years?at an expense of more than $1 million?in order to gain better information about deer survival rates. The Division is also planning a comprehensive productivity study that will focus on the impacts of predators on mule deer fawns.

7.Emergency Feeding ? The Division has an emergency winter feeding policy for deer should unusually severe conditions arise that warrant supplemental feeding. Even though feeding deer is both expensive and labor intensive, the Division has resources set aside for emergency situations. In 2008, the Division, in concert with several sportsman organizations, fed more than 14,000 deer in the Northern Region at a cost of more than $228,000.

 

[bullsnot]

Oh and FWIW we are trying to get service projects set up in all regions. We are a new organization and getting people organized across the state will take some time.

Anybody want to volunteer to spearhead setting up projects in the Southern and Southeastern regions? We've got contacts for projects but we need folks on the ground in those regions willing to help get these projects organized and spread the word locally.

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

Almost 40 years of PISS POOR MANAGEMENT in TARDville now!

Always some new idea that ain't gonna work!

What the Hell good are Buck to Doe Ratio's worth if there ain't enough Deer to start with?

I'm waiting for somebody to pop off on age objectives on Deer like they do on Elk in this state,GEEZUS!

Sounds like there's gonna be 5,000 TARDS un-happy cuzz they can't Hunt/Shoot that 'Milk On The Lips' PISSCUTTER Buck!

I agree with DAX as some Bucks are nocturnal but if they are that Smart at the Peak of the Rut,what's the chances of seeing them any other time of the year?Thank God a few of them are this smart or the last few Decent Bucks in this State would already be dead!

It ain't gonna change Boys,Money for the DWR and PISSCUTTERS for the average TARD are more important than a Healthy Deer Herd in TARDville!

Nearly 40 Years & look where We are sittin on the Deer Herd!






I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!

 

[cantkillathing]

1.Habitat ? We are conducting the most massive effort to restore mule deer habitat conditions ever undertaken in Utah, or in the West. In the last five years, the Division, along with its many partners, has improved mule deer habitat on more than 600,000 acres at a cost of more than $70 million. Habitat improvement projects often take a few years before they begin to pay off, but I am confident that in the long term they will result in healthier deer populations throughout the state. Our deer management plan has an objective to improve another 500,000 acres of habitat in the next five years.

And who are the many partners that are helping with this massive effort? Can you Say SFW.

Your beliefs that the buck to doe ratio are higher than what the division is reporting is a joke. It is comments like this that would keep me from joining your group, most hunters and sportsmen out there are in agreement that the deer herds suck in utah, and when you hunt deer you want to see more than a 2 point or spike while hunting.

 

[LOWCOUNTRY]

Dax

"Lowcountry, you can't judge buck to doe ratios based on what you saw one day while coyote hunting with a sample size of 60 does in one small area"

Ok Dax I guess I must be hunting different mule deer to not see a buck not even a dink buck with that many doe's makes a guy like me who has been in that area year in year out shooting dogs, and seen entirely different things I.E. Bucks chasing doe's. Big bucks, small bucks, mediocre bucks. This year it was different (NOTHING). Maybe it was just not my day but we dont need bucks to have fawns so lets just kill em all and be done with it so we can hunt every year its totally viable.

To those that are planting the key component shrubbery (Antelope Bitterbrush/ Sage) awesome. For those projects to clear out Pinyon Juniper awesome but it will be 20 years before those projects will suit mule deer unless suitable flowering plants which deer eat (not grass)is planted it will be a while.

 

[2_Point]

Can't- can you please show me where one of the UWC reps said "Your beliefs that the buck to doe ratio are higher than what the division is reporting is a joke." I'll bet you 'Can't'. So to say, "It is comments like this that would keep me from joining your group" is unfair. I'm not a member of SFW or UWC.

It is unfair to give too much credit to any sportsmen's group for "habitat" work funded in Utah. The money those groups put on the ground comes from OUR tags and the groups are required BY LAW to spend 60% of that money on DWR approved projects while the other 30% is spent by the DWR on habitat and the group keeps 10% for the heck of it.

MDF does many projects without those publicly funded dollars. As does NWTF. That is where I put my money.

As for hunter opportunity being cut, it will be hard for the Southern hunters, who already wait 3 years to hunt, to tack another 2 years onto that wait. Have fun hunting nothing for 5 or more years between tags. Of course you already think you are hunting nothing. Matter of perspective.

 

[Cam@strawberry]

My point is based simply on this, how is it that 'old timers' like bess can be on the mountain with supposed 300,000 other deer hunters and have deer everywhere??? Now we can't even pull off 90,000 tags. So we have less than a third of the hunters, and way less than a third of the deer......Now i ain't as old as most 'old timers', but it doesn't take an IQ of 200 to do basic math.

Elk obviously have something to do with it, but Colorado has shown us that we can have massive populations of both. I understand that geographically and demographically Colorado can support alot more animals than UT can, However I have to believe that piss piss piss poor management has played a very large part in this.

Buck to doe ratio's mean #####, the simple fact of the matter is there are less deer. less deer should mean less tags. So what if we have a 15:100 ratio if there are only 100 deer!!! Who gives a rats A$$ if the ratio is 18:100 if there are 1000 deer.....????

IMHO we wouldn't give a crap bout the numbers if there were deer to hunt, we wouldn't need sportsmans groups to 'advocate' the average hunters needs.....Nobody complains when it's good, only when they are the recepient of someone else's F up........

 

[cantkillathing]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-11 AT 08:57AM (MST)[p]2_pooint: Read Daxters, post #16 and you will see the comment.

 

[2_Point]

Yeah, I saw Dax's comment. As far as I know, he is not a leader/rep of the UWC. He is a trained biologist who, as far as I have read, loves mule deer (and huntable wildlife) as much as the next guy.

So you said "Your beliefs that the buck to doe ratio are higher than what the division is reporting is a joke. It is comments like this that would keep me from joining your group". Dax isn't a rep of the UWC (as far as I have ever read). So base your emotions on fact, rather than fear/misinformation. I know you don't care, but I'd listen to Dax's opinion first and the whiners on both sides a distant second.

It is offensive to label people as uncaring of the resource or selfish because they do not believe option 2 will produce the desired results. Many believe the resource is struggling. Many feel that cutting buck hunters and saving bucks will produce more deer. Many believe that the problem with our herds is not the number of bucks, but other factors such as predators, habitat, and vehicles which kill bucks and worse- doe.

If simply limiting buck hunters would make a herd grow then why is the San Juan struggling, why have the Book Cliffs lost 10-15% of its herd, and why isn't 1000 Lakes exploding with deer? Because bucks are not the root cause of the mule deer's struggle.

I am a member of MDF and even they didn't think option 2 was the route to go for bettering our mule deer herds. They recognize the other factors. I doubt a unit with 18 bucks per 100 doe will be better than a unit with 16.

 

[Daxter]

I don't have anything to do with UWC. I don't represent any group or organization. Anything I post on MM is just my own personal opinion as a guy that loves to hunt.

I wish UWC luck in their efforts to help wildlife and maintain opportunity for those that want to hunt on a regular basis and aren't as worried about trophy quality. There are not a lot of conservation organizations out there that openly advocate for opportunity and I think it is great that they have started one.

If I felt like general season buck hunting was affecting the ability of the deer herd to grow I would be the 1st one to push for cutting tags. States like NV have shown that cutting buck tags doesn't necessarily grow deer populations. It makes for a higher quality hunt for the lucky individuals that get tags, but cutting buck tags doesn't kill predators, reduce highway mortality, stop development on winter range, etc.

If we want to have a debate among hunters as to how to divide up hunting in the state between those that want quality hunts less frequently vs. those that want opportunity hunts on a regular basis that is fine and that is a debate that sportsmen should have. I think that those trying to use declining deer populations to push for increased trophy quality don't understand population dynamics. I think we should have some units managed for huge bucks like the Henry Mtns and Antelope Island. I also think we should have other units managed for guys that want to hunt most years like most general season units have been, and some units managed somewhere in the middle. I also think we should only have one type of points system and should make hunters choose what kind of unit they want to hunt.

Buck to doe ratios are a somewhat useful tool that give a gauge of quality on a unit. However, they don't tell the whole story and because it is just a ratio it doesn't tell you anything about overall deer numbers. They are useful for tracking trends on a unit, but there are some potential problems introduced when management is based solely on that ratio.

Just my personal opinion.


Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[bullsnot]

>BULLSNOT- You talk about using the
>2008 plan of 15-100 as
>a minimum. The problem with
>this is not one of
>the units are at 15-100.

Not sure what units you are referring to. There are plenty of units in Utah that have come in at or above the 15:100 ratio. Are you referring to the Southern region?

There are essentially 10 general deer units in the Southern region. The whole region averaged 16:100 after the fall 2010 hunts. 4 units were below 15:100 with the low being 12:100 (Fishlake Plateau and Monroe) and the high being 24:100.

SE region had an average of 14:100
Cen region had an average of 18:100
Nor region had an average of 22:100
NE region had an average of 18:100

These are 2010 numbers not 3 year averages.

 

[bullsnot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-11 AT 05:03PM (MST)[p]>Bullsnot if you can provide me
>with evidence
>that the damn 15 to 100
>was working I would love
>to see it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Managing to 15:100 is nothing more than the results of a satisfication survey. A purely social number. 18:100 is the next step up.

Managing to 15:100 has done little, if anything, for deer biologically. It just represents a number where hunters were happy with the number of bucks they saw in the field at those ratios however many years ago.

We are not going to help deer herds by focusing on the buck portion of the herd. If you want to talk "quality" then that's a different story. These ratios are "quality" indexes, nothing more. They are not biological.

Dax is right about the discussion about quality vs opportunity. We believe that quality units should match the demands of quality hunters and opportunity units should match the demands of opportunity hunters....but lets not make that discussion biological because it isn't.

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

Easy Beav!

You just returned & You're already using the "F" Word!

You'll be using it alot more before the Deer Herd in TARDville gets any better!

I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!

 

[Cam@strawberry]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-13-11 AT 07:05PM (MST)[p]Only when it comes to numbers bess...... hehe ;-)

and may i add to the earlier comment, when I'm the recepient of someone elses F up......

The sportsmen of the state of UT have received, are receiving, and if something doesn't change, will continue to receive that F up.......

 

[ELKOHOLIC]

Bullsnot, I'm not a member of the UWC. Probably won't be, but if your looking for someone to be in charge of a project email me what you have in mind.

 

[why]

need to cut that many on north & northeastern for total of 10,000 to be able to see a deer.why

 

[Tree]

What expected results do you tag cut proponents have in mind?

 

[trueblu]

i've said this before but i have to ask one more time. the question is "what has sfw dont for me as a deer hunter?". since this groups inception i have seen the deer hunts go from being able to buy a tag over the counter and be able to hunt all three hunts and shoot either sex of deer. then they went to a first come first serve deal where we were all standing in line somewhere at midnight to get a tag and the ability to hunt all three hunts was gone and you had to pick a weapon. now we're are lookin at 3 and 5 day hunts in certain areas. statewide archery will now be a thing of the past and i will have to draw out for even a general season archery permit. now we're are looking at this option 2 deal and cutting 13,000 more tags on top of the thousands that have already been lost in recent years. for the sake of the deer i hope option 2 works. now i am not blaming sfw for any of these issues that i've raised but i have to ask what have they done for the deer herd in this state. obviously they haven't done very much cause we as deer hunters lose more opportunity every year it seems like and the deer herds are dwindling. i dont want to hear about elk this and sheep that. i'm interested in deer. go ahead and throw out a few habitat projects and things like that but obviously they haven't helped very much but i will always give credit to any group that does good work to try to help the deer herds. a couple years ago they offered bountys on coyotes and i have to give them props for that. so, i dont think they are all bad buy i don't see the reward for all that they are given (expo tags) either.

 

[justr_86]

Healthy herds=more deer and bigger bucks! Its that simple. How you hunt your buck has very little effect on what is biologically beneficial to the herd. Its social reasons for the cuts, not biological reasons and that is why UWC opposes it.

UWC is doing what we can to help educate people, keep opportunity to keep people hunting and take care of the priceless resource we all love! All of it not just mule deer. We have service projects setup and more in the works for habitat improvements. We are taking scientifically proven management strategies and trying to get them implemented to help take care of the health of the overall herd, not just bucks.

My personal opinion is we CAN have our cake and eat it too! We can have more deer, we can have more bucks, and we can have more opportunity! Our herds are down, let's do what is needed to help them recover! Don't just sit here and whine about not seeing any deer! GET INVOLVED!!! Whether you join UWC or not your welcome to come to any and all service projects we have! If you don't support us, support the resource. After all the resource is what we are all so passionate about!

 

[brutus]

Please dont make the mistake of confusing "educating people" with giving your opinion on a subject and dont think that the only way to help out wildlife is by joining a UWC type program and picking trash up and planting seeds. We all support wildlife by purchasing tags and hunting products. Hell people can have a big impact on wildlife just by going to the ballet box and voting for the proper candidate. I personaly think trappers dont get enough credit for their role in predator control. Try not to diminish other efforts just cause they're not pickin trash, cuttin pjs, or some other service project. If someone wants to do that then great but try not to belittle others impact!

 

[LOWCOUNTRY]

I guess Im greedy but I would love to see all habitat projects/$$$ earned from Mule deer tags, interest groups, whatever go to directly benefiting Mule deer since it appears to be in major trouble if other critters benefit great. I think in twenty years alot of the habitat created by fed agencies, state agencies, dedicated hunters, sportsmans groups etc. etc. which was done on large scales (1000+ acres) is great for elk/Bears currently and may get the shrub component to support a large herd of Mule deer once again. If not then we wont have any deer left to be on here bitching about. It will probably be elk. I still struggle with the notion that the range is at carrying capacity but Im not a scientist I just see a wide diverse range of Browse that is never touched and an ever decreasing number of deer drastically over the last 10 years where I hunt. Im not talkin just bucks Im talkin the entire herd doe's, fawns way way low numbers. Most Doe's with 0 fawns.

+1 your post Brutus

 

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-14-11 AT 02:20PM (MST)[p]I'm not trying to belittle anyones efforts. Some do a lot to help. Others just whine about the current situation. That was the intent behind that statement.

I should have went a little more in to "educating people." Our goal is to educate people on the way the system works, what actually happens and what all goes into it. Give people biologically proven and unbiased information instead of just an idea.

There are lots of ideas, very little biologically proven management practices.

 

[Tree]

>I guess Im greedy but I
>would love to see all
>habitat projects/$$$ earned from Mule
>deer tags, interest groups, whatever
>go to directly benefiting Mule
>deer since it appears to
>be in major trouble if
>other critters benefit great.

Now you're talkin'.

+100000

 

[justr_86]

Lowcountry I agree. That untouched browse you speak of reminds me a lot of southern utah. The herds winter range in the foothills along I-15 (east side of the road) the only place they have access to because of the freeway is that small strip along the freeway. If they had a way to get across the freeway either over or under they could have access to 1000's of acres of winter range. But they don't have access to it so that herd is at carrying capacity for what winter range they have available. I'm talking between cedar city and the circleville exit.

 

[LOWCOUNTRY]

I would agree with that they are very limited there are a few crossings however that I have seen deer utilize. Those underpasses and fencing are undeniably a great investment just short on them and the money to create more from what I hear. The area Im talkin about is about 100 east of I-15. I.E the foothill country surrounding the Boulder Mountain AKA the Plateau to the DWR. Great ground what appears to be great diversity of browse just very few deer.

 

[Cam@strawberry]

>Healthy herds=more deer and bigger bucks! Its that simple. HOW YOU HUNT YOUR BUCK has very little effect on what is biologically beneficial to the herd. Its social reasons for the cuts, not biological reasons and that is why UWC opposes it.

Justr, what deer?????? Sure how you hunt your deer has very little to do with biology, but damn dude you gotta have a deer to hunt in the first place!

 

[Cam@strawberry]

>What expected results do you tag
>cut proponents have in mind?

Well tree, maybe a couple more deer to hunt sometime in the future.....rather than a few thousand more dead two points......

I'll admit i don't hunt too hard when it comes to deer, even so I do spend all 10 days of the general season on the hill, in the few years I've been hunting I've managed to kill ONE deer better than a two point. Now that's just great hunting if you ask me 10 days of hunting and a trophy two point to show for it!

YAY for UTAH!!!

I know I know buck to doe ratios have very little to do with population growth, but the simple fact of the matter is buck to doe ratios mean nothing when you have no deer!

Tree, I don't hunt too hard for deer, so take my thoughts with a grain a salt, Elk are a different story the nature of my job as a guide and outfitter means I don't have the luxury of hunting how I want. I work my butt off elk hunting, it is my opinion that if this antlerless proposal goes thru the 'average sportsman' the one you claim to represent will be screwed! It will have a negative effect for years and years to come. That opinion comes from decades of experience, countless days and hours of scouting each year, and years of watching elk.

I have no issue with the LE proposal, in fact I think it is needed, SFW would disagree, but thats just my opinion. However, the antlerless proposal on the wasatch is utter lunacy.

 

[Tree]

Thanks for clarifying.

My only comment to the cow tags was in regards to the central recommendation meeting. When presented with the facts and recommendations, though the number of tags seemed high, it ended up making sense to why they are issuing these tags. I don't have any reason to hold onto a belief about these tags, one way or another, just stating that it made sense what they were proposing.

Jim, as far as the fish lake elk analogy, I've heard several opinions on what went down and again, I don't need any of them to be true or false. Some say it was outrageous and that the fish lake has never been the same, some say to the contrary. I do know that the fish lake unit is currently over objective, so it seems to me, even if the worst case scenario was true, that the effects were short lived.

Again, just having a conversation. I don't need anyone to be right or wrong on this account, but it does seem to me like a lot of this has to do with perspective, philosophy and what one chooses to believe or not believe, all predicated on what people would like or need to be true to fit their desired outcome. Some more-so than others.

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

I'll tell you what you can do with current & proposed Age objectives........................!

Do I need to Repeat Myself?

I don't care if they're big or small!
If they throw lead I like em all!

 

[Cam@strawberry]

>I don't have any reason
>to hold onto a belief
>about these tags, one way
>or another.
>

Wait as president of a new wildlife coop that supposedly represents the 'average hunter' you ought to have a large reason to hold onto some belief. After all we are talking about the closest unit and most accesable to the 'average hunter' in the SL valley and UT valley. I would venture to say that a large portion of 'average hunters' live in these areas. Yet you as President of this organization have 'no reason to hold onto a belief'???? WTF????

 

[justr_86]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 10:19AM (MST)[p]At the NE RAC meeting last night they said with funds being cut by the government the 10% of their fund they will have to make up with tag increases. They also want to cut tags by an extra 30%. So when you can get a tag every 3-5 years and have to pay close to $100 for the tag (my own number with the math I did) are you going to come away from the hunt empty handed? Can you afford to buy your kids tags? Can grandpa still afford a tag?

With the shorter hunts success rates stayed the same or went up. People felt hard pressed for time and also felt cheated because they got less for their money. You think success rates won't go up if the tags get harder to come by and cost a lot more?

Sit back and think of what your trying to do... Its not good and WILL NOT help the herd....

Cutting tags will cut support which in turn will cut funds and its a slippery slope we have started down. We need money to invest in predator control, fencing, winter range or we won't have a herd! This thinking is too short term.

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 12:09PM (MST)[p]>>I don't have any reason
>>to hold onto a belief
>>about these tags, one way
>>or another.
>>
>
>Wait as president of a new
>wildlife coop that supposedly represents
>the 'average hunter' you ought
>to have a large reason
>to hold onto some belief.
> After all we are
>talking about the closest unit
>and most accesable to the
>'average hunter' in the SL
>valley and UT valley.
>I would venture to say
>that a large portion of
>'average hunters' live in these
>areas. Yet you as
>President of this organization have
>'no reason to hold onto
>a belief'???? WTF????
>
>

>
>

You are missing the point. This means that I have no personal investment in the data and recommendations being wrong or right.

Now, do I support the recommendations based on information, biological data and a full grasp of the reasons they are recommending these tag #'s? Yes. As I stated earlier. When all the facts were presented and the recommendations were made, not one person in the room spoke up against it. It made sense.

So, considering this, why don't you go ahead and ask Don P, Dave W and John B the same questions, because they were there as well and heard the same reasons for the recommendations with no objections. Especially when the division showed that they had flown the unit, up and down every canyon, counting every animal on the hoof. The weather was very cooperative, so the percentage added for unseen animals was minimal. They also have several elk collared and know their migrations for the past several years.

Again, you are speculating with partial information. Don't ##### to me, call the division and get the full story.

 

[30plus]

Tree,
Not sure what question you were asked because I haven't taken the time to read this whole post. But there were questions raised and differences of opinion stated at the mtg you mention. Remember the 700 L.E tags? As far as the doe hunts in the central they are all mitigation in farmland and so few that they wont affect the herds being hunted. I would rather not have them but they do damage to peoples livelyhood and should be kept in check. I do have great concerns with the cow elk hunting on the Wasatch and discussed these at the mtg. Some of my concerns were justified as we saw most of the counts were on the face from Mapleton north with many above Provo and Heber Valley. The south end (diamond fork, sheep creek, monks, hobble creek) are all down in elk numbers from past counts and what I personally have witnessed. These were mentioned at the mtg. The cow tag recomendations were adjusted for the late hunts in those areas. When the official recommend came out some of the suggestions were adressed but not all and not all the way I wanted but that is the way things are. I am not convinced that the Wasatch can maintain the elk herd/quality for many more years the way it is being hunted. Hopefully it can because it is a great hunt for alot of hunters. There are alot of elk being killed on that unit. The good thing about elk is they can rebound much more effectively than deer. Heres a question, Do you know if the CWMU data is included to get the ave. age on the unit? If it is then the ave. age harvested by public hunters will be lower than what is shown.
Dave

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-15-11 AT 05:31PM (MST)[p]Thanks Dave,

The question I was responding to was regarding the cow tags, which you gave a bit more insight to. I recall difference of opinion and concerns over a few items, just not the cow harvest, other than moving tags from the late hunts to the October hunts, which I think was a great suggestion.

Good point on the avg. bull age. If they are counting CWMUs in the average, I think they need to stop doing this. CWMUs are obviously going to skew things to the older side of the spectrum, not to mention these large tracts of property will often times have resident elk populations that they are harvesting from that don't have the same amount of pressure on them, or a similar harvest to population ratio.

 

[Cam@strawberry]

Tree if we are talking about the same meeting, the SFW meeting where the division presented the numbers to SFW, you are not being truthful. We were at that meeting and Don P is not happy bout the numbers presented SPECIFICALLY on the wasatch and manti.

I have the emails and phone calls to prove it, you are wrong and that is a load of BULL coming from the PRESIDENT OF UWC......Don P had no problem with the other recommendations across the state but believe me he is having a come apart about the wasatch and manti.........

All that aside tree do you happen to know whether the 7000 tags got cut at the NE rac?

I don't wanna be disagreeable, normally i'm not this vocal and try to have good things to say about every one. However, in this particular instance you, the division, and everyone who thinks this proposal is on, is wrong.........

Lemme show you why i'm worried with the numbers they gave us, plus a little speculation on my part. i have to speculate because the division doesn't do a harvest study on a few hunts.

Estimated Pop: 7700
Proposed Antelerless: 3225
Proposed LE: 600 or so
Proposed Spike: 15000
Unlimited Archery Antlerless

So with some basic math lets look at this.

With a 60% success rate across LE and Antlerless rifle (according to the division LE has an average across the three seasons of 68% success so i'm giving the cow hunters a little more than 50% success), population drops to 5405 now 95 elk below objective thats pretty good right???? Oh shucks wait we still have to add in the Spike hunters and unlimited archery guys. On the most accessable unit in the state with the largest population in the state I don't think its a stretch to say a 1000 more elk killed. So with Basic math TREE where does that get us to???

4400 Elk NOW 1100 BELOW OBJECTIVE??????? How in the hell do those FACTS make sense??? I hope you will believe I was very liberal in my numbers. Personally with 7700 elk, i think the cow success rate would be upwards of 80%. Now if you wanna go even further, what is gonna happen is, rather than kill some bulls off the unit, which it probably needs, we just killed a butthole full of our opportunity makers, the cows. now the 'average sportsman' is gonna have to take more tag cuts the bonus point butt plug is gonna get even worse and ya everyone is now a bigger recepient of someone elses F'UP.......

Don't try and tell me how Don P feels about it we have him on Speed dial........I know how he feels about it and you will too if you show up at the central rac on tuesday. BTW if you do come look up the section from strawberry I'd love to meet you and shake your hand. I may seem like a disagreeable d1ck on here but i try not to be usually and don't hold grudges based on differing opinions. ;-)

 

[Daxter]

I understand your concern and I am impressed you have run the numbers. I don't really know the Manti or Wasatch, but you have to realize that success on cow hunts is usually 40%. Granted in some years or in some areas it may be higher than that, but assuming 50%+ success on a cow hunt on the Wasatch may be a stretch, specially since most of those tags are early. Also, the DWR's population estimate was made from the count they did in Febuary. A lot of the cows that they counted were prego and will have calves this spring. You have to account for this years production too in your model.

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[Packout]

Berry- I do agree that on first glance the numbers are high. As Dax pointed out, one part of the equation you failed to incorporate is the calves which will be born in the following 8 weeks. If there are only 4,000 cows and they have a calf rate of only 30 calves for 100 cows (fall count) then you are adding 1,200 elk back into the herd. So by your numbers you will still be 100 over objective. If those success rates go up or down a little then they are still in the ball-park. I will say I have no idea as to the elk population on the Wasatch, just that there seem to be more elk everywhere I have hunted on the unit over the past few years.

 

[Cam@strawberry]

Packout and Dax, that is correct and something that I haven't considered fully yet.

I really don't wanna do the population deal thats just your word verses my word. Doesn't get anywhere.

Dax, where did you get that 40% number?? if i remember correctly the division doesn't do a study on cow success rates. So is that something that you have come up with or that a division guess?

I remember a few years back when a 1000 or so cow tags were issued for the current creek unit, I think that was when the pop hit 5500 there were elk every where we killed like 9 spikes that year. Current creek was decimated, we didn't hunt elk there for about 4 years cause they just weren't there. We aren't seeing even that many elk. So I struggle with the 7700 number, even so thats your word verses me.

Packout, what i worry bout with the cows is that there aren't 4000 cows on the unit. There may be 4000 bulls, maybe a stretch there ;-) Still though the ratio between bull to cow is pretty high, I worry that killing off this many cows will really throw the equation out of whack. It will create a population that can't recover because there aren't enough cows to populate. Then the division will see a bull to cow ratio that is really unhealthy increase bull tags and whala we just decimated a unit in a couple of years, cause the numbers said so........

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-11 AT 01:13PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-11 AT 01:06?PM (MST)

Like I said, get all of the facts from the division, not me. If you object after talking with them and having the facts, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Your opinion is one you are COMPLETELY entitled to. Were numbers disputed in the meeting? Yes. I questioned them myself because I hunt the Wasatch A LOT. But after being showed the numbers and that the division flew the unit not months prior, it made sense to me and there wasn't much groaning going on afterwards, that I recall.

Like Packout said below, part of the equation is this years recruitment. Listen, I'm not passionate about these recommendations, one way or another. My ONLY point was that after seeing the full story, the tag allocations made sense

I'm not here to argue that I THINK they need to give out this many tags, other than the divisions recommendations make sense when having ALL of the information.

If you want to kill bigger bulls on the Wasatch, is this gonna make you happy? No. If you want above objective elk populations, is this going to make you happy? No. But if you are the division, have an elk plan in place and are mandated to being under a certain amount of animals on the unit, then yes, to me it makes sense.

I'm not shoving any kind of agenda or ideal down someones throat, I simply said, again, that when having all of the information, to me the proposal made sense.

So, you tell me, as a guide do you have a reason to be biased in your opinions? I'll tell you my PERSONAL opinion. I'd love them to have 10000 elk on the wasatch and be able to hunt 340 bull with regularity over 280 bulls with the occasional 350, but that's my PERSONAL opinion, and I don't think pushing my personal agenda on to a bunch of people is the right thing to do. I like big bulls, I like to hunt big bulls and am PERSONALLY willing to wait to hunt them. I've hunted and assisted in killing a dozen or so elk off of the wasatch, a unit that's probably more dear to me than any other elk unit I've spent time on. But for me, I need to be real about this, this age objective is such that it's not going to have 380 bulls running all over the place.

Do I whine about management that keeps it at objectives? Nope, I choose to apply for and spend my points a different unit that has objectives that fit what I want out of a hunt.I think having a myriad of objectives to fit different peoples desires is great.

Again, I understand why you might be frustrated, trying to put a puzzle together without all of the pieces and that managing to the opportunity based objectives on the Wasatch make it more difficult to kill bigger bulls for clients, and I completely respect that. Hell, you probably have personal opinions that don't have anything to do with being a guide and that is 100% your right and prerogative and I won't dispute it's validity.

Bottom line, you are arguing with the wrong person. Call the central region bio''s, it's their information and plans you are disputing.

 

[Tree]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-11 AT 01:18PM (MST)[p]
>correctly the division doesn't do
>a study on cow success
>rates. So is that
>something that you have come
>up with or that a
>division guess?
>

>Packout, what i worry bout with
>the cows is that there
>aren't 4000 cows on the
>unit. There may be
>4000 bulls, maybe a stretch
>there ;-) Still though
>the ratio between bull to
>cow is pretty high, I
>worry that killing off this
>many cows will really throw
>the equation out of whack.
> It will create a
>population that can't recover because
>there aren't enough cows to
>populate. Then the division
>will see a bull to
>cow ratio that is really
>unhealthy increase bull tags and
>whala we just decimated a
>unit in a couple of
>years, cause the numbers said
>so........
>
>

>
>

Valid concerns, but ones that come down to trust. Either you believe the numbers or you don't. If you don't, what are the thoughts behind why they would fabricate the #'s?

Like I said, I my eyes were big when they showed the slide that had the number of recommended cow tags, I wanted to start yelling BS right then. But when they broke evereything down, I didn't have much to say.

 

[Daxter]

On the DWR's websight you can look up the success rates from the cow hunts in past years in the Big Game Annual Reports. I had heard that 40% success was pretty standard on cow hunts, but in the 2009 annual report it looks like the statewide average harvest was closer to 50%.

Here is the 2009 data from the Wasatch Hunts, looks like success was 47%.

Hunt Area/Season Permits Harvest % Success
Wasatch Mtns., Alpine 30 18 66.7
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (1) 65 35 53.8
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (2) 49 7 16.7
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (3) 75 21 28.9
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (4) 39 9 29.4
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (5) 42 16 45.2
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (6) 52 17 32.1
Wasatch Mtns., Avintaquin (7) 50 20 50.0
Wasatch Mtns., Currant Ck (early) 250 141 59.2
Wasatch Mtns., Currant Ck (middle) 50 10 25.8
Wasatch Mtns., Currant Ck (late) 150 63 45.5
Wasatch Mtns., Currant Ck, S of 40 (1) 49 13 26.9
Wasatch Mtns., Currant Ck, Sof 40 (2) 49 10 23.8
Wasatch Mtns., Diamond Fork (early) 80 10 13.6
Wasatch Mtns., Diamond Fork (late) 79 37 51.4
Wasatch Mtns., East Heber 40 34 91.7
Wasatch Mtns., Park City 20 8 50.0
Wasatch Mtns., Salt Lake 50 32 63.2
Wasatch Mtns., Springville (early) 80 40 50.9
Wasatch Mtns., Springville (late) 80 64 81.6
Wasatch Mtns., Strawberry 49 29 60.7
Wasatch Mtns, Timpanogos (early) 45 21 48.4
Wasatch Mtns, Timpanogos (late) 45 40 88.5
Wasatch Mtns., Wallsburg (early) 39 31 84.2
Wasatch Mtns., Wallsburg (late) 39 31 77.3
Wasatch Mtns., West 399 187 47.9
Wasatch Mtns., West Heber 20 11 57.1
2009 Totals 2015 955 47%


Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[Cam@strawberry]

Thanks for that Tree, it makes sense and again i'm not trying to be disagreeable. Just a few things that have me questioning some stuff.

Yes, I love big bulls but this has nothing to do with that. I repeatedly said above that this antlerless proposal will have a negative effect on elk hunting as a whole. I want guys too have more opportunity on this unit, we will always turn up a big bull just because of where we live and how well we know the place. I have no problem and support fully the LE proposal. I have some serious issues with the cow proposal for the simple reason that killing off large numbers of cows, in my experience has never ever been healthy for a herd or helpful.

Thanks Dax preciate the numbers so lets look at this a bit more in depth ok

As I recall, this is the tag break down

675 Current Creek based on the rates above that would mean 220 rougly out of those tags.

1100 Avintaquin 418 killed

1450 Cental Wasatch 890 Killed

So given my previous guesses of 1000 between the archers and spike hunters which is slim to say the least I come up with 4570 estimated pop at the end of the year. Not factoring in the new calves.

Now if we look at the central mountain wasatch, there are some 80 and 90% success rates on the cows, oddly enough the current creek and avintaquin are much much lower.

Dax i'd venture to say that the private land ratio and CWMU is why the percents differ. Might wanna think about that one.......

 

[Cam@strawberry]

And hot damn can I just say them was some pretty good guesses on my part???? Within 3 percent on the cow tags.....;-) hehe just razzin ya dax and tree.....

I apologize for the high jacked thread, tho it did have a bit of pertinence?? not sure of the spelling on that word and dont wanna look it up......

Dax I guess what i wanna get out of those numbers is the areas that need to have some elk killed AKA private and CWMU elk aren't gonna have it happen while the ones that don't really need COWS killed are gonna have some big big issues with 70-90% success rates........

Tree, thanks for your time and patience with me, I'm still not sold with UWC's posistion on a lot of things and really question whether or not the 'average sportsman' is gonna be helped by the organization. Your a good patient fella and that means alot.......

Bulls are a whole nuther story and thread haha

 

[hossblur]

Dax, firt off, good on you for taking some of the abuse.

In reading this I saw your thoughts on buck/doe ratios being higher. I disagree, but I was struck by something you pointed out about easy accessible areas being counted. Why is this? I don't remember reading anywhere that the numbers may be off do to biologist laziness. I am sorry, but anyone can count deer on the side of the highway. Isn't it the DWR's job to DO THERE JOB?? Where in this state is there a place that hold deer that is inaccessible to the DWR? Choppers, trucks, atv, snowmobiles, planes, horses, boats. All of these tools are available to the DWR. So why is it that I read from a DWR biologist that there are areas that are not counted do to EASY accesibility?? Hell what was I thinking, tommorow I am going to work and only doing the easy stuff, I think we all should. Last I checked the DWR worked for me, and you. And in case the DWR hasn't noticed, the boss is pissed. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THAT THE DWR ONLY DOES THE EASY STUFF. IF the dwr can't get to the hard places, QUIT!!! There are tons of guys who for entertainment get into hard to access areas (snowmobilers, horsemen, atvers, boaters, 4x4 ers, hikers, skiers). Again, I realize there are some good biologists/officers, but when one of you puts out in public, that there are some areas that aren't easy to get to so the work doesn't get done, I can't help but wonder what is known behind closed doors.

 

[Daxter]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-11 AT 03:02PM (MST)[p]Hoss,

2nd post from you showing that you obviously have some major issues with biologists. I think you are directing your frustration towards the wrong group of folks. Also, you are misinterpreting what I said. What I tried to communicate is that biologists are supposed to get a big sample size across a huge geographic area during a relatively short time window so they don't have the ability to do a bunch of hiking into back country areas and taking horse rides into areas without roads to classify (not to say that some biologists don't do some of this). I would guess that those kinds of less accessible areas would probably hold more bucks. Bios do spend a lot of hours covering a lot of country some of it pretty remote (not just the stuff on the side of the highway as you suggest). I guess I should have used the phrase "relatively more accessible" instead of "easily accessible", but it is pretty hard to try to avoid a disagreement with a guy that has an obvious chip on his shoulder towards biologists and is just waiting for any chance to throw some rocks.

For buck to doe ratios whatever bios see and report is a minimum because the ratio they report is based on the count of actual bucks that they observed. There aren't any adjustment factors for sightablity or projections with the collected count data. They just report what they see, so I would bet if the whole truth were know and a complete census were possible, the buck to doe ratio would actually be higher than what is reported.

Just my own personal opinion, if you don't agree it doesn't hurt my feelings.

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[hossblur]

Dax,

I have a degree in Microbiology. I only throw this out so that when I start to talk about the bad, if not horrible science that now passes for deer managment, I can point out that I too understand sample size and variables when it comes to science. You said it, "easy", choose a different word if you like, but it doesn't change the direction you were going. Yes, I stated earlier their are good biologists, your probably one of them. But there are some lazy worthless ones as well. I will send you the name of the one that "ran" my area in a PM so you know where my discontent is directed.

Now, I keep hearing a small window to conduct research. Last I checked the deer season ended in Oct. (yeah I know there are exceptions). That gives said biologist 6 months to conduct surveys. Yeah there is winter kill, but most of the deer are concentrated on winter range, not the entire unit, so the area of focus is much smaller. Now unless I am missing something, other than checking ice fisherman, what else do the guys in the field have to do all winter than look at deer/elk on the winter range? No one expects DWR to count every buck in the state, but in most cases Joe Blows like myself have a better handle on where and how many deer there are in an area. If your sample size is the entire state, thats a tough sample I agree, but if you have a couple of slackazzes responding as back up to DUI's rather than making counts, your entire survey is off. Now take into account that MOST of the state is locked into snow for most of the winter, leaving not a lot of country that can hold deer(winter range) and that impossible job becomes much easier. NOW, in fairness, if it is too tough, perhaps the DWR should call for volunteers. Instead of delivering proclamations or building bird cages, the dedicated hunters could lend a hand. Again, its not personal, but for any DWR employee to try and defend there mule deer mangement as anything other than a complete failure, is laughable, and taking 5000 tags this year to lessen the shock for next year is just more of the same "throw something at the wall" crap that happens year after year. After all, we cut from 250,000 to 90,000, made us pick weapon, played with season lengths, all to "improve" deer hunting. IT ALL FAILED, BUT the DWR can claim they DID SOMETHING.

 

[Daxter]

DWR does post-season classification for buck to doe ratios during the rut. The window varies a little on different units based on timing of the rut, by typically lasts one month Nov. 15 - Dec. 15.

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.

 

[hossblur]

I still say if you have 100 deer and 50 are bucks you have a 50% buck/doe ratio, BUTTTTTT you still only have 50 bucks. We need more deer, not just more bucks in a declining herd.

Dax, I do have something I have always wondered, why do we have post rut doe hunts? Doesn't this kill at least two and sometimes three, and waste the time and energy of the buck who made them?? I have never really heard a reason I am wondering if there is one?

 

[Daxter]

You are right on that post-rut hunts for doe deer and cow elk hunters are likely killing quite a few prego females. Usually when you have antlerless hunts it is to maintain or reduce current population numbers so that isn't really a factor. If you kill a doe or cow before the rut she isn't prego, but if she had survived she probably would have been.

I guess you have a point that a buck or bull wasted his energy breeding with her... but I wonder if he would feel the same way ;-)

Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.