Deer Permit Increases in Utah

N

nebo12000

Active Member
Messages
634
I want to thank everyone who has e-mailed and /or talked to their RAC members concerning the deer permit increases. It has been pretty overwhelming. As a RAC member I stand with all of you on this issue. While there may be a few places that need some attention due to agricultural depredation, they can be dealt with individually. I believe that the overall increase in permit numbers is not needed yet. Many of the units are not even close to the population objectives yet. I believe that we still need to wait at least a couple more years to start increasing permit numbers on most units.
Thanks again for your involvement! Hope as many as you can will show up at the RAC meetings--
 
Rich-

Based upon your comments, I am guessing that most of the emails that you have received have been opposed to the proposed tag increases. I am not necessarily surprised by that but I personally see if from another angle. What does our Mule Deer Plan say on this issue? Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, we should follow our management plan. If our plan is out of whack, then let's get together and amend our management plan. Management based upon emotion is something we have tried in the past but it it is a poor way to manage our herds.

-Hawkeye-
 
I posted this on another forum, but figured it was relevant here as well.

I went through each of the proposed increases for every general unit across the state. I then looked at the overall success rate on tags in 2014, the most recent posted data by the DWR. Based upon each unit's respective proposed increase and success rate, we are talking a total of 1,344 more bucks killed across the state. These bucks are spread between 20+ units and 3 seasons on each unit. The most bucks will be killed on units that have buck:doe ratios that are vastly over the objective for the unit.

I don't want to get all biological here, but I think it is pretty well accepted science at this point that bucks don't have babies, and cutting buck tags that are probably already lower than they should be is not the way to increase your deer herd.

I too am interested to see if this particular position taken by the OP is consistent with the Mule Deer Plan. I use the word "interested" loosely, as I already know that it is not.

Tags will be increased. Maybe not exactly as proposed, but they will be increased, and they should be. There will be absolutely no detrimental effect upon the overall health of our deer herds in Utah to increase tags to this number. These are not the king's deer, and holding them out so the king can have less competition and bigger antlers is not the way we should manage in Utah.
 
Hawkeye, I think I have a somewhat decent handle on the biology and the mule deer plan as it is. One thing that needs to be noted is that the population objectives as stated in the plan in most units are not being met. I realize that killing more bucks in a particular unit will not be a huge factor in overall deer numbers but it can and does affect the age class factors and the natural selection that goes on within the herds. Having more mature deer helps to ensure that the does will have a choice who they breed with. According to the studies I have read (Geist etc) the does will almost always choose the bigger antlered deer because it is a trait that most likely will ensure the long term health and strength genetically of the species. Competition among bucks is an important factor in this. Also, biologically, there only needs to be 5 bucks/100 does to keep a population viable and ensure that the does will have fawns. Socially for us is that acceptable, or is that even "healthy" for a particular deer herd? Having 25 bucks per hundred does is not harmful unless the total population is harmful to the habitat, especially on winter range. Some competition on winter ranges between bucks and does or fawns is inevitable but the amount of the available habitat is more crucial. I know you probably understand most of this already, and there is much more that could be said in regards to the "biology" of the management of populations. There is a wide range of what is biologically okay, there are certainly certain critical minimums and maximums of populations tempered by all the other limiting factors that have to be considered. At this point it seems to be more a social component-- The herds are growing, in most units there is still room for that growth, age class structure is improving, people (not just hunters) enjoy seeing mature deer, if the majority of the hunting public is okay with the current number of hunting permits available for now, why not wait another year or two to begin that course of increasing permits and a little more opportunity. What is the big pressing need to kill more bucks right now. Opportunity will come with growth. Besides, the health and viability of the deer herds and helping the population to flourish to habitat limiting levels is the most important aspect.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-16 AT 11:01AM (MST)[p]I think they should leave the deer heard # s alone for a few years one bad winter could put things back to square one its all about the good ole mighty $$$ though
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-16 AT 11:16AM (MST)[p]Sorry, but this thread touches a nerve. The Mule Deer Plan was written and PASSED by all the parties involved. It contains management objectives. Now we have some decision makers who want to go against the very plan that was PASSED.

In the last few years, the deer population has increased from around 300,000 to around 400,000 (Thanks Mother Nature). Now they are recommending a 4,000ish permit increase that will kill at most 2,000 bucks. So the deer herd increases by 30% and they opt to increase permits to kill .5% of the 400,000 herd.

Now if the decision makers say that we don't need an increase then let's see if they put their money where their mouth is. IF you don't want to increase General Season Permits then you better be voting to NOT have any LE ML hunts on those same units.

One last point-- If the buck to doe ratios were below the objective I guarantee you they would vote to cut tags (as they should). But now that many units' buck to doe ratio is above the buck to doe ratios they won't vote to increase tags.

Do your job. Follow the Management Plan. That is where the Politics, Lobbying, and Social desires should have been expressed.
 
So we start hitting triggers that recommend more opportunity and we won't provide it.

Got it.

Remember when we were told that this wasn't about making the entire state a LE unit?

If not now when?




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Good comments. That was the same point I was trying to make. We have no problem cutting tags based upon our management plan but when that same plan calls for a slight increase in tags based upon herd numbers we all think that we know better than the plan.

-Hawkeye-
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-16
>AT 11:16?AM (MST)
>
>Sorry, but this thread touches a
>nerve. The Mule Deer
>Plan was written and PASSED
>by all the parties involved.
> It contains management objectives.
> Now we have some
>decision makers who want to
>go against the very plan
>that was PASSED.
>
>In the last few years, the
>deer population has increased from
>around 300,000 to around 400,000
>(Thanks Mother Nature). Now they
>are recommending a 4,000ish permit
>increase that will kill at
>most 2,000 bucks. So
>the deer herd increases by
>30% and they opt to
>increase permits to kill .5%
>of the 400,000 herd.
>
>Now if the decision makers say
>that we don't need an
>increase then let's see if
>they put their money where
>their mouth is. IF
>you don't want to increase
>General Season Permits then you
>better be voting to NOT
>have any LE ML hunts
>on those same units.
>
>One last point-- If the
>buck to doe ratios were
>below the objective I guarantee
>you they would vote to
>cut tags (as they should).
> But now that many
>units' buck to doe ratio
>is above the buck to
>doe ratios they won't vote
>to increase tags.
>
>Do your job. Follow the
>Management Plan. That is
>where the Politics, Lobbying, and
>Social desires should have been
>expressed.

+1 well said.
 
I agree with the DWR this time. When buck to doe ratios are healthy and above objectives, they should offer a few more permits in those units. It's a balance of quality and opportunity.

We have been blessed with good winters in most of Utah the past few years. In northern Utah deer will winter kill more in hard winters. We just as well let more people hunt deer, than have half of the buck winter kill on a hard winter.

Some studies say you only need 5-8 bucks per 100 does. I don't think most of the does get bread during the first cycle. That make fawns more susceptible to predators, especially coyotes. If we have 20 bucks per 100 does and some decent age class in the counts, stock piling bucks wont help the herd in the long run, especially for general season units.

Gunnison basin had 40 bucks per 100 does and with there hard winter a few years ago contributed to more winter kill, (more competition with does).
 
I also think a big issue in all of this is if the Public Trust the DWR in the numbers they are providing.

This distrust of the public and DWR needs to be improved, the numbers they have put out and what the public is seeing is two different things.

DWR needs to do a better job with public relations, and trying to help us all understand the numbers that they are using.

I for one still do not see the deer numbers that they are saying we have on the San Juan unit and the LaSal unit.

The distrust is a big factor in all of this if we want to pin point problems with why some of us dont want increase.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-16 AT 12:49PM (MST)[p]Packout-- who except on the Mule Deer committee had any say in the decisions that you came up with? Were there any public meetings? Just wanting to know. I know the RACs were able to vote yea or nay on it but the public really wasn't that involved.I agree that you came up with the best plan per the stakeholders on the committee. However, it is a "guiding" document not a absolute legal document. This issue is a hunter social issue. If there is no "wiggle" room in your decision to abide by the mule deer plan as it exists, then why do we even have RAC's or the WB involved. If all the triggers you placed into the plan are absolute and have no room for discussion, then the RAC and WB should not even be involved in accepting or approving the current proposal. The RACs represent the public at large, if we don't listen and do our best to represent the majority views of those who care to express them,( I have over 200 e-mails so far) then we are just wasting our time. If the majority of those (they seem to be average individual common Joe hunters) who take the time and effort to express their opinions, want the permit numbers to stay the same, then I for one will support that view. I can see in no way does this view conflict with any biology or even with the Mule Deer Plan. Even if the triggers are met (B/D ratio's in particular) they don't have to be pulled yet.
 
Rich-

I am just curious what percentage of the emails you have received are against the proposed tag increase? I am guessing the Muley Crazy email has really helped generate support against the additional tags.

-Hawkeye-
 
So far it has been a 100% against raising permit numbers for this year. Yes, I'm sure the Muley Crazy e-mail is the major force behind them. However a great number added additional comments. I don't get to vote but so far I have to side with the majority that are willing to take time to express their views (this is the most e-mails/opinions I have ever had on any issue). I see no negative affects biologically to go against the majority. Even considering the Mule Deer Plan triggers that are in place, the triggers(B/D ratios) do not have to be pulled yet-- this is a hunter social issue. Biologically, I haven't seen anything negative that would harm the deer populations. Many of the unit population objectives have not been met yet and Yes, I know, a few hundred more bucks killed won't make a huge difference in that number and overall won't make that big of a difference. But, if there truly are more bucks, success rates will increase a lot. Satisfaction rates will go up. As that happens, adding more permits won't be as big an issue down the road.
 
I am ok with the additional buck tags. I don't believe you can "stock pile" deer, and I support the Mule Deer plan. For those units over objective we should increase tags. Obviously if a unit is under objective (B/D) then don't increase the buck tags. Let's follow the plan.

It is pretty easy to stir up the masses with uninformed e-mails. How many e-mails are you getting suggesting the Mule Deer plan needs to be changed?

Bill
 
All of the e-mails that took time to say more than they "are opposed to the increase in permit numbers" Said that they would like to wait one or two more years before increasing tags. Its harder to take away permits (opportunity) than it is to increase them.
 
"Its harder to take away permits (opportunity) than it is to increase them."

I am not sure if that is born out by history in this state. I think the quality crowd is much better organized and more vocal than the opportunity crowd. I personally don't side entirely with either group and would like to see balance on this issue. Good luck, I will be thinking of you and you RAC meeting from the beaches of Mexico. However, I will try to make it from Widlife Board Meeting.

-Hawkeye-
 
Only a few-- I think many if not most see this as something that affects them closer to home and the quality/quantity issue.
 
Nebo- Interesting question you asked about who had input. Well, there were open houses across the state in which input was gathered. There was a survey sent out to tens of thousands of hunters. There were 20+ members of the Mule Deer Committee, including Reps from each RAC, the Board, and from all kinds of special interests and interests that arn't so special. Then the Plan went through each and every RAC-- where each and every member on the RAC could give their input. Also at those RAC meetings every citizen and lobbyist had their chance to give their input through email or showing up in person. Then the Wildlife Board was able to give their input and every citizen was once again able provide input through emails, phone calls, or showing up in person.

If you want to take the stance that the RACs had little to no say in the process, then I guess you must feel that way about every management, "guiding document". Of course there is wiggle room, but you stated that we don't need increases even though every piece of science and data says otherwise.

After all that the Plan was agreed to and passed. Our deer herd has grown from 300,000ish to 400,000ish and the recommended permit increase is 1,500-1,800 more dead bucks statewide, which is relatively insignificant. The proposed increase will allow 4,000 hunters to hunt, of which 800+ additional youth will get tags, which is significant.

So you received 200 emails- from an organized group. What about the other 130,000 General Season Deer Applicants? You will throw out the plan because of .15% of the General Deer Applicants? Not even 2 tenths of 1 percent have vocally opposed the increase.....
 
So you received 200 emails,100% of them are against the increase, and all of them added their own comments?

Right....

I call major BS on this one. Things just aren't absolute like that. I don't believe it any more than the "independent" selection committee for the expo.
 
Just waiting on the 3 point or better suggestion.

Makes as much sense as stockpiling damn BUCK DEER.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I have been studying the issues and emails. No decision made yet. My question is this. When tags are cut many gripe about taking away opportunity for hunting. Blame Flys everywhere. Look at all the tags that have been lost because of certain groups. Now there is a proposed increase in tags, though in reality minor increase, people are screaming about increasing the tags. So it seams which ever it goes people will be pissed off. Can't wait to see who gets blamed for the decision
 
>All of the e-mails that took
>time to say more than
>they "are opposed to the
>increase in permit numbers" Said
>that they would like to
>wait one or two more
>years before increasing tags.
>Its harder to take away
>permits (opportunity) than it is
>to increase them.

So, some want to turn this 5 year plan into a 3 or 2 year plan? Seems like we've done that before with a great lose of opportunity.
 
What do EXCESS BUCK DEER have to do with sustaining healthy herd populations.

I'm getting sick of saying I told you so.

Call a spade a spade. A guy from Southern Utah with the initials DC happened to Shanghai a Wildlife Board member named Jake. They undid a brand spanking new mule deer plan in favor of this fiasco.

The Northern and Central RACs ( which represent 85% of Utah's hunters ) voted against this bullcrap.

Only one of the special interest groups were in favor of this bullcrap.

Why?? Because hunters knew we would end up right here. Nebo is still down the 2Lumpy rabbit hole of excess bucks affecting herd health in a positive way.

If we are going to be honest about selfishness and catering to trophy hunters instead of opportunity just man up and say it.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Birdman- I appreciate that you havn't made up your mind yet. There are always going to be the fringe screaming no matter the decision-- How about we land somewhere in the middle? -- Like the recommended 15-17 or 18-20 buck to doe ratio objectives. Seems to be an acceptable middle ground which has passed through the public process and is called for the Mule Deer Management Plan.

Read Huntin50's post #10. He gets it. Increase tags when times are good. Decrease tags when times are bad. Manage for the deer health first and hunters second.

Don't listen to each end of the spectrum. 200-300 guys out of 130,000 applicants is not even two tenths of 1%. Most are just sending it off a mass email list and many are not even residents of Utah. Vote with the Plan, harvest 1,600 more bucks (which we have) and let 4,000 more hunters (including 800+ youth) go hunting this Fall.

Thanks for keeping an open mind and not making the decision before the meeting is even held.
 
>Just waiting on the 3 point
>or better suggestion.
>
>Makes as much sense as stockpiling
>damn BUCK DEER.
>
>
>
>
>"If the DWR was just doing
>its job, and
>wildlife and hunting were the actual
>focus,
>none of this process would even
>matter.
>But that is not the focus
>or the goal in any
>
>of this. The current DWR regime,
>and
>SFW were born out of wildlife
>declines,
>and are currently operated and funded
>
>under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
>
>tags would not even be worth
>anything if
>the focus was where it was
>supposed to
>be, and wildlife and tags were
>plentiful.
>But under the current business model,
>
>that is how the money and
>power is
>generated. It is generated through the
>
>rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
>resource. A resource that is supposed
>to
>be being beneficially managed for the
>
>masses that own that resource, ie.
>US.
>The problem is obvious, hedging is
>not a
>long term sustainable strategy, and
>others have to lose, for some
>to win. In
>this case it is us, the
>many, and our
>resources, that are being forced to
>lose,
>because there is a minority who's
>power
>and money is derived from our
>loses."
>
>LONETREE 3/15/16


JUDAS!

PISSCUTTER 3 Points?

4 Point or Better or Go Home & Weep!











[font color="blue"]They Shot Him in the Back AKA 'LaVoyed Him'!
[/font]
 
Nebo 3 years later and I still shake my head that you sit on one of our rac committees. Your posts blow me away still to this day. Get a clue and get your head out of delosses fairy tale!
I've said it before and I'll say it again I'm still thanking my lucky stars you don't represent me up north with your never ending push to take people off the mountain just to make your hunting easier.
You can't bank bucks!
You need to give people the opportunity to hunt them now!
Another thing nebo, if we had 40-50 bucks per 100 does up here we would have no deer after the winters of 2007 and 2010! But that's probably too much for you to comprehend. Get a clue or get off the RAC!
 
CAT, dont worry, these tags aren't ever coming back.

They knew this when they pushed this through.

PO, good to see you providing input, as always I lack your diplomacy.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Nebo, remind us again why we pay biologists, have them do studies, make recommendations, and then vote to not follow their recommendations. Seems like the State of Utah could save a lot of money by doing away with trained people in the field, and just listening to special interest groups, on how to manage our wildlife.

Same thing happened last year with the cow elk herd on the SW Desert, and Monroe. We see these examples every year.

We have Mule Deer Committees, and Elk Committees, that spend countless hours, either volunteering, or being paid to represent all interested parties (sportsmen, agriculture, non consumptive users, and DWR representatives), they come up with a plan, and then the RACs, and WB vote to not follow that plan, or the recommendation from field staff.

So. please tell us, why do we have the paid biologists and committees, if YOU and special interest groups are the ones making the rules. Seems like we could save a lot of people, a lot of time, and the state a lot of money if we just went to the special interest groups and asked them, how we should manage or herds.
 
We had ALL of these discussions (and more) on the Mule Deer Committee. And in the end, we ALL agreed to support the 5 year plan that was presented to the public via the RAC's and Wildlife Board. There were certainly some things we each would have changed if we could, but we accepted the fact that the hunting portion of the plan best represented the hunters proportionally to the survey and that included increasing buck tags in units that were over buck to doe ratios.

I can't speak for other members, but I certainly don't want to reconvene and start all over again simply because 200 or 500 or 1000 hunters didn't get what they wanted out of it.
 
Packout-- who except on the Mule Deer committee had any say in the decisions that you came up with? Were there any public meetings? Just wanting to know. I know the RACs were able to vote yea or nay on it but the public really wasn't that involved.I agree that you came up with the best plan per the stakeholders on the committee. However, it is a "guiding" document not a absolute legal document. This issue is a hunter social issue. If there is no "wiggle" room in your decision to abide by the mule deer plan as it exists, then why do we even have RAC's or the WB involved. If all the triggers you placed into the plan are absolute and have no room for discussion, then the RAC and WB should not even be involved in accepting or approving the current proposal. The RACs represent the public at large, if we don't listen and do our best to represent the majority views of those who care to express them,( I have over 200 e-mails so far) then we are just wasting our time. If the majority of those (they seem to be average individual common Joe hunters) who take the time and effort to express their opinions, want the permit numbers to stay the same, then I for one will support that view. I can see in no way does this view conflict with any biology or even with the Mule Deer Plan. Even if the triggers are met (B/D ratio's in particular) they don't have to be pulled yet."


I beg to differ Sir, it's called integrity. When you give your word based on a certain set of circumstances (triggers) then a man will honor his word regardless of popular opinion. It don't make a darn bit of difference whether the document is legally binding or if you personally agree, your word is your word. Self justify it all ya want but a lie is a lie and that is what your doing if you agreed to the plan.
 
Elkfromabove, Packout- quick question:

Didn't the Mule Deer Plan go through the RACs the same way all other issues go through the RACs before passing?
 
Here is the RAC problem.
Prime Example on this mule deer issue. I was on the RAC and we voted in the SE RAC to managed 2 of the units that were proposed in our area to a 18-20, one was SAN Juan, and other one was a unit around Price. Both units were already at or close to that range and wouldn't need any cutts to make it to the 18-20 range.
It passed with flying colors in our RAC. The DWR said they had several mule deer public meetings and the public didn't want that. I asked where were these meetings the one the held for the SAN Juan unit was held in GRand County in Moab, not even in the county the unit is in. I was pissed and they said 80% of the public at that meeting did not want to manage for the higher buck to doe ratio. I asked how many people attended so meeting. It was about 5 people that went to the meeting. So 1 out 5 people. Great meeting and Great imput wouldn't you say, and great location to have a meeting.
So even though in SE RAC we voted to pass higher buck to doe ratio. The DWR said it themselves, that it didn't really matter because the other 4 RACs will vote in favor of DWR proposal.
BREAK in the System
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 08:35AM (MST)[p]>Elkfromabove, Packout- quick question:
>
>Didn't the Mule Deer Plan go
>through the RACs the same
>way all other issues go
>through the RACs before passing?
>

Yes!

Please don't forget that those are Regional ADVISORY Councils and their decisions are no more legal than the Mule Deer Committee's. Only the Wildlife Board's decisions are legal!
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]Vanilla, read the post again--- I didn't say ALL of them added comments-- I said of "all the ones that did". They were more specific in their opposition, some cited their own feelings about particular units. Is that clear enough for you?
 
Hmmm brutal heavy wet storm hitting Utah late. In the past this is what we are told hammer the deer herds. Why on earth are we discussing anything other than erroring on the side of caution.
 
>Hmmm brutal heavy wet storm hitting
>Utah late. In the
>past this is what we
>are told hammer the deer
>herds. Why on earth
>are we discussing anything other
>than erroring on the side
>of caution.


OH SNAP, I agree with 73 on this. Ill mark this down as ground breaking :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 10:15AM (MST)[p]So, we get the same old people being nasty and calling people names because their view is different. All of this will end up being settled somewhere in the middle. The Mule Deer plan is a good document and provides a lot of middle ground in regards to the biology of what is and isn't good for mule deer. Several years ago a DWR biologist told me emphatically that as long as we have 5 bucks/100 does, the management is biologically sound. Would you be okay with that?
I have no problem if the RAC accepts the current proposal as it is. Personally, I can't see any real damage to the deer herds if we kill a few hundred more bucks this year and provide more opportunity. Biologically, it won't much matter in the long term. But just like those of you on here that have major meltdowns with some of the conservation groups and their supposed undue influence with the RACs, the folks who care to express an opinion in a respectful way need to be represented also. If the other 120,000 hunters would express their opinions then maybe we could know of a certainty what the majority wants. Packout-- I can only go by what information I get from the public. This is more a social issue. As I see it we are somewhere in the middle of what is biologically okay, so I don't see at this point going one way or another as biologically detrimental to the resource.
As to whether we "have to" raise permits because of b/d ratio's according to the Mule Deer Plan- that still is at the discretion of the DWR. If the general feeling of the hunting public wants them raised, I would support that.
cache-- no need to waste your time calling people names and denigrating them- I get it, cyber bullying has become your badge of honor-- or dishonor. I could care less what you think of me.
 
Gunnie-- its the DWR who decides whether to implement the higher permit numbers and make the proposal. The Mule deer plan does not specify the number of permits or exactly when that should happen. It only says that when certain levels are met then the permit numbers could be increased. The public still has a say in that part. Its not self justifying to say that the hunting public still has a say in that part. FYI-- the DWR has the power and authority to override anything that the WB approves if it feels that it is something that is biologically or legally unsound. I think you are confused in your statement "your word is your word". Many of us on the RAC had reservations about some things when the plan was passed. We were told then that the 5 year plan could be modified according to circumstances that might come up. I was comfortable with that and accepted the plan. I still feel the plan is good way to go forward, but the public still has a right to have its say and be represented. To me, that is having integrity, because after all that's why the RACs and the WB even exist.If the Mule Deer Plan is absolute and there is no room for discussion, the RACs and WB do not need to be involved in the process.
 
With all the emails that I have received that were generically produced I have sent back a request to know the unit/units that they are talking about and in many cases have sent the chart with each unit and the changes. Some answered but the majority did not. Some even said now that I have read the proposal, I think it is a good idea. Makes me wonder about knee jerk reactions and how many people investigate what is going on. As important as this issue can be, I would hope people take the time to study the plan and not just make a statement. I would also hope that people would make an attempt to attend a rac on this issue.
 
Nebo said: "FYI-- the DWR has the power and authority to override anything that the WB approves if it feels that it is something that is biologically or legally unsound."

I am not sure that this statement is true. The Wildlife Board is the governing board of the DWR and the DWR should follow the directives and rules adopted by the Board. That being said, however, we have seen recent examples where the DWR did not follow express directives and/or rules adopted by the Board.

I am not aware of any rule or statute that gives the DWR power to "override anything that the WB approves if it feels that it is something that is biologically or legally unsound." What specifically are you referring to in that statement? Perhaps you are simply stating that the Wildlife Board has the authority to revisit or reconsider prior issues such as the Mule Deer Plan. That would be a true and accurate statement. But to be clear, the DWR should should generally follow the directives and rules that have been through the public process and been addopted by the Wildlife Board.

-Hawkeye-
 
Sounds like they need to hear from everyone.

This'd be a good start.

<[email protected]>, Byron Bateman <[email protected]>, Calvin Crandall <[email protected]>, Donnie Hunter <[email protected]>, kirk woodward <[email protected]>, Mike King <[email protected]>, Steve Dalton <[email protected]>, Alan white <[email protected]>, Ben Lowder <[email protected]>, Christine Schmitz <[email protected]>, Danny Potts <[email protected]>, Gary Nielson <[email protected]>, george garcia <[email protected]>, Greg McPhie <[email protected]>, Jacob Steele <[email protected]>, Karl Hirst <[email protected]>, Kenneth Strong <[email protected]>, kristofer Marble <[email protected]>, Larry Fitzgerald <[email protected]>, Matt Clark <[email protected]>, Michael Gates <[email protected]>, Milton Hooper <[email protected]>, Richard Hansen <[email protected]>, Ron Camp <[email protected]>, Andrea Merrell <[email protected]>, Brett Prevedel <[email protected]>, Dan Abeyta <[email protected]>, David Gordon <[email protected]>, Jerry Jorgensen <[email protected]>, Joe Arnold <[email protected]>, Joe Batty <[email protected]>, "L. Daniel Davis" <[email protected]>, "Wardle, Melissa" <[email protected]>, Mitch Hacking <[email protected]>, randy dearth <[email protected]>, raymond wissiup <[email protected]>, Bruce Sillitoe <[email protected]>, Bryce Thurgood <[email protected]>, Chad Jensen <[email protected]>, Craig Van Tassell <[email protected]>, Joel Ferry <[email protected]>, John Blazzard <[email protected]>, John Cavitt <[email protected]>, John Wall <[email protected]>, Justin Oliver <[email protected]>, Kristin Purdy <[email protected]>, Kevin McLeod <[email protected]>, Mike Laughter <[email protected]>, Robert Sanchez <[email protected]>, Russ Lawrence <[email protected]>, Blair Eastman <[email protected]>, Christine Micoz <[email protected]>, Darrel Mecham <[email protected]>, Derris Jones <[email protected]>, Derris Jones <[email protected]>, Gerrish Willis <[email protected]>, Karl Ivory <[email protected]>, Keith Brady <[email protected]>, Kevin Albrecht <[email protected]>, "L. Kent Johnson" <[email protected]>, Sue Bellagamba <[email protected]>, Todd Huntington <[email protected]>, Trisha Hedin <[email protected]>, Brayden Richmond <[email protected]>, Brian Johnson <[email protected]>, Craig Laub <[email protected]>, Dale Bagley <[email protected]>, Dave Black <[email protected]>, Gene Boardman <[email protected]>, Harry Barber <[email protected]>, Layne Torgerson <[email protected]>, Mack Morrell <[email protected]>, Mike Worthen <[email protected]>, NICK JORGENSEN <[email protected]>, Rusty Aiken <[email protected]>, sean kelly <[email protected]>, Wade Heaton <[email protected]>, Justin Shannon <[email protected]>, Covy Jones <[email protected]>, Kirk Smith <[email protected]>, Greg Sheehan <[email protected]>, Mike Canning <[email protected]>, Mike Fowlks <[email protected]>, Rory Reynolds <[email protected]>, Justin Scott Dolling <[email protected]>, John Fairchild <[email protected]>, Chris Wood <[email protected]>, Kevin Bunnell <[email protected]>, Boyde Blackwell <[email protected]>, Bill Bates <[email protected]>, Dean Mitchell <[email protected]>, Jodie Anderson <[email protected]>, Amanda Bagley <[email protected]>, Scott Root <[email protected]>, Brent Stettler <[email protected]>, Giani Julander <[email protected]>
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 12:01PM (MST)[p]Hawkeye- the part that the DWR can override the WB in some circumstances is true to my knowledge. We were told that very thing in RAC training. They have to have that ability because they are the governing entity in regards to wildlife preservation-- they are the ultimate stewards of wildlife in the state. Generally speaking though,they have the mandate to follow what the WB approves etc.
Let's say for example that the WB approved X amount of goat permits but a week before the season started, there was found a situation that 90% of the herd had died because of some cause. They have the authority and obligation to cancel that hunt and then take other measures to begin protecting and preserving that particular population. I would think everyone could see that as pretty common sense.
As far as the Mule Deer Plan, it can be modified or clarified as necessary. As far as I know, it does not spell out how many permits or when that has to happen. The DWR is the one that determines the how much and when. It really sets limits in regards to when a particular action can be taken (e.g. buck/doe ratio triggers ) It pretty much establishes thresholds that guide when permit numbers can be raised-- not shall be raised.
 
"Hmmm brutal heavy wet storm hitting Utah late. In the past this is what we are told hammer the deer herds. Why on earth are we discussing anything other than erroring on the side of caution."

exactly the kind of bull$&@/ that can't go unchallenged. So do we ensure that the excess yearling buck that contributes nothing to our herd survives or do we ensure the doe pregnant with twins survives?

Just like Richard said, this will shake out somewhere in between. But for the love of God quit trying to play this off as anything other than a quality / opportunity issue. Never has been about anything more than stockpiling targets for a growing line of hunters.

Reminds me of the wolf proponents.
Keep your word and stick to the adopted management plan.

Sincerely the opportunity head of Y'allqueda!!






"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 12:26PM (MST)[p]It will be 90 degrees this summer. Late snow storms are trouble for mule deer herds. That's just a fact. We can increase pressure after a winter like this or we can decrease or stay status quo. We have the ability now to look at each unit and really assess what needs to happen for each unit. That's all I'm saying. Do what is right for the future of our herds. Hunting pressure is truly the only thing that we as sportsman can totally control. Again I'd rather error on the side of caution, others would rather have a tag in their pocket every single year. Just keep in mind we use to have have 800,000 plus mule deer in Utah. We currently have 350,000 ish. This resource will eventually disappear if we don't manage it properly. That is more important than anything in my eyes.
 
Cody-

I think that all of us as sportsmen want to take care of the resource. We just disagree as to what that requires. Do you trust the numbers provided by the DWR? Do you believe that we have 384,000 deer today? At what point would you support adding some additional tags?

-Hawkeye-
 
nebo12000,

Thank you for the post. For the record, consider this an email supporting the increases so now you cannot say 100% are against the increases. Although some who disagree with you find it a good idea to offend you for which I'm sorry; some very good feedback and reasons have been offered as to why it is time to start increasing tags.

I completely support the increases for the following reasons:

1. 18-20 bucks per 100 does is a reasonable number for a general unit. Although population rate of change should be given some consideration, the b/d ratio is a good rule of thumb. The Zion unit was over population objective last year. That has been changed simply by increasing the objective.

2. Most of all - out of fairness and credibility. Option 2 was sold under the premise that when the herd is struggling on a mountain we can nurse it back by cutting tags. Conversely, when it improves its good for everyone - tags can be increased and its better for trophy hunters. (Heard that personally from Don Peay.) Some of us were skeptical. We saw the powers that were pushing it through and had a pretty good idea that they would not increase general opportunity. Sure enough, here we are 5 years later. Some units have been over objective for 4 years, some still struggle. Why can't we increase tags on units that have improved? After all its just one small area and if there are too many tags it just affects that one area. (sound familiar.) There is no end to the creativity some to keep tags at bay. "Crowding", "we don't believe the numbers", "nobody wants the increase" "its too early to tell.... Many of us saw this coming by a mile. Please keep our general hunts general hunts! They did not become limited entry hunts with option 2. They are still managed for lower b/d ratios and more opportunity than the l/e hunts. These opportunities belong to the public. Please do not take them away.

I realize you have an adversion to increasing tags. To some degree it;s justified; however, please consider how this management system was sold to the public. Consider that general hunts are about more than bone and bloodshed. Consider the fairness and balance between quality and quantity. Managing higher b/d ratios through the back door defies the balance of the two interests that should be considered.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 01:07PM (MST)[p]>Gunnie-- .......

>FYI-- the DWR has the
>power and authority to override
>anything that the WB approves
>if it feels that it
>is something that is biologically
>or legally unsound.

Per Utah Code 23-14-3:
(1) The Division of Wildlife Resources may determine the facts relevant to the wildlife resources of this state.
(2)(a) Upon a determination of these facts, the Wildlife Board shall establish the policies best designed to accomplish the purposes and fulfill the intent of all laws pertaining to wildlife and the preservation, protection, conservation, perpetuation, introduction, and management of wildlife.

Per Utah Code 23-14-8:
The director of the Division of Wildlife Resources, under the administrative supervision of the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources, shall have:
(1)executive authority and control of the Division of Wildlife Resources so that policies of the Wildlife Board are carried out in accordance with the laws of this state;
(2)authority over all personnel matters;
(3)full control of all property acquired and held for the purposes specified in this title; and
(4)authority to declare emergency closed or open seasons in the interest of the wildlife resources of the state.

In other words, the DWR only has authority to determine the facts necessary for the proper management of wildlife, which they do through surveys, open houses, committees, in-house meetings, classifications, studies, fly-overs, field observations, attending various conventions, etc. Once they get the necessary information, they discuss and come up with proposals which have to pass through the pentagon of criteria; biological, legal, financial, technological/logistical, and social, in that order. Once those proposals pass the pentagon of criteria, they are sent through the RAC and Wildlife Board system and those that are passed by the Wildlife Board, in whatever amended form, become the law that the DWR is mandated to implement and the DWR CANNOT change dates, tag numbers, unit/hunt boundaries, etc. without again going through the Wildlife Board. The only thing they could possibly do without the WB is close or open a season on an emergency basis which they occasionally do.

It's no fluke that EVERY proclamation informs the reader that the WILDLIFE BOARD makes all the rules in the proclamation.
 
I guess I look at 800,000 and now 384,000 and can't figure out how some scream we have excess. I'm not saying we push to 800,000 before we increase tags. I just say we be careful and proactive when we are coming out of bad winter.
Since Opt 2 have tags been increased or decreased? The actual numbers show they have been increased. So to say when, well we have been since the start. But this is a bad winter year and I think we should make sure how the herd comes out before we increase tags.
 
johnnyutah- thanks for the post. With your vote I now know of 6 folks who support the increase as proposed. Don't feel too threatened by my more cautious approach to this - I don't get to vote on it unless there is a tie. Not trying to make the state an LE hunt even though in reality is and has been since option 2 was passed. Our RAC, including me, voted against going down that road. Just a few moments ago, had a guy come into my office and ask that we please don't increase permits numbers yet. He said we are just getting to where its beginning to get better. He's afraid that we will quickly end up back where we had been for 20+ years. He said he was willing to only hunt every 4 years or so if he could have a better quality opportunity. I don't think we will end up there unless mother nature throws a knock out punch-- which we know she will eventually. I really just want to do whats best for the majority of the hunters in the state based on their opinion and within the Mule Deer Plan parameters. I have no fight specifically with those who want the increased permits as proposed, but everyone needs to be heard.
 
Thanks Lee-- (1)executive authority and control of the Division of Wildlife Resources so that policies of the Wildlife Board are carried out in accordance with the laws of this state;4)authority to declare emergency closed or open seasons in the interest of the wildlife resources of the state.
They do have the authority, albeit narrow in scope-- as it should be.
 
Birdman said: "With all the emails that I have received that were generically produced I have sent back a request to know the unit/units that they are talking about and in many cases have sent the chart with each unit and the changes. Some answered but the majority did not. Some even said now that I have read the proposal, I think it is a good idea. Makes me wonder about knee jerk reactions and how many people investigate what is going on. As important as this issue can be, I would hope people take the time to study the plan and not just make a statement. I would also hope that people would make an attempt to attend a rac on this issue."

That is some fine advise there, and I could not agree any more with this statement than I do! Birdman, you and I may not agree on everything, but I like that you are at least willing to try to get to the bottom of why people feel the way they do, or even if they actually feel that way or are just regurgitating words from someone else. I tip my hat to you on this one.

But I have to return to a previous post by nebo12000 that is very troubling on many fronts:

nebo12000- "Packout-- who except on the Mule Deer committee had any say in the decisions that you came up with? Were there any public meetings? Just wanting to know. I know the RACs were able to vote yea or nay on it but the public really wasn't that involved."

Am I eating crazy pills, or did you just bash the very process that every single wildlife issue in Utah goes through? How was the approval of the Mule Deer Plan any different than any other issue RACs vote on? And final question, aren't you the chair of the central region RAC?
 
Cody-

When did Utah have 800,000 mule deer? I have heard your dad throw that number out before but I could not find any support for it. I could only locate numbers dating back to 1992 and the numbers seem to fluctuate between 240,000 and 350,000 deer statewide. If we ever had 800,000 deer then I am guessing that was in the 1960's. I think it is safe to assume that Utah will never have 800,000 deer again (if we ever did in the first place). Too many things have changed such as human population growth, development on winter range, new roads and highways, more predators, etc. The fact that the current population objective for the entire state is 425,000 is quite telling. A current herd of 384,000 seems to be a fairly healthy herd that is trending in the right direction.

Who is screaming that we have excess deer? I have not heard anybody saying that. Rather, folks are saying that we cut tags in the past based upon our herd numbers and our management plans. Now that we are seeing an upward trend, isn't it time for a modest increase in tags based upon the herd numbers and our management plan?

-Hawkeye-
 
Vanilla, as far as the RAC goes on the approval of the Mule Deer Plan there was very little public comment on it at the meeting-- mostly conservation group spokesmen as I recall. Not bashing the system, only stating what happened. I guess the public wasn't all that concerned about the plan at the time. You can't make people come.
The real discussion is not about whether the Mule Deer Plan is followed but the part where the amount of increases in permits and where that happens.That is what is being debated. The Plan does not specify how many can or should be issued-- just that the plan opens that up.
Last year the increase was 1750, this year another 4400.
 
Nebo, thanks for your response. Your mention of a person who just came into your office saying they would hunt every 4 yrs is really the crux of this discussion as far as I can see. I'm willing to hunt every other year given the current quality; however, taking 3 years to draw a unit that is over objective is unreasonable. I hate sitting out because trophy interests can't get comfortable seeing it both ways.
 
>Cody-
>
>When did Utah have 800,000 mule
>deer? I have heard
>your dad throw that number
>out before but I could
>not find any support for
>it. I could only
>locate numbers dating back to
>1992 and the numbers seem
>to fluctuate between 240,000 and
>350,000 deer statewide. If
>we ever had 800,000 deer
>then I am guessing that
>was in the 1960's.
>I think it is safe
>to assume that Utah will
>never have 800,000 deer again
>(if we ever did in
>the first place). Too
>many things have changed such
>as human population growth, development
>on winter range, new roads
>and highways, more predators, etc.
> The fact that the
>current population objective for the
>entire state is 425,000 is
>quite telling. A current
>herd of 384,000 seems to
>be a fairly healthy herd
>that is trending in the
>right direction.
>
>Who is screaming that we have
>excess deer? I have
>not heard anybody saying that.
> Rather, folks are saying
>that we cut tags in
>the past based upon our
>herd numbers and our management
>plans. Now that we
>are seeing an upward trend,
>isn't it time for a
>modest increase in tags based
>upon the herd numbers and
>our management plan?
>
>-Hawkeye-

Hawkeye
DC has probably forgot more things that he has done for mule deer and conservation than you will ever do. You and your cronies are really getting old!!!!
 
"Just keep in mind we use to have have 800,000 plus mule deer in Utah."

And the hits keep coming.

There didn't used to be anything west of Redwood Road once ya got down
to 90th south until you hit Riverton.
Traverse Ridge wasn't a subdivision.
Draper was a one horse town.
Park City? The Wasatch Back? Heber Valley?

I'm gonna let the 800K deer slide as the magical math that we all know it is.

Fact is 73, when you Opt2 proponents got this crap to stick to the wall you promised
that common sense increases would be part of the plan. Now it suddenly ain't. I don't like, but can totally see the viewpoint of the guy's that don't care if they hunt every 5 years. Good for them, their opinion matters every bit as much as mine or the next guy, but when
anecdotal data and magical math is pushed as fact it needs to be corrected. It just ain't fricken so.

If you want to push for even higher B to D ratio's then make that proposal at the RACs and have the plan rewritten. Otherwise keep your word with the bill of goods y'all sold and follow the triggers in the plan.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
M73,

It's interesting you fought hard for opt. 2, but now you speak in generalities of 800,000 state wide and winter kill. We now must speak unit by unit at your request. Pine Valley and Zion will not winter kill this year. They never do.

So why do I scream about excess? I'm happy to answer that question, and I will test you this once. If you will not understand, please don't ask me any other questions. You don't have to agree with me, but don't paint me as a fool and waste our time with further discussion, questions, and slanted scenarios. If I'm an idiot "who doesn't understand biology and just wants to hunt every year even if it wipes out the herd" don't waste your time responding - please. I only answer this once as you often state you do not understand others and I genuinely want to help you understand - not expecting to change your mind, I just want you to understand. Here we go!:

I believe 18 b/d ratio is reasonable for a general unit. Any decent hunter can find decent deer with that ratio. Its a good balance between quantity and quality. This is just my opinion / preference. I scream because I have observed trophy interests in this state steamroller over opportunity. This culminated with option 2. I had seen the pattern time and time again (cut dates, cut tags, smaller units... all of it in the name of biology and none of it biologically helped) Opt. 2 was sold under the premise that when a mountain was bad we cut, when its good we increase. You fought for this. SFW fought for this. I thought in the back of my mind they will fight against the general hunt even when units do well.

So I had a prediction made base on the pattern I had observed and my predictions are occurring. SFW is at every meeting with every chapter giving reasons why DWR proposed incresases should be disregarded. Insead of fighting for the vision they presented, they corrupt it to their predictable preferences and pruposes.

For example, here are some of the "reasons" I've heard: Safety as a reason for Zion, the boys on Beaver "just don't believe the increase", "not enough time" was a new one last year and being used again this year. Now you are coming up with late winter kill and denying that there is any surplus. The excuses change but you "pursue invariably the same object." (Thomas Jefferson Dec. of Ind) The "object" being trophy management. It's as predictable as your next breath.

So in summary, if I don't scream; I get to sit out 2 of 3 years so that you can have general unit b/d ratios that rival limited entry units. I'm not okay with that. In my opinion it is too heavy on quality in the quantity/quality scale.
 
Wiley,
Have tags increased every single year since the start of Opt 2? I pushed for Opt 2 for exactly this reason. Bad winter then lets manage to that. Let's see how the herd handles it before we jump to increasing tags. Like I stated, have tags increases every single year??? You haven't heard a single peep from me. Well it's a bad winter and I'm saying lets see the damage before we increase more. If that means I'm not holding to my promise then call my a liar!
 
My I add one more thing without trying to cause trouble. I have attended racs and board meetings for years. I have attended all the racs in the stated several times. Many of those times I have been with maybe a handful of people. Sometimes I am the only one from the public. Now I realize some do not trust the racs and board thinking they are waiting there time. I have been able to change different rules just by going and pleading at racs and board meetings. Yes they do listen. I am hoping people will attend the racs and sat your peace without getting upset. I think most the racs, if not all listen to the public. Being new on the rac I know I want to hear from all interested. I know what ever the decision is not all will be happy and I will be an sob in some eyes but I know the central rac is trying hard to get things right.
 
I do not have deer numbers in front of me for the past but have read that we had close to a million deer in the 60's. I listen to some talk about how crowded it is hunting now but for information from 1960 to 1993 the fewest permits were 150,000 hunters. From 1977 to 1992, except 1984, over 200,000 hunters were in the field. Around 1989 we had 250,000 hunters in the field. One year there was over 132,000 deer killed. Those were the years I hunted deer. I do not feel bad thinking of only 90,000 hunters in the field.
 
Cody and Bird, as extreme as I am I'm not calling anybody a liar or meaning to demean anybody. I'm not asking for monster increases, I'm not asking for any increases where ratios are not being met.

I'm absolutely holding those accountable to stick to the plan they rammed through with all of this. That plan stated once these criteria were met, permits would be adjusted. It was voted on and passed. Now some want to back away from the deal and I have a hard time not calling BS. It is what it is, either the plan will be followed or we'll piss backward on what was promised.

If the above is the case then what is the use of wasting time developing any type of framework? Just have mob rule, except in this case it isn't even that, and let the loudest screamers win.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
we never had 250 thousand people hunting the state back then. We sold 250 thousand tags but we didn't have them all hunting. family members were buying tags for grandma, grandpa, uncles and aunts that never even set foot on the mountain. In some cases people were even dead that they were buying tags for. Then family's would go out and try to fill those tags. Some guys were shooting 3 or 4 deer a year and tagging them with tags from their family that didn't even hunt. That happened for many many years. We have never had 250 thousand people hunting in this state, we have how ever sold 250 thousand tags.
 
I'm trying to remember how many youth hunts were still available last year after the draw. Can anyone recall? I thought I saw a lot. I believe we all sometimes should make small sacrifices from time to time if we want to hunt every year. Whether that means learning different units with better odds, listing more choices on our apps, or picking up and learning a different weapon.
If you might call those sacrifices, I have made them. Everyone, including youth, might need to consider that an option.
I say this because I know several hunters who gripe about not drawing but limit themselves to such a small possibility of drawing.

What's the possibility of adding half the recommended tags (2k) to the general draw now (meeting in the middle) and depending on weather, left over tags,etc....meet up in July and make additional 2k available over the counter if need be?

My thought is this.....is it possible to meet in the middle now and decide shortly later if we should add the remainder?






Theodore Roosevelt's guidance concerning
conservation...
"The movement for the conservation of wildlife,
and the conservation of all our natural resources,
are essentially democratic in spirit,purpose and
method."

"We do not intend that our natural resources shall
be exploited by the few against the interests of the
majority. Our aim is to preserve our natural
resources for the public as a whole, for the
average man and the average woman who make
up the body of the American people."

"It is in our power...to preserve game..and to give
reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the
skill of the hunter,whether he is or is not a man of
means."
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16 AT 07:22PM (MST)[p] Nebo, I'v seen the numbers estimated for our States overall heard. And I have seen the "objective" numbers for the State overall. Where can I find "objective" numbers for EACH General Hunting Unit ? For the State numbers do we count in or exclude heard numbers for Limited Entry areas. Are the area's with proposed tag increases at carrying capacity ? I know the B/D ratio folks all have far superior Gray matter function than I, So could one of you explain this for me;
Its been said, again and again... that if the B/D ratio is (--) then it wont hurt to harvest a few hundred buck... SO if an area has habitat to have a healthy herd of .. lets say 2000 Deer, And there are 1000 deer currently in this area, AND 350 are Bucks (35%). I know, I know..WOW right? Also, This area gives out a combined 200 (Archery, Muzzleloader, Any Weapon). With Unbelievable success rates, say 50% (100 Harvested Bucks) We would have 900 Deer on a habitat that's carrying capacity is 2000. ALSO lets say that this area is part of a 5 year plan, to GROW herd numbers to meet carry cap.within THIS SPECIFIC area. Finally with all that said here is my question, Since in this make believe scenario, where the only purpose for the 5 year plan was to increase herd numbers... here it comes why not STICK TO THE DAMN PLAN until the herd reaches 2000 OR the 5 years are up,what would it hurt.
Back in the real World, The area I like to hunt has seen a 50 deer increase 2 YEARS AGO i think it was. and a proposed 200 this year. I spend A LOT of time in this area, Camping, hiking, spotting, Hunting other than Deer. While the B/D ratio is where its proposed to be, From what I'v seen for the last 15-20 years the Herd is about 80% of capacity. (but remember my diminished gray matter function). I would love to hunt this area every year, but am content with every 2-3 years. Most years there is a yearling Buck slaughter, the first day or too, which is fine with me, because I know this makes the shooter folks happy, and they go home happy. And then I Start Hunting the Bucks that I know are there. The ones that make ME happy

EDIT; damn spell check
 
Stonefly a few things to understand about the plan.

First the objectives in the plan aren't carrying capacity. The objectives are what we desire to get to. In some cases that means habitat work and predation control are needed among other factors to increase carrying capacity. Those things are also mentioned in the plan.

Second the plan was designed to sustain harvest. This is a major objective of the plan, I think that's obvious and I won't spend more time on that except to say the intention was to strike a balance between the desires of sportsmen to have both opportunity and quality while maintaining long term population growth.

In your example above we may harvest 100 bucks but if all goes right then those does will have several hundred fawns the next spring and you have overall population growth. This growth is exponential and buck harvest has little impact long term. Everyone's happy in theory.

Last the unit by unit objectives are in the unit plan underneath the mule deer plan on the divisions page.

Adjusting tag numbers to fit the resource is within the plan and an integral part of it as harvest is a big point of the plan.
 
Muley73 thinks this is a "brutal" storm and we're having a "bad" winter. LMAO!!

Where're you from Muley, Texas?






No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura chancho sucio.
 
Miley 73 is right about a spring storm that hit Richfield and Annabella, The Monroe wintering grounds. Lots of deer have been lost, mostly fawns but there is a chance it could hurt the Monroe deer numbers.
 
Jim,
Heavy wet snow in several areas. Cache got hammered, some of the southern units got hammered. I've seen a lot of lost fawns in both areas before this last storm hit. You looking for a pisssing match or discussion about the responsible managment of our deer herds. I'm up for either ace. :)
 
Looks like a few UWN forum guys have found a new home
on MM's......LOL.


4aec49a65c565954.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 05:48AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 05:35?AM (MST)

Ah, the old Keele Johnson, deer in the farmers field method of management.

Any other anecdotal data we should be using for management?

Can we mix in the Del Brady, "I heard at the SFW a banquet" method of management too?



"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-16
>AT 12:26?PM (MST)
>
>It will be 90 degrees this
>summer. Late snow storms
>are trouble for mule deer
>herds. That's just a
>fact. We can increase
>pressure after a winter like
>this or we can decrease
>or stay status quo.
>We have the ability now
>to look at each unit
>and really assess what needs
>to happen for each unit.
> That's all I'm saying.
> Do what is right
>for the future of our
>herds. Hunting pressure is
>truly the only thing that
>we as sportsman can totally
>control. Again I'd rather
>error on the side of
>caution, others would rather have
>a tag in their pocket
>every single year. Just
>keep in mind we use
>to have have 800,000 plus
>mule deer in Utah.
>We currently have 350,000 ish.
> This resource will eventually
>disappear if we don't manage
>it properly. That is
>more important than anything in
>my eyes.

$fw 101 right there. If we could just get more guys without a tag then hunting would be better. WTF is the point of that? I don't buy the deer numbers either. But when the sole opposition is by a very vocal minority, then its easy to see the lines. The average guy, who is the majority, who pays the biggest percentage of the cost(yea that AI tag didn't fund the DWR) isn't involved right now. Mostly because its March. I am confused, I thought $fw was out to save the mule deer. Looks like they did. Bravo to them, now they aren't needed anymore I guess. Funny that crowd isn't out celebrating. Or, did they once again get exposed?

I like to hunt. I need a tag to do so. Otherwise I could take up bird watching. Even if 4000 more bucks get killed, how does that stop increasing deer numbers, did I miss a pregnant buck somewhere? Are the $fw crowd so unsure of what they have been selling that even if success starts to show, its a freak, or abnormality? The whole point of hunting is to hunt!


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 06:33AM (MST)[p] Bullsnot, I concede, mine was a poor example. I understand what the true objective of the plan is. I was trying to show how stupid,IMO,it is to IMMEDIATELY kill off the "surplus" before the plan is complete. BTW, can you tell me your other Mm name, I see your response was post #1, and have trouble believing that. I am not opposed to opportunity for hunters,but I cant see the harm of letting the plan run its course. I don't agree with everything in/about the plan,but if we see it through, we can see what works,what doesn't, adjust or abandon. In any area, within the plan there are objective's for Deer numbers.. And B/D ratio's. I don't see where, there is an "allowance" for ONLY a certain % of animals being Bucks. If that was the idea then just kill off the Doe's until we have the specified B/D ratio. If at the END of the 5 years total numbers are up, THEN would be the time ,IMO, to adjust for opportunity.
 
73,
State wide the snow pack is below average. State wide this has been a warmer then average winter. There has been no prolonged period of crusty snow with cold temps on the winter range. We're not even having an average winter and certainly we're not having a "bad" winter, not even close.

March is historically the snowiest month. We've had 2 decent storms non of which were "brutal", give me a break.

We got almost no snow in February with unuasally high temps. As a matter of fact, we lost a lot of the snow pack in February.

Before this last storm south facing slopes up to 8000' were bare. What little snow fell on the winter range state wide with this last storm will be melted off by Friday.

I understand you don't want to raise deer permit numbers but please don't say the weather is the reason, we're not idiots. Slick.



No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura chancho sucio.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 08:29AM (MST)[p] So, after all the discussion and more education I believe that the Mule Deer Plan is being followed as it was designed. The plan does not specify how much permits should be raised, when or where (unit). It only allows the DWR folks to propose to the public the amount of permit increase/decrease once certain thresholds are met. That is where the public discussion and opinions come into play. That is why its important to get public input. I want to thank everyone that takes time to be involved and state their feelings in this regard. The thinking behind some of the proposed permits for some units doesn't click with me in some ways. One unit that is a 15/17 b/d unit, is at 18 b/d and has flatlined the last two years as well as only being at about 64% of the population objective and the recommendation is for 100 more permits-- Another unit that is a 18/20 b/d unit is at 24.9 b/d and is trending up, has no permit increase. I'm sure the biologist/game managers have their reasons and I'm interested to hear their reasoning. Hope all of you will take a look at the numbers and make your own decisions and let the RACs know your feelings. Thanks
 
Nebo,

See my post 31 to you above. We need to hear what the paid biologists and the committee that was put together with the purpose to manage our herds have to say. It looks like that is what you are saying now.

If we pay them to do a job, let's let them do that job, and not manage herds with a as special interest groups would like them to be managed.

If there is a flaw in their plan, that is where the people and RAC's and WB should step in. But to have a plan, like was in place last year to harvest 425 (which they said was very aggressive) cow elk on SW desert and because the cattlemen show up to the WB meeting, and demand more harvest, they caved in and allowed for 650 cow elk permits. Now we see that they are proposing a huge decrease in the bull elk permits on that unit. to make up for the shortage of elk that will be coming. This reduction of permits will only continue, as the herd shrinks, and there are no cow elk to produce the bulls.

If we were able to reduce the feral horses on the desert, then the cattlemen would be happy, the elk herd could remain viable, and we would have a happy balance. But due to the horses, that nobody will manage, and the drought, the cattlemen suffer, and the elk herd is slaughtered. But the sportsmen are the ones who lose opportunity, due to special interest groups whether it is cattlemen, or conservation orgs.

We need to allow the paid biologists, and mule deer / elk committees do their job and follow their plan, unless there is a very good reason not to.

I was not a hater, just stating that we pay staff, and set up committees to manage herds, we should let them do that.
 
Shotgunjim, I understand your opinion. For you information, I was at a meeting last night where the dwr as explaining things. On the monroe, Richfield Annabella area the dwr is busy picking up dead deer, mostly fawns, that died in a storm that hit that area this spring. Knee deep snow. There is more than normal the amount of dead deer. No one said this happened statewide, but it did happen on the Monroe.
 
Hawkeye,

Nothing scientific here, I'm just an old timer, but if we have 350,00 deer now in Utah I can guarantee you that in my heyday, there were 800,000 deer in the 50's and 60's.

They don't even count the deer the same as they use to and they probably have to stretch to find the numbers they are claiming now. In the good old days a hand shake and your word was good enough, now everyone has an angle.

Sad part about all of this is not the number of hunters, but our predator control (lack of), and mainly how long the deer are being harassed by hunters, SUV'ers, horn hunters, and those elk and elk related hunts going past the first of the next year. No wonder we are seeing so many more deer in the valley and (yes cougars). Ask those who live in the little town of Glenwood. The DWR does not want to admit why more carnivorous animals are even in the valley. Yes they are eating us out of house and home (deer).

OUR DEER ARE STRESSED FROM AUGUST TO JANUARY. How can they continue to survive? As Lumpy told me, "it's time to let the next generation to take hold and do something". As I told him, "They (including the DWR), don't even know the excellent deer hunting we have had and they will not know where to start". His answer to me, "I guess they wouldn't have any deer to hunt then will they?"

Lumpy, I'm talking out of school - You can beat me up for including you in the conversation.
 
You're right not my first post here but it's been so long since I posted last on MM that they must've deleted my handle or I used a different one and forgot what it was.
 
Cannonball-

I don't doubt that we may have had 800,000 in the 50's or 60's. However, I would just like to see the historical numbers going back past the early 1990's. I would have loved to have lived and hunted during the mule deer heyday in Utah and the West. As I said in a prior post, that was a different era before human population growth, winter range development, increased elk numbers, increased roads and highways, limited predator management, extended hunting seasons, improved hunting technology, etc.

That being said, those days are in the past. I have no problem working to improve our herds but we are never going to have 800,000 mule in this state again (if we ever did in the first place). If the DWR's current numbers are correct (425,000) then our deer herds are better off than they have been in along time and are heading in the right direction. That could all change with one bad winter. See Colorado Winter in 2008. Therefore, why not allow a modest increase in tags now given the growth in our herds that we have experienced over the last few years. Killing another 1500 bucks across the state will have not any real impact on our herd numbers but it will allow another 1500 hunters and their families to get out and hunt. Are we going to wait until our herds reach the magical 800,000 number to increase tags? Because that is never going to happen.

-Hawkeye-
 
I understand and agree that we will never see those number of deer again because the mountains will only hold so many animals. I believe for every elk that are on the mountain you will see four less deer. My main point is in the chase by predators including hunters. This is not Colorado with their vast roadless areas, rougher country and a splattering of large private landowners. This is grasping a little, but during the depression days of the 30's the CC Boys put roads everywhere in Utah. Road hunters, including me sad to say, is the norm now rather than the exception. Now to get off of the rant. THE DEER NEED A REST.

In my early days, we hunted for meat. I thrown many four point antlers in the garbage. The first two-point and sometimes spike we saw, went down. A sawdust filled taxidermy head was not beautiful believe me. Now we pass those small ones up, continue to chase those poor buck until we have our wall hanger.

My final point is this: MILD WINTERS, MARGINAL BASE HERDS - - without either one of these and you have finished our deer herds.
 
So I'm waiting on an answer, tags have increased every single year since Opt 2 was put in place? Yes?

Jim,
Thanks for the snowpack numbers, I'm concerned about the deer numbers. Always have and always will be. But by all means let's shoot them all. It amazes me that there is honesty a voice out there that would literally shoot our herds down to zero in the name of opportunity. Guess I'll wear the bad guy hat for saying that is unacceptable and completely irresponsible on our part as sportsman. My line is obviously higher than others on what is a safe and responsible number to work toward maintaining.

If we ever had 800,000 deer....give me a break you guys would justify anything. Unreal!
 
Cody-

Point us to some documentation on long term deer numbers in Utah - preferably something other than one of your father's notes on the back of a napkin. I have looked but was unable to find anything past 1992. I am truly interested in looking at numbers (to the extent they exist) going back to the early 1900's. Somebody post a link if you have one.

I am certainly no expert on this issue but the stories I have heard are that there were moderate numbers of deer in Utah. However, Utahans over hunted the deer without any seasons or regulations leading to a crash in the early 1900's. As a result, deer hunting was banned in Utah from 1908 to 1913. Following that closure, hunts were reopened but regulated (hunting seasons, bucks only, etc.). However, the biggest factor in the growth of our mule deer herds was the abuse and overgrazing of public lands by sheep and cattle, which resulted in much less grass and more browse and deer feed. As a result of the changing landscape and regulated hunting, deer numbers soared and peaked in the 50's and 60's. I don't know what the peak numbers were for our herds but perhaps there were in the neighborhood of 800,000 deer, maybe more. In any event, there weren't nearly that many deer prior to the peak in the 50's 60's and we are not going to have 800,000 deer again.

Perhaps the current objective number of 425,000 is the right number under today's conditions. It is definitely higher than where we have been over the last 20 years. But maybe with proper management that number should be pushed higher. I will leave it to the biologists to sort that out.

The attached newspaper story was interesting and seems to corrobarate some of the things I have heard: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635152761/Utah-deer-hunt-history.html?pg=all

-Hawkeye-
 
Stonefly I'm not sure how else to say it other than this.

The current tag numbers aren't just a number, they are based on a specifically methodology. That same methodology applies when populations increase and decrease. And it's built into the plan that way. The plan is to mange for a specific b/d ratio. You can't manage to that target without changing tag numbers.

The b/d targets have very specific purposes and why they were chosen.

To not manage to those b/d targets by adjusting tag numbers is abandoning some of the objectives of the plan.

In short the plan isn't to set tag numbers at 86,000 and then in 5 years we'll see where we're at. The opposite could happen and deer numbers could plummet and I'm sure everyone, including me, would expect a tag decrease.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 11:32AM (MST)[p]Wait, deer are dieing from a winter like this? Could that mean we are this year's Carrying Capacity? Hhmmmmmmm So if we are at carrying capacity then maybe we should shoot the bucks over the management objective so the doe and fawns have more to eat. Funny how real world issues don't always back-up what we want to believe. Sorry, I couldn't resist-- carry on......

Oh wait, I can't stop there-- In the 1960s I do agree with 73 that we may have had 800,000ish + deer. Of course we had around 160,000-170,000 rifle buck tags too. Today we have around 400,000ish deer and approx 85,000 rifle/ML hunters (including GS, LE, CWMU) Today, we have half the number of deer and half the number of rifle hunters as they had in the "Hey-Day" or "Hay-Day" (how you spell it depends on if you own the hay or had to work to stack it). I'm sure some kind of spin will come.

So judge for yourself. Are we trying to kill all the deer? I sure hope not and don't think we are. Every management decision should protect the resource first and if we are lucky enough to have surplus then we get to hunt. 73, Tikka, Me, WW, Bird, Nebo, and most likely every other person posting on this page wants a healthy mule deer herd.

--
 
I support the recommendation of increasing the general season buck tags. We need to stick to the mule deer management plan.

The buck to doe ratios are sound, safe numbers. When we are above them raise tags. When we are below them lower tags. It is really not that hard.

Quit holding general season tags hostage to appease the trophy crowd. You are already doing that on the premium and LE units. Manage the general season units as the plan calls for.
 
Bullsnot, thanks for posting a link to the Mule Deer Plan. I reviewed that document but it does not provide numbers for the historical deer populations past 1992. See p. 29. However, it does seem to track with the notion that Utah has more deer now then it did at the time of settlement but less than the peak numbers of the 1950's and 1960's. That is an interesting read.

-Hawkeye-
 
The term "limited entry" needs to fully understood to fully understand the point people are making.

The term "limited entry" in the mamagement plan references a particular hunt strategy that is designed to give hunters a "trophy" hunting experience. The lowest limited entry b/d goal is 25-35/100.

Those units are very distinct from General units in thier purpose and goals even though they are all limited draw.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]I'm for following the management plan. We went to 29 deer units so we could manage buck to doe ratios better, higher b/d ratios increase tags lower b/d ratios decrease tags. Like others have said bucks don't give birth and excess bucks increase pressure on the winter feeding grounds for the does and fawns.
Here's an article I found written in 1976 by Odell Julander and Jessop Low. And here's an outtake from page 7.

http://www.wafwa.org/Documents and ...t and Present Status of the Mule Deer in .pdf


"This indeed was the turning point, as deer continued
to increase in numbers each year from 1913.
Mule deer populations in Utah were given from time to
time from the earliest estimate of 8,500 in 1916, to
and including the estimated height of the population
in the 1945-55 period at about 375,000. These esti
mated figures by the western state conservation departments
were compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (1937 to 1970) in a series of wildlife leaflets
issued each year (Table 2). No claim was made by
any state or the Service for the accuracy of the
figures. Most states stopped publishing estimated
populations in the 1940's because of the inaccuracies
of past estimations and started using hasvest figures
and other measurements as more accurate indicies to
population changes (Tables 3 and 4). The Utah State
legislature in 1917 established a series of large game
preserves, which by 1923 consisted of nearly a million
acres of the state's best deer and elk range, to provide
protection for these game animals."
 
In an effort to be a kindler / gentler WW
I would suggest or 3 RAC members study the following.


http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n.../Wildlife_Education/Publications/muledeer.pdf

Please pay particular attention to the section concerning fecundity and increasing herd populations.

After digesting this study, I would appreciate a definition of what an EXCESS BUCK MULE DEER is and exactly what it contributes to overall herd populations. After that the next RAC member that tries to tie the ratio of EXCESS BUCKS to any sort of population variable is gonna take a.....
Sorry.... Kindler / Gentler. Lost it for a minute.

Cody, you are correct permits have been ncreased every year. Now would you let me know when we get back to the level it was at prior to Option FFS!


Peace





"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I have hunted quite a few places in Utah from the Pauns when it was an open unit, the Waweap east of the Pauns, East Canyon, the west mountains above Ogden and SL, Snowville, Promintory and too many areas in between to count. Regardless of what is written, there were twice as many deer then as now, so if the 400,000 back then was correct, then the estimate today should be 200,000.

You find any of the old avid hunters and they will tell you the same thing. You think we have a success story with a little bit of increase this year, think again!!
 
We are never going to get back to 800,000 deer in this state due to the many changes that have occurred.

UNLESS, Cliven Bundy and the boys can convince the Feds to allow them to turn loose 2.7 million range sheep and 300,000 range cattle on our public lands for a couple of decades in order to severely overgraze the land and produce some better "deer habitat" (less grass and more forbes). That's what it took last time to reach those same numbers plus no hunting for several years to jumpstart the process.

-Hawkeye-
 
People are saying there were 800,000 deer in Utah in 1960. Interestingly enough, there were only 900,000 people in the state at that time. The 2014 estimate, according to the Office of Legislative Research and Counsel, for population in Utah was 2,946,100, with projections to reach 3,000,000 in the year 2015.

Where exactly are we going to put these extra 400,000 deer you guys want?
 
Hawkeye
you are right. We had more grazing which helped with helped deer habitat. We also had poison and less predators, less roads, less cars.

Vanilla,
You are correct. With the increase population and growing population we will never have enough deer for everyone to hunt every year. That is too bad, but the truth. Unless we have a 3 day archery hunt.

There are a lot of post on an issue that really won't make very much difference. Offer a few more permits. The deer herd will not change if they kill a few more bucks on a few more units. I have a life time license, but haven't shot a buck in Utah in over 15 years.

Go and kill some coyotes and you will help the deer herd more than by offering a few more permits in areas with good buck to doe ratios.
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
207
Views
4k
Vanilla
Vanilla
M
Helping Deer in Region G (and everywhere in WY)
Replies
10
Views
902
Stillwater165
Stillwater165
D
Mule deer decline in Utah
Replies
37
Views
965
ridgetops
ridgetops

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1161.png
1591133914994.png
F633E8F9-FA9F-47D8-A1C1-A29A2444075D.jpeg
DSCN3047.JPG
A94EA869-2002-48F3-925F-51086112F339.png
345B8C65-F4BE-4A35-9BA3-51F00CB5B801.jpeg
IMG_3740.jpg
20210221_154835.jpg
IMG_3511.JPG
IMG_1393.jpeg
2001 Buck.jpg
D8925A89-63C9-4CFD-8DDD-DBCB57B3D322.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom