Deer Permit Increases in Utah

Cannonball, I hunted the Book Cliffs in the late 60's, the Lasalles, Skyline Drive, Beaver, Strawberry, Uintas, Boulder the West Desert and more places than I can count and yes there were more deer then than now but who the he!! came up with 800,000 deer ever in the state of Utah. Show me something to support the claim until then I call BS. Yes there were more deer then than now but just stating that there were double the deer is ludicris. I think our memories of the "good old days" get better with time. Giving more buck tags makes no difference to me, I have a lifetime license so I'll get a tag every year and I've only killed one buck in the last 8 years. I would like to see my grandchildren be able to draw a tag and go hunting with me before I get too old to take them and more tags will give them a better opportunity to do so.
 
>Cody, you are correct, permits have
>been increased every year (since Option 2). Now
>would you let me know
>when we get back to
>the level it was at
>prior to Option FFS!
>
>
Sorry Gordy, but it won't be this year, even with the DWR numbers!

2011 - 94,450 General Season Deer tags. (Year before Opt 2)
2016 - 90,950 General Season Deer tags. (Current, if passed)
Difference = minus 3,500

Maybe next year if this proposal passes. Or if Cannonball has his way, not 'til 2025 (or longer).
 
>
>>Cody, you are correct, permits have
>>been increased every year (since Option 2). Now
>>would you let me know
>>when we get back to
>>the level it was at
>>prior to Option FFS!
>>
>>
>Sorry Gordy, but it won't be
>this year, even with the
>DWR numbers!
>
>2011 - 94,450 General Season Deer
>tags. (Year before Opt 2)
>
>2016 - 90,950 General Season Deer
>tags. (Current, if passed)
>Difference = minus 3,500
>
>Maybe next year if this proposal
>passes. Or if Cannonball has
>his way, not 'til 2025
>(or longer).

Hey, I'm not saying whether they should increase or decrease the numbers. They are just buck. What I am saying is to decrease the number of days the deer are being chased. Hunt those darn elk early, not late. Leave the deer alone in the late fall, winter.
 
Packout, I was thinking that exact same thing about carrying capacity and the winter range.

73, I never said I wanted to shoot the deer to extinction. Like everyone else I want a healthy deer herd. Just that you said this last snow storm was brutal and that we're having a bad winter is laughable to me.
I just skimmed though all the surrounding state forums here on MM to see if anyone mentioned having abnormally high winter kill. The only concern I saw was the deer herd that winters between Evanston and Kemmerer and the warm month of February seemed to help them out. But for some reason the deer are dropping like flys in Utah in this mild/less then average winter. Weird.






No estas en mexico ahora, entonces escoja tu basura chancho sucio.
 
800k deer. Counted by less DWR officers, no helicopter, no computers, no internet, no decent binos, no calculators. I am sure that nmber is correct. ORRRR, was it the number the sheep and cattle men pushed in order to keep us killing them and creating less feed compettion? 500k, yeah. See that's the problem when it comes to numbers.

If $fw, and Muley want LE, go apply. But "so and so" said he remembers 800k is no different than him remembering how tough he was, or how many ladies he bagged. I don't buy the numbers on either side, BUT I especially have not, nor will I see a buck have a fawn. You don't manage herds by creating 30" bucks, you manage the herds by managing the does. A fawn, whose daddy was 30", born this morning, has the same DNA he will have whether he is killed this fall, or if he dies of old age. But no matter who daddy is, its his sister that adds to the herd. Muley, you want 800,000 deer, stop killing does. Personally I would prefer to see low B/D ratios, as long as its because there is an increasing number of does. A b/d ratio of 99/100 means nothing if you only have a hundred deer. $fw saved the mule deer, I commend them, now how about they leave them for us to enjoy, and not as museum pieces.




"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Perfectly said Hoss!!

It's gonna come down to which group has pull. The opportunity or restrict opportunity crowd.






"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'm not sure if the info you seek exists, at least in the way you are wanting it in any reliable way.

Dennis Austin wrote a book called "Mule Deer A Guide for Utah Hunters and Landowners"

In it he references a man named Orange Olsen who was the first regional forester in charge of wildlife management estimated in 1900 that the mule deer population was 10,000. Take that for what it's worth.

By 1907 he estimated even less and hunting was closed from 1908 - 1913.

In 1914 an estimated 600 bucks were harvested.

By 1934 populations increased to the point that depredation was becoming a problem.

By the late 1940's deer populations had exploded. By 1951 deer were viewed as significantly overpopulated and out of balance with habitat. Buck only hunting and the small number of doe tags did little to curb this. Hunters then were allowed to take either sex.

For a few years around 1960 hunters were allowed to harvest up to 11 deer in a season. In 1961 40,000 doe tags were issued.

The numbers of deer decline sharply in the early 1970's. In 1975 buck only hunts started again with few doe tags. Deer population quickly increased again. Many areas exceeded carrying capacity but the public liking high deer numbers resisted doe tags being issued.

The winter of 1983-1984 was a grim reminder of carrying excessive populations. Herd loss was 50%-70% depending on the unit after an especially harsh winter.

In 1985, wanting to hunt bigger bucks in the same numbers as the 1950's and 1960's, special hunts were created. Limited entry, high country hunts, and 3 point or better hunts were created. These were intensely debated. Deer numbers gradually increased.

You know the story from there. Any of this sound familiar? What does history teach us about buck only hunting? Seems to do little to slow deer population growth at all if other conditions are right.
 
Not that at matters at the least, unless it's is your desire to grow deer populations State wide, on public land. While it's no longer my concern nor will I fight over another wildlife issue. If you want to get a relatively close estimate as to the number of deer Utah once had, during the last 50 or 60 years, consider the following, then apply some simple math to what we believe to be somewhat factual.

In 1982, Utah reported killing a little over 82,000 buck deer, during the fall hunting season.

A simple but not perfect way to measure the deer population in 1982 would be to take the average number of bucks killed in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. Then average the number of total deer counted (total deer population) 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.

You now have an average population of deer and an average number of bucks killed, for the last 5 years od data we have. If 2016 is available, include it.

Divide the average number of bucks killed, into the average population, and you'll get a number. Something like 12.5 (give or take). This is a loose ratio of the buck harvest to the total population of deer in Utah.

If you want to know how many total deer we had in Utah, in 1982 (or any other year where we have a reported buck harvest number) multiply the factor number (12.2) by the bucks killed (82,000 in 1982). That's 1,000,400 total deer in 1982.

I haven't taken the time to redo the exact numbers, taken from the DWR's annual reports, for this example, but if you'r interested you can and, get more a more accurate number.

OR, as I believe, the total number of deer in Utah in 1982 was actually closer to 1.2 million, because:

- our buck State wide buck doe ratios were lower in the 1980's (closer to 4 or 5 per hundred doe) which means there were more does in the population, so the ratio of buck kills to total population was a large number in 1982 that it is now with an average of 15-17 buck per hundred doe.

- there a other factors, such as highway morality rates, and predation rates that are different today than they were in the 1980s, which would alter the ration in a small way.

So lets say, I'm way off, and the ratio of around 12 is way off, please explain to me why it should be lower by 40% or 50% and explain how we could have killed 60,000 to 80,000 bucks per year, in the 1970, 1980, unless we had over 800,000 total deer in the State, in 1982.

Regarding never again having 600,000 or 800,000 deer again in Utah. Utah can grow as many deer as Utah wants. The loss of habitat on the Wasatch Front isn't that great, compared to the habitat left in the rest of the State. Agriculture interests can be negotiated for a lot more deer, if we want to. Political issues can be dealt with, as they are with every other issue in the State. Compromise is still possible, and when the benefits for all parties can be satisfied, changes are made.

In 2008, the UDWR claimed we could never have 350,000 again in Utah, and it was foolhardy and a pie in the sky management objective. They were wrong, again. We're at over 380,00 or so "they" say.

Some are again claiming 425,000 can not be reached. If that's your attitude, your right, we won't.

You can have 800,000 deer in Utah. It is "simply" and I do mean "simply" a matter of compromise, and commitment. It will be decided by you and your generation, not SFW, not the DWR, and the not ranches/landowners. It will be decided by sportsmen, one way other. You'll either do it or you'll get what someone else decides you'll get. Many of you settled for 350,000 in 2008, there are more deer now. Are you satisfied with the current objective of 425,000. If you are, as a body, that's all you'll get. If you want more, so more of you can hunt, more often, get to work, it's entirely up to you.

DC
 
Lots of D bags on here! Was there 800k I don't know, but I bet that number was pretty close. I don't think many guys that hunted from the 80's on back would argue that. I think some of you are missing 73's point, it's pretty poor management to even talk about tag numbers until winter is over and you have a better idea of how the herds came out. Good or bad. Hell when did the report come out saying how great the deer in Utah were doing? February-ish. Middle of winter, that's a joke and hard to put much faith in Utah's biologist. But that's typical, give a positive report as everyone is putting in for the hunts $$$. I for one would like to see a higher B/D ratio and give the herds a better chance of producing a few more mature bucks, but thats not likely to happen. Not that big of a deal, is what it is. Nice having Colorado so close.
 
and stockpiling excess buck deer will get us back to 1.2 million 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
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 08:24PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-16 AT 08:22?PM (MST)

2Lumpy
Don't you think your numbers are skewed a fair bit. There were 238,000 hunters in 1982 and an average of 82,000 in the years 2010-2014, 150,000 fewer hunters might screw up your formula a bit don't ya think? I hunted in 1982 and not too many spikes and forked horns got through that onslaught. That's why the buck to doe ratio was so low, we hunters killed every buck we saw and very few made it through the hunts.
I think a more accurate number would be to take the DWR numbers and multiply them by the number of days in the hunt divided by the number of letters in your mothers maiden name times Pi divided by 3. I think that would give us a real accurate population estimate.
 
CBall, if like Lumpy said the Buck to Doe ratio was 4 or 5 bucks per hundred does and we had a million deer in the state do you think this is still a valid equation??

Let's say I misunderstood Lumpy and he means the Buck to Doe ratio was was lower by 4 or 5 Bucks per hundred Does
Meaning the ratio was about 10 Bucks per hundred does do you think this is still valid??

If this is a valid equation and got our herd populations to over a million deer in the state we need to follow this model, manage at 10 bucks to 100 does and get our herds back to at least 900K.





"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 no clue how many deer we had in the 60's. That was way before my time. I will, however, agree there were more deer than we have today. Lumpy has articulated one way to estimate the population but the reality is there are many variables in the equation that make it difficult to get an accurate number. That is why I was looking for the DWR's or the state's estimates from those time periods. I want to see more deer just like Cody, Lumpy and others. However, I don't agree that restricting a few buck tags in the name of trophy hunting is going to help our herd numbers long term. We are better served praying for favorable weather.

-Hawkeye-
 
Good job WW i didn't see that originally. According to Lumpy's formula we killed 30-40,000 more bucks than we actually had in 1982 with a population of 1,000,000 with a 4-5 bucks per 100 doe ratio.
 
Thanks 2lumpy, you gave me an idea for our area. Instead of fighting the issue weither I believe the numbers the DWR is putting our or not. They say we are close to herd objective, that being said, I will work on trying to get that number they have set pushed to a higher number, because we can hold more deer on San juan, we do not have winter range that is being built upon, we can hold another 8,000 plus deer. Thanks for some insight and we will see what we can do.
 
The DWR can tell you what the estimates are for numbers of deer during those years. Lumpy was probably correct in his assumptions of 4 or 5 buck per 100 does. During the time when we were trying to get 3 point or better implemented, our argument was that there were to few buck to service the does. The only number that sticks out in my mind is one year there were 8 buck per 100 doe. No matter how you cut it, it's as clear as the nose on your face the numbers were double what we have today.

Being skeptical on this issue, I really believe that the DWR does not want these figures out. My wife's uncle was working for the DWR, in the main office, during those years and they had checking stations everywhere. Their statistics were a lot more accurate than they are today I'm sure.

I would really like to know the stats for the 60's to the 90's.
 
I'd love to hear how Kent at the Division would figure this and what his numbers would be.

Regardless we aren't playing on that field any longer.

The question we need to ask is what will carrying capacity support. Apparently we are at capacity in many areas with elk.
12,000 private land cow tags and ranchers from the People's Republic of Southern Utah wanting elk killed. Bountiful and Highland / Apline would tell you they have enough deer that are resident in town now. Urban hunts and relocations are underway.

I'd love to have 800k deer like Lumpy, I'd love to have the Parker Mtn Pronghorn herd left alone 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
 
Praying for favorable weather will get one thing.......the same weather you'll get whether you pray day and night or never pray at all.

Go ahead and pray, I have no quarrel with prayer, but after you're finished you'd best go out and make it happen because prayer, by itself, will get you nothing.

Ask any farmer, rancher, doctor, lawyer, carpenter, computer programmer, butcher, taylor, or buffalo hunter how much prayer works, if they set on their butts and wait for God to deliver the goods.

If a lawyer prayed he'd win a court case, then did nothing to prepare for it, would you hire him?

If a farmer prayed for rain, for his alfalfa, and never irrigated it, would you hire him to run your hay operation?

If a rancher prayed for a mild winter and never prepared for heavy winter snow and extremely long periods of sub-zero temperatures, would you partner with in in the cattle business?

If a computer programmer prayed his program would run but never tested his code or studied his logic, would you hire him to write your payroll software?

You can pray or you can work, left to prayer, there will be nothing to hunt.

And......like I said, it makes no difference if I'm right on or if I'm off by 50%, your going to get what you deserve, based on your efforts. The pass numbers mean nothing expect a guess at future potential. I'm guessing at a number, with a rudimentary mathematical explanation in concert with what I've seen with my eyes. You're all certainly entitled to your own rational for any number you come up with, if you can explain how you came by it.

If you have a rational, how many deer did Utah have in 1982 in order to kill 82,000 bucks?

I gave you my reasons, what are yours.

One gentleman gave his reasons, that being a lot more hunters in 1982. That doesn't answer the question as to how many deer were there in 1982 in order to make 82,000 bucks available to kill and still leave 4 or 5 buck per hundred doe in December, whether there were 230,000 hunters or 530,000 hunters in 1982.

Again, it matters not, but then you've been discussing deer numbers, so, if your going to talk deer numbers, relative to current deer number objectives, it would seem you'd be somewhat interested in what the potential might be, but apparently not, as I expected. Very few ever have, because there are actually very few that are concerned with growing deer numbers. They're concerned about a lot of things but not that, so pray away, and see what happens.

DC
 
This was in an article from Colorado with a title of DIMISHING DEER HERDS with the competition of Elk. This is only one section of that article. Wish I could find something from Utah before 1990. I'm not willing to dig very deep though.


While deer populations across the West have declined, elk populations have boomed. The
coincidence of booming elk populations and dwindling mule deer populations raises the question,
have elk increases caused mule deer populations to decline? Several pieces of circumstantial
evidence suggest that elk could be responsible for deer declines. First, elk have increased
substantially throughout the West at nearly the same time mule deer were declining. Not only
have elk numbers increased, but they have expanded their distribution as well. Here in Colorado,
elk are now found in areas and habitats where formerly elk were absent and deer were abundant.
Second, elk are much larger than deer, and size confers several competitive advantages.
The larger elk can traverse deep snows more efficiently than mule deer, considerably reducing
energetic costs. Elk are able to exploit a larger variety of foods than deer. Because their
digestive organs are absolutely and proportionately larger than those of a deer, elk can eat lower
quality foods and still derive enough nutrients to reproduce successfully and survive winter rigors
without suffering high rates of mortality. Faced with the same circumstances, mule deer
reproductive rates decline and mortality rates of young animals often exceed 50%. Because elk
are taller than deer, they also expand the 3-dimensional space

within which they can exploit foods.
Third, elk are less vulnerable to predation than mule deer. Although individuals of both
species isolate themselves to give birth to young, elk soon rejoin groups of other cows and calves
and group membership affords them greater protection from predation. Mule deer does, in
contrast, tend to remain apart from other does and fawns until much later, increasing vulnerability
of young to predatory attacks. In addition, cow elk tend to be more aggressive in defending their
young than mule deer.
Fourth, observational evidence suggest that elk can displace mule deer from choice feeding
areas. During the winter of 1983-84, the Colorado Division of Wildlife fed populations of deer
and elk to prevent large-scale winter starvation. At feed grounds where both deer and elk were
present, elk aggressively drove mule deer from the grounds until elk had finished feeding
 
2Lumpy
Lets take this from a little different angle. You say there were 1.2 million deer in the state in 1982, and we harvested 82,000 bucks. Now the buck to doe ratios are usually taken after the fall harvest as I understand. So 82,000 harvest and 50,000 to 60,000 bucks left after the hunt, follow along with me here. 1,200,000 deer minus 60,000 bucks leaves 1,140,000 doe's now lets say we have a 64% (2016 DWR) doe to fawn ratio, that gives us 729,600 fawns. Now 52% (2016 DWR) of those fawns survive to the next fall that leaves 379,392 fawns and 1/2 of those fawns are bucks that means there should have been 189,696 yearling bucks add back the 60,000 bucks (5%) left from the year before and you have 249,696 bucks ready for the hunt. Now you harvest 82,000 that leaves 167,696 bucks left after the hunt or a 14 bucks to 100 doe's ratio which you and I both know never happened in the 80's. The deer population in 1982 was no where near 1.2M
If you cut all the numbers in half leaving a buck to doe ratio of 7 per 100 doe's which is more realistic that leaves a base population of 600,000 deer.
 
DeLoss-

I guess you missed my sarcasm in Post #114. I assume there are historical numbers out there. We just need to track them down.

-Hawkeye-
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-16 AT 03:25PM (MST)[p]

We need to stick with the plan and release more tags on units over objective buck/doe ratio's.
Many of the proposed increases are on units that haven't seen much or any increase in the last few years. So why keep waiting?
FWIW, I don't think any given unit needs to be constantly adjusted every single year but if there's a trend for 2, 3 or more years, then adjustments should be made.

There's always next year
 
>Hawkeye and other skeptics,
>
>Your silence to Lumpy's post on
>number of deer from the
>past is deafening.


Back at ya Cannonball!

I call bs on Lumpy's formula, an extra 150,000 hunters afield makes a huge difference in number of bucks harvested. Who says there was 40-50K buck left after the hunt where do you come up with that figure? I talked to a biologist at the DWR today to try and get deer herd estimates for 82 and prior but he said they have some but they don't think they're accurate and they don't think harvest estimates are very accurate either.You guys can bs all you want but I don't think we ever had over 600,000 deer in this state.
 
Apexman wrote:
{Cannonball, I hunted the Book Cliffs in the late 60's, the Lasalles, Skyline Drive, Beaver, Strawberry, Uintas, Boulder the West Desert and more places than I can count and yes there were more deer then than now but who the he!! came up with 800,000 deer ever in the state of Utah. Show me something to support the claim until then I call BS. Yes there were more deer then than now but just stating that there were double the deer is ludicris. I think our memories of the "good old days" get better with time. Giving more buck tags makes no difference to me, I have a lifetime license so I'll get a tag every year and I've only killed one buck in the last 8 years. I would like to see my grandchildren be able to draw a tag and go hunting with me before I get too old to take them and more tags will give them a better opportunity to do so.}

Apex,

Your memories might be getting a little fuzzy about the old hunting days, mine are not. I can go on I-15 from Cedar City to Santaquin in the early spring and see hardly any deer, years ago you could see deer all along the way in big herds, Black Canyon on boulder there were deer everywhere, void of deer now. Above Salina and the Fishlake area, both sides of I-70 nearly void of any deer. The Pahvant range was one of my stomping grounds. You could count several hundred deer in an evening. Now you would be hard pressed to find 25 in the same area in the same amount of time. These are just a few examples, I could go on and on, but I hate long blogs. Northern Utah I cannot comment on - - I have not hunted up there in years, but what I understand it is not much better.

Lets get past my observations, and go to some facts: 1983 - 82,552 buck shot, 1985 thru 1990 - averaged about 62,000 buck shot per year, last year 28,371 buck shot(they say a good year). Here is another known fact 1980 thru 1990 buck to doe ratios sucked. The buck to ratio was not in double digits like they are now. You don't need to be a mathematician or get caught up with exact numbers to see that it would be easy to have had way over double the number of deer that we have now. Southeast of Richfield, on the Monroe Mountain foothills we would have a hard time counting the deer, close to a thousand or more, now maybe you can count one or two hundred.

The only thing I am sure of is this: PROJECTED MAX.DEER HERD NUMBERS SHOULD BE INCREASED ON MANY UNITS.
 
I don't know how the dwr can even claim they know how many deer get killed every year. Their surveys are too random.

I don't get why they can't go to a mandatory reporting for general season. We have computers these days.
 
Hell how many drones does the dwr use to get population counts? Probably none

Or is elk assassin the only one that flies those?
 
CB
I just drove from Provo to St George from just North of Parowan to just South of Cedar I saw many herds of deer a best guess estimate by me was 5-600 deer in about 40 miles and I know there were many more I didn't see as I was flying down the freeway at 80 mph.
We can argue for days on how many deer each of us believe were in the state in the "Good old Days" but I don't think any of us really know, mysterious formulas not withstanding. My point is we will never see those days again and if anyone thinks we will is crazy.
We approved a plan 4 years ago and now that our herds have rebounded a little some of you guys want to change the plan and shoot for an outrageous number of deer in the state because " We had that many in the "Good old Days". The DWR is recommending an increase of 4400 more tags this year and some of you guys are going back on your word and recommending no increase in tags, against the plan you fought for 4 years ago. The DWR can't win, the herd is doing better and you guys scream like gut shot panthers when they try to increase the number of tags by a little because buck to doe ratio's are over prearranged limits.
By the way the biologists are recommending increasing the herd from 425,000 to 440,000
Nebo12000 if you can't guess I'm all for increasing the number of tags.
 
Nebo, Bird and Snot it looks like a
Bunch of guys would appreciate it if you supported the tag increase.

Stick to 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
 
Apex,

I guess I'm crazy. Shoot some of the elk off and we could increase the deer herds immensely. The trouble is there are to many city thinkers - - AIM LOW BOYS AND YOU CAN SAVE SOME DEER. You take one little stretch by Cedar and say, "Gee look at those deer" and think there is a lot. I've seen them and they are certainly not the numbers we used to see and this year due to the extra snow storms and hunting elk late, that is your whole deer herd. Oh ya, there is a spattering of deer here and there, but again I repeat, with all of the late elk hunts and people in the mountain continuously, that is your deer herd. They chase them right down into the fields. I do not object to additional buck tags on those units that have excessive buck to doe ratio's as long as the counts are correct. As someone told me who saw the Thousand Lake buck to doe ratio, "I think they are not telling the truth"(He has hunted there for the last two years).

Today I have one main ax to grind: SHOOT THE COW ELK EARLY - QUIT CHASING THE DEER TO THE END OF JANUARY. You have run their winter fat off before winter starts. Oh ya - - increase the base deer herds on many units.
 
I'm back. I do have one other ax to grind.

GET RID OF 100% OF THE ELK ON THE PAUNSAUGUNT - - YES 100%.

SAVE THE DEER
 
Cannonball, estimating herd size by how many deer we see along the highway as we drive by isn't very scientific. I remember herds of deer in the Book Cliffs in 1968 as I bow hunted there but that doesn't mean that all areas of the state were doing as well. Saying that the deer herd was double or triple what it is now because of the amount of animals we saw in any given area at any given time isn't very scientific or very accurate IMO. I remember there was a sign above Beaver at one time saying that it was home to the largest deer herd in America,not anymore. Populations in different areas of the state rise and fall, while one area may be overrun with deer another area may be struggling based on many factors,winter kill and predators being just a couple. I just gave 2Lumpy an explanation of why there wasn't 1.2M deer in Utah in 82 and he is conspicuously silent. Basing population figures on past observation of small areas of the state or kill numbers in the past compared to kill numbers 20 years latter with 1/3 of the amount of effort isn't very good biology IMO.
 
So, if I read you right, the DWR is spending one third the effort to count deer now than in the past. I just can't see why you can't understand the harvest rate of buck (we do have that information), single digit buck to doe ration in the past as compared to the much higher buck to do ratio of today, unless of course, you are saying the counts today are not even close. In the old days, they had deer counting stations everywhere.

So it seems to me that you are saying you can't believe what you see and you can't believe the counts. So why are we talking. your statements are dumb, my statements are dumb. Everybody is blind, deaf, and dumb.
 
Sorry Apex, I didn't mean to ignore your explanation. While I disagree, at least you put up some rational for your 600,000 figure. That's certainly more than most folks do, regarding the number of deer that Utah has a potential to grow.

I could rebuttal with more justification for my figures, then you'd do the same, and back and forth we'd go, accomplishing very little.

I believe we had a much as 3 to 4 times more deer, during peek years, than we do now. The difference between 3 and 4 is a that a big range, (900,000 to 1.2 million) I recognize that, but were as we are attempting to back into a number, a large range seems reasonable.

As I said, the number of deer we used to have I only matters if you're engaged in attempting to try to put as many deer in the State, for hunting, as the carrying capacity can support. At one time, some thirty-five years ago, we had a lot more deer than we now have. Trying to get a reasonable estimate number from the past, would seem like a reasonable part of an aggressive effort to increase our State wide herd numbers. I recognize we have lost acreage for deer , due to development, but that too can be accommodated for, as we work toward building deer populations to current carrying capacity.

It would seem, if you're anxious to increase tags, and opportunity, that you'd want to do all that you can do to maximize the number of deer in the State, to get to some where close to a point where a year or two of bad weather years that kill of a year or two of the fawn crop, you still have a base herd large enough to bounce back quickly, like we did when we had something close to a "critical mass" population.

Yes I understand the argument that killing the bucks doesn't have anything to do with increasing the over all critical mass population of does. I simply disagree. I believe there are many factors in growing herds back to a "critical mass" population, buck rations are simply one of many. As one who is more interested in get more deer in our herds that I an in hunting and killing deer, I've always been willing to do pretty much anything to grow more deer, including limiting the number of tags sold, until such time as we get back to a population that can tolerate bad weather years, heavy predation, highway morality, cyclical decease, etc.,etc.

However, as I've said, repeatedly, it's no longer my future, it's the future of the thirty-five year olds and their children, if they are satisfied with 380,000 deer, 97,000 tags, I'm perfectly fine with that as we'll. My ship has sailed and it won't be me that has to deal with these management strategies any longer.

So, 1.2 million or 380,000, it only matters, if it matters to the next generation.

Now then, so as my silence isn't too deafening, I've given you my estimate, as I said, based on my rational, I'm not going to waste your time or mine arguing over your rational, or mine.

The Wildlife Board will support the DWR's recommendations. You shouldn't be too concerned about that. The e-mails, the letters, and the RAC comments are interesting but they are a waste of your time.

DC
 
Cannonball, no I'm saying that in 1982 we had 238,000 hunters compared to 81,000 hunters in the 2010-2014 time period. Three times the hunters in the field in 1982 compared to now if you don't think that makes a huge difference in percentage of bucks harvested you better think again. I talked to one of the big game biologists in the Salt Lake office yesterday and he said they were not very confident in the harvest figures from years past because of the way they calculated them. They sent out harvest questionaires (remember those) that most guys just threw in the trash. I'm sorry Cball but deriving harvest figures from checking stations on some of our highways on opening weekend isn't very comforting to me either. And Lumpy I'm sorry but your seat of the pants formula or gut feeling of population estimates don't make any sense to me either.
Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree but there is no way we had 900,000 to 1,000,000 deer the fawn recruitment just doesn't add up, not even close.
 
I would guess 900k would have been being conservative. There were way more deer in the 80's, not to mention the 60's & 70's hard to believe anyone would argue that. That's right up there with the young guns comment's of "this could be one of the best years ever for deer hunting". Really? Give me a break. Deer herds are on the upswing and that's a great trend that I hope lasts a while. But let's be honest, populations are nothing compared to the 80's. Not even close. If you can argue that with a straight face your right up there with Hillary.
 
Did we really have 238,000 hunters? back in those days I bet a lot were grandmas and wives, plus you could get two buck tags back then.

I just think that number is not completely represented properly.
 
I hope they do not increase tags. I would rather hunt once every other year or even once every three years and have a higher quality hunt. If anything else I would say reduce tags before you increase them. The unit i hunt had a buck to doe ratio of 8 bucks to 100 does 5 years ago now they want to increase tags by 20%. Won't take long to get back to 8 bucks to 100 does if they keep increasing the number of permits
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-16 AT 02:15PM (MST)[p]Fullthrottle,
You are spot on!! If these guys refuse to believe there where that many deer it makes it easier to justify bringing the numbers of tags up. Most of these guys (not all) are far more concerned about always getting a tag and not really the future of our deer herds. I'm serious when I say there is group out there that would shoot does, or bucks as many as they could every single year, and they would justify it. Right up until the last mule deer died in the state of Utah.

We have increased tags every single year since Opt 2. When Opt 2 passed the same guys on here screaming today screamed then that the we would NEVER see tags increase again. Well they did every year so far. Yet now when we say whoa lets make sure we are ok they scream again. You tell me who is being truthful. They say we are going back on the plan? They swore we were evil and it would only decrease tags more in the future, well who was speaking the truth? The second we ask to wait and see after 4 years you call us liars. Still not cutting tags just saying we'd like to hold for one out of 5 years. We are not liars we just don't want to give in because you all are crying again. The herd and its future out weighs your childish fits to constantly want more. That is my opinion and I don't care if it makes me an assholeee to think that way.
There are plenty of ways to increase opportuntiy and tags in Utah without damaging the herd as much but no one is willing to put on the time and fight for some of those changes. So they just rather rant and complain.
Oh and as an added thought lets go ahead and figure in the added success of the muzzy hunters this year. What a shittt decision that was too, primitive hunt....give me break!!! More success should equal less tags, but nope we want both!!! JUDAS!!!
 
Duh I believe there were 6 times more deer then than now, ya ya I think we had 2,000,000 deer back in the 70's and 80's because I just know it, biology be damned. I don't give a damn what they say about all those extra fawns that aren't really there I know there was a tremendous amount of deer back then and any body who can look me in the eye with a straight face and deny that is a Fag and a Democrat.

Fullthrottle, Clint, were you even born in 1982?

I was born in 1954 and I can look you in the eye with a straight face and tell you I do not believe there was over 600,000 deer in the state of Utah in 1982. I started hunting deer in 1970 at the age of 16, I was hunting with my brother in laws in 1968 in the Book Cliffs at the age of 14 as an observer. I also hunted with my dad and uncles in the early 60's and I believe the peak of the deer herd in Utah was from 1959-1964 and I don't think the herd was over 700,000 even then.
Don't like my figures, prove me wrong, come up with some way of calculating overall herd numbers besides your gut feeling, especially from someone who was never even there. I don't think anyone can come up with a reliable figure, I don't think the data we have is very reliable. But a gut feeling is just that "A Gut Feeling" it doesn't mean much in reality.
 
Still waiting for the elusive explanation of how an EXCESS BUCK DEER
is the key to growing more deer?

Guess that wait will be an extended one.




"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 was going to write a rebuttal and stopped realizing you can't teach old people anything, they already know everything.
 
I would say we haven't had EXCESS BUCK DEER in any State for over twenty years. I think that any time a Deer makes it from one year to the next, it is a positive thing. And increases the herds overall odds of survival, ever so slightly. No matter the sex Buck or Doe. What some call "BANKING" OR "STALK PILEING" I call increasing the chances of seeing more mature Bucks down the road. Mother Nature will control the Buck to doe ratio. Some years Fawn births might be as high or low as 80% to 20% one way or the other. I used to love it when the Pheasant hatch was 80% Roosters, until the next year.
 
an EXCESS BUCK DEER is buck #13 out of 100. 12 bucks will breed 100 receptive does. Buck 13 is loss in one way or another, either by hunter, predator or as a hood ornament. No contribution to the herd. However, once we have a normal to hard winter these excess bucks you can't find will compete with pregnant does and take the doe and the next generation of deer out of the herd.

If you want to raise the buck to doe ratios to something other than what the plan calls for get to work. If you feel comfortable telling other hunters to stay home so you can have more supposedly quality bucks every third year when you draw a tag, then you'll take the next generation of hunters out of our herd.

Those that screwed us in to this plan managed to convince a whole bunch of people that bucks give birth and they had no intention of turning the state in to the Henry Mountain LE hunt. Sure as hell looks like that's where we are headed.




"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
 
It's the one with wood.




"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
 
Some of you guys don't believe there were 238,000 hunters in 1982. The DWR sold 238,000 deer tags that year, you can take that to the bank, they can count those real easily. I don't care if Grandpa and Grandma, aunt Matilda and uncle Joe bought those tags somebody was in the field trying to fill those tags. They didn't buy those tags to just donate the money to the DWR. Didn't we just cut all the tags in the 30 general hunting units to bring the buck to doe ratio's up? Isn't that what option 2 was all about, trying to to increase the buck to doe ratio? So reducing tag numbers increases buck survival, I'll type this real slow so it will sink in, REDUCING TAG NUMBERS INCREASES BUCK SURVIVAL WHICH INCREASES BUCK TO DOE RATIOS.

Letmgetbig said; " What some call "BANKING" OR "STALK PILEING" I call increasing the chances of seeing more mature Bucks down the road. Mother Nature will control the Buck to doe ratio."

Really? Mother nature will control the buck to doe ratio! You better not sell any deer tags if that's how you want to control buck to doe ratio's, that's one of the dumbest statements I've heard in the last 24 hours on this site. ( There's more but I won't elaborate.) By the way It's STOCK not Stalk, Stalking is what you are doing when you are trying to sneak up on a deer or a girl in your case.

I just calculated the average buck to doe ratio in the 30 units from The DWR's 2014 Annual report. It comes out to 23 bucks per 100 does, you can look it up here;

https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/14_bg_report.pd

If the buck to doe ratio in 1982 was similar to the buck to doe ratio in 2010-2014 Delosses formula would be fairly close but it's totally different so no you can't compute deer herd size that way. My formula isn't totally correct either but it's a lot closer than his.

Deer herds fluctuate in different parts of the state at any one time. The Book Cliffs in the 60's were something to behold. Beaver in the 60's was also incredible. Fish Lake in the late 70's into the early 80's was amazing as well. They all had population crashes, I know, I hunted them all and saw it with my own eyes. Other parts of the state remained somewhat stable or had small population spikes and valleys. They made the Pahvant, Henries, Oak Creek and the Book Cliffs 3 point or better to try and improve the herd, I know I hunted them also.They closed the Book Cliffs, Paunsaugant, Henries for a few years to try to bring back the herds then made them draw units. If you base your observations on how many deer you saw on the Fish Lake unit in the 80's you could say with all sincerity that the population was 4 times what it is now but the rest of the state was not doing as well. Some areas boomed while others crashed and others were somewhat stable.
I'm sorry but deer herd sizes of 900K to 1.2M would produce too many fawns and too many yearling bucks to account for and wind up with single digit buck to doe ratio's it's as simple as that.

Cball said "you can't teach old people anything, they already know everything." Well Cball I was there, I had boots on the ground, did you? I'm done, you guys figure it out but if you're shooting for a 1M deer population in Utah you better just shut down all the hunts and "let Mother Nature take care of the buck to doe ratio's" and see if you ever get there, I don't think you ever will.
 
Apex wrote: [Cball said "you can't teach old people anything, they already know everything." Well Cball I was there, I had boots on the ground, did you? I'm done, you guys figure it out but if you're shooting for a 1M deer population in Utah you better just shut down all the hunts and "let Mother Nature take care of the buck to doe ratio's" and see if you ever get there, I don't think you ever will.]

Apex,

I was making as much fun of myself as you. I was hunting the Paunsaugunt when it was an open unit in 1958. There were a lot of deer down there. At least double what are there now, maybe three times. 1959 I was hunting the Pahvant range between Richfield and Fillmore. Before the season started you could see 20 to 40 buck running in one herd. In the next draw you may see that many more. Corncreek was loaded with deer. There is no question there was three times the number of deer on that mountain then as compared today.
1960 I hunted with my brother on Fishlake, Hancock, The Rocks, Durfeys - - the list goes on - The deer were three times as many as today. I could go on to different units all over the state, even up north when I lived there for eight years.

Practically the only place I really haven't hunted in Utah was the Bookcliffs where apparently a lot of your experience comes from. The only thing I know about the BC is in 1968 I purchased a gun from a fellow who hunted there all of the time and as I remember he said that place was starting to go down hill at that time.

To make a long story short, my boots were on the ground when you were still in diapers and I have spent a heck of lot of time in the mountains.

Seeing what I have seen these old eyes through out the mountains of Utah, I will not budge from the stand of there has been twice the number of the deer than we have today what ever those numbers may be.
 
I wasn't going to respond but here you go Cball. The average population from 2010-2014 was 317,000 double that and you have 634,000 a hell of a lot closer to my figures than when you said 2Lumpy was pretty close with his 1.2M figure. Am I having a little influence on ya there Cball with your seat of the pants population estimate? I think I was potty trained by 58 Cball but you're right I was not hunting deer at that age. Good luck and happy hunting from one old fart to another.

Apex
 
Thanks for the spelling lesson. I think most knew that I meant Stock & not stalk. Wupty doo. And all I meant with the Buck to Doe ratio, is that we don't get exactly 50-50 Bucks and Does with the new fawn crop every year. Also how in the World do we know there are 23 Bucks to 100 Does. When we don't know how many Deer there are. How many groups of 100 are there? Is this one group of a hundred in each area. An average guess like everything else. The one thing I know for sure, Deer numbers today are not a drop in a bucket compared to years ago. And no I don't expect they ever will be like that again.
 
Apex, There are a lot of places we just don't look for deer anymore that I call black holes. Those are the places void of any deer now where you used to see many deer. I didn't include those areas.
 
Letmgetbig you're not helping yourself out here buddy, your old friend Mother Nature says that 50% of the fawns each year are bucks and 50% of the fawns are does. It might be off 1-2% either way but it pretty much stays 50-50.
Go back to the link I gave you and read pages 1 and 2, it won't take even you very long I promise.
They actually go out and count the number of bucks compared to the number of does they see in each management area, both on the ground and from aerial survey. They plug those numbers into computer models and come up with population estimates. They have fine tuned the programs over the years to where they are quite comfortable with the figures they come up with. It's not just a WAG they actually put some effort into getting accurate numbers. They weren't so careful in the past that's why they don't like to give out the population estimates from years past.

I tried not to respond, I really did.
 
Are many people aware that the buck to doe ratio counts are done POST SEASON?

Many of Utah deer units are very likely well into 45:100 b/d pre season and I'd wager many are in the 50's. Hell, there're probably a handful that hit 60-70/100 on any given year.

Where does the hard on for a big rack stop? When a few can hunt every 12 years? Jesus.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom