cdhooper04
New Member
- Messages
- 4
I have a chance to talk to the division about things to do about the mule deer population in Utah. I need some ideas so what do you guys think?
DWR
- Thread starter cdhooper04
- Start date
DeerHunter53
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,063
Rolling closures for a season of some general zones. Kill predators, improve habitat.........
SureShot
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,279
It's not just populations, it's also better quality. More aggressive predator control and manage for higher buck:doe ratios are the two biggest issues. They seem to be making pretty good efforts on habitat restoration and those efforts need to continue as well.
smokingfire
Active Member
- Messages
- 142
I second SureShot's input. Predator control and manage for higher buck doe ratio. I talked to a guy that had 4 cats in one picture on one of his trail cams.
elkhunterUT
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,860
My Dad drew a CWMU moose tag this year and the operator was telling us that the cats in their area have had a huge negative impact on deer herds (like close to 75% reduction in their deer herd due to predation from cougars). They worked with the Division and killed 30 cougars in a fairly small area last winter alone! They still feel they have a ways to go to get numbers in check to help the deer herd increase.
This is just one area of the state, but there is no doubt that predator control is a huge issue. Bears, Cats, and coyotes all need to be managed. I see way more bears and cats on trail cams now than I ever have.
This is just one area of the state, but there is no doubt that predator control is a huge issue. Bears, Cats, and coyotes all need to be managed. I see way more bears and cats on trail cams now than I ever have.
ruger1022
Active Member
- Messages
- 250
Predators may be a problem in some areas, but a lot of the research shows the leading cause of fawn mortality is malnutrition of the doe during pregnancy and lactation, and the fawn after birth.
The problem? Quality habitat... especially winter range in Utah. What little winter range we have left is quickly becoming concrete. For example, how is the Cache deer population going to grow when they are wintering in the foothills above Logan? How is the Central Mountains - Nebo going to support a healthy deer population when they winter between I-15 and the foothills? I-15 and other highways blocks a significant amount of winter range for wildlife, and the small amount of crossings we have put in came to late. The fawns didn't have the opportunity to learn where to migrate from their mothers when I-15 was fenced off.
When we have a horrible drought year, followed by an extreme winter, followed by another horrible drought year, deer numbers are going to drop. Especially when we don't have the habitat to support those numbers.
I am a firm believer that our deer population is directly tied to habitat. Some of our better deer herds in the state of Utah come from areas where they have quality summer range, and quality winter range.
The problem? Quality habitat... especially winter range in Utah. What little winter range we have left is quickly becoming concrete. For example, how is the Cache deer population going to grow when they are wintering in the foothills above Logan? How is the Central Mountains - Nebo going to support a healthy deer population when they winter between I-15 and the foothills? I-15 and other highways blocks a significant amount of winter range for wildlife, and the small amount of crossings we have put in came to late. The fawns didn't have the opportunity to learn where to migrate from their mothers when I-15 was fenced off.
When we have a horrible drought year, followed by an extreme winter, followed by another horrible drought year, deer numbers are going to drop. Especially when we don't have the habitat to support those numbers.
I am a firm believer that our deer population is directly tied to habitat. Some of our better deer herds in the state of Utah come from areas where they have quality summer range, and quality winter range.
I do not doubt the habitat argument. However, look at the areas where they do have the winter range. What’s the excuse for Monroe? Pahavant? Fishlake? Thousand lakes? The blues? The manti la sal? All has winter range. All has summer range.
But it also has a tremendous amount of predators. Humans, bears, lions, and coyotes.
Habitat yes....but explain all the other areas outside the Wasatch front. The stansburys?
The oquirrhs? They have winter range still on this range. Both sides of the mountain.
But it also has a tremendous amount of predators. Humans, bears, lions, and coyotes.
Habitat yes....but explain all the other areas outside the Wasatch front. The stansburys?
The oquirrhs? They have winter range still on this range. Both sides of the mountain.
ruger1022
Active Member
- Messages
- 250
Quality of habitat. Mule deer need a wide range and age of browse. A mono-culture of 70 year old sagebrush mixed with pinyon and juniper doesn't cut it when looking at the nutritional requirements of a pregnant or lactating doe. The horrible droughts we have had these last few years are definitely limiting the potential nutrition for the mule deer in the state.
I can pull up a quite a few research papers that show an increase in the quality and quantity of browse increases the survival rate of mule deer fawns. I can also pull up a quite a few research papers that do not show a population increase when predators are removed. I definitely think that predators can have a huge impact on numbers, especially when numbers are low. However, the majority of the research points less toward predator populations, and more toward habitat. Quantity and quality are important.
cobra55
Active Member
- Messages
- 107
Do not include counting deer numbers from the CWMUs in the objective number of deer in a unit. The deer that are on a CWMU are not open to the general public and do not generally come off these units until after all hunts are over, therefore, these numbers should not count in overall numbers.
WannaB
Member
- Messages
- 99
They give tags for that...?
It's all been pretty well covered here. Any good plan/study has to have accurate numbers to work with. I think the counts are always exaggerated or skewed. Start with better/accurate counts so we have a real idea of where we are at and whether what we are doing is working or not.
Smaller units so management can be more specific would also help.
elkfromabove
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,098
If you're asking for information to help increase the OVERALL populations, that's one thing, but if you're asking for information to increase the BUCK populations, that's another thing entirely. Most of the information you've received may help increase the buck to doe ratios, but will do nothing to help the overall populations. And many of the responders don't trust the DWR numbers, biology or technics anyway, so I suggest you do your own homework. FWIW, the only two close are Ruger & Hoss.
stillwaitin
Active Member
- Messages
- 361
Do something about all the dang horses! They are out of control.
In my opinion, the issues with Utah's deer herds are the result of multiple factors. Lack of management on the ranges is a huge issue. A lot of hunters dislike livestock grazing, but the reality is, the huge deer herds of the 1960's were the result of years of range management to increase forage for livestock. It was intended for livestock, but the deer herds benefited significantly. The idea that native habitat can support the deer numbers of the 1960's is misguided. Historical records indicate that pre-1850 deer numbers were not anywhere near what they were in the 1960's. You can't have it both ways. Either you manage the land for production that can handle large numbers or you settle for lower numbers that the native habitat can support.
The current lack of productivity of the ranges in Utah is largely the result of the "all-natural" philosophies that have infiltrated range management for the last fifty years. At the same time these misguided range management philosophies were lowering the productivity of the ranges, elk populations exploded adding not only more mouths but bigger mouths.
At the same time, predator ideology infiltrated wildlife management philosophies leading to an explosion of predators. So, you have less resources for the wildlife, a major increase in elk numbers and a predator explosion. Any reasonable person can see that this would lead to exactly where we are at.
At the root of it all, is an "environmental" management philosophy that demonizes production based range management and glorifies predators. In the end, many average hunters have no idea that the ideologies that are being taught in wildlife management are intended to result in lower wildlife numbers, higher predator numbers and native vegetation at all costs- including the decimation of wildlife herds.
Long story, short, we are getting exactly what the current wildlife management philosophies are intended to get.
The current lack of productivity of the ranges in Utah is largely the result of the "all-natural" philosophies that have infiltrated range management for the last fifty years. At the same time these misguided range management philosophies were lowering the productivity of the ranges, elk populations exploded adding not only more mouths but bigger mouths.
At the same time, predator ideology infiltrated wildlife management philosophies leading to an explosion of predators. So, you have less resources for the wildlife, a major increase in elk numbers and a predator explosion. Any reasonable person can see that this would lead to exactly where we are at.
At the root of it all, is an "environmental" management philosophy that demonizes production based range management and glorifies predators. In the end, many average hunters have no idea that the ideologies that are being taught in wildlife management are intended to result in lower wildlife numbers, higher predator numbers and native vegetation at all costs- including the decimation of wildlife herds.
Long story, short, we are getting exactly what the current wildlife management philosophies are intended to get.
johnnycake
Active Member
- Messages
- 572
Yeah, but the wild bighorn sheep population was MASSIVE back then too until domestic sheep grazing killed them off via disease. Utah had more bighorns than mule deer. So you're right, we can't have it both ways, but I know which way I would prefer to have it.
twopointdn
Active Member
- Messages
- 436
In units with large amounts of private land they need to do private land only tags and public land only tags. The tag allocation needs to be proportionate to the percentage of public land and private land in the unit. Colorado has a similar model. As it is in Utah right now the public land in these types of units are getting pounded by 80% of the tag holds. That is 80% of the tag holders hunting the 20% of the available public land in the unit. Unit 4/5/6 would be a prime example of this. Buck to doe ratios of mostly private units do not reflect what is available on public land as well. The private land inflates these ratios significantly. If I had ten minutes to chat with the DWR about the deer herd, this would be one item I would discuss. Many of the other items have already been mentioned.
roadrunner
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,756
Uncontrolled lion populations will be more detrimental to deer popluations than some controlled doe permits will be.
mtnrunner260
Active Member
- Messages
- 470
Hope you have enough time to share the ideas posted here.
When is this talk and will you report how it goes?
When is this talk and will you report how it goes?
