For or against ndow rec

[Nvdeerslayer]

overall i would be against.

 

[Gudari]

Against, although I agree with some quotas in certain areas for non mule deer species.

 

[Gazelle]

Im for it. However, Ive only got 4 pts. Someone with 12 is probably pissed off though.

 

[Moosey69]

Too broad of a question. Some I'm for, some against, but it may not matter anyway because if it is like the past they will be reduced greatly by the time the final #s come out.

 

[mtnview]

I'm in favor, of letting the biologist do their work and making recommendations which they will be called on to support with science and data.

 

[goatroper]

no one gets it right!
I think some areas need help and some need to be reduced and the jr's need to have their own dates(just for them)because it just makes for a cluster fux when there blasting away at the first legal deer they come across...
so am "FOR" I guess!

 

[ELKOHUNTER]

Against. I would like to see areas like 102 cut back the tags well over 1,500 and have a management hunt for three point bucks or less for at least one year. 062 still does't have the deer it should or could. 071 is the same story fallowed by 111. I hate to see so meny tags in these areas then add Doe tags on top.
Elk I'm okay with if they would move the rifle hunts away from the tail end of the rut. I don't think it's good to allow hunters to chace big bulls with a rifle when they are rutting.

 

[mevertsen]

>Against. I would like to see
>areas like 102 cut back
>the tags well over 1,500
>and have a management hunt
>for three point bucks or
>less for at least one
>year. 062 still does't have
>the deer it should or
>could. 071 is the same
>story fallowed by 111. I
>hate to see so meny
>tags in these areas then
>add Doe tags on top.
>
>Elk I'm okay with if they
>would move the rifle hunts
>away from the tail end
>of the rut. I don't
>think it's good to allow
>hunters to chace big bulls
>with a rifle when they
>are rutting.


Area 6 never will have the deer it "could." It is just not going to happen. There is no where for them to go in the winter time. The summer range is in great shape, the winter range is toast. They have to manage the numbers at a level where the deer can survive a bad winter.

Would you rather see people get to shoot a deer and put a little meat on their table - or see thousands of dead deer starve to death in a burn because they won't go anywhere else to winter?

A 3 point or less management hunt or less would be a joke. There would be a lot of deer left because they were too big, or deer shot in hopes that they didn't get caught. Let people get a tag and shoot whatever deer they will be happy with.

 

[nvhunter]

Mostly against. Some areas can stand the increase, others not so much.

goatroper....i think you are full of *hit when it comes to the Jr tags. They all dont just go "blasting away at the first legal deer they come across". My son...2 shots = 2 deer. The Jr hunts are a great thing and nothing needs to be changed with them, other than maybe a few more tags. I have never experienced a "cluster fux" involving a Jr hunter....on the other hand i have seen a few with grown up hunters....they are worse then any 12 yo i have EVER seen!!

 

[velvetfvr]

I am in the middle. Want some increase but not that much but we have to look, not all those tags will be filled and like one of the head biologists said we can't stockpile the deer because if we have a bad winter that will kill off a bunch of the deer so we can't have a lot of deer but we need some. Now for pronghorn all those suckers live in the fields so no wonder why they need a increase!

 

[Bombardeer]

I lean more towards the recs on the grounds for maintianing herd health.

I think that it should be mentioned, and I think that most would agree, that the majority of the conflict and out-cry resulting from the biologist's recs is catalyzed by the 'trophy' aspect of the sport and the fear for its compromise as a result of a higher quota.

Everyone, including myself, without a doubt would like to see more 'Monster Muleys' roaming the planet, but in light of the recs, along with the rational, even if approved, I strongly believe that the trophy quality and quantity will not be significantly compromised, if at all, as a result. I'm near positive that we will see plenty of Monster Muley photos from Nevada posted on this website, in magazines, on the NDOW success photo website, and the walls of flame at Sportsmans' and Cabela's, for years to come.

 

[NVguide]

I'm agianst. If there are that many people out there that need to shoot a two point every year then we need to look at managing some units for more opportunity, and keep the quotas more reserved in others to try and satistify the trophy aspect. None of the winter ranges in the South eastern part of the state have deer dying because there winter range is gone. And Bombardeer, there will most likely be quite a few big buck photos this year, but after they kill a good majority of the one,two and three year old bucks I wonder what the big buck photo's will look like in three to five years when we can see the hole these quotas left in the age class. The only other thing that I think will be a big negative impact, will be the quality of hunt when along with 840 early rifle buck tags you have 250 cow hunters and 200 junior tags all out holding hands doing a drive across the entire unit group.

 

[Bombardeer]

LAST EDITED ON May-07-12 AT 04:06PM (MST)[p]"there will most likely be quite a few big buck photos this year, but after they kill a good majority of the one,two and three year old bucks I wonder what the big buck photo's will look like in three to five years when we can see the hole these quotas left in the age class."

Yeah, time will tell. But during the so called "hay-days" of the 1980's, when we experience an outstanding deer population peak, and folks shot a lot of big bucks, the state had quotas that are within reason and comparative to the recommendations of today in proportion to the overall state deer population. Furthermore, the state population has experience a growth and higher rate of winter survival over the past two years, the comission undercut the recs last season by about 25% and eliminated doe hunts which allowed even more carry over, the buck/doe ratios today are higher than what we had during the 1980's, and evident of the % success the majority of folks don't shoot a buck. When combining these elements described above it becomes difficult to believe that we will see a compromise in the average quality and the number of quality bucks in future years as a result of today's quota recommendations if honored.

"The only other thing that I think will be a big negative impact, will be the quality of hunt when along with 840 early rifle buck tags you have 250 cow hunters and 200 junior tags all out holding hands doing a drive across the entire unit group."

I know it sounds goofy, but I believe that the health of the herds out weights the fear for potential social conflict on the mountain....particularly in Northern Nevada where transition and winter ranges dictate deer densities. Without these management strategies we aim to employ today, we could have fewer deer, let alone the number of trophies, in the future.

 

[NVguide]

LAST EDITED ON May-07-12 AT 09:28PM (MST)[p]I understand that arguement, but I think that theory holds more weight if a herd is approaching or at carrying capacity, or some other major herd limiting factor, but the overall deer numbers have been so low over here the last 5 or 6 years I do not see any kind of conflict or over use on any of our transition or winter ranges. I can not speak for the units in northern Nevada as I have not been up there, but crowding these units in eastern/southeastern Nevada will be disasterous. I believe success rates will drop from 40 percent to the high 20's. And I gaurentee you the 4-point or better will drop dramatically.

 

[Bombardeer]

"I believe success rates will drop from 40 percent to the high 20's. And I gaurentee you the 4-point or better will drop dramatically."

You want to put a $50 Cabela's card on those predicted numbers?

 

[elkguide]

Everyone I hear that says they are for it, says there is science behind the increase of the quotas, but also hear we are worried about the deer here in Area 6 getting to the burned winter range and just dying. I don't know about you but I don't believe the animals will get to the winter range and just stay there and die, not much science behind that idea, these are wild animals not range cows or sheep that have no wild instinct to survive. I do agree that there has to be some increase in tags but not a more that double the amount in one year, I hunted in area 6 last year and didn't see that many does with fawns where I was hunting. Would be nice if we could try this science in a couple of the units for a couple of years before trying it on the deer herd in the whole state. One thing I find interesting is that the quota numbers for some of the units in the Reno area don't have near the increase that the units in the eastern half of the state did.

 

[Bombardeer]

LAST EDITED ON May-11-12 AT 06:28PM (MST)[p]I'm assuming that when you state "science" you are referring to the studied elements of wildlife ecology and conservation biology. If so, then yes 'science' supports the quota recommendations, but only partially.

The validation through 'science' includes the analysis of annual herd trends and population dynamics, as well as the analysis and modeling of collected herd data. However, the buck:doe ratios set for the state were influenced by you and I the sportsmen a while back, which were also validated as likely ecologically adequate by biologists. When you combine the analysis results with the set ratios it enables biologists to make the conclusion that our deer herds can support a higher tag quota. They do the same thing each year....we just so happen to have a lot more deer throughout the state this year.

Additionally, 'science' has shown, through multiple research efforts, that deer do follow the same migration corridors with little or no deviation each year when weather forces them to migrate. Furthermore, 'science' has shown that transition and winter range degradation, whether it be as result of human development, or as a result of fire (such as the Dunphy Hills fire back in the late 1990's - once a highly depended upon by area 6 herd), or both (such as the case of the Sierra front winter ranges, which were bladed, graded, and developed as suburbs and then burned over the past few years), do in fact result in evident decreases in herd densities.

History has shown, evident of the Marsh Creek Bench (transition zone) die off in Independence valley (which burned and a lot of deer died as an indirect result of the fire), and studies have shown, using collard deer, that muleys will go to their winter range and will parish as a result of starvation if the carrying capacity has been abruptly reduced in a significant manner. However, you are always welcome to believe what you would like, whether it is backed by facts or not.

So, as you may feel that it would be nice to "try this science in a couple of the units for a couple of years before trying it on the deer herd in the whole state," it is completely unnecessary as there is plenty of history and research that make it evident as to what does and doesn't work for deer management.

Wildlife ecology and conservation biology may not be precise or spot-on sciences, but I'll side with ball park estimates backed and supported by evidence through historic events and research results before I'll side with unsupported theories and self proclaimed mule deer management experts.