How accurate are deer counts?

schoolhousegrizz

Very Active Member
Messages
2,570
Does anybody know the exact method of how they are counting the deer on our units? I've heard they just count an area during the rut after the hunts that has deer on it and then compute that density across the whole unit. I really really hope that's not true. There are lots of areas void of deer, if that is the model they need to change it about 40 years ago. If any biologist are on this website please speak up and inform us.
 
I don't think the counts are accurate either. However, what do they have to benefit from lying about the numbers? If it's money, they could up the price of the tags and make up the difference.
 
Yeah it does make me worry a bit. Seems like most groups only saw a couple bucks and most of them shot one or both of those bucks they saw. Our equipment and technology is so deadly that if a buck is under 400 yards away it's pretty much dead even from a novice hunter.
 
Imo most of the general deer hunt units, least ways the ones I'm familiar with are way beyond any short term repair to the deer herd...heck even many of our limited entry units suck considering how long you have to wait to draw a tag...and I don't see things changing anytime soon unless the udwr change their ways of managing our mule deer herds...and our deer counts on all then general units are a joke...
 
Agreed about the only choice left for them is to shut these units down to have any chance to recover
This would only artificially make it look like the "herd" size increases. Getting more bucks on the landscape just takes resources away from does and fawns. Especially in drought years, hunting bucks can actually free resources up so does and fawns can then use them and help grow the herd.

I've never talked to a single rancher that if they wanted to increase their herd size, would go out and buy a bunch of males. It literally makes zero sense. All they'd end up doing is feeding a bunch of males to do nothing. The best way to increase herd size of anything is to get more females.

Yes you do need enough males to cover the females, but no unit in Utah has reached a buck to doe ratio that is low enough that does getting covered is a concern.

To grow deer herds, the focus should be on habitat, water, roadkill, and predators.
 
The count says there are enough bucks to cover the females. What do the sportsmen who are on the ground think?
Call the Cedar DWR office and get the biologists number for the units you want to know about and go out with them and do counts. Its a great experience and you can get to know that they aren't some crooked evil people. Every one of them is also a sportsman and really care about the deer herds as well.
 
The count is a wild guess. It is true that shooting bucks does not grow females if there are still enough bucks to get around. But, neither does depredation tags grow females or land owner permits, or hunting pressure from August through November so deer go into the winter run down and skinny, or predator kill. Regardless the reason and there are many, changes have to be made. Shutting down some of these units and working on these problems seems better than carrying on the same way and watching the herd sink to this level.
 
Does anybody know the exact method of how they are counting the deer on our units? I've heard they just count an area during the rut after the hunts that has deer on it and then compute that density across the whole unit. I really really hope that's not true. There are lots of areas void of deer, if that is the model they need to change it about 40 years ago. If any biologist are on this website please speak up and inform us.
The following is from the state wide mule deer plan that I got from the DWR website. I'll also try to attach a link to a power point that can be found on the website as well. If that doesn't work, you can type in "deer elk classification" in the search bar on the DWR's website it should come up as one of the results.


"D. Herd Monitoring Population sex and age composition for mule deer is determined through the use of postseason ground classification counts. On each unit, annual ground classification counts are conducted shortly after the general-season hunts (typically between November 15 and January 15) when mule deer are concentrated on winter range and bucks are in peak rut. Data are collected on representative areas throughout each unit and biologists attempt to classify a minimum of 400 does on each unit. Classification data are used to determine annual production and survival of young to 6-months old (fawn-to-doe ratios), to assess if herds are meeting their buck-to-doe objectives, and as input data for population models. In addition to classification data, the Division also monitors survival and cause-specific mortality on 7 representative units across the state. Adult female survival has been shown to have the most influence on population growth, whereas fawn survival, although less influential, shows considerable temporal variation (White and Bartmann 1998, Gaillard et al. 2000). Beginning in 2009, survival data were collected using VHF radio collars on a sample of adult does and female fawns. This provided good estimates of overwinter and annual survival, but little information on timing and cause of mortality. In 2014, the Division switched from using VHF collars to satellite-GPS collar, which greatly improved the quantity and quality of data collected. The GPS collars send an email when they switch to mortality mode, enabling biologists to determine the timing and likely cause of mortality for each deer. Over the 10-year survival monitoring period, statewide adult female survival has averaged 83% (range 79-86%), whereas fawn survival has averaged 61% (range 30-82%, Table 4). During the 5 years of monitoring cause-specific mortality, 44% died due to predation, 19% due to malnutrition, 6% from vehicle collisions, 8% other causes, and 23% to unknown causes (Table 5). By understanding the extent and main sources of mortality, we are able to determine the likely limiting factors for each population and develop management actions to address those factors. In 2014 the Division also began monitoring nutritional condition of mule deer entering winter using a combination of ultrasonography and palpation (Cook et al. 2010). Nutrition and the resultant nutritional condition can have substantial effects on virtually every aspect of physiology and productivity of animals (Cook 2002), and nutritional deficiencies can affect reproduction, growth and development, and survival (Gaillard et al. 2000, Cook et al. 2004, Parker et al. 2009). In addition to impacts on demography, deer in good body condition produce fawns that have the potential to grow larger antlers than females in poor body condition (Freeman et al. 2013). By knowing when and where nutrition is limiting mule deer populations, habitat treatment projects and other management actions can be implemented to improve population performance."
 
The count is a wild guess. It is true that shooting bucks does not grow females if there are still enough bucks to get around. But, neither does depredation tags grow females or land owner permits, or hunting pressure from August through November so deer go into the winter run down and skinny, or predator kill. Regardless the reason and there are many, changes have to be made. Shutting down some of these units and working on these problems seems better than carrying on the same way and watching the herd sink to this level.
Depredation is a hard issue. What are they supposed to do with deer that live in farmer's fields year round and the farmer wants them gone? The deer literally don't know that mountains exist. Those deer don't benefit anybody.

Hunting pressure definitely could cause some stress, so stopping hunting would help that, but it'd have to be all hunting that happens on the unit deer, elk, bears, cougars, bears, upland game etc to make much of a difference.

What other changes do you feel like should be made? I'd love to hear your ideas!
 
Last edited:
The first step is to get a more accurate counting system so that we have a better idea of the actual numbers. We all know that the amount of deer being stated is greatly inflated. I think once the more accurate numbers are owned up to, about the only choice will be to shut units down and then begin to provide the necessary remedies needed. It sounds like even the units considered better off are heading in the wrong direction (Pine Valley).
 
I think the biologists do care about the deer herd and you think they'd be honest about the counts. I would really love to talk to one and see what they think about the counts. If the counts are wrong then own up to it and change it, goodness it should not be that hard.
 
The problem seems to be so few bucks that groups of does never get bred during the rut. Thus the lack of population gain.
Its sad when you can go out during peak rut and see groups of does in mid elevation areas with only yearling bucks or no bucks with them.
Yet the current counts say there isn't a unit in Utah with less than 14 bucks per 100 does.

Its dismal across the West and not just a Utah issue.
 
The problem seems to be so few bucks that groups of does never get bred during the rut. Thus the lack of population gain.
Its sad when you can go out during peak rut and see groups of does in mid elevation areas with only yearling bucks or no bucks with them.
Yet the current counts say there isn't a unit in Utah with less than 14 bucks per 100 does.

Its dismal across the West and not just a Utah issue.
In all the fawn studies they've done in Utah, which was hundreds of does captured on the Monroe, Cache, and Book Cliffs over 4 years in each unit. Pregnancy was always in the mid 90's% for pregnancy rate with buck/doe ratios as low as 12/100. They did ultrasounds and blood tests to test for pregnancy. There's been no evidence that there aren't enough bucks to breed does. Sure maybe a doe here and there, but a sample size of over 1000 says that it isn't a problem.

Really spending time with the biologists is great. Ask them all your questions and go out and see what it is they do. Its well worth the time. I've learned tons. Deer captures are coming up and those are super fun to go to and you can ask questions while you're at it.
 
Why in the 50's, 60s, 70s and even the 80s, we had more bucks, more does and more fawn, same feed, same bad weather, and even more hunters, we didn't shoot two points or spike, now they kill any thing that has horns, why not try going to three point or better, five day hunt, on muzzle and rifle hunt, fifteen days on archery, no Doe hunts, try this on units that are in bad shape, like the Beaver, MT Dutton, Monroe and others
 
Cutting more buck tags isn't the answer. Killing predators, improving habitat, keeping them off the hwys will increase herd size. Mother nature can help with good moisture, wet but not brutal winters. Plenty of bucks to breed, going back to 1x muzzy scopes and limiting long range rifles would help your bucks age.
 
So Big Stiff?

You a StickFlipper?

Cutting more buck tags isn't the answer. Killing predators, improving habitat, keeping them off the hwys will increase herd size. Mother nature can help with good moisture, wet but not brutal winters. Plenty of bucks to breed, going back to 1x muzzy scopes and limiting long range rifles would help your bucks age.
 
Cutting more tags will indeed help. If you kill to many bucks you are left with not enough to get around to all the doe or they get to them way late in the season. You are right dogvalleymule, we are chasing these animals from August through December. Even though we don’t shoot doe, they run and are chased and harassed all during this time. And you wonder why they go into the winter months in such poor shape. As far as habitat, I have seen areas that flourish with bitterbrush. Trouble is no deer to eat it. I talked to a guy who drives hwy 20 5 days a week early mornings and never saw a deer all winter long. That is just not normal for this area and many others. This has been happening over the course of several years even before the drought. I am afraid it is beyond repair. And what has happened to areas that are beyond repair? We have several units that are in awful shape. Be interesting to see the next move. But continuing to hunt them they way we are now is not turning the herd in the right direction.
 
Cutting more tags will indeed help. If you kill to many bucks you are left with not enough to get around to all the doe or they get to them way late in the season. You are right dogvalleymule, we are chasing these animals from August through December. Even though we don’t shoot doe, they run and are chased and harassed all during this time. And you wonder why they go into the winter months in such poor shape. As far as habitat, I have seen areas that flourish with bitterbrush. Trouble is no deer to eat it. I talked to a guy who drives hwy 20 5 days a week early mornings and never saw a deer all winter long. That is just not normal for this area and many others. This has been happening over the course of several years even before the drought. I am afraid it is beyond repair. And what has happened to areas that are beyond repair? We have several units that are in awful shape. Be interesting to see the next move. But continuing to hunt them they way we are now is not turning the herd in the right direction.
Does are getting bred, just not enough does getting bred. Tag cuts will save a few bucks, but not grow numbers.
 
Does are getting bred, just not enough does getting bred. Tag cuts will save a few bucks, but not grow numbers.
I love the “cutting tag numbers” doesn’t help excuse…. Drive Diamond Mtn. from east to west and count doe numbers… Then cross the boundary fence to the west into south slope and count doe numbers… Then tell us what your thoughts are…
 
Winters, predation, and road kill make or break our deer herds. We can have a big impact on 2 of the 3 things. Hard to bounce back when numbers are so dismal. Predators are a huge factor. Too many lions, yotes, bears, and eagles around, and not enough deer to feed them. If a doe can have 2-3 fawns without predators wiping them out, a herd can grow pretty fast. As long as Mother Nature cooperates.
 
I love the “cutting tag numbers” doesn’t help excuse…. Drive Diamond Mtn. from east to west and count doe numbers… Then cross the boundary fence to the west into south slope and count doe numbers… Then tell us what your thoughts are…
That's stupid. Diamond Mountain is full of private sanctuaries. No comparison.
 
I love the “cutting tag numbers” doesn’t help excuse…. Drive Diamond Mtn. from east to west and count doe numbers… Then cross the boundary fence to the west into south slope and count doe numbers… Then tell us what your thoughts are…
Bucks can not and never will have fawns. Its not an excuse, its literally how it works. Again, there is zero real evidence of any place in Utah that has so few bucks that does aren't getting bred. I'll take thousands of real pregnancy blood tests and ultrasounds over a keyboard warriors "well I think this" anyday. Every extra buck on the landscape that isn't necessary to make sure does are bred, is competing for resources does and fawns could be using. Because bucks are bigger bodied, they win that fight every time.



That's stupid. Diamond Mountain is full of private sanctuaries. No comparison.

He's got a point. Diamond Mountain is private because its the best land on the mountain. You go west of the boundary and get into lodgepole pines and worse habitat. Add to that all the pressure animals experience on a general season unit, of course they will move into the area with less pressure and lots of private. The comparison shouldn't be how many deer are in each spot, but how many fawns are the deer in each spot raising.

This is the fawn/doe ratio's from the annual reports going back to 2010. If South Slope really was having problems with does getting bred the number of fawns per 100 does should be way lower than Diamond Mt right? Its not. They stay close together. Some years one is a little higher than the other and that switches back and forth, but they stay relatively close to each other even though the buck/doe ratios on those units are very different.

fawndoeratio.JPG
 
Cutting tags would increase buck quality. The better General units have a buck to doe ratio of 18-20:100, LE's about 35:100(bookcliffs, Vernon, oak Creek, etc.) and premium LE's (Henry's, pauns) about 50:100. That is all the evidence you need to know that raising the buck to doe ratio by cutting tags would add more mature bucks. Yes, I agree it will not grow The herd much. How about a compromise and go 22 to 24 bucks for 100 does. Hunter satisfaction is about seeing bucks, not 100 does. We need more predator control and some help from mother nature.
 
I think some “big fly” are missing the point. Don’t you find it interesting that cwmu’s and limited entry hunts deal with the same issues many general season units deal with. Example: The area between coalville-Evanston-smith and morehouse would be as pathetic as everywhere else in the state if it wasn’t entirely private and managed according. The only difference is tag numbers. That area has some of the best deer hunting in the state. Can’t place all blame on the roadkill, predators, winters, elk encroachment, bucks eating the feed that does and fawns would be, habitat, or any other excuse you want to make for the DWR and their piss poor management. Although I do agree those are some big factors. But we can do a much better job managing our deer herds. Objective’s are a joke, 16-20 bucks per 100 is pathetic, and there is no way in hell I believe the DWR herd counts are even remotely close to accurate, IMO.
 
I keep saying until the truth comes out of how many deer are really in a unit, nothing will be accomplished. No way these deer numbers are right. A year ago they were saying more deer than ever in the state, no it is the drought has killed them all in one year. Let’s start with getting the numbers right.
 
I guess you could manage it like a CWMU and get to hunt every 10 years. I watched 3 trucks drive by a group of 9 bucks last night. The bucks were 1 ridge from the road the trucks were on with not a care in the world. I couldn't tell for sure but one of the pumpkins in the truck looked just like Tikka. The other two I'm sure are on here whining about not seeing any bucks from their truck window.
 
Why in the 50's, 60s, 70s and even the 80s, we had more bucks, more does and more fawn, same feed, same bad weather, and even more hunters, we didn't shoot two points or spike, now they kill any thing that has horns, why not try going to three point or better, five day hunt, on muzzle and rifle hunt, fifteen days on archery, no Doe hunts, try this on units that are in bad shape, like the Beaver, MT Dutton, Monroe and others
IMO it had more to do with predator removal. Up into the 80s and early 90s we were living on the coattails of 1080 use.
 
I guess you could manage it like a CWMU and get to hunt every 10 years. I watched 3 trucks drive by a group of 9 bucks last night. The bucks were 1 ridge from the road the trucks were on with not a care in the world. I couldn't tell for sure but one of the pumpkins in the truck looked just like Tikka. The other two I'm sure are on here whining about not seeing any bucks from their truck window.
That’s a pretty good story Bigwiffy, if you were in Idaho then it’s true… other than that, keep spewing BullSh!t!!!
 
Depredation is a hard issue. What are they supposed to do with deer that live in farmer's fields year round and the farmer wants them gone? The deer literally don't know that mountains exist. Those deer don't benefit anybody.

Hunting pressure definitely could cause some stress, so stopping hunting would help that, but it'd have to be all hunting that happens on the unit deer, elk, bears, cougars, bears, upland game etc to make much of a difference.

What other changes do you feel like should be made? I'd love to hear your ideas!
The farmer probably ought to fence the deer out. I believe a lot of Utah is a fence out rule.
 
Here you go guys. We went through this in another post but thought I would bring it up again:


Many experts are now citing the number one threat to mule deer in many parts of the West isn’t carnivores, development, or disease. Rather, it’s a tiny little plant, thinner than a toothpick and much more delicate, but very tenacious. You probably have heard of cheatgrass by now, maybe even felt its seeds dig into your ankles while hunting in sagebrush country. This wimpy-looking exotic grass from Eurasia doesn’t look like much of a threat, at least at first glance, to the mule deer we pursue each autumn. But make no mistake, this invasive grass packs a nasty punch to sagebrush habitat.

The Fire & Invasives Cycle: It’s Vicious​

Mule deer rely on sagebrush landscapes for much of their lives, and especially in the winter. The problem is that vast swaths of this habitat are going up in smoke every year with wildfires that are increasingly devastating in their size, frequency, and intensity. This is due in large part to a vicious cycle of fires burning slow-growing sagebrush, followed by quick-growing invasive grasses filling in the void. This can then result in the landscape reburning on those tinder-dry fine fuels, making an area much more susceptible to more fire and facilitating the spread of more cheatgrass and, over time, the elimination of the sagebrush.
 
If you live or hunt in an area in Utah with cheatgrass I can pretty much guarantee this invasive weed is impacting the native forbs and shrubs. We are finding that getting rid of dense cheatgrass thatch and monocultures dramatically increases native forbs and shrubs that mule deer rely on. It also decreases the vicious cycle of higher frequency and intensity of wild fires that is so devistating to mule deer habitat. If you want healthier does and fawns....and possibly better antler growth talk your land managers into trying cheatgrass control!
 
The South Slope Yellowstone Unit Should Be An Easy Count!

They Could Use Their Fingers & Toes on One Biologist To Count The Whole Herd Number!

It's Past Pitiful!
 
43 posts and I've yet to see any actual suggestions on improving the counts.
If you don't agree with the current methods and models, you need to propose a better solution. If it passes muster there is no reason to not adopt it.
 
I have heard lots of suggestions. Starting with close these units Down for a few years, making seasons shorter so as not to stress deer so much going into the winter. Get a accurate deer count so we really know what we are dealing with, not relying on some formula. No more depredation tags killing off the doe. My hell we don’t have any deer, so why kill more off every year. Be more aggressive in decrease of predators. 3 point or better buck hunts to make sure some bucks are alive every year to get around to all the doe and increase buck to doe ratio to 22-25 per hundred. Regardless the reason why the deer numbers are so low, the dwr closed other units when they got to this point.
 
Your post is a suggestion on how to fix the population. Not on how to improve the accuracy of the numbers. But thanks anyway.
 
I like that idea. Problem is, if we actually did that, then it would shed light on how dismal the deer herd actually is. DWR, or the state of Utah doesn’t want real numbers out. They wouldn’t be able to manipulate the numbers, and sell more tags that way. This is hugely money driven. Plus it makes way too much sense to actually go out and count numbers, rather than just graph something up.
 
Ya they do not want us out counting actual numbers because it really show actual deer numbers. Those real numbers will cause to many revenue problems for them.
 
It doesn't sound something too difficult to organize outside of the DWR if you think it would be better.

Lay out some details on how this would be accomplished and how you can insure a more accurate outcome than currently available.

You want to prove the DWR wrong why expect them to spend their time and your money to prove them wrong. After all they have a lot of time and money invested in the current program.

I'm not sure the financial incentive of tag sales is a valid argument. Much easier to raise the price of tags to make up lost revenue from tag cuts. There seems to still be plenty of demand despite the poor reports.
 
The modeling Utah DWR uses is the same one Colorado uses and has proven to be the most accurate when compared against expensive aerial flight surveys. This is about as good as it gets for modeling, so quite accurate but yes some shortfalls could happen. The alternative is super expensive satellite radio collaring and aerial flight surveys which the DWR cannot afford on every unit but they do rotate some of these radio collaring and aerial flight surveys around to various herds to compile the most accurate data they can. Stopping a hunt won’t increase herd numbers. The only way to do that is doe harvest and allowing more does/fawns to survive. Many studies have shown with as low as 10 bucks per 100 does the does will still get bred. Going limited quota in more areas is a terrible idea as it reduces hunter opportunity. Antler width restrictions like Texas is successfully utilizing have proven effective and better than antler point restrictions. Texas uses a 20 inch minimum width in order to harvest so just inside the ears when fully stretched outward on an adult mule deer is 22 inches. This will improve the buck to doe ratios and limit buck harvest. Radio collar surveys in the Wyoming Range are showing the bigger problem with deer herds are young fawns being born are only making it to the winter range at about the 50% mark so half of all newborn fawns don’t even make it to the rutting areas in November. The causes vary from year to year but have been equally accessed to 3 major causes, predation, nutrition and disease. Cheatgrass explosion and elk herds way above objective are also primary contributing factors to the nutrition surveys. As elk herds have exploded across the Western states the mule deer herds have imploded. What can we do as hunters? The best solutions for hunters are to volunteer for cheatgrass sprays and habitat enhancement projects, kill lots of cow elk and predators and volunteer on water enhancement projects. Limiting hunters or going limited quota is a death to the sport and will only cause more youth hunters to drop out, something we can’t afford.
 
The Beaver does not have 1200 deer let alone 12,000. How expensive could it be to use volunteer and dedicated hunter hours to get out on foot and get an accurate count. I know that many on here care enough about the deer herd to volunteer time to get a more accurate count.
 
The Beaver does not have 1200 deer let alone 12,000. How expensive could it be to use volunteer and dedicated hunter hours to get out on foot and get an accurate count. I know that many on here care enough about the deer herd to volunteer time to get a more accurate count.
Because counting deer from the ground is the worst way to try and get an accurate count. There's a reason its not done anywhere in the western states.
 
Because counting deer from the ground is the worst way to try and get an accurate count. There's a reason its not done anywhere in the western states.
Aaah c'mon man.

Just grab a calculator, get in a line, move forward & start counting. Just be sure to shoot each one with a paintball after counting to avoid duplication. It's then a simple matter to add all the results off everyone's calculator. :rolleyes:

P.S. -- You're fighting a losing battle. ;)
 
Last edited:
43 posts and I've yet to see any actual suggestions on improving the counts.
If you don't agree with the current methods and models, you need to propose a better solution. If it passes muster there is no reason to not adopt it.


Here's one. Check odometers.

The DWR officer in my unit, RARELY leaves his house. Opening morning he was home at 9.

My city pit gps units on city trucks, put them on DWR trucks. Hard to count, sitting at home on rifle opener, watching Netflix.
 
Here's one. Check odometers.

The DWR officer in my unit, RARELY leaves his house. Opening morning he was home at 9.

My city pit gps units on city trucks, put them on DWR trucks. Hard to count, sitting at home on rifle opener, watching Netflix.
Yes that works too.
I know I'm the exception but I see DWR trucks with surprising regularity while out and about.

Should they be logging sightings all year long or just at certain times while out and about?

Do they actually see more deer if they are out on the opener? Does it make a difference?

Do check stations make a difference? How about mandatory reporting? Does any of it improve the accuracy of the numbers?

I'm sorry I don't have the answers. But I'm willing to listen to suggestions.
 
Somday200 says counting deer from the ground is the worst way. That leaves counting them from the air or not counting them at all. I would say either of those two have not panned out so well.
 
Somday200 says counting deer from the ground is the worst way. That leaves counting them from the air or not counting them at all. I would say either of those two have not panned out so well.
I did misspeak. Counting from the ground isn’t “the worst” way, but it’s not a good way. Way too many animals get missed because there’s no way to cover a whole unit that way and deer aren’t easy to find. If it were that easy to find deer then no deer hunt would need to be longer than a day. Any count that takes multiple days to complete runs the risk of double counting animals because they move around a lot. There’s a reason they use classification data and population models. Tons of research around the world has gone into how best to estimate population numbers of animals. What they’re doing is one of the best ways that have been found to affordably do it.

That being said, I think using infrared technology from a plane during winter might be the best way to get a “count”. I have no clue how much that would costs, but it can’t be cheap. It’s probably something a bunch of hunters could coordinate and pool enough money to do and then compare to what population estimates from the DWR are. Just a thought.
 
Does anybody know the exact method of how they are counting the deer on our units? I've heard they just count an area during the rut after the hunts that has deer on it and then compute that density across the whole unit. I really really hope that's not true. There are lots of areas void of deer, if that is the model they need to change it about 40 years ago. If any biologist are on this website please speak up and inform us.

To get to the meat of what your question was. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. They estimate the population using population models that use several key collected data points. I shared some info on that in post #12 if you want to go back and look at that.

I know that for several people that have commented on this thread, what I'm going to write below will mean nothing and will not help their understanding at all, but hopefully to somebody out there it will be informative. Hold on to your butts cause this is about to get wild and technical.

During November/December the biologist classify deer. They count how many bucks, does, and fawns they see. That isn’t to try and count how many are on the unit, but to get buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios and fawn/adult ratios. The total number they count is irrelevant as long as they get a big enough sample size. The ratios are important because that’s part of calculating the growth rate of the population for that year. After the hunts are over, they get hunters surveys back so they know how many animals were harvested. They calculate survival rates from the does and fawns they have collared around the state. Once they have all the data, they run population models on a computer. I’m not a mathematician so I don’t understand the details of that. (Also here’s a plug for spending time with your local biologist to ask them this stuff!). The models kinda work backward using the data collected. Using the survival rate of does and fawns, growth rate, harvest data and the ratios of bucks/does and fawns/does for the last couple years, the models estimate how many animals are out there for that unit in order for all the data points to be true. The models use many years of data to estimate what a single year’s population estimate is.

I don’t know how to write a perfect example, but here’s the basic idea. If you harvest around 500 bucks from a unit multiple years in row, and at the end of the hunts the buck/doe ratio is still whatever number. You can infer that there’s enough females to produce 500 surplus bucks each year. The bucks don’t come from thin air. If you have the number of bucks harvested over multiple years and know the buck/doe ratio over multiple years, you know there’s been does producing enough bucks for that harvest to happen. So the model uses the survival rates, growth rates, buck and fawn/doe ratios, from the past couples years to determine how many females it would take based on the past couple years data to have the harvest of bucks that happened over multiple years.


SOooooooooooooo lets do a basic model!!! It was stated in this thread that the Beaver doesn't even have 1200 deer on it. Lets do some rough work through that. (All the numbers I'm using are from the harvest data from the DWR's webpage and the hunt planner website and what general survival rates are for mule deer.) The buck/doe ratio has averaged 15/100 the past three years. The fawn/doe ratio was around 48/100 and the fawns/adults was 42/100 at least from the annual reports online.
So if we take 1200 deer that somebody thinks is on the unit at a 42/100 fawn/adult ratio, that would give us around 354 fawns and 846 adults. If the buck/doe ratio is 15/100, that gives us around 110 bucks and 736 does. If 60% of the fawns survive and make it through the winter (that's a really good number) and the ratio of buck fawns to doe fawns is 50/50 there will be 106 additional yearling bucks next year and 106 yearling does. Adult survival is around 85%, but lets say only 10% of our population dies. We'll lose 73 adult does and 10 of the adult bucks giving us 663 2+year old does and 100 2+year old bucks by next hunting season. Adding the 2+year olds and yearlings gives us 769 adult does, and 206 adult bucks at the start of hunting seasons. The 2+year old does will have had fawns, so there will be 318 fawns with them if the ratio stays around 48/100. Our total population to start the hunting season would be 1,293. In order to end the hunting season with a buck/doe ratio of 18/100, you could only harvest 68 bucks.
In 2020, 535 bucks were harvested on the Beaver. In 2019, 745 bucks were harvested.
Do you see how there's no way that a population of 1,200 deer could produce enough bucks to have multiple years of harvesting more than 500 bucks? The Beaver has had more than 500 bucks killed on it for 10+ years. You'd have to have waaaay more females to be able to harvest 500+ bucks year after year and still have enough bucks to have a 18/100 buck/doe ratio after the hunts. If we work backwards and this is rough because its just me doing some math and I used very high survival rates for both adults and fawns, but if with 1200 deer in our model we were only able to harvest 68 bucks, then to be able to harvest the 535 bucks that were actually in fact harvested there was likely a population around 9,553. The most recent population estimate on the Beaver is 10,300. So just me and my looking up data I was able to get pretty close to what the DWR got, but they were using the exact data they've collected from classifications, harvest reports and collars to get survival rates for the does and fawns. Congrats if you've made it this far you know how to model a population and we estimated the Beavers deer population pretty close to what the DWR did.


I can’t speak to exact accuracy, but they use this method because studies done on calculating population sizes have shown it’s a relatively accurate and cost effective way to estimate populations. Any method of trying to determine a population is an estimate. Even flying in a plane because you never see every animal (they know that through mark/recapture studies, google it). So they picked a method that was they felt was the most cost effective and accurate way to estimate the population.

So there’s that and hopefully that helped answer your original question. If not, I recommend calling your nearest DWR office and asking for your local biologists number and then going out with them to classify deer and ask them whatever questions you might have about it.
 
Last edited:
Yes that works too.
I know I'm the exception but I see DWR trucks with surprising regularity while out and about.

Should they be logging sightings all year long or just at certain times while out and about?

Do they actually see more deer if they are out on the opener? Does it make a difference?

Do check stations make a difference? How about mandatory reporting? Does any of it improve the accuracy of the numbers?

I'm sorry I don't have the answers. But I'm willing to listen to suggestions.

Ya. I think knowing what is "normal" is a big deal. Unfortunately, while there are very good dwr, there are also bad. Further from SLC, less supervision.

If your not out on opening morning, pretty good chance, your not honestly counting either
 
Ya. I think knowing what is "normal" is a big deal. Unfortunately, while there are very good dwr, there are also bad. Further from SLC, less supervision.

If your not out on opening morning, pretty good chance, your not honestly counting either
They can’t start classifying until after the rifle hunt is over. There’s no reason for them to be out opening morning. You can’t count how many bucks there are before they all get killed… they have to wait to see how many made it through the hunts.
 
They can’t start classifying until after the rifle hunt is over. There’s no reason for them to be out opening morning. You can’t count how many bucks there are before they all get killed… they have to wait to see how many made it through the hunts.


There's no reason to be out on opener of rifle season? Seriously?

Your post reenforces what I said.

If they don't know where the deer are, when they are there, where they go, randomly driving around counting deer means you are most likely counting the same deer over and over, as deer are migratory.

It also means that he has no idea on the age classes killed, how many, what micro area, health, etc. All of which would be helpful in understanding what is going on.

The models are only as good as the data plugged in.

And NO ONE believes the numbers. Meaning the input is bad.
 
There's no reason to be out on opener of rifle season? Seriously?

Your post reenforces what I said.

If they don't know where the deer are, when they are there, where they go, randomly driving around counting deer means you are most likely counting the same deer over and over, as deer are migratory.

It also means that he has no idea on the age classes killed, how many, what micro area, health, etc. All of which would be helpful in understanding what is going on.

The models are only as good as the data plugged in.

And NO ONE believes the numbers. Meaning the input is bad.
You’re completely misunderstanding what they DWR does. They don’t count the deer to get a total. Yes going out on the deer hunt gets great info, but not the info that goes into a population model. Go back and read post #61. If you agree or not with what they do that’s fine, but at least take time to understand what it is they’re doing before you complain about it.

You can’t believe that one person is going to be able to contact every hunter that is out hunting opening morning across hundreds of thousands of acres? It is literally impossible. Are there things to learn? Yeah, but to make assumptions from the 50 people they are able to talk to when there are hundreds of tags doesn’t make sense. That’s why they send out harvest surveys and do check stations.

If you don’t believe the numbers, go out with a biologist and classify with them.
 
To get to the meat of what your question was. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. They estimate the population using population models that use several key collected data points. I shared some info on that in post #12 if you want to go back and look at that.

I know that for several people that have commented on this thread, what I'm going to write below will mean nothing and will not help their understanding at all, but hopefully to somebody out there it will be informative. Hold on to your butts cause this is about to get wild and technical.

During November/December the biologist classify deer. They count how many bucks, does, and fawns they see. That isn’t to try and count how many are on the unit, but to get buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios and fawn/adult ratios. The total number they count is irrelevant as long as they get a big enough sample size. The ratios are important because that’s part of calculating the growth rate of the population for that year. After the hunts are over, they get hunters surveys back so they know how many animals were harvested. They calculate survival rates from the does and fawns they have collared around the state. Once they have all the data, they run population models on a computer. I’m not a mathematician so I don’t understand the details of that. (Also here’s a plug for spending time with your local biologist to ask them this stuff!). The models kinda work backward using the data collected. Using the survival rate of does and fawns, growth rate, harvest data and the ratios of bucks/does and fawns/does for the last couple years, the models estimate how many animals are out there for that unit in order for all the data points to be true. The models use many years of data to estimate what a single year’s population estimate is.

I don’t know how to write a perfect example, but here’s the basic idea. If you harvest around 500 bucks from a unit multiple years in row, and at the end of the hunts the buck/doe ratio is still whatever number. You can infer that there’s enough females to produce 500 surplus bucks each year. The bucks don’t come from thin air. If you have the number of bucks harvested over multiple years and know the buck/doe ratio over multiple years, you know there’s been does producing enough bucks for that harvest to happen. So the model uses the survival rates, growth rates, buck and fawn/doe ratios, from the past couples years to determine how many females it would take based on the past couple years data to have the harvest of bucks that happened over multiple years.


SOooooooooooooo lets do a basic model!!! It was stated in this thread that the Beaver doesn't even have 1200 deer on it. Lets do some rough work through that. (All the numbers I'm using are from the harvest data from the DWR's webpage and the hunt planner website and what general survival rates are for mule deer.) The buck/doe ratio has averaged 15/100 the past three years. The fawn/doe ratio was around 48/100 and the fawns/adults was 42/100 at least from the annual reports online.
So if we take 1200 deer that somebody thinks is on the unit at a 42/100 fawn/adult ratio, that would give us around 354 fawns and 846 adults. If the buck/doe ratio is 15/100, that gives us around 110 bucks and 736 does. If 60% of the fawns survive and make it through the winter (that's a really good number) and the ratio of buck fawns to doe fawns is 50/50 there will be 106 additional yearling bucks next year and 106 yearling does. Adult survival is around 85%, but lets say only 10% of our population dies. We'll lose 73 adult does and 10 of the adult bucks giving us 663 2+year old does and 100 2+year old bucks by next hunting season. Adding the 2+year olds and yearlings gives us 769 adult does, and 206 adult bucks at the start of hunting seasons. The 2+year old does will have had fawns, so there will be 318 fawns with them if the ratio stays around 48/100. Our total population to start the hunting season would be 1,293. In order to end the hunting season with a buck/doe ratio of 18/100, you could only harvest 68 bucks.
In 2020, 535 bucks were harvested on the Beaver. In 2019, 745 bucks were harvested.
Do you see how there's no way that a population of 1,200 deer could produce enough bucks to have multiple years of harvesting more than 500 bucks? The Beaver has had more than 500 bucks killed on it for 10+ years. You'd have to have waaaay more females to be able to harvest 500+ bucks year after year and still have enough bucks to have a 18/100 buck/doe ratio after the hunts. If we work backwards and this is rough because its just me doing some math and I used very high survival rates for both adults and fawns, but if with 1200 deer in our model we were only able to harvest 68 bucks, then to be able to harvest the 535 bucks that were actually in fact harvested there was likely a population around 9,553. The most recent population estimate on the Beaver is 10,300. So just me and my looking up data I was able to get pretty close to what the DWR got, but they were using the exact data they've collected from classifications, harvest reports and collars to get survival rates for the does and fawns. Congrats if you've made it this far you know how to model a population and we estimated the Beavers deer population pretty close to what the DWR did.


I can’t speak to exact accuracy, but they use this method because studies done on calculating population sizes have shown it’s a relatively accurate and cost effective way to estimate populations. Any method of trying to determine a population is an estimate. Even flying in a plane because you never see every animal (they know that through mark/recapture studies, google it). So they picked a method that was they felt was the most cost effective and accurate way to estimate the population.

So there’s that and hopefully that helped answer your original question. If not, I recommend calling your nearest DWR office and asking for your local biologists number and then going out with them to classify deer and ask them whatever questions you might have about it.
Well done.

10s.gif
 
I have friends who hunt all areas of the Beaver unit. None of them have seen more than a buck or two killed. If there are 500 bucks being killed on the Beaver unit every year, my friends and I who have decades of experience and knowledge of the Beaver unit need a little direction. As one DWR officer told me. The deer are still out there you just need to find them. Hopefully some of these 500 successful hunters will help a few of us poor old hunters out and tell us where all these bucks and deer are.
 
You’re completely misunderstanding what they DWR does. They don’t count the deer to get a total. Yes going out on the deer hunt gets great info, but not the info that goes into a population model. Go back and read post #61. If you agree or not with what they do that’s fine, but at least take time to understand what it is they’re doing before you complain about it.

You can’t believe that one person is going to be able to contact every hunter that is out hunting opening morning across hundreds of thousands of acres? It is literally impossible. Are there things to learn? Yeah, but to make assumptions from the 50 people they are able to talk to when there are hundreds of tags doesn’t make sense. That’s why they send out harvest surveys and do check stations.

If you don’t believe the numbers, go out with a biologist and classify with them.


Nearest check station is 75 miles away. I've never seen a harvest survey on OTC tags.

And YOU miss the point.

If you are so unconcerned that everyone in a small town can see your DWR truck sitting in your shed, throughout opening weekend of the deer hunt. How concerned are you going to be on accuracy in deer counts?

And yes. There are supposed statistics and data that the DWR uses to issue tags. Among those are age class, and condition. You don't learn that hiding the truck in the shed and playing footsie with momma.

Which, is why, if your 1of 3 dwr, on one of the largest units in the state, checking the mileage is a super simply way to estimate if your doing your job.

If your counting the 3 hayfields across the road daily, but not covering the unit, your numbers are going to be inflated, since deer like hay.

The DWR is openly admitting this year they don't have a good handle on waterfowl, because Canada didn't count this year.

The same is obviously true with deer, only Jones has to use the data he's given, and hope it's good. Obviously, unless your Ray Charles, it's not.
 
Nearest check station is 75 miles away. I've never seen a harvest survey on OTC tags.

And YOU miss the point.

If you are so unconcerned that everyone in a small town can see your DWR truck sitting in your shed, throughout opening weekend of the deer hunt. How concerned are you going to be on accuracy in deer counts?

And yes. There are supposed statistics and data that the DWR uses to issue tags. Among those are age class, and condition. You don't learn that hiding the truck in the shed and playing footsie with momma.

Which, is why, if your 1of 3 dwr, on one of the largest units in the state, checking the mileage is a super simply way to estimate if your doing your job.

If your counting the 3 hayfields across the road daily, but not covering the unit, your numbers are going to be inflated, since deer like hay.

The DWR is openly admitting this year they don't have a good handle on waterfowl, because Canada didn't count this year.

The same is obviously true with deer, only Jones has to use the data he's given, and hope it's good. Obviously, unless your Ray Charles, it's not.
I've been called multiple times to report harvest info from a general season tag for myself and my family. You must be unlucky or don't answer numbers you don't know.


You're still missing it. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number! The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. They classify deer across the unit to get the ratios. Then they take the data I outlined earlier and model the population. That data is, buck/doe ratio, fawn/ratio, fawn/adults ratio, doe survival rate, fawn survival rate, and how many bucks and does are harvested. Body condition, age class, where deer are, where they migrate doesn't go into it at all. That information is important for other things and is collected, but it is not used to determine how many buck tags to offer.

They classify deer in November/December when they are in lower ranges and the bucks are with the does. NOT IN OCTOBER DURING THE RIFLE DEER HUNT! When they classify they are determining how many bucks/does and fawns/does there are. They spread where they classify over the whole unit, but it doesn't matter if the total is 400 or 1000, those ratios are still what's important and used in the model. Read post #61 for more detail on how that works.

Please spend some time learning what it is the DWR does. It is very clear you have no idea how the it works. Once you've figured out what the actual methods are, complain all you want! But at least learn enough to be able to complain the right way! That's like somebody watching a football game and complaining because the players aren't putting the ball through the hoop. Learn how it really works, then complain about it.
 
"I've been called multiple times to report harvest info from a general season tag for myself and my family. You must be unlucky or don't answer numbers you don't know."

I'm with Hoss on this, never ONCE have I done a survey on a general deer tag, nor my 2 boy's. nor my brother and his 3 boy's...

Weird that we're that unlucky also...
 
I've been called multiple times to report harvest info from a general season tag for myself and my family. You must be unlucky or don't answer numbers you don't know.


You're still missing it. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number! The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. They classify deer across the unit to get the ratios. Then they take the data I outlined earlier and model the population. That data is, buck/doe ratio, fawn/ratio, fawn/adults ratio, doe survival rate, fawn survival rate, and how many bucks and does are harvested. Body condition, age class, where deer are, where they migrate doesn't go into it at all. That information is important for other things and is collected, but it is not used to determine how many buck tags to offer.

They classify deer in November/December when they are in lower ranges and the bucks are with the does. NOT IN OCTOBER DURING THE RIFLE DEER HUNT! When they classify they are determining how many bucks/does and fawns/does there are. They spread where they classify over the whole unit, but it doesn't matter if the total is 400 or 1000, those ratios are still what's important and used in the model. Read post #61 for more detail on how that works.

Please spend some time learning what it is the DWR does. It is very clear you have no idea how the it works. Once you've figured out what the actual methods are, complain all you want! But at least learn enough to be able to complain the right way! That's like somebody watching a football game and complaining because the players aren't putting the ball through the hoop. Learn how it really works, then complain about it.


**** data in, **** data out.

If you sit at the house in Nov/ Dec, and make up numbers, those numbers don't mean anything.

You can keep trying to spin it. SCIENCE MODELS ARE DEPENDENT ON GOOD DATA.

If you are notorious FOR NOT DOING YOUR JOB, the numbers you post, are BS.

You can stop trying to "edummacate me". I know exactly how science modeling goes. Counting deer off your porch DOES NOT represent the entirety of the unit.

I'm not sure if your a dwr employee, but you CANNOT see the counts, and honestly believe the data going into the model is even close to accurate.

Crap in, crap out. That's how modeling works
 
Hoss what would you do if they shut down the three worst units like the Beaver, MT Dutton, Monroe, or go to a three point or better and a 5 day rifle and muzzle hunt.
 
Hoss what would you do if they shut down the three worst units like the Beaver, MT Dutton, Monroe, or go to a three point or better and a 5 day rifle and muzzle hunt.


If there is accurate data, then honest discussion can be had.

Can't have the DWR claiming huge numbers, and dudes claiming no deer
 
Thank you that was very informative. I talked to the biologist and he has invited me to come do counts with him!
To get to the meat of what your question was. The DWR does not count deer to get a population number. They estimate the population using population models that use several key collected data points. I shared some info on that in post #12 if you want to go back and look at that.

I know that for several people that have commented on this thread, what I'm going to write below will mean nothing and will not help their understanding at all, but hopefully to somebody out there it will be informative. Hold on to your butts cause this is about to get wild and technical.

During November/December the biologist classify deer. They count how many bucks, does, and fawns they see. That isn’t to try and count how many are on the unit, but to get buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios and fawn/adult ratios. The total number they count is irrelevant as long as they get a big enough sample size. The ratios are important because that’s part of calculating the growth rate of the population for that year. After the hunts are over, they get hunters surveys back so they know how many animals were harvested. They calculate survival rates from the does and fawns they have collared around the state. Once they have all the data, they run population models on a computer. I’m not a mathematician so I don’t understand the details of that. (Also here’s a plug for spending time with your local biologist to ask them this stuff!). The models kinda work backward using the data collected. Using the survival rate of does and fawns, growth rate, harvest data and the ratios of bucks/does and fawns/does for the last couple years, the models estimate how many animals are out there for that unit in order for all the data points to be true. The models use many years of data to estimate what a single year’s population estimate is.

I don’t know how to write a perfect example, but here’s the basic idea. If you harvest around 500 bucks from a unit multiple years in row, and at the end of the hunts the buck/doe ratio is still whatever number. You can infer that there’s enough females to produce 500 surplus bucks each year. The bucks don’t come from thin air. If you have the number of bucks harvested over multiple years and know the buck/doe ratio over multiple years, you know there’s been does producing enough bucks for that harvest to happen. So the model uses the survival rates, growth rates, buck and fawn/doe ratios, from the past couples years to determine how many females it would take based on the past couple years data to have the harvest of bucks that happened over multiple years.


SOooooooooooooo lets do a basic model!!! It was stated in this thread that the Beaver doesn't even have 1200 deer on it. Lets do some rough work through that. (All the numbers I'm using are from the harvest data from the DWR's webpage and the hunt planner website and what general survival rates are for mule deer.) The buck/doe ratio has averaged 15/100 the past three years. The fawn/doe ratio was around 48/100 and the fawns/adults was 42/100 at least from the annual reports online.
So if we take 1200 deer that somebody thinks is on the unit at a 42/100 fawn/adult ratio, that would give us around 354 fawns and 846 adults. If the buck/doe ratio is 15/100, that gives us around 110 bucks and 736 does. If 60% of the fawns survive and make it through the winter (that's a really good number) and the ratio of buck fawns to doe fawns is 50/50 there will be 106 additional yearling bucks next year and 106 yearling does. Adult survival is around 85%, but lets say only 10% of our population dies. We'll lose 73 adult does and 10 of the adult bucks giving us 663 2+year old does and 100 2+year old bucks by next hunting season. Adding the 2+year olds and yearlings gives us 769 adult does, and 206 adult bucks at the start of hunting seasons. The 2+year old does will have had fawns, so there will be 318 fawns with them if the ratio stays around 48/100. Our total population to start the hunting season would be 1,293. In order to end the hunting season with a buck/doe ratio of 18/100, you could only harvest 68 bucks.
In 2020, 535 bucks were harvested on the Beaver. In 2019, 745 bucks were harvested.
Do you see how there's no way that a population of 1,200 deer could produce enough bucks to have multiple years of harvesting more than 500 bucks? The Beaver has had more than 500 bucks killed on it for 10+ years. You'd have to have waaaay more females to be able to harvest 500+ bucks year after year and still have enough bucks to have a 18/100 buck/doe ratio after the hunts. If we work backwards and this is rough because its just me doing some math and I used very high survival rates for both adults and fawns, but if with 1200 deer in our model we were only able to harvest 68 bucks, then to be able to harvest the 535 bucks that were actually in fact harvested there was likely a population around 9,553. The most recent population estimate on the Beaver is 10,300. So just me and my looking up data I was able to get pretty close to what the DWR got, but they were using the exact data they've collected from classifications, harvest reports and collars to get survival rates for the does and fawns. Congrats if you've made it this far you know how to model a population and we estimated the Beavers deer population pretty close to what the DWR did.


I can’t speak to exact accuracy, but they use this method because studies done on calculating population sizes have shown it’s a relatively accurate and cost effective way to estimate populations. Any method of trying to determine a population is an estimate. Even flying in a plane because you never see every animal (they know that through mark/recapture studies, google it). So they picked a method that was they felt was the most cost effective and accurate way to estimate the population.

So there’s that and hopefully that helped answer your original question. If not, I recommend calling your nearest DWR office and asking for your local biologists number and then going out with them to classify deer and ask them whatever questions you might have about it.
 
If there is accurate data, then honest discussion can be had.

Can't have the DWR claiming huge numbers, and dudes claiming no deer
Besides getting your neighbor out and about what is your solution to accurate data?

Hard to have an honest discussion unless you have a solution to come up with what you or others deem accurate numbers.

If the models are as bad as some think it should be a no brainer to come up with alternatives.
 

BIG GAME​

  • General-season buck deer and bull elk
    Harvest reporting is voluntary for all general-season buck deer and bull elk permits. This includes general-season buck deer (archery, muzzleloader, any weapon, dedicated hunter), youth any bull elk and general-season elk (spike bull and any bull; archery, muzzleloader, any weapon). To obtain this harvest information, DWR conducts a randomized telephone/web survey of hunters each fall and winter.
 
Can somday200 or someone answer me for sure how they come up with the harvest number of 500 plus bucks killed each year on the Beaver unit?
I don’t know. I’d guess they only call a certain percentage of tag holders then extrapolate to the rest, but I don’t know for sure. I’ve had years where I got a call and years that I haven’t. I just got called yesterday for my general season archery elk tag.

I wish they’d go to e-tagging or mandatory reporting.
 
Last edited:
You want more deer? Shoot WAY more elk! They compete, flat out.

Habitat projects, roadkill prevention, farmers building fence (vs depredation tags), shorter overall hunt seasons (no more Aug-Dec) and predator management will also help.
 
The way I read this deer count or classification is that it does not necessarily matter how many deer they count. It could be 400 or 1000 but dwr takes a sample and then from that sample they plug in a fawn to doe ratio. Then they also plug in a buck to doe ratio based on how many bucks they count and by the sample survey of how many are harvested. This sample is then plugged into a model that spits out our current numbers. Remember this is all from just a sample. This sample or formula worked so well that in October of 2019 the dwr estimated 370,000 deer in Utah and more bucks on the land than ever before. Then just one month later in November of 2019 when hunters and sportsmen showed up in numbers at RAC meetings and cried bs to those numbers the DWR quickly changed their minds and said the drought for sure hurt the deer numbers. So much for the estimate and model, and why did it take hunters screaming foul before they said anything? Did they not see in the spring of 2019 that the drought had hurt the deer herd? If so they would not have printed the Article in October of that same year. My grandma had a favorite recipe I would always try to get from her. She would always say, I just add a little of this and a little of that, then taste or sample it. If it needs more of something to taste right I just add more of this or that. We are being fed a recipe for deer and buck numbers. Plug a few more ingredients into the model and suddenly we have 370k deer and more bucks than we have ever had. If needs be just plug a few more into the recipe or model. The trouble with the deer count is that adding a little of this and that is not fooling the deer hunters and sportsmen of this state. You see if it looks like crap, smells like crap and tastes like crap, it probably is crap. Wake up and make some changes before you lose all the deer in Utah.
 
You want more deer? Shoot WAY more elk! They compete, flat out.

Habitat projects, roadkill prevention, farmers building fence (vs depredation tags), shorter overall hunt seasons (no more Aug-Dec) and predator management will also help.
I believe that this is the biggest contribution to decline in many areas
 
Bring in the whitetail. I don't want to hear the BS about them running off the muleys....biggest farce there is.
 
Bring in the whitetail. I don't want to hear the BS about them running off the muleys....biggest farce there is.
They have issues also, blue tongue, EHD and 99% of the time they stay in the highly productive Ag. areas so private land issues. They are fun to hunt though and better to eat than an old desert mule deer buck. They don’t run off the Muleys they out compete them for the does thus eventually replacing the mule deer genes.
 
"I've been called multiple times to report harvest info from a general season tag for myself and my family. You must be unlucky or don't answer numbers you don't know."

I'm with Hoss on this, never ONCE have I done a survey on a general deer tag, nor my 2 boy's. nor my brother and his 3 boy's...

Weird that we're that unlucky also...
Pretty sure I get called every year I have a tag. I'm pretty successful each year, if they are calling a larger number of guys that tag out every year that is going to throw there calculations off.
 
They should also ask if you hunt private or public...there's a big difference we hunt private and are usually successful and I know if we had to hunt public on this same unit the out come would probably be different
 
Here you go guys. We went through this in another post but thought I would bring it up again:


Many experts are now citing the number one threat to mule deer in many parts of the West isn’t carnivores, development, or disease. Rather, it’s a tiny little plant, thinner than a toothpick and much more delicate, but very tenacious. You probably have heard of cheatgrass by now, maybe even felt its seeds dig into your ankles while hunting in sagebrush country. This wimpy-looking exotic grass from Eurasia doesn’t look like much of a threat, at least at first glance, to the mule deer we pursue each autumn. But make no mistake, this invasive grass packs a nasty punch to sagebrush habitat.

The Fire & Invasives Cycle: It’s Vicious​

Mule deer rely on sagebrush landscapes for much of their lives, and especially in the winter. The problem is that vast swaths of this habitat are going up in smoke every year with wildfires that are increasingly devastating in their size, frequency, and intensity. This is due in large part to a vicious cycle of fires burning slow-growing sagebrush, followed by quick-growing invasive grasses filling in the void. This can then result in the landscape reburning on those tinder-dry fine fuels, making an area much more susceptible to more fire and facilitating the spread of more cheatgrass and, over time, the elimination of the sagebrush.
The biggest danger to mule deer is undoubtably cheat grass. Any winter range safe that burns ends up as that terrible **** and never recovers. Old sage stands are dying out and being overtaken by it. Cheat grass is destroying mule deer herds, no doubts about it. So many things contribute but the habitat that’s left is being ruined by it. Predators have always been there. There’s plenty of bucks to breed the does. We aren’t killing a lot of does in the state. Development, and invasion of winter ranges by the remaining habitat are significant issues.
 
I talked to him about 2 weeks ago. He said they weren't quite ready to do the counts. In all honesty they've probably done them now and I bet I missed it. Life just gets busy and sometimes things get put on the back burner. Maybe I'll give him a call though and see if they're still going.
 
The biggest danger to mule deer is undoubtably cheat grass. Any winter range safe that burns ends up as that terrible **** and never recovers. Old sage stands are dying out and being overtaken by it. Cheat grass is destroying mule deer herds, no doubts about it. So many things contribute but the habitat that’s left is being ruined by it. Predators have always been there. There’s plenty of bucks to breed the does. We aren’t killing a lot of does in the state. Development, and invasion of winter ranges by the remaining habitat are significant issues.
I won’t disagree that Cheat Grass is a Huge concern as is the spreading of CWD. However, the largest and likely most expensive study to date on mule deer is in the Wyoming Range paints a sad picture for baby fawn survival. Virtually no doe or fawn hunting has been allowed in the Wyoming Range since 1992. Think of that, the herds have been on a downward spiral since the bad winter of 1992-93 and virtually no doe or fawn hunting has taken place in almost 30 years so something is seriously amiss. What Dr. Kevin Monteith PhD and professor at UWyo who is a treasure trove of knowledge has discovered is its fawn recruitment that’s the problem. Most of the does are pregnant and having fawns but most of them are dying in the first 120 days. The culprit varies by year and can be broken into 3 categories. 1. Disease. 2. Predation. 3. Nutrition. In 2015, disease was the leading cause of death for collared fawns and accounted for 28% of all mortalities. The most prevalent disease, adenovirus hemorrhagic disease (AHD), is a viral disease that can cause internal hemorrhaging and pulmonary edema. In 2016 it was predation which was the major factor losing 30% of all fawns to predators. In 2017, 26% of fawn mortalities were the result of stillborns. Conversely, in 2018, only 1 of the 83 fawns collared was stillborn. 2017 was a horrible winter and the does were severely stressed. The does are pregnant and having twin fawns as the birth rate is about 1.22 fawns per doe but at the end of the 120 days we are down to just .6 fawns per doe. Remember these fawns are dying on Summer feed, some of the best nutrition nature has to offer. More fawns die over winter dripping from .6 to about .5 per doe on average winter kill years but about every 10 years Wyoming loses almost 100% of a years age class of fawns due to a bad winter. The key point here is we can’t grow deer herds when all the fawns are dying on summer pasture. What can we do as hunters? Keep contributing to Wildlife advocacy groups who spray cheatgrass and do habitat enhancement projects. Volunteer or contribute to water development projects. Hunt as much during Winter to keep predators low and buy as many cow elk tags as you can as cow elk are way above objective in almost every Western state and they are directly competing with deer for forage. Despite what you were taught, deer and elk and browsers vs. grazers. Dr. Monteith has personally studied and witnessed how the elk are eating deer forage. This is a fascinating study and worthwhile read for any Mule deer aficionado. https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/WyomingRange_Winter1819.pdf
 
Bearpaw Outfitters

Experience world class hunting for mule deer, elk, cougar, bear, turkey, moose, sheep and more.

Wild West Outfitters

Hunt the big bulls, bucks, bear and cats in southern Utah. Your hunt of a lifetime awaits.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, shiras moose and mountain lions.

Shane Scott Outfitting

Quality trophy hunting in Utah. Offering FREE Utah drawing consultation. Great local guides.

Utah Big Game Outfitters

Specializing in bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goat, lions, bears & antelope.

Apex Outfitters

We offer experienced guides who hunt Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Bison, Goats, Cougar, and Bear.

Urge 2 Hunt

We offer high quality hunts on large private ranches around the state, with landowner vouchers.

Allout Guiding & Outfitting

Offering high quality mule deer, elk, bear, cougar and bison hunts in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mtns.

Lickity Split Outfitters

General season and LE fully guided hunts for mule deer, elk, moose, antelope, lion, turkey, bear and coyotes.

Back
Top Bottom