New Utah Big Game Rules

Muley_73

Very Active Member
Messages
2,770
Without question I am in agreement of a need to address technology and impact it is having on not just Utah’s mule deer but mule deer across the west. So many things could be done to positively impact the herd health.
But instead we went after the Mr Potato Head of the issue, Baiting. Then slapped ourselves on the back for being so in tune and virtuous in our stance. ???
 
I fully support your call for reeling in technological advances that harm hunting. By statute, the state must examine trail cams next.

I'd love to hear your ideas for other things that could be done by statute to help deer herds. ??
 
I really think that they missed a golden opportunity to make money for wildlife with the trail cam bill.

What should happen is each person that wants to run a trail cam need to buy a permit and have their name and address on the camera, Or a registerd number similar to a trap registration number. The permits could be purchased at the DWR office for $25 for the first camera and $50 for each additional camera. What you get is a sticker similar to the ones on your vehicle with the year.
So what would then happen is if you found a trail cam that didn't have a current years sticker on it you could report it and the owner would get a ticket. If you found a trail cam with out a name and sticker, It's trash and can be hauled off.

I would guess there are thousands of cameras out there. That would be a pretty good chunk of change for wildlife

The other good thing is that non hunters that use trail cameras would have to pay as well.
 
I really think that they missed a golden opportunity to make money for wildlife with the trail cam bill.

What should happen is each person that wants to run a trail cam need to buy a permit and have their name and address on the camera, Or a registerd number similar to a trap registration number. The permits could be purchased at the DWR office for $25 for the first camera and $50 for each additional camera. What you get is a sticker similar to the ones on your vehicle with the year.
So what would then happen is if you found a trail cam that didn't have a current years sticker on it you could report it and the owner would get a ticket. If you found a trail cam with out a name and sticker, It's trash and can be hauled off.

I would guess there are thousands of cameras out there. That would be a pretty good chunk of change for wildlife

The other good thing is that non hunters that use trail cameras would have to pay as well.
I think Utah has spent enough time trying to "make money for wildlife."

And we're no better off for it. It's time to manage for wildlife and hunting and not for money.
 
IMO you have to start with the "easy stuff" ie baiting and cameras. Next step, who knows hopefully atv restrictions.
 
I really think that they missed a golden opportunity to make money for wildlife with the trail cam bill.

What should happen is each person that wants to run a trail cam need to buy a permit and have their name and address on the camera, Or a registerd number similar to a trap registration number. The permits could be purchased at the DWR office for $25 for the first camera and $50 for each additional camera. What you get is a sticker similar to the ones on your vehicle with the year.
So what would then happen is if you found a trail cam that didn't have a current years sticker on it you could report it and the owner would get a ticket. If you found a trail cam with out a name and sticker, It's trash and can be hauled off.

I would guess there are thousands of cameras out there. That would be a pretty good chunk of change for wildlife

The other good thing is that non hunters that use trail cameras would have to pay as well.

Making cams a moneymaker is a sure way that particular technology would never get controlled. And since I am in favor of restricting them, I don’t agree with you.
 
Making cams a moneymaker is a sure way that particular technology would never get controlled. And since I am in favor of restricting them, I don’t agree with you.
I think Utah has spent enough time trying to "make money for wildlife."

And we're no better off for it. It's time to manage for wildlife and hunting and not for money.
When is it ok to leave personal property on public ground for any extended period of time without a permit? Camps can be there for 14 days and then must be moved.

Why not make these yahoo's that run dozens of cameras pay through the nose for them.?
 
In another time I might have agreed to restrict AND license them at the same time. But they’re already nickel and diming us to death with this fee and that fee. We don’t need another
 
I respectfully disagree, rangefinders equate to less wounded animals. I remember when everyone was hunting without rangefinders, hunters still took long shots but they were guessing the yardage and blowing off animal legs in the process. If too many hunters are being successful cut tag numbers... Trail cameras on the other hand can cover a mountainside day and night. Telling hunters where the animal lives even if he stays in thick cover. Many of these animals might otherwise live undetected but here they come for a taste of salt in the dark of night. Fair chase? ?? ?
 
Let's close down the Henry's, Pauns and Pine Valley for three years. Magically, more deer.
 
I would love to see Utah grow its herds but I don’t think the DWR can even count our herds much less grow them! Just 2 years ago, the DWR and SFW were patting themselves on their backs and claiming our deer herds were thriving and had crossed the 350k number. We were the Serengeti of the West! The very next year the herds were in the tank and we were cutting tags. Was the winter of 2019 a bad one? Similar to 1984?

Hawkeye
 
Increase carrying capacity on our ever shrinking winter ranges. Decrease predator populations into near extinction.

Stop pretending the guy with a tag in the problem. The guy with a tag is literally the solution.

The government is supposed to solve this problem, not buckle and dime the public out of hunting opportunities. But after the one thousandth failure, we turn back to the government and beg them to regulate us to death. Smart.
 
The more wounded animals without range finders doesn’t hold water. Pre range finders the landscape was not littered with wounded and lost animals, any more than it currently is. Bad shots were taken then and they are still taken. But without question they increase the success rates. People are just unwilling to give up anything they have justified in their own mind as necessary or “ethical”. In the mean time the resource suffers and dwindles.
 
Predators are without a doubt and issue. However in the current political climate they are very very hard to address. Technology is not, think about this. Predators we are fighting anti hunters and wonder why we can’t win. When technology comes around we fight ourselves. In fact 90% of issues it’s hunters fighting themselves.
 
In fact 90% of issues it’s hunters fighting themselves.
I've never heard anybody say that and follow it up with saying they'll agree with other's point of view. They always say that and think therefore others have to agree with theirs.

If somebody thinks all hunters must have unanimity of thought, then they have the duty to be the ones to acquiesce.

Bottom line is if you think disagreement amongst hunters is a serious problem (90%?), then you have the duty to stop being disagreeable, not the other way around.

Nobody gets to say I have a strong opinion, but it's more important that we all agree... so YOU have to take MY opinion.

It's healthy for hunters to talk amongst ourselves about where our sport is going and what we stand for and strive for.
 
Last edited:
Hey, I've got it.! Since elk tags are now unlimited, let's just eliminate the deer hunt altogether for a year and see if the numbers change. Everyone can go elk hunt instead of deer. :LOL:

My guess... the DWR count would look exactly the same. Inaccuracy is inaccurate no matter what you try and do.
 
I've never heard anybody say that and follow it up with saying they'll agree with other's point of view. They always say that and think therefore others have to agree with theirs.

If somebody thinks all hunters must have unanimity of thought, then they have the duty to be the ones to acquiesce.

Bottom line is if you think disagreement amongst hunters is a serious problem (90%?), then you have the duty to stop being disagreeable, not the other way around.

Nobody gets to say I have a strong opinion, but it's more important that we all agree... so YOU have to take MY opinion.

It's healthy for hunters to talk amongst ourselves about where our sport is going and what we stand for and strive for.
No I’m more than happy to listen to other points of view. I think the baiting is a mute issue but others didn’t. Thus I supported it. I’m willing to listen to any options. I don’t think I have ever said only one way is the option. Open discussion is great, however hunters have a tendency to let that get in the way of uniting and making real and meaningful changes .
 
Hey, I've got it.! Since elk tags are now unlimited, let's just eliminate the deer hunt altogether for a year and see if the numbers change. Everyone can go elk hunt instead of deer. :LOL:

My guess... the DWR count would look exactly the same. Inaccuracy is inaccurate no matter what you try and do.
Browning where are elk tags unlimited? Still waiting on your answer about the Alton?
 
Getting rid of range finders would be a joke, I will tell ya that in my hunting group only one of us use a range finder so those 5 guys will still be swinging and or missing on the range of the animal.
They are meat buck hunters at heart now don't get the wrong idea they wouldn't try and kill a monster if they see him at 400 or 500 yards.
Yes they will wing a few shots at him by trying to guess the range with a hold over.

Range finder IMO helps kill and not just wound a animal.
So you don't have a hunter wounding several animal's in a hunt season by just winging alot of shots at different animal's.

But hey that is just my look on it.
 
My view is go back 15 years. Rifle shots over 600 yards, muzzy shots over 200 yards and archery shots over 60 yards were pretty non existent. Very very few taken and even less connecting, kill or wound. But I would bet most guys you talk to now days have either personally or have witnessed all of the above multiple times the last 5-10 years. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I’d have seen personally and have talked to many others that have seen the same thing. I firmly believe without question dropping range finders and scoped muzzys would decrease the numbers of dead bucks (killed or wounded) considerably more than banning baiting. Baiting was an easy target because it didn’t affect nearly as many hunters, thus less push back and a virtue flag for sportsman to wave without effecting how they actually hunt.
 
wildlife.utah.gov%2Fpdf%2Fbg%2Fmule_deer_plan.pdf[/URL]

"The peak
harvest of buck deer in the state occurred in 1983 when 82,552 bucks were harvested during the
general season hunts. Buck hunter numbers also peaked in 1983 with 228,907 hunters participating in
the general season deer hunt" (36% success rate)

" Statewide average hunter success during the general-season any
weapon hunt in 2018 was 39.3% compared to 31.1% during the 1998 any weapon hunt"
 
wildlife.utah.gov%2Fpdf%2Fbg%2Fmule_deer_plan.pdf[/URL]

"The peak
harvest of buck deer in the state occurred in 1983 when 82,552 bucks were harvested during the
general season hunts. Buck hunter numbers also peaked in 1983 with 228,907 hunters participating in
the general season deer hunt" (36% success rate)

" Statewide average hunter success during the general-season any
weapon hunt in 2018 was 39.3% compared to 31.1% during the 1998 any weapon hunt"
wildlife.utah.gov%2Fpdf%2Fbg%2Fmule_deer_plan.pdf[/URL]

"The peak
harvest of buck deer in the state occurred in 1983 when 82,552 bucks were harvested during the
general season hunts. Buck hunter numbers also peaked in 1983 with 228,907 hunters participating in
the general season deer hunt" (36% success rate)

" Statewide average hunter success during the general-season any
weapon hunt in 2018 was 39.3% compared to 31.1% during the 1998 any weapon hunt"
It would be interesting to limit the technology with today’s current number of hunters and see the success rate. I believe it’s a different world with technology. In the past you saw huge camps, deer drives in the aspen, oak and sagebrush. You could increase success by movement of deer. With the current lower tag numbers I’d be interested to see if that type of approach would be taken on the hunt and if the effectiveness would be the same.
 
How would people feel about a "draw blood, punch your tag" law?

You already have to make a reasonable effort to recover game, but what about a law saying if you wound then you're done?

It would make people think harder about shooting outside their ability and they would really have to look for that animal, not just count it as a flesh wound and keep hunting.

Plenty of people already treat it this way, but we all know people that wound and then go after another animal.
 
Impossible to enforce...
Only to people who break the law. It switches the discussion from ethics to poaching. Any animal shot after a hunter knows he's drawn blood is on an invalid tag... and thus unlawfully taken.

Do you believe every hunter has so little regards for hunting laws that they're willing to violate them? Or would some people be willing to hang it up once they know they've hit an animal because they're law-abiding?
 
Grizzly
You think if they do it now, it will stop them from doing IF it is a law.
I believe they will still do it law or no law. If it don't fall dead then runs off they will keep right on hunting. IMO
 
How would people feel about a "draw blood, punch your tag" law?

You already have to make a reasonable effort to recover game, but what about a law saying if you wound then you're done?

It would make people think harder about shooting outside their ability and they would really have to look for that animal, not just count it as a flesh wound and keep hunting.

Plenty of people already treat it this way, but we all know people that wound and then go after another animal.
How would you ever enforce that?
 
How would you ever enforce that?
Are there no decent people anymore? Is fear of successful prosecution the only thing that keeps people from breaking the law. How many people here would commit theft if they knew they could get away with it? Not me.

All I heard prior to the baiting ban was that it was ethical because it was legal and that legality was all that mattered. The baiters said that over and over. By making it illegal, at least the people who wound and keep hunting couldn't say it was ethical.

It's okay to have laws that are difficult to enforce if it's the right thing to do. It's hard to enforce viewing child pornography, but we don't legalize it. Plus, there must be some level of dissuasion from knowing something is illegal.

We've all heard stories of hunters watching guys ripping off shots, wounding an animal, declaring they couldn't find it and going hunting again. I, for one, believe that there will likely be situations where another hunter witnesses an animal get wounded and would report it if they saw the guy keep hunting.
 
I say we limit the seasons we hunt the animals. There are early seasons mid seasons late seasons the regular season. I say one season for each weapon period just like the old days.
Crips sake we hunt the elk from August to the end of January.
Now I see Utah has a new early deer hunt before the regular hunt.
You can't have technology getting better each year and extending the hunting seasons as well.
We are killing of our herds with a constant barrage of hunting all seasons, cameras watching them 24/7, range finders, new scopes and guns that allow you to shoot 1500 yards.
It might be fair if the animals could update themselves to be faster at running, have invisible qualities, wear Kevlar vests to protect most of their bodies, getting better each year. Maybe then it would be a fair knife fight. Just sayin
 
Sooooo....... In Utah, I would really like to see.......... Wait for it......


Whitetails transplanted and managed. This is a great opportunity for the meat hunter and would take pressure away from the mule deer. I realize that in some areas they would compete with mule deer, but in others they would fill a void that could be used to add tags and get more people in the field.

I honestly thought that whitetails would already be in Utah in larger numbers, and given time I'm sure they will become more wide spread, but I think we could plant some and get the ball rolling.

Let the flaming begin........
 
One issue that mule deer in Utah face is the fact that there is a heavy push to eliminate them off of agricultural areas. That coupled with the issue with that public land muleys recieve heavier pressure do to lack of access to private land mule deer. I love hunting whitetails but I’m not sure that agenda would fly on Utah.
 
Hit a deer with your vehicle, no tag for a year.

Technology might be easy to address, but how much is it really going to help? You say predators are a big problem but hard to address. If both "problems" were addressed which would have the bigger impact? That's the one you go after regardless of the difficulty.

I personally don't feel like technology is the driving force behind the health, or lack thereof, of the herds. I won't argue that it's helped some be more successful in the harvest, but I don't see success rates changing much by limiting it.
 
The Paunsaugunt is completely full of deer already, it doesn't need help to increase numbers.....it has a whole other set of issues.
Yes drought, apples,cameras and bounties and possies. There was a time the pauns herd was estimated 7500 deer. It was something to see.
 
I respectfully disagree, rangefinders equate to less wounded animals. I remember when everyone was hunting without rangefinders, hunters still took long shots but they were guessing the yardage and blowing off animal legs in the process. If too many hunters are being successful cut tag numbers... Trail cameras on the other hand can cover a mountainside day and night. Telling hunters where the animal lives even if he stays in thick cover. Many of these animals might otherwise live undetected but here they come for a taste of salt in the dark of night. Fair chase? ?? ?

I disagree, unethical hunters will wound just as many deer with or without the technology. The same guy that will wound an animal at 400 without range finder, will wound a deer at 900 with range finder.
 
I believe that baiting and cameras have a minimal effect on overall herd numbers but the have a major impact on the top end bucks and bulls. They allow hunters to locate, follow and kill the best animals out of the herd. In other words, those tactics helps us skim the cream off the top.

Hawkeye
 
Good. We got a checkmark. Next year lets get another. One per year. Got bait. Next year cams. Following year electronic aiming devises. In 5 years we have them all. We should pat ourselves. Bet your Azz, the corporate culture was lobbying hard.

ID prefer LE or GS. Pick what you want, not both.

Actually ID prefer 500+ tags go back into the draws and away from "conservation". But I used to wish for a nympho, rich, mute woman too.?
 
If you want to help deer, go kill a lion plenty of opportunities to hunt a lion in Utah. I have killed a few. Utah this year has killed 612 lions so far. That number alone will save 30,000+ deer a year. If I were a betting man I would bet we haven’t even killed a 1/3 of lion population with that number. I bet there is atleast 1000+ lions still in Utah, that’s another 52,000 deer killed each year not including the bears, coyotes...go kill some predators. Did you know hunters in Utah last year only killed somewhere around 25,000 deer. Lions alone are killing 80,000+ a year in Utah.
 
An average adult lion needs 10 lbs of meat a day.
With over 600 lions taken out of the equation, thats a lot of meat that will stay alive next year.

Loss of critical winter range habit in Urban areas, extremely high highway mortality, multiple years of droubt conditions, higher predator populations overall, are all major contributions to lower deer numbers, mostly affecting fawn recruitment.

If we want to discuss cutting tags, it does feel like we are "over hunting" when we see over crowded mountains, but there are actually 100k less hunters today than in the 90's.
So in reality, cutting tags have already happened and our herds across Utah have steadily declined.
It's not over hunting that is hurting us, it's fawn recruitment.
Saving does is key to healthy numbers, not focussing on saving bucks.

This trend isn't just happening in Utah, all the western states are seeing declines in deer herds.
 
Simple

Decrease in technology = increase in opportunity.

Make people walk more and place a moratorium on ATV access during season. Take away scoped muzzleloaders and range finders for rifles.

Make harvest success low again and put more people in the field hunting.
I like where you are going, but I'm not sure I agree with the last statement. Success rates were higher when lever actions with open sights or 4x was the weapon of choice and a 2 wheel drive truck and or a horse was the mode of transport.

Technology is self defeating. If one person has a 4 wheeler, everyone needs a 4 wheeler to keep up. Once everyone has a 4-wheeler, there is no long an advantage to it. If someone is using trail cams, everyone needs trail cams to compete. If someone is shooting 400 + yards, the deer become cautious and everyone needs to trade in the 30-30 for sniper rifle.

I'd be careful about the weapon restrictions though. Taking away range finders from rifle hunters or bow hunters for that matter could result in more dead and crippled deer with lower tag rates.
 
I'll just throw this in again.

wildlife.utah.gov%2Fpdf%2Fbg%2Fmule_deer_plan.pdf[/URL]

"The peak
harvest of buck deer in the state occurred in 1983 when 82,552 bucks were harvested during the
general season hunts. Buck hunter numbers also peaked in 1983 with 228,907 hunters participating in
the general season deer hunt" (36% success rate)

" Statewide average hunter success during the general-season any
weapon hunt in 2018 was 39.3% compared to 31.1% during the 1998 any weapon hunt"
 
That is true, middlefork but it’s only 40% of the tags now, compared to 1983. If they cut tags to 40% of what they are now, that would be around 35000 tags and I’m guessing percentage of success would skyrocket.
 
That is true. In fact if you were to expand my quote that was copied from the MD management plan they actually say that the increased success rate for 2018 is related to higher buck/doe ratio's and less hunters. Go figure.
 
Way too many ideas on here. You guys are all missing the true solution....

The DWR proposed unlimited elk tags because the elk herds magically healed by finding places to hide, and will be fine hereafter.

We just need to convince the DWR that we need unlimited deer tags because deer populations have not decreased, they have simply found other places to hide.

Problem solved just like the elk.
 
An average adult lion needs 10 lbs of meat a day.
With over 600 lions taken out of the equation, thats a lot of meat that will stay alive next year.

Loss of critical winter range habit in Urban areas, extremely high highway mortality, multiple years of droubt conditions, higher predator populations overall, are all major contributions to lower deer numbers, mostly affecting fawn recruitment.

If we want to discuss cutting tags, it does feel like we are "over hunting" when we see over crowded mountains, but there are actually 100k less hunters today than in the 90's.
So in reality, cutting tags have already happened and our herds across Utah have steadily declined.
It's not over hunting that is hurting us, it's fawn recruitment.
Saving does is key to healthy numbers, not focussing on saving bucks.

This trend isn't just happening in Utah, all the western states are seeing declines in deer herds.
You are spot on slam.
We hear all the time of the DWR only manages for dollars and that the DWR is just a bunch of tag pimps, they don't care about the deer herd just money.
It will cost money to improve this deer herd, are you guys willing to pay what it will cost to fix the deer herd!
 
I don’t think you can believe the current published success rates. I know I have not received a hunter survey in the last 15 years and that includes friends and family. Also back in the day it was mandatory that every hunter had to stop at the check station no matter if successful or not and every major canyon had a check station. Now only vehicles with deer need to stop. Back in the day when success rates were in the 30% range every camp had deer hanging, you never see that anymore. How can you have an accurate success rate unless you have 100% survey?
 
I don’t think you can believe the current published success rates. I know I have not received a hunter survey in the last 15 years and that includes friends and family. Also back in the day it was mandatory that every hunter had to stop at the check station no matter if successful or not and every major canyon had a check station. Now only vehicles with deer need to stop. Back in the day when success rates were in the 30% range every camp had deer hanging, you never see that anymore. How can you have an accurate success rate unless you have 100% survey?
Mandatory harvest reporting should be a thing. They don't allow for a subsequent year's application if you've not submitted certain surveys. This would help factor in exactly how many deer are actually killed and actually wounded. They go off of projections based upon a "sufficient" sample size of surveys. One year... just one year, do a full and complete survey of all hunters.
 
I’ve killed bull elk 18 years straight and never been successful in a dwr survey because I don’t want anyone to know where I am being successful at.
 
I’ve killed bull elk 18 years straight and never been successful in a dwr survey because I don’t want anyone to know where I am being successful at.
^This
It is no big deal to me if it is mandatory or random. I don't think an increase in accuracy would make much difference.

You can't get 10 guys on here to agree how to count the herd accurately, bring the herds back or any number of things.
 
The problem isn't technology!
It's lack of management for surplus animals.
This kind of management is gone from almost all game/wildlife departments. I think because it is expensive, unpopular and hard.
Buy winter grange, manage plant communities, kill predators, stop killing females, build wildlife crossing for migration.
We don't need lower success, we need higher populations.
 
I don't see a lot of comments on here about elk numbers or CWMU's that issue deer tags and how those are effecting overall deer herd numbers.

Elk compete for space and resource with deer. And we arguably have a much larger elk herd now than in the 1980's. Do you like more elk on the landscape? If so, that comes with a price for muledeer.

Also, how about the hundreds of tags handed out on CWMU's each year? Those were historically private lands hunted by a relative few. And a sanctuary spot for animals. Now? There are no safe spots in Utah. Public or private.

Well, I'd love to hear what you all think about them apples??
 
My point about hunter surveys is I think that is where change will start. I believe success rates are being manipulated and are much lower than published numbers. If truth be known hunters would be shocked and demand changes. On CWM’s I think they should have to follow the same regulations we have to follow. No special seasons and the same weapons restrictions. After all, despite private property, these are public animals.
 
An average adult lion needs 10 lbs of meat a day.
With over 600 lions taken out of the equation, thats a lot of meat that will stay alive next year.

Loss of critical winter range habit in Urban areas, extremely high highway mortality, multiple years of droubt conditions, higher predator populations overall, are all major contributions to lower deer numbers, mostly affecting fawn recruitment.

If we want to discuss cutting tags, it does feel like we are "over hunting" when we see over crowded mountains, but there are actually 100k less hunters today than in the 90's.
So in reality, cutting tags have already happened and our herds across Utah have steadily declined.
It's not over hunting that is hurting us, it's fawn recruitment.
Saving does is key to healthy numbers, not focussing on saving bucks.

This trend isn't just happening in Utah, all the western states are seeing declines in deer herds.
Finally an intelligent comment!!! You nailed it.

Doe survival and fawn recruitment are the most important aspects of a healthy deer herd. Bucks have very little to do with herd health. If you want more bucks, makes sure does and fawns survive. Other than weather, there are lots of things that can be controlled to ensure doe/fawn survival. The problem is they all cost money. Taking away baiting, trailcams, rangefinders, ATV's... your birthday... costs NOTHING!!!

Geez... I can't imagine why wildlife agencies would want to make more rules instead of spend more of their budget on actual wildlife management. DUH!!!
 
Last edited:
Yep, take the rangefinders and bow sights away too. Might as well make everyone "hunt" a little more. Why not?

Zeke
Hunting does not carry the same nostalgia it once did. You would see the demise and complete loss of hunting as we know it once the majority of the rising generation of hunting loses interest.

Pick your poison...
 
I think getting every one to hunt is not so good because a lot of road hunter are not making the success go up, so keep them on the road.Some say cams and bait does not make that much difference, but just like the spinning wing,you take some one that may never be very good at hunting but now is scoring. You may also think taking all of the best bucks does not effect the health of the herd, but take the best out of any population and what do you have left.One thing I believe is there is a lot more meat hunters than trophy hunter and trophy hunter are the only one that are going to have bad hunting,and lastly if there was a ton of money in deer we would not need to worry about there health, but the only money is the state cashing in on a fragile resources without much thought for the future it would seem . I think the best solution is that the people who care the most for them be in charge of them .
 
Totally agree with desertmuley. Doe survival and fawn recruitment is the key to healthy Deer herds. I watched the Ut DWR hunt recommendations and its amazing to me that I did not see one region that was at population objectives. After almost 20 years of limited general licenses, which they promised would create healthy deer herds and buck to doe ratios. Herds are still in decline. Obviously current programs are not working.
 
Totally agree with desertmuley. Doe survival and fawn recruitment is the key to healthy Deer herds. I watched the Ut DWR hunt recommendations and its amazing to me that I did not see one region that was at population objectives. After almost 20 years of limited general licenses, which they promised would create healthy deer herds and buck to doe ratios. Herds are still in decline. Obviously current programs are not working.
No matter what they do or what names and structures they give to units, unless they address the predator problem, winter range carrying capacity/degradation, NOTHING will change for the better. We are in the "predator pit" and there is no chance of leaving it until we decide that hunting is the correct way to manage population numbers and manage predator numbers at the minimum level.
 

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