Oak Creeks is way down. Just an FYI post.

elkassassin said:
You Look At It As Negatively!

But It's The Truth!

And The Truth hurts!

You Want to Hunt The OC Unit At Any Cost Ridge!

Even If It Meant Totally Destroying It Just As Long As You Got Your Piece Of The Pie!
Click to expand...
It might be the truth in your eyes but there's very few that agree with your "truthful" comments. Here's the truth, that unit will never, ever get totally destroyed.
 
But You Ridge want More Tags Issued On The Unit!

And I Guess You Don't Believe The Guys That Posted Above That Do Know Alot Of What's Going Down On OC?

ridgetops said:
It might be the truth in your eyes but there's very few that agree with your "truthful" comments. Here's the truth, that unit will never, ever get totally destroyed.
Click to expand...
 
I'd Make You A Wager Ridge That It Can Be Destroyed!

I Hope We Never See It!

But NEVER Say NEVER!

You'll Lose Every Time!
 
elkassassin said:
But You Ridge want More Tags Issued On The Unit!

And I Guess You Don't Believe The Guys That Posted Above That Do Know Alot Of What's Going Down On OC?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. I also think more tags are needed as long as the buck/ ratio stays above 35 bucks per 100 does and the overall herd numbers are stable. Like I said before, it's becoming more like a normal LE deer unit and not like an AI hunt.
 
elkassassin said:
I'd Make You A Wager Ridge That It Can Be Destroyed!

I Hope We Never See It!

But NEVER Say NEVER!

You'll Lose Every Time!
Click to expand...
I'll bet everything I own that it will never, ever be "destroyed" in the eyes of most hunters. The herd may crash because of disease or extreme winter kill but not by over hunting. That's the truth. I hope a few WB members are reading this.
 
So?

We've Seen Just About All Units Hunted Down/So Bad They Had To Be Closed!

What's Your Theory On OC Being The Only Unit That Can't Be Destroyed?




ridgetops said:
I'll bet everything I own that it will never, ever be "destroyed" in the eyes of most hunters. The herd may crash because of disease or extreme winter kill but not by over hunting. That's the truth. I hope a few WB members are reading this.
Click to expand...
 
Put Niller On The List As Well!

That's What He Wants Is More Tags Issued!

One More Thing Ridge:

BUCK TO DOE MANAGEMENT IS THE WORST TYPE OF BS MANAGEMENT EVER DREAMPT UP!

Ya!

I hope They're Reading This As Well!
 
elkassassin said:
Put Niller On The List As Well!

That's What He Wants Is More Tags Issued!
Click to expand...
Nope. I’m finally in your corner bessy. I will be advocating for zero big game tags in the state of Utah next year. I’m going to get a legislator to run a bill. I’m on Team Bess now!
 
SanPitch said:
Did the guy know if you turn it back only a week before he doesn’t get his points back? (Must be 30 days prior) Ouch
Click to expand...
Unless he has a Dr.s note saying he can’t hunt.
I tried to turn a tag back in two weeks ago because my Mom was dying and the DWR will not allow it for the death of a parent.
 
elkassassin said:
One More Thing Ridge:

BUCK TO DOE MANAGEMENT IS THE WORST TYPE OF BS MANAGEMENT EVER DREAMPT UP!

Ya!

I hope They're Reading This As Well!
Click to expand...
I know of a unit that was consistently in the single digit b/d ratio yearly and it was hard to find any sort of mature bucks but when it was allowed to reach the 15-20/100 ratio, all kinds of 200" bucks have been hitting the dirt in that unit. Ya, it doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
elkassassin said:
Put Niller On The List As Well!

That's What He Wants Is More Tags Issued!

One More Thing Ridge:

BUCK TO DOE MANAGEMENT IS THE WORST TYPE OF BS MANAGEMENT EVER DREAMPT UP!

Ya!

I hope They're Reading This As Well!
Click to expand...
Elkassassin, you don't like buck to doe ratio and you don't like age class management,
So lets hear how you would determine if a deer unit is doing OK or it is in bad shape.
 
Hey Ridge you sound just like my wife and it seems that neither one of you can tell a ball buster from a straight up Ahole.

Ever watch the Movie Young Guns? We was just hacking on ya?
ridgetops said:
Doesn't it get tiring being negative all the time? I know it does for those reading it
Click to expand...
 
notdonhunting said:
Elkassassin, you don't like buck to doe ratio and you don't like age class management,
So lets hear how you would determine if a deer unit is doing OK or it is in bad shape.
Click to expand...
I’ll take the blame for the buck doe ratio which came about after we pushed the bureaucrats into the antler restriction units in the 1980’s because we were running an average of 4 buck per hundred doe and the biologists at Utah State University and the biologists from the State offices of the BLM and the USForest told us we were going to lost the entire herd if we didn’t get it fixed. I also consulted the State big game biologists in Colorado and Montana. They all, to a man, agreed.

However, that was when we had 1.2 million mule deer or more and fawn survival rates on average were above 75 fawn per hundred doe, across the State.

That is definitely not the situation on any units today. Not even close to the 4/100 buck to does or the 75 fawn to 100 does, not anywhere.

The bureaucrats went out of there minds with hostile toward sportsmen when we pushed for a higher buck doe ratio and either intentionally or our of incompetence have never adjusted to the falling fawn survival and up until the last 3 years completely denied any decline in population beyond slight swings up and down between 300,000 and 400,000. They have only concerned themselves with the buck doe ratio since 1984 and let everything else go to sh!t. If a unit that once had a population of 6,000 deer had declined to only had a thousand total deer, but the buck doe ratio was 13 bucks per 100 does, they continues to issue the same number of tags as when there were 6,000…… because the buck doe ratio was they only measurement they used to issue the tags that were allocated when the Governor caped the tag sales at 97,000. The bureaucrats continued to issues the same number of tags until the number of deer got so poor that way more sportsmen became pissed off and finally, after nearly 35 years they have at the very least admitted the population has crashed.

It doesn’t matter what the blame is on, winters, droughts, highway mortality, blue tongue, habitat, etc etc, the fact that they have stopped using fawn survival ratios and not managing for the growth factors and only used the buck doe ratio, is what is to blame. That’s a 100% fact……. until they base everything on fawn survival ratio, and forget about the buck doe ratio, will they ever grow the herd back. Once that’s done, they can get a health buck ratio established again. Buck doe ratio is never going to grow more deer, under current herd dynamics, if your fawn ratio doesn’t trump, the buck ratio, when it comes to mule deer management.

I’m a firm believer the increased buck ratio was the right thing to do in the 1980, but it certainly is not in 2023. Status quo is a curse of the fearful and the lazy.

I’ve posted this so many times, I’m just about ready to take your suggestions and shut the hell up. ?
 
Last edited:
So do you improve fawn:doe ratio by reducing tags and increasing the amount of bucks on the landscape?
 
2lumpy said:
I’ll take the blame for the buck doe ratio which came about after we pushed the bureaucrats into the antler restriction units in the 1980’s because we were running an average of 4 buck per hundred doe and the biologists at Utah State University and the biologists from the State offices of the BLM and the USForest told us we were going to lost the entire herd if we didn’t get it fixed. I also consulted the State big game biologists in Colorado and Montana. They all, to a man, agreed.

However, that was when we had 1.2 million mule deer or more and fawn survival rates on average were above 75 fawn per hundred doe, across the State.

That is definitely not the situation on any units today. Not even close to the 4/100 buck to does or the 75 fawn to 100 does, not anywhere.

The bureaucrats went out of there minds with hostile toward sportsmen when we pushed for a higher buck doe ratio and either intentionally or our of incompetence have never adjusted to the falling fawn survival and up until the last 3 years completely denied any decline in population beyond slight swings up and down between 300,000 and 400,000. They have only concerned themselves with the buck doe ratio since 1984 and let everything else go to sh!t. If a unit that once had a population of 6,000 deer had declined to only had a thousand total deer, but the buck doe ratio was 13 bucks per 100 does, they continues to issue the same number of tags as when there were 6,000…… because the buck doe ratio was they only measurement they used to issue the tags that were allocated when the Governor caped the tag sales at 97,000. The bureaucrats continued to issues the same number of tags until the number of deer got so poor that way more sportsmen became pissed off and finally, after nearly 35 years they have at the very least admitted the population has crashed.

It doesn’t matter what the blame is on, winters, droughts, highway mortality, blue tongue, habitat, etc etc, the fact that they have stopped using fawn survival ratios and not managing for the growth factors and only used the buck doe ratio, is what is to blame. That’s a 100% fact……. until they base everything on fawn survival ratio, and forget about the buck doe ratio, will they ever grow the herd back. Once that’s done, they can get a health buck ratio established again. Buck doe ratio is never going to grow more deer, under current herd dynamics, if your fawn ratio doesn’t trump, the buck ratio, when it comes to mule deer management.

I’m a firm believer the increased buck ratio was the right thing to do in the 1980, but it certainly is not in 2023. Status quo is a curse of the fearful and the lazy.

I’ve posted this so many times, I’m just about ready to take your suggestions and shut the hell up. ?
Click to expand...
I do not want anyone to shut the hell up everyone's opinion should be considered.
but I do want someone to explain how we are supposed to determine the health of a deer herd.
We hear guys on this site (not just elkassassin) say that buck to doe ratio is terrible, lazy way of managing deer herd units.
Same guys will say how terrible age class management is a poor way of determine the health of a deer unit.
I really want someone to tell me how we should manage the health of deer unit herds.
One man's experience while hunting a unit should not be how we determine the health of a unit. Each person perspective is different according to what they expect out of his or hers opportunity.
 
notdonhunting said:
I do not want anyone to shut the hell up everyone's opinion should be considered.
but I do want someone to explain how we are supposed to determine the health of a deer herd.
We hear guys on this site (not just elkassassin) say that buck to doe ratio is terrible, lazy way of managing deer herd units.
Same guys will say how terrible age class management is a poor way of determine the health of a deer unit.
I really want someone to tell me how we should manage the health of deer unit herds.
One man's experience while hunting a unit should not be how we determine the health of a unit. Each person perspective is different according to what they expect out of his or hers opportunity.
Click to expand...
First determine the units carrying capacity, not only habitat but eco/social capacity as well.

Until the Unit reaches carrying capacity or near carrying capacity, every thing should be measured and managed to increase the population. Fawn survival assessment and closely, monitored predation mitigation, mule deer habitat assessment and mitigation, highway mortality mitigation, hunting tag limitation, migration monitoring and mitigation where necessary, regulation adjustment that protect mule deer on all land, both public and private, as if it were like wind, rain and water. Essentially, whatever it takes to ensure, the herd grows every year, like a rancher does with his livestock. Any thing that prevents a population increase should be used, based on the unique needs of each an every unit, according to its specific unique characteristics. Closing a unit to any hunting must be a usable tool as well.

Once there is a surplus, ie; a population exceeding near carrying capacity, decide how you want to control the excess. You can, allow more predation, do less habitat restoration, kill more bucks, does and fawns by issuing more hunting tags, capture and transfer, or any other reasonable method of controlling the surplus.

If you believe there is a surplus now……. Keep doing what we have been doing. If you don’t believe there is a surplus…….. stop doing what you’re doing and do something to create the surplus.

It’s not that difficult, what’s difficult is having to wisdom and courage to do what’s necessary.
 
You Boys Should Listen To Lumpy!

But You're So GAWD-DAMNED Worried And GREEDY About Getting YOUR-GREEDY-SELVES a Tag On An Upper End / Quality Unit You'll Chance Destroying The Unit Just So YOU Can Hunt It One Time!

Pay Attention notdon!

I've Said It So F'N Many Times It Only Shows You Don't Pay Attention!

Start Managing For Numbers Of Deer!

Start Doing SMART Things With Management!

Nillers PISSING His Pants & Has Been For Years Because The Deer Herd Keeps Getting Smaller & They Keep Cutting Tags While At The Same F'N Time Him & Ridge Want More Tags Issued,GEEZUS!

Fix The Problem First & Then Issue A Few More Tags!

Not Vice-Versa!

You Boys That Are So F'N Proud Of The BS BUCK TO DOE MANAGEMENT That's Been Going On For Decades & Tags Keep Getting Cut,Well Hows That Working Out For You?

Niller Keeps SCREAMING: Quit Cutting Tags!

But Never Admits To The PISS POOR CURRENT Management!

How Long Do We Stay With The BS Management Plan That's Been In Place For Decades That Doesn't Work?

Keep SPEWIN Your BS With Your GREED Wanting To Destroy Another LE Unit!

When It's F'ED Up Beyond A Repair?

Where You Gonna Go THRASH & TRASH After It's Destroyed?
 
May I chime in on the Oak Creek?

I’ve spent some time on that mountain last couple of years.
The Deer herd seems to be in good shape. Good numbers with plenty of Bucks.
Yes the quality of Bucks is down this year compared to past years.
I think we all knew it was coming especially with the attention it was getting.
The reasons IMHO for the decline in quality isn’t just the slight increases in tag quotas but mainly it’s HOW we are hunting with the advances in technology and weapons.
Also there are LOTS of people out there looking for Bucks.
With the advanced quality of optics it’s hard for a Buck to not be found.
Once a Buck is seen and considered a shooter he will soon be dead.
It is a very physically demanding hunt so that may be the units saving grace.
Will the quality of Bucks go back up in the future?
I guess that remains to be seen!
 
elkassassin said:
You Boys Should Listen To Lumpy!

But You're So GAWD-DAMNED Worried And GREEDY About Getting YOUR-GREEDY-SELVES a Tag On An Upper End / Quality Unit You'll Chance Destroying The Unit Just So YOU Can Hunt It One Time!

Pay Attention notdon!

I've Said It So F'N Many Times It Only Shows You Don't Pay Attention!

Start Managing For Numbers Of Deer!

Start Doing SMART Things With Management!

Nillers PISSING His Pants & Has Been For Years Because The Deer Herd Keeps Getting Smaller & They Keep Cutting Tags While At The Same F'N Time Him & Ridge Want More Tags Issued,GEEZUS!

Fix The Problem First & Then Issue A Few More Tags!

Not Vice-Versa!

You Boys That Are So F'N Proud Of The BS BUCK TO DOE MANAGEMENT That's Been Going On For Decades & Tags Keep Getting Cut,Well Hows That Working Out For You?

Niller Keeps SCREAMING: Quit Cutting Tags!

But Never Admits To The PISS POOR CURRENT Management!

How Long Do We Stay With The BS Management Plan That's Been In Place For Decades That Doesn't Work?

Keep SPEWIN Your BS With Your GREED Wanting To Destroy Another LE Unit!

When It's F'ED Up Beyond A Repair?

Where You Gonna Go THRASH & TRASH After It's Destroyed?
Click to expand...
Holy cow, tell us how you really feel. No wonder you're so misinformed. Lumpy's comments are very misleading and not all factual. He starts talking about things that happened in the 80s and makes it sound so like that's how all the sub units are still being managed. That's not true. All the sub units have individual management plans and are in fact managed with fawn survival, herd objective and also buck/ doe ratios in mind. They are all looked at when determining tag numbers.
 
buckhorn said:
May I chime in on the Oak Creek?

I’ve spent some time on that mountain last couple of years.
The Deer herd seems to be in good shape. Good numbers with plenty of Bucks.
Yes the quality of Bucks is down this year compared to past years.
I think we all knew it was coming especially with the attention it was getting.
The reasons IMHO for the decline in quality isn’t just the slight increases in tag quotas but mainly it’s HOW we are hunting with the advances in technology and weapons.
Also there are LOTS of people out there looking for Bucks.
With the advanced quality of optics it’s hard for a Buck to not be found.
Once a Buck is seen and considered a shooter he will soon be dead.
It is a very physically demanding hunt so that may be the units saving grace.
Will the quality of Bucks go back up in the future?
I guess that remains to be seen!
Click to expand...
I'll add that for the past ten years most the guides have been using the same easy to reach glassing spots to find those bigger bucks. Those areas are definitely being hunted out from what they supported in the past 10 or so years.
 
2lumpy said:
However, that was when we had 1.2 million mule deer or more and fawn survival rates on average were above 75 fawn per hundred doe, across the State.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty bold claim. What's the source for claiming there were +1.2M deer in Utah ever? Best I've seen are reverse engineering calculations from harvest rates and assumed recruitment that put the top end number around 800k and that was in the 50-60s, not the 80s.
 
Hey ridge?

You Remember When We Went To Thirty Something Sub-Units?

Remember How That Was Gonna Improve The Deer Herd In The Whole State?

Well,It's Been Going For Several Years Now,Right?

Hows That Panning Out For You?

You Want Your OC Tag!

I Guess You Could Say:

We All Want An OC Tag!

The HARD,COLD TRUTH Is Not Every OPPORTUNIST Is Gonna Get One!

I Hope You Get Yours So You Quit Whining About It!

But After You Get That First One You'd Best Get Your Wallet Out For The Next OC Tag!

There's Only One F'N Reason You Want More Tags Issued On OC!

And That's In Hopes You Can Pull An OC Tag Yourself!

Before We Start Issuing More Tags Let's Start Doing Some SMART Things To Improve The Herd!

I Swear To GAWD Most DRATS Don't Look In To The Future Any Further Than Tomorrow Morning!

Someday You'll Have Kids & Grand-Kids That Might Wanna Hunt?

What's Gonna Be Left For Them?



ridgetops said:
Holy cow, tell us how you really feel. No wonder you're so misinformed. Lumpy's comments are very misleading and not all factual. He starts talking about things that happened in the 80s and makes it sound so like that's how all the sub units are still being managed. That's not true. All the sub units have individual management plans and are in fact managed with fawn survival, herd objective and also buck/ doe ratios in mind. They are all looked at when determining tag numbers.
Click to expand...
 
2lumpy said:
I’ll take the blame for the buck doe ratio which came about after we pushed the bureaucrats into the antler restriction units in the 1980’s because we were running an average of 4 buck per hundred doe and the biologists at Utah State University and the biologists from the State offices of the BLM and the USForest told us we were going to lost the entire herd if we didn’t get it fixed. I also consulted the State big game biologists in Colorado and Montana. They all, to a man, agreed.

However, that was when we had 1.2 million mule deer or more and fawn survival rates on average were above 75 fawn per hundred doe, across the State.

That is definitely not the situation on any units today. Not even close to the 4/100 buck to does or the 75 fawn to 100 does, not anywhere.

The bureaucrats went out of there minds with hostile toward sportsmen when we pushed for a higher buck doe ratio and either intentionally or our of incompetence have never adjusted to the falling fawn survival and up until the last 3 years completely denied any decline in population beyond slight swings up and down between 300,000 and 400,000. They have only concerned themselves with the buck doe ratio since 1984 and let everything else go to sh!t. If a unit that once had a population of 6,000 deer had declined to only had a thousand total deer, but the buck doe ratio was 13 bucks per 100 does, they continues to issue the same number of tags as when there were 6,000…… because the buck doe ratio was they only measurement they used to issue the tags that were allocated when the Governor caped the tag sales at 97,000. The bureaucrats continued to issues the same number of tags until the number of deer got so poor that way more sportsmen became pissed off and finally, after nearly 35 years they have at the very least admitted the population has crashed.

It doesn’t matter what the blame is on, winters, droughts, highway mortality, blue tongue, habitat, etc etc, the fact that they have stopped using fawn survival ratios and not managing for the growth factors and only used the buck doe ratio, is what is to blame. That’s a 100% fact……. until they base everything on fawn survival ratio, and forget about the buck doe ratio, will they ever grow the herd back. Once that’s done, they can get a health buck ratio established again. Buck doe ratio is never going to grow more deer, under current herd dynamics, if your fawn ratio doesn’t trump, the buck ratio, when it comes to mule deer management.

I’m a firm believer the increased buck ratio was the right thing to do in the 1980, but it certainly is not in 2023. Status quo is a curse of the fearful and the lazy.

I’ve posted this so many times, I’m just about ready to take your suggestions and shut the hell up. ?
Click to expand...
Nailed it
 
johnnycake said:
That's a pretty bold claim. What's the source for claiming there were +1.2M deer in Utah ever? Best I've seen are reverse engineering calculations from harvest rates and assumed recruitment that put the top end number around 800k and that was in the 50-60s, not the 80s.
Click to expand...
You’re a bright gentleman Johnny, seriously, so if you’ll take the time to tell me this……… if you were asked to calculate the number of mule deer on a unit, without counting them, how would you do it.

If you’ll take your time to do that, l’ll go to the trouble of telling you how I and the bureaucrats told me they did it, 12 years ago, because I don’t know how they do it now, and I refuse to waste their time and mine anymore.
 
As You Already Know JakeH!

Nobody Likes My Ideas!

So Somebody-Else Take A Swing At It!

We Can Start By Not Keeping Doing The Same STUPID Shhitt We've Been Doing For Decades!



JakeH said:
And what "SMART" things do you propose we do to fix the herds Bess?

Honest question?
Click to expand...
 
34k + negative posts and counting. Just admit you don't hunt and want no one else to pack a rifle. With all your banned accounts what do you think the real total is 70k?
 
ridgetops said:
Holy cow, tell us how you really feel. No wonder you're so misinformed. Lumpy's comments are very misleading and not all factual. He starts talking about things that happened in the 80s and makes it sound so like that's how all the sub units are still being managed. That's not true. All the sub units have individual management plans and are in fact managed with fawn survival, herd objective and also buck/ doe ratios in mind. They are all looked at when determining tag numbers.
Click to expand...
ridge, I know all about individual management plans. I’ve sat on the committees and helped developed them, for both deer and elk, on the State level and on the local level. Have you?

I have also sat next to the DWR Director in his outfit and have him tell me, in no uncertain terms, we are never, ever, going to get bogged down managing every unit in this State differently and have our people running around helter skelter all over this State trying to manage 30 different programs.

You’re so sure I’m misguided, and so sure you know more truth than me. So you tell me….. How effective are those unit management plans once they are written and the rubber meets the road?
 
Last edited:
elkassassin said:
As You Already Know JakeH!

Nobody Likes My Ideas!

So Somebody-Else Take A Swing At It!

We Can Start By Not Keeping Doing The Same STUPID Shhitt We've Been Doing For Decades!
Click to expand...
Lol, I honestly don't know, you've never really laid out anything that wasn't "hell right" where you go off on a tangent about stuff.

What is your #1 thing that would help, yes I know there are 50+ things, bit what is your #1 thing.
 
1 thing Only Would Fix ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing JakeH & You Know It!

Just Ask treedagain!

He Thinks He Knows Everything,Fire Away!

JakeH said:
Lol, I honestly don't know, you've never really laid out anything that wasn't "hell right" where you go off on a tangent about stuff.

What is your #1 thing that would help, yes I know there are 50+ things, bit what is your #1 thing.
Click to expand...
 
treedagain said:
34k + negative posts and counting. Just admit you don't hunt and want no one else to pack a rifle. With all your banned accounts what do you think the real total is 70k?
Click to expand...

1.2 million by lumpy’s math!

Sorry lump, couldn’t resist. I don’t buy the 1.2 million number, but above was mostly in jest.
 
2lumpy said:
You’re a bright gentleman Johnny, seriously, so if you’ll take the time to tell me this……… if you were asked to calculate the number of mule deer on a unit, without counting them, how would you do it.

If you’ll take your time to do that, l’ll go to the trouble of telling you how I and the bureaucrats told me they did it, 12 years ago, because I don’t know how they do it now, and I refuse to waste their time and mine anymore.
Click to expand...
If you reread what I wrote, I did describe the methods used in the highest report estimates I've seen from the DWR for historical population. They took harvest numbers over time, plugged in recruitment rates required to sustain those numbers and came up with roughly 800k deer.

What document from 12 yrs ago was produced that has that number? In the digital age, it should be locatable.
 
johnnycake said:
If you reread what I wrote, I did describe the methods used in the highest report estimates I've seen from the DWR for historical population. They took harvest numbers over time, plugged in recruitment rates required to sustain those numbers and came up with roughly 800k deer.

What document from 12 yrs ago was produced that has that number? In the digital age, it should be locatable.
Click to expand...
Yep, this isn’t the first time I’ve brought it, I brought it up on here 11 or 12 years ago and I’ve use various number 1.6 million to as low as 800,000 in my posts. At times I have used the figure of 890,000 because I was trying to error on the side of caution. I’ve never seen the DWR post any such thing. The only time I’ve every heard anyone of authority from the DWR discuss the way they estimated total population was the States Big Game Head Biologist respond to the question I asked him in a State Wildlife Board meeting during the time we were pressing the Board to change to unit management. I asked him, point blank, and it was recorded at the Wildlife Board and in the archived minutes of the meeting, if the DWR used the buck harvest ratio to calculate the total population of mule deer. His answer was, “of course we do”. I paused and let him think about what he had just said. I then told him, by using those ratios, there were near 1.5 million mule in Utah the summer of 1982. He stared at me for 5 seconds, in front of the Board and then said, “yes but that’s different.”

Now, I don’t give two hoots in hell, where anyone believe that or not. If they wish to know the truth, go up to the DWR office in Salt Lake City and file a GRAMMA request for those written Wildlife Board Minutes and read the minute yourselves.

It makes no difference to me anymore, not one iota of difference.

You don’t want to reproduce the ratios….. so why should I?
 
2lumpy said:
ridge, I know all about individual management plans. I’ve sat on the committees and helped developed them, for both deer and elk, on the State level and on the local level. Have you?

I have also sat next to the DWR Director in his outfit and have him tell me, in no uncertain terms, “we are never, ever, going to get bogged down managing every unit in this State differently and have our people running around helter skelter all over this State trying to manage 30 different programs.”

You’re so sure I’m misguided, and so sure you know more truth than me. So you tell me….. How effective are those unit management plans once they are written and the rubber meets the road?
Click to expand...
What year did the director make that comment?
 
elkassassin said:
1 thing Only Would Fix ABSO-F'N-LUTELY Nothing JakeH & You Know It!

Just Ask treedagain!

He Thinks He Knows Everything,Fire Away!
Click to expand...
Bess, I asked a specific question, I even countered your usual retort, but you still used it.

So let's try this again, what is your #1 thing.... yes we know there are 50+ but you still got to have one that is higher priority then all the rest...... so what is it?
 
elkassassin said:
Hey ridge?

You Remember When We Went To Thirty Something Sub-Units?

Remember How That Was Gonna Improve The Deer Herd In The Whole State?

Well,It's Been Going For Several Years Now,Right?

Hows That Panning Out For You?

You Want Your OC Tag!

I Guess You Could Say:

We All Want An OC Tag!

The HARD,COLD TRUTH Is Not Every OPPORTUNIST Is Gonna Get One!

I Hope You Get Yours So You Quit Whining About It!

But After You Get That First One You'd Best Get Your Wallet Out For The Next OC Tag!

There's Only One F'N Reason You Want More Tags Issued On OC!

And That's In Hopes You Can Pull An OC Tag Yourself!

Before We Start Issuing More Tags Let's Start Doing Some SMART Things To Improve The Herd!

I Swear To GAWD Most DRATS Don't Look In To The Future Any Further Than Tomorrow Morning!

Someday You'll Have Kids & Grand-Kids That Might Wanna Hunt?

What's Gonna Be Left For Them?
Click to expand...
. Since you and lumpy both have asked me. I think the units West of I-15 have greatly benefitted from the individual buck / doe management to control tag numbers. This has increased the percentage of mature bucks in those units. The unit I hunted this year showed incredible see signs of a growing and prospering herd. We saw hundreds of does and just about every one of them had twin fawns. We saw 76 confirmed bucks but I know I probably overlooked others because if I didn't see antlers on a deer a half mile to a mile away with my 10x binoculars, then I didn't bother putting my spotter on them. The habitat work performed on that unit in the past ten years is showing signs of paying off.
 
Nice!

I'm Glad You're Seeing Some Improvements!

Sure The Hell Ain't Seen Any Around Here!



ridgetops said:
. Since you and lumpy both have asked me. I think the units West of I-15 have greatly benefitted from the individual buck / doe management to control tag numbers. This has increased the percentage of mature bucks in those units. The unit I hunted this year showed incredible see signs of a growing and prospering herd. We saw hundreds of does and just about every one of them had twin fawns. We saw 76 confirmed bucks but I know I probably overlooked others because if I didn't see antlers on a deer a half mile to a mile away with my 10x binoculars, then I didn't bother putting my spotter on them. The habitat work performed on that unit in the past ten years is showing signs of paying off.
Click to expand...
 
I've Told You Several Times JakeH I've Never Blamed it On A 'Single' Issue!

It's A Combination Of Many Issues!

You've Heard Me For Years!

50+ Reasons Why & We Haven't Even Addressed One Of Them Yet That'll Help in a Significant Way!





JakeH said:
Bess, I asked a specific question, I even countered your usual retort, but you still used it.

So let's try this again, what is your #1 thing.... yes we know there are 50+ but you still got to have one that is higher priority then all the rest...... so what is it?
Click to expand...
 
Vanilla said:
Bessy, you’re such a chicken :poop: On this issue. Man up and answer his question.
Click to expand...
The last time we went through this it was about the Henry's he was on the tag cutting wagon then, so I broke it down and showed that even on the most restricted unit in the state that already gave out very few tags the deer herd on the unit as a whole tanked by like 50%. I also showed how much the drought had affected fawn recruitment during the years the population dropped. He quit calling for tag cuts after that and won't come out and say it any more, but he will elude to it heavily.

Most of our problems with population decline is not hunting related. If your population is declining and you are not killing doe's then the population decline is not caused by over hunting the deer. Utah gives out very few doe tag across the whole state, the only places they do are in agriculture areas for the most part.

Our issues are bigger than hunting.
 
I Mentioned Cutting 10 Tags JakeH!

Then You Showed Me Where The DWR Had Already Cut 10 Tags!

Do You Remember That?

Niller Got His F'N Panties In A WAD & Reamed On Me For Months About Me Mentioning Cutting 10 Tags!

If You Wanna See Chicken :poop: He Still Hasn't To This Day Answered My Question & I've Asked Him Numerous Times:

Are You As Mad At The DWR For Cutting 10 Tags as You Are At Me For Mentioning It?

Pony The F Up Tough Guy!



JakeH said:
The last time we went through this it was about the Henry's he was on the tag cutting wagon then, so I broke it down and showed that even on the most restricted unit in the state that already gave out very few tags the deer herd on the unit as a whole tanked by like 50%. I also showed how much the drought had affected fawn recruitment during the years the population dropped. He quit calling for tag cuts after that and won't come out and say it any more, but he will elude to it heavily.

Most of our problems with population decline is not hunting related. If your population is declining and you are not killing doe's then the population decline is not caused by over hunting the deer. Utah gives out very few doe tag across the whole state, the only places they do are in agriculture areas for the most part.

Our issues are bigger than hunting.
Click to expand...
 
elkassassin said:
If You Wanna See Chicken :poop: He Still Hasn't To This Day Answered My Question & I've Asked Him Numerous Times:

Are You As Mad At The DWR For Cutting 10 Tags as You Are At Me For Mentioning It?
Click to expand...

You’re kind of an idiot, but you’re not a liar cat. You know I’ve told you no less than 50 times I think it’s bunk they cut tags on that unit specifically.

No reason to keep lying about it. Just go back to being a total puuuuss! But be an honest puss.
 
And Once Again You Dodge The Question!

I'm Gonna Ask You One More F'N Time:

Are You As Mad At The DWR For Cutting 10 Tags As You Are At Me For Mentioning Cutting 10 Tags?

GOOD GAWD Is It That Hard For You To Answer The Question?







Vanilla said:
You’re kind of an idiot, but you’re not a liar cat. You know I’ve told you no less than 50 times I think it’s bunk they cut tags on that unit specifically.

No reason to keep lying about it. Just go back to being a total puuuuss! But be an honest puss.
Click to expand...
 
ridgetops said:
What year did the director make that comment?
Click to expand...
Your inquiry, as to the year, must have some reluctance for you. It doesn’t to me.

It was about two years after the State went to the 30 unit management. Maybe three, I’d have to dig why to deep for what its worth to me.

The incident happened during a visit Director Sheehan and Assistant Director (future Director) Mike Faust came down to attend a Wayne County Commissioner’s meeting in Bicknell. The Director came the evening before to tour the pheasant raising facility our local sportsmen, in partnership with the DWR local employee, had completed that spring and was full of pheasants we were growing to release for public hunting. It was the first year we did that here in Sevier County. After the tour with the Director, I invited he and some other visitors over to my home for a steak barbecue. We spent the evening together and I talked mule deer recover none stop for most of the evening. I was mostly lamenting that the Wildlife Board had not put more specific management requirements into the new unit management regulation. More that would have required more pro activity than simpling a new name to call the old five region system. He was open and receptive.

At the end of the evening he invited me to ride over to the Commissioner’s Meeting with he and Mr Faust. I accepted the invitation. The drive over pretty was much taken up with a conversation with issues the DWR leadership was expecting to discuss with the Wayne County Commissioner’s. The meeting ended up being a tour of Boulder Mt. and issues associated with recent fires and trout stocking frustration expressed by the Commissioner’s. On the tour the Director and Assistance road together and I road with one of the other guests. We toured for the better part of 6 hours, give or take. (Not all the details come to mind at this point, it was nearly ten years ago). At the end of the day, the three of us rode back to Richfield together. The conversation regarding meeting quickly turned from the Commissioner’s Meeting to their concern for the number of cougars and their impact on game animals and equal concern for a rapidly increase black bear population, and what could be done to mitigate the predator harvest. Then it turned to sportsmen and hunting opportunities. They both expressed a desire to spread the opportunities for hunters to hunt as often as possible by moving the tag allocation strategy from multiple species opportunities each year, such as, some hunters having a mule deer tag, an antlerless elk tag, and a spike bull tag….. while another hunter may not have a tag for anything. They both agreed that sooner than later that a one, single species tag should be used to manage maximum distribution of hunter opportunity. This, they believed would allow the most hunters to hunt each year. (To my knowledge, it is the one any only time I ever heard any DWR employee discuss that specific subject. However it was shortly after that I excused myself from further meetings with the State hunting bureaucracy, so it’s very possible it’s been discussed many times by them, since then.)

Now clarify my previous claim, regarding unit management plans. When we were about 30 minutes from Richfield, I decided I was going to interject my specific concern for restoring the mule deer population, again, now that unit management was in place to more readily allow for that. (Basically the same concerns I had expressed to the Director the previous evening.) The second I brought the subject back up, the Director turned to me, and based on my best recollection said, , we are never, ever, going to get bogged down managing every unit in this State differently and have our people running around helter skelter all over this State trying to manage 30 different programs.

You will notice, I have removed the quotation marks this time and have gone back and remove the quotation marks from my post number #133, because I could very well may not have the Director words shared perfectly and I don’t want to be sued, for lying, by either of these gentleman.

ridge….. I doubt seriously, you will believe me, and I can’t prove anything, so you can take it for what it’s worth, again, I no longer have a dog in the fight and you’re certainly free to disregard and/or dismiss anything or everything I say. It matters not to me.

Bottomline, regarding your question, I don’t remember the year, the year didn’t matter to me at the time.
 
Hey Niller!

I Mentioned Cutting 10 Tags!

How Many Tags Has The DWR Cut In The Last 20-30 Years That You're So Proud Of?

Like Me Cutting 10 Tags Would Even Make A Fraction Of A F'N Dent It That Number!
 
2lumpy said:
Your inquiry, as to the year, must have some reluctance for you. It doesn’t to me.

It was about two years after the State went to the 30 unit management. Maybe three, I’d have to dig why to deep for what its worth to me.

The incident happened during a visit Director Sheehan and Assistant Director (future Director) Mike Faust came down to attend a Wayne County Commissioner’s meeting in Bicknell. The Director came the evening before to tour the pheasant raising facility our local sportsmen, in partnership with the DWR local employee, had completed that spring and was full of pheasants we were growing to release for public hunting. It was the first year we did that here in Sevier County. After the tour with the Director, I invited he and some other visitors over to my home for a steak barbecue. We spent the evening together and I talked mule deer recover none stop for most of the evening. I was mostly lamenting that the Wildlife Board had not put more specific management requirements into the new unit management regulation. More that would have required more pro activity than simpling a new name to call the old five region system. He was open and receptive.

At the end of the evening he invited me to ride over to the Commissioner’s Meeting with he and Mr Faust. I accepted the invitation. The drive over pretty was much taken up with a conversation with issues the DWR leadership was expecting to discuss with the Wayne County Commissioner’s. The meeting ended up being a tour of Boulder Mt. and issues associated with recent fires and trout stocking frustration expressed by the Commissioner’s. On the tour the Director and Assistance road together and I road with one of the other guests. We toured for the better part of 6 hours, give or take. (Not all the details come to mind at this point, it was nearly ten years ago). At the end of the day, the three of us rode back to Richfield together. The conversation regarding meeting quickly turned from the Commissioner’s Meeting to their concern for the number of cougars and their impact on game animals and equal concern for a rapidly increase black bear population, and what could be done to mitigate the predator harvest. Then it turned to sportsmen and hunting opportunities. They both expressed a desire to spread the opportunities for hunters to hunt as often as possible by moving the tag allocation strategy from multiple species opportunities each year, such as, some hunters having a mule deer tag, an antlerless elk tag, and a spike bull tag….. while another hunter may not have a tag for anything. They both agreed that sooner than later that a one, single species tag should be used to manage maximum distribution of hunter opportunity. This, they believed would allow the most hunters to hunt each year. (To my knowledge, it is the one any only time I ever heard any DWR employee discuss that specific subject. However it was shortly after that I excused myself from further meetings with the State hunting bureaucracy, so it’s very possible it’s been discussed many times by them, since then.)

Now clarify my previous claim, regarding unit management plans. When we were about 30 minutes from Richfield, I decided I was going to interject my specific concern for restoring the mule deer population, again, now that unit management was in place to more readily allow for that. (Basically the same concerns I had expressed to the Director the previous evening.) The second I brought the subject back up, the Director turned to me, and based on my best recollection said, , we are never, ever, going to get bogged down managing every unit in this State differently and have our people running around helter skelter all over this State trying to manage 30 different programs.

You will notice, I have removed the quotation marks this time and have gone back and remove the quotation marks from my post number #133, because I could very well may not have the Director words shared perfectly and I don’t want to be sued, for lying, by either of these gentleman.

ridge….. I doubt seriously, you will believe me, and I can’t prove anything, so you can take it for what it’s worth, again, I no longer have a dog in the fight and you’re certainly free to disregard and/or dismiss anything or everything I say. It matters not to me.

Bottomline, regarding your question, I don’t remember the year, the year didn’t matter to me at the time.
Click to expand...
I was mostly interested if the conversation was before or after 2012 and you answered that. We as sportsman need to push for more unit by unit management. Not different laws for each unit but how they are managed. For example, if predators are more of a problem on certain units. Lets get more aggressive on those units. If road kill is a problem, then more fencing and crossings on those units. Low buck/ doe ratios and percentage of mature bucks. Then cut tags. Thanks for your reply.
 
Niller Is Gonna Love You ridge! (You Mentioned Cutting Tags!)

It Ain't IF RoadKill is An Issue!

It's An Issue Everywhere!



ridgetops said:
I was mostly interested if the conversation was before or after 2012 and you answered that. We as sportsman need to push for more unit by unit management. Not different laws for each unit but how they are managed. For example, if predators are more of a problem on certain units. Lets get more aggressive on those units. If road kill is a problem, then more fencing and crossings on those units. Low buck/ doe ratios and percentage of mature bucks. Then cut tags. Thanks for your reply.
Click to expand...
 
JakeH said:
The last time we went through this it was about the Henry's he was on the tag cutting wagon then, so I broke it down and showed that even on the most restricted unit in the state that already gave out very few tags the deer herd on the unit as a whole tanked by like 50%. I also showed how much the drought had affected fawn recruitment during the years the population dropped. He quit calling for tag cuts after that and won't come out and say it any more, but he will elude to it heavily.

Most of our problems with population decline is not hunting related. If your population is declining and you are not killing doe's then the population decline is not caused by over hunting the deer. Utah gives out very few doe tag across the whole state, the only places they do are in agriculture areas for the most part.

Our issues are bigger than hunting.
Click to expand...
Agreed. What's the solution? More ? tags for "habitat" or guzzlers or fencing? I haven't seen that's working, am I wrong?

We have more ? tags than all other states combined, but I wouldn't say we have the best game herds in the West... so it must not be that easy either.

What's the solution?
 
JakeH said:
You do realize they have cut almost 25,000 general deer tags in the last 4 years alone? Kinda Flys in the face of your money means all narrative.
Click to expand...
Well for quite some time now they require a person to buy a small game or combination license just to apply. So it doesn’t quite fly in the face of its all about money. Also, the price of small/ combination licenses has gone up. Have anyone ever seen anything that the government, no matter the branch, has ever managed been a success? Not only no, hell no! The issue is in my opinion, the people managing the game do not care about it. They will though, when there is nothing left to manage and they are out of a job. And they should be out of a job already. What happens in the real world when you continually fail at your job? You get replaced. And the cycle repeats until someone is able to fix the issue. That is the reality of it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
 
Betterluckythangood said:
The #1 best thing we could do is buy habitat, winter habitat, by any means possible and protect it.

2. Buy the migration corridor habitat by any means possible and protect it.

There is nowhere more attractive to a wealthy homebuyer than a choke point in a crucial migration corridor.
Click to expand...
There are systems in place to do things like that. Sportsman and our bureaucrat agents should be advertising and promoting those those tools. Dollars raised by fund raising orgs should lead the way with both funding and education of the landowners of these properties.
 
elkassassin said:
I Mentioned Cutting 10 Tags JakeH!

Then You Showed Me Where The DWR Had Already Cut 10 Tags!

Do You Remember That?

Niller Got His F'N Panties In A WAD & Reamed On Me For Months About Me Mentioning Cutting 10 Tags!

If You Wanna See Chicken :poop: He Still Hasn't To This Day Answered My Question & I've Asked Him Numerous Times:

Are You As Mad At The DWR For Cutting 10 Tags as You Are At Me For Mentioning It?

Pony The F Up Tough Guy!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the whole point of me digging up all that stuff was to show you that even on the most limited unit in the state the herd was struggling with recruitment and was in decline. That alone showed that hunting is not the main driver of the deer decline.
 
grizzly said:
Agreed. What's the solution? More ? tags for "habitat" or guzzlers or fencing? I haven't seen that's working, am I wrong?

We have more ? tags than all other states combined, but I wouldn't say we have the best game herds in the West... so it must not be that easy either.

What's the solution?
Click to expand...
I actually agree with Bess, there are indeed 50+ issues affecting the deer herds.

The top of the list for a large portion of the state is road kills, cars kill a sh!t load of deer in this state, and they don't discriminate to just bucks, they kill a lot of the baby makers.

Other parts of the state have been severely affected by drought off and on the last 20 years, the problem with habitat work is that we won't see the potential of a lot of it until we get out of the drought, I would argue that we have not seen the full potential to a lot of the work that has been done because of the dry years. But the last 2-3 years have been better on the water/weather front, and we can only hope that the weather pattern is turning for the better. There is also the fact that a lot of the habitat work will take many many years to actually produce good quality forage for deer, deer are browser's and that stuff doesn't just pop up out of nowhere it takes years for it to take root and really develop into good quality forage for deer. You could say that we may just be starting to maybe see some of it starting to get to the point of being beneficial to deer.

Other areas of the state are fighting unprecedented land development of critical winter range.

I am definitely not for increasing our conservation Tags, I think they need to have a healthy cut in fact. But I won't deny that the money raised is really beneficial to wildlife, I also feel a lot of it has been put to good use.

The collar studies that have been taking place the last 10 years has really open the eyes of the DWR and they are really starting to see ways they can make positive changes to help the herds. Maybe I'm just optimistic but I see them moving in the right direction with things

I won't claim to have the solutions, but I can see a lot of the problems, and it's not with how we ate hunting them.
 
2lumpy said:
Yep, this isn’t the first time I’ve brought it, I brought it up on here 11 or 12 years ago and I’ve use various number 1.6 million to as low as 800,000 in my posts. At times I have used the figure of 890,000 because I was trying to error on the side of caution. I’ve never seen the DWR post any such thing. The only time I’ve every heard anyone of authority from the DWR discuss the way they estimated total population was the States Big Game Head Biologist respond to the question I asked him in a State Wildlife Board meeting during the time we were pressing the Board to change to unit management. I asked him, point blank, and it was recorded at the Wildlife Board and in the archived minutes of the meeting, if the DWR used the buck harvest ratio to calculate the total population of mule deer. His answer was, “of course we do”. I paused and let him think about what he had just said. I then told him, by using those ratios, there were near 1.5 million mule in Utah the summer of 1982. He stared at me for 5 seconds, in front of the Board and then said, “yes but that’s different.”

Now, I don’t give two hoots in hell, where anyone believe that or not. If they wish to know the truth, go up to the DWR office in Salt Lake City and file a GRAMMA request for those written Wildlife Board Minutes and read the minute yourselves.

It makes no difference to me anymore, not one iota of difference.

You don’t want to reproduce the ratios….. so why should I?
Click to expand...
Short version: I made up the numbers.
 
Betterluckythangood said:
The #1 best thing we could do is buy habitat, winter habitat, by any means possible and protect it.

2. Buy the migration corridor habitat by any means possible and protect it.

There is nowhere more attractive to a wealthy homebuyer than a choke point in a crucial migration corridor.
Click to expand...
This is, I believe, the correct answer.

Bottom line is habitat.

Predators are more successful when deer have limited habitat. Deer are forced across highways when they lack suitable habitat. Elk take the preferred calving/fawning grounds when there is limited habitat. Drought/winter/fire suppression issues are all exacerbated when there is limited habitat. Etc, etc, etc...
 
grizzly said:
This is, I believe, the correct answer.

Bottom line is habitat.

Predators are more successful when deer have limited habitat. Deer are forced across highways when they lack suitable habitat. Elk take the preferred calving/fawning grounds when there is limited habitat. Drought/winter/fire suppression issues are all exacerbated when there is limited habitat. Etc, etc, etc...
Click to expand...
Hey grizzly, this thread is about changing oak creek from a regular limited entry to a premium unit for the sake of producing higher end bucks with less public draw tags given out. Are you in support of that move?
 
ridgetops said:
Hey grizzly, this thread is about changing oak creek from a regular limited entry to a premium unit for the sake of producing higher end bucks with less public draw tags given out. Are you in support of that move?
Click to expand...
I think this thread is about a lot more than just that, but I'll answer your question...

If your question is answered in a vacuum of only that question... "Should Oak Creek join Henry's and Pauns as Premium Limited Entry Units?"

I'd be in support of that.

It's likely an unpopular opinion, but I wouldn't oppose San Juan joining the list either. I like having units with really big deer, and I continue to apply for Premium units every year... knowing full well how low my odds are. I respect that others choose to not pursue those tags with their points, but it's my preference and how I choose to use my applications. Why should the Premium-preference hunters be forced into only two units (plus the one AI tag)?

If the question is taken with the subtext of, "Would limiting tags and increasing buck:doe ratio improve overall herd health or population numbers?"

Then no, that isn't something I'd support.

I believe the biggest flaw in modern deer management is relying on buck:doe ratios as a desirable metric. A biologist could oversee a population decline from 100,000 to 10,000 deer in five years, and still claim management success as long as their stated goal of, say 15:100, was maintained.

I believe that is about as dumb of a way to manage a deer herd as I can imagine. But it makes it very easy for the biologists to maintain their objective, so maybe that's why they always push it ?
 
I've Never Blamed It On Just Hunting!

Yes!

RoadKill Has Always Been An Issue & Now It's Even A Bigger Issue!

The Stretch From Duchesne To Heber Alone Is Enough To Make You Sick!

Alot Of Them Deer Get Hit So Hard By Big Trucks They're Almost Vaporized!

How Bout Anywhere From 1 to 4 Being Hit In One Swipe?

Nobody Knows The Exact Numbers!

But I'll Guarantee You It's A Bigger Number Than Most Realize!

I Suppose They'll Fence It When It's Too Late!

JakeH said:
Yeah, but the whole point of me digging up all that stuff was to show you that even on the most limited unit in the state the herd was struggling with recruitment and was in decline. That alone showed that hunting is not the main driver of the deer decline.
Click to expand...
 
2lumpy said:
I believe you and would say I’m not surprised…… in any way. Quite predictable actually. Status quo management in my opinion……. which is worth less than a $1 Coke at Mickey Ds.
Click to expand...


It is, as the OP has pointed out, the result of professional hunters. It for sure isn't the evil opportunists you blame for demise. And,it's now the second top tier deer unit to be shot out by the pros.

I wonder if maybe, just perhaps that should be addressed?
 
elkassassin said:
This Is For Niller:

The Second Or Maybe Sooner You Raised The Buck Count/Quality Of Bucks You'd Have People BAWLING Like Babies Wanting MORE Tags Issued So They Could SLAUGHTER Them!

They'd Need To Be Managed Properly!

NOT Managed To Death!
Click to expand...


Who is killing all the top end bucks?

Hint, it's not opportunists
 
elkassassin said:
Put Niller On The List As Well!

That's What He Wants Is More Tags Issued!

One More Thing Ridge:

BUCK TO DOE MANAGEMENT IS THE WORST TYPE OF BS MANAGEMENT EVER DREAMPT UP!

Ya!

I hope They're Reading This As Well!
Click to expand...


Professional hunters with huge paydays on the backs of deer, pursued 365 days a year, is the worst management type ever. How many more top end deer/elk units need to be shot out, before the real issue is addressed?
 
2lumpy said:
Yep, this isn’t the first time I’ve brought it, I brought it up on here 11 or 12 years ago and I’ve use various number 1.6 million to as low as 800,000 in my posts. At times I have used the figure of 890,000 because I was trying to error on the side of caution. I’ve never seen the DWR post any such thing. The only time I’ve every heard anyone of authority from the DWR discuss the way they estimated total population was the States Big Game Head Biologist respond to the question I asked him in a State Wildlife Board meeting during the time we were pressing the Board to change to unit management. I asked him, point blank, and it was recorded at the Wildlife Board and in the archived minutes of the meeting, if the DWR used the buck harvest ratio to calculate the total population of mule deer. His answer was, “of course we do”. I paused and let him think about what he had just said. I then told him, by using those ratios, there were near 1.5 million mule in Utah the summer of 1982. He stared at me for 5 seconds, in front of the Board and then said, “yes but that’s different.”

Now, I don’t give two hoots in hell, where anyone believe that or not. If they wish to know the truth, go up to the DWR office in Salt Lake City and file a GRAMMA request for those written Wildlife Board Minutes and read the minute yourselves.

It makes no difference to me anymore, not one iota of difference.

You don’t want to reproduce the ratios….. so why should I?
Click to expand...


Would anyone like to remind Lumpy what happened in 83'? I'm fairly sure we didn't increase tags and smack the deer(btw, the numbers he and his son used are based off nothing, as there weren't counts, or counts nowhere near accurate).

Anyone?

Then in the backs of 3 of those, we cut how many tags?

Anyone?

Can Lumpy, or Bess, or anyone explain how we "manage" for snow? Anyone?

Further, anyone know the human population of Utah in 1982?(1.5 million). For reference today it's 3.4 million.
How are the DWR managing for this?

I'd be curious. When, if ever, has Lumpy or Bess ever been to a planning commission meeting? You know, the places they decided to allow development of winter range. How many times have either gone, representing sportsmen and deer habitat?




And last this one is for @2lumpy, or even @Muley73 if he wants to chime in.


What is the conspiracy?

For years, I read the same crap, but the ending is never discussed.


Who profits by not"managing deer"? What is the advantage of it?
 
I Hope You're Going QUACKER Hunting Rather Than To Work This Morning Hossy!

Them Co-Workers Ain't Gonna Like Your Mood!:D

But you Can Tell Them It's Me & Lumpy's Fault!
 
grizzly said:
I think this thread is about a lot more than just that, but I'll answer your question...

If your question is answered in a vacuum of only that question... "Should Oak Creek join Henry's and Pauns as Premium Limited Entry Units?"

I'd be in support of that.

It's likely an unpopular opinion, but I wouldn't oppose San Juan joining the list either. I like having units with really big deer, and I continue to apply for Premium units every year... knowing full well how low my odds are. I respect that others choose to not pursue those tags with their points, but it's my preference and how I choose to use my applications. Why should the Premium-preference hunters be forced into only two units (plus the one AI tag)?

If the question is taken with the subtext of, "Would limiting tags and increasing buck:doe ratio improve overall herd health or population numbers?"

Then no, that isn't something I'd support.

I believe the biggest flaw in modern deer management is relying on buck:doe ratios as a desirable metric. A biologist could oversee a population decline from 100,000 to 10,000 deer in five years, and still claim management success as long as their stated goal of, say 15:100, was maintained.

I believe that is about as dumb of a way to manage a deer herd as I can imagine. But it makes it very easy for the biologists to maintain their objective, so maybe that's why they always push it ?
Click to expand...
It's posts like this that truly have me scratching my head. It shows where you, elkass and a few others just don't get it. The buck/ doe ratio is mainly used as a hunter management tool and not to manage the herd as a whole. Having 15-20 bucks per 100 does post hunt, over say 5-10 bucks per 100 does shows the unit is not being over hunted. It's a way to assure that a few more mature bucks make it through the season each year. If you have been going down to oak creek canyon this time of year. I guarantee you that the type of bucks seen has not changed much at all for the past ten years. The average hunter is not going to see much of a drop in quality if 10 more tags are given out. That's been my stance this whole time. Hey elkass, BTW, I didn't put in for oak creek this past year but maybe I should this coming year if it's becoming such a "junk" unit. I like a good challenge.
 
elkassassin said:
I Hope You're Going QUACKER Hunting Rather Than To Work This Morning Hossy!

Them Co-Workers Ain't Gonna Like Your Mood!:D

But you Can Tell Them It's Me & Lumpy's Fault!
Click to expand...

Duck hunting has been poor so far.

DEFINITELY THE DWR chit management.

Had zero to do with too much snow for early nesters to manage, or it being 65 and blue skies second week of November.

It's 100% because back in 82 the biologists were hatching a conspiracy to end duck hunting via not listening to a local duck hunter and his boy who combined have zero years of biology class work, and zero years of biology field work. A conspiracy so diabolical, it's taken 41 years for it to finally come to be.

Or, perhaps, it's because it 65 and blue skies. And since Eubank can't tell me if it will rain this afternoon, expecting the DWR to manage for weather seems silly.
 
I remember 1982.

890,000 deer?

How were they counted? Clickers and tick mark? 890,000 tick marks? Who added them up? How many biologists did the dwr employ in 82'? Did they have access to helicopters?
 
ridgetops said:
The buck/ doe ratio is mainly used as a hunter management tool and not to manage the herd as a whole. Having 15-20 bucks per 100 does post hunt, over say 5-10 bucks per 100 does shows the unit is not being over hunted.
Click to expand...
They use 15:100 because the theory is it takes that many bucks to breed all the does. Fewer bucks than that and some does don't get bred.

Buck:doe is not only a hunter management tool, the number is chosen because the models state you need at least that many bucks in a herd to get maximum reproductive rate. The target is chosen for herd management as well.

The problem is that method clearly isn't working as the population is falling and DNR doesn't adjust their policies for herd population, they only adjust their policies for buck:doe numbers.

Some of that is due to the fact that there is only so much they can control. They try and build wildlife overpasses, limit tag numbers, and incentivize the killing of predators.

But, is it working? Does anybody think it is?

To me, it's still habitat... and buying winter range to put it in Conservation Easements is just so expensive. I wish they would've been doing it for the last 40 years though, land used to be a lot cheaper. The prices will only go up from here too.
 
If the herd has 200,000 doe and those doe birth 350,000+ fawns and by the next spring we have 100,000 fawns left- where did 250,000 fawns go? Save 20% off the loss and we'd add 50,000 more deer to the herd each year..... That is the math equation that needs to be solved.
 
grizzly said:
They use 15:100 because the theory is it takes that many bucks to breed all the does. Fewer bucks than that and some does don't get bred.

Buck:doe is not only a hunter management tool, the number is chosen because the models state you need at least that many bucks in a herd to get maximum reproductive rate. The target is chosen for herd management as well.

The problem is that method clearly isn't working as the population is falling and DNR doesn't adjust their policies for herd population, they only adjust their policies for buck:doe numbers.

Some of that is due to the fact that there is only so much they can control. They try and build wildlife overpasses, limit tag numbers, and incentivize the killing of predators.

But, is it working? Does anybody think it is?

To me, it's still habitat... and buying winter range to put it in Conservation Easements is just so expensive. I wish they would've been doing it for the last 40 years though, land used to be a lot cheaper. The prices will only go up from here too.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I've watched the dwr rep at the WB meeting, stand up and say they suggest not increasing tags because of poor fawn carryover. Although the buck ratio was above or at the target number.
 
Last edited:
A thread about a great unit in UT that residents are concerned about and there isn't a bunch of whining non residents making suggestions. Hmmmm wish it would be reciprocal :ROFLMAO:

Signed,
Region G
 
Know that there was a rifle tag turned in for Oak Creek and the hunter that took it killed a slammer and has not posted photo's due to looking at putting in a magazine. His father had a Vernon tag and they packed up and headed to the Oak Creek and returned after killing the slammer and took a 170+ heavy 4X4 I did see photo of, but no photo of the slammer. Can't wait to see the buck.
 
SS! said:
What I’m not doing is telling you what you should be doing in your state! Please Utah hunters do the same for other states ?

Carry on. Please.
Click to expand...

So your on a Utah owned site, taking part in a Utah deer unit discussion, but you're different, because apparently there was a vote in Wyoming to make a non resident, or part time resident their spokesman?

Thanks for not involving yourself in another states discussions.

Signed

MM
The Oak Creeks
 
hossblur said:
So your on a Utah owned site, taking part in a Utah deer unit discussion, but you're different, because apparently there was a vote in Wyoming to make a non resident, or part time resident their spokesman?

Thanks for not involving yourself in another states discussions.

Signed

MM
The Oak Creeks
Click to expand...
No.
 
hossblur said:
Your

I'll roll off of you. Your post by most of the Wyoming dudes would have been pretty clever.

But for a dude with his feet in several states, you got out over your skis.

Carry on
Click to expand...
You should really sit down and enjoy that you can talk about Utah problems without non residents giving their 2 cents on management. If only the utards could do the same, which is impossible.

Glad the oak creeks have the attention now. I’m sure they will be back focused on G soon enough!
 
SS! said:
You should really sit down and enjoy that you can talk about Utah problems without non residents giving their 2 cents on management. If only the utards could do the same, which is impossible.

Glad the oak creeks have the attention now. I’m sure they will be back focused on G soon enough!
Click to expand...

Notice the OP didn't start with him blaming Wyoming Residents for a units issues. Or really, NR to start with.

That's a Wyoming thing.
 
Well 5x more Utahns get to hunt G than get to hunt the Oak Creeks. So it makes sense that they have an opinion on G. I want to draw G or H every year like we did pre-points.....
I'll look forward to the next time SS comes to Utah to go shed hunting with us.
 
Packout said:
Well 5x more Utahns get to hunt G than get to hunt the Oak Creeks. So it makes sense that they have an opinion on G. I want to draw G or H every year like we did pre-points.....
I'll look forward to the next time SS comes to Utah to go shed hunting with us.
Click to expand...
Well hell invite me down! Always game for a shed hunt.
 
Let’s try this out.

They need to restrict the tags in the oak creeks even more for residents! It’s a shame a guy draws a tag and can’t find a 200” buck!!!
 

Similar threads

F
1.8 Satisfaction rate for Thousand Lakes
Replies
34
Views
2k
SS!
SS!
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
WannaXbe
New Mexico Mule deer
Replies
3
Views
736
WannaXbe
WannaXbe

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Buck.jpg
20230927_140045.jpg
IMG_3859.jpeg
41149F16-3D2D-42FA-8EB7-8053D8521BF7.jpeg
Screenshot_20221112-085629_Gallery.jpg
IMG_20220311_213535_833.jpg
IMG_4540.jpeg
IMG_9109.jpeg
Screenshot_20231229_201258_Gallery.jpg
Big Buck
pwee8.jpg
ADB8449F-AD4A-498C-A4D5-A16D1D39BC22.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom