tag numbers are going up

N

NVdrhntr

Active Member
Messages
418
Just saw the list of proposed quotas from NDOW
If they get their way, there will be substantial increases in tag numbers this year, for all species.
 
I really hope the deer herd is doing as well as they say but to recommend doubling the deer tags(7500 rifle deer tags to 15500+) seems a bit much???
 
This is what they tried to do last year and the commission overruled them and everybody threw a fit, now everyone throws a fit if they get their way.
 
If the recommended quotas are approved, I'd be shocked. Huge increases in lots of areas. Didn't the commision reduce the recommended quotas a couple of years ago? Maybe the numbers are padded a little. I think the tag numbers would be way too high in the units that I'm familar with.

Don P.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-12 AT 08:50AM (MST)[p]appears to me they want to restore the 25% that the commission cut on deer tags last year and then doubling down and increasing again on top of that?
They planning for the future, afraid the drought this year will hurt the herds next winter?
 
I like the proposed quotas.

If we have the animals, we need to manage them now, not stockpile them with hopes that every tag holder will kill a 200 inch buck or 400 inch bull.

For deer, I really like the idea. Drop the buck to doe ratio some and see if it might "stimulate" the herd some. I think the biggest problem right now is that the deer herd is stagnant.

We have been killing record numbers of elk, and the elk herd keeps increasing. It might work for deer too.
 
it isnt going to do much for the deer herd except make for piss poor hunts, there is not going to be hardly any more deer killed it will just make places so congested you will think you were on the utah general hunt, stepping on every ones toes. it will suck, unless you jus want a tag so bad you cant stand it, I think its a huge step back.WSe have been managing for quality hunts for years, now they want quantity..
 
Even though it will greatly increase the odds for drawing the unit I applied for, I hope this FAILS. The hunt would be very congested and not what I want for a mule deer hunt. Also not good for the herd, if stimulating the herd by killing more worked then Utah would be overrun with game.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
i hope they don't triple the tags in the area of my choice....i sure would like to draw again....but not at the expense of the deer herd...


How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait
 
man!!that would put a dent in the BONUS PT ride!
Now am sure I will draw my tag...
but look what happend last year when the bio dudes and dudette's put rec's forward only to be slashed by the head jaxass..so a grain of salt added here guy's!
 
Different commission this year. Not saying they wont cut back on the recs some, but I don't think they'll slash and burn like last year.
 
My Muley, D-Ram and Cali Ram units of 1st choice remained the same...

Elk and Antelope----added 1 each for the non-ressy pool...of my 1st choice units.

Robb
 
I have read the position support paper, and the reason for increases quotas differ according to species. For mule deer the buck:doe ratio needs to better balanced for herd growth, recruitment, and habitat reasons. Having more bucks to hunt doesn't necessarily mean the herds are in their optimum composition. Desert bighorns is due to the fact the high lamb recruitment from past years has reached maturity. All of these increased quotas are only recommended, and if authorized by the commission will only be for this year. There could be some shock in future years when biologist recommend lower quotas, and that is what they expect.

This is a good year to be hunting in Nevada. I have personally observed deer herds in select units to be nearing what I remember from the 1980's. What I like about this is we are letting science and Nevada biologist do their respective jobs.
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-30-12 AT 02:02PM (MST)[p]I personally can't see where any of the winter, or summer ranges here in Eastern Nevada are anywhere near or approaching anything that remotely resembles carrying capacity. If you read the 2011-2012 big game status report not one of the biologists mention anything of the sort. Unit 111-113 deer herd has been doing horrible, no post season survey since 2009, and all census flights have been conducted in March when no buck ratios can even be observed. So in this unit we don't even have a buck ratio to go off of. Also says deer did not even engage there winter range this year with lack of snow and we had two of the wettest winters on record in the two previous years as well as about 5-6 consecutive years of decreased production so the herd size has become smaller. So the way I look at it is the winter range in that unit should be in pretty decent condition. Unit 121, 2011 post season buck ratio of 24 bucks per 100 does to 66 fawns. The production rate was definitely up in this unit group which is encuoraging. Unit 221-223 2011 post season buck ratio of 30 bucks per 100 does to 61 fawns. That definitely looks like recruitment that doesn't need to be boosted, and the buck ratio is good but not out of this world. I think the tag numbers in 221-223 could go up but I'm not sure 840 tags is the answer, last year quota was 368 after the commission knocked of %25, and a 2010 quota of 490.

I think we should have a little survey to see how we think the Nevada Deer should be managed pick one of the four:

A) opportunity (buck ratios 15-25 per 100 does)
B) trophy (buck ratios 35-45 bucks per 100 does)
C) a combination of the two (buck ratios 25-35 per 100 does)
D) Identify a few units in each region to be managed for trophy and some for more opportunity.
 
All us sportsman and women need to make our feelings and oppinions known by attending you county's Advisory Board meeting, here in Ely it's Tuesday May 8th at 6:00 pm at the White Pine County Emergenecy Response Building.
 
On the NDOW site it does say that increasing tag numbers don't mean an increase in harvest. The success rate is so low that giving out 10 tags equals only 4 dead deer at best. It seems to me that the main reason is bringing in more money not balancing the herd. I wish they would raise the price of the tags and have a more reasonable quota on the deer.
 
Is there any way a non-res can comment on this without actually being at the meeting?Seems crazy to me to increase tags when the general population is trending downwards in many areas.
 
If you look at NDOW's recommendations for 2011, the 2012 statewide recommended quota is about a 54% increase (10,121 for 2011 and 15,595 for 2012).

The factors for the recommended mule deer quota increase, although well disclosed on NDOW's website, I believe are not completely narrated. The commission undercut NDOW's recommendations this past year (2011) significantly, rather than compromise. Which did not come as a surprise as the commission at the time smelled strongly of huntersalert - Meaning, NDOW and predators are bad. A bumper water year followed by a mild winter and minimal winter range loss resulting from fire, makes for ideal conditions for increases in population recruitment...for all species. Furthermore, deer hung high in the upper elevations during the hunt season due to warm temps and the lack of winter, making it tough for folks to put a tag on an animal, especially for the road hunters. This resulted in low hunter success and lots of carryover from last season. So with the population numbers and the current buck/doe ratios, there is likely good reason to bump the tags significantly. Furthermore, if we don't start smackin' deer the potential for a die-off increases if we have a hardcore winter.

As for elk, there are population caps in each hunt unit group which NDOW must work to achieve. Not because of carrying capacity, the state could harbor way more elk than we do now (probably 2-3 time as many), but because they have an agreement with the ranching community to minimize grazing competition between cattle and elk, NDOW must increase the quota to keep up with the growing population. However, I should mention, there have been studies that show, and it is evident on our state's ranges as grasses are plentiful (especially in burned areas), that the competition is marginal between cattle and elk, but we continue to maintain the agreement with the Ranching community.
 
Based on my knowledge of the particular unit that I hunt, I personally cannot see any reason to oppose the proposed increase in Elk tags.

However, the proposed increase for the Deer tags seems quite aggressive IMHO. I have personally seen over the course of the past 5 years a significant increase in the quality of deer, but not such a significant increase in quantity. Given this, I wouldn't mind seeing an increase that takes the tag total back to the 2010 level or maybe slightly higher.

There?s my .02
 
So you are saying we should start smacking deer because there might be a bad winter? But we should let the Elk herd triple? Where are the elk going to go in a bad winter, haystacks. You also seem to be saying Ranchers should minimize grazing to support more elk. Ranches support a lot of people, and a lot of wildlife in this state, you want them to just lower their income or go bankrupt so you can hunt. Our deer herds are pathetic compared to the eighties. Ndow is proposing 900+ doe tags in area 10 and 300 + doe tags in area 6. How can the herds recover when the habitat is slowly getting better, but we keep getting quotas raised. We need to leave the quotas alone for awhile until the deer have rebounded drastically.
 
I think they have lost thier minds on the deer. The herds are nowere near the 80's numbers so we know there is room for more animals. The herds are no were near capacity.
 
For one I never said anything about reducing ranching so that we can hunt more, in fact, if you go back and read what wrote, you'll see that I said that the state has the potential to harbor a larger elk herd than what it currently holds without drastic impacts to grazing allotments.

As for wintering elk habits - yes they have been known to depredation on hay stacks, but for the most part the state compensates for those losses through incentive tags or fencing efforts to keep elk off hay stacks and even pivots. Many ranchers opt for the incentive tags as they can sell them for thousands a piece, and make more of a profit off the tags than they could on the hay....go figure. Since most of the current elk depredation issues involve only a minute fraction of the state's elk population, it is therefore evident that state's elk populations are not sustained or grown on the dependency for hay. In fact, the majority of elk feed on winter fat, native grasses, shrubs, aspen bark, you name they'll eat it. Elk, along with antelope, unlike deer, are purely survivors and will go where they have to to find food, and will eat nearly any type of vegetation to get through the winter. Deer don't...they go to the exact same places (transition and winter ranges) every year, whether it's in existence or not - meaning, they'll head there and stay there regardless of the habitat condition, even if it was toasted as a result of fire and food is scarce. And if the winter is bad enough, they'll parish rather than move elsewhere to find forage and survive the winter.

Hence the proposal to increase deer tag quotas...take the area six herd for example - the deer numbers bombed after the Dunphy Hills fire back in the late 1990's which is critical winter range. That population has remained relatively unchanged, if not a descending trend, as well as the number of tags that have been issued since the initial population plummet, and we have experienced relatively normal to hard winters since the event. Consequently the winters have force the deer to migrate to their transition and winter ranges each year which have a limited carrying capacity. Then we experienced the 2010-2011 wet and mild and 2011-2012 mild winters which have allowed that population to grow, but if we experience a harsh winter without trimming back the herd before going into winter, the results could be more drastic than just increasing tags. Especially since the south Tuscarora Range was toasted again this past fall. Other areas maybe experiencing transition and winter range improvements, but those populations haven't had to rely on them because of the winter conditions.

Those ARE the facts, and be my guest to break my argument.

DCMHUNTER - you're absolutely right, the carrying capacities of each area out weight the current numbers....only as long as we have winters like we have had over the past couple years. You should take a look at an article in the Eastman's hunting journal - Mule Deer Special. It's a great read on why we will likely never experience the populations of the 50's and 80's again.
 
I went through all the recommendations for the rifle quota. I added the difference from what was proposed last year, and what was approved. In most areas, that number is about 10-15% lower than what the proposed quotas are this year. Some areas are about even, or maybe a little less than what is proposed this year.

I personally would like to see a little more opportunity rather than "quality." Maybe try to get the buck to doe ration in the 20-25 range? I know a lot of people that will hold out for a large deer, only to shoot a smaller deer on the last day, so a "quality" herd plan, is as only as good as the people with the tags, as young bucks are still being shot anyway.

Area 6- I don't think it will ever be like it was in the 80's. There is simply too much burned, and it just can't recover fast enough. As a poster said above, we have to keep the deer herd within a range that the limited winter range can support. Deer simply can't survive a hard winter from I-80 to the Midas-Tuscarora road. There is just not enough quality feed left. There will always be some deer, but not in big numbers.

As a side note, area 6 was one of the areas in which the difference in proposed tags this year was higher than the difference between the proposed and approved quotas last year, by a big margin.
 
A lot of people don't get the fact that the habitat isn't there to support deer numbers like there was in the 80s, and its the females that cause overall numbers to go up.
Bombardeer-good job of dealing with onthewall, In the state of Nevada
dealing with people of that mentality is a seeming never ending task.
 
In the departments justification letter that accompanies the recs.,
it refers to social carrying capacity. ( number of acceptable hunters in the field.)
I don't have all the biological data to deny that the bucks are there for harvesting at the levels the dept. wants, however,
i'm concerned with hunter congestion. Just one example, the sheldon early rifle hunt. You add in the resident, nonresident and junior tags, the rec is for 112 tags. Oh and a couple for Restricted guided hunters. Really? 112! anyone who has hunted the Sheldon knows it's not a very big place, especially when you consider not all of it is mule deer habitat. Same could be said for the Granites. 014. Too many tags for there also. IMO. I hope the commision considers this. After all it's not all about how many hunters can we biologically put out there. We do want to go have a great experience too.
 
NVdrhntr - not that it would make you feel any better, but the commission allotted unit 032, similar in acreage to that of unit 033, if not smaller, 145-ish tags (including youth and NR tags) during the any legal weapon season in 2011. I know two guys last year that hunted 032 whom both killed solid mature 4-points and mentioned that they rarely interacted or even saw very little of other deer hunter activity. In fact they ran into more chuker hunters than deer hunters.

I understand the period in which the 032 hunt takes place is much longer than the 033 early season so the pressure potentially can be much more distributed.

I should also mention that the Sheldon is comprised of over 900 square-miles....at 112 tags, if my math is correct, that comes out to be be about an average of one hunter per 8 square-miles...furthermore, the deer aren't all kegged up around Catnip and Badger Mountain either...they are widely dispersed. So, if you draw 033 early expect plenty of elbow room if the commission honors NDOW's recommendations for that hunt.
 
In 2006 there were 74 tags each for early and late season hunts on the Sheldon. In 2007, there were 85 and 56. 2005 was 51 and 51, and 50 and 50 in 2003.

I have never been on the Sheldon, however the recommendations for this year are not totally out of line with tags that have been issued in the past.
 
I've hunted the Sheldon many times.
Not to get into a tit for tat here, but you can't equate square miles with huntable area. Gooch table, fish springs table, big springs table, rock springs table. Alot of area that is not mule deer habitat. Around the rims, yes, on top for the most part no.
032 is much different terrain and habitat than 033.
Just sayin, personal preference, too crowded.
Used to be the Sheldon was considered a trophy area with higher buck/doe ratios. Don't know if they even differentiate anymore.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-02-12 AT 03:04PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-02-12 AT 02:48?PM (MST)

NVdrhntr - The area that the tables and buttes make up is only a small fraction of the 033 unit, most of it is rolling hills of sage and bitter brush. And yes, the rims of those tables and buttes can be great areas to glass as it is known to be where the big boys hang as shown below...

Right out of the Nevada Record Book - Score, area killed, year killed, hunter name:

165 2/8 ROCK SPRINGS TABLE, HUMBOLDT Co. 1990 XAVIER JR., STAN

168 6/8 GOOCH TABLE, HUMBOLDT Co. 2004 HAMMAN, RALPH J.

164 2/8 FISH SPRINGS MOUNTAIN, HUMBOLDT Co. 1998 SHEA,SEAN

163 4/8 VIRGIN VALLEY, HUMBOLDT Co. 1980 LENT, GERALD A. <--Right where Gooch, Rock Springs, and Big Spring Tables meet

173 7/8 BIG MOUNTAIN, HUMBOLDT Co. 1998 JOHNSON JR., WALACE O. <--Eastern rim of Rock Springs Table

190 5/8 ALKALI PEAK, HUMBOLDT Co. 1986 DOTSON, BEN <--less than one mile from the west rim of Rock Springs Table, and a freakin toad of a buck to boot!

and that's just a handful of them....like I said, not all the deer are kegged up on Catnip, Badger, and Blowout Mountains...they are literally dispersed across the unit. Might want to rethink your approach to hunting unit 033.

And I am just sayin.....
 
Fish Springs Mountain. Not a table
Virgin Valley. Not a table.
Big Mountain. Not a table.
Alkali Peak. Not a table.

Hunted all of them. Good deer areas. As was Devaney until it burned.
Why do you keep mentioning Catnip and Badger? I never did.
I don't hunt those areas, Have plenty of other areas I hunt besides those.
My point was and is, the Sheldon is not all deer habitat. Your Square mile per hunter theory doesn't hold up.
But if you want to take your 8 square miles on top of Gooch or on top of Rock Springs go for it. No peeking over the edges.
This is where people express opinions and mine is 112 hunters is too many. If you don't think so fine. The Sheldon is just 1 example. Statewide going from less than 8000 to over 15000 is BS.
Just sayin
 
LAST EDITED ON May-02-12 AT 04:57PM (MST)[p]Well you guys can say whatever you want about opportunity and that habitat cant control the number of the deer that are out there, but in the areas I hunt, Lincoln County, areas 22 23 and 24, there is definately not very many more deer than there has ever been and these are the areas that they are trying to affect the most statewide by there quotas, every single hunt in every single one of these units they are trying to double and triple. Why. It will completely ruin these hunts. Dont know if anyone here hunts or has hunted area 22, but in the 90's they had over a thousand tags, and it was not fun I promise you that. And there recommending close to that many tags just in the early rifle hunt alone. So at some point you gotta quit being so concerned with OPPORTUNITY. Hell look what opportunity got Utah.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-02-12 AT 05:21PM (MST)[p]NVdrhntr - I don't know where the hell you hunt exactly, but we all know it sure isn't the tables and I know lot of folks hunt Catnip and Badger....so it was statement given based on an assumption as those areas often hold a good number of the unit's deer. And consequently, attract lots of deer hunters.

Furthermore, without the tables there would be an absence of the rims where bucks like to hang. And there is a lot of rim to hunt on the Sheldon. So your statement above that the tables aren't good deer habitat I felt was subject to debate.

The early hunt is 15 days long, and I highly doubt that all tag holders will hunt all 15 days of the season. So, to push it further....112 tags is nothing buddy, and more than likely the commission won't approve the recommendations any way...statewide. My bets are that they will undercut the recommendations by about 10-15%.

That should make you feel a little better.
 
Bombardeer,
We agree on something. I too think the commission will approve
less than the recs.

I plan on being at the commission meeting encouraging them anyway.
Hope you get your deer tag. :)
 
LAST EDITED ON May-02-12 AT 07:36PM (MST)[p]Desertbonehunter - it's just too bad that NDOW won't consider using your personal flight survey data, and only end up using their own before making quota recommendations.

Yeah and look what opportunity got Utah.....it only allowed these guys to shoot dinky forked horn bucks huh?

7112images.jpg


6253imagesca8il1i6.jpg


http://www.monstermuleys.info/photos/user_photos/6841000f01ca54db$5b23e310$5c045c84_display.jpg

2154web.jpg


740157491_1419859468131_1582010263_30955974_8122705_o11.jpg



Boy, those are some freakin dinks! Who the hell would want to hunt in Utah? And those are just a hand full of images resulting from my google search for "Utah Mule Deer."
 
Cool Utah has and still does produce some great bucks, but talk to any one that hunts there general hunts, ( which they no longer have ) and ask them bout the quality.And Im not arguing a 10 to 15% increase like all the other units around the state you guys are talking about. Thats nothing too severe, but I do NOT agree with a 50 to 75% increase in the units Im referring too. Your a fool if you think this is a good thing.
 
Desertbonehunter - looks like the quality is just fine in Utah...the proof is in the pudding.

The recommended quotas presented by NDOW aren't numbers they draw out of a hat. The biologist have buck/doe ratio goals they must meet, so they conduct their winter and spring surveys, they estimate the units carrying copacities, which are primarily based on the quality and quantity of available transistion and winter ranges, and they make their recommendations accordingly. There is nothing foolish about it. That's how it works across the state...furthermore, that's how it works in all the states.

If you don't like it, head to the commission meetings and speak up. Or better yet, earn your wildlife degree, apply for biologist positions for the state, and attempt to employ a different management approach. I think if we all could spend just a couple years as a game biologist I think it would be a real eye opener for a lot of people. A real eye opener!
 
There is a problem with pointing to a few pictures and saying everything is fine and the proof is in the pudding. Having hunted deer for more than 40 years I can tell you things are not alright in Utah, they arent good in Wyoming or Idaho either,a few pictures of big bucks being held by prime age hightec hunters doesn't tell the whole story.
Nevada has quality deer hunting because they strictly limit the hunting pressure, Utah has generally poor hunting because they don't do a good job of limiting pressure.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-02-12 AT 09:58PM (MST)[p]"Nevada has quality deer hunting because they strictly limit the hunting pressure, Utah has generally poor hunting because they don't do a good job of limiting pressure. "

I agree 110%! But that limit is to maintain 25 bucks per 100 does unlike Utah's 12 bucks per 100 does, which is a direct result of political pressure from hunters. Nevada has a spread out age class of bucks. From what I've seen in Utah, most of the bucks are forkies or spindly 3 points with an occasional nice one, especially on the general units.
 
As someone who has hunted deer in Nevada and Utah for 25 years I offer the following statement............ANYONE who places Utah?s management of their deer herd in the past 20 years up on a pedestal as a shining example of how it should be done has absolutely no idea what they are talking about IMO!
 
Quick question - How are the biologists coming up with their buck to doe ratios? The majority of the population reports that I have seen were done in the spring, usually April. Which we all know is well after the bucks have shed their antlers. Also, how do they come up with their buck to doe ratios, or population estimates AT ALL in areas they did not fly during a given year? How do they justify tag increases in these areas? How many of these hunts coincide with elk/sheep flights? Do these animals inhabit the exact same areas?

In addition, what is with the doe tags?? Can someone please explain this to me? Let's hammer epic amounts of bucks in areas 6 & 10, and then top it off with 1200 doe tags. I suppose it's possible that the number of deer harvested won't rise dramatically. With the increased antelope & elk tags, there will be that many more people out scouting, spooking animals. Then throw in the additional deer tag holders out scouting and hunting primitive weapon seasons. Stir it all together with an all time high number of rifle hunters, mix in a lack of camping spots, add a dash of way too many people to a dangerously dry fire year, and you have successfully created a cluster of immense proportions.

I see you like to use the word estimate. I have seen similar words scattered throughout NDOW?s website. Some of my favorites from the big game quota justification on NDOW?s site -

?Bucks typically comprised ROUGHLY 26% of the population in the 1980?s, today bucks comprise APPROXIMITELY 32% of the population.

Of the available bucks in our deer population in 2011 we harvested AROUND 21.5%. In the mid 1980s we harvested UP TO 36% of our bucks.

Nevada currently possesses a population of 112,000 mule deer with 35,000 bucks. (GUESS THAT?S A FACT?) In 1985 there was an ESTIMATED 155,000 deer with 44,000 bucks.

Higher percentages of bucks in the herd do not equate to higher quality deer or herd growth, but MAY in fact limit fawn recruitment via competition for limited winter range in some areas.

And so on and so forth?..

I realize NDOW is spread pretty thin ? Personnel, cash, and time. I do not think NDOW is the devil. However, after hunting deer in 4 of the areas (last year) which have been targeted for the largest increases, I do not see these tag increases as having the deer herds best interest at heart.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 00:40AM (MST)[p]Piper - as far as the quality of the bucks that roam the utah ranges, it isn't lacking by far....and that is the point I'm trying to make. The quality of the hunt's is a different story...and to be honest, I've never hunted Utah, Idaho, or Wyoming. But, I have heard that some areas during the season that the trees may as well ware hunter orange too. But for Desertbonehunter to draw a comparison between the proposed NDOW quotas and Utah's quotas...lets just say it's not even close....nice try though.

Oh, and who are you callin prime age high tech? guys that use scoped rifles?
 
Gudari - do yourself a favor and put in a call to the NDOW office, I'm sure any biologist wouldn't mind chatting with you about how they conduct their surveys and come up with their estimates.

It seems that you don't like that they use estimations for making their management decisions and recomendations.....please give us a cost effective and overall better approach to getting the job done....or better yet, to count every single deer across the state as it seems you feel is necessary. Be sure to provide a cost estimate too. I'd like to see those numbers.
 
I would imagine Nevadas deer herds could handle the increased pressure for a couple of years without dramatically effecting the quality of bucks.
Its easy to underestimate the mobility, prowess and technology of modern day hunters, shooting animals a half mile or more away is common these days, modern ATVs, multiple hunters and spotters for every tag, its not your dads deer hunt anymore.
I don't think a lot of wildlife biologists see things from every angle, and its common to let things get out of hand as far as deer quality goes, I have seen it happen plenty of times.
Be cautious, its usually a lot harder to get quality back in deer herds than it is to maintain buck quality.
 
Piper - From a biological/ecological stand point all of the units can sustain a higher percent of harvest. You have to remember that the Biologists are making their management decisions based on the buck/doe and bull/cow ratio goals, estimated carrying capacities, and established population cap agreements.

And in the case of our states elk population, the biologists are required to bump the tag numbers to get a handle on the growing populations as there are established cap agreements with the ranching community. As for tweaking those hunts to better fit our desires as sportsmen, whether it's few tags for a more quality less congested hunt, or more tags for more opportunity, that's where the wildlife commission comes into play. And that's where yours and my voice can be heard - whether it's considered is a different story.

That's why statements like "NDOW needs to pull their heads out" I believe are strongly subject to debate. They are doing what they are supposed to, and that's to make efforts to balance the states populations from a biological/ecological stand point.
 
I think there are a lot more politics involved in these proposed mule deer quotas than just biology. If you don't think that NDOW was bent out of shape after the commission reduced their proposal last year I think you've got your head buried in the sand. Also, as sad as it is I'm sure the almighty dollar has a factor in this as well. An increase in tags of this magnitude increases revenue dramatically. We?ve got to pay for those biologists salaries some how.

I also question the deer populations that NDOW estimates. From what I understand this years counts did not go as well in some areas, so they blamed it on a mild winter with the game not having to move into their traditional wintering areas, being spread out more so they didn't count as many animals as usual. I question what formulas they utilize to determine the population in each unit. I know they count X amount of deer or elk or sheep and multiply it by some secret formula to estimate the population. Did they use a higher multiplier this year because it was supposedly a mild winter with the game spread out more? Like was mentioned in a previous post they reference population numbers like they are know fact, when in reality they are just best estimates. We all know numbers can be skewed one way or the other based on who's to benefit.

Like desertbonenhunter stated above the increase in tag numbers in units 221-223, 231, and 241-245 is mind blowing. I too spend a lot of time in all three of these units and I have not seen a massive population blowup in the last few years at all. I truly don't know what they're basing their recommendations on in these units. The total increase in tags in units 241-245 is 2.7 times greater what they had in there last year!?!?!? If these tag numbers get approved it going to create a war zone in these units next year during the hunts.

On a separate note, some of the sheep tag increases surprise me as well. I don't necessarily disagree with the quotas, but some of these units are also going to turn into a war zone with that many tag holders and their spotters/guides/family friends/camp cooks out there helping them look for a ram. I truly think if they want to bump the tag numbers up in some of these units they are going to need to split the hunts and have early and late hunts. Some of these units are not large and as such you're going to have the tag holders crawling all over each other. The last thing somebody wants to do is get into a footrace or fist fight with another hunter after they've waited 20 years to draw their desert bighorn tag.

Some of these proposed quotas make me wonder if NDOW is trying for the old approach of shooting high in the beginning and hoping to settle somewhere in the middle in the end. I know every year it seems like the distrust between many of the sportsman of the state and NDOW seems to keep increasing, and with these proposals it looks like it will grow again this year.

All the above is just my $.02. I'll patiently be awaiting Bombardeer?s response. Based on his previous responses I wouldn't be surprised is he wasn?t a NDOW employee.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 11:14AM (MST)[p]Downsouth - you're quite the conspiracy theorist. Guess we better start digging trenches and bust out the mustard gas for this fall's war-zones.

Like I mentioned to desertbonehunter above in regards to the proposed Lincoln county tag increases - it's just too bad NDOW doesn't consider using your personal survey and biological data before coming up with their quota recommendations, huh? Especially since you're likely such a qualified biologist.
 
+1 on the sheep situation downsouth.
10 tags in 252?
10 tags in 181?
The sheep are there but areas are small for that many hunters.
need to split them up. But too late for that.
Makes me wonder if the commission should start setting seasons at the same time they set quotas that way they can go early/late if needed.
 
We'll all draw tags this year but so much for next year! They are trying to give out way way way too meny tags. I don't get where they came up with doubling tags in some units. So just because we have them we shoot them? It's unreal and sad. I just thought NV had better heads then the other western states that are going to hell in a hand basket. Lets fallow!!
 
The season for 252 is just shy of a month long, and 181 is about a month long. Assuming the commission honors the quota recommendation for those units, and if you draw a tag, your options are as followed:

-hunt opening morning and hope that the majority of the tag holder opt to hunt later in the season.
-hunt late and hope the majority of the tags are filled early.
-hunt at any point during the season and simply be down right the better hunter by getting in solid shape, practice shooting, do as much homework that you can and then capitalize on the opportunity when it presents itself.
-or take the easy/lazy man's way and hire a guide
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 11:55AM (MST)[p]ELKOHUNTER - the explanations for why they came up with the recommended quotas that they did is all spelled out above in multiple posts.

Recap/Summary:
NDOW's job is to balance state populations based on established ratio goals, carrying capacities, and agreed population caps. They aim to do what's best for the health of the herds and aim to honor their agreements when they come out with quota recommendations.

Also discussed above, the commission under cut the states quota recommendations by about 25% state wide last year, and with ideal winter conditions and fewer deer harvested, as a result of low hunter success and fewer tags, there was a lot of carryover. Furthermore, the recommended quotas may be double the number of tags given out last year, but it's only about a 54% increase from last years quota recommendations.
 
akamissedagain-Thanks for the link.I'll be contacting those commissioners to express my dismay at the proposed increases for the deer hunts.I will be hunting NV for the third time this year.I love hunting deer in Nv(I'm a non ressy in case no one figured that out).What a great state to hunt,with good quality animals and not too bad of hunting pressure.Be careful here-as piper stated,once you lose your quality animals,it can be hard to get that back.Also,just because a biologist has a degree doesn't mean they can't make mistakes,and are never wrong(like some seem to imply).Don't screw up a good thing,Nevada!Your wildlife management is envied by many of us across the west!
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 12:27PM (MST)[p]Non-typical - The quotas aren't conjured and submitted without review. They are reviewed by other biologists and their supervisors before they are submitted. So you are right, people make mistakes, but with collective review of those recommended quotas it causes a quality assurance/quality check effect, which ultimately eliminates errors.
 
http://www.ndow.org/learn/com/mtg/2012/March/Dilemmas of Deer Management in Nevada.pdf

Here is the power point presentation that was given at the last commission meeting.

Also - people have been saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results.

We have been extremely conservative in our approach to killing deer the last 10 years, and yet the statewide population is stagnant. The 80's were very productive, so why not try some of the strategies that worked in the 80's?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 12:59PM (MST)[p]Here's an idea gentlemen - if the commission honors NDOW's recommendations and you draw a tag, and the sky is falling in your world and you don't want to stress yourself out worrying about hunter congestion or killing a deer which you feel is unwarranted based on your personal population estimates, just turn your tags back into NDOW and earn a BP (at least I believe you can still get a BP if you turn you tag in) and wait for your so called Goldie-locks "just-right" perfect year, hope you draw that year, and then hunt. That is an option.
 
mevertsen - in the 1980's we had way more of our states transition and winter ranges in tact.

Also, please give specifics as to what aspects of the 1980's management approach that were better than today's management approach.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 01:07PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON May-03-12
>AT 12:59?PM (MST)
>
>Here's an idea gentlemen - if
>the commission honors NDOW's recommendations
>and you draw a tag,
>and the sky is falling
>in your world and you
>don't want to stress yourself
>out worrying about hunter congestion
>or killing a deer which
>you feel is unwarranted based
>on your personal population estimates,
>just turn your tags back
>into NDOW and earn a
>BP (at least I believe
>you can still get a
>BP if you turn you
>tag in) and wait for
>your so called Goldie-locks "just-right"
>perfect year, hope you draw
>that year, and then hunt.
>That is an option.

+1 I will gladly take that tag if someone else doesn't want it ;)
 
>mevertsen - in the 1980's we
>had way more of our
>states transition and winter ranges
>in tact.
>
>Also, please give specifics as to
>what aspects of the 1980's
>management approach that were better
>than today's management approach.


The biggest things I can see is the buck to doe ratios. We have been stockpiling our bucks for several years, the deer aren't getting bigger, and the herd isn't growing. I do know that we can't have the numbers we had in the 80's, just not going to happen. However, there are units that can be hunted, and there is some room to grow the herd.

We also need to keep those herds that can't grow because of the reduced winter range in check, and do the best we can to maintain a stable herd.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 01:47PM (MST)[p]>The biggest things I can see
>is the buck to doe
>ratios. We have been
>stockpiling our bucks for several
>years, the deer aren't getting
>bigger, and the herd isn't
>growing. I do know
>that we can't have the
>numbers we had in the
>80's, just not going to
>happen. However, there are
>units that can be hunted,
>and there is some room
>to grow the herd.
>
>We also need to keep those
>herds that can't grow because
>of the reduced winter range
>in check, and do the
>best we can to maintain
>a stable herd.


In fact in the past two years a lot of the herds have been growing due to the mild winters, fewer tags, and low hunter success....hence the increased recommended quotas. Also, you mention that we have been stock piling bucks and it makes for poor trophy quality....we'll it seems that the quota recommendations are on par with that aspect of your preferred management approach. does it not?
 
Just received an email written by Chairman McBeath of the state commission, speaking for himself, stating that he is not likely to be swayed by UNSUPPORTED requests to lower mule deer quotas from what NDOW has recommended.
So, looks like he's on board to approve the recs.
He did give one out. he said he would look at each unit individually and if other quotas for other species reduce quality of hunt in that unit, he would consider it.
 
Bombardeer,
You must work for the state... It doesn't take a blind man to see higher quotas= money and the more tags the better to them. They don't care about heards they care about money.
 
Bombardeer, are you an employee of NDOW? It seems like you just joined this forum as soon as these tag numbers came into question defending NDOW. I never claimed to be a biologist, and I would hate to have their job as they'll probably get hammered either way proposing an increase or decrease in tags. I was just stating my opinion that I personally cannot see where the deer herds in some of these areas has grown to the point where you can support that many tags. That's the whole purpose of the County Advisory Boards as well, the public get the opportunity to state their opinion.

The one thing that amazes me is how large the increase in tag numbers are versus what NDOW themselves proposed last did. Did they screw up on their quotas last year? You can't tell me that the so called ?perfect storm of events? as NDOW has put it over just one year can allow such a dramatic increase. But then again Bombardeer I'm not a biologist I'm just a simpleton looking in from the outside.

In regards to hunter congestion, I believe your way off base here as well. I would like to see the statistic on how much of the actual hunting is completed on the weekends versus guys taking time of work or school to hunt during the week. I would be willing to bet that most of the hunting is completed over the weekends, and even if you've got a hunt that is a month long you're still going to have the bulk of the hunters overrunning each other on the three or four weekends that are open.

Regarding the sheep tags, I've actually hunted unit 252, have you? I don't necessarily disagree with the proposed number of tags as there are a lot of sheep on that mountain, but 10 tags on that unit at the same time is going to create a mess. You can say all you want about waiting to hunt until later, but most guys that finally draw their desert bighorn tags are going to want to hunt opening weekend to get the first crack at the big rams. 252 looks like a big unit, but with the limited access that you have there and considering that almost every tag holder brings a posse along to help it shrinks in a hurry. I can tell you from first hand experience that its not enjoyable to be racing up the mountain against another hunter chasing that big ram that steps out. Adding these tags is only going to exaggerate the issue. But you know it all Bombardeer and I'm sure you've been on that hunt.

You?re going to have the same issue in the Bares (Unit 253) as well. Their bumping the tags up to 7, and again there are a lot of sheep in that unit so the tag numbers aren't the issue. The issue, like above, is that the unit really isn't as big as it looks and it's going to create a mess between the hunters. This year the PIW, Dreamtag, Heritage Tag, and Silverstate tag holders can't hunt in there. But just wait until next year and you're mess is going to grow even more. Those special tags holders get drawn to that unit like flys when it's open. Why not, it truly is an easier sheep hunt for a big ram.

I think they really need to look at a few of these sheep hunts and split them up if you want to increase the tag numbers. Nobody wants to be hunting on top of the next guy. I believe it's that ?social carrying capacity? that NDOW mentioned in their rational memo that been floating around.

But hey, why should we make hunting enjoyable. We?re out there with weapons, we might as well make it warfare, right? It seem to me the hunting population is diminishing in the United States, creating more hunter conflicts in the field is surely one way to help keep hunting alive and help get kids involved.

I've ranted on long enough. I'll be patiently waiting Bombardeer?s response, and hopefully I draw my deer tag this year so I can shoot my buck at 1,000 yards in front of the other hunter before he get the chance to take a shot.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 03:09PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON May-03-12
>AT 01:47?PM (MST)
>
>>The biggest things I can see
>>is the buck to doe
>>ratios. We have been
>>stockpiling our bucks for several
>>years, the deer aren't getting
>>bigger, and the herd isn't
>>growing. I do know
>>that we can't have the
>>numbers we had in the
>>80's, just not going to
>>happen. However, there are
>>units that can be hunted,
>>and there is some room
>>to grow the herd.
>>
>>We also need to keep those
>>herds that can't grow because
>>of the reduced winter range
>>in check, and do the
>>best we can to maintain
>>a stable herd.
>
>
>In fact in the past two
>years a lot of the
>herds have been growing due
>to the mild winters, fewer
>tags, and low hunter success....hence
>the increased recommended quotas. Also,
>you mention that we have
>been stock piling bucks and
>it makes for poor trophy
>quality....we'll it seems that the
>quota recommendations are on par
>with that aspect of your
>preferred management approach. does it
>not?


I agree with all the facts about the recent weather patterns, fewer tags, and low hunter success...

And I am in support of the quotas for the most part, even tough some do "seem" high, even after running through the data that I have that NDOW has in their Status books. I am not a biologist, and I don't know every area in the state. I also have faith that our biologists know what they are doing, and have the best interest of the herds in mind.

As for the trophy quality statement - I did not specifically state that too many bucks makes for poor trophy quality, or at least I did not mean it to come across like that. But, with the bucks that we do have, and the ratios the way they are, I would think there would be more bucks being entered into the state book every year than there currently are. Especially with how many people I run into that have the "trophy hunter" mentality, but for one reason or another shoot a dink on the last day.
 
downsouth -

I can't answer all the questions you had for bombardeer, but I can give you the information on 252 and 253W.

There were 7 tags last year in 252, and there were a total of 57 hunter days. So each hunter spent just over 8 days hunting, and the successfull hunter dates were spread out quite a bit.

For 253W there were 5 tags, plus a Heritage and PIW. The average there was 2 days, and nothing was killed by the regular tag holders or the PIW tag holder beyond 4 days into the season.

I would be willing to bet that most of those people had plenty of vaction time to hunt, and they just took the ram earlier because they wanted it then. If I get a sheep tag (and I only applied for 211N), then I will be taking 12 days off, and it will be from about Dec 1st on. I think there are a lot of people that have that luxury to be able to hunt when they can, and not necessarily on weekends.

Every person just needs to do a little reasearch of past history of the hunt unit they plan to hunt, do some good scouting, and have do their best to make it work for them.

Here is the link for last year's sheep info.

http://www.ndow.org/hunt/resources/...rt Bighorn - Hunter Checkout Summary 2011.pdf
 
ELKOHUNTER - I am not an NDOW employee actually, but I know how it works within the state system as I read the available information and ask NDOW employees questions from time to time to remain informed.

"It doesn't take a blind man to see higher quotas= money and the more tags the better to them. They don't care about heards they care about money."

You're not serious, right? Biologists don't earn a commission on the tags sold. Furthermore, most biologist have a passion for hunting that parallels or exceeds most of our own, that's why they go to school, earned a wildlife degree, and strive to become game biologists. It's not about the money for them...obviously, when most make between $40,000 - $60,000 (supervisor wages) <--check it out on the state website it's all spelled out.

It doesn't take a blind man to see an idiot whom makes assumptions and refuses to use facts to back up their statements and arguments.
 
mevertsen,

I've look at all the info that NDOW provides. I was one of the ones hunting 252 last year. It was a zoo with 7 tag holders, and it's going to be worse with 10. I know some of the hunter were down there for a loooong time hunting last year, but over the first few days we were all stepping all over each other and it's truly not fun when you've got a tag like that.

I've also hunted the Bares a couple years ago back when there were only 4 tags. Like you mentioned most of the tag holders fill out rather quick as there are good rams running all over that place. We were the last tag holder that year to kill a ram and that was the third day. The problem is the first couple days were a zoo.

And I would like see someone that draws one of these tags NOT hunt the opening day or week. It's ain't going to happen.

I think if you asked some guys who have hunted these units the same thing they would agree with me. If you split it up into an early and late hunt you could avoid some of this congestion. Again, this is just my opinion and I'm just a knowbody who likes to blow hot air so pay no attention.
 
mevertsen,

I've look at all the info that NDOW provides. I was one of the ones hunting 252 last year. It was a zoo with 7 tag holders, and it's going to be worse with 10. I know some of the hunter were down there for a loooong time hunting last year, but over the first few days we were all stepping all over each other and it's truly not fun when you've got a tag like that.

I've also hunted the Bares a couple years ago back when there were only 4 tags. Like you mentioned most of the tag holders fill out rather quick as there are good rams running all over that place. We were the last tag holder that year to kill a ram and that was the third day. The problem is the first couple days were a zoo.

And I would like see someone that draws one of these tags NOT hunt the opening day or week. It's ain't going to happen.

I think if you asked some guys who have hunted these units the same thing they would agree with me. If you split it up into an early and late hunt you could avoid some of this congestion.

My comments above regading the weekend hunting was more directed towards the deer hunts, not the sheep, elk or antelope hunts. I know that most guys are willing to take more time off when it comes to one of the harder to draw tags.

Again, this is all just my opinion and I'm just a knowbody who likes to blow hot air so pay no attention.
 
"I can tell you from first hand experience that its not enjoyable to be racing up the mountain against another hunter chasing that big ram that steps out. Adding these tags is only going to exaggerate the issue. But you know it all Bombardeer and I'm sure you've been on that hunt."

Nope, never been on a sheep hunt in 252, but hunting in nearly all the sheep units I know comes with access issues for all the hunters not just you and your buddies in 252. Furthermore, why race another hunter. Step back, glass, find a ram you would like to put your tag on, stalk him and shoot him. It's not a race.

"We?re out there with weapons, we might as well make it warfare, right?" <--freakin' drama queen....yep lets start dropping each other left and right.

"I've ranted on long enough. I'll be patiently waiting Bombardeer?s response, and hopefully I draw my deer tag this year so I can shoot my buck at 1,000 yards in front of the other hunter before he get the chance to take a shot." <---Drama freakin' queen. If you do draw a tag and hunt this year and kill a buck, give us the hunt story....I bet it won't be that stupid, let alone dramatic.
 
DownSouth, dude your such a girl. Read the facts and understand what you are saying before you open your mouth. Your making yourself look like a 16 year old girl with daddy issues.
 
"I was one of the ones hunting 252 last year. It was a zoo with 7 tag holders, and it's going to be worse with 10. I know some of the hunter were down there for a loooong time hunting last year, but over the first few days we were all stepping all over each other and it's truly not fun when you've got a tag like that."

Yeah it was such a zoo that it forced hunters to kill dinky rams averaging 166+ inches with the smallest around 155 inches and the biggest pushing 180 inches. Must of been a $hitty hunt, huh? Or you're just a freakin' drama queen.
 
BigRod69 and Bombardeer, you guys are right, I'm just a drama queen. Luckly I'm not latched onto the NDOW tit like you two and have enough brains to question their recommendations. I'm not alone, there are a lot of sportsman that concerned with these recommendations as well. I've "read the facts" and have had multiple discussion with various NDOW employees on various issues, but that still doesn't mean I need to agree with them.

I also spend a lot of time in the field every year. And, unfortunately, have been involved in the foot races for both desert sheep, elk, and deer. You can say what you want about not getting into a foot race with another hunter, but when you spot that giant ram/buck/bull on the side of the mountain I'd like to see you sit back and just let the other hunter go after him. It doesn't happen, I've watched others do it as well.

I'll quit crying like a little 16 year old girl now with daddy issues. I hope NDOW is right and the deer herds can handle all these tags. If not who or what are they going to blame in a couple years if the deer numbers take a crap? I'm sure they'll some up with some excuse.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 05:28PM (MST)[p]Downsouth - You claim to be more intelligent? You make your statements and express your opinions with zero facts to back them up, only conspiracy theories and dramatic exaggerations! I guess anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about.

Furthermore, I'll always give the other hunter the right-of-way to a trophy if he/she finds it first.
 
So your taking NDOW's population ESTIMATES as fact? I don't claim to be any more intelligent than the next and I don't believe I stated that anywhere. I just don't believe everything I hear and like to come to my own conclusions. Like I said, that's the whole purpose behind the County Advisory Boards, the public gets an opinion on these matters as well. Whether or not the Commission listens to it is another item all together. Remember, NDOW is a goverment entity that is working for the public interest.

I would like to see what you'd do if you were putting the stalk on that monster trophy, and half way up the mountain you spotted another hunter stalking the same trophy. If you'd just walk off the mountain and let them have it my hat's off to you. It typically doesn't go that way.
 
Downsouth, the Wildlife Comission hasn't increased the number of tags for the purpose of making hunting an unenjoyable sport. The number of sheep and deer has increased incredibly this year due to the 25% decrease on tag numbers last year which has led to an overpopulation. Would you rather these animals starve due to lack of resources? And of course hunting is more congested during the weekend. Just like restaurants, the movies, malls, etc. Hunting is an outside activity that sometimes requires some extra time during the week. No one is forcing you to hunt, like I said, it is a HOBBY. If you don't like the consequences that come with it maybe you should take up knitting instead.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 07:01PM (MST)[p]"So your taking NDOW's population ESTIMATES as fact?" - well their estimates are educated guesses which are based on FACTS. Would you rather have us all favor your personal survey and biological data, or are those just your opinions? It's tough to draw realistic and accurate conclusions when they are supported by opinions and conspiracy theories, not FACTS.

Above you state that unlike BigRod69 and myself you "have enough brains to question their recommendations," which implies that you consider yourself more intelligent. I believe more ignorant suits you better.
 
Bombardeer, you are even arguing with the one guy that is agreeing with you on killinbg every buck off, all about opportunity. So which side are you on here exactly. I dont know that I have listened to a smarter guy than you, your absolutely right. We should go with all the recs, there is no where near enough habitat to support the mindboggling amounts of deer we have right now. Wow, all these other guys are just fools thinking the quotas are way too high I guess huh. I know you dont work for NDOW, but I now do believe you work for Utah DWR and the awesome mentality that goes into there planning and strategies. Especially when you say the Utah deer herd is not lacking, MAN you are an intelligent soul.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 07:17PM (MST)[p]So I spoke with the regional NDOW game supervisor out of Elko today and he gave me some fun facts, which proves that your guys love for the 1980's management approach contradicts your desire to limit tags for the purposes of improving the quality of the hunt...

In 1988, in areas 6 alone, the state gave out over 4,000 buck tags, and over 2,600 doe tags...that was before the big die off of 1992, and before much of the transition and winter ranges were turned to moon scape and cheatgrass as a result of multiple fires.

We report, you decide :)
 
There has been one question skimmed over by the official NDOW increase guru. How do they obtain the buck to doe ratios when they do the counts after the bucks have shed? Just a logical question I would like answered. I mean after all...its easy to tell a buck from a doe when you are moving around in a helicopter...or maybe it's the gentlemen on the grassy knoll that do the counting? Conspiracy on!!!
 
>There has been one question skimmed
>over by the official NDOW
>increase guru. How do they
>obtain the buck to doe
>ratios when they do the
>counts after the bucks have
>shed? Just a logical question
>I would like answered. I
>mean after all...its easy to
>tell a buck from a
>doe when you are moving
>around in a helicopter...or maybe
>it's the gentlemen on the
>grassy knoll that do the
>counting? Conspiracy on!!!

The buck to doe ratios are caculated in the fall, after the hunts in most cases.

The spring surveys are conducted and are calculated as a fawn/adult ratio.

If you add the bucks and does that were counted in the fall, then you can get the fawn/adult ratio and compare it to the spring for the winter survival.

The 2010/2011 counts are listed on page A-42 of the big game status book. The link for that is at the bottom of the page on the hunting section at www.ndow.org
 
"Their estimates are educated guesses based on fact". Isn't that a contradiction? And exactly what FACTS are they based on. Some elaborate formula based on the number of animals that were counted per square mile in a flyover. Wildlife biology is not a precise science, so I would caution stating words like ?fact?, but hey that's just my opinion and I'm not expert. Anyone can generate a computer model to output whatever they'd like, does that make the output right?

I had asked earlier in this post about their counts this year. From what I understand they didn't go as well as years past in some units and it was blamed on the mild winter and the wildlife being scattered. Do they have to modify their formula based on the fact that the actual counts were lower? I know I've seen how they calculate the numbers before and would like to see it again and see how they factor things like this. I personally cannot see how there is much precision to this when there are so many assumptions. Nowhere in the NDOW rational memo that was release did I see them mention that these were ESTIMATES.

BigRod69, I didn't see anywhere in the NDOW rational for these quotas that discussed a potential die-off due to lack of resources and overpopulation. From what I understood they're basing it almost all off of buck-to-doe ratios.

I don't have an issue with the sheep tags, or elk tags, or antelope tags. I think they should split a couple of the sheep hunts but then again that's just my opinion. I just don't agree with them on the deer tags in some of the units, as I've mentioned before. That is my opinion, and I can get on here and voice it just like you can voice your support of NDOW. We can all agree to disagree on this, and I think it's always good to get as many opinions as possible on items like this.

Everybody has complained about the deer herds for the last couple years wanting them to rebound. I hope that us doomsdayers are wrong and they are right and the deer continue to rebound after all of these tags are issued.
 
Someone needs to start a poll so we can see what the split is in favor/against the deer quota increase.

downsouth - I agree 110% with everything you have said. You have more patience that I do. It's pretty obvious he's not going to budge...unlike the rest of us who take in the info, process it, and react accordingly.
 
+1 Gudari...........the way bombdadeer and lilrod are pitching (repeating/selling NDOW?s pitch) on the agressive increase you'd think they have something to gain. Guides maybe?
 
I don't doubt that the bucks are doing pretty well in Nevada considering the habitat, and they are probably on an upswing due to the recent wet winters. Bombardeer is right about all the tags in the eighties, I remember leftover rifle tags in areas 10, 8, 12 and 14 during different years, and that was just around the Elko area.
Now that the herds can allow a bigger harvest, why not just enjoy the opportunity and get some nice animals?
 
From the smell of the ignorance and hunters-alert that reaks of the posts that have opposed the facts and the educated statements I've posted you can save yourself the trouble and feel rest assured that the poll will weigh in you favor.

"It's pretty obvious he's not going to budge...unlike the rest of us who take in the info, process it, and react accordingly." <--you're right I'm not going to budge, and your reactions are self coined conspiracy theories with zero evidence to support your theories....

Call the biologists and ask them how they come up with their estimates, they'll be happy to enlighten you. Their data collection and estimation methods remain adequate until you or someone else can provide a better approach that is cost effective. Until then, your theories and opinions will remain as such until you can prove different. Please, be my guest.
 
ya know, you keep sayin that, call the biologists. Well guess what, I have, I know the local biologist in my area very well and all the statements made above are what he told me. so there are your FACTS. Go find another thread to ruin. I think everyone on this one has heard enough of your rants over the same thing enough.
 
Bombardeer, you're the one that resorted to name calling in this post. Who's the ignorant know it all here? I stated some valid questions regarding the deer quotas in which you have no response other than to resort to name calling. I have absolutely no affiliation with hunters alert nor do I believe in what they stand for. Actually the opposite. Weren't/aren't they based on increasing the predator hunting to control the deer populations? I don't believe that's been mentioned anywhere in this post so who's the conspiracy theorists? I have absolutely nothing against NDOW. Like I said I've had multiple discussions with them over this last year regarding various subjects and they've been extremely respectful providing responses. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything they do.
 

Similar threads

JakeH
Dwr proposed tag number videos.
Replies
8
Views
675
elkassassin
elkassassin
M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
828
nfh
nfh
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
6k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20231109_070122.jpg
66ABA1E3-A7C8-42D4-ACEA-5B8B0F25F9F9.jpeg
IMG_2257.JPG
IMG_9781.jpeg
2019101095091211.jpg
Screenshot_2015-08-24-14-33-23.png
oregon_record_cascade_roosevelt_elk.jpg
F64C81BC-FFA3-4A52-8B50-2FDFA6486894.jpeg
2019110295083406.jpg
IMG_2263.JPG
Sweet Utah Bull
91C0265A-0C6D-43E3-A374-184E813F92E1.jpeg

Nevada Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Big Bucks & Bulls Timberline Outfitters Guide Service

Customized and high quality eastern Nevada trophy hunts for mule deer, elk and antelope.

Western Wildlife Adventures

We offer some excellent mule deer and elk hunts in northeast Nevada.

Currant Creek Outfitters

Nevada, big bucks and big bulls! We hunt for quality not quantity.

Nevada Outfitters & Guides Association

Find guides and outfitters for mule deer, elk, sheep, chuckar, fishing, & more!

SilverGrand Outfitters

Successfully guiding in Nevada for many years. Mule deer, elk, antelope and bighorn sheep hunts.

Hidden Lake Outfitters

Specializing in trophy mule deer hunts along with elk, mountain goat, antelope and mountain lion.

G&J Outdoors

Full time outfitter with 20+ years hunting mule deer, sheep, elk, antelope, lion and chukar.

Mountain Man Outfitters

Offering world class mule deer hunts in some of the most productive units in Nevada.

Nevada High Desert Outfitters

Rocky mountain goats, desert, rocky and california bighorn, mule deer, antelope and elk hunts.

Urge 2 Hunt

If you want an unguided hunt but can't draw your tags, you need to call us.

White River Guide Service

50 years of guiding experience! Mule deer, elk, sheep and cougar.

Back
Top Bottom