UDWR You can't be serious!?!

F

ForkWest

Very Active Member
Messages
2,071
So here?s the email I just got reminding me to apply.

Notice this line:
?Best of all, we have more buck deer in Utah now than in the past 25 years!?

UDWR, you've got to be kidding me! How can you honestly say that and expect public confidence in your organization? I've seen more believable marketing for fat loss pills than that claim!

They can spin the numbers all they want, but who do they thinking their fooling!?

Look, before I completely tip the scales with my own bias, is there anyone who finds this statement remotely accurate and why? Honestly, I'd like to know, cause it sure hasn't been my observation in the past 25 years.

4679ut_deer_email.jpg
 
The units I have hunted for the last 15 years are producing more and bigger bucks the last few years, and with this light winter I'd imagine there will be a lot of young bucks. Maybe its just I've gained experience and know how and where to look so I see more deer now but I personally have seen a pretty good increase the last 2-3 years especially. I don't have the ability to say statewide numbers are better though, but where I do put in my time I'd say they're not far off the truth.
 
On general units NO. There are not more bucks. On some Premium Limited Entry Units, yes there are more bucks. There are more bucks on the Henry Mountain today than there were 25 years ago. That must be where they feel the accuracy in their marketing.
 
You guys always b!tching about everything and anything need to get out more. Have you seen the quality of bucks being killed EVERY year in Utah????? And the amount of big bucks killed???? Holy hell!


Traditional >>>------->
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-15 AT 11:45AM (MST)[p]In the advertising world, that is what you call "puffing." It probably does rise to the level of a flat out lie but it certainly seems exaggerated and is intended to attract customers. Take any such statements with a grain of salt and consider the source.

Hawkeye

"The professional market hunter . . . and the rich people who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions - these are the men who are the real enemies of game."
Theodore Roosevelt
 
>Dude, just busting your balls, you
>need to get out more!
>
You only had to go back to 2012 to find me b!tching?

All I'm saying is there are more big bucks running around now than there has in the recent past.
Not sure why everything has to be so negative. If you disgusted with Utah's' quality then go elsewhere or do something about it.





Traditional >>>------->
 
I know it's not emailed as a "service" to hunters but a ploy to get more folks to apply ($$$).
I don't care what their message is but I wish they'd quit reminding the dumbasses about applying. I'm always shocked at the number of "sportsmen" who forget to apply. I guess we all do what's important without a lot of reminders.
Our odds go down with every reminder!
Puffing or not, I wish they'd quit.
Zeke
 
Look back 25 years ago. 1990. I was a young boy trailing behind my dad, grandpa, and uncles. I remember seeing more deer and more bucks then than i do now. And the unit I hunt every year has seen a decline in numbers. I get out on the unit a lot. I dont kill a deer very often, by my choice. Is that the answer your looking for horsecreek...
 
Here's some puffer math that might help answer the question as to "how can they say that?"

In 1992 "they" (UDWR) estimated 340,000 total deer.
8 buck per 100 doe (340,000 x .08) = 27,200 bucks in the State, 23 years ago.

In 2013 they estimated 330,000 total deer.
21 buck per 100 doe (330,000 x .21) = 69,300 buck in the State, last year.

So..........based on UDWR math, we have over 2 and one half times more bucks now than we had in 1992 (which is the oldest data set that gets published in the annual Big Game Reports).

Bottom line, buck doe ratios matter, when it comes to the number of buck left in the field each fall. They don't matter in the least when it comes to the number of deer we have in the State.

But.......................if we can keep the population increasing, and hold the b/d ratio where it is now, you will begin to seem some interesting things taking place in our hunting unit of choice. Bare in mind, as long as we maintain deer populations at below habitat carrying capacity, the number of bucks per the number of does is not a negative management objective. It may or may not be popular with all sportsmen to hold a ratio that high but it can only have an positive impact on the health of the deer herd.

From a private land owner's perspective and a social/political balance, as hunters, we may have a better relationship with other land (public and private) users, if we maintain higher buck doe ratios and live with fewer over all deer on the land.

We are already beginning to get "push back" from agriculture and urban home owners with what little increase we've had on our State wide deer herds. Managing for high ratios of bucks may have been an unexpected outcome of the current circumstance.

So.........to say buck doe ratios don't matter, isn't necessarily honest either. If 8 per 100 gives you 27,000 to hunt this fall vs 21 per 100 gives you 69,000 to look over and hunt this fall, doesn't warm your heart, I'm not sure what can.

DC
 
Bucks matter to those that like to kill them, fecundity matters to those that like to grow them.

carry on.


http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n.../Wildlife_Education/Publications/muledeer.pdf



"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
Actual when you think about it 1990 was a sad year indeed with both the number of deer and number of buck, so what are you comparing it with the worst of the worst. It's a play with words. I think the secret is to keep a base herd and we're not doing it and some of you, as well as the DWR, keep forgetting that. One bad winter and we lose everything that won't be regained. Remember you heard it here.
 
Maybe all you armchair biologists should read the link WW posted up. It's a long read, but worth the time. It explains a lot.
 
NT/WW, that is a very good read, thanks. Probably the best summary of deer biology/populations I've read.

And it points out exactly what peeves me about the UDWR email. Their marketing email is trying to paint a very rosy picture of mule deer populations and this article clearly points out the complete opposite, that after everything the agencies are doing ?mule deer populations are not rebounding?. In fact, the article goes so far as to say in the final summary, that if we don't get rain and garner signification habit improvement?there goes our mule deer.

And we all understand that...yet here?s UDWR saying ?come on out folks, best mule deer hunting most of you have ever seen?.
 
Tri the Nevada study I posted the link to is a decade old. But it
does explain the philosophy and importance of fecundity as a
population dynamic. We can limit hunters severely and still not
be successful in replenishing the herds at sustainable levels.

What is going to kick us all in the nuts is hitting population max
with ANY reduction in does. If we have a 5% reduction in does to
accommodate higher buck ratios and that bad winter hits, not only
do we lose what is static that year, we've also cut our rate of recovery
by whatever the reduction is. Compounded by doe's that in an average
year are capable of carrying and delivering twins.

Look at Utah's elk situation. Killing the amount of cows that have been killed
in the past few years have guys commenting not only on lack of bulls but
elk numbers overall. I can't count the number of guys that are familiar with
the decline that has happened on the Wasatch unit alone. Same story, low elk
numbers the last two years and bulls are following suit.

Wish I had the answer of what the perfect ratios are.




"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
>Look back 25 years ago. 1990.
>I was a young boy
>trailing behind my dad, grandpa,
>and uncles. I remember seeing
>more deer and more bucks
>then than i do now.
>And the unit I hunt
>every year has seen a
>decline in numbers. I get
>out on the unit a
>lot. I dont kill a
>deer very often, by my
>choice. Is that the answer
>your looking for horsecreek...

I don't know where you hunted in the early 90s but there wasn't chit for deer where we hunted.





Traditional >>>------->
 
I hunted the Manti, EXACT same place I hunted last year. There used to be thousands of deer in the fields(long before the pivot lines produced corn and hay). Go for a ride now.

I was 16 in 90'. One should check the winters we had in the early 90's. There were a few VERY BRUTAL ones back to back, and winter kill was a real issue.

Today much of Northern Utah is CWMU, which does of course skew the numbers. There weren't a ton of LE hunts, which skew the numbers.

Great thing about numbers, if you find the worst winter kill years in the last 30, use them as your baseline, you can BS people all day long.

How about we use 1974. The year I was born. The year that in pictures of my swolen mom, there were piles of big 4 points hanging in Grandpas tree. The year there were 250k hunters. Etc, etc, etc.

To believe we are in the golden age of Mule Deer is just plain an LIE. To believe we are close, is just a LIE. To say this year is better than 2009, I guess, but thats like saying your the best football team becasue you beat the Raiders. They suck, so its no big feat. Like the deer herds, you didn't compare yourself to the 70's Raiders, because that would make you look stupid.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-15 AT 09:34PM (MST)[p]about 3 years ago the UDWR printed up an article in our Local News paper "The San Juan Record," and in that article they did the same tactics to try and get more hunters on the unit. They put in the article that the mule deer poplulation was over objections and the Buck/doe ratio was above the 18/100. Basically saying there are deer behind every tree on this unit. The next week I put an article in the news paper saying if That Hunters should be furious with this lie that is taking place, and that if people believe this article then they should buy a sasquatch tag aswell because there are several of them running around. It was bad, I almost got kicked off of the RAC board for that one. Got a call from the UDWR getting very upset with me and trying to get me to say the right thing to kick me off of the RAC board. They asked if I really believe if the UDWR are lying. I said they might not intentionally be lying but the DATA and the tool that is being used is not accurate. We had a long discussion about it and it did come out that they have no Idea of how many deer there really is, and it could be off by a lot, they tried to sweep this under the rug during the RAC meeting and smooth it over, but in all reality they have no clue of the deer numbers, its based on a computer module and the DATA that is entered. Basically the numbers are to track information but the overall number is not accurate and could be thousands off. The DATA just tracks the trends. UDWR need to do more field work and less computer work. You guys call us internet biologist but we as hunters have more time in the field than any UDWR. WE hike more, spend more hours because we love it. Its just a job to them. After all my complaining about it, the next year the numbers came closer to reflecting the truth, it went from having over 13,500 deer to the next year having 7,500 deer. So tell me how that happens.
I have no confidence in the numbers and how they are generated.
Sportmen should be a vidal source of information, but we are retarded rednecks that didn't take the biology courses that helped them learn how to count.
UDWR should be held accountable to what they are saying, and if you or I do a crappy job at our jobs, we get fired or serious consequences. There is no consequence for doing a poor job within the UDWR.
 
One thing is I do believe the deer numbers are increasing, its just the number its self that is or doesn't seem correct. I hope one day they will be right. But I will say the numbers have slightly increased, but not significant enough to get excited about.
 
It is interesting that you bring up "population max". Population max is dependent upon resources. You seem to insinuate that resources are a set factor that can't be influenced. It is a very common train of thought, but an incorrect one in my opinion. It is my opinion that land management may be the biggest correlating factor between the drastic rise and fall of deer herd numbers in the last century in Utah. During the "hay days" of mule deer hunting in Utah, there were also massive vegetation improvement projects happening. These improvement projects were largely phased out by the 80s due to the "all natural" approach that took over land management agencies. The deer numbers have declined as a result with comparatively minimal rebounds every since. It is interesting to me how many very avid deer hunters refuse to look at a lack land management as a significant key to the decline in deer numbers. I assume it is because they have been brainwashed with the deep ecology idealism that has spread through the natural resource community which defines vegetation management as a sin. Return to the vegetation management practices of the mid 1900's and you will see a return to the deer numbers of the mid 1900's. Of course that will never happen- not because it's impractical from a management perspective but because it doesn't fit the deep ecology religious fanaticism that rules our natural resources management leaders.

And by the way, the ad is not really incorrect. It's just misleading. We may have some of the best hunting in the last 25 years this year, but that is only because it has been a complete disaster for almost 30 years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-15 AT 02:50PM (MST)[p]a picture is worth a thousand words. Just one piece of the puzzle.
5481harris_point_usu.jpg
 
Wahweap,

Thanks for sharing those pics. I saw a picture very similar on a ranch that I guide pronghorn hunts on. The picture was a century old and it was amazing how much the landscape had changed due to invasive species and fire suppression.

On a nearby ranch to that one they have been on a 3 year project removing cedar. I had a conversation with one of the cowboys there and he was talking about creeks running year round that used to only have water when it would rain.
 
When you see the change it really sums up what needs to happen its my opinion its a very large piece of the overall puzzle. Those Junipers suck a lot out of the soil. Things are being done in Utah considering habitat maybe one day we will round the corner with it and be able to sustain a large deer population through the winter. If I come across more of these old photos series Ill post em up.
 
Wildman, I in no way want to state or imply that resources are static. You
are correct in your statement. However after 20+ years of "doing more for
habitat than all other western states combined" and "being the envy of
every other state" because of our conservation permit program I along
with many others are waiting for that return on the investment.

Just like habitat can be rebuilt and improved a fire or drought or severe winter
can undo 20+ years worth of investment and sacrifice literally overnight. So once this does happen does population max become a factor?? Does reducing
productive members of the herd ( Biologically viable doe's ) in favor of more
targets, lets face it, thats what we're talking about here, compound the issue?

My stance dovetails with yours, if we had a known balance of winter habitat year after year a perfect ratio could be developed.






"The future is large scale auction tags.
The majority of the tags should go up
for auction anually. It MIGHT even be
good to allow second sales of auction
tags as in outfitters purchasing tags
and then re-selling them to the public."
TRISTATE 8/17/2012
 
I think it would be good for all of you to know that the Forest Service has turned around concerning the issue of fire suppression. Went to a meeting in Richfield a few weeks ago concerning the "Quaken Aspen Regeneration" project they have planned for the Monroe. It basically amounts to removing pines and fir trees to allow Quaken Aspen to take over-- they now know that fire suppression has not been helpful to wildlife or the forest itself. An FS rep had a piece of tree trunk (ponderosa) taken off the south end of the Monroe which was over 1500 years old. It showed that up until the last 200 years or so (used the tree rings to determine this) there was fire that would sweep through the area about every 30 years or so. During the last 200 years there has not been one fire in that area.
The DWR and partners have treated over a million acres to improve habitat-- mostly the removal of pinion and juniper. Some of it is now over 10 years old-- problem is that the deer herds still have not increased in population in those areas. Something else was keeping herd growth pretty much at a depressed level. Could be predators etc-- however the last 3 winters may be just what the doctor ordered. Winter survival is up around the 80% mark for adults and fawns. So it seems as though there is a good opportunity for those habitat projects to now be better utilized and help the deer population to increase. Time will tell--
 
Improvement of habitat is great, just wish they would direct more attention towards the deer and not so much for the elk and cattle. I asked one of the biologists on Monroe Mountain if they were planting a lot of browse and he told me, very little was being planted, mostly the grasses with a little of the other mix.
 
The land management projects of the last 35-40 years are nowhere near the amount of acres of the previous 40. In addition to the very small scale of treatments, the way we go about it has changed significantly- largely due to federal regulations. These regulations have driven the cost of land management up exponentially and have limited the types of vegetation and management practices used.

Along with the cost of treatments going up, the federal dollars available for land management have decreased relative to the mid 1900s. It's a crying shame how much money has been wasted on federal law suits that could have been spent of management. Much of this is the result of the quagmire of regulations at the federal level which have made filing and winning a lawsuit against the feds as easy as stealing candy from a baby.

You can argue that the land management practices of the past (and, in my opinion, the deer numbers of the past) are a thing of the past, but that argument is based in the position that we don't have the political will to do it, because we definitely have the management ability and even the financial resources to do it if we were willing to cut through the politics that are preventing it from happening.
 
The concept that deer don't benefit from vegetation management practices aimed at cattle and elk is just plain false. I'm sure the farmers who have deer eating away at their alfalfa fields and hay stacks wish that deer only ate browse. That mindset is part of the problem. If you really want increased deer numbers, you would be begging for more cattle forage work to be done. Of course, if what you really want is a pure "all natural" experience, then have fun getting your protein from insects because it was a major staple for natives in much of the State of Utah- and probably not because they were poor hunters but because the "natural" productivity of many of the areas of Utah were more suited for growing grasshoppers than large deer herds.
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG-0753 (1).jpg
E623B914-1BFA-4D37-B22E-9F5A5F3DF284.jpeg
365D6425-1E5E-4D92-B0B7-E3EA32B5476C.jpeg
58F0E93E-9C47-4855-8F6B-109930D5C235.jpeg
conner's deer hunt 2019 027.JPG
7B7B10D5-E477-4A31-88D9-32020643FCDC.jpeg
20191127_181448.jpg
MFDC0238.JPG
Phone 6.17.21 1003.JPG
IMG_0031.jpeg
38+ Inches Wide!
Monster Arizona Bull
Back
Top Bottom