UTAH TAG DECREASE

SanPitch

SanPitch

Active Member
Messages
237

DWR proposes decrease in general-season deer, antlerless permits for 2020 hunts

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources biologists recommended a decrease in the number of general-season permits for the 2020 deer hunt and are asking for the public's feedback on a variety of big game proposals.
wildlife.utah.gov wildlife.utah.gov
Utah is trying to decrease the tag numbers for general season hunts... what do y’all think about it? I personally think it’s a good idea... I think they need to decrease it even more for just a few years, then when the population gets back on its feet we can increase them a bit. I seen somewhere that they're only doing it in certain units, and there was a few units left of the list that should of definitely been on it. And also, can someone please explain to me why a three point or better law wouldn’t give us higher age class and bigger bucks, as well as more bucks? The Utah DWR is always saying how that won’t help...
 
I Seen More Deer Wasted in the Books Cliffs when it was 3 Point or better than any other Wastage in one Pile!

F'N TARDS Just couldn't Handle it!

SHOOT!

And Count Points Later!

I'm All For It as Long As it's Enforced & Fines are as Per HELL-RIGHT!
 
elkassassin said:
I Seen More Deer Wasted in the Books Cliffs when it was 3 Point or better than any other Wastage in one Pile!

F'N TARDS Just couldn't Handle it!

SHOOT!

And Count Points Later!

I'm All For It as Long As it's Enforced & Fines are as Per HELL-RIGHT!
Click to expand...

After looking into it more I see the problem was just like you said shoot and waste. I understand why they stopped it now. Thanks for pointing that out to me! But I still think it would help if they had a good way to enforce it and if the trigger happy guys had a little discipline
 
I’m all for it. Hopefully they will keep the cuts in place for long enough to do actual good. My bet is that the first or second year they see numbers increase they will jump the tags right back up. And we’ll be right back in the same boat
 
Anyone watch the RAC meetings online?
The cache unit may end up with even more deer tags cut. (Additional 800)
SFWs proposal that many people are getting behind.
 
BillyBoB said:
Anyone watch the RAC meetings online?
The cache unit may end up with even more deer tags cut. (Additional 800)
SFWs proposal that many people are getting behind.
Click to expand...

Yes, I watched them and both of them made and passed a motion to reduce the Cache buck tags by 800!
 
I think Utah needs to reduce tags to zero for at least three years. That might help a little, but probably not much because the vast majority of deer are being killed by predators, vehicles, disease, poachers, starvation, and practically everything but hunters at present.
 
bugleb said:
I think Utah needs to reduce tags to zero for at least three years. That might help a little, but probably not much because the vast majority of deer are being killed by predators, vehicles, disease, poachers, starvation, and practically everything but hunters at present.
Click to expand...
Yeah... because a damn near completely unfunded DWR makes everything better... I completely agree with cutting tags, but I don’t agree at all with eliminating them all together.
 
I asked the question before but no one responded.

So what is the magic number of reduced tags that is going to save the herd? Feel free to answer by unit.

What number is going to make you happy?

When they meet your expectation who is left to give a ****?
 
From my experience with 3 point or better in the Book Cliffs.
I was a Teenager 14 to 19 years old during there 5 year study. My family also hunted the Book Cliffs prior to the 3 point or better years.

The Biggest downside that we saw is you turned everyone into a "Trophy" Hunter without limiting the amount of Hunters. The First 2 years were really nice for everyone. People passed on yearling bucks and was able to find a Bigger Buck.

The Trouble was there were more people than 3 Point or Better Bucks and they started to dwindle in a hurry. And what years 4 and 5 looked like was not the nice 4 points but little 2 x 3 and 3 x 3 that met the criteria.

We think they were killing off the best bucks and making the top end bucks actually younger in the Big Picture.

Then they opened it up to any buck and then they were almost gone forcing the closure for a couple years

Then you saw it again after it was made limited entry. First years were Great and more bucks than you could count. Tags increase and increase until you start killing more than there is and it becomes poor again. Mix it in with the other factors (Elk, Buffalo, Wild Horses. Cattle) and you have more problems.

They Book Cliffs Deer are Different that the Fish Lake Deer where people said the 3 point or better seemed to work great, I never hunted it so I don't know but I can only speculate that the deer weren't as easy to kill down there as to the Book Cliffs, Therefore the herd could sustain better.

Until somebody can biologically prove me wrong, you cannot harvest more deer than there are.
 
Geez some people are never happy. They scream for tag cuts. They got them. Well now that’s not good enough and they want more restrictions regarding antlers. Why can’t we just be happy with what we have, an OPPORTUNITY hunt. Don’t wanna shoot 2 points? Don’t pull the trigger. Hunt for a bigger deer. They are there. Want to hunt for inches? Jump in the 20+ year wait line and go hunt one there. Or go hunt a different state that manages the way you want. I want opportunity. Many others want opportunity. You can still kill big deer on opportunity hunts every year. They just are rarely shot from your SxS at 8:30 opening morning on your way back to camp to cook breakfast and take a nap
 
deerkiller said:
Geez some people are never happy. They scream for tag cuts. They got them. Well now that’s not good enough and they want more restrictions regarding antlers. Why can’t we just be happy with what we have, an OPPORTUNITY hunt. Don’t wanna shoot 2 points? Don’t pull the trigger. Hunt for a bigger deer. They are there. Want to hunt for inches? Jump in the 20+ year wait line and go hunt one there. Or go hunt a different state that manages the way you want. I want opportunity. Many others want opportunity. You can still kill big deer on opportunity hunts every year. They just are rarely shot from your SxS at 8:30 opening morning on your way back to camp to cook breakfast and take a nap
Click to expand...

Who’s saying they’re not happy? I just started a thread to first get people’s opinions on the tag decrease because it’s interesting to see what people have to say, and I also literally just asked why the three point or better doesn’t work because I was just curious... and after hearing the people who are actually having a decent conversation and teaching me I agree it’s probably not the best thing. I never said the dwr is doing a bad job or I was unhappy with my opportunities. I was simply trying to discuss things amongst other hunters... and that also doesn’t make me a lazy road hunter, does it?
 
Last edited:
Tag reductions are needed and I support the additional 800 tag cut for cache. I support the tag recommendations so far from what I’ve heard from both northern and central RACs.
I’ll be happy when these recommendations get approved.?
 
Broadside_Shot said:
From my experience with 3 point or better in the Book Cliffs.
I was a Teenager 14 to 19 years old during there 5 year study. My family also hunted the Book Cliffs prior to the 3 point or better years.

The Biggest downside that we saw is you turned everyone into a "Trophy" Hunter without limiting the amount of Hunters. The First 2 years were really nice for everyone. People passed on yearling bucks and was able to find a Bigger Buck.

The Trouble was there were more people than 3 Point or Better Bucks and they started to dwindle in a hurry. And what years 4 and 5 looked like was not the nice 4 points but little 2 x 3 and 3 x 3 that met the criteria.

We think they were killing off the best bucks and making the top end bucks actually younger in the Big Picture.

Then they opened it up to any buck and then they were almost gone forcing the closure for a couple years

Then you saw it again after it was made limited entry. First years were Great and more bucks than you could count. Tags increase and increase until you start killing more than there is and it becomes poor again. Mix it in with the other factors (Elk, Buffalo, Wild Horses. Cattle) and you have more problems.

They Book Cliffs Deer are Different that the Fish Lake Deer where people said the 3 point or better seemed to work great, I never hunted it so I don't know but I can only speculate that the deer weren't as easy to kill down there as to the Book Cliffs, Therefore the herd could sustain better.

Until somebody can biologically prove me wrong, you cannot harvest more deer than there are.

Yes You Can!

They've been doing it for Years!
Click to expand...
 
middlefork said:
I asked the question before but no one responded.

So what is the magic number of reduced tags that is going to save the herd? Feel free to answer by unit.

What number is going to make you happy?

When they meet your expectation who is left to give a ****?
Click to expand...

There’s good scientific data out there showing that buck harvest does not have a large effect on populations. Reduce buck harvest and buck:doe ratios might go up but it doesn’t have a large affect on how many deer are born each year. Drought and hard winters are to blame...along with highway mortality (higher than hunter harvest in some units) and predators.
 
hossblur said:
Any actual # or science or data by $fw?

Or just pull a number out of the hat?
Click to expand...
Hoss...I’m quite sure SFW was able to see the data that Covy presented (excel spreadsheet shown in the RAC online meetings) for predicted buck-to-doe ratios for the current recommendations.
If I recall, predicted harvest success for GS deer, the average b2d ratio would land at the low end of the objective. Fawn recruitment was also a determining factor.
With above average harvest success on the cache, it was predicted that b2d ratio would end up around 9 bucks per 100 does. Which was really low.
I think that specific predicted data that Covy presented was why SFW made the recommendation to cut an additional 800 tags. Which is also why at least both the northern and central RACs were able to get behind the additional cut
 
BillyBoB said:
Hoss...I’m quite sure SFW was able to see the data that Covy presented (excel spreadsheet shown in the RAC online meetings) for predicted buck-to-doe ratios for the current recommendations.
If I recall, predicted harvest success for GS deer, the average b2d ratio would land at the low end of the objective. Fawn recruitment was also a determining factor.
With above average harvest success on the cache, it was predicted that b2d ratio would end up around 9 bucks per 100 does. Which was really low.
I think that specific predicted data that Covy presented was why SFW made the recommendation to cut an additional 800 tags. Which is also why at least both the northern and central RACs were able to get behind the additional cut
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't remember the specifics being mentioned that much. And I could be wrong, but I got the impression that it was more a PR move on SFW's part than a biological move, since shooting or not shooting bucks has little to do with the herd populations or fawn recruitment. I think if the DWR thought it was biologically necessary, they would have proposed a 5,000 permit number instead of 5,800. We'll see if DWR's numbers change in the coming RAC's or if SFW continues to make their proposal.
 
elkfromabove said:
To be honest, I don't remember the specifics being mentioned that much. And I could be wrong, but I got the impression that it was more a PR move on SFW's part than a biological move, since shooting or not shooting bucks has little to do with the herd populations or fawn recruitment. I think if the DWR thought it was biologically necessary, they would have proposed a 5,000 permit number instead of 5,800. We'll see if DWR's numbers change in the coming RAC's or if SFW continues to make their proposal.
Click to expand...
While there is a lot more moving parts to all of this that effect the results such as predation factors, habitat restoration projects, etc......there were also some admittance that the division didn’t get things right before which was vague but it was either the central RAC or northern RAC that had quite a discussion about this with great detail. The videos are on YouTube.
James Christensen spoke the most in regard to the cache unit.
My experience and time spent in the cache unit over the last 5 years has me thinking the additional 800 tag cut is warranted IMO.
 
The Cache's additional tag cut of 800 was supported by the UDWR based on the data they presented in the RAC. The Northern RAC specifically. Anyone can go on YouTube and watch it.
Get the info/data straight for yourself.

And +1 to Broadside Shot's post above. Never understood how placing 100% of the hunting pressure on the older age classes of bucks could have the long term result of growing older bucks. The only way to grow older bucks is to cut tags significantly or reduce success rates significantly.
 
BillyBoB said:
While there is a lot more moving parts to all of this that effect the results such as predation factors, habitat restoration projects, etc......there were also some admittance that the division didn’t get things right before which was vague but it was either the central RAC or northern RAC that had quite a discussion about this with great detail. The videos are on YouTube.
James Christensen spoke the most in regard to the cache unit.
My experience and time spent in the cache unit over the last 5 years has me thinking the additional 800 tag cut is warranted IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I missed the part during the Northern RAC where they talked about the Cache Unit. When you have a 6 year old granddaughter who wants to play with grandpa 'cause mom and dad are downstairs taking care of a sick baby, sometimes you have to make some rough choices. :)

In any case, I just saw the video where the Cache Unit numbers were discussed (45:30) and was surprised to see that the DWR has indeed changed their recommendation to 5,000 instead of the 5,800 that's on the RAC Packet. And with Covy's explanation, I'll have to agree with the change.

BUT, I do have two issues!

1)- Covy said if we have drastic reductions now, we'll have drastic increases when the herd(s) recover. So, when that happens, are we going to hear as many complaints as we are now hearing? Or, are we going to hear more? Or are we going to try to increase the buck to doe ratio? Or make the Cache another LE Unit? Or are we going to stick to the Statewide and Unit deer plans and increase opportunity?

2)- Since ALL of the General Units have the same moving parts to some degree, why did SFW pick out only the Cache Unit? Is this just the start of something they have planned? Is it because we heard the most complaints about that unit? Or is it just the only one in enough trouble to merit attention? Or what? Decisions made today have a way of generating further decisions down the road and sometimes that's good for the typical Utah hunter and sometimes it ain't.
 
Most honest biologists will tell you need at least 20 buck per 100 to maintain a healthy herd, much less grow a herd.

Funny to hear guys say bucks don’t matter.

Utah stays about 10 years behind the curve as far as the deer herd management.

These cuts are a step in the right direction.
 
I live on the Cache unit. Hunted it for 45 years. I have a lifetime license, so I get a tag every year. The cut in tags will only help if predators are drastically trimmed down. Efforts to do this have and are taking place. 5,000 permits. There are probably only 5,000 deer on the whole unit. We will see what happens in the future. Not too optimistic when it comes to our deer herd. I haven't shot a deer on the Cache for 20 years. Almost every year had the chance. I felt almost guilty to shoot one now there are so few of them. Helped some kids shoot a few however.
 
huntin50 said:
I live on the Cache unit. Hunted it for 45 years. I have a lifetime license, so I get a tag every year. The cut in tags will only help if predators are drastically trimmed down. Efforts to do this have and are taking place. 5,000 permits. There are probably only 5,000 deer on the whole unit. We will see what happens in the future. Not too optimistic when it comes to our deer herd. I haven't shot a deer on the Cache for 20 years. Almost every year had the chance. I felt almost guilty to shoot one now there are so few of them. Helped some kids shoot a few however.
Click to expand...


I am not saying I agree or disagree on the cuts, but.......

As a lifetime license holder, you will always get a tag. So Do you agree if they cut they tags, they cut the amount of tags that a lifetime holder gets? Maybe you only get a tag every other year instead of every year?

I have a few friends that are lifetime tag holders and wish I was too. But, since the state is in reality A LE state now, is it fair they keep getting a tag every year? Especially on the units that are harder to draw like 2-4 years? Just make it like it is, everything IS LIMITED ENTRY! Put them all in the same pile as the LE and GS deer tags. Buy out the remaining Lifetimers and move on !

Thoughts on the that?
 
I think the State of Utah will honor lifetime license holders. Most lifetime license holders I would bet shoot less deer than regular tag holders. They are older. Like I stated I have not shot a deer in Utah for 20 years. My 3 brothers and 79 year old Dad also have lifetime license. Combined over the last 20 years we have shot less than 6 deer. Lifetime license holder in general are saving more deer than regular license holders in many cases IMO.

5,000 permits on the Cache. I don't know how many lifetime holders have Cache permits? I would guess less than 300. How many will shoot a deer, I would guess maybe 10. Just a guess.

How many deer get killed by cougars, coyotes, bobcats and cars? A lot. We have data from fawn collaring studies. Sportsmen have a lot of trail cams out, we know what are on them. UDOT knows how many deer are killed on roads.

The road between Smithfield and Richmond in one year 7 mile or so stretch more than 200 deer were killed. The same year both Logan and Blacksmith fork check stations combined had less than 200 deer.

There are stretches of roads near other towns that have a lot of road kills as well.
Throw in winter kill and droughts. Cutting a few tags may help some, but little IMO.
We have less habitat, more cars, and a lot more predators the last 20-30 years.
 
BillyBoB said:
Hoss...I’m quite sure SFW was able to see the data that Covy presented (excel spreadsheet shown in the RAC online meetings) for predicted buck-to-doe ratios for the current recommendations.
If I recall, predicted harvest success for GS deer, the average b2d ratio would land at the low end of the objective. Fawn recruitment was also a determining factor.
With above average harvest success on the cache, it was predicted that b2d ratio would end up around 9 bucks per 100 does. Which was really low.
I think that specific predicted data that Covy presented was why SFW made the recommendation to cut an additional 800 tags. Which is also why at least both the northern and central RACs were able to get behind the additional cut
Click to expand...


I ask because it looks like $fw just liked a even #

Did anyone present. Any info on how each %cut equates to a number increase in recruitment, herd#, or buck:doe.

Generally science isn't done by rounding off # 's



I'm still curious how many tags $fw is giving up as the rest of the hunters are
 
The Cache has been on a bubble for at least 15 years and probably closer to 20-25 years.

And I don't think hunters are creating the problem. Shut it down if you will. I doubt the herd will make leaps and bounds recovering.

I don't have a LL but it does not bother me the state keeps the promise on their contract.
 
Robiland said:
I am not saying I agree or disagree on the cuts, but.......

As a lifetime license holder, you will always get a tag. So Do you agree if they cut they tags, they cut the amount of tags that a lifetime holder gets? Maybe you only get a tag every other year instead of every year?

I have a few friends that are lifetime tag holders and wish I was too. But, since the state is in reality A LE state now, is it fair they keep getting a tag every year? Especially on the units that are harder to draw like 2-4 years? Just make it like it is, everything IS LIMITED ENTRY! Put them all in the same pile as the LE and GS deer tags. Buy out the remaining Lifetimers and move on !

Thoughts on the that?
Click to expand...
There’d be a lawsuit if they tried to go back on the agreement they made with lifetime license holders.
 
Founder said:
There’d be a lawsuit if they tried to go back on the agreement they made with lifetime license holders.
Click to expand...
This is true but they could put a cap on how many LL holders there are per unit. Make it 15 percent, to match how many dedicated hunters there can be per unit.
 
With the current situation and expected recession and now tag price increase I would say it will cut down a lot on hunters.

The recession that is going to hit combined with no one getting paid for months will hurt the hunting industry hard in the next two years.

I know you hunters in Utah are happy about the price increase as everyone likes to stick it to the out of state hunters. But for hunters who want to promote hunting to their kids and go hunting with their buddies their days are numbered. No place to go hunting because you either can't get a tag or can't afford one.
Yes I know there are junior tags but after that what? If you can't draw a tag then you stop hunting.

I read in the Wyoming forum how much the distain for our brother hunters is and how they want them to go away. It just makes me sad as I can see my way of life going away. The funny thing is that it is the people whom have I the most in common with are the ones doing it.

I see the tag decrease as a good thing so the herds can rebound, But at the same time I see the tag increase as a bad thing.

But this will be our future as sad as it is. Tag increases to resident hunters are inevitable as the demand will decease and the costs for the DWR will increase. What a sad state of affairs.
 
Broadside_Shot said:
The Trouble was there were more people than 3 Point or Better Bucks and they started to dwindle in a hurry. And what years 4 and 5 looked like was not the nice 4 points but little 2 x 3 and 3 x 3 that met the criteria.

We think they were killing off the best bucks and making the top end bucks actually younger in the Big Picture.
Click to expand...

I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp, but they'll keep pushing for this and then gripe about how bad the DWR screwed things up once they see the result.
 
Castnshoot said:
Most honest biologists will tell you need at least 20 buck per 100 to maintain a healthy herd, much less grow a herd.
Click to expand...

I have never heard ANY biologist say you need 20 bucks per 100 does to maintain a healthy herd. Do you have any study that says this? I'd love to read it.
 
Vanilla said:
I have never heard ANY biologist say you need 20 bucks per 100 does to maintain a healthy herd. Do you have any study that says this? I'd love to read it.
Click to expand...
I have been told and read studies that say anywhere from 8-10 bucks could easily breed 100 does each year. We “managed” for higher based on selfish reasons, not biological
 
If you only have 8-10 Bucks per 100 does you likely have 6 yearling two points & 2 three points that are two years old. Is that a healthy herd. To me that is a totally hammered herd. Is that what you really want. Sad to see the Cache Deer herd in such bad shape. South East Idaho isn't much better. And WY is going downhill as well. Might be different states but all are closely connected together.
 
letmgetbig said:
If you only have 8-10 Bucks per 100 does you likely have 6 yearling two points & 2 three points that are two years old. Is that a healthy herd. To me that is a totally hammered herd. Is that what you really want.
Click to expand...

A couple thoughts on this. I don’t think any hunter wants an 8:100 ratio, not even if there was a million deer in Utah. But that wasn’t the question. And “herd health” has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the male gender’s head gear for hunting purposes. The claim was made a ratio of at least 20:100 was needed to maintain the herd, and any “honest biologist” would say that. I’m just asking for any studies to back that up, because that’s a claim I’ve never even herd a biologist make.

I’ve actually read that 6:100 would be sufficient to maintain herd numbers for breeding purposes. But “herd health” and “antler size” have absolutely nothing to do with each other, biologically.
 
The problem with three point or better is you stop hunters from shooting two points (yearlings) and now everyone shots small four pointers (two and half year olds). You just changed the age class of the deer being killed.
There was a study done back in the 1980 I really don't know where you can find it I think it was done in Ohio on Whitetails but generally speaking all ungulets pass there genes the same. A game biologist explained it to me back in the 1990 at one of them first original outdoor hunting expos in Salt Lake city i think it might have been the Rocky Moutain Elk show, he had seven years worth of whitetails shed antlers from two different buck showing the progression through the years one weak genes and one good genes.
Now most hunters understand the buck that has larger antlers at a young age generaly has better genes.
He explained the study to me that you have two class of hunters, meat hunters that are going to shoot the first buck that gives them an opportunity generaly 1.5 year old buck so generally they don't shoot the 2.5 year old bucks because the first buck that gives them an opportunity is generally 1.5 year old buck and you have trophy hunters they set there goals on a certain size, typically points and width so they typically don't shoot the 2.5 year old bucks they don't meet their size criteria.
Now the DWR implemented a three point or better restriction hunt. Now the meat hunters need to wait until they find a three point or better 2.5 or older buck which generally speaking a 2.5 year old buck is either a big two point or a small three or four point buck so the meat hunter shoots the three or four point buck and the big two point lives. The trophy hunter continues to hunt for his specific size of buck the three point or better don't affect him for the first two or three years.
So now we jump forward six years the meat hunter has been shooting the 2.5 year old small three or four point and letting six years worth of 2.5 year old two pointers live and the trophey hunter is still hunting for a specific size but what they are finding more wide four pointers but they are generally Willow, thin horned and crab claw small forks.
Now why did this happen. He explained the bucks that had the better genes are now getting killed at a higher percent because we now are forcing the meat hunters to hunt for a three point or better and are killing the small four point and allowing the weaker gene buck large two points to get a year older and smarter and continue to bread.
He stated that it is not true on all units some units are more successful with three point or better like the Henry's because most hunters that went out there where generally trophy hunters and some units like the Book Cliffs a higher percent was meat hunters and the willow thin crab claw antlers became prevalent and we are still seeing the effects of that today.
I can understand why the DWR don't want to cut tag # that will take money from there budget. But three point or better would not cut tag # if it was as successful as so many think it would be it would infact increase tag #.
My question is too all you hunters that want three point or better why has all states that tried it except one (Wyoming) gone away from three point or better?
 
notdonhunting said:
The problem with three point or better is you stop hunters from shooting two points (yearlings) and now everyone shots small four pointers (two and half year olds). You just changed the age class of the deer being killed.
There was a study done back in the 1980 I really don't know where you can find it I think it was done in Ohio on Whitetails but generally speaking all ungulets pass there genes the same. A game biologist explained it to me back in the 1990 at one of them first original outdoor hunting expos in Salt Lake city i think it might have been the Rocky Moutain Elk show, he had seven years worth of whitetails shed antlers from two different buck showing the progression through the years one weak genes and one good genes.
Now most hunters understand the buck that has larger antlers at a young age generaly has better genes.
He explained the study to me that you have two class of hunters, meat hunters that are going to shoot the first buck that gives them an opportunity generaly 1.5 year old buck so generally they don't shoot the 2.5 year old bucks because the first buck that gives them an opportunity is generally 1.5 year old buck and you have trophy hunters they set there goals on a certain size, typically points and width so they typically don't shoot the 2.5 year old bucks they don't meet their size criteria.
Now the DWR implemented a three point or better restriction hunt. Now the meat hunters need to wait until they find a three point or better 2.5 or older buck which generally speaking a 2.5 year old buck is either a big two point or a small three or four point buck so the meat hunter shoots the three or four point buck and the big two point lives. The trophy hunter continues to hunt for his specific size of buck the three point or better don't affect him for the first two or three years.
So now we jump forward six years the meat hunter has been shooting the 2.5 year old small three or four point and letting six years worth of 2.5 year old two pointers live and the trophey hunter is still hunting for a specific size but what they are finding more wide four pointers but they are generally Willow, thin horned and crab claw small forks.
Now why did this happen. He explained the bucks that had the better genes are now getting killed at a higher percent because we now are forcing the meat hunters to hunt for a three point or better and are killing the small four point and allowing the weaker gene buck large two points to get a year older and smarter and continue to bread.
He stated that it is not true on all units some units are more successful with three point or better like the Henry's because most hunters that went out there where generally trophy hunters and some units like the Book Cliffs a higher percent was meat hunters and the willow thin crab claw antlers became prevalent and we are still seeing the effects of that today.
I can understand why the DWR don't want to cut tag # that will take money from there budget. But three point or better would not cut tag # if it was as successful as so many think it would be it would infact increase tag #.
My question is too all you hunters that want three point or better why has all states that tried it except one (Wyoming) gone away from three point or better?
Click to expand...

That makes sense, thanks for the info!
 
letmgetbig said:
If you only have 8-10 Bucks per 100 does you likely have 6 yearling two points & 2 three points that are two years old. Is that a healthy herd. To me that is a totally hammered herd. Is that what you really want. Sad to see the Cache Deer herd in such bad shape. South East Idaho isn't much better. And WY is going downhill as well. Might be different states but all are closely connected together.
Click to expand...
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just stating what I’ve been told. 8-10 can breed all mature does in that herd. I don’t recall the info ever stating the age of these bucks in question. When I see a 1x2 running 30 does into the ground in November for days without another buck ever showing up, I’m not ever gonna be caught calling that a healthy herd
 
Last I knew a 12 or 13 year old boy could breed any age female and as long as she was fertile pass along his genes. Even if his genes were the type to make him desirable or not.
 
The problem i have with cutting tags, can the DWR cut enough tags to make a difference.
So they want to cut 8000 permits, that is across the board Archery, Muzeloader and Any Weapon i am not a mathematician but I figure you might save around 2000 bucks across the states 29 general deer units. That is an average around 70 bucks a unit. I don't know how much that will help is that enough and if the DWR cut more tags would that cut into the budget too much and now projects don't get done and less officer hours out in the field. All that could end up being conter productive for deer numbers.
It is kind of like the stay at home order because of covid-19 is it worth the life's we are saving for destroying the economy. I have heard every argument for shutting the country down and probably save life's and every argument for keeping the country economy going and probably losing more life's. Would we have lost them lifes anyways because they wear already ill or was the economy going to suffer anyways because no one was going to go out and shop and eat because they we're afraid of the virus.. Who's right who's wrong, i don't know. I supposed it depends on how it is affecting your personal life.
Kind of the same thing for cutting tag numbers. I suppose if you are a lifetime license holder not all but a higher percent that want less permits, can't blame them. Probably holds true for dedicated hunters that have two years worth of permits ahead of them. A higher percent of your trophy hunters hunt other states so probably a higher percent of them wants less permits they are fine with missing a year or two of hunting in Utah. Most of your general season deer hunters are opportunist they just want to get out and hunt enjoy getting together with families and friends so they are less likely to support tag cuts.
It is obvious Utah hunters are opportunist we buy out 15000 spike elk permits. If that was tried in another state they probably would be lucky to sell half.
Just my observations and beliefs, no facts.
 
middlefork said:
Last I knew a 12 or 13 year old boy could breed any age female and as long as she was fertile pass along his genes. Even if his genes were the type to make him desirable or not.
Click to expand...

And you know the crazy thing? His genes don't change from when he was 12 to when he was 26. The genetic code passed along is exactly the same regardless of the age. Weird...huh?
 
middlefork said:
Last I knew a 12 or 13 year old boy could breed any age female and as long as she was fertile pass along his genes. Even if his genes were the type to make him desirable or not.
Click to expand...
If what you say was true why does the successful ranchers pay $5000 plus for the best bulls. Because the rancher wants the best genes possible.
Why does the biggest baddest elk generally win the fight for the right to breed the harem of cows.
Because God wanted the best genes passed on.
 
Deerlove said:
From my understanding the larger bucks "do it right" and early so the fawns drop earlier so success rates are higher on making it through the next winter.
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess I don't understand "do it right". You either do it right or it doesn't happen. And why would they do it earlier? Seems to me the mood hits about the same time for all the bucks.
 
notdonhunting said:
If what you say was true why does the successful ranchers pay $5000 plus for the best bulls. Because the rancher wants the best genes possible.
Why does the biggest baddest elk generally win the fight for the right to breed the harem of cows.
Because God wanted the best genes passed on.
Click to expand...
Maybe that why you should shoot those spikes and two points. Instead of targeting the biggest and baddest.
 
Deerlove said:
From my understanding the larger bucks "do it right" and early so the fawns drop earlier so success rates are higher on making it through the next winter.
Click to expand...

There is a hypothesis out there that more mature (IE-older) bucks breed does earlier, and therefore fawns drop earlier, making them older going into their first winter.

This is not scientifically proven, or even really supported outside of the one hypothesis I have seen floated on these forums. And remember, “mature” has nothing to do with size of antlers. So “larger bucks,” except for as they are more mature, has nothing to do with it.

And that still doesn’t change how many bucks it takes to successfully breed the does. Particularly the claim of 20+ from any “honest biologist.”
 
I’ve never understood the argument of a bull or buck needing to be mature to produce good offspring. That would be like saying had my wife gotten pregnant when we was 16 and I was 5-3” and 130 pounds, that my kids would be midgets (sorry, little people). The genes don’t just come from the daddy side either.
 
middlefork said:
Maybe that why you should shoot those spikes and two points. Instead of targeting the biggest and baddest.
Click to expand...
That is what they do with elk.
The problem with deer only true meat hunters would buy a two point tag. Everybody thinks they are a trophy hunter even the opportunist think they are a trophy hunter.
 
Shadow said:
I’ve never understood the argument of a bull or buck needing to be mature to produce good offspring. That would be like saying had my wife gotten pregnant when we was 16 and I was 5-3” and 130 pounds, that my kids would be midgets (sorry, little people). The genes don’t just come from the daddy side either.
Click to expand...
Buck don't need to be mature to produce good off spring but they need to have good genes.
Most ranchers now days breed young bulls six and under, older bulls shoot more blanks and become more bully they like to fight they also get too big.
Guys claiming older bucks breed does early is wrong. The doe decides when she is going to be breed. The advantage with older bucks or more bucks per 100 does is the doe will get caught on the first cycle which in turn gives early fawns. Mature bucks will roam more than inmature bucks that is why they catch more does first cycle. But a mature two point will roam and catch does just as easy as a mature four point.
 
I'm sorry, what is the name of this forum? Of course that is the agenda of most people on this forum. Almost everyone on here wants bigger bucks. They could give a **** less about a bunch of 2 points running around breeding. They want to put pressure on the big bucks.
Survival of the fittest doesn't compute if you want to artificially direct all the pressure on the biggest bucks.
 
I would think that Ranchers pay money for Mature Bulls is because they can actually see what the genetics turned out to be. That Bull still had those genetics when he was born, just couldn't tell until later.

I did ask the question at last years Northeastern RAC if there were a lot of does getting bred in after there first cycle. Big Game Coordinator Covy said that 85% of the Fawns on all units are born in a 2 Week period around the end of May. Few are dropped before or after that. I have no proof but that was what I was told.
 
On Average a Mule Deer Doe is pregnant for 200 days. If she is bred Nov 15 then by math her fawn will be born around the end of may or 1st of June.
 
Broadside_Shot said:
I would think that Ranchers pay money for Mature Bulls is because they can actually see what the genetics turned out to be. That Bull still had those genetics when he was born, just couldn't tell until later.

Ranchers don't need to waite until the bulls are mature the bulls are bred for certain genetics, the rancher knows what that bull will be before it is born.
Click to expand...
 
Did the wildlife organizations also get cut on the number of tags they get to sell this year with the decrease in tags?
 
Vanilla said:
I have never heard ANY biologist say you need 20 bucks per 100 does to maintain a healthy herd. Do you have any study that says this? I'd love to read it.
Click to expand...

Vanilla, remember I said “honest” biologist. Most of them know that there are certain parameters that are expected of them before they even start a study.

That being said I will let you do your own research on the subject. I doubt you will find many studies showing 8 or 10 bucks is an optional number for herd health.

Don’t believe everything a bureaucracy or their contractors tell you.

8 bucks don’t cut it and 6 is just sad.


1587090643207.png
 
Last edited:
Kinda off topic but I love how all the $FW tags and conservation tags are always given out before tag recommendations are proposed. They always make sure that their buddies get their permits and the numbers of them that they want, THEN herd health and carrying capacity is determined, which is when the public hunters usually get boned, year after year after year.
 
Castnshoot said:
Vanilla, remember I said “honest” biologist. Most of them know that there are certain parameters that are expected of them before they even start a study.

That being said I will let you do your own research on the subject. I doubt you will find many studies showing 8 or 10 bucks is an optional number for herd health.

Don’t believe everything a bureaucracy or their contractors tell you.

8 bucks don’t cut it and 6 is just sad.


View attachment 5314
Click to expand...

So, with those charts, are you trying to show that increased populations are a result of higher buck to doe ratios? Well, one could just as easily say it shows just the opposite, that higher buck to doe ratios are a result of increased populations since the birth buck to doe ratio is 100 to 100 and, percentagewise, we're adding more breeding bucks to the herd than we're removing with the hunts. Many of us keep forgetting that the population counts and the buck to doe ratios are classified AFTER the buck hunts and the ruts are over and until the next hunts and ruts, the surviving 2 year old deer then become breeding stock.
 
Last edited:
Quite honestly, I would love to see the Buck to Doe ratio at or above 30. Even 35. Some of the units I have hunted in Colorado have that 30+ and it was fantastic. It was fun looking over several bucks a day that were mature. I get that if they do that, it will limit our ability to hunt often. So it is a toss up. But one can dream, right?
 
Robiland said:
Quite honestly, I would love to see the Buck to Doe ratio at or above 30. Even 35. Some of the units I have hunted in Colorado have that 30+ and it was fantastic. It was fun looking over several bucks a day that were mature. I get that if they do that, it will limit our ability to hunt often. So it is a toss up. But one can dream, right?
Click to expand...

One can dream alright, but the reality is that the units in Utah that have 25 to 35 buck to doe ratios are Limited Entry Units and can take 7 to 22 years to guarantee a permit. Yes, some people draw them sooner than that, but the odds of that happening to an individual hunter are a nightmare, not a dream because we can only issue buck deer tags equal to about 9% of the LE unit populations. To expand your dream, if we were to manage all the General units for that same buck to doe ratio, we could only issue 28,904 buck tags instead of the 79,925 we will likely issue this year. That would be a 63.8% cut! Be careful what you wish for!
 

Similar threads

nontypical
Winter range report
Replies
72
Views
6k
nontypical
nontypical
Sparks Shooter
If you had a Silver State Deer Tag
Replies
19
Views
1k
3TOE
3TOE
D
Beware of Guided Mule Deer Hunts in Huntsville UT
Replies
97
Views
5k
wstrntines
wstrntines

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

AD82DCC6-962F-4881-B72B-7CEDF39A1004.jpeg
51D0EBEA-AB57-437E-8F0D-B0E9B60B4788.png
947A1E67-24BD-402D-A41F-CF7508289A7A.jpeg
7083AC6E-14AD-4127-87D7-E4EDAB0A5133.jpeg
20190813_184952.jpg
8D718CCE-0300-4857-B971-2412A5D1A537.jpeg
IMG_2841.JPG
13055.jpeg
IMG_3793.JPG
20200212_185059.jpg
Cool Old Picture
Big Nevada Buck.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom