# 800 thousand mule deer in Utah



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

blackdog said:


> yea Utah's deer herd is thriving, 800,000+ animals down to less than 300,000 and less every year.
> .


I keep hearing this number being brought up but where is it coming from?
Does anyone have data or proof of this claim?
Where are the reports of this many deer being in the state in one year?
And how many years were there this many deer in the state?
I would really like to see the documents.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I can tell you this.
Back in the 60s thru the 70s,
Hunters thought the DWR was under estimating Utahs deer heards.
(Unlike now, just the opposite)

In deer camps in the 60s,
It was common to hear the hunters saying Utah must have about a million deer.

Many believed there was 800K.


----------



## APD (Nov 16, 2008)

they should really lower the number of deer you're allowed to hit with your car.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

The old deer camp biologists in the 60s thought there was a million, so there must have been 800k? Am I understanding this science right?

That is slightly insane to think that anecdotal evidence from 50 years ago has any actual bearing on what the populations of deer actually were. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I can tell you this.
> Back in the 60s thru the 70s,
> Hunters thought the DWR was under estimating Utahs deer heards.
> (Unlike now, just the opposite)
> ...


The two of us lived and hunted in the 60's, were there more deer or did the number of hunters out just push them all over the place.

All you have to do is to drive around in the high country and look at the number of gin poles hanging in the trees where hunters used to string their deer up at. Then look around the area and odds are you will see no or very few deer, the hills around these spots are usually a ghost town now and odd are you won't see another hunter or very few.

I too would like to know the guestimate of the number of deer that we had back in the 60's, and 70's. Forget about the 80's, and 90's.

I do know that when I first started to hunt the Book Cliffs back in the mid 80's was that there were deer all over. Every gas platform would have a dozen or so hanging around and there were always 2pts, spikes, and small 3pts hanging out on them. Then they opened it up to any buck and every person and their dog showed up down there. Two years later you had a hard time even finding a 2 pt much less a good buck. Some blame it on the weather, others blame it on blue tongue. I blame it on the DOW and opening it up to any buck instead of keeping it restricted. Some will site studies that show that the restrictions that were in place didn't do anything but it is funny in that both the Book Cliffs and the Henry Mountains had the same restrictions and both were doing fine until they opened them up to any buck, then two to three years later they closed both units because there were no deer left.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Critter makes a GREAT point,
Look at all the old deer hanging poles EVERYWHERE!

The old timers didn't put those up for nothing.

And ya, to add to the BC and Henry's list.
Oak City, The Paunsy, San Jaun.
All had to be shut down AFTER lifting antler restrictions.
Go figure.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I keep hearing this number being brought up but where is it coming from?
> Does anyone have data or proof of this claim?
> Where are the reports of this many deer being in the state in one year?
> And how many years were there this many deer in the state?
> I would really like to see the documents.


Koby there is 0 documentation for that claim, at least I have never found it after scouring tons of DWR reports, newsletters, media articles, etc.

That particular claim surfaced on 'the other hunting forum' back when Utah herds were hurting and numbers across the west were tanking, it's been several years now and that number pops up when it 'fits' the claims of certain people to enhance their agenda and montra to cut more tags, and back SFW in their pursuit to do the same. Initially it came from a certain individual from the southern 'good ol' boys club' down south, and continued to be claimed off and on from the various groups down that way and his son of course. It comes up now and again when herd numbers are being questioned.

As I recall, he came up with that number based on the DWR reports back in the 60's/70's that claimed X number of deer either per sq. mile or something similar. Of course, extrapolations were made based on that number and a very rough 'guestimate' was made for the total number of deer in the state, and it was pushed as a DWR claim, which it was not. I don't have the time to go back and look it up in the archives of 'that site', nor the inclination to do so as it is an asinine endeavor at this point in time; but I'm sure it can be found there.

I have no doubt that back in the heyday of mule deer numbers in Utah they pushed the 500k+, and maybe 600k, but that's pure speculation on my part based off hunting during that time. Critter has a valid point of hunters pushing deer all around back then, I saw it and dealt with it. 200k+ hunters, camps of 20 or more people, families out kicking butt to have fun and kill some deer. I had a great time back then, and yep even heard goofy's claim that lots of folks exclaimed "there must be a million deer here!". It really was a fun time dodging the sea of red and watching the deer run for their lives across the landscape...8)


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

We are now using old timer deer camp exaggerations and deer pole density as scientific measuring sticks? Got it.

But we for sure know what the numbers are then and now better than the DWR.

The great thing about anecdotal evidence is that if you talk to enough people, you’ll eventually find someone that saw something that supports your viewpoint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just a question for you Kwalk3, did you experience the hunting in Utah back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's? Have you ever driven up Highway 6 in Spanish Fork Canyon and seen the pull off right across the road from Covered Bridge Canyon or whatever it is called now a few miles west of Diamond Fork Turn off? That was built for a deer check station back in the 70's. Daniels Canyon on HWY 40 just used the weigh station for all the hunters. There were a lot more hunters back then and I believe that the success rate was around 33%, but I could be wrong on that number, it has been years since I actually seen a number for back then.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

800,000... that's a good round number...I like it, so I am going with it. Makes really no difference, a good hunter always gets his deers, bad hunters don't.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I hunted in the 70's and 80's. I sure don't remember seeing a million deer anywhere. I think some have forgotten that in the late 70's into the early 80's there was NO archery or muzzle hunts south of highway 20 in southern Utah, because of low deer numbers. We used to go to Salina canyon to bow hunt. 
There also was years of shortened rifle hunts down here. Then the big winter of '83 put a big hurt on the deer herds as well. 
I also remember the days of 250k+ tags. I remember going up bumblebee mountain one morning and all u could see was orange when the sun came up. Was a joke. They closed it down for a few years right after that year. 
Another year about '78 or so I saw 6 does total the whole hunt. In '79 I shot a 15.5" 4x3 that took second place in the big buck contest I was in with about 20 guys. Was tickled just to get a 4 point. I know it was '79 because my wife was pregnant with our first daughter. 
We pass up bucks these days we would have be estatic to get back then. 

So.......
No, I do not want to go back to the good 'ol days.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Kwalk3 said:


> We are now using old timer deer camp exaggerations and deer pole density as scientific measuring sticks? Got it.
> 
> But we for sure know what the numbers are then and now better than the DWR.
> 
> ...


"The fish was this big"

"Saw a three fitty bull"

"30" buck at least"

All things uncle Rico says as he spits his dip juice into a keystone can.

Now Uncle Rico is telling us how many deer there were "back in my day" (another familiar quote :mrgreen


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I clearly remember, back when I cared about Utah deer management, reading a F&G official's report from 1968 in which he suggested 800,000. The gist of his report was that 800,000 couldn't be sustained and that a population crash was imminent. The number was probably bogus, but it really doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that in the years that followed, the state's deer population did indeed take a nose dive (for a bunch of reasons).

At that point, hunter preference began to replace biological science in deer management. In response to growing public pressure, the state abandoned the use of hunting as a management tool in favor of management for hunting. Since then, there's been a sustained effort to reduce harvest, mostly by restrictions on hunting. In 1975, general season permits went from either sex to buck only. The late 80's saw limited entry, high country and 3 point or better hunts. In 1993, hunters were required to hunt only one season and in '94, permits were capped. In that same year, any weapon permits became regional. By '99, all permits had to be purchased directly from the DWR.

For all practical purposes, we now have statewide limited entry. And still, after decades of restrictions, hunters complain about overcrowding and too few mature bucks.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

So they didn't know then and they don't know now? Come on one of you guys must know how to get a count of every deer in Utah.

I did hunt in the 60's and yes I believe there are fewer deer now than then. But as Finnegan says even after all the restrictions people are still complaining.

How many hunters do we need to alienate before there are no voices left?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> Just a question for you Kwalk3, did you experience the hunting in Utah back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's? Have you ever driven up Highway 6 in Spanish Fork Canyon and seen the pull off right across the road from Covered Bridge Canyon or whatever it is called now a few miles west of Diamond Fork Turn off? That was built for a deer check station back in the 70's. Daniels Canyon on HWY 40 just used the weigh station for all the hunters. There were a lot more hunters back then and I believe that the success rate was around 33%, but I could be wrong on that number, it has been years since I actually seen a number for back then.


Critter,

I was not alive until the 80s. That's not the point at all. Anecdote isn't worth the space on the page it takes to type the word when we are talking about scientific population estimates.

There's always a longing for what used to be. There have been massive population and cultural changes in Utah in the last 60 years. Deer hunting is undoubtedly a much smaller part of life in Utah today than it was then, but it's not because there used to be a million deer or even 800k and now there are none.

They still set up a check station at that turnout you mentioned 5 years ago. But that doesn't mean a thing as far as real numbers go. Same with deer poles per capita and campfire population surveys.

My point about anecdote is this: Let's deal with the actual numbers. Period.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

It sounds like I am about the same age as Critter and Goofy and do remember hunting in the 70"s. A few comments. 

1. When I started hunting in the late 70's, dad and the rest of the deer camp whined that I should have been there in the 60's. When we were hunting in the 80's, they groused that it was better in the 70's. In the 90's, I should have been there in the 80's. We consistently harvested deer through all periods or at minimum, had the chance to. It is human nature to claim that it was better "back then" regardless of the objective facts at hand. 

2. I am very familiar with the poles Critter refers to. However, on "our" mountain, where we hunted for years, there used to be camps in many of those spots and now there are none. Additionally, some of those poles were used by the locals when they did deer drives and would be strategically placed where the stationers would most likely harvest deer. Now, drives such as what was done long ago are a thing of the past as well as markedly fewer camps on the mountain. Spots that always had a camp in them during the general hunt long ago now sit empty.

3. The buck to doe ratios on most of these public lands hunts was abysmal. Yes, I would see 50-100 deer a day but most were does. Additionally, almost all the hunters would shoot the first legal buck that came along or fill aunt Betty's and uncle Deans tags with forkhorns before tagging out on a bigger buck. 

4. I have not seen an objective count of 800,000 as the states population, and suspect that it is a number that has gotten thrown out in some internet debate or used as an objective for $FW propaganda and therefore becomes internet "truth".


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Catherder:

Your #3 point is exactly spot on. 
Pretty much everybody party hunted. 
I'll admit it went on in some of our camps back then. 
Don't see anything even close to that going on like it used to.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

The only evidence I've seen from official sources is that since settlement by the pioneers, the 1980s had the highest mule deer population in Utah in the low 400,000s. And there is a note in a usfws study from 1985 about 400k possibly not being sustainable. 

But sure, the gubmint prolly just wanted to hide the "facts" and keep us in the dark on this one. So yep, definitely let's double the official count because there are lots of meat poles in the mountains from way back when


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I had a real nice reply for you JC but something happened and it got wiped out.

But in general here is what it said. In 1983 there were 82,552 bucks harvested in Utah by 228,907 hunters for a success rate of 36%. That is a lot of bucks and the population needed to be fairly high to sustain that kind of harvest.

Also way back in 1961 there were around 132,000 deer harvested both does and bucks since the tags at that time were either sex. There were also areas that allow up to 7 or so deer on one tag. The population at that time had to be quite high.

Now does that say that the population was anywhere near 800,000 I doubt it but there were a lot of deer back then.

Here is some good reading on Utah's deer herds and it is where I got the above numbers from.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bg/mule_deer_plan.pdf


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't think we even know for sure how many deers there are in Salt Lake county. Hum, let's see...800,000 deers spread out over 85,000 sq. mile....that's less than 95 deers per sq. mile....maybe!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I once had a DWR employee tell me he thought they should go back to either sex. He figured the meat hunters would shoot the first deer they saw and then be gone. More bucks would survive the hunt.

So all you smart guys tell me how you are going to get an accurate count! Otherwise it is just using somebodies bad numbers to make assumptions.

Don't agree with the DWR? Tell them how to get it done!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

middlefork said:


> I once had a DWR employee tell me he thought they should go back to either sex. He figured the meat hunters would shoot the first deer they saw and then be gone. More bucks would survive the hunt.
> 
> So all you smart guys tell me how you are going to get an accurate count! Otherwise it is just using somebodies bad numbers to make assumptions.
> 
> Don't agree with the DWR? Tell them how to get it done!


Just count the meat poles on the mountain. Multiply that by infinity and throw in a comment about the good ole days and that'll give you an exact count.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

800,000 is the number some people come up with as what it would have taken to produce the number of deer killed during those years. The State says there were 200,000ish hunters from approx 1960 to 1990. Deer harvest in 1961 was reported around 125,000- but that includes buck and doe harvest. The most bucks harvested came in the early 1980s with a harvest in the low 80,000s - but buck to doe ratios in the single digits on many units.

The 800,000 could be valid or not- I have sat in a couple hundred hours of Mule Deer Management meetings and don't remember seeing legit Buck to Doe ratio numbers for the 1960s. I have seen estimates that put it around 10. For the 1980s- the real numbers I have seen usually falls into the single digits to the low teens.

What people sometimes fail to realize is the fawn retention into the 1980s was far higher due to the complete destruction of predators. Back then, fawns hit the ground and lived. Now fawns hit the ground and die.

I honestly think deer numbers were higher back in the day. I can't say if they were 3 times higher than we have today (from around 300,000 today against 800,000-900,000 from back then). I can say there is no way to attain those numbers again without a war on predators, crossing guards for deer, perfect weather, and range rehab.

Herds are not rapidly growing. How many doe deer are they shooting on the Book Cliffs? On the Pauns? The answer to low deer numbers is not thru buck hunters..... 

And if Utah had 800,000 deer then this quote published in the late 1960s "Productivity of Mule Deer on the La Sal and Henry Mountains of Utah" should be of interest from those who came before us--
"During the 1950's, Utah experienced high populations of mule deer, and a general deterioration of the habitat resulted. In an attempt to correct this condition, the Utah State Department of Fish and Game and Federal land management agencies embarked on a program to reduce mule deer and livestock numbers to the carrying capacity of the range. Management tools implemented to reduce deer numbers included building access roads, issuing permits for special hunts, and extending hunting seasons."

The higher number of deer degraded the range. They issued special hunts. Cut access roads into secluded places to KILL the deer. So when guys use those harvest numbers to support their theory on populations back then- maybe the numbers were skewed because the UTFG was trying to kill deer- not grow deer in the 1960s. 

..


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Reporting was worse back in the 60s-90s than it is today. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual human harvest was two or three times what was reported. The thing you all are forgetting or denying (not sure which it is) that there wasn’t 2500 cougar eating 125K deer per year or 1 cougar for every 100 deer back then. Hunters were the primary harvester of deer. And if there is 300,000 deer today there was easily 3 times as many deer in the good old days probably more.

As for sustainability. Funny every other critter using the range has sustained numbers or increased over the last 50 years. Same amount of sheep cattle and more elk. Do you figure cattlemen and sheepherders are sucking hind tit because of weather and habitat loss? I don’t. I figure just like we were told in the early 80’s by a higher up in the dwr at the time. Utah is getting out of the deer business. And it been policy that has steered the deer herd ever since. It’s foolish to believe that the dwr has no control over deer populations and it up to Mother Nature.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Mule deer are as tuff as they get. They live at 14,000 ft to sea level. They live in the driest deserts they live up n the marsh. They live in the city they live in the most remote backcountry. They live up in freezing Canada and live in hot Mexico. They will eat all kinds of food to survive and thrive from graze to browse. They will eat garbage literally. They eat fruit and shrubs from your yard they will eat the your dog food if you leave it out. It wasn’t a mule deer but I once saw a video of a deer eating a bird. I’ll guess mule deer occasionally will eat a bird too given the chance. My point is that mule deer are survivors and given the chance thrivers. So I don’t buy the habitat and weather excuse for less deer than yesteryears. I’m fine with the fact that we will never have deer like we had. But don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. It’s not like its because Mother Nature won’t allow for it and the deer population boom starting in the 40s was a perfect storm for deer. Plain and simple it was predator control. Ending the practice in the 70s is the reason for deer not being able to rebound to historically high numbers. Habitat my azz. But it sure has served as a great vehicle to pump money into so called wildlife conservation. You know the millions of dollars DP plays with that you guys hate so much is mostly raised in the name of habitat bs. Utah has pumped more money into habitat in the name of wildlife than any other state hands down. And we don’t have it any better than any one else besides California. But we have pimped out our system to deep pockets and elite that have no interest in your family hunt or you getting a tag every year.

I’m glad studs like Ridge can still find big bucks. It gives me hope that they still do exists. But it’s not like very many guys are seeing that kind of quality. So I don’t agree things are still ok in the deer department. When back in the day I saw good buck from the road during the hunt every year on Monroe. Kinda like hunting the Henry’s or Pauns today. I didn’t have to scout 20 days and hike 60 miles to find a big deer. 

Rant over.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

One thing that amazes me about this conversation (not in this specific thread, but the conversation in general) is that many of the people that accept the calculation of 800,000 deer as the gospel truth are the same ones that cry foul on the DWR population estimate modules that are used today. One is scientific, one was a dude saying “X deer were killed, so the population had to be Y.” It was just a flat dumb guess, and it is accepted without question by a subset of people that just bash scientifically backed population modules out of the other side of their mouths. 

I simply can’t get over that little nugget. 

Wow. Just wow. 

(This frustration comes from another forum mostly, not here.)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> One thing that amazes me about this conversation (not in this specific thread, but the conversation in general) is that many of the people that accept the calculation of 800,000 deer as the gospel truth are the same ones that cry foul on the DWR population estimate modules that are used today. One is scientific, one was a dude saying "X deer were killed, so the population had to be Y." It was just a flat dumb guess, and it is accepted without question by a subset of people that just bash scientifically backed population modules out of the other side of their mouths.
> 
> I simply can't get over that little nugget.
> 
> ...


I agree but wouldn't you attribute that to people endorsing whatever set of "facts" most closely match whatever their agenda is on the subject? If the DWR data agrees with their opinion, then it is right, if not, then the old timers estimates and meat pole counts are correct.

We only have to look at the national political situation to see two radically different interpretations of the same objective set of "facts".


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> One thing that amazes me about this conversation (not in this specific thread, but the conversation in general) is that many of the people that accept the calculation of 800,000 deer as the gospel truth are the same ones that cry foul on the DWR population estimate modules that are used today. One is scientific, one was a dude saying "X deer were killed, so the population had to be Y." It was just a flat dumb guess, and it is accepted without question by a subset of people that just bash scientifically backed population modules out of the other side of their mouths.
> 
> I simply can't get over that little nugget.
> 
> ...


I agree Niller! I have read up on "the other forum" regarding this topic and it always instigates my gag reflex.

I was fortunate enough to experience my first deer hunt with my own deer permit in 1992. That year was special and appeared to be the peak of the population that I had experienced since the mid 80s. Things went down hill for the deer population right after that and I think everyone can agree. However, since then they have rebounded and that is to the credit of the DWR since they are tasked with managing the deer herd.

Our group suffered through some tough hunts and basked in glory on others between now and then. But IMO these last 4 years have been the best I've seen since 92 regarding deer sightings - bucks included.

My dad doesn't speak to millions of deer everywhere in the 60's and 70's and he was all about deer hunting in those days,but I did get to witness some party hunting back in the day and a deer pole or 2. That seemed like fun!!

I don't buy the doom and gloom about our deer population overall and I'll side with the DWR biologists every time over any social media hard asses about what is really going on with the deer population.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Probably completely unrelated to habitat, winter range, deer numbers, etc...

1960: 890K
1970: 1.06M
1980: 1.46M
1990: 1.72M
2000: 2.23M
2010: 2.78M
2020: 3.28M


Here is the Utah human population. Probably doesn't contribute to anything. Carry on.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

What we need are more accurate deer herd 'estament' counts.

The current computer models being used are either flawed or incorrect data is used. One or the other.

Interesting DWR conversations I've had the last month. They have been conducting buck to doe ratios on winter ranges.
They agree with low deer numbers everywhere I've looked.

Spoke with one individual thats on the Bookcliffs study yesterday.
They took a 'range ride' through the cliffs in late November.
This member was on the SE ride.
Went from Sego canyon, Nash wash, Diamond up thru Hay and East canyons. Super low deer counts unfortunately reported.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Seems like the dwr is using the Mark Recapture method for estimating a population. In my controlled science counts, it is always estimated higher than the actual count of the population.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

One thing about those population numbers that most of you forget about or ignore is the fact that those numbers are taken during the winter AFTER the hunts when there is snow on the ground and the deer are concentrated more and BEFORE much of the "winterkill" happens.

Wildlife has to deal with weather as it happens and often it takes its toll later. In the case of deer populations, it may be in the early spring when the deer are malnourished or ill or weak from the rigors of surviving a cold harsh winter. The does are pregnant and aren't able to get around as well and the bucks (and does) have used up any fat reserves they may have built before the winter. The cougars and coyotes have an easier time preying on yearling big game and weaker adults. The deer are starting to migrate back to spring and summer ranges and that means crossing roads, freeways, fences, human occupied land and habitat that hasn't much new annual growth. Compound that with occasional late winter-like storms that result in cold, wet weather. AND don't forget the long term droughts that degrade habitat over a period of years. "Winterkill" isn't just about snow and ice during the winter. A lot of weather related things happen after the classifications/counts that can mess up the numbers!


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

I'm 55 and a few observations.
- Deer hunt was a cultural happening every fall. 70's-80's seemed everyone in my world hunted and killed a lot of deer. 
- My opinion is there were more last minute and lazy hunters back then. Anyone could buy a tag last minute, box of shells, couple cases of beer, and burritos. Hunt anywhere in the state so people would head out 1st weekend and then 2nd weekend areas along the Wasatch Front got pounded extra hard.
- Grandpa was a sheepman and god bless his soul they pretty much eliminated most predators until the 70's. Deer didn't have many coyotes, lions and bears. Traps, guns, 1080 deadly!! 
- We didn't have the foothill sprawl so much better winter range and carryover habitat for deer.
- Hunting is like any hobby. Spend time and effort and you'll do better than average. Utah has great hunting opportunities and many hunters regularly kill good deer and I respect their success. 
- Elk are now my critter of choice. Love chasing them and feel blessed Utah still has OTC opportunities. My boy comes home from TX every September for a week bowhunting and then I do rifle or muzzie. Utah elk herds in the 60's -70's were small compared to now and I'd expect the significant increase in elk herds does somehow limit deer herds. Most likely winter range capacity but that's my armchair biologist talking. I'm sure someone can confirm or tell me I'm full of crap.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One thing that I would like to ask those that talk about habitat loss. First I'll give you the loss of it in the more metropolitan areas. I'll even give you all the range from Logan down to Nephi along I-15. 

But what about the rest of the state? The urban sprawl just isn't there as much as the bigger metropolitan areas. Yes, there are areas such as Cedar City and perhaps Richfield but what about the areas around Loa and Bicknell? Then the area from Helper down HWY 6 then down to Huntington, Castle Dale, and Ferron. You can also throw in both sides of HWY 89. 

Sure there are homes built in the foothills but they are spread a ways apart. I don't believe that it is habitat loss in these areas. There is plenty of habitat in those areas, so where are the deer?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> One thing that I would like to ask those that talk about habitat loss. First I'll give you the loss of it in the more metropolitan areas. I'll even give you all the range from Logan down to Nephi along I-15.
> 
> But what about the rest of the state? The urban sprawl just isn't there as much as the bigger metropolitan areas. Yes, there are areas such as Cedar City and perhaps Richfield but what about the areas around Loa and Bicknell? Then the area from Helper down HWY 6 then down to Huntington, Castle Dale, and Ferron. You can also throw in both sides of HWY 89.
> 
> ...


Most of them are getting hit by cars or eaten by a dogs, cats or bears. 
Then there are some areas getting hit by different forms of disease.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Critter said:


> One thing that I would like to ask those that talk about habitat loss. First I'll give you the loss of it in the more metropolitan areas. I'll even give you all the range from Logan down to Nephi along I-15.
> 
> But what about the rest of the state? The urban sprawl just isn't there as much as the bigger metropolitan areas. Yes, there are areas such as Cedar City and perhaps Richfield but what about the areas around Loa and Bicknell? Then the area from Helper down HWY 6 then down to Huntington, Castle Dale, and Ferron. You can also throw in both sides of HWY 89.
> 
> ...


It isn't just the SIZE of the habitat we've lost. We've lost the Quality as well. The drought hits Loa and Bicknell and Helper and Huntington and Castle Dale and Ferron as well. In fact, the Southern Region employees hauled water for the deer in the Punsaugunt last year and the Palmer Drought Severity Index registered ALL of the Southern Region units as D4, the most severe rating. And the area percentages of cheatgrass in most range trend study areas have gone up. Sagebrush is old growth with fewer leaders. Bitterbrush and Mountain Mahogany have been cropped too high for smaller does and fawns. Streams and springs have dried up and riparian areas are being muddied and/or lost. Even soils are not as productive and they used to be. You may not notice these changes, but the deer sure do and they show it!

So, where are the deer? They are where THEY want to be, not necessarily where YOU think they should be. While transplanting the deer on the Parowan Front, we noticed that they would pass up perfectly good feed to get to where we found them at the mouth of Cottonwood Creek where there was little to eat except sagebrush bark. And many of those we moved to the Pahvant went 100+ miles through good range to get back to the Parowan Front where we moved them from. It may not make sense to you or me, but it makes perfectly good sense to them and that's what counts. We have to manage them on THEIR terms, not ours!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I always like it when people bring up that the drought is lot of the problem. I remember a DOW employee telling this out in the Book Cliffs one year just after I had hiked out of Willow Creek. He said that there was no water for the animals. He had no idea that the grass down in Willow Creek was 3' high and it had a very nice flow of water going through it. 

The same can be said for a lot of the Manti. If you get off of the road and hike a little you will find all kinds of seeps and small ponds all over that mountain, and that is in the driest of years.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

And apparently the drougt only effects mule deer and jack rabbits. Maybe porcupine too. I don’t see them like I used too. Before droughts and all. Meanwhile drought tolorant elk and turkey have managed to increase in numbers. Cattle and sheep graze allotments haven’t been slashed in the last 50 years. 

Hey EFA what did you find killed more of those transplanted deer than anything else? Drought, winter, roads, disease? Oh yah it was cats. Maybe they passed up better feed and headed out to cottonwood because the feel safer out in the open where they can see.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
Still hates cats!

News flash.
There's been an all out war on lion's for over a decade now.

And here's another BS claim.
The DWR is saying there are more mountain lions now than 1990 thru 2010?
Give me a freaking break.
Not even close!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
> Still hates cats!
> 
> News flash.
> ...


I'd assume, just like a lot of this, that this depends on the area.

Some areas have less, but areas like the Wasatch Front, where the cats don't get hunted in any appreciable number are full of Cats. But of course, if it's not matching up with your narrative as far as what's going on in the areas you hunt it must be bogus right?

I don't doubt that there are fewer cats in the areas you hunt and frequent, but that doesn't necessarily paint a representative picture of lion numbers in the state as a whole.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
> Still hates cats!
> 
> News flash.
> ...


I like cats and would love to hunt them one day but you have to admit that way back when they were shot on sight along with any bear that should stick their nose out. When I first started hunting I would purchase both a bear and a cat tag for $1 each with the season running year round just to have in my pocket.

In my first dozen years hunting I only saw 2 cats and no bears. Now bears are all over the place and I'll usually see evidence of cats if not the cats themselves.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Listen Kwalk,
I was killing lions on the Wasatch front when you where in diapers.
I giuded and killed lion's out of Big, little Cottonwoods. Above Alpine, Timp, and Cascade years ago.
I'm well aware of the situation in SL county. No dogs.

And for that matter,
I harvested lions in almost every county south of there over a 25 year period guiding hunts.
I've been around the block a time or two.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Listen Kwalk,
> I was killing lions on the Was Wasatch front when you where in diapers.
> I've giuded lion's out of Big, little Cottonwoods. Above Alpine, Timp, and Cascade years ago.
> I'm well aware of the situation in SL county. No dogs.
> ...


Listen goofy. I'm not doubting your experience. Let's knock it off with the condescension ok?

I spend plenty of time in the hills year-round, and the fact I'm in my mid-30s has nothing to do with my ability to understand science and population modeling. I see lions frequently and lion sign all the time. That doesn't mean that they're doing well any more than what you're seeing means that they're struggling.

Your experience 30 years ago is valid, but it simply is not a scientific representation of populations in the state currently. Deer, elk, lion, or otherwise.

You have been hollering on the forum for years about elk, deer, and lion populations, and it's never once been positive. The way you perceive things isn't a scientific representation of the real situation. Pardon me if I'll defer to the science here.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes, I have been hollering for a few years now. I'm not going to just sit by and watch it all go down the chitter.

You want possitive?
Look at the Paunsy deer herd.
We should have more units like this around Utah!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> Yes, I have been hollering for a few years now. I'm not going to just sit by and watch it all go down the chitter.
> 
> You want possitive?
> Look at the Paunsy deer herd.
> We should have more units like this around Utah!


That's exactly why I have such a hard time with your hollering.

You love to tell us all about your lifetime of experiences, but when it comes down to it, you'd love nothing more than to see things limited(AR's, cut permits) more than they already are which does nothing but limits the experiences for guys like me, who haven't been as fortunate as you.

You just proposed the Paunsagunt deer herd as a shining example for crying out loud.

I'm happy for you that you've been able to have the experiences you have, and I'm sure we share a similar appreciation for the places we spend our spare time. But, at the end of the day, I have great experiences hunting our state every year, and am equally committed to that continuing into the future.

When the science matches up with your hollering, I'll listen and act accordingly. Healthy ecosystems with robust wildlife populations that we can all participate in should be all of our goal.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> You want possitive?
> Look at the Paunsy deer herd.
> We should have more units like this around Utah!


Lol.. now that goofy got his lets all wait 20 years for a tag.

There are a multitude of reasons we can't replicate, nor should we replicate, the Pauns.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Kwalk, if you knew what I saw at your age, on many southern units,
You would know why Im pissed.

Because there WAS a bunch that looked like the Paunsy does today.

Grant it , not as many elk.
But the deer where unreal.
So I know it can scientifically happen........LOL.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Talk about not knowing how many animals we have. At least when it comes to deer they have a count. When it comes to cats it’s estimated on paper in Salt Lake City based on acreage. I’m guessing they haven’t tried to come up with a number in 20 years. Goofy? Do you know? The other thing they go off is complaints from houndsman and deer hunters. A lot of guys here like science applied to game management decisions. Well the cougar management plan is void of sound biological policy. Thankfully today there are triggers related to deer populations. Which is how cougar should be managed from the ground up. Not based on acres but on prey available. 

As for a war on cougar. I can see how a cougar hunter would feel that way. Yes more opportunity to shoot a cat then ever. I feel like there’s a war on deer and elk. A war on cougar would look something like what we do with coyote no tags needed, no season, hunt at night, no limit, bounties. Which I wouldn’t support by the way. I wish for a comprehensive predator management plan that did its best to find out how many predators we have in relation to the prey available then try to strike a balance that took into account the 300,000 deer hunters in Utah. 

Word on the mountain is that the big boar that was living on the north end of the Monroe unit got killed this year. Rumor has it his brother was killed last year on Monroe. Does anyone believe this will result in more bears on Monroe. The theory is that the two old brothers kept most young bears moving onto other range because it was theirs. Now with them gone 6 young bears can occupy the old brothers range. I buy that theory. Although I have caught bear in the trailcam and can find tracks in the snow in the last 2 years and have never seen sign of bear up there before.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Don't we have threads like this 2-3 times a year? They all seem the same. 

Here is how the "big picture" seems to me.

Are predators part of the problem in some areas? Yes.
Are the range conditions (winter and/or summer) an issue in some areas? Yes.
Does drought and water situation play a role? Yes.
Does human encroachment into critical habitat a factor? Yes.
Hit by car losses? Yes.
DWR management strategies? Maybe. 

IMO, I think there is some validity to a lot of these individual points but I am extremely skeptical about "THE one single solution" that will fix anything. Sadly, that is what we get in these debates and frankly, from the Wildlife Board. 

Option 2 was supposed to fix things. It didn't.
Shooting the coyotes with the bounty program was supposed to fix things. It didn't.
Vast sums of conservation dollars obtained from all those auction tags is supposed to fix it. Nope. 

Bottom line, simple solutions are not going to be the answer to a complex, multifactorial problem. 

One last observation. Should we be surprised that the deer population went down some in a year where we had a significantly above average snowy winter, with deer on range that was chewed down combined with previous drought and accompanying poor growth, combined with several years of increasing populations and very likely increases in predator populations? It seems like a no brainer to me and frankly, not a reason for hand wringing.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Catherder said:


> Don't we have threads like this 2-3 times a year? They all seem the same.


In fairness I've skipped a few years.


----------



## Badin (Dec 18, 2015)

When you could buy a tag and a tank of gas for $25 and get a buck in a weekend, hunting made economic sense as well as being fun. It quit making economic sense to me long ago, so now it’s just for the fun of it. If they cut the tag numbers in half to increase the hunt quality and shared more deer with the other critters, it would not bother me much. I am just thankful I get an opportunity to hunt every few years. I guess if I just felt the need to kill something every year I could go to Texas and shoot things that are fenced in and raised to be shot.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Critter said:


> I always like it when people bring up that the drought is lot of the problem. I remember a DOW employee telling this out in the Book Cliffs one year just after I had hiked out of Willow Creek. He said that there was no water for the animals. He had no idea that the grass down in Willow Creek was 3' high and it had a very nice flow of water going through it.
> 
> The same can be said for a lot of the Manti. If you get off of the road and hike a little you will find all kinds of seeps and small ponds all over that mountain, and that is in the driest of years.


We're not just talking about drinking water when we talk about the drought! Deer can move to drinking water when they need it, but sagebrush, bitterbrush, buckbrush and mountain mahogany can't. They only get what drops on them and sometimes rain doesn't drop for weeks, or even months at a time. AND if there is cheatgrass or cedars around, they may not get it even when it drops 'cause it's sucked up by those plants (and others) before it gets deep enough for the deer forage vegetation. And that's true for ALL the vegetation that deer feed on, and the seeds that need to sprout and set. We've lost a lot of vegetation, especially in the valleys where the deer winter. Many of our natural sagebrush and grassy flats are in in serous trouble and invasive plants (especially cheatgrass) are taking over. Drought may not get the direct credit for the dead deer, but thin, malnourished, weak, starving animals are much more subject to predation, disease, accidents and hypothermia.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Lets not forget the role elk play in this discussion. I believe that the exploding elk population...caused to some extent by management for their growth...has played a MAJOR role in the decline of the deer herds.

Simply put, there is only so much good habitat in any given area and in the long run elk will dominate and out graze deer(especially in the critical winter time) and force their demise.

Large herds of elk=small herds of deer!


----------



## prumpf (Apr 8, 2016)

How about we all start to figure it out together. 

I saw 18 today, let’s add them up 😂


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well
All the elk herds I'm looking at are shrinking BIG TIME...
So many cow permits its UNREAL.

One exception, the Wasatch.
The numbers are actually growing after many years of decline.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> So many cow permits its UNREAL.


Yet I can't draw one, even with multiple points.



goofy elk said:


> One exception, the Wasatch.
> The numbers are actually growing after many years of decline.


Glad to have you on board goof! Those were some fun discussions on the Satch elk herd back in the day. :grin:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
> Still hates cats!
> 
> News flash.
> ...


Goofy, you know your always welcome at my campfire but I have to say that I agree with what the DWR is saying. 
I'm catching a lot of lions on my trail cams, in fact more every year and my family are constantly finding lion kills and getting live sightings while out on horse rides and hiking. 
The DWR needs to double the current lion, bobcat and bear harvest numbers. 
And of course the houndsman are going to do everything they can to keep the lion and bear numbers up as high as possible.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I have the same thoughts as stillhunterman. DeLoss Christensen in Sevier County has been very vocal in conjunction with SFW. I heard him rattle off the million dollar number in a RAC meeting through extrapolation of data in an attempt to show that earlier DWR counts were wrong. I suspect it was an original thought of DeLoss but maybe he got it from someone else. You will not find the 800,000+ number in DWR information. I'm not aware of anyone disputing DeLoss's logic, so it just sticks. Sure its not super scientific, but I personally believe there is some truth to it as there is a general consensus among people that I know who hunted in the 60's that there were a lot more deer then and that deer were in more areas. 

I also believe if we managed predators like we did in the 60's, we'd have more deer. Cougar hunting should not be a limited entry, trophy endeavor throughout the state.


----------



## StillAboveGround (Aug 20, 2011)

The 800 k number seems very high... I spent a little time and did not find any historical numbers like that...
I did find 2 documents that are worth reading if interested in mule deer numbers/habitat and historical perspective...

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr206.pdf

https://www.wafwa.org/Documents and...t and Present Status of the Mule Deer in .pdf

Neither give good population estimates, but Fig. 1 in the "Historical Perspective" paper from USU estimates total mule deer harvest at about 140k around 1960...
But Big Game Harvest reports list the top harvest year in 1931 at 132k mule deer...


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Yes, I have been hollering for a few years now. I'm not going to just sit by and watch it all go down the chitter.
> 
> You want possitive?
> Look at the Paunsy deer herd.
> We should have more units like this around Utah!


Goofy,

I think the Paunsagaunt is a waste of a resource. Compare it to the neighboring Zion Unit. I think they are about the same size if you exclude the National Parks. I'd wager that more 180+ bucks are killed off of Zion every year and it accommodates 10 times the hunters with a consistent 40%+ success rate. It takes 2 years to draw instead of 20.

Paunsaguant guides weren't seeing enough success and went and begged for more hunting dates last year. It looks like they got it from here on out. Could you imagine if general hunters asked for more hunting dates?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

provider said:


> I also believe if we managed predators like we did in the 60's, we'd have more deer. Cougar hunting should not be a limited entry, trophy endeavor throughout the state.


You do realize that a lot of the state is not LE for cougars, right? Harvest objective tags are available OTC and you can definitely get a great cat on those.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

johnnycake said:


> provider said:
> 
> 
> > I also believe if we managed predators like we did in the 60's, we'd have more deer. Cougar hunting should not be a limited entry, trophy endeavor throughout the state.
> ...


And to have any chance at success you'll need to hire a guide. I'm guessing that will run you a couple grand to start. It may as well be a LE hunt. It's not like average joes are participating in the harvest objective hunts in Utah and it having any serious effect on cougar populations.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> And to have any chance at success you'll need to hire a guide.


Pardon my ignorance but how would an average Joe manage to harvest a cougar with any tag (HO or not) without either having hounds or hiring a guide that does?

I don't think the family Shih Tzu is up to the task.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> And to have any chance at success you'll need to hire a guide. I'm guessing that will run you a couple grand to start. It may as well be a LE hunt. It's not like average joes are participating in the harvest objective hunts in Utah and it having any serious effect on cougar populations.


I would bet that you could turn any LE cougar unit into OTC harvest objective as a spot and stalk only and you'd have a low single digits success rate. I also wouldn't be surprised if the number of cats taken in Utah each year without the use of dogs could be counted on one person's fingers with Tom to spare


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’ve literally never seen a cougar in the wild. I don’t know how many days I’ve been out hunting, fishing, driving, camping, whatever-ing. Not a single cougar. The thought of trying to hunt those without experienced guides and good dogs makes me laugh out loud.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

I’m with you! I have a shocked face every time I catch one on my trail cams. Which has been picking up in frequency the last few years. Didn’t see one with my own eyes until my LE hunt of 2017-2018 with hounds chasing him. 

I will add that my houndsman buddy that helped me on that hunt said he is catching cats all over the place this year. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yep that’s the catch 22. It’s houndsman that really hold the keys to the cougar population. And they want the biggest and most cats possible a real conflict of interest.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'd like to see the DOW start selling cat and bear tags again for when the big game hunts are going on 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Critter said:


> I'd like to see the DOW start selling cat and bear tags again for when the big game hunts are going on
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


I'd pick one up!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shaner (Nov 30, 2007)

I’d like to see the Mule Deer Recovery Act include cougars in with coyotes and give a $50 bounty also on cats.
After all, it is a Recovery plan, isn’t it?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Dang cats! Always messing up a good thing!... Or are they? Funny how these types of threads usually end up with advocating for much higher predator control, especially cougars. I don't see it as that black and white. EFA gave some pretty compelling reasons for mule deer population swings. Funny thing is, the deer population over the last few years has definitely increased, with this last year as an outlier due to the previous harsh winter. And, during those years-according to the dwr numbers, cats and bear numbers have climbed to the point of issuing more tags for each. Strange...

I know predators can and do hammer the deer, no question. However, mule deer are prolific under the right circumstances and can bounce back rather quickly, predators or not. When their numbers are slow to rebound for whatever reason can they use some help? Sure, probably. But I just don't see killing off a lot of cats as the primary solution at this point. It's a complicated issue this population dynamics thing. And there are a lot of social issues mixed into the recipe to boot, not just biology and conservation. What to do...what to do...:shock:


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

johnycake,

"Definitely get a great cat?" Yes, I'm aware it's not officially limited entry everywhere, but it's so regulated there are great cats in existence. Cougars are highly regulated and management is a far cry from the 60's when they treated as varments and targeted by government trappers. I wish the areas I deer hunted freed up cougar tags to the degree that it's hard to get a "great cat." I would love to see $5 cougar tags made available with your deer or elk tags escpecially in areas where there are a lot of private parcels < 1000 acres and running hounds isn't feasible.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

middlefork said:


> I once had a DWR employee tell me he thought they should go back to either sex. He figured the meat hunters would shoot the first deer they saw and then be gone. More bucks would survive the hunt.
> 
> So all you smart guys tell me how you are going to get an accurate count! Otherwise it is just using somebodies bad numbers to make assumptions.
> 
> Don't agree with the DWR? Tell them how to get it done!


That could and should be considered in units that are over objective, but its not a good plan in areas where we are trying to grow the herd.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

provider, I am sure we have a fundamental difference of opinion on predator management--and that's fine. I just think advocating for what amounts to a near extirpation of any native species is improper and strips the individual of any right to claim that they are a responsible conservation advocate. 

I think it's pretty awesome that on the Henry Mountains I was able to kill a large B&C tom on a harvest objective tag in a day (and cut multiple tracks besides my cat). Big bucks are cool. Big cats are cool too. And managing for a balanced biodiversity and healthy ecosystem is pretty cool also


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Just going to chime for the sake of giving my thoughts.

800K deer = impossible! We just don't have the habitat, factor #1. We also have to many conflicting interests and conditions. 

RandomElk posted the human population of Utah and that is factor #2. No matter how we look at it there are more hunters in Utah now than ever before. Less as a percentage of population but more in plain numbers.

Factor #3 is the factory tags. IF we want more animals of any species we need to stop shutting the factories down. We need to cut doe tags for more deer and we we need to cut elk tags for more elk.

We also have this thing about managing for size/quality. Trophy hunting makes a lot of money for the interested parties and that is where the state focuses a lot of it's resources. I fail to see why we can't have 3 or 4 units managed for size/quality and have all the rest managed for numbers. Remove the spike only regulation and allow the number of elk on the unit dictate the number of tags given.

But what do I know I'm just a guy with a gun and desire to hunt.
Disclosure: The number of the factor does not reflect the importance level.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> I just think advocating for what amounts to a near extirpation of any native species is improper and strips the individual of any right to claim that they are a responsible conservation advocate.


You are such a tree hugger! :mrgreen:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> You are such a tree hugger! :mrgreen:


Have I ever told you that my 6 year old daughter still cries about how the power company (which happens to be my client...) had to cut down the tree in our backyard in 2017?

The tree's name is/was Esker and she would have full blown conversations with it and I can't do anything with the logs because it is his body.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

The Tribune did an article a few years back that said 10,000 deer are hit and killed by cars each year in Utah.

If there are 800K and hunters take about 85K and cars take another 10K that should leave plenty for the cougars, coyotes and wolves. Do we ban wolves or cars?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

HighNDry said:


> The Tribune did an article a few years back that said 10,000 deer are hit and killed by cars each year in Utah.
> 
> If there are 800K and hunters take about 85K and cars take another 10K that should leave plenty for the cougars, coyotes and wolves. Do we ban wolves or cars?


There are no wolves in Utah
We should ban both cars and wolves and only allow trucks! :smile:


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

HighNDry said:


> The Tribune did an article a few years back that said 10,000 deer are hit and killed by cars each year in Utah.
> 
> If there are 800K and hunters take about 85K and cars take another 10K that should leave plenty for the cougars, coyotes and wolves. Do we ban wolves or cars?


Just to be clear, in don't think anybody is claiming Utah has 800k deer today. There are some anecdotal guestimates that back in the <insert "golden decade" here> there were about double the number of deer that the government biologists ever reported


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I like where HighNDry is going maybe CPAJeff can help. Brighter minds than me can audit Utah’s deer herd better. 

(Hypothetically) and feel free to do the math and estimations yourself. Here’s mine

300,000 deer total statewide 
50,000 buck 
250,000 doe 
250,000 new fawns hit the ground in spring 
500,000 deer in spring 
-175,000 predators 
-35,000 human harvest 
-10,000 cars 
-30,000 winterkill, disease, exhaustion, 
=300,000 deer statewide give or take 20,000. 

Just estimates but to me they are plausible.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
> ...


Ridge,
Your welcome at my campfire aswell.

Just s couple thoughts.
I know the lion population is higher on the Wasatch front where dogs have been ban.

And
If trail cams would have been alive in the mid 90s, I promise there would have been s truck load of lion pics.

When the HO units started,
I was AMAZED at the lion numbers.

I personally guided, and killed over 200 cats.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Have I ever told you that my 6 year old daughter still cries about how the power company (which happens to be my client...) had to cut down the tree in our backyard in 2017?
> 
> The tree's name is/was Esker and she would have full blown conversations with it and I can't do anything with the logs because it is his body.


My 7 year old daughter just a few days ago:

"Daddy, I need to tell you something. The opposite of cold is hot. The opposite of bad is good. The opposite of tree hugger is cool."

Her mom didn't think it was nearly as funny as I did.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> I like where HighNDry is going maybe CPAJeff can help. Brighter minds than me can audit Utah's deer herd better.
> 
> (Hypothetically) and feel free to do the math and estimations yourself. Here's mine
> 
> ...


This seems reasonable. I'd put the buck/doe ratio a bit lower, but still seems reasonable.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I like where HighNDry is going maybe CPAJeff can help. Brighter minds than me can audit Utah's deer herd better.
> 
> (Hypothetically) and feel free to do the math and estimations yourself. Here's mine
> 
> ...


I also believe this is in the realm of reality. I may change the 250,000 fawns to 300,000+. So where are all those fawns going? They sure are not killed by buck hunters....

..


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

johnnycake said:


> provider, I am sure we have a fundamental difference of opinion on predator management--and that's fine. I just think advocating for what amounts to a near extirpation of any native species is improper and strips the individual of any right to claim that they are a responsible conservation advocate.
> 
> I think it's pretty awesome that on the Henry Mountains I was able to kill a large B&C tom on a harvest objective tag in a day (and cut multiple tracks besides my cat). Big bucks are cool. Big cats are cool too. And managing for a balanced biodiversity and healthy ecosystem is pretty cool also


I will defer predator management objectives to the biologists. It's sad that every time the subject is on wildlife board agenda the non-consumptive crowd make the same false claims and pleas. Lion, bears, coyotes on the verge of extinction. Sportsman are the reasons those species and most other wildlife exist.

The reality is deer and elk have massive economic benefit and lions and bears don't buy tags. We do so I support keep predator populations viable but that's it!!


----------



## Rockroller17 (Oct 19, 2016)

It is a wonder after the winter of 48-49 any deer survived. Yet in the 50's and 60's there was some great hunting.There was also less predators.In the 60's when I was old enough to go with my dad .We would always find bucks in areas today you won't find any deer.By the time I started hunting in the early 70's it got tougher to find bucks. We also had some big winters in the eightys. I remember 1 year numbers were so low I didn't buy a tag. This year although we seen a fair amount of does, the buck numbers seem way down.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

From what I seen on the hunt I'd say 80,000 for the whole state not 800,000 lol


----------



## Sjames-XFO (Mar 5, 2020)

APD said:


> they should really lower the number of deer you're allowed to hit with your car.


I just spit all my mtn dew all over my laptop because of your comment. thanks hahahahahaha:smile::smile:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

7MM RELOADED said:


> From what I seen on the hunt I'd say 80,000 for the whole state not 800,000 lol


My thoughts exactly.

I did some serious looking this winter....
Lowest/poorest number I've seen since 2002/ 03...
The elk in spots are bad too.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> I did some serious looking this winter....
> Lowest/poorest number I've seen since 2002/ 03...
> The elk in spots are bad too.


Thats wild, we were seeing hundreds of deer per day on both the ML and Rifle hunts this year. Few bucks, but sheesh, piles of does in large groups just packed in the two canyons we hunted.

-DallanC


----------

