# 3 point or better?



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

just got back from muzzle loader deer hunting seen a lot of small bucks, didn't see any mature bucks. but I seen a lot of hunters harvesting the small bucks I passed on. I was thinking while I was hunting, I wish the state would go to 3 point or better with the exception of youth hunters the elderly and people with disabilities. what does every one think about a plan like that?
I hope this year there will be changes with are currant hunting system, if not I will be spending my vacation time out of state Intel things improve. I was also wondering if anyone knows how many people on the hunting board participate in the general season hunting in Utah? we need people in there that knows what its like in the field!!!


----------



## 71fordbronco (Oct 8, 2008)

I agree there needs to be a change. I have seen the central region go down hill fast in the past few years. It seems even the smaller bucks are few and far between this year.


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

I saw the most spikes and 2 points this year. But have heard and seen some really big guys being taken in the central unit. I never closed the gap on the muzzle loader hunt with a shooter but hopefully my deer will be waiting in the same area for the 150 grain .270 bullet. 

Oh I forgot I think the 3 point rule would be nice so in general the deer get bigger but I get tired of all the extra rules and if you want a big buck you have to hike or have good luck. and be happy most people will settle for the little guys so you dont have to.


----------



## legacy (Sep 30, 2007)

I like the thought of 3 point or better. But, you'll have guys shooting first and looking second and you get the guys that think it would take away opportunity (Which I don't understand). The first couple of years, you might have to pass up some bucks (heaven forbid!), but after a couple of years, we should see more mature bucks. Let's do it...done!


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I am all for it as that is my standard anyway. I think that would be an excellent plan. How do we go about getting it done and is there something like this in any other states or Canadian providences?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree....I think it is a great idea. If they wanted to help out the herd that would be a great way to do it.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I remember when it used to be 3 point or better where I hunted. We usually got deer back then. We still do, but I think everybody in the family is more willing to shoot a smaller buck now than they were in the past. It seems like the demise of the population of quality bucks has coincided more with the loss of habitat and increase of 4-wheeler trails all over the mountain than the change to any buck with antlers over its ears. I'll tell you what, there's not much better meat than that young buck stuff. MMMMM!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> It seems like the demise of the population of quality bucks has coincided more with the loss of habitat and increase of 4-wheeler trails all over the mountain than the change to any buck with antlers over its ears.


Correct! If you want more mature bucks in the hills we need to have more deer in the hills. Antler restrictions will only take opportunity away and HURT the health of the herd in the short/long run. Improve habitat, allow the animals more places to escape to, and minimize highway/predator kills.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The other thing - Spring 2007 was a freaking bumper crop of deer - and those are the spikes and two points you are seeing right now. Spring 2007 was one of the most successful years for fawn recruitment we've had in decades. And Winter 07-08 wasn't nearly as bad as it was assumed. But you are seeing the results of a very easy winter in 06-07, great fawn crop, and good moisture over the last two years. Think about how many 4 points we'll have in the 2010 season.


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> I am all for it as that is my standard anyway. I think that would be an excellent plan. How do we go about getting it done and is there something like this in any other states or Canadian providences?


Do three points or bigger taste better?


----------



## royta (Sep 26, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> is there something like this in any other states or Canadian providences?


I grew up just outside Yreka, CA. When I first started deer hunting in 1985 at 12 years old, the B zones, which were on the West side of I-5, were 2 point or better. The X zones, which were on the East side of I-5, were 3 point or better. I haven't hunted deer there in 15 years, so I'm not sure what the rules are now. I don't really care either. Although, they had a sweet muzzleloader hunt at Devil's Gardens. Apparently tough to draw out on, but I've heard the bucks were everywhere.


----------



## bearhntr (Oct 6, 2008)

Well I would have to agree with the demise of our deer heards and the general size of the bucks being the loss of habitat. I would however be in favor of setting up a few units for three point or better. If you are one who just wants to put meat on the table then you would avoid putting in for those areas that are three point or better. Right know I personally won't shoot one smaller than a three point. If the state will not re-introduce the program then it is up to us to do our part and pass the little one's up. Now granted there are those who will not pass the little one's up and I am ok with that, because it will keep them hunting and providing more funds that go back to the preservation of our wildlife.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

deadicatedweim said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > I am all for it as that is my standard anyway. I think that would be an excellent plan. How do we go about getting it done and is there something like this in any other states or Canadian providences?
> ...


I think it all tastes the same jerkyed.... What do you think?


----------



## deadicatedweim (Dec 18, 2007)

exactly my point but I cant afford to have it all made into jerky. The 3 point or bigger will effect the people that truly hunt mostly for the food. So thats why I dont care if they change the plan cause the people that are hardcore and wanna work for a big deer still can and also have the option for a paunsagant or bookcliffs hunt...etc etc


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Do point restriction really work?*

Utah tried this on the Henry Mountains some years ago and found it to be counter productive. The following may explain why:
"Another harvest strategy sometimes employed to improve depressed buck:doe ratios is a "four-point or better" hunting season. It may seem counterintuitive, but antler point restrictions do not necessarily produce more large bucks. In a 4-point or better season, the hunter is restricted to harvesting bucks with 4 points or more on either antler. Consequently, all harvest pressure is redirected to the largest deer in the population, which reduces their number. Since most yearlings and some 2-year old bucks are protected until they become small 4-point deer, the overall ratio of bucks to does will increase somewhat as a result of having more young bucks in the population. However, harvest is merely delayed until a buck grows its first set of 4-point antlers. The maximum benefit of a 4-point season is typically realized after the season has been in place 2 or 3 years, at which time most 4-point bucks are being harvested. Thereafter, the buck:doe ratio does not continue to increase and fewer bucks actually survive to grow truly large antlers. Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population. If the objective is to produce more large deer, the 4-point restriction must be lifted after 2 years so harvest is once again spread over more age classes. This allows more of the incoming cohort of 4-point bucks to survive to an older age and potentially grow much larger antlers. Should the overall buck:doe ratio again decline to an unacceptably low level, the 4-point or better season can be reinstated for another 2-3 years to augment the number of bucks in the population, and the process is repeated. Permanent 4-point or better seasons do not produce more large bucks and actually reduce the harvestable surplus because some of the younger bucks that could have been harvested will die from other causes before they grow 4-point antlers. In addition, some small bucks are mistaken for legal bucks and are illegally killed and abandoned. Those deer represent a resource that is lost from the population and impact hunter opportunity in future years."

Source: http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/MuleDeer ... 0%2007.pdf

This is a good read and another perspective on mule deer management. Idaho tried this a few years ago by going to a four point or better season for two years and then to a only two point season preserving the older class bucks. This would work for starting a Limited entry Unit and has worked for our elk herds.......Big


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Here is a comprehensive look at antler point restrictions across the west and how they have historically fared:
"Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.

Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.

Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.

Wyoming's experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.

Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.

Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks."

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html

I am totally against any kind of antler point restrictions on mule deer because they have proven NOT to work--focusing all the hunting pressure on the older mature bucks will NOT increase the number of bigger bucks. I favor hunting regulations that spread the hunting pressure and hunter harvest out among all age classes of deer.

Utah deer hunters often forget that Utah's general season hunts are managed for high opportunity which, in turn, means that most of the hunter harvest will be yearling deer. To see more big bucks, the only option is to reduce overall harvest of all age classes of bucks....however, in so doing, we would lose opportunity and reduce recruitment and growth potential in the herd. With so many units below population objectives, reducing hunter harvest is NOT a good idea.


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

I must really be getting old if no one else here remembers Utah did have 3 point or better hunts. It didn't work then, no reason to believe it would work now.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

Doc said:


> I must really be getting old if no one else here remembers Utah did have 3 point or better hunts. It didn't work then, no reason to believe it would work now.


Like the ole adage goes: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Another old adage, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results." Antler restrictions have NEVER worked for various reasons. I admit I was once a huge advocate of AR, but once I started looking at the facts, it became clear. The ONLY long term solution that will work w/o lose of opportunity is an increase in overall deer populations. That can only come from habitat improvement, reduction in highway mortality, and weather cooperation.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Another old adage, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results." Antler restrictions have NEVER worked for various reasons. I admit I was once a huge advocate of AR, but once I started looking at the facts, it became clear. The ONLY long term solution that will work w/o lose of opportunity is an increase in overall deer populations. That can only come from habitat improvement, reduction in highway mortality, and weather cooperation.


If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

This is true, but most people I talk to are afraid of change, they'd rather have a little than shoot for a lot and risk having none.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Although i agree with Pro, unfortunately today the habitat is getting smaller and smaller due to human expansion and preserving or making new habitat for our big game unfortunately is not on the top of the list, prime land development and construction is.
I think we have to adapt and make changes based on that sickening fact and manage our deer to fit what's happening. 
I would like to see our five regions broken into smaller units and managed some for better quality (age class) and leave some for people who don't care what they kill.
I'm all for an antler point restriction...IN SOME AREAS.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You can’t fix the standard rifle hunting mentality in Utah without restricting rifle hunting even more than it already is.  

Most only purchase a box of shells and shoot one or two shots just to make sure the rifle is still dialed in from last year. Most drive around on 4-wheelers and in trucks looking for the easy target. Most have no trigger control and get buck fever over the first spike they see. They even shoot first and ask questions later and practice if its brown it’s down.

There are big deer in Utah on public land  

So If you want to see big bucks in Utah here is what you do or “here is what I do” and it has worked. :shock: 
Get off the 4-wheeler
Get out of the truck
Get away from the crowds and pack into wilderness areas
Hunt weekdays and stay away from weekends

Or hunt earlier in the season when the bucks are more visible

You could pick up a BOW and hunt with an over the counter tag every year in any reign in the state, with only 16,000 hunters/competition state wide. Compare that to 25,000 orange pumpkins on the southern unit alone caring a bang stick “scary” This will give you more opportunity to see and possibly even harvest a big buck.

You will have first crack at the big bucks because they haven’t been hunted yet. You can see them easier at that time because they will be red in color and out in the open. 

Need more incentive to pick up a bow?

You can hunt from August until the end of November in some areas “sounds like hunting euphoria doesn’t it.” “It gets better!” In those areas you don’t have the standard Utard mentality. People can’t hunt with 4 wheelers, or out of vehicles. Most will even pass up a three point in this area so there are plenty of 4 points to hunt. Some of these deer are older and larger than the bucks on the LE units.

IMHO I was always taught nothing in life comes easy.  The harder it is the greater the rewards. If you want a big buck in this state you will have to work for it unless you draw a tag on an LE unit. Then you can just go and shoot one


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

There are more deer in Utah today than 10 years ago, buck:doe ratios are higher than they were 10 years ago in Utah. That tells me there are MORE bucks in Utah than 10 years ago, hows does that equate to needing to reduce opportunity? Help me out. Colorado micro-unit manages their deer herds, and in the time since they went that route Utah's deer herd has grown FASTER than theirs. They do have higher buck:doe ratios, but at a steep cost. They have twice as many deer as Utah and issue the same number of tags, that means in order for Utah to get as high buck:doe ratios we would have to cut our tags in half, a MAJOR loss of opportunity. If we are desiring an increase in deer population we need to maximize the number of does in the herd, not the number of bucks in the herd. Bucks don't drop fawns in the spring, does do.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

im not against change but the facts are pretty clear that a/r while it could work if everyone followed the rules will not becouse some folks just refuse to follow the regs. the key issue with the mule deer not only here but in other states is habitat restoration it really doesnt matter all that much of the quality of the summer range its the winter range that supports the herds if we continue to chew it up in land large amounts just were the heck are deer supposed to winter also while were i live there is alot of open areas i see land owners just tearing up the sage just to tear it up as i see no other development on it. there needs to be a effort by all to safe what we have and restore all that we can if were going to see any real diffrence in the the herds


----------



## HJB (May 22, 2008)

The "3 point or better" rule will never happen. Most people are thrilled with getting a two point or a spike deer. You can't take away the fun for the kids and meat hunters, just so you can "Trophy Hunt". We have to include everybody in the managment plans.
Micro managment is still the best plan I can think of. The "trophy hunters" can put in for the units producing big bucks, and the meat hunters can put in for the areas with tons of deer and take thier two points. 

I personally won't shoot a two point, but I think if people want to shoot one, they should be able to. You can't try to take sides here.


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

3 POINT or better worked before.. I'am and old fart. I remeber 3 point or better.. First 3 years, I was one who said. this is CRAZY!! The 4 th year, unitl the DWR, removed the regulations, were some great years, I have hunted archery 45 years. And the year before the DWR said it just isn't working.. were as good. if not better than the late 60's into the 70's .I know 4 points don't taste any different than a 2 point.. That is not the point!! It worked.!!,Atleast in the units I hunted.. West Pahvant. Fishlake, Book Cliffs, Mt Dutton area. Monroe Mt.. Other than the BOOKS, which they closed for 5 years,due to draught, Which I feel was a bogus excuse. They closed the Books the year after it was shot out, when the 3 point regs were removed.. Talk to the old timmers who ran cows. and people who hunted the Books for years, They know what really happened. The other units I mentioned have never returned to what they were when it was 3 point or better, Went to a RAC meeting the year after the regs were removed.Was told there were to many spikes and 2 points being killed and left to rot.And not enough officers to patrol. Maybe. But it, 3POINT OR BETTER WORKED!!! Been along time sence I've seen 34 bucks a day West Pavhant. 27 bucks a day on the Fishlake. 30 bucks or better around Jones Corral,,Mt dutton area,, 25 to 30 bucks a day on Monroe Mt. I won't get into the Henerys, cause most people will think I'am nuts! If you didn't hunt during the three point regs .. well you wouldn't know anyway..So I'am spent, can't say any more I've probally already ticked off the non-beleivers, But hey! say what you feel!! Right?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

HJB said:


> The "3 point or better" rule will never happen. Most people are thrilled with getting a two point or a spike deer. You can't take away the fun for the kids and meat hunters, just so you can "Trophy Hunt". We have to include everybody in the managment plans.
> Micro managment is still the best plan I can think of. The "trophy hunters" can put in for the units producing big bucks, and the meat hunters can put in for the areas with tons of deer and take thier two points.
> 
> I personally won't shoot a two point, but I think if people want to shoot one, they should be able to. You can't try to take sides here.


+1


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> HJB said:
> 
> 
> > The "3 point or better" rule will never happen. Most people are thrilled with getting a two point or a spike deer. You can't take away the fun for the kids and meat hunters, just so you can "Trophy Hunt". We have to include everybody in the managment plans.
> ...


This is why i made the suggestion to make a handful of "pilot units" with antler point restrictions.
If a hunter wants to shoot anything he or she see's, then hunt the "open units".

But then again, i am nothing but an armchair biologist --\O


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> This is why i made the suggestion to make a handful of "pilot units" with antler point restrictions.


Why even make "pilot units" when we have past case after past case where antler point restrictions did not work? Why repeat what we have already learned?


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

since many of you believe this is a habitat issue does any one know what is being done to improve the habitat and if so what percent of are licence fees are going to cover the habitat problem?


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > This is why i made the suggestion to make a handful of "pilot units" with antler point restrictions.
> ...


Isn't it funny how well it works on the LE units, and it's not even a law, it's just that people simply don't kill young bucks on LE's by choice.

Now granted, the tags are limited in numbers, but the fact still remains, people aren't killing young bucks on LE's because LE's are intended for older age class opportunities.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

ramrod said:


> since many of you believe this is a habitat issue does any one know what is being done to improve the habitat and if so what percent of are licence fees are going to cover the habitat problem?


Simply said...."not enough is being done"....that's what pro is saying, and i couldn't agree more.
But unfortunately human growth is outweighing the wildlife. :x


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="skull krazy":32wihrxi]
> ...


Isn't it funny how well it works on the LE units, and it's not even a law, it's just that people simply don't kill young bucks on LE's by choice.[/quote:32wihrxi]

It works on LE units because the total number of tags is limited. By reducing the total harvest, the buck/doe ratios increase...that is totally different than applying antler point restrictions. Even if every LE hunter chose to shoot a two point, the number of mature bucks would still be high on those units....

...Pro was exactly right when he said that the only way to increase the number of mature bucks without limiting opportunity is to improve habitat and increase the overall deer numbers. Antler point restrictions do NOT work.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


Can I get an AMEN! Hallelujah, bless the Lord! Sorry I got a little carried away by how well Pro and wyoming2utah are getting along, it brings a tear to my eye. :mrgreen: BTW I agree with Pro and wy2out.


----------



## HornAddict (Oct 8, 2008)

I think ramrod brang up a excellent idea to the three point or better program. I had a muzzleloader deer tag for northeastern and was very disapointed. Out of four tags didn't get any nice bucks. Is a matter of fact i didn't see anything over 15'' wide that's a discrase. The DWR needs to help in an obvious way to get this muledeer issue fixed.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Can I get an AMEN! Hallelujah, bless the Lord! Sorry I got a little carried away by how well Pro and wyoming2utah are getting along, it brings a tear to my eye. BTW I agree with Pro and wy2out.


+1 You know that if they are agreing then that has to say something.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

HornAddict said:


> I think ramrod brang up a excellent idea to the three point or better program. I had a muzzleloader deer tag for northeastern and was very disapointed. Out of four tags didn't get any nice bucks. Is a matter of fact i didn't see anything over 15'' wide that's a discrase. The DWR needs to help in an obvious way to get this muledeer issue fixed.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

"...Pro was exactly right when he said that the only way to increase the number of mature bucks without limiting opportunity is to improve habitat and increase the overall deer numbers. Antler point restrictions do NOT work."

I couldn't agree more, but we are LOSING habitat to human expansion and we HAVE to conform to that because it will ALWAYS outweigh the wildlife.....unfortunately.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

> Most only purchase a box of shells and shoot one or two shots just to make sure the rifle is still dialed in from last year. Most drive around on 4-wheelers and in trucks looking for the easy target. Most have no trigger control and get buck fever over the first spike they see. They even shoot first and ask questions later and practice if its brown it's down.


Scott, You can substitute arrows for shells and have the same effect. There are slobs in every hunting method. I can't tell you how many archers I meet who are riding the hills, shooting from the vehicle, 60+ yard shots with 4 different brands of arrows and the broadheads they probably found on the Front.

As for the original post, I'd rather we do not put all the hunting pressure on the older age segment of our herds. I really don't like the idea of shooting the bucks with the best genetics before they are even mature. (Yearling 3 and 4 points)


----------



## HornAddict (Oct 8, 2008)

Ya human expansion is very unfortunate, but even if they cut back tags would obviously help too.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> > Most only purchase a box of shells and shoot one or two shots just to make sure the rifle is still dialed in from last year. Most drive around on 4-wheelers and in trucks looking for the easy target. Most have no trigger control and get buck fever over the first spike they see. They even shoot first and ask questions later and practice if its brown it's down.
> 
> 
> Scott, You can substitute arrows for shells and have the same effect. There are slobs in every hunting method. I can't tell you how many archers I meet who are riding the hills, shooting from the vehicle, 60+ yard shots with 4 different brands of arrows and the broadheads they probably found on the Front.
> ...


Agreed. I bow hunt every year and see exactly what you are describing, the same demographics and generalizations apply to people, not to one weapon. Also, I don't see a problem with harvesting younger deer, regardless of weapon choice. The problem is, not enough deer as a result of habitat loss, which may be irreversible...... So be ready for restrictions.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Packout said:


> > Most only purchase a box of shells and shoot one or two shots just to make sure the rifle is still dialed in from last year. Most drive around on 4-wheelers and in trucks looking for the easy target. Most have no trigger control and get buck fever over the first spike they see. They even shoot first and ask questions later and practice if its brown it's down.
> 
> 
> Scott, You can substitute arrows for shells and have the same effect. There are slobs in every hunting method. I can't tell you how many archers I meet who are riding the hills, shooting from the vehicle, 60+ yard shots with 4 different brands of arrows and the broadheads they probably found on the Front.
> ...


Not meaning to ruffle any feathers, but genetics have absolutely nothing to do with age.
I am still going to look like my father from age 2 to my being 42 now.
I beleive the only benefit of older age class bucks doing the breeding, is they can service more doe's.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Skull- that was the point of my post. All antler restrictions do is put the pressure on the mature bucks AND the yearlings with the genetics to have 3 or 4 points. I really don't like point restrictions. Sorry my writing skills didn't say it better the first time.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The problem is, not enough deer as a result of habitat loss, which may be irreversible...... So be ready for restrictions.


IN some cases, habitat loss may be irreversible, but in other areas, it is definitely not. Restrictions--or reductions in deer tags and ultimately harvest--can be a two-sided sword. By reducing tags, the DWR could undoubtedly increase buck/doe ratios and increase the number of mature bucks running around...but at what cost? Well, obviously, the first cost is hunting opportunity (which some people are willing to sacrifice). But, the other cost, and the scary cost is the number of does. If units/areas are already at their carrying capacity--and I would argue that many are--increasing buck/doe ratios will definitely reduce recruitment and growth. So, like Pro has said, the best fix is to increase a unit/area's carrying capacity by improving its habitat. In many cases that might be winter range work and in other cases it might be summer range...the bottom line is that by increasing the herd numbers, we can increase the number of mature bucks.

The Henry Mountains are often pointed at as the perfect example of how great limited entry hunting works; however, what people often fail to see is that the Henry Mountains are also way under for its population objective. And, even if the summer range were improved to the point that the deer could rebound, the growth is severely slowed because of the high number of bucks and low number of does....


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Packout said:


> Skull- that was the point of my post. All antler restrictions do is put the pressure on the mature bucks AND the yearlings with the genetics to have 3 or 4 points. I really don't like point restrictions. Sorry my writing skills didn't say it better the first time.


No problem packout  
One thing is for sure, we all have the same wishes and wants here -*|*-


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Agreed, that's where the "may"came in. The number of people willing to donate their time and money is small, yet participation is high and many complain when things are perceivably bad.

I hate to paraphrase Bart :wink: , but "apathy" is a big player. As a whole, we need to get off of our asses.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Agreed, that's where the "may"came in. The number of people willing to donate their time and money is small, yet participation is high and many complain when things are perceivably bad.
> 
> I hate to paraphrase Bart :wink: , but "apathy" is a big player. As a whole, we need to get off of our asses.


Can I get an AMEN?!

wy2ut brought up the Henry LE deer herd. He is 100% correct, that herd is pointed at as evidence that restrictions/reduced tags is the solution. But in reality, the buck:doe ratio is so out of whack the herd is WAY under population objective and as long as that unit is carrying that many bucks it will always be under objective. I know it is an unpopular concept, but if they issued MORE tags on that unit there would be MORE big bucks to choose form as the fawn recruitment would be MORE.

I also do NOT buy the assertion there are few/no big bucks out there. If that were the case why do other hunters see/kill big bucks in EVERY region in the state? It is called *HUNTING* for a reason. I had a LE elk tag in the southern region, I saw mature bucks DAILY, but I only saw archery deer hunters on/near the road. They told me they hadn't seen anything but spikes/fork horns, go figure.

I started hunting in the early 80's, there were MORE hunters in the field than now. There also were more deer, and more big bucks. It is simply math, more deer means more bucks, more bucks means more big bucks. This is NOT rocket science.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Amen!!

Get off our duffs and Hunt. They are there.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

"I started hunting in the early 80's, there were MORE hunters in the field than now. There also were more deer, and more big bucks. It is simply math, more deer means more bucks, more bucks means more big bucks. This is NOT rocket science."

There was also WAY more winter range to support the booming deer numbers back then. Which comes back to your statement of improving the habitat that will conform to "todays" situation and human impact.
So having said that.....lets get doing something as a group and start better supporting conservation groups like SFW, Mule Deer Federation and RMEF, along with voicing our opinions and ideas at RAC's. 
The animals depend on us for survival and well being as well.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

This subject has been hammered over and over. High buck to doe ratio equals unheathly herds!!!!! If your not finding big bucks in most cases your not hunting hard enough PERIOD.


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

FUBAR.. Point restrictions work on ELK Spike only units.. Slot limits work on TROUT.. Don;t work on deer? Come on ,, some people just don't get whats happened to are herds.. I know winter kills, lions. song dogs. bears.. And a sh--load of poaching... Say what you will. I'am a dumb a-- . but your never goin to change my mind.. It didn't work!! Why then. did the wardens .. off the record tell hunter after hunter that it did work!! And then when the guys got who investgated old goveners trout farm. got fired And ... These wardens started keeping their mouths shut.. When you stop and get checked at at check station. and the guys tell you the percentage has gone way down on harvest. And say it's kina been going that way since they took off the 3 point or better,, WHOS RIGHT?? WHO"S WRONG??Also point restrictions don't work in Colorado either??


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Pro, can I get a AMEN! Tree, can I get a AMEN! AAAAAMMMMEEEENNN

[youtube:2cnnx2yg]http://www.youtube.com/v/bw_cBgTEnKM&hl=en&fs=1[/youtube:2cnnx2yg]


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

There are plenty of limited entry hunts you can apply for, if you want reduced opportunity and bigger bucks.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Who all hunted the Henry's or the Book Cliffs back when the antler point restrictions were in place? 
I did, it was phenominal hunting.

Who all was in an antler point restricted area the first year they removed it?
I was, it made me sick seeing what was getting slaughtered in the Henry's.

Who remembers the emergency closures of the two units following the 3 year long slaughter?
I do.

Who has been in the Henry's lately, or the Books AFTER they salvaged and rebuilt those units?
Amazing what management does, whether it be antlerpoint restriction or limited tags.

Now lets toss in the Monticello "open" unit area. It has every kind of habitat you could ever imagine that is good for mule deer, from summer range to winter range, and all the farm land all around it for deer to be safe from hunters. Basically same habitat as the Books or Henry's.
Ever hunted there lately? 
Fork horn city and a pumpkin patch full of orange vests slaughtering them.
Now go just south to the San Juan side of the same mountain.....hmmmm, older age class bucks, go figure!! 

Someone please educate me here??


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

i remember the three point or better restriction, and more importantly the unusual amount of dead and rotting 2x's that accompany it.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Longgun said:


> i remember the three point or better restriction, and more importantly the unusual amount of dead and rotting 2x's that accompany it.


Yep, and look how many of those 2 points are dying now.........


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Here's a little more food for thought- --\O 
Let's let some meat hunters turn a few "pilot units" into trophy areas.
Instead of having a 3 point or better like in the past, make the antler point restrictions like our elk....but "fork horns and spikes only".
The after about 5 years let's see what we have on those units. o-||


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> Here's a little more food for thought- --\O
> Let's let some meat hunters turn a few "pilot units" into trophy areas.
> Instead of having a 3 point or better like in the past, make the antler point restrictions like our elk....but "fork horns and spikes only".
> The after about 5 years let's see what we have on those units. o-||


Idaho has several units that are 2 pt. restricted.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a little more food for thought- --\O
> ...


Hmmmm -Ov-


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

So both Colorado AND Idaho have antler point restrictions.
Both have good open area public hunting for descent to great bucks for the average Joe.
Utah sits right smack in between the two neighboring states with no restrictions and complaining hunters. -Ov-


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

SkullCrazy.. Ya got it right.. You can scream till you are blue in the face,, If people who never hunted these 3 point or better units, will never get it!! DON'T YOU FOLKS UNDERSTAND THESE UNITS WERE TROPHY UNITS. Until some knuckle head over on north temple said,, This just doesn't work. Because we are finding unlawfu kills of 2 points and spikes. Quote"" We did an after the deer season count on deer that were killed and left to rot. that study was done on Fishlake area, I was there that year, And my question to the DWR. was how in the he-- did you count dead 2 points and spikes. left to rot. under 4 1/2 feet of snow?? There answer.. was well, if find 1, then we multiply that by the amount of acres AND THATS THE WAY WE COME UP WITH ARE FIGURES,, Beleive me. the DWR screwed the pooch on this one, And will never take credit for it.. I'am so glad there are a few people who have the same passion for this I do, Yea I know,, put in for a LE tag.. come on!! I drew out for the Books 3 years ago.. I'am 63 years old, bowhunter. had 7 points when I drew out.. who can probally get another tag. do the math... SAY!! around age 75,,I've seen the best of it! and now I'am witness to a rapid decline of the Mule Deer...


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

I DID personally find (and finished off so he wouldn't suffer) a big fork horn in the Books years ago while the 3 point restriction was in place.
Yes that happened on occasion, but it still happens now for heavens sake!
My son found a dead and rotted 6 point bull on the Wasatch just this morning!!

So a handful of 2 points got shot and left, look how many get shot now....dead and gone, is dead and gone people, no matter who or what chews on it!!

And......a few lost fork horns just fed 100 hungry predators that would have taken ANOTHER deer. Then you just turned 1 dead deer into 5.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Utah deer hunters often forget that Utah's general season hunts are managed for high opportunity which, *in turn, means that most of the hunter harvest will be yearling deer.* To see more big bucks, the only option is to reduce overall harvest of all age classes of bucks....however, in so doing, we would lose opportunity and reduce recruitment and growth potential in the herd. With so many units below population objectives, reducing hunter harvest is NOT a good idea.


I hate the fact that we are harvesting 70 to 80% of our yearling bucks year after year. I do realize that it only takes 5 bucks to breed 100 does, but I don't see opportunity being lost because people can only shoot bucks 3 points or bigger. Its the same thing with the spike elk tags.

I believe habitat is a major factor and history shows that with the Vernon Unit and the DWR made a horrible mistake when they were using 1,000 rifle tags and they hunted the deer to death until they had to close it down for 5 years and then re-opened the unit and the herd has never covered since.

Utah hunters have proven that many cannot count points in their hillbilly rig. They shoot the deer and then see if hes legal. I guess Utah hunter lack a lot of ethics compared to many of states.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Here's food for thought.

1. Eliminate antlerless hunts on under objective units, period. 

Like PRO said, its the does that drop fawns in the spring. The idea of killing does to make the buck:doe ratio look better is as wrong as Obama being our next president.

2. Seperate tags into 2pt or less and 3pt+

Hunters are required to put in for one or the other. Then you would have true separation of the Trophy hunters and Meat hunters. It would suck to be a meat hunter and see the big one on opening day, but that is the choice you make.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I love hunting in Colorado because it's the same quality as the bookcliffs and I don't have to wait 8 years to draw.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Flyfishn247 said:


> Here's food for thought.
> 
> 1. Eliminate antlerless hunts on under objective units, period.
> 
> ...


I could live with that!! -*|*-


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I love hunting in Colorado because it's the same quality as the bookcliffs and I don't have to wait 8 years to draw.


That's because they have more habitat than Utah, many times over. Look at a USGS map and notice how much GREEN you see in Colorado.


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

How about making doe hunts a thing of the past. Stop the harvest of spikes and when you apply for your general archery tag specify 3pts or less / 4pts or better. Increase the amount of roadless area and work on obtaining property that would be opened for public use.


----------



## muleyman (Oct 8, 2008)

First ever post I do like the idea here and everyone has very good points. I do think that a restriction on points is a great idea to increase the age of the deer, but I wonder too how many accidental kills will happen. We can sure debate that forever. What if instead of point restrictions you cut down on the days affield. Now I don't really like the idea of fewer days to hunt but if we cut down it gives the animals a far greater chance of survival. I love to be in the field and I am willing to give up a few days to see the populations increase and the bucks get larger and older. Just an idea cutting down on days, more walk in areas, helping with the habitat and cutting back on the antlerless hunts I think would greatly help out.


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

I fully agree with EvenOlderFudd. I am alomst as old as he is and have been there and done that. I have bow hunted deer in the same areas he mentioned, and mostly in one particular area in the southern region since 1965. I have seen it go from fantastic hunting for big bucks from 1965 to 1973, then abruptly drop to pretty poor from 1973 until about the third year of three point restrictions, and then back to fantastic for the last couple of antler point restriction years, then back to pretty poor and getting a little worse every year since the antler point restrictions were lifted. Now the harvest is even lower than it was during the three point restriction times and almost all of the harvest is baby bucks.

I don't care what anybody says about how much they think it works or doesn't work. I have been there and seen it with my own eyes and know that point restrictions worked very well. Of course the buck harvest was lower the first couple of years the restrictions were in effect. That is because we had to start from very few bucks, with almost no good bucks, and then build up the herd for a couple of years. It can't happen overnight. 

The people who declare it was a failure are the ones who never got out of their office or who are listening to people spout off who don't know what they are talking about. The ones who were there, like me and OlderFudd, and actually experienced it know it worked very well to produce a lot of big bucks. The overall harvest was a little lower for a couple of years, but let me ask you this - how many spikes and two points does it take to equal one 30" four point? If that is taken into consideration, it would have declared it an overwelming success, not a failure.


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

Muleyman. That would be great/ but 80 per cent of the deer harvested during the general gun hunt are taken the first 3 days... If guys weren't around during the three point regs. Well,, They will never know.. And yea, I hunt my butt off.. Maybe a bit slower. but can still hump the mountains...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

"Muleyman"
The Southeast and Southern Units are already only 5 days. I beleive I saw information that said that the guys hunting the five day hunts hunt more than the guys hunting 9 days (Days in the Field). There is a point when you have diminished returns.

One thing that has not been addressed on this thread is that, I believe if my memory serves me, that a spike deer will never be a larger four or five point. It's the multi-pointed deer their first year of antler growth that are the ones that generate the larger racks in their later years. Genetics. 

Also if my memory serves me, this can not be compared with elk. Elk have a different growth pattern in that the are always a spike or small fork their first growth season.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

O|* O|* O|* 

I can't believe I am going to respond to this nonsense.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

O|* O|* O|* 

A few things:
1) antler point restrictions do not work...why can't we learn from the past? Numerous states have tried them and EVERY single state in the WEST agrees that they do NOT increase the number of larger bucks. I have been there too...and have seen it with my own eyes.

2) Regulations on deer similar to our spike only regulations don't work because elk are longer lived than deer...you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare deer regulations with elk and/or trout.

3) Right now, the Henry's is a poor example of great management because they are so far below their herd objective. IN fact, the unit is at about 50% of what it should be. People rave about it only because of the high buck/doe ratio which is a result of limited tags.

4) Colorado is similar to the Henry Mountains...high buck/doe ratio, limited opportunity, and low recruitment levels. Colorado isn't as rosy as people think.

5) You cannot increase the age of deer buy only harvesting the oldest most mature deer. If you focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest/biggest deer, what are you left with? The only way to increase the number of mature deer is to limit the total number of tags. Imagine, for example, if we had an elk regulation that said that you could kill only bulls 6-point or better...what would we be left with?

6) Utah does NOT and NEVER has killed does in order to increase the buck/doe ratio...whoever it was that said that is 100% wrong. The ONLY time Utah harvests does is when populations are above the herd objective (which they are mandated by law to do) or when there is a depradation issue. Eliminating doe hunts is impossible.

7) Utah manages for opportunity not quality on its general season hunts. The majority of the harvest is supposed to be yearling bucks...if you want more mature bucks, you will have to call for fewer tags to be issued. And, truthfully, I don't see it happening with the current trend of fewer and fewer hunters and the recruitment issues we have today. Some of you have this crazy notion that by giving extra buck tags, the DWR can kill a unit off...nothing, however, is further from the truth. Again, the key to a herd is not bucks but does. As long as enough bucks are left to breed the does, harvest will NEVER limit a unit's health. Many of you only look at the number of bucks within a unit...that is exceptionally short-sighted and wrong. Currently Utah is at objective on almost every single deer unit in the state as far as number of bucks go...to get the number of bucks up, though, the herd must come up. To do that we have to leave plenty of room for does...otherwise, growth will be limited...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Well said wy2ut!


----------



## EvenOlderFudd (Jun 18, 2008)

Short=Sighted here. When was the last time you seen a spike deer during the rut with a herd of does? Do you remeber a few years back? the DWR recalled a few thousand doe permits.. WHY because . the northern units were hammered with winter kill.. Do you rember why the DWR went to 3 point restrictions down southeast and southern units,??, Because they alocated 2 doe tags and a buck tag to no resident hunters.. Seeing how your my age. do you rember. pulling into the town of Beaver. before the freeway was built, Entering town. The sign stated,, WELCOME TO BEAVER UTAH<< HOME OF THE LARGEST MULE DEER POPULATION IN THE WEST!! Hunted Beaver in the last 2 decades?? This is whats so good about the forum. We all can agree to dis-argree ,, thats what it's all about.. You'll never get me to change my mind.. And I will never change yours.. Have a great day...enjoy the NONSENCE


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

EvenOlderFudd said:


> Seeing how your my age. do you rember. pulling into the town of Beaver. before the freeway was built, Entering town. The sign stated,, WELCOME TO BEAVER UTAH<< HOME OF THE LARGEST MULE DEER POPULATION IN THE WEST!! Hunted Beaver in the last 2 decades?? This is whats so good about the forum. We all can agree to dis-argree ,, thats what it's all about.. You'll never get me to change my mind.. And I will never change yours.. Have a great day...enjoy the *NONSENCE*


I DO remember Beaver before the freeway went through, that is a point you seem to forget, the freeway and other issues have taken winter/summer range away from the deer. The harvest of bucks is NOT the reason for the decline of deer from back in the hay days. It is lose of habitat, increased roads/atv trails, and drought. That is FACT, Beaver ever having the "LARGEST MULE DEER POPULATION" in the west was a myth and a slogan to drum up business.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

I keep hearing it's a habatate problem then why are are elk doing so well, and if it is habatate then what is the state doing to improve it? I still want to know what percent of my licence fees are going to improve habitate. I have asked this many times but no one ever gives me a answer.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ramrod said:


> I keep hearing it's a habatate problem then why are are elk doing so well, and if it is habatate then what is the state doing to improve it? I still want to know what percent of my licence fees are going to improve habitate. I have asked this many times but no one ever gives me a answer.


License fees go into the state general fund and are distributed according to what the state government wants to use them for and are in no way earmarked for habitat.

However, Moneys from conservation/auction tags are allocated DIRECTLY to habitat etc..


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> if not I will be spending my vacation time out of state Intel things improve.


 :lol: You'd better just move out of this retarded state if you think it's gonna get any better.

The only way it will get better is if you have lots of $$$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Y2U-
You keep saying the antler point restrictions DIDN'T work, honestly and educationally, how can you say that??
What didn't work about it, were you there....did you see it NOT working??
And what about our surrounding states that STILL employ it, sure works great there!

I'm not saying we will ever see the restrictions return, i already know that, but i WILL defend it till i'm blue in the face, because it DID work and it STILL works in other states!

Having said that, we have to deal with the situation at hand and get something done.
i agree wholeheartedly with Pro on the habitat issues.
My only issue with that is like i said yesterday, Our winter ranges are getting swallowed up by the day and there is NOTHING we can do about that. *We have got to manage our deer herds to adapt to THOSE conditions, not manage the lands to conform to the herds. *
Because you will never win the land grab war over wildlife. 
Legacy Highway ring a bell??


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I wish some would stop comparing apples and oranges. Elk and deer are different. Elk eat different, operate in a wider range and are stronger.

You want to to know what they are doing, look at the foothills from Mayfield north. Over the last 35 years they have bought or lease major winter range. Over the last two years I have also noticed that they are thinning the junipers on this range by guys with chain saws, just so that the OTHERS don't get ticked off by the D-9's. That has happened in my neck of the woods and I humble thank those for this effort.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> Y2U-
> You keep saying the antler point restrictions DIDN'T work, honestly and educationally, how can you say that??
> What didn't work about it, were you there....did you see it NOT working??
> And what about our surrounding states that STILL employ it, sure works great there!
> ...


Exactly. Unless there is a rainbow with a billion dollar pot at the end, we won't win. We can do all of the habitat work we want, but by the day, the amount of land we have to work on is shrinking, thus making it imperative to change hunter management. Sadly, less tags will usually be the answer.

I applaud all efforts for habitat improvement as well, we should all be involved to ensure that we still have the privileges that we enjoy every fall.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Also, our state really has two seperate entities to deal with on deer management.
Our Northern half of our herds are the ones getting the short end of the stick, that's where the majority of develoment on critical habitat is happening.
I think the southern half of the state has more room to play with......for now.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I have some thoughts on this subject...Without expressing my opinions on the 3 point or better issue I would like to touch on the declining deer herd issue.

About ten years ago or more, I read an article about the mule deer when Lewis and Clark were exploring the west. On a side note, they were the first to give the mule deer its common name. The fact is they did not see or kill many mule deer. It is not clear exactly how many they saw, as it is suggested that the deer populated the hard, rough terrain that the explorers would have avoided. I have thought alot about this and would think there would have been millions of deer all over the west, much like the elk and buffalo.

We know the deer populations in the 1950's were pheonomal. There were many to hunt and large bucks to be harvested. Strange when hardly anybody lived here there were not very many deer, but as civilation grew, cities were built, hunter pressure increased and the herd numbers were also climbing.

I have a relative who worked as a game bioligist in Idaho and has since retired and returned to Utah. I asked questions to get his opinion on the declining deer herds in Utah. He informed me Idaho is having a very similar problem with deer herds. He particularly studied the winter range near Ashton and Rexburg. There the deer herd numbers have dropped off considerably. In this same area there have been no encrouchment of winter range or loss of habitat. It seems as if any management plan Idaho implements makes no difference on the population numbers. So the question remains, what is the cause?

To tie Lewis and Clark with Idaho he proposes the deer cycle without human intervention, much like rabbits. The population numbers rise and fall with little effect of hunter harvest, winter kill, or habitat issues. The difference however, he thinks the cycle range is far greater than we realize. Instead of a 7 year cycle similar to rabbits, mule deer cycle may be 30 years or even greater. 

I have found this theory of particular interest. Mule deer are very unlike most big game species to manage and this may be the reason why.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ramrod said:


> I keep hearing it's a habatate problem then why are are elk doing so well, and if it is habatate then what is the state doing to improve it? I still want to know what percent of my licence fees are going to improve habitate. I have asked this many times but no one ever gives me a answer.


As has been said, comparing deer to elk won't fly. Elk are more hardy, and get eat pretty much anything, whereas deer has a restrictive diet and are more susceptible to drought, harsh winters, and loss of habitat. Elk can withstand harsher conditions, reach food that deer can't, live longer which equates to a cow elk producing more offspring in her lifetime than a doe will produce in her lifetime. That means higher recruitment into the herd for elk, plus a higher/longer survival length.

There are numerous sources that are generating money that is being used to improve/restore/retain habitat. Examples like the one near Mayfield, my hometown, are numerous. Utah spends more on conservation than ANY other western state, and our deer/elk herds are benefiting from it. Habitat projects won't always show an immediate improvement in the herds, some times it can take years, but Utah's deer herd has been increasing far faster than Colorado's, which for reasons lost to me keeps being referred to as an example of success.

skull, EVERY state that has used antler restrictions have had the biologists say it was/is a flop, w/o exception. Those states that still implement it do so because of hunter demand, not because it has proven to work. I DID hunt back when we had antler restrictions, I also hunted when we had a lot more deer than today. My observation is we had MORE older class bucks when we had more deer. And, having higher buck:doe ratios will slow, or even reduce deer population growths.



> I have a relative who worked as a game bioligist in Idaho and has since retired and returned to Utah. I asked questions to get his opinion on the declining deer herds in Utah. He informed me Idaho is having a very similar problem with deer herds. He particularly studied the winter range near Ashton and Rexburg. There the deer herd numbers have dropped off considerably. In this same area there have been no encrouchment of winter range or loss of habitat. It seems as if any management plan Idaho implements makes no difference on the population numbers. So the question remains, what is the cause?


Your relative must of left out the part on how the habitat changed when the white man settled in the west and grazing changed the available feed drastically. That led to a huge increase in mule deer numbers. Since the late 50's/early 60's mule deer numbers have declined. The increase in pinion juniper, the aging of sage brush, the decline in aspen groves/riparian areas, drought, severe winters have all had a major role in mule deer population declines. Add in the constant loss of vital winter range to homes/highways/freeways/atv use year round, and the deer are doing **** well to be as populous as they are.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I have some thoughts on this subject...Without expressing my opinions on the 3 point or better issue I would like to touch on the declining deer herd issue.
> 
> About ten years ago or more, I read an article about the mule deer when Lewis and Clark were exploring the west. On a side note, they were the first to give the mule deer its common name. The fact is they did not see or kill many mule deer. It is not clear exactly how many they saw, as it is suggested that the deer populated the hard, rough terrain that the explorers would have avoided. I have thought alot about this and would think there would have been millions of deer all over the west, much like the elk and buffalo.
> 
> ...


I liked your post Shane. Good angle.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks Tree, I don't know the answer (I don't think anybody does), but it is an interesting thought.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> Y2U-
> You keep saying the antler point restrictions DIDN'T work, honestly and educationally, how can you say that??
> What didn't work about it, were you there....did you see it NOT working??
> And what about our surrounding states that STILL employ it, sure works great there!
> ...


 I can say that they didn't work because I trust the states that implemented them...according to Colorado, "Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time." From what I understand, they do NOT have them any more...IN fact, I don't know of any state that still has these regulations for mule deer....

According to Idaho and Montana, "Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons." Also, "Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points."

In Utah, we "abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

"Wyoming's experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points."

"Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years."

These are the facts....

The bottom line is exactly what Colorado has said in a press release from August, "Many hunters would like to hunt deer every year and have the opportunity to harvest a buck four years old or older. The reality is that you can't have it both ways."

Why they don't work?

A) The outcome of antler point restrictions has been to focus increased pressure on older bucks, instead of a harvest spread out across all age classes.If the point restriction is four on a side, this can actually produce a net decrease in the number off our-point and larger deer in the population. Bucks just under the legal limit (three points per side) tend to be the most numerous size class following implementation of this management strategy. In short, antler restrictions can produce the exact opposite result intended by the strategists. 
B) When antler restrictions are implemented, hunters often have difficulty counting points or judging width, leading to high abandonment rates.In California,which had antler point restrictions from the 1950s to 1990,field surveys indicated the kill ofillegal bucks was similar to or greater than the harvest oflegal bucks.Oregon, Nevada,Utah and Colorado are other states that documented a high illegal kill ofbucks that did not meet minimum standards established by the state. 
C) Much of the trophy management philosophy is predicated on the assumption that (a) currently the sex ratio is skewed toward does and the habitat cannot support the 
current number of deer;and (b) the antlered licenses are excessive and not limited.
D) To accomplish trophy management schemes other than antler point restrictions, Utah would require reducing the number of buck licenses.This would reduce the frequency that hunters would get buck licenses.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The anthologies have started. WOO HOO!


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

*"skull, EVERY state that has used antler restrictions have had the biologists say it was/is a flop, w/o exception. Those states that still implement it do so because of hunter demand, not because it has proven to work. I DID hunt back when we had antler restrictions, I also hunted when we had a lot more deer than today. My observation is we had MORE older class bucks when we had more deer. And, having higher buck:doe ratios will slow, or even reduce deer population growths."*

I also remember those days Bart and we DID infact have more deer like you say.
BUT......we also had a lot more and better habitat to support them, today we simply don't.
We cannot grow our herds back to the numbers we once had, our winter range (or the lack thereof) simply won't support it anymore. 
More deer means more death during winter, our current losses have proved that already.
If we want older age class bucks in these times, we have to manage for these habitat conditions and shrinking habitat.
Yes it would be great to see more deer during a hunt, especially bucks, but seing many many deer on a winter range trying to salvage every bit of browse they can find is a horrifying sight as we all know, and i personanly don't think it's a good trade off and most definately won't hold up for very many years if we have consecutive years of bad winters.......which we most definately will have.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

If they went to antler restrictions, then I would just stop hunting. :shock:


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> If they went to antler restrictions, then I would just stop hunting. :shock:


I don't think the supporters of antler point restrcitions are implying it to be a state wide thing by anymeans, just a few areas like we used to have.
That gave "meat hunters" a specific place to go, it gave the "trophy hunters" a place to go and it gave the people who would take ANY buck, but would shoot a 3x3 or 4x4 if given the chance to do so, but still take a 2 point if needed.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Aside from the disagreements and critisism towards each other, it's talk like this that matters most and this is what it takes to get things done.
Thanks to everyone on this topic.....*WE CARE!! *


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> Aside from the disagreements and critisism towards each other, it's talk like this that matters most and this is what it takes to get things done.
> Thanks to everyone on this topic.....*WE CARE!! *


Agreed! 8)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Salud!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

What ever your feelings most of all be careful this weekend. Winter storm on the way.

Be Safe.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

For those interested in mule deer, I strongly recommend reading the information on this site:
http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... ndex2.html

Click on the links to the left...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> For those interested in mule deer, I strongly recommend reading the information on this site:
> http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... ndex2.html
> 
> Click on the links to the left...


By far the most/best info on the subject I have ran across. I reread it often. Good link w2u


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> wyoming2utah


Thanks for the site. Great info. :mrgreen:


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

+1 W2U on the site, i will most definately study it


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

since some people insist antler point restrictions won't help the quality of our herds and the way Utah has managed our deer herds lately doesn't seem to be working, can we just assume there might come a time when we just wont have any deer left in our state.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Because there are only 2 solutions? How's that tunnel look?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ramrod said:


> since some people insist antler point restrictions won't help the quality of our herds and the way Utah has managed our deer herds lately doesn't seem to be working, can we just assume there might come a time when we just wont have any deer left in our state.


Our deer herd is INCREASING in numbers, how does that equate to things aren't working? :?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> since some people insist antler point restrictions won't help the quality of our herds and the way Utah has managed our deer herds lately doesn't seem to be working, can we just assume there might come a time when we just wont have any deer left in our state.


Good H***, talk about doom and gloom. If you want to put the blinders on, go to the DWR's web and find the harvest report. From '76 to '06, general hunts, the percent of deer being harvested has been about 24 to 34%. As Pro pointed out we are on an up swing.

As far as quality that is in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> > since some people insist antler point restrictions won't help the quality of our herds and the way Utah has managed our deer herds lately doesn't seem to be working, can we just assume there might come a time when we just wont have any deer left in our state.
> 
> 
> Good H***, talk about doom and gloom. If you want to put the blinders on, go to the DWR's web and find the harvest report. From '76 to '06, general hunts, the percent of deer being harvested has been about 24 to 34%. As Pro pointed out we are on an up swing.
> ...


the quality of are bucks are not near what they where 20 years ago. I hunt many parts of the state and have seen the quality of are deer herds slowly slipping away, my grandpa wouldn't shoot anything smaller than a 4 point and he killed deer every year so your harvest report my look good on paper but how many of those deer are small bucks? there are spots I used to hunt and shoot quality deer 20 years ago that aint even worth looking at any more and in my opinion those areas should be closed for a few years to allow the animals to recover and then the state should only sell enough permits to manage those units properly.


----------



## HornAddict (Oct 8, 2008)

If the harvest report in utah is 24% to 34% they are probably spikes and two points maybe an occasional 15'' 3 point. and as of deer heards being on an upswing, bu!!$2}%.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

HornAddict said:


> If the harvest report in utah is 24% to 34% they are probably spikes and two points maybe an occasional 15'' 3 point. and as of deer heards being on an upswing, bu!!$2}%.


Your right, The DWR biologist must not be very good at cyphering. *\-\*


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Why can we not just leave biology to the professionals? What you and I see in the field does not make it fact. If we left biology to what people saw, bigfoot would be a fact not a legend.

Later,
Griff


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

+1, But then what the hell would we do here??


----------



## HornAddict (Oct 8, 2008)

Well what about last years deal they waited way too long to feed the deer on the the winter range? by the time they started 100's of deer were lost.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> Collisions with cars account for approximately 2300 deer killed in Utah each year.


It is actually 20,000+, not 2300. 8)


----------



## royta (Sep 26, 2007)

HornAddict said:


> Well what about last years deal they waited way too long to feed the deer on the the winter range? by the time they started 100's of deer were lost.


According to this site, http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... eding.html, you need to start well before the deer are malnourished. This means starting before you even know you'll need to, which means it will need to be done every single year regardless of whether we have a real bad winter or not. Are the Utah winters harsh enough to go that route?


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

I feel are deer heards would increase a lot faster if deer licence's wasn't such a money maker for the DWR.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ramrod said:


> Our deer herd is INCREASING in numbers, how does that equate to things aren't working? :?


I feel it could increase a lot faster if deer licence's wasn't such a money maker for the DWR.[/quote]Please explain. :? Tell us how the number of BUCKS harvested affects the increase/decrease of deer populations.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Why is it these **** 3 point or better threads always go for over 10 pages??? Can someone summarize what's been covered on this one? I haven't read 5 posts yet.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> ramrod said:
> 
> 
> > Our deer herd is INCREASING in numbers, how does that equate to things aren't working? :?
> ...


Please explain. :? Tell us how the number of BUCKS harvested affects the increase/decrease of deer populations.[/quote]

when you have a unit that is way under objective you don't sell tags for those units Intel the deer in that unit recover.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ramrod said:


> when you have a unit that is way under objective you don't sell tags for those units Intel the deer in that unit recover.


I am guessing you mean "until". :?

Do bucks have fawns? If not, how does a reduction in the number of bucks harvested help the deer 'recover'?


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> ramrod said:
> 
> 
> > when you have a unit that is way under objective you don't sell tags for those units Intel the deer in that unit recover.
> ...


there would be less stress on the does due to predator's and why cant does be transplanted instead of giving doe tags and depredation tags?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ramrod said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Do bucks have fawns? If not, how does a reduction in the number of bucks harvested help the deer 'recover'?
> ...


Let me get this straight, having more bucks in the herd will 'protect' does from predators? WOW! That is creative, I'll give you that.

Mule deer transplants have been proven to be extremely unsuccessful and very costly!


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> ramrod said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


I didn't say they would protect them :roll: I said it would take pressure off them how many deer in a unit get eaten by lions ect.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The number 20,000 plus is what the deer comity herd from the division at there last meeting and that was only what was counted in the right of way. It doesn’t include the deer that get out of that and die in a field.

maybe finn or packout could post the most rescent numbers


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

How many hunters will become disgruntled after 1 or 2 years of bagging no game and stop buying deer tags in Utah? The idea of 3pts or better may work on some small units as there are now( Henrys, Book Cliffs etc) But it also means less tags.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> ramrod


There is one point I still struggle with. None of you guys has even come close to addressing the fact that we have reduced the number of general deer tags by approximately 120,000. We have further limited the numbers of tags per regions. I would dare say that we probably have less people hunting your area than when the peak was shooting 3-point or better. I think I could futher say that if what you guys have pointed out about 3-point or better that if it was correct we would stepping all over big deer by now. I'm sorry, but I personally don't believe shooting scrub spikes is what the problem is. As others have pointed out many times on this thread, there are other factors that are as important if not more important. Others on this thread have given an insite to the issues (and have done a good job). Sorry, it is not a Conspiracy. Is the DWR perfect, No. Do I agree with everthing they have done, No. But I also do not believe in repeating past mistakes. Simply said if you want big deer fix the habitat. If you don't want to fix the habitat, what you see is what you get. And just so you know I have already set my limit to 4-point or better and have done so for the past eight years.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> > ramrod
> 
> 
> There is one point I still struggle with. None of you guys has even come close to addressing the fact that we have reduced the number of general deer tags by approximately 120,000. We have further limited the numbers of tags per regions. I would dare say that we probably have less people hunting your area than when the peak was shooting 3-point or better. I think I could futher say that if what you guys have pointed out about 3-point or better that if it was correct we would stepping all over big deer by now. I'm sorry, but I personally don't believe shooting scrub spikes is what the problem is. As others have pointed out many times on this thread, there are other factors that are as important if not more important. Others on this thread have given an insite to the issues (and have done a good job). Sorry, it is not a Conspiracy. Is the DWR perfect, No. Do I agree with everthing they have done, No. But I also do not believe in repeating past mistakes. Simply said if you want big deer fix the habitat. If you don't want to fix the habitat, what you see is what you get. And just so you know I have already set my limit to 4-point or better and have done so for the past eight years.


it's just very frustrating when you have hunted as long as I have and have seen the changes in are deer herds. I really would like to see more mature bucks in the field again. I also was disappointed to here none of my licence fees are going towards habitat, every year when we put in for Colorado we have to buy a habitat stamp before we can even apply for a tag and Colorado has much better deer hunting than we do in Utah. there has to be something we can do to improve the deer hunting in are general season units. with deer herds limited to smaller areas I have noticed increased pressure the past few years in these areas as hunters are forced to hunt smaller areas where the deer are located. this year on the muzzleloader hunt it reminded my of deer hunting 15 years ago on the rifle hunt, the deer where so spooked after the first day or two it was impossible to enjoy are hunt.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> ramrod


I understand your frustration. I have been around long enough to have seen those changes, but I have also learned that the solution is not simple. One thing I have learned in trouble shooting is that multiply problems make it hard to solve the basic problem. I know our money from our licences goes into the general fund and then back to the DWR. I assume that some money is budgeted for projects. But I believe that the large amounts that are really effective are the dollars that comes from the special interests and matching funds. There has been a great deal of work by others that is in the best interest of the sport for all. So we have to be careful not to cut off our noses inspite of our face. I do also believe it is important to make sure those special interest groups do not push the general hunters to the far reaches of the west desert because we don't see a 32" wide buck around every corner.


----------

