# Rebuttal to DWR newsletter,,,



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've copied this over from MM as per a request from 2lumpy,,
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 20802.html

"2lumpy wrote",,,,,,,,

Here is what I believe about Utah's Director of Wildlife Resources.
He wrote this:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/2011-deer- ... ssage.html

I believe this:

(I'll paraphrase so I don't get sued for mis-quoting anyone.)

After attending three RAC meeting and listen carefully to the Director's spokesman tell us:

We have all the deer we can have.

If we raise buck numbers we'll remove does from the herd or they'll all starve to death.

Closing a unit to hunting will do absolutely nothing to increase the number of doe and fawns, it will only increase the number of bucks.

We have more than double the buck/ratio in some units than is necessary and is in fact detrimental to increasing the over-all number of deer.

After confirming they only do deer counts on 7 units. (total deer counts, they claim to count a few hundred deer on each unit to get a buck/doe ratio)

After they count only seven units and use that data to tell us there are no fewer deer on the Fish Lake, Pahvant, Boulder, Beaver, Monroe, and the Panguitch than there has been in the last 10 years and don't seem care how many we had in 1990s or before.

After telling us it takes time and when we asked the DWR how much time and he said 10 to 15 years. Then they admitted there had been more millions spent on the Monroe unit than any other unit for habitat restoration and they claim they killed the cougars back to far fewer than there are now. When we asked; " if, as you claim, you've spent all these millions on forage, and killed all these cougars and we are still loosing more deer every year, how much longer do you think we should be patience. They answer; hunched his shoulders and said, maybe another 10 years. We believe what he was really saying was, we have no idea.

After claiming micro managing deers herds is unjustified biologically.

Then inferring that having primarily yearling bucks left to do the breeding, without providing mature bucks for does to select to bred with is MORE biologically sound.

After claiming neighboring State's management systems are wrong and abject failures.

After the Board asked the DWR to develop a micromanagement proposal and their response was the circus they have put us all through the last ten days, in 5 different RAC meetings, in order to gen up anger toward the Board and non-supportive sportsmen.

After hearing the DWR say the DWR was not responsible nor accountable to anyone for the condition of the deer herds.

After miscalculating the antelope numbers on the Parker Mt.

After miscalculating the cow elk numbers/harvest on the Fish Lake, for the second time in 10 years.

After their over all misrepresentations, their half truths, their indifference, their refusal to respond to warning after warning of what the consequences of their recommendations would be on deer for the last 10 years and elk for the last 3 years.

After refusing to use the data from Forest Service and BLM wildlife scientists and government trappers that live on these unit year round.

After a history of hostility and resistance to the sportsmen that pay their bills (not all because there are a few sportsmen that have been rewarded handsomely for supporting the DWR).

I believe the Director's letter is too little too late, it is another effort to suppress and circumvent what needs to be done for our mule deer. While he may be a very nice person, he is wrong and he is still refusing to accept accountability and responsibility for the decline of our mule deer herds and he is still attempting to manipulate the Wildlife Board's opinion on the matter. Where was the Director during the last 10 days, why did he let Anis take all the heat and only come out of his office after he has seen the commitment of the sportsmen from across the State? The fact that the North and the Central RAC voted for option one does not mean that sportsmen from those areas did not ask their RACs to support option two. The fact that these RACs voted 22 to 1 for option one does not in anyway mean that a great many sportsman in those RAC meetings did not support option 2.

Folks remember, this movement started last year, long before the hard winter and the lack luster hunt this fall. It has taken 17 years for the stars to line up. Currently there is a pro-active, responsive Wildlife Board, supportive legislators, open minded sportsmen, a concerned business community however, the Wildlife Board is about to change, the DWR have great influence on who the new members will be, the fire will burn out again in you sportsmen, the DWR know how to grind down your energy, they have the support of a large media staff, access to newspaper, televisions broadcast systems, leverage on other State and Federal Agencies. We have an large collection of unorganized, independent thinking, sportsmen, who, without contact or collaboration have risen up to sacrifice their time, their energy and their short term hunting opportunities to plea for a solution to these dwindling deer herds. I know a legislator, who, on his own, because of his own knowledge of the deer herds he hunts, has taken it upon himself to ask for a meeting with the Director, this legislator had no idea the other sportsmen in the State were as frustrated as he is. This movement has grown in individuals and families of hunters across the State by itself. It's abundantly clear there are a handful of sportsmen benefiting from the DWR's current deer management system, the rest of us are not, and we haven't been for many years.

If my assessment of the Director and the DWR are inaccurate and biased, why, after hours and hours of effort at the RAC hearings by the DWR's presenters, after 60 to 80 people have questioned and re-questioned the DWR's representatives at these hearings, after the public has responded by speaking directly to and sending hundreds of letters to the RACs, does the Director encourage sportsmen to attend an informal, media biased, anti-micromanagement facilitated personality, to be instructed on how to once again pressure the Wildlife Board to cave into the DWR's resistance to doing what is necessary for our declining mule deer herds.

Yes, please sportsmen, fill the Wildlife Board meeting on Dec. 2, 2010. It matters, these Board members need to see and know what you know and hear with you've seen these last 10 years. If the only people that show up at this meeting are those that are demanding no change or option one your deer herds are toast. It will take another 20 years for the stars to line up again, another 20 years for another generation of sportsmen to rise up again, another 20 years for the Wildlife Board to have enough members willing to make the hard but correct decision for mule deer.

Do not let this opportunity to pass. Please SHOW UP AND SPEAK UP. I will make a difference.

Would someone please post this on the Utah Wildlife Forum and the Muley Madness Forum. Thanks for your efforts sportsmen, lets get started rebuilding our deer herds, right now!

DC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Written by a soldier of the SFW regime. The more I read/hear from the SFW regime the more I am convinced they are the single biggest threat to the future of hunting in this state. Wolves, PETA, HS, all pale in comparison!

I will be at the WB a week from today, and I hope more than just a handful are there to rebut the SFW regime from ignoring science/history all due to the lust of bigger antlers. There is *NOTHING* in option #2 that will help the deer herd be healthier in the short term nor the long term.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here is what I believe about Utah's Director of Wildlife Resources.
> He wrote this:
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/2011-deer- ... ssage.html
> ...


Come over and defend your accusations. :O•-:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Is "2lumpy" the SFW Utah county chapter chair that spoke...errrr...stumbled aimlessly at the Central RAC? I felt bad for that guy, he was all over the map and was about as articulate as a bag of pancake mix. Not to mention many of the points he touched on were completely contrary to the things the DWR had just explained in detail.

It sounded like he took his coached and rehearsed script and interjected a bunch of personal and unfounded stories that were pretty much related to nothing. I think the only thing he left out was the choppers and bags of flower.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
I thought stinkystomper had convinced you to crawl back in your hole. Looks like we ought to get him to come on here an let this little world of sportsmen know who you are and what you really believe is wrong and right? You my friend have shown your personal agenda out weighs everything including the law! 

Speaking of special intrest groups I believe that the UBA has been one of the strongest. But as the DWR struggles so goes their influence! Clowns losing their power and influence will not go easy and you are all proving this! I look foward to seeing you all at the meetings. If option 2 passes I hope to see all your smiling faces!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Very well outlined PRO!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Dude, we're all clear on what transpired. Stick to the topic, this has nothing to do with Pro. Let's hear what you've got to say.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I've copied this over from MM as per a request from 2lumpy,,
> http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 20802.html
> 
> "2lumpy wrote",,,,,,,,
> ...


One of the silliest and most uneducated posts I have seen on this topic. Do you really plan on people taking you seriously with drivel like this?

Please allow me to eat my words by lining out exactly what any of the 3 options are going to do for deer numbers. More than emotional rhetoric preferred.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Well said Pro and who you are Mr. LoneClarity, why do you feel it necessary to resort to personal attacks? Why not just stick to the topic and bring the FACTS that support your way of thinking. 

Just sayin..


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Pro nailed it, way to go Pro! I wish I could make the meeting but I can't get work off.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I've read many of 2lumpy's posts regarding Utah's mule deer herd, and "his" thoughts as to what should be done to improve them, ala the above letter. Hard as I try, I can't recall ONE SINGLE post that had ANY viable, substantiated, biologically backed evidence to give "his" ideas credibility. It is this type of mis-information that leads so many of the uninformed hunters down the wrong path!

Please folks, take the time to find out the TRUTH, and show up at the WB meetings to voice you concerns!! Don't let this "group" of greed mongers lead you astray!

PRO-
Every once in a while I get the urge to kick you in the stones, but I know it's just a passing urge :shock: You make a ton of sense, and for what it's worth, would have you in my hunt camp anytime! 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

When you have NOTHING to refute FACTS with, one resorts to personal attacks. I will take personal attacks that have NO merit as a badge of honor.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro, 
If you find honor on your past antics I guess that says alot! Looks like you found a forum that will accept that kind of behavior! Enjoy, but I think I'll pass!


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

Its nice to see Pro all turned around and finally seeing SFW for who they really are and what their real agenda is.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> Pro,
> If you find honor on your past antics I guess that says alot! Looks like you found a forum that will accept that kind of behavior! Enjoy, but I think I'll pass!


Good explanation. About as much substance as anything I've read from you....


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

LoneClarity and 2lumpy,
Feel free to bring your facts and numbers. Lay them on the table and lets discuss, but my guess is you will blow in and blow out. Leave the personal attacks some where else. Please tell us why you think that only letting a few hunt is good for anybody or anything. 

+1 Pro


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok I'll bite. While I attended the Northern RAC I did hear Anis say that Utah was at carrying capacity and at this time we could not have more deer than we currently have. He made several comments about that. I just do not believe that and to hear him say it scared the heck out of me.

I do not understand how anyone could argue that micro managing our herds will not have a postitive effect on our deer herds. You would be able to focus and specialize on issues that effect each individual unit. This is true of any species! If the DWR chooses not to use this tool, then yes it may have little effect on the herds. But I will hope and pray they use it to help each unit. Some of the decisions made in a unit system may not make every hunter happy, but that should not be the issue is should be the deer... always! I know what the DWR presented at the RACS. They claim they are currently managing by a unit basis. However this is not totally true. The current state deer count was off of only 7 units. When I asked Anis if they lose control of each unit when the hunts open his answer was "well YES". So as per Anis we do not really manage each unit at this time! I also find it intresting the DWR does not bring their biologists to the RAC meets. I believe it is actually because the numbers and opions of their biologist do not always support the Divisions overall stance? So please don't only stand on the biology leg too long, as many former and current biologist have commented on this trend. 

I could go on but really that is enough for me to believe we need to go to a micro manage based hunt in Utah. Believe me I hate to lose a year or two or four or five of hunting, but I am more concerned about losing our deer herds in the future. 

Well that is enough for me, I'll let the sharks start to feed, but that is how I feel and what I believe. Good luck to all and I hope after this is all over we can come together on making what ever Option is picked for sake of our deer herds! 

Pro, 
Excuse me if I find it difficult to buy what you preach when I know your past decision making examples? I believe your agenda is not based on much more than dislike for the SFW? Which I am currently not or ever been a member.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'll say it,,,,,,,,,,,,Welcome to the forum LoneClarity..

I've been battling over here pretty hard for opt#2,,I think back up has arrived.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> Ok I'll bite. While I attended the Northern RAC I did hear Anis say that Utah was at carrying capacity and at this time we could not have more deer than we currently have. He made several comments about that. I just do not believe that and to hear him say it scared the heck out of me. Do you even understand what carrying capacity is?
> 
> I do not understand how anyone could argue that micro managing our herds will not have a postitive effect on our deer herds. You would be able to focus and specialize on issues that effect each individual unit. This is true of any species! If the DWR chooses not to use this tool, then yes it may have little effect on the herds. But I will hope and pray they use it to help each unit. Some of the decisions made in a unit system may not make every hunter happy, but that should not be the issue is should be the deer... always! I know what the DWR presented at the RACS. They claim they are currently managing by a unit basis. However this is not totally true. The current state deer count was off of only 7 units. When I asked Anis if they lose control of each unit when the hunts open his answer was "well YES". So as per Anis we do not really manage each unit at this time! I also find it intresting the DWR does not bring their biologists to the RAC meets. I believe it is actually because the numbers and opions of their biologist do not always support the Divisions overall stance? So please don't only stand on the biology leg too long, as many former and current biologist have commented on this trend. Can you explain, if things are as you claim, how five subunits were three day hunts this year of it is managed as regions and not subunits? And, since the current Mule Deer Plan was put in, all of last fall, no counts have been conducted to see what effect these three day hunts had. How can ANYONE know if the current MDP is working, needs to be tweaked, or needs to be scrapped?
> 
> ...


goofy, if this is your back up, you are SOL. :mrgreen:


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

No fear Tonto, the natives seem hostile and uneducated proceed with caution!


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

No need for harsh words. I'll say it again. Each unit could and should be focused on for what is hurting that unit. A specialized plan of action can be developed for that unit. We DO NOT CURRENTLY COMPLETELY CONTROL EACH UNIT. This is what Anis told me directly? Yes I know what carrying capacity is! That might have been your best come back! You are right I don't know you but I know you tucked tail and found a new forum when the heat was applied, that sure makes me wonder?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Uneducated? lol.......this should be fun! Oh yeah, welcome to the forum. Look forward to getting educated here...still waiting to do the same on MM...lol


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I do understand what you are saying about total control on each units....but really what you are talking about is "hunter control", is it not?


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

That is only one thing that should be controlled. Any other issue can be controlled better on a smaller unit, with more focus. Please don't tell me they currently do, because the numbers they have just put out shows otherwise.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I understand your point. But, option 2 is not about other issues, it is only about hunter issues. All of the options the WB asked the DWR to come up with a MONTH before the RAC's have NOTHING to do with helping our deer herd. I know you are passionate about that issue, but telling me option 2 will do that insults my "uneducated" ideas. As you have pointed out on the other forum, there are many, many factors that effect mule deer numbers. If you can tell me how controlling how many hunters kill bucks will increase the herd size and health, with biological evidence, then I am all ears.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
Just was not sure it was really the "prooutdoors" from MM? Your post there are some of my favorites. Some of the best reads last year! But you did answer my question quick. Thanks.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

The Board ask for more Options last year not a month ago. The DWR has twisted it to look as such but that is not the truth. 2lumpy asked Anis this at the Central RAC and Anis was not allowed to answer. That is the truth. If the DWR chooses to not use this tool, then you are right. I does accomplish very little! However I wont throw away the first step in fixing the problem if it will help in the future.


----------



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

> I did hear Anis say that Utah was at carrying capacity and at this time we could not have more deer than we currently have. He made several comments about that.


Might I inject a whee bit O armchair biology here. 

May be the deer herds ARE at capacity right now? Think about this. How many deer/elk did you see twenty years ago? Now think about how many deer/elk you see. The numbers for both species have flip flopped. Used to be I could go hunt the Stawberry area and see deer running all over the place and very few elk. Now, I see elk running all over the place and hardly any deer. This can be said for EVERY unit that has a wide distribution of both species. When you manage for large elk and lots of em, you're going to push the other animals out. A chunk of land can only support so many big hairy critters on it before they start pushing each other around in competition for food and cover. Now, lets look at the areas that have the best deer numbers and biggest bucks. (Henries, Pauns) They are ALL, for the most part, VOID of elk. There are a few areas that have good numbers of both but the overall quality of the deer herd is still way down across the board. Bottom line is. It's all about habitat and the carrying capacity of the land. Manage that, and you'll have a healthy herd. Manage it ANY other way, and you're whizzing up a rope. You want more deer? Kill more elk! ....and cougars.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It amazes me that some can't wrap their mind around the real issue of these proposals-- ALL the "Options" ONLY deal with bucks and buck hunters. That is it. It does not deal with doe herds or fawn recruitment. It does not implement any strategy other than controlling buck hunters. If you think it does more than that than there is no hope in the debate.

The UDWR ALREADY manages, or is supposed to manage, the herd on a MICRO-UNIT basis. They have been given direction through the Mule Deer Management Plan on strategies to increase the over-all deer herd. The Plan is already there-- MAKE them follow the Plan. 

So when the Board had their "Mule Deer Meeting" in late Sept, they directed the UDWR to present these 3 options to the public. All the options ONLY deal with bucks because the HERDS are already micro-managed under the CURRENT Plan.

Now, if you can't comprehend that then there is no hope in any of these debates. Once you do understand that then we can ALL find ways to hold the UDWR to the strategies of growing MORE deer, not just a few more bucks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder is it about improving the deer herd with you guys or is it about control?

The new deer management management plan had nothing in it to make a change ether. If you want to argue circles. Capacity is the most critical issue we are facing and many around here keep skirting the issue like the DWR is. If we are at capacity we are all screwed. So LE is the least of your worries.

We need LE? It sound like a nasty word because of the way its been used in the past. But this version is certainly not the same as the past. They are still talking about issuing over 80,000 tags. I would argue in Monroe's case if we had some comprehensive deer management. In the 90's we would be issuing over 2500 tags today on that unit. But as the canaries sung many continued to drag out this mother nature controls all mentality. I have argued it back and forth the habit restoration efforts on Monroe I have witnessed first hand.(summer range) Have benefited graze. Literally taking 1000s of acres of prime deer habitat. And turned them into fields of green green grass. Six patch and Dry creek ranger station being two of the most detrimental. Elk Elk Elk that's all anyone wanted to talk about. I would go one father and say this movement didn't start last yr but a decade ago.

Let me point out that we align on most management issues or aren't totally polar. This is the best opportunity for the common hunter to have some influence.

Your gonna be a a party to the change. Unless your a party of the change.

And*+1* Lumpy.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Packout said:


> It amazes me that some can't wrap their mind around the real issue of these proposals-- ALL the "Options" ONLY deal with bucks and buck hunters. That is it. It does not deal with doe herds or fawn recruitment. It does not implement any strategy other than controlling buck hunters. If you think it does more than that than there is no hope in the debate.
> 
> The UDWR ALREADY manages, or is supposed to manage, the herd on a MICRO-UNIT basis. They have been given direction through the Mule Deer Management Plan on strategies to increase the over-all deer herd. The Plan is already there-- MAKE them follow the Plan.
> 
> ...


"LoneClarity" did you pay attention to what was written above.

Simply speaking I don't need for you to be wasting valuable winter range on excessive bucks just so people have it easier to find the 30" buck.

Now if you are talking about herd numbers then I think it is not that hard to understand that, one we are not hunting doe's, hence micro-managing hunters hunting bucks means squat.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> I wonder is it about improving the deer herd with you guys or is it about control?
> 
> The new deer management management plan had nothing in it to make a change ether. If you want to argue circles. Capacity is the most critical issue we are facing and many around here keep skirting the issue like the DWR is. If we are at capacity we are all screwed. So LE is the least of your worries.
> 
> ...


Ya know it might be easier to follow if you stop mixing apples and oranges. What the heck does managing bucks through a Micro-Managing program have to do with carrying capacity of a range?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert, 
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Well from the fact that they say the hunting pressure is just about the same between a 3 day and 9 day hunt, I don't think your worries are founded. To further support this, to some of you the Monroe is the pits, but yet everybody is still hunting there.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Option 2 is a feel good solution that does nothing to actually better our deer herds. I've said it before and I'll say it again.....SFW and many hunters only care about growing bigger bucks on Utah's general units. That's what all this CRAP boils down to.....trophy hunting. We can write pages and pages about things we feel strongly about but the biology is clear. To argue it is just resorting to confusion and smear tactics to further an agenda.

I am in the camp of improving deer numbers so opportunity and trophy hunters win. Trophy hunters just want a shortcut so they can have what they want NOW!!! I gotta give SFW one thing....they are great politicians. They build support on half truths and flat out lies. I once thought I understood deer management and I was WRONG on many things. 

The proven biology contradicts a lot of what the average hunter believes they know about management. Shame on SFW on others that ignore the facts and expose misconceptions among general hunters to further your trophy agenda. You are truly the wolf in sheeps clothing.

Improving fawn survival rates through mortality studies and habitat and other improvements will lead to a higher carrying capacity and everyone wins. That's the side I'm on and will be until the day I die.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Great posts Pro!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout said:


> It amazes me that some can't wrap their mind around the real issue of these proposals-- ALL the "Options" ONLY deal with bucks and buck hunters. That is it. It does not deal with doe herds or fawn recruitment. It does not implement any strategy other than controlling buck hunters. If you think it does more than that than there is no hope in the debate.
> 
> The UDWR ALREADY manages, or is supposed to manage, the herd on a MICRO-UNIT basis. They have been given direction through the Mule Deer Management Plan on strategies to increase the over-all deer herd. The Plan is already there-- MAKE them follow the Plan.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

While keeping an open mind regarding carrying capacity, I have to agree with Anis at the moment because there's some evidence to support him and not a lick of evidence that I can find to refute him.

If deer population is below capacity, we should expect much better fawn recruitment, periodic spikes in population and quality habitat that the deer aren't using.

I think one of the most valuable online data resources that few hunters ever look at is the range trend studies. http://wildlife.utah.gov/range/ It takes some time and effort to weed through even those reports that are of the most personal interest, but it's time and effort well spent.



LoneClarity said:


> Each unit could and should be focused on for what is hurting that unit. A specialized plan of action can be developed for that unit.


You aren't talking about option 2, but I agree that the sort of unit management you seem to be talking about would be a good thing for deer. Again, we're not talking about option 2, (that's something else), but let's look at the real nuts and bolts of such a management plan.

First, real unit management would require a completely separate and radically different public process. As long as a group of good old boys in Salt Lake is micro-managing everything and retains the last word in management decisions, that's *state* management.

But just for ****s and giggles, let's sprinkle some more pixie dust around and imagine that the WB and their lobbyists were actually willing to give up control to unit biologists, or unit committees such as the _Friends of the Paunsaugunt_ or even to the RACS (which I also think would be a good thing).

Seems to me if we're going to even think about real unit management, those range trend studies would have to be required reading.

First thing I notice is that with few exceptions, habitat quality continues to decline with the exception of some private lands. If the stats are too much work, just look at the photos.

Then I notice the land ownership maps. Right now, deer management is entirely political, which is why disinformation, misinformation, manipulation and fear-mongering ("our deer herds will be toast") are ruling the process and the discussions. So I'd be naive not to think that since it would rearrange the separate political dynamics of each unit, real unit management would instantly create a political **** storm like we've never seen before. And deer wouldn't even have a dog in that fight.

Some units are mostly or entirely public land under USFS or BLM jurisdiction with varying public access. A couple units hold substantial energy leases. Some units are mostly private land, in which case private landowners could easily gain complete control of deer hunting in those units. (Some might suspect that's the real agenda behind option 2, anyway.) And while some private landowners are outfitters who could definitely benefit by removing public hunters from adjacent lands in their unit, I personally know more than a few ranchers who see deer as vermin and would just as soon wipe them out. And some units have very poor quality habitat that's highly susceptible to annual weather conditions.

Since unit management requires some local control, seems to me we'd also have to consider the magnified influence of local businesses on several units. It's easy to dictate a 13,000 - 15,000 tag reduction from Salt Lake, but not so easy for local unit managers, whoever they are, to cut permits knowing that Uncle Joe's gas station might go under as a result. And heaven help the managers who dared to raise tag allotments on a unit, even if the increase was biologically justified.

So while the concept of real unit management could be great for deer, the sad truth is that it just plain can't be "real". The very people pushing option 2 wouldn't stand for it.

A member of the WB last year characterized the Board's actions as "knee-jerk reactions". Seems like a spot-on assessment to me. Major changes every year. Antler restrictions don't work, but hey, let's have an antler restricted "management" hunt. Let's get rid of statewide archery...no, wait, let's bring it back. Let's lobby the legislature and restructure all of the big game seasons. No, wait, let's shorten the deer season in the meantime. No, wait, let's cut tags statewide and call it something else...oh, I know, let's call it "unit management". And hey, maybe we should get rid of statewide archery. Next year let's talk about age objectives!

If we put half the time and attention into growing deer that we put into killing deer...

We're like a kid who wanders away from camp and runs this way and that, clueless about which way to run next because he doesn't know where he's going and meantime getting more lost by the minute.


----------



## 2litl2l8 (Jan 16, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> We're like a kid who wanders away from camp and runs this way and that, clueless about which way to run next because he doesn't know where he's going and meantime getting more lost by the minute.


Best sentance I have read. I used to be for option 2, because I felt that they could manage tag numbers better in order to manage the buck/doe ration better. I think now that this is not thier objective. I think that like has been said before we need to worry less about Buck/Doe ration and manage for overall population. IE peditor control, roadways. I think that the overhunting or underhunting of areas will take care of it self. For example you have less deer population in one area then those deer will be harder to find in the first place. I really don't know. But I feel now that Opion 2 is a retail response to service oriented industry. Government is not a business. And running wildlife like a product is not how it should be done.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Does Anis also explain that he is considering all predation as consumptive. Do you think predation play's any part in fawn survival? 

Yep lets do nothing and hope mother nature will fix it for us. That's the same mentality that got us here.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'd love to see Monroe turned into a wildlife sanctuary. That'd be what's best for the deer.......


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

;-)


----------



## Bucksnbulls08 (Sep 18, 2008)

Well said PRO, Obviously LoneClarity is clueless on many facts!!!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

will somebody please put a new keyboard in goofy elk's stocking for Christmas...the comma substitution for periods is starting to drive me nuts...it's been driving me nuts for a few months now, but I figured I'd say something in hopes of some sort of resolution before resorting to admitting myself into Lakeview...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

stablebuck said:


> will somebody please put a new keyboard in goofy elk's stocking for Christmas...the comma substitution for periods is starting to drive me nuts...it's been driving me nuts for a few months now, but I figured I'd say something in hopes of some sort of resolution *before resorting to admitting myself into Lakeview*...


Easy there lil guy  I'll be sure to send a couple zanax your way before it comes to that! 8)


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

LoneClarity said:


> ........ I'll say it again. Each unit could and should be focused on for what is hurting that unit. A specialized plan of action can be developed for that unit. We DO NOT CURRENTLY COMPLETELY CONTROL EACH UNIT.........


A specialized plan of action for each of the 29 units? Who develops that plan? Is the public involved? Does the "public" include anyone living outside of that unit and/or anyone who doesn't hunt that unit? Who oversees the planning and who approves it? Who implements that plan (the action part)? Who oversees the project(s)? Who does the work? Who does the surveys/classifications/counts, and what's the best method? How much does it cost and who pays for it? Who determines whether or not the plan/project is working? How long will it take to show results? Once we reach our goals, how do we maintain them? And what part does hunting play, and how many deer tags, (both buck and antlerless) are recommended? And since there will be unintended consequences, how do we deal with those?

I'm sure I've missed a whole lot with my questions, but those who are promoting option 2 (Especially, those who distrust the DWR and/or WB) need to understand that this option is workable only if there are lots and lots of people willing to spend time and money making it work. And I, for one, don't have enough of either to involve myself in the 4 units I and my grandkids love to deer hunt! I'll help in 1 unit, but if we don't draw tags in your unit, don't count on me!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Great post.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

That was a good post! You hit on some very good future options. That is why I believe that Option 2 is good START to fixing a huge mess. 

Also a great example of understanding what would really help! However you finish it off with a perfect example of why you would not support it. Possible sacrifice you are unwill to make! That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks again.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Alright here's the deal. Next time a D-BAG like Lone Clarity tells me that I need to sacrifice 
my opportunity to take my bow in to the hills IN PURSUIT OF BUCK MULE DEER ON A GENERAL SEASON UNIT I will find a way to draw that sumbitch and pop a Grim Reaper tipped Gold Tip arrow through my own forehead...

Let me say this clearly..... LONE CLARITY GOOFY ELK ET AL. YOU DON'T GET IT!!!! For _ _ _ _ sake!!!!

Pick a state, any mother_ _ _ _ _ _ _ state and show me where reducing buck harvest has increased populations... SHOW ME!!! OR SHUT THE _ _ _ _ UP!!!

I ran the Colorado DAU's today!!! Opportunity was cut in half WITH 98% OF THE UNITS STILL GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!!! This ain't my opinion D-BAGS, this ain't what I feel D-BAGS, this is a Mother blankedy blank FACT!!!! YOU CAN'T ARGUE FACT!!!!

Now if you were both men enough to step up and admit that you selfishly want to push Utah in to a LE status for your own Selfish reasons I'd think you were selfish which in my book is no where near as bad as being gullible to the DON PEAY philosophy of restricted tags and 100% shoots!!!

Every person from here to Mars has told you that what you support won't do $hit for our deer populations so what is it you want??? General season Deer Hunts Like Utah's LE Elk???

My vein in my forehead hurts!!! I'm done trying to retract some heads from Don Peay ass long enough for some of you to see the steaming pile of _ _ _ _ you are all buying!!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the deal wilywop,,,,,,I just had my first general rifle deer tag since 1997!

The shape the Utah general deer herds are in right now, well, I may never
rifle hunt deer in Utah again..

Yup, the general deer hunt in Utah is over for me it sucks so bad.....
And I truly believe opt 2, and fixing ONE UNIT AT A TIME gives the deer
herds their best chance.......That's what its all about for me.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lone, It isn't that I wouldn't support it (one of the units) if option 2 were passed, it's just that it would force me and the grandkids to make a choice we would rather not have to make. We hunt spots in 3 different units, all within 45 minutes from home, and our (actually, their) deer hunting destination spins on a daily basis depending on the weather, amount of daylight left, my health (I'm 69 with a heart rhythm problem), their schedules, which vehicle is available, etc. I'm primarily a bow hunter and can sit in one of my treestands all day during the archery season, but they're the ones with rifle tags and I'm the designated driver, spotter, shooting coach and field dresser because they are not yet old enough to drive and are not confident enough to go without me. If I don't go, they don't go, and I'd hate for them to lose interest. Admittedly, option 2 isn't something we look forward to!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's the deal wilywop,,,,,,I just had my first general rifle deer tag since 1997!
> 
> The shape the Utah general deer herds are in right now, well, I may never
> rifle hunt deer in Utah again..
> ...


Again, for the fiftieth time, how does option #2 help the deer herd grow in numbers or be more healthy better than the current plan in place now? How does increased buck:doe ratios help the deer herds? How does reducing hunter opportunity help the deer herds? In case you have not been able to read through the current deer management plan, it has provisions in it to "fix ONE UNIT AT A TIME" just as your beloved option #2 supposedly does. The only difference is option #2 focuses 100% on the hunters, and completely neglects the does/fawns. As wiley stated, very bluntly, there is NO evidence that shows increased buck:doe ratios leads to more deer nor healthier deer herds, NONE! In truth, the opposite results have happened more often than not, with lower deer populations and herds less able to sustain themselves in dire times, and are slower to recover after hard times. All option #2 does is make horn hunters happy, but it will do NOTHING to help the herd health/numbers!

I am confused, you claim the general hunt "sucks so bad" that it is over for you, yet YOU posted pics of some pretty decent MATURE bucks with at least one that YOU passed on during your hunt. WTH do you want, a 200" buck on every ridge before you are happy with the *GENERAL HUNT*? O|*


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

So under O-2 we are going to cut 13000 hunters out of the game. This will cost about $750k. If I understand what you want we would also need to hire another 29 biologists to manage these units, ( I assume the Current Regional Biologists would manage the unit Biologists ) at least another 29 fish cops to cover their new units and at least triple the amount of time in the air gathering counts and data.

Are you and LoneClarity going to pull out the checkbooks??? The Dedicated Hunter Program is a thing of the past under O-2 so you'll have to cut a check to make up for the loss in man hours and program fees too???

How about LE units like the Henry's, Pauns and Book Cliffs??? They are above objective,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Do they become a G.S. unit until they hit buck to doe targets???

The best part of this whole cluster is a net gain of pretty much 0!!!

Makes sense to me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Lets do it!!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes , I am watching a couple of different "rutting" herds..have done so for 30 years.
There are MAY BE 1/3 of the deer there this year that there was 1 SHORT YEAR AGO!

And Yes PRO , I did pass on a buck hoping my boy would have a chance at him on
his youth hunt...........That is why I didn't pull the trigger.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Once again, from page 4,
Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert, 
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

How will option #2 prevent the Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton from falling under buck:doe ratio objectives? Remember, if option #2 is passed it won't kick in until 2012, meanwhile the Monroe is ALREADY under the 3 day hunt mandate and will be limited entry in 2011. By 2012, the gig will be up and these other units won't be 'saved' by your option #2. Again, focusing on the MALE segment of the deer population is like focusing on the bloody nose when treating a cancer patient, NONSENSICAL.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I call BS, I say put option 2 to work and lets see what happens.

We've basically been operating under an option 1 management for 17 years,
IT ISN'T WORKING very well!

Again , having to choose from what is on the table,, I'll try option 2.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I call BS, I say put option 2 to work and lets see what happens.
> 
> We've basically been operating under an option 1 management for 17 years,
> IT ISN'T WORKING very well!
> ...


You have NO evidence option #2 will do anything that will help the deer herds, but I have mountains of evidence that option #2 will likely hurt the deer herds while also hurting hunter recruitment/retention. Great plan! :?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pro,,,You ever hunted Nevada or Arizona?
I have, seen unit based management first hand, and I like it..

I've got 5 deer and elk points in Wyoming I'm using next.
Going to start building Colorado deer points this coming year,..
Buy my wife and kids points to for Arizona, Wyoming, and Nevada..
Then schedule it out and try to have 1 or 2 really good hunts every year.

That's how it has to be done in today's hunting world, Its a Unit management,
points game everywhere.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Pro,,,You ever hunted Nevada or Arizona?
> I have, seen unit based management first hand, and I like it..
> 
> I've got 5 deer and elk points in Wyoming I'm using next.
> ...


You are being tricked by smoke and mirrors, Nevada's deer herd is NOT doing well, and anyone who says it is is delusional. They are well below population objectives, and hunter opportunity is horrible. Arizona isn't any better, same for Colorado. Seeing big bucks is NOT an indicator of a healthy herd, nor does it mean the deer population is growing or sustaining itself. You are STILL focusing on the male portion of the herd, which is merely a symptom of herd health, NOT the cause of the herd health.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Once again, from page 4,
> Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
> Lets take the southern region for example.
> 
> ...


First what do you mean by Monroe is the only current recovery unit? This year there was Oquirrh Stansbury, Cache Ogden, and South Slope (vernal) that also had shortened seasons.

Second I can't help but wonder if you have thought this through. Under option 2 13,000 tags would be cut in 2012. So my question is under the micro plan if say tags are cut on Beaver in 2013 will they be added to another unit to compensate and preserve opportunity? If they are added to another unit then that blows your above point right out of the water since it will do what you're trying not to do with option 2.

If tags are not added to another unit when tags must be cut then the same thing could be accomplished by cutting tags at the regional level and discouraging hunters from hunting a unit with a shortened season.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

You want to talk "smoke in mirrors",,,,,,,
Mule Deer numbers have been decreasing AROSS THE ENTIRE WEST.

I would argue they are in fact declining FASTER in Utah's general
season deer areas than anywhere else..

I've spent a ton of time this year on the Manti, Wasatch, Nebo, and
in the Bookcliffs. The only place without a MAJOR deer herd decline
is the Bookcliffs, a LE unit.

Then the deer herd (by unit) numbers being used by the DWR ,I would
also argue are so inflated there is also no merit to them.....

Were going to see some smoke in mirrors when they REDO herd counts,,
Bet we see these numbers before permit numbers are released next spring.

2011 is going to be tough year on permits,,I would put my last dollar on the
line we will see cuts not only on deer permits, but elk and antelope as well.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy all the information and facts are infront of you that Option 2 won't solve anything, but I guess some people are a little hard headed.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

coyoteslayer said:


> Goofy all the information and facts are infront of you that Option 2 won't solve anything, but I guess some people are a little hard headed.


Because it wont affect him in the slightest. He has admitted, he rarely hunts general anyway (once in 12 years?).

-DallanC


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't want to travel to Colorado/Nevada/Arizona every year to hunt mule deer. It is sad that we are moving to a LE system. But I guess those who are used to hunting all over the west feel that Utah should be managed the same in a LE style as it won't really change their hunting habits. They will still go out of state for the majority of their hunts and once and a while (probably longer than anyone of us will like) come back and hunt the LE Mule Deer season we are going to get stuck with.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> I've spent a ton of time this year on the Manti, Wasatch, Nebo, and
> in the Bookcliffs. The only place without a MAJOR deer herd decline
> is the Bookcliffs, a LE unit.


So if the "only" place without a "major herd decline" is the bookcliffs, then all other areas had still had major declines correct? That includes *all* of the remainder of the LE units in Utah. Logically if LE hunting was the solution, other areas would be increasing yet by your own words, they are not.

-DallanC


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I hate to throw a wrench in all of this argument, but it would appear looking at all three options the only thing any of these proposals do effectively offer is limit hunter numbers and it is almost a given that the general deer tags, if you really still believe that we have a general deer hunt, will be cut. And to make matters worse the general tag hunters will in-fact see a price increase to have the privilege to hunt and most likely an increase in both application fees and tag prices. The deer herd is on life support throughout the state right now and the option to do nothing will only result in more lost deer and lost hunting opportunity for all hunters. The writing is on the wall as far as the whole state being forced into a limited entry status for all deer hunting.

Everyone here seems to be concerned about biology, but deer biology is being tossed out the window with the baby and the bath-water. The biology of the matter is being shelved in an effort to continue some resemblance of a deer hunt in order to give the illusion of sustainable deer numbers for advertisement purposes in an effort to sell tags to keep money coming in to fund the department of natural resources.

The smoke is starting to clear and the hunting public is left feeling raped as we find out that ground work and findings have either been ignored or people in the management and governing boards are unwilling to discuss the truth in an open public forum. Not only have the deer been mismanaged with over hunting/mismanagement practices, but we learn that other big game have been bartered to other states at numbers higher than was made public and over issuance of tags to hunter caused over harvest thereby causing emergency closures. If emergency closures are necessary to meet elk and pronghorn management objectives? Why the he11 are we still offering a hunt for mule deer in this state!

The truth of the matter here and now, is the fact that you can issue all the permits in the world for hunting deer etc, but after a while even a blind hog sees the light and looks for another trough. The public can deal with the truth, but will turn on you like death once they see that they have been lied too. Nature and the free market work, it just is not always kind and it may not be pretty.
Big


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

DallanC said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I've spent a ton of time this year on the Manti, Wasatch, Nebo, and
> ...


Dallan,,,,,,,I was referring to the 4 units were I've spent most of this fall,,
I should have made it clear , The deer declines I've seen this year are on
Wasatch, being the waters, sheep creek, rays valley, diamond fork..
Nebo , All of it..
Manti, the west side from thistle to Mt pleasant to scholfield ,back
around hwy 6........


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Dallan,,,,,,,I was referring to the 4 units were I've spent most of this fall,,
> I should have made it clear , The deer declines I've seen this year are on
> Wasatch, being the waters, sheep creek, rays valley, diamond fork..
> Nebo , All of it..
> ...


Ah, thanks for the clarification.

In my neck of the woods, it seemed the entire deer population diminished quite a bit from last year. There wasn't an antlerless deer hunt in the area last year. So the herd # diminished by other means, not hunters. I dont understand how limiting buck hunters has an impact on doe populations in my area, it seems we always have a bunch of bucks around doing the breeding each fall.

I have however noticed an uptick in the number of deer I'm seeing lately in the winter range, and number of mature bucks showing up. I wonder if the reduced #'s I was seeing during the hunts was due to the crazy weather patterns we had this year, rather than actual population reductions as I originally feared.

-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> . I wonder if the reduced #'s I was seeing during the hunts was due to the crazy weather patterns we had this year, rather than actual population reductions as I originally feared.
> 
> -DallanC


I'm inclined to think so.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

DallanC said:


> I have however noticed an uptick in the number of deer I'm seeing lately in the winter range, and number of mature bucks showing up. I wonder if the reduced #'s I was seeing during the hunts was due to the crazy weather patterns we had this year, rather than actual population reductions as I originally feared.
> 
> -DallanC


I have to agree.

I basically lived on the waters this year from August to end of October and I saw plenty of deer. In fact it was an up year IMO on the archery opener. Lots of big bucks being spotted. Once the archery opener was over the deer were hard to find. The muzzy hunt was tough. Come the rifle hunt in October the snow flew and the deer came out of the woodwork. Big bucks were killed on the waters during all 3 seasons. Missed a shot at a decent 26" inch 4 and passed up 2 shots on the archery at the same caliber bucks. I saw at least 3 mature bucks come off the waters during the rifle opener.


----------



## killdeer (Dec 9, 2009)

Dallan C--Bullsnot,

It is good that you are seeing more deer. I wish I could say the same. We also saw some good bucks early, but not a lot of deer. Our hope was that numbers would improve as the seasons progressed. By the end of the muzzleloader hunt we were suspicious and discouraged about the total deer numbers. We took one good buck on the muzzy--The other three hunts were a complete bust.

The family owns a good piece of winter range. We watch it during the rut and through the winter and spring. So far it is very discouraging. Some years it is not uncommon to see 100 deer, mostly does. This year the count is more like 30 total deer. The buck doe ratio is good however. Of the 30 deer five have been bucks. I'm convinced, at least in my small hunting area, the numbers are way down.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm watching 3 different wintering, "rut" areas,,,,
total deer numbers are off AT LEAST 60% from just last year.

And if you look back about 6 years ago were there was about 1000 head
in one of the areas I'm watching, so far this year I'm coming up with about 200..


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

As long time hunters would you any of agree that we've changes in patterns in the past based on weather and human activity? I'm wondering if we are seeing some strange patterns because of the late heat and early cold.


----------



## gadfly (Dec 1, 2010)

In my opinion the decline in Utah deer herds has many causes, legions of trophy homes on the winter range of urban and rural counties alike, loss of natural migration routes, unending (if revenue generating) serial hunting seasons running almost continuously from mid August to mid December, fragmentation of habitat by a 30 year frenzy of road paving, lack of real enforcement of grazing rules, insignificant in the field efforts to patrol for poachers (see decline of deer numbers on the Monroe unit, for example), 24/7/365 off road vehicle travel in areas that used to hold deer, encouragement of a mega-antler rather than the traditional recreational hunt mentality in the last 20 years (not coincidentally heavily marketed by the division and their chosen cabal of big game guides for prospects of high dollar permits realistically available only to the privileged), affirmative action based hiring and promotion within the division, political meddling in professional management from the last 3 governors (and sniveling ascent to such meddling), et cetera, et cetera. Perhaps in addition, there may be biologic reasons for the decline in the deer herds, who knows, as those charged with checking on the biologic health of the herds long ago concluded that computer models, tantalizingly clean and precise, are far better gauges of reality than messy and uncertain measurements that can only be made through actual physically taxing time on the ground out of office and truck. What I do know is that through the current license allocation system it is becoming prohibitively difficult for me and I expect for others to train and accustom my kids to hunt in Utah, and I expect that as in the Europe my ancestors left several generations ago, hunting in Utah will soon be the province of America's new nobility, the Carl Malones, Wall Street bankers, Arms Manufacturing executives, prominent politicians, and entertainers, who after greasing the palms of the division, fly in, are guided to their pre-spotted animals, make their kills by noon, and fly out to their next gig, perhaps bolstered by a few local diehards willing spend half a year's income to hunt once in while. It is likely these types will continue for a time to support the division financially. As I don't see any of this changing soon, the question is, will anyone be startled when the predictable indifference of we who have effectively lost the right to hunt inevitably leads to the end of hunting entirely?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nice first post gadfly,,,touched on a few issues affecting deer other than weather!

Listening to 1320kfan,,,,
Highlights,,,,,,wildlife services killed 3,800 coyotes last year..

Discussing utah's inflated 310,000 deer heard numbers now..
Jim k just stated ,feed back from hunters this year about how lOW the deer are this year are as strong as they were back in 1993..................................WOW.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

gadfly you touched on many subjects that have been discussed at tiresome lengths and have lead to much divisiveness among hunters. IMHO blaming the DWR and accusing them of not being in the field may be misinformed. If you believe human encroachment, including road kills, are a major problem I'm sure you can see that the DWR is really caught between a rock and hard place. Biological we are told by numerous sources that hunting bucks has minimal effects on the herds. Does and fawns, we are told, is the key. You forgot to mention predators, that's a hot topic as well. Welcome to it.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Nice first post gadfly,,,touched on a few issues affecting deer other than weather!
> 
> Listening to 1320kfan,,,,
> Highlights,,,,,,wildlife services killed 3,800 coyotes last year..
> ...


Do tell the rest of the story, if you listened to the whole thing.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

I don't believe that the whole story was broadcast?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

the whole story was broadcast...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Tree and stable speak the truth.


----------



## LoneClarity (Nov 20, 2010)

Are you sure????


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

LoneClarity said:


> Are you sure????


Absolutely, I was sitting at the meeting right next to both of them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

So , All the "opportunity guys" are saying harvesting bucks doesn't effect the deer heard..
And some of the general season guys don't want to change anything,,,fine.

So lets just keep issuing 97,000 permits until there's NO DEER LEFT TO HUNT???

Our general deer herds are disappearing right before our eyes, Huge decline this year..
Hunter are UPSET! More deer complaints to the DWR about low deer numbers than in 17 years. 
Since the time when the deer crashed in 1993...The deer have never been the same.

I'm standing strong ,hoping option 2 passes, AND its just a small step....
But at least then we can start focusing on which individual units need the most help 
and start there. Helpfully gathering better info on deer numbers in each unit, it's critical at this point.

Units with low buck to doe ratios ,,we can control hunter pressure.............
A it stands now, units below 15 buck to 100 does will become limited entry any way..

Even if the board gos with option 1 today,,,its still only a matter of time before Utah will 
go to an option 2 type format. I don't see any way around it.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Goofy speaking as an opportunity guy I'm not saying DO NOTHING. I think you are mischaracterizing that stance. I am saying instead of focusing on hunter harvest, let's focus on other factors of deer mortality to increase the herds so that both the opportunity guys AND the trophy guys are happier. 

I agree that hunter pressure would be better monitored under option 2 but I just don't think that will fix anything. The real meat in option 2 is the tag cuts, not the units. The thought I keep having is if 29 units are good, why not 100, 200? Why not manage each canyon individually? At the end of the day the biggest threat to hunters is the number of deer which is driven by the number of fawns that survive each year. 

If you double the amount of fawns that survive each year then you double your buck crop each year. Not realistic you say? Ok even a 25% increase in fawn survival rates means 25% more bucks. That would take a herd with a 15:100 buck to doe ratio to 19:100 within a year and a half. In 3 1/2 years you've got more mature bucks to hunt plus you've got many more does having more fawns.

If we spent half the energy we are spending on worrying about tags, gear, chatting online about how bad things suck, trying to prove the DWR wrong, on trying to help deer herds I really think we could make a difference. I suck a coyote hunting. I've done it once in my life prior to a few weeks ago. Now I'm out nearly every weekend chasing them. If you love deer hunting then get out and help the deer.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bullsnot,,,,NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE has done more on predator control than I have.
I have literally guided 100s of lion hunts,,,,,,,,Hell, I could post pictures of 100 dead ones
I've guided in the last 6 or 7 years!

And 29 units is very reasonable,,,Units break up nicely with that number.
Here's a link to the proposed boundaries...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_prop ... option.php


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> So lets just keep issuing 97,000 permits until there's NO DEER LEFT TO HUNT???


What makes you think that hunter harvest is limiting our deer herd? Also, aren't those 97,000 tags just buck tags? So, where do you think the does are going?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> What makes you think that hunter harvest is limiting our deer herd? Also, aren't those 97,000 tags just buck tags? So, where do you think the does are going?


LOL I was going to post the same thing.

Its pretty evident from the WB's meeting yesterday that statewide, vehicle collisions are having a major effect on populations. "Tens of thousands" (their words) hits per year is quite significant.

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The predation information was also excellent. It is also evident that coyotes are having a much more major impact on fawns than are mountain lions...and, coyotes could be one of the biggest limiting factors of our deer herd growth along with DVCs.

I was very intrigued by the idea that more coyotes are taken by sportsman each year than by Wildlife Services but that Wildlife Services is having a bigger impact on coyote populations because of the "time" and "location" of their harvest along with their ability to take either the alpha male or beta female out of the reproductive equation.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Bullsnot,,,,NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE has done more on predator control than I have.
> I have literally guided 100s of lion hunts,,,,,,,,Hell, I could post pictures of 100 dead ones
> I've guided in the last 6 or 7 years!
> 
> ...


You missed my point. My point was rather than sit here and advocate a dumb propsoal that doesn't do any good, spend some of that energy on something that does.

On a side note I like how you do "drive by" posts on this subject. I think you like to pick and choose what you respond to. A guy can make 3 points back to one of your posts and you simply don't answer the post or just respond to one point. I think you're a very knowledgeable, experienced guy but you're head is in the sand on this one.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I am tickled pink to hear that predators are on the radar. Although the cougar is custom built to kill deer. I wont look a gift horse in the mouth. Sure blame it on the coyotes after all they have few advocates. Next on the agenda a significant and sustained reduction in the cougar population. Don't worry houndsman when we get the statewide deer population up to its true capacity (500,000 +) you will have more cats in Utah then today.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

500,000 capacity?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: :lol: :lol: 500,000 *+*


----------

