# 5000 deer tags cut a year too soon...



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

It would seem things are being pushed ahead of schedule at the DWR. 5000 tags this year and how many next year will be gone? The following press release is being sent to all major media outlets, wildlife board, RAC chairs and top officials at the DWR.

UNITED WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

*Utah Department of Wildlife Resources To Cut 5000 Tags a Year Early*

April 11, 2011, Salt Lake City, Utah- The Utah Department of Wildlife Resources 
announced today they will be making a recommendation to cut 5000 deer tags for the 
2011 season in order to soften the impact of cutting approximately 13,000 deer tags in 
2012 from Utah hunters. "We don't know for sure yet," says Anis Aoude, big game 
coordinator for the DWR, "but the board may decide to cut general season buck deer permits 
by as many as 13,000 by 2012." UDWR officials indicated 2000 tags would be eliminated 
from the Southern Region, 1000 from the Southeastern Region, and 2000 from the Northeastern Region.

In response to the UDWR news release, the United Wildlife Cooperative announced it was extremely disappointed and concerned that UDWR officials are seeking to implement plans scheduled for 2012, a full year early, with virtually no public warning before the RAC meetings are scheduled to begin. The first RAC meeting will be held April 12, 2011 in Beaver. "We understand that the division must comply with the mandates of the Wildlife Board," says Tye Boulter, president of the UWC, "but moving things ahead like this a full year before the cuts would have taken place is a hard pill to swallow. There are going to be an awful lot of angry deer hunters when this news gets out." The UDWR has made it clear on several occasions that raising the buck to doe ratio's from 15 to 18 bucks per 100 does will not help grow Utah's deer herd, and that the new ratio is the primary reason the UDWR is cutting tags, per the Wildlife Board's decision the end of 2010. Additional information can be accessed via the UDWR website, http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/

With 5000 tags planned to be taken from Utah hunters this year, the UWC strongly urges hunters to attend their local RAC meeting, and voice their concerns over losing more tags yet again over social issues and not biological ones. The UWC is a grass roots non profit organization formed earlier this year in an effort to bring representation to the every day sportsmen and sportswomen who represent a majority of hunters in the state. Additional information about the United Wildlife Cooperative can be obtained through their website at http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org . Inquiries may be sent via email to [email protected]


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Only a bureaucrat could come up with such a ridiculous solution. Let's start my making it worse this year to help prepare everyone for it getting a lot worse next year.....


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

_Wildlife Board:_ "Since we're going to give you a monstrous Mike Tyson style knock-out next year, we'll butter you up with a sucker punch this year."

I wonder if the Southern Utah hunters who attended the RAC last year will be stoked about voting for Option 2 now?

My guess is this thread will be 5 pages in no time... o-||


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just my opinion,,But , I would have been very disappointed if reductions in 
low fawn areas didnt start this year..These reductions are a result of low fawn numbers
PLUS units with the LOW buck to doe ratios...

And BECAUSE of regional management , the entire region has to take the cut,,,
instead of SPACIFIC units!!!Thank gawd next year we can target tag cuts (or increases)
on individual units.....

And it's full steam ahead with opt 2..The new 2012 unit boundaries are set for
next months RAC meetings and finalized at the June board meeting..

Then Dec 1 the new hunt tables and hunting dates will be set at that board meeting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Only a bureaucrat could come up with such a ridiculous solution. Let's start my making it worse this year to help prepare everyone for it getting a lot worse next year.....


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Just my opinion,,But , I would have been very disappointed if reductions in
> low fawn areas didnt start this year..These reductions are a result of low fawn numbers
> PLUS units with the LOW buck to doe ratios...
> 
> ...


Did not the count for deer come back at 290,000?....................

And now the reason for opt 2 is because of low fawn counts?................


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Bull****.


----------



## SureShot (Oct 2, 2007)

I applaud the DWR. I wouldn't mind if they cut even deeper this year. What's good for next year is even better this year.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

you guys still don't get it. It isn't the DWR that sets tag numbers. It's the Wildlife Board!!!! The DWR is making plans to adjust to a change the they think the Board will be making!

Get mad at the Board -- it isn't the DWR's fault...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Do we know where they are cutting these tags from?Like 500 from archery 500 from muzzy and then 1000 from rifle?


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> you guys still don't get it. It isn't the DWR that sets tag numbers. It's the Wildlife Board!!!! The DWR is making plans to adjust to a change the they think the Board will be making!
> 
> Get **** at the Board -- it isn't the DWR's fault...


Now matter how many times you say this many still won't get it, I swear hunters are the most stubborn group out there!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Bull****.


Goofy's new nickname... and no I won't take it back cause it's true you are what you eat, and when you sit at a table with SFW and their cronies, that's what's for dinner.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Yonni said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> > you guys still don't get it. It isn't the DWR that sets tag numbers. It's the Wildlife Board!!!! The DWR is making plans to adjust to a change the they think the Board will be making!
> ...


I disagree with the stubborn part... misinformed, misled, distrusting, uneducated, easily fooled... there are many discriptions that fit certain portions of the hunting community, but not at all stubborn - unless you're counting the people who won't roll over and let Dictator Don and his crew make hunting a private industry here in Utah.

It is true that the DWR isn't calling the shots, they are simply following the mandates given them by their "Appointed Wildlife Board" who are NOT looking out for the benefit of the animals they are assigned to oversee or the general hunting community.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Just my opinion,,But , I would have been very disappointed if reductions in
> low fawn areas didnt start this year..These reductions are a result of low fawn numbers
> PLUS units with the LOW buck to doe ratios...
> 
> ...


+1 Goofy its about freakin time they do a cut wish they would of cut more.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Maybe a privatized hunting system would be better. I despise socialism in all forms. :mrgreen:


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

Tags aren't being cut in low fawn production areas because...BUCK HARVEST DOESN'T MATTER AT THE POPULATION LEVEL UNLESS THERE ARE LESS THAN 8 BUCK/100 DOES!!!! 

And next year is going to be awesome too when nearly half the units aren't meeting the 18 Bucks/100 Does objective. I love not hunting for the sake of seeing more bucks throughout the year! 

More Bucks = Higher Deer Populations!!!!

3-point or better too! Why aren't we trying that??? Again???


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

silverlabs82 said:


> Tags aren't being cut in low fawn production areas because...BUCK HARVEST DOESN'T MATTER AT THE POPULATION LEVEL UNLESS THERE ARE LESS THAN 8 BUCK/100 DOES!!!!
> 
> And next year is going to be awesome too when nearly half the units aren't meeting the 18 Bucks/100 Does objective. I love not hunting for the sake of seeing more bucks throughout the year!
> 
> ...


At the recent Washington WB work meeting, Keele Johnson and his planted audience partner went on about the 3-point or better issue for quite a long time and you can bet that it's gonna come up this round as well. The fat lady ain't sung yet! o-||


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

PBH said:


> you guys still don't get it. It isn't the DWR that sets tag numbers. It's the Wildlife Board!!!! The DWR is making plans to adjust to a change the they think the Board will be making!
> 
> Get mad at the Board -- it isn't the DWR's fault...


PBH this actually isn't completely true. The WB makes the final decision but what is out for 2011 right now is the DWR's recommendation. It then goes through the RAC's and then finally the WB. The DWR's recommendations my be changed or they may not be. The UWC is disappointed the the DWR is recommending a cut of 5,000 tags this year when no tag cuts have been mandated until 2012.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

I may be one of those “misinformed, misled, distrusting, uneducated, easily fooled” hunters. What’s wrong with wanting to cut some of the tags this year? If you cut 5000 tags this year that would mean that you would have around 2000-3000 more bucks in the herds for next year. This is based on a 35% success rate for muzzleloaders and rifle hunters. The more deer your leave in the system this year would mean fewer tags cut next year. Rather you are for option 2 or not, this seems like it’s a good step forward in getting our overall herd numbers up. Please help me understand why cutting 5000 tags this year is a bad thing.

400bull


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Just my opinion,,But , I would have been very disappointed if reductions in
> low fawn areas didnt start this year..These reductions are a result of low fawn numbers
> PLUS units with the LOW buck to doe ratios...


I actually agree with you on this. The problem is though that even on a regional basis if we were still managing to 15:100 buck to doe ratio the cuts would not have been as deep. In fact I thought it would be worse since this year they are essentially managing to 16.5:100 buck to does this year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

400BULL said:


> I may be one of those "misinformed, misled, distrusting, uneducated, easily fooled" hunters. What's wrong with wanting to cut some of the tags this year? If you cut 5000 tags this year that would mean that you would have around 2000-3000 more bucks in the herds for next year. This is based on a 35% success rate for muzzleloaders and rifle hunters. The more deer your leave in the system this year would mean fewer tags cut next year. Rather you are for option 2 or not, this seems like it's a good step forward in getting our overall herd numbers up. Please help me understand why cutting 5000 tags this year is a bad thing.
> 
> 400bull


We don't agree with cutting tags for the purpose of raising buck to doe ratios on general units. It won't help our deer herds and it cuts out thousands of hunters for no biological value. Bucks don't give birth to fawns so saving a few more bucks doesn't help herd numbers grow.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

400BULL said:


> What's wrong with wanting to cut some of the tags this year? If you cut 5000 tags this year that would mean that you would have around 2000-3000 more bucks in the herds for next year. This is based on a 35% success rate for muzzleloaders and rifle hunters. The more deer your leave in the system this year would mean fewer tags cut next year. Rather you are for option 2 or not, this seems like it's a good step forward in getting our overall herd numbers up. Please help me understand why cutting 5000 tags this year is a bad thing.


Cutting 5000 tags would mean that 5000 fewer people would have the opportunity to hunt...true, it would save the lives of some bucks and next year's hunt could be slightly better because a few more bucks would survive another year, but the overall herd numbers would NOT necessarily go up. This is the misconception/myth/trap that too many hunters fall into. The bottom line is that bucks don't give birth...in other words, to increase our overall herd numbers, we need to have as many does as possible giving birth to as many fawns as possible and for those birthed fawns to survive into adulthood. Carrying extra bucks in the herd could very possibly decrease the likelihood that more fawns survive to adulthood and are recruited into the herd. To increase a deer herd, the best and fastest way to do it is to maximize doe numbers and fawn recruitment numbers and to MINIMIZE buck numbers....hunters have a hard time understanding and believing this, but it is true!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It's a misconception/myth/trap that Utah's deer habitat is at 100% maximum capacity. And one buck left on the range = one fawn or doe that wont survive. I'm all for a higher buck doe ratio. And agree a higher buck doe ratio wont cause a significant increase in overall numbers. So long as predation isn't reduced. And is it biological genius to manage deer herds to the lowest possible buck doe ratio to breed all does. 15/100 leaving little margin for other factors.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> It's a misconception/myth/trap that Utah's deer habitat is at 100% maximum capacity.


How do you know this? What we do know is that we had some pretty serious winter kill last year....wouldn't that be a sign that the habitat couldn't support the number of deer in those areas?


Iron Bear said:


> And one buck left on the range = one fawn or doe that wont survive.


Nobody said this will happen...but, it is not debatable that those extra bucks will compete with the new fawns for the same food and on the same habitat. Extra competition during tough winters and dry summers could be very bad for fawns...


Iron Bear said:


> I'm all for a higher buck doe ratio.


As are most hunters who do NOT understand what the potential consequences are...


Iron Bear said:


> And agree a higher buck doe ratio wont cause a significant increase in overall numbers.


But, you don't agree that carrying extra bucks could slow our herds from growing?


Iron Bear said:


> So long as predation isn't reduced.


Uhhh....where deer populations are below objective and where habitat is NOT limiting, Utah's predator management plans kick in and coyote numbers are supposed to be controlled. Currently, 30 out of 49 of Utah's predator management units are under coyote control plans. But, what happens if deer numbers don't go up where predators are being controlled and/or decreased?


Iron Bear said:


> And is it biological genius to manage deer herds to the lowest possible buck doe ratio to breed all does.


Yeah...that would be dumb. That is why Utah has been managing their units to that 15/100 ratio---the lowest biological number is 5/100. That leaves quite a bit of room for error.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just a couple of thoughts for you UWC guys...

I just don't see how topics (threads) like this one possibly helps your cause..

Once again, It looks like nothing more than ANTI opt 2 rhetoric..

As long as you guys continue to fight against the new deer management structure,
You are loosing ground......
You would be much better off seeing the new units are to everyone's liking anf
the new hunt tables and hunting dates work for your members as well...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just a couple of thoughts for you UWC guys...

I just don't see how topics (threads) like this one possibly helps your cause..

Once again, It looks like nothing more than ANTI opt 2 rhetoric..

As long as you guys continue to fight against the new deer management structure,
You are loosing ground......
You would be much better off seeing the new units are to every one's liking & the new hunt tables and hunting dates work for your members as well...


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> Just a couple of thoughts for you UWC guys...
> 
> I just don't see how topics (threads) like this one possibly helps your cause..
> 
> ...


+1 and also while where talking about UWC. I find it interesting that they are using a hunter survey that is 3-4 years old. But then claim to be for the majority of hunters. Why don't you guys use an updated survey? I would expect that more updated survey would give you grounds for the majority of hunters. Why UWC and not anti opt.2 or even anti SFW
From what I read on these forums from the BIOLOGISTS want to bes with the UWC symbol in there signature. I think the whole thing stinks.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Do we know where they are cutting these tags from?Like 500 from archery 500 from muzzy and then 1000 from rifle?


The way they've presented it is archery tags are unchanged. Rifle and muzzy tags are lumped together in the recommedations. Rumor has it they will all be rifle tags but not sure yet.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> +1 and also while where talking about UWC. I find it interesting that they are using a hunter survey that is 3-4 years old. But then claim to be for the majority of hunters. Why don't you guys use an updated survey? I would expect that more updated survey would give you grounds for the majority of hunters. Why UWC and not anti opt.2 or even anti SFW
> From what I read on these forums from the BIOLOGISTS want to bes with the UWC symbol in there signature. I think the whole thing stinks.


-1

They have a different opinion than you and I could be wrong but they are using the most recent DWR survey. However I do agree that a new survey would help quiet those who keep bringing up the survey.

Let me ask you a question, do you rip down other orgs just because of their mission statement? If so, maybe you should concentrate on the last portion of SFW's:

"perpetuating the family tradition of hunting and fishing"

They have done some great habitat programs to fulfill this goal, but it seems they are moving away from this last part. Not to mention they are only 15,000 strong and were close to 60% for and 40% against Option 2.

I think the UWC is doing a great job for those who currently are not affiliated with some groups and are not okay with what is happening. It seems like everything the UWC has brought up so far will help wildlife and hunters. It just so happens that SFW seems to have their hands all over in the pie so no matter what the issue is there will probably be disagreements. But competition is good. It keeps us all honest!


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Here is a solution.... Why don't we just convince all of the Utah bucks to become monogamous. That way the residential homes in the winter range can observe deer with antlers and know that they can just step outside their door and take a buck when they finally draw a tag. We just need to convince our monster bucks with the dominant genes to allow the 2pts and spikes to have a shot at breeding their twin sister. 

Let's wad up all of the statistical/biological data that identifies natural selection as a major factor to healthy herds and let's just hand the sport of hunting over to the "entitlement hunters" Let's let the potential future hunters of Utah sit a couple of years out on missed opportunities to get involved in the outdoors so over weight rich guys have an opportunity to rewriting the record books with their politics. 

Some people just don't see the redflags that come with the reduction of 5000 tags and a social component guiding our management. It's time to realize that the rubber bands being passed out for self castration do not serve a logical purpose.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Got a report over the phone on last nights RAC meeting.....

In a nut shell,
A lot of concern about Utah's southern deer herd numbers..

Talk about tag reductions for general deer not being enough,,possible larger cut?

Overall support of new deer management plan very high..

I'd love to hear more from those that were there at Beaver high school last night.
RAC meeting tonight at Green River,,,,,Tomorrow night Vernal.

Cant wait to read the transcript, If what I heard is right, big support for opt2 and growing.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > Do we know where they are cutting these tags from?Like 500 from archery 500 from muzzy and then 1000 from rifle?
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What your seeing here (tag reductions and what not) is what happens when you allow an apex predator like the cougar have its way with our deer herd. It was foreseen by many in the 70's with banning of poison. It's clear to see what is happening in WY MO and ID with an reintroduction of wolf. One day habitat and disease will be blamed in these states for the elk issues. Compensatory or additive it doesn't matter. A deer killed by a cougar is a deer not available for a human to harvest. If we are at capacity which I seriously doubt. Why not significantly reduce the predator population and call human harvest compensatory? 

And if we are striving to have a ecosystem that mirrors what mother nature developed. Humans are out of the game. And wolf should be reintroduced as they have been here since the dawn of time. Not to mention there is some kind of interaction between wolf and cougar bear (black and Brown) and coyote that is not happening today. But I don't think thats what most hunters want. So as a result we should forgo this mentality that every animal gets a seat at the table and allow human hunters to get the lions share (pun intended). You cant have your cake and eat it too. 

Or I guess we could take a page from the biologist in Yellowstone. Do away with hunting and sit back and observe. Mother nature can and will handle it all for us. After all hardly anyone is telling the biologist in Yellowstone he isn't doing his job correctly. It us hunters that are always second guessing the UT DWR biologists work.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Compensatory or additive it doesn't matter. A deer killed by a cougar is a deer not available for a human to harvest.


You'll never get it will you? Just for fun, if it is compensatory predation, how would that deer be available for a human to harvest? If nature "compensates", then wouldn't that deer die from some other natural cause anyway? You still don't get the difference do you?

You crack me up, Iron Bear, I think I will start calling you Yogi after our favorite bear from Jellystone....your posts are quite comical.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Let the human harvest it before it dies. :roll:


----------



## silverlabs82 (Nov 16, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Let the human harvest it before it dies. :roll:


So...under that logic, should we harvest ALL deer so they won't be killed by cougars?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Got a report over the phone on last nights RAC meeting.....
> 
> In a nut shell,
> A lot of concern about Utah's southern deer herd numbers..
> ...


I'm just curious to know if these are the same guys that thought the southern units where over run with archers?
Maybe they should be asked, "If the hunting is so poor, why do keep drawing a tag?"
Maybe that RAC meeting should be held in SLC and then lets see if the support is the same.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Wyoming2Utah
I think Iron bear does have a point with the cougar and bear numbers affecting the population. I think the bears are at an all time high in population numbers and I also believe cougars are way higher then they are reported by the lion hunters. Heck even on roughing it outdoors last weekend had one cougar guide say the bear/cat numbers were at an all time high then you had the president of the houndsmand club say the numbers are at an all time low. BS I never saw bears when I was a kid and I see them on a consistent basis every spring now. 

If these predators weren't killing the does the population would have an explosion. This is why human hunters dont effect the over all deer population that much we dont kill the does!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Got a report over the phone on last nights RAC meeting.....
> 
> In a nut shell,
> A lot of concern about Utah's southern deer herd numbers..
> ...


There were 32 audience members and from what I could surmise, all were pro-Option #2 or neutral, except me. But don't use those numbers to draw your conclusion that there is big support for opt2 and growing. What you heard came from the "same vocal minority"/ "trophy hunters" (per the clerks at the Southern Region office.) that seems to show up at the RAC's and Board meetings. SFW was represented by at least 2 speakers. The vast majority of the hunting public, the bread and butter of the DWR, simply don't have the time, money nor incentive to go to some dumb DWR meeting. (Hint: UWC members)

I kept hearing one particular buzz word throughout the meeting which is indicative of trophy hunting lingo, ei; quality. It was applied to both the hunts and the animals instead of the word trophy, but that's what they meant. I guess the word "trophy" is now politically incorrect.

I said I could surmise the support, neutrality or opposition for Option #2 only because this series of RAC's deals with the 2011 seasons and the only connection to Option #2 at this point is the proposed reduction in deer tags to try to soften the blow next season. This was the only Option #2 driven discussion.

All of the votes were unanimous and they adopted all of the DWR's recommendations.

I'm sorry I didn't take any notes, but off the top of my head, they voted for all of the recommended numbers of tags, Bucks and Bulls, Antlerless, OIL; the right to carry in the field; the amended wording allowing range finder laser scopes on rifles muzzys, shotguns, pistols and archery; a rule dropping the weight of the muzzy balls for deer and pronghorn and the approval of the CWMU antlerless tags.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> The vast majority of the hunting public, the bread and butter of the DWR, simply don't have the time, money nor incentive to go to some dumb DWR meeting. (Hint: UWC members)


It just so happens that we are taking applications for a southern and for a southeastern rep. Anybody interested? 

The UWC emailed all RAC members in the southern and all other regions regarding our stance.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hmmmm,

32 in attendance ,,,and 31 are for opt 2 (or neutral?).

That pretty much says it.............

More of the same tonight,,,,,, and , more than likely tomorrow, as well.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Goof and was the UWC in attendence this time and what comments and concerns did they bring up. Only asking because they are for the Majority of us Hunters.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

After tomorrow nights meeting in Vernal, I'll be surprised if its not a clean sweep
to adopt the proposed recommendations...........

That would be 3 of the 5 RACs before moving to the central & northern next week.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Wyoming2Utah
> I think Iron bear does have a point with the cougar and bear numbers affecting the population. I think the bears are at an all time high in population numbers and I also believe cougars are way higher then they are reported by the lion hunters. Heck even on roughing it outdoors last weekend had one cougar guide say the bear/cat numbers were at an all time high then you had the president of the houndsmand club say the numbers are at an all time low. BS I never saw bears when I was a kid and I see them on a consistent basis every spring now.


I don't. If cougars and bears were having such a big impact, the deer collar study would be verifying this...but it isn't.

In fact, even if bear numbers are up, 75-85% of their diet consists of plants and "When bears do kill deer - which is rare - they rarely kill adults. Instead, bears go after fawns. But studies have shown that the number of fawns bears take is extremely low."

Cougars on the other hand focus primarily on deer for their food; however, that does NOT mean they are responsible for low deer numbers. In 2009, DWR biologists put radio collars on does and fawns in areas across the state. They compared "the number of deer that died and the number that survived, biologists estimate that 12 percent of Utah's adult deer population died in 2009.The number of adults that died was lower than the biologists expected. The number of fawns that died, however, was much higher.Of the total number of fawns biologists put radio collars on, 45 percent of the fawns died.This ongoing study points to the loss of fawns as the main reason why many of Utah's deer herds aren't growing.And coyotes are the predator that affect fawns the most."

So, if you want to blame predators, blame coyotes...not lions and bears!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Hmmmm,
> 
> 32 in attendance ,,,and 31 are for opt 2 (or neutral?).
> 
> ...


Hmmmm, When the "vocal *minority*"/"trophy hunters" are allowed to set the rules, the rest of us (the bread and butter) eventually get pushed out (or drop out) of the loop and the system reverts from the current Utah 332 deer tags (opportunities) per 1000 deer to the systems we see in some, maybe most, of the surrounding states, ie; Wyoming - 96 tags per 1000 deer; Nevada - 16 tags per 1000 deer; I'm considering working on the others, but it is time consuming trying to find the numbers. (Those figures come from the 2009 reports and that includes both buck and doe tags, resident and non-resident, combo tags, and special youth tags.)

And, ironically, those systems themselves contribute to further loses in deer populations especially on the winter ranges because fawn producing does are replaced by more bucks.

One interesting thing that happened at the Beaver meeting was that the SFW board apparently stepped on DP's toes and voted to cut cow elk tags in SW Desert because there were too many bulls fighting over the limited cows and breaking their antlers in the process. They said that most of their LE elk hunters complained that they couldn't find 6x6's that weren't broken. I guess that's another one of the unintended consequences of raising the buck to doe/bull to cow ratio.

And there was also quite a bit of talk about transplanting does (It only works from the removal end, but that's another thread entirely) instead of shooting them so there goes some more hunting opportunities. It isn't going to happen this year, but will likely be done next year. SFW already has funds and some BYU students committed, per a BYU student's Master thesis.

I'm sure we're not through yet with proposals for cutting tags!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

It must be nice to see only what we choose to see. Life must be all sunshine and gumdrops for some.

Certain policies have been passed through RAC's because the average sportsman is not getting involved. The UWC has been formed for 60 days now and we certainly haven't turned that ship around....yet. We never expected to have much of an impact at the spring RAC's.

The latest surveys show that the most important thing to hunters on general units is to be able to hunt. An oh BTW tags sell out quicker each and every year. So if hunters are more concerned about quality than opportunity why are hunters buying up tags faster and faster every year? 

Change is coming folks and it will be an unstoppable force once it gets some momentum. It's just going to take some time. Noah didn't build the ark in a day.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I don't think it's even debateable that only a vocal minority are participating. I think you could make a strong argument that the only folks standing up at the RAC's throwing a tantrum are those that are unhappy which is by far a minority. 

Those that are fine with things are going about their lives, have put in for the draw, and will be blindsided by the changes. Then the propaganda will start rolling when they start asking questions and the BS about the changes "helping" deer herds will start to spew. This time though there will be someone else telling them the truth and the backlash will be big.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> The number of adults that died was lower than the biologists expected. The number of fawns that died, however, was much higher.Of the total number of fawns biologists put radio collars on, 45 percent of the fawns died.This ongoing study points to the loss of fawns as the main reason why many of Utah's deer herds aren't growing.And coyotes are the predator that affect fawns the most."


Putting the predation debate aside for a moment. Has there been any emphasis on finding a correlation between fawn birth dates and fawn winter survival? Is there any studies looking into this? When a collared fawn is first collared then found dead is the age of the fawn taken in account?

Back to predation. Any way I look at it 2500 cougar equals 125,000 deer that are killed by them. Then throw in coyote bear and it seems to me. That with a deer herd of 300,000 you cannot sustain 100,000 human hunters. So I propose reducing predation to make room for hunter harvest.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

silverlabs82 said:


> So...under that logic, should we harvest ALL deer so they won't be killed by cougars?


Yes if you insist they will die of other means anyway. Its all about surplus. And I don't care to have 1 cougar take the place of 50 hunter harvests. Even if that means giving a hunter an opportunity to harvest a doe or fawn for that matter.

And no one said ALL. :?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Putting the predation debate aside for a moment. Has there been any emphasis on finding a correlation between fawn birth dates and fawn winter survival? Is there any studies looking into this? When a collared fawn is first collared then found dead is the age of the fawn taken in account?


Many mule deer studies have shown that the biggest contributor and often the deciding factor in a fawn's survival is the health of its mother at the time of birth. With the current collar study, one of the things the biologists look at when they retrieve the collars of dead animals is the health of the animal at the time of its death...this can be determined to some extent by looking at the marrow in the bones of the dead animal. One thing that is definite is that predation increases when the health of deer is low and predation decreases when deer health is high. That is why mild winters and wet summers are so important...if deer remain relatively healthy, predation goes down. This is also why most biologists say that precipitation is the driving force behind healthy mule deer herds.



Iron Bear said:


> Back to predation. Any way I look at it 2500 cougar equals 125,000 deer that are killed by them. Then throw in coyote bear and it seems to me. That with a deer herd of 300,000 you cannot sustain 100,000 human hunters. So I propose reducing predation to make room for hunter harvest.


The question isn't how many animals predators are killing...you don't seem to grasp this idea. The bottom line is that even without any predators at all, there will always be some mortality. You can't eliminate mortality. So, even if the predators weren't killing some animals, some deer will still die. So, reducing predation doesn't necessarily make more room for hunter harvest.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

+1 wyo2. Often times what is overlooked when discussing fawn survival is the condition of the range during the mothers pregnancy. A healthy doe = healthy offspring.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Kill them all!!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Remember to say "no" to drugs kids.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Kill them all!!!


Yup,,,,,

Starts with KILL all the lions, bears , coyotes..

Then its kill all the elk, MORE cow tags, More spike tags,
Then bitch about not issuing MORE limited entry tags....

Then the deer issues, try to move things forward and fix stuff and they cry ,,,Jezzus.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Kill them all!!!
> ...


Whether we're moving forward or backward depends on the "stuff" you are trying to fix, doesn't it?


----------

