# The Theory why Mule Deer are struggling



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

First a little history about mule deer

In the early days mule deer were seldom ever seen, and their number were very low. It first started when sheep and cattle overgrazed the land. Grasses hold in moisture in the soil making it harder for browse plants to grow. Overgrazing helped browse plants grow in places that they couldn't grow before. Thus changing the habitat to where mule deer could survive. The mule deer population exploded. The mule deer hunting was excellent from about 1925 until the late 1980's

Habitat is the most important key to having mule deer. Without good mule deer habitat than all other methods use to manage deer are just bandaids. Also without good mule deer habitat then mule deer cannot survive.

This is taken out of a book called "In Seach of Big Heads" written by Jim Bonds.

When a deer population "explodes" or increases twenty-fold, thirty-fold, forty-fold in a matter of ten to fifteen years, it is the result of good browse habitat. Proceeding any big game build-up of mule deer population there is a period of twenty to thirty years during which time the browse gets a head start on the deer. In other words, DEER POPULATIONS CAN BUILD UP AT A RATE FASTER THAN BROWSE CAN GROW.

What happens when a deer population increases beyond carrying capacity of any range?

(1) If they are not harvested by hunters they take the browse
(2) When the browse is gone; the deer die, often 95% of them.
(3) Then, everything is lost-the browse plus the deer
(4) And we start all over. Its takes from 15 to 40 years for the browse to come back

Good management means regulated harvest. There is one concept in good deer management that is gaining ground by leaps and bounds

(1) Pay MINIMUM ATTENTION to the actual numbers of deer;
Pay MAXIMUM ATTENTION to the condition of the browse, the range. If you have good browse, you cannot help but have mule deer.

(2) Mule deer's worst enemy is overpopulation.

If you are satisfied that the range is in excellent condition-with a huge deer population thriving on a large health browse plants then demand that the DWR harvest 40% of ALL the deer every year for thirty years.

Now I will get to the theory. It all began to start in the 1980's. The mule deer hunting was still great because the habitat was still very good for mule deer. The elk numbers were lower so there was less competition on the summer and winter ranges. Fewer houses on the foothills which was prime mule deer winter habitat. Fewer deer were killed on roads because we had fewer roads. Fewer predators because they weren't managed. More coyotes were killed because of the methods used, but now have been outlawed. I'm not sure exactly when it was outlawed, but I'm sure some of you know.

This all benefited the mule deer population.

Then in 1989 Utah began issuing spike-only tags to increase the number of mature bulls on many of the elk units in Utah. The idea was to allow a certain percentage of the yearling bull elk population to be harvested while restricting the harvest of mature bulls. 

I'm sure that very few cow tags were issued as well. This helped increase the elk population. As the elk increased then deer now had a more hardy animal to compete with. Elk can survive winters better, they can survive on a larger variety of foods that are less quality. Deer need a higher quality of food.

I'm not say elk are bad. I love hunting elk. It's just a fact than more animals you put on the mountain that compete with deer then the fewer deer you will have.

Therefore, the deer numbers started disappearing. The 1992-1993 winter was a very bad winter kill for deer, but fewer elk died because they can handle winters better. Also the mountain lion population exploded because of poor management by the DWR. They weren't issuing enough lion tags.

We have had years of drought since 1992-1993 making it harder for the deer population to increase. Plus more elk to compete with. Fewer cattle and sheep on the mountain to keep the grasses down for more browse plants to grow.

In many areas the sagebrush is almost dead. We need to plow it and plant new mule deer habitat.

So because of less habitat, more elk, predators, roads, human enroachment on the winter ranges and adding stress to pregnant does which causes them to abort their fawns, drought, less grazing permits.

Equals= fewer deer


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*

I have a couple questions.

Are these deer starving to death? I haven't really seen any of this on any large scale what so ever nor have I herd of it. I do remember this sort of thing in the 80s. But not since. :?

If elk thrive on such a great variety of foods and deer need specific browse? Then why are elk only found is specific habitats? Deer are found anywhere. :?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*

So, pretty much what most deer biologists/deer authorities (ie. long time hunters in the know, etc.) have been saying for a long time...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*



> I have a couple questions.
> 
> Are these deer starving to death? I haven't really seen any of this on any large scale what so ever nor have I herd of it. I do remember this sort of thing in the 80s. But not since.
> 
> ...


Deer need browse plants like Sagebrush, Cliff rose, bitter brush, mountain-mahogany etc which are high in protein.

I can only think of maybe a few places that elk don't exist in Utah. But the deer number are very low there also. Elk can also eat browse plants, grasses, forbs, etc


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*



> by coyoteslayer on Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:28 pm [quoternjb9rg]Elk can also eat browse plants, grasses, forbs, etc


[/quoternjb9rg]

Yes, elk have a much, much heartier digestive system which allows them to survive on a greater variety of nutrition sources. I think the biggest impact elk have on the mule deer are during times of extreem weather, when they are forced to compete directly with the mule deer, and they will win the competion every time, imho


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*



> So, pretty much what most deer biologists/deer authorities (ie. long time hunters in the know, etc.) have been saying for a long time...


Yes, Perry, your right. The title should be "The theory why mule deer are struggling.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Very good thread Coyote.
There's absolutely NO doubt elk impact deer. However.....i don't think they impact deer to the point where they have an impact on their life or death.
Deer simply don't like elk. Most deer are solitaire or like smaller groups and are very quiet animals. Elk are quite the opposite with a more social lifestyle and are very noisy. 
I remember back in the 80's an the Wasatch, Srawberry area in particular.
It was nothing to see 50 bucks during a pre bowhunt scout in ONE evening, yet you were lucky to see one cow elk. Quite the opposite today.
Does that mean the deer are all dead? Not necessarily. I can find good numbers of deer right now in lower lying areas of the Strawberry valley in the more open sage country versus the higher pines and aspen areas where the elk thrive.
As far as the biggest negative factor in overall deer herds, especially the northern and central regions.......shrinking wintering habitat, no question about it.
Take a look at the Wasatch front extended archery areas. Very minimal hunting pressure on those deer for 20 years now, yet they are in the worst shape as far as actual numbers they have ever been in. No question whats causing it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I lived in Morgan UT from 82 to 87 and wintertime deer on the hay was a problem. And If I remember right the winter of 85 was really bad. I took 2 or 3 deer a week off my fences and I only had 8 acres. We would put the dead deer in piles on the road to be picked up every few days. Huge arguments over winter feeding and all. 

I have come along way on the habitat issue. From an all out attitude that it wasn't a factor at all. To concede it very well may me a limiting factor. In the sense that it may be the reason we cannot have 30,000 deer on Monroe. But not a reason for annual decline from #s of today. Or even the 90s for that matter.

And you also mentioned when poison was outlawed as a predator management practice. I don't have the exact yr. But it somewhere in the late 70s.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> There's absolutely NO doubt elk impact deer. However.....i don't think they impact deer to the point where they have an impact on their life or death.
> Deer simply don't like elk. Most deer are solitaire or like smaller groups and are very quiet animals. Elk are quite the opposite with a more social lifestyle and are very noisy. Elk also travel around a lot more which might cause more stress on deer. I believe the elk have limited the deer population.
> I remember back in the 80's an the Wasatch, Srawberry area in particular.
> It was nothing to see 50 bucks during a pre bowhunt scout in ONE evening, yet you were lucky to see one cow elk. Quite the opposite today.
> Does that mean the deer are all dead? Not necessarily. I can find good numbers of deer right now in lower lying areas of the Strawberry valley in the more open sage country versus the higher pines and aspen areas where the elk thrive.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Skull Krazy,

In the 80s when you would see 50 bucks per evening. Were they solitary or in groups?

I noticed something similar with deer being lower in places like Strawberry Valley. Interesting there is more human activity here. Less predators?

What about the other 80% of Utah that hasn't seen development? Monroe's winter range has had no housing development.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*

I pretty much agree with you CS. A couple more nasty things to throw into the mix: (1) pinyon-juniper expansion and (2) cheatgrass invasion. Both of these things contribute enormously to the decline of deer winter ranges.

For the same reason that browse takes off when grasses are grazed down, juniper trees also gain a foothold -- they just take longer to grow. Once they're established though, they crowd out most everything around them and provide little feed for the deer. Pinyon-juniper forests have expanded enormously over the past 80 years and reached full maturity.

Cheat grass didn't exist here until a little over 100 years ago. It came from the steppes of south-central Asia and is seriously altering the ecology of the Intermountain West. It crowds out other plants, matures in early spring, it dries out and provides ample fuel for massive, wildfires that don't, by the way, destroy the cheatgrass seeds. In other words, once it's established, its presence increases the burn frequency of the rangeland, keeping browse and other grasses at bay. The end result being enormous expanses of worthless cheatgrass where sage, bunch grasses, bitterbrush and mountain mahogany used to grow.

As for Iron Bear's statements about mule deer being hearty since they're found, in some degree, most everywhere in the state... They are a tough species, but their specialty is surviving on the edges of areas that are too tough for other, more competitive species, like white tails or elk, for example.

Given the chance, their numbers will explode, but it's not a long-term, normal situation for them. Mule deer survive, if not thrive, in all kinds difficult places that their competitors can't, but they're a jack-of-all-trades species that survive most anywhere, but can easily be outcompeted by other species that are more specialized. As a result, mule deer's niche is in areas that are a little of this and a little of that and where the specialists species (including vegetation) have a hard time dominating.

Mule deer will always be found in good numbers in Utah, at least in our life times, but the hey days of the '50s, '60s, or even the declining years of the '70s or '80s are dead, gone and won't be coming back.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Skull Krazy,
> 
> In the 80s when you would see 50 bucks per evening. Were they solitary or in groups?
> 
> ...


We would see smaller bachelor groups of younger bucks, but it seems most of the bigger bucks were either in solitaire of very small groups of 2-3.

I totally agree with you on Monroe, Ironbear....Monroe has very good wintering habitat and low urban development. That mountain should be thriving with deer!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So whats a habitat guys take on this kind of an affect on a deer herd?

Monroe. 7500 deer. 40 lions and who know how many coyotes. 40 fawns per 100 deer. Or 3000 fawns born per yr. Throw in 800 bucks harvested and 200 doe. :? 

I'm not arguing any ones point on habitat. I believe it may be a limiting factor rather than a reason for decline.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

seems like a good theory to me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: My Theory why mule deer are struggling*



Iron Bear said:


> If elk thrive on such a great variety of foods and deer need specific browse? Then why are elk only found is specific habitats? Deer are found anywhere. :?


Because elk are smarter than deer. :shock: :wink: Elk can, when survival is on the line, eat a wider variety of plants and survive, but they have certain food sources they prefer and that is where they tend to dwell.

I highly recommend anyone serious about wanting to get a better idea on what impacts deer click on this link and read the different studies/conclusions: http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Doc ... ndex2.html


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So whats a habitat guys take on this kind of an affect on a deer herd?
> 
> Monroe. 7500 deer. 40 lions and who know how many coyotes. 40 fawns per 100 deer. Or 3000 fawns born per yr. Throw in 800 bucks harvested and 200 doe. :?
> 
> I'm not arguing any ones point on habitat. I believe it may be a limiting factor rather than a reason for decline.


More numbers. :mrgreen: First thing that catches my eye is you state 3000 fawns are born each year, and only 1000 bucks/does harvested each year. So, the herd is either at/above carrying capacity and the mortality is 2000 or more per year, or a combination of limiting factors are in play. 2000+ deer are dying each year due to poaching, predators, road kill, starvation/exposure, disease, lower fawn recruitment than you think. Personally, I think it is all of the above.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So it may not be a habitat issue. (declining deer herds) I don't believe the mtn is over capacity.
40 lions and umpteen coyotes could be taking 2000 deer per yr.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If the herd is not growing, it IS at carrying capacity. Predators might stunt the growth of deer populations, but everything I have seen doesn't support them being the cause for declining populations.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents ... 6184-1.pdf

Interesting that while mule deer numbers were declining, whitetail numbers were increasing. So, unless lions prefer mule deer more than whitetails, I would suspect predators were not the cause of the decline.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Another link, one I agree with more than most. It is also written by our own Blanding Boy: http://www.muledeercountry.com/?p=1450

The last paragraph:


> To manage predators we need to manage our habitat. Habitat is the primary factor we need to concentrate on in maintaining 'good' sustainable populations of mule deer. Believe me, spending money on habitat improvement projects is far better spent than on a quick fix of killing predators.


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

Good discussion.

I'm no biologist but I believe that the main reason for mule deer decline is encroachment. There are a lot of other factors that play into the mix but I believe mother nature, if left alone, does pretty good in taking care of herself.
Mule deer are wide rangers and don't deal with encroachement and the population growth very well.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> If the herd is not growing, it IS at carrying capacity. Predators might stunt the growth of deer populations, but everything I have seen doesn't support them being the cause for declining populations.


It IS at its carrying capacity in correlation to it's limiting factors, NOT to what the DWR wants "per acre".
There lies the difference.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I suppose that depends on how you manage predators. If you reduce predators then let them increase then that would be a short term quick fix. If you reduced and maintained low predator #s indefinitely the would that still be a quick fix.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Just wanted to offer a study as to the relationship between Whitetail, Mule deer and Cougars. 
I have skimmed threw it a bit but some of you really enjoy these reads so here you go.
http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents ... 6184-1.pdf


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Just wanted to offer a study as to the relationship between Whitetail, Mule deer and Cougars.
> I have skimmed threw it a bit but some of you really enjoy these reads so here you go.
> http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents ... 6184-1.pdf


I just posted this link a few posts back. 8)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Damit I wanted to contribute some science to the discussion.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > If the herd is not growing, it IS at carrying capacity. Predators might stunt the growth of deer populations, but everything I have seen doesn't support them being the cause for declining populations.
> ...


This one being defined as population objectives, and the other as carrying capacity as of today.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Damit I wanted to contribute some science to the discussion.


Yours was more recent, so it is more valid. :wink:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Can anyone produce or recall a wildlife study done on deer in a sustained low predation environment? Like in the 10s of yrs.

Other than the overall Mule deer population in Utah until the end of poisoning. :mrgreen:

Or even recollect a unit that is kept with low #s of predators?

I think of Yellowstone. I don't recall ever seeing lots of deer in the park. I do recall lots of deer outside the park were predators were fair game. I was at Yellowstone this summer and was sad to not see as many animals. Less Elk less Buffallo and not one deer. Because of yet another predator let into the system unchecked. Or kept at low #s. Not a habitat issue *predation.* Sure the beaver is now making a comeback in the park after 100yrs. Because less elk are allowing for it to happen. But the trade off to me isn't worth it. #1 reason I used to go to Yellowstone was to look at game. Now the highlight is the geysers and hotpots. I personally have seen them enough time to not need to go back.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yellowstone is a whole other universe, so I don't like comparing what happens there to the 'real' world. But, it does show how leaving a very efficient predator unchecked can have major implications to many different species.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Great Basin National Park?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Great Basin National Park?


Awesome deer unit if you know the area and the right hunts to apply for...
I put everyone eligible in our family in for it Evey year.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You can also look at the western side of Zion Park. The deer herds crashed there about 15 years ago. While driving up to Kolob Res., you could see hundreds of deer along the road. Now, your lucky to see 2 or 3 but somehow this unit is at objective. :?: There was a big fire down there about 3 years ago that burned a lot of the thick PJ forrests. Should open up more winter range. It will be interesting to see how many more deer show up this year. The lion and coyote problem is real bad in this area too. I have heard that some hunters took out 3 lions and about 60 coyotes in this area 3 years ago(just outside the park). Another thing I've noticed in this area. The elk herd in this area has stayed about the same for the last 10 years.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> by Iron Bear on Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:24 pm
> 
> Can anyone produce or recall a wildlife study done on deer in a sustained low predation environment? Like in the 10s of yrs.


I recall reading something like this a few years back about the Kaibab deer herd: think the study was done over a few decades in the early part of the century...not sure if it is what you are looking for. Check out Rasmussen 1941.....


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I would like to see that. 

Which reminds me. Deer are everywhere on the North Rim and Jacob Lake areas. And tons of human activity. Cabins, ATV's, Logging ect.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Great Basin National Park?


All national parks need to be omitted IMHO.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why? :? 
There must be some comparisons. You don't believe you can take the non management of predators and big game in National Parks. As some sort of control.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

No, because there are way to many variables to take into account.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> I recall reading something like this a few years back about the Kaibab deer herd: think the study was done over a few decades in the early part of the century...not sure if it is what you are looking for. Check out Rasmussen 1941.....


This is some of what I could dig up on those studies.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3670562
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/r ... tory3.html


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Iron Bear,

Not the exact same one I was thinking of but it seems to cover the same material. As I understand it, you can access the entire study through the college libraries, including the SLC community college. I may just try and dig it up.... :mrgreen:


----------



## jsumm_2000 (Sep 18, 2008)

Has anyone looked at the condition of our Sagebrush? Look for the buckbrush, there is very little. I was in Nevada a few years ago and their sagebrush is short and not 10 feet tall and there was buckbrush everywhere. I don't see it in Utah.
Idaho has a yearly replanting program of sage and native plants after a fire. They have shut down the nursery at the point of the mountian where they used to grow native plants to keep the range in check. Where is our range management? I see cattle in the riparian areas destroying areas along our streams.
It is all about habitat and it is being ignored.


----------



## Oaks (Nov 16, 2007)

This has been a very interesting and educational post and it gives us a lot to consider as to what has contributed to the decline of mule deer. I agree with jsumm that it probably has more to do with lost habitat than anything. No feed no deer. As time goes on I’m starting to think that maybe the heavy populations of the late 70’s and early 80’s was more of a fluke of nature than the norm.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I would guess it's the same type of cycle that occurs naturally with most species, it just may be that a mule deer cycle is in the tens or hundreds of years.

I think a lot, including myself fail to remember the harsh winters of the recent past that have been sandwiched in between quite a bit of drought. I recall around 04-06 when the drought started to pull out and the deer numbers were rising, only to be hammered by the winter of 07-08.

Last year seemed to be a banner year for plant growth, the spring lasted until June and I don't recall seeing better forage on the mountain for quite some time. If we can get good rainfall this year and continue this trend for a few years, I'd imagine that numbers will be on the upswing once again.

To me, historic statewide populations in the last 15 years are directly correlated to weather and have obviously struggled to rebound since the winter of 92 and though I don't have the information this far back, I'd imagine the winter of 83 had similar effects without ample time to rebound.

Post season count 1992- approx. 345,000

Post season count 1993- approx. 235,000

This is roughly a 32% population reduction in 1 year. I'd call that catastrophic.

Populations slowly rebounded to approximately 300,000 animals and stayed about the same until the drought began in 2001, taking post winter counts to around 265,000 animals, where they slowly rebounded to around 320,000 in 2006.

Though populations have fluctuated quite a bit in the period noted, I don't recall permit numbers doing the same, at least not in line with population. I would imagine that the UDWR has it's hands tied in situations like this. If they were to cut tags proportionate to objectives/populations, the public would have a conniption, yet when the hunting is inferior to what the populace expects, it is also pointed at the DWR. They are often times in a no win situation because of the peoples willingness to complain about things of which they have very little understanding.

When going over these figures, I can very much understand the need for statewide limited entry.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> When going over these figures, I can very much understand the need for statewide limited entry.


I can't, buck:doe ratios during the time you laid out has actually increased on most units.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I have seen some fawn recruitment numbers that seem to be very low. Fawns are heavily preyed upon and fawn survival numbers per doe reflect that. I am out a lot and I see signs of a large coyote population. We don't control coyotes like we used to. Local sheep grazers relate that they are being hammered by coyotes.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Hunter Tom said:


> I have seen some fawn recruitment numbers that seem to be very low. Fawns are heavily preyed upon and fawn survival numbers per doe reflect that. I am out a lot and I see signs of a large coyote population. We don't control coyotes like we used to. Local sheep grazers relate that they are being hammered by coyotes.


Excellent post Hunter Tom, you are exactly right.
Fawns hitting the ground simply can't be counted as "recruitment".
I'd guess it's 50% at best.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> [quote="Hunter Tom":506xoinb]I have seen some fawn recruitment numbers that seem to be very low. Fawns are heavily preyed upon and fawn survival numbers per doe reflect that. I am out a lot and I see signs of a large coyote population. We don't control coyotes like we used to. Local sheep grazers relate that they are being hammered by coyotes.


Excellent post Hunter Tom, you are exactly right.
Fawns hitting the ground simply can't be counted as "recruitment".
I'd guess it's 50% at best.[/quote:506xoinb]
The DWR puts it around 30%, at least that is the numbers I have been quoted with. I don't recall anyone mixing fawn:doe ratios with recruitment. :?


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

On the extended archery test for 2009 they DWR puts the winter fawn kill @ 50% i remeber this cause I kept guessing to low..... :?


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm shaking my head as to why you wouldn't count fawn as "recruiment" to a heard, isn't that the biggest complaint of killing spike elk???
What's the difference??? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> I'm shaking my head as to why you wouldn't count fawn as "recruiment" to a heard, isn't that the biggest complaint of killing spike elk???
> What's the difference??? :?


A spike is NOT a calf. The difference is one year, which for an elk is a major difference when it comes to survival. I also mentioned FAWNS not CALVES. Calf elk are more likely to survive their first year than fawn deer are in most parts of Utah. Apples and oranges. Most deer deaths EVERY year are fawns, so the saying don't count you chickens before they hatch applies here. Only it's don't count recruitment for deer until they have survived their first winter.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So what kills more deer each year?
Human Hunters?
Four-legged Predators (Coyotes, Cougars, Bear, wolf, etc...)? 
Cars?
Starvation/winter-kill?

I really don't know. I'm interested in learning which kills more.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm shaking my head as to why you wouldn't count fawn as "recruiment" to a heard, isn't that the biggest complaint of killing spike elk???
> ...


LMAO....i KNEW you were going to say that!
Unless they have changed the definition of a spike bull, it's antlers only have to be 5" in length, those calf bulls are legal in most cases.
Granted most spikes harvested are 1 1/2, but not all :wink: 
Last late summer on the Dutton i came across a big herd of caows and calves, there were MANY bull "calves" that were clearly going to be legal bulls in just a few months.
Either way, those are still "recruitment" and were losing an estimated 30% of our fawns, and that's with no "spike hunting" in place to egg it on.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> LMAO....i KNEW you were going to say that!
> Unless they have changed the definition of a spike bull, it's antlers only have to be 5" in length, those calf bulls are legal in most cases.
> Granted most spikes harvested are 1 1/2, but not all :wink:
> Last late summer on the Dutton i came across a big herd of caows and calves, there were MANY bull "calves" that were clearly going to be legal bulls in just a few months.
> Either way, those are still "recruitment" and were losing an estimated 30% of our fawns, and that's with no "spike hunting" in place to egg it on.


You knew I would say that because it is true. A calf elk that is TWO-THREE MONTHS OLD does NOT grow antlers! And elk calves are born in LATE May or early June. In order for that to be possible they would have to start antler growth inside the womb. :? Antler growth STOPS in late July/August. -Ov-

As mentioned, repeatedly, we lose more fawns than ALL other deer combined every year to mortality. A fair amount die within the first week/month. Fawns are more likely to be killed by automobiles/predators/starvation/exposure/disease than deer that have already learned how to survive past at least one winter.

Gary, since most deer mortality is fawns, that eliminates hunters as the biggest killer of deer each year. I think it depends on the unit as to what ends up killing the most deer, but IMHO weather related deaths (starvation/exposure/disease) are likely the biggest killer on the over-whelming majority of deer herds.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Gary, since most deer mortality is fawns, that eliminates hunters as the biggest killer of deer each year. I think it depends on the unit as to what ends up killing the most deer, but IMHO weather related deaths (starvation/exposure/disease) are likely the biggest killer on the over-whelming majority of deer herds.


Thanks Pro. So I understand this then. 
Hunters account for roughly 30,000 deer kills.
And you are saying that more than 30,000 fawns die from whatever - predators, weather, mother takes off/gets hit by a car, etc....
I've heard suggestions that cars take out another 20,000/year. 
Roughly how many 1+ year old deer do you think are taken by predators, weather, disease, starvation, etc....? 
Is that about right? How far off?


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Whatever it is that is killing the does. That is the biggest killer of deer. Whether its winter or cars ( three or four dead on 89 in willard/perry today) or starvation or disease when the females die the herd stays small.

Although as has been mentioned before young two pionts should not do the breeding simply because they have not been tested to be the best at surviving.
the big old buck that has survived bad winters and droughts and hunting seasons should be the one to pass on his genetics regaurdless of his antler score.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

There are about 200 thousand does in Utah. Some have twins and some have no fawns. So lets say 200,000 deer are born on a good year. Unless the population is growing very rapidly 200 thousand will die. 40 thousand of those deer (20%) are shot by hunters.
If they are managed for big antlers, only about 10 thousand will be shot. the rest will die of other causes. And deer hunting in Utah will be for the elites only. Recruitment of young hunters will be a waste of time becouse hunting will be expensive and they won't be able to get out more than once every 4 years.
I can't imagine our youth, with their short attention spans waiting 4 years for a deer hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Thanks Pro. So I understand this then.
> Hunters account for roughly 30,000 deer kills.
> And you are saying that more than 30,000 fawns die from whatever - predators, weather, mother takes off/gets hit by a car, etc....
> I've heard suggestions that cars take out another 20,000/year.
> ...


I would say you're pretty close. The DWR says between 15,000 and 20,000 deer get killed on the highways, with the majority of them being does/fawns.

Just for kicks, lets say there are 500 lions statewide, I personally think that is a conservative number, but for simply math lets use that. If a lion kills one deer every other week, another conservative number, that comes out to 13,000 deer killed by lions in a years time. Now add in at least that many that are removed by coyotes, bears, eagles, and bobcats. Plus the die off of mostly fawns being at least another 25,000 deer, and the highway moralities, and you are looking at, on the conservative side, 66,000 deer not counting hunter harvest of mostly bucks.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

I think if I were a lion in this state and all I had to eat was deer I would be very hungry :lol: Seriously though as the deer population decreases then the lion encounters fewer deer and his sucess rate goes down until he either starves or finds something else to eat. So I do not think kills per week numbers can truely be set in stone. I think we simply have a net loss in our deer budget and have had for a couple years now. Also believe there is not one reason but many and most of them are very complicated.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Lol....your a funny guy Pro, that was good logic about the womb! :lol: 
I guess all the people who have been killing spikes with the normal average 15-20" antlers should feel like they have taken a 380" bull, and the ones with 25-30" just whacked an equivelant 400+ bull!
And the ones who shoot those little 5" tined 150lb calves better turn themselves in because what they harvested just doesn't exist. -/O_-

I also recommend the DRW remove the 5" in length rule if it simply does not need to apply. 
Bump it up to 10", or at least above the ears for animals with REAL antlers :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Are you seriously trying to say a calf born in June will have antlers in August? I thought you were joking. How can anyone actually believe that? :?


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I believe DWR's 30 fawns per 100 does is before winter. There should be 100 or more fawns born per 100 does. Losing 70% of the fawn crop before the first winter is huge. You can't recruit dead fawns into the herd. Whitetails in the pre-coyote east had a very much higher fawn survival. Coyotes can easily run down fawns, even older fawns. The only saving function is when there are too many fawns for coyotes to eat. I think there are far too many coyotes added to a healthy lion population plus the occasional bear kill. Human encroachment is not a factor in many ares suffering from depleted deer herds such as Monroe.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Pro. So I understand this then.
> ...


Thanks for the discussion. This is good.

So if 66,000 deer die of non-hunter causes, and hunters kill 30,000-40,000 per year, we are roughly (stubby pencil math here) looking at 100,000 deer dying every year. So if our statewide population is 200,000, then half of that ends up dead at some point along the way, every year? I'm not sure that works out.

It is very true that things are very complicated and nothing is simple. There are clearly many reasons why our deer are struggling. In the cause/effect aspect of things though - how many of the sources of mortality can we then control, or at least influence? Really influence? 
-Road kills - some things can be done but at what $$$cost for fencing, crossings, etc.... Certainly some aspects of road maintenance like salting patterns, cutting vegetation along the shoulders of roads, driver awareness/education, etc&#8230;. Would such efforts be enough to make a significant reduction?
- Predators (4 legged variety) - Certainly that is something that could be addressed. But with it, comes another package of consequences. Kill all the coyotes and watch the rabbit population explode, which in turn will wipe out the low to the ground vegetation in many quality mule deer habitats - that kind of thing. 
- Other natural causes - disease, weather, starvation, etc&#8230;. - These all boil down to habitat management - ensuring enough forage is available for the numbers of deer in an area. The difficulties here are that private lands are managed for profit maximization, and publically owned lands are legally obligated to favor uses such as livestock grazing, mining, and recreation over wildlife value. Additionally, fire management practices for the last 6-7 decades have been the biggest enemy of deer in Utah, as sage communities have climaxed, gentrified and are now dying off at a fast pace statewide. As they die off, many naturally are turning over into more grasses which is favoring elk over deer. Much is being done and being done well, and much more is needed.
-Hunters - clearly the easiest of all the elements to manipulate the impact.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Excellent post Garyfish, those numbers simply don't add up.
If we are losing 50% of our herds annually, we'd have been out of game LONG ago.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

I wish I had more time to discuss this issue. 

In a nut shell the most important item of maximizing capacity is not being discussed and that is balance. Mother Nature has a way of keeping habitat and animals in balance with each other. When man inflicts management strategies into the equation that are not in harmony with balance then we will see increases or declines that are drastic or significant. i.e. Mule Deer growth after range altering grazing practices. Elk increase after adapting a different bull harvest policy. Increase in predators after banning a poison. This is often where managers be it land or wildlife fail. They develop management plans that are independent of each other rather than codependant. Let's look at the simple aspects of deer and elk plans, why do we beleive we can increase deer to 425,000 and elk to 80,000 are there any indicators or studies that actually support these numbers or are they simply based on the wants of "sportsman" so there are enough animals to keep hunters happy? Is there enough habitat to support these types of numbers, keep in mind habitat is comprised of more than enough food, it also includes shelter (w/ escapement and rest), water, travel corridors and competitors.

Regardless of theories elk and deer are competitors, so there needs to be a balanced relationship between them. Here is some food for thought what is the two major factors effecting productivity of ungulates? Once this is understood then a valid discussion/plan of how to grow herd numbers of deer or elk can be implemented. Until then the cycles will be highs and lows with very little sustained managment. Here in lies the problem with the currrent elk management plan, we are not managing for balance, we are managing for sportsman and we will see a crash in elk herds in proportion to the deer decline since the early 90,s. We need to manage for proper herd dynamics by improving habitat and harvesting surplus animals, not artifically inflate numbers so we can fill record books because as we do all species will struggle.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> So if 66,000 deer die of non-hunter causes, and hunters kill 30,000-40,000 per year, we are roughly (stubby pencil math here) looking at 100,000 deer dying every year. So if our statewide population is 200,000, then half of that ends up dead at some point along the way, every year? I'm not sure that works out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If our statewide population is 200,000 and we have 100,000 dying every year...that does NOT mean that half of the statewide population is dying every year. I know...you are going to say, "huh?" Stay with me...as Pro said, a large portion of those 100,000 are fawns. Many of those fawns are NOT part of the 200,000 estimated population because they have NOT been counted yet. So, even though you could be losing 100,000 deer every year, a portion of that number is uncounted towards the statewide population.

I think a lot of this stuff goes back to additive and compensatory mortality.

"Comprehension of annual population dynamics of a particular deer herd is essential to understanding the potential importance of limiting factors such as predation. Number of animals within a deer herd is a function of births, deaths, and factors that affect them. In theory, numbers of births and deaths and their impact on a deer herd depend on the herd's relationship to K (Macnab 1985) [K means carrying capacity]. Because field biologists rarely are able to determine 
exactly what constitutes K, they use indices related to deer condition or browse utilization. A deer population at or above K should produce relatively fewer fawns than a population below K, and mortality from all factors should be relatively great, so the population essentially is stable. If a deer herd greatly exceeds K and over-utilizes forage resources, individuals should be in poor physical condition, birth rates should be low, and mortality rates should be greater. A deer herd that remains above K ultimately will damage its food resources, the deer population will decline, and when the herd recovers (i.e., to a lesser level than previously held), habitat earrying capacity will likely be reduced from previous levels. Habitat carrying capacity is an important concept with many implications to evaluating preda- 
tor-prey relationships. Prey population status in relation to K determines how mortality factors act on a population. When a deer herd is at K, deaths equal recruited offspring. The mortality cause (e.g., predation) is inconsequential because once predation is removed or reduced, other mortality factors will replace it. However, the farther a population is below habitat carrying capacity, the more different mortality factors combine to retard population 
increases or even cause declines. In other words, at K, mortality factors are compensatory (i.e., they replace each other so that total mortality remains constant), but when populations 
are well below K, each mortality source adds to total mortality and mortality factors are termed additive. In reality, unless populations are well below K, these types of mortality are operating somewhere between complete additivity and complete compensation."

--From Deer-Predator Relationships: A Review of Recent North American Studies with Emphasis on Mule and Black-Tailed Deer!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> It is very true that things are very complicated and nothing is simple. There are clearly many reasons why our deer are struggling. In the cause/effect aspect of things though - how many of the sources of mortality can we then control, or at least influence? Really influence?
> -Road kills - some things can be done but at what $$$cost for fencing, crossings, etc.... Certainly some aspects of road maintenance like salting patterns, cutting vegetation along the shoulders of roads, driver awareness/education, etc&#8230;. Would such efforts be enough to make a significant reduction?
> - Predators (4 legged variety) - Certainly that is something that could be addressed. But with it, comes another package of consequences. Kill all the coyotes and watch the rabbit population explode, which in turn will wipe out the low to the ground vegetation in many quality mule deer habitats - that kind of thing.
> - Other natural causes - disease, weather, starvation, etc&#8230;. - These all boil down to habitat management - ensuring enough forage is available for the numbers of deer in an area. The difficulties here are that private lands are managed for profit maximization, and publically owned lands are legally obligated to favor uses such as livestock grazing, mining, and recreation over wildlife value. Additionally, fire management practices for the last 6-7 decades have been the biggest enemy of deer in Utah, as sage communities have climaxed, gentrified and are now dying off at a fast pace statewide. As they die off, many naturally are turning over into more grasses which is favoring elk over deer. Much is being done and being done well, and much more is needed.
> -Hunters - clearly the easiest of all the elements to manipulate the impact.


Because the whole puzzle is so complex, we first need to identify what factors are limiting the population...

For example, how much of our road killed deer is simply compensatory mortality? Additive mortality? In other words, we could really reduce the numbers of road-killed deer, but if those road kills are not additive mortalities, we won't increase the deer population.


----------



## mulepacker (Sep 11, 2007)

Gary Fish wrote:

"Hunters – clearly the easiest of all the elements to manipulate the impact"

This should clearly be the case however it is not. Utah has allowed a public input system to be implemented that has tied the DWR's hands when using hunters as a tool. Utah now is managing wildlife for hunters rather than by hunters.

If you understand Wyo2utah's post you begin to see the cause/effect of balance. Why are deer not recovering? Because there are limiting factors within the enviroment that are delaying response. Mother Nature is simply stating that there is not the carrying capacity to have a rebounding deer herd.

One of the problems, Increased elk numbers a factor that effects habitat. Why then do we manage to carry surplus elk (bulls)? They do not improve elk productivity and delay mule deer productivity and recovery.

If you want to see deer recover then as responsible sportsman we should be demanding our Wildlife Managers manage to proper herd dynamics rather than trophy animals. I hate to beat elk to death but it is easy to see they are getting all the attention while being ignored as a limiting factor. Everyone points the finger back to habitat but our failure in manipulation is compounding the loss of habitat as much as any other factor.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Travis, you the man!


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

"One of the problems, Increased elk numbers a factor that effects habitat. Why then do we manage to carry surplus elk (bulls)? They do not improve elk productivity and delay mule deer productivity and recovery.

If you want to see deer recover then as responsible sportsman we should be demanding our Wildlife Managers manage to proper herd dynamics rather than trophy animals. I hate to beat elk to death but it is easy to see they are getting all the attention while being ignored as a limiting factor. Everyone points the finger back to habitat but our failure in manipulation is compounding the loss of habitat as much as any other factor."

Great post by the way, but i have a comment.
I do beleive the state IS starting to manage our elk for proper herd dynamics versus trophy status, our increase in tags and the agenda for future are telling us this very clearly. I fully support this.
Tough part of that new plan is now people are upset that we are losing our quality of bulls, this year showed us that decline happening very quickly.
I'm one to still say a 370" bull is "trophy" status even though i have taken much better over the years with clients.

But back to deer, i think your spot on!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> "One of the problems, Increased elk numbers a factor that effects habitat. Why then do we manage to carry surplus elk (bulls)? They do not improve elk productivity and delay mule deer productivity and recovery.
> 
> If you want to see deer recover then as responsible sportsman we should be demanding our Wildlife Managers manage to proper herd dynamics rather than trophy animals. I hate to beat elk to death but it is easy to see they are getting all the attention while being ignored as a limiting factor. Everyone points the finger back to habitat but our failure in manipulation is compounding the loss of habitat as much as any other factor."
> 
> ...


Increase for the short term/Net decrease long term. I'm not so optimistic.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Net decreases in the long term as far as LE elk tags, BUT net increases in the long term as far as spike tags go...again, it doesn't matter at what age bulls are harvested; to eliminate the surplus, we simply need to harvest enough animals. If spike tags are increased and spike harvest is increased, that could offset any decrease in LE tags.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Net decreases in the long term as far as LE elk tags, BUT net increases in the long term as far as spike tags go...again, it doesn't matter at what age bulls are harvested; to eliminate the surplus, we simply need to harvest enough animals. If spike tags are increased and spike harvest is increased, that could offset any decrease in LE tags.


That is true from a biological stand point, but not from a hunter stand point. Decreasing mature bull tags while increasing spike tags is NOT what most hunters in Utah want. Nor is it warranted biologically. The number of bulls harvested after they have reached branch-antlered status can be increased without 'destroying quality' if the special interest groups would allow for it happen.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Net decreases in the long term as far as LE elk tags, BUT net increases in the long term as far as spike tags go...again, it doesn't matter at what age bulls are harvested; to eliminate the surplus, we simply need to harvest enough animals. If spike tags are increased and spike harvest is increased, that could offset any decrease in LE tags.
> ...


First of all, you are going right back to what Mulepacker was talking about in managing animals on a social basis rather than biological. The DWR can manage elk exactly how things are planned and still keep the herd in good shape biologically...if enough bulls are harvested. Second of all, when you say that hunters do not want more spike tags, you are speaking purely from a subjective standpoint...that is your opinion. However, the recent DWR survey implies something entirely different. In fact, a much larger portion of the hunting population polled supported continued spike hunting than the portion of the population that did not!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

mulepacker said:


> If you understand Wyo2utah's post you begin to see the cause/effect of balance. Why are deer not recovering? Because there are limiting factors within the enviroment that are delaying response. Mother Nature is simply stating that there is not the carrying capacity to have a rebounding deer herd.


Back to deer....

This is a great example of compensatory and additive predation and how they do/do not impact deer populations..."In a controlled study, deer removed from the treatment unit were used to stock 3 large pastures at densities of 44, 89, and $133\ \text{deer}/{\rm km}^{2}$ to simulate hunting removals of 67, 33, and 0%, respectively. Fawn survival rates varied inversely with density (P < 0.001). Starvation was the leading cause of fawn mortality in all pastures indicating a nutritional limitation at all densities. We believe the density-dependent survival response in the pastures demonstrated that a strong compensatory mortality process operated in this mule deer population. In another field study, 49-77% of fawns were killed by predators during 4 winters. We then reduced the coyote (Canis latrans) population for 3 winters while we continued to monitor fawn mortality. Predation rates decreased (P = 0.004) and starvation rates increased (P = 0.042) between pre- and posttreatment periods, but no change in fawn survival was detected (P = 0.842)."

--From "Compensatory Mortality in a Colorado Mule Deer Population"

Interestingly, in this study 49-77% of fawns were killed by predators, but when predator numbers were reduced and predation decreased, starvation rates increased and fawn survival did not increase. In other words, once one form of mortality was erased, mother nature kicked in and compensated by adding a new form of mortality. That is why we can't just say if we eliminate predators or eliminate road kill that the deer population will automatically rise....


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


The same goes for you, you are assuming people wanting opportunity as purely spike hunting. Why does it have to be spike tags? Why can't you increase mature bull tags instead and still get more opportunity? Why not take advantage of the fact that most units are way over objective (which is a crappy way of managing in the first place). People support spike hunting because they do not believe there are any other options available and they would rather hunt spikes rather than not hunt at all. The average joe knows jack **** about how elk are managed, age objective wise. Go up on the mountain and ask random hunters what age objectives are, you will get a blank stare. These are the same people that are answering surveys saying they want spike hunting, because they don't want to lose opportunity. What it all boils down too is a majority of hunters want more opportunity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> The same goes for you, you are assuming people wanting opportunity as purely spike hunting. Why does it have to be spike tags? Why can't you increase mature bull tags instead and still get more opportunity? Why not take advantage of the fact that most units are way over objective (which is a crappy way of managing in the first place). People support spike hunting because they do not believe there are any other options available and they would rather hunt spikes rather than not hunt at all. The average joe knows jack **** about how elk are managed, age objective wise. Go up on the mountain and ask random hunters what age objectives are, you will get a blank stare. These are the same people that are answering surveys saying they want spike hunting, because they don't want to lose opportunity. What it all boils down too is a majority of hunters want more opportunity.


Brilliant, so when the poll doesn't bare out what you want, the poll is flawed, right? :roll: Sorry, but I am basing my opinion on several questions on a pretty thorough poll of Utah's elk hunters. The poll supports my opinion...it does NOT support Pro's or yours! For example, the poll clearly showed that just as many people wanted quality increased as those who wanted increased opportunity (less than 30% of hunters polled wanted more opportunity!) and, a strong majority of hunters polled supported the current system of management! People support spike hunting because it is deemed a family hunt. Sorry, but your subjective opinion is not based on facts...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > The same goes for you, you are assuming people wanting opportunity as purely spike hunting. Why does it have to be spike tags? Why can't you increase mature bull tags instead and still get more opportunity? Why not take advantage of the fact that most units are way over objective (which is a crappy way of managing in the first place). People support spike hunting because they do not believe there are any other options available and they would rather hunt spikes rather than not hunt at all. The average joe knows jack **** about how elk are managed, age objective wise. Go up on the mountain and ask random hunters what age objectives are, you will get a blank stare. These are the same people that are answering surveys saying they want spike hunting, because they don't want to lose opportunity. What it all boils down too is a majority of hunters want more opportunity.
> ...


I am not disputing the poll, sorry if it came across that way. Also I don't know why I even argue with you because you are always right. It is always my opinion vs. your fact (AKA your opinion). :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> However, the recent DWR survey implies something entirely different. In fact, a much larger portion of the hunting population polled supported continued spike hunting than the portion of the population that did not!


What were these questions hedged against? If I was asked the question "would you rather hunt spikes every year as opposed to no opportunity or little increase in opportunity on the mature bull side", I would say yes as well, But that's baiting a question for an answer that you already know is going to come.

In many instances it seems that the powers that be throw out a solution first, then scramble for all of the reasons to validate to the public what they have already decided to do. Hell, any more they are becoming shameless about it to the point of not even including the public, which is borderline illegal. How can this EVER lead to good management?



> Brilliant, so when the poll doesn't bare out what you want, the poll is flawed, right? Sorry, but I am basing my opinion on several questions on a pretty thorough poll of Utah's elk hunters. The poll supports my opinion...it does NOT support Pro's or yours! For example, the poll clearly showed that just as many people wanted quality increased as those who wanted increased opportunity (less than 30% of hunters polled wanted more opportunity!) and, a strong majority of hunters polled supported the current system of management! People support spike hunting because it is deemed a family hunt. Sorry, but your subjective opinion is not based on facts...


You just said yourself that the poll had just as many people in favor of opportunity as there are in favor of quality increase. So why is it they intend to raise age objectives? People support spike hunting because it is there only choice when pitted against staying home! Whaduya' want for dinner Earl, Cat **** or dog ****? Why would we eat that stuff when there's steak in the fridge????

Sorry, but your opinion is based on cognitive dissonance and extreme contrarian-ism.....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What were these questions hedged against? If I was asked the question "would you rather hunt spikes every year as opposed to no opportunity or little increase in opportunity on the mature bull side", I would say yes as well, But that's baiting a question for an answer that you already know is going to come.


It is a good thing, then, that this WASN'T done! In fact, the point was made that if spike tags were eliminated, 500 more LE elk tags could be given...and still most hunters supported spike tags! So, "hedged" against the possibility of having 500 more LE tags, hunters would rather keep spike tags...



Treehugnhuntr said:


> In many instances it seems that the powers that be throw out a solution first, then scramble for all of the reasons to validate to the public what they have already decided to do. Hell, any more they are becoming shameless about it to the point of not even including the public, which is borderline illegal. How can this EVER lead to good management?


What the "F" are you talking about? The DWR put this poll out to hunters BEFORE the elk committee made any decisions...or the DWR made any recommendations!



Treehugnhuntr said:



> [
> 
> You just said yourself that the poll had just as many people in favor of opportunity as there are in favor of quality increase. So why is it they intend to raise age objectives? People support spike hunting because it is there only choice when pitted against staying home! Whaduya' want for dinner Earl, Cat **** or dog ****? Why would we eat that stuff when there's steak in the fridge????


First of all, do you have the poll questions in front of you? Do you have the data in front of you? I do. One question stated: " More permits could be offered on LIMITED ENTRY bull elk hunts by either slightly lowering elk size/age or lowering harvest success (i.e. more hunters would have the opportunity to draw a permit, but the chance that you would harvest would decrease). Please rate your level of support for the following ways to manage for more Limited Entry permits." The results showed that around 50% wanted age objectives increased whereas 30% were neutral and less than 30% did not want age objectives increased. Also, another question specifically asked hunters (noting that higher age objectives meant fewer tags) what objective they would prefer regarding elk ages...around 50% said they wanted LE units managed to the 6-7 age objective and around 10% said they wanted them even higher. So, a majority of hunters want LE units managed at age objectives 6-7 years or higher. Personally, though, I want them much lower....the elk committee chose to try to increase opportunity in LE hunts through increased numbers of elk. They tried to appease both sides--opportunity and quality. Shame on them! :roll:

Also, people support spike hunting, like the poll clearly shows, because it is a family hunt. Sorry that you can't get that through your thick skull and sorry that it does not jive with some of your own perceptions, but that is the REALITY!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> I am not disputing the poll, sorry if it came across that way. Also I don't know why I even argue with you because you are always right. It is always my opinion vs. your fact (AKA your opinion). :roll:


So, because I base my opinion on the facts presented by the hunter poll...you are not arguing with the poll? So, you would agree then that hunters WANT spike hunts? You would agree that hunters would rather have spike hunts than eliminate them because they are a good traditional family hunt? Hmmm...sorry, I thought you argued that point! :roll:

As long as you don't back up your arguments with evidence, you have nothing!

My opinion was that most hunters would want a decrease in age objectives, but the poll clearly shows that this is not true...so, I changed my opinion based on the facts I have. Some people, seem unable to accept the evidence...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> First of all, you are going right back to what Mulepacker was talking about in managing animals on a social basis rather than biological. The DWR can manage elk exactly how things are planned and still keep the herd in good shape biologically...if enough bulls are harvested. Second of all, when you say that hunters do not want more spike tags, you are speaking purely from a subjective standpoint...that is your opinion. However, the recent DWR survey implies something entirely different. In fact, a much larger portion of the hunting population polled supported continued spike hunting than the portion of the population that did not!


Wrong! Go back and reread what I wrote. I am saying there is NO biological need to decrease mature bull tags and increase spike tags. You can't dispute that without being out in La La Land.
The survey didn't have results that clearly stated hunters want a reduction in mature tags and an increase of spike tags. To imply such is either based on ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, I will let you clarify which it is.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Wrong! Go back and reread what I wrote. I am saying there is NO biological need to decrease mature bull tags and increase spike tags. You can't dispute that without being out in La La Land.
> The survey didn't have results that clearly stated hunters want a reduction in mature tags and an increase of spike tags. To imply such is either based on ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, I will let you clarify which it is.


1) You said that decreasing mature tags and increasing spike tags is NOT what most people want...that is a social argument. That was my point...

2) I am not saying that the poll clearly showed that people want a reduction in mature tags and an increase in spike tags. I am saying that people don't want an increase in mature tags and a decrease in spike tags....and, the poll does clearly show that hunters ARE willing to sacrifice mature tags for quality. That question was specifically asked!

Also, because the majority of hunters polled were willing to sacrifice LE tags for quality and because spike tags are overwhelmingly supported by hunters, the poll does imply that hunters would favor an increase in spike tags!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong! Go back and reread what I wrote. I am saying there is NO biological need to decrease mature bull tags and increase spike tags. You can't dispute that without being out in La La Land.
> ...


Then WTH did you call me out? :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> However, the recent DWR survey implies something entirely different. In fact, a much larger portion of the hunting population polled supported continued spike hunting than the portion of the population that did not!


Because I believe that the poll/survey is "implying" the exact opposite of what you said...and, obviously, so did the elk committee...

...the survey does show that hunters are in favor of increasing age objectives (even though the question clearly explained that such an increase would mean a decrease in mature tags), and the survey does show that hunters support spike hunts (even if eliminating them meant an increase in 500 LE tags). If the DWR decreased LE tags by increasing age objectives, and increased spike tags to help harvest surplus bulls, do you think the public will suddenly change its mind?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > What were these questions hedged against? If I was asked the question "would you rather hunt spikes every year as opposed to no opportunity or little increase in opportunity on the mature bull side", I would say yes as well, But that's baiting a question for an answer that you already know is going to come.
> ...


So now your perception is somehow the only one with validity? (That's rhetorical, it's obviously always been the case :roll: .) 

In the survey, when asked about Increase opportunity/Current system/increase quality, current system was over 40% in all demographics, increase opportunity was slightly higher than increase opportunity for GL and about 8% higher for people who only apply or hunt LE. Somehow this equates to people wanting more quality over opportunity? :roll: 

The question in the survey asks "Overall, what are utah elk hunters opinion of spike bull elk hunting, roughly 50% support it. So how does this translate to anything tangible? It's a milquetoast. Hell, I support spike hunts under the current system, but it's dirty water to someone stuck in the desert.

I will never accept hunting specific segments of an elk population to be biologically sound, nor is it a _desirable_ hunt, it's nothing more than a pacifier and biologically, it is the laziest way to keep bull to cow ratios in check and maintain a ridiculous quality objective so spoiled hunters can shoot (not hunt) big elk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> The question in the survey asks "Overall, what are utah elk hunters opinion of spike bull elk hunting, roughly 50% support it. So how does this translate to anything tangible? It's a milquetoast. Hell, I support spike hunts under the current system, but it's dirty water to someone stuck in the desert.




The poll question states: "Discontinuing all SPIKE BULL ELK hunts could potentially provide an additional 500 Limited Entry permits. This would reduce drawing odds from the current odds of 1 in 16 to 1 in 13.5. Spike bull hunts provide opportunity for 12,500 hunters to hunt elk every year, while helping managers maintain bull-to-cow ratios to maximize elk production. Overall, what is your opinion of general season SPIKE BULL ELK hunting in Utah?"

So, "hedged" against the idea of gaining 500 LE tags, roughly 50% of those polled supported spike hunts whereas only roughly 25% did not. 


Treehugnhuntr said:


> I will never accept hunting specific segments of an elk population to be biologically sound, nor is it a _desirable_ hunt, it's nothing more than a pacifier and biologically, it is the laziest way to keep bull to cow ratios in check and maintain a ridiculous quality objective so spoiled hunters can shoot (not hunt) big elk.


It is also a great way of giving out loads of opportunity without harming the quality. And, it can be done WITHOUT biologically harming the herd.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The poll question states: "Discontinuing all SPIKE BULL ELK hunts could potentially provide an additional 500 Limited Entry permits. This would reduce drawing odds from the current odds of 1 in 16 to 1 in 13.5. Spike bull hunts provide opportunity for 12,500 hunters to hunt elk every year, while helping managers maintain bull-to-cow ratios to maximize elk production. Overall, what is your opinion of general season SPIKE BULL ELK hunting in Utah?" This is a perfect example of how the poll results were steered toward a set outcome. If they would have asked it without guiding responders to a desired outcome I would be more inclined to accept the results. Telling hunters only the pros of spike hunts with out giving equal status to the cons of spike hunts is bunk.
> 
> So, "hedged" against the idea of gaining 500 LE tags, roughly 50% of those polled supported spike hunts whereas only roughly 25% did not.
> 
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > The poll question states: "*Discontinuing all SPIKE BULL ELK hunts could potentially provide an additional 500 Limited Entry permits. This would reduce drawing odds from the current odds of 1 in 16 to 1 in 13.5. *Spike bull hunts provide opportunity for 12,500 hunters to hunt elk every year, while helping managers maintain bull-to-cow ratios to maximize elk production. Overall, what is your opinion of general season SPIKE BULL ELK hunting in Utah?" This is a perfect example of how the poll results were steered toward a set outcome. If they would have asked it without guiding responders to a desired outcome I would be more inclined to accept the results. Telling hunters only the pros of spike hunts with out giving equal status to the cons of spike hunts is bunk.


Somehow I thought the part that stated "discontinuing all spike bull elk hunts could potentially provide an additional 500 Limited Entry permits" and "reduce drawing odds" was telling the cons of spike hunts....silly me! :roll:

The DWR really just steered the outcome.... :roll: Again, when the survey doesn't show the outcome you want, it must have "bad" questions....what a crock! The TWO sentences given to the cons was far less and definitely not equal to the ONE sentence given to the pros... :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> But, it DOES take away opportunity to hunt MATURE bulls, which the overwhelming majority of elk hunters desire.


NOT according to the survey....When faced with more opportunity to have MATURE bull tags and losing spike tags, more people supported spike tags! Again, the evidence is against you...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I believed them to be steered as well. The survey made it black and white, Spike hunts vs. 500 LE tags, as if these are the only options that exist. Again, given the two options, I would choose spike hunting, but those aren't the only options.



> NOT according to the survey....When faced with more opportunity to have MATURE bull tags and losing spike tags, more people supported spike tags!


Again, it's black and white and garners a calculated response.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I believed them to be steered as well. The survey made it black and white, Spike hunts vs. 500 *MORE *LE tags, as if these are the only options that exist. Again, given the two options, I would choose spike hunting, but those aren't the only options.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's because you guys refuse to believe that people like the current system....of course, the results have been steered...it's all a big conspiracy! :roll:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

-People do like the current system, I would like to know if they would choose the same answer when given an alternative that isn't all or none.

-If the survey showed that people like the current system, why are they proposing changing it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> -If the survey showed that people like the current system, why are they proposing changing it?


Touche!

The problem with the questions are they are either/or, when there is plenty of ground between the two that could/should be utilized. We can have more than hot dogs or fillet-minion on the menu. Managing to harvest age averages, while also issuing the bulk of the tags to rifle hunters during mature bull elks two most vulnerable times of the year is DUMB and takes away opportunity from the masses. Managing bull:cow ratios by issuing spike tags may allow for elk hunting opportunities, but only for yearling bulls, not for branch antlered bulls. There is no reason we couldn't manage the middle ground instead of just the edges, except for special interest groups and pinheads who think it has to be either/or.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> -People do like the current system, I would like to know if they would choose the same answer when given an alternative that isn't all or none.
> 
> -If the survey showed that people like the current system, why are they proposing changing it?


Simple...because people also said that they wanted minor tweaks in that system. We aren't changing systems...just making minor adjustments within it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Managing bull:cow ratios by issuing spike tags may allow for elk hunting opportunities, but only for yearling bulls, not for branch antlered bulls. There is no reason we couldn't manage the middle ground instead of just the edges, except for special interest groups and pinheads who think it has to be either/or.


And, hunters want it that way!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> -People do like the current system, I would like to know if they would choose the same answer when given an alternative that isn't all or none.


Hmmm...I am glad the survey asked that question...

It seems that over 50% of those polled wanted to keep the current system instead of hunting every 2-3 years (about 15%), hunting every year (about 20%), or changing the management strategy where all units would be limited entry and no general season hunts would exist (about 10%).

But, of course, in your eyes, they are going to be steering the answer to get the outcome they want, right? :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Managing bull:cow ratios by issuing spike tags may allow for elk hunting opportunities, but only for yearling bulls, not for branch antlered bulls. There is no reason we couldn't manage the middle ground instead of just the edges, except for special interest groups and pinheads who think it has to be either/or.
> ...


No special interest groups and pinheads that think it has to be either/or want it that way.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

As one who sat on the Elk Committee and listened to the interpretation of the results obtained through the survey, I would like to say I am seeing the same problem in this thread. Everyone interprets the survey down the path they want to go. I didn't read all the posts, but enough.

If you guys have the survey, question 21 shows over 40% of people want to hunt once every 10 years for a chance to shoot a 4-5 year old bull. Yet less than 9% of the Limited Entry Elk Herd is managed for 4-5 year old bulls. Why? Because many on the Committee felt question 27 over-rode question 21 when 95% of respondants said they want to shoot a 320+ if they can only draw one or two times in their life. Problem is if 40% of Utah's Limited Entry Elk herd were managed to produce 4-5 year old (on AVERAGE) bulls then guys could draw more then 2 times in their life. 

Anyway, as to why mule deer are struggling--- Elk eat deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -03-03.pdf

Questions 10,18, and 21 stand out like big red flags to me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Q21. To produce more mature (large) bull elk requires reductions in bull harvest, which makes it harder to draw a permit. Managers need to know whether hunters are willing to make trade-offs between the size of bulls and the amount of opportunity to hunt. Please indicate which one of the following choices you favor the most by checking the appropriate box.


This is a perfect example of how responses are steered to a desired result. I underlined the part that is once again misleading at best. You could kill the same amount, or even a higher amount of bulls and produce more mature bulls through common sense management policies. The fact they claim that fewer bulls need to be harvested while at the same time advocating increasing spike permits is nonsensical.


> Definitions:
> Age 6-7 yrs old, very large bull elk (Boone & Crockett score 340+)
> Age 5-6 yrs old, large bull elk (Boone & Crockett score 300+)
> Age 4-5 yrs old, medium bull elk (Boone & Crockett score 270+)


Again, this is misleading. This implies that anyone who gets a permit for a unit managed for 6-7 yrs old elk will be able to kill a 340+ bull. In truth, more hunters are likely to kill a bull UNDER 340 even on the premium units than one that exceeds 340.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Lets also keep in mind that a majority of people taking this survey doesn't truly know how to score a bull. Everybody I know sees 370 plus bulls on the mountain. Most people would be tickled pink with a 300 bull and more than likely think it was a 350 bull until the tape was put on it.


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

Did not read all the posts so forgive me if this has allready been stated.

Deer did not originally prosper from grazing when they boomed in the mid century.

They and the plant species they rely on prospered by the clearing of large sections of timber in the mountains and benches.
This created more "edge" areas for them and the plants. The felling of old growth timber creates a new enviroment for mid successional plant species to grow.

Today there is overgrazing in the summer range in the mountains which prohibits the growth of everything but grass and no new edge because of fire suppression. So you have old growth forest of no value to the deer and only grass in the open areas which benefits elk and cattle but not so much for deer. 

Then you combine this with loss of winter range, espically the benchy areas near mountains where the plant species they rely on can grow. Does not matter if there is a million acres of desert and sagebrush for winter range if it can't grow the plant species needed for food.

It was our fault the deer boomed in the 50's and it is our fault the deer today are struggling.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Back on topic.

I recently got back from a trip to Monroe. I was of coarse saddened by the lack of deer and I did however shoot a coyote. Goofy is right. Coyotes everywhere I seen more coyote track than deer or rabbit. :shock: And they were singing all night long.

One observation. I was on the Marysvale side and would spend the days up behind town from the Kingston Rd to Poverty Flats. Just above the snow line in the cedars and sage. I would see around 10 deer all day then on my way back to camp at Piute Res I would stop in town refuel and get a few barley based sodas. I would see 200 deer within a 2 mile radius of town on the west side of the river. 

Now I have always seen 200 deer within 2 miles of town since I was little. Sure maybe these deer always live there. But I seen in one group upwards of 100 head. I don't think they were city deer. The city deer seem content to sit in someones yard and munch on lawn and hedges. These guys were about a mile out of town in a ravine on someones farm. And a bit nervous. 

I figure these deer are hanging out here because the predators are less inclined to be so close to town. I doubt a cougar wants to swim across the Sevier River in February and drag a deer back to eat it. The habitat if anything is in worse shape here than anywhere. 

Any other thoughts?


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

I think you are on the right track with the close to town and humans theory. Nice job on killing the coyote. I think coyotes are more destructive and way more prevalent than cougars. lots and lots of them up were I used to hunt.


----------

