# Mule Deer Populations.



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I've been trying very hard to get a grip on this whole "sky is falling" theory. Maybe someone can help a dummy understand these numbers and show me exactly what I'm missing.

The base numbers for the numbers that you see below came from the annual report. The five numbers next to each unit represent the percentage of unit objective that each unit was at for a given year. The first number is for year 2005, the second for 2006 and so on to year 2009 (I couldn't find data for 2010).

My first question: What is considered a normal fluctuation from 100% objective (10% +/-?)? In other words, at what percentage of objective do biologists start getting worried?

Maybe it's just me but it would seem that a majority of the units in the state seem to be trending upwards (at least for the last 5 years. Could this mean that the bucks are doing their job? Maybe not?

The area that seems to be struggling the most after looking at the numbers is the Bookcliffs. As we all know this area is LE and most certainly has a high buck/doe ratio. Am I wrong?

If you need any of the original numbers let me know.




Box Elder	57.50%	67.00%	67.00%	71.50%	80.50%
Cache	56.00%	58.00%	63.20%	54.80%	60.20%
Ogden	54.55%	59.09%	68.18%	50.00%	62.73%
Morgan-South Rich	83.33%	80.00%	79.17%	50.83%	66.67%
EastCanyon	107.14%	100.00%	97.14%	88.57%	121.43%
ChalkCreek	90.48%	100.00%	84.76%	71.43%	77.14%
Kamas	93.75%	93.75%	85.00%	78.75%	80.00%
NorthSlope	79.03%	80.65%	82.26%	77.42%	95.97%
SouthSlopeYellowstone	83.85%	86.15%	88.46%	71.54%	79.23%
South Slope Vernal/ Diamond Mtn.	79.23%	77.69%	79.23%	86.92%	101.54%
BookCliffs	64.67%	48.00%	49.00%	55.33%	53.67%
NineMile	34.71%	34.71%	48.82%	44.71%	57.65%
SanRafael 
LaSal	53.18%	59.94%	61.33%	40.88%	43.09%
SanJuan	61.71%	66.83%	75.12%	62.44%	80.00%
HenryMountains	48.75%	45.00%	54.00%	75.00%	70.00%
CentralsMountainsManti	86.05%	70.00%	64.21%	52.11%	55.00%
CentralMountainsNebo	75.55%	95.48%	48.23%	48.67%	50.88%
Wasatch/Diamond/Heber/Timpanogos	83.98%	111.67%	92.72%	72.82%	80.10%
WasatchMountains/CurrantCreek	70.67%	75.33%	71.33%	54.00%	63.33%
WasatchMountains/Avintaquin	50.00%	53.13%	51.56%	53.13%	53.13%
WasatchMountains/SaltLake	112.50%	140.65%	82.50%	70.00%	82.50%
Oquirrh-Stansbury	96.70%	118.12%	81.60%	84.91%	75.47%
WestDesert	62.50%	74.19%	68.75%	71.43%	72.32%
SouthwestDesert	39.06%	43.75%	45.31%	50.00%	50.00%
Fillmore	65.00%	66.67%	77.50%	83.33%	79.17%
Beaver	63.64%	81.82%	92.73%	72.73%	100.00%
Monroe	87.33%	93.33%	100.00%	89.33%	94.67%
MountDutton	62.96%	74.07%	85.19%	92.59%	88.89%
Plateau	61.60%	68.00%	63.20%	48.00%	62.00%
Kaiparowits	40.00%	40.00%	40.00%	100.00%	40.00%
Paunsaugunt	98.08%	125.00%	126.92%	115.38%	111.54%
PanguitchLake	84.12%	105.00%	102.35%	117.65%	123.53%
Zion	73.33%	77.78%	81.67%	105.56%	106.67%
PineValley	91.41%	97.66%	104.69%	104.69%	104.69%


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Looks like we have nothing to worry about!


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

sharpshooter said:


> Looks like we have nothing to worry about!


Maybe you could be a little more specific?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

What I see is numbers going down over the winter of 07/08 and then trending up afterwards. It will be interesting to see how this 10/11 winter affected the up trend being that it was a long and snow packed winter not so much as cold as it was in 07/08.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

There was no data for SanRafael. 

Data from Kaiparowits looks suspect. Maybe not.

By the way, the average state percentage of objective is up about 5% for the past 5 years.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

JHas said:


> By the way, the average state percentage of objective is up about 5% for the past 5 years.


Your data MUST be flawed, as we all know that the deer herd in Utah is in crisis mode, and we MUST act know by reducing buck permits (notice I did NOT say buck harvest....) right now! |-O-|


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, the average state percentage of objective is up about 5% for the past 5 years.
> ...


Could I assume that these numbers are the same numbers that were used to tell us the sky is falling? Or do they have their own stash of numbers?

Maybe we should reduce the number of bucks on the Bookcliffs so the herd will trend upwards again. This unit is holding our averages down.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

-_O-


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Now I understand why the bountifull urban population is so high. The bucks all moved to a place where they could get more pansies and tulips.

PS: Bountiful is pushing our averages up.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I discount herd objectives as acceptable goals and believe for the most part current objective numbers are far below capacities. If the herd objectives were in line with range capacities. The DWR would look like total failures. 

I have learned to not get into herd estimation debates. Because I haven't the resources to come up with a valid estimate of my own. One thing I am confident in arguing is relativity. And if the Monroe is currently 95% of objective. (7500 deer) Then there must have been more than 50,000 deer there at one time. (60s 70s) And 30,000 up until the early 90s. Ironically as the DWR claims the Monroe to be near objective. 9 out of 10 hunters there will tell you they are dissatisfied with the deer herd there and things could and should be better. I consistently say the deer herd there is in big trouble and get little objection to my claim on that unit.

What does anyone make of the units that are over objective? Pine Valley Zion Panguitch Pauns East Caynon. What are the buck/doe ratio's there? Major habitat restoration? Has mother nature taken pity on these units with wet summers and dry winters? No cars and ATV's? Less homes being built? Shed hunters? Many like to point out Book Cliffs and Thousand lakes as units below objective to back up there arguments against raising buck/doe ratio's. The Henry's has made a dramatic increase in herd size despite some of the worst and limited summer range in the state. 

Now is where I get into full character. :roll: All the units Jhas posted that are above objective have had a relatively high cougar tag allocation. To bolster my assessment the Henry's unit also had a relatively high allocation. And after 3 yrs of heavy cougar hunting on that unit the herd seen its dramatic increase. Now the allocation has been lowered we are seeing a stagnation in numbers.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I discount herd objectives as acceptable goals and believe for the most part current objective numbers are far below capacities. If the herd objectives were in line with range capacities. The DWR would look like total failures.


What DO you view as acceptable goals?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I discount herd objectives as acceptable goals and believe for the most part current objective numbers are far below capacities. If the herd objectives were in line with range capacities. The DWR would look like total failures.
> 
> I have learned to not get into herd estimation debates. Because I haven't the resources to come up with a valid estimate of my own. One thing I am confident in arguing is relativity. And if the Monroe is currently 95% of objective. (7500 deer) Then there must have been more than 50,000 deer there at one time. (60s 70s) And 30,000 up until the early 90s. Ironically as the DWR claims the Monroe to be near objective. 9 out of 10 hunters there will tell you they are dissatisfied with the deer herd there and things could and should be better. I consistently say the deer herd there is in big trouble and get little objection to my claim on that unit.
> 
> ...


If we are speculating based on personal experience and opinion, I think objectives are too high and that the unnatural means by which we elevate herd numbers (Predator control, guzzlers etc.) in time are destined to spit back in our faces. We can only manipulate nature so much. We have way less control than most are comfortable admitting.

Is capacity simply available habitat and forage? Water in that equation? How about weather? Does weather dictate capacity? When biologists say we are AT capacity, I think they may be saying a different thing than you. We have exactly as many deer as we are able to have in this moment..... otherwise we'd have more.

Now, would favorable winters, good precipitation etc. raise capacity? Sure, Probably to whatever number of animals we had at that particular moment after those scenarios.

At what point do we just accept nature and let her do her thing and do our thing accordingly? How much are we willing to manipulate things? At what cost? Welcome to Utah greatest snow..... errrr.... greatest game farm on earth.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> If we are speculating based on personal experience and opinion, I think objectives are too high and that the unnatural means by which we elevate herd numbers (Predator control, guzzlers etc.) in time are destined to spit back in our faces. We can only manipulate nature so much. We have way less control than most are comfortable admitting.
> 
> Is capacity simply available habitat and forage? Water in that equation? How about weather? Does weather dictate capacity? When biologists say we are AT capacity, I think they may be saying a different thing than you. We have exactly as many deer as we are able to have in this moment..... otherwise we'd have more.
> 
> ...


I think you make a good point by asking what capacity is. However I have to disagree a bit with your statements. I think you are right that we have the deer we are able to have or we would have more. However, I do not believe that this is because nature has done it's thing.

I believe we have influenced nature a lot by affecting and damaging the available habitat that deer and other wildlife need. When you ask how much we are willing to manipulate and at what cost you have to consider that we already manipulate the environment and have a ton of "unintended (or intended) consequences".

We suppress wildfires and allow the vegetation to reach maturity and become less nutritional. We encroach on the habitat by developing massive "RANCH" communities. We have areas where we build roads galore, there is pressure on wildlife year round by outdoor activities like snow mobiling, snow shoeing, hiking, shed hunting, etc. All of these factor into manipulation of the environment/habitat. We cannot sit back and think that by letting nature take it's course we are correcting things. The more habitat we take away from wildlife the less we can expect it to grow.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

What facinates me about these numbers is not so much the numbers themselves but how they were/weren't used. It would seem obvious that these numbers would have somehthing to do with any science based decisions. Whether you agree or disagree with these numbers, they are the numbers.

What scientific data did the WB use to determine their 30 unit decision and the 13K tag decrease? Does anyone know without speculating?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Dificult to do without speculating but think they used the numbers that the INFLUENCE MONGERS paid them to use.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

JHas said:


> What DO you view as acceptable goals?


Range capacity.



Treehugnhuntr said:


> If we are speculating based on personal experience and opinion, I think objectives are too high and that the unnatural means by which we elevate herd numbers (Predator control, guzzlers etc.) in time are destined to spit back in our faces. We can only manipulate nature so much. We have way less control than most are comfortable admitting.
> 
> Is capacity simply available habitat and forage? Water in that equation? How about weather? Does weather dictate capacity? When biologists say we are AT capacity, I think they may be saying a different thing than you. We have exactly as many deer as we are able to have in this moment..... otherwise we'd have more.
> 
> ...




So do you account for units over objective and that have seen an increase in deer numbers a product of favorable winters? Panguitch Pauns have had favorable winters but 20 miles away the boulders have been hammered by mother nature?

"Nature". I guess it boils down to what is the objective. If the objective is to let nature do her thing then we should eliminate hunting all together. I assure you if we stop hunting nature will take care of the deer without our input. Then comes the question. Are humans a part of nature? I happen to think we are. I don't pay hunting fees just for the sake of state employment. I pay hunting fees because I expect the DWR to facilitate quality hunting prospects. And if deer hunters are the main revenue source for big game I expect them to do everything in their power to advocate for them. Now if our goal is to have an ecosystem that resembles pre settlement. Then we should do away with hunting and let the Native Americans and natural predators have the bounty as they have had for eons. Or at least limit hunter harvest to resemble the effect Native Americans had prior to settlement. I don't advocate that but that seems to be what would be right if the goal was to emulate nature.

Wouldn't one who advocates what mother nature would have also have to advocate for a 40/100 buck doe ratio? Thats where she likes it.

The notion of nature is a pipe dream at best. Reserved for places like Yellowstone. Where hunting and grazing and public development are restricted. I just don't see where we can have our cake and eat it too when it comes to letting mother nature have her way and ample hunting for the masses. I have lost faith we will ever take control of things like predation ect to have the deer herds of days gone by. I see tag reductions hunter restrictions ect as our future. One reason I don't worry about hunter retention or recruitment. If we are moving toward a more natural state of things hunter populations over 100,000 are simply unsustainable.

Don't get me wrong if I had my way I would have the deer herd well over 500,000 statewide and sell unlimited tags OTC and give us back our 3 seasons. But the mentality of "its out of our hands" and the attraction toward emulating nature is just too strong and prevalent. Never the less I will go down kicking and screaming.

One last thing. The idea of letting mother nature have her way and every species has a right to thrive has and will do more for the elimination of hunting than any anti hunter could ever accomplish.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: I cant stop. I don't profess to know more than the DWR or its biologist. But I do believe I know more than what they tell us.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I was throwing out an ideal. I understand it is far more complex than just letting things roll, especially with humans meddling as they have. 

Bottom line, humans caused a boom in deer numbers by poisoning predators, running livestock and to some degree, stints of favorable weather patterns. Deer are very likely returning to historical numbers. So as has been asked, what are the buck tag numbers based on? Who is to say 2000 tags statewide is too much? Who is to say 300k is too much? Who is to say 15/100 buck to doe ratio is too little or too much? Who is to say 1/1 isn't healthy?

If there are no answers to my previous questions, then why do we make changes in these numbers? We know the net result of killing less bucks will be more bucks, at least if the variables stay the same. Do we know what the result of this is, besides all of the monetary and political jargon?

A lot of it is based on nothing, we don't have all of the facts regarding mule deer. They are understudied. They are very complex in relation to other ungulates. Why do we continue to reinvent a wheel we haven't figured out how to build yet?

How about somebody invents the wheel and then we can see what we can make roll?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Your point is well taken Tye.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Bottom line, humans caused a boom in deer numbers by poisoning predators, running livestock and to some degree, stints of favorable weather patterns. Deer are very likely returning to historical numbers.





Treehugnhuntr said:


> A lot of it is based on nothing, we don't have all of the facts regarding mule deer. They are understudied. They are very complex in relation to other ungulates. Why do we continue to reinvent a wheel we haven't figured out how to build yet?How about somebody invents the wheel and then we can see what we can make roll?


There you go changing my thought patterns again... I may have to stand in the shame isle with PRO as I might be on the verge of evolving a previously held belief. Oh the pain...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

JHas said:


> There you go changing my thought patterns again... I may have to stand in the shame isle with PRO as I might be on the verge of evolving a previously held belief. Oh the pain...


 :O--O:


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I've been waiting patiently for goofy, muley73, ntrl_brn_rebel and the opinions of those who like the new system we are going to next year.

What do you guys conclude from these numbers? 

No sarcasm here, just really want to hear your opinion...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Sorry, been out turkey hunting, bear hunting, running dogs..........
Holly chit, CC's gett'in hits,,,,,,,,still haven't figure out who's got what?

Anyway, I've studied these numbers just a bit, here's my thoughts.
While YES, there are many deer herds on some unit doing VERY WELL...
And some general deer herds doing almost exceptional well, at the same time,
WITHIN the same regional boundaries, there are deer units struggling.....

Here are a few examples:
South eastern region
La Sal mountain, objective is 18,100.
Post 2009 count was 7,800.
Post 2010 count was 6,600.
Top that off with low fawn survival rates and low buck to doe ratios..

Were on the other hand , Manti , central mountain is doing ok.
Manti central mountains, objective is 38,000.
post 2009 count was 20,900.
Post 2010 count was 19,900.
over all numbers still dropped but much better fawn survival and buck to doe ratios.

Central region
West desert, objective is 11,200.
Post 2009 count was 8,100.
post 2010 count was 8,800.....Slight increase.

Dimiond fork, Heber, Timp, objective 20,600.
Post 2009 count was 16,500.
Post 2010 count was 18,000....Much better increase..

Southern region
Plateau, Boulder, objective is 25,000.
Post 2009 count was 15,500.
Post 2010 count was 12,500.......,,,,,Needs help.

Just west, Beaver , objective is 12,000.
Post 2009 count was 11,000.
Post 2010 count was 10,900. Much , Much better,,,,SAME REGION.

I could go on with examples of deer units within regions were some are doing
well and some are not.............
Pretty simple to me, this is why we need option 2 type management...

And for the record , I'M DONE DEBATING THIS ISSUE....
Whats done is done, I honestly believe deer herd management that is coming
will stay in place for many years if not decades..............
And I'm GOOD with that.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goofy wrote:


> West desert, objective is 11,200.
> Post 2009 count was 8,100.
> post 2010 count was 8,800.....Slight increase.
> 
> ...


Now that is some funny stuff there. "Slight" compared to "Much better". GOOFY- they both increased at the same amount = approx 9% growth.

I also think that we will see micro-buck-management for some time. We will see micro units' herds go up and down, just like we do now on the current micro-units with regional-buck-management. We will see increases and decreases exactly like we see on the Book Cliffs- where that herd has fallen by 20% and the Henry Mtns- where that herd has fallen 20%. Then we can all see bucks should not be the main focus (important, but not primary) of herd growth. Nevada and Colorado have already discovered this fact.

Anyway, Goofy, I hope you drew your moose tag and shoot a monster. I hope your boy and wife drew so they can hunt together. Best of luck.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just west, Beaver , objective is 12,000.
> Post 2009 count was 11,000.
> Post 2010 count was *10,900*. Much , Much better,,,,SAME REGION.


100 fewer deer is


> Much , Much better,,,,SAME REGION.


 _(O)_ Huh????????

Fishrmn


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And for the record , I'M DONE DEBATING THIS ISSUE....


Thanks Goofy! Excellent job at making my point.

You option 2 guys are a consistant bunch aren't you...

I sent an email with 10 or so questions to just about everyone involved at the WB, DWR, gov's office etc...) concerning the option 2 decision. After ignoring me for 3 weeks Anis finally responded saying he will be answering my email soon (that was a week and a half ago). I'll post up his response when/if I get it.

Don't get too comfortable Goofy, I hear they are getting hammered down at the DWR because of their decision.

If you don't like option 2 you better take a minute to let them know. Make sure you CC the Gov's office.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Despite Keele Johnson's assertion that the WB can do whatever they like, there are certain laws that restrict their power. 5 year plans are required and amendment of 5 year plans are only allowed in the case of emergency. In the case of the mule deer plan, the WB has neither demonstrated nor documented any emergency. Therefore, alteration of the previously approved 5 year plan isn't legally valid.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Despite Keele Johnson's assertion that the WB can do whatever they like, there are certain laws that restrict their power. 5 year plans are required and amendment of 5 year plans are only allowed in the case of emergency. In the case of the mule deer plan, the WB has neither demonstrated nor documented any emergency. Therefore, alteration of the previously approved 5 year plan isn't legally valid.


So, are you saying there are legal options for us to pursue?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

It would seem so.

In addition, when the Board makes a decision contrary to RAC recommendations, it is required to file an explanation in writing. I suppose it requires a GRAMA to see that document.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Finnegan said:


> It would seem so.
> 
> In addition, when the Board makes a decision contrary to RAC recommendations, it is required to file an explanation in writing. I suppose it requires a GRAMA to see that document.


I would think so as well. Some interesting things in Title 23, see below:

Utah Code
Title 23 Wildlife Resources Code of Utah
Chapter 14 Division of Wildlife Resources and Wildlife Board
Section 3 Powers of division to determine facts -- Policy-making powers of Wildlife Board.

23-14-3. Powers of division to determine facts -- Policy-making powers of Wildlife Board.
(1) The Division of Wildlife Resources may determine the facts relevant to the wildlife resources of this state.
(2) (a) Upon a determination of these facts, the Wildlife Board shall establish the policies best designed to accomplish the purposes and fulfill the intent of all laws pertaining to wildlife and the preservation, protection, conservation, perpetuation, introduction, and management of wildlife.
(b) In establishing policy, the Wildlife Board shall:
(i) recognize that wildlife and its habitat are an essential part of a healthy, productive environment;
(ii) recognize the impact of wildlife on man, his economic activities, private property rights, and local economies;
(iii) seek to balance the habitat requirements of wildlife with the social and economic activities of man;
(iv) recognize the social and economic values of wildlife, including fishing, hunting, and other uses; and
(v) seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis.
(c) (i) The Wildlife Board shall consider the recommendations of the regional advisory councils established in Section 23-14-2.6.
(*ii) If a regional advisory council recommends a position or action to the Wildlife Board, and the Wildlife Board rejects the recommendation, the Wildlife Board shall provide a written explanation to the regional advisory council*.
*(3) No authority conferred upon the Wildlife Board by this title shall supersede the administrative authority of the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources or the director of the Division of Wildlife Resources.*

Seems the WB is NOT almighty in it's powers, but as of yet has not been challenged.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> In addition, when the Board makes a decision contrary to RAC recommendations, it is required to file an explanation in writing. I suppose it requires a GRAMA to see that document.


I did that already and here's their explanations:

"*Statewide Deer Management Plan Amendment:* *NRO and CRO voted for option #1 rest of the RACs voted for option #2. Board passed option #2 by a 4 to 2 vote.

Board Motion:* I move that the Wildlife Board pass Option 2 and establish a comprehensive mule deer management system that establishes individual herd assessment wherein the many diverse, unique and dynamic factors that affect the mule deer growth and sustainability will be identified and pro-active interventions will be implemented to assure long term health and viability of the geographic area where the herd members are born, live, and die, including their year round migration locations. The number of units shall be established, by the Wildlife Board, consistent with well-established and well-known herd units throughout the State.

*Reasoning:* A Board majority felt that the advantages stated in the DWR presentation under option #2 are very important in determining the reason our deer herd is in decline. The Board Motion adds to the amount of data Division biologists collect in the field. The Board has a deep concern for the current health of our deer herd, we are trying to get a handle on reasons for the decline as soon as we can, so we can work with the Division by giving them the tools to reverse this downward trend.

*Statewide Archery:* *SRO was the only RAC that voted to move Archery to unit by unit under Option #2. Board passed Unit by Unit Archery under option #2 by a 4 to 3 vote, with the Chair breaking the tie.

Board Motion:* I move that archery hunters choose a unit starting in 2012.

*Reasoning:* Under the DWR presentation archery hunting could go either statewide or unit by unit under option #2. If the Board let archery continue statewide hunting, this would contradict what the Board was trying to accomplish in addressing the plan amendment changes under Option #2."

Have at it, folks!


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Finnegan and others, If you are so sure that something illegal took place I say go after them. More power to you.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Now it's looking like we're grasping at straws. If I donate to the UWC, will my money go towards legal fees to over turn option 2? 
I think the numbers are flawed. It shows the Zion unit at over 100% but I know that unit is struggling bigtime. Just because a unit says it's close to objective doesn't mean all is good.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> It shows the Zion unit at over 100% but I know that unit is struggling bigtime. Just because a unit says it's close to objective doesn't mean all is good.


I cant confirm or dispute herd estimate numbers. But you bring a good point. The DWR claims the Monroe to be near objective. (7500) So either the DWR has set the bar very low or the numbers are not correct. Either way the Monroe is perceived as one of the most dismal deer units in the state. The DWR recognizes that with their 5 day riffle and 2 week archery hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nope,,,,,Monroe's objective is 7,500......

But post season 2010 counts were 4,800 deer.......

Here's some of the other post counts that show struggling units,,

Cache, objective 25,000........Post season 2010 count was 16,500.
Nine mile, objective 8,500....post season 2010 count was 4,600.
La Sal , objective 18,100.......post season 2010 count was 6,600.
San Juan , objective 25,500....Post season 2010 count was 12,900. This is general and limited combined.
Central mountains Manti, objective 38,000....post season 2010 count was 19,000.
Central mountains Nebo, objective 22,600.....post season 2010 count was 11,800.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Now it's looking like we're grasping at straws. If I donate to the UWC, will my money go towards legal fees to over turn option 2?


I wouldn't donate the lint from my pocket to an organization that would be so stupid as to go to court. The only winners would be the lawyers.

That said, there's nothing wrong with holding the government's feet to the fire.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Nope,,,,,Monroe's objective is 7,500......
> 
> But post season 2010 counts were 4,800 deer.......
> 
> ...


Goofy, post up the rest of the 2010 numbers. You're being selective on your data...

My list doesn't contain 2010 data. I will update the thread tomorrow.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

2011 DEER SUMMARY Updated 4/5/2011
Population Estimate
Objective,, post-2010 counts
Box Elder 20,000 17,100
Cache 25,000 16,500 
Ogden 11,000 9,150 
Morgan, So. Rich 12,000 9,900 
East Canyon 7,000 9,100 
Chalk Creek 10,500 8,500 
Kamas 8,000 5,950 
North Slope 6,200 6,200 
S. Slope, Yellowstone 13,000 10,000 
S. Slope, Vernal/Diamond 13,000 12,000 
Book Cliffs 15,000 7,000 
Nine Mile 8,500 4,600 
San Rafael 1,000 No Data
La Sal 18,100 6,600 
San Juan 20,500 12,900 
Henry Mountains 2,000 1,200 
Central Mtns., Manti 38,000 19,900 
Central Mtns., Nebo 22,600 11,800 
D Fork, Heber, Timp 20,600 18,000
Wasatch Mtns, Currant Cr. 15,000 10,000
Wasatch Mtns,Avintaquin 3,200 1,700 
Wasatch Mtns, Salt Lake 2,000 1,800 
Oquirrh/Stansbury 10,600 8,700 
West Desert 11,200 8,800 
Southwest Desert 3,200 1,400
Fillmore 12,000 9,000 
Beaver 11,000 10,900 
Monroe 7,500 4,800 
Mt. Dutton 2,700 1,800 
Plateau 25,000 12,500 
Kaiparowits 1,000 400
Paunsaugunt 5,200 4,900 
Panguitch Lake 8,500 8,100 
Zion 9,000 9,900 
Pine Valley 12,800 12,600

While there were 15 units that increased from 2009 to 2010, there were
18 units that had decreased herd size...........2 units remained the same.

From 2009 to 2010The deer herd numbers are clearly showing 90%+ under objective.
15 units increasing.
18 units decreasing 
2 units stable
1 no data....

More clear evidence why units need to be managed individually...

Here's the link to the deer/elk herd numbers, plus antlerless permits for 2011.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -04-04.pdf


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Box Elder	57.50%	67.00%	67.00%	71.50%	80.50%	85.50%
Cache	56.00%	58.00%	63.20%	54.80%	60.20%	66.00%
Ogden	54.55%	59.09%	68.18%	50.00%	62.73%	83.18%
Mrgan/SR	83.33%	80.00%	79.17%	50.83%	66.67%	82.50%
ECanyon	107.14%	100.00%	97.14%	88.57%	121.43%	130.00%
ChalkCk	90.48%	100.00%	84.76%	71.43%	77.14%	80.95%
Kamas	93.75%	93.75%	85.00%	78.75%	80.00%	74.38%
NSlope	79.03%	80.65%	82.26%	77.42%	95.97%	100.00%
SSlpYello	83.85%	86.15%	88.46%	71.54%	79.23%	76.92%
SSlopeVer79.23%	77.69%	79.23%	86.92%	101.54%	92.31%
BookCliffs	64.67%	48.00%	49.00%	55.33%	53.67%	46.67%
NineMile	34.71%	34.71%	48.82%	44.71%	57.65%	54.12%
SanRafal 0.00%
LaSal	53.18%	59.94%	61.33%	40.88%	43.09%	36.46%
SanJuan	61.71%	66.83%	75.12%	62.44%	80.00%	62.93%
HenryMtn	48.75%	45.00%	54.00%	75.00%	70.00%	60.00%
CMtnMnti	86.05%	70.00%	64.21%	52.11%	55.00%	52.37%
CMtnNbo	75.55%	95.48%	48.23%	48.67%	50.88%	52.21%
Was/DM 83.98%	111.67%	92.72%	72.82%	80.10% 87.38%
WasCrCk	70.67%	75.33%	71.33%	54.00%	63.33%	66.67%
Was/Avin	50.00%	53.13%	51.56%	53.13%	53.13%	53.13%
Was/SL	112.50%	140.65%	82.50%	70.00%	82.50%	90.00%
Oq-Stans	96.70%	118.12%	81.60%	84.91%	75.47%	82.08%
WDesert	62.50%	74.19%	68.75%	71.43%	72.32%	78.57%
SWDsert	39.06%	43.75%	45.31%	50.00%	50.00%	43.75%
Fillmore	65.00%	66.67%	77.50%	83.33%	79.17%	75.00%
Beaver	63.64%	81.82%	92.73%	72.73%	100.00%	99.09%
Monroe	87.33%	93.33%	100.00%	89.33%	94.67%	64.00%
MtDutton	62.96%	74.07%	85.19%	92.59%	88.89%	66.67%
Plateau	61.60%	68.00%	63.20%	48.00%	62.00%	50.00%
Kprowits	40.00%	40.00%	40.00%	100.00%	40.00%	40.00%
Pauns	98.08%	125.00%	126.92%	115.38%	111.54%	94.23%
Panguitch84.12%	105.00%	102.35%	117.65%	123.53%	95.29%
Zion	73.33%	77.78%	81.67%	105.56%	106.67%	110.00%
PineVlley	91.41%	97.66%	104.69%	104.69%	104.69%	98.44%

Population estimates with 2010 included as percent of objective.


----------



## highuinta (Nov 9, 2008)

1 Question, where do the objective numbers come from, and have (how often) they ever been changed?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Now it's looking like we're grasping at straws. If I donate to the UWC, will my money go towards legal fees to over turn option 2?
> ...


Me neither.......


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

highuinta said:


> 1 Question, where do the objective numbers come from, and have (how often) they ever been changed?


Great question. Objectives can come from committees, the division, or other sources. The objectives are usually a mix of biological and social factors decided upon usually by a mix of biologists, forest service reps, and interest groups such as the cattlemens association and others.

IMO we should NOT be measuring herd health based on their poplulation numbers compared to objective. Failing to be at objective could mean many things. It could mean that the number is unrealistic based on recent changes on winter and/or summer ranges. It could mean there is a biological problem but they are not the same as carrying capacity.

Objectives represent our "perfect" humber based on all interests. They don't necessarily mean that the range should sustain that many animals. In fact in some cases we know that we will have to do some extensive habitat projects if we ever hope to make the objective. To use the objectives as evidence of "poor management" or even a "problem" means one either misunderstands them or is simply putting out a strawman.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> To use the objectives as evidence of "poor management" or even a "problem" means one either misunderstands them or is simply putting out a strawman.


So the objectives along with the herd count/estimates are not indicitive of a healthy/problem herd?

If thats the case, how do we really know the conditions of our herds? After all, this is the only data we currently have on our units, right? There has to be something we use as a measuring device to tell us that we may have a potential problem and that is what I am trying to get at with this thread. Somebody has told us our herds are in trouble; precisely how would somebody prove/disprove this using current information?

Do we have carrying capacity only numbers that take into account habitat issues, biological factors etc...?

How could you prove to a potential UWC member that our herds are/are not in trouble? To be honest, I've become a bit agnostic on this issue so I am all ears.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

:shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JHas said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > To use the objectives as evidence of "poor management" or even a "problem" means one either misunderstands them or is simply putting out a strawman.
> ...


IMO the only real way to say that a herd is or is not healthy is to find a way to measure carrying capacity and then to measure against that number. That becomes difficult though because carrying capacity is a fluid number that is dependant on precipitation, age of the plants on a given range, number of predators, disease, and there are unknowns such as how to elk effect carrying capacity and so on. Lots of room for studies there however I would think though that we could come up with an average or range to work from.

Obviously we know that the carrying capacity for the Wasatch West unit for example is more than 1 and less than 1 million so there must be some a number or range of numbers that we could use for carrying capacity and we probably know enough the get a farily decent measurement if we try. And as time goes on no doubt we would get better at it. The trick is to get the WB to instruct the DWR to measure carrying capacity.

Are herds in trouble? I think that is a very relative term in this case. It depends on your interpretation of the term. The facts are that numbers are certainly down in some units especially in the south but all indications seem to say the biggest drivers for those declines were isolated events i.e. bad winters. I tend to believe they will recover based on history. If your definition of "trouble" is that population numbers are steadily declining with no end in sight I think it's not a stretch to say deer herds are not in trouble statewide looking at population trends over the last 10 years. If your definition of "trouble" are less big bucks then in some areas that certainly may be true or it could be our growing desire as a hunting community to kill big bucks simply is skewing our view of what we are really seeing now compared to recent history.

I will say I am all for doing everything we can to increase herd numbers. That seems to be the long term solution to satisfy hunter desires, but not necessarily to ensure deer herds are healthy. There are serious issues like habitat, vehicle mortality, and poaching to name a few that need to be addressed to accomplish that goal. Again just my humble opinion.


----------

