# LAST DAY TO SCORE A BUCKY ON THE FRONT!



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

So how many of you are out today trying to fill a buck tag on the last day?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

What, noone wants to share?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

anyone?


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I guess noone else is here cause THEY'RE ALL OUT HUNTING!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Good luck today boyz!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Went out for a couple hours this morning. Saw 3 bucks and 10 doe plus a handful of moose. The largest buck was a little too far away to make a stalk in the time I had. Passed a yearling and spent 15 minutes within 40-70 yards of a 3x4 which just wouldn't give me a shot I wanted to take. Fun hunt and the weather was great for hiking, but hard for hunting.... It was a good year on the Front.


----------



## Wasatch (Nov 22, 2009)

Hunting the front isn't quite over yet! Anyone brave enough to admit that since you didn't get that big buck, you will now go after a doe during the next 2 weeks?


----------



## waspocrew (Nov 26, 2011)

I hope somebody has some luck today!


----------



## lunkerjunker (Aug 8, 2011)

> Hunting the front isn't quite over yet! Anyone brave enough to admit that since you didn't get that big buck, you will now go after a doe during the next 2 weeks?


I'll admit that, and any elk I might happen to see. The freezer needs filling and I've had my fill of soup. But the way things have gone for me this year I'm not holding my breath. But it's funny how I'm always so confident when I walk out the door!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

My buddy I am spotting for just missed a nice 4 at 30 yards. Release got caught on his coat sleeve.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Don't go out and shoot a doe. The front does not need that kind of pressure right now. The last couple of winters have severely decreased the deer population on the front. Let them live shoot an elk instead if you give a rip about the front. The last thing we need right now is sfws help on cutting tags. You know dang well the division wont shut the doe hunt down until its too late.


----------



## utbowhntr (Sep 11, 2007)

I'll be heading out this weekend up above Bountiful. I have no qualms about taking a doe. need to feel my freezer and with the way things have been this year I don't have any problems at all shooting a doe.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Don't go out and shoot a doe. The front does not need that kind of pressure right now. The last couple of winters have severely decreased the deer population on the front. Let them live shoot an elk instead if you give a rip about the front. The last thing we need right now is sfws help on cutting tags. You know dang well the division wont shut the doe hunt down until its too late.


I disagree. The whole point of the extended is to kill deer and minimize deer/human impact. I also disagree that the front has been hammered, at least in my neck of the woods. I've been staring at a ton of deer every day, bucks and does, for the last 2 months. Relative to the previous 10 years, it looks to be on par, especially the fawn to doe ratios. Again, this is just on one mountainside that I have been observing.

The extended is and has been sold as a management hunt. It's considered by some to be a trophy hunt, due to the limited access and it being archery only, yielding high buck to doe ratios and older age class bucks, but that's not by design. Besides, I don't think people hunting does is going to impact much. It is archery, a low success hunt, correct?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Tree I love ya and all but I gota disagree with you on this one. I have hunted the front for over 10 years also. I've taken 7 four point bucks off of it. The last three years I've hunted it almost 2 days a week the entire hunt. I also shed hunt it and start videoing in june. So year round when im in town im on the hill some where at least one two days a week. Now im not a guy that has honey holes. I hit pretty much every trail up there every year. I can honestly say the deer numbers are half or even worse then they we're three years ago. Im not just talking buck numbers here either. 3 to 5 years ago you could see 20 bucks in any canyon on the hill. You could also see just as many does. Now days it can be hard to find 5 does and three bucks in any canyon. Sure there are pockets that are better then others but to say the numbers aren't lower would be only hurting yourself in the future. Just mho.

Three years ago I would have told anyone to shoot a doe. Lately I've personally seen guys shoot wound and loose a doe. Then go back out and do it again. I am totally in agreement when deer numbers are over objective shoot some does. Have some fun. The front is not over objective anymore imho.

The last thing I want to see is it being rescued by sfw.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

The front gets too hammered by archers from accross the state. I was wondering why they don't go statewide archery into the late seasons. I do believe however that the hunt should close down between November 15th to November 30th and then open again until December 15th. Not closing it down so much because hunters kill more deer then but because the deer need a chance to breed and let the big boys do the breeding instead of being run off the does by hunters every day. I do realize that many more areas will be hit in the late season by archers who don't make the effort to travel to the front but I still believe that it will lessen the pressure that is placed on the few extended areas that get slammed.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

I would like people named Scott to quit suggesting that my opportunities be taken away.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

me too IWAB ... Hi Scott


----------



## wfm (Feb 17, 2008)

I think its great you are an avid Trophy hunter Scott, I love chasing these big Wasatch bucks to, in fact I used some of your photos in my calendar! In 1993 they started this late season opportunity for Utah archers and I have chased them every year and nailed a few good ones as well...However, I think its great some guys are in it for the meat, which thats what hunting was originated for! Nothing pisses me off more than people just killing for the head and letting the meat go to heck or pawing it off on someone else. Unfortunately this hunt will change in some way sooner or later nothing last forever! This hunt was initially intended for managing the deer and I think we are doing a great job!


----------



## PaleHorse1 (Jul 11, 2011)

wfm, pm sent


----------



## walkalot (Oct 11, 2011)

I was out the last day for bucks, chasing elk but would have shot a decent buck if I had the chance....3 different does snorting at me on my way in, never saw a buck....5 bulls and 3 cows but couldn't get inside of 100 yards.

Im not afraid to say I will shoot a doe to have meat in the freezer, but only if she isn't too far in...I'm after elk so I dont want to spend all day packing out a doe several miles. I actually almost did that a few days ago, glad I decided not to shoot though, wouldn't have got her back to the truck until midnight.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dustin and others.

Im not an avid trophy hunter. Its not like that at all. Id take a doe with out batting an eye 3 or 4 years ago if I didn't take a buck when the deer numbers were high. 

I just can't believe you guys haven't noticed the deer numbers have been cut in half from about 2 years ago.

I just don't want to see this downward trend continue. I want to slow the bleeding so to speak


----------



## wfm (Feb 17, 2008)

Deer numbers in general are decreasing and Im not sure the reason. The first year I hunted the extended in 1993 you could go above the gun glub and see 20 bucks or more and ten of those being shooters! Ten years ago I could go to Kamas where I hunt and shoot a decent buck off a 4wheeler, not today! I still beleive the reason this hunt was allowed was managing the heard which I beleive we are doing by taking more deer and that was the objective of this hunt so killing more does and bucks is what we must do! I agree with opening more areas like this!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

At what point does a person say we managed the deer alright. We managed to kill everyone of them. You can't possibly think the reason there aren't tons of deer above the gun club now is because we have been killing the does for 10+ years now?

I honestly can't believe how many does I have seen or heard being killed by bow hunters the last three years. The worst is when someone tells me they passed a two point and shot a doe. The two point will live maybe one more year and the doe could have lived 5 or 6 more years and had 10 fawns five of which could have been does and would also be reproducing in the same 5 years. This could end up being 15 or more deer from that one doe in 5 years. 
With winters killing over 30% of the fawns every year on a good year. Then throw in coyote predation, vehicle collisions, and lions. The last thing we need is bow hunters shooting does. 

Sorry for sounding like a dink but I remember when you could hunt rabbits all day long and shoot 100s of them. It was fun but that didn't make it right. In the end its impossible to find rabbits in my hunting areas now days.


----------



## walkalot (Oct 11, 2011)

i don't know what it used to be like, this is only my second year hunting in utah, but speaking of rabits...saw my first one around 8000ft the other day, pretty cool but the little sucker ran away before i could get a picture of him on the snow


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

can't make more deer without does and at least one buck. its the same argument that most people make on this forum. bucks don't have fawns. if you want more deer make sure more fawns and does survive. If we don't there will not be hunting as we know it now, do it for our kids


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

One of the major problems statewide is too many does being killed. With too much opportunity being offered statewide, aka doe hunts, its costing us all in the long run.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Huh? Statewide? Doe hunts are rare and pretty much exclusively relegated to depredation and situations similar to the front.

If the numbers are dwindling on the front, it means the divisions plan is working and they are getting closer to their objective. Bottom line, the division wants LESS deer on the wasatch front. This is the ONLY reason they allow doe harvest. It's not about opportunity to kill a doe, it's about reducing the population.

Landowners receive doe vouchers why? To REDUCE populations and damage to their specific areas. Believe it or not, though we may be under objective statewide and in most units, there are are concentrated areas of deer that are over-populated. An example is a piece of property that I coordinated for BOU with the division last year on the Cache. The cache has been under objective for quite awhile (As a whole), but, the area that the tags were issued was crawling with deer. They were everywhere, like mice in a grain silo. In one night on a 40 acre parcel, we physically counted more than 180 deer, mostly does, many that had swaths of hay hanging from their mouths. We own these animals and when they are causing damage to private property, it cost US money, in many ways.

I'm not looking into getting into a debate over landowners damages and responsibility of the division or relocation and so on. My point is that there are a handful of areas that like it or not, humans and their wants and needs take priority over hunters. The division must abide by these wishes and often times are leveraged by money and social pressure.

Want no does killed on the front? Lobby for it, but be careful, because half of the justification for the extended hunt is predicated on a need for pressure on deer and ultimately a reduction in numbers all to minimize human interaction, such as car/deer collisions and other damages caused by deer due to high densities of people.

Am I missing something?

PS, I pretty much only hunt deer in Utah in November, on the front.


----------



## wfm (Feb 17, 2008)

I was trying to word just that but came out a little off, but yes, you are correct!!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

idiot with a bow said:


> I would like people named Scott to quit suggesting that my opportunities be taken away.


How is opening the entire state up to becoming an extended area taking opportunity away? I simply felt that the front is getting hit too hard with too many hunters and making the entire state the same as the portion of the front that is I-80 north, which means open for rifle and then extended to archery. I just think that people who live in Spanish Fork would hunt nearer to Spanish Fork if it was open to them instead of adding to the confusion on the front. More open area means "MORE OPPORTUNITY". I am confused. The only thing that I was desiring to take away was the two weeks during the peak of the rut but adding the two weeks back into December.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

The doe hunts on the Parowan Front are for both depredation and to save the available winter range. I-15 and heavy development cut them off from their traditional winter range (Cedar and Parowan Velleys) and they are staying east of the freeway where they fed in the fields in private land and in the narrow sagebrush flats and foothills of BLM land. There just isn't enough left to fed them all and they are destroying it. If they weren't thinned out, many more would die of starvation than were shot. And the problem would continue to get worse.

The doe hunt in Enterprise is mainly for depredation and nuisance. The herd lives there all year round and feed in the fields off Main Street and the lawns, flower beds and gardens all over town and are on the streets a lot. There are even a few signs on Main Street on the outskirts of town warning against poaching 'cause there are enough tempting big bucks to cause problems. They don't want to wipe out the herd, just control it.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

If I recall, there was a statement in the last DWR recommendations that the Wasatch extended hunt is no longer a depredation hunt. I understood that statement to mean that it has been proven to be an effective means of chasing the deer out of the area and therefore justified the new expanded borders.

This hunt isn't about killing deer as much as it's about chasing them away. Resident deer will likely come right back, but not all the deer on the extended are resident. Continually chase them for 3 months and the resident deer head for private lands where they aren't pestered. The others head back up the mountain and over the border. If this is true, killing a (very) few does doesn't really matter except to possibly keep hunters interested.

I'm also wondering if there isn't some self-regulation going on here in the sense that as available deer numbers decrease, hunter participation decreases. In time, with reduced pressure, deer numbers will return. Just a hypothesis.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I'm also wondering if there isn't some self-regulation going on here in the sense that as available deer numbers decrease, hunter participation decreases. In time, with reduced pressure, deer numbers will return. Just a hypothesis.


So tag cuts may just work.  
If you give a kid a chance at eating just one cookie out of a cookie jar once a day or take what ever they want in hopes of having mom or dad refill it sometime soon. Most will have the jar emptied in a few hours. Many adults are the same, they are willing to try and kill every available buck or doe if given the chance. Then hope there will be something for the future.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

GEEZ Guys!!! I wanted a fun thread to post pictures of bucks that'd been hunted or taken before the horn hunt ended, not a debate about "who killed who" (Monty Python n the Holy Grail)... let's get back to having FUN!!


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Huh? Statewide?* Doe hunts are rare and pretty much exclusively relegated to depredation and situations similar to the front*.
> 
> If the numbers are dwindling on the front, it means the divisions plan is working and they are getting closer to their objective. Bottom line, the division wants LESS deer on the wasatch front. This is the ONLY reason they allow doe harvest. It's not about opportunity to kill a doe, it's about reducing the population.
> 
> ...


I know theThree Corners area had 100 tags last year and has been struggling for a few years. I'm not a biologist, an hunting forum expert, hunting guide, profesional bowhunter, etc. and don't pretend to be but IMO 2000 doe tags statewide is too many with the way the herds have been. Fact is bucks dont have fawns and shooting does to bring up the buck:doe ratio doesn't help.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

So, here's an issue I see. People often use the "our herds" to reference deer in our state, like it's one contiguous herd that is either being taken from or replenished. We don't have one big deer herd, we have hundreds of herds, some of which are over objective and some of which aren't compatible with human desires. Hunters aren't the only ones with their hands in the cookie jar.

Could the three corners area, after the migration be over-populated? Could the number of deer that winter in that area be too great for the available forage? I don't know the specifics on this unit, but I guarantee you that the division isn't looking for ways to hand out doe tags. They have spent a lot of time and resources trying to educate the public about the facts and myths regarding deer, as well as focusing on ways to increase the overall deer population. Indiscriminately handing out doe tags would be counter productive.

Take elk for example. There was outrage at the division's proposal to hand out more cow and bull tags on the wasatch. In the public eye, this all got chalked up to the division wanting revenue from tags. This assumption is nonsensical at best. The fact is that there are agreements in place between the forest service, stockmen and other interests dictating the elk population on given units. So, if there are units that are over objective, they HAVE to reduce the population. To the druthers of the division? NO. But they sure as hell get blamed for it.

How about deer? Well, we have traditions based in agriculture in our state. There is huge conflict between farmers that raise food for money and deer that eat their food. Solution? Do we pony up for the damages caused by our animals, or do we hand vouchers, at no cost to us, to the farmers in exchange for them letting our deer eat their product?

If a farmer has 300 deer on 160 acres of alfalfa, is it fair that we let him kill a half dozen does in exchange for feeding our deer for the winter? I say yes. Could it be something other than does? I say yes as well, which is why I have recommended to the board and division looking at giving out buck tags in lieu of doe tags. We could give out a fraction of the tags and offset the same cost.

The other option is relocation, but again, there are many negative factors, fiscally and biologically.

I've seen it first hand and was appalled that we were issuing doe tags. But after visiting a few of these places where farmers were literally being eaten out of house and home, I can at least understand the dilemma. Would I rather see no does killed? Definitely. Do I understand the need in some circumstances, especially in areas such as the extended where they simply want LESS deer? Absolutely.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

And FWIW, does are NEVER killed just to bring up the buck to doe ratio. That may be the result, but it's never the objective.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

That part was a joke, just forgot the sarcastic smiley.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The sad thing is that I have actually heard many people elude to it being the case. With elk sadly it does happen, but it's because no one will let go of their dream of a 400" bull. Not because the division thinks it's a good way to manage elk.

Nonsense is what it's referred to out of the Utah entitlement circle........


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> If you give a kid a chance at eating just one cookie out of a cookie jar once a day or take what ever they want in hopes of having mom or dad refill it sometime soon. Most will have the jar emptied in a few hours. Many adults are the same, they are willing to try and kill every available buck or doe if given the chance. Then hope there will be something for the future.


Huh???? Deer are like cookies? If you say so, but they sure don't run very fast.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > If you give a kid a chance at eating just one cookie out of a cookie jar once a day or take what ever they want in hopes of having mom or dad refill it sometime soon. Most will have the jar emptied in a few hours. Many adults are the same, they are willing to try and kill every available buck or doe if given the chance. Then hope there will be something for the future.
> ...


I think your loosing it buddy.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

In keeping with the current trend I'd say he scores about 9 3/8". His right side is a little weak! But he'll be good tasting!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Finnegan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also wondering if there isn't some self-regulation going on here in the sense that as available deer numbers decrease, hunter participation decreases. In time, with reduced pressure, deer numbers will return. Just a hypothesis.
> ...


It depends on what you means? I think that based on Finn's hypothesis he's saying a redistribution of hunters can redistribute deer, NOT grow more of them. Big difference. at least I think that's what you were getting at.


----------

