# State's trophy response



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I recently wrote a letter to the Governor basically indicating that I think the big game management in Utah is no longer being managed for the general public. I'm concerned that trophy hunting groups are successfully getting their special interest agenda pushed throught at the expense of general hunters. I sent this to the Governor as I think SFW runs policy now, not the state, and certainly not general deer hunters. (I never mentioned SFW.)

The Governor's office referred my letter to the DWR - sigh! Here is the DWR's response.

_"I am replying to a letter that you sent Governor Herbert. The DWR manages the wildlife resources of Utah for the people. Given that this is a public resource we base our recommendations on a mix of best available science and public comment. Our public process is rigorous and involves any member of the public that want to participate. You are correct, that in many cases those that do get involved lean more towards trophy hunting, but we do get quite a bit of comment from average hunters as well. The Wildlife Board is the decision making body for the DWR. They have to weight what we present to them with public comment to set objectives for managing our wildlife. The decisions they make are not easy. Some who participate in the process will not get their way, but the decisions made are geared towards the majority.

I have attached to this email a Fact Sheet that DWR has prepared discussing the reduction in deer permits. This fact sheet addresses many of your concerns.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions, comments or concerns"_

The fact sheet he referred to summarized the 3 options this year and emphasized none of them would grow the herd. Do you guys agree that the board manages for the majority?

The fact


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

The WB absolutly makes decisions based on the majority............The majority of the money. Its all about the big dollars. Based on their recent decisions they dont rerally care all that much about the average hunters.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

it's the same with everything... legal bribery in the form of lobbying will usually dictate policy.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

This last meeting I stood up and thanked the board and made one point. The point spoke to the FACT that the people that show up to RAC and board meetings are chin deep in the outdoors, hunting and fishing. Therefor, we get the opinion of die hard, seasoned outdoors-men and people with financial interests. I'm one of those people. I've had the chance to hunt all over and this is a huge part of my life. YET, I pay no less or more for a deer tag than the rest. I pay no less or more taxes as a ratio as the rest. YET, the opinions that are expressed time and time again are these same people, without consideration to the majority that aren't fanatics.

The DWR response is accurate. They do recommend based on science and public comment. Where it all gets skewed is at the board and legislative level, because the check and balance for this type of thing is more or less non-existent and as was just mentioned, lobbying is king when there are no checks and balances. Legal bribery? In many ways.

Good for you for getting off of your ass and doing something about it. If we were all active, god forbid proactive about these things, we wouldn't have this problem. It comes down to simply showing up and being heard.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Tree,

Thanks for your words. I relish my few days of big game hunting every year. Unfortunately my privleges get squashed more and more all of the time. I feel like I need to spend more time with the politics and/or habitat improvement than actually hunting, kind of defeats the propose of recreation. 

This year I kind of decided I'm not going to fight the fight. I figured the "fantics" were going to get their way regardless and I stayed home. Now I sorely regret it. The vote was close and there were not enough casual hunters calling foul. 

I wish we had a board that could keep the interests of the general public in mind without all the fanfare.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

EVERY RAC and WB meeting I've ever gone to has been run more by emotions than science and logic. Many of them include insults, clapping, booing, vocal outbursts, heckling, private arguments in the audience and people walking out in protest. And many times the chair has had to stop the discussion and make a threat to throw people out of the meeting in order to calm things down. And on more than one occasion SFW has been allowed to bend the meeting rules of 3 minutes per individual and 5 minutes per organization by multiple speakers claiming to represent Iron SFW, Beaver SFW, Washington SFW, Kane SFW, Garfield SFW or just SFW. On one occasion an individual was allowed 8 consecutive minutes because he spoke for SFW, and as an individual, same subject. That certainly makes SFW the majority.

Maybe this new WB, with 3 new members including a wildlife biologist, Mike King, will actually do much better for those who don't have hunting or fishing on a high priority ("Average Joe Hunter"). I haven't researched each member's performance so far, but I will. and I'll research their background to see how they meet the prerequisites of appointment. Maybe it will carry some weight when I e-mail them. 

But, no matter who is sitting there on the WB, and no matter your viewpoint, we need MORE of you/us involved with reason and science, not just emotions. Make your voice heard by showing up, e-mailing, slow mailing, faxing, texting, Facebooking, etc. And talking to people. I talked to a bowhunting neighbor today who's bowhunted about as long as I have (45 years) and who knew that we were going to deer hunting units, but he thought they were much smaller, and he was somewhat relieved when I told him how big some of the units were (Panguitch Lake). But he got upset again when I told him about the increased buck to doe ratio and the loss of about 2,200 archery tags statewide and he realized that archery tags in any one unit (Panguitch Lake) will be much harder to get. And he was upset that we don't even know how many tags we're competing for when we apply. I gave him my UWC card and asked him to go on the website and get back with me. There are lots of those kinds of folks out there. We need more of them onboard!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Maybe this new WB, with 3 new members including a wildlife biologist, Mike King, will actually do much better for those who don't have hunting or fishing on a high priority ("Average Joe Hunter"). I haven't researched each member's performance so far, but I will. and I'll research their background to see how they meet the prerequisites of appointment. Maybe it will carry some weight when I e-mail them.


I got to listen to the audio of the last board meeting and was pleased to hear them agree to revisiting the 18-25 buck to doe ratio based on some biology and the loss of permits. I don't recall them saying it exactly, but it doesn't make sense to create 30 separate unique units only to impose a fixed single buck to doe ratio on all of them. Some could handle a higher ratio than others and still maintain some growth while others are hit harder in the wintertime (or by predators or by human encroachment or by invasive species or elk or by fires or yudda, yudda, yudda) and couldn't sustain a population with a high buck to doe ratio. Additionally, the gap between 18-25 is too wide and no new tags would be issued in a unit until the ratio is over 25 and some units may never (or need to) reach that. In any case, I think we may be making some progress with the new board.

And, FWIW, I was told at the Southern Region Office today that the Division is talking about and considering moving the General Hunt applications (not the LE or OIL hunts) in 2013 to June with the Antlerless so that we know how many tags are in each unit before we apply.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm surprised you actually recieved a responce. I sent several emails to the Gov., senators, and all the board members last year on this subject. All I ever recieved back was a read notice from one guy. I thought that was pretty lousy on their part that they couldn't even send me a responce of some sort.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I honestly am having a hard time agreeing with you guys any more. Sure I don't like sfw only because they are using public tags to advance there agenda of a rifle rut state. 
If sfw would quit its attack on the bowhunters id honestly say I could agree with some of their stuff. 

Maybe im just a lone voice that can't agree with anyone. I don't want to hunt the deer to extinction just to hunt. In my life I've seen rabbits get shot out. I've seen prairie dogs get shot in almost every place except where there protected. I've also seen the deer numbers decline to the point im even worried.

I use to believe the front could handle the pressure. Not any more. It can't handle the doe hunts and it can't handle the number of hunters it is getting. I also believe it should be its own unit just like the rest of the state but managed like it is. No rifles, long season. I don't believe any area in this state can handle the pressure of 15000 potential people hunting a small area.

I see some of the UWC posts and shake my head lately. Tell me if im wrong but how can anyone demand a tag every year whenever the deer numbers continue to decline? I know I can't.
Do I believe the dwrs buck to do ratios? Not really! I believe the only way they can estimate what's out there is hunter harvest rates and age objectives. When people are no longer successful the division adjust things. 

The deer in Utah are in a sad shape. I don't know how anyone can deny it. I think the people these days are more conerned about themselves. Now some people would say im only concerned with myself when I state the 33% 33% 33% tag allocations. No I honestly believe this is the only way to be fair and maximizes hunter opportunity with out affecting the quality.

Go ahead and flame me.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I see some of the UWC posts and shake my head lately. Tell me if im wrong but how can anyone demand a tag every year whenever the deer numbers continue to decline? I know I can't.


I'm not going to flame you SW but I do want to set the record straight on a few things.

1 - The UWC has NEVER lobbied for hunters being able to get tags every year. What the UWC has lobbied for is to keep the buck to doe ratio objectives where they are to preserve the tags we have since there is no benefit to deer herds by raising them. IF a unit goes under the objective we support tag cuts. The truth is some are lobbying for 18:100 ratios and some are lobbying for 15:100 ratios. Neither ratio will help deer, we are arguing over a "size of the rack" hunter satisfaction index. In fact the UWC has been lobbying for multiple buck to doe ratio objectives on mutliple units based on biological data. I have no idea how we got labled "as pushing for getting a tag every year." That's nothing more than a label put on us that is just inaccurate at best.

2 - Any way you want to slice it the objective on the Wasatch unit was always to be management hunt and lower deer numbers. It turned into an archers utopia but that was a biproduct of the rules, not the purpose. If you think taking a few does with our bows is a threat to the Wasatch Front herd, watch what happens when a bunch of rich connected people start tagging deer with their Beamers and the deer start eating their flowers. I guarantee you that the legislature will get involved and that herd will really decline. They essentailly are using hunters as a tool to help control the herd. There is no way we will ever be able to substantially grow that herd with the political forces in play. I'm not saying it doesn't suck but that's the truth of the matter.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Do I believe the dwrs buck to do ratios? Not really! I believe the only way they can estimate what's out there is hunter harvest rates and age objectives. When people are no longer successful the division adjust things.
> 
> The deer in Utah are in a sad shape. I don't know how anyone can deny it.


SW the south got pounded with a bad winter. They had some lower deer numbers because of it. That is not reflective of the whole state. I would argue that with the last winter and 2 summers that we just had most units are on the upswing, with some exceptions. I have been tagging along with the division and there are A LOT of does with twin fawns. Classifications are looking good in a lot of units.

This distrust of the division and all they do comes and goes in cycles. About 30 years ago, that's right when we had a bunch more deer, they faced the same problems. I have watched these guys do thier thing and I can tell you right now they not only they are a helluva lot smarter than us when it comes to wildlife but they are working VERY hard to get accurate data and working towards making things better. They aren't prefect but they really are working hard with the best tools available to them. And believe when I say they want NOTHING more than for deer numbers to go up. I say this with all due respect Scott but who are you to say their counts are off? Hell who am I for that matter to say their counts are off?

By sitting on the sidelines and heckling them we are turning into nothing more than a senseless mob. We might as well go on a witch hunt. Let's throw the division in the water....if they float they must be a witch and we'll burn em at the stake. If they drown then we'll know they weren't a witch but either way they lose. And BTW this has all been done before. The division can never win.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I honestly am having a hard time agreeing with you guys any more. Sure I don't like sfw only because they are using public tags to advance there agenda of a rifle rut state.
> If sfw would quit its attack on the bowhunters id honestly say I could agree with some of their stuff.
> 
> Maybe im just a lone voice that can't agree with anyone. I don't want to hunt the deer to extinction just to hunt. In my life I've seen rabbits get shot out. I've seen prairie dogs get shot in almost every place except where there protected. I've also seen the deer numbers decline to the point im even worried.
> ...


Scott, if science told us that killing less bucks would lead to some kind of exponential growth in deer numbers, I'd be all over it. You are absolutely missing the point for the pint. It's not about hunting every year at all cost. 99.9% of hunters would skip years of hunting if it meant that we would have increased herd numbers, besides a few leftover bucks. The outcry comes from making tag cuts under the guise of growing our herds bigger when every sensible study points to it more or less being a non-issue.

Show me something that lends doubtless credence to the contrary and I'll stop hunting muleys altogether and tell the rest of anyone that will listen to do the same!

And, you seem to refuse to accept that the reason behind the extended hunt is to REDUCE the number of deer on the wasatch front to reduce human/animal conflict.

The deer in Utah in sad shape? Yes, relative to mid 20th century numbers, they are about half of their estimated peak. It's short sighted. What about the other billion years? Was that peak a riot for deer hunters? Hell yes!! It was easier to find deer, easier to kill deer and easier to kill big deer. So, you get that generation and they that they tell their stories to expecting that it's the standard of mule deer populations.

Was it the standard by which should gauge deer management? I say hell no. It was a freak occurrence due to range conditions created by horrible grazing practice and ultra low predation produced by horribly irresponsible methods of killing predators, which incidentally killed all sorts of unintended species. On top of that weather trends were helpful as well. You only need to look at '83 and '93 to know that weather plays a HUGE part, for better or worse.

Now that we actually pay attention to stuff like this and are more responsible, we find ourselves closer to balance.

So, in the realm of selfishness, is it more selfish to want to follow some kind of biological reasoning or is it selfish to want to see the same types of deer numbers as there were 40 years ago by using the same methods as we used back then? I'm not talking continuing habitat improvement and looking for solutions within the confines of responsible stewardship. I'm talking about the same methods that were used then. And just so we are clear. We have been doing habitat improvement on a large scale for a dozen years and what has been the net result?

So, if those high numbers are what you are after, better be willing to forsake a lot of things in lieu of one species. To me, that's selfishness.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Also, I once heard words from a UDWR biologist elude to "If the moisture continues over the next 5 years like it has over the last 2 he will look like the best biologist in the state". 

Really? Are we that dogmatic, egotistical and blind as a society that we can't let go of the notion of complete control or none at all? How about let's let the accountable parties be accountable? Giving praise or chastising a biologist for the result of mother nature? It's asinine and is commonplace. SAD!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

SW, I'm not going to flame you either. You have some legitimate concerns. In fact, I appreciate hearing your, and others, viewpoint when it's delivered in a reasonable manner as you have done. I believe, however that you may have misinterpreted UWC's (and my) position.

First off, no one is denying the deer (and other animals) in this state are in decline and that hunting has taken a big hit. We see it everywhere and all of us are worried, thus this debate. However, it's not an either/or, black or white debate we're engaged in. It's about allowing as many opportunities to hunt deer on a regular basis (not necessarily every year) as the herds will biologically, socially, and economically allow and still grow or stay at capacity while also providing avid trophy hunters ample opportunity to hunt the big ones. We keep talking about the 30 general hunt units and how they are managed, but we forget about the 8 LE deer units and what's happening to them. We don't have a 30 unit system, we have a 38 unit system. (actually a 42 unit system counting tribal lands). And there is (or can be) opportunity for all types and styles of hunting. Maybe not as it has been in our "glorious" past, but quite adequate I believe. 

Most of us (and I suspect even you) want the decisions of the WB and DWR to focus on the health of the animals and herds with biology being the prime ingredient and economic and social concerns taking more of a back seat. When we get the numbers up, the rest will follow.

Right now, the economic and social ingredients are running the show with biology taking a back seat. The Option #2 system, particularly the 18-25 buck to doe ratio, we are currently under WILL NOT GROW THE DEER HERDS, BUT ACTUALLY HURTS THE NUMBERS, AND IT CUTS OPPORTUNITY. And it's long term, not just in 2012 and it will get worse, not better, at least for the majority of Utah deer hunters.

Our debate which covers many threads and subjects is about whether or not we should or can change the direction we're heading and we need to explore as many solutions as possible. We welcome yours , including making the Wasatch Front it's own unit. It's something I hadn't considered. Keep 'em coming!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Elk
I agree with everything you said except for the part about buck to doe ratios cutting out tags. I believe tag cuts are a directly effected by deer numbers. If this state had 500,000 thousand deer we would have more tags. The problem is the state continues to decline in deer numbers. So tag cuts keep coming.

Tree
The front might have been created because of depredation issues but it still has a population objective. The front is not over objective! In fact the last three years it has drastically declined in deer numbers. If you can't see this then I don't know what to say. I can say this because I actually have put my boots on the ground from city creek to point of the mountain almost 2 days a week for the last several years. The doe hunt needs to stop for a year or more and the front can't handle the pressure any more then any other area. Well it can because its bow only for the most part but it does have a limit. Not only has the deer numbers declined the average age of the bucks has declined and the buck numbers has also declined. Now if the population objective was over objective then id say "release the tags!" But its not! The last thing I want to see happen is the front turned into what the rest of the general areas look like. Loads of people, no bucks, no does, and predator population so high it can never recover. This is the direction it is headed in less than a year if it continues to be managed like it is. Mark my words!


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Elk
> I agree with everything you said except for the part about buck to doe ratios cutting out tags. I believe tag cuts are a directly effected by deer numbers. If this state had 500,000 thousand deer we would have more tags. The problem is the state continues to decline in deer numbers. So tag cuts keep coming.


But, should they? Are those tag cuts having a positive effect on the deer numbers...will cutting tags result in more deer?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Back to the governor issue. 
I personally believe this states political issues concerning deer are corrupt. I've heard the governor has been handed 300,000 thousand bucks to vote in favor of sfw. This poses an ethical problem because sfw does not represent the average hunter. 
UWC may not represent the average hunter either. So why don't uwc go after the tags so every all hunting groups gets its equal share of the money. Its a lot of bs but its the only way you or any other hunting group is going to be on the same playing ground as sfw. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: Re: State's trophy response*



wyoming2utah said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Elk
> ...


If you had 10,000 deer and the herd goes down to 100 deer I think even you wtu can see tags need to be cut. It has nothing to do with buck to doe ratios and growing more deer. If you don't have deer you simply can't hunt them! I am also smart enough to see at least in beef cows you only need one bull to breed a hundred cows so don't try and play this game with me. 
There is a social aspect to hunting you can't apply to beef cows.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I still disagree to an extent. If you only had 100 deer, again, the buck/doe ratio is the key for hunting. If half those deer were bucks, you still have a surplus of buck deer...so, hunting doesn't necesssarily hurt anything. What social concept here applies...? Obviously, something has to be done to keep the herd biologically safe...so, measures must be taken to keep the buck numbers high enough to breed all the remaining does. That, though, to me is biological...not social. Biologically, there would be a need to cut tags to keep buck/doe ratios high enough to breed does....

...so, tag cuts are only necessary if there is a danger of dropping the buck/doe ratio below acceptable levels.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The social concept would be those that want to harbor more bucks with less opportunity to hunt them vs. they that would prefer less bucks at price of more opportunity to be in the field. (rhetoric) It's philosophical and neither is really "right". It's more or less a point of view.

Each has their down side. On one side, the risk is a more severe resource depletion when severe weather takes a toll, the other runs a risk of having not enough bucks to breed does. We have triggers for the latter of the two I just mentioned. There is no trigger for warehousing excess bucks. The result will always be a slower road to recovery.

Here's a question for every person reading this thread. If we outlawed hunting today and let nature do it's thing, with no habitat improvement or any other type of "improvements". What would deer populations look like in 5 years? 20?

And to the topic at hand. The governor doesn't hunt and is fairly clueless to hunting, so he's got to get his information somewhere. The Lt. gov. however.........


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Wtu this is a circle jerk argument im not going to jerk you on.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

SW can you provide more information regarding the money that has gone to the Governor to vote for SFW?

Are you referring to the check that was delivered last year at the WB meeting. If you have more or different information I would love to hear it.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Tree
> The front might have been created because of depredation issues but it still has a population objective. The front is not over objective! In fact the last three years it has drastically declined in deer numbers.


I will say this...you are correct that the front is under objective (1800 counted in 2010, objective is 2000) so your argument that we should stop killing does has merit IMO. In fact I think I may do some digging to find out why we are still harvesting does. The average doe harvest on the front is about 90 per year.

The numbers don't show that it is drastically under objective though and is actually trending up. The herd was down to 1400 in 2008 but has trended up over the last 2 years.

2008 - 1400 animals
2009 - 1650 animals
2010 - 1800 animals

For what ever it's worth the buck to doe ratios are above 30 and the fawn to doe ratios are about 62. Good solid numbers.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Tree
> ...


I sent out some question to some folks concerning the front, counts and objectives. I'll let you know the result.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: Re: State's trophy response*



ROI said:


> SW can you provide more information regarding the money that has gone to the Governor to vote for SFW?
> 
> Are you referring to the check that was delivered last year at the WB meeting. If you have more or different information I would love to hear it.


It was not the check delivered to the wb. Im not going to name names but a friend on sfw southern chapter told a friend of mine by accident who in turn told me. Both guys are friends of mine and I would trust both. So unless I get sued im not going to release names.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Bull
Either the numbers were incorrect and were actually higher then they were in 2008-2007 or the numbers are incorrect now. 

What im saying is there is half the numbers now then there were then. I don't have a degree from a university on wildlife but id like to say I have a blue collar degree of first hand knowledge hitting just about every trail on the front every year. I've also taken bucks in almost every canyon from city creek to the point of the mountain. So im not hot spotting areas when I say the deer numbers are down and trending down enough to get me worried.

The front means a lot to me. I will support any group that fights for it. I would love to have a tag every year but I don't want to love it to death. I would say the same thing about southern Utah if I hunted it but I don't. So when it comes to that area I feel the guys that hunt it are more qualified to express their opinion on it then I. 

I would love to see a hunter satisfaction report on the area they hunted. Or mandatory check in station. Or at least turn in your tag to be able to apply for a future tag.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Tree 
id also like to see what you find out if its possible. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Did you pick up on my response on how to fight s f w? If not I'll repeat it again. You sue them on tag fairness. Meaning They use our resource To make themselves money. Why are they the only ones that can do this or why do they get the majority of the tags. 
Maybe you can make yourself rich at the same time. Just saying I don't know how you can lose that argument. Then all hunters are represented equally If each group can use the money how they see fit.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Tree
> id also like to see what you find out if its possible.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Sorry, that was my intention all along, to post it here.

So, here is the gist of the answers I have received:

-The wasatch front unit does have it's own objective, for all intents and purposes we are at objective.

-We allow either sex harvest to help reduce human/deer conflict in urban areas.

-Doe harvests are minimal and do not control the population levels.

And again, this is me talking, the division doesn't count actual deer, it's an impossibility. The use the best available data and monitor trends according to doe/fawn mortality etc.

I suggest if you have issue with any of this (Anyone) to go do a ride along with a biologist when they are gathering data for these counts.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Did you pick up on my response on how to fight s f w? If not I'll repeat it again. You sue them on tag fairness. Meaning They use our resource To make themselves money. Why are they the only ones that can do this or why do they get the majority of the tags.


interesting. Sounds exactly like the stream access issue. Private land owners running guiding services on their private stretch of land for anglers to catch PUBLIC fish from a PUBLIC water. (Red River Ranch, anyone?)

I like it. Sue 'em. I'm in support.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Tree
You said the division don't count deer!
You then said they are at population objectives and the division uses trends to monitor deer.

I know its impossible to count deer. I also know you don't want to see your opportunity cut. I know you like your doe hunt. But the trend im seeing is smaller bucks being taken, im seeing more guys shooting does. Im personally seeing more than half as many deer not just bucks. 

Maybe you haven't hunted it when it was good. 10 years ago I was the only boot tracks in the snow durring the rut. 20 bucks in every canyon. 5 years ago not much pressure and 10 bucks in every canyon. 3 years ago still hunting 35" bucks but only 3 to 5 bucks a canyon. 2 years ago about the same but getting harder to find older age buck also parking lots full even durring the week. 2011 parking lots still full. People not seeing bucks and shooting does. 
Seen it with my own eyes. No three different guys shooting long range at does. No ethics! They say its just a doe. Same guys wound and loose 2 does each. Blows my mind and I rip'em for poor ethics. 

I can see a trend and it's going down the toilet. 

Tree im also not trying to talk down to you. Unlike you typing for me never comes out like it would if I was having a conversation in person. But I do hope you and the rest who read this can see there is a problem that needs to be fixed before its too late. 

I also know I sound like a greedy score chaser. Im not ill shoot at a 2 point buck and have shot at 2 point bucks over the last several years. The only difference is I always seem to miss those for some reason and luck into a better one later on.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

provider said:


> I recently wrote a letter to the Governor basically indicating that I think the big game management in Utah is no longer being managed for the general public. I'm concerned that trophy hunting groups are successfully getting their special interest agenda pushed throught at the expense of general hunters. I sent this to the Governor as I think SFW runs policy now, not the state, and certainly not general deer hunters. (I never mentioned SFW.)
> 
> The Governor's office referred my letter to the DWR - sigh! Here is the DWR's response.
> 
> ...


Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Why is it that when one questions the DWR about deer counts, we should trust their numbers but when the "majority" supports the current sub-units, then DWR must be wrong?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

If archery hunters are shooting does then that means one less buck got shot, right? SW how can archers affect the doe population if the archers have a low success rate? Maybe they need to shorten the archery hunt on the WF. They kill does because they don't want the deer herd to grow very much. Someone posted that 90 does are shot on the WF so that doesn't seem like a lot.

If the archer equipment is a good way to manage a deer herd then the WF doesn't have a problem.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Why is it that when one questions the DWR about deer counts, we should trust their numbers but when the "majority" supports the current sub-units, then DWR must be wrong?


Are you saying the "majority" supports the 30 GS units?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that when one questions the DWR about deer counts, we should trust their numbers but when the "majority" supports the current sub-units, then DWR must be wrong?
> ...


According to the response "provider" got from the DWR in the original post.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Tree
> You said the division don't count deer!
> You then said they are at population objectives and the division uses trends to monitor deer.
> 
> ...


I'm not real sure why you use hyperbole but expect us to take it literally. It's not about opportunity, it's about sensibility. I've never hunted with intention of killing a doe and obviously have never killed one. I'm not lobbying for doe hunts by any means, but the division issues doe tags for a reason on the front and that reason is VERY apparent. I've hunted the front, managed a piece of property on it for the last 10 years and watch deer every single weekday of the week on said property and the surrounding area and my observation is not the same as yours. Sorry, it just isn't. And to be honest, you're the only person I have heard complain about the front deer population.

Bottom line is that the division does not count actual deer and if I used the word "count" it was to counts and classifications. They don't go through and count every deer on the mountain and then add for unseen animals like they do elk, it doesn't work. But they do count small visible populations and classify them to use in their modeling that gives them a solid idea if the population is trending up or down. As I said, the historical data is what it's predicated on. Any way you slice it, the deer population has been trending up on the front the last 3 years, not down. You choose to believe the data or not. Or you can come up with notions and reasons why everyone is wrong but you and get the results of that philosophy and continue to believe that the division is conspiring to destroy the deer population. Your choice.

Tell me this; What is your belief behind the division issuing doe tags on the front? Do you believe them when they say the trend is up from 3 years ago? If not, what is your theory on why they would be lying to us? As bullsnot typed, 60+/100 fawn retention and 30+ bucks per does points to a healthy herd that should be growing and thriving. So, why is it you think, besides observation, that the numbers are, what was that you said? Half of what they were not that long ago?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yep and the model they are using, almost wiped out the entire pronghorn herd on the Parker Mntn. 

The numbers that the DWR are generally not actual and that is a problem any way you slice it. Also finding an accurate way to count deer is the job of the DWR, not the WB not the Governor not the SFW. This is an area where they are failing and it only falls to them to fix it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

IMHO, Estimated deer herd counts on many units are flawed, WAY over estimated.
The past 3 or 4 years showing total deer herds flat lined at 300K is pure BS..

This is the main reason I have , and do support option 2..

I've always said, START with the correct number of deer in any given unit and go from there..

Within the same regions, some units are doing fine, some are not.
Makes perfect sense to me to manage hunters, and permit numbers accordingly..

Some on this forum want to turn the new deer management into a trophy VS opportunity issue.
I don't see it that way, I see opt 2 as the best way to help struggling deer units get the 
proper focus they need before they too fall into a Park mountain situation....
There are several deer herd units getting VERY close to disaster.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> IMHO, Estimated deer herd counts on many units are flawed, WAY over estimated.
> The past 3 or 4 years showing total deer herds flat lined at 300K is pure BS..
> 
> This is the main reason I have , and do support option 2..
> ...


So, how does implementing option #2 improve the classifications which you say are now flawed?

And how does managing buck permits and buck hunters help unit populations?

And how does implementing option #2 bring more or better "proper focus" to struggling deer units?

And how does raising the buck to doe ratio grow the population of struggling deer units?

And how does cutting 13,000 permits and the accompanying revenue help any of the above?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, Estimated deer herd counts on many units are flawed, WAY over estimated.
> ...


AS IS with everything, with any "business",, You adjust your rates accordingly.
Increase permit cost,,This is nothing new..................


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: Re: State's trophy response*



Treehugnhuntr said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Tree
> ...


Hell no I don't believe their numbers anymore. I've seen it with my own eyes now. 60% fawn recruitment is another flat out lie. Id say 60% or more were lost last march after the winter. Another thing. There is no way there is 30 bucks to a 100 does anymore either. 
Tree you said the division uses observation to count deer but that doesnt work! You then say they use trends. Every hard core front hunter I know agrees with me there are not the deer numbers up there as in years past. You say you manage some privite property. Well privite property isn't public! So you will have a slanted view if you operate in a privite point of view. A lot of these new hunters that are hitting the front in the last couple of years will also have a slanted view because of how crappy the rest of the state is managed. So it might take some more time before there is an out cry from the public. Coyote said 90 does doesn't sound very bad. That's 90 dead it don't take into account how many we're lost. Also that same 90 could have two fawns next year increasing the heard from 90 to 90+180 that's 270. Then the next year 2/3 are does. So 178 x 2 fawns. That's 356 added to 270 is now 624. That is what the herd potential could have been in a perfect world. 624 taken out in a few years when the total herd is around 2000. Na its not that big a deal at all especially when you throw in lions, coyotes, bears, cars, and winters!

Its no wonder the deer on my public land I hunt are going down the toilet.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Nevermind


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Packout
90*2 eq 180 added to the 90 does that didn't die 180+90 is what
270 live deer!
The rest of my numbers could be way off because I just did them in my head.


This goes for everyone including, goofy, elk, tree, muley, and packout.
Like I said above im not an english or math guy. Im a full of bs kind of guy that speaks too fast without thinking more often then not. I know if given the chance I could get along in person with anyone of you. I consider you already my internet friends. I may not always agree with any of you all the time and im sure it goes both ways. 
So all that out of the way if I have offended any of you its not my intentions and hope you can accept my apologies.




Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

My what a perfect world you all keep quoting imaginary stats from. The land of zero mortality deer, Unicorns, Rainbows and Puppies. Sounds FABULOUS!


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The real world is a much harsher place and there is a much more negative affect when you factor the real world in. 
So saying 90 does doesn't have an effect. Is like saying coyotes, lions, and unicorns doesn't have an effect. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

No worries, Scott, we're just conversing here.

So, we kill 90 does and the exponent is that there will be multiples of 90 on down the raod, right? 90, 180, 270 and so on. But, for some reason you don't believe the fawn mortality is a mere 60/100? SO which is it? Are we retaining 100% of the deer, thus your attempt at an exponential equation or do we have a far less fawn mortality rate than was reported (60). It's a bit contradictory, no?

Numbers, shmumbers. What I'm interested in is why people think the division is lying or not using the best methodology available within the parameter of their resources, both human and financial.

90 does is 90 dead does, any way you slice it. The only solution I see is to relocate deer and again, the data points to a no go. Even in scenarios that it is a go, is it sensible to ultimately spend thousands of dollars on what eventually equates to a bunch of dead deer because it feels better to us as humans that we tried something, even in the face of contrary results?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Elk
> I agree with everything you said except for the part about buck to doe ratios cutting out tags. I believe tag cuts are a directly effected by deer numbers. If this state had 500,000 thousand deer we would have more tags. The problem is the state continues to decline in deer numbers. So tag cuts keep coming.


I've had the flu and missed this one, sorry.

Scott, you're correct about losing tags over the long run, but the 13,000 lost tags this year and next are a direct result of the increased 18-25 buck to doe ratio. In order to get there, you have to leave more bucks in the hills than you have in the past in units that are now below that new ratio and that means fewer hunters/tags. The exact numbers won't be out until May/June, but those are the numbers the DWR arrived at when looking at the units that are below the increased ratio, and that includes most of them. And this so-called solution won't fix the problem of the decline because it isn't based on even simple biology, ie: bucks don't give birth to fawns and leaving more of them in the hills will not increase the fawn/deer numbers, but may actually reduce the numbers because bucks out-compete does and fawns, especially in marginal deer habitat.

The ironic thing about this new solution is that it thwarts the very goal those who promote it want, more big bucks.

And you don't owe me any apology! We may not agree, but you've never been disagreeable! I welcome your input and consider you a worthy opponent.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Loosing 13000 tags is also hard for me to swallow. I know going from 15/100 to 18/100 is mostly social and only increases the deer herd a few extra bucks by 3 per 100. I get that. I see sfw as an organization that has pushed a rifle rut mentality. This is the part where they loose me. I know how much opportunity it affects with this way of thinking. But on the other hand when total deer numbers go down tags have to be cut imho. If im incorrect then there would be no effect on our deer herd if we gave the 200,000 tags back and had 290,000 hunters or what ever the number was. I honestly believe and I believe anyone else would agree with me on this when I say it would affect the deer. They would kill every buck alive that was left.

I believe for any area it can only handle so much pressure before it goes south. Archery only areas can handle way more pressure then rifle only areas and this is why I push archery so much. Its defiantly not im an archery fanatic. Id choose a rifle over a bow if I could have the opportunity I had over the last 10 years in Utah but you can't.

I know everyone wants to hunt the front. But its getting loved to death and im directly one of the guys I can blame for that. At first I wanted publicity so sfw wouldn't ruin it like they did for ar301. So I pimped it. Now it has so much pressure its has turned the corner and is going in the opposite direction imho. Even I don't want to see my opportunity going away but I just don't want to hunt 2 points and spikes or a 15/100 ratios on the front with a bow for 4 months. I don't enjoy going shed hunting for one year old deer. I don't want to photograph one year old deer and this is what you get with lower buck doe ratios and it only compounds the problem when you start shooting does.

If the front has to have a doe hunt then make it end the same day as the buck hunt but for a year or so id like to see it go away. If numbers go back up im all for anyone shooting does.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

SW,
I believe what you are seeing on "your" unit. I think that a lot of hunters are seeing the same things on "their" units. This is why we are screaming for a major change in management style, approach,theory...whatever you want to call it. It is time for some major changes, yes some might be harsh and are hard to swallow but change is never easy. 13,000 lost tags is really a non issue if we look at the big picture and just continue down the same path we have been following. Personally I hope we can fix it and figure out how to increase tags, helll I'm tired of only being able to hunt down south every other year of two!!! 

I would like to see zero doe harvest on every unit until we can increase our deer numbers. I would also like to see a few more archery only units like the Front to see how they fair in that enviroment!

Its a sad day to realize the area you hunt is lossing its deer herd! It makes many of us passionate and ready to fight for whatever it is that we think will fix our "unit" . Its an attitude and passion we should all have and we should be vocal and involved about it just like Scott is being!!! Thanks Scott for caring enough to get on here and be heard!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The issue with Parker Mt I think has been misunderstood. The pronghorn population was over objective for years and growing. The bad winter of 2009/2010 devestated that herd. It is still unclear whether there was a big die off or if the goats just left the unit over the winter. The following summer the division did an emergency fly over of the unit and counted goats and the result was cancelled hunts. It had nothing to do with population models.

No one has ever successfully counted free ranging mule deer. While it makes sense to look for ways it simply can't be done right now. Nobody can do it accurately. Not any state can do it and it seems non-sensical to blame anybody for that. Models are the only way to estimate a mule deer population. Playing the blame game seems unreasonable and counter productive.

Since we can't count we have to use other tools. Learning what little bit I have from biologists there are some VERY GOOD ways of determining your population trends. If your buck to doe ratios are climbing steadily over a period of time, success rates are climbing, and fawn to doe ratios are high....we know with almost 100% certainty that our populations are climbing and we need more tags. If buck to doe ratios are staying the same, buck to doe ratios are staying the same over time, and fawn to doe ratios are average....we know that we are staying about the same. If buck to doe ratios are declining, success rates are declining, and fawn to doe ratios are low then we know our population is on a downward trend. If you mix and match these scenarios we have different things going on. 

We've also added a new tool in that we are now measuring adult deer mortality. This will tell us what effect cougars are having on deer herds to some degree. 

Again I support tag cuts WHEN buck to doe ratios on a unit drop below objectives. It doesn't make sense to cut buck tags if buck to doe ratios don't drop below objectives though.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Tree
> ...


Tree,

Can you ask specifically about the "Wasatch Salt Lake" unit? It seems that the extended boundary falls within this unit. It has a stated objective of 2000 animals.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

That is the unit I was referring to and asked about.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Maybe you haven't hunted it when it was good. 10 years ago I was the only boot tracks in the snow durring the rut. 20 bucks in every canyon. 5 years ago not much pressure and 10 bucks in every canyon. 3 years ago still hunting 35" bucks but only 3 to 5 bucks a canyon. 2 years ago about the same but getting harder to find older age buck also parking *lots full even durring the week*. *2011 parking lots still full*. People not seeing bucks and shooting does.


We'll keep digging on this SW and see what we can find out....but you may have partially answered your own question.

One thing that I have been speaking with biologists about a lot is hunting pressure. Hunting pressure may not necessarily kill deer but it does move them. If there a bunch of people hunting the Wasatch now compared to 10 years ago it's very likely the deer have adjusted and go other places.

I was in Honeycomb canyon one year. (NOT HUNTING) There was a pile of deer in there.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> That is the unit I was referring to and asked about.


Interesting.....the big game report shows we are under objective by 200 animals or 10%. How can we say we are at objective?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> We'll keep digging on this SW and see what we can find out....but you may have partially answered your own question.


Thanks


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Drive it now and alpine is almost void of deer, They had multiple years of doe hunts!


Unfortunately that was exactly their intention. Alpine wanted the deer gone!!! And they got it. That was no accident.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Point of the mountain still has deer but the numbers are extremely low compared to last few years and I've only seen a hand full of bucks on the whole mountain. Corner canyon is extremely low.


I live in Suncrest. I hike the trails up on south mountain and have been snow shoeing the last couple of yeas as well. Comparing this year to last year I've seen about the same amount of deer. I have seen a lot moer bigger bucks this year though. Just my personal experience.

I have also seen more coyotes this year if that means anything.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Drive it now and alpine is almost void of deer, They had multiple years of doe hunts!


Tons of deer there, they are all just down in town. Even back during the archery hunt the deer were all inside city limits. You could drive mainstreet and see big bucks wandering around. There were a couple 6x6's in town over the summer as well (cemetary hill had a bruiser living on it).

Ever see the monster 4x4 this summer living across the street from Kholers in Highland? People that went high during the hunts, didnt see much. People hunting low, saw plenty.

-DallanC


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Ever see the monster 4x4 this summer living across the street from Kholers in Highland? People that went high during the hunts, didnt see much. People hunting low, saw plenty.
> -DallanC


I've seen him!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> > Ever see the monster 4x4 this summer living across the street from Kholers in Highland? People that went high during the hunts, didnt see much. People hunting low, saw plenty.
> ...


Never seen him. I did see a good buck in alpine earlier this year in a back yard. 170 ish

also I edited my post earlier before I saw you guys responded to it. Sorry


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Point of the mountain still has deer but the numbers are extremely low compared to last few years and I've only seen a hand full of bucks on the whole mountain. Corner canyon is extremely low.
> ...


If you think its good now with a few three year old 20-24" bucks running around then you should have seen the size of bucks that were there before suncrest was developed. I used to see 200" bucks up there all the time. There also used to be multiple bucks in every canyon up their. A friend of mine picked up some sheds before suncrest was ever built that go around 210".

There has always been loads of coyotes on that mountain. They are one of the many problems. They are harder to fix though then just shutting the doe hunt down next year or making the doe hunt end on the same day as the buck hunt.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > swbuckmaster said:
> ...


Unfortunately, the biggest buck I saw this year was hit by a car on the SL County side one evening and the next morning the head gear was gone. I would have loved to have been able to put a tape measure to that buck. From my guess he was easilly 30 in wide and was actually a 6/7 (one cheater on the left and two cheaters on the right). A really tall buck as well. He always seemed to be hanging out around potato hill around this time of year. A lot of does/fawns get hit on that road. Don't worry, his little budy around 27/28 in wide is still alive and well


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> SW,
> I believe what you are seeing on "your" unit. I think that a lot of hunters are seeing the same things on "their" units. This is why we are screaming for a major change in management style, approach,theory...whatever you want to call it. It is time for some major changes, yes some might be harsh and are hard to swallow but change is never easy. 13,000 lost tags is really a non issue if we look at the big picture and just continue down the same path we have been following. Personally I hope we can fix it and figure out how to increase tags, *helll I'm tired of only being able to hunt down south every other year of two!!! *
> 
> BUT you're in favor of cutting tags which will make the waiting period longer. :roll: :roll: :roll: Many experts have already said that focusing on bucks won't solve the problem. So why accept a decision that only makes you wait longer and doesn't fix the issue? Maybe you need to wait 7 years to finally pull your head out of your backside when you realize it's not working like you thought it would. Everyone wants to see more bucks, but a lot of people realize that focusing on bucks isn't going to solve anything. ALL it does is make people waiting longer to hunt deer.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

JuddCT said:


> Unfortunately, the biggest buck I saw this year was hit by a car on the SL County side one evening and the next morning the head gear was gone. I would have loved to have been able to put a tape measure to that buck. From my guess he was easilly 30 in wide and was actually a 6/7 (one cheater on the left and two cheaters on the right). A really tall buck as well. He always seemed to be hanging out around potato hill around this time of year. A lot of does/fawns get hit on that road. Don't worry, his little budy around 27/28 in wide is still alive and well


I saw him the next morning minus the antlers, though I didnt know which buck he was at the time. I'd seen him a few mornings as well near Potato and just southwest on those ridges. He had two other nice 4pts hanging with him.

-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > SW,
> ...


this is why I am such a proponent of archery areas. They maximize opportunity while maintaining some sort of quality. But even archery only areas have a limit of how many people you can cram into an area.

coyote your idea of saving bucks isn't going to help a unit cant hold any water if I can say if it doesn't hurt then give back our 200,000 tags. The facts are you can only have so many tags with so many deer! :RULES: If you have 10,000 deer you can give out loads more tags then you could if you have only a 100 deer given both units only have 15/100 ratio. Tags have a direct effect on the buck herd. Too many tags and you fall below 15/100 and have a waiting period because the unit is closed down for rebuilding. Rebuilding is a dumbazz way of managing our deer herds if you ask me. This is what im trying to avoid on the front except I want to avoid it with the does. Meaning I don't want to see a 30/100 ratio with a 100 deer. I want to see a 30/100 ratio with 2000 deer. I also see cutting tags increases waiting periods and doesn't do much for increasing the general deer herd. It only increases the deer herd by the number of bucks left over.

I would love to see our deer herds get off the life support machine! If the deer continue to decline because of land carp numbers, cars, yotes, ect you will continue to see tag cuts. Its just that simple! I hate tag cuts as much as the next guy. I also don't want to spend 1000's of dollars on fuel to hunt yearling bucks. If I did I would switch to rifle and go hunt nebo.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Personally I hope we can fix it and figure out how to increase tags, helll I'm tired of only being able to hunt down south every other year of two!!!


[/quote]

I'll bet within a couple years its going to turn into a 1 tag every 5 years. I cant imagine the odds on this new draw being anything less than 1 in 3. Welcome to the new bookcliff'esque unit.

Until someone learns to control mother nature, one bad storm will wipe away all other gains. How many people even remember the terrible winter the boulders had a couple years ago? Snow over the fenceposts in Bicknell... but no, it had to be the hunters that decimated the herds.

-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Funny how you guys bring up potatoe hill and say the deer numbers haven't gone down. This one of the areas I was talking about on my drive home. I just didn't know the hill until tonight. 

That area used to have hundreds of deer in it. Sad sad shape! Its now hard to find 3-5 deer on the way home.

If you think the deer numbers aren't down and these are one of your areas you think are ok, then I half to question your thinking. Sorry wish it weren't so but that area flat out sucks to what it used to look like. Id say the point of the mountain to alpine has lost more than 2000 deer alone in the last 3 years or less! 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

You guys miss the point. Yes I'm tired of waiting to draw a tag. Yet I still support a system that could possibly cut more. My point is until we fix the herds not getting a tag is ok with me. I want to hunt every year just like everyone else, I'm just willing to except some changes if I think it will help our herds.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> My point is until we fix the herds not getting a tag is ok with me. I want to hunt every year just like everyone else, I'm just willing to except some changes if I think it will help our herds.


Me too. I think where we differ is what "fixing the herds" looks like and what measures are _accept_able or warranted.

My question to you is; Specifically, what result are you expecting by you and I hunting less frequently?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> You guys miss the point. Yes I'm tired of waiting to draw a tag. Yet I still support a system that could possibly cut more. My point is until we fix the herds not getting a tag is ok with me. I want to hunt every year just like everyone else, I'm just willing to except some changes if I think it will help our herds.
> 
> I understood perfectly. I think you missed my point. Why wait more years to draw a tag by cutting tags so that we harvest fewer bucks when it isn't going to solve the issue? The reason our deer are suffering isn't because we harvest to many bucks each year. There are many many many more reasons why are deer herds are suffering in many areas, but hunters only focus on bucks because that is what hunters want to shoot.
> 
> I would be fine waiting too if that helped our deer herds. I didn't hunt deer this year. BUT like I said harvesting bucks isn't making our deer herds struggle.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > You guys miss the point. Yes I'm tired of waiting to draw a tag. Yet I still support a system that could possibly cut more. My point is until we fix the herds not getting a tag is ok with me. I want to hunt every year just like everyone else, I'm just willing to except some changes if I think it will help our herds.
> ...


And since harvesting too many bucks isn't the problem, then cutting more buck tags isn't the solution. Seems simple enough to me!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I guess we will see????? 

o-||


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I am in certain canyons along the front on a daily basis year round. This past year I saw more bow hunters than I ever have and less deer in areas where the deer are easy to see. When I take a little hike and get away from the pressured areas, I see just as many deer as I have in past years.

Also, last year we had a lot more snow on the ground during November and December which brought the deer and elk down earlier than usual. This year I saw bucks rutting in higher elevation areas where I normally do not see them and the elk herds are still higher than they normally are at this time of the year.

This year I saw some very nice bucks and bulls killed on the front with both rifles and bows.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Funny how you guys bring up potatoe hill and say the deer numbers haven't gone down. This one of the areas I was talking about on my drive home. I just didn't know the hill until tonight.
> 
> That area used to have hundreds of deer in it. Sad sad shape! Its now hard to find 3-5 deer on the way home.
> 
> ...


SW,

I can agree with you that the Suncrest development has really hurt south mountain's deer herd (this isn't even in the Extended Area, but I can see how many of the deer would have pushed down to this area back then). Potatoe is just too close to the "development" in order for the same deer to be there. A lot of the deer have pushed down on the Highland side right now, in fact I saw a herd of about 25 cows with 2 respectable bulls on the utah county side of suncrest last night when I was spotting with my wife. I've spent many nights this fall spotting the side hills below Lone Peak (first year spotting so I can't compare it to last year). It sure is fun watching all the bucks/does/fawns elude the front archery hunters as they try to make stalks. Sometimes I see 2x to 3x the amount of deer the hunter actually saw while putting boots to the hills as they are focused on a small group of bucks. I've never hunted the front so my opinion isn't worth much as I've only been watching a sliver of it these past couple of years. I'm not disagreeing with you as I'm sure the herd would decline with all the development along the front in general.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I guess we will see?????
> 
> o-||


You're right, but only if, this time, we are willing to wait long enough to see the results. 5 years? If not, I wonder what our next moves are if we don't see a visible (to trophy hunters) increase in 2 years? Probably more of the same. After all, we have less than 1/2 of the units of any of our neighbors and more buck tags per 1000 deer. We'll have to keep up (or down) with them even though they haven't solved the problem either.

BTW, Which part of my statement are you questioning?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

We will never... ever see even a 10% increase in current herd populations. I really believe this even if you 100% eliminated hunting. Too many other factors are responsible for the majority of mortality in our deer.

Like Pheasants, people got spoiled with abnormal fantastic hunting years back, and it will never ever return.

God forbid a Hunting License actually means you have to actually hunt now. Every year the doom and gloom continues but every year man alot of FANTASTIC monster deer get taken off public ground. The people getting them are truely putting in the effort and hunting hard to do it.


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> I can agree with you that the Suncrest development has really hurt south mountain's deer herd (this isn't even in the Extended Area, but I can see how many of the deer would have pushed down to this area back then).


Where do you think those deer come from?

Now the division is saying the deer herd is still at objective? Yet most of the deer that winter on the point have dwindled down in size every year. I know not all the deer on the point come from the extended side but I do know a good bunch do because I've seen a few bucks that are on the point also on the extended side. So if they are still at objective then there must be a huge growing herd of deer some where else. The only problem is since I did hunt in just about every canyon this year on the front from city creek to point of the mountain and have done so for the last 5-10 years. I can honestly say this isn't the case. Those other areas are also dwindling in deer numbers. Another thing I've noticed is the areas that are shrinking in deer numbers the ELK seem to be thriving and exploding in numbers. In fact the elk have probably doubled in size every year for the last 3 years. I could show you areas on the front where the elk have wintered and the sage brush and the oak brush have been literally eaten to the ground. So I've said it before I believe the elk may in fact be hurting the deer more then anyone really thinks. This is why I call them land carp.

I don't know what the solution is except we cant be hunting the does any more. This is at least a start in the right direction. This year i'm also going to kill the coyotes some how in the areas i hunt the most. I always see them in their dens and have always left them alone. Not any more! Im also going to shoot a cow with a cow tag in the areas i hunt the most its all i can do i guess.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Your unit and My unit and His unit and Her unit. Dividing hunters further. Kind of sad really. I hunted the Wasatch West, the Nebo, the Tintic, the Deep Creeks and the Front this year. Do I claim them all or just the one I hunted most? I care about all those herds. 

And yes, some deer herds need more bucks to cover the doe herd, but overall most herds have their doe covered with the number of bucks. 

I hunt the Front, I80 south a bit, and saw more deer this year than last or the year before, but not as many as 4+ yeas ago. It was Mother Nature's 07 winter that killed those deer, not a hunter's arrow. Mother Nature's great conditions the past 2 years is what will grow it. We can think we control the universe, but we don't. 

I will agree with SW in the elk issue (and I might even go along with him on the doe issue if the unit was a certain percentage below objective- you guys can decide what that percentage is). Elk thrive while deer dive. Solving that puzzle might be more valuable than most will admit (as they wait for their OIL elk tag).....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

My unit, your unit, his unit, her unit, our unit. Guess I see it more of an opportunity to come together on units that we have vested intrest in. I don't see it splitting or dividing us at all???? Blanket fixes usually are not successful in just about any arena you are playing in.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

A vested interest? So does that mean the guy who has hunted it for 30 years has more "votes" than the 13 year old who has hunted it once? Does my 10 year old have a "vested" interest in any unit? It is divisive. It implies that because I have spent more time on a unit that somehow I am more important/care more than the guy who has spent less time. The divisive nature of My unit, Your unit, His unit, Her unit gives the idea that I can make decisions for My unit and you can not make decisions for My unit. (I know it is divisive because I have seen such talk in person)

Every unit has different issues- 90% of which have nothing to do with buck deer. The Mule Deer Management Plan has some great items in it to deal with individual Mule Deer Herds, some of which are being implemented (road fencing/crossings, habitat, predator management) while others are being ignored to deal with the issues caused by attempting to blanket-micro-manage bucks. 

How many meetings have you been to calling for the closure of roads on the Monroe or Pahvant? That is a strategy in the Mule Deer Management Plan to improve specific herds.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> My unit, your unit, his unit, her unit, our unit. Guess I see it more of an opportunity to come together on units that we have vested intrest in. I don't see it splitting or dividing us at all???? Blanket fixes usually are not successful in just about any arena you are playing in.


I agree that blanket fixes are not the best way to go. I also agree that each unit has unique circumstances that need to be addressed. What I do not agree with is the "my unit" mentality when creating or amending management plans when it comes to hunter social issues.

I have no problems if unit A has a higher buck to doe ratio objective than unit B because that unit has a unique set of circumstances that warrants it biologically. I do have a problem if someone walks into a meeting and states that because they hunt a unit every year their DESIRES on what the buck to doe ratio should be count more than someone elses opinion that may hunt hunt on the unit as often or live on the unit.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> My unit, your unit, his unit, her unit, our unit. Guess I see it more of an opportunity to come together on units that we have vested intrest in. I don't see it splitting or dividing us at all???? Blanket fixes usually are not successful in just about any arena you are playing in.


I have to admit I'm baffled by this approach. You must assume that those who have a vested interest in any one unit are of the same mind when it comes to recognizing the problems and coming up with solutions, and that fixing the declining deer herd numbers is going to be easier. 'Taint so! I don't care which unit or units you or I are vested in, if you think the problem (and the solution) has anything to do with buck hunter numbers or social/trophy driven buck to doe ratios, you and I could carry this debate into all 30 unit discussions. And I would still have valid studies to back up my side of the argument while you wouldn't.

And you don't see this as divisive? Then why are we debating this already, even before it's implementation? Wait 'til this debate happens regarding 30 units rather than 5 regions.

And if blanket solutions don't work, why did the proposal contain an 18-25 buck to doe ratio for all units?

I guess we will, indeed, see!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> A vested interest? So does that mean the guy who has hunted it for 30 years has more "votes" than the 13 year old who has hunted it once? Does my 10 year old have a "vested" interest in any unit? It is divisive. It implies that because I have spent more time on a unit that somehow I am more important/care more than the guy who has spent less time. The divisive nature of My unit, Your unit, His unit, Her unit gives the idea that I can make decisions for My unit and you can not make decisions for My unit. (I know it is divisive because I have seen such talk in person)
> 
> Every unit has different issues- 90% of which have nothing to do with buck deer. The Mule Deer Management Plan has some great items in it to deal with individual Mule Deer Herds, some of which are being implemented (road fencing/crossings, habitat, predator management) while others are being ignored to deal with the issues caused by attempting to blanket-micro-manage bucks.
> 
> How many meetings have you been to calling for the closure of roads on the Monroe or Pahvant? That is a strategy in the Mule Deer Management Plan to improve specific herds.


Excellent post!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

My point on the my unit post is this. If we ha more sportsmen that felt a personal connection with the areas they hunted I believe we would solve more problems than blanket fix ideology. 

I will agree again for the 37th or maybe 38th that the Mule Deer Committee plan should still be implemented smalong with the new system.

I'm not sure that I have ever posted on this site with out it being twisted in some way. At times it's entertaining others it is disturbing. Not sure that an actual solution is true agenda on this site. 

Last year I made a comment that if the DWR issued unlimited either sex permits for the entire state we would have literally zero deer in under 5 years. I was told that was crazy talk and hunters would never do that to the herds. Well I'll ask Scott this now, do you believe it could happen now after seeing the Front the past couple years???


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> My point on the my unit post is this. If we ha more sportsmen that felt a personal connection with the areas they hunted I believe we would solve more problems than blanket fix ideology.


I understand your point. I think the point others are trying to make is that while that is a good idea on paper it doesn't work in the real world too well. Usually what happens is that agendas creep into the equation.

The idea has been explored with surveys on what people saw on deer hunts. The results were that some people were dishonest with their answers to further their agendas. If people aren't honest then you can't trust the results.

My point is the idea would work IF you could keep wildlife conservation seperate from wildlife hunting. The problem there is the lines are blurred and a very well thought out plan would have to put in place to make it work. These management plans are supposed to have some of everything to cater to all types a hunters. If a vocal minority gets their way the system is broken and what others are concerned about.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley- I do agree that if the UDWR issued unlimited either-sex deer permits then you would kill a heck of a lot of deer- an unhealthy amount. What does that have to do with anything? Is the UDWR proposing the issuance of unlimited either-sex permits statewide? Nope. The implication that a high percentage of Front archers are using the "doe" opportunity is also not true. With only 50-100 doe killed on that unit, it seems most are hunting bucks. 

So, have you been lobbying the local gov't agencies to improve the herd on the Monroe and Pahvant by having seasonal road closures? Lowering speed limits? Or are you just lobbying for "blanket" micro-management of bucks and calling that good enough? 

In any case, these internet discussions are rough and impersonal. I believe that most of us on this site (and others) want what is best for deer. We just don't fall onto the same page as how to fix it. CO, NV, WY, UT, ID, AZ, NM do not fall onto the same page either, as each State's herd decreases while they all try management strategies that seem to go in circles........


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Packout 
so your telling me any unit in this state that is under objective can handle a hundred does harvested and who knows how many wounded and lost every year? Then say it wont harm the unit?

I would dare say the front doesn't even have that many bucks taken off it in a year. Anytime you harvest more does then bucks you got a problem! No wonder the herd is crashing!

All im asking is the doe hunt be closed for a year or so. Heck id even be happy with the doe hunt ending on the same day as the buck hunt.

The last thing I want to see is an even faster excelerated downward trend! 

I honestly don't understand why some of you guys are so apposed to this. 



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

No Scott, I am not saying it can handle that many doe killed. My statement was simply saying that the majority Front archers are not hunting doe mule deer on the Front. (I never said I am against your idea of stopping or slowing doe harvest on the Front when the herd is struggling.)

I know myself, 6 friends and you were not. I know 2 guys that would have shot a doe. So 75% of Front hunters were not hunting doe. Scienc-tification numbers!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
I promise Im not playing the victim. LOL. I was just pointing out that most posts get twisted, and this site is hands down the worst or best of the bunch and yes I do it too.

I have said all along, that a blanket micro management of the herds is a waste of time if we only address buck doe ratios and tag numbers. Do I feel that a high buck doe ratio creates a healthier herd...Yes. I believe it does. Its the way Mother Nature built it!!!!!!! Do I believe it will fix overall numbers. NO I DO NOT!!!!! I think your a 100% correct with the other issues being as big or most certainly MUCH BIGGER issue on some units!!!! I have expressed this directly to WB in person on more that one occasion, if we just split units and do nothing else, we will fail!!! But I believe without a shadow of a doubt if we address each unit with more focus the system will work. Say what you want, each unit has not recieved ENOUGH focus by the DWR!!!!!

No they are not going to issue state wide either sex permits. But it sure is scary to see what they do do on occasion. Parker mnt pronghorn, Fishlake elk herd. Lets just hope the Front does not get added to that list! Plan for worst, dont hope for the best. This should be part of their management approach IMHO.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> I have said all along that a blanket micro-management of the herds is a waste of time if we only address buck/doe ratios and tag numbers. Do I feel that a high buck doe ratio creates a healthier herd? Yes, I believe it does. Its the way Mother Nature built it!!!!!!! Do I believe it will fix overall numbers? NO, I DO NOT!!!!! I think you're 100% correct with the other issues being as big or, most certainly, MUCH BIGGER issues on some units!!!! I have expressed this directly to WB in person on more that one occasion. If we just split units and do nothing else, we will fail!!! But I believe without a shadow of a doubt, if we address each unit with more focus, the system will work. Say what you want, each unit has not received ENOUGH focus by the DWR!!!!!
> 
> Plan for worst, don't hope for the best. This should be part of their management approach, IMHO.


Since each unit already has a deer management plan, but hasn't received the focus you think it deserves, are you suggesting that micro-managing hunters, increasing buck to doe ratios, and cutting tags is a catalyst and the only way to make things happen?

Focusing more on each unit requires more time and money than the current staff numbers (400+) and budget ($68 M) allows. Yet, the new rules reduce the revenue while adding more man-hours. So the DWR, who's to blame for all of this, is now expected to do more with less? Something's gotta give!

Here's some solutions, perhaps.

1- We could raise the price of tags and/or licenses. But most hunters think the price is already too high when you consider the fact that we are required to buy a license and pay an application fee before we can even apply for or buy a tag. Several ex-deer hunters I know are ex-deer hunters for that very reason. Additionally, I've heard more than one local landowner claim that they don't/won't need a license or tag to hunt their own property. Then there's the general perception that the DWR is just another money grabbing government entity feeding out of the public trough, and raising prices of tags, licenses and fees will not enhance that image. (FWIW, Jim Karpowitz or Anis, I can't remember which, said in the last Wildlife Board meeting that the prices of permits will likely go up in 2013.)

2- We could issue more Conservation and Convention permits. That will benefit some folks more than others. No, wait! We have a set formula in place on the percentages of Conservation and Convention permits, so we'll actually have to cut some of those tags. That, in turn, ought to make them more valuable which will also benefit some folks more than others.
But, alas, we've had this conversation many times before and it never seems to turn out too well for the majority of hunters.

3- We could try to get more Dedicated Hunters to help with the man-hours. And we could raise the required man-hours. Naw, that probably wouldn't work very well since we already raised the man-hours, but had to drop them again in order to make up for the "choose a unit for the whole 3 years" requirement. More than one person on this forum has decided not to be a DH anymore.

4- Since they have less of an impact on the buck population, we could issue more archery and muzzy tags. That way, we would get more bucks for our bucks. That's an ideal solution, if only we could get over the "fairness" and "overcrowding" issues.

5- Since they bring in more dollars per tag, we could issue more nonresident tags. Wyoming issues 36% of their deer tags to nonresidents, why couldn't we? Other than the fact that we don't have 450,000 mule deer and we don't have any whitetails and we have double the resident hunter population and we don't have the elk, moose, antelope, bear, bighorn, or goat population to also bring in nonresidents, there's no reason to keep our wildlife assets to ourselves when there is money to be made. Also, many of us willingly give those guys some of our hunting money when we should be keeping it in Utah to improve our deer herds. We need to cowboy up and donate it to the DWR or SFW or MDF or RMEF or UWC or ?

6- We could divert some of the money and time from other game animals or fish, or even non-game animals (those darn grebes) and put more of it into deer management/habitat. Sure, it might not go so well with some folks, even on this forum, but we've got a crisis here and they'll just have to understand.

7- We could cut some salaries of DWR employees. Since they haven't had a raise in 4 years now, they'll be able to adjust.

8- We could turn this whole mule deer management thing over to a private company with the lowest bid under $68 M. Maybe SWF would take it. Or Exxon. Or USHS. Or China. Or Karl Malone. Anyway, there's gotta be someone that can do a better job for less money.

9- We could concentrate on just 1/2 of the units in 2012 and 1/2 of them in 2013. That way we can double the time and money spent on each unit. And, after all, we expect a deer management plan to show results in only 2 years before we have to change it anyway, don't we?

I can't think of a 10th option, but maybe you can. Oh, yeah, Maybe we could get some of you guys who spend a lot of time just scouting and shed hunting to actually do more habitat work instead. That would help.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LOL,, :lol: 
^^^^^Wasn't there a "Bitterness" thread floating around a while back?^^^^^^^^

That post should be attached to that thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Because that's the BITTEREST post I've ever came across anywhere!!

EVER! :shock: ,, It's actually almost funny EFA!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> We need to cowboy up and donate it to the DWR or SFW or MDF or RMEF or UWC or ?


Alright, send it to UWC. If I can get a 100 dollar raise that'll bump my salary up to $100. :mrgreen:

Come on goofy, don't pretend to be a stranger to cynicism. o-||


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> LOL,, :lol:
> ^^^^^Wasn't there a "Bitterness" thread floating around a while back?^^^^^^^^
> 
> That post should be attached to that thread,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ...


ALMOST? I guess I gotta try harder!!! Sorry!

Help us out here! How else are we going to get more work done with less time and money?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Increase tag prices,,Hire what ever help is needed to do the job RIGHT!..
Pretty simple if your asking me...

Right now the general deer areas around were I live aren't even worth hunting anymore..
I'll put my money into other states or buy better CWMU, landowner tags as far as deer go.

Improve the deer hunting quality close to my home ,,, AND I'll gladly pay a $100 for a tag!
THAT WOULD BE CHEAP compared to traveling else were and buying tags...........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Manage wildlife with hunters, stop managing wildlife for hunters!

Yes, it is that simple!!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Increase tag prices,,Hire what ever help is needed to do the job RIGHT!..
> Pretty simple if your asking me...
> 
> Right now the general deer areas around were I live aren't even worth hunting anymore..
> ...


In other words, fix the darn problem and then I'll join you, but don't do it on my time or with my effort or money. How would that work with one of your children who might be in trouble? I guess it's a matter of priorities and perspectives!

And speaking of priorities and perspectives, It's great that you would be willing to pay $100 for a general deer permit here, but what makes you think everyone else would? It's rather arrogant of you to think that everyone thinks like you! For you, hunting is a high lifestyle priority, as evidenced by the fact that you're willing to spend your money and vacation days hunting in other states, and the fact that you're even on this forum. But for every one of you, or me, there are hundreds of Utah hunters that have hunting as a lifestyle priority down the list a ways and $100 per tag will drop it even further. I've hunted out of state only once (Washington, elk, 1967) with my uncle and aunt, and my uncle bought my tag. I simply couldn't/can't afford it based on my lifestyle priorities. My hunting money and time can usually be better spent elsewhere. Now, would I pay $100 for a deer tag? It depends on whether or not I have my ONE P&Y deer by then. Otherwise, elk taste better and I already have my ONE P&Y elk. I have my hunting priorities as well.

And what good would it do to hire whatever help is needed to do the job RIGHT, when the Wildlife Board tells them they have to do it WRONG?

Cynical, bitter, funny or not, these changes are not well thought out and not biologically based and will have consequences that will come back to bite even those promoting them.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Increase tag prices,,Hire what ever help is needed to do the job RIGHT!..
> Pretty simple if your asking me...
> 
> Right now the general deer areas around were I live aren't even worth hunting anymore..
> ...


This is in no way meant to corner you, goofy. But, what "needed help" do you see being hired? Who do we need to hire to do what job right? Are you saying increased manpower is what is necessary to increase deer populations?

Also, I don't think some of the black white conversations we have on here hold as much water as we all think. The fact is that when some of us say "quality" we are referring mostly to antler size and a better chance at better bucks. Others are referring to seeing more deer. While others are referring to the opportunity to be in the field. We try to have a conversation, thinking we are on the same plane, when in fact we are not. It's not right or wrong, but it definitely gets in the way of communicating effectively, especially in type.

Really, this "My experience of the deer herd" is conjecture at best. It's simply what people's experience, coupled with personal agenda and what we need to be true in order to be right. And I'm saying this about any perspective, whether it's antler guy or opportunity guy. The "I saw a ton of deer" or "I didn't see squat" arguments shouldn't hold much, if any water. It's silly that any of us would place so much stock in this stuff. Sure, some of us are out on the range quite a bit, but none of us are going to be very objective, especially those of us who are more opinionated and driven by an agenda or personal objective.

So my question is, however rhetorical it may be, what does that leave for a credible source of information regarding the condition of our deer herd and the necessary steps to remedy lower numbers, if any?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Do away with the Draw completely! Run it as a "dutch auction". You offer what you want to pay for the tag. Take the results, sort them in decending order and the first 80,000 offers get tags. The DWR would probably end up with way more revenue than they currently generate off tags.

I would pay $250 for a deer tag if I could get one each year. I'd pay that for my wife and my boy's tags as well.


-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Do away with the Draw completely! Run it as a "dutch auction". You offer what you want to pay for the tag. Take the results, sort them in decending order and the first 80,000 offers get tags. The DWR would probably end up with way more revenue than they currently generate off tags.
> 
> I would pay $250 for a deer tag if I could get one each year. I'd pay that for my wife and my boy's tags as well.
> 
> -DallanC


Great Idea! That'll separate the "serious" deer hunters from the "wanna-be's" and the "would-like-to-be's". And those folks could even save enough money to buy one of those tags every 5 years or so. And it will eliminate those nasty Conservation tags as well, cutting SFW, MDF, NWTF, RMEF, etc. out of the money loop. And we could eliminate the Dedicated Hunter program 'cause there will be no need for any of us to lift a finger to help out with conservation projects 'cause we'll have enough money to hire it done. Geez, maybe I could even get a job doing that! And it's as good of a trophy/money driven idea as the one we just embraced, IMHO, of course!
Let's go for it!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

What's sad is a company that brings in 70 million can't do its job with 400 employees. 

Sounds like the typical government never enough money, tax tax tax.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> What's sad is a company that brings in 70 million can't do its job with 400 employees.
> 
> Sounds like the typical government never enough money, tax tax tax.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


WOW :shock: That's like 10 posts in a row now I totally AGREE with you!

And Tree, 
When I say hire enough to get the job done right,,,How about this idea? A million to cover 38 specialist personnel,,,,,they each get a unit...
They eat , sleep, and live on "their" unit when on duty.....

#1 priority, Herd counts on "Their" unit,,,,Get it right!

#2 priority, Recommend specific needs for "Their" unit to improve herd growth..

The list go's on, But I think having someone from the DWR held accountable,
And responsible, for each unit would be a great idea...............


----------



## ROI (Jul 13, 2009)

Goffy elk,, I think we already have DWR staff that are assigned to these areas. When they do the counts we don't believe them. Why would these people be belived anymore than the current employees? Your "Get it Right" statement implies that it was done wrong before. What would you suggest is done differently with these newly assigned DWR employees that will get hunters to believe their numbers.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ROI said:


> Goffy elk,, I think we already have DWR staff that are assigned to these areas. When they do the counts we don't believe them. Why would these people be belived anymore than the current employees? Your "Get it Right" statement implies that it was done wrong before. What would you suggest is done differently with these newly assigned DWR employees that will get hunters to believe their numbers.


+1. What would make you believe then opposed to now?

Count deer, really? At this point that's your suggestion? What makes you think they aren't using the best available methods at the moment?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley- I can respect your last post. Now get out there and do something (keep doing something) more than lobby for micro-buck hunter management. 

Goofy- Come now, you want to hire 38 specialists for $1 million? Where are you going to find 38 mule deer specialists willing to work for a salary of $26,315.79? What are they going to drive? What phone are they going to use? Are they getting fuel for free? Do they use donated optics, donated pencils, and donated internet? No health insurance, eh? You sure bring some laughs to the topics here. You want more government employees that you will not believe. 

If we could buy our way into larger mule deer herds then I believe it would already have been done.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> Goofy- Come now, you want to hire 38 specialists for $1 million? Where are you going to find 38 mule deer specialists willing to work for a salary of $26,315.79?


Haha, that's if we were paying them cash on contracts. If you want 38 guys, just the labor costs associated with salaries, including taxes, FICA, insurance and other associated average benefits, you are asking them to work for roughly 15k a year.

So, let's assume we get these guys for 15K a year. Are you gonna in a million years be satisfied with any kind of data provided by someone making $7.21 an hour?

I have one thing to ask these highly trained, hypothetical unit biologists. Paper or plastic? And, I sure hope no one in my lineage takes a job as a hypothetical unit biologist. We're gonna be paying off student loans for 9 generations!

Back to the cyphering board........


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

The UDWR sucks at what they do! They have been doing a crappy job for the last 3 decades and are the reason our deer herds are suffering!!! We need to cut more tags and kill older mature bucks and let the year and half, two and a half year old bucks grow bigger! Wait, no, belay that. We can't kill more old mature bucks cuz we need them to make sure the does get covered! Yeah, that's it, the young bucks just don't get it done cuz they aren't filled with enough of them lil swimmin' gizmoes needed to make lil deer! Paradox? Irony? Cynicism? Crap?

What the heck is the UDWR thinking!?! Chopper and fixed wing herd evaluations, on the ground counts/evaluations, collar studies, using the latest Modeling programs (same as the other states that are screwed up) funding USU studies, habitat rehab, none of this crap will ever work! Cut tags! Kill older deer! Uhhh, wait, belay that. Kill younger deer!...???? Wait....dang it, don't kill no more deer! Close the regions/units down for a couple years, let 'em get back to higher numbers, thennnnnn kill older bucks! And thennnnnnnnnn, ANTLER RESTRICTIONS! Yeah, that will definately help! On a roll now! Raise tag/license prices to pay for .....ummmm, wait... Have to figure out what else to do since what the DWR is doing now aint working...pay for???? I'll get back to you on that! :mrgreen:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Goofy and SW great posts. It is become very clear that some on this site will support the DWR no matter what. That will not fix the problem. They have to do a better job than they have done in the past. I have worked for two very successful companies over the past 20 yrs. Had my performance or others around me mimicked the UDWR I would have not kept my job. That is a fact!!!! I do not support the idea of the DWR being taken over by a private company, but I will say this. It would be run much much different if it was.
I truly believe some of the support on this site for the division is more emotional and personal ties than fact or scienicic based. You'll never change some minds regardless of the facts.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> What's sad is a company that brings in 70 million can't do its job with 400 employees.
> 
> Sounds like the typical government never enough money, tax tax tax.


Don't forget about the fleet of vehicles, flights, and these items that cost money:

From the divisions director letter to deer hunters

1.*Habitat* - In the last five years, the Division, along with its many partners, has improved mule deer habitat on more than 600,000 acres at a cost of more than $70 million. Our deer management plan has an objective to improve another 500,000 acres of habitat in the next five years.
2.*Predators* - In the last five years, the Division has provided almost $3 million to Wildlife Services to control coyotes in areas that are important to our deer populations. Last year alone, Wildlife Services killed more than 1,700 coyotes in critical deer habitat areas with funding and guidance provided by the Division. The Division would like to expand our predator control efforts if we can obtain new funding.
3.*Highway Mortality* - Deer-auto collisions are responsible for the death of thousands of deer annually. In the past five years, UDOT has spent more than $45 million on fencing and highway bypass structures around the state for both mule deer and elk. The Division is also providing funding to Utah State University for a study to further identify the most effective types of highway bypass structures for both deer and elk.
4.*Poaching* - The Division has stepped up our law enforcement efforts and put more resources into catching poachers who steal many deer from Utah sportsmen each year. 5.Disease - The Division has expended more than $1 million in the last five years in the surveillance and research of chronic wasting disease and other diseases that affect mule deer.
6.*Research* - The Division has initiated numerous research projects in recent years to better understand the factors that are negatively affecting our mule deer populations. Last winter, the Division embarked on an extensive statewide radio telemetry study to better understand over-winter survival of both does and fawns. Hundreds of deer will be collared over the next few years-at an expense of more than $1 million-in order to gain better information about deer survival rates. The Division is also planning a comprehensive productivity study that will focus on the impacts of predators on mule deer fawns.
7.*Emergency Feeding* - The Division has an emergency winter feeding policy for deer should unusually severe conditions arise that warrant supplemental feeding. Even though feeding deer is both expensive and labor intensive, the Division has resources set aside for emergency situations. In 2008, the Division, in concert with several sportsman organizations, fed more than 14,000 deer in the Northern Region at a cost of more than $228,000.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Goofy and SW great posts. It is become very clear that some on this site will support the DWR no matter what.


Not true at all. But I would challenge you to spend some time with them and talk to them with an open mind. You might surprise yourself at what you see if you really understood what they do and HOW MUCH they are really doing.

I thought I knew better than them....I spent time on ride alongs and going over numbers and methods with them to find ways I could tell them how to do it better. I had to swallow my ego and realize I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. I have to really laugh at myself looking back on it all.



Muley73 said:


> Had my performance or others around me mimicked the UDWR I would have not kept my job. That is a fact!!!! I do not support the idea of the DWR being taken over by a private company, but I will say this. It would be run much much different if it was.


This intrigues me and I think is a very valid topic for discussion. I have to be honest if I had to "grade" the division for performance over the last 20 years I'm not sure what grade I'd give them right now. BUT I will say this bear, elk, turkey, sheep, and goats have all been success stories. It's CLEAR as a bell that they are doing something right and granted to give credit where it's due conservation dollars have helped.

When just looking at mule deer it's true that the desired results haven't happened but does that really mean they've failed? Can you realisitically compare free ranging mule deer management to the competitive market place in terms of measuring performance? In the competitive market place there is always a winner. In game management you have mother nature to deal with and man often loses battles with nature. I suppose that is a form of failure but we have to ask ourselves is there really a potential, realistically, that anyone could've done better? I think to measure their performance you would have to add the challeneges they face to the equation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....if it were really so easy to manage deer and grow a pile of them it would've been done by now. I mean no insult but how egotistical are we for thinking that all of the smart men that came before us, and are around now, just didn't/don't have a clue yet we have all the answers?



Muley73 said:


> I truly believe some of the support on this site for the division is more emotional and personal ties than fact or scienicic based. You'll never change some minds regardless of the facts.


I am an example of the contrary. I am a convert to this line of thinking. Less than 2 years ago I was saying what you are saying. The facts changed my mind. No personal ties....nothing other than cold hard facts drive my opinions.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Goofy and SW great posts. It is become very clear that some on this site will support the DWR no matter what. That will not fix the problem. They have to do a better job than they have done in the past. I have worked for two very successful companies over the past 20 yrs. Had my performance or others around me mimicked the UDWR I would have not kept my job. That is a fact!!!! I do not support the idea of the DWR being taken over by a private company, but I will say this. It would be run much much different if it was.
> I truly believe some of the support on this site for the division is more emotional and personal ties than fact or scienicic based. You'll never change some minds regardless of the facts.


Define "Better job". Until you can quantify something, the speculation means nothing. Anyone can say, "Seagulls are stupid and need to all die". Well, give us reasons, not opinions, to why this is irrefutably true. Hell, examples that point to why that might be true would suffice. Instead, You flash in, make a statement with no tangible evidence or logical explanation. Just a "That's how I see it, so that's how it is" mentality.

In reference to your "very successful companies" mantra. Were any of the major components of your job beyond your control? Were there people controlling and scrutinizing your every move and manipulating you? People that don't even work for your company? Did politics play a more important roll in you doing your job as you see fit than actual facts/cause/effect? There's a host of other factors that just aren't admissible when trying to compare the two.

Yes, they should strive to improve, but your argument doesn't have any substance. Throw out some substance and I'll jump on your hay wagon and ride wherever logic takes us.

In order to quantify a "good job" in relation to a "better job" you must have something to compare it to.

So, please tell us, to what are you comparing the "job" they have done in order to come to your conclusion?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> #1 priority, Herd counts on "Their" unit,,,,Get it right!
> 
> #


By "get it right". I assume you mean, call like you see it, no?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull,
Thanks for confirming. I think I probably could have types your post and been 90% word for word. It's all good. It is what it is.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > #1 priority, Herd counts on "Their" unit,,,,Get it right!
> ...


Here's were I have a problem with the DWR herd counts,,
These are from the 2010 post season counts..

Lets use one that seams to be close,,The Bookcliffs is estimated at 7,000 deer.
OK I can buy that, anyone that been in the Books knows there's a LOT...

Now there's Nebo, they show 11,800 there,,,,WOW got to be deer standing
EVERYWERE, less than a quater size of the cliffs and 4,800 more deer!

Or lets look at Diamond fork, Wasatch, Timp/Heber,,,estimated at 18,000 head! :shock:
Holy COW! 2 and a half TIMES AS MANY DEER AS THE BOOKCLIFFS!,,,Realy?

How about the South Slope Yellowstone,,estimated deer herd size 10,000 :shock: 
I spent 10 days this fall in that unit , hiked 26 miles, high and low......
Saw 3 little bucks!.........Really :?: I can go on :O•-:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Went again out all day long sun up to sun down. Covered Af canyon to point, north above cabellas, checked the golf course, potato hill, hogs hollow, north to corner canyon trail head, all the roads in alpine that go to the foot hills. 

Saw 3 small bucks, 1 crabby 160 class buck and no elk. When I did this loop in years past I would have seen 3 to 4 bucks in most canyons and I would have seen thousands of does. Also would have seen a hundreds of cow elk and several bulls. 

Since the deer and elk are no where to be found in the numbers I've seen in years past there must be a pile of deer and elk in another canyon you can't see. Well this was what I thought. So I put the boots on the ground all to no avail. So they must be still at 10,000 feet. I know there not but maybe some one can humor me and say they are. 

Sad sad shape! 

I do have the next 15 days off to find them and ill look in every crack on the front. So im expecting to see about a 1000 or more packed into a canyon some where else to make up the objective numbers the division is quoting. 

Id also be glad to take 26,000 to manage and look after an assigned area im already looking after on my own dime.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Went again out all day long sun up to sun down. Covered Af canyon to point, north above cabellas, checked the golf course, potato hill, hogs hollow, north to corner canyon trail head, all the roads in alpine that go to the foot hills.
> 
> Saw 3 small bucks, 1 crabby 160 class buck and no elk. When I did this loop in years past I would have seen 3 to 4 bucks in most canyons and I would have seen thousands of does. Also would have seen a hundreds of cow elk and several bulls.
> 
> ...


I think most of the deer and elk are higher on the mountain because we really havent had any major snowstorms to bring them down.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

SW,
Thanks for the info. To bad you don't have a 4 year degree in biology an employees by the state so we can believe you. 

Like I've said all along, they will continue to give tags til there is nothing left and some people and groups will support them. 

I hope the deer on that unit are holed up somewhere??? If not I guess maybe they just left the unit to hang out with the Parker pronghorn herd???


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> SW,
> Thanks for the info. To bad you don't have a 4 year degree in biology an employees by the state so we can believe you.
> 
> Like I've said all along, they will continue to give tags til there is nothing left and some people and groups will support them.
> ...


So, in other words, it's the fault of hunters overshooting the _bucks and bulls_, otherwise there would still be thousands of _doe deer_ and hundreds of _cow elk_ there? Yeh, it's too bad none of you have a 4 year degree in biology!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Went again out all day long sun up to sun down. Covered Af canyon to point, north above cabellas, checked the golf course, potato hill, hogs hollow, north to corner canyon trail head, all the roads in alpine that go to the foot hills.
> 
> Saw 3 small bucks, 1 crabby 160 class buck and no elk. When I did this loop in years past I would have seen 3 to 4 bucks in most canyons and I would have seen thousands of does. Also would have seen a hundreds of cow elk and several bulls.
> 
> ...


I am not sure why you would expect anything different... Alpine wanted a dramatic reduction in deer a short while ago and were even concidering hiring a shooter to come in and thin the population. The DWR finally decided to hold a huge doe hunt from ... drumroll please: Af Canyon to the Point. Now you are surprised you see few deer?

/boggle

-DallanC


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Elk,
Please read what SW is saying. He is talking about the extended doe hunt on the unit. I didn't say anything about the bucks on the unit. Please read before posting, I dont mind jabs just make them be relevant. 

Maybe you just started on the egg big a little early???


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Elk,
> Please read what SW is saying. He is talking about the extended doe hunt on the unit. I didn't say anything about the bucks on the unit. Please read before posting, I dont mind jabs just make them be relevant.
> 
> Maybe you just started on the egg big a little early???


  Oh, sorry! I do have a serious case of insomnia lately. No, not because of these issues, family issues. (Don't ever have any kids!)

So, that means bowhunters have killed thousands of does and hundreds of cows, then? And it's still the fault of hunters?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I'm sure it is not the only issue. But I can only guess that hunters are not having a positive impact on the population if they harvesting does???

I think you might be a hung up on the whole bucks harvest thing??? Maybe??? Just a guess???


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Went again out all day long sun up to sun down. Covered Af canyon to point, north above cabellas, checked the golf course, potato hill, hogs hollow, north to corner canyon trail head, all the roads in alpine that go to the foot hills.
> 
> Saw 3 small bucks, 1 crabby 160 class buck and no elk. When I did this loop in years past I would have seen 3 to 4 bucks in most canyons and I would have seen thousands of does. Also would have seen a hundreds of cow elk and several bulls.
> 
> ...


Had the day off today and decided to hike around on the UT/SL county line this morning. I counted 10 different bucks from my house to corner canyon. One really big 5x5, 5 160-170 class 4x4s, and a few smaller 3x3s. I also counted 30 does and about 15 fawns. I was only out for 3 hours this morning. SW, maybe we need to get together.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Goofy and SW great posts. It is become very clear that some on this site will support the DWR no matter what.


Let me use the same logic as you.

It has become very clear that a select few on this site will NOT support the DWR no matter what. :O•-:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Both comments are TRUE!!!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I have a feeling it's going to be a long winter!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: Re: State's trophy response*



JuddCT said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Went again out all day long sun up to sun down. Covered Af canyon to point, north above cabellas, checked the golf course, potato hill, hogs hollow, north to corner canyon trail head, all the roads in alpine that go to the foot hills.
> ...


I was also out this morning in the same place. In fact im still out loolking as i type this.

Its not that there are no bucks. There just used to be 10 times the number of bucks. Same with the does.

Pm me if you want to go out and video a few.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy and SW great posts. It is become very clear that some on this site will support the DWR no matter what.
> ...


And the unfortunate thing about this is that it isn't just the DWR you're supporting or not supporting, it's the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group whose plan the DWR adopted, the RAC's and Wildlife Board who thought the plan wasn't good enough, and most of all, the thousands of Utah deer hunters, the real public, who can't/don't attend RAC or WB meetings and thus haven't had a voice in these matters.

Well, I'm done for a while! I hafta pick up some bread pudding we ordered from a friend, the chef at Rusty's. Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Since everyone seems to think there haven't been any changes made in DWR's thinking regarding deer management for the last 30 years, last week I sent off a GRAMA request for CD copies of the previous two 5-year deer management plans because I couldn't find them online and I wanted to know how (or if) they were different from the one adopted from the WAFWA by the WB and DWR in December 2008. When they get here, I'll ether revive this thread or start a new one. And maybe I'll have to go much further back, but somewhere along the line soon we're going to have to find a plan that works both biologically and socially and most everyone can agree with. Otherwise, we'll be forever changing it while the deer herds keep going down the tube.


----------

