# What ya see is what ya got?



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

A lot of important management decisions are based on what hunters see these days.

So as I was parked in the Black Hill WMA Saturday morning, I counted over 250 head of deer at once and started wondering. What's Mr. Green planting around there that the deer love so much? And where were all those deer during the hunt?

Everybody says the deer on the Manti have all been "shot out". Now that the unit is going to be managed separately, will the deer not be shot out anymore? Or will all those deer and the additional 100 head standing beside the road from Ephraim to Manti cross highway 89 onto the Nebo unit?


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

No they won't cross but they will get hit by cars trying to cross. 250 deer isn't very many in that wma, there used to be a bunch more than that at this time of year.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I don't know that a count this time of year means much. The Gordon Creek WMA is always packed this time of year, but they are hard to find anywhere around May-October.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Finn, I believe you are an honest man. How many bucks did you count within those 250 deer?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Brookie And ridge are spot on, There should be more like a 1K head of
deer on the Black hills and Spring City WMA's.......With WAY better buck to doe Ratios.

I personally looked at the Lasson draw over Thanksgiving,,While YES, I did see a couple
nice buck's,,The overall deer numbers are almost horrifying!
2 DOZEN DOES!! Last years exact same weekend, exact same areas,,300 HEAD OF DEER!
5-6 Years ago, exact same time and areas ,,,OVER 1000 HEAD OF DEER!!

And you guys that think hunters are going to get "blind sided" by opt. 2 are DREAMING..
All that is being talked about every were I go is the new deer plan and what can be done
to HELP declining deer herds, every were......................Its the talk of the town EVERYWERE!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Brookie And ridge are spot on, There should be more like a 1K head of
> deer on the Black hills and Spring City WMA's.......With WAY better buck to doe Ratios.
> 
> I personally looked at the Lasson draw over Thanksgiving,,While YES, I did see a couple
> ...


So you're saying that your little trip over the weekend and the talk around town proves that the "new deer plan" is the way to HELP declining herds?
OK, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but only if you tell us how this is going to work? Give us some hope! And give us some details!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Little trip over the weekend,,,,,,,,,I'm on the hill more than anyone EFA..
Headed out the door right this second to look till dark!

I send 200 days a year on the mountain..have done for 20 years now....


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

As you can see, Goofy, cannot answer your question. This is pretty common with a lot of Option 2 supporters. Maybe if we focus on having more bucks in the herd to make the herd more "healthy" then not as many does would be getting hit by cars. 

If you have more bucks in the herd then fewer fawns are killed by coyotes. 

San Juan, Bookcliffs, Vernon, and Henry mtn deer herds aren't below objective because the DWR's counts are wrong. The deer population is actually increasing.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I personally looked at the Lasson draw over Thanksgiving,,While YES, I did see a couple
> nice buck's,,The overall deer numbers are almost horrifying!
> 2 DOZEN DOES!! Last years exact same weekend, exact same areas,,300 HEAD OF DEER!


So in your opinion, what happened to those 275 deer in that draw in one year?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Little trip over the weekend,,,,,,,,,I'm on the hill more than anyone EFA..
> Headed out the door right this second to look till dark!
> 
> I send 200 days a year on the mountain..have done for 20 years now....


Great! Since you know "the hill" so well, it should be easy for you to give us some details on how this "new" deer plan will work to help the declining herds!

Edited: I'll even help you out. Tell me where "the hill" is and in which unit and we'll look at the unit deer management plan to see how this new plan will improve it! Especially the population goals.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Now this may sound silly and outrageous, but I'm looking at the mountain right now and there isn't really any snow below 7500 feet. I distinctly remember climbing out of a tree stand the day before thanksgiving last year and it was 2 degrees with 20" of snow on the ground, and this was at 5200 feet. 

Any chance there's a correlation or did opportunists and coyotes eat the other 276 deer that are missing?? Really, a 90% decline speculation and it's being even considered as being some kind of accurate assessment? 

All of this speculation is so subjective, but unfortunately it gets passed around as fact in many circles. What's that old adage? "Men willingly believe what they wish to be true. "?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Now this may sound silly and outrageous, but I'm looking at the mountain right now and there isn't really any snow below 7500 feet. I distinctly remember climbing out of a tree stand the day before thanksgiving last year and it was 2 degrees with 20" of snow on the ground, and this was at 5200 feet.
> 
> Any chance there's a correlation or did opportunists and coyotes eat the other 276 deer that are missing?? Really, a 90% decline speculation and it's being even considered as being some kind of accurate assessment?
> 
> All of this speculation is so subjective, but unfortunately it gets passed around as fact in many circles. What's that old adage? "Men willingly believe what they wish to be true. "?


Ding! And we have a winner!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I guess in my mind, when I see a drop in numbers as indicated I find it hard to blame hunters or even say they are the problem. Something else is a lot bigger factor.

So what is it? I'm asking.........


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What's that old adage? "Men willingly believe what they wish to be true. "?


And what "micro unit hunter management" supporters wish to be true is for bucks to give birth.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Not only were all those deer at ~5000' last year, they were distributed differently also. I saw just as many deer this year, and just as many bucks, but they are at ~7000'. So harder to see, and harder to get to. I also noticed allot of winter range that was not being utilized this year. With the lack of snow, the deer were concentrated into areas with buffered(limestone) soils. This concentration was almost exclusive(wish I had figured that out earlier ;-) There were deer at ~5000', but only in smaller areas, all in buffered soils, and water being another factor. This is an area of Mule deer science that needs to be looked at much closer. Weather wise we are in, and probably headed further into a general wet cycle. This can be driven by wet springs, or heavy snows, or both. And all of these weather patterns have different effects. One of the biggest being browse quantity/quality, anyone notice how late the leaves stayed on this year? All of the water can be good, and/or bad, or in some cases just change up decades long deer patterns.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goofy- so Lasson Draw has 30 deer today, yet a couple years ago it had hundreds. Did hunters kill all those doe? How will micro buck management bring back all those doe?

Once again we have the great disconnect between reality and hope.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I get so tired of the argument about cutting the numbers of deer tags has no biological effect on deer management? What most of the pocket biologist on this forum tend to forget is that deer and management are oxymoronically code words for the powers that be to say that they have not got one stinking clue as to why mule deer numbers are in decline.

What amazes me even more about the group on this forum is that the observations of many forum members are somehow discounted as incorrect because by some genetic flaw they are unworthy to observe wildlife IE mule deer and are mathematically challenge and can’t count up to 20 or 21 didgets! 

Now you tell me which is the bigger line of defecation? Those who have observed a vast decline in mule deer numbers and have thrown up the red flag that if we do not do something now and make big changes, that we may not have a sustainable and huntable population of mule deer to hunt. Or should we be led by the perpetual bean counters that say keep spending because we will have no effect on the outcome of mule deer if we continue on our current course of let them eat cake.

I can tell you that in my genetically flawed observations, we have some great mule deer habitat in the state of Utah that is devoid of mule deer to the point in which hunting is a futile waste of time and money, to the point in which the up and coming generations are saying, “Screw you DWR and sportsman’s organization,” Deer hunting is dead and gone to us. Let’s pull our head out of sand box now, while we still have a small chance to save what little there is left.

My observations, Big


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, big, out of curiosity, how will cutting tags grow more deer? You and your likes keep saying it will....but you never answer the question as to how. So, I am curious.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> I get so tired of the argument about cutting the numbers of deer tags has no biological effect on deer management? What most of the pocket biologist on this forum tend to forget is that deer and management are oxymoronically code words for the powers that be to say that they have not got one stinking clue as to why mule deer numbers are in decline.
> 
> What amazes me even more about the group on this forum is that the observations of many forum members are somehow discounted as incorrect because by some genetic flaw they are unworthy to observe wildlife IE mule deer and are mathematically challenge and can't count up to 20 or 21 didgets!
> 
> ...


So in one swoop you discount all of the biologist and people that have spent their entire life on this very topic because of what some people see now and again in the field? I don't think there is one single person that will disagree that deer numbers have declined. I also bet you will not find anyone who doesn't want to have deer numbers increase again. The disagreement is how to get there. Tag cuts have proven time and time again to not be helpful (Disclaimer, unless the unit is very low in the buck to doe ratio).

I think the biologist and many people have a pretty good handle on why deer herds are decreasing. Unfortunately it is not an easy fix, the decline is comprised of many reasons. The easiest of all of them to control is hunters, hence the hunter management plan that was just passed last year. It makes people feel good I guess and if used right I think it can be helpful, but not in its current state.

As many have said, how will cutting tags increase the deer herds? Honest question.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, big, out of curiosity, how will cutting tags grow more deer? You and your likes keep saying it will....but you never answer the question as to how. So, I am curious.


Ok WY2UT,
Let me throw it back in your face! How does selling tags each year for deer that Utah can not account for (IE Bucks or Does) and most likely does not have in living form, biologically or ethically make sense to managers or sportsmen?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> I get so tired of the argument about cutting the numbers of deer tags has no biological effect on deer management? What most of the pocket biologist on this forum tend to forget is that deer and management are oxymoronically code words for the powers that be to say that they have not got one stinking clue as to why mule deer numbers are in decline.
> 
> What amazes me even more about the group on this forum is that the observations of many forum members are somehow discounted as incorrect because by some genetic flaw they are unworthy to observe wildlife IE mule deer and are mathematically challenge and can't count up to 20 or 21 didgets!
> 
> ...


I think we are all on some common ground, but get lost in the details. To raise the red flag and say the sky is falling might be true (depending on which specific area you are talking about). But to say it in general is false.

What about me raising the red flag and saying I've seen more and more deer over the last 3 years in the general area I hunt. Do you automatically believe me? I tend to give more credit to the DWR biologists and data than I give to myself or someone who says the sky is falling.

But I agree with W2U. I too have yet to hear a logical answer to the question: How will cutting tags grow more deer? The short and sweet answer is it eliminates the amount of bucks that are taken which allows them to grow bigger. I also think it MIGHT help to get does bred in the first estrus, but I have yet to see concrete evidence that this will actually happen. Just this year during the rut I sat and watched a very young deer breed a couple of does right in front of what I would consider a very mature mule deer buck. Was the younger buck successful? Sure looked like it to me, but I am what you call a uninformed "pocket biologist".

I think it is very short-sighted to focus on "hunter management" instead of real "wildlife management". We as hunters should really be focused on the real reasons the herd is "declining" and how to grow it again long term. I do like some of the studies being done by the DWR and Utah State on deer road fatalities and other really important issues. However, until the real biologists have the authority and power to act independently of the political arena I don't think we will see much progress.

Your friendly "pocket biologist" JuddCT


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Let me post this question to all of the great minds on this forum.

How many antlerless deer tags were issued this year?
How many buck deer tags were issued this year?

Now,

How many antlerless elk tags were issued this year? And
How many bull elk tags were issued this year?

Why such disparity in the number of antlerless tags between species if Utah has such a healthy GENERAL mule deer herd?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> Let me post this question to all of the great minds on this forum.
> 
> How many antlerless deer tags were issued this year?
> How many buck deer tags were issued this year?
> ...


This one is easy....the answer to ALL your questions is simply due to the objective numbers, deer are under objective and elk are not. Objectives though are just a "wish", they are not necessarily a carrying capacity number.

I want to be clear....we all want to gorw more deer and there are some concerning trends that NEED to be addressed around the west. We are simply barking up the wrong tree thinking that hunting regs are going to fix anything...or even help. That well is dry.

It's time to start looking at things like range conditions, competition from elk, fragmented ranges due to roads, road kills, migration route....and so on.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > So, big, out of curiosity, how will cutting tags grow more deer? You and your likes keep saying it will....but you never answer the question as to how. So, I am curious.
> ...


That's what I thought...you cannot answer the question.

My answer: Utah can account for the deer, and it does every year. How many tags were given last year? How many bucks have been accounted for in Utah? Wow, imagine that....Utah offers fewer tags than what there are available bucks...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Let me post this question to all of the great minds on this forum.
> 
> How many antlerless deer tags were issued this year?
> How many buck deer tags were issued this year?
> ...


Uhhh...where has anyone said that Utah's general mule deer herd is "healthy". What people are consistently saying is that we will not increase our deer numbers by cutting tags...it doesn't make any sense. Hunters are not the limiting factor for our deer herds, so cutting tags will not increase the deer numbers.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Let me post this question to all of the great minds on this forum.
> 
> How many antlerless deer tags were issued this year? 190 by my count
> How many buck deer tags were issued this year? 87,000 (not including LE)
> ...


I'll bite and answer (I'm really hoping that by answering your question you will try to answer the REAL question that has been posted multiple times)


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy has it on the money.Been over to the Draw alot in the last 40 years .Been all over the Sanpete Valley my entire life..And from my perspective the deer herds down that way have been outa wack for along long time. Use to go south of my Grand mothers house in Spring City see hundreds of deer,Pigeon Hollow. East,west north and south to Manti. Hundreds and hundreds of deer. Herds r in Pi-- poor shape,, Goofy knows what he is talkin bout... Close off the rifle hunt.. close of the Muzzy Hunt.. HELL close em all off! May as well. ,People in charge started puttin a BandAid on a major Artery long time ago. waited to long to get things workin? MAN I HOPE NOT!! If I can figure out how to do some pictures. I'll show you what deer from the Sanpete Valley use to look like. And what they look like nowa days..OH. How many antlerless tags were given out and recalled 92 93 because hunters screamed bloody murder.,Why because the winter kill up north was over 76% Hunters knew it.. DWR didn't Come On Man!!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Goofy has it on the money.Been over to the Draw alot in the last 40 years .Been all over the Sanpete Valley my entire life..And from my perspective the deer herds down that way have been outa wack for along long time. Use to go south of my Grand mothers house in Spring City see hundreds of deer,Pigeon Hollow. East,west north and south to Manti. Hundreds and hundreds of deer. Herds r in Pi-- poor shape,, Goofy knows what he is talkin bout... Close off the rifle hunt.. close of the Muzzy Hunt.. HELL close em all off! May as well. ,People in charge started puttin a BandAid on a major Artery long time ago. waited to long to get things workin? MAN I HOPE NOT!! If I can figure out how to do some pictures. I'll show you what deer from the Sanpete Valley use to look like. And what they look like nowa days..


Once again where has anyone said the deer herds are not hurting? Also if you want to talk about bandaid approach, close of the hunts, that is the biggest bandaid approach of all. Will help for a few years, then crash. Look at the Henry's, big bucks DO NOT equate to a healthy herd.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Goofy has it on the money.Been over to the Draw alot in the last 40 years .Been all over the Sanpete Valley my entire life..And from my perspective the deer herds down that way have been outa wack for along long time. Use to go south of my Grand mothers house in Spring City see hundreds of deer,Pigeon Hollow. East,west north and south to Manti. Hundreds and hundreds of deer. Herds r in Pi-- poor shape,, Goofy knows what he is talkin bout... Close off the rifle hunt.. close of the Muzzy Hunt.. HELL close em all off! May as well. ,People in charge started puttin a BandAid on a major Artery long time ago. waited to long to get things workin? MAN I HOPE NOT!! If I can figure out how to do some pictures. I'll show you what deer from the Sanpete Valley use to look like. And what they look like nowa days..


I'm definetly not as experienced as you and I don't have even half the amount of time you have in the Sanpete Valley. But I've hunted it quite a bit over the last 10 years and I have to disagree as I've seen the complete opposite. The area will never be what it was like 20/30/40 years ago (beleive me every time I go to the in-laws house/store I see mounts of the bucks of old). However one of those "old farts" (my father in law) has been on the mountain with me the last 7 years. When we started he would always complain about the lack of deer and "big bucks" (not to mention he was always passing up on deer in the 150-170 range every year) :roll: . Well, he is finally adjusting his tune. The past three years while hunting/passing on bucks he has said "that is the biggest buck I've seen in the last 15 years". I started putting up trail cameras over the last 5 years and he is amazed at the amount of deer that would show up in places he never expected them to be.

I'm not old enough to remember the "good old days" that so many talk about. However, there are a lot of deer in the Sanpete Valley (maybe not in the same places they used to be due to loss of habitat/etc), but they are there.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Last year I seen 10 deer in one field and now this year I only seen one in that very same field! That is not a very good reason of how the deer are struggling. 
The weather is different this year, more people have moved into that area(San Pete Valley) deer aren't always going to be in the same place everytime you go and look. 
Are the herds struggling? Yes, but I trust the biologist that say not as bad as everyone says. 
Again managing for buck to doe instead of fawn to doe is going to ruin the herd. Look at colorado when they implemented unit management the deer pop was around 1million now its 400k. No one cares but their biologists because people are tagging big deer. Same thing is going on in Nevada. 
The real issues need to be addressed not the hunters!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Goofy has it on the money.Been over to the Draw alot in the last 40 years .Been all over the Sanpete Valley my entire life..And from my perspective the deer herds down that way have been outa wack for along long time. Use to go south of my Grand mothers house in Spring City see hundreds of deer,Pigeon Hollow. East,west north and south to Manti. Hundreds and hundreds of deer. Herds r in Pi-- poor shape,, Goofy knows what he is talkin bout... Close off the rifle hunt.. close of the Muzzy Hunt.. HELL close em all off! May as well. ,People in charge started puttin a BandAid on a major Artery long time ago. waited to long to get things workin? MAN I HOPE NOT!! If I can figure out how to do some pictures. I'll show you what deer from the Sanpete Valley use to look like. And what they look like nowa days..OH. How many antlerless tags were given out and recalled 92 93 because hunters screamed bloody murder.,Why because the winter kill up north was over 76% Hunters knew it.. DWR didn't Come On Man!!


I'll agree whole heartedly with this one and this is what is common in these conversations. Fellas that are 45+ years old remember "the good ol' days" and relative to the good ol' days, deer herds have been chopped by a third. Why? Weather? sure. Predators? sure. Hunters? Sure, we harvested a lot of does back in the day. Range conditions and habitat loss? Sure. But the one thing that never comes out of their mouths is the absolutely unnatural number of mule deer in our state created by a perfect storm of range conditions and a lack of predation due to ruthless practices enacted by the ranching industry? Ask any bio and they'll tell you that those days were the result of a perfect storm. They had feed that was conducive, it was a bust period for predators and there were several periods of favorable weather.

So yeah, relative to a 55 year old guy, our deer are in a world of hurt! Relative to a 30 year old guy, it's all status quo.

Perception is what? Are you older folks who see this as being the case and think we should or can have 500,000 mule deer in our state willing to throw the baby out to obtain more deer? With the information available now, Is that ultimately an intelligent decision?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Deer herds are increasing in many parts of the state. Past performance, does not guarantee future results though. Utahs deer herds are AWESOME!, compared to the 1930s, but nothing compared to the 1980s. Wildlife is not a static situation. Much of what led to the 1980s deer boom, was actually allot of very bad wildlife management that should never be repeated. Along with weather patterns landing heel, toe, in benefit of deer. That may not sound right to some, but long term sustainability should be the goal, and many times has nothing to do with hunters themselves. Whats good for the deer long term, is good for hunters longer term, but we dont think long term, do we?

As for the "real" biologists knowing whats best.....BS. We have some very sharp Bios in this state, but they are under funded, and have poor direction. Thats the good ones, some of them are not capable of tieing their own shoes, and are nothing but puppets anyway. While I'm only an "armchair" biologist, I've funded multi-year wildlife studies, and held my own with biologists in ID, UT, MT, CA, WY and Canada. Utah biologists did/dont know why our Bighorn sheep are dieing, and it took them years to figure out why all the moose are dieing. Many of them also dont think there is an eminent elk die off in the future. These are all bigger scientific issues that should have lots of focus, but dont. Where is all of the focus?

The bigger issue is political, plain and simple. Political presure guides the DWR, this is BS. If scientific wildlife management is set aside for hunter management and politics(which is the case), hunters and wildlife lose out. The DWR needs to be driven by science, and both them and hunters need to be concerned with sustainability, not politics, or tropheys. This requires spending money, lots of it, on years of mundain "science", not very exciting or power/influence building is it? A physicist friend of mine is fond of saying "There is no money in science, but there is plenty of science in money"


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Wow, I have got to type faster.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

:mrgreen:

Here's a few bits of info from the following link. it goes until '07. The 08-11 is very similar.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... report.pdf


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I wish we had a bunch of hunters from 100-90 years ago telling us about how hunting is not what it used to be...But then again they would be all over us about where all the bighorns are at, and why the elk are not browsing out in the open deserts and plains.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

> 2 DOZEN DOES!! Last years exact same weekend, exact same areas,,300 HEAD OF DEER! 5-6 Years ago, exact same time and areas ,,,OVER 1000 HEAD OF DEER!!


This means absolutely ZILCH to me. :?

Two years ago I had a late season mitigation doe tag for the Howell Valley area. Took my son out and selected a doe from literally HUNDREDS of deer standing all over that valley. The very next year my father, son, and brother along with me all drew late season doe tags for the exact same area during the exact time of year. We saw six deer in five days of HARD hunting. Where did they all go? Did they all die? Nope, they just weren't in that spot that year. The deer are there, but right along with us getting better at finding them, they've gotten that much better at evading detection. Same with elk. We still have big bulls dieing of old age on every unit. Trouble is, they're a lot smarter than they used to be. Look at the Spider bull. All you weenies can scream conspiracy all you want, but the FACT is, that bull was a wild bull that escaped and evaded EVERYONE for two months before the Mossback Assassination Squad finally found him and got him killed. I think the deer herds are hurting, but largely because of poor management, NOT over hunting.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Talk of the perfect storm rings true with me. The "perfect storm" is what caused the major crash in '92-93 for those that remember that winter. By opening day, the deer were already on their winter range, which was nothing but stubble resulting from a few years of drought. The deer had nothing to eat going in to that winter, and snow fell early and often. It was a long, cold, and deep winter on an already compromised herd in most parts of the state. But it was the perfect storm that caused many to stand up and demand a cap on tags. The whole herd of elk and deer that died on capitol grounds and hills above the capitol helped a little too.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Sorry. I guess some people took my CLOSE ALL THE HUNTS SERIOUS..I just think if we did that we could all stop Bitchin about the deer herds.. My PIE HOLE is opened to far. I'am just a MAD AS HELL BOW HUNTER! Who got screwed with the rest of emTake Away State Wide Archery. No Impact on the Herds. But Serious! We have in my opinoin a HUGE problem with the Deer Herds,, Do I expect deer to bounce back to the way it was? HELL NO!!To many mistakes been made.. But what is going to be done is kinda screwed up. Cutting back on tags.the last few years.. just didin't cut it. So whats coming up will.? Horse Hockey.. As for Sanpete Valley...Been dinking around their for bout 55 years. Wish you could have seen it. Use to chase the Bucks out of my Grand Pa's flower beds.. I never expected to see that again.. My Father whos realitive took a 48" Buck just out of town was un real,And I know for sure will never happen again. There's a 275.000 home sittin there now.I don't expect to ever see deer like that in whats left of my life time..


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Now this may sound silly and outrageous, but I'm looking at the mountain right now and there isn't really any snow below 7500 feet. I distinctly remember climbing out of a tree stand the day before thanksgiving last year and it was 2 degrees with 20" of snow on the ground, and this was at 5200 feet.


+1

I don't claim to be an expert on the Sanpete deer herd, but I went fishing today up Fairview canyon and I saw two bands of deer *at the top* of Fairview canyon. Included in the groups was one pretty nice 3 point that didn't seem to be short of female companionship. There was almost no snow on the South faces all the way up the canyon. Usually there are +/- 2 feet of snow at the top of Fairview canyon by now.

Might that be why the counts are down on traditional low elevation winter range?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I wonder why Finn never answered my question? Probably because he didn't see many bucks among those 250 deer. This is only me speaking but I have never said that the deer herds will grow faster by cutting tags. I also dought that the herds decline faster if 20 or 30% more bucks are added to the herd numbers. One thing is for sure and that is, I really like looking at bucks over does and the more I see, the happier I get. I am really looking forward to seeing more bucks and maybe a few more mature one in the mix, right out here in my back yard. I live within a few hundred yards of BLM lands and there are always about 40 deer that move into the fields this time of year. Two years ago, I never saw a single buck rutting in Nov. around these 40 does. Last year 3 bucks showed up, I'm sure the 3 day hunt with the big snow storm saved these bucks. This year only about 3 or 4 deer have showed up. I'm sure they are somewhere else or I hope so. Here's where I stand if you guys haven't figured it out yet.
I am really excited to see the 9 day hunt back in my area, I hated the 3 and 5 day season. 
I'm excited about the chance of seeing more bucks on the summer and winter ranges and share these sighting with my son which I hope gets him excited when he has a tag.
I'm excited about helping others spot and look over several bucks and pick the one they would like to harvest. 
For me, the chance to see more bucks within a couple miles of my back porch has got me very excited for the future. For me, the trade off of not hunting every year to have more chances at seeing more bucks among the does is worth cutting tags back. 
I hope you guys can a least respect my feelings on this. I know it differs from many on here but I also know I can't be the only one that feels this way. We are doing so much in trying to get the herds to rebound, I just think that cutting tags to view more bucks will get more people excited about hunting and is just another piece of the puzzle to get the big picture of science and hunter satifaction.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Nambaster said:


> I wish we had a bunch of hunters from 100-90 years ago telling us about how hunting is not what it used to be...But then again they would be all over us about where all the bighorns are at, and why the elk are not browsing out in the open deserts and plains.


Hunters from 90-100 years ago would tell you there were no elk or bighorn sheep around. I was fortunate enough to have many of those stories handed down from my great grand fathers. Now the fishing on the other hand was phenomenal as they told it. there were already complaints of severe wildlife decline in the intermountain west in the early 1840s. I want to hear the tales of hunters from 200+ years ago, and even better, 500+.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I wonder why Finn never answered my question? Probably because he didn't see many bucks among those 250 deer. This is only me speaking but I have never said that the deer herds will grow faster by cutting tags. I also dought that the herds decline faster if 20 or 30% more bucks are added to the herd numbers. One thing is for sure and that is, I really like looking at bucks over does and the more I see, the happier I get. I am really looking forward to seeing more bucks and maybe a few more mature one in the mix, right out here in my back yard. I live within a few hundred yards of BLM lands and there are always about 40 deer that move into the fields this time of year. Two years ago, I never saw a single buck rutting in Nov. around these 40 does. Last year 3 bucks showed up, I'm sure the 3 day hunt with the big snow storm saved these bucks. This year only about 3 or 4 deer have showed up. I'm sure they are somewhere else or I hope so. Here's where I stand if you guys haven't figured it out yet.
> I am really excited to see the 9 day hunt back in my area, I hated the 3 and 5 day season.
> I'm excited about the chance of seeing more bucks on the summer and winter ranges and share these sighting with my son which I hope gets him excited when he has a tag.
> I'm excited about helping others spot and look over several bucks and pick the one they would like to harvest.
> ...


I have total respect for this honesty and acknowledge that there are a percentage of hunters who feel the same.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> Talk of the perfect storm rings true with me. The "perfect storm" is what caused the major crash in '92-93 for those that remember that winter. By opening day, the deer were already on their winter range, which was nothing but stubble resulting from a few years of drought. The deer had nothing to eat going in to that winter, and snow fell early and often. It was a long, cold, and deep winter on an already compromised herd in most parts of the state. But it was the perfect storm that caused many to stand up and demand a cap on tags. The whole herd of elk and deer that died on capitol grounds and hills above the capitol helped a little too.


The 90s saw some of the biggest declines for elk in many decades, much of which was disease driven. And much of it looked worse than it was, because herd size had been building for years. ~'95-'96 we were finding allot of aborted calves on winter range. The elk have rebounded to record numbers again, but that goes for many western states. The deer numbers seem flat in comparison, but was there some sort of crash in the last 18 months that I missed? Prediction: Elk are headed for another crash. They are at unsustainably high numbers in many places. How many elk units when that happens? So deer tags were capped, where are all the deer? Its been 16 years with fewer hunters, they should be huge and all over the place.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I wonder why Finn never answered my question? Probably because he didn't see many bucks among those 250 deer.


I didn't answer right away because I'm a busy man and didn't get a chance until now. But you're right, I didn't SEE many mature bucks. Of course, I also SAW more fawns than does. Sure didn't SEE enough bucks to sire all those fawns. Also worth mentioning that there were very few late fawns in the bunch.

But now let's add what I know...what we know.

We know that warm temps and very little snow on the mountain aren't the conditions that lead deer to stand out in the open in the daylight with an army of people running around hunting cows and Xmas trees.

We know that the only post-hunt mature bucks that would do such a thing are the bucks that haven't been shot at or are too hot with the rut to care.

We know that those same conditions don't push deer onto the valley floor, especially following a wet year with lots of vegetation.

We know that from any given angle, the amount of visible space in a wild area is only a small fraction of the area even with the best optics. And even though we know that rut activity causes so much movement that 10 deer leave tracks that look like 100, the fact that I found heavy tracks all the way up the face of the mountain is good evidence that what I SAW on the valley floor was only a sample of what was there.

Could go on, but that's enough. Put it all together and it seems pretty obvious that the DWR is right, much as a lot of hunters don't want to hear it. This area is at carrying capacity. If there's a shred of evidence to the contrary, I want to hear it because that's a **** depressing thought.



oldfudd said:


> As for Sanpete Valley...Been dinking around their for bout 55 years. Wish you could have seen it. Use to chase the Bucks out of my Grand Pa's flower beds.. I never expected to see that again.. My Father whos realitive took a 48" Buck just out of town was un real,And I know for sure will never happen again. There's a 275.000 home sittin there now.I don't expect to ever see deer like that in whats left of my life time..


I'm right there with you. I'm a Wales boy and 57 years old. Sad thing that the current NEARSIGHTED attitudes that are guiding deer management will only make things worse. If I've put the evidence together right and the area is at carrying capacity, increasing the number of bucks can only increase fawn mortality. Wish I was wrong, but I also wish I was good looking and rich.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Little trip over the weekend,,,,,,,,,I'm on the hill more than anyone EFA..
> Headed out the door right this second to look till dark!
> 
> I send 200 days a year on the mountain..have done for 20 years now....


I think that's wonderful, though I don't know how you can do it. But since you haven't answered my question about the unit deer management plan and how Option #2 will improve it, perhaps you'll answer this one. With all that time on the hill, how many acres of deer habitat have you saved from P & J encroachment by lopping and scattering? Or are you more interested in just looking for the BIG ONE?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Little trip over the weekend,,,,,,,,,I'm on the hill more than anyone EFA..
> Headed out the door right this second to look till dark!
> 
> I send 200 days a year on the mountain..have done for 20 years now....


I am going to call you out on this one! I spend EVERY day on the Manti unit, I think that 'trumps' you....... :O•-:

Now, as to your other BS assertion; I have talked to HUNDREDS of deer hunters over the last several months about the new deer plan, and I NEVER brought up the subject. I honestly can say that less than 5% of them like the new plan. Of course these are just 'dumb' country folk that have hunted their whole lives, WTH do they know? Apparently they don't hang out in the right circles, so they are not as well educated as goofy's friends.....

Just as a little disclaimer, there are so many deer on my farm, and the neighboring farms, that I have been offered depredation permits 5 separate times by the DWR. I have right now as I type more than 300 deer on my land, and last year there were 30. I will do a more 'scientific' count for buck:doe ratio in about an hour, but I can tell you there are a dozen bucks that go over 24" standing within eyesight of my kitchen window as I type. Just think of how many mature bucks will be in my fields next year when this cure-all plan is implemented..........................


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Sad thing that the current NEARSIGHTED attitudes that are guiding deer management will only make things worse. If I've put the evidence together right and the area is at carrying capacity, increasing the number of bucks can only increase fawn mortality. Wish I was wrong, but I also wish I was good looking and rich.


Finn is a wise and astute individual! My hat is off to your wisdom and insight. :_O=:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Just as a little disclaimer, there are so many deer on my farm, and the neighboring farms, that I have been offered depredation permits 5 separate times by the DWR. I have right now as I type more than 300 deer on my land, ...


I don't know if you accepted the depredation permits or not. I'm assuming you didn't. I applaud you for it. With a deer herd that is struggling, killing doe's shouldn't be happening. If necessary, to compensate for damages done, I'd be perfectly happy to see those farmers (such as Pro) handed some money.

I know of a family down in this end of the state that kills numerous doe's each year. They also complain the loudest about the poor job the DWR has done managing the deer herds -- the decline of the herds. Sometimes people need to take a step back and look at themselves in the mirror...


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Just as a little disclaimer, there are so many deer on my farm, and the neighboring farms, that I have been offered depredation permits 5 separate times by the DWR. I have right now as I type more than 300 deer on my land, ...
> ...


PBH and where are us farmers going to get that money from?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Just as a little disclaimer, there are so many deer on my farm, and the neighboring farms, that I have been offered depredation permits 5 separate times by the DWR. I have right now as I type more than 300 deer on my land, ...
> ...


So, couldn't we issue 1 late season tag for a buck instead of 10 does? A feller could sell a buck tag for several thousand dollars, which would probably end up being more compensation than the 10 doe tags. If we want to grow more deer, that'd make more sense to me than giving out a bunch of doe tags for compensation.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

pheaz -- Rainy Day fund? I don't know. I don't care. I'd still rather see the state end handing out tags to kill does due to crop damage.

Maybe instead of handing out money, dedicated hunter projects to construct deer fences to keep the deer out of your field would be a better alternative?

Tree -- if you wanted a single buck tag vs. compensation for 100 does damage, fine by me. _Just stop killing the does._


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> pheaz -- Rainy Day fund? I don't know. I don't care. I'd still rather see the state end handing out tags to kill does due to crop damage.
> 
> Maybe instead of handing out money, dedicated hunter projects to construct deer fences to keep the deer out of your field would be a better alternative?
> 
> Tree -- if you wanted a single buck tag vs. compensation for 100 does damage, fine by me. _Just stop killing the does._


I'm agreeing with you, just looking for a real fiscal solution. In the midst of budget cuts, pushing for less dead deer and more compensation will have some resistance. I don't think there'd be an issue.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

PBH said:


> pheaz -- Rainy Day fund? I don't know. I don't care. I'd still rather see the state end handing out tags to kill does due to crop damage.
> 
> Maybe instead of handing out money, dedicated hunter projects to construct deer fences to keep the deer out of your field would be a better alternative?
> 
> Tree -- if you wanted a single buck tag vs. compensation for 100 does damage, fine by me. _Just stop killing the does._


PBH dont take me wrong I agree. Every fall the DWR deliver the hog panels for the haystacks. Yes it works for the most part but what about the fences, wheel lines and handlines they destroy. I hate the tags and we dont use them but do get them. A cash comp is completely out of the question from them. And that is why most of the farmers sell there tags to comp the damage.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

phaez -- this might be a very ignorant question, so please help me understand: why is it the State's responsibility to keep wildlife out of _your_ hay? Isn't that part of the risk associated with growing crops? Shouldn't you take responsibility for preventing wildlife, or domestic animals like cows, from eating your crops?

Is fencing out deer too expensive for farmers to implement? Maintenance?

(just something I've always wondered)


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

PBH said:


> phaez -- this might be a very ignorant question, so please help me understand: why is it the State's responsibility to keep wildlife out of _your_ hay? Isn't that part of the risk associated with growing crops? Shouldn't you take responsibility for preventing wildlife, or domestic animals like cows, from eating your crops?
> 
> Is fencing out deer too expensive for farmers to implement? Maintenance?
> 
> (just something I've always wondered)


Agreed, Remember the wildlife belongs to the State. No different than if I want to keep the neighbors cows out I have to put up a fence. Most farmers split the cost of a fence between 2 parcells. But a 12 foot fence around a 2 acre hay stack would break a guy on his own.
(thats why the state provides hog panels but the farmer is responsible for the set up) 12 foot fence around 250 acre farm well you can add it up. I really could care less if they are there eating whats left of the crops. It only hurts when they run the cows and horses off and get the feed.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> Remember the wildlife belongs to the State. No different than if I want to keep the neighbors cows out I have to put up a fence.


I've always found this backwards. Too much incentive for the livestock owner to allow his cattle to damage the other guys property. But, hey, it's the other guys responsibility to keep my cows off his property! (you don't fence cows in, you fence them out)

I understand the cost issue of putting up a 12' fence -- but that puzzles me, because I would assume that if I couldn't afford the cost that I would be forced to accept the loss, or find a new job. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.

Personally, I hope that we can come to a resolution so that farmers can be compensated for damages caused by wildlife without killing the wildlife.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

PBH said:


> I've always found this backwards. Too much incentive for the livestock owner to allow his cattle to damage the other guys property. But, hey, it's the other guys responsibility to keep my cows off his property! (you don't fence cows in, you fence them out)Very true it is very backwards. Here is funny one for ya- If the neighbors cow gets onto my property and goes out my gate I am responsible for the its actions. Not the owner. If the cow gets hit I am the one getting sued not the owner
> 
> I understand the cost issue of putting up a 12' fence -- but that puzzles me, because I would assume that if I couldn't afford the cost that I would be forced to accept the loss, or find a new job. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.I am not responsible for having a 12 foot fence to keep my cattle in so why would I, I accept the loss every year. But like I say the way the division handles this issue is by giving tags to comp. We do not use them though
> 
> Personally, I hope that we can come to a resolution so that farmers can be compensated for damages caused by wildlife without killing the wildlife.


Agreed


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I hope you guys can a least respect my feelings on this. I know it differs from many on here but I also know I can't be the only one that feels this way. We are doing so much in trying to get the herds to rebound, I just think that cutting tags to view more bucks will get more people excited about hunting and is just another piece of the puzzle to get the big picture of science and hunter satifaction.


I can respect this point of view.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> phaez -- this might be a very ignorant question, so please help me understand: why is it the State's responsibility to keep wildlife out of _your_ hay? Isn't that part of the risk associated with growing crops? Shouldn't you take responsibility for preventing wildlife, or domestic animals like cows, from eating your crops?
> 
> Is fencing out deer too expensive for farmers to implement? Maintenance?
> 
> (just something I've always wondered)


First, I have turned down the depredation permits, but I have made it clear I want the deer/elk off MY land. I run cattle on pasture 12 months a year, and lost feed to the state's critters is no better than lost feed from my neighbor's critters.

Second, I use electric fencing to keep MY livestock where I want them to be on MY land. Why should I pay to manage the state's livestock where they are SUPPOSED to be? Don't get me wrong, I love wildlife as much as anyone on this site, but why should I be the one feeding them or 'managing' were they feed? MY farm/ranch is a 4th generation operation, and there were nowhere near 300 deer living off MY great-great-grandfathers crops, so why should I be the one paying for the state's critters? Farmers/ranchers are barely making it, hell many aren't making it, and you think we all should build 12' fences around our land? I have over 700 acres, do the math on that one. You think food prices are high now.......The other option to reimbursing me for costs, is for me and other farmers/ranchers to 'take care of the problem'. Not what I want to do, but I have a family to feed, not YOUR deer/elk! I grew up on this land, and when I was in my youth, during the 'hey-day' of deer populations, we NEVER had this many deer/elk on MY land. It wasn't an issue, so why should I be expected to foot the bill? I will work with the local DWR guys, hell I even tipped them off last week on a poaching, but they......AND the public, need to work with me.

I can keep them out of MY hay, permanently....is that what you really want? Just saying.....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well this thread took a twist....

It is too bad we have such a disconnect in our society--- I always figured that the People were the State. Those animals are ours. Of course the State is there to ration them. Just like the Forest and BLM lands are ours- if we agree with their management or not. My house is my family's, yet there are rules for everyone in the house. 

I have been in the ranching/farming industry my whole life. I understand what happens when a herd of elk show up in a hay field or an apple orchard. I know what happens when 150 elk calve and feed on a ranch from March-Nov. I have fixed hundreds of miles of elk/deer damaged fence. BUT, I still want them there. I feel the antlerless tags are a good way to compensate an owner for dealing with "Our" animals. I do feel that doe tags are offered too easily, too often. The antlered landowner permit situation is a mess. 

Pheaz- Glad I don't live in Wasatch County. I have never heard that I will be responsible for my neighbor's trespassing cow's actions.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Farmers/ranchers are barely making it, hell many aren't making it, and you think we all should build 12' fences around our land? I have over 700 acres, do the math on that one.


Pro -- there are alternatives for people who cannot financially managed to continue to operate their business: change professions.

I feel for you guys. I really do. I'm not saying you should be responsible for feeding our wildlife -- but I do feel that ranchers whine and cry about it too much. If it's your livelihood, then I would think that the benefits of installing a fence would outweigh the financial burden.

What really get's me is when we have these discussions -- the ones about the deer and elk doing lots of damage to ranchers grazing alotments, etc. Next week, we'll start up a new discussion. You know the one.....the yearly "fish lake cow elk slaughter" discussion where everyone is pissed because of how many elk are killed. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? It's because ranchers and cattlemen are upset about the damage done by wildlife. It's about having your cake, and eating it too.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

PBH said:


> Pro -- there are alternatives for people who cannot financially managed to continue to operate their business: change professions.PBH so for the farmer/rancher that does make it without the help of the wildlife, but cant make it with the help of the wildlife is suppose to just bag the operation and find other work. That sounds a little one sided to me
> 
> I feel for you guys. I really do. I'm not saying you should be responsible for feeding our wildlife -- but I do feel that ranchers whine and cry about it too much. If it's your livelihood, then I would think that the benefits of installing a fence would outweigh the financial burden.So if a racoon is eating your whole winter supply of garden what would you do. Do you build a fully enclosed fence around your 2 acre garden. Or eliminate the problem?
> 
> What really get's me is when we have these discussions -- the ones about the deer and elk doing lots of damage to ranchers grazing alotments, etc. Next week, we'll start up a new discussion. You know the one.....the yearly "fish lake cow elk slaughter" discussion where everyone is **** because of how many elk are killed. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Yes it really makes me wonder why the division doesnt step in and deal with the issue, besides having a elk slaughter. It's because ranchers and cattlemen are upset about the damage done by wildlife. It's about having your cake, and eating it too.I dont see it like that, I spend all summer farming to raise the crops for the livestock for winter feed. I do not have enough feed to take on another 300 head of wildlife. Why dont you and all your huntin buddies, pony up the cash to buy extra hay. I will be more than happy to feed them for ya. But why would ya, you only hunt them 2 months out of the year right, its not your responsibility right?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

OK -- my comments were a bit extreme, and I know it. No: I do not expect farmers / ranchers to just bag their operations due to wildlife damage. I do expect the State to offer them help / support / compensation. What I don't like is when farmers / ranchers do NOTHING. I'm not accusing you, or Pro of doing nothing. There is a problem, and a solution needs to be found.

If a racoon is eating my garden, I kill the racoon. Fortunately, racoons are not a protected animal in Utah, and I'm allowed to kill them. Deer / elk are another story.

Why doens't the Division step in? They do. I'm sure you are aware that the DWR is mandated, by law, to keep elk herds at, or under their stated objectives (number). This population number is a number that is agreed upon by the UDWR, the Forest Service, the ranchers, etc. If the DWR does not attempt to lower population numbers in areas that are over objective, then the FS and ranchers can sue the DWR. Legally, the DWR MUST keep the herd size at or under that objective. So, how do you keep those herds under the legally allowed population objective? You kill cows. This is what the ranchers want. Hunters also want to do this -- otherwise, tags wouldn't be sold and filled. However, it upsets people, and people complain about it. If it is a valid complaint, then steps should be taken to INCREASE the population objective! See how that goes over with the ranchers!

As for me and my hunting buddies ponying up some cash to subsidize farmers: OK with me. I'd rather see a license fee increase, with a percentage of that increase set aside to compensate ranchers / farmers for damages done, than to see more does killed in areas that herd size is a problem.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This is what gets me with this debate--landowners fight hard to keep people off their land. Look no further than the stream access debate where landowners have fought hard to keep the public from accessing public water through private land. Then, when floods hit like last spring, the same private landowners look for compensation or for the cities and state to come in and help protect their private land.

In hunting the situation is similar--we have many private landowners who make a killing off public animals through CWMUs or private hunting units, off selling private land hunting rights, and off landowner tags. But, when it comes to keeping public animals off their land, they look for compensation or for someone else to do the job. it seems like many of these private landowners want to reap the benefits of having the elk and deer around, but they don't want any responsibility of protecting their land from those same animals. To me, this is wrong.

Pro, you often talk about the evils of socialism and are a big capitalism kind of guy. Yet, it seems you have no problem with government subsidies or government hand-outs when it comes to protecting your land. I see this as a contradiction...help me understand. Personally, I believe the landowners need to step up to the plate more than they are. The entire responsibility shouldn't lay on the publics shoulders or on the DWR's shoulders.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

PBH said:


> OK -- I do expect the State to offer them help / support / compensation. What I don't like is when farmers / ranchers do NOTHING.And there are plenty of farmers that sit back and do nothing I know where your coming from
> 
> If a racoon is eating my garden, I kill the racoon. Fortunately, racoons are not a protected animal in Utah, and I'm allowed to kill them. Deer / elk are another story.
> This is not exactly true-If I contact the division about the issue they have 48 hrs to remove the issue before the blood bath starts
> ...


To feed 419 elk and 102 deer for 3 month will cost you $11000. I took donations and took it upon myself 3 winters ago. Yes a tag price increase for different feeding spots could solve a whole bunch of issues


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I wouldn't mind paying a 5 or 10 bucks more for a tag if it will help curve the blood bath as Pheaz stated. However, and I am ignorant on this subject, isn't there a whole slew of consequences that come into play when you feed deer wildlife? I know I have read that somewhere. Keeps them hanging around, messes with their normal movement patters and such?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> I wouldn't mind paying a 5 or 10 bucks more for a tag if it will help curve the blood bath as Pheaz stated. However, and I am ignorant on this subject, isn't there a whole slew of consequences that come into play when you feed deer wildlife? I know I have read that somewhere. Keeps them hanging around, messes with their normal movement patters and such?


This is a grey area when it comes to feeding them long term during the winter. Throwing bales of hay to them on their winter grounds because their natural feed is gone and they are starving isn't necessarily the same as them voluntarily coming to the growing hay fields and stacks most of the year when they and their natural habitat are healthy. It's true that they adjust their patterns to take advantage of farmer's crops, but if that isn't their only food source it isn't the biological problem that mandatory winter feeding is. It is, however, a PR/economic problem. And, while other methods have been tried including flashing lights, loud and/or high pitch noises, manikins, predator decoys, predator sounds and scents, and I think even transplanting, it seems that high, strong fencing and barriers and shooting them are the only ways to keep them out of the fields and off the stacks. And there isn't enough money in the DWR budget to build all the fences needed or to reimburse all the farmers/ranchers for their claimed loses. Like it or not, other than letting the landowner "take care of the problem", their only final recourse is the tags! Now maybe that system (or those systems) could be modified to include more buck tags, but to keep peace in the family, the deer hafta go one way or another.

Personally, I have no problem with shooting a doe, but I'll admit that shooting bucks would make more sense, especially after the rut. And here is an area where we could have antler restrictions to save the big ones or the little ones so they grow big whichever you prefer. I paid $100 for a Zane CWMU antelope doe tag this year and took one out of Matt's hay field. He was grateful for the $100 and one (or two or three) less mouths to feed. She was/is tasty and tender! I'll try it again next year since I'm 
in a waiting period for antelope. Seems like a good solution to me, even for deer.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> we have many private landowners who make a killing off public animals through CWMUs or private hunting units, off selling private land hunting rights, and off landowner tags. But, when it comes to keeping public animals off their land, they look for compensation or for someone else to do the job.


+1. Could this possibly be at least a partial solution to the problem too? If landowners are making money off of (the public's) deer and elk, could it be stipulated that a certain percentage of the proceeds go towards fencing or other measures to prevent the need for some of these animals to be harvested in the first place? Especially if the said landowner is submitting repeated damage claims or receiving lots of depredation tags. It may not fit all circumstances, but could fit some and help the herds at least a little.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > we have many private landowners who make a killing off public animals through CWMUs or private hunting units, off selling private land hunting rights, and off landowner tags. But, when it comes to keeping public animals off their land, they look for compensation or for someone else to do the job.
> ...


Just to play devils advocate here, CWMU's require a minimum of 5000 acres. Most of the landowners that have CWMU's are not going to be the ones asking for help. It is going to be the smaller land owners of say 40 acres to a couple hundred acres. These people more than likely do not sale any kind of tags or make any money off wildlife. Ask Pro if he makes any money off hunting on his property?


----------



## Mountain Time (Sep 24, 2007)

I like the way wyoming handles this. They have feed grounds that the Elk and some deer winter on. They know where the Elk migrate to and from. Those that hunt units with feed ground fed Elk are required to pay a small fee to cover the cost of the feed grounds. We have the feed grounds at Hardware, why not create more in other places and include a fee structure to pay for it?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mountain Time said:


> I like the way wyoming handles this. They have feed grounds that the Elk and some deer winter on. They know where the Elk migrate to and from. Those that hunt units with feed ground fed Elk are required to pay a small fee to cover the cost of the feed grounds. We have the feed grounds at Hardware, why not create more in other places and include a fee structure to pay for it?


Biologically, feeding grounds work for elk, but not so much for deer. Deer have a metabolic need for higher quality food than elk mostly because of their size. That's why they are browsers and eat more shoots, buds, runners, and forbs than elk, while elk are grazers and eat more grasses. The fiber digesting microbes/bacteria in their stomachs (they have 4) don't digest the cellulose and hemicellulose fibers and convert them into usable food at the same rate and deer can actually starve on a full stomach if they are fed poor quality hay. Elk, on the other hand, eat a lot more food and don't need it to be such high quality. Additionally, elk do much better when their diet is suddenly changed than do deer. The microbes/bacteria in deer stomach are much more specialized than in elk. That's one reason, among others, that transplanting deer doesn't work very well. They simply don't have the right microbes to digest the new diet, sometimes even if it's only a different species of sagebrush. Hardware Ranch and the feeding grounds in Wyoming are elk feeding grounds which are sometimes frequented by deer, but usually the feeding ground isn't the only source of food and they are also in the woods feeding on their normal diet.

Now, if someone could invent/produce an inexpensive pellet made up of sagebrush runners, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, dandilion leaves, acorns, etc., we might have something.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

jahan said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


I agree with you that any one plan would not fit every type of landowner and you are right that bigger operations likely would not be applying. (but some bigger ones might if they have a hay operation or certain types of pasturage) What I envision though is more of a cooperative effort with the DWR where a given landowner (small or large) will allow the public to draw tags for a price and hunt on the affected land. The money (or at least a portion) is put into an account and when enough funds are raised, the DWR contracts for suitable fencing or barriers to be installed, hopefully permanently solving the problem. If some bigger bucks or bull elk are allowed to be harvested, you may be able to raise sufficient cash in a reasonably short time. Might work, at least in theory.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This is what gets me with this debate--landowners fight hard to keep people off their land. Look no further than the stream access debate where landowners have fought hard to keep the public from accessing public water through private land. Then, when floods hit like last spring, the same private landowners look for compensation or for the cities and state to come in and help protect their private land.


I suppose you are your brother are okay with people walking through the front door of your house whenever the mood hits? If not, then you are being intellectually dishonest at a minimum. This broad brush you paint with leads you to lump a lot of VERY different people into one little pigeon hole. I want, check that, I DEMAND people respect MY land, and I ALWAYS respect other people's land. Call me selfish, call me whatever makes you feel better, but it is ME, my dad, and my kids that work the land EVERY day of the year, yet people think they can have access to it, tell me to build a better/bigger fence? Talk about arrogance! If a robber repeatedly enters YOUR home and STEALS from you, are you going to call the cops? Of course you would, so why hold land owners to a different standard? I mean besides you and your brother's ingrained disdain for private property........



wyoming2utah said:


> In hunting the situation is similar--we have many private landowners who make a killing off public animals through CWMUs or private hunting units, off selling private land hunting rights, and off landowner tags. But, when it comes to keeping public animals off their land, they look for compensation or for someone else to do the job. it seems like many of these private landowners want to reap the benefits of having the elk and deer around, but they don't want any responsibility of protecting their land from those same animals. To me, this is wrong.


I have NEVER received a landowner permit, nor has my family. We have NEVER even considered going to a CWMU. We have NEVER charged money for access to our land to hunt/fish. Again, you paint with a **** wide brush! I LOVE having loads of deer/elk in the HILLS/MOUNTAINS, but NOT in MY fields eating MY crops! I brought this subject up to my dad and two uncles today. My dad is 70 yrs young, his one brother is 76, the other 68. They were on this farm back in the peak of the mule deer populations in the 50's & 60's. They all agree that there was never a year back then when there was in excess of 300 deer on ALL of our land, let alone on one field. The deer had better HABITAT in the hills/mountains, so the deer stayed higher. Is it the farmers fault the habitat is in far worse shape today? I suppose in a few cases, yes, but in most cases the answer is HELL NO! As to be so IGNORANT as to assert that landowners "don't want any responsibility of protecting their land from the animals", who are you kidding? How many of these landowners 'asked' for an increase of deer/elk in their fields? Talk about having tunnel vision!



wyoming2utah said:


> Pro, you often talk about the evils of socialism and are a big capitalism kind of guy. Yet, it seems you have no problem with government subsidies or government hand-outs when it comes to protecting your land. I see this as a contradiction...help me understand. Personally, I believe the landowners need to step up to the plate more than they are. The entire responsibility shouldn't lay on the publics shoulders or on the DWR's shoulders.


Best back up a bit there and come off your high horse! I want NO subsidies, in fact I made it clear when I took over this operation to my dad and his brothers that there would be ZERO subsidies even considered. I **** sure do NOT want any government hand-outs. I simply want the government to fulfill their duties and keep their word. Good hell, I said I turned down depredation permits THREE times already this year! I just want the deer out of MY fields. I have a family to feed, plus my parents to care for, and feeding deer that I NEVER asked to TRESPASS on MY land doesn't help put food on the table, clothes on my kids backs, and a roof over their heads. I can "step up to the plate", but it will cost the taxpayer, NOT me! My farm has been family owned since the 1870's, LONG before deer were hanging around this valley in November. Keep advocating SCREWING the farmer, and then wonder why food prices keep going up. I expected someone from a rural area to grasp where food comes from! Make it more expensive to farm, food expenses WILL go up. I set aside more than 100 acres for habitat to help pheasants this fall, and I have been doing my best to lower the predator population on my land, so don't lecture me on "doing more"! I will put my resume up against your any day of the week in regards to "doing my part", just say the word. Just because I refuse to feed HUNDREDS of deer, and now over 100 elk that showed up today, doesn't mean I am looking for a "hand-out!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Pro -- calm down. Have a discussion with us. No need to yell. Help us figure this out.

I recall when the "pumpkin patch" had a serious deer issue. That guy had a lot of pumpkins damaged by deer. The DWR handed him a good sum of money to replace those pumpkins. When the DWR showed up to dispose of all the damaged pumpkins, the farmer was upset and wanted to keep them all. Again, it's about having your cake and eating it too.

None of us want to trespass on your land. None of us want you to lose your farm -- financially, or otherwise. We all want you to be able to provide for your family. We all want to find a resolution to an issue that hits close to home with you. Stop being so stubborn, and help us come up with a viable solution. What can we do to help keep those deer out of your fields -- without having to kill them?

dude, I like you. But some days I think you're more stubborn than my 3 year old!! FWIW I have family that has been running cattle in Garfield /Kane county for as long as your family. Ironically, I've never heard them complain once about the deer that show up in their fields for the winter. I'll have to ask them why it doesn't bother them.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Catherder said:
> ...


You make some very good points.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I set aside more than 100 acres for habitat to help pheasants this fall


Sounds like I need to come down and help you out on the farm so that someday the WPG pup and I can hunt with you down there!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I suppose you are your brother are okay with people walking through the front door of your house whenever the mood hits? If not, then you are being intellectually dishonest at a minimum. This broad brush you paint with leads you to lump a lot of VERY different people into one little pigeon hole. I want, check that, I DEMAND people respect MY land, and I ALWAYS respect other people's land. Call me selfish, call me whatever makes you feel better, but it is ME, my dad, and my kids that work the land EVERY day of the year, yet people think they can have access to it, tell me to build a better/bigger fence? Talk about arrogance! If a robber repeatedly enters YOUR home and STEALS from you, are you going to call the cops? Of course you would, so why hold land owners to a different standard? I mean besides you and your brother's ingrained disdain for private property........


Hold on there man....equating to accessing public property via private land to walking through your personal house is a bit of an extreme comparison, don't you think? Nobody is advocating the access of your home... A better comparison would be to say that I should be allowed to put up a fence across the sidewalk in front of my home to keep the rest of the world from walking down that sidewalk that crosses my property...I can also think of many public roads that cross through private land...these are much better comparisons. Also, if robbers repeatedly entered my home and stole my possessions, I wouldn't totally rely on the cops to catch them. I would probably install alarm systems, perhaps surveillance cameras, and try my best to fix the problem. The problem is that some people want the entire problem handled by someone else...I think that is wrong.


proutdoors said:


> I have NEVER received a landowner permit, nor has my family. We have NEVER even considered going to a CWMU. We have NEVER charged money for access to our land to hunt/fish. Again, you paint with a **** wide brush! I LOVE having loads of deer/elk in the HILLS/MOUNTAINS, but NOT in MY fields eating MY crops! I brought this subject up to my dad and two uncles today. My dad is 70 yrs young, his one brother is 76, the other 68. They were on this farm back in the peak of the mule deer populations in the 50's & 60's. They all agree that there was never a year back then when there was in excess of 300 deer on ALL of our land, let alone on one field. The deer had better HABITAT in the hills/mountains, so the deer stayed higher. Is it the farmers fault the habitat is in far worse shape today? I suppose in a few cases, yes, but in most cases the answer is HELL NO! As to be so IGNORANT as to assert that landowners "don't want any responsibility of protecting their land from the animals", who are you kidding? How many of these landowners 'asked' for an increase of deer/elk in their fields? Talk about having tunnel vision!


Pro, I never said that you took landowner tags, or depredation tags or anything else...I understood that the first time you said it. But, some landowners do.

My question, though, is back to your farm. Don't you think that having farm land brings with it some inherent risks? You are pretty adamant about protecting your home from robbers...but, when it comes to protecting your farmland from deer, it seems like it is always someone else's responsibility. What are you doing to keep the deer and elk off your land? A real question...not an accusation. Do all farmers take the same amount of responsibility?

Yesterday, we had some pretty high winds across Utah that caused a lot of damage...whose responsibility is it to pay for that damage? The government's? So, because the damage wasn't these homeowner's fault, should the weatherman pay for the repairs? Living near wild places and wear wild animals roam brings with it some natural risks....it doesn't matter when the animals came or why they came. If I were to build my home near a stream or wash, should I expect the government to pay for flooding damages that occur after a heavy rain? I don't think so....part of building my home in that spot is the risk that building so close to a stream brings. Why are we always looking for someone else to fix our own problems?



proutdoors said:


> Best back up a bit there and come off your high horse! I want NO subsidies, in fact I made it clear when I took over this operation to my dad and his brothers that there would be ZERO subsidies even considered. I **** sure do NOT want any government hand-outs. I simply want the government to fulfill their duties and keep their word. Good hell, I said I turned down depredation permits THREE times already this year! I just want the deer out of MY fields. I have a family to feed, plus my parents to care for, and feeding deer that I NEVER asked to TRESPASS on MY land doesn't help put food on the table, clothes on my kids backs, and a roof over their heads. I can "step up to the plate", but it will cost the taxpayer, NOT me! My farm has been family owned since the 1870's, LONG before deer were hanging around this valley in November. Keep advocating SCREWING the farmer, and then wonder why food prices keep going up. I expected someone from a rural area to grasp where food comes from! Make it more expensive to farm, food expenses WILL go up. I set aside more than 100 acres for habitat to help pheasants this fall, and I have been doing my best to lower the predator population on my land, so don't lecture me on "doing more"! I will put my resume up against your any day of the week in regards to "doing my part", just say the word. Just because I refuse to feed HUNDREDS of deer, and now over 100 elk that showed up today, doesn't mean I am looking for a "hand-out!


I never said you did want subsidies...but you are asking the public to pay for your problem. Isn't that some kind of charity? I didn't lecture you one bit about doing more...what I am saying is that many landowners expect the government to fix their own problems without doing anything themselves. I just don't understand the mentality that you are going to allow all these deer and elk simply damage your property without you stepping up to the plate and trying to find a solution to your problem.

Sorry to rile your feathers up...but, I just don't understand your position. Again, you think it is wrong for the government come to the aid of someone who is financial difficulty and don't like the idea of social programs, but when it comes time for the taxpayer to pay for damage done to your private property it is different? Is it ok for private landowners along streamways to ask the government to pay for flooding mitigation costs too...but then turn around and deny stream access?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> I never said you did want subsidies...but you are asking the public to pay for your problem. Isn't that some kind of charity? I didn't lecture you one bit about doing more...what I am saying is that many landowners expect the government to fix their own problems without doing anything themselves. I just don't understand the mentality that you are going to allow all these deer and elk simply damage your property without you stepping up to the plate and trying to find a solution to your problem.
> 
> Sorry to rile your feathers up...but, I just don't understand your position. Again, you think it is wrong for the government come to the aid of someone who is financial difficulty and don't like the idea of social programs, but when it comes time for the taxpayer to pay for damage done to your private property it is different? Is it ok for private landowners along streamways to ask the government to pay for flooding mitigation costs too...but then turn around and deny stream access?


I think this is a very touchy problem. There are many solutions to the problem. Some are simple and some are not. The animals belong to the State. The State is the neighbor to the farmer. The State ignoring their wintering ground, thus forcing the animal to seek other food sources is not the farmers (neighbor) problem. The State and the Farmer need to work together on finding a *permanent* solution. But ultimately the animals belong to the State and the Farmers cheap fix for his problem is a .22 short.

So instead of doing nothing year in and year out, we do the something and expect different results. It seems to me that after a hundred years that a more permanent solution could have been found to make all parties happy.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> There are many solutions to the problem. Some are simple and some are not.





Huntoholic said:


> we do the something and expect different results.


Right! It seems that the only things that have been done up to now is either pass out tags or pass out checks. (or the .22 short) It hasn't solved much and rural Utahns and the States big game hunters both continue to bitch about the deplorable state of the states deer herd. -Ov-

It is time to think outside of the box IMO. (I already posted what I would propose and there are a lot smarter people out there than me) And the problem isn't going away. Just as suburban and urban deer herds are growing, deer are adapting to a nice alfalfa fed existence on private property in the foothills, away from cats, poachers, and ATVers up higher in the public forests.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> The State ignoring their wintering ground, :roll: thus forcing the animal to seek other food sources is not the farmers (neighbor) problem.


You mean the farmer planting crops on the wintering ground is the state's problem? Yeh, you'd think after some 100 years the state could have taught those dumb deer that their wintering ground is now off-limits!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > The State ignoring their wintering ground, :roll: thus forcing the animal to seek other food sources is not the farmers (neighbor) problem.
> ...


Unforunately that is irrelevent. The State does not currently own that ground. They cannot and/or should not plan on using somebody elses resourse that they do not own.

Like I said, this is a touchy area. It seems that each case has unique issues to it. One solution does not fit all. I could throw up the case where a rancher fattens his cattle on public ground all summer and then complains about the elk in his fields in the winter. Personally I would void his grazing permits as part of that solution.

What I shake mine head at is that no permanemt solutions seem to be in the works in most cases.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> I recall when the "pumpkin patch" had a serious deer issue. That guy had a lot of pumpkins damaged by deer. The DWR handed him a good sum of money to replace those pumpkins. When the DWR showed up to dispose of all the damaged pumpkins, the farmer was upset and wanted to keep them all. Again, it's about having your cake and eating it too. Since I had several TON of pumpkins ruined by deer this year, I feel qualified to answer this. Deer eat one, maybe two bites of a pumpkin, making is worthless as far as selling to the public. However, the pumpkin still holds minimal value, as cattle/pigs/horses/chickens all LOVE pumpkins. I am still feeding my hogs/cattle leftover/damaged pumpkins on a daily basis. I get a LOT more per pound selling to Smith's than I save feeding them to my livestock. I hope that clears up why some farmers want to recover their loses. Oh, FWIW, I did NOT ask for a dime for the THOUSANDS I lost on my pumpkin fields.....
> 
> None of us want to trespass on your land. None of us want you to lose your farm -- financially, or otherwise. We all want you to be able to provide for your family. We all want to find a resolution to an issue that hits close to home with you. Stop being so stubborn, and help us come up with a viable solution. What can we do to help keep those deer out of your fields -- without having to kill them? I wish I had the answer, but I don't. If it were an easy fix, I am sure it would have been done by now. But, don't lecture me on being stubborn, when your 'solution' is to have the farmers erect deer proof fencing, a cost that would be HUGE for 99% of the farmers out there.
> 
> dude, I like you. But some days I think you're more stubborn than my 3 year old!! FWIW I have family that has been running cattle in Garfield /Kane county for as long as your family. Ironically, I've never heard them complain once about the deer that show up in their fields for the winter. I'll have to ask them why it doesn't bother them. To each their own, I don't mind SOME deer on my land, but several hundred is excessive. Yes?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I set aside more than 100 acres for habitat to help pheasants this fall
> ...


Hell yes!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hold on there man....equating to accessing public property via private land to walking through your personal house is a bit of an extreme comparison, don't you think? No I do NOT! Private property is private property, as far as I am concerned. Nobody is advocating the access of your home... A better comparison would be to say that I should be allowed to put up a fence across the sidewalk in front of my home to keep the rest of the world from walking down that sidewalk that crosses my property...I can also think of many public roads that cross through private land...these are much better comparisons. Also, if robbers repeatedly entered my home and stole my possessions, I wouldn't totally rely on the cops to catch them. I would probably install alarm systems, perhaps surveillance cameras, and try my best to fix the problem. The problem is that some people want the entire problem handled by someone else...I think that is wrong. I will 'take care of it myself', but that is not what I want to do. I guess I could call you and have you haul all the carcasses off my fields when I do.......
> 
> My question, though, is back to your farm. Don't you think that having farm land brings with it some inherent risks? You are pretty adamant about protecting your home from robbers...but, when it comes to protecting your farmland from deer, it seems like it is always someone else's responsibility. What are you doing to keep the deer and elk off your land? A real question...not an accusation. Do all farmers take the same amount of responsibility? What am I doing to keep them off my fields? First, why should I have to do a dang thing to keep them off? Second, I use DWR issued 'firecrackers', I push them off my land on a horse or in the Rhino, and I don't feed fodder in the fields. What else can I, or in your opinion should I do?
> 
> ...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> I wish I had the answer, but I don't. If it were an easy fix, I am sure it would have been done by now. But, don't lecture me on being stubborn, when your 'solution' is to have the farmers erect deer proof fencing, a cost that would be HUGE for 99% of the farmers out there.


OK, you probably read what I suggested earlier in the thread. What would you say to *some* sort of cooperative effort with the state to fund the fencing you need in exchange for the public hunting some of these problem animals? You mentioned seeing a dozen 24+ inch bucks out your window as well as 100 head of elk. (Of which I would presume would be some larger LE quality bulls?) The economic return for harvesting a selected number of these by paying customers along with proceeds from "depredation" doe and cow tags might just fund the fencing you need to protect those pumpkins, right? Wouldn't that be better than having to haul off a bunch of stinky carcasses? Especially with the realization that you'd be doing the same thing next year in proceeding as you are now.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Pro, Let me see if I have this straight. You want the wildlife off of your land, PERIOD, (Except pheasants, of course), but you can't afford to fence them out, and the methods you're using aren't working well enough, and you won't except any compensations from the state for the damage caused by them, and you don't want to kill them yourself, and you won't except tags so others can kill them. Did I miss anything?

Yes, you do have a problem and the only solution I can think of is for the state and federal agencies responsible for this problem to fence that darn wildlife in where they belong, on public land, not private. Let's see, that means fencing only 46,548 square miles (29,790,720 acres)(approx.) of scattered and scrambled public deer habitat. What do ya think? Maybe 1/2 million miles of fence? At a dollar per foot, that's only $2.64 billion. And that's not counting any separate antelope, elk, moose, sheep, and goat habitat. And, don't forget, we'll have to engage the services of a few folks to keep that fence repaired. Now the general public wouldn't go for such a move and we don't want to raise your taxes to fix that problem, so maybe the hunting community could pay for it with a raise in the price of hunting tags! 

There ya go, a simple solution!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > elkfromabove said:
> ...


Sorry, but your responses are typical State responses to these kinds of problems. Deer are animals. They eat, crap and make little deer. That's it. Give them better feed and the majority will stay where the food is. But if you do nothing, then yes they will move or die.

I'm sorry, but you make it sound like the task of putting up fences is out of the question. Yet the State is putting up fences along the freeways. A little each year. Not all at once. Will it keep a 100% from an area. Nope, but it may keep 285 out of 300 out of that field. Get rid of the useless over grown junipers and re-seed. Do a little each each year. But I guess it is easier to sale that 200,000 dollar tag and make your neighbor pay of the fence.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

We should probably just get rid of cows all together. They just screw up our recreation. Don’t they make meat overseas somewhere we could import it from? I’ll bet China can make it really cheap.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> Sorry, but your responses are typical State responses to these kinds of problems. Deer are animals. They eat, crap and make little deer. That's it. Give them better feed and the majority will stay where the food is. But if you do nothing, then yes they will move or die.
> 
> I'm sorry, but you make it sound like the task of putting up fences is out of the question. Yet the State is putting up fences along the freeways. A little each year. Not all at once. Will it keep a 100% from an area. Nope, but it may keep 285 out of 300 out of that field. Get rid of the useless over grown junipers and re-seed. Do a little each each year. But I guess it is easier to sale that 200,000 dollar tag and make your neighbor pay of the fence.


Let's see:
UDOT's total budget last year was $1,500,000,000 ($1.5 billion) and with 43,000 miles of Utah roads (not just freeways) under their jurisdiction, that's *$34,884 per mile*.
DWR's total budget was $68,014,266 and with my random guess of 500,000 miles of fencing, that's *$136 per mile*.
And that's not considering all of the other uses for that money from both agencies. Yeh, it could be done, but it will take a while.

Getting rid (burning? chaining? lop and scatter?) of the useless over growth junipers (and pinyons) and reseeding (with what?) will have to be done every 10 to 12 years to prevent encroachment (The darn things keep growing back). I'm not sure how many square miles per year that entails, but I'm sure it's a lot. Besides, most of that habitat is on BLM land and we need to get them to cooperate. BTW, we're doing that already.

They eat, crap and make little deer. That's it. That's it? It seems so simple! I wonder why it's so hard to find and shoot one every year?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

"elkfromabove"

I know it's not easy, cheap or any of the other reasons. But if we do nothing, I'm pretty sure our deer problem will get worse.

And yes, burn, lop, and chain. I have hunted the same ground for the most part for 37 years. I saw my first chaining about three years ago. Between the fires and chaining, I think they have made a difference. But it will be for nothing if we all don't find a workable solution.

And I'm pretty sure U-DOT didn't spend their whole budget on fencing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Catherder said:


> OK, you probably read what I suggested earlier in the thread. What would you say to *some* sort of cooperative effort with the state to fund the fencing you need in exchange for the public hunting some of these problem animals? You mentioned seeing a dozen 24+ inch bucks out your window as well as 100 head of elk. (Of which I would presume would be some larger LE quality bulls?) The economic return for harvesting a selected number of these by paying customers along with proceeds from "depredation" doe and cow tags might just fund the fencing you need to protect those pumpkins, right? Wouldn't that be better than having to haul off a bunch of stinky carcasses? Especially with the realization that you'd be doing the same thing next year in proceeding as you are now.


No big bulls, yet. The deer didn't show up in droves until the middle of November, the bucks didn't show up until the rut started warming up. So, while your idea has some merit, it wouldn't be of much value to me. The land where the pumpkins are grown is surrounded by BLM land, and it is a resident herd of 10-15 deer, all deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Pro, Let me see if I have this straight. You want the wildlife off of your land, PERIOD, (Except pheasants, of course), but you can't afford to fence them out, and the methods you're using aren't working well enough, and you won't except any compensations from the state for the damage caused by them, and you don't want to kill them yourself, and you won't except tags so others can kill them. Did I miss anything? Yes, restore the normal wintering ranges so the deer stay there. A **** big miss, but what the hey......
> 
> Yes, you do have a problem and the only solution I can think of is for the state and federal agencies responsible for this problem to fence that darn wildlife in where they belong, on public land, not private. Let's see, that means fencing only 46,548 square miles (29,790,720 acres)(approx.) of scattered and scrambled public deer habitat. What do ya think? Maybe 1/2 million miles of fence? At a dollar per foot, that's only $2.64 billion. And that's not counting any separate antelope, elk, moose, sheep, and goat habitat. And, don't forget, we'll have to engage the services of a few folks to keep that fence repaired. Now the general public wouldn't go for such a move and we don't want to raise your taxes to fix that problem, so maybe the hunting community could pay for it with a raise in the price of hunting tags!
> 
> There ya go, a simple solution! See above!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Cooky said:


> We should probably just get rid of cows all together. They just screw up our recreation. Don't they make meat overseas somewhere we could import it from? I'll bet China can make it really cheap.


Who recreates on MY land? I mean besides me and my family....... :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have been thinking about this today while waiting for the various flocks of ducks/geese to come into the dekes. I have 1200 acres of land about 10 miles south of Levan that would greatly benefit from a major juniper removal project. It is loaded with deer and turkeys in the winter/spring.........


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> I have been thinking about this today while waiting for the various flocks of ducks/geese to come into the dekes. I have 1200 acres of land about 10 miles south of Levan that would greatly benefit from a major juniper removal project. It is loaded with deer and turkeys in the winter/spring.........


Pro.... removem and plantem up some of these people will never understand.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> > We should probably just get rid of cows all together. They just screw up our recreation. Don't they make meat overseas somewhere we could import it from? I'll bet China can make it really cheap.
> ...


  
I wonder if more people got that than got my sarcasm. :| Check out this news item about my neighbor a few years ago. 
http://www.sandcounty.net/newsroom/?Id=106
He has a beautiful place. Clover Springs Campground is part of it. His work on that land keeps water in my well (in addition to beef in the store).


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Huntaholic, Something is being done, but with 30 million public acres of mule deer habitat to maintain and improve, (not counting the habitat of Pronghorns, Boreal Cricket Frogs, Rubber Boas, Elk, Cutthroats, Pintails, Cottontails, Bighorns, Fishers, Squawfish, and Big Eared Bats, etc.) on a 68 million dollar yearly budget, the money runs a little thin. Of course UDOT doesn't spend all their money on fences (I said that.), but neither can the DWR. But UDOT can justify their fencing because it helps prevent auto/deer collisions and saves human lives and that is accepted by the public, as it should. But when was the last time someone was injured or killed in a tractor/deer collision. Public financed fences around farms just don't carry the same weight. 

My point is that many Utah hunters (and others) expect/demand of the division much more than they are able to accomplish given the time, money, and personnel, but at the same time are slow to assist, and are actually making it harder for them to do what they demand by putting up barriers, figuratively and literally. I live in Enoch which is in the Cedar (City) Valley which is some of the traditional winter range of the deer on the beautiful red rock mountains a couple of miles east of us. Do I see deer here in the winter? Once or twice a year I'll see 2 or 3. Why? I-15 is a mile to the east, and many of the fields that were here 21 years ago when we came are now filled with houses, churches and schools. The deer are now confined to the mile wide strip of land between I-15 and the foot of the mountain, and the DWR usually has a late doe hunt there to preserve what little is left. The same thing south of Cedar and north of Parowan and Paragonah. And even the strip of land is being filled with cabin-type homes so that some folks can get back to nature while at the same time destroying it. Yes, I know I'm part of that problem, but I try to make up for it in other ways with my money and time. 

The figurative barriers are the demands made by some who want results that end up taking money and time away from the programs designed to help wildlife. Option #2 is one of them, but not the only one. Every time I go to a RAC or WB meeting someone always has their own program going that will result in diverted or lost revenue and increased involvement (time) imposed on the DWR. The DWR aren't the bad guys. They are just people who can only do so much with the tools they have, just like you! And they could sure use some help to do more!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Pro, Yes, I did forget a big one, but you, of all people, should know they are and have been working on restoring winter range for many years and you've even participated in some of that. But as I said in the post above, 68 million dollars per year for wildlife in a state the size of Utah isn't very much. And there is wildlife of some form or another that is under the DWR's jurisdiction in almost all of the 82,168 square miles (52,587,520 acres)(not counting the water) that exists here. We know all that money doesn't go on the ground, but even if it did, that's still only $1.29 per acre per year. You may be the world's best farmer/rancher but even you couldn't do that.

Apparently, you've been offered the only viable solutions now known to solve or lessen the problem, but none of them suit you. You may have to wait a while (or a long time) before those improved winter ranges pull those deer out of your fields, if they ever do. Or you may be able to come up with a solution we haven't considered. In the meanwhile, you'll have to bite the bullet so to speak or take one of the options offered. It may be a tough decision and I, for one, wish you the best on making that choice.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Since I had several TON of pumpkins ruined by deer this year, I feel qualified to answer this. Deer eat one, maybe two bites of a pumpkin, making is worthless as far as selling to the public. However, the pumpkin still holds minimal value, as cattle/pigs/horses/chickens all LOVE pumpkins. I am still feeding my hogs/cattle leftover/damaged pumpkins on a daily basis. I get a LOT more per pound selling to Smith's than I save feeding them to my livestock. I hope that clears up why some farmers want to recover their loses. Oh, FWIW, I did NOT ask for a dime for the THOUSANDS I lost on my pumpkin fields.....


Pro -- if they still hold value, then the farmer should not get compensation from the state. Sure, he can't sell them as 'jack-o-lanterns' but he can use them as feed. Either eat your cake, or have it. You can't do both. You can't keep your pumpkins and receive compensation for them. (you might be able to receive partial compensation to make up for the loss, if their value as feed is less than their value as jack-o-lanterns). Otherwise, I'd raise pumpkins with the front being "jack-o-lanterns". I'd then allow deer to come and take a bite out of them. I'd receive the 'compensation' (or, "profit") from the state, then turn around and use those pumpkins for their actual intent: feed. Double-dip.

You keep coming back to the cost of fencing, and how much it would cost you to construct that fence. You keep using 1 lump sum. Yet others have continued to point out ways that the economic hardship could be reduced and spread out over the course of a number of years. Personally, I think this could be a potential solution for people in your (Pro) situation. But it sounds like you don't want to explore that option. I wish there was a way we could help you, but from the sounds of it you really don't want our help. I'd love to come shoot a turkey for you. How else could i help out?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> Pro -- if they still hold value, then the farmer should not get compensation from the state. Sure, he can't sell them as 'jack-o-lanterns' but he can use them as feed. Either eat your cake, or have it. You can't do both. You can't keep your pumpkins and receive compensation for them. (you might be able to receive partial compensation to make up for the loss, if their value as feed is less than their value as jack-o-lanterns). Otherwise, I'd raise pumpkins with the front being "jack-o-lanterns". I'd then allow deer to come and take a bite out of them. I'd receive the 'compensation' (or, "profit") from the state, then turn around and use those pumpkins for their actual intent: feed. Double-dip.


What is this 'you' nonsense? I didn't ask for compensation, I simply explained OTHERS rationale........ Also, being 'compensated' by the government NEVER comes out as a wash, NEVER. For starters, the primary purpose of growing pumpkins is NOT for livestock feed, and how long would I have customers if the majority of my pumpkins were damaged? You apparently have little/no concept of how business works, but I'll let you in on a little secret, in order for a business to stay in business it MUST actually produce a product/service for paying customers. Having deer eat the product is NOT a wise way to make a living, and I have NEVER heard of a farmer being compensated *100%* for damages from wildlife, NEVER!



PBH said:


> You keep coming back to the cost of fencing, and how much it would cost you to construct that fence. You keep using 1 lump sum. Yet others have continued to point out ways that the economic hardship could be reduced and spread out over the course of a number of years. Personally, I think this could be a potential solution for people in your (Pro) situation. But it sounds like you don't want to explore that option. I wish there was a way we could help you, but from the sounds of it you really don't want our help. I'd love to come shoot a turkey for you. How else could i help out?


Even if I tried to spread this out over 10 years, as I have in total more than 20,000 acres.....the costs would be overwhelming, and by the time I completed the fencing, I would have to start over due to damages from wildlife/cattle/humans/weather. It's not about me not wanting help, just because I don't see your suggestions as realistic or viable doesn't mean I am not open to real suggestions/ideas......

FWIW, I had the DWR kept busy all day, I worked with them to drive the deer and elk off MY land. They are hoping the critters stay away, but admitted that the critters will just be on another farmers land. Like I said, there are NO easy answers/solutions, and I know that. But, it is frustrating that it is the farmers feeding the wildlife, and then having 'educated' do-gooders lecturing them on how they should just 'suck it up'. Maybe you all don't realize how high the price of grain/hay/corn is right now, but having wildlife eat feed set aside for cattle to get through the winter means a huge expense on my part. I have plenty of feed stored for my livestock, but silly me I didn't compile enough feed for a record number of deer/elk, WTF was I thinking..........?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

PBH said:


> I'd love to come shoot a turkey for you. How else could i help out?


Not sure there is anything you personally could do to help, but talking me fishing on the Boulder seems like a fair trade........ 8) Maybe you and your brother could take me to a few lakes, and we can brainstorm on ways to keep deer off my land.... :O•-:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> FWIW, I had the DWR kept busy all day, I worked with them to drive the deer and elk off MY land.


So, Bart, what did you do? How many DWR man-hours did it take? Is it a permanent solution and if not, how often do you or the DWR expect it has to be done?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

FWIW... and its probably nothing.... I've been driving the highway from the last Nephi exit down to Gunnison and back every weekend for the past month and a half. I still haven't seen any deer in those huge fields on the way down. Pro, I actually go through Levan on my way down. Is your stuff south of the dairy? There is a lot of country I look at as I drive and think, man, there just has to be critters in there.... I just haven't been seeing them though.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, I had the DWR kept busy all day, I worked with them to drive the deer and elk off MY land.
> ...


It is NOT a permanent solution, but it was what they suggested..... I helped drive the deer/elk, gave me an excuse to saddle up the new gelding......I have no idea how many hours were involved, I rarely look at a clock/watch now days. I expect the DWR to do something as often as it takes....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> FWIW... and its probably nothing.... I've been driving the highway from the last Nephi exit down to Gunnison and back every weekend for the past month and a half. I still haven't seen any deer in those huge fields on the way down. Pro, I actually go through Levan on my way down. Is your stuff south of the dairy? There is a lot of country I look at as I drive and think, man, there just has to be critters in there.... I just haven't been seeing them though.


I live eats of Centerfield, which is basically south Gunnison. The land that is overwhelmed with deer/elk is my eastern fields, and the pastures I have on the southeast side of Axtell. I have 1200 acres 9 miles south of Levan, I know there is a pretty good herd of deer on that property right now, but since it is used as spring/summer range and I have no cattle on it, I am 100% fine with them being there right now. I could use some coyote thinning on that property, as they take a toll on the turkey population.......There are plenty of deer between Levan and Gunnison on the east side of the highway. Riding horse up high looking for cattle in late September I saw 3 smoker bucks, and LOTS of healthy looking does/fawns. This is the southern end of the Central Region.

If you are down here every weekend you should stop by. Shoot me a PM if interested and I will give you directions. I have geese landed in my irrigation ponds by the hundreds EVERY day...


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Gotcha... my girlfriends dad owns about 350 acres along the Sevier out just east of Gunnison. Where that big bluff is there above the river, he owns the backside of that and the property down around that bend. I'll definitely hit you up for a visit. Bringing my daughter down this weekend with me so I'll shoot you a PM. It'd be nice to come out and say hi. Probably moving down there here in a month or so, maybe a little longer.... just depends on where I can find a job in the area and how soon. Definitely looking forward to getting away from SLC.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Ummm, the Sevier is west of Gunnison, the Sanpitch is east and south of town. Nonetheless, I replied to your PM, I look forward to having you as a neighbor....


----------

