# Nebo Unit - On fire ..



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well , I've been watching it burn for 6 days now ..

We were 'mandatory' evacuated for 2 days,, 1 night.
No power OR water for 5 days..........Pretty tough!
It's one thing putting all your hunting equipment in to go camping/hunting .
BUT when your doing it because fire is racing toward your house, is another !!

Thousands , upon thousands of prime deer and elk country burned ,
This fire will likely affect a great number of hunters that hold Nebo tags,,
Both deer and elk....And this fire is FAR from over! now heading toward Payson loop.

I guess the good news is, I can see it really improving deer habitat in years to come.
BUT AT A HUGE loss to property owners !! Our harts go out to those suffering .

Here's my question ..
Do you option 2 haters really not see how opt 2 can BENIFIT a unit like this?
Deer/elk will be displaced this year, and likely struggle ..
But in years to come could boom!!!

Controlling hunter numbers is KEY !!

Do you option 2 haters really NOT see ( or get ) this ??


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

The key to what Goofy?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I am glad to here you made it through the fire alright. Now too the other part of your comment, it doesn't change my opinion, hunters will distribute themselves just fine.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

That's got to be scary. Wishing you and all your neighbors the best!

_30 Units vs. 5 Units_
In previous years hunters could disperse themselves to other areas when their preferred hunting locale burned. If a fire burns a hunter's chosen unit now, they are screwed out of the hard earned money they paid to hunt said unit.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm praying for rain.

Good luck goofy.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

jahan said:


> I am glad to here you made it through the fire alright. Now too the other part of your comment, it doesn't change my opinion, hunters will distribute themselves just fine.


+1


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

What I see is both the deer and deer hunters of the Nebo forced into an ever smaller area. With no other place for those hunters to go, they HAVE to hunt there. It could very well backfire in conditions like this and be even more devastating.

I brought up the fire thing and micro units YEARS ago.


-DallanC


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Goofy I hope your place is saved. As for my dad's place farther south it is gone(95%) and with it any deer hunting my wife was going to do early. Pre option 2 I could just adjust and take her with me to the front and now that isn't an option for a month putting me in a tougher spot to get her a deer. Like the others have said I would have spread myself differently and avoided the area as of now if I did decide to hunt it the unit is now more strained. BOOOO FOR OPTION 2


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad to here you made it through the fire alright. Now too the other part of your comment, it doesn't change my opinion, hunters will distribute themselves just fine.
> ...


Under the regional management system, the central , this scenario would likely push
1000s of deer hunters west. on to deer units with struggling buck to doe ratios .

Further stressing those units, 18/19a/19c ..

That a "lose/ lose" situation in my book !! I like win/wins..


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

BirdDogger said:


> That's got to be scary. Wishing you and all your neighbors the best!
> 
> _30 Units vs. 5 Units_
> In previous years hunters could disperse themselves to other areas when their preferred hunting locale burned. If a fire burns a hunter's chosen unit now, they are screwed out of the hard earned money they paid to hunt said unit.


+ 1


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

goofy elk said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > jahan said:
> ...


I'm not being a turd by any means....just pointing out that in your instance, under option 2, its not a win / win. Someone or something is going to loose. Be it opportunity for the hunter or the animals due to hunter concentration due to those hunters becoming more focused into a concentrated area that is not burned on the Nebo.

Lame example: I know that if I can have a Slurpee when ever I want one, I tend to buy them less often than when they are rarely available. In that case, I'm going to buy them for that short period of time they are available more frequently. Like any other human reaction, we don't want to be TOLD we can't have it by another human. Mother nature on the other hand, she has her own way and its ingrained in our psyche to cope with what she gives us. Some chose not to listen to her but most will adapt accordingly.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Under the regional management system, the central , this scenario would likely push
> 1000s of deer hunters west. on to deer units with struggling buck to doe ratios .
> 
> Further stressing those units, 18/19a/19c ..
> ...


Let me first say I hope everything works out for you and your family.

The only impact option 2 has is further hammering the animals on the smaller unit. Manti unit is an example. All those that were going to hunt north are now are going to be pushed to the south. I fail to see the difference between this and the example that you have given. I think also in your example you would be assuming that all of the displaced hunters would run to the units you indicated. I believe that to be wrong. Some would go, but not all. In the case as I've described the hunters, if they want to hunt, will now concentrate in the other parts of that already hammered unit, because the only other option is to not hunt. In the case of Nebo, the same thing is going to happen, hammer an already hammered unit.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that when a fire goes through a area there are patchwork areas that do not get burnt, and that is where the animals head. Then usually within a couple of weeks after the fire new grasses and brush usually starts to sprout which creates great feeding areas for the deer and elk. I remember when the fire went through the Roadless and Steer ridge area on the Book Cliffs in 2002. The deer were back into the burn area while it was still smoldering and then once the oak brush started to return they were all over it. I just wished that I would of had a tag that year. 

Also as for the tags that were bought for the micro units that were burnt the DOW just may shut down the hunt there are refund the money paid. It just all depends on a lot of factors that we don't know about yet.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Depends on how hot the fire was. We had fires on Monroe in the past where the ground was sterilized and nothing returned.

As to option 2.

Would any UWC guys support regional elk hunting? And issue more tags than there are bulls. 

Would any UWC support statewide tags for OIL species? I'm sure moose and sheep hunters will self disperse. :roll:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'd guess that 70% of our ranch burned in this fire-- burning everyday: Sun, Mon, Tues, Wed, and Today. The elk were bedding in the ash amongst cedar skeletons. Lots of fawns and calves lost. No idea on the extent of our ranch's loss until we can get in and assess it. Was crazy watching the 5 news and seeing 100+ foot flames less than 200 yards from our cabin. 

To some previous posts, there will not be any new grasses growing unless we get some controlled moisture. If we don't get some controlled moisture the oak brush may die. It is a long row to hoe, for many people in various parts of the state. Too much moisture and the flooding/landslides will be an issue.

As some point out, the hunters displaced by this fire (and other fires) will now only be able to disperse within the unit itself. This may pressure the other areas of the unit and have a detrimental impact on deer in those other areas. If Regional management was still in place then some of those hunters may end up in other units-- Such as the Wasatch West which is above the management objective. Here is the catch--- The Old management Plan would have placed the "West" Central units into micro-situation because of the low buck to doe ratio. THEN the overall tags for the REGION would have been reduced because of the loss of the West units. 

Doesn't matter now, as we have what we have. Both have their pros and cons...... All I know is fire season really bites! Best wishes to the fire fighters!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ironbear-- Not sure about the "UWC guy" thing, so maybe my opinion won't count. I do support Regional Elk hunting. I truely enjoy the Utah General Season Anybull elk hunt. 15% success (probably lower on public lands) and all. 15,000 rifle hunters and unlimited archery hunters. Lots more tags than bulls.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Depends on how hot the fire was. We had fires on Monroe in the past where the ground was sterilized and nothing returned.
> 
> As to option 2.
> 
> ...


I can't wait to hunt billy goats and Sasquatch in downtown St. George!!!!!! Seriously, OIL and Regional hunts have nothing to do with Option 2. But I'm all for the regional elk hunts when they are administered to objective.

Packout, you're breaking my heart man! I had to watch a couple of does run like hell yesterday ahead of a fire by New Harmony. I can't help but wonder if at least one lost a fawn to that fury hell. I'm sorry to hear about you guys losing what you're loosing. None of this discussion matters when folks are loosing lifelong memories and family investments.


----------



## 400BULL (Nov 16, 2007)

First off goofy it’s been a while sense I last seen a post for you and was wondering how the fire was affecting you and your family. It’s good to hear things are starting to look up for your family. I pray that they will be able to get this fire under control soon so that no more families suffer and the rest can start the healing process. 

I would not count out these burn areas just yet for this year’s hunting. Some of the best bucks and bulls are taken in or near burn areas. The two biggest problems I see with burn areas is the possible loss of winter habitat and it opens the area up so the animals do not have places to hide. Makes for easy picking come hunting season. Just like most of us, if our homes were to burn to the ground we would rebuild. More than likely we would build right where I house was to start with. Animals will do the same thing. Sure they will get displaced for a while. Once the new vegetation starts coming back in it will not be long before the animals are right there with it. 

400bull


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Goofy,

I think you are so in love with option two that you can't see the negatives. 

Prove me wrong!!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Goofy,
> 
> I think you are so in love with option two that you can't see the negatives.
> 
> Prove me wrong!!!


Yes, I see the negatives,,, I don't like seeing hunter opportunity loss :!:

But I also see Utah's deer herds falling right off the map,, 
I honestly feel like if we could have gotten opt 2 passed the first time ( 2003 ),
We would have less of a deer decline now, than we currently have .... JMO ...

DEER ARE A LIMITED RESOURSE,,,And should be managed that way.


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy,
> ...


Although it's not the popular answer nowadays... I agree with you Goofy. I DID NOT draw a tag this year. Was I upset? Nope. Bummed... Yes. But I soon realized exactly why I didn't draw a tag. The DWR is doing what they are supposed to do, and trying to manage the deer. As mentioned before, they are a limited resource. We can't just plant more, like they do with whitetails back east. Can't print more off, like the feds do with money. People just need to sit back and realize that in the long run, Option 2 is a good thing. I guarantee you, all of the people whining about it on this thread... Didn't draw a tag. Better luck next year. Get out and enjoy the outdoors in October still. That's supposed to be what hunting is all about, right? Or better yet, save the couple of hundred that your trip would have cost you... and put in for a Limited Entry hunt next year. Bellyaching isn't going to do a **** bit of good at this point... SO find a way to turn a "negative" in to a "positive".


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

klbzdad said:


> I can't wait to hunt billy goats and Sasquatch in downtown St. George!!!!!! Seriously, OIL and Regional hunts have nothing to do with Option 2. But I'm all for the regional elk hunts when they are administered to objective.


So let me get this straight. You would support cutting the state up into 5 regions like deer were and sell X amount of tags per region? Then allocate more tags per region then bull elk exist?

Kldzdad, Does it not boil down to self dispersal? You and Jahan may have your secret hunting spot all to yourself and more deer then you can handle. But as for me and the other 3000 people that hunt Monroe. LE is needed because that unit cannot support 3000 hunters (600 deer harvested per yr buck and doe) and 20+ cougar. (1000+ deer per yr) Throw in the coyotes take and other minor factors like roadkill. And it not rocket science to figure out where a herds gross annual increase is going.

Its all a pie and we have the ability to manipulate the slices. Why was a cougar reduction never even discussed on Monroe when the DWR was mandated to increase buck doe ratio's there? Instead limiting hunters was instantly purposed as the method to achieve buck increase. A decision that was more politically motivated then any thing else.

So yes I totally support micro management of deer. I only support cutting tags as a very last resort not first.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy,
> ...


So what makes option two the "key", what is it about option two and the fires that is the key?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote="duckhunter1096 I guarantee you, all of the people whining about it on this thread... Didn't draw a tag. Better luck next year. Get out and enjoy the outdoors in October still. That's supposed to be what hunting is all about, right? Or better yet, save the couple of hundred that your trip would have cost you... and put in for a Limited Entry hunt next year. Bellyaching isn't going to do a **** bit of good at this point... SO find a way to turn a "negative" in to a "positive".[/quote]

I drew my first choice, so you can take your quarantee, print it off and wipe your butt with it. :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Being able to control hunting permits to the CORRECT number any given
unit can support AS PER that units management plan........That makes it "key" ..


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> klbzdad said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait to hunt billy goats and Sasquatch in downtown St. George!!!!!! Seriously, OIL and Regional hunts have nothing to do with Option 2. But I'm all for the regional elk hunts when they are administered to objective.
> ...


The micro-units have been around since 1997....in fact, we've had as many as 80 units in the state before in an effort to effect counts/change/micromanage tags. Option two is the first attempt to manage HUNTERS. That is where my issue comes from. I don't disagree with the micro-unit idea of being able to manage the number of tags per unit but call it what it is and not an attempt to manage deer. I'm not going to rehash the merits or lack there of of each of the three options. It is what it is. Goofy simply made the statement that under the circumstances of a fire and its damage to a unit, does option 2 suddenly make sense. My answer is still "no".


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

To Packout and Goofy, I hope all goes for the best for both of you and your property. My family and I were down in Sanpete the last 1 1/2 days and saw firsthand the devastation from a distance. Yikes! The Seeley mountain fire or whatever they're calling the fire on the Manti looks ominous too. 

We can argue about option 2 for the other 11 1/2 months.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy,
> ...


I agree with goofy for the most part as well. It amazes me how many people are so pist off that they dont get to hunt where they are "entitled to" and that its the DWR's fault that the fire destroyed my only hope at hunting in a unit. Guarantee these same people will have the gall to go out and pressure the deer that are affected by the fires so hard that it will have negative impacts on the herd going into the winter season. And yet these are the same people that biotch when all they see is two points and say that the deer hunting in Utah is horrible because of the "new" system.

The old system wasn't working either so something needed to be done, and hopefully it works.

Yes is sucks horribly that the hunter opportunity and family traditions will be lost, i am not a fan of that.

But if this system ends up working i wont have a problem with it, and i sure dont have a problem with trying as the deer herds are in a nosedive.

If the Utah Public is so into rebounding the deer herd, those hunting in these units should take a raincheck and hope for better next year for the sake of the deer herd.

Its sad that the majority of the Utah hunting community is so into the "Hunter Entitlement" of i can hunt for deer and by golly i'm going to do whatever it takes to hunt deer that the conservation and reclaimation of the actual resource is being left behind.

I'd rather see deer in the mountains and not be able to hunt them over not seeing any and have a tag in my pocket.....

But i guess its not about the deer, sorry i missed that...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

My heart goes out to you guys that have been affected by the fires. What you guys are going through is much more important that this wildlife stuff. If there is anything I can do to help anybody out please PM me and I mean that.

Option 2 has already been dismantled so let's throw that terminology out the window. Unit by unit hunter management on general deer units has some positives but the reality is I don't see it being much of a difference. Yes we can manage hunter numbers better but by and large hunters did a good job of distributing themselves anyway. There has alwasy been peaks and valleys with buck: doe ratios and when units had low buck to doe ratios many hunters went to units with higher ratios. When a fire like this one occurs many hunters would've chose a different unit to hunt anyway. All we did was split up family hunting groups for virtually no noticeable gain. Taking away statewide archery will do absolutely nothing for the resource. Colorado has been doing units for years and it hasn't helped their deer herds at all.

Iron Bear - Elk and deer are not the same thing. It's tough to draw many parallels between the two and the way they are managed. Being drawn out into a conversation about comparing elk to deer is pointless and is only a distraction.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Catherder said:


> To Packout and Goofy, I hope all goes for the best for both of you and your property. My family and I were down in Sanpete the last 1 1/2 days and saw firsthand the devastation from a distance. Yikes! The Seeley mountain fire or whatever they're calling the fire on the Manti looks ominous too.
> 
> We can argue about option 2 for the other 11 1/2 months.


Amen,lets take care of people and property first! Argue later.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Being able to control hunting permits to the CORRECT number any given
> unit can support AS PER that units management plan........That makes it "key" ..


You could do that before option two.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

nickpan said:


> It amazes me how many people are so pist off that they dont get to hunt where they are "entitled to" and that its the DWR's fault that the fire destroyed my only hope at hunting in a unit.


NP I'm not sure if you have watched this issue as it has developed but you are not even close in terms of what this debate is about.

We need more deer and bucks don't have fawns. Focusing on the buck portion of the herd is like putting new seat covers in your car and expecting it to go faster.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> nickpan said:
> 
> 
> > It amazes me how many people are so pist off that they dont get to hunt where they are "entitled to" and that its the DWR's fault that the fire destroyed my only hope at hunting in a unit.
> ...


I agree with you 100%. I am afraid that i veered off the path and my post got a little out of context as what i was trying to get to.....

Just tired of hearing how people so against any change to an existing horrible system, to one that has good intentions (to a degree, i like the units, dont like managing for bucks only) and if done correctly with the support of hunters may have a chance...

THe hunting public of utah see ohunting opportunity over wildlife conservation and management ten fold. Which never will work

But this post was about a fire right?!?!  Hope that all you property owners dont lose your places!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> We need more deer and bucks don't have fawns. Focusing on the buck portion of the herd is like putting new seat covers in your car and expecting it to go faster.


Unless the deer herds are at capacity and you want to harvest enough bucks to facilitate a hunt for the average Joe. Because if the deer herds are at capacity as is suspected then an overall increase in population is not going to happen. So why not increase the number of buck on the range in fall to be harvested by humans. Leaving some room on the winter range for fawn and doe.

And if your not going to increase deer herds and you don't want to increase the number of buck. Why would someone say they were for the average Joe and care about hunter recruitment and retention?

Now if the deer herd is not at capacity then predation should be additive and the UWN should be after predators on behalf of the average Joe.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Unless the deer herds are at capacity and you want to harvest enough bucks to facilitate a hunt for the average Joe. Because if the deer herds are at capacity as is suspected then an overall increase in population is not going to happen. So why not increase the number of buck on the range in fall to be harvested by humans. Leaving some room on the winter range for fawn and doe.


Great question! I like it.

In my view the answer is simple. Cutting hunters without increasing deer populations comes at a high price. It reduces management dollars and more importantly it reduces the number of people that hunt. Less hunters joepordizes the future of the sport IMHO. I have been and will continue to be an advocate for hunter recruitment and believe it is key to the future. That is why I believe too much emphasis on trophy hunting will only hurt us. Not saying trophy hunting is bad but we should be more concerned about getting families out hunting.

It's true that many areas are at capacity with time and effort I believe that we can increase capacity and be able to carry more deer. That is where I believe we should focus our efforts.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

nickpan said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > nickpan said:
> ...


I too am praying for those directly affected by these fires, but this thread is not just about a fire, but about what these fires are doing to our hunts and our herds. In his title post, the author asked questions about how we feel about "Option 2" in relationship to these fires. Now, I suppose we could delay this discussion until the fires are over as some have suggested, but that may take months. And it's something that needs to be addressed at some point. How about it, Goofy? Do we continue for now or can it wait?


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > We need more deer and bucks don't have fawns. Focusing on the buck portion of the herd is like putting new seat covers in your car and expecting it to go faster.
> ...


Option two is supposed to increase the number of bucks! It doesn't leave some room on the winter range for fawn or does, it increases the number of bucks on the winter range (Thus reducing the room for fawn and does).


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

EFA, I say continue..

Because I believe some of the opt 2 doubters might begin to see the light,
as to how this new management tool can be helpful in situations like this one.......


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't think we should limit buck harvest by not having bucks. If the bucks are there they will be shot. As much pressure as our hills get 90,000 hunters will have no problem getting the herd B/D ratio back to 10/100 post hunt. Even if it started out at 30/100.

All option 2 did was end hot spotting. Which is a good thing and worth it in itself.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Cut the tags by the percentage of burned area and then make all the ones who were successful redraw!
If you think its a good idea it needs to happen this year not next.
If not option 2 is a hoax.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Randy, I respect you and most of what you say< U have tons of of smarts. But I Will never support the taking away of State Wide Archery. To me the Biology behind it was CRAP!!. Maybe a good thing would be to increase the amount of tags this year to take care of the animals that won't make it through the winter do to the loss of winter range due to the fires..
jus a thought


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

For the most part, the hunting strategies of antlered animals is based on social issues and not biological issues. It is a social issue of disallowing the statewide archery hunt. Just like it is a social issue to manage certain units for a 50 to 100 buck doe ratio. The deer herd should come first. The antlers to the hunt every year, should be only if beneficial to the herd. I'll gladly sit home to protect the herd, but I don't want to sit at home if we are just growing more antler inches.

These fires are incredibly destructive. They move like a tornado and are so powerful. The firefighters are in my thoughts.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't think we should limit buck harvest by not having bucks. If the bucks are there they will be shot. As much pressure as our hills get 90,000 hunters will have no problem getting the herd B/D ratio back to 10/100 post hunt. Even if it started out at 30/100.
> 
> All option 2 did was end hot spotting. Which is a good thing and worth it in itself.


Speaking of fires. Let's giggle and set ourselves up with a few Facetious, yet plausible units. One unit with 5000 animals and a 35:100 post season buck to doe ratio and another with a population of 5000 and a 15:100 ratio. For math's sake, let's pretend some more and imagine that 2500 deer from each of the two units is consumed by a massive fire and the number of consumed animals is directly relative and proportionate to the buck to doe ratios.

What happens to the two units long term? Population? Objective and number of years to get there? How about on a larger scale? How about the same scenario with winterkill? It's happened before when we've lost over 1/4 of the population. What happens if our statewide buck to doe ratio is similar to that of Nevada's? Hw about the Henry's? what happens to that unit when a devastating winter comes?

If I recall correctly, the Henry Mountain deer demographic is at about 60:100(It's actually a bit higher, but for math's sake...) and around 900 animals. Correct me if I am wrong, but the math still applies.

This means that roughly 38% of the deer herd is comprised of bucks and conversely 62% does.

900 total population

558 does - 50% winter kill = *279*

342 bucks - 50% winter kill = *171*

Total population post winter kill = 450

Estimated fawn survival the following year - 173 (62:100 3 year average)

Total deer after the first year post winter kill, excluding adult mortality. - 623

Again, for math's sake, let's pretend that the Henry's had a 15:100 buck to doe ratio under the same scenario. (13% bucks)

900 total population

783 does - 50% winter kill = *392*

117 bucks - 50% winter kill = *58*

Total population post winter kill = 450

Estimated fawn survival the following year - 243 (62:100 3 year average)

Total deer after the first year post winter kill, excluding adult mortality. - 693

As you can see, the fawn recruitment population total in the first year is 40% higher than if we carried what is actually on the range at the moment. The herd growth coefficient doesn't stay the same and the gap between the two populations will absolutely become exponentially bigger over the years.

So how might the two scenarios stack up against each other in a severe loss? I think the lower B/D ratio of the two might be a more conservation minded approach. But hey, it's just math.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

By the way, glad you fellers are ok.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't think we should limit buck harvest by not having bucks. If the bucks are there they will be shot. As much pressure as our hills get 90,000 hunters will have no problem getting the herd B/D ratio back to 10/100 post hunt. Even if it started out at 30/100.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand your first sentence. Could you please rephrase it? Also, you seem to have lumped the whole state (90,000 hunters, "the herd") into a discussion dealing specifically about units, or rather, one unit - Nebo. How does that correlate?
> 
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Oldfudd,
I too hate seeing the loss of state wide archery ..

It's all about politics!

And, IMHO, Utah is "missing the boat" not having more archery hunting opportunities ..

On another note,, I hearing that Fillmore/Oak creek limited entry unit is REALLY burning!
Almost 100% gone from city creek south ..


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Tree, your "Math" really puts things in perspective. Even the most adament supporter of Option 2 cannot argue that point.

That sucks to hear Goofy, depending how the rest of the summer goes, there could be a lot of areas/units hurting by the time the hunts roll around. People need to pull their head out of their a$$.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy. That Fire in Oak Creek and Fillmore just makes me SICK.. Started hunting the area back in 1963.. Got family over in Sanpete County They R hurting.. Just hope the Fire from the other side does not jump the mountain.. As for no Archery Tag..no problem I'll get over it. NOT.. My Prayers R with the fire fighters and and folks that have to deal with this destruction... It Just Looks Like HELL!!!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Oh yes! I forgot. Deer herds are down because of habitat and weather. Oh and uncontrollable human caused factors like roadkill and the development along the Wasatch.

So yes Utah's DWR should be proud of their scientific brilliance in mule deer management. And why anyone would second guess a steady statewide reduction of nearly 1 million deer over the last 40 yrs. Meanwhile very comprehensive and efforts to increase just about every single species in the state have been successful. (all of which have hunter management as a key component in the plan) Except for porcupine they are way down too. What eats porcupine? Has the porcupine habitat taken a dive?

I like the 25% winterkill figure. Do you really think the the DWR has a handle on winterkill when they don't know how many deer they started with and they have no idea how many died. And then to use 50% winterkill rate to exemplify how a *extremely* low B/D *might* be more prudent. I thinks its funny because I like you Tree and I know better.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Oh yes! I forgot. Deer herds are down because of habitat and weather. Oh and uncontrollable human caused factors like roadkill and the development along the Wasatch.
> 
> So yes Utah's DWR should be proud of their scientific brilliance in mule deer management. And why anyone would second guess a steady statewide reduction of nearly 1 million deer over the last 40 yrs. Meanwhile very comprehensive and efforts to increase just about every single species in the state have been successful. (all of which have hunter management as a key component in the plan) Except for porcupine they are way down too. What eats porcupine? Has the porcupine habitat taken a dive?
> 
> I like the 25% winterkill figure. Do you really think the the DWR has a handle on winterkill when they don't know how many deer they started with and they have no idea how many died. And then to use 50% winterkill rate to exemplify how a *extremely* low B/D *might* be more prudent. I thinks its funny because I like you Tree and I know better.


So are you gonna start a petition to get Sasquatch and Unicorn on the agenda and grow their herds in Utah too? Porcupine? Seriously? I've seen more this year than in the last five combined but you have a valid question....what in the hell DOES eat porcupine? Suckers don't smell very good when you put an arrow through em.....

I like tree too.....he has good juju


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Except for porcupine they are way down too. What eats porcupine? Has the porcupine habitat taken a dive? 


Answer: mountain lions eat porcupines which is a good thing otherwise there would be more dog\porcupine encounters


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> Answer: mountain lions eat porcupines which is a good thing otherwise there would be more dog\porcupine encounters


Your spot on Coyoteslayer.

I'd rather have an occasional dog full of quills and plentiful deer hunting.

Klbzdad, 5 yrs is your time horizon for Porcupine? Is that all you are looking at in terms of deer also? I'n my best Jamie voice. "Well there's your problem". :mrgreen: No wonder your complacent about the deer herd.

And I honest to god will give you $1000 dollars if you can show me even 3 different pigs on the Monroe unit in a days time. In contrast I can show you photo's with nearly a dozen pigs taken in a day by 10 to 12 yr old's back when. That were all taken with in walking distance of camp.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I saw more porcupines last year then ive seen in my entire adult life. Im not going to go out in a limb and say the population is high because they are all on the front. 

Maybe all it means is when a rifle hunter gets board of not seeing deer they shoot everything else because i dont see many porcupines on general rifle areas.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just got a few updates on the fires ..

The Nebo (Wood hollow) fire is 100% contained,,, will end up about 50,000 acres.
160+ total structures and property loss ..

The Clay spring Or Oak creek fire,, NEARING 100,000 acres..Only 15% contained ..

Bookcliffs fire now burning ( wolf den) @ 8,000 ac ares .. 0% containment!

Seeley fire (Manti) Fairview/Hunington canyons,, Schofield/clearcreek Area.
20,000 acres and 0% contained!!

And as far as porcupines go .. Their making a come back BECAUSE of the
decline in mountain lion numbers ..  :!:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Maybe all it means is when a rifle hunter gets board of not seeing deer they shoot everything else because i dont see many porcupines on general rifle areas.


We get it. You hate rifle hunters because 90% of the time you post something then you post something negative about rifle hunters. FYI, not everyone likes to use archery tackle to hunt.

I know a Cattle rancher on the Nebo unit that has found dead cows with a arrow in them. I guess they get just as "bored" not "board" and start shooting everything. You sure do paint a broad brush when it comes to rifle hunters.

Nasty rifle hunters anyways. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm sure your daughter will get a mouthful when she is hunting with a rifle this year :lol:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm still waiting for an answer on the Sasquatch and Unicorn petition....... :O•-: 

We aren't going to see deer numbers like they were 10 years ago. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, at least not mule deer. In five years, if we see stable population numbers, I will count that as success. I hate to say it but we must see stabilization BEFORE we will ever see an increase. THAT was the trend in every other success for the other species including transplant and trans-relocation. You have to see a flat line before it starts to creep upward and that has nothing to do with the bucks giving birth (I know you're shocked to learn that they don't....but THEY DON'T!) and will include proper predator management which I believe we're seeing now in the form of a big wake up call. 

I think we can all agree that maybe five years of consistent management is the only way we can decide if something wrong or right is being done but tell me where in the last 18 years we've seen more than two years managed the same way sans social pressure. 

Goofy, thanks for the update. Glad to know there is progress, if one can call it that. Sorry to hear about the extent of the damage but hopefully we see some good come out of it after years of crappy fire management prevented Mother Nature from doing what she does best.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

klbz,,,

Here's what kills me ,,

In 2001 the DWRs estimated deer herd size was 310,000 ..

In 2011 ( ten years later ) the DWRs estimated deer herd size was 286,000 ..

According to the DWR estimates ,, We only have 24,000 fewer deer than we had 10 years ago!

I DONT BUY IT for 1 second !!!

I believe we may have had 310k ten years ago ,,,, BUT NO WERE near 286k now...JMHO.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> klbz,,,
> 
> Here's what kills me ,,
> 
> ...


How many deer do you think we have in Utah? 75,000?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Honestly yote..

I GAURANTEE, the numbers of deer I was seeing 10 years a compared to now
is a way bigger difference than 24k state wide loss .... there's no frikk'in way! 

I would guess 225k to 250k ....


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I can say with complete honesty that I have seen more deer this year than I have in the last 10 by this time. What does it mean? I'll tell you exactly what it means........

It means I have seen more deer this year than I have in the last 10 by this time.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Mr Mule- That is the post of the Week! Thanks for the smile. I was thinking along the same lines--

I have seen more deer this year than in the past 5+ by this time. Bucks here, bucks there, bucks everywhere. Doe and fawns. Lots of deer. Most of the bucks are yearlings, from last year's incredible crop. This leads me to believe that Mother Nature will dictate how many deer we do or don't have on any given year.

Oh-- and a fire update. Our ranch burned for 6 straight days, lost about 70%+- of the cover/mtn land. Only thing that saved part of us was the helicopters were dipping from our lake and would hit spots as they came and went. Still lots of elk and even a high number of deer. Weird to see cow elk without calves during the fire and then to see them with calves after the fire. I wonder where they hid the calves while the fire was burning and the cow elk were running from here to there?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Oh-- and a fire update. Our ranch burned for 6 straight days, lost about 70%+- of the cover/mtn land. Only thing that saved part of us was the helicopters were dipping from our lake and would hit spots as they came and went. Still lots of elk and even a high number of deer. Weird to see cow elk without calves during the fire and then to see them with calves after the fire. I wonder where they hid the calves while the fire was burning and the cow elk were running from here to there?


That is good news packout. I'm glad a lot of calves and fawns survived. My family has a cabin in Argyle canyon and we have been lucky so far that the fire has stayed more North, but it's terrible that a lot of people lost theirs.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I can say with complete honesty that I have seen more deer this year than I have in the last 10 by this time. What does it mean? I'll tell you exactly what it means........
> 
> It means I have seen more deer this year than I have in the last 10 by this time.


Mule,

Me fifth! Just got back from gawking at that terrible Swains Creek fire after downloading my trail camera photos. There was a great crop of yearling bucks from the last couple of years. That's good news for those who believe they have vaginas.....they should be able to drop twins this next spring after we kill all the does along the Parowan Front! I keed, I keed!

Look, there is no way in Disneyland that any state game management agency can offer an exact count (some try to say Colorado can, but I've talked to their head bio and even he says its impossible sooooooo). We've been fed so many different numbers by DIFFERENT turkeys for so long we all gobble in a different tone so getting us to all sing the same song will take some work and some time. I'd like to begin by dropping some pipe dreams, like ever believing we'll see 400,000 plus mule deer in our state ever again. That ain't gonna happen! Not unless those yearling bucks really do start dropping fawns and they also start walking upright and asking us to borrow our firearms to help control predators, learn to read road signs, and do their own fund raisers for mitigation payments and game crossing structures to save their own butts. So again, stable numbers are going to show success in my mind's eye and then if we see small incremental increases, good. But not until we stop picking at each and the division is allowed to do what they have always been intended to do WITHOUT the BS social pressure that has killed the science of managing or planning around Mother Nature.....I'm tired, sorry about the diatribe. I'll post photos on my blog tomorrow. The lack of water is definitely having an effect on where the big bucks and bulls hold up during the day and they've officially gone nocturnal for the time being.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy. Am with ya on this one.. less and less Deer every year. Place on the Pavhant were I have glass deer in the summer for 40 years..where we used to see 80 to a hundred a weekend that was back then don't expect to ever see that again. now days yer lucky to see a 1/2 a dozen.. STINKING BOWHUNTERS!! NOT>!!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I for one I'm kinda excited about the Seely fire. I hunted the area that has burned my whole life and if its one place that need a fire its there. As long as no one gets hurt and no buildings get distroyed. 
This fire is going to help this unit 10 fold with the deer and elk. 
As for option 2 and the fire this is the worst thing that could of happened. Next year maybe not so much but the tags have already been drawn and they cant manage it now. 
Now for my opinon on the deer herds I believe the DWR numbers are right. I believe alot of the reason people havent seen the deer they "used to" is because the deer have had to move to find suitable feed. Just because you see sage brush doesnt mean its good for the deer. Alot of the browse is old and has no nutriental value for deer anymore. That is why this fire is a good thing so that new nutrient rich browse can grow. Haven't you ever noticed deer and elk will go back into the burnt areas when the new growth starts.
Anyway goofy glad things are good so far for you. Hope you can make it through without loss. 
I've been extremely impressed with the firemen and women fighting the Seely fire as they have saved every structure and utility line, Stuart Guard station was in the middle of the fire and it didn't even get damaged.
God Bless.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

oldfudd said:


> Goofy. Am with ya on this one.. less and less Deer every year. Place on the Pavhant were I have glass deer in the summer for 40 years..where we used to see 80 to a hundred a weekend that was back then don't expect to ever see that again. now days yer lucky to see a 1/2 a dozen.. STINKING BOWHUNTERS!! NOT>!!


Sorry fudd but trying to figure out the statewide deer population, or what direction it's trending, based on your observation in one area is like looking at the yellow grass in your backyard and proclaming the whole state is in a drought.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> oldfudd said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy. Am with ya on this one.. less and less Deer every year. Place on the Pavhant were I have glass deer in the summer for 40 years..where we used to see 80 to a hundred a weekend that was back then don't expect to ever see that again. now days yer lucky to see a 1/2 a dozen.. STINKING BOWHUNTERS!! NOT>!!
> ...


Very true! I saw about 15 bucks on the currant creek unit on Saturday compared to 2 does. Pretty good buck to doe ratio that I can extrapolate to the entire unit. Oh and 9 of them were great looking 4 pts.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

+1, the area I bow hunt has been the best deer hunting for the last 10 years than the previous 15 years before that. Other places I hunt have seen a decline, but last year was one of the best deer hunts I have ever had. I saw and counted close to 50 different bucks in 6 days of hunting, half a dozen of them mature 4 pts., and this is a medicore general season area. I think the counts are fairly accurate, just different areas are going through their boom or bust period.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LOL,, Yes there are some units doing very well!!

AND yes there are some units struggling!!

" boom and bust " statement is spot on ...

And that is my point,, just strengthens then new deer unit (hunter) management system ..
Right or wrong?

Those who say " hunters will distribute them selves" are contributing to hot spotting...IMHO.

And for the Nebo fire,, 100% containment!!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Those who say " hunters will distribute them selves" are contributing to hot spotting...IMHO.


How much do we really think the new unit by unit changes will effect hot spotting? My guess is if you weren't aware of the new unit by unit changes you wouldn't notice any change whatsoever this fall. You probably won't notice a change anyway. Even wtih unit by unit there will be some areas that have lots of hunters. Hot spotting will still exist.

Glad to hear the fire is contained!


----------

