# Deer permit numbers - cut by 1000



## nochawk (Oct 26, 2007)

I dont think they should sale any after the drawings. If you didnt apply for one in the regular draw you are out for the year, give the deer a break for a year....


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I have a very good source that says they found more buck fawns winter killed this year. They have seen more does killed this year than years in the past. They found many yearling bucks that winter killed and several mature bucks that were on the downhill side and didnt have enough body fat to make it this year. Which means we lost a lot of last years yearling and this years yearling. We lost many does so less fawns will be born next year and this spring. 

He said hunters wont see the amount of bucks like they have in the past.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

this 1000 permit reduction will not affect the northern area, the harvest rate is not the very good in the first place.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

nochawk said:


> I dont think they should sale any after the drawings. If you didnt apply for one in the regular draw you are out for the year, give the deer a break for a year....


What's the advantage in cutting the DWR's revenue and ignoring the management plan for a year? Obviously, the board adjusts numbers as necessary to meet objectives.

I'm always hearing other folks complain that the DWR only cares about tag revenue. This is contrary evidence of that, I think.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Cut Northern Deer tags by 5,000 and add 500 Limited Entry Bull tags. You solve the problem of money from the cuts and hunter opportunity/over objective LTD units. Win-win for everyone.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Should have done it years ago. As far as loss of revnue, Bet me they don't bump up the cost of a tag next year, to off set any losses they may have this year..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Should have done it years ago. As far as loss of revnue, Bet me they don't bump up the cost of a tag next year, to off set any losses they may have this year..


Bet me bread and milk prices go up next year, can I blame that on the reduction in deer tags this year? :roll: My local gas pump just raised the price to over $3.00 a gallon yesterday, I am now convinced it is due to the DWR recommending a 1000 Northern Region deer tag reduction. :?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Uuuh, I would BET that they will receive more than twice the amount lost from General tag sales, in their cut of conservation tags that increase in their going price this year. I don't think money will be an issue.

Good on the DWR, I just wish the cut was more like what packout stated.

And if I'm not mistaken, these are _recommended_ numbers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> And if I'm not mistaken, these are _recommended_ numbers.


You are NOT _mistaken_. I sure hope the turn out for the RAC's is better this month than for the Bucks and Bulls RAC's in November. :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

People could propose reducing the tags by other 2,000 to 3,000.

1,000 fewer deer permits in northern Utah

After last fall's hunting seasons, biologists found an average of 18 bucks per 100 does on public land hunting units in the Northern Region. Even though the number of bucks they found was on the high end of the 15 to 20 bucks per 100 does objective, biologists are recommending 1,000 fewer permits for the region this fall.

"We want to be cautious," Aoude says. "The deer herds in parts of northern Utah had a tough time this winter.

"When we do our after-winter surveys later this spring, we'll know better how many deer were lost. But our big game permit drawing happens in April, so we need to set the permits numbers before we do the surveys."

:roll: :roll: :roll: :lol:


----------



## SingleShot man (Dec 24, 2007)

I've got a proposal for the DH's-

What would you guys say to practicing voluntary restraint this year? there are, what, 9000 DH's in the program? If even a third of this number opted not to deer hunt, or at the very least minimize the number of days in pursuit of deer, would we not be accomplishing the same thing?
For one- we can only harvest 2 deer in three years. Let this year be the equivalent of the unsuccessful year. Giving the herds a break would certainly meet the definition and criterion of a 'Dedicated Hunter', would it not?
Perhaps, if going a full year w/out deer hunting would be a stretch (I'd develop some serious anxiety issues, for sure  ) for a lot of us- maybe we could just wait until the later part of the extended archery. It's a lower success hunt, but considering most of the extended is watershed I think that not having stress-inducing atv's, horses, and barking dogs in the field would have the optimum effect on the recovery of the herd.
what do y'all think of this? Just a thought.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

It is going to take a lot more than one year to recover from the winter kill. I believe micro-units would enable the DWR to easier control the number of hunters and the harvest in areas hit the hardest.


----------



## inbowrange (Sep 11, 2007)

Yes please reduce more than 1000 much more. And i second the if you don't put in the draw your SOL, i believe when people put in through the draw prosess there a little more involved then if they just wait and see if they can get a tag.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I believe micro-units would enable the DWR to easier control the number of hunters and the harvest in areas hit the hardest.


Absolutely. A 1,000 tag reduction doesn't prevent the possibility of an actual increase in hunter numbers in specific areas of the unit this year. I'm curious about the formula that was used to come up with that magic number, or any of the numbers being suggested here.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

they should cut all northern tags except archery tags for like 3 years...it's pathetic...the only bucks that survive on public land in the northern region are the ones that have dug a series of interconnected tunnels like the viet cong...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I believe micro-units would enable the DWR to easier control the number of hunters and the harvest in areas hit the hardest.
> ...


I agree with you guys 100%. I think for the most part, the Northern region will be just fine but there were a few specific area that did get hit pretty hard by deep snow.

stablebuck, you just keep on believing that crap. Actually, what is pathetic. Is hearing all these people complaining about no deer in the north. I saw over a hundred bucks last fall, right there in your own county.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> stablebuck, you just keep on believing that crap. Actually, what is pathetic. Is hearing all these people complaining about no deer in the north. I saw over a hundred bucks last fall, right there in your own county.


dude you can't count the ones that you saw when you were trippin on acid... 

I saw a gazillion too...on private land...morgan county doesn't count (all private land), 1/2 of cache county doesn't count, 1/2 of summit county doesn't count, and most of box elder county doesn't count...with what's left...you might have seen 100 bucks...from a helicopter...


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

maybe ridgetop is counting from Jan 01 2007 Thur DEC 31 2007.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

even then...I spent like a month total from Bountiful Peak to the Raft River to Lost Creek to Bear Lake and including private land I maybe saw 75 bucks...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Stable, I sometimes get a little generous. Even though your comment kind of bugged me a little. Last year I ended up with a left over Northern tag and I knew I would be a short on time and gas money to scout alot. So I picked Davis County only because it was closest to home (Grantsville) and some areas up there looked really good from the freeway. I didn't use a helicoper but close to it. I found the highest points on the mnt. and glassed, glassed, and glassed some more. I bushed wacked oak so thick that I couldn't see more than 10 feet and scaled cliffs that Treehugger told me that I would have to be on acid to try and take a horse up there and he was right. I thought I was going to die along with the horse. I was up there on opening day of the muzzleloader season and I walked up on two kids that had packed in overnight and I wished them luck and told them to hold out for at least a 4 point because they would be seeing plenty. I then split up with them and walked around the hill and instantly spotted 5 good bucks, which I then blew the stalk on. An hour later and only 1/2 mile away, I spotted several more nice bucks and two of them were huge but someone was already watching them. So we tried to get above the bucks and have them get pushed to us but that didn't work. No shots were fired in this area all day. We later spoke to those two kids in the tent and after 3 days they had only seen one 2 point. Crazy. Problem was, they didn't know how to spot bucks. Why I'm telling you this is just because people don't see the game, it does'nt mean they don't exsist. I could have picked any county in the northern region and would have had the same results.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

yeah I know where you are coming from and believe you me, I am not the dude beat-boxing down the forest trail with 3 other dudes thinking that nothing is alive in the whole range because deer aren't wrapping their lips around the end of my rifle barrel. I know there are some good animals up on Bountiful, but I opt not to deal with the gazillion people up there during the general season and the only way I am going to hunt deer in the Northern Region will be on LE/CWMU or with a bow not in October. October is for duck hunting...unless I draw my CWMU buck tag


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think I need to start chasing more ducks myself but I've heard there are alot of hunters in the marsh also in October. I personally enjoy visiting with all the zillions of hunter I meet on opening day but thats me. I never saw anyone while out scouting in August and Sept. Good luck and keep a good attitude and try spraying some of that doe in heat stuff on your barrel. That might get a few lip smackers attracted to that barrel of yours.


----------



## GSPS ROCK (Sep 14, 2007)

Ridgetop, 

I hope that other hunters continue to not see the bucks! That will just leave more for us!

Can't wait to get out this year and see "nothing".


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*How soon we forget!*



proutdoors said:


> It is going to take a lot more than one year to recover from the winter kill. I believe micro-units would enable the DWR to easier control the number of hunters and the harvest in areas hit the hardest.


For almost thirty years, concerned sportsmen have been fighting to get rid of the some odd 200 hundred herd management units that were listed for deer hunting in the proclamation prior to 1992. The main reason to get rid of these "Micro Management Units"was because they were not self containing units......Meaning that the units in many cases were only transitional zone that did not hold deer habitat for all four season, Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter.

Trying to manage these smaller units and obtaining any useful biological data was poor at best and was a major factor in the decline of the deer numbers state wide. These Micro Management Units were designed more for hunter control and not for good biological science. Consequently as other factors changed, Utah was slow at best to react and our deer herds have declined steadily as a result of failed micro management practices of the past. Yes! managing hunter numbers has always been the primary function of the Division and Micro Management Units accomplish this objective. However in recent years and with a unified sportsmen efforts, habitat has taken center stage in the effort for better game management as should have been implemented from day one. In years with heavy snow and cold winters, it becomes ever more apparent how important winter and spring habitat is to the survival of our game herds and especially mule deer. To implement winter feeding programs for deer some thirty years ago would have been laughed out of the room, but today it is happening because sportsmen have taken a hard fast stand.

If larger deer herds are the objective? Then aggressive steps must be taken to reduce elk numbers. Improve significantly winter and spring range habitat. Be proactive in the predator management and control arena and manage aggressively wolf, coyote, mountain lion, bear and yes, MAN. Aggressively implement arid land water development for the sole purpose of wildlife. And most importantly stay unified as a sportsmen group.

I for one truly believe that Micro Management Units would be disastrous to the management of our mule deer and would only serve to set us back thirty years in game management practices.

Bigbr


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

inbowrange said:


> Yes please reduce more than 1000 much more. *And i second the if you don't put in the draw your SOL, i believe when people put in through the draw prosess there a little more involved then if they just wait and see if they can get a tag.*




Some of us have no desires to draw out. To say that if you don't put in you shouldn't be allowed to hunt is just stupid. And to say we are less involved isn't right either.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: How soon we forget!*



bigbr said:


> I for one truly believe that Micro Management Units would be disastrous to the management of our mule deer and would only serve to set us back thirty years in game management practices.
> 
> Bigbr


Yeah, because Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada all have "disastrous" deer herds. :roll: Or, at least they must since they ALL micro manage their deer herds. How is that possible, that they have BETTER deer herds than Utah all the while they micro-manage?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

*Re: How soon we forget!*



bigbr said:


> These Micro Management Units were designed more for *hunter control *and not for good biological science...Be proactive in the predator management and control arena and manage aggressively wolf, coyote, mountain lion, bear and yes, *MAN*. I for one truly believe that Micro Management Units would be disastrous to the management of our mule deer and would only serve to set us back thirty years in game management practices.
> 
> Bigbr


contradiction???


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I'm definitely thinking "micro units" could help out on some of our current problems.... Surrounding states are using it with a good amount of success no reason we couldnt....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Cutting deer permit numbers by 100, 1000, 2000, 30000 whatever will only have a minimal effect on deer population numbers. What many hunters continually fail to remember is that the deer hunt is buck only...does are the key to improving population numbers. The only way a reduction of buck tags will benefit the herd is if the number of bucks is NOT sufficient to breed all the does. Otherwise, all a reduction of tags does is assure that fewer bucks are killed...which, in turn, does nothing to the population as a whole unless the population is at carrying capacity. If the herd is at carrying capacity for its habitat, then, saving bucks would actually decrease the does....

...I see this move by the DWR as more of a public relations move than a biological one!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Cutting deer permit numbers by 100, 1000, 2000, 30000 whatever will only have a minimal effect on deer population numbers. What many hunters continually fail to remember is that the deer hunt is buck only...does are the key to improving population numbers. The only way a reduction of buck tags will benefit the herd is if the number of bucks is NOT sufficient to breed all the does. Otherwise, all a reduction of tags does is assure that fewer bucks are killed...which, in turn, does nothing to the population as a whole unless the population is at carrying capacity. If the herd is at carrying capacity for its habitat, then, saving bucks would actually decrease the does....
> 
> ...I see this move by the DWR as more of a public relations move than a biological one!


So don't you think the DWR would realize this OR is there a third party in play that is telling the DWR to reduce the permits? Surely the DWR knows more than you Wyo2ut. Don't you think??? I understand what you are saying and it's the does that increase the herd size NOT the bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I see this move by the DWR as more of a public relations move than a biological one!


The DWR *must* manage BOTH wildlife AND hunters. While I agree that a 1000 tag reduction does little/nothing to help the deer herds increase, it WILL help quality of bucks, and that is a HUGE factor to many 'consumers', ie the HUNTERS. To ignore the hunters would be foolish for the DWR. I've said it a few times before, but it is all about BALANCE. We have set objectives for post-season buck/doe ratios that are based on biologically based reasons AND hunter demands. The DWR is mandated to manage to the whims/desires of the hunters, to suggest they should ignore either the biological or hunter driven objectives would be very short sighted.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

*Re: How soon we forget!*



proutdoors said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > I for one truly believe that Micro Management Units would be disastrous to the management of our mule deer and would only serve to set us back thirty years in game management practices.
> ...


Pro this is northern UTAH not Colorado, Wyoming, or Nevada. for your info most of northern Utah is covered by private land, and most of the winter range is covered in houses.

your micro management will have a hard time working with this scenario, the animals need some place to go in the winter, instead of people's backyards and on the highways.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The DWR *must* manage BOTH wildlife AND hunters. While I agree that a 1000 tag reduction does little/nothing to help the deer herds increase, it WILL help quality of bucks, and that is a HUGE factor to many 'consumers', ie the HUNTERS. To ignore the hunters would be foolish for the DWR. I've said it a few times before, but it is all about BALANCE. We have set objectives for post-season buck/doe ratios that are based on biologically based reasons AND hunter demands. The DWR is mandated to manage to the whims/desires of the hunters, to suggest they should ignore either the biological or hunter driven objectives would be very short sighted.


While I agree with the gyst of what you are saying, I don't agree that it applies to what is being done now. The DWR isn't one bit concerned about the size or quality of bucks in the northern region; their immediate concern is for the herd from a population perspective. The DWR has already set the balance of the deer hunt in the management of some units as premium LE units, some as LE units, and some as general season units. The goal of general season units is not for quality but for quantity. As a general season unit, the DWR's goal is to manage for a certain total population and for a certain percentage of the population to be bucks (buck/doe ratio). Because the buck/doe ratio has been met, the DWR is simply trying to assure that the ratio will continue to be met even after winter losses...this reduction in tag numbers is simply a precautionary attempt to maintain those buck/doe ratios at or above the desired ratio even after the winter losses. It has nothing to do with the overall health of the deer herd or the total population of the herd.

Also, FWIW, I am not disagreeing or arguing against what is being proposed. I just think many people misunderstand the why's. This is not, in my opinion, a move based on improving the population but in maintaining buck/doe ratios. To me, this is a public relations move as a result of the heavy snows.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> your micro management will have a hard time working with this scenario, the animals need some place to go in the winter, instead of people's backyards and on the highways.


The entire winter range in the Northern Region isnt just homes and highways. Micro-management will work for the entire state of Utah because the DWR can regulate hunters and how many permits or given for a particular area which means quality in the areas would greatly increase because they can reduce pressure in areas that are highly pressured. Some areas might be below 15/100 buck to doe ratios so they can cut back tags and do more habitat in those areas to increase the herd size, but again the herd can only grow if there is enough winter habitat.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: How soon we forget!*



sagebrush said:


> Pro this is northern UTAH not Colorado, Wyoming, or Nevada. for your info most of northern Utah is covered by private land, and most of the winter range is covered in houses.
> 
> your micro management will have a hard time working with this scenario, the animals need some place to go in the winter, instead of people's backyards and on the highways.


First, thanks for the geography lesson, I had no idea Northern Utah is in UTAH. :roll:

What are you saying, the *only* way to improve our deer herd is to knock down houses and tear up highways? If an area got hammered this winter by the snow pack, does it not make sense to be able to limit the pressure on those areas? The DWR admitted they have a hard time 'micro-managing' hard hit/struggling areas under the current regional management system in play today. The buck/doe ratio may be at/above objective region wide, but be low in certain areas. BY micro-managing smaller sub-units, it is easier to first know the actual buck/doe ratios, second to increase buck/doe ratios where deemed lower than objectives.

I agree we need to do everything we can to minimize the loss of critical winter range, and that it is a major limiting factor in overall deer numbers, but buck/doe ratios can/should be managed on a smaller scale than currently being used. My point on the surrounding states is they 'discovered' that giving the DWR the ability to address areas that are struggling w/o hurting areas that are at/above objectives, helps the over-all health of the herd. It also makes hunters happier, which is a major part of managing game animals in todays world.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I am not disagreeing or arguing against what is being proposed. I just think many people misunderstand the why's. This is not, in my opinion, a move based on improving the population but in maintaining buck/doe ratios. To me, this is a public relations move as a result of the heavy snows.


Isn't this pretty much what I said? :? Buck/doe ratio objectives are set based on biology AND public wishes, so the DWR MUST manage to BOTH. I am not sure where we disagree, other than you call it a public relations move, and I call it managing to part of the wildlife management equation.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Now I'm with Pro... That might be scary for some of you.... Any how, the problem is a complex one that can't be solved with just one adjustment to see a real change it will have to be done on several levels one we don't have the funds to buy back all the winter range that has been taken over the years so we need to do what we can to minimize encrochment on what is left.... two not all areas of the state were hit hard enough by the snow to cause winter kill that brang some of the herds below objectives, but some were now if units were smaller a direct focus could be put on the areas hit again you can't bring back to life the deer that were winter killed but at the same time you dont want to have to limit permits on areas that werent hit hard... So everyones a little bit right some more so than others but to get the herds where most of us want them there will have to be adjustments made....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Now I'm with Pro...


You should have left it at that. :mrgreen:


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

I think everyone that hunts archery, even dedicated hunters, should voluntarily pass on shooting doe's this year. Even if its the last day of the extended, and there is a doe in front of you and no bucks in sight. I think that most on here don't shoot doe's anyway, but maybe we can incourage all that have the chance this season, to pass on them so that we can increase the herds back from this winter mortality loss. Pass the encouragement on!!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Bunch of useless Smack*

I do not care how you slice it, small sub-unites do not manage deer health, concentration, or sound biological data, they are designed to manage people.!

http://www.muledeernet.org/statusnevada.htm

State of Nevada - Mule Deer Status Report	
updated May 2006

Hunter Harvest Data 1970 1985	1995	2000	2005
Total Mule Deer Harvest 14,587	19,520	8,114	12,437	7,112
Antlered Mule Deer Harvest (Rifle)	10,333	16,927	6,937	9,146	5,997
Antlerless Mule Deer Harvest (Rifle)	4,136	1,790	577	2,329	413
Antlered Mule Deer Harvest (Archery)	63	420	308	480	358
Antlerless Mule Deer Harvest (Archery)	55	0	0	0	0
Antlered Mule Deer Harvest (Muzzleloader)	NR	383	292	482	344
Antlerless Mule Deer Harvest (Muzzleloader)	NR	0	0	0	0
Total Deer Hunters (Rifle)	23,781	30,846	16,420	22,628	13,644
Total Deer-Hunter Days (Rifle)	NR	120,766	77,087	89,533	55,703
Total Deer Hunters (Archery)	766	2,237	2,570	2,579	2,311
Total Deer-Hunter Days (Archery)	NR	11,509	14,393	14,562	14,298
Total Deer Hunters (Muzzleloader)	NR	745	1,024	1,180	965
Total Deer-Hunter Days (Muzzleloader)	NR	2,839	4,751	5,472	5,977
http://www.muledeernet.org/statuscolorado.htm

State of Colorado Mule deer Status Report	
Hunter Harvest Data	1985	1995	2000	2005	
Total Mule Deer Harvest	58,399	51,899	37,908	41,665	
Antlered Mule Deer Harvest 47,105	38,963	29,221	32,878	
Antlerless Mule Deer Harvest 11,294	12,936	8,687	8,787	
Total Deer Hunters	169,439	173,086	84,335	91,757

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/bi ... report.pdf

Utah Mule Deer Status Report 
Year	Bucks Antlerless	Hunters 
2004 27,929	2,239	86,505 
2005 21,520	1,951	85,931 
2006 30,548	1,856	88,452

Yeah, because Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada all have "disastrous" deer herds. :roll: Or, at least they must since they ALL micro manage their deer herds. How is that possible, that they have BETTER deer herds than Utah all the while they micro-manage?[/quote][/quote]

Pro: Would you like to crunch the numbers and provide us with your logic behind your profound Statements? I do not think when you compare across the board that the numbers prove your statement to be true.

Mule deer have declined in large numbers all across the west. Other than Colorado, the other states you mentioned are far bellow the permits allocated in Utah and when taken on the percentage basis are very much in line with Utah.

So I ask this fine question, should we manage for mule deer or manage for people control?

Micro units do wonderful for people management but ineffective in overall deer management.



stablebuck said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > These Micro Management Units were designed more for *hunter control *and not for good biological science...Be proactive in the predator management and control arena and manage aggressively wolf, coyote, mountain lion, bear and yes, *MAN*. I for one truly believe that Micro Management Units would be disastrous to the management of our mule deer and would only serve to set us back thirty years in game management practices.
> ...


So I ask how is this a contradiction?

The management practices as now outlined in wildlife law for the state of Utah have never been better. Utah DWR now have more tools, more resources, more support, and more lee-way to manage our wildlife better than ever before. Why is it that most of the States that you mention Pro are coming to Utah for knowledge and advice and taking home our abundance of moose, antelope, elk, etc...?

If Utah is so bad Pro, why do you spend your time guiding/hunting here?

Can improvements be made? Yes.....and every rac/board meeting sound biological and management advice is being considered and implemented. I am still under the opinion that if we spend 85% of our efforts on proper wildlife management( habitat improvement etc.) and 15% on hunter management our problems will resolve them selves and we will all benefit including our kids. Let us not go back to blaming all our problems on hunters and poachers, which in the eyes of the press are all one in the same...

Respectfully......Bigbr


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> The entire winter range in the Northern Region isnt just homes and highways. Micro-management will work for the entire state of Utah


CS, I said most of the northern area is covered by private land, and houses. And this started out about the northern area not the whole state in general. it seems some of you want to add the entire state into the equation.



proutdoors said:


> The buck/doe ratio may be at/above objective region wide, but be low in certain areas. BY micro-managing smaller sub-units, it is easier to first know the actual buck/doe ratios, second to increase buck/doe ratios where deemed lower than objectives.


The areas that are private land will be at or above the objective for buck/doe ratios. I do believe that private land is not managed by the DWR and what little public is a available for hunting is over crowded every year has been for years and will always be this way until the permit numbers are reduced.
the private land in the northern area does the mocro-managing for this area, I see no reason to micro-manage the public land. We do not want to make it any harder to hunt this area. 
As for the winter range mot much can be done to prevent people from building on it. One thing that can help is building fencing along some stretches of the highways to help keep the animals from getting ran over, and improving what winter range they do have.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*Re: Bunch of useless Smack*



bigbr said:


> I do not care how you slice it, small sub-unites do not manage deer health, concentration, or sound biological data, they are designed to manage people.!
> 
> Pro: Would you like to crunch the numbers and provide us with your logic behind your profound Statements? I do not think when you compare across the board that the numbers prove your statement to be true.
> 
> ...


First, the DWR MUST manage wildlife AND hunters, so you have admitted micro-managing helps "manage hunters", and I don't see any draw backs for wildlife, so sounds like a good idea to me.

Second, I NEVER said Utah was "so bad", I just simply believe Utah could be BETTER than it is now, especially in the Northern region, where I do NOT guide. _(O)_

Third, I have no idea what all those numbers you posted are supposed to show, can you help me out?



> I am still under the opinion that if we spend 85% of our efforts on proper wildlife management( habitat improvement etc.) and 15% on hunter management our problems will resolve them selves and we will all benefit including our kids


I agree, and one of the management tools is to know how many deer are in a specific area and how many are harvested each year. This is easier to monitor with smaller areas than larger areas. FYI, Utah is spending more on habitat improvement than ALL the surrounding states combined, thanks to the great conservation program in place.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

First, Wyoming does not micro-mange their deer herd. Yes, they have herd units, just like Utah. They have limited entry units, just like Utah. But they do not micromanage.

Second, has micro units grown the overall deer herd in Nevada? The answer is a resounding no. Micromanaging buck deer hunters has not grown the productivity of Nevada's deer herd. It has grown more bucks, but not the herd productivity. The same can be said of Arizona and New Mexico. Micromanaging has also grown the waiting time for people to hunt and the success rates. 

Colorado is the wild card. Utah cut hunter numbers from 250,000 to 100,000. Colorado cut hunter numbers from 175,000 to 80,000. Colorado's herd rebounded, Utah's has seen smaller increases. The problem lies elsewhere. The doe population is getting bred. There are sufficient bucks to breed the doe. Fawning rates mirror or exceed other states. Where are all the fawns going?????

And the Gunnison Basin biologists in Colorado arn't too happy having held 40+ bucks per 100 doe for the past few years. Now they lost a large portion of their herd because they carried TOO MANY bucks. Go figure.............


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> First, Wyoming does not micro-mange their deer herd. Yes, they have herd units, just like Utah. They have limited entry units, just like Utah. But they do not micromanage.


They have smaller units, and more 'regions' than Utah.



> Second, has micro units grown the overall deer herd in Nevada? The answer is a resounding no. Micromanaging buck deer hunters has not grown the productivity of Nevada's deer herd. It has grown more bucks, but not the herd productivity. The same can be said of Arizona and New Mexico. Micromanaging has also grown the waiting time for people to hunt and the success rates.


Herd population is ONE of many desired outcomes of micro-management, quality of animals and quality of hunt are others.



> Colorado is the wild card. Utah cut hunter numbers from 250,000 to 100,000. Colorado cut hunter numbers from 175,000 to 80,000. Colorado's herd rebounded, Utah's has seen smaller increases. The problem lies elsewhere. The doe population is getting bred. There are sufficient bucks to breed the doe. Fawning rates mirror or exceed other states. Where are all the fawns going?????


When I refer to Colorado, quality is a major part of the equation.



> And the Gunnison Basin biologists in Colorado arn't too happy having held 40+ bucks per 100 doe for the past few years. Now they lost a large portion of their herd because they carried TOO MANY bucks. Go figure.............


I would be irked as well if general areas in Utah had 40+ buck/doe ratios. But, other than MAYBE the Henries, that is NOT a concern in Utah, post season ratios in ALL 5 regions are well under 20 buck/doe ratios.

My biggest dislike with the 5 Region management is that a region, such as the Southern Region can have an overall buck/doe ratio at objective, but have smaller sub-units that could be way over/under objectives and there is little safe guards in place to address that. Micro-management will enable the DWR to get MORE deer herds in compliance with the Deer Management Plan and be at/near objectives, for buck/doe ratios AND population.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

What similarity does the Uinta Forest south of Nephi canyon, the Nebo (including the burn), the West Desert, the Wasatch Front and Provo Canyon all have in common that justifies a single management strategy for the entire region?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> What similarity does the Uinta Forest south of Nephi canyon, the Nebo (including the burn), the West Desert, the Wasatch Front and Provo Canyon all have in common that justifies a single management strategy for the entire region?


Good Point! They are very different and should be managed different, All of these areas have different buck to doe ratios and I know that the West Desert and Nebo are below objective.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I know where you guys are coming from and I tend to agree. I just don't see the micromanagement of buck hunters being as important to the overall herd health, which is (or should be) all our first concern. Any decision made should be based on maintaining a productive herd. I do find it interesting that many general season units with low buck - doe ratios have comparable to higher doe - fawn ratios than our limited entry units.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Going all to limited entry deer units*

Packout has hit the nail on the head with his position on overall herd strength and how do we achieve healthy herd growth?

Managing people is easy! We can close hunting areas, go to point restrictions, shorten seasons, limit numbers of hunters, use primitive hunting methods etc.

Managing for over all herd health and population, gets a little more dicey in the mix of management objective. Utah has divided the state into regions that have fully self-contained habitat areas. With a management objective to have an average of 15 bucks per 100 does along side a quantified management objective of a total number of mule deer in that region. Within these regions we have limited entry sub units and cooperative wildlife management units with further defined objectives, but closely restricted numbers of allowed legal hunters. For the past ten years, Utah has been on a slow upword growth trend in regards to our mule deer herd growth, while at the same time maintaining both general season and limited entry hunting. It is recognized that substantially higher buck to doe ratios are expected in limited entry areas as the objective are designed around trophy older aged bucks and when augmented into the regionial herd management model this seems to balance out the overall objective. However, should we try and manage the whole state under limited entry status ( Micro Units) with a design to increase trophy bucks or bucks in general as our main objective, we drastically limit herd growth and herd health.

The example of the Henry Mountains was given as a premier limited entry hunting unit. Wow, everyone would love to draw a tag there! However if we isolate the Henry Mountains as a stand alone unit, we have deer health and sustain growth issues that are retarding the management plan in the LE unit. First, as a premier trophy limited entry unit, the buck to doe ratio's are some of the highest in the country with well over 50 bucks per 100 doe's. Consequently the fawn production has declined considerably do to many factors, but low doe numbers are definitely a large factor. The doe numbers have been at such a great concern to the DWR, that doe's have been transplanted to the unit from the Lasal's and other areas to stabilize the health of the herd. We are seeing these same problems exist in some of our trophy limited entry elk hunting units.

Do we really improve our mule deer herds by moving the state to more limited entry hunting units? Can we have general season hunting if we move to micro unit structure? Can we expect better division/ hunter support when we artificially force hunters into sub-units that do not sustain huntable numbers of mule deer during the hunt? Should all hunting in Utah be manage around trophy status animals and be finance as such? Is Herd heath really our objective? Should further restrictions be placed on public land? How many points will it take in the futrue to draw a deer tag with the purposed "people management/micro unit" plan?

Just want to know what direction you are leading us too Bart?

Respectfully, Bigbr


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout and Bigbr, you guys bring out the very thing that most deer hunters don't get--number of bucks in a unit doesn't automatically mean that the unit has a healthy deer population. The Henry's, for example, is a struggling deer unit despite the fact that numerous hunters across the west and US would love to draw a tag there.

With this understanding, switching to a micromanagement of deer units within Utah is only a good idea if we are doing it to better manage herd health, which, in turn, means sustaining a high number of does and maintaining high recruitment and reproduction rates or high doe/fawn ratios.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

y'all should come over to my house and check out the beautiful "herd health" certificate I have mounted on the wall over my fireplace... :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am not going to go back and forth on a worn on subject. To me it is not, nor should it be an either or answer. To me it is BOTH. We must manage for herd health, that is a given, but we also must manage for hunter demands. Like it or not, that is reality. I believe by having more 'control' on hunter numbers in stressed areas, the 'herd health' will improve, as will the herd quality. I am NOT advocating turning the whole state into being managed like the Henry LE unit. *If*, and I mean *if*, buck/doe ratios are over 50/100 on that unit it should be lowered. bigbr claims the DWR has been transplanting does form the LaSals to the Henrys, if that is true I want a DWR biologist to explain why to my. I have had NUMEROUS DWR biologists here in Utah in the last 6 months tell me deer transplants are very ineffective and a waste of resources and time. I would hope they would cut doe tags and increase buck tags if the doe population is that low. Funny how *if * this has indeed happened how quiet the DWR has been about it. :? And, I KNOW they are NOT transplanting cow elk to improve bull/cow ratios on any of the LE units.

I think finnegan is the one who hit the nail on the head on how different the deer herds are in different parts of the same Region. A Region wide buck/doe ratio and her 'health' measurement means little in the areas that are struggling.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am not going to go back and forth on a worn on subject. To me it is not, nor should it be an either or answer. To me it is BOTH. We must manage for herd health, that is a given, but we also must manage for hunter demands. Like it or not, that is reality.


You have continually made this statement and, while I agree, I still am not so sure you would make the same statement if hunter demands proved to be less LE hunting and not more :?:

Personally, I am in favor of changing to a plan that micromanages deer...BUT only if we are doing it to better manage deer and not people.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> You have continually made this statement and, while I agree, I still am not so sure you would make the same statement if hunter demands proved to be less LE hunting and not more :?:
> 
> Personally, I am in favor of changing to a plan that micromanages deer...BUT only if we are doing it to better manage deer and not people.


I would make the EXACT same statement, my opinion is NOT based on my wishes, but on hunters as a whole, and it gets old having to restate that over and over again. :roll:

Again, any/ALL management plans should be based on herd health first, but MUST include 'people' in the equation. Otherwise it will likely result in disaster.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Third, I have no idea what all those numbers you posted are supposed to show, can you help me out?
> 
> 
> Pro, If you will go to the links provided you will see the numbers all lined up in a more readable and understandable arangement. I have not figure out how to post tables yet on the forum.
> ...


Pro, I want address your second paragraph first. Two years ago I was down on the Henrys helping a friend of mine harvest a deer that he had been lucky enough to draw a tag for. I have hunted this area for years. On that hunt we were seeing deer with radio collars on them, (Does). After several days and seeing five or six deer with the collars, we got stopped by a division biologist stationed out of Bullfrog. It was at this point that I brought up the collared deer and was given the explanation about does being brought into the Henrys from mainly the LaSals, and the study that was taking place.

Balance has been an overall goal that should be attainable, however at this time with the set of circumstances and a very limited resource (Mule Deer Numbers,) trying to have both a 97,000 General hunt and limited opportunity hunts designed around older and trophy class bucks, it is hard to be completely in balance with a stable growing and healthy deer herd.

Let me point out a few facts: Utah has 9 limited entry deer units in the state. Utah has 89 Cooperative Wildlife Management Units (CWMU) designed to offer quality trophy bucks. Each CWMU must have at least 10,000 acres of both private and some public land to obtain special hunting rights. Utah has 45 state parks which would include Antelope island and very limited hunting regulations. Utah has 5 National Parks that do not allow hunting and 13 National Monuments/ recreation areas in which hunting is very restricted. Within our state there are five Indian reservation and the Navaho reservation has over sixteen million acres that are for all intentions are off limit to the general public to hunt. Would it be fair to conclude that Utah has set aside large amount of land (Micro Units) with both intended and unintended purpose of trying to establish trophy mule deer hunting reserves? Would it also be fair to ask how we continue to allow a balance approach to mule deer hunting in Utah when we have 97,000 hunters each year vying for what remains of our state, compounded by private and other public lands that do not allow hunting?

Pro, If I can summerize: You feel we do not have a enough balance in the system and think that quality, (Trophy and more bucks) should trump quantity (a larger healthier herd?) You have stated that more Micro Units would solve and better manage the deer herd and the overall health of our herds. Please correct me here if I am mis-stating your intentions. It is my intent to explain the problems that this poses and give reasons why it is counter productive.

My opinion and the opinion of many wildlife biologist are that we must first have a viable healthy herd, before we even start to screw around with providing any further limitation to create more trophy areas in the state of Utah. We must also realize that our ever increasing elk herds and there management has a direct effect on mule deer management and balance here may be harder than many are willing to except.

In my humble opinion, sportsmen of Utah have never had it so good and we now have the ability to make good sound biological changes when needed and when appropriate.

Respectfully ........Bigbr


----------

