# Deer Harvest Management



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

The statewide archery deer hunt may soon become a thing of the past. It almost disappeared a couple of years ago with a very close vote on the wildlife board, and new challenges to the statewide hunt are on the horizon. So I see no harm in a little "out of the box" thinking because otherwise, I don't see how we can avoid significant reductions in bowhunter opportunity, especially since Utah's continuing population growth inevitably means continued loss of winter range.

So I'm looking for some help from you all in thinking through an alternative. Maybe it's just a brain fart - you tell me. I believe that the opposition to statewide archery tags is perceptual rather than real. At least I've seen no data to support a need to do away with the statewide hunt. None the less, the perception is there and the itch it causes could well get scratched by statewide limited entry hunts. I don't think that's a paranoid or delusional prediction.

Here's the idea: retain the statewide archery deer hunt but propose that it become a two year hunt. That is, a bowhunter with a statewide tag can use the same tag for two consecutive years, at twice the current cost, but only take one buck in those two years.

The perception would be that the statewide harvest would be cut in half but in reality, the statewide hunt opportunity would be uneffected for most bowhunters with the exception that many(?) would be less likely to take yearlings, especially in the first season.

The advantage to the deer would be, (aside from continued revenue including P.R. funds from archery equipment sales), a more selective harvest.

What do you think?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

OK, but how about a 3 year tag and it be two deer every three years like the dedicated program is now. That way we are really not giving anything up as that is about the going success rate for deer anyway. (all seasons)

If it is all perception. Then the perception of 66% success rate still seems less than the possible 100% now. Besides archery success rates are so low this probably wouldn't impact anything, except the archery hunter.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Archery harvest success is so minimal that it shouldn't even pose an issue in regards to the statewide hunt. In my opinion, it is the rifle hunters who are whining that "it isn't fair, archers hunt where they want each year and I have to wait up to two or three years to draw my preferred area"  . So I my thoughts are it has more to do with the perception of the majority (rifle hunters) that is the biggest problem. If you want to hunt your area every year, go buy a bow. :twisted: 

If you ask me, I say leave it how it is. But if it has to change, my thoughts are with the deer hunts in Utah possibly going to multiple micro units in the near future, something may have to be done with the statewide archery. I think if the rifle hunts get broken up into say 30 (assumed number) micro units, the bow hunts should follow the current 5 region break up of the state. This will help manage overall archer numbers and allocate them a little more evenly statewide. Even if an area has more archers than normal, the effects will be so minimal due to low success rates that it shouldn't matter. It has always been my opinion that primitive weapons need more incentive anyway, to attract more people to the sport. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard, archer numbers in each region are allocated roughly to the same ratio as the rifle hunts are now. Everyone isn't headed to the Southern unit like some people would like us to believe. :roll:


----------



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

I think that bowhunters will continue to get screwed in this state and there's nothing anyone can do about it. :evil: Special interest has dictated what happens for 20 years now and that is govern by big money rife hunters. Doyal Moss isn't getting rich guiding archery hunters. The DWR and SFW can't boast about how many "400" bulls and "200" bucks are killed by archers in the state every year. Bottom line is, Archery hunting isn't good for the *bottom line* so why do we need to cater to the archer at all. Rifle hunting is where all the greedy *$$$$$* is.

So bend over and spread em boys. Use lube too cuz it's gonna hurt. :|


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

For the record, I know of *THREE* bulls killed by archers last year that went over 400, with one being the BIGGEST elk ever killed in Utah by ANY weapon.

While rifle hunters do their share of complaining, the loudest B&M is coming from the southern boys. I believe it is due to two main factors. Number one is the Dedicated Hunters who flood the southern region each year. We MUST address this issue, and we will at the upcoming Mule Deer Committee that convenes later this month. Second, is the increase in recreational use during archery season. Labor Day is the last hooray for MOST campers/atv riders/hikers/fishermen, so that time of year is crowded on the mountain. I and a few other UBA diehards traveled to southern Utah last April and talked with as many bow hunters as we could, what I got from the trip is that people want 'their' mountain to be just 'their' mountain, regardless of the FACT that the population has exploded in that region, along with the DH program, and recreational usage increasing.

I met with Anis Aoude and Craig McLaughlin a few weeks ago, and they support STRONGLY keeping statewide archery. But, we know how much that counts in the final outcome, so we need to stay strong and united.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I agree, there may be a problem with the additional 10,000 DH archers flooding specific areas in addition to the 14,000 archers. I believe designated hunters have enough benefits from the guaranteed 3 year, 3 hunts per year in the region of their choice. DH should be limited to hunting archery in the region of their choice only. Another thought would be to allocate DH hunter tags by region too, in an annual 1st - 5th choice draw basis. Not trying to limit anyones opportunity, but if the extensive opportunity offered to DH is going to limit the opportunity of those who elect to just archery hunt each year, something should be done with regards to the DH program. JMHO.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> I agree, there may be a problem with the additional 10,000 DH archers flooding specific areas in addition to the 14,000 archers. I believe designated hunters have enough benefits from the guaranteed 3 year, 3 hunts per year in the region of their choice. DH should be limited to hunting archery in the region of their choice only. Another thought would be to allocate DH hunter tags by region too, in an annual 1st - 5th choice draw basis. Not trying to limit anyones opportunity, but if the extensive opportunity offered to DH is going to limit the opportunity of those who elect to just archery hunt each year, something should be done with regards to the DH program. JMHO.


This is something that may interest MZ and rifle hunters too. I am sure that hunters in certain regions for all hunts have noticed an influx of hunters in their respective region due to the DH program. Something may need to be done to control the numbers better. It could get confusing but maybe something like this:

Deer general rifle/MZ season - Broken into the micro units
DH - broken up among the current 5 regions
General Season Archery - Statewide


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> > I agree, there may be a problem with the additional 10,000 DH archers flooding specific areas in addition to the 14,000 archers. I believe designated hunters have enough benefits from the guaranteed 3 year, 3 hunts per year in the region of their choice. DH should be limited to hunting archery in the region of their choice only. Another thought would be to allocate DH hunter tags by region too, in an annual 1st - 5th choice draw basis. Not trying to limit anyones opportunity, but if the extensive opportunity offered to DH is going to limit the opportunity of those who elect to just archery hunt each year, something should be done with regards to the DH program. JMHO.
> 
> 
> This is something that may interest MZ and rifle hunters too. I am sure that hunters in certain regions for all hunts have noticed an influx of hunters in their respective region due to the DH program. Something may need to be done to control the numbers better. It could get confusing but maybe something like this:
> ...


Are you kidding???? An influx due to DH hunters. Of the 94000 general season permits 10,000 are DH permits. Of the those 49% declare soutern region. So 5100 hunters are an influx in the rest of the state. That is less the 1/2 of 1% of all the permits in the state. I agree that some are using the DH program to side step the drawing to get a southern tag the numbers show that. But, spewing such BS about an influx is just why this thread started. It is a perception and not a reality.

If hunters just want their mountain to be their mountain. That is to **** bad. The mountain belongs to all sportsman and recreational users equally. Also to punish a group who is willing to put in more effort time and money to get a better chance is stupid. Thats like trying to do away with tags that are auctioned and have high success rates. If they are willing to pay or spend the extra effort why don't they deserve some benefit.

That is not to say we don't need to try and maintain a balanced system. The Dh program is going to change there is no doubt about it. The cap is hit and there will be an outcry for it to change. But, taking away because of perception? Come on. Change a system because it needs to be and the facts and numbers support it.

Ok I'm done for now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The DH program will be modified under the new Deer Management Plan. Since it looks likely we will be going to micro-managing instead of the 5 regions, we MUST do something with the DH's. If you are only going to all X number of hunters into a small area, the number of DH's MUST be limited/capped as well. How this will be implemented remains to be worked out. If the DH 'issues' get worked out, I believe that would reduce the push to make archers pick a region/area. At least it should based on the numbers. But, as has been mentioned, perception seems to carry more weight than reality, especially in hunting circles


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I would be alright with having to choose/draw a unit as far as the dedicated hunter program is concerned. If the state goes to micro units, I like the idea of letting DH choose from the original big 5, in a limiting fashion by capping the units. BUT you can't punish or take away too much from the DHs. They should be rewarded for their efforts.
The impact from archery hunters is minimal, in a hunting inviroment, archery hunters are the ultimate tool. There is no point in doing away with the state wide archery hunt. Untill I see some numbers that tell me archers are having big impacts on deer numbers, I will always be for the statewide archery hunt.
By the way there are Utah archery groups that will fight for what bowhunters want, join one and tell them what you want! They have more pulling power than a single voice.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This thread starts out with trying to save the statewide aspect of the current archery hunt through a specific proposal, ie: a two year, one buck season, but we've also talked about saving the young bucks and bulls 'til they get trophy size, we've talked about saving the herds, about limiting the number of hunters in any one given area (Southern), and about modifying the DH program, etc. In reality, any solution will have to consider all of the above and more. 

First of all, bowhunters are no threat to any other hunters and the success stats show, in general, that the harvest percentages are lower and the trophy sizes are lower (B&C vs P&Y). And with a few exceptions, they're, like all hunters, respectful, disciplined, and lawful. Additionally, they are usually quieter and less visible. 

Second, because of the above, or rather, resulting in the above, bowhunting is in many ways, more challenging than rifle and/or muzzy hunting. Distances, wind direction, terrain, vegetation, noise, movement, patience, practice, setup, speed of projectile, attitude and position of the quarry, time and strength needed to hold the weapon on target, a steady rest?, shooting position of the hunter (prone?), second shots, running targets, and other things I can't think of right now are major factors while bowhunting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking rifle or muzzy hunting 'cause they have their own difficult challenges. Bowhunters simply need more time and space in the field to get things to come together.

I don't believe the solution proposed would solve the problem because it seems to be based on the viewpoint of trophy hunting which is not everyone's viewpoint. I know if I got a big buck the first year and couldn't hunt the second year, I would be unhappy. And if I didn't get one the first year or second year, my wife would be unhappy. And since I still hunted big bucks statewide, the people opposed to that would also still be unhappy.

I suppose there's no way we can please everyone, but here is a possible solution that seems reasonable to me. Let's keep the archery statewide deer season as is, but open it back up to hunter's choice as it was many years ago and as the archery elk season now is. This would help keep the pressure off the trophy bucks, would spread out the hunters, control the herds, and allow bowhunters more opportunities to hunt during the week. It may cut down on the number of antlerless deer permits, but wouldn't change much the situation with the extended archery areas or the antlerless archery additional opportunities per the antlerless addendum, page 15.

I, as a longtime bowhunter, would welcome such a proposal and it would be more attractive to my now rifle hunting kids and grandkids. They need more time with dad/grandpa.

Comments? Questions? Rebuttals? Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The DH program will be modified under the new Deer Management Plan. Since it looks likely we will be going to micro-managing instead of the 5 regions, we MUST do something with the DH's. If you are only going to all X number of hunters into a small area, the number of DH's MUST be limited/capped as well. How this will be implemented remains to be worked out. If the DH 'issues' get worked out, I believe that would reduce the push to make archers pick a region/area. At least it should based on the numbers. But, as has been mentioned, perception seems to carry more weight than reality, especially in hunting circles


Pro,
When is the mule deer comittee meeting? Is the DH program part of the agenda? I have tried to find out from Jodie and others to find out what they knows but most are unsure. I would kinda like to know what the proposals being discussed are and what direction this starts to head when it gets moving. As well as the rest of the deer management proposals.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Hey TrueMule, sure there is a total of 94,000 general season permits, but only 12,000 of those are for the Southern Unit general Season. If you say 49% of DH select Southern, roughly 4900 hunters, that is a 41% INCREASE. I would say that IS an INFLUX of hunters, and that is REALITY not perception. So I stand by what I say. Something needs to be done to break up the DH numbers. 

I'm not from the South and I could care less if you or any other Joe hunter is on my mountain. Peace and good luck on your hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Truemule, I can't imagine a scenario where the DH program is left as is under the new Deer Management Plan. I am guessing that it will be similar to this; If a micro-unit has 1000 tags issued on it, there will be a cap, based on current percentages of hunter numbers, of how many DH allowed to hunt that micro-unit. Then that number will be subtracted from the 1000 tags, so if 30 DH are on that m-u, then there would be 970 muzzy/rifle tags issued along with the varied number of archers.

I also believe the only way archers will be able to keep statewide is through 100% mandatory reporting. This will be my 26th hunting season in Utah, I have been surveyed 3 times, and two of then where for AR301. In order to get more accurate data, MORE data needs to be gathered.

The Deer Committee will be meeting at the end of the month, the agenda will be set then. Should be entertaining and educational. I know the DWR has been running some numbers/ideas in preparation for the Committee. Hopefully the groups that will be involved have got a few ideas ready to discuss as well.

elkfromabove, I do NOT think hunters choice will fly anytime soon. For one, the rifle/muzzy guys already believe as stated by a Central RAC member, "archers already have too many perks". This mentality escapes me, but it is there. Second, archers have hunters choice on the Wasatch Front, and very few does are harvested. Third, doe tags are usually issued in specific locations due to depredation. To issue statewide hunter choice tags would increase the possibility of having does harvested in areas that are under population objectives. I am not sure why/how making archery tags would increase the number of days archers could/would spend in the field. They already get 28 days during the regular season plus the extended dates.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> Hey TrueMule, sure there is a total of 94,000 general season permits, but only 12,000 of those are for the Southern Unit general Season. If you say 49% of DH select Southern, roughly 4900 hunters, that is a 41% INCREASE. I would say that IS an INFLUX of hunters, and that is REALITY not perception. So I stand by what I say. Something needs to be done to break up the DH numbers.
> 
> I'm not from the South and I could care less if you or any other Joe hunter is on my mountain. Peace and good luck on your hunt.


I agree about the southern region. I did in my origianl post. But it was made to sound as if dedicated hunters are over running every region in the state. I know the DH program will change and needs to in the near future. I was just disagreeing with the general use of the DH program and how it is hurting deer hunting in utah. When it is really just affecting one region. I would agree with the DH hunters having to draw there region like anybody else to help allieviate this. Just not changing a whole program for a few who want there moutain to themselves. (i used posts from a few different people in that reference) Change what needs to be affected, not change everything and hope the right thing gets effected.

Pro,
I don't expect things to stay the same. I know they will change. Probably dramatically if the state goes to smaller management units. I just want to know where its headed. I don't want to react to the change. I would like to change with it or help affect the change when it happens.

Thanks,


----------

