# In response to more deer tags...



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Kudos for the recommendation DWR!
http://www.deernut.com/Documents/MDF Hunter Opportunity NovDec 2015c.pdf


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I will reiterate what I posted on the question about the cow moose hunt. If the population can sustain a hunt, that hunt should happen. That also goes for tag numbers. Who is anyone to say that less people should get to hunt, just so you can have a mountain to your self or see bigger deer? I keep seeing people comment about the division in hunters allowing for anti-hunting groups to creep in and harm our sport. 

I can think of no bigger harm to hunting then some of these hunting organizations and companies recently. I honestly cannot believe that Muley Crazy put that out there publicly. But I guess I have to tip my hat, as he was at least honest and his complete stabbing in the back of Utah hunters. Other hunting organizations are much more sneaky about that.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

That muleycrazy letter/whatever by Ryan Hatch is the essence of what is wrong with hunting today...!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Despite extraordinary efforts by the DWR to educate hunters about rudimentary concepts of deer management...


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

While I am not the biggest fan of how the Wildlife board is comprised and biased on some issues, this seems like a very reasonable response from John Bair.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> View attachment 83385
> 
> 
> While I am not the biggest fan of how the Wildlife board is comprised and biased on some issues, this seems like a very reasonable response from John Bair.
> ...


Agreed, almost restores some hope in the WB.

This quote caught my attention.

"No one wants to shoot out all the big bucks, but we have kids that have put in for 3 years and still never hunted."

Valid point, but couldn't they fix the loophole to help that problem as well?................


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

John hit the nail on the head..............even if he is a SFW guy. No I'm not saying I support SFW just giving props when it is deserved.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

With what I've seen last fall and all winter,
I'm comfortable raise in general deer permits.

In-fact,
I'm actually surprised that there was no change, or very little change
on a few of the central, south central units I spent last summer and fall on....

2-3 units I've hunted for 35 years now,
Deer look as good as they did back in the 80's right now...................8)


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I like the "smoke 'em if you've got 'em" approach to deer management. A wise sportsman, well involved in management once told me that there is no such thing as a deer savings account as we are only one bad winter away from losing any 'surplus' that we might develop. This, combined with the fact that does can all still be bred with very low ratios leads me to support as many of us going deer hunting each year as possible.

'Eat drink and be merry.... For next winter they may all die."-------SS


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I like the "smoke 'em if you've got 'em" approach to deer management. A wise sportsman, well involved in management once told me that there is no such thing as a deer savings account as we are only one bad winter away from losing any 'surplus' that we might develop. This, combined with the fact that does can all still be bred with very low ratios leads me to support as many of us going deer hunting each year as possible.
> 
> 'Eat drink and be merry.... For next winter they may all die."-------SS


I agree but I'm afraid these groups will try to get the buck/doe ratio's raised higher to stop the tag increases in the future.
Which I don't support.
I also wished the mid level LE deer units would change their ratio's from 25-35/100 buck/doe to a 25-30/100 ratio.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

I am beginning to think most of these trophy guys would be happy never allowing hunting and just get there jollies picking up monster buck sheds every spring.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

alpinebowman said:


> I am beginning to think most of these trophy guys would be happy never allowing hunting and just get there jollies picking up monster buck sheds every spring.


I'm sure your right.
Why kill a buck for one set of antlers, when you could pick up the same bucks antlers 5 years in a row?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It sure is strange-- The herd has estimated to have increased from 280,000ish to 400,000ish= an additional 120,000 deer. Now there is a proposal to increase tags by 4,000, which might result in 2,000 dead bucks, and the complaints start. Something there is crazy and it isn't muleys.....

I hope for sane heads to prevail and follow the management Plan which was passed.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout, according to the most recent big game report, most overall success rates when you factor in all seasons are in the 20s and 30s. The highest was 48%. So it's really more like about 1,400 more dead bucks. 

Most of the proposed increases are between 100-200 tags per unit. There are a few that are higher. 150 tags, spread over the 3 seasons, means about 30-60 more bucks killed per unit. Not really a doomsday scenario. 

I too hold out your same hope.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm kind of a masochist, so tonight I went through each unit in the state comparing the proposed tag increases to unit success rates to see how many more bucks will be killed if tag numbers increase as proposed and harvest rates stay static. 

A grand total of 1,344 more bucks will be killed across the state. Distributed over 3 different hunting seasons. Within a population estimated at just over 400,000 statewide. ** EDIT- herd are estimated at just under 400,000. My bad. Take 2 extra rifle tags away for my mistake. 

And Ryan Hatch wants less hunters in the field.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> I'm kind of a masochist, so tonight I went through each unit in the state comparing the proposed tag increases to unit success rates to see how many more bucks will be killed if tag numbers increase as proposed and harvest rates stay static.
> 
> A grand total of 1,344 more bucks will be killed across the state. Distributed over 3 different hunting seasons. Within a population estimated at just over 400,000 statewide.
> 
> And Ryan Hatch wants less hunters in the field.


As has been said, he makes his living off of big bucks. Less competition is better for his bottom line.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Whoops, should have put this post up here, not on 'E-mail I got'....

Total Utah deer permits:

2011- 80,425
2012- 79,066
2013- 84,600
2014- 84,800
2015- 86,550
2016- proposed, 90,950 deer permits.

When opt 2 began in 2012, there was only a reduction of 1,359 deer permits.

You have to go back to 2008, 91,750 deer permits to find numbers like
we should see this year.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> You have to go back to 2008, 91,750 deer permits to find numbers like
> we *should see* this year.


*Should see* is the right phrase... if guys like Mr. Hatch and other special interest groups have their way we won't.

Is it too much to ask for those in a position of power to simply follow the management plan? (It's a rhetorical question... clearly the answer is yes.)


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Yeah but since option 2 was implemented we have had perfect winter conditions to grow deer.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Does anyone have an online link to the Ryan Hatch article? I don't buy those magazines...


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Just look on muley crazy's Facebook page.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It appears as if E-mails against these deer permit increases are poring onto
board and RAC members...............................

Over 10 to 1 ratio wanting to see NO increase in deer tags for 2016..:!:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Goof, you know as well as I do how bogus that is. For credibility purposes, don't hang your hat on that. From a RAC member on MM:

"With all the emails that I have received that were generically produced I have sent back a request to know the unit/units that they are talking about and in many cases have sent the chart with each unit and the changes. Some answered but the majority did not. Some even said now that I have read the proposal, I think it is a good idea. Makes me wonder about knee jerk reactions and how many people investigate what is going on. As important as this issue can be, I would hope people take the time to study the plan and not just make a statement. I would also hope that people would make an attempt to attend a rac on this issue."

Nothing like blindly forwarding a misrepresentation by Muley Crazy without actually reading it thinking about it, huh?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Going off the RAC members opening statement, Quote.

"I want to thank everyone who has e-mailed and /or talked to their RAC members concerning the deer permit increases. It has been pretty overwhelming. As a RAC member I stand with all of you on this issue. While there may be a few places that need some attention due to agricultural depredation, they can be dealt with individually. I believe that the overall increase in permit numbers is not needed yet. Many of the units are not even close to the population objectives yet. I believe that we still need to wait at least a couple more years to start increasing permit numbers on most units.
Thanks again for your involvement! Hope as many as you can will show up at the RAC meetings--"


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We're reading the same stuff Goof. You can't goof me. You think Rich's post has more to do with what he's hearing or with what he personally wants?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

A little of both. .^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

If someone were willing to write up a form letter (I wish I had more time to do it), we could all send the RAC and Board members a letter stating our desire for tags to be increased as per the plan...any takers?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> You think Rich's post has more to do with what he's hearing or with what he personally wants?


That has always been the problem with RAC and Board members...largely, these people have agendas that they are looking to impose.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree. We need to stick with the plan and release more tags on units over objective buck/doe ratio's.
Many of the proposed increases on units haven't seen much or any increase in the last few years. So why keep waiting?
FWIW, I don't thing any given unit needs to be constantly adjusted every single year but if there's a trend for 2, 3 or more years, then adjustment should be made.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The funny thing about this is that Muley Crazy's misleading statement makes it seem like we will be having huge increases all around the state. The proposal is to keep tags at the same level in 9 of the 29 general season deer units. These units are not over the arbitrary objectives that were set. So it's not like you have a few units over objective, so the whole state is seeing an increase.

The largest increases are on units that are WAY over objective. Many units have very small proposed increases.

Here's an example of what we're talking about:

Chalk Creek/East Canyon/Morgan-South Rich- Increase of 500 permits is proposed. B/D ratio is currently at 32.9 bucks per 100 does. You don't think that unit can't handle 500 more tags, to harvest another ~175 more deer? Anyone know how many deer are estimated on these combined units? According to 2014 Big Game annual report---40,000+! At a 32.9% buck ratio, that is more than 13,000 bucks in the herd...and we're going to kill less than 200 more bucks out that population.

And people are stating that the herd isn't ready for an increase. Or do they have outside motives that don't have anything to do with actual biology?


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Won't make any friends with this opinion. Don't worry everyone, They will hold meetings
for all of us to voice R opinions on this matter and others.Meetings will be held in some small remote town in Utah thats far away from your city on a weekday at some early hour ,when the majority of people that hunt won't be able to make it. The continued mishandling of Wildlife based on manipulatable statistics in order to generate revenue is an absoulte joke.The Bucks out there either work the Graveyard Shift and sleep all day, or they R hiding in caves. Just my opinion though,But i've only been hunting deer over 50 years,So what do I know?


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Going off the RAC members opening statement, Quote.
> 
> "I want to thank everyone who has e-mailed and /or talked to their RAC members concerning the deer permit increases. It has been pretty overwhelming. As a RAC member I stand with all of you on this issue. While there may be a few places that need some attention due to agricultural depredation, they can be dealt with individually. I believe that the overall increase in permit numbers is not needed yet. Many of the units are not even close to the population objectives yet. I believe that we still need to wait at least a couple more years to start increasing permit numbers on most units.
> Thanks again for your involvement! Hope as many as you can will show up at the RAC meetings--"


That sentence as far as I understand would only be affecting the buck population. Since bucks can't produce fawns. Taking excess bucks that are not needed for breeding would not hurt the overall population. You will have a decrease in the buck population only. It would change your x/100 does ratio.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> The funny thing about this is that Muley Crazy's misleading statement makes it seem like we will be having huge increases all around the state. The proposal is to keep tags at the same level in 9 of the 29 general season deer units. These units are not over the arbitrary objectives that were set. So it's not like you have a few units over objective, so the whole state is seeing an increase.
> 
> The largest increases are on units that are WAY over objective. Many units have very small proposed increases.
> 
> ...


I would like to see how many of these deer that live in this unit group are actually available to public tag holders?

There is a reason the buck/doe ratio and often the overall population on this unit group is over objective. They would need to increase tags on cwmu's in this area to bring back the buck/doe ratio.

I haven't personally had a tag to hunt chalk creek. But I do have access to a family friends ranch and I can honestly say it is a night and day difference being up there any time of year compared to other general units I've been on. I can say with confidence and experience of helping with hunts. that parts of this unit group hunt better than any limited entry unit and may rival even the paunsagunt for quality on a few cwmu's. The ranch I get to go on up there I would hunt there before I would hunt the book cliffs.

So increasing buck tags by 500 permits? Sure. The numbers are there unit wide. But do the hunters that get these tags have access to the deer during hunting season?

Would it be worth a look into adding tags into the cwmu's?

Would this be a unit that would be worth making private land only and public land only tags? To target bucks that never leave private property.

I say this because I don't see the same numbers of bucks on the public parcels vs the private in these unit groups.

After riding with dwr biologist helping with counts. We counted double to triple the deer on private lands vs public and they all get averaged for a unit-wide number . So using the 4,5,6 unit groups. My question would be are we over hunting bucks that are in the public areas? while the other bucks counted in the post hunt surveys go unscathed due to lack of access by tag holders. which I don't know the stats of hunters that hunt public/private lands.

In another unit to the south. We counted 11/100 does on public and 32/100 does on private. For a unit average of 21.5/100 does which is over objective for the plan. But a large percent of tag holders only have access to the population of deer with the smaller buck/doe ratio. I think this why you have a mixed bagged of feelings and ideals. This may not be the case everywhere. But for my neck of the woods. This is what I'm seeing.

With that said.

The unit I hunt has been impressive since the change. And last year was the best buck hunting I've ever seen in my life! Both for a few more mature bucks as well as younger bucks. The buck to doe ratio hasn't changed much in this unit over the last ten years. However we have added 1000 more deer in the overall population with good weather and great fawn recruitment. Now we are seeing more deer and more bucks.

Getting all the units to population objective would increase overall buck numbers.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^^ Couple of interesting posts right there...^^^^^^^^^^

Sure makes me glad I don't hunt the northern half of the state,
and have to deal with all the Private land CWMU issues.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Here's the latest from Mr. Hatch:

http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=cb6b135d2a55a340498fa0a3c&id=bc2bf048ce


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I told you guys that the next step will be for them to try and raise the current buck/doe ratio's to stop future tag increases.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Elkaholic,

You are right that a lot of that unit is private property, but not all private land there is CWMU. And you're also right that there are more deer on the private lands than the public lands on this unit. There are people that can't draw that unit each year, but have access to property to hunt. I actually personally know several people in that situation. 

There are people with an opportunity to hunt those deer, I think we make it possible. 

Goof, turn over federal land to the state and you'll be begging for the access available on 4/5/6 down south.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Elkaholic,
> 
> You are right that a lot of that unit is private property, but not all private land there is CWMU. And you're also right that there are more deer on the private lands than the public lands on this unit. There are people that can't draw that unit each year, but have access to property to hunt. I actually personally know several people in that situation.
> 
> ...


I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but since all sides love to throw it out.......last year I saw more bucks, including some very large ones, than I have in years in 4/5/6. The deer are doing well. Out scouting for turkeys i've seen large groups of healthy looking does and fawns. This is on a section of public land that is pretty popular too.

Even given the private vs. public issues, the deer herd is not decimated on the public land in 4/5/6 either. 500 tags across the huge unit and 3 seasons is no big deal IMO.

Re: Mr. Hatch. The attitude of his emails really frustrates me. What is the point of having a mule deer plan if you just want to move the goalposts when the goals of the plan are being met? Anybody have contact information for him? It likely wouldn't make a ton of difference, but it might be good for him to realize that there is a large contingent of sportsmen that don't see this issue the way he does.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> I told you guys that the next step will be for them to try and raise the current buck/doe ratio's to stop future tag increases.


Agreed. If Mr Hatch had his way every unit in the state would be modeled after the Henry Mts. Filled with beautiful big bucks only a handful of people would ever get to hunt.

-DallanC


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I told you guys that the next step will be for them to try and raise the current buck/doe ratio's to stop future tag increases.


It's time to step up guys. If you support the increases you need to voice your opinion and let the policy makers know. Email your RAC members and members of the wildlife board. Get in touch with any conservation organizations that you work with and voice your opinion.

Ryan Hatch has a big following who are mindlessly pushing his agenda for him. If we value opportunity over creating scarcity where it doesn't exist then we have to make our voices known. Flood their email boxes and voicemails. We have to make a stand!

I vowed never to attend another RAC, but I may have to amend that position now.

If you haven't taken a minute to read what Ryan is pushing then read the link provided by klbzdad. I'll repost it. You can even use the link provided to send your opinion to the RAC's and wildlife board.

http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...&id=bc2bf048ce

Make it happen guys.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Dahlmer said:


> It's time to step up guys. If you support the increases you need to voice your opinion and let the policy makers know. Email your RAC members and members of the wildlife board. Get in touch with any conservation organizations that you work with and voice your opinion.
> 
> Ryan Hatch has a big following who are mindlessly pushing his agenda for him. If we value opportunity over creating scarcity where it doesn't exist then we have to make our voices known. Flood their email boxes and voicemails. We have to make a stand!
> 
> ...


This is precisely why I suggested that guys ought to go help out John Bair on Facebook. He is in favor of the increase but is catching a bunch of flack for it....


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

berrysblaster said:


> This is precisely why I suggested that guys ought to go help out John Bair on Facebook. He is in favor of the increase but is catching a bunch of flack for it....


I disagree with John Bair on a lot of things and how the Wildlife board is comprised overall. However, I did thank him on facebook for standing up against the muley craziness.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Elkaholic,
> 
> You are right that a lot of that unit is private property, but not all private land there is CWMU. And you're also right that there are more deer on the private lands than the public lands on this unit. There are people that can't draw that unit each year, but have access to property to hunt. I actually personally know several people in that situation.
> 
> ...


Vanilla,

This is where I think for units that are similar to 4,5,6 could be candidates for a private land only permits. Where the folks you know of could have a tag! Granted they wouldn't be valid on Whitney or above the "B". But they probably wouldn't need to leave the private land.

If there was such a tag available. I don't know what the allocations would/could look like. But we need to get hunters in the field and hunting. And I'm not against the increase! Just asking the what's and whys?


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Kwalk3 said:


> I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but since all sides love to throw it out.......last year I saw more bucks, including some very large ones, than I have in years in 4/5/6. The deer are doing well. Out scouting for turkeys i've seen large groups of healthy looking does and fawns. This is on a section of public land that is pretty popular too.
> 
> Even given the private vs. public issues, the deer herd is not decimated on the public land in 4/5/6 either. 500 tags across the huge unit and 3 seasons is no big deal IMO.
> 
> Re: Mr. Hatch. The attitude of his emails really frustrates me. What is the point of having a mule deer plan if you just want to move the goalposts when the goals of the plan are being met? Anybody have contact information for him? It likely wouldn't make a ton of difference, but it might be good for him to realize that there is a large contingent of sportsmen that don't see this issue the way he does.


Sad part is. This is how the biologist look at your harvest report....

But from what your describing on 4,5,6. I would agree that you are telling the truth. And I agree that 500 permits for that unit wouldn't do much. Fact is. They could probably add 1,000 buck tags.


----------

