# Why is Utah's deer herd struggling?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay understandably some areas have been developed and the winter range has been hurt. But isn't the talk of today how mule deer habitats are being greatly improved all over the state, if so-then why are the deer herds we see now of lower quality and smaller populations than they were one or two decades ago when it would seem if the habitat is improved now it wasn't as good then? 

Well if habitat in areas are getting better or just as good as before how can deer herds in Utah be struggling so much, in the 5 regions that aren't meeting the 15 bucks to 100 doe ratio's its an outrage in my opinion simply because the 5 units struggling the most have prime habitat for mule deer, it is as simple as the DWR has no idea what its doing in managing the states deer herd, that or they don't much care about the states deer herd.

I always come back to the area I live which is Monroe Mountain, it just baffles me the DWR can't control and meet the 15 bucks to 100 doe ratio and how crappy and terrible the Monroe deer herd is beginning to be. Good habitat, good winter range, not an overpopulation of cougars(although Monroe does have quite a few it seems like, by the tracks I come across during the winter). So the only thing that is truly effecting the deer herds and keeping them struggling, is #1 to much hunting/ too many permits/ Utah doesn't break its units down for deer good enough, having a region wide hunt is mismanagment in my opinion, if the DWR gave out elk tags and set out a region wide hunt, the elk population which is great in most areas now would be decimated within 5 years, there simply wouldn't be any more. Even now a tag on Monroe you wait 15 years to get and get once or twice in your life time where 5-6 years ago you could go and kill a giant, now its down to probably 90% of the Monroe Mountain Bull elk population is rags, is that worth waiting 15 years for to kill a rag?

Personally I think Utah could raise big bulls, big bucks, and everything inbetween if they would cut the hunt units down into smaller sections rather than a statewide or regionwide hunt, as it says on another thread Utah needs to get more complicated with its hunting units as the neighboring states do. Other states split sections for deer up into very smalls sections not an entire 1/5 of the state and have everyone with a tag congregate to one area.

IMO, to have a quality deer AND elk herd is:
-Cut hunt units down to small units
-split tag numbers to the settings that a given area can actually handle, not 13,000 statewide archers going wherever they please when certain given areas just can't handle so much pressure
-I think it could be possible to change LE elk units from LE units you have to wait 15 years once in your life to draw, and turn the state into a general bull elk hunt cut down into small subunits with a given amount of tags and hunters could hunt elk every 5 years and still get a nice bull. Life's to short to only hunt one Utah big bull in your life and have to live off spikes and cows the rest of your life.


Anyway I think the state just needs to restructure the way they do things, give Utah hunters a chance to hunt a big bull every 5-6 years not every 15, cut Utah's hunt units down to smaller subunits and get a deer herd Utah can be proud of, and one thats not nearly decimated and at the lowest quality it can possibly be in certain areas. I want to be able to go out on a rifle deer hunt again (like a decade ago) and see a 4-point I can pass up on opening morning and enjoy the hunt, not worry about not getting a taste of venison if I don't shoot the first thing I see

IMO:
-Utahs elk herd is in good condition, but its time to change it so a Utah hunter can hunt a big bull elk more than once or twice(if your really lucky) in their lifetime.
-Utahs deer herd sucks and needs help and changes.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the way I see it, Everyone wonders why the buck to doe ratio is so low but yet
every yearling buck that run's across the hill on general season gets shot.

I'm the only one in the state that likes antler restrictions better than shortened seasons.

If it were up to me, I'd put three point or better on low buck to doe ratio units, and run
the full season for 2 or 3 years untill ratio's improved......

This way there's still plenty of hunting oppertunity and gives the youg buck a chance
to grow improving ratio's.

Allright,,,I know I'm going to get HAMMERED!!! fire away.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I don't have a problem shooting 2-points every year. I love eating them as well as my family. I would however love to be able to pass on those smaller bucks at a chance at a big one. That has not been the case more than twice in my entire life. This year will be #3. I will be in an area that i can pass a 20" buck and feel good about finding a 24"er. I wish it were this way statewide. I kinda like the micro-manage idea myself.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

Everyone can tell what a yearling buck looks like and I think they should be off limits. I'm sure everyone wouldn't mind shooting a 2 year old buck better then 1 year old. IMO


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's the way I see it, Everyone wonders why the buck to doe ratio is so low but yet
> every yearling buck that run's across the hill on general season gets shot.
> 
> *I'm the only one in the state that likes antler restrictions better than shortened seasons.
> ...


No your not. I'd love to see a 3 point or better restriction.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Here's the way I see it, Everyone wonders why the buck to doe ratio is so low but yet
> every yearling buck that run's across the hill on general season gets shot.
> 
> I'm the only one in the state that likes antler restrictions better than shortened seasons.
> ...


The trouble I have with your reasoning is that there are units out there that have had zip for hunting pressure and if what you are saying was all there was to it they would be teaming with huge animals and they are not. The one I'm thinking of is the thousand lakes LE by Loa. That unit has had zip for pressure since they made it a LE. But it had better animals in the old days with 200,000 unrestricted hunters. I struggle with the fact that we have 40% of the hunters in the field that used to be there. The main reason the DWR went to the current system was to limit the number of hunters in the field. I find it funny that with all the restrictions in the area that I hunt, the percentage in each of the different weapons is about the same. Size of antlers and age of the animals that I see don't seem to have changed. We removed 60% of the hunters with very little change. Until you can explain this to me I fail to see how an antler restriction is going to anything for the over all herd.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I had a Thousand Lake tag in 2005, saw 70 differant bucks, 3 or 4 real good ones.
Still definantly below par LE deer unit.

Now, I just spent the last 4 week on the Wasatch and Manti, lot's and lot's of does.
Other than 4 very good bucks on the Manti, The overall buck number's are low.

There is soooooo much room for buck to doe ratios to improve there its crazy.
If,,,,,,,everyone would lay off spikes and two points for a while.

I'm headed to the Pauns'y Thursday, Now that's going to be fun!


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Here's the way I see it, Everyone wonders why the buck to doe ratio is so low but yet
> every yearling buck that run's across the hill on general season gets shot.
> 
> I'm the only one in the state that likes antler restrictions better than shortened seasons.
> ...


i agree with you but the general rifle is not the only time spikes and little two points get shot i like the idea of 3 or better but it simply will not happen


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> The trouble I have with your reasoning is that there are units out there that have had zip for hunting pressure and if what you are saying was all there was to it they would be teaming with huge animals and they are not. The one I'm thinking of is the thousand lakes LE by Loa. That unit has had zip for pressure since they made it a LE. But it had better animals in the old days with 200,000 unrestricted hunters. I struggle with the fact that we have 40% of the hunters in the field that used to be there. The main reason the DWR went to the current system was to limit the number of hunters in the field. I find it funny that with all the restrictions in the area that I hunt, the percentage in each of the different weapons is about the same. Size of antlers and age of the animals that I see don't seem to have changed. We removed 60% of the hunters with very little change. Until you can explain this to me I fail to see how an antler restriction is going to anything for the over all herd.


BINGO.

Look people, if the reason for mule deer declines was solely due to over hunting pressure, then a full removal of hunting would cause huge population increases right? Well look at our national parks in state where hunting is not allowed! Populations seem to be right around with the rest of the state. Sure there are a few bigger deer that have a higher age group than say a general unit, but certainly there arent over crowding issues which should be the case as without hunting, they have only mother nature to limit their populations.

So in this environment lacking all hunting, what is is that keeps the deer populations in those areas from exploding? Predators? Food sources? Drought?

An interesting thing to remember is the Lewis and Clark diarys. They were the first ones to document animals in the west and they did a pretty good job at it. They specifically mention mule deer as being very rare and only occasionally seen.

Perhaps all things being equal, mule deer just arent as hardy as people believe? When man came west they killed predators by the millions, burned off old growth areas to make room for new crops and grasses. IMO this cause an artificial "bubble" that allowed mule deer populations to explode in. Today we have little predator control, fires are put out as fast as they start, grazing is curbed and most areas have older mature brush and browse... and we are surprised that populations are dropping to historic levels?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but facts are mule deer will N E V E R get back to the "Good old days". We have 100 to 1 in some cases, of hunters wanting a tag. Populations of deer will continue to decline as more and more habitat is lost... populations of hunters will continue to increase. Hunting as we have known it, is going away. Already under the current system the chance of obtaining a general deer tag of choice is 1.8 to one. That means you have about a 50 / 50 shot of hunting or not hunting in any particular year. It will only get worse. Recruitment of hunters IMO is completely irrelevant. We have 3x more hunters than tags right now.

The only bright spot is if you happen to be a rather rich individual, then you get to hunt our very best units every single year... and people will pat you on the back for it! THANKS they say for the "contribution" meanwhile they continue to wait in hopes they might possibly be able to hunt in the future.

It was a good ride folks, I'm sad my boy wont ever know how "good" it was... but with him growing up knowing how it is now, what he doesnt know wont hurt him I guess.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> If it were up to me, I'd put three point or better on low buck to doe ratio units, and run the full season for 2 or 3 years untill ratio's improved......


I'm really glad its not up to you!

Some reading for you:

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html

Highlights:



> Antler point restrictions
> 
> Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. *But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer. *
> 
> ...


But hey... dont let facts get in your way, arm chair biology is fun! :mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay understandably some areas have been developed and the winter range has been hurt. But isn't the talk of today how mule deer habitats are being greatly improved all over the state, if so-then why are the deer herds we see now of lower quality and smaller populations than they were one or two decades ago when it would seem if the habitat is improved now it wasn't as good then?
> 
> Well if habitat in areas are getting better or just as good as before how can deer herds in Utah be struggling so much, in the 5 regions that aren't meeting the 15 bucks to 100 doe ratio's its an outrage in my opinion simply because the 5 units struggling the most have prime habitat for mule deer, it is as simple as the DWR has no idea what its doing in managing the states deer herd, that or they don't much care about the states deer herd.
> 
> ...


sorry about your luck but I think things are changing for the better. I see more 4 points in the general rifle areas then I have ever seen in my life. the quality is up. the age is up. Maybe it is just your Monroe mtn that sucks. maybe you need to try a location that doesnt have 4-wheeler tracks in every medow and ridge. The Monroe is loaded with so many trails it makes me sick just looking at that mountain.

First off you say it shouldn't take 15-oil years to draw an elk tag and when you do all you see is rags. So what is it you want to restrict the elk or draw the tag it doesn't go both ways. I am with you on the lame spike hunts. you cant kill from both ends and still give out loads of big bull tags.
unless
If rifle guys would begin to see how archery hunting can help with the drawing odds just like they do in Arizona Utah would kill twice as many B&C bulls as they do in Arizona! If people in Utah think elk hunting is awesome all you have to do is look at the b&c record books to see Arizona has us beat hands down. They give out more tags and have half the elk we do. The difference is no spike hunting and archery is a management tool for opportunity. You want to hunt every 3-5 years for a big bull in Arizona pick a bow If you want to hunt 7-15 pick a rifle
The odds for drawing a tag would be better in Utah cause we have more elk.

Second you say smaller units would help and you complain about all the archery permit holders killing all your deer. well the division took a poll and most archery holders hunt close to home and not all in your honey hole. All though Im not against having smaller regions for all weapons.

I would agree its not the predators killing all the game in my mind its depredation doe tags, motor vehicles, and guys riding 4-wheelers on every ridge and shooting 500-1000 yards wounding and killing everything in sight.

i hunt an area that has no 4-wheelers, no rifles, loads of people, loads of predators, 4 month season, hunting during the rut, no winter range and it is like hunting in the good old days. Its like hunting a Le unit every year. The elk are also exploding in numbers go figure.

Maybe you need to become a bowhunter and petition for a archery only area on the Monroe mtn. This way you can hunt every year, see loads of huge bucks, hunt in the rut, hunt for 4 months, and possible kill your once in a life time LE buck every year like me. :mrgreen:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay understandably some areas have been developed and the winter range has been hurt. But isn't the talk of today how mule deer habitats are being greatly improved all over the state, if so-then why are the deer herds we see now of lower quality and smaller populations than they were one or two decades ago when it would seem if the habitat is improved now it wasn't as good then? my first impression is to say that the herds in my area are much better than 10 years ago for certain and most likely better than 20 years ago, tough winters in the early 90's decimated the herds. If you throw in the 60's-70's, I think those were the "good ole days"
> Well if habitat in areas are getting better or just as good as before how can deer herds in Utah be struggling so much, in the 5 regions that aren't meeting the 15 bucks to 100 doe ratio's its an outrage in my opinion simply because the 5 units struggling the most have prime habitat for mule deer, it is as simple as the DWR has no idea what its doing in managing the states deer herd, that or they don't much care about the states deer herd.I can't find an intelligent comment worth responding to in this paragraph :roll:
> 
> I always come back to the area I live which is Monroe Mountain, it just baffles me the DWR can't control and meet the 15 bucks to 100 doe ratio and how crappy and terrible the Monroe deer herd is beginning to be. Good habitat, good winter range, not an overpopulation of cougars(although Monroe does have quite a few it seems like, by the tracks I come across during the winter). So the only thing that is truly effecting the deer herds and keeping them struggling, is #1 to much hunting/ too many permits/ Utah doesn't break its units down for deer good enough, having a region wide hunt is mismanagment in my opinion, if the DWR gave out elk tags and set out a region wide hunt, the elk population which is great in most areas now would be decimated within 5 years, there simply wouldn't be any more. Even now a tag on Monroe you wait 15 years to get and get once or twice in your life time where 5-6 years ago you could go and kill a giant, now its down to probably 90% of the Monroe Mountain Bull elk population is rags, is that worth waiting 15 years for to kill a rag?If this area is always so bad, why do you always return to it?
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+1 well said huge29
you were better with your response then I was.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

Many Many moons ago there were double the amount of hunters with about the same harvest percent as there is today. No restrictions on areas you could hunt and the habitat was about the same in most areas, except for the areas around the major metropaliton areas. Those areas have lost and still are loosing winter range like crazy. However in most areas land availability for the deer is almost the same. A good friend of mine who retired from the DWR last year with 39 years as a Conservation officer stated to me, "You think you have hunters now you dont even know what alot of hunters are!" By the way I also stated and thought the answer to it all was to cut tags. I dont think that way now. 

One of the major differences is elk, elk, and more elk. I have read as high as 1 elk displaces 10 deer. I have talked to many DWR bioligists who all say Choose elk or Deer you can't have great herd of both! You might think you can but the first bad winter you have your deer herd goes in the toilet but your elk herd stays around. 

Now I know a ton of people are going to not agree with me but if you really think about it, with the exception of along the wasatch in the most populas areas, the only difference from 25-30 years ago is ELK! 

I do feel however smaller subunits would be benifical to the deer herd. But I dont think deer tags need to be cut just better managed for the area and the deer data collected. Just for your information all of my LE points are for ELK. :mrgreen: Hang me by my toes now if you wish.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

clean pass through said:


> Many Many moons ago there were double the amount of hunters with about the same harvest percent as there is today.
> 
> ill agree. Maybe the creation of LE units have restricted the hunting so bad it has displaced the hunters to more compact areas that are over crowded. Maybe the solution is some what more like Nevada's. Draw for whole state with smaller units, and over the counter archery for anyone that wants to pick up a bow!
> 
> ...


----------



## natureboy (Feb 16, 2009)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19261#p214341

There's a solutions, lets get some whitetails. so there's twice as many deer and tags.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> +1 well said huge29
> you were better with your response then I was.


Fine, but I wish I could say this like you did:


swbuckmaster said:


> I see more 4 points in the general rifle areas then I have ever seen in my life. the quality is up. the age is up. ...
> Maybe you need to become a bowhunter and petition for a archery only area on the Monroe mtn. This way you can hunt every year, see loads of huge bucks, hunt in the rut, hunt for 4 months, and possible kill your once in a life time LE buck every year like me. :mrgreen:


Maybe the real problem is SW shooting all of OUR deer, you greedy sum beetch! :mrgreen:



natureboy said:


> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19261#p214341
> 
> There's a solutions, lets get some whitetails. so there's twice as many deer and tags.


You stole my idea natureboy, I came here with the intent of making the same post. You know, that really would be an interesting "experiment."


----------



## hunter_orange13 (Oct 11, 2008)

i agree about the elk stuff. 
last year on the deer hunt we saw tons of elk, but hardly any deer. it always seems like the elk and deer move away from eachother. the weird thing is, that we have been hunting that same spot for going on to 6 years straight and we always saw more deer than elk. and we usually didn't see ANY elk there untill last year. it shocked me!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Wouldn't white tails only exist in the valley area or low areas? 

My reasons for killing any white tail introduced into Utah

1. they are not native. anytime you introduce a nonnative animal there is a huge chance the native animals will be displaced! 

2. These areas are typically areas where the most traffic is "low or valley areas". I believe those deer would cause more traffic accidents than they are worth. 

3. The areas white tail exist are also typically wintering grounds for our mule deer. If the whitetail deer have eaten all the forage in the summer time they would just compete with the mule deer for what forage is left. I think that would be one more reason our mule deer would crash.

4. having whitetail deer would only cost the division/you and me more money in crop damage then they are worth.

5. The typical mature white tail rack is also half the size in rack as a mature Mule deer. 

No thanks keep em out! 

Hey what do I know anyway I only know how to kill mule deer!


----------



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

What's wrong with Utards deer herds? Hmmmmm.

Too many predators.
Not enough habitat. (winter range)
Poaching.
Lousy irresponsible hunting seasons and regulations.
A sh*tty DWR managing the whole mess.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Tex
tell us how you really feel. LOL


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

fatbass said:


> You're an idealist, swbuckmaster.
> 
> Mulies may be in the same category as California Condors, Blackfooted ferrets and June Suckers. Will it be worth the $millions to keep whitetails out if, in fact, mulies are simply an inferior species?
> 
> ...


Im slow at this which species wort a special consideration?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster first i'll answer to you:



> sorry about your luck but I think things are changing for the better. I see more 4 points in the general rifle areas then I have ever seen in my life. the quality is up. the age is up. Maybe it is just your Monroe mtn that sucks. maybe you need to try a location that doesnt have 4-wheeler tracks in every medow and ridge. The Monroe is loaded with so many trails it makes me sick just looking at that mountain.


We'll on the Monroe as of last season, I seen two 4 points and not until the rut and heavy snow, I seen one giant 6X7, whereas 10 years ago during the rut, I remember seeing about 10-12 4 points, a few drop tine bucks, a few huge 3's and lots of medium size bucks and 2 points. Like I said now I'm lucky to see 3 big bucks that are even worth talking about during the rut, and 10-12 medium sized bucks (at least the part I watch during the winter). The same 3 giants coming back every year is a good thing but a bad thing too, one of the bucks I would estimate is 10 years old, gray, and has began to reduce in antler size and I'll be very very surprised if he steps out this winter the way he looked last winter.When these bucks are gone, there really will be nothing left but a few medium sized 2's and 3's. Yes, there are way way way way way tooooooooo many trails on Monroe on every side, every corner, both on forest service(summer range) and BLM land (winter ranger). New trails broke every year, I have complained about this for a long time that trails need to be closed but no one cares because the DWR and Forest Service are never checking to be sure people are staying on legal trails, they don't care to shut down trails and this is why the DWR of Utah is a sh**ty one. Trail closures with no changes to the hunt would help a lot on Monroe in itself, but it just won't happen. In fact more trails open up every year and none shut down.



> First off you say it shouldn't take 15-oil years to draw an elk tag and when you do all you see is rags. So what is it you want to restrict the elk or draw the tag it doesn't go both ways. I am with you on the lame spike hunts. you cant kill from both ends and still give out loads of big bull tags.
> unless
> If rifle guys would begin to see how archery hunting can help with the drawing odds just like they do in Arizona Utah would kill twice as many B&C bulls as they do in Arizona! If people in Utah think elk hunting is awesome all you have to do is look at the b&c record books to see Arizona has us beat hands down. They give out more tags and have half the elk we do. The difference is no spike hunting and archery is a management tool for opportunity. You want to hunt every 3-5 years for a big bull in Arizona pick a bow If you want to hunt 7-15 pick a rifle
> The odds for drawing a tag would be better in Utah cause we have more elk.


My point here is, you shouldn't have to wait 15 years unless your going to have a chance at a giant bull, and as of now you wait 15 years to hunt on Monroe and yet the elk herd in numbers is fine but the bull size is going down from what I seen 4-5 years ago. A 6 point or better every 15 years is worth it, but as the size of the elk up there is now, it should only take you 5 years to draw and be able to hunt 4-5 and small 6 point bulls, not 15.



> Second you say smaller units would help and you complain about all the archery permit holders killing all your deer. well the division took a poll and most archery holders hunt close to home and not all in your honey hole. All though Im not against having smaller regions for all weapons.


Ya the division wants what's best for the division not for the deer herd. I don't care what you say, I see way to many people (and yes many from up north) when it's a statewide thing, this year the amount of hunters I seen was smaller than before when I've bow hunted and that was even with the addition of the archery elk hunters. Even smaller units and more precise management would help the deer AND elk herds greatly in quantity and quality.



> I would agree its not the predators killing all the game in my mind its depredation doe tags, motor vehicles, and guys riding 4-wheelers on every ridge and shooting 500-1000 yards wounding and killing everything in sight.


+1



> i hunt an area that has no 4-wheelers, no rifles, loads of people, loads of predators, 4 month season, hunting during the rut, no winter range and it is like hunting in the good old days. Its like hunting a Le unit every year. The elk are also exploding in numbers go figure.


Good for you, but I can't close 4-wheeler trails now can I, and I can't force the forest service or BLM to do it either. Second rifles have there place in hunting deer. Loads of people don't help, predators under control help, short but not extremely short seasons help, oh and good winter range without 4-wheeler trails helps to, to bad I can't say that we have a great winter range down here, but way to many trails running through it.



> Maybe you need to become a bowhunter and petition for a archery only area on the Monroe mtn. This way you can hunt every year, see loads of huge bucks, hunt in the rut, hunt for 4 months, and possible kill your once in a life time LE buck every year like me. :mrgreen:


-I do bow hunt
-I don't mind rifles and muzzeys the tag numbers just need to be controlled and cut down into smaller units to better manage specific areas though.

As for elk, its as simple as yea the elk numbers have increased but that because the DWR has given a **** about the elk and managed them wisely, whereas the deer are just plain managed sh**ty and the DWR doesn't really care to much. So I would say its the difference in how the elk are managed well, and the deer are managed as a cash cow thats the real difference not deer displacing elk, I see deer and elk together at the same water hole all the time using the same areas for food, water, and shelter, its manaegment that is the difference between the 2 not displacement.

Now Huge29:


> my first impression is to say that the herds in my area are much better than 10 years ago for certain and most likely better than 20 years ago, tough winters in the early 90's decimated the herds. If you throw in the 60's-70's, I think those were the "good ole days"


Well as you've noticed my impression is the herd in my area is much, much , much worse. This could be a prime example of how one area (yours) is doing fine with the current system but another area (mine) is suffering because of the large regions, and statewide hunts. See certain areas have different needs and numbers of permits you can't treat everywhere the same. Yet the habitat in my area has stayed the same, a few more elk yes but thats because the different ways they are managed than deer, but a lot more 4-wheeler trails, hunters, and people in the areas, thats whats changed about the habitat, mismanagement.



> I can't find an intelligent comment worth responding to in this paragraph


The five units are struggling for a reason, because they need to be managed differently, the Monroe has great habitat, it should be able to reach the 15 to 100 ratio easily and even exceed it, but it must be managed correctly/better that it is now.



> If this area is always so bad, why do you always return to it?


-Convenience
-I know the area very well
-Don't want to travel far



> I think that would be a very bad idea for the hunters to have a road split in half their area where they have hunted for generations and increase the number of people not drawing tags while also restricting people to a very small area. There would still be people in every section. I would dare guess that simply adding more high fences to areas as was done recently on Hwy 6 near Price will help the deer more than any area restriction IMHO. There is one more thing the DWR is doing, fences, they must have added 15 miles of high fence, major expense, but a very clear sign that they are doing a lot to help the wildlife.


#1- Split the areas into reasonable sections, but I say as an example of what I see as split up better units: Fishlake Plateu(its own unit), Monroe Mountain (its own unit), Fillmore Range (its own unit), basically these areas are already split for elk, why can't they be split for deer, and the state split into smaller sections for deer units?
#2-According to most you think that hunters spread evenly around the state (and don't crowd to the southern region) if the tag numbers remain the same but certain areas have larger tag numbers and certain areas have small tag numbers then the same amount of people will draw, and this should not be a problem when people put in on the units they hunt. In your scenario there would be a lot of people putting in for certain units and not drawing because everyone wants to hunt a few of the units (hence, proof that there was overcrowding somewhere if everyone puts in for certain units, while other units are left with left over tags.).



> What do you think the success rate of archery hunters is? This is a very ignorant statement!


Where I am pretty, good, but its always a dumb little 2 point or spike.



> SO,....which is it the problem is too many hunters or too many wildlife? This seems to contradict your whole post??


It doesn't contradict because I was talking about deer that were struggling not elk or wildlife in general just deer. Elk are managed fine but 15 years isn't worth the wait for a small bull on an LE unit, you should only have to wait 5-6 years to shoot a small/medium sized bull and the unit should still have a good elk herd.



> So, you just want change for the sake of change? Change deer hunt to make the deer herd better and change the elk hunt to make the good elk herd worse?


No, the DWR could manage both a good deer and elk herd in the same area, change is needed plainly because the deer is going down hill especially in quality. The elk herd should be fine, there using the Monroe LE elk unit as a giant bull unit when really the size of bulls is going down hill from what it was 4-5 years ago, and with the size of bulls there are now, you shouldn't have to wait 15 years to kill an elk on the Monroe unit, the size of the bulls now isn't worth it, it was, but not anymore.

As for whitetails, I think they'll be spread throughout the state within the next 10 years, then the DWR really will have to do better management on the mule deer or we can say goodbye to it. I think whitetails and mulies can live together and co-exist but there is that little thing called "good management" that will make the difference, they live fine together in other states.

Wow that was a long post.


----------



## pheasantphool (Nov 30, 2007)

I've looked at the proclamations for Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado and they all separate the state into small hunting units. I believe if they are doing it it probably would be a good idea in Utah. Though having all these units would make applying for a hunt more confusing that doing your own taxes


----------



## pheasantphool (Nov 30, 2007)

Has anyone applied to Idaho, Wyoming or Utah? Maybe it is not as confusing as it looks


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

special consideration for mule deer like the june sucker? 

No but i do think we need to keep states that have mule deer some what protected or managed in ways that are good for mule deer and not what is good for hunters. The mule deer should come first. I think one of the main reason mule deer numbers are declining is they are more susceptible to long range shots then white tail deer. Limiting the range of the weapon in areas I hunt has made for a fantastic recovery. If the front had winter range like what is down on the southern units it could hold 10 times as many deer as it does.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Sometimes in these posts I come off as a greedy archer. It sounds like I want you rifle guys to all go pound sand. Well I do!  Just kidding that was a joke! :mrgreen: 

The truth of the matter is I would give up archery all together if i could hunt every year with a rifle, hunt as long as I do every year, see huge bucks, Kill huge bucks, but sometimes you cant have your cake and eat it too. I adapted and If more people would adapt to a short range weapon I believe the mule deer bucks would make a faster recovery. 

I also say this knowing full well sombody will come on saying how all archers do is wound game. well if this is true then the front would have a low buck to doe ratio and it doesn't. if the front had low buck to doe ratio I would think Utah would need to manage in a different direction. 

This is why I am so pro archery. :mrgreen:


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

#1deer

Wasn't a famous BIG bull killed on the monroe last year?
If it was actually all legit the genes are still there.

You dont understand what I said about elk displacing deer. Yes they can and do get along with each other, and even drink out of the same water holes. :mrgreen: 

Elk can change there diet from grazing on grass to eating brouse in the winter. Deer dont have that option. ELK are bigger and stronger and eat more. This is not a problem in the summer were there is plenty of food for both and the elk are grazing and the deer have all the brouse to themselves. The problem is the winter when both are eating the same food and one is just plain smaller than the other and cannot compete. 

The only way UTAH can now control elk is by putting a bullet in them. The reason why the state has managed the state for elk now is they are easier to manage.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why is Utah's deer herd struggling? Management
Look at private lands. Do they have a crashing deer herd that wont recover? Are they unable to sell a hunt? Do they have to keep reduceing the number of tags they need from the state every yr? Many landowners would love to have some of the public lands as there habitat to work with. My piont is that public lands STILL are the best habitat around.
So that leaves hunter and predator management. Which is out of the DWR's scope in concern to deer. :lol: 
Are there any private hunts out threre promoting 2pts?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

clean pass through said:


> #1deer
> 
> Wasn't a famous BIG bull killed on the monroe last year?
> If it was actually all legit the genes are still there.
> ...


In my area usually the elk and deer don't mix as much in there winter range, the deer usually travel low (clear into the hay fields at night, and sage brush bench in the day) and the elk usually stay midway up the mountain not clear down on the deer's winter range. Deer eat brush and there is plenty of that around on there winter range where I'm at.

As for the famous bull, yes it was shot on Monroe, but the DWR sure is doing a bang up job opening a spike hunt and killing his offspring off aren't they? Even if his genes are on Monroe, looking like the spider bull, and scoring like the spider bull will be very hard to ever see again, even if his genes still run through the herd. Yes he was giant but he was about it, sure there are SOME good and great bulls on Monroe but nothing like there were 4-5 years ago. This was before the management bull hunts, now spike hunts, I see the size of bulls going more downhill than uphill now.


----------



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

swbuckmaster said:


> Tex
> tell us how you really feel. LOL


That's pretty much how I feel. :wink: I'm old, opinionated, and have absolutely NO scientific facts to back up my claim. But, that's how I feel. :twisted:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The predator managment is an issue I may debate at great length at some point.
After all, I have spent 90+ day's a year for the last 15 year's chasing cat's and bear's.

And yes ,, predator's kill deer, elk , antelope , moose , sheep , squirels , rabbits , and
everything else............But I'll say this much, The lion's have taken a bad rap.

Also, Iron bear makes a great point, Private lands and CWMU deer are doing fantastic
in most areas.They just don't shoot young buck's, They impose there own antler restriction's.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Why is Utah's deer herd struggling? The same reason every mule deer herd in the West is struggling...habitat, habitat, habitat.

For a more comprehensive answer, read this:
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Doc ... 0Final.pdf

But, for all the crap you posted #1deer 1-I, you still don't understand the most basic principles of deer management. You said:


#1DEER 1-I said:


> So the only thing that is truly effecting the deer herds and keeping them struggling, is #1 to much hunting/ too many permits/


The truth is, though, that tag numbers do NOT effect overall populations or the health of a deer herd. "Buck-only seasons generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does. Wide buck:doe ratios and an abundance of younger males may delay the timing of breeding, but there is no evidence this significantly affects the reproductive rates of does or the number of fawns that survive to adulthood in a mule deer population.

Some people have expressed concern that heavy, buck-only harvest degrades the gene pool of a population, but there is no evidence to support loss of genetic diversity as a result of younger males breeding does. Buck-only seasons can effect changes in age structure, sex ratios, and timing of breeding, but these do not significantly affect the population as a whole." I will post the link to the above quote because you might have missed it ... http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html

So, say it how it is....you are mad because you aren't seeing the number of "trophy" or mature bucks that you would like. Because of this, you feel like the DWR is doing a "shi**y" job of deer management. But, what you fail to realize is that the number of "trophy" or mature bucks in a population really has very little to do with a healthy deer herd. So, you come on here and rant and rave about how the DWR doesn't care about deer and doesn't know what they are doing. Well, I hate to say it, but the truth is that you simply don't understand deer management or the deer management goals. If it is more big bucks that you want, why not just say it? Why not come on here and complain about how the DWR should manage for more quality bucks by increasing their buck/doe ratio objectives?

As for the Monroe, the bottom line is that the critical winter range has been declining...read this report: http://wildlife.utah.gov/range/pdf/wmu2 ... ro-sum.pdf

For all the bashing you have done with the DWR, you have to be smart enough to at least admit that they are doing their homework. Unlike you, they have done studies, research, annual deer counts, classification counts, and they do have documented numbers to back their claims. What evidence do you have to support your opinions?


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> Why is Utah's deer herd struggling? The same reason every mule deer herd in the West is struggling...habitat, habitat, habitat.


And don't forget, predation, poaching, and the retards at the DWR! :mrgreen:



> For all the bashing you have done with the DWR, you have to be smart enough to at least admit that they are doing their homework. Unlike you, they have done studies, research, annual deer counts, classification counts, and they do have documented numbers to back their claims. What evidence do you have to support your opinions?


Yes, and for all the studies and scientific research they do it still boils down to one indisputable fact, The DWR will manage game in favor of the all mighty dollar, political stance, and what makes "everyone" happy. It's always been that way and it always will.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Why is Utah's deer herd struggling? The same reason every mule deer herd in the West is struggling...*habitat, habitat, habitat.*


 :idea: :!:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Net fencing plays a larger part in the puzzle than many could ever realize.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Allright WtoU,,,,,,,I'll be the first to omit it BIG TIME!!!

It's more big buck's I want, That's why I like antler restriction's.....

If deer heard's are what they are because of habitat,,And not much room for improvment,
Well then,,,,,,,,,Why not have big buck's to enjoy now.

Who know's ,, with more habitat loss , continuing growing elk heard's , lion's under every 
tree , 15 year's from now there won't be a single deer left..........

OoYa,,,,,,,I forgot about the wolves on there way.

Let's grow'em big while we can!.........Now I'm at 4 point or better!...That's my vote.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Yes, and for all the studies and scientific research they do it still boils down to one indisputable fact, The DWR will manage game in favor of the all mighty dollar, political stance, and what makes "everyone" happy. It's always been that way and it always will.


 :roll: 
That's a laugher...so, let me get you straight. You are saying that DWR biologists somehow get monetary incentive to sell more deer tags? IN other words, the more deer tags the DWR sells, the more money DWR employees make, right? :rotfl: :rotfl:

As for politics and making "everyone" happy...politics became a part of wildlife management the moment our former Governor Leavitt created the RACs and WB, and I always thought the DWR should try to make "everyone" happy and not just a few.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Allright WtoU,,,,,,,I'll be the first to omit it BIG TIME!!!
> 
> It's more big buck's I want, That's why I like antler restriction's.....
> 
> ...


Good...at least we can agree to disagree on something. Saying that you want to see more big bucks instead of saying our deer herds are struggling because you are not seeing big bucks at least makes sense.

As for antler point restrictions, I see no reason whatsoever to go back down that road again. Not only did they fail in Utah to increase the number of big bucks, but also in virtually every western state. The one thing mule deer managers have undoubtedly learned over the past 20 years is that the easiest/best way to increase the quality of deer is to limit tags.

But, if you are willing to push for the limiting of tags, I hope you also understand the consequences. Limiting deer tags would undoubtedly result in more big bucks, but at what expense? IN limiting deer tags, we lose two things: 1) hunting opportunity (which some are ok with and some are not...) and 2) growth potential within a deer herd.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with people pushing for increased buck/doe ratios on units where the herd as a whole is at its population objective (even though my personal opinion is that general season units should be managed for high opportunity and low quality) BUT, when the deer herd is below its population objective, I strongly believe that reducing tags to increase the buck/doe ratio is a recipe for disaster. In units below population objective, increasing the number of bucks ultimately reduces the number of does and the number of young deer being recruited into the herd. IN other words, fewer deer are born each year because fewer does are alive to give birth...and growth is limited.

Colorado is in the midst of a very interesting study right now trying to determine the best buck/doe ratio to manage for both opportunity and quality...I will be interested to read their results.
http://www.winding-stair-mountain-outfi ... p?BlogID=9


----------



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

> That's a laugher...so, let me get you straight. You are saying that DWR biologists somehow get monetary incentive to sell more deer tags? IN other words, the more deer tags the DWR sells, the more money DWR employees make, right?


No, that's what you're saying. :?

It's always about the $$$ dude! No matter how you candy coat it a ease it up everyones asses.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wy2 I could only read the first sentance before I puked all over myself. Your dribble makes me sick.
Hunter #s have dont effect deer pop. BS. 
Why doesent the Alton CWMU sell 4000 tags yr?
Think of it as if deer were pests and we wanted to eraticate them.
What would we do? We would send every available hunter into the woods to kill as many as possible.
Now say there were 1million deer. How many hunters would it take to kill them off?
Now say there were 100 deer. How many hunters would you need to do them in?
At this point with a small deer herd hunters and predators is all that is needed to keep pops down.
Habitat my ass! And for those who have bought into the winter range loss mith. Tell me what winter range you think is gone. Besides the wasatch and possibly park city where else has there been winter range loss. Not out west. Not down south. Central? South?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> Wy2 I could only read the first sentance before I puked all over myself. Your dribble makes me sick.
> Hunter #s have dont effect deer pop. BS.
> Why doesent the Alton CWMU sell 4000 tags yr?


I wish people had read my post on page 1. Look at our national parks. We have ZERO deer hunting in there so if hunters were to blame for the decline of deer, populations should be EXPLODING inside those parks. Yet what to we see in there? Certainly not deer over population. Hunters are apart of the puzzle certainly, but there are other big factors involved in this.



> Habitat my ass! And for those who have bought into the winter range loss mith. Tell me what winter range you think is gone. Besides the wasatch and possibly park city where else has there been winter range loss. Not out west. Not down south. Central? South?


Its not just that habitat has been "lost" but that it has _CHANGED_. Prevention of fires for example has caused "old growth" browse and grass where a fire occasionally would allow new young browse and grass to replace it, something deer prefer.

When the west was explored Mule Deer were scarce, this from the Lewis and Clark journals. When the west was settled farmers burned off huge sections for crops, poisoned and killed as many predators as they could, logged forests, grazed sheep and cattle. Mule deer populations exploded.

We now prevent fires, grazing is diminishing, logging has for the most part been stopped, predator control is a fraction of what it used to be... people are surprised deer populations are returning to historic lows?

How many thousands of deer are killed every year by cars?

-DallanC


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> No, that's what you're saying.
> 
> It's always about the $$$ dude! No matter how you candy coat it a ease it up everyones asses.


Tex,

you know I really l like and respect you. But I gotta disagree. 
I had a DWR employee as my next door neighbor for about 12 years and I've never met anyone who makes less money. The only reason he worked there is that he loved the job and loved to be in the field. 
And the portion of license sales that actually makes it to the DWR after being funneled off to a general fund is pretty minimal. It's amazing that they have any money left for habitat improvement projects, but thank god for the dedicated hunter program, because lord knows the DWR doesn't have the money to pay for that kind of labor.

And iron bear, quality of range is much more critical that quanitity of range. You have lost range in the entire logan valley there are more houses, the area around brigham has gone up in houses to the point that our farm has somehow become a winter deer refuge, because there are houses EVERYWHERE around it. These areas used to be capable of supporting many more deer per square mile than the west desert areas, because of available water and the higher nutritional value of the plants that were capable of growing in these areas because of said water. And the fact that most of the habitat that isn't agricultural is OLD growth. Without controlled burning to regenerate the land you are left with a lot of older mature plants with minimal nutrional value. You ever notice how the year after a fire how the deer and elk flock to the new growth? Those new plants are teeming with many times more nutrition that the older areas that haven't been able to regenerate.

As I drove out to the north west portion of the state on saturday I noticed a funny phenomenon. The agricultural areas out there had literally hundreds of deer on them, and around them. As I got out in the sagebrush and hilly areas that were miles away from the agricultural areas, there were still deer, but not anywhere near as many.

Honestly I think that the reason we're even having this discussion is twofold. 
One- we had a major boon of deer a couple decades ago when populations topped out at around 450,000 animals, and some of us older guys can remember what it was like to hunt with that many deer out there. That being said, it was the result of some amazingly mild winters followed by good wet spring on a lot more habitat than we have available now. 
Two- we've had a lot of habitat dissapear in the last couple decades. You'll notice that the northern region has been struggling badly for years now. Contrast that against the population explosion and growth in Box Elder, Cache and Weber counties. As an example, 15 years ago there were very few houses in Perry, now the entire east bench is housing and they have to feed the deer every year to try and help them through. We routinely find winter kill deer in our orchards every year.

Lets face it. Without some serious cash to purchase lands, and habitat improvement projects to raise the carrying capacity of the winter range, this is going to be your long term average. We don't have the habitat to support many more deer than we have right now. I mean look the DWR is even saying this was an "ideal year" and the last couple years haven't been too awful either. But there hasn't been a major upswing in overall deer numbers.

I know I'm not going to be popular suggesting this. But if we honestly are at our average carrying capacity, and we can't raise the overall number of deer on a particular unit, the only way to get more bucks vs. does is to harvest some does. A big old healthy doe is going to out compete that yearling buck that somehow slipped through the hunting season every time. There's only enough food for a certain number of deer on any given range. You want more bucks in the overall carrying capacity, you got make some room for them.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay let me admit something, I my main point is buck quality is as low as it can get especially on the Monroe, but not only that buck quantity is also getting to the point its edging on the verge of scary. Doe population is still fair but not as many as I have seen in some years, which yes all populations go through their up and downhill population levels but when too many tags are given, that tends to throw the numbers off a little bit.

Now wyo, let me directly answer you:



> The truth is, though, that tag numbers do NOT effect overall populations or the health of a deer herd. "Buck-only seasons generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does. Wide buck:doe ratios and an abundance of younger males may delay the timing of breeding, but there is no evidence this significantly affects the reproductive rates of does or the number of fawns that survive to adulthood in a mule deer population.
> Some people have expressed concern that heavy, buck-only harvest degrades the gene pool of a population, but there is no evidence to support loss of genetic diversity as a result of younger males breeding does. Buck-only seasons can effect changes in age structure, sex ratios, and timing of breeding, but these do not significantly affect the population as a whole." I will post the link to the above quote because you might have missed it ... http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html


Um, yes actually tag numbers do, and let me tell you why. The amount of males in a population matters because of genetic diversity, if genetic diversity gets too low (the gene pool isn't far enough apart) a species cannot get past a certain population level because the gene pool is not spread far enough apart(is the deer herd to this point definently not, but just saying). Yes one buck can breed many does, but there dose have to be many bucks to keep the cycles going correctly. An area with a limited number of bucks also makes it so bucks with bad traits or weak traits can breed more easily than if the population had more bucks with dominate traits and the weak traits begin to get into the deer herd making it of poorer quality because more dominate are not in the area. As for young males, whether there are a lot of dominate bucks or not they will breed some of the population, simply because even if there are a lot of big bucks in an area, while they are fighting each other, often times a smaller buck will breed does while the big bucks are distracting each other, so yes nature when naturally occuring has its own way for young bucks to sneak there genes in for better genetic diversity in a herd, nature does not require all large/dominant bucks to die or be gone for a percentage of the doe population to get breed by younger smaller bucks instead of just a few big ones only. Again as for tag numbers not effecting a population, that's crap one less deer is one less deer however you look at it, and that's a fact you can't say having one less deer doesn't effect the population or makes it better.



> So, say it how it is....you are mad because you aren't seeing the number of "trophy" or mature bucks that you would like. Because of this, you feel like the DWR is doing a "shi**y" job of deer management. But, what you fail to realize is that the number of "trophy" or mature bucks in a population really has very little to do with a healthy deer herd. So, you come on here and rant and rave about how the DWR doesn't care about deer and doesn't know what they are doing. Well, I hate to say it, but the truth is that you simply don't understand deer management or the deer management goals. If it is more big bucks that you want, why not just say it? Why not come on here and complain about how the DWR should manage for more quality bucks by increasing their buck/doe ratio objectives?
> 
> As for the Monroe, the bottom line is that the critical winter range has been declining...read this report: http://wildlife.utah.gov/range/pdf/wmu2 ... ro-sum.pdf
> 
> For all the bashing you have done with the DWR, you have to be smart enough to at least admit that they are doing their homework. Unlike you, they have done studies, research, annual deer counts, classification counts, and they do have documented numbers to back their claims. What evidence do you have to support your opinions?


Actually the trophy number of bucks does affect the herd, do you think big bucks grow antlers to please humans? No deer grow antlers on their head because it is a way of saying they are dominent, the buck with the best genes, and the buck that will breed the majority of the doe population because they have the best genes for the herd, this is natures way of getting rid of bad genes and keeping the best in the population for the betterment of the overall population. Does that mean small bucks don't have good genes no it means they haven't gotten to the point where they can prove they have good genes and with a population getting breed by all 2 points and spikes, weak genes are getting passed into the rest of the population as well, weakening the overall population. Big bucks get big because they have had the correct genes and traits to survive and get to the point where they are dominant. So saying the size of bucks breeding the doe herd is unimportant is just not true. I would say the buck/doe ratio should be improved and raised, for quantity and quality as well.

As for your comment on Monroe's winter range is declining, that is complete hogwash, absolutely not true, you are kidding right you know how many people the towns hold around Monroe Mountain don't you. If anything the winter range has been greatly improved. The deer on Monroe mountain now have the luxury of hay fields that are close to them that were once cleared dirt fields, acres upon acres of juniper trees have been cut down and turned into great mule deer range with great healthy brush growing, too bad there are 50 four wheeler trails in all of them or they might be more useful. Winters are less harsh now, habitat is improving at this time. Yes small areas have been turned into housing but most housing is moving into farmland destroying pheasant habitat, not into brush land destroying deer habitat. The thought Monroe's winter range is being destroyed is stupid,even if the DWR says so, I've lived next to Monroe Mountain my entire life, and if 
anything winter range has gotten better or remained the same, not been declining so the statement is is declining especially especially at the rate of deer is just a lie. Now one thing that is different is all the trails running through winter habitat which makes it less useful, but that the only difference, and trails should be shut down.

And as for the DWR specifically, keep living in a world where the DWR always knows what there talking about for the entire state, they know the exact way to manage the deer herd and need no advice from hunters who have lived and watched an area their entire life, and know everything about everything and have no financial worries/wants in the situation. Ya they've just done a dream helping pheasant populations in Utah haven't they, they knew just how to manage them, and when things began going wrong came up with the same old "loss of habitat" excuse they'll always use, when in reality everywhere except the northernmost and southernmost areas of the state have good areas that could raise wild pheasants, but the DWR is always right aren't they, even when sometimes they have no idea what there doing. As for their data, woo hooo, well I care more about what I see on a daily bases and am actually out watching the deer herd, rather than caring what a stupid peace of paper says from the people you pay $35 for your deer tag to, plus another $30 for your combination license, ya I think I'll stick with what I see with my own 2 eyes than what the DWR says about the situation.

As for making everyone happy WtoU, we'll I would be happy to be able to shoot a giant buck during the rut, I'm sure as would you, I would love to be able to hunt year round, on about everything in the state of Utah, as would most hunters, but that wouldn't be very good for the wildlife we hunt would it. Sometimes the betterment of the game we hunt is what should be considered first, not making the biggest portion of people happy, just for happiness sakes. I personally hate the thought of decreasing deer hunting opportunity but I think it would make for a better deer herd both in quantity and quality, and make hunting better, because you would have fewer people to compete with, more bucks you could see, and that is what I want in my deer hunt, not overcrowding and small to no bucks. I love venison more than any other type of game meat, so I hunt for it but wouldn't hate seeing a big set of horns on top of the deers head I shot to.

As for whoever said that limiting tags would make it hard for the deer herd to grow, stupid. More big bucks means more competition between big bucks breeding the does, meaning 90% of your doe herd won't only get breed by 2 or 3 dominant bucks, it will be breed by 15-16 dominant bucks making for more genetic diversity and greater potential for growth. Another reason this point dosen't stick to the wall is: This will make it easier for every doe to get breed. As for every big buck would displace a doe, true in some areas where winter range is hurt, but in my area winter range is fine and there is plenty of room for more deer.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

We'll let me agree on one thing. Habitat is changing in my area but it isn't disappearing at the rate the deer are. I have believed for the past 10 years, cheat grass is much to blame for the deer decline, nothing out competes it, when it gets in an area whithin a few years it wins out and takes over the area. That is the problem I have these days to saying fire is a good thing on deer's winter range, simply because cheat grass is the only thing that comes up, and for a very long time. There is an area that burned about 10 years ago, with very few and I meen very few sage brush coming up, and the only grass that comes up yearly, is thick, unbeneficial cheat grass, no native grasses, little to no brush even after 10 years, just cheat grass. This is why I see fire on winter ranges (brushland) as a bad thing, if there is something that can be planted that will outcompete cheat grass and be benifical to deer&elk on winter ranges let me know and I'll buy as much seed of it as I can afford. In the end cheat grass will never be gone without great great great expenses, unless something is out there that can outcompete it and be beneficial instead of useless, where I am the winter range had a brush fire this summer, I am scared to see what it looks like next year because I already know, it will be a sea of yellow cheat grass, doing no good and taking over. On the high note, the chukars will move into the area, but the deer will have less winter range which is what matters to me at least.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I,, What's your thoughts about putting a 3 point or better on Monroe
for 2 or 3 year's and see what happen's?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

A lot of people have made some great posts on both sides. The #1 reason why deer are struggling is because of habitat. Without good mule deer habitat on the winter range then deer will always struggle. 

When we have good snowfall, and then a wet spring followed by another good snowfall then more vegetation grows. This allows more deer to survive because the carrying capacity has increased. When we have years of drought then we see deer numbers decline because less vegetation grows on the winter range making it harder for deer to survive. The summer ranges during a drought year usually will provide enough food for deer because the summer range covers a larger area of land. The winter range needs to be in top shape with good vegetation growth, otherwise, deer will die on the winter range. Fawns are usually the first animals to die. This will lower the recruitment. Studies have also shown that doe fawns usually have a higher survival rate than buck fawns. Mother Nature engineered it that way. We SHOULD see an increase in our deer herd next year because of all the moisture we have receive as long we don't have a harsh winter.
Next, predators such as mountain lions and coyotes will also decrease deer herds only if the deer are struggling because of habitat. If we have good deer HABITAT then deer can usually handle predation without being greatly affected. Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that predators will also increase even if deer are decreasing if predators have another reliable food source such as elk, rabbits and other rodents.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

On many points I agree with Deer 1. He sounds just like all the other local and long time guys who know the mtn. (Monroe) With the deer herd as poor as it is. Why wouldnt the DWR want to impose more dynamic managment for deer? They do for nearly every other species. But why not deer? I cant figure it out. The answer seems to allways be its out of their hands nothing they can do. And blame it on an abstract reason like habitat.
I have repeated this a dozen times on this forum.
What if they just had an open bull hunt on Monroe? And if they wanted all 20,000 hunters could show up to Monroe and hunt? How long would the crown jewel of Utah's elk herd last? Apply this to any species.
That is exactly what the deer faces on a yearly bases on Monroe. So how can anyone come to the conclusion that hunter management isnt to blame for the condition of the deer herd?

Sure there are factors that effect deer from yr to yr. And hunters should be managed for such (winter/fire/drought/ect.
Why not 3pt. or better? Prove us wrong. The herd is diffrent than it was in the 80s. It will work! even better than it did in the 80s. When we were all spoilled brats and couldnt imagine how crummy the deer hunting was going to get w/out restriction.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> #1DEER 1-I,, What's your thoughts about putting a 3 point or better on Monroe
> for 2 or 3 year's and see what happen's?


Goofy and Iron bear ~ "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results. "


----------



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

> At this point with a small deer herd hunters and predators is all that is needed to keep pops down.


Don't forget vehicles and poaching.

Yup, predators, vehicles and poaching... Three things deer could do well without.



> The only reason he worked there is that he loved the job and loved to be in the field.
> And the portion of license sales that actually makes it to the DWR after being funneled off to a general fund is pretty minimal


You said it all in those two sentences. Nobody said the folks at the DWR were getting rich. It's the *misappropriation* of said wildlife funds that makes me sick. But no matter where the money is channeled it STILL about the money! They don't give a sh*t about the deer, they only care about what the "general fund" budget is going to look like at the end of the year. Bottom line baby!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Here is some data from the DWR. If you believe their numbers.

Monroe Objective 7500

2003: 4200
2004: 5100
2005: 6550
2006: 7000
2007: 7500

This shows that the deer are increasing in numbers from year to year.

Fawn/Doe ratio

1999: 68
2000: 58
2001: 48
2002: 57
2003: 64
2005: 57
2006: 95
2007: 55

This shows that fawn recruitment is pretty good. 2007 should have been a banner year for harvest since the doe to fawn ratio in 2006 was 95. It took a dive in 2007 to 55/100 maybe because the deer was reaching carry capacity.


% of number of 3 point or bigger.

2000: 27%
2001: 39%
2002: 37%
2003: 37%
2004: 54%
2005: 27%
2006: 38%
2007: 33%

The number of mature bucks in the herd is good.


So based on these numbers what is wrong with the Monroe? Either the numbers are incorrect or their must be another major issue.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

# are incorrect.
Whats insane was thinking 3pt or better didnt work. And It wouldnt be the same thing with such a small deer herd. as compared to the 80s.
Did you post any #s on harvest? And just how acurate are they?

Look posted right now on the DWR web sight under the deer hunt forcast. Some biologist is saying bucks everywhere on Monroe and yet they have implimented regs to help the low buck population. The propaganda that comes from the DWR is insane. At least I hope its propaganda otherwise we have some serious incompitants on our hands.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Whats insane was thinking 3pt or better didnt work. And It wouldnt be the same thing with such a small deer herd. as compared to the 80s.
> Did you post any #s on harvest? And just how acurate are they?


Ok give me several good reasons why it didn't work in the 80's and now it will work great?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> > Habitat my ass! And for those who have bought into the winter range loss mith. Tell me what winter range you think is gone. Besides the wasatch and possibly park city where else has there been winter range loss. Not out west. Not down south. Central? South?
> 
> 
> Its not just that habitat has been "lost" but that it has _CHANGED_. Prevention of fires for example has caused "old growth" browse and grass where a fire occasionally would allow new young browse and grass to replace it, something deer prefer.


Yes, Dallan has brought up some very good points. There are several factors that affect deer populations, but the big drop is almost certainly habitat change, and this specifically means winter habitat.

Two centuries ago, there were few mule deer in what would become Utah. The reason for this was lack of good winter habitat. Lower elevation vegetation, along mountain ranges, was dominated by bunch grass, which doesn't make for good winter feed - especially when covered by a foot or so of snow. (Cheat grass did not exist here then) In addition, it burned periodically during the summer, which kept competitive brush species from becoming widely established

Massive livestock grazing (much, much larger than today) in the late 1800s and early 1900s thinned the bunch grasses enough to change the dynamic (less grass, fewer fires) in a way that gave brush the upper hand. This lead to an explosion of brush (big sage, bitterbrush, broom snakeweed, etc.) which makes excellent winter forage for deer. This brush matured roughly in the 1950s and 1960s and has since been in decline due to age and a huge invasion of cheat grass.

Invasive cheatgrass is nearly everywhere now, and didn't even exist when the pioneers arrived. Cheatgrass spreads dramatically, takes advantage of early spring moisture to grow and mature, then dies in June. Thousands of acres of dead cheatgrass set the stage for massive late-summer fires, which kills the brush and opens even more range land for cheatgrass.

The bottom line is that the mule deer population peak coincided with the peak in healthy brush on the deer's winter range. Now that the brush is in serious decline and being replaced, once again, by grass (cheatgrass instead of bunch grasses) deer populations have declined dramatically, and I suspect will continue to do so. We're seeing a return to the norm - the '50s and '60s were anomalous years, and we'll likely never see deer populations anywhere close to that again.

Add to that cars, roads, development, predators, etc., and the nails are pretty much pounded into the coffin.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

you make a good point on the habitat issues.

let me add one more to your list of habitat issues.

The west has been in a drought for the last ten years or so. As long as we are in a drought people will complain about the quality of the bucks/bulls they see. Just look at the pauns for an example. The arm chair biologist will sit on the side lines saying the reason the quality sucks is the division is killing tooo many deer. Then comes a wet winter and a wet spring and big bucks pop up all over the place. 

Last year on the Dutton people complained they shot out the quality. They complained the rut never happened cause the bulls were all killed. Then comes a wet winter and a wet spring and wa la you have feed to grow antlers and you have feed to fuel a rut. If the summer feed sucks some of the cows wont go into heat. Its natures way of saving the cow from dieing in the winter. If it is dry it is usually hot here in Utah and the bull just simply wont come out during the daylight.

The good news is Utah wet weather typically goes in 10 year cycles. So we could be coming into a few wet years and if we do the deer/elk will explode in numbers and quality.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

First I'll answer the 3-point or better thing, personally I think it would work, but there is a but: people have to follow it first, when it was tried before illegal 2points were of the norm, 2points laying dead on the ground and left to rot because they didn't have 3 points were the norm, but if people would truly commit to 3 point or better and the only bucks that were taken were 3 points or better I think it could work, but without complete cooperation of hunters or should I say poachers who think its okay to shoot 2 points even if there is a law in place saying it is not okay, then you really don't get anywhere with 3-point or better. With full cooperation yes, without its worse for the deer herd than it is better.

As for your numbers coyoteslayer, they are estimated based on data collected from a few small sections and multiplied to get an estimated population and bucks over 3-points, I don't see those numbers as accurate because they didn't count every deer on the mountain those samples were taken from small areas (probably the best ones) and multiplied to come up with the Monroe range as a hole. And also where is the number of bucks? It gives an overall population of 7500for 2007 but not how many of those were buck (yes does are great, I know). So figuring how wonderful some of you think the DWR is, if they were meeting there 15:100 buck to doe ratio for the Monroe with the population of 7500 that would be 1125 bucks, and at 33% over 3 point or better that would be 372, so put in a 3-point or better and let people chase the 372, instead of the 800 bucks under 3 points, although I think the actual number of bucks total and over 3-point or better is lower than that, and it must be considering the DWR admits the Monroe range buck herd is struggling.

Again as for cheat grass, it's time to release the goats and sheep on it to help keep it down and brush up.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> As for your numbers coyoteslayer, they are estimated based on data collected from a few small sections and multiplied to get an estimated population and bucks over 3-points, I don't see those numbers as accurate because they didn't count every deer on the mountain those samples were taken from small areas (probably the best ones) and multiplied to come up with the Monroe range as a hole. And also where is the number of bucks? It gives an overall population of 7500for 2007 but not how many of those were buck (yes does are great, I know). So figuring how wonderful some of you think the DWR is, if they were meeting there 15:100 buck to doe ratio for the Monroe with the population of 7500 that would be 1125 bucks, and at 33% over 3 point or better that would be 372, so put in a 3-point or better and let people chase the 372, instead of the 800 bucks under 3 points, although I think the actual number of bucks total and over 3-point or better is lower than that, and it must be considering the DWR admits the Monroe range buck herd is struggling.


I figured I would post the numbers from the DWR who are suppose to be the real biologist. I'm not saying I agree with their numbers because they don't add up since they have shortened the season on the Monroe. Maybe the DWR needs to produce some actual numbers.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> ....if there is something that can be planted that will outcompete cheat grass and be benifical to deer&elk on winter ranges let me know and I'll buy as much seed of it as I can afford.


 Try to get the BLM/Forest to plant some non-native plants such as forage kochia and russian wildrye. Sometimes it takes a non-native to compete with a worse non-native.



Packout said:


> Net fencing plays a larger part in the puzzle than many could ever realize.


Amen. Those little fawns can't keep up with the momma's when there is field/net fence in the way....they become coyote food. The 3-4 strand barbed/barbless fence allows for the fawns to go under. Plus when adult deer jump over the strand fence they don't get caught as easily. The field fence did keep a coyote within range the other day though!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The funny thing is, I havn't picked up a rifle for a genral season deer hunt since 1992.
Before that I hunted antler restriced unit's in the 80s and it was AWSOME!
I realy have no intention what so ever of hunting with a rifle in Utah again.

BUT,,,Here's why I'm in this debate, I have two young boy's, One will start on deer
next year, he's 12. We live on the Nebo unit and with the shorten season and low buck
number's it's a waste of time.Instead of hunting our back yard we are looking out of state.

That is why I think the five unit's that are under shorten season's and have low buck to
doe ratio's, "Nebo, Stansbury, South slope, La Sal, and Monroe" should be..............

Put on antler restriction's and ran the full season for three year's. It would work!
That way my boy's could hunt at home instead of Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and so on.

Now this is just one guy's opinion, And I Know it won't happen,, But a guy can dream,

Can't he? I would love it if my kid's could see what I saw during the 80s.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy bring them with me a few weeks before the season and ill show you how good it can be in Utah :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Put on antler restriction's and ran the full season for three year's. It would work!


Goofy, how will it work? Give me several FACTS how this plan would work and why did it fail before. I don't think the 80's were that awesome with the huge winter kill in 1982-83.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> goofy bring them with me a few weeks before the season and ill show you how good it can be in Utah :mrgreen:


swbuckmaster, fine and dandy you hunt an area that has big bucks, you hunt an area that has worked out well under the DWR's current system. We'll I hunt in an area that is being shredded to peaces from what it once was, I hunt in an area where you can't pass up the 1st small 3 you see or you can call your hunt a wrap or a 2 point or spike, I hunt in an area that 10 years ago had plentiful numbers of 4-points, large 3's, and even quite a few 5 and 6 points with the occasional buck that would have numerous extra points or drop tines. Now days I know of one buck that has over 5 points, I know of few 4-points and few nice 3's, the genes of those nice bucks that once roamed must still be there, and the genes of the buck that has added 2 points on each side every year for the past 3 years (which was a 7X7 last year) must be in the herd, but there is a reason there is only one buck that is of 7X7 class because none of the other bucks who probably have the genes running in their system can get past the 2 point class before being dropped 40 yards from a 4-wheeler trail, they don't have a chance to get smart, get big, and become the kind of bucks that used to be there. Why? Too many hunters concentrated to one area over the last decade and a half, too many permits in Utah with little restrictions on the areas you can hunt(Utah is split up into to big of deer units), too many trails running in every peace of habitat. Yes there are mistakes being made, the mistake is what the DWR is doing to places like the Monroe range and the other struggling ranges that are not working under the current system of Southern, Northern, Northeastern, Central, Southeastern, it simply is too big of area to manage deer herds correctly throughout the areas. Different areas require different things, different regulations.

So good for you, you have a great deer haven, but I've watched my buck haven be ripped apart by 4-wheelers, too much hunting pressure, too many young bucks being killed, and overall too much stress on the land and deer for a quality population of deer and habitat to be created and utilized. It is as simple as the DWR's current system does not work for certain areas of the state. It isn't wrong for me to hope the DWR could get smart and manage the area I hunt to be as good of unit as the area you hunt, and under the present system that just isn't going to happen. Breaking the regions down into smaller units to better manage specfic areas is not going to hurt your area, but probably make it even better, so what would be wrong with breaking things down, managing more specific areas the way they need to be, and created a great quality deer and buck herd around the state rather than in a few select areas under the current system.

Now I have hunted the Monroe unit my entire life, and I know for a fact: Concentration of hunters has increased greatly, trails upon trails are opened legally and illegally but none are shut down, success rates on small bucks (2 point or less) are for the pickings, and 3 points or better are rare, and 10 years ago when a nice 24" 3 could run up the hill and I could pass, now there is definently little hope you'll find any that size again, so you shoot when you get the chance, which in my opinion lessens the quality of the hunt. I would like to be able to pass up a few nice bucks, and enjoy the rest of my hunt, but instead on the rifle and now even muzzey, the DWR realizes the Monroe is in trouble and instead of doing the smart thing by breaking it down into its own unit, they just take 4 days muzz hunt, leave the rifle at 5 and start in on Wednesday, and hope that something happens, when really the same amount of hunters will show up, and the same amount will pull the trigger on the first forked horn they see, so this really did nothing but make people pull the trigger a little faster on the first buck they see. The unit needs to be set as its own unit, with fairly limited tag number, and a 3point or less rule that is enforced heavily. Cutting 4-days off the Rifle and Muzzey, cutting the bow hunt in half dose nothing but make people want even more to shoot the first thing with horns they see, that isn't any better managment than what got them to the point of shortening seasons on Monroe in the first place(which they admit, a deer herd that doesn't meet standard).

Yes you have a great deer hunting area buckmaster, but I would like to see the same, especially when the area I hunt has the potential if managed right by the DWR, BLM, and Forest Service, but as of now--I'm sure even with a deer herd not meeting standards THEY SET, its still good enough to ring up the $35 deer tag sales that they can use to benefit the elk some more.



> Goofy, how will it work? Give me several FACTS how this plan would work and why did it fail before. I don't think the 80's were that awesome with the huge winter kill in 1982-83.


The 3-point or better would work, but the DWR has to make sure the only bucks getting shot are 3 points or better, before when the rule was put in play, I can gurantee you it wasn't being followed by a lot of people afeild, and many two points were shot and left for dead because people weren't sure of their target when they pulled the trigger. Its as simple as the rule has to be followed, heavily enforced, and heavily watched over. (maybe just put on certain units so it can be more heavily enforced and watched over). Now 4 point or better units would save a lot of bucks, but there would be very few people bagging deer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> The 3-point or better would work, but the DWR has to make sure the only bucks getting shot are 3 points or better, before when the rule was put in play, I can gurantee you it wasn't being followed by a lot of people afeild, and many two points were shot and left for dead because people weren't sure of their target when they pulled the trigger. Its as simple as the rule has to be followed, heavily enforced, and heavily watched over. (maybe just put on certain units so it can be more heavily enforced and watched over). Now 4 point or better units would save a lot of bucks, but there would be very few people bagging deer.


Having more bucks in the herd isn't going to help the struggling deer herd. It will only make the problem worse. I have also never heard of a buck giving birth to a fawn. You need does to produce more fawns and thus producing more bucks.

We don't need bandaid proposals (3 point or better) We need REAL results that will address the issue as to why the deer are struggling. We need to replant a lot of new habitat, keep cutting down juniper, and more grazing would help also. Logging would help clean out old dead forests because when you have a bunch of old dead fallen trees then hardly anything grows because you have less sunlight hitting new plant life. Logging also opens up areas so that more browse plants can grow.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay I thought I would bring some facts into the equasion of biases the DWR holds with the deer and elk, plus show surrounding states buck:doe ratio objectives.

First off Utah's goals. The buck to doe ratio is set at a goal to be 15:100, the bull:cow ratio is set to be at 20:100, on Monroe I would say the ratio of bulls to cows is closer to 80:100, and the deer are closer to 9:100, now at the objectives wouldn't it make more sense for the deer to be 20:100, where they use less resources and need less feed to live, compared to the elk at 20:100 that probably eat twice as much as a deer, meaning deer ratios could be set to 25:100, and elk 15:100, but the DWR in Utah loves its elk (which I do too, don't get me wrong).

Now Colorado, has its buck:doe ratio set at 25:100, and its elk set at 25:100, lets do the same Utah, and Colorado is exceeding its 25:100 buck:doe ratios in nearly the entire state for mule deer, and that's with whitetails in the state as well.



> Having more bucks in the herd isn't going to help the struggling deer herd. It will only make the problem worse. I have also never heard of a buck giving birth to a fawn. You need does to produce more fawns and thus producing more bucks.
> 
> We don't need bandaid proposals (3 point or better) We need REAL results that will address the issue as to why the deer are struggling. We need to replant a lot of new habitat, keep cutting down juniper, and more grazing would help also. Logging would help clean out old dead forests because when you have a bunch of old dead fallen trees then hardly anything grows because you have less sunlight hitting new plant life. Logging also opens up areas so that more browse plants can grow.


Yes, winter range in Utah needs to be redone, and yes on Monroe, but if the current brush stands are burned or cleared the only thing that will grow is cheat grass, until cheat grass is some how controlled or outcompeted, getting rid of the brush (which is becomming more ancient and less productive every year) will be worse for the area. The area I mentioned early that it burned over 10 years ago, well to be exact its probably been 18 years since its burned, it has not burned since, and yet year after year no young brush (not even after 2 decades) just a yellow rolling patch of useless cheat grass. Cheat grass must be controlled before the sage brush will ever thrive young, and thick again.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Chevy my post may sound harsh cause I feel yours and others have been 

I don't doubt your area the "Monroe" sucks cause of 4-wheelers you wont see me argue it. In fact if you read all my posts so far on your Monroe mtn you will see I agree that mountain sucks. So for the life of me I cant see why if that area sucks so bad why do you hunt it? why don't you just drive a few miles over to the dutton. I cant even tell you how many good bucks I've seen come off that mtn. So what is the difference between the Monroe and the Dutton. Could it be the 4-wheeler tracks you have all over the Monroe?

The last few years when I am out on the general rifle and different LE elk hunts I have seen good bucks I have seen great bucks in fact. I have seen bucks of such quality I have often thought about taking the drive down to your neck of the woods. In fact this year a friend of mine hunted the archery deer hunt down there and he said he was hunting 3 bucks over 30" and one buck over 200" . All on general deer unit. the kicker is he never even saw another hunter in 4 days of hunting. go figure with all the over crowding issues that have been brought up. maybe he is just a liar

I agree they give way to many tags out but I will only agree they give out to many rifle tags. If they cut the rifle tags in half and increased the bow tags with the cut rifle tags you will see more big bucks. maybe if they did do a smaller unit like they suggest it would work. Dont attack me, I'm not the one proposing the proposal. I just think the proposal is one I would support. I think with all the opinions from arm chair bioligst around this state it is a good compromise. how the hell can you satisfy every one. If I get my way you scream. If you get your way I scream. If goofy gets his way tex screams! If you don't like the proposal B and M at the rac's. better yet get involved in a hunting group, get involved early in the process and try and get your ideas passed months in advance like I have. this is where it happens. Dont hate the player hate the game.

I wont agree that we need to limit opportunity in Utah when I have seen what can happen with a change of weapons. Maybe before but not now!

If your area sucks find a better area that's what I would do. Better yet pick up a bow and come hunt my area. I guarantee you will see quality. Killing/wounding one is a whole other story! 

please excuse my rant if i took your post wrong but i am tired of people slamming me in the better than thou bow elitist group. F I scout my arse off and earn every dang buck I kill!!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

flinger said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > ....if there is something that can be planted that will outcompete cheat grass and be benifical to deer&elk on winter ranges let me know and I'll buy as much seed of it as I can afford.
> ...


My question to you on that is, are those two plant species useful to deer/elk in winter? Also if they can compete with cheat grass and attempt to displace it, do they also displace sage brush, because the only real bad thing about cheat grass is over time, it destroys sage brush and sucks all the nutrients form the ground. Here's some before and after photos of what cheat grass does to sage brush, if the other two species you mentioned do the same thing would introducing them really do any good? Or do they not effect sage brush like cheat grass?

It goes something like this:








To this:








To this:









I also found this article "Why cheatgrass Wins"



> Why cheatgrass wins
> July 16, 2007 - Ralph Maughan
> 
> The major culprit in almost all of the big lower elevation fires in the interior West is cheatgrass, which has a nicer name of downy brome (Bromus tectorum), probably given for the way it is during the brief period is it growing, green, and not ripening.
> ...


http://wolves.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/why-cheatgrass-wins/

And also this PDF article on it: http://www.icbemp.gov/science/pellant.pdf


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm not saying you haven't earned your bucks, I'm saying bucks that were once in my area to earn no longer exist, there are a few giants that just will die of old age simply because they know the game to well to be tricked (and on the Monroe a buck knows the game well to make it to 10 yrs old, heck anywhere if one makes it to 10 yrs old). I'm also just saying the Monroe Mountain deer herd I once new is not even a shadow of what it was and the habitat and range has changed too greatly since it was great, but some things have and I think I've made it clear what those things are.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I have been a habitat pusher for years.

Again sorry for my rant.


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

#1 DEER 

Dude, if the Monroe is so bad and you need to kill the first 3 point you see to fill your tag. Drive an hour from your house and go somewere else!!!
Be the bigger sportsman and refuse to kill a buck off the Monroe because of poor deer/buck numbers. Practice what you preach! 

swbuckmaster is right the deer are out there you just have to find them. If playing the same play never gets you a first down, change plays! You have a ton of options in your neck of the woods change your game plan.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> goofy bring them with me a few weeks before the season and ill show you how good it can be in Utah :mrgreen:


I should have been more clear,,,,,,,,How good it could be on a general season unit.

My kid's have been on the Henery's and other very good deer unit's, They allready
know what BIG buck's look like,,,,,And they also know they can't even apply untill
there 14 here in Utah.

And #1DEER 1I,,,,,,,,,,The Nebo unit once was exactly as you describe Monroe when 
I started deer hunting in 1975.......That's what I'd love to see, hunting 4 point buck's
in my backyard with the kid's pulling the trigger.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Most hunters that hunt Monroe dont kill a buck. Personally Iv'e only taken 4 buck over the last 15yr off of Monroe.
So the answer is if your traditional hunting area sucks then go somewhere else?
What about hot spotting. And If everbody did this then wouldnt good hunting areas get hammered as the tour of bandwagooners travelled to diffrent units based on someone elses sucsess?
(some guy says) "Ive been hunting this mtn for 30 yrs and some one let the cat out of the bag and now its like grand central station around here."


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

WOW This is a great post!!!!!! Most often this kind of post turns into hevy bashing by now. Not saying there is not a little bit going on. 

I think there are many great points made here. 

I will say that as much as a few of you are making this out to be one issue or another Its NOT.
The struggling herds are a result of many of the factors talked about, not just any given one.

I think we need to step back for just a few steps though.

Here is the first factor in all of this. Tex-o-BOB is right. The one big thing in Money. The DWR does not control the money the state as a whole does. The UTAH DWR has had there hands tied for many years. There is only so much they can do because the do not have full control over the manegment of Utah's wildlife. They don't get to make season dates or control tag numbers. Alll they can do is try to provied the data needed to make those choices. They also need better data and with out the money and funds to get the data again thier hands are tied. One of the big things they need to do this is mandatory harvest reporting for every animal taken so they can get real numbers. 

The next is habitat. ITS A BIG ISSUE. Elk have taken over many winter areas as well as devlopment. WEEDS are another issue. None natavie plant and grasses have taken over large areas. Things are being done to try and control them but it comes back to one thing...MONEY. 
With out the money you can not fund projects to control these pests.

The is birth and survival rates. If there is no food for the deer over the winter birth rates are lower. Predators numbers are high. Many predators feed hevaly on deer fawn in the spring. I thinks is hard to manage perdators with out really numbers. And Again predator control comes down to really numbers and MONEY to control them.

The next is over all mangement of Units. The units we have now are to large. Every part of a unit has different needs and should not be managed as a whole. It needs to be broke down to smaller size and managed as such. Again you can't do that without people to do studys and and to gather information and that cost MONEY.

There is alot of data from other states that shows antler point restriction don't work so why push the issue. I always thought that was the answer as well until I did more reading on it. Now I know its not the way to go. Infact by doing so not only would have negative results but could also set herd numbers back for many years.

In a whole there are many things that need to change to get the deer numbers better then what they are. No one thing alone is going to fix that. The DWR is doing a GREAT job with what they have and the ability they have been given to do it with.

We as sportsmens need to help in the conservation in everyway we can but I think alot of that is over looked because to many sportsmens its about the size of the rack and how many animals we can see and the real problems get over looked along the way.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Most hunters that hunt Monroe dont kill a buck. Personally Iv'e only taken 4 buck over the last 15yr off of Monroe.
> So the answer is if your traditional hunting area sucks then go somewhere else?
> What about hot spotting. And If everbody did this then wouldnt good hunting areas get hammered as the tour of bandwagooners travelled to diffrent units based on someone elses sucsess?
> (some guy says) "Ive been hunting this mtn for 30 yrs and some one let the cat out of the bag and now its like grand central station around here."


I must be the exception. I have been on Monroe since i was 6 years old hunting with my family. When i turned 16 i got to start hunting for myself. I had 9 tags for 10 years and filled it every year without a problem. The very last deer i killed down there is one of my best to date. 24" 5X5 shot opening morning after i saw 27 other bucks the first 4 hours. They were everywhere!
I have not been down there in 3 years but i really can't see how it can change that much in 3 years.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yep! You are the exception.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> > You said it all in those two sentences. Nobody said the folks at the DWR were getting rich. It's the *misappropriation* of said wildlife funds that makes me sick. But no matter where the money is channeled it STILL about the money! They don't give a sh*t about the deer, they only care about what the "general fund" budget is going to look like at the end of the year. Bottom line baby!


Ok I'll have to give you my whole agreement there. The issue I have is who is "*They*" ?
Because the DWR doesn't see the money, but they make the reccomendations. The RAC makes the final decisions right, but the RAC doesn't see any of the money either right? So is it just that the RAC gets pressured form above to keep things the way they are to raise the most funds or to keep everyone bordeline happy or? That's the part I don't get.

But I will have to agree that the root of most of these problems is the complete misappropriation of funds. The majority of the money goes into a state general fund. And were talking about millions of dollars every year aren't we?

Meantime the DWR is trying to make the best decisions that they can based on the limited information that a handful of field employees are able to gather, because that's all they can afford to keep. But with their meager budget, they can't afford to have enough staff to do more than just guess at what their doing. It's not their fault, the state hasn't given them the tools to do the job. SO I have to give my agreement to cklspencer because in the end it really does boil down to money.

To all of you I would say that if you really want to start making a difference, stop bashing the DWR and start putting pressure on your elected officials to start putting the money WE raise for them in the appropriate places. Instead of being used for general funds, the majority of that money should be used to manage wildlife, whether it be paying the DWR enough to actually cover the cost of having enough staff to actually do the job, habitat restoration, securing access to more opportunity for the general public etc.

I mean really, how many of us have done anything more about the real problem than b!%@h and moan on a forum like this? As a whole we should all be damned mad that the money we funnel into the system doesn't go back to the programs that we should be funding. Just for arguments sake, does anyone have a solid factual percentage of funds raised by permit sales and application fees that goes to the general fund as apposed to wildlife programs?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think another key thing is that most of the habitats - DWR has NO management authority. Most land in Utah with suitable deer habitat is either A) Private land, B) Forest Service, or C) BLM. And DWR has no management authority on any of it. And on all three of those land ownerships, wildlife is NOT the primary management consideration. Not even close. 

Sure, there are areas where habitat re-hab is taking place. And game numbers are doing well in those areas. But if oil or natural gas were found below them, you can bet that habitat re-hab will turn into drilling pads. Now mind you, I'm not against energy development - just saying what is happening. 

Lastly - fire management by the BLM and Forest Service, coupled with grazing practices of the last 100 years have and continue to alter the habitat conditions towards monoculture and single age-class sage communities - which climaxed in the 60s and 70s in relation to ideal mule deer habitat conditions. They have been declining since. But that is another story all together.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

What about the Henry Zoo where insanely low tag numbers are given out. Don't the limited entry units mean fewer options for the general hunts? I wasn't there in the great old days, so how many limiteds were there in the 60's or whatever? 

I put in for the limited hunts and wait my turn as anyone would, but I disagree with them and their existence. Every mountain in the state could hold big deer, and I've hunted really hard the last few years in the heights of the Central mountains where competition has actually gotten pretty fierce. You can hike your *** off, get up into really rugged and remote stuff and then greet your neighbor. I think it's great that effort still pays off for opportunity for good deer in general units, but it's not for everyone. You have to be in shape, willing to go crazy places, and invest in some serious optics and junk to really be successful. Then you have to throw down a load of time which just ran out on me. I made a career change which makes it impossible for me to put in any valuable time for the next several years. 

I personally think we'd be doing the state, our kids, and ourselves a favor by trending back towards fewer limited areas or drastically more tags for those limited areas. If you take some pressure off of one place byu putting it in others that can handle a lot more pressure then you don't get anything short of more balance. 

The Henries is just the worst example. For their size and herd it is insanity that so few tags are given out. It's a sham that perpetuates into other areas of our hunting culture and it's part of the overall problem. We should stop making it about hunting tags and get back to hunting deer. Allowing more guys into all areas would help make your beloved Monroe a bit better. Surely some of your Richfield neighbors would go to the Paunsagaunt or the Henry units. 

Smaller units and more management would help if, as others said, it didn't cost more money to effectively run it, and I don't have faith in the system. I don't trust the DWR with increasingly smaller units. I think they will just blow with the prevailing wind which is to lean towards trophy hunting opportunities. I also think that with more small units like other states have that it is easier to smooth over the glaring trend towards those kind of quality vs quantity decisions. They've already proven themselves to be the state that sells the most to the highest bidder, gives the most ear to sportsmans groups (aka special interest group), and few other states insert the word conservation with all of those things which really have little to do with actual conservation than does Utah. 

If I didn't feel like our state was on a slippery slope already I might believe that smaller units are the way to go. I just can't trust those people to run it well where they've already failed our state by basically going into business for the benefit of the few. In the end, it does relate to the herds and the kind of deer seen in the field. Every bit of spreading people out would help alleviate and improve quality of deer in every other part of the state.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This truly has turn into a productive ,, well thought out thread..

Not blaming the DWR and focusing on REAL issues.......outstanding..

We probably should copy this thread and send it to every RAC and Board member.

Couldn't hurt could it?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The poor DWR just doing what they can with such limited resources. :roll: 
Just like any other burocracy. Path of least resistence.
Now we should go to the DWR's boss and make them do something. I agree it would work. To bad they cant just do the right thing on there own.

As for collecting data. What about deticated hunters or students taking surveys. Why not have a voulentary if not maditory reporting system.
Also on the point of land management its true the DWR hasnt very much say on land management. Thats up to the feds.
Are private land owners in a panic due to the loss of good deer habitat? Do they believe they dont have a future in deer hunting? I bet not.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> Ok I'll have to give you my whole agreement there. The issue I have is who is "*They*" ?
> Because the DWR doesn't see the money, but they make the reccomendations. The RAC makes the final decisions right, but the RAC doesn't see any of the money either right?


The RACs are just advisory boards from the DWR's five regions. They make their recommendations to the State Wildlife Board, which has the final say on most bigger issues.



WasatchOutdoors said:


> But I will have to agree that the root of most of these problems is the complete misappropriation of funds. The majority of the money goes into a state general fund.


All of the money raised by the DWR stays at the DWR - none of it goes into the state's general fund. In fact, a small part of the DWR's budget actually comes from the state's general fund - none of it flows the other direction. More information from the DWR Web site: http://wildlife.utah.gov/about/funding.php


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

Hold on now...I was placing some blame on the DWR. I'm not trying to be productive and I doubt you'll get any love from them by sending this...unless you know someone :mrgreen: . 

I do think we struggled with drought and the habitat has taken some hits for sure. Also, we do bend to the cattlemen and their needs as we work through this like someone said- that is a good point which is not really another argument as it does relate. How grazing compares to days gone by and coincides with whatever the good old days were I don't know. 

Goofy- part of the problem with your kids' expectations (not that they have anything but great perspective, I'm not accusing you or your kids of anything, just giving an example) may be that they spent time hunting on the Henries. That's like setting your teenager up for prom with Marisa Miller or a young, pre-Seal Heidi Klum. Every unit after it will look like Joy Behar. Talk about a let down. We're setting the bar dangerously high for these kids and we're screwing them and Utah's hunting future in the process. The mags, conventions, DVD's, and marketing all add up to huge racks :wink: as opposed to reality: Behar. It's bad karma that will bite us worse than that nasty woman. 

More opps for all = less opps for the few. It's easy math that is part of the reality we're discussing.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> Hold on now...I was placing some blame on the DWR. I'm not trying to be productive and I doubt you'll get any love from them by sending this...unless you know someone :mrgreen: .
> 
> Goofy- part of the problem with your kids' expectations (not that they have anything but great perspective, I'm not accusing you or your kids of anything, just giving an example) may be that they spent time hunting on the Henries. That's like setting your teenager up for prom with Marisa Miller or a young, pre-Seal Heidi Klum. Every unit after it will look like Joy Behar. Talk about a let down. We're setting the bar dangerously high for these kids and we're screwing them and Utah's hunting future in the process. The mags, conventions, DVD's, and marketing all add up to huge racks :wink: as opposed to reality: Behar. It's bad karma that will bite us worse than that nasty woman.


I couldn't agree more! My son(6) has been taught to appreciate any fish or animal we harvest. He will not grow up feeling like he deserves a 30" buck and everything sucks because there aren't any around. He will be proud to harvest a 2-point and be overcome with excitement if he does harvest a trophy animal. I watched a show just today that had a 13 y/o kid hunting a ranch in Texas. He shot a 16 7" whitetail buck and was like "wow, when do i get to shoot a big deer?" That makes me sick to think his parents have taught him that he needs to kill trophy bucks every time he pulls the trigger. :x


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

For many in the know on big game managment. Believe harvesting mature trophy aniamals is responsible hunting practice. Ie private landowners/lease holders. I tend to agree.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> For many in the know on big game managment. Believe harvesting mature trophy aniamals is responsible hunting practice. Ie private landowners/lease holders. I tend to agree.


I think it is a good idea too. But here in the great(LOL) state we live, we can't feed our deer and breed the genes we want into them and plant food plots on half the state. Whitetail and muleys are 2 different creatures. My point is that this kid will not appreciate the kill unless it is a trophy animal. That is wrong.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm going to throw this out. One of the reasons I hate the smaller unit idea is that in my opinion it takes years to get to know an area. I feel as a hunter I need to have some flexability to plan. Trying to plan a hunt in January for weather in October is a waste. It would be our luck that somebody would draw a boundary that contains nothing but high elevations. Plan and wait for the hunt only to have a major snow storm. Some guys like bouncing around, for myself I do not. I think some guys would be shocked that they may find out that it might take years before they could hunt their favorite areas. Especially if that area became hot. This is already what we see with LE areas. The DWR already has the power to shut down a defined area if there is a problem. This is a power that is not exercised. Alaska does it with their management of their fisheries. People know when certain water ways go closed or open up to more.

Hunting is hunting. I wish I could understand why people *expect* to have these huge animals around every corner. If everybody is shooting a 400 bulls, then the 400 bull means nothing. The 400 bull and the 35" buck are something because they are not around ever corner. People bash spike elks because there are more, now. I do remember a day not all that long ago that seeing elk and getting any bull was something.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> For many in the know on big game managment. Believe harvesting mature trophy aniamals is responsible hunting practice. Ie private landowners/lease holders. I tend to agree.


And they also believe in culling the herd too! You can't have one without the other.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

What CMWU or private land unit cull their deer herd in the state of Utah?


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> What CMWU or private land unit cull their deer herd in the state of Utah?


Heaston East, Blue Spring hills, Cotton Junction, and Alton


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> All of the money raised by the DWR stays at the DWR - none of it goes into the state's general fund. In fact, a small part of the DWR's budget actually comes from the state's general fund - none of it flows the other direction. More information from the DWR Web site: http://wildlife.utah.gov/about/funding.php


Holy Sh!^ I stand corrected. Apparently I've been misinformed. 68 million dollars....... jesus, where does it go? Personnel accounts for 30 million, vehicles etc account for 26 million, and only a measly (by comparison) 750 thousand to big game habitat. Hell only 2 million of the 68 million goes to habitat projects at all. That's sickening!

And Tex...I owe you an apology. You are exactly right.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

My kid's have not just only been on the Henery's ,, but also

The Phavant , Boulder , Parker , The Griffin top , Dutton , Wasatch , Manti , Nebo ,
Anthro , Nine mile , Thousand Lakes , Fishlake.....

Some of those they have seen dozen's of trip's to....Over 30 day's worth just this year.
And yet my kid's expectation's realy are not that high.....
My 12 year old has his first cow tag for next month......he's on cloud nine.

There lucky,,and just getting started.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> What CMWU or private land unit cull their deer herd in the state of Utah?


And how many of those CMWU or private land units rely solely on their own land. In other words no movement between public ground and their ground? What high fence operation does not cull.

Harvesting mature trophy animals only with no management of the rest is poor managemnt at best.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

That's awesome Goofy, you have some lucky kids! I'd enjoy any and all of those trips as well. Love some of those places, and I think hunting in Utah is pretty good as is. I think it could be better for the majority, but you have my opinion already.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

In the link that peterson post there is still a large sum of money missing. 

The DWR gets the funds from hunting and fishing licenses.......WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY FROM THE TAGS.. ( If I can find time I will try and add up what the total amount of money from tag is.)

You see its all about money the state gets the money from the tag sales. The State Leg. makes the finale changes to hunt tag number and dates. If they make the changes it means less money for them. Like stated above in another post its not the DWR that you need to [email protected]# to. Its the state Leg.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The legislature does not set tag numbers. It is the Wildlife Board that does that. The Wildlife Board are all appointed positions, appointed by the Governor.
Here is the current membership.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/wb-members.php


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

cklspencer said:


> The DWR gets the funds from hunting and fishing licenses.......WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY FROM THE TAGS.. ( If I can find time I will try and add up what the total amount of money from tag is.)
> 
> You see its all about money the state gets the money from the tag sales.


I'm not following you here. The DWR keeps all the money from the tag (permit) sales. Since the DWR is part of the state government, I guess that you could say that the state gets the money, but it stays with the DWR. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

From the DWR's Web site:

[blockquote:2yqgr1f7]"Restricted funds: The majority of DWR's revenue is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits. These funds are restricted for exclusive use by DWR and cannot be transferred to other state agencies. One hundred percent of the license dollars collected stay within the DWR to carry out the division's mission to conserve and protect the wildlife of Utah. Funding overages or shortages are managed through an interest-bearing account maintained by the State Treasurer. Other types of funding in this category are revenues from Certificates of Registration (CORs), donations, wildlife license plates and miscellaneous fees.}[/blockquote:2yqgr1f7]


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

Sorry miss read part of that


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

there are a million things in this thread that if I had time to address I would, but won't....I suggest anyone who is interested in mule deer, mule deer biology, and mule deer management to start reading everything they can get their hands on written by Dr. Valerius Geist--perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the world when it comes to mule deer.

I recently came across this article:
http://canadahuntingtoday.com/blog/inde ... anagement/

This article addresses predation and the management of predators...but within it, an excellent comment is made by Geist about game departments and public management of wildlife. I think it is an important comment and note...

...I also came across a rebuttal that Dr. Geist made regarding an anti-trophy hunting article made in Newsweek Magazine. Dr. Geist basically put the author's of the article in their place who seem to be very anti-hunting period. But, within that rebuttal, Dr. Geist makes a very interesting point and observation:

"The adaptive horn/antler configuration is that of the "average male". We know, from centuries of experience, exactly how to produce "trophies" without genetic manipulation. In a nutshell, offer superior food for body and antler growth and insure that he male does not breed. To generate "trophy heads", feed the population maximally with a diet rich on protein and minerals for about five generations. Even then maximum growth will not set in, unless the male can be prevented from breeding. Excluded from the stresses and strings of reproduction and fighting, the males save their summer's fat stores, survive winters splendidly, and may begin body growth the following spring with enough body resources to give growth a real boost. Such males grow more year-by-year and become exceptionally large in body and trophy size. This has been done artificially. In nature, however, without human manipulation, exceptionally large antlers or horns indicate that their owner may be a non-breeding male. Far from being the epitome of male hood, such individuals are shirkers (cowards) that do not participate in rutting. I have observed such in the field. (However, I have also seen one reversal in which a huge shirker reverted and became a successful breeder)."
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/0 ... y-hunting/


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So you are saying it is the average buck that is getting all the action instead of the "well endowed" buck? Huh. Have to think that one over for a minute.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> So you are saying it is the average buck that is getting all the action instead of the "well endowed" buck? Huh. Have to think that one over for a minute.


NO. I am not saying that at all...Geist is saying that sometimes the biggest bucks are not actually the ones doing the breeding because they are cowards. I never even considered this idea...this is what he says based on his own work.

According to him, the most "well endowed" bucks are lazy cowards that build up their fat reserves, survive winters in style, and put all their energy into antler growth instead of sex....it is an interesting concept and totally contrary to what most of us have always believed.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, if you gotta choose - big antlers, or breeding. Hmmmm. Really?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> NO. I am not saying that at all...Geist is saying that sometimes the biggest bucks are not actually the ones doing the breeding because they are cowards. I never even considered this idea...this is what he says based on his own work.
> 
> According to him, the most "well endowed" bucks are lazy cowards that build up their fat reserves, survive winters in style, and put all their energy into antler growth instead of sex....it is an interesting concept and totally contrary to what most of us have always believed.


Wyo2ut, this seems a little far-fetched. Mature buck is only interested in three things.

1. What he's going to eat next.

2. Who he's going to breed next.

3. Can I run fast enough to get away.

Big bucks aren't lazy or cowards. They are smarter. Why spend all your time and energy keeping the bucks/bulls away from the does/cows when the does/cow isn't in estrus yet? That big buck or bull will chase off the smaller bucks or bulls when the cow/doe is ready.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > NO. I am not saying that at all...Geist is saying that sometimes the biggest bucks are not actually the ones doing the breeding because they are cowards. I never even considered this idea...this is what he says based on his own work.
> >
> > According to him, the most "well endowed" bucks are lazy cowards that build up their fat reserves, survive winters in style, and put all their energy into antler growth instead of sex....it is an interesting concept and totally contrary to what most of us have always believed.
> 
> ...


Ya I'll have to take coyoteslayer's word over the Dr.'s on this one, a big buck is interested in very few things and breeding and chasing off smaller buck is definitely a couple of them.

We'll that or all these big bucks just want to kill each other for fun and take the chance of getting killed/very injured during winter a very vulnrable time, gotta say they are doing it for a reason and thats breeding rights.

[youtube:2svzhogp]http://www.youtube.com/v/jnuT-ib01K4&hl=en&fs=1&[/youtube:2svzhogp]


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yeah, what the hell would a biologist that has dedicated his life to studying mule deer know about this sort of thing anyway? :?:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yeah, what the hell would a biologist that has dedicated his life to studying mule deer know about this sort of thing anyway?


You would think that someone like that would know :wink:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I know, what would he know? :lol: I'm just saying big bucks do fight to breed does, what good would antler size be if they didn't?


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

Perhaps they're not "cowards", rather, they're "fabulous" :mrgreen: 

They don't want to mess up their antlers...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Could it all start with the Does? 
A doe likely won't breed with a scrawny pencil neck buck during her first estrus cycle. However, if she is still 'fit' she will come into estrus again 3-4 weeks later. Now, she may just decide that pencil neck is better than nothing if Goliath is still absent. This really isn't helping our deer herds. 
The gestation period of a doe is 200 days, give or take a week or so. Given that, let's do some math. I know it hurts but it's simple. Lets say doe 'A' is bred on November 18th, given a 200 day gestation, the fawn should hit the ground right around the 30th of May. Doe 'B' is bred on December 23rd (her second cycle) given the same gestation period, the fawn hits the ground on Independence Day. Does anyone see what is happening here? Fawns born in May/June are likely to weigh more, be more 'fit', and better to withstand predation and make it through a bad winter than those born in July/August. These fawns go into the winter being less 'fit', weighing less, making them more susceptible to disease, predation, and extremes in weather, which can lead to higher fawn mortality, less recruitment into the population and lower doe to fawn ratios. Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a fawn with its spots in late August/September? This really shouldn't be happening if all the does were bred in late November early December, but I see it with more and more frequency.

http://www.monstermuleys.com/cgi-bin/st ... 3&tem=art1

Wyo2ut it's amazing how two biologist can study mule deer and come up with different conclusions about the rut.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The only problem with Todd Black's theory is that it is totally hypothetical...it is not based on any actual study or real-life events. In other words, the research out there doesn't support his opinion. In fact, according to Colorado: ".....there does not appear to be a clear relationship between reduced buck harvest and posthunt fawn:doe ratios (i.e., fawns/100 does) in Colorado. In some units where major reductions in hunter numbers resulted in large increases in buck:doe ratios, fawn:doe ratios have remained low." This information directly contradicts what Mr. Black is saying...

Dr. Geist's theory, at least, is based on real-life events and personal observation.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I think you guy's are spending WAY to much time studying study's and reading book's. :wink:


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

This is a great thred and has info from all side of the battle. What I think it boils down to is: Too much money/Greed X Too many people/Rifle "hot spots" X Loss of habitat/winter kill. Bottom line it don't look good for the Mule deer in Utah. And until the focus comes off the money and onto the animals and there habitat, it aint gonna change much. :? 

On a side not I saw this on a bummper sticker the other day.

" Can't see the Forest, for the Fees! "

LOL I got a kick out of that one.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

this is a really complex issue/ problem. How can you balance money,sound biology,hunter opportunity,hunter success,hunter opinion,and all the other variables? The DWR has a near impossible job there.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

Agreed. The DWR has there work cut out for them. I think they are doing the best they can. But it seems an impossible task.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It's very unfortunate that politic's have almost completly taken over policy's regarding
wildlife here in utah. The biolaigist at the DWR "the one's I know" have a difficult time
getting thing's accomplished the way they would see fit for sound managment.

In the past few year's SFW has had more influence that anyone at the DWR...IMHO.

The RAC's also stir thing's up,,,,,every once in while there's good idea's that work..

But ultimately, The board of wildlife has the final say,,,,,,,,,And it's politic's at it's best.


----------



## aimhighleterfly (Aug 21, 2009)

You can say what you want about politics, winter kill and habitat but it all boils down to predation. If you look at the hay day of deer in the 40's to the 70's what was the biggest difference between then and now? Most will say habitat but that is bs, most of the prime habitat is still there the only thing that has changed is the amount of sheep that used to roam all over the states habitat. There used to be thousands and thousands of sheep and in order to keep the sheep alive the predators, namely coyotes, had to be kept in check. 1080 poison was the deer herds best friend. Fawn survival rates were sky high, winter kill was lower and this was with habitat that should have been at its worst with all the sheep eating everything is sight. Now very few people hunt coyotes and we sure aren't going after them like we used too. Arizona did a study on the coues deer to see why the fawn survival rates were so low so they fenced in a couple of thousand acres and removed all the predators to see what happened. Even with the severe drought they had very few fawns die. Now we can't bring back 1080 because it plays heck with the birds of prey, but if every deer hunter had to submit two pairs of coyote ears before he could get a tag I bet we would see a big difference in our deer numbers. Just something to think about. One more thing, three point or better for the entire state.


----------

