# Option #2



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

What is wrong with change? Can the deer herd get any worse than it is now? I have an idea...open it up state wide for does and bucks for a year and I bet that we wll have nothin to complain about. I once was a part of the big family outing and I LOVED it, but have realized that is a thing of the past. LE units is a big taboo on this forum, but honestly that is where you will see the HEALTHY deer herd. If it dont change then I will be a LE hunter by draw or buy for life! And yes I do hike the mountains for game...chasing hounds after the predetors you all blame for killin the deer herd. It's not the lions doin it it's the thousands of people. Sure lions, coyotes take a toll but not as much as you think. Hunters take the biggest and thats way option #2 is a start.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

You serious Clark?


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

Igottabigone said:


> You serious Clark?


On wich part Otis? Ya i'm serious


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

-_O-


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

The lion population in Utah is estimated to be roughly 3000 cats. Each cat is thought to kill one deer per week per year. More than 150,000 deer. This may be kind of high so let's assume that each cat kills one deer every three weeks per year. That is still over 50,000 deer killed per year by cats alone. 

In 2009, the total harvest of bucks and does by hunters in general and limited-entry units was less than 30,000 deer. 

Do the math my friend.


----------



## yfzduner450 (Dec 28, 2009)

I agree with you houndhunter, we need to try somethining new because what they're doing now isn't working. 

All the numbers just don't add up somehow, Let me see if i get it right. 

Cats=150,000 yr
Hunters=30,000 yr
Roadkill=20,000-30,000 yr
Winterkill, coyotes,bears, and all other deaths=20,000

So on the low side 220,000 deer die on year, with a population of 300,000 to 400,000 it just doesn't add up. At this rate or survival vs. killed, they would be wiped out in about 2 years. So let me get this right, your saying the cats kill more deer then all other predators including winter kill. Come on!!!!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

A population of 400,000 can easily birth 250,000 fawn per yr. So your math is not that far off.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I just copied this post over from( which option do you support?)
And this is one of the reason I THINK we need unit management...
At least get the deer numbers right..


I honestly DO NOT believe the deer numbers being used by the DWR right now..
They are using 2009 numbers claiming 301,700 deer state wide,,,,,,NO FRIKK'in way.

I've spoke with several biologists that acknowledge these numbers are flawed, DWR,BLM
and forest service..................And pro, I'll be glad to shoot their phone # at ya.

Here are some of the herd size numbers making up the state total I know are incorrect.

Plateau- 15,500 deer
Monroe- 7,100 deer
West desert- 8,100 deer
South slope- 10,300 deer
Diamond mountain- 13,200 deer
Wasatch/diamond Fork/ Timp- 16,500 deer
Stansburry- 8,000 deer??


These are just a few, the 301k is Greatly inflated!
I'm guessing about 40%!!I'm thinking Colorado has ACURATE counts...
There will be a huge drop in deer numbers in Utahs 2010 report.
Honest question PRO, do you think there are 8,000 deer on Oquirrh?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Here are some of the herd size numbers making up the state total I know are incorrect.
> 
> Plateau- 15,500 deer
> Monroe- 7,100 deer
> ...


i can tell you theres for sure 8,000 deer on the stansbury. i hunt 1 canyon and see a total of 300-400 different deer every season. i have a video i recorded a few days before the rifle hunt in 2009. sitting in one spot for an hour overlooking 2 canyons i can see over 200 different deer. the stansbury and oquirrh mountains are big areas!! lots of room for them to hide.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

Igottabigone said:


> The lion population in Utah is estimated to be roughly 3000 cats. Each cat is thought to kill one deer per week per year. More than 150,000 deer. This may be kind of high so let's assume that each cat kills one deer every three weeks per year. That is still over 50,000 deer killed per year by cats alone.
> 
> In 2009, the total harvest of bucks and does by hunters in general and limited-entry units was less than 30,000 deer.
> 
> Do the math my friend.


Shut the deer hunt down for one year and I bet the CAT problem is forgotten


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2010)

houndhunter said:


> Igottabigone said:
> 
> 
> > The lion population in Utah is estimated to be roughly 3000 cats. Each cat is thought to kill one deer per week per year. More than 150,000 deer. This may be kind of high so let's assume that each cat kills one deer every three weeks per year. That is still over 50,000 deer killed per year by cats alone.
> ...


cats are a huge problem! theres too many. ive seen 3 this year hunting deer. one was WAY TOO CLOSE for comfort.....


----------



## yfzduner450 (Dec 28, 2009)

so if there are too many cats, Kill did you buy your harvest objective tag yet??


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2010)

no i havent. i dont know anyone with dogs who will take me. i drew a permit last year for the books, a guy said he would take me out BEFORE i applied for the tag, and he never did take me.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Last winter I was offering to pay top dollar for a hunt anywhere and I could not get a taker.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

I just searched my previous post to find some from last winter. :shock: :lol: I'm not looking through 13 pages of post of mine that have the word cougar in them.  8) 8) 8)


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The thing about cats is few understand the difference between compensatory vs additive predation. Few understand the role of predators in a healthy ecosystem. Many of the deer cats take would've died by some other cause. 

Come to think of it we just need to high fence the whole state, kill all predators, vacinate all deer, build wildlife triage centers, educate them to "look both ways", counsel them on diet and exercise, birth them like cows, spike thier punch with Miraclegro, grow acres upon acres of deer feed for all seasons. New dedicated hunter requirments should include plowing and seeding 10 acres with BioLogic. Make guides mandatory so no funny business goes on and charge hunters per inch of antler that they take. There would be lots of opportunity and inches to go around. If you want a hunt in a "wild" environment go to Alaska.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goofy- You seem very educated on Utah's management system, but you make statements which have me scratching my head. Such as: "And this is one of the reason I THINK we need unit management... At least get the deer numbers right.."

You do understand that Utah is already divided up into 40+ deer management units, right? You do understand that the UDWR compiles data on a unit by unit basis, right? We can question the validity of the data, but they are ALREADY micro-managing the deer herd. Please tell me you understand this. 

Bucks are hunted on a regional basis, taking into account the ratios of individual units. Every unit but 3 are meeting the buck objectives. You understand that, right? 

There are many tools in the Mule Deer Management Plan which give the UDWR ways to grow deer herds on the individual units: Habitat, cut hunter numbers, seasonal road closures, micro struggling units, predator management, etc....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I do understand they are "trying" to manage on a unit base scale
now, but, for what ever reasons, Its not working very well.

I look at the unit deer herd numbers they are using and simply cant
believe it,,some of them ARE off 50%!!
This is just as basic as it gets, Start with a close estimated deer size
per unit! 

I feel if Utah gos with option 2 it will force pressure down to an individual
unit scale,,,,,,,,,,,Start with actual deer numbers that are REAL..

And I understand the DWR is understaffed to accomplish what need to be
done at an option #2 level...I would hope if this passes , something could 
be done to get the DWR the personnel to do the job right.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here are the latest deer numbers from the 2009 report..
They show unit and estimated deer numbers on the unit.
Out of curiosity, take a minute, look at the unit YOU hunt,
Do you guys think the numbers are right on the unit you hunt on?


Box Elder 16100
Cache 15050
Ogden 6900
Morgan-South Rich 8000
East Canyon 8500
Chalk Creek 8100
Kamas 6400
North Slope 5950
South Slope, Yellowstone 10300
South Slope, Vernal / Diamond Mtn. 13200
Book Cliffs 8050
Nine Mile 4900
San Rafael 1000 — — — — —
La Sal 7800
San Juan 16400
Henry Mountains 1400
Centrals Mountains, Manti 20900
Central Mountains, Nebo 11500
Wasatch Mountains, Diamond Fork /
Heber / Timpanogos 16500
Wasatch Mountains, Currant Creek 9500
Wasatch Mountains, Avintaquin 1700
Wasatch Mountains, Salt Lake 1650
Oquirrh-Stansbury 8000
West Desert 8100
Southwest Desert 1600
Fillmore 9500
Beaver 11000
Monroe 7100
Mount Dutton 2400
Plateau 15500
Kaiparowits 400
Paunsaugunt 5800
Panguitch Lake 10500
Zion 9600
Pine Valley 13400
Statewide totals 301700


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't profess to know the number of deer on Monroe. I do have a great grasp of relativity on Monroe's deer herd. What ever the number is today it's population is lower than it was say 10yrs ago. And with a objective of 7500 if we have 7100 now I will eat my shorts. Provided that objectives and capacity are in the same ball park.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here are the latest deer numbers from the 2009 report..
> They show unit and estimated deer numbers on the unit.
> Out of curiosity, take a minute, look at the unit YOU hunt,
> Do you guys think the numbers are right on the unit you hunt on?
> ...


Seems overestimated....which makes the predator problem all the more serious. An over abundance of predators, which includes hunters, is a big problem. Get rid of some predators, i.e. a thousand or so cats, and you have a stronger deer herd all other factors remaining the same.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> These are just a few, the 301k is Greatly inflated!
> I'm guessing about 40%!!I'm thinking Colorado has ACURATE counts...
> There will be a huge drop in deer numbers in Utahs 2010 report.
> Honest question PRO, do you think there are 8,000 deer on Oquirrh?


I am curious why you trust Colorado's numbers, but not Utah's. :? Are you saying their biologists are smarter/more honest than ours? If so, why?
Not exactly going out on a limb asserting the deer numbers will be lower for this year than last since it is common knowledge that several areas got hit hard by Mother Nature this last winter/spring. *(NOT by hunters!!)*
From what I have seen pre-hunt and post-hunt, I would say 8,000 is **** close for the deer population out here. In some areas where I used to see a lot of deer, I see very few. But, in other areas the exact opposite is the case. I have seen deer in areas that I used to rarely see deer, in areas that once were primarily elk country. FWIW, I think the elk herd is in a tailspin out here. Like the Monroe, when the deer AND the elk are struggling in an area, I do NOT think hunters are part of the cause. 


goofy elk said:


> I feel if Utah gos with option 2 it will force pressure down to an individual
> unit scale,,,,,,,,,,,Start with actual deer numbers that are REAL..


How will option #2 get 'real' numbers? This truly boggles my mind.



goofy elk said:


> And I understand the DWR is understaffed to accomplish what need to be
> done at an option #2 level...I would hope if this passes , something could
> be done to get the DWR the personnel to do the job right.


Again, how the hell will option #2 get the DWR better staffed? I am being completely serious when I say I can't make the link between option #2 and getting more/better DWR employees and get 'actual' deer numbers. Please help.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Goofy- If the numbers are wrong now, how will micro-managing bucks change all the population numbers? All those numbers are MICRO-MANAGEMENT of herds on those UNITS. 

I'd hope to believe everyone of us, on both sides, wants what is best for the deer herd first. It is just frustrating that some do not understand what has been put in place- some Board members included. The Mule Deer Management Plan, which includes triggers to grow more deer on a unit by unit basis (MORE DEER, not just more bucks), has been in place for just over 1 year. Strategies are being put in place to help the herd health increase, not just bucks as the option 2 focus. Unfortunately, it takes time to start these processes- predator management plan, seasonal road closures, etc. Even option 2 will take almost 2 years to implement.

So now there are 3 regions in Utah which require a 1-3 wait to draw. When tags are cut, how long will those waits be? Is my 12 year old really going to want to wait 3 years to draw a Wasatch deer tag? He has tagged along with me the last 3 years and watched me or my wife shoot 4 points and pass on 4 points. What more does he have to look forward to? "Here son, you finally drew your tag, now lets go hunt the same deer which we once hunted every year." Boy, won't he be excited.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

sorry couldn't resist, some people refuse to see the truth and will proclaim themselves to be an expert.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

It is my understanding that all the data, research, etc is already being done at the present units (37 some odd) level and if this is the case...the ONLY thing that can be changed in the management at that level is the number of permits issued! SOOO...that actually means some areas will have less permits, some more permit (not much chance of that although) and some areas would remain the same. They call this HUNTER MANAGEMENT, NOT herd management! I think the big problem is the use of buck/doe ratio as an indicator of herd health!
Hunting is only a small part of the picture.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Here are the latest deer numbers from the 2009 report..
> They show unit and estimated deer numbers on the unit.
> Out of curiosity, take a minute, look at the unit YOU hunt,
> Do you guys think the numbers are right on the unit you hunt on?
> ...


haha theres NOT, not even close, to 11500 deer on the nebo. maybe in your dreams, but not in reality. there might be 500 deer? if thats the case 490 of those are does. i hunt that unit ALOT!


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I don't think there is 20900 deer on the Manti. Even though it is a big unit. There is just not.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Is there really that many on the Cache? Are these counted from Helicopter?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I feel if Utah gos with option 2 it will force pressure down to an individual
> ...


I do think numbers can be made to look better for one reason or another. Im not saying anyone is lying, making stuff up, but anyone can play with numbers.

After hearing buck-doe ratios on units like the Cache I find it interesting that they always somehow above mandatory closure at 10-100. This truly might be the case but interesting none the less..........

I also understand political ramifications, upset people, etc. IF one of these units get closed.......It might not have anything to do with the biologist/UDWR but they will be blamed for it, and after talking to a retired biologist I know well, he told me "If you only knew how politics play a role"..............I would hate to be the biologist breaking the news to his superiors that a unit is going to get shutdown because of numbers I came up with, or even worse being the superior and breaking the news to thousands of hunters that "There will be no deer hunting in---------" I think a lot of these guys don't dare speak up about a lot of things, let alone something like this............

For instance- IF we were able to manage hunters with sub-units wouldn't it be easier to reduce tags slightly when a unit hits say 12-100, other than shutting it down if it falls below 10-100. I understand hunters are not the only thing deciding buck/doe ratios but I do find it interesting that popular hunting areas like Cache/Odgen are below objective...maybe its coincidence......

I do know that its pretty hard to keep people interested when they are only hunting three days when the real and only solution to reducing hunter harvest is by limiting tags. Anis said this himself, but its pretty hard to do when you are managing hunters on a region wide basis. I believe the three-day hunt backfired and most guys that might hold off, shot the first thing that moved with horns.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I do know that its pretty hard to keep people interested when they are only hunting three days when the real and only solution to reducing hunter harvest is by limiting tags. Anis said this himself, but its pretty hard to do when you are managing hunters on a region wide basis. I believe the three-day hunt backfired and most guys that might hold off, shot the first thing that moved with horns.


This is part of the beef I have with BOTH option #1 and #2, we are discussing going away from the FIVE year deer management plan that was implemented in December 2009! The DWR hasn't even gathered post-season counts yet, nor has hunter surveys been conducted, so how in the hell can we know if the NEW plan that is 12 months old works, needs a few MINOR tweaks, or needs a complete lobotomy? Any action that goes contrary to the existing FIVE year plan is, IMHO, foolish and a knee jerk reaction to PERCEIVED problems.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Next years proposal: Age based mule deer harvest management. 3.5 years minimum, statewide. Better start building points or saving your pennies for an 8 thousand dollar rifle buck tag on Monroe........


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Who's charging 8 grand for any kind of tag on Monroe? The DWR? Don Peay? 

There aren't any CWMU's in that unit.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If option #2 goes live, you wont believe what price CWMU tags skyrocket to. 


-DallanC


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

When I was young my dad told me that one day hunting would become a rich mans sport. Every time there is a change it seems to benefit the the rich and the average Joe gets hosed!

It's sad to think what hunting will be like in 20 or 30 years if this keeps up :twisted:


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Treehugger, you've been hanging out at the city park drum circles again haven't you.


----------



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

I was told a few days ago, that the rac meeting for the northern and northeastern regions went the way that, up north they want things to stay exactly the same. But when the board came to Beaver they got thrashed by everyone--and the choice was option 2 for the southern region meeting. They got thrashed on the points that there numbers are skewed and that there doing a ****ty job on both the deer and elk. It wasn't just bucks that people were concerned about, someone asked "where are the does?" My new bosses brother works for the DWR and there counting surveys for the fishlake unit. He says that if he were to come back with a number the DWR does not like (such as a unit under the 10:100 does, which would mean shutting down the unit) they say "well you better go out and do some recounting". So to those who think the DWR dosen't want numbers to be good enough to get by no matter what can shove it. The board also fought that a ratio of only 5:100 is absolutely necessary to get by, so does that mean if that is there fight that is what the true numbers on a unit like, yes Monroe, actually are? And when asked about cutting tags, of course they'll have to raise prices of tags (because money is what they really want). I choose option 2.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

The problem with this plan, or any of the 3 options, is it only focuses on the buck portion of the herd. If we truly want to improve the hunting in Utah we need to come up with plans that help the whole herd.

I've said from the start that we are focusing our energy in the wrong area, hunter management is not the problem with deer herds. 

Think of it this way. If your car is having mechanical problems do you devise plans to drive it less, or drive it less distances, or drive it in smoother terrain? That's all we are doing right now with all of these hunter management plans. Or is the better plan to find the mechanical issue and fix it? By fixing it properly as long as you follow proper maintenance and take reasonable care of the vehicle it will perform as it should.

If we want to up deer numbers, which will improve hunting for all types of hunters and preserve opportunity, we need to quit focusing on hunter management and start looking focusing on deer management. THE PROBLEM IS NOT HUNTERS SO WHY FIX HOW WE HUNT!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG,,,,They (dwr) don't even have the real "actual" herd counts even FRIKK'in CLOSE!

Forget managing hunters, looks to me like we need unit management just to get 
the numbers RIGHT!,,,,,,,And 1-I is DEAD on,. I too have heard of numbers
'skewing" with BOTH total herd numbers and buck to doe ratios...........

Again, its time to get back to basics, starting by getting herd counts RIGHT!
Then at least well know what were really managing....

I've spent some time the last few days looking over deer herds on the Manti,
The total deer numbers look to be half of what was there JUST LAST YEAR! C'mon man!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> OMG,,,,They (dwr) don't even have the real "actual" herd counts even FRIKK'in CLOSE!
> 
> Forget managing hunters, looks to me like we need unit management just to get
> the numbers RIGHT!,,,,,,,And 1-I is DEAD on,. I too have heard of numbers
> ...


I'll ask once again, how will option #2 address this conspiracy theory you and a few others have? What magic wand will suddenly appear once option #2 is implemented that will suddenly force the DWR to be 'honest' in their counts?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Conspiracy theory? WTF you talk'in about?

IT's MY OPPION BART,,,,that option 2 will at least HELP get the "actual" 'True" 
counts right.......Probably a good place to start.

I've been studying the unit herd count numbers coming up with 300,000+ deer..
PURE BS,,,,,I say.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Conspiracy theory? WTF you talk'in about?
> 
> IT's MY OPPION BART,,,,that option 2 will at least HELP get the "actual" 'True"
> counts right.......Probably a good place to start.
> ...


Goofy you still didnt answer the question. How will the number become more accurate under option 2?

Are you saying a different method will be used to count or someone else besides the DWR will be incharge?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Conspiracy theory? WTF you talk'in about? What I am talking about is how YOU and others have asserted that the DWR INTENTIONALLY gives bogus counts. That is a conspiracy theory through and through.
> 
> IT's MY OPPION BART,,,,that option 2 will at least HELP get the "actual" 'True"
> counts right.......Probably a good place to start. Based on what? That is what I am questioning, what in YOUR opinion will option #2 do to get "actual" 'True' counts right? I can't see anything in option #2 that will accomplish such, so what am I missing?
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It doesnt take a rocket scientist if your going to the same units year after year,
and seeing LESS and LESS deer every year.........

In 2005 there total deer herd number was 297,425 deer,,,,,,,,,,,,
At last weeks RAC meeting I'm hearing "310,000" RIGHT NOW!!!!

Come on Yote & PRO,,,,,,Are you guys frikk'in blind!


And I'll tell you boys another thing, I've heard scrambling STRAIT out of the DWR,,
They've come flat out and said if op#2 passes it will not be put in place until 2012 so
they can make "personal adjustments" to do the job right.........I'm ALL FOR IT.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have some beach front property in Wendover for sale, you interested? If the DWR is saying such things, those that are saying it should be fired ASAP!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Look it up PRO boy,,,,,The DWR has it updated on there web site there not
going to implement option 2 (if passed) until 2012..

And I seem to remember a similar debate about the Nebo elk 2 years ago..
Quite similar to what is happening to are deer now,,

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6243&p=76664&hilit=nebo+elk+pictures#p76664

You guy wanted to fight me tooth and nail the Nebo elk were doing
just great,,,,,,,,,,,What do ya think now?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Because you were wrong Goofy and you still didn't say how the DWR would magically have better numbers under Option 2.


----------



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

pro,

I personally am just sick of the "numbers" the dwr throws against the wall. And then someone working for them says that if you go to them with numbers they don't like, you could be fired or to go and do some recounting until the numbers are what looks like the DWR is doing a good job. Do you really think the deer population keeps going up every year like the DWR claims? And that they are just doing a great job managing it? I will agree on the fact that predators are a problem. In the middle of the day I ran into a cougar 15 yards away during the bow hunt this year, and my cousin ran into 2 (all on Monroe) the one I saw had a collar the other 2 did not, and the DWR likes to claim they have all cats collared on the unit. That's BS too. I'm not saying they have no idea what the real numbers are for each unit but they do not give accurate numbers to the public. Isn't it amazing how the Monroe unit just seems to be getting worse and worse and yet the buck to doe ratio is always just hovering over the 10:100 mark so they don't have to shut down the unit? Everyone knows the Monroe unit is in a bad situation but it just keeps coming up with just above the 10:100 mark so they don't have to cut tags and close the unit down right? Its 10.2, 10.5 or some other decimal point with a 10 in front of it, but the truth is it will never fall below objective because they won't let there numbers say that it has fallen below objective. It about money, money, money. It's the root of all evil, and all that's important in todays world to anyone and everyone.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Look it up PRO boy,,,,,The DWR has it updated on there web site there not
> going to implement option 2 (if passed) until 2012..
> 
> And I seem to remember a similar debate about the Nebo elk 2 years ago..
> ...


For starters, you need to get some thicker skin. Hurling insults my way because I don't just buy into your 'feelings' is funny.

Second, What does the year option #2 is implemented have to do with the DWR posting accurate counts?

If I recall, on the Nebo elk issue, we were discussing 'quality' of BULLS not quantity of elk. Apples and oranges. Or more accurately; milk and ducks. :?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Both the quality of bulls AND the quantity of total elk have fell off the frikk'in cliff on Nebo!

All I;m saying on this deer BS is, of the 3 options on the table, I THINK #2 has the best
chance of actually making something happen in favor of our deer.............PERIOD.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yet ANOTHER post where you have failed to even attempt to explain how option #2 will result in more accurate counts..........I am shocked, shocked I tell you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Sadly, what is being confirmed is that perception holds far more weight with far too many people than reality.


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Pro, You can say what you want and I'm not going to try and change your mind. This is why I am for #2. The Manti unit is in such bad shape that it is disgusting. There is nothing that any other plan can do to help it besides #2. It gets hammered every year and this was the worst I've seen it. A ride out into the winter grounds right know will confirm it. It's the rut and the few does there are have a spike and 2 pts trying to breed them. Are these yearling bucks counted in the numbers? They can't breed but they sure count them as a buck. Maybe these minimal ratios you guys through out aren't enough.


----------



## 2-Fer (Oct 29, 2007)

I call BS on the 10500 deer on the Panguitch Lake unit. I have been hit and miss on following the conversations about deer populations, but in all of your guys honest opinions what is the number one thing that is going to help to increase deer numbers across the board?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Sharp, the Manti unit is my home unit. I grew up, I pushed cattle, built fence, killed my first several bucks/bulls, and I learned most of what I know about hunting on the Manti, so it is close and dear to me as well. Yes, the deer are hurting, but it isn't because of the buck:doe ratio. Next July, take a closer look at how many does have one/two fawns by their side. The fawn:doe ratio is plenty high during the summer months. Part of the problem is the number of these fawns still alive come April is far too low. That means the problem is NOT fawn birth rates, but fawn survival rates. I am more than happy to discuss why I think the fawn survival rates are so low if you wish. FWIW, buck harvest is NOT even on the radar, IMO, as to the causes of the low fawn survival rates. For starters, back in the 80's when I was obsessed with hunting mule deer on the Manti, ATV trails were nonexistent. There is amble evidence that shows the HUGE increase in ATV use has dire effects on deer populations. 

As for buck:doe ratios, bucks that are currently yearlings were NOT included in the buck numbers for 2010, but they will be included in the buck numbers for 2011 when they are 2 year old bucks. So, yearling bucks are NOT counted as bucks when it matters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

2-Fer said:


> I have been hit and miss on following the conversations about deer populations, but in all of your guys honest opinions what is the number one thing that is going to help to increase deer numbers across the board?


Get Mother Nature to play nice and have several years of deer friendly weather. 8)


----------



## 2-Fer (Oct 29, 2007)

[/quote]Get Mother Nature to play nice and have several years of deer friendly weather. 8)[/quote]

Good luck with that. In the southern unit where I hunt exclusively on the Panguitch Lake unit, we were hit hard by winter kill. Also there are hundreds if not thousands of acres of land that need habitat improvement. With my job I am involved a lot with habitat improvement, but it is not even a drop in the bucket to what is needed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

2-Fer said:


> In the southern unit where I hunt exclusively on the Panguitch Lake unit, we were hit hard by winter kill. Also there are hundreds if not thousands of acres of land that need habitat improvement. With my job I am involved a lot with habitat improvement, but it is not even a drop in the bucket to what is needed.


That's my point, reducing buck permits will affect deer populations far less that habitat improvement, and as you correctly stated, habitat improvement is merely a drop in the bucket. Yet, here we are focusing on a symptom that will have NO short/long term gains on deer population/health!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I was in the Manti unit for two of the three hunts (muzzy and rifle got my bow this year for the bow hunt next year) and had two trail cams up from April to November. From what I can tell there were a lot of deer (especially does and fawns) where I hunt. Not only that but there were sufficient bucks (my opinion).

Some things I noted, I saw a lot more elk this year than in previous years. I noticed areas that historically held only deer were now taken over by elk. I'm sure this has something to do with the feed changing and such but it does appear that the elk herd was thriving and doing well.

I saw more predators this year than the last two years combined. Especially yotes. We saw some lions but nothing more than usual.

During both the muzzy and rifle hunts I noticed more and more "road riders" on the main roads and atv trails. I'm not disputing that the herds are struggling, but it seems to me that hunters are getting more lazy as time goes by. Could this be attributing to the "I didn't see any bucks this year" stories? I think it does. We see more and more kids/grown ups struggling with obesity and I do think a large majority of the hunters during the rifle hunts have been stricken with this disease and could be affecting the amount of deer they see.

I passed on bucks on both the muzzy and rifle hunt (I hate to say I'm a trophy hunter so I like to say I'm just picky). That being said, it did appear there were many younger bucks this year, but they were still there. I don't like making such drastic changes and I fear they are being made by the wrong people. Why not give the current management plan some time to develop before we storm into the next "save all" plan? If we don't ever stick with the current plan nothing is going to change for the good of the herd!

Why doesn't the DWR have the dedicated hunters go out and help with the herd counts? Why not use all the hunters in this state of utah who actively track the herd in their area (trail cams/etc.) to help do the counts? I'm not saying they are doing it wrong but couldn't something like this help? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there like me who actively counts the number of bucks/does they see on their trail cams to see where they are actually at (maybe i'm the only hunter geek who tracks this in excel _(O)_ ).

Anyway, those are just some ramblings from a utah hunter not excited about what is currently happening.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

JuddCT said:


> I was in the Manti unit for two of the three hunts (muzzy and rifle got my bow this year for the bow hunt next year) and had two trail cams up from April to November. From what I can tell there were a lot of deer (especially does and fawns) where I hunt. Not only that but there were sufficient bucks (my opinion).
> 
> Some things I noted, I saw a lot more elk this year than in previous years. I noticed areas that historically held only deer were now taken over by elk. I'm sure this has something to do with the feed changing and such but it does appear that the elk herd was thriving and doing well.
> 
> ...


I wonder just what method the DWR uses to count the deer herds. I also wonder how often it is done...anyone know?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

They count deer EVERY year. They try and count via the air once every three years, the other years the do sample counts in areas where the deer usually winter. Sampling is a VERY scientific method that has proven results in many arenas of science. My kids learned about sampling in their home schooling last year, I think I learned as much, maybe more, than they did on how effective it is.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> They count deer EVERY year. They try and count via the air once every three years, the other years the do sample counts in areas where the deer usually winter. Sampling is a VERY scientific method that has proven results in many arenas of science. My kids learned about sampling in their home schooling last year, I think I learned as much, maybe more, than they did on how effective it is.


Ah yes statistically valid sample sizes are the key. Careful....we'll be talking about six sigma before this conversation is done.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > They count deer EVERY year. They try and count via the air once every three years, the other years the do sample counts in areas where the deer usually winter. Sampling is a VERY scientific method that has proven results in many arenas of science. My kids learned about sampling in their home schooling last year, I think I learned as much, maybe more, than they did on how effective it is.
> ...


Haha...I don't know that we will go that far bullsnot 

Pro,
I kinda thought maybe that was the case. I seriously doubt that the current mule deer count in Utah is very accurate AND precise. I believe before we can have a seriously effective plan of attack, we need to have the count be just that, as accurate and precise as possible. I know it can get extremely expensive to do so, but given the circumstance of our herd, I think it is very important. Although the sampling method IS scientific, it is prone to drastic flaws, as are the other methods of herd counting. As I'm sure you are aware, the best data can only be obtained with combinations of different methods taken with very, very careful analysis and methodology. Do you have any info as to where I could find the exact studies the DWR have been doing over the past years?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Still,,,,,I posted the herd count (DWR) numbers on MM.
Its being discussed over there as to how herd count are conducted
and how for off the actual deer herd sizes are compered to (DWR) counts.

And YES, THIS IS AN ABSOLUT BASIC,,,start with real herd (size,counts) numbers 
in each unit...

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 20761.html

There another thread right there too about how computer model counts
are being done,,,,,,Interesting stuff, DNR,and DWR guys commenting.
One claiming, on the San Juan unit, they actually spent more time last 
spring doing prairie dog counts than counting DEER!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I say if the DWR can sample and it be valid. Then so should the observations of the outdoorsman. Who logs many more hrs in the field than do many biologist.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I logged 4 hours in the field yesterday and I saw over 50 deer and at least 10 of them were bucks. So based on my observation I think the deer herd is doing just fine and we should leave it alone. Sounds kind of silly huh??? But it's tru I tell ya...I dun seen it wif my own too eyes...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Go to Monroe and tell me that.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

why do we need a whole new STATE management plan to accomodate a single UNIT??? Why is it that the Southern, Southeastern, and Northeastern Regions want more hunter management when there are less hunters per square mile in those regions of the state during the general hunts than in the Central and Northern Regions? This is turning in to a huge joke and you know who is going to bear the brunt of the joke in the end...ALL OF US...get that through your head!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Many of you guys are about as uneducated as they come...a few things: 1) the DWR has around 100 years worth of data to compare...they have a VERY good idea as to whether herds are increasing or decreasing 2) the DWR has ZERO incentive to fudge numbers; those who say they do are simply full of BS 3) counts in Utah are done by the same methods as used in other states...including Colorado 4) Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico hunters say the same things as many of you are saying--the fish and game can't count 5)As soon as some of you guys get out and start classifying as many deer as the DWR does on a yearly basis, then and only then will your assumptions on deer numbers have any validity (on Monroe, for example, the DWR classified 1070 deer in 2009)

You guys are just like the whiners from Colorado a few years ago when "sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Colorado and demanded validating surveys to verify numbers of deer." Interestingly, "sportsmen, other interested wildlife stakeholders, and CDOW engaged in a conflict resolution process and designed and implemented an aerial survey to estimate numbers of deer in a specific population whose previous estimated size had been contested by sportsmen." So, these groups were directly involved with the counts and surveys, but "Both aerial survey estimates supported computer-modeled population estimates of 7,000-7,300 deer that had been contested by sportsmen, and all estimates were greater than the sportsmen's estimate of 1,750 deer, determined from their casual observations. After the survey, sportsmen did not accept survey estimates despite their involvement in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the validation survey." 

This whole thread is completely laughable!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Isn't it amazing how the Monroe unit just seems to be getting worse and worse and yet the buck to doe ratio is always just hovering over the 10:100 mark so they don't have to shut down the unit? Everyone knows the Monroe unit is in a bad situation but it just keeps coming up with just above the 10:100 mark so they don't have to cut tags and close the unit down right? Its 10.2, 10.5 or some other decimal point with a 10 in front of it, but the truth is it will never fall below objective because they won't let there numbers say that it has fallen below objective.


Uhhh...the objective is 15/100. The DWR numbers show that Monroe has been below that...since 2003. I am not sure what your whole point about 10 is because the 10/100 number has NO bearing at all on the current plan.

It is these kinds of comments that make your posts totally unbelievable and lacking any kind of credibility.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

As far as the Manti, I saw five bucks on one mountain, just from the road. Saw tons of does with twins. Saw two of the biggest bucks in my life last year, all on one mountain in one area of the Manti's. They are out there, maybe not just off the road like they use to be, but they are there.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Again suggest the actual count is irrelevant. I propose we get away from the numbers game that we will never win. I say "we" I mean the hunters. We simply don't have the resources that they the DWR has. Your guess vs their count. Which like it or not their count has some basis. 

Relativity is an argument we can win. It would better to rate the deer herd total population on scale. Maybe 0 to 20 0 being extinct and 20 being dangerously over objective. Then our opinion becomes as relative as the DWR's. Or anyone else s for that matter.

IMO the Monroe unit's deer herd is a 5 when I expect it could and should be a 12 to 14. 

Just a thought. :-|


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...now we can agree on something. Sadly, for hunters, perception is reality. I would agree that many hunters view the deer population right now as being very low on your scale.

But, I would also suggest the way to fix that is NOT to simply increase the buck/doe ratio by harvesting fewer bucks. This might change the perception among hunters, but it will NOT solve the problem. If we really want to do what is right for the herds, and if we really want to increase the number of deer in our herds, we have to maximize herd productivity and recruitment. The way to do that is to maximize the number of does and the number of fawns being recruited into the herd.

The problem with option #2 is that it does NOT maximize the doe numbers or the number of fawns...and, it raises the number of bucks which, in turn, could jeopardize the number of fawns surviving their first year.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Both options do this,,,,,,From the DWR web site.

Option #1
Unit-based management, hunting in five regions

DWR biologists manage deer according to Utah's deer management plan, which requires the state's deer units to have an average of 15–25 bucks per 100 does. Under this option, the DWR would continue its unit-based management and add a new regional management goal of 18 bucks per 100 does. As part of this option, the DWR would: 

Maintain its unit-based approach to deer management.
Continue to offer regional hunting.
Remove a unit from the regional hunt — and designate it a recovery unit — if it averaged fewer than 12 bucks per 100 does. A recovery unit would not return to the regional hunt until it averaged at least 15 bucks per 100 does.
Decrease a region’s permit numbers if the region averaged fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does. Permits would not be restored until the region returned to an average of at least 18 bucks per 100 does.
Maintain the current three-year Dedicated Hunter Program
Continue to allow archers to hunt statewide
Continue to allow Lifetime license holders to choose a region


Option 2
Unit-based management, hunting in 29 units

This option would require the DWR to manage each of the state's general-season deer units for a minimum of 18 bucks per 100 does. It would also require a switch to unit-based hunting. There would be 29 general-season hunting units. As part of this option, the DWR would:

Maintain its unit-based approach to deer management.
Likely require all hunters to hunt on individual units.
Decrease the number of permits for a unit if it averaged fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does. Permits would not be restored until the unit returned to at least 18 bucks per 100 does.
Modify the Dedicated Hunter Program into a one-year program.
Wait until 2012 to implement these changes.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Both options do what? Raise the buck/doe ratio? Yes, both option #1 and #2 do this...that's why I voted for option #3!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't think any of the 3 options are the answer to the deer problem.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Better start dealing with the real possibilities here....

Opt.3 is pretty much dead.

Option 1, still alive, but unlikely to pass the board.

Option 2, made easy for the board, all they have to do is approve RAC recommendations.

And, I, wouldn't rule out the board going with option 2 and some antler restrictions on some units.

JMHO.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Better start dealing with the real possibilities here....
> 
> Opt.3 is pretty much dead.
> 
> ...


The reality is the WB had this option picked out when they made the DWR create this option about a month and a half ago. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. Somebody is in the back room feeding the WB full of **** and bribes and I think most have a very good idea who it is. :evil:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't think any of the 3 options are the answer to the deer problem.


Agreed 150%!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

jahan said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Better start dealing with the real possibilities here....
> ...


So true! +1 Anis came right out and said that none of the options was brought together from a biological stand point. ( He also stated that he thought we were at carrying capacity as far as deer numbers are concerned.) He said that the WB told them they had to come up with this plan. (Throwing out a 5 year plan that isn't even 1.5 years old yet.)

Anis said they are for #1 if they had to choose.

WB wants to grow bigger deer and they think this is the way to do it. They aren't concerned with ratios, they are concerned with what a deer is going to score. :evil:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Better start dealing with the real possibilities here....
> 
> Opt.3 is pretty much dead.
> 
> ...


And a shortened archery season, and a unit only choice for archers and muzzleloaders, and a substantial raise in the price of deer permits! And since option 2 doesn't go into effect until 2012, don't be too surprised if next year's count/classification merits cutting more than 13,000 tags and a lot more recovery units. And who knows what else they may have up their sleeves?

Please, please, please! Get to that WB meeting and make them explain the reasons for their position during the public questions portion.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Many of you guys are about as uneducated as they come...a few things: 1) the DWR has around 100 years worth of data to compare...they have a VERY good idea as to whether herds are increasing or decreasing 2) the DWR has ZERO incentive to fudge numbers; those who say they do are simply full of BS 3) counts in Utah are done by the same methods as used in other states...including Colorado 4) Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico hunters say the same things as many of you are saying--the fish and game can't count 5)As soon as some of you guys get out and start classifying as many deer as the DWR does on a yearly basis, then and only then will your assumptions on deer numbers have any validity (on Monroe, for example, the DWR classified 1070 deer in 2009)
> 
> You guys are just like the whiners from Colorado a few years ago when "sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Colorado and demanded validating surveys to verify numbers of deer." Interestingly, "sportsmen, other interested wildlife stakeholders, and CDOW engaged in a conflict resolution process and designed and implemented an aerial survey to estimate numbers of deer in a specific population whose previous estimated size had been contested by sportsmen." So, these groups were directly involved with the counts and surveys, but "Both aerial survey estimates supported computer-modeled population estimates of 7,000-7,300 deer that had been contested by sportsmen, and all estimates were greater than the sportsmen's estimate of 1,750 deer, determined from their casual observations. After the survey, sportsmen did not accept survey estimates despite their involvement in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the validation survey."
> 
> This whole thread is completely laughable!


Good grief W2U, sometimes I think you are so full of yourself and your "links and quotes" your eyes are turning brown and floating from your own BS. Try a good laxative it may help. Once in a while you come up with something constructive, but posts like this drop your credibility factor quite a few points. With all your "knowledge" about wildlife management and your beloved DWR, you should know EVERY SINGLE METHOD of herd counting is extremely flawed on its own merit. At best, the DWR's herd count is a GUESS.

Although the same methods are available to all the western states you mentioned, they do NOT all utilize the same ones in the same way or combination. The POP method is sooo susceptible to manipulation for whatever reason; virtually any number can be made to look legitimate. As to a reason why the DWR would do it, there are several. The human error factor is one (and this by itself incorporates many variability's). But the single most motivating factor is POLITICAL. Good grief&#8230;. I shouldn't have even responded! My BAD!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> Still,,,,,I posted the herd count (DWR) numbers on MM.
> Its being discussed over there as to how herd count are conducted
> and how for off the actual deer herd sizes are compered to (DWR) counts.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the heads up goofy...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So it seems the boys in SE, S, and NE units want more and bigger bucks and the boys in the N and C units want healthy herds and the opportunity to hunt, very generalized. So why can't we manage in just that manner for a couple years. :mrgreen: :O•-: Manage the three southern units to 18-25 bucks per does and up North and central we can keep it at the 15:100 ratio. I bet within the first couple years of not drawing tags you would see a huge amount of so called "trophy hunters" from down South putting in for up north so they could have opportunity. I just talked to a buddy that hunts the SE unit and S unit, he is kind of in between, he said he wouldn't mind holding out for a year to have a chance at seeing more and bigger deer. This seems to be a pretty common statement from down there, what I don't think anyone is understanding is if we go to Option 2, it won't be an every other year thing for most, it will be an every 4-6 year thing. These same people will be bitching that they want to hunt and it is turning into a statewide LE hunt. Another thing, Tree has pointed this out several times and I think people are not catching how big of a deal this is, option 2 clearly says 18-25 buck to doe ratio, this is a big deal. What that tells me is there is nothing stopping every unit from being right at the 25:100 buck to doe ratio, which means a serious cut in opportunity across the board. SFW has made it clear that they want 25:100 and you know they are making their point clear to the WB. Boy this is frustrating, nothing like pissing our hunting opportunity away because we have selfish horn hunters and other people that don't want to do the "hunt" part of "hunting". O|*


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Still,,,,,I posted the herd count (DWR) numbers on MM.
> ...


I do agree with one thing Goofy pointed out, IF these numbers are not correct all of these options and buck to doe ratios don't mean much. I will admit some of those numbers seem high, but I am also not stupid enough to pretend to know more than the professionals. I think it is good for people to question numbers and not just be sheep and go along with everything, I think the DWR Biologist should be able to show and prove how they come up with the numbers. Now I would hope we could all agree that these numbers are not exact, Anis would tell you that if you asked him. We just have to hope they are within an acceptable range of what is actually out there. Many people of the MM website are suggesting some of the numbers are off by as much as 80% in some units, that is laughable. I am going to believe bioligist and people who do this for a living over some of us ******** that go out even 40 days a year. I bet some of these people spend hundreds of days in the field, that kind of makes the 40 days look silly now doesn't it. :O•-:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I too buy into the fact that if the counts are off so is everything else. BUT we are using the generally accepted scientific method to determine populations and it is also being used by our neighboring western states. So how do we do it better? I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the idea that we turn to sportsman to help with that. Can you imagine trying to sort out 90,000 hunter counts? You spook one deer over a ridge and 5 guys will count it and agendas will really come into play.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> Some of these people spend hundreds of days in the field


Yearly??

Is this Fact?????

I doubt very seriously that ANY DNR biologist is spending even 50% of his/her time IN the field, I could be wrong, probably am, but if there is 52 weeks a year, 4-Day Work Weeks, not counting Holiday's, Sick/Vacation Leave. (50% is only 104 days) If they are you would think I/people I know would run into them almost as much as you run into DNR LE Officers, etc. doing "Biologist Stuff" whatever it might be. Hell paperwork alone after doing research must take ooodles of time not to mention all the computer modeling, data from years past, meetings, etc.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these people spend hundreds of days in the field
> ...


I should of put, "I bet" some of them spend up to 100 days in the field.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I agree that the numbers game can and never will be exact, no matter the method used. But, in that same breath, biologists have been doing this long enough to know what is the most accurate AND precise methods to utilize but don't due to various reasons, the top one probably cost. Some of the methods can be off as much as 30 to 40 percent, depending on several factors. All I want to know is how are they doing it, and how can they improve it and what can we as hunters do to help...even if we have to pay more for tags, etc...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Some of my questions on how they do the counts is how long of a period do they count, what time of the year, and how do they not double count deer that may have moved. There are deer herds that may be in two different units at different times of the year.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

For the exact reasons Stillhunterman is mentioning. We should speak in relative terms. I've been around the block to many times to count on this numbers game. I couldn't tell you if Monroe had 2000 or 10,000 deer. Honestly think of what it takes to count a deer herd like on the Monroe I'm not satified I have a good grasp on the number of deer in a canyon without spending the most part of the day there. It would take me 30 days to observe the entire unit. And then who knows how many repeat sightings I would have. It's impossible for a civilian or even a handful of them to come up with a valid figure. The DWR and all their resources often manage to flub it up IMO also echoed through this whole thread. 

Now when I say or force a conversation when we are speaking in relative terms. My opinion becomes valid. And my character and experience becomes validated. Ideally the DWR would do there counts like this as well. On scale rather than actual figure.

Sorry, Continue spinning. :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Good grief W2U, sometimes I think you are so full of yourself and your "links and quotes" your eyes are turning brown and floating from your own BS. Try a good laxative it may help. Once in a while you come up with something constructive, but posts like this drop your credibility factor quite a few pointsDrop my credibility? Good grief, the credibility of those who dispute the best available science out there lose credibility. People who lean more on anecdotal evidence are the ones who lack credibility.. With all your "knowledge" about wildlife management and your beloved DWR, you should know EVERY SINGLE METHOD of herd counting is extremely flawed on its own merit. At best, the DWR's herd count is a GUESS.
> A guess? Are you f'n kidding me? Again, when hunters go out and start classifying as many deer as the DWR does...then and only then will their numbers start meaning anything. The bottom line is that the DWR and every other agency has a much better handle on herd numbers, buck/doe ratios, and fawn/doe ratios than any of these hunters who spout off against the numbers.
> Although the same methods are available to all the western states you mentioned, they do NOT all utilize the same ones in the same way or combination. The POP method is sooo susceptible to manipulation for whatever reason; virtually any number can be made to look legitimate. As to a reason why the DWR would do it, there are several. The human error factor is one (and this by itself incorporates many variability's). But the single most motivating factor is POLITICAL. First of all, the POP method is NOT the only method being used...other methods are used to corroborate what the POP method shows. Also, our neighbor--Colorado--used this same modeling tool...yet, many on this site and MM believe Colorado's numbers but not ours...WTF? Political? Again, are you joking? Do you really think that the individual biologists from the different regions fudge their numbers because of politics? I have been around the DWR too **** long to believe that kind of BS! The only part of the whole process that gets political is when things get to RACs and the WB.Good grief&#8230;. I shouldn't have even responded! My BAD!


The funny thing about this whole thread still is that hunters regardless of how much evidence is stacked against them still revert back to conspiracy theories and bad science to back them up... :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these people spend hundreds of days in the field
> ...


Then you have obviously never been around them. I know for FACT that many of the biologists DO spend more than 100 days in the field in a year. You have to remember that most of these biologists are biologists because they love the outdoors...so, much of their free or "off" time is also spent in the field.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> I agree that the numbers game can and never will be exact, no matter the method used. But, in that same breath, biologists have been doing this long enough to know what is the most accurate AND precise methods to utilize but don't due to various reasons, the top one probably cost. Some of the methods can be off as much as 30 to 40 percent, depending on several factors. All I want to know is how are they doing it, and how can they improve it and what can we as hunters do to help...even if we have to pay more for tags, etc...


Again, the bottom line is that we are basing management decisions on the best available numbers....and not on hunters perceptions. Also, I take exception to the idea that the best available means to determine numbers are NOT used....now, it may be true that these methods are not used yearly, but they are used. I also believe that in more cases than not that the most effective methods end up being very similar to other methods.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I spent a week on Monroe last February,,,Its not very tough to figure out deer#s..
They were all concentrated on the bottom third of the mountain..
No game on upper half except coyotes circling on my sled tracks..
[attachment=5:309mcmyh]100_1311.jpg[/attachment:309mcmyh][attachment=4:309mcmyh]100_1314.jpg[/attachment:309mcmyh]

I cut snowmobile trails all over the mountain,,,,
Started in Koosharem circled over to Greenwich,,,cut the trail through the middle.
A fair number of deer there.
[attachment=3:309mcmyh]100_1328.jpg[/attachment:309mcmyh]

Continued south, up Little pole, Pine, Rock, Big Pole canyons and Foldge springs,,
again a fairly good number of deer on the East side..

Went over on the west side,,,The Elbow, Dry creek, Manning creek, Monroe can..
Not near as may deer,,,lot of wintering elk.
[attachment=2:309mcmyh]100_1291.jpg[/attachment:309mcmyh][attachment=1:309mcmyh]4 bulls.jpg[/attachment:309mcmyh]

The Monroe side looking at Beaver..
[attachment=0:309mcmyh]100_1331.jpg[/attachment:309mcmyh]

Then around to Glenwood mountain,,,,finding a decent number of deer there..
We repeated this process three times,,,,I would guess Monroe's deer herd
to be in the neighborhood of 3000 to 3500,,,And yes,,That my SWAG....
Take it for what its worth.....


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> ...If they are [spending 100+ days in the field] you would think I/people I know would run into them almost as much as you run into DNR LE Officers, etc. doing "Biologist Stuff" whatever it might be.


If "hunters" were spending as much time in the field as they claim, you would think that the biologists would be running into them doing "hunter" stuff, whatever that might be.

Just because you aren't running into them, doesn't mean they aren't out there. Heck, I go out in the "field" all the time, all summer long (and most of the winter!). I don't always run in to other people, even though I know there are other people out. Making a claim that biologists must not spend time out in the field just because you don't see them is a pretty big assumption. Maybe you should spend more time hanging out with a biologist?

It's funny that people actually make this claim. Maybe I'm the oddball here, but it seems like I can't go drive down the highway, or across the mountain, without seeing a DNR truck going the opposite direction.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> Maybe you should spend more time hanging out with a biologist?
> 
> It's funny that people actually make this claim. Maybe I'm the oddball here, but it seems like I can't go drive down the highway, or across the mountain, without seeing a DNR truck going the opposite direction.


The sad part is most of the DNR trucks usually seem to say FFSL (Forestry Fire State Lands) Parks, (Wildlife) Law Enforcment, Water Rights, Etc.

The only Biologists trucks I see are Fish Biologists on the Logan River, Bear Lake or one of the other bodies of water.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

that's funny. The DNR trucks I frequently see simply say "DNR". I didn't realize that there was a difference between a fish biologist truck and any other kind of biologist. Do the fish biologist trucks have a fish on them, or what?

Maybe the problem is simply where you are going. Maybe you should expand your territory that you frequent? maybe the problem is more like a break up: "It's not you, it's me..."


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I come up with the idea that they are fish biologists when they are boarding a boat on Bear Lake, driving a truck with a large tank full of fish, or up to their waste in water with a fish net in one of the local rivers. Unless of course I have just discovered the reason why the Deer counts seem off  .......In all reality I seriously doubt the "big game guys" are looking for deer with waders and fish nets. I know quite a few of them as well, that helps.

As to the DNR trucks.......its fairly simple really, glancing at the symbol would lead you to believe they are all the same, when in reality, there are some differences. First the little picture inside the symbol changes. For example on FFSL trucks there is a picture of a few pine trees, on wildlife trucks, there is an Elk, and on Parks there is a little camp fire. Below each of these pictures are also words describing the Dept. Wildlife Rec/State Parks/Forestry Fire and State Lands.

Also there is usually a Star next to the respective symbol on some trucks for Law Enforcement. 

Maybe MR PBH before you accuse me of not being able to tell, whats what and who is who- you should expand your horizons and learn a little more about the differences of the Utah Division of Natural Rec. as its a BIG Division


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Maybe MR PBH before you accuse me of not being able to tell, whats what and who is who- you should expand your horizons and learn a little more about the differences of the Utah Division of Natural Rec. as its a BIG Division


I think it was you that implied that I couldn't tell originally.

This is silly. You have a gripe that biologists don't spend enough time in the field. I counter that I believe they do. Matching wits as to whether or not the truck is a fish biologist or a game biologist is silly.

FWIW -- fish biologists typically don't drive trucks with large tanks full of fish. Those guys would be hatchery guys.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

FWIW I've spoken to many biologists over the years in the field. It's not uncommon to see them dressed like Joe Shmo. I never did ask if they were on the clock but if you didn't take the time to speak with others on the mountain you may see them but not realize who they are.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief W2U, sometimes I think you are so full of yourself and your "links and quotes" your eyes are turning brown and floating from your own BS. Try a good laxative it may help. Once in a while you come up with something constructive, but posts like this drop your credibility factor quite a few pointsDrop my credibility? Good grief, the credibility of those who dispute the best available science out there lose credibility. People who lean more on anecdotal evidence are the ones who lack credibility.. With all your "knowledge" about wildlife management and your beloved DWR, you should know EVERY SINGLE METHOD of herd counting is extremely flawed on its own merit. At best, the DWR's herd count is a GUESS.
> ...


Again, why do I respond?! Reminds me of when my son was 16&#8230; Yeah W2U, politics weigh HEAVY on the deer in Utah, and the WB is the culprit that steers the DWR! If you have been around them as much as you claim, then you are utterly in the dark or flat out fooling yourself if you claim politics are not involved.

As to your precious scientific counting methods: All of them are GUESSES based on data collected, and guided by ASSUMPTIONS for any given method, whether it be ground counts (with or without sightability confermation), aerial surveys (fixed wing is much more unreliable and chopper work is reallllll expensive), pop models, pellet counts, or thermal imaging.

Like I said, I just want to know what they have done, and when they did it. Not too much to ask. Where are the studies datum? You MUST be privy to it, so please, enlighten me&#8230;


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Yeah W2U, politics weigh HEAVY on the deer in Utah, and the WB is the culprit that steers the DWR! If you have been around them as much as you claim, then you are utterly in the dark or flat out fooling yourself if you claim politics are not involved.


To the contrary, W2U was claiming that the *biologists* are not politically motivated, and I honestly believe that they are not. You are correct, the WB is PURELY political -- but the WB is NOT the DWR. The DWR is required legally to comply with what the WB recommends. The WB puts the DWR in difficult positions, positions that the DWR is left to attempt to defend even when their own biological data shows opposite. So, yes we all know politics plays a huge role in the management -- but it isn't the biologists that are the politicians in this game. They have NOTHING to gain.

Again, this all goes back to voting. Who was your gubernatorial vote in past elections? This mess might just be YOUR fault! Reap what you sow.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> As to your precious scientific counting methods: All of them are GUESSES based on data collected, and guided by ASSUMPTIONS for any given method, whether it be ground counts (with or without sightability confermation), aerial surveys (fixed wing is much more unreliable and chopper work is reallllll expensive), pop models, pellet counts, or thermal imaging.


Stillhunter I know you are a bit fired up but I've seen enough of your posts to know you are very intellegent. I think if you weren't fired up you yourself would admit that there is a big difference between a "guess" and an "educated guess". There is a lot of science in today's world based on educated guesses. Fact is that its impossible to count every deer. So there must be some assumptions made but those assumptions are based on proven data.

But like I said...I'm not saying anything you don't already know. I would challenge anyone to come up with a more viable option. Notice I said viable, not idealistic. If somone succeeds at that, more power to em.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'd say they are using the best methods they know of, considering all of the resources available to them and the pressures coming from different angles, such as special interest, the wildlife board and the ever unhappy hunter. I do not envy them, they are put in a lose/lose situation. no matter their results, there are factions that will ALWAYS be unhappy, including the animals.

IMO, considerations should given in order as follows: 

-Sustaining healthy animal population according to biology.

-Fiscal capability and financial dispersion according to biology (Done by BIOLOGISTS in conjunction with state employees, not private entities with financial ties to the results.)

-Majority of users wishes according to data gathered by survey of at least 30% of the populace of hunters. Survey to include a preface regarding mule deer biology facts.

Any other considerations?


----------

