# Antler Restrictions & Genetics



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

Okay.....I didn't want to hijack another thread, for fear that this question wouldn't get answered......

On the topic of Antler Restrictions.....Many (Goofy, Coyoteslayer, Prooutdoors....among others) have argued the advantages/disadvantages of antler restrictions. Besides the obvious "Big 2 points" being shot and left, I see upsides. Coyote & Pro (Among others) have argued that by doing this, you would have "big 2 points and smaller deer being your breeding bucks". 

Go ahead, call me crazy.....call me cooky.....Hell, call me downright Effing stupid......but Where did these "big 2 points and smaller bucks" get their genetics from? The BIG 4 Points, correct? So.....just cuz they spread their seed at the ripe young age of 2.5 years old, doesn't mean that's the genetics they are spreading, right? GENETICS ARE GENETICS. If a little teeny tiny spike spreads his seed.....his seed has the genetic makeup of his 4x4 daddy, right?

NOW....I am no expert in animal husbandry....but from what I remember genetics are genetics. Bucks cannot procreate until they are sexually mature. So whatever genetics he is going to pass along whether it's his first round of mating or his last. 

I expect to get blasted for this, I am prepared to get blasted for this. But seriously......are any of us on this forum EXPERTS in the breeding habits of deer? If so, I will listen. My statement is based out of knowledge, but limited knowledge at best. Nothing to do with deer, but more with race horses.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Go ahead, call me crazy.....call me cooky.....Hell, call me downright Effing stupid......but Where did these "big 2 points and smaller bucks" get their genetics from? The BIG 4 Points, correct? So.....just cuz they spread their seed at the ripe young age of 2.5 years old, doesn't mean that's the genetics they are spreading, right? GENETICS ARE GENETICS. If a little teeny tiny spike spreads his seed.....his seed has the genetic makeup of his 4x4 daddy, right?


A buck receives genes from his mother and his father. If a buck father is 4x4 and, he only grows up to be a big 2 point then more than likely he didn't recieve the horn growth gene from his father. It's hard to tell the horn growth genes of a doe because it's not expressed.

It depends on "Dominant alleles", the allele that is fully expressed in the phenotype.

Recessive alleles are completely masked in the phenotype.

You mentioned race horses. Race horse breeders look for certain characteristics in a STUD and mares. This phenotype will also express these same charactistics in the offspring more often.

I would read about the laws of segregation. People are the same way. It all depends on the couples height, skin color, eye color, hair color, body build etc. They will produce offspring with their same characteristics.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm not going to beat around the bush with a bunch of BS,,,,

I like antler restrictions because I like to hunt big bucks,,,,

If bucks are harvested when their spikes or two points "yearlings" ,,,,
Well, there's no chance of them becoming big bucks is there.

And for the genetic two point thing,,,,might happen with like 2% of bucks...
Just have a management hunt every 3 years,,problem solved.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I'm not going to beat around the bush with a bunch of BS,,,,
> 
> I like antler restrictions because I like to hunt big bucks,,,,
> 
> ...


Goofy, again you don't force everyone to target the mature bucks in the herd, and then magically you will have more big bucks. If you want to see more mature bucks then you improve deer habitat and big bucks will be a by product of your efforts.

The Bookcliffs has big 2 points. You can find several every day. They are passing on their genes.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm definately not a wildlife biologist, but it's hard to argue that one simple fact.. dead deer dont grow!

One question I have: If antler restrictions work to improve deer quality and/or quantity, then why dosent the DWR implement it more? :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Also, I believe everyone likes to hunt big bucks, but what was the habitat like in the 1980's? The winter kill in the 1983 was pretty bad, but the 1980's the hunting was still good right. WHY? The deer rebounded faster because of habitat. This tells me that 3 point of better wasn't the result of more deer or more mature bucks, but it was because of habitat. 3 point or better was just an experiment which proved to be ineffective.

Goofy, you can also look at data from 1987 forward. This was when spike elk hunting started. The elk population grew larger. Since the elk population grew then their was more competition on the winter range for food. Elk outcompete deer. 

1992-1993 was also a bad year for the deer. The elk didn't take as big of a hit as the deer. We also had some very dry years which caused problems for deer. The DWR also were managing the mountain lion population poorly. The lion population exploded thus causing the deer to rebound even slower.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yotes quote,,,,,,,,
"The Bookcliffs has big 2 points. You can find several every day. They are passing on their genes.[/quote]"

REALLY,,,,I started hunting cats in the cliffs while the deer hunting was closed down,,
Started guiding deer there the first year it reopened in 1999,,have only missed three
seasons since then........On occasions, may be every 14th day, might see a old 2 x 2..

But then again, that's just my opinion from spending some 200+ days in the Bookcliffs..
Thinking ,Old , mature 2x2s doing more than .001 of the breed is ridiculous..

And as far as antler restrictions being just an experiment that proved ineffective,,Well,,
You obviously were not there to see it,,,Those of us that saw it with our own eyes know..
During the 80s when antler restriction were in place,,,,DEER HUNTING WAS AWSOME!!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> And as far as antler restrictions being just an experiment that proved ineffective,,Well,,
> You obviously were not there to see it,,,Those of us that saw it with our own eyes know..
> During the 80s when antler restriction were in place,,,,DEER HUNTING WAS AWSOME!!!


It was because of HABITAT. In order for the deer to rebound quickly after a major die off in 1983 and become AWESOME hunting was only because of one issue HABITAT. If the habitat was bad during that time then the deer hunting wouldn't have been awesome after a major winter kill in 1983.

Think about it goofy.

I had a Bookcliffs tag in 2006. I had a 30 day extension to hunt in November. We saw several big 2 points every day.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

LMAO!


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> If bucks are harvested when their spikes or two points "yearlings" ,,,,
> Well, there's no chance of them becoming big bucks is there.


AMEN!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Don't have a clue what major die off in 1983 your talking about??????
Certainly wasn't anything much,,,,,,The big winter kill I remember was in 1992.

But I will give ya the habitat thing,,,,,,And the fact there just wasn't many elk..

But I'll guarantee you one thing, Put antler restrictions on a half dozen units and,,,,
There will soon be 4x4s to chase around and have some fun with.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Don't have a clue what major die off in 1983 your talking about??????
> Certainly wasn't anything much,,,,,,The big winter kill I remember was in 1992.


You must not have been living in Utah at the time. Otherwise you would remember the 1983 winter kill. I was just a kid at the time, but I remember the canyon road washing out from all the snow melting. It also affected a lot of rivers. I remember seeing a lot of dead deer on the winter range. I remember going with my dad and other volunteers who tried saving deer by feeding them hay.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I also remeber my Dad telling about all the homes that washed out in Spanish Fork canyon. You can still see remains of old shacks today

The landslide damage was most severe in the spring of 1983 when Utah's
landslides were among the most economically destructive landslides in North America.
Thousands of landslides occurred in 1983. The most damaging and costliest landslide
was the 1983 Thistle landslide (figure 2), which destroyed a highway and railway,
dammed the Spanish Fork River, and flooded the town of Thistle. A large debris flow in
Farmington demolished five homes and severely damaged 13 others on an alluvial fan. In
Davis County, debris flows and debris floods destroyed 13 houses, severely damaged 40
houses, and caused considerable damage to 350 houses.

http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/geo ... histle.htm


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well lets see 1983 ,,,Thistle slide, I was there today.
I lived in Thistle in 81 and 82,,,,,,From were I'm typing I could be there in 10 minutes,,,
I watched the houses food in Thistle,,,,My dad was the one on the backhoe trying to
save Jackson's house from flooding until there 24 hour wait for flood insurance kicked in.

Now back to the deer,,,That year to get around the Thistle slide they made Stewart's
road from Covered Bridge to the Lazy F ranch for us Birdseye guys,,Drove it every day,
Deer EVERYWHERE.......Counted over 100 deer in our hay field that year.....

Ya, we had snow, and a cool March that held the snow pack for the heat wave in April
to flood every thing,,,,,,,,,,But honest to Pete, It didn't hurt the deer much that year.

In fact in 1984 and 85 were two of the best deer years ever on Boulder and Fish Lake.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Again, the big mule deer bucks you saw in the 1980's was because of habitat NOT because of 3 point or better restrictions.

1982-1986 was recorded as record-breaking precipitation years at the time. This helped grow habitat for mule deer. Big old mulies were the by product of habitat. MORE deer means MORE mature bucks.

Think about it Goofy. It wasn't because of some silly 3 point or better experiment.


----------



## Size Matters (Dec 22, 2007)

I agree the winter of 1983 and 1984 was bad up north we had to feed the deer and there was deer all over the hill sides but I agree with goofy I would love to see 3 point of better come back.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'll tell you the funniest thing about that silly antler point experiment,,,,,,was,

HOW FAST ALL THE BUCKS DISAPERED AFTER THEY REMOVED IT!!!!!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I will just stay on the antler restriction portion of this debate.

You all know where I hunt. And a vast majority of the bucks that exists are in the 2pt class. And an even larger percentage of harvest are probably 2pts. So it stands to reason that if 2pts were off the list off targets. Then if the survived the poachin predators then they would be alive the next yr as larger *Smarter* bucks. So they would have to have a better survival rate against hunters and predators and make better breeders.

I have asked this question 10 times on this site never with an answer at all.
Why do antler restrictions effect elk herds and not deer?

Another point on antler restriction during the 80s the Monroe herd was in my estimation 10 times what is today. It worked and I don't know anyone involved who believes otherwise. And wasteful shootings were 10 times more prevalent than they are today. That class of hunter in large part is long gone.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I believe antler restriction on elk are GREATLY affecting the elk herds.....

The spike only hunting is taking away a good number of young bulls.....
I would rather see them grow up and increase limited entry elk permits...

But that does take away opportunity for general season elk guys..


----------



## muleydeermaniac (Jan 17, 2008)

OK, I have held my tongue long enough. If you want to talk about habitat. The Flaming Gorge area has not changed in twenty years! When the antler restrictions were in place the hunting was great. They lifted it and it never recovered! The habitat over there is the same today as it was twenty years ago! Now explain to me as I have hunted there for more than twenty years where all the deer went? I am not a road hunter either. I put about 5 miles on my boots to get away from roads and other hunters! I have gone from a deer every year to one about every 3 years. THE HUNTING WAS NEVER BETTER THAN WHEN THEY HAD ANTLER RESTRICTIONS!!!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I’ll say this, while there will be 2 pts accidentally shot and left to rot, those numbers will be small in comparison to the number of 2 pts that survive to grow into big bucks.

As for the before mentioned fear that the units having antler restrictions would have the big buck numbers wiped out is bogus, if they aren’t being wiped out at this time, what makes you think hunters could wipe them out with points restrictions implemented.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> OK, I have held my tongue long enough. If you want to talk about habitat. The Flaming Gorge area has not changed in twenty years! When the antler restrictions were in place the hunting was great. They lifted it and it never recovered! The habitat over there is the same today as it was twenty years ago! Now explain to me as I have hunted there for more than twenty years where all the deer went? I am not a road hunter either. I put about 5 miles on my boots to get away from roads and other hunters! I have gone from a deer every year to one about every 3 years. THE HUNTING WAS NEVER BETTER THAN WHEN THEY HAD ANTLER RESTRICTIONS!!!


When you say the habitat hasn't changed in the last 20 years then do you mean the landscape of the land or browse plants? Also there is a lot more elk in Flaming Gorge than there was 20 years ago.

If the browse plants are still in good shape then there should be a lot of mule deer. BUT obviously they aren't as numerous as before. Therefore maybe the habitat isn't as good as it was before. It's not because of antler restrictions.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> As for the before mentioned fear that the units having antler restrictions would have the big buck numbers wiped out is bogus, if they aren't being wiped out at this time, what makes you think hunters could wipe them out with points restrictions implemented.


I'm guessing you're talking about LE units. The LE units only give out a small number of tags. They are managed for 25 to 35/100 buck to doe ratios therefore you will always have mature bucks in the herd.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Goofy, FWIW I hunted deer back when there where antler restrictions. I grew up in the Gunnison Valley and I was 15 minutes from 12-Mile Canyon. The Manti-LaSal forest was any-buck, the Fish Lake forest was 3 point or better. My family ran cattle on both, and I built/mended fences all summer long on both 1980-1985. I rode horses over every square mile of 12 Mile and Willow Creek. I took the biggest bucks of my life in 1984 and 1985. Guess what, NEITHER was taken on the Fish Lake side where antler restrictions were in place, both were on the north end of 12 mile looking down into 6 mile east of Sterling. My buck in 1984 went 192 non-typ killed with a rifle, my buck in 1985 went 187 typ killed with a compound kit bow. If antler restrictions "guarantee" bigger/more bucks why did I avoid the antler restriction side?

One other question, if antler restrictions work so great for elk, why isn't Colorado leading the way for B&C bulls? I mean, they have the best elk habitat in the world, more elk than the rest of the lower 48 states combined, and they have ANTLER RESTRICTIONS. They issue over-the-counter tags where a legal bull must have 4 points on one side or a brow tine over 5 inches in length. In a ten year span I personally saw, as a guide/outfitter, over 300 legal bull elk hit the dirt in Colorado, NONE went over 300". How is that possible when the most protected elk in Colorado is the spike? That state should have 350"+ bulls crawling all over the place.

Anyone saying the habitat has "not changed in 20 years!", doesn't understand habitat. Habitat changes DAILY, so to claim it hasn't changed in 20 years tells me it has changed. It means critical shrubs/brush that deer are dependent on have aged 20 years, making them less productive and less nutritious for the deer on winter habitats.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Don't too many elk get shot because they are misidentified as legal but then left to rot? In Colorado.
Remember all those 2pts shot and left to rot. In Utah :roll:


----------



## hunter_orange13 (Oct 11, 2008)

i think you're all right. however, aren't spikes genetically inferior? so wouldn't shooting a spike be a good thing?

off subject, but my friends dad shot a 22" wide 2 point in the book cliffs. biggest 2 point i've ever seen

habitat has changed a lot lately. look at every gravel pit, house on the hill, or new subdivision. most cities have nowhere to go but up. that affects deer wintering areas (food) and a lot more deer are being hit by cars too i bet. 

nobody yell at me. most of this was imho, and i don't know crap about managing a deer heard to make everyone happy.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Don't too many elk get shot because they are misidentified as legal but then left to rot? In Colorado.
> Remember all those 2pts shot and left to rot. In Utah


Elk have bigger antlers which makes it easier to count the points.



> i think you're all right. however, aren't spikes genetically inferior? so wouldn't shooting a spike be a good thing?


Spike elk aren't genetically inferior.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

5 in brow tine seems like a pretty small indicator from 250yds out.

Yep that looks like a good 6in to me let her rip.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> 5 in brow tine seems like a pretty small indicator from 250yds out.
> 
> Yep that looks like a good 6in to me let her rip.


Maybe that explains why there aren't monster bulls running amok in Colorado. :shock: :wink:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

From my understanding they manage for quantity over quality. 

Are there any elk hunts in Colorado that it takes a resident 16 or 17 yrs to draw a tag and hunt? Does this exist anywhere but UT?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, Colorado has some elk units where guys have 18 to 20 bonus points.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> From my understanding they manage for quantity over quality. True, and they do it with antler restrictions, thus proving that antler restrictions do NOT guarantee bigger antlers. :shock:
> 
> Are there any elk hunts in Colorado that it takes a resident 16 or 17 yrs to draw a tag and hunt? Does this exist anywhere but UT? Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, all have limited entry units. Some with WORSE draw odds than Utah has.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Antler restrictions work for several things but they do not increase trophy bucks. Antler restrictions allow many more of the yearling bucks to survive another year to be taken as larger racked, bigger bodied two year olds. Hunting is poor the first year of antler restrictions while we establish the two year old class. Then the average body size and rack size will increase. The legal bucks will be older and somewhat wiser making for a better hunt for most except for the hunters that like to pop the first dumb yearling they come upon. Antler restrictions will probably decrease the population of much older bucks as hunters must hunt harder and longer to find legal bucks exposing more of the trophy class bucks. Now is the perfect time to begin antler restrictions because of the low deer numbers. AR does not affect the doe numbers but it adds a whole years class of yearling bucks for the range to carry. AR puts more hunt back in the hunt. Bigger, nicer, harder to kill bucks. Less road hunting for quick kills of dumb yearlings and more venison in the freezer. There is very little down side. Hunters will adjust and mistaken kills won’t be that bad. The genetics in the deer herd will not change.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Same old arguments, different day...
http://sp3.justrebootit.biz/BCLN/BCLN%2 ... %20fad.pdf

highlights: "Other Western states had or developed APRs despite these findings. However after decades of use and many evaluations reporting disappointing results, ALL Western states have now discontinued APRs as statewide rules. Colorado discontinued all APRs for mule deer, but retains APRs for elk in many of its units. A few other states still have limited areas with APRs to pacify hunters that persist in believing that APRs are a good thing.

The two paramount reasons Western states abandoned APRs: (1) unacceptable accidental-illegal kill, and (2) harvest mortality was increased (focused) on eligible mature males virtually wiping them out. They found better age structures resulted when mortality was spread across all age-classes."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Good link wy2ut, thanks!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

People who GET IT! GET IT People that DON"T GET IT! WILL NEVER GET IT! Point restrictions worked! thats just my opinoin. If it was such a bad move by the DWR to implement 3 point restrictions. Why let it go on so long! Why did they do it in the first place? Did they not do any studies prior to the move? Why did units get closed down a couple of years after restrictions were removed? Think it might have been due to massive kill off by hunters? Seen it. Was not the DRAUGHT . That was a pi-- poor excuse. Loss of winter range? loss off summer range? shake my head every time guys toss that out here . Oh well have a great day..


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> People who GET IT! GET IT People that DON"T GET IT! WILL NEVER GET IT! Point restrictions worked! thats just my opinoin. If it was such a bad move by the DWR to implement 3 point restrictions. Why let it go on so long! Why did they do it in the first place? Did they not do any studies prior to the move? Why did units get closed down a couple of years after restrictions were removed? Think it might have been due to massive kill off by hunters? Seen it. Was not the DRAUGHT . That was a pi-- poor excuse. Loss of winter range? loss off summer range? shake my head every time guys toss that out here . Oh well have a great day..


Oldfudd, I got your email. I understand that you believe the 3 point or better worked. BUT in the 1980's like I said there was more habitat and fewer elk than we have today. The deer hunting was good before the 3 point or better was implemented right? 3 point or better is nothing more than a bandaid. It doesn't fix the problem. It actually can make things worse. This may be why some areas got shut down.

When you have more bucks in a herd then fewer fawns survive resulting in fewer deer overall.

If you want monster bucks then you work on habitat. It requires work so people always want easier fixes that doesn't require much effort on their part.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This horse should have been dead a long time ago, but such is human nature: we all hold true to what WE believe is right and conjure what we have seen into something else...kinda. AR will never produce huge deer. Nor as CS states, will quality habitat, in and of itself. Quality habitat is what will produce a healthy, sustaining herd. Want big deer? Reduce the number of tags... But then that's a whole other can of worms :roll: 

I would hate to have the job of managing mule deer in this day and age, with all of the diffent hunters wanting this and that... AR do and have worked for specific reasons in specific areas for a short amount of time...and that's about it.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I do not have any hands on knowledge on managing wildlife all I know is what I have read in many books on the subject. Based on everything I have read and looking at the issues we face here in Utah, deer herds are declining and/or not recovering due to many factors. These are what I can conclude and are no particular order.

1.- Habitat. From what I have read deer need to eat different folliage at different times of the year in order to digest properly and receive nutrients. if a deer eats the wrong things due to availability it will starve with a full belly.

2.- Age of deer harvested. Buck herd socializing during the summer are a key factor in getting the young buck to learn how to be bucks. If we do not have mature older deer to teach the young ones the ropes the breeding is thrown off whack by does not letting the young one breed them untill the second cycle in late december. This puts fawn production at risk if the fawns do not devolop quickly due to (see #1) lack of habitat.

3.- Encrouchement. This one kind of goes with habitat. I have read alot about how deer do not like to hang around elk. As the elk populations have increased this stresses the deer out and actually interfeeres with their socialization (see #2) and their breeding cycles and patterns.

Like I said I am not an expert on the subject but the more I read and the more I look at our deer herd problems the more it makes sense. I think the management plan to bring back the deer herds has to be a complex one that includes AR as well as habitat and reduced harvest numbers, etc. Just my 2 cents. 


I also am ready for a slamm'n.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Nor as CS states, will quality habitat, in and of itself. Quality habitat is what will produce a healthy, sustaining herd. Want big deer? Reduce the number of tags... But then that's a whole other can of worms


Big bucks will be a by product of good quality mule deer habitat.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey there Mad hunter,,,,I think I really like that post you just put up....

It's almost,, "common sense",, Imagine that.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Back it the good old days the deer werent managed 3 point or better, but yet the deer population exploded. All because of one thing habitat was excellent for growing large healthy herds of mule deer. Old timers got some awesome trophy bucks back then also.

HABITAT IS THE KEY FOR HAVING MULE DEER. 

Here is some harvest data.

Number of deer taken by hunters?

1945---49,890
1946---53,309
1947---60,813
1948---68,895
1949---60,478
1950---73,419
1951---101,494
1952---90,161
1953---95,003
1954---107,896
1955---111,917
1956---122,585
1957---105,599
1958---117,241
1959---126,315

TOTAL DEER POPULATION: 500,000


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG YOTE!!!

Back in the "good old days",,,,,Hunters shot deer for BODY SIZE more than antlers!!

It was common at hunting camps to compare weight for the amount of MEAT!
Throw the antlers in THE BARN!

In the "good old days" they didn't need antler restrictions because no one shot YEARLINGS!

I don't remember in the late 60s and 70s ever seeing a spike or two point hanging in
our camp or the surrounding ones.............Lots of big bucks though.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

We had little to no predators in the "good ole days".


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, if indeed there were hunting for meat then they would have shot younger bucks. They would have found a lot of dumb bucks next to the road. There wouldn't be a reason to hike a lot if your just after meat. Goofy there was trophy hunters just like there is today.. Maybe I will have to bring you a book chuck full of old pictures where guys are showing off their huge racks.

The whole point of my post....if you want more bucks to hunt then you improve habitat, and you will have more bucks and more mature bucks for that matter.


----------



## muledeer#1 (Dec 2, 2008)

Me personally i dont know what would help the deer herd anymore but it is frustrating when you pass on small bucks just to watch the next guy that drives past pile off there atv and dumps the little guys. :evil: I think the bucks need a chance to get some age on them myself but thats just me!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Hey there Mad hunter,,,,I think I really like that post you just put up....
> 
> It's almost,, "common sense",, Imagine that.


Considering the source, I find this comical. Denying EVERY study/conclusion from biologists/state wildlife managers in one post, then saying common sense needs to be used. -BaHa!-



oldfudd said:


> If it was such a bad move by the DWR to implement 3 point restrictions. Why let it go on so long! Why did they do it in the first place? Did they not do any studies prior to the move? Why did units get closed down a couple of years after restrictions were removed? Think it might have been due to massive kill off by hunters? Seen it. Was not the DRAUGHT . That was a pi-- poor excuse. Loss of winter range? loss off summer range? shake my head every time guys toss that out here . Oh well have a great day..


They implemented it due to public pressure, and this was 25-30 years ago. We now have numerous examples of how it has NOT been an effective management practice. Units were shut down due to low deer POPULATIONS, not due to low mature buck numbers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

muledeer#1 said:


> Me personally i dont know what would help the deer herd anymore but it is frustrating when you pass on small bucks just to watch the next guy that drives past pile off there atv and dumps the little guys. :evil: I think the bucks need a chance to get some age on them myself but thats just me!


So, you're saying every hunter should hunt 'your' way? :? You do realize you're talking about GENERAL areas NOT Limited Entry areas, right? Who are you/I to tell another hunter what type/size buck they should kill?


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Low deer populations. after the slaughter.Pro I rexpect you I really do. But I think your off base with this. Also someone said somthing about deer and elk competeing for food / I think the dwr said one was a graze animal and the other was a brose animail and they really don't compete. I have never said the entire state was wacked. Just the areas the restrictions were removed. When was the last time Pro that you saw 45 to 70 bucks a day up around Jones? It's been about 20 some years for me.. I know you love that area as much as I do. I know alot of lions. But don't you think is was better?


----------



## muledeer#1 (Dec 2, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> muledeer#1 said:
> 
> 
> > Me personally i dont know what would help the deer herd anymore but it is frustrating when you pass on small bucks just to watch the next guy that drives past pile off there atv and dumps the little guys. :evil: I think the bucks need a chance to get some age on them myself but thats just me!
> ...


Im not saying everybody should hunt the way i do, what i'm saying is we as hunters say i wish there where more large bucks in our hunting areas yet we/they still harvest the first young buck that gives us a shot! You cant kill the crop and still expect it to grow! And yes I realize we are talking about GENERAL areas.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Looks like ol PRO had a bad day at the office.........


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think antler restriction was just to big of a hassle for the DWR to deal with. And this was at a time when they were getting out of the deer business so to speak. Its funny how many guys that appose antler restriction for deer will point out unwanted killings and it wont increase the general age class of bucks in a herd. But support AR for elk and don't concern themselves with unwanted deaths there. And practice selective harvest in their own personal hunting. :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I think antler restriction was just to big of a hassle for the DWR to deal with. And this was at a time when they were getting out of the deer business so to speak. Its funny how many guys that appose antler restriction for deer will point out unwanted killings and it wont increase the general age class of bucks in a herd. But support AR for elk and don't concern themselves with unwanted deaths there. And practice selective harvest in their own personal hunting.


I have never heard of someone accidently killing an illegal bull on a spike hunt. Again, elk are easier to count points because their antlers are bigger. I know there is 2x2 yearling bulls, but I have never seen one yet.

Ironbear, let say a winter range will hold 5,000 deer. For every buck that survives the hunt then that is one less doe and fawn that will survive. I would rather see more does because they are the ones that are going to increase the herd. There is no reason to protect yearling bucks. General Season units are managed for quantity NOT quality. That is why we manage for 15/100. That is more that enough bucks to breed all the does. You want healthy does surviving the winter for recruitment. Fewer does on the winter range means fewer bucks being born in the spring.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Most of you guys also complain that it's harder to find big bucks. Good hell I can find big bucks from my chevy truck (Pro, they are better than Fords). They aren't hard to find. You just got to know where to look for them. I need to invest in a 50 cal and shoot them from almost a mile away haha.

I posted pictures last year of bucks that my family took last year. Most of you need to get your asses off the couch and look for big bucks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> Ironbear, let say a winter range will hold 5,000 deer. For every buck that survives the hunt then that is one less doe and fawn that will survive. I would rather see more does because they are the ones that are going to increase the herd. There is no reason to protect yearling bucks. General Season units are managed for quantity NOT quality. That is why we manage for 15/100. That is more that enough bucks to breed all the does. You want healthy does surviving the winter for recruitment. Fewer does on the winter range means fewer bucks being born in the spring.


If a winter range was limited to only 5000 deer then what would be the point in trying to increase the herd? If I only had a maximum of 5000 deer then I would want it closer to 50/50 so I could harvest 1000 bucks a yr. Leaving 2500 does and 1500 bucks left to breed them. Those 2500 does would hopefully produce 1000 male deer per yr.

But I would have to make the predators sign a contract to only eat the surplus does to maintain 5000 deer. Or I could all but exterminate them and harvest those does myself.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Low deer populations. after the slaughter.Pro I rexpect you I really do. But I think your off base with this. Also someone said somthing about deer and elk competeing for food / I think the dwr said one was a graze animal and the other was a brose animail and they really don't compete. I have never said the entire state was wacked. Just the areas the restrictions were removed. When was the last time Pro that you saw 45 to 70 bucks a day up around Jones? It's been about 20 some years for me.. I know you love that area as much as I do. I know alot of lions. But don't you think is was better?


Old Fudd, two years ago my brother and I went scouting for deer on a General Season unit, and we counted 32 bucks in one big bowl. There were 5 really nice bucks that were close to 30 inches wide. I don't buy into that it's hard to find a lot of bucks.

Last year, I went to a different place, and I spotted 12 bucks really high on the mountain with a spotting scope. Three bucks were laying down in the snow. This was in July. I drove to another spot and saw 8 bull elk and right above them I counted 8 bucks.

I need to invest in a camera for my spotting scope. I will post pictures of bucks that I have found every year all from my good old chevy truck. Learn some patience and spend some time looking over the hillside with a spotting scope in the mornings and evenings, and you will be amazes at what you can find.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> If a winter range was limited to only 5000 deer then what would be the point in trying to increase the herd? If I only had a maximum of 5000 deer then I would want it closer to 50/50 so I could harvest 1000 bucks a yr. Leaving 2500 does and 1500 bucks left to breed them. Those 2500 does would hopefully produce 1000 male deer per yr.
> 
> But I would have to make the predators sign a contract to only eat the surplus does to maintain 5000 deer. Or I could all but exterminate them and harvest those does myself.


Sorry I mean in one area 500 deer. 5,000 would be awesome in one area. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

CS,
I dont think anyone believes there are *NO Zero* big bucks in the state. 
And if everyone was as dedicated and skilled at finding the big bucks. And going to different spots every yr. Then not even you could find a big buck. What needs to be are plentiful decent bucks everywhere. To ease the supply/demand threat.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I would manage 500 deer the same. :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> CS,
> I dont think anyone believes there are NO Zero big bucks in the state.
> And if everyone was as dedicated and skilled at finding the big bucks. And going to different spots every yr. Then not even you could find a big buck. What needs to be are plentiful decent bucks everywhere. To ease the supply/demand threat.


Haha I will always find good bucks. I believe people go to a place like the bookcliffs where you can see 60 to 80 bucks a day while driving the roads. They get spoiled one year from drawing a tag. They want the general season units to be the same way. People need to keep in mind that GS units and LE units are managed different. The success rates on GS units are a lot lower for a very good reason.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I would manage 500 deer the same.


But you want to keep more bucks from dying therefore you would have to reduce the number of tags to keep your buck harvest low. I, on the other hand, would manage for more bucks harvested. You would also have fewer deer born every year.

450 does to 50 bucks. If I had 70% fawn survive rate then I would have 315 more deer added to the herd on the summer range. If 50% of the fawns were bucks then I would have 207 total bucks. I could also issue 210 doe tags to keep the herd at carrying capacity. 157 bucks would be my target number of harvest, but if its higher then I would still have enough bucks to breed 450 does. since only 7 bucks can breed 100 does..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Pro I respect you I really do. Thank you, the respect is mutual. But I think your off base with this. I don't think so, the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side. Also someone said something about deer and elk competing for food / I think the dwr said one was a graze animal and the other was a browse animal and they really don't compete. During harsh winter conditions and during calving/fawning seasons they do compete, and elk will win out every time. I have never said the entire state was whacked. Just the areas the restrictions were removed. When was the last time Pro that you saw 45 to 70 bucks a day up around Jones? I've seen more deer, and more mature bucks on Dutton the last two years than I have in 10 years. It just so happens there were fewer elk in those areas the last two years as well. It's been about 20 some years for me.. I know you love that area as much as I do. I know a lot of lions. But don't you think is was better? I think with the burn from 2002, the hogging that has been going on in the Deer Creek area where a large portion of the Dutton deer winter, lower resident elk populations, and good water the last few years has allowed the deer to rebound on Dutton. This has lead to an increase in the number of mature bucks, I was down there last year in the winter and saw several mature bucks on winter range, I also saw more mature bucks last August than I have for many years. I think if the coyote population was thinned it would allow that deer herd to rebound even quicker.





goofy elk said:


> Looks like ol PRO had a bad day at the office.........


Nope, just pointing out the obvious. 8)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Is the Dutton better for deer right now than Monroe? :idea: :mrgreen: 

And how is the camping down there?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Is the Dutton better for deer right now than Monroe? :idea: :mrgreen:
> 
> And how is the camping down there?


I would say the deer herd is doing better on Dutton than Monroe, for the aforementioned reasons and the WAAAAAY fewer ATV trails/riders. Coyotes need to be thinned on BOTH units however!

Camping has usually not been an issue, but in 2009 it was crazy, seemed like every camping spot (which are few and far between) were filled up weeks in advance of the archery hunt. Luckily, I have a place in Antimony to hang my hat each night. :mrgreen:


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

muledeer#1 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="muledeer#1":1wtrzt28]Me personally i dont know what would help the deer herd anymore but it is frustrating when you pass on small bucks just to watch the next guy that drives past pile off there atv and dumps the little guys. :evil: I think the bucks need a chance to get some age on them myself but thats just me!
> ...


Im not saying everybody should hunt the way i do, what i'm saying is we as hunters say i wish there where more large bucks in our hunting areas yet we/they still harvest the first young buck that gives us a shot! You cant kill the crop and still expect it to grow! And yes I realize we are talking about GENERAL areas.[/quote:1wtrzt28]
I agree Muledeer, that is very frustrating to witness....makes you want to ring their neck, but then again, that is their choice.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> But you want to keep more bucks from dying therefore you would have to reduce the number of tags to keep your buck harvest low. I, on the other hand, would manage for more bucks harvested. You would also have fewer deer born every year.
> 
> 450 does to 50 bucks. If I had 70% fawn survive rate then I would have 315 more deer added to the herd on the summer range. If 50% of the fawns were bucks then I would have 207 total bucks. I could also issue 210 doe tags to keep the herd at carrying capacity. 157 bucks would be my target number of harvest, but if its higher then I would still have enough bucks to breed 450 does. since only 7 bucks can breed 100 does..


But would harvesting 95 percent 2pt settle with you. I'm not sure if it would with me.

2 points: 1. We differ on range capacity. I don't think we are anywhere near range maximum capacity on deer. So with low deer herds that you wanted to grow. AL would restrict harvest and give more bucks time to smarten up. I don't buy 3pt or better leaves a herd depleted of larger bucks. Right now big bucks are under more pressure than ever due to the fact their are so few now. It happens ever yr in my neck if the woods anymore. Lately I have seen 4 or 5 hunters every yr chasing some big buck up by the towers or above Barney Lake.

One thing I am consistently drawn back to time and time again. Is that predators are a wild card or wrench in the whole deer management game. Regardless weather a range can hold 15 or 15,000 deer if you have predators taking their share it only takes from what hunters get to harvest. And predators are less controllable. Even if habitat was "the" factor in deer decline. Having predators in the picture only puts more pressure on game and slows there recovery. And isn't the point in all this game management. Is so we can hunt. Or in other words prey on game. And controlling predators with some creative thought is the cheapest fastest and controllable ways to have an effect on a herd.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> 2 points: 1. We differ on range capacity. I don't think we are anywhere near range maximum capacity on deer. So with low deer herds that you wanted to grow. AL would restrict harvest and give more bucks time to smarten up. I don't buy 3pt or better leaves a herd depleted of larger bucks. Right now big bucks are under more pressure than ever due to the fact their are so few now. It happens ever yr in my neck if the woods anymore. Lately I have seen 4 or 5 hunters every yr chasing some big buck up by the towers or above Barney Lake.


It's funny that you say this because 3 point or better targets all mature bucks. Instead of some people shooting yearlings which saves the older bucks. Everyone will be hunting mature bucks so instead of 4 to 5 guys after one buck. You will have 10 guys after one buck.

How do you know we aren't at carrying capacity in some areas right now? If the habitat was in excellent condition we should be seeing a ton deer right now. It should be easy to see a thousand deer. BUT in many places we don't have the deer number that you should expect. WHY?

Are they being abducted by aliens? :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:

I also know that predators, cars, reduce the number of deer also but even so we should see more deer.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Funny how no one mentions the effect of livestock grazing. I find heavy grazing everywhere. Reduce livestock numbers and increase wildlife.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> If I only had a maximum of 5000 deer then I would want it closer to 50/50 so I could harvest 1000 bucks a yr. Leaving 2500 does and 1500 bucks left to breed them. Those 2500 does would hopefully produce 1000 male deer per yr.


You obviously didn't read the link I posted...
"A factor often overlooked by those that think they want an unnatural 1:1 sex ratio is that 
total harvest of both bucks and does would be reduced.

One does not merely stockpile bucks. If you seek a 1:1 sex ratio and shoot "adequate" 
numbers of does to maintain a population at an established density goal, you reduce the 
proportion of the winter herd that is productive does. Thus, fewer fawns will be born 
into the population and total harvest of both bucks and does could be reduced by as much 
as 30%."


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> It's funny that you say this because 3 point or better targets all mature bucks. Instead of some people shooting yearlings which saves the older bucks. Everyone will be hunting mature bucks so instead of 4 to 5 guys after one buck. You will have 10 guys after one buck.
> 
> How do you know we aren't at carrying capacity in some areas right now? If the habitat was in excellent condition we should be seeing a ton deer right now. It should be easy to see a thousand deer. BUT in many places we don't have the deer number that you should expect. WHY?
> 
> ...


That big buck usually gets shot every yr. So what would it matter if 10 guys went after him or 5 if the end result is him being killed. But after that first yr that bug buck should feel less pressure due to there being 300 3pts and small 4pts. And even better the next as a few of those 3s and 4s matured to be big bucks.

I would say the reason for deer herds not increasing is in plain black and white.

I know my #s wont be accurate but bear with me just so I can get my point across.

7500 deer 1000 bucks and 6500 doe.

Hunter harvest avg per yr 800 bucks 200 doe. 1000 deer
Predators 1000 + deer.
Roads 50 deer 
Winterkill 300 deer.
And some misc losses

All total this could conceivably account for 2500 deaths annually.

6500 does with 200 bucks to bread that many does of which many are 2pts. Leads to poor recruitment. Conceivably only adding 2000 or less deer annually to the herd and resulting in a 500 deer net loss.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Hunter Tom, I agree I have wondered why the SFW never took some of that habitat money to buy graze lease on critical lands for deer and elk.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> One thing I am consistently drawn back to time and time again. Is that predators are a wild card or wrench in the whole deer management game. Regardless weather a range can hold 15 or 15,000 deer if you have predators taking their share it only takes from what hunters get to harvest. And predators are less controllable. Even if habitat was "the" factor in deer decline. Having predators in the picture only puts more pressure on game and slows there recovery. And isn't the point in all this game management. Is so we can hunt. Or in other words prey on game. And controlling predators with some creative thought is the cheapest fastest and controllable ways to have an effect on a herd.


Not necessarily true...you need to read up on additive and compensatory predation. If predation is compensatory, hunters wouldn't get to harvest any more animals. Also, controlling predators has had zero effect on many deer units...including Monroe.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wy2, Yes I know you have a study to prove that there is nothing that can be done about the deer herd. Or that deer actually eat cougars I really wouldn't be surprised. :roll: 
30s 40s 50s 60s 70s would probably contradict that predators have no or little effect on deer populations.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

IRON BEAR, Not enough money for SFW to get involved with habitiat. How would you make 35 or 40 K off of a piece of silver sage?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I really think Don SFW has dropped the ball on this one and over looked the trophy Jack Rabbit potential that this state has and the conservation money it could generate.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Funny how no one mentions the effect of livestock grazing. I find heavy grazing everywhere. Reduce livestock numbers and increase wildlife.


Actually heavy grazing benefits mule deer because it helps browse plants to grow in place that they couldn't grow before.

In the early days deer were pretty much non- existant because the habitat wasn't suitable for mule deer until cattle and sheep overgrazed the land making it easier for browse plants to grow.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> That big buck usually gets shot every yr. So what would it matter if 10 guys went after him or 5 if the end result is him being killed. But after that first yr that bug buck should feel less pressure due to there being 300 3pts and small 4pts. And even better the next as a few of those 3s and 4s matured to be big bucks.
> 
> I would say the reason for deer herds not increasing is in plain black and white.
> 
> ...


6500 does would produce 3900 fawns per year if the survival rate was at 60% You got to add that part of the equation. Now the number could be higher because some does will have twins.

If half the fawns were bucks then you would have 1950 buck fawns that would next years harvest.

I know the numbers aren't exact because of other factors, but you get the idea.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I guess if you figured every doe was bred. I have a hard time believing with such low buck #s all does are being bred.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Wy2, Yes I know you have a study to prove that there is nothing that can be done about the deer herd. Or that deer actually eat cougars I really wouldn't be surprised. :roll:
> 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s would probably contradict that predators have no or little effect on deer populations.


I am a strong believer that coyotes play a major limiter to deer populations. I notice the decline in mule deer numbers coincide with the ban of effective predator management tools such as DDT. Habitat is still the biggest, by far, limiter of mule deer populations, but I think coyotes are next. Here is my Top Five list of limiters for mule deer populations:
*1)*Habitat<>Encroachment of pinion juniper, loss of riparian, older/dead sage stands, explosion of cheat grass, development, OHV trails and highways through critical deer habitat fracturing critical survival areas.
*2)*Predators<>Coyotes, IMHO, have devastating effects on mule deer. They take a heavy toll on fawns, and on deer during winter. Lions, bears, bobcats, eagles have smaller effects. Lions are second in line to deer predators as far as impact, followed by bears that target fawns in the days after fawns hit the ground.
*3)*Constant pressure from humans<> With the ever increasing OHV usage, and shed hunting, mule deer never get a break from human presence. There is no 'down' time to let them relax and recover.
*4)*Weather<>Drought, harsh winters have major impacts on deer.
*5)*More effective weapons<>Bows are more effective and have more range than ever before, same goes for muzzy's and rifles. Quality optics are more available than ever, letting hunters to locate more game. Mapping, including online mapping, allow hunters to scout from home improving their odds of locating the desired quarry.

So Mr. Bear, IMHO, these five issues MUST be addressed to have sustained mule deer population growth. Doing so will allow for more mature bucks to be on a given unit w/o restricting hunters due to either decreased permit numbers or antler restrictions.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There is no question what so ever as far as predators go......
The coyotes are doing FAR more damage to deer herds than lions are.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> There is no question what so ever as far as predators go......
> The coyotes are doing FAR more damage to deer herds than lions are.


I knew there was something on this subject we could/do agree on. :mrgreen:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I do agree with the reasons you post. Pro. 

Would habitat be a limiting factor rather than a declining factor. 
Don't get me wrong I have it out for coyotes too but they aren't protected and there is no real consensus on how many deer a coyote kills per yr. Cat on the other hand have been protected and definitive #s have identified as to how many deer lions kill. 

Would you agree lions harvest more deer on Monroe than humans? 
Throw coyotes in with them and the over hunting that has gone on for 30 yrs and that to me seems to be the largest factor.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I had another back yard biologist theory. Coyotes thrive in ecosystem with many large apex predators (loins). More kills leaves more to scavenge. 

Jackals in Africa need the large predator kills to survive.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've spent some time on the Monroe lately looking this situation over....

1) I believe it was 1-I that noted finding mostly elk kills there, He's 100% correct.
Even with deer in the same areas, the lions seem to like the elk better, and Monroe is
not the only place this is happening.. Its has become quite common were ever healthy
elk herds are present, The lion study is following several lions living almost 100% on elk.

2) While coyotes will "scavenge" almost anything,,They also take perfectly healthy deer 
as well. This time of year is easy picking for coyotes, If they get the deer in the snow,
and separate a yearling,,,,Its all over. And the amount of coyote tracks I've been cutting
on a daily basis is almost staggering.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am a strong believer that coyotes play a major limiter to deer populations. I notice the decline in mule deer numbers coincide with the ban of effective predator management tools such as DDT. Habitat is still the biggest, by far, limiter of mule deer populations, but I think coyotes are next.


While both coyotes and mountain lions can and do in many cases have negative effects on mule deer populations, it is a huge mistake to say (not that you are doing this) that either predators are hampering deer populations across the board...or that intense coyote removal projects will increase mule deer numbers.

Check out this recent study conducted in southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=etd

"My results suggest that coyote removal conducted over large areas may increase density of 
pronghorn. However, coyote removal did not appear to increase mule deer fawn survival or density."


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I actually agree with WtoU on predators,,There not nearly as big of a factor as 
most hunter believe.

There has been quite a few years now the lions have been blamed for poor deer 
herds by a lot hunters, I just shake my head every time I hear it,,,,,,,,,,,,
Lions are just a small factor.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I actually agree with WtoU on predators,,There not nearly as big of a factor as
> most hunter believe.
> 
> There has been quite a few years now the lions have been blamed for poor deer
> ...


Lions do kill a lot of deer though goofy. (goofy shakes his head) :mrgreen:

Lions aren't vegetarians. They don't eat nuts and twigs. They eat red meat. Lions kill more deer in the winter time more than any other time of the year. Coyotes and Lions calorie intake goes up in the winter time because they need to eat more to keep their bodies warm.

I have seen where lions will kill rabbits, but they tend to prey on larger animals such as deer so that they don't use as much energy.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

My point is,,,,a lot of lions are living on elk,,,not deer.

This has been happening more often than deer hunters think. 

All the deer guys want too say x number of lions kill x number of deer...
And that's not necessarily the case.

The Monroe lion study is going to prove this beyond a doubt.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I have spent a lot of time on Monroe myself as well as others. And for yrs I have said when the deer are gone they will start on the elk. The deer are gone and its no surprise that they are eating elk. They would starve otherwise. In the last 5 yrs on Monroe I have wondered if there were more elk on Monroe than deer. I see more elk than deer. Common sense tells me other wise.

*Do cats kill more deer and elk on Monroe than hunters?*

What does anyone believe are the #s on that? Hunter harvest vs predation on Monroe.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Not sure on numbers Iron Bear, but I do know that BOTH deer and elk are under population objectives on Monroe. That tells me whatever is hurting the deer/elk populations is/are likely the same. So, that eliminates hunters since the elk are under Limited Entry and have been since at least the early 80's. That leaves habitat, predators, and increased human activity as to the possible culprit(s). Me, I think it is the order of: 1)habitat 2)predators 3)increased human activity year round. I know that the Monroe has been getting as much habitat restoration attention as any unit in the state, so that should be less of a factor in the near future. I doubt coyotes have much of an impact on elk populations, except on calves in late May and June, but even then it hasn't lowered the cow:calf ratio to levels lower than most units in Utah as far as I can see. The Monroe is a favorite playground for OHV enthusiasts from all over the country, towns like Annabelle are so dependent on this economic source the whole town is catered around OHV users. This should be an issue that gets a lot more attention, IMHO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Check out this recent study conducted in southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=etd
> 
> "My results suggest that coyote removal conducted over large areas may increase density of
> pronghorn. However, coyote removal did not appear to increase mule deer fawn survival or density."


Other interesting conclusions from the study:


> The stable-limit cycle model contends that ungulate density is cyclical with a full cycle taking *30-40 years*.





> Determining the effect of predation on native ungulates is complicated. Factors such as alternate prey species abundance, the ungulate population's relationship to habitat carrying capacity (K), the type and density of predator, weather, and habitat condition have all been suggested to affect the role predation has on native ungulate populations.





> Connolly (1978) reviewed articles addressing the effects of predation on native ungulates. He reported that 31 studies indicated predation was a limiting factor and 27 studies did not. He drew no definitive conclusion on the effects of predation on ungulates, although he suggested predation could have an important effect on ungulate numbers if coupled with inclement weather, disease, or habitat change. A more recent review on the effects of predation on mule deer produced similar findings with some studies indicating that predator control improved deer populations and others indicating that it did not.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> While both coyotes and mountain lions can and do in many cases have negative effects on mule deer populations, it is a huge mistake to say (not that you are doing this) that either predators are hampering deer populations across the board...or that intense coyote removal projects will increase mule deer numbers.
> 
> Check out this recent study conducted in southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewc ... ontext=etd
> 
> ...


Do you know the person that did the Thesis? Excellent study, well documented and researched. It would be interesting to see follow-up studies to see if weather conditions may be a larger impact- he kind of suggested that could be.

Do you know if the non-removal sites in Utah were on Deseret Land? Or were all sites on public ground?


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

You can get lost in all the wildlife studies. These studies are difficult with all the uncontrolled variables. The simplistic, intuitive approach works better. Coyotes and lions eat deer. The more coyotes and lions, the more deer are killed. Antler restrictions allow many more yearlings to grow bigger bodies and bigger racks. AR also increases kill on mature bucks. There are choices here, you can have AR on many units and keep mature buck hunting on limited entry. You can kill off predators as they did in the past. Our ancestors did not need university studies to know that predators conflicted with their goals.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I don't like antler restrictions because it enables all the road hunters to be successful and stay out of the back country. That way if I want to kill a larger animal I can hike it in and find an animal that only has to elude 3-4 groups of hunters a year  
It all boils down to habitat...enforce ATV laws...provide for adequate predator control and your ungulates are gonna be there. Now...go out and HUNT an animal you want to bring home. The world record typical and non-typical mule deer...did they come from areas that had anything besides maybe "no doe hunting"...well the non-typical one was killed in 1920 and the typical one was killed in 1970 I think. So the answer is NO. What's the one thing that's changed since then...oh maybe...200% population increase of human beings...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The human population hasn't changed in Marysvale and Koosherem all that much. And the overall hunters afield has only decreased on Monroe. But the predator population is probably 1000% higher. 

Pro I also noted the part of the study WY2 linked. That these cycles are on a 30 to 40 yr basis. So throw in yet another variable. And I would guess thinning predators for a few yrs instead of a few decades. Doesn't give game long enough to fully recover.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> The human population hasn't changed in Marysvale and Koosherem all that much. And the overall hunters afield has only decreased on Monroe. But the predator population is probably 1000% higher.


you were a Rhodes Scholar in college weren't you??? Weber/Davis/Salt Lake/Utah counties have probably tripled in population in the last 50 years...but none of those people go hunting anywhere close to Richfield...right???


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Easy Bambi, Hunters afield have dropped over the last 20yrs.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Easy Bambi, Hunters afield have dropped over the last 20yrs.


doesn't matter...why don't you go ask Steadman's how many ATVs they sold last year! Just because they didn't buy a hunting license doesn't mean they didn't shoot the hell out of the countryside. How far is Monroe from I-15??? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people displace the deer no matter what city they get their mail in!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Easy Doyle, ya' ought not talk like that.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Stable. WOW! My 2 sons and my 2 grandsons along with my wife and myself archery hunt are butts off! Away from the roads.Your talkin about the new UTAH breed of Mule Deer . I mean the ones that fly and leave no tracks? The ones that don't leave turds. And OH! by the way all I have is a High School education.Go down to Monroe Mountain spend a week or 2 and get a birds eye view of whats not there..


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I'm not debating that the deer herd on Monroe sucks. The road hunting comment is a general statement not angled towards any unit specifically. If a unit sucks that bad, oldfudd, why do you still hunt it?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Easy Doyle, ya' ought not talk like that.


c'mon man! you know I only respond to Tyler Durden or Ken Doll... :lol:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Blank faces, calm as Hindu cows.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> And OH! by the way all I have is a High School education.


Really? By all the "common sense" you use, I would have guessed you were at least the holder of a master's degree... :roll:


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Blank faces, calm as Hindu cows.


hahahahahahahahaha -()/-


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Pro I also noted the part of the study WY2 linked. That these cycles are on a 30 to 40 yr basis. So throw in yet another variable. And I would guess thinning predators for a few yrs instead of a few decades. Doesn't give game long enough to fully recover.


Very valid point, IMHO.


wyoming2utah said:


> oldfudd said:
> 
> 
> > And OH! by the way all I have is a High School education.
> ...


It is comments like this that make it hard for people to agree with ANYTHING you say. :? Why be such a......... :roll:


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

Just to throw another .02 into the hat-I've always thought it's a big mistake to make the entire deer management plan antler-based. There is a lot more value to a deer than its antlers. We all like big bucks, but there is a whole lot more to trying to manage the deer herd than the quality of racks. I think that if the deer herd is managed for its overall health, there will be a mix of all age class deer for everyone to hunt. Maybe finding a way to stabilize the downward trend in the populations is the first step.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Pumpgunner, I think you are correct. My thoughts currently on AL wouldn't be to have a bunch of 30 in bucks running around. I believe a more mature buck would be a better breeder. And on many units in Utah I think to few mature bucks are breeding doe.

Another point I think WY2 brought up is that a buck *CAN* can breed 200 doe.
But should it? That seems to limit gene pools. As well as leaving one tired buck after the rut to hurry and get into shape for winter.

I suggest if we are going to have 1 2pt buck breeding 200 doe. Lets implant some nice big bucks of the Henry's and Pauns. Just before the rut to do the breedin. :mrgreen:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Bambi, Yote, Wyoming. HEY! Thanks you guys I was about to give up on ya. I kinda thought the attack would be worse. My comments are mine. Ya ever had a place you be going to for 50 years that ya just can't get outa your mind? It's knida like the first girl ya kissed! or your first love! Monroe Mountain is still beautiful even though it's is older and kinda wore out. and I haven't hunted it for about 5 years. but HEY, unless it's printed somewhere as a stat you wouldn't have a clue. Thanks again for the personnal attack, I thrive on that stuff. and my 238 lb shoulders hold up a bunch of that stuff. So rock on fellers.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Bambi, Yote, Wyoming. HEY! Thanks you guys I was about to give up on ya. I kinda thought the attack would be worse. My comments are mine. Ya ever had a place you be going to for 50 years that ya just can't get outa your mind? It's knida like the first girl ya kissed! or your first love! Monroe Mountain is still beautiful even though it's is older and kinda wore out. and I haven't hunted it for about 5 years. but HEY, unless it's printed somewhere as a stat you wouldn't have a clue. Thanks again for the personnal attack, I thrive on that stuff. and my 238 lb shoulders hold up a bunch of that stuff. So rock on fellers


.

Oldfudd, I have NEVER personally attacked you.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Bambi, Yote, Wyoming. HEY! Thanks you guys I was about to give up on ya. I kinda thought the attack would be worse. My comments are mine. Ya ever had a place you be going to for 50 years that ya just can't get outa your mind? It's knida like the first girl ya kissed! or your first love! Monroe Mountain is still beautiful even though it's is older and kinda wore out. and I haven't hunted it for about 5 years. but HEY, unless it's printed somewhere as a stat you wouldn't have a clue. Thanks again for the personnal attack, I thrive on that stuff. and my 238 lb shoulders hold up a bunch of that stuff. So rock on fellers.


I have no idea what you just said...all I know is that I am a hunter which means I go where the animals are...all I asked is why do you hunt there if the hunting sucks? So you answered that..."because Monroe is the first girl you kissed" :lol: 
Thank you for your response! I understand your position but would rather move on to happier hunting grounds...plus most of the mountains kind of look the same...made of granite...snow sometimes...a treeline...some scrub oak...some spruce...some fir...some pine...some sage


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Why don't we just introduce whitetail to the valleys? :mrgreen: :lol: :shock:   8) :twisted: Those things breed like jack rabbits. Bam problem solved. You can hunt and kill deer every year. No APR needed. :twisted: :lol: 8) :shock: :mrgreen: 








I'm serious. :shock:


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I'm just looking forward to breaking the state up into smaller general deer units...so we can start seeing a little more detailed management. Then if they want to experiment with Antler Restrictions on maybe a quarter of the units then so be it.
I think Antler Restrictions on an entire region is a waste of print in the proclamation...
I've seen antler restrictions work in Texas on whitetails, but that is a county-by-county basis and 95% private land...so kind of comparing apples and oranges, but it does work when things are managed *closely*.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I agree with the small units. And also hope this will provide an opportunity to apply various management methods. But fear its the end of general hunting so to speak.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

well it may be the end of general hunting as we know it in Utah, but it doesn't mean you won't get a tag every year...it just means that the tag you might get might be for a unit adjacent to Wendover or predominantly private land...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I have a feeling they will treat me like a elk hunter.

Make me wait for 15 to 20 yrs for a quality hunt and throw me a bone with 3 or 4 open units. Monroe being one of them. And let the herd go to a couple 1000 and blame it on habitat.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> I've seen antler restrictions work in Texas on whitetails, but that is a county-by-county basis and 95% private land...so kind of comparing apples and oranges, but it does work when things are managed *closely*.


Those places are more like high fence preserves, and they don't protect spikes or small bucks. They cull the spikes. Shoot 'em on sight. And they protect the biggest bucks in the herd. They save the biggest for the highest paying client. But if you guys wanna keep two points and have lots of them running around, just shoot the biggest bucks and leave the inferior bucks to do the breeding. And start saving up for a $100,000 permit.

Fishrmn


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen antler restrictions work in Texas on whitetails, but that is a county-by-county basis and 95% private land...so kind of comparing apples and oranges, but it does work when things are managed *closely*.
> ...


I'm talking about counties where the largest ranch is 1,000 acres and there's 50 head of cattle on it...not south Texas counties where the average ranch is 50,000 acres. And on the big ranches they don't let you shoot spikes...in fact the only buck they'll let a non-paying customer kill would be an 8 year old 120" 8 point. $10,000 gets you the 7 year old 200" 16 point.

The antler restrictions you are referring to are based on outdated, 15-20 year old biological thought.

regardless...antler restrictions do work, but on a smaller, more precise level...not on the current LE or general region scale whatsoever...


----------

