# Another Mule Deer Proposal



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

We've seen two proposals for changes to mule deer management. I believe both proposals have social merit but neither really deals with the issue that is at the root of hunter dissatisfaction. I further believe that there's no need for contention among deer hunters because regardless of our differences of opinion, the simple fact is that our deer herds are below population objectives throughout most of the state and on some units, alarmingly so. Common sense dictates that increasing deer population must be everyone's first priority.

If population gains is the measurement of an effective deer management plan, then I suggest that we don't need sweeping changes to the current plan. In 2004, the post drought statewide population was at 267,000 animals. By 2007, it was 318,500, representing a gain of 51,500 animals. In general, buck/doe ratios are at objectives.

The causes of underpopulation are well known. We can't do anything about the weather. But habitat, vehicle collisions that kill some 20,000 deer each year, harassment during the hardest winter months and birthing season...these important issues are already being addressed by the DWR, various conservation organizations and our fellow hunters.

What then remains for the rest of us is a direct question, and it isn't about hunting every year or killing trophy bucks or anything other than what we're willing to do to help bring populations to objective.

So, here's my proposal, simple and direct. Leave everything as is except for 3 changes:

1. Require harvest report within 60 days. Failure to report would result in forfeit of deer hunting privilege for the following year.

2. Redistribute tag allotments, reducing rifle tags by 5% and increasing archery tags by 5%.

Ready?

3. Eliminate all general season annual tags and replace them with bi-annual tags, reducing maximum harvest to one deer per tag holder every two years, (including DHs). While it's impossible to predict how much this might reduce harvest, it would certainly reduce it and more importantly, it would reduce the harvest of yearling (14-16 month old) two point bucks.

For every hunter who reports a harvest or fails to make a report, one tag becomes available in the following year's draw. The draw would still be an annual event, but would only be open to hunters who did not draw in the previous year either because they failed to draw or they were in the second year of their hunt.

So, there you go. Spare me the name calling, :wink: but I'm interested in what you think about this.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> 3. Eliminate all general season annual tags and replace them with bi-annual tags, reducing maximum harvest to one deer per tag holder every two years, (including DHs). While it's impossible to predict how much this might reduce harvest, it would certainly reduce it and more importantly, it would reduce the harvest of yearling (14-16 month old) two point bucks.


This would not be a dramatic change for the DH fellars as it is currently 2 out of 3; to change to 2 out of 4 in a 4-year program or 1 in 2 years in a two-year program could be a good move. I also agree with the idea that overall we are looking okay, we don't need a full overhaul like 1I has to get every year on his truck :mrgreen: :wink: What about this minor change; rather than only a biannual tag, but similar to dh get to fill a tag only every other year; that may change the attitude of those who simply shoot at the first thing with 5" antlers opening morning as they would not be able to hunt at all the following year. A side benefit of this is that the DWR collects the money for two year's worth of tags and therefore has more money upfront; considering the time value of money that could create some budget benefits for the DWR. I know your objection to that would be that it would no necessarily reduce the number of hunters in the field; I don't know that that is an actual problem though, is it?

Nice post Finn!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I could go for something like that but more so like was mentioned that it be more like the DH program and you could hunt every year but harvest every other or so many tags in a given amount of years. DH'rs would still get to hunt all weapons by doing their service as now. Those who don't want to do service get to choose their weapon and get a tag every other year. 

Down side is that the Trophy hunters would take the blame for this program and nay sayers would say that it's all about size when in reality it's about numbers. Other down side is that it would become much tougher to draw Antelope in Wyoming from the vast numbers of Utahns that couldn't stop themselves from harvesting that spiker on opening morning.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I would be willing to support something like this if and only if any bull hunting opportunities were improved across the state. Otherwise we lose opportunity and get next to nothing in return (I don't think a slight increase in quality is worth the loss). But Finn, I like the way you are thinking but there has to be more incentive.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow... something simple. :shock: 

I'm down as long as I get to hunt every year. I think it'll really help guys get into the mentality of I don't want kill something just to get meat on the ground the first day... however if I do harvest a deer in the first year, there is always over the counter elk for the second year so its not really a bad thing. 8)


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

getting the deer herds back should be every ones primary concern. I don't see where cutting tags back in some areas is going to help, there are some units that should be shut down for a few years to let the animals recover. on the buck to doe ratios we need to make sure we have enough mature bucks left over for breeding. a farmer doesn't save his smallest livestock over for breeding for a reason. and the way are deer herds have been managed in the past there are many units that don't have a healthy population of mature bucks this has lead to smaller non-trophy animals so working on genetics needs to be a priority also.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Sorry finn the frist 2 are get, but getting rid of GS is something that is a bad idea. That will drive people away from hunting. Does it help the herds maybe maybe not but it for sure will hurt the hunters.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Does it help the herds maybe maybe not but it for sure will hurt the hunters.


The only hunters that would be "hurt" would be rifle hunters who currently kill a buck every year. I dare say that in the majority of cases, (not all), those are hunters who are shooting any legal buck, i.e., yearlings. (Remember that just a year ago, those deer were fawns and considered critical to population growth.) In my opinion, there's not a lot of "hurt" in slowing those boys down. They can still choose to shoot a forkie, but not every year. And at least they can still hunt, again, if they choose.

Meantime, we currently have an unknown number of hunters who aren't able to hunt deer at all because they can't get a tag. The faster we build healthy populations, the better their chances are of drawing. So which is worse for hunters?

Not sayin' - just askin'.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

We can't harvest 70-85% of our yearling bucks and expect things to get better from year to year. We need to manage for a good age distribution of bucks in the population in two ways 1. restrictions and 2. reductions. We as hunters need to realize this concept. Hunters cannot continue to kill anything that has antlers and expect our buck deer population to increase. I'm not saying we all need to be trophy hunters. (Ok Gordy), But maybe we dont need to kill a buck every year. Is the success of the hunt measured by the bucks we kill or by the experiences?

The most important thing that we can do as hunters is to volunteer work on habitat projects. We should be suggesting habitat projects in areas where the deer population is low. We need to place more guzzlers out in the field. We should join groups to get these kind of projects done. We should demand audits for special groups and participate to actually see where this money is going that is raised from auctioning tags. SFW, MDF, RME etc have nothing to hide from the average joe hunters, but many have grown to hate them because of rumors we heard from someone else.


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Okay but what about the trophy hunters like SWbuckmaster that kills a great buck every year. I don't have the record scott has but I haven't killed anything smaller that a 3 pt in the last six years. So I have 3 bucks and 2 does in 6 years. I had an extra doe tag one year and cut my buck tag on a doe last year. I love my mule deer hunting and with the way our elk hunting is jacked up I don't want so many things restricted in all of our big game hunts. 

I am sure someone is going to suggest letting the youth hunt every year to keep them interested but it seems as though the youth are getting at the expense of all of the 20 and 30 something hunters out there. If they drop out they sure aren't going to be getting there kids involved.

Obviously the animal count is going up so lets get some habitat and highway grossing going and don't take away the one hunt that gives everyone in the state a chance at a big critter every year because we all know the general elk hunt doesn't give you that.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Okay but what about the trophy hunters like SWbuckmaster that kills a great buck every year. I don't have the record scott has but I haven't killed anything smaller that a 3 pt in the last six years. So I have 3 bucks and 2 does in 6 years. I had an extra doe tag one year and cut my buck tag on a doe last year. I love my mule deer hunting and with the way our elk hunting is jacked up I don't want so many things restricted in all of our big game hunts


.

It would cause problems for some people, but you cannot make everyone happy. The proposal needs to be the best for the majority.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I have a question that's not very clear to me. Are you talking about cuting tags in half(from 96k to 48k per year and then double the price of tags or are you talking about keeping the 96K per year but each person only hunting ever other year, are there even 182k people applying for general tags each year? How about doing the every other year thing with a cap 80k or so tags a year, with 2 rifle seasons to pick from( 20k each), the currant muzzy season(20k) and the statewide archery(20k) . Divide the four seasons to 20k each and sub divide the 60k rifle and muzzy tags between the 5 units. I believe that most of the younger deer are beeing killed by the overcrowding and being pushed to the less experienced hunters. By splitting the rifle hunt, less of this would be happening and a safer hunting experience would be had too.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

It reminds me of the Bible story where the two women argue over a baby and who the baby belongs to. The mediator says that they will cut the baby in two so each can have a half. The false mother agrees to settle it that way but the real mother knowing death to the baby decides to say that it is the other lady's baby so as to spare the babies life.................Those that truely care about the deer herds will agree to sacrafice a deer to an every other year or similar option. The greedy and selfish will choose otherwise. Who really cares about the deer?  

Just messing with all of those who are going to freak out because I am trying to take away their "Opportunities". Simmer down boys.  It does sound familiar though. ha ha


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Does it have to be so extreme to say 1 in 2 years?

Isn't 2 in 3 years (like the DH program) a better transition into a management plan like this to hopefuly have better hunter retention?

I don't know that the results for 1 in 2 would be that diffrent from 2 in 3. Both would get hunters in the mind set of "holding out" for a mature buck. 

Second, if populations got to "X" amount would it ever return to every year? I doubt it, like has been said once an area or tag alotment has been restricted you are not ever going back. I'm fine with doing something like this to help the "herd" but I know what kind of opposition there would be from the "horn porn" hunters to allow hunting every year, even if the herd could support it.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

What happens in year two when 30 percent of the GS hunters cant cut/buy tags. Where does the the lost revenue come from? Were not just talking about lost tag revenue either. 25-30,000 fewer hunters buying tags, bullets, hunting equipment, and such. All of these things have taxes on them that are revenue for other things including hunting/fishing. 

Also hunter retention: Who takes the 12 year olds hunting the second year? There are many that will take their sons I know. But, how many of those 30% will just stay home and not buy their youth a tag? You can't just worry about getting tags into the youths hands. Someone has to take them. There is a whole other group of 20-60 yr olds that we must retain in order to recruit the youth.

This just seems to me like a 25-30% cut in tags, and I will not support anything that cuts tag allotments. Once lost we will never get them back. One day it may be necessary but I do not think we are at that point yet. 

Simple on paper, complicated in unknowns and loss! 

I personally don't care for number three.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't like it. I thought we were tried to keep things simple. This seems to add confusion and more work for the DWR. Hunters are harvesting deer at around 34% for rifle hunters, that is on average one deer every 3 years already. What does this accomplish? Keep it as is with a higher percentage of tags going to archery/muzzy. We have enough bucks to breed the does, so any increase in buck:doe ratios is for the hunters, not the deer herds.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I don't like it. I thought we were tried to keep things simple. This seems to add confusion and more work for the DWR. Hunters are harvesting deer at around 34% for rifle hunters, that is on average one deer every 3 years already. What does this accomplish? Keep it as is with a higher percentage of tags going to archery/muzzy. We have enough bucks to breed the does, so any increase in buck:doe ratios is for the hunters, not the deer herds.


+1+1


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro has a point. :shock: 

I hope this "1 in 2 years" thing isn't because it drives a few absolutley nuts that there are some skilled hunters out there who just want to fill the freezer each year. They are a very small fraction of the hunting population. As are the guys who shoot "toads" year after year. Lets not base all management on curbing the few hunters who take deer year after year.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

I am for better and healthier deer herds. I am also for more primitive tags. I love the simplicity of the thought. WE DO NOT NEED A COMPLETE OVER HAUL. 
I don't see how killing fewer yearlings will help heard populations in a huge manor, but at the same time, I would like to see more bucks grow up a bit.
The same can be accomplished by ONE SIMPLE change, change the tag % between the weapons. I have heard the division say that would be an easy thing to do, and get it passed. Fewer rifle tags, and more primitive weapon tags. No loss of opportunity or revenue.

SIMPLICITY AT ITS FINEST!


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I aaa, aagga, agree with Pro, whew that was tough to type! Does anyone know the amount of applications that get the" Un" put in front of them. Most people I know already take one deer every other year or two. I think our winters play a much bigger role in herd numbers than hunters.

Why can't the DWR do something similar to what the. USFW does with waterfowl? They wait until after the birds have hatched, do their counts then adjust the limits and days from there. Couldn't the DWR do there counts in the spring then adjust their permits to each area, even close some areas if needed, course they would need to break the state down in to a bunch of smaller units, they could do this with elk to and possibly create more opportunity in more areas for mature bulls.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> I agree with *Pro*.


 *OOO* *\-\* *(())* *\-\* -/O\-

They do the counts in March normally already, and tag numbers are set at the RAC's/WB in early April, so why not have the application period AFTER the numbers are set? That way people would know what tag to apply for based on the numbers. I am still not sold on the need for micro-managing. The DWR already micro-manages the herds, the only difference is how they issue the tags, and micro-managing the hunters will NOT help the herd, but it WILL hurt families wanting to hunt 'traditional' areas TOGETHER.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

That's what I was getting at set the numbers and do the draw AFTER the counts have been done. I am all for families hunting together, and the DWR should keep them in mind while deciding permit numbers and season dates. At the same time I think what is best for the herd and getting their numbers up should be first priority. My real plan, although it would never happen would be, primitive weapons only, three point or better state wide. Do this for five years then take a look at how it improved the herds.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

As much as "re-distributing" tags from the rifle pool to muzzy and archery could help the buck to doe ratio and success rate situation I would not overlook the problem that it could cause in hunter retention. 

I currently hunt muzzy and rifle but I have many family members who would just stop hunting rather than drop $500-$1000 into a muzzy or archery setup and countless hours to become proficient with said weapon.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

My whole family( brother, dad uncles cousins,) and 90% of my friends are set up to hunt either way and most prefer archery. But you are right the people I know that don't archery hunt tell me they are not going to spend the money and time on a bow, and/or they just don't like the archery hunt. The latter I say they shoot the first legal buck and want it to be easy.

For the betterment of the deer I think people are going to have to sacrifice something,the hunter screaming me me me has not helped in the last twenty years, if some hunters quit so be it, I am more concerned about the deer and that is why I am in favor of micro units.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> For the betterment of the deer I think people are going to have to sacrifice something,


Greenhead, is what you want for the betterment of the heard or to increase buck to doe ratios and see bigger horns on the hill. I'm getting kind of tired of everyone throwing the "for the betterment of the herd" cliche at the end of every post when their proposals don't increase herd "numbers" but rather increase inches and take away from one hunter or another in order to do so.



> the hunter screaming me me me has not helped in the last twenty years


If you are reffering to the rifle hunter who hunts with the family every year and is thrilled to harvest any animal he can and probably does so 1 in three years or less (I think this mold fits the majority of deer hunters) then I would say he is rather silent and just takes these changes as they come and if it becomes to complicated or inconvenient then he hangs it up.

I hate to see any hunters discouraged from supporting a dieing American tradition. I personally would sacrifice something to encourage them to stay.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

No it has nothing to do with antlers or their size. Smaller units can be managed more effectively and primitive weapons leave more animals on the mountain to be counted next year. I don't care if someone shoots a fork horn or some hog, I want the over all numbers up. Reducing rifle permits and giving them to archery and muzzy guys will increase herd numbers and still give the same or better opportunity to hunt.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> No it has nothing to do with antlers or their size. Smaller units can be managed more effectively and primitive weapons leave more animals on the mountain to be counted next year. I don't care if someone shoots a fork horn or some hog, I want the over all numbers up. Reducing rifle permits and giving them to archery and muzzy guys will increase herd numbers and still give the same or better opportunity to hunt.


I agree with the primitive weapon issue, but I only see lost opportunity for families with micro-management.

Good ideas guys!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Greenhead 2 said:
> 
> 
> > No it has nothing to do with antlers or their size. Smaller units can be managed more effectively and primitive weapons leave more animals on the mountain to be counted next year. I don't care if someone shoots a fork horn or some hog, I want the over all numbers up. Reducing rifle permits and giving them to archery and muzzy guys will increase herd numbers and still give the same or better opportunity to hunt.
> ...


I can't believe you guys are on the same team??!! Nice discussion! I agree with everything quoted above; with a larger herd, there are more spikes for those who shoot the first thing they see and more hogs for those who are after the antlers assuming that there is not overpopulation for the habitat. I also have issue with micro-management; even with the 5 region system one area we hunted for years was split right down the middle between the NE and SE region; how do you even choose which half to go with?? Of course, that is something that just has to happen and would be exponentially worse with more units. Archery certainly has increased in popularity over recent years, certainly it is not for everyone, but gaining a lot more participation as has the DH program; I believe that to be a sign that there are a decent population of hunters who are willing to change weapons for the right benefits like longer season, statewide hunt, etc. As far as statistics go, someone mentioned 35% success in the rifle hunt; what is the success % for the SE region to draw a rifle tag? When these two are considered that may give us a better indication of the actual success rate of even the guy who shoots one nearly every year (meaning if the draw odds are 80% and he harvests a deer 5 out of 6 years or 83% of the time and only draws 80% of the time his actual success rate long term would be about 66%, regardless his long term success rate would definitely go down if one could only harvest 2 out of 3 years).

A valid concern was brought up about revenues to the DWR; that would certainly be a big consideration and would have to nearly guarantee similar revenues to the current budget; on that same note wouldn't the additional statistical feedback and monitoring increase expenses for the DWR (I realize that monitoring does occur, but it was insinuated that more was needed as well as the system to monitor hunter success could increase costs)?


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I just can't see where anything is a win win for everybody if you change weapons and keep or even increase the primitive permits family's still hunt together. By micro managing each area the can keep better counts, increase decrease or even close areas if needed. Pro why besides the family issue do you not like micro-units?

I think most would agree, shooting a two point is pretty easy. I could probably shoot three a day every day and never get off my ATV. Give these bucks some time to get away from mommy and the success rates will go down. This is why I like the 3pt or better, hunting with primitive weapons means your close, counting points and accidental shooting of smaller bucks should be non-existant.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> Pro why besides the family issue do you not like micro-units?


It doesn't accomplish anything. The ONLY way it would result in more bucks in the mix would be by reduction in harvest, which comes either through fewer tags (not a good option), or through moving tags to primitive weapon holders. Moving to more primitive hunts has NOTHING to do with micro-managing. In theory micro-managing would restrict the number of hunters in a given area, meaning you would FORCE more hunters into other areas. Then a year or two down the road you would be right back at square one and all that would be for certain is loss of opportunity for hunters to hunt 'traditional' areas. I grew up in the valley where the Southern/S Eastern/Central regions all meet. It took away lots of areas from the hunters in that area. My family had farm land that held good bucks in all three regions, but once the changes were put in place we could no longer hunt 12 mile on the opener, hunt on the river after school/work, and then hunt east of Fayette the second weekend. Now if you went to micro-managing taht would be magnified 20 times over. You would harvest the SAME number of deer, maybe even more because now you are FORCING hunters to areas with more deer which could very well INCREASE success rates, while making hunters hunt 'new'/ less preferred areas.

There are two ways to get more bucks available to hunt: 1)Reduce the number of bucks harvested each year through reduction in tags or moving more tags to primitive weapons. 2)Increasing the number of overall deer through habitat improvement/carrying capacity on winter range. Micro-managing addresses NEITHER issue.



> I like the 3pt or better, hunting with primitive weapons means your close, counting points and accidental shooting of smaller bucks should be non-existant.


More restrictions on hunters, which I do NOT like. Back when I started hunting in the early 80's there were several big bucks to pursue, not because of restrictions, but because of more deer were in the hills. Increase overall deer numbers and the number of big bucks WILL increase as well.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

First, I believe 99% of us want what is best for mule deer first on a biological basis. Micro management alone will not produce more or bigger bucks. The only way to produce more and bigger bucks is by managing for higher buck to doe ratios. To manage to higher ratios we must reduce opportunity. We can manage for higher buck ratios in the current regional format, but it would cost opportunity. Utah's deer management has produced growth rates comparable or better than all other mule deer states.

Micro-management will bring a few of the units which have lower than 15 bucks up to 15 bucks, while the units with 18+ bucks might just be reduced to 15. It is a wash overall, even a loss on the better units. There are currently enough bucks on every unit to sufficiently breed the doe population. Also, Utah has 5 regions, 10 ltd units and about 90-100 CWMUs. That is about 115 deer units in the State. I think the MicroManagement idea is only a feel good dream, unless people are willing to wait 2-50 years between tags on higher buck to doe ratio units. I agree with Pro, microunits with higher buck to doe ratios will only put easy 24"ers in the back of the truck and cause a lowered hunter recruitment and retention.

Also, why do so many people want more "primitive" weapons tags? The muzzleloader hunts have comparable success rates


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Also, why do so many people want more "primitive" weapons tags? The muzzleloader hunts have comparable success rates


I through in the muzzy folks because to just say more archery tags makes people dig their heels in the dirt. Move the hunt dates around, give the bulk of the 'primitive' tags to archers, overall success rates will go down, allowing for tag reduction to be unwarranted. I would be favor of what I believe the elk LE tags should be; 50% to rifle, 30% to archery, and 20% to muzzle loader. Overall success rates would go down 4-5% meaning a reduction of 6000-7000 fewer bucks killed each year w/o any loss of opportunity. Add that to the continued growth of the overall deer population, and we would have MORE deer and MORE older age bucks throughout Utah, all w/o reducing tags and restricting where hunters can hunt anymore than they already are.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

sweet


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I would be favor of what I believe the elk LE tags should be; 50% to rifle, 30% to archery, and 20% to muzzle loader.


So PRO, how many rifle hunters do you think this would just drive away from hunting v.s. how many go out, buy a bow, a hoochie mama, some deer scent and go find a good waterhole to set a tree cam and a tree stand by?

Whats funny to me is all this "primative weapons" talk only effects the buck to doe ratios and the success rate. Doesn't do a dang thing to herd growth. Whats funny is (I don't know exact numbers) but 70% of hunters are rifle hunters and the 30% who are not are going to dictate how often they can get a tag so to control "horns" not "population".

But as usual the minority screams the loudest. I'm just thinking our loud here guys, trying to think how my friends and family would react to such management.


----------



## JimmyPage (Aug 7, 2008)

Forget which weapons are better for herds, forget the traditions of family hunting, forget all that. Habitat is what is going to make or break the herds. If we continue to feel the need to build on winter ranges and build higher and higher until we can see Kolob - the deer herds will continue to suffer.

Let's see who the true sportsmen are - buy your tag - but only after you put your time in working on the habitat and rebuilding what's been lost. Once that has been fixed, then start working on managing the health and size of the herds.

Hunters will not be satisfied no matter what - so do what is in the best interest of the herds. Without the herds, then where will the hunters be in the fall?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I do recall archery tags selling out faster than rifle tags this year. Could it be because the ratio of hunters to tags are out of whack?

Sounds like a few less rifle and a few more archery tags are in order.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

What do you think of these season dates on a proposal?

Archery same season date 35% of tags

Disabled Hunters season date Sept 13th to 23th 

ML same season 20% 7 day hunt.

1st Rifle Oct 4th combined with Anybull and spike elk 25% of tags

2nd Rifle Oct 20th 9 day hunt 2% of tags


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Whats funny to me is all this "primative weapons" talk only effects the buck to doe ratios and the success rate. Doesn't do a dang thing to herd growth. Whats funny is (I don't know exact numbers) but 70% of hunters are rifle hunters and the 30% who are not are going to dictate how often they can get a tag so to control "horns" not "population".
> 
> *But as usual the minority screams the loudest.* I'm just thinking our loud here guys, trying to think how my friends and family would react to such management.


I disagree strongly on this assertion. What group is complaining the most about 'quality', is it the archers or the rifle guys? I have heard very few archers complaining about 'quality', in fact I can't think of a single archer complaining about too many bucks being killed. It is the vocal MINORITY of *RIFLE* hunters demanding fewer bucks be killed each fall. So, we have two choices, reduce tags or switch tag allotments a bit to reduce harvest numbers.

I do NOT believe we 'need' to reduce the number of bucks killed, but the most VOCAL crowd is DEMANDING a reduction in bucks killed.

FYI, if you make 'primitive' weapon seasons more attractive, MORE 'rifle' hunters will gladly swap weapons. Just look at the surrounding states, and how archery hunting is getting more 'popular' in Utah as rifle tags get harder to obtain.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I do recall archery tags selling out faster than rifle tags this year. Could it be because the ratio of hunters to tags are out of whack?
> 
> Sounds like a few less rifle and a few more archery tags are in order.


And Tree you may be right that an adjustment needs to be made. To the extent that has been proposed I doubt.



> Disabled Hunters season date Sept 13th to 23th 5% of tags


Coyote I think it is great that we have a disabled program. Are you telling me 1 in 20 hunters are disabled?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Whats funny to me is all this "primitive weapons" talk only effects the buck to doe ratios and the success rate. Doesn't do a dang thing to herd growth.


Help me, I may have totally misunderstood, but there is a strong connection between success rate and herd growth. If the success rate is lower, there are more breeding deer and therefore larger herd? Or, is your assertion that there is enough bucks to breed all does and therefore not effected at all? Help me understand; what will help herd growth from a hunting perspective (nothing about winter range/habitat)?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote I think it is great that we have a disabled program. Are you telling me 1 in 20 hunters are disabled?


I meant to take that part out. The tags would come from the rifle tag pool


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> I have heard very few archers complaining about 'quality', in fact I can't think of a single archer complaining about too many bucks being killed. It is the vocal MINORITY of RIFLE hunters demanding fewer bucks be killed each fall.


Well if that is really the case Pro, hopefully the deer management committee will tell this "rifle minority" to go sit on there thumbs and spin.

I am not real interested in doing anything but growing the herds (even if it is at a 15/100 buck/doe ratio). I hunt both the Northern and Southern units on public land and have seen great bucks every year for years. Why would I want to reduce how often I go do this with my "rifle hunting family". Already we are on an every other year plan for Southern as they do not join me on the off years up North on the muzzy hunt.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> they do not join me on the off years up North on the muzzy hunt.


Maybe you should get them interesting in going muzzy hunting. They might enjoy it


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> Or, is your assertion that there is enough bucks to breed all does and therefore not effected at all? Help me understand; what will help herd growth from a hunting perspective (nothing about winter range/habitat)?


Huge29 I'm not going to even pretend I'm the expert on this but in reading this and the old DWR forum for almost three years it seems that others with biological backgrounds on both sides of the opportunity vs. quality argument have agreed that a 15/100 buck/doe ratio will breed/grow the herd as effective as a 30/100 ratio. Some have even argued that the lower buck ratio gives more room for does that as we all know, are the one who have the fawns.

PRO, Wyo2Ut, Tree, Finn, Yote..... Where are all you guys.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

> they do not join me on the off years up North on the muzzy hunt.
> 
> Maybe you should get them interesting in going muzzy hunting. They might enjoy it
> [quote:gk0emv1i]they do not join me on the off years up North on the muzzy hunt.


Maybe you should get them interesting in going muzzy hunting. They might enjoy it 
[/quote:gk0emv1i]

Coyote, if you called me tomorrow and said hey do you want to go golf I would say "sure". I get out golfing once or twice a year and love it when I do.

If you said "by the way, you need to buy your own set of $500 clubs and break them in driving or hitting 300 balls before you can use them on this course" I might say, I'll catch you next time.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Huge, the data shows that every unit in Utah has enough bucks post season to sufficiently breed the doe population. Carrying more bucks on most units is just to appease hunters, or at least one fraction of hunters.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

So packout are you saying everything is just peachy???


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Huge29 I'm not going to even pretend I'm the expert on this but in reading this and the old DWR forum for almost three years it seems that others with biological backgrounds on both sides of the opportunity vs. quality argument have agreed that a 15/100 buck/doe ratio will breed/grow the herd as effective as a 30/100 ratio. Some have even argued that the lower buck ratio gives more room for does that as we all know, are the one who have the fawns.
> 
> PRO, Wyo2Ut, Tree, Finn, Yote..... Where are all you guys.


Correct. Breeding doesn't seem to be a significant problem anywhere in the state. Even a ratio of less than 15/100 can be sufficient. At the same time, I haven't seen any data that addresses young bucks which are counted in the ratio.

Lowest buck/doe ratio in the state is on the Monroe with 10.7/100 (3 year average). I wonder what a .7 buck looks like? Anyway, the 2nd lowest rato is on the Oquirrh/Stansbury with 11.4/100. All else being equal, these are sufficient numbers to cover every doe on these units.

Highest ratio is the Paunsaugunt with 51.1 followed by Morgan/South Rich with 50.8, well over the objectives and way more than is necessary.


----------



## JimmyPage (Aug 7, 2008)

Okay - so we are in agreement that breeding isn't the issue of the perceived decline of quality deer herds throughout the state. What is? I'm still sticking with habitat. Is there any proposal out there from any conservation group or even DWR to fix the issue with habitat? If not - then everything else is a moot point and the tail continues to chase the dog.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Greenhead- Peachy? I don't know, I guess it depends on which side of the fence one wants to live on. What is peachy? In the 1970s biologists from around the West met and discussed the "downward trend" of mule deer populations. Were the 1970s peachy?

It is my opinion that the most important issue affecting the deer herd has to do with mother nature. We can improve habitat, but we can't make it rain to get the improvements to take. We can feed some deer in harsh winters, but we can't feed more than a fraction. We can limit the number of bucks killed, but then the overage number of bucks are eating the very habitat the doe and fawn herd needs to live through the winter. The Colorado Gunnison Basin could grow the best bucks, but one winter wiped out what they had saved up over the past 8 years.

Our habitat is not peachy, but it can be improving. Our roadkill rate is not peachy, but it can be addressed. I think that Utah deer hunting is not nearly as bad as some think it is.


----------



## jhunter (Dec 14, 2007)

I think we can solve this. This weekend manti bring your own beer and we will *ALL* drink till the problem is solved. :mrgreen: I bow hunt and LOVE what I see year after year, but I am all for improvement.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

JimmyPage said:


> Okay - so we are in agreement that breeding isn't the issue of the perceived decline of quality deer herds throughout the state. What is? I'm still sticking with habitat. Is there any proposal out there from any conservation group or even DWR to fix the issue with habitat? If not - then everything else is a moot point and the tail continues to chase the dog.


SFW/UBA/MDF/RMEF and a few other conservation groups are helping rehab/restore habitat along with building under/over passes on freeways/roads.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> > Or, is your assertion that there is enough bucks to breed all does and therefore not effected at all? Help me understand; what will help herd growth from a hunting perspective (nothing about winter range/habitat)?
> 
> 
> Huge29 I'm not going to even pretend I'm the expert on this but in reading this and the old DWR forum for almost three years it seems that others with biological backgrounds on both sides of the opportunity vs. quality argument have agreed that a 15/100 buck/doe ratio will breed/grow the herd as effective as a 30/100 ratio. Some have even argued that the lower buck ratio gives more room for does that as we all know, are the one who have the fawns.


I follow you; not familiar with that, but I can't disagree. So, this means that as long as there are 10 or so bucks for every 100 does all theoretically get bred and therefore the only other issue is habitat (specifically winter range) and roadkill? That seems too simplistic, but sounds reasonable for the most part. Habitat certainly is significantly different from the "good ole days" and there certainly are more cars and highways...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I follow you; not familiar with that, but I can't disagree. So, this means that as long as there are 10 or so bucks for every 100 does all theoretically get bred and therefore the only other issue is habitat (specifically winter range) and roadkill? That seems too simplistic, but sounds reasonable for the most part. Habitat certainly is significantly different from the "good ole days" and there certainly are more cars and highways...


Most 'experts' say 7 bucks per 100 does is plenty to get the does bred, anything over that is for the hunters. The number of bucks killed each fall has little/NO impact on overall deer population numbers. Road kill accounts for 20,000+ deer each year in Utah, with most being does/fawns which DOES affect overall deer population numbers. Then when you look at the number of deer that die on winter range the number is significant as well. This last winter we had a few areas in the northern part of Utah that experienced 70-80% fawn loss, meaning recruitment for this year is basically zero. The affects of that will be felt 5+ years from now. One doe being killed on a road or from winter kill has short and long term effects. A doe has an average 3-4 fawns in it's lifetime, a buck killed by a hunter has no fawns and another buck can still breed the does. The overall herd objectives are based on winter range carrying capacity which means HABITAT. Reduce winter kill and road kill, along with Mother Nature cooperating WILL result in population growth. Funny thing is, many people point to Colorado as an example of how to 'better' manage deer herds, yet Utah's deer herd has grown at a *faster* rate than Colorado's deer herd since 2000 when they went to micro-managing. Yes they kill bigger bucks, but at what expense? They have double the number of deer but issue the same number of tags. So, we can continue to have the steady increase in deer numbers with buck:doe ratios at/above objectives with decent opportunity, or we can follow Colorado and have SLOWER growth and cut opportunity in half. Which do you think is the 'wise' choice?


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout I'm with ya on mother nature being or greatest benefit or threat. Just a few short years back everyone was doing back flips over all the young bucks and fawns they had been seeing. The grass was taller than the elk, water was everywhere ect...

Jump forward a year or two, we had a hard winter, everything froze solid over night. Then spring and summer were extremely dry and the herds declined. Its a never ending circle.

Improving winter habitat is the only real way that we can retain and build the herd numbers. I think for the most part things are peachy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> Improving winter habitat is the only real way that we can retain and build the herd numbers. I think for the most part things are peachy.


We agree AGAIN! This is scary stuff. :mrgreen:

At the risk of ending our new found kinship, what is the biggest difference in Utah habitat projects and ALL the other western states? The answer is conservation programs funding in large part by conservation tags! Utah spend more, by far, than any other state on habitat/road tunnels/bridges. Utah is leading the way on habitat improvements/restorations and you can thank the conservation groups for it!


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Pro, I'll agree that much with you, its the other BS like locking up public land that surrounds a buddies CWMU, or trying to take away statewide archery, or their idea of elk management or, the "or's" could go on forever here, most recently saying trophy hunting was "real hunting".


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dang, Bart, you'd make a fine missionary! :lol: 

I think just a little credit is due to the BLM, the USFS, generations of ranchers and private landowners, numerous other individuals and last but not least, the folks at the DWR.

But what do I know - I'm a heathen.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> The answer is conservation programs funding in large *part* by conservation tags!


gh2 and finnegan, notice how I said in PART not all. :roll: Try and keep up. :wink:


----------



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

Here's an idea, lets give everyone unlimited tags, open the whole state, and stop hunting cougars all together. In ten years there wont be any more deer to worry about and we can move on with our lives.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Here's an idea, lets give everyone unlimited tags, open the whole state, and stop hunting cougars all together. In ten years there wont be any more deer to worry about and we can move on with our lives.


Man are you feeling edgey this morning? You need a bigger cup-o-joe.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finally!!! A thread discussing a proposed mule deer management plan that hasn't/won't degrade into a name-calling, (except for the "missionary" part), personal, ready to be shut down, shouting match that I feel comfortable responding to! Thanks folks!

I like the idea of not drastically changing the system at this point until we have solid data via the mandatory reporting aspect. Everybody would like to think they know what will or should happen as a result of many different changes, but until we get solid data about what is actually happening now, we really don't know where to go from here. A detailed honest harvest/non-harvest report from EVERY permit holder (Antlerless also) could confirm/dispel our concerns about how many hunters are hunting where and when, how many animals are killed and recovered, how many animals are hit and not recovered, their ages, how many animals are seen, etc. And if this report form and instructions are mailed out with the permit, it shouldn't be too hard to keep a daily log so that when our season ends, all we have to do is mail it/email back.

At this point, rather than a two year-one tag general season plan, I too would like to see a three year-two tag GS plan. That plan allows for annual family deer camps because not everyone in camp is going to tip one over in each of the first two years. And it allows both meat/recreation hunters and trophy hunters some flexibility without locking them into a five year no escape plan as some have proposed. And it doesn't cut their hunting opportunities in half as the two year-one tag plan can do.

On another note, since habitat (winter) is key to herd growth, I'm considering becoming a Dedicated Hunter in addition to increasing my donation to DWR via my applications. That way, I'll be able to have some hands-on involvement without changing my bowhunting time. I think we ought to expand the program to include more people. Just a thought!



A 5% reallocation of tags from rifle to archery will also be doable because it isn't too drastic, but will encourage a shift to more opportunity, smaller harvest.

I don't think we're ready yet for micro-managing because we don't have the info needed to do it well. That's where the mandatory reporting comes in. We may, indeed, find that it isn't in the herds' or our best interests to do it at all.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Nice post Elkie, but I don't believe this statement is accurate; I am fairly certain that all of the app fee goes to the company in Fallon, NV that administers the draw:


elkfromabove said:


> On another note, since habitat (winter) is key to herd growth, I'm considering becoming a Dedicated Hunter in addition to *increasing my donation to DWR via my applications.* That way, I'll be able to have some hands-on involvement without changing my bowhunting time. I think we ought to expand the program to include more people. Just a thought!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

True, but I think the fees for DH are higher than normal tag fees, so that might be one way.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

It's true that the application fee itself goes to Fallon, but there's also a place on the application for donations to DWR in addition to the application fee and that's the donation I was talking about. Sorry for the miscommunication!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> It's true that the application fee itself goes to Fallon, but there's also a place on the application for donations to DWR in addition to the application fee and that's the donation I was talking about. Sorry for the miscommunication!


Oh, I see now, said the blind man :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> I like the idea of not drastically changing the system at this point until we have solid data via the mandatory reporting aspect. Everybody would like to think they know what will or should happen as a result of many different changes, but until we get solid data about what is actually happening now, we really don't know where to go from here. A detailed honest harvest/non-harvest report from EVERY permit holder (Antlerless also) could confirm/dispel our concerns about how many hunters are hunting where and when, how many animals are killed and recovered, how many animals are hit and not recovered, their ages, how many animals are seen, etc. And if this report form and instructions are mailed out with the permit, it shouldn't be too hard to keep a daily log so that when our season ends, all we have to do is mail it/email back.


The DWR has gotten with UDOT and they are recording when/where/sex of deer hit on high road kill roads. The estimate is 20,000+ deer a year die on the roads. Just curious, how are you going to get "how many animals are hit and not recovered" from rifle hunters lobbing 500 yard+ shots? :shock:



> At this point, rather than a two year-one tag general season plan, I too would like to see a three year-two tag GS plan. That plan allows for annual family deer camps because not everyone in camp is going to tip one over in each of the first two years. And it allows both meat/recreation hunters and trophy hunters some flexibility without locking them into a five year no escape plan as some have proposed. And it doesn't cut their hunting opportunities in half as the two year-one tag plan can do.


I still don't get the 'need' for this. Hunters are killing ONE deer every THREE years on average, so allowing 2 in 3 years accomplishes what?



> On another note, since habitat (winter) is key to herd growth, I'm considering becoming a Dedicated Hunter in addition to increasing my donation to DWR via my applications. That way, I'll be able to have some hands-on involvement without changing my bowhunting time. I think we ought to expand the program to include more people. Just a thought!


Why do you have to be in the Dedicated Hunter program to have some hands-on involvement? I do over 100 hours a year and I have NEVER been in the DH program. If you want to help our herds, just do it! Just a thought. :wink:



> A 5% reallocation of tags from rifle to archery will also be doable because it isn't too drastic, but will encourage a shift to more opportunity, smaller harvest.


5% should be the minimum shift in tag allotment.



> I don't think we're ready yet for micro-managing because we don't have the info needed to do it well. That's where the mandatory reporting comes in. We may, indeed, find that it isn't in the herds' or our best interests to do it at all.


I think we already have enough information to show it is unwarranted and will take opportunity away from hunters.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

3-point or better statewide. Problem solved. 

-If anyone poaches a 2-point they get their nuts chopped off. 

-If a buck is still a 2-point when he's 3 1/2 years old, chop off his nuts.



If we don't limit the number of yearlings shot then nothing is going to change. Yes its 35% success statewide, but that number is definitely skewed toward hunters that shoot young bucks.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Sure, but that would mean more older bucks, right? 

To me, It's either more deer or less harvest. So what will it be? Antler restriction could reduce harvest, but so could a bi-annual harvest.

What about integrating cow elk tags into deer tags to reduce pressure? Make a buck/cow combo tag and take it out of the general antlerless draw?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > I like the idea of not drastically changing the system at this point until we have solid data via the mandatory reporting aspect. Everybody would like to think they know what will or should happen as a result of many different changes, but until we get solid data about what is actually happening now, we really don't know where to go from here. A detailed honest harvest/non-harvest report from EVERY permit holder (Antlerless also) could confirm/dispel our concerns about how many hunters are hunting where and when, how many animals are killed and recovered, how many animals are hit and not recovered, their ages, how many animals are seen, etc. And if this report form and instructions are mailed out with the permit, it shouldn't be too hard to keep a daily log so that when our season ends, all we have to do is mail it/email back.
> ...


Why do you have to be in the Dedicated Hunter program to have some hands-on involvement? I do over 100 hours a year and I have NEVER been in the DH program. If you want to help our herds, just do it! Just a thought. :wink:

You've got 100 hours because you belong to several organizations that do that sort of thing, but there's too much politics, rivalry, backpatting and biasness for me, and it's near impossible to get any worthwhile thing done alone. The DH program eliminates most of those (perceived) negatives and allows me to work with others.



> A 5% reallocation of tags from rifle to archery will also be doable because it isn't too drastic, but will encourage a shift to more opportunity, smaller harvest.


5% should be the minimum shift in tag allotment.

Again, perception and palatability



> I don't think we're ready yet for micro-managing because we don't have the info needed to do it well. That's where the mandatory reporting comes in. We may, indeed, find that it isn't in the herds' or our best interests to do it at all.


I think we already have enough information to show it is unwarranted and will take opportunity away from hunters.[/quote:1q3sgcxs]

And, again, perception and palatability. You (and I) may very well be right, but when others participate in the data gathering, then the solution comes from THEIR data and becomes THEIR solution as well.

And, who knows, the data may be surprising to all of us.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm just happy that between the two of you quoting and quoting each other I got to read the last two pages over and over and over.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

GH2, Touche! I'll avoid most of that in my future posts, but I obviously can't speak for PRO.

Lee


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> GH2, Touche! I'll avoid most of that in my future posts, but I obviously can't speak for PRO.
> 
> Lee


Nor can anyone else. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > GH2, Touche! I'll avoid most of that in my future posts, but I obviously can't speak for PRO.
> ...


Pipe down, or I'll drop you off in Sigurd next time through! The only reason gh2 doesn't quote is because he doesn't know how to do it.  :wink:


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > elkfromabove said:
> ...


No its that I believe most can remember what they just read in the post above this one.

We have enough city people trying to change the country into the city, we don't need anymore dropped off!!! You can quote this all you like.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> We have enough city people trying to change the country into the city, we don't need anymore dropped off!!! You can quote this all you like.


First, tree is NOT city folk. I dare say he is MORE country than you are. And, I KNOW that I am!8) Second, thanks greenhead for the green light to quote this. :lol: I would have never quoted again if you hadn't given the go ahead. :wink:


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Better yet, you drop him off here and I will buy the house right next door to yours. The hillbilly mafia will be there nightly pickin guitars drinking beer and turning the desperate housewives of the neighborhood into strippers! All four dogs half a dozen horses and I'll buy two pea****s.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> Better yet, you drop him off here and I will buy the house right next door to yours. The hillbilly mafia will be there nightly pickin guitars drinking beer and turning the desperate housewives of the neighborhood into strippers! All four dogs half a dozen horses and I'll buy two pea****s.


I could go for that! *OOO* As long as NONE of the horses are 'city' horses (aka paints!) :shock:


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Oh there are a few paints, I'll buy a few frame overo's just to color it up some more. 

City horses?? Keep that up and I'll buy a oxidized firebird, drill out the catalytic converter and pretend to be building a race car and rev the motor all day.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh no Chris, I remember us getting a little overboard on the imaginary 'what ifs' a few years back. :wink: 

But I'm open to moving to Sigurd and I loves to pick me my guitar. My fingers are still sore from last weekend.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I just woke up, remind me "what ifs" are you talking about? We have gone overboard a lot in the last few years haha.

I played a bunch this last weekend too, getting ready for this weekend. Strumming around the campfire after a good dinner and a beer or two that just makes the hunt for me.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Something about a chain smoking secretary......


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I still don't remember??? Sounds like a good topic.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

and night hunting.....and drinking natural light.....


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

What about those tinfoil Raton Quesadillas ? You can catch a chipmuck with peanuts. 

You also need sour cream
pico de Gallo
package shredded Monterey Jack cheese
package shredded Cheddar cheese 
bacon bits
2 green bell peppers, chopped 
2 red bell peppers, chopped 
packet fajita seasoning


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

You have a memory like an elephant. I don't remember but now I'm hungry and thirsty


----------

