# Reasons for 2012 regulations



## flyfitch (Sep 22, 2007)

Stumbled across this article in the Tribune. Please read it. It shed some light and opened my eyes to the reasoning behind the new regulations. These two paragraphs really stood out for me.

"That means hunters may see more bucks, according to Anis Aoude, DWR's big-game coordinator. "But it won't help the population overall," he said."

"Dennis Austin, a retired 30-year DWR biologist and author of Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners , said the current system does indeed give special-interest groups a lot of power."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50889 ... csp?page=1


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I see the article as nothing more than advertising for the UWC. I did think the article was fairly balanced with responses from both sides who oppose and support the boards decision. We can paraphrase all day long when it comes to getting "our" point across.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> "There isn't one anti-hunting group out there that could come up with a way to eliminate 13,000 permits like SFW just did," Hansen said.


 :O•-: 8)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Reasons for 2012 regulations?????
How about these? Strait from the DWR!

Quote
"Mule deer numbers are declining across the West, and the 2010 deer hunt was particularly
difficult for many Utah hunters. Poor weather and a shorter hunt contributed to lower success, and
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) heard about the lack of deer from frustrated
sportsmen."

see full article

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/fact_sheet ... g_deer.pdf

Quote
"Biologists estimate the total number of deer in Utah at more than 290,000 animals. While many of Utah's deer herds are doing well, biologists are concerned about the number of fawns per 100 does, and the number of bucks per 100 does, they've seen in certain parts of the state."

see full article

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... rmits.html

Quote

"The boundaries for the 30 hunting units mirror the boundaries for management areas the Division of Wildlife Resources set up decades ago. The DWR split the state into management areas to help biologists gather biological data about the wildlife in each area."

see full articale

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -2012.html


----------



## flyfitch (Sep 22, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I see the article as nothing more than advertising for the UWC. I did think the article was fairly balanced with responses from both sides who oppose and support the boards decision. We can paraphrase all day long when it comes to getting "our" point across.


Sounds like it is coming from a member of one of those special interest groups.

My thought is the DWR and other Utah government officials should care a little about its own citizens and provide them with all of the tags that are being sold to the "highest bidder". Screw all of the tags being bought at expos and conventions and let the residents of Utah use those tags to hunt in their own state, rather than forcing them to hunt elsewhere. I know you will tell me about how much money they provide for the DWR, but there are many other sources of finance that the government could use to help the DWR.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Goofy, the article also failed to mention some of the past history too. Like there have been groups trying to get smaller sub-units since at least the late 80s. This is no new thing, SFW is just the last group to try and get it changed. After the deer herd crash of 93 and they went to pick your weapon, which did not help. The 94 harvest was really bad and a lot of people complained. So they went to the draw and cut tags. People seemed to be ok with it for a while and things seemed to get a little better but after 10 years, it seems the buck to hunter ratio has really started to slip. This is something nobody really is talking about but as herds decline while the same amout of hunters are killing the same harvest % there is becoming less bucks per hunter in the field, which results in less bucks beeing seen. I look at the buck to doe ratio and the buck to hunter ratio the same, they should be on the same curve when looking at a chart. As each one of them goes up or down, then the permits should go up or down as well. We think that sparing more bucks won't grow the herd bigger but it's possible the herd could be worse off if more bucks are removed to the point of less does being bred. Also, what about all the older dry does in the herd that are taking up habitat and do not produce a fawn? What is being done about them?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

flyfitch said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > I see the article as nothing more than advertising for the UWC. I did think the article was fairly balanced with responses from both sides who oppose and support the boards decision. We can paraphrase all day long when it comes to getting "our" point across.
> ...


Fly, the only group I'm a member (except SCI, because of me entering my ram in their record book) of is the UWC because I really hope they do or can find a way to produce more monies and resorces for the DWR.


----------



## flyfitch (Sep 22, 2007)

Sorry to get so upset. I feel frustrated because I feel the "officials" aren't addressing the real issues surrounding the deer herd #s. And that is habitat. I know that not much can be done to stop human intrusion into wildlife habitat, because we all need a place to live. My problem is the habitat that is being ruled by the elk population. It is great that the elk are thriving in Utah, but it is at the cost of smaller deer herds. Think about it. There is only so much room in the wilderness for so many animals. As one species increases, the other will naturally decrease.
I am not a fan of Karpowitz's spike only elk deal. It has done a great job at increasing the elk herd size throughout the state, but the herd is now too large. We need to switch to a 4-point or better elk season like Colorado for a while and see what effect that will have. I think it will greatly increase the deer herd and get the elk herd to a better manageable size. Karpowitz has said that this will not happen, and the spike only units will stay forever.
I know other arguments are that deer and elk do not forage on the same source so the elk therefore are not the problem, but I totally disagree. While deer are considered browsers, they also consume grasses, and while elk are considered grazers, they still consume brush and shrubs.
When we better manage the elk herd, the deer herd will recover. Until then, we will continue to see a drop in deer tags for hunters.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

flyfitch,,
I agree with you on the elk herd theory,
I believe the "elk factor" is taking a bigger toll on deer than most biologist think.

And Ridge , your right,,, I was part of the group 10 years ago that wanted an option 2
type management back then.
I also think that in 2005 when ONLY 22,520 bucks were harvested the alarm bells should 
have rang loud and clear...........

I sometimes feel like that needed changes in hunting management take TOO long to be
implemented. Why does it take til 2012 to do what should have been done in 2006?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Reasons for 2012 regulations?????

1. To remove the average hunter from the field of hunting and replace with high dollar hunters.
2. To turn every general hunt unit into a high fence premium LE unit.
3. To be able to charge more for the new tagges.
4. To make it easy to hunt a 32" buck as it is to hunt a Doe.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Reasons for 2012 regulations?????
> 
> 1. To remove the average hunter from the field of hunting and replace with high dollar hunters.
> 2. To turn every general hunt unit into a high fence premium LE unit.
> ...


Right on Hunt!

These guys talk as if we really do have a mule deer problem but none of them can give a good scientific reason for taking so many tags away from hunters and totally changing deer hunting as we know it. All I hear on these forums are speculation and zero facts...

Even the DWR admits this new direction will DO NOTHING to increase our deer herds.

Goofy, why would the DWR admit this and why are we changing if the new program does nothing for our mule deer populations?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

JHas,
In 1983 there were 82, 552 deer harvested....
We could hunt all 3 deer seasons and harvest 2 buck annualy.

Quote from the deer management plan..
"Following several years of drought and an unusually hard winter in 1992-1993, it was evident
that Utah's deer herd could no longer sustain unlimited hunting opportunity, and in 1994, buck
deer permits were capped for the first time. A total of 97,000 general season buck permits,
divided into five hunting regions, have been available each year since 1994."

In 2005 there were 19,278 TOTAL deer harvested in Utah, this included antlerless & LE.

After the 2010 season, The DWR was flooded with 1000's of complaints about
the failing deer herds........Leading to news letters like this one...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/fact_sheet ... g_deer.pdf

From the 2011 rule book....
NOTE: The Oquirrh-Stansbury; Monroe;
Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits; and South
Slope, Vernal hunting units are only open
Oct. 22 to Oct. 26.

Shortened hunt DO NOT WORK!
The only way to fix these units with almost critical low buck to doe 
ratios is to MANAGE HUNTING pressure......

And to this unit like La Sal with critical low fawn survival and guess what?

Utah has a mule deer problem


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I didn't know there was a UTAH wildlife cooperative. This Bart guy must have started an organization very similar to the UNITED wildlife cooperative.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Yep, since 1993, ever year, we have had 110,000 less hunters on the mountain. Yet the health of the mule deer population has not exploded, as some said it would. By the reasoning that some are using, we should have bucks around every corner, because we reduced tagges by 60%. For 18 years this has been going on and now its "we got to cut more".

For 18 years we have lived with LE units. Lots of bucks for a very few. We were told that more tagges would be issued as the numbers went up, but guess what. That is not going to happen. 

My prediction is, in 6 years the herd will have an up swing. Not because of the 2012 circus, but because the fruits of what has been done in the last couple of years including the major fires. I also predict the tagges that we are loosing this year and next will be gone for ever.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JHas said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Reasons for 2012 regulations?????
> ...


JHas and huntoholic, think of it this way. If someone is bleeding really bad, you can put pressure on the wound to stop the bleeding but keeping that pressure on, will do nothing to give the person a transplant and replace the lost blood. The WB and DWR are just trying to stop the bleeding right now. There are hundreds of habitat projects going on right now costing millions of dollars but it will take years to see the results. Hope this makes sense.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> I didn't know there was a UTAH wildlife cooperative. This Bart guy must have started an organization very similar to the UNITED wildlife cooperative.


I am this "Bart guy". There was a facebook page that I and others set up more than a year ago to give people a place to learn and educate themselves and others on wildlife related issues. That is all it was, and once The United Wildlife Cooperative was founded we did away with the facebook page. You could say we planted the seed, and the guys running United Wildlife Cooperative have weeded the garden, watered it, and are tending to it getting it ready for harvest.. 8)

What I garner from the data posted by goofy, and by MANY long talks with biologists and hunters, as well as reading dozens of research reports, is that reducing the number of buck deer permits does NOT help grow more deer. I am wondering if goofy or any other advocate of micro-managing HUNTERS by reducing buck deer permits can explain why since Colorado did this their deer herd has DECLINED? Same goes for Nevada. Oddly, it is these two states that the supporters of micro-managing HUNTERS cite as examples of what we should be doing here. This is like looking to North Korea when trying to build the economy.......

For that matter, we can look at Utah for evidence that reduced BUCK permits does NOT equate with more deer. using the data goofy posted you can clearly see, after a reduction of 60% did NOT result in the desired increase of deer numbers. So the answer......reduce permits more. Do these people take instruction from Obama? After all, Obama gave us the 'stimulus package' of $800 BILLION. And the response to this not 'stimulating' the economy, talk about doing even more 'stimulus'. The parallels are uncanny. We reduced buck permits, and that didn't work, so the solution is to reduce MORE permits. Pure insanity!

Our education system has failed us, far too many people buy into the central planning concept. That is where people think only a select few are capable of making 'wise' decisions, therefore those select few should be charged with taking care of the rest of us. In this issue, according to muley73, goofy, ridgetop, and others, the masses aren't capable of being able to decide where to hunt, so the select few drew up 30 'general season' boundaries, plus the numerous limited entry units, to 'better' distribute the hunters. They actually believe 7 people on a Board are better able than you/I of knowing how many hunters should be in a given drainage, even though it is extremely likely NONE of the 7 have ever set foot on your/my hunting area(s). Brilliant!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What I garner from the data posted by goofy, and by MANY long talks with biologists and hunters, as well as reading dozens of research reports, is that reducing the number of buck deer permits does NOT help grow more deer. I am wondering if goofy or any other advocate of micro-managing HUNTERS by reducing buck deer permits can explain why since Colorado did this their deer herd has DECLINED? Same goes for Nevada. Oddly, it is these two states that the supporters of micro-managing HUNTERS cite as examples of what we should be doing here. This is like looking to North Korea when trying to build the economy.......
> I can only imagine how bad things could be in those two states if it was unlimited tags for the last 10 years.
> 
> Our education system has failed us, far too many people buy into the central planning concept. That is where people think only a select few are capable of making 'wise' decisions, therefore those select few should be charged with taking care of the rest of us. In this issue, according to muley73, goofy, ridgetop, and others, the masses aren't capable of being able to decide where to hunt, so the select few drew up 30 'general season' boundaries, plus the numerous limited entry units, to 'better' distribute the hunters. They actually believe 7 people on a Board are better able than you/I of knowing how many hunters should be in a given drainage, even though it is extremely likely NONE of the 7 have ever set foot on your/my hunting area(s). Brilliant!


Are you really saying that there should be unlimited hunting on all Utahs big and small game because the hunters will know when enough is enough. That's what it kind of sounds like your saying or are deer hunters different than the rest?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Goof, in 2005 the TOTAL harvest was 23471. Where are our buck to doe ratios critical? What units and what do you consider critical? Because 5 or 6 units are "so-called" low doesn't mean the whole state is in trouble.

Ridge, are you saying that our herds are at their lowest lever ever? The data says that mule deer numbers are trending postive over the past 10 years.

If you two truly believe what you are saying, why don't the two of you (and others that believe the same) take one for the team and not hunt next year. Think of all the good you will do by not killing a buck.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Goof, I am not sure why you keep PMing me after I told you to stop. If you have something to say to me say it on the open forum. I have absolutely no reason to have a PM session with you but I will be happy to debate you on the open forum. 

And for your info, I agree some units are having issues. I never said otherwise. What I will say to you again: The problems Utah is having do not justify option 2 in my opinion. MANY others share this opinion.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

I'm still trying to figure out how not killing 5000 buck mule deer state wide (assuming we will kill less) from reducing hunters does not increase the deer herd and the over all population. Really, can you explain this one to me? 

Seriously...... If you reduce the number of hunters afield and as such (in theory--it has not been tested remember) reduce the no. of bucks harvested annually lets say by 10% just for kicks and giggles. How does that not increase your deer herd? I fully understand that growing deer takes does and bucks to breed them but by killing fewer bucks through hunter harvest doesn't that mean conservatively you have 6% more bucks the following year? Or are you all just assuming that we just have compensatory mortality across the state every year regardless if we hunt or not?

Someone PLEASE. I get tired of 'it wont increase our numbers' song and dance. I would really like to see some logical thought behind this argument instead of just taking things at face value and not using your brain.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

5000 more bucks on wintering grounds could displace 5000 does during critical wintering times? 

Does have babies, bucks don't?

I don't know Blanding, what's your preference? 100 wintering bucks and 15 does or 100 wintering does and 15 bucks?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

And "people" are not saying it will not increase our herds, I beleive Anis said this... Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Are you really saying that there should be unlimited hunting on all Utahs big and small game because the hunters will know when enough is enough. That's what it kind of sounds like your saying or are deer hunters different than the rest?


Come on, you're smarter than this! I am saying that the argument you and others have made and keep making that a reduction in buck permits will increase the number of deer in the herd, short term and long term! There is NO need for hyperbole on your part. If you have a valid opinion, share it and stick to facts and reality!


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2011)

> "There isn't one anti-hunting group out there that could come up with a way to eliminate 13,000 permits like SFW just did," Hansen said.


hmmmm..... -Ov- :O//: _/O :O•-: -)O(- o-||


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Jhas--Really, that wasn't an answer. 

With your 'COULD' theory, I would have to assume you believe we are at carrying capacity with our deer herds. That's fine so what should our harvest rate be by region or by unit, you choose.

Isn't Anise a people, isn't that what this whole discussion is based on?

BTW--I've said this all along I don't' care about what the buck to doe ratio is, to me that doesn't tell me anything at all about population, harvest objectives, age structure, carrying capacity--You decide what ratio you want and lets go from there.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Jhas--Really, that wasn't an answer.
> 
> With your COULD theory, we are at carrying capacity. That's fine so what should our harvest rate be by region or by unit, you choose.
> 
> ...


It's not an answer?

What specifically didn't you understand and I'll try to dumb it down for ya.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I sure wish there was some way to get rid of Anise and give Todd that DWR job


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how not killing 5000 buck mule deer state wide (assuming we will kill less) from reducing hunters does not increase the deer herd and the over all population. Really, can you explain this one to me? First, your assumption that this will result in 5000 fewer bucks being harvested and SURVIVING to the next hunting season is a BIG assumption based on what data? We were told when the limited entry units were created that it was to build the HERD up. Now we see that is NOT the desired outcome, nor is it the actual outcome. The outcome is: reduced opportunity, deer herds STILL under objectives, and a whole lot of money for guide services and special interest groups. I learned along time ago to always follow the money.... As for a specific answer to your question: if a deer herd is at/over carrying capacity, how will increasing the number of bucks increase the overall number of deer? Answer, it WILL NOT! In fact, as we see from actual data from Colorado, when a harsh winter occurs and the deer herd has excess bucks, the population dips more than if there were fewer bucks since bucks will out compete fawns for the limited food sources, and the herd will recover much slower due to few does in the mix.
> 
> Seriously...... If you reduce the number of hunters afield and as such (in theory--it has not been tested remember) reduce the no. of bucks harvested annually lets say by 10% just for kicks and giggles. How does that not increase your deer herd? I fully understand that growing deer takes does and bucks to breed them but by killing fewer bucks through hunter harvest doesn't that mean conservatively you have 6% more bucks the following year? Or are you all just assuming that we just have compensatory mortality across the state every year regardless if we hunt or not? Theories are supposed to be based on some scientific data, or at least some reference to science, yes? Do we really need to make the whole state a test lab for your 'theory', when we have multiple limited entry units to gather data and conclusions from. Your theory MIGHT work with deer herds well below carrying capacity, but the question I ask you is: how many of the 30 new hunting units are well below carrying capacity? If we don't know this, we are taking opportunity away for what purpose?
> 
> Someone PLEASE. I get tired of 'it wont increase our numbers' song and dance. I would really like to see some logical thought behind this argument instead of just taking things at face value and not using your brain. See above, see the results of Utah's limited entry units, see the results of Colorado and Nevada!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I sure wish there was some way to get rid of Anise and give Todd that DWR job


Why? Does it matter who the head biologist is, really? The decisions being made are NOT based in biology, so why do you think if Todd were in charge that would change? I know Todd, I even like him and think he is a hell of a good guy, but I do NOT believe he could 'save' our wildlife by taking Anis' job. How long would YOU be happy with him? As long as he agrees with you......right? :roll:


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--

Really I think you are going to have to try a little harder if you are going to accomplish that. 

Come on, seriously I ask a question your come back doesn't even answer it. Just as you said to Goofey, don't answer if you can't. I'm OK with that good grief....

Did you forget to eat your froot loops this AM?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I answered your question....... :O•-:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how not killing 5000 buck mule deer state wide (assuming we will kill less) from reducing hunters does not increase the deer herd and the over all population. Really, can you explain this one to me?
> 
> Seriously...... If you reduce the number of hunters afield and as such (in theory--it has not been tested remember) reduce the no. of bucks harvested annually lets say by 10% just for kicks and giggles. How does that not increase your deer herd? I fully understand that growing deer takes does and bucks to breed them but by killing fewer bucks through hunter harvest doesn't that mean conservatively you have 6% more bucks the following year? Or are you all just assuming that we just have compensatory mortality across the state every year regardless if we hunt or not?
> 
> Someone PLEASE. I get tired of 'it wont increase our numbers' song and dance. I would really like to see some logical thought behind this argument instead of just taking things at face value and not using your brain.


Let's see, 18 years ago 110,000 hunters where removed. Easily that should have equated to 11,000 bucks available in 1995 and every year after that. Please explain where are they. So now I'm being told that adding 1,300 more bucks to the mountain and having somebody assign me a mountian to sit on is some how going to save the day.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> JHas--
> 
> Really I think you are going to have to try a little harder if you are going to accomplish that.
> 
> ...


Legend in your own mind aren't ya. Like I said, be specific on what you didn't understand and I'll dumb it down for you.

I am not sure who said that to Goofy but it wasn't me. Do you make it a practice to make things up as you go? Maybe you should lay off the Kool aid?

Again, be specific and I will be happy to explain the answer again for you.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Bart--

Respect your opinion but its just that your opinion/theory is different than mine. Can't wait to test them. 

Also, FYI, a theory (call it a hypothesis) is tested and proven or disproven or neither from data. Generally once it has been rigorously tested it often becomes published and than becomes gospel truth 

I'm sorry but UT is different than NV and CO. Limited entry units are different than general season units as well. Just my opinion.

BTW--would never want Anise's job.... or anyone with the UDWR for that matter for exactly what you stated.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Jhas--

Now way dude, I will never compare with you--your the true legend.

Sorry man, if you can't read and understand my initial question, it its not worth my time to post it again.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Jhas--
> 
> Now way dude, I will never compare with you--your the true legend.
> 
> Sorry man, if you can't read and understand my initial question, it its not worth my time to post it again.


That's weak blanding and you know it. Im not asking you to repeat your question again, Im asking you what part of my answer you didnt understand. Pretty simple... especially for a guy of your intelligence.

I think you have realized just how truly stupid you initial question was and are now trying to distance yourself from it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Let's see, 18 years ago 110,000 hunters where removed. Easily that should have equated to 11,000 bucks available in 1995 and every year after that. Please explain where are they. So now I'm being told that adding 1,300 more bucks to the mountain and having somebody assign me a mountain to sit on is some how going to save the day.


TOUCHE!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really saying that there should be unlimited hunting on all Utahs big and small game because the hunters will know when enough is enough. That's what it kind of sounds like your saying or are deer hunters different than the rest?
> ...


Bart, I am thinking the same thing when you start agreeing with Huntoholic. :lol:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JHas said:


> 5000 more bucks on wintering grounds could displace 5000 does during critical wintering times?
> 
> Does have babies, bucks don't?
> 
> I don't know Blanding, what's your preference? 100 wintering bucks and 15 does or 100 wintering does and 15 bucks?


Overaged dry does don't have fawns.



JHas said:


> Goof, in 2005 the TOTAL harvest was 23471. Where are our buck to doe ratios critical? What units and what do you consider critical? Because 5 or 6 units are "so-called" low doesn't mean the whole state is in trouble.
> 
> Ridge, are you saying that our herds are at their lowest lever ever? The data says that mule deer numbers are trending postive over the past 10 years.
> 
> If you two truly believe what you are saying, why don't the two of you (and others that believe the same) take one for the team and not hunt next year. Think of all the good you will do by not killing a buck.


I have only shot one general season buck since 1993 and that was on the Wasatch Front (which the DWR wants a high harvest). So I think I have been doing my part. I think you can tell by my avatar, mule deer and their future mean a lot to me. It's just we see how to improve our hunting conditions differently.


----------



## flyfitch (Sep 22, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Bart--
> 
> Respect your opinion but its just that your opinion/theory is different than mine. Can't wait to test them.
> 
> Also, FYI, a theory (call it a hypothesis) is tested and proven or disproven or neither from data. Generally once it has been rigorously tested it often becomes published and than becomes gospel truth


I am glad you finally get it Blanding Boy.
Hunting permit numbers have been decreasing for *decades* now and our deer herds have also been declining. I believe lowering deer permits has been "rigorously tested" and it has not worked. How many more years do we need to reduce permits before it becomes "gospel truth"


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

MY, my, my--- some do like to push buttons........

Todd, arguing about how 5,000 more bucks does increase a deer herd, when you know he is talking about growing more deer through recruitment, made possible by doe having fawns. Of course there must be enough bucks to efficiently breed the available doe herd. Therein lies the question of how many bucks are necessary. We've talked about it before, but since you can't wait to see how this translates on the new units, can you please tell us how well limited buck hunting has grown the San Juan Elk Ridge herd? Then you can educate us how well the Henry Mtns herd has grown and after that we can discuss the Book Cliffs. All wonderful populations of mule deer that are bursting at the seams with mule deer because we have micro-buck-hunted them. ** Do I really need to tell you that was sarcastic? And yes, I still think you are a great guy and good biologist.

Ridge- Your takes have seemed very coherent, even though I may not agree with them. But Puuullllleeeeeaaaaassssseeeeee--- now you are basing your comments on "Dry Doe" competition. There goes any semblance of coherent discussion. 

Goofy- Sorry, your numbers are wrong. Please quote valid numbers when you want to show us how much you know. And FYI in 2006 and 2007, there were 10,000 more bucks killed each year than in 2005. Does that mean Regional Buck Management did not work in 2005, but it did work in 2006?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Checking in to see if all is status quo on Utah Wildlife Forum. 

Sir, that is an affirmative, business as usual.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey there JHAS,,,,,
I haven't killed a Utah general season buck since 1992......

I've been doing my part for a long time..  

AND for those that dis-like opt 2, WELL, IT's a done deal!
Better get a new attitude and deal with it.

If you don't, your next 20 years of deer hunting will really suck.. :lol:

I'm looking forward to it :!: Me and my kids are going to have a blast .


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Bart, I am thinking the same thing when you start agreeing with Huntoholic. :lol:


Well that hurt..........


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Hey there JHAS,,,,,
> I haven't killed a Utah general season buck since 1992......
> 
> I've been doing my part for a long time..
> ...


I think it's good of you to "voluntarily" not shoot a deer... I personally enjoy having the venison on the table every year so I choose to partake in the harvest. The fall season at my house is probably something I could never expect you to understand.

The next 20 years will not bother me, I've taken my fair share and I really don't care to teach my grandkids your new ways of hunting that I personally find selfish and not worthy of passing on.

It will be your children and grandchildren that will suffer the wrath of the choices you make today. I personally think you are giving up ground you will never get back.

You're right Goof, the deals done and you win! Good luck with that.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

The more that I think about it, the more I have to laugh. You question my intelligence, but you some how think that adding a 1300 to 2500 bucks to the 11000 plus bucks that have already been left on the mountain, every year for the last 18 years, is some how going to be some kind of big change.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I've perused through this thread...read some posts but skipped others (in the interest of time). Here's my take. Forgive me if I re-hash some stuff.

1) Hunters aren't the reason the deer herd is dropping, AND DWR needs hunter dollars to fund their operations. Taking tags away from a group that funds your operation and is not causing the underlying problem is mystifying.

2) Actual problems to deer herd growth include:
a. winter range / habitat loss
b. elk competition
c. highway mortality

I applaud the DWR for the many habitat restoration projects that are currently on-going. Problem is, they should probably be doubled or tripled, AND that takes money. Where is it going to come from? Pinyon-Juniper encroachment is a real issue, and because fire is no longer a viable option to control encroachment, the other available options are all expensive. Until Utah gets a handle on habitat, deer numbers are not going to increase all that much.

Elk out compete deer...PERIOD. A biologist that says otherwise is not being honest. Elk numbers are therefore a real limiting factor as well. If we want more elk in this state, the deer herd will likely suffer the consequences. If we want fewer elk, this will benefit deer. If we fix the habitat, numbers of both elk and deer can increase at the same time.

Thousands of deer die on Utah highways each year. It would be interesting to see the numbers as compared to hunter harvest. I think they would be telling.

Lastly, Utah's glory days of deer hunting were back in the 50s, 60s, & 70s. Keep in mind...habitat was in much better shape overall with stable and adequate sagebrush winter ranges and far fewer pinyon-juniper forests, elk numbers were low, and the number of roadways in the state were also much lower than they are now. Anyone else see the correllation?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

And highway speed limits were 55 mph...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how not killing 5000 buck mule deer state wide (assuming we will kill less) from reducing hunters does not increase the deer herd and the over all population. Really, can you explain this one to me?


Packout already all touched on this but I think this discussion has been watered down for simplicities sake. Not killing bucks will certainly mean there is slightly more deer but this is only mere rationing and will not increase productivity, in theory, and the end goal of this rationing only means that a few bucks will mature a bit more before being harvested.

Some have eluded to some compensatory mortality, as shown in other states, and means that more bucks will actually lower mule deer production in areas where we are at or near carrying capacity. Does one buck displace two fawns? 1 and 1/2 does? This would certainly make population number much mroe cyclical. Our population objectives have really caused people to take their eye off the ball. I really wish we'd spend much more effort measuring carrying capacity. This would really tell us where we are and where we're headed.

It seems to cut hunting opportunity for the simple sake of increasing trophy potential is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. We all want to see bigger bucks but we really have to think about where this line of thinking will take us and our children in the future. While it's true that some lose interest in hunting because of lack of quality, it seems that more lose interest due to lack of success in being able to draw a tag. Lack of hunter recruitment, when looking at the big picture, may be a bigger threat to mule deer than fawn mortality ever was.

BTW have you put together more on your theories about the correlation between mature bucks and fawn recruitment?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Packout said:


> MY, my, my--- some do like to push buttons........
> 
> Goofy- Sorry, your numbers are wrong. Please quote valid numbers when you want to show us how much you know. And FYI in 2006 and 2007, there were 10,000 more bucks killed each year than in 2005. Does that mean Regional Buck Management did not work in 2005, but it did work in 2006?


using the 2009 annual report,,,,deer harvest. 1925-2009, page 12.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... report.pdf

And ,IMHO, dose it mean regional buck management did/did not work in 05/06?
Not sure, BUT IT DOSE show a serious problem...

I'm also wondering what the 2010 harvest numbers look like?
I'm guessing more similar to 2005 than 2007..

also note there was another low spike in buck harvest in 2008,,,22,857

Packout,,,were are you gettig your numbers from? and how are mine wrong?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> JHas,
> In 1983 there were 82, 552 deer harvested....


According to page 12, the correct number is 95686.



goofy elk said:


> In 2005 there were 19,278 TOTAL deer harvested in Utah, this included antlerless & LE.


According to page 12, the correct number is 23471.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JHas said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > AND for those that dis-like opt 2, WELL, IT's a done deal!
> ...


JHas I'm going to have to disagree with you. This post is not a billboard for the UWC but I will say there is a huge groundswell going on. This won't be changed tomorrow, can't deny that but there are A LOT of upset hunters out there and just wait till next year when the masses really start figuring out what happened to them. This is not a done deal anymore than the 2008 mule deer plan was a done deal.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I hope you're right Bull. 

I'll keep sending my donations in hopes that things change.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Seems to me that the implementation of micro units is doing exactly what the wildlife board intended it to do. I know the WB and the DWR were catching a lot of flack from hunters the last couple of years, and of course most of that flack was from the more vocal hunters who were upset over not seeing very many mature bucks, for whatever reason (and they are many and varied). As one of the board members said during that time, and I am paraphrasing here, “ we have to do SOMETHING for the deer herds”. So they did, even if it didn’t accomplish actually helping the herds grow.

We all know the causes of why our deer herds are not growing leaps and bounds are many, and those in the know understand that hunting is only a small cause, but it is the ONE that can be addressed immediately, with the APPEARANCE of doing SOMETHING to help. It has taken the focus away from what really needs to be accomplished and has divided hunters very effectively, creating an environment that can and will be exploited to our own detriment.

We live in a society where we want what we want NOW, and that includes our deer herds. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way with biology and ecology; it takes time and a LOT of money to accomplish sustained results. The DWR is trying to work on some of the factors that are holding down deer herd growth rates (habitat, loss to vehicles, predators, etc.), but like I said, it takes time and money.

Losing hunters (read loss of tags/opportunity) will only hurt revenue, so it has to be made up and we all know where that will be done: tag and license cost increases and MORE conservation tags to pimp out. In the mean time, we hunters will continue to fight and squabble over how we can get a few more deer here and there, how many bucks it takes to breed a hundred does, how many mature bucks it takes to breed those does and on and on until we end up actually hunting deer once every 4 or 5 years or worse.

Seems to be quite the dilemma…
:shock: o-||


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wow! 6 pages of debate on why the deer herd has declined and failed to recover. Many suggestions and thoughts on why. And only one single mention of predators. Cut the harvest by 5000 and what is in place to prevent predation from rising 5000 deer annually? Do you actually believe that if the deer harvest was eliminated all together predators would not fill the void. Just as some look to increasing habitat and capacity to increase the deer herd. An increase of deer would serve as a increased capacity and forage for predators.

You can name all the reasons why a deer dies. Roadkill winters ect. And not one of these factors are as consistent and significant as the predators take yr after yr. Don't look now but well over *100,000* deer per yr are taken by predators in Utah. When was the last time we lost 100,000 deer to winter kill? It's a relatively rare event. So long as folks continue to deny seriously controlling predation as the most cost effective and practical tool to managing a viable deer herd we are doomed to fail.

As my signature says "The key to sound big game management starts with predator management first".

Carry on with your never ending debate. :roll:


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

I know I don't have enough posts to be able to have an opinion but here it is, I probably lie somewhere between goofy and pro on the deer issue. I absolutely agree that we need to focus on predators. I also hate to see losing tags but I can also understand the reasoning, I have archery hunted southern Utah for 25 years now and the deer population has definitely gone down and the elk population climbed (coincident ? ) I am fine with the unit change also. I believe we could make the state 3pt or better and leave tag numbers alone, everyone should be happy with that. Real sportsman's can tell the difference between a spike, 2pt or bigger. I know I know they say it can't work, I think times have changed and it can and would work. When they did it on Fishlake I personally saw a big difference. Flame On !


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

skeptic said:


> I know I don't have enough posts to be able to have an opinion but here it is, I probably lie somewhere between goofy and pro on the deer issue. I absolutely agree that we need to focus on predators. I also hate to see losing tags but I can also understand the reasoning, I have archery hunted southern Utah for 25 years now and the deer population has definitely gone down and the elk population climbed (coincident ? ) I am fine with the unit change also. I believe we could make the state 3pt or better and leave tag numbers alone, everyone should be happy with that. Real sportsman's can tell the difference between a spike, 2pt or bigger. I know I know they say it can't work, I think times have changed and it can and would work. When they did it on Fishlake I personally saw a big difference. Flame On !


Skeptic:

The number of posts someone has does NOT limit his right to post an opinion or how valid that opinion is, so post away! Your thoughts and ideas have been debated dozens of times and will, I'm sure, continue to be debated time and again.

Until someone can find a way over, under, around or through the political sinkhole that guides wildlife management and habitat rehabilitation/conservation, we will continue down this pothole filled road of debating what is or isn't best for hunting and wildlife herd growth to little or no avail.

Iron Bear:

I know your whole hunting world revolves around predators (kitties) being the ultimate demise of the deer herds, but I think you also know it goes much deeper than that. It's a complicated issue that no western state has been able to conquer, and our deer herds continue to stagnate or decline. Yeah, it sucks!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

The reason for 2012 regs are that special interest trophey hunters have hijacked the whole system. 

They've done it under the auspcies of "its for the good of the herd." 

The DWR has done nothing but give SFW and trophey hunters whatever they wanted over the past 20 years. Cut tags, increase prices, cut out out of state hunting, choose your hunt, no rut hunt, buck only archery, more units, shorter dates, habitat projects, blah blah blah. It all sounds good, but it didn't fix the problem. Yet the division accepts every new proposal they SFW throws at them. 

I feel like I have been thrust into trophey hunter hell. All you need is a 15- year plan for points. Put in Jan, find out results in April, decide on anterless or left over tags. We know after a 6 month process what are hunting plans are. 

The most disturbing thing is, none of the changes get at the heart of the matter. Fawn Recruitment!!! Fix that, and problem solved.


----------

