# The official new 29 unit map



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Could you please provide the link to the new 2012 deer hunt map? I saw it on here a few weeks ago, but can't find it now. Thanks in advance!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is probably very close to how they will look,,,,,
I suspect they might change a couple big units...
I believe Manti and San Rafael should be split in to two...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_prop ... option.php


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> This is probably very close to how they will look,,,,,
> I suspect they might change a couple big units...
> I believe Manti and San Rafael should be split in to two...
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_prop ... option.php


Wonderful!!! 5 units converge in Cedar City and we regularly hunt in 4 of them depending on the weather, the time available to hunt, the vehicle we have, my health issues, who has tags (buck deer, buck antelope, bull elk and/or antlerless) and for what season (archery/rifle). I hope I'm a good fortune teller/weatherman/prophet!

Actually, I hope I'm a good communicator so I can help shut this thing down!!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The last few days I've been out a bit,,Ran into cow elk hunters, hounds men, 
snowmobilers, AND people just watching wildlife...
I brought up the new deer management plan with everyone I spoke with, I can feel the
support gaining for option 2,,AT LEAST 75% of the ones I've chatted with the last week
or so are IN FAVOR of the deer changes coming in 2012........
I know the ones I talked with yesterday in Sanpete county wished the 29 unit plan 
would have started in 2011 instead of waiting a year.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I haven't kept totally up with the whole O-2 saga, first I have seen of the new units, at first glance they don't look too bad to me, kind of reminds me of the unit breakdowns in the other states I hunt. I still don't understand everyone’s problem with micro-managed units; wouldn't that allow the DNR to be more flexible in dealing with instances of low numbers in some units, while leaving others units alone? 

While I could read thru the hundreds of replies on the other 30+ threads, I rather someone just please explain to me what's so bad with the new unit plan?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mojo1 said:


> While I could read thru the hundreds of replies on the other 30+ threads, I rather someone just please explain to me what's so bad with the new unit plan?


The biggest problems I have with it are a)13,000 tags will be cut in 2012 for no biological reason. The DWR came right out and said with will not improve deer numbers, it will only add a few more bucks on the hill for those lucky enough to draw tag. b)The new minimum buck to doe ratio is 18:100 on each unit. If the buck to does ratio falls below that line it turns into a limited entry unit until the buck to doe ratio comes up to 25:100. That sets the stage for massive tag tags beyond the 13,000 cut tags in 2012.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't like the idea of tag cuts much either. I didn't realize that was directly linked to the new unit plan, I figured that as they managed smaller units, tags allotments on each specific unit would adjust (obviously down on each), I didn’t realize the 13000 tag cut was coming from that unit breakdown.

Just so that I'm clear on it, the dnr is only going to cut the tag numbers if they implement this plan. If this plan gets tabled then no tags are going on the block?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mojo1 said:


> I don't like the idea of tag cuts much either. I didn't realize that was directly linked to the new unit plan, I figured that as they managed smaller units, tags allotments on each specific unit would adjust (obviously down on each), I didn't realize the 13000 tag cut was coming from that unit breakdown.
> 
> Just so that I'm clear on it, the dnr is only going to cut the tag numbers if they implement this plan. If this plan gets tabled then no tags are going on the block?


That's correct but the Wildlife Board has already passed this plan meaning the DWR has no choice but to implement it HOWEVER there is still a year and half before that plan goes into effect and you never know what may happen!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> The last few days I've been out a bit,,Ran into cow elk hunters, hounds men,
> snowmobilers, AND people just watching wildlife...
> I brought up the new deer management plan with everyone I spoke with, I can feel the
> support gaining for option 2,,AT LEAST 75% of the ones I've chatted with the last week
> ...


And AT LEAST 75% of the world thought Galileo was crazy! Just because the majority of the people agree with something, doesn't mean it's right. I suspect the people you talked to have only heard your version of Option #2 and have no idea that it doesn't do what you claim it will do.

Did you tell them that the DWR opposes it? And that the DWR biologists can show that it does nothing to increase the deer population? And that the locals will have no more input or influence then than they do now? And that there will be a loss of about $500,000 in direct tag revenue? (Plus Pittman/Robertson dollars and Utah General funds.) And that only the hunting population will make up the difference, not the wildlife viewers, snowmobilers, campers, etc. you talked to? (They'd love to hear that!) And that the DWR already has a 5 year deer management plan in place that hasn't been given a chance to show results? And that we don't need anywhere near a 25 to 100 buck to doe ratio to assure all the does are bred? And that there will be more bucks competing with does and fawn for winter food? And that there will be no more statewide archery hunts? And that the archery season will be shortened? And that there are no provisions or new monies for the highly anticipated new and improved surveys, counts, habitat improvements, deer crossing structures, predator control programs, and law enforcement? And did you tell them that this will have a very negative impact on the Dedicated Hunter Program? And on family hunting traditions? Did they hear all of this from you before they gave their opinion? Or even after? (And I haven't even mentioned the dozen or so unintended consequences I've mentioned on other threads.) Do us a favor, and get back to these people with all this information and give us a report of their opinion then!!! We'll be waiting!

BTW, Mojo. This should shed some light about our opposition to Option #2.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Of all the people I've talked to at up in the hills, work, church, friends... etc etc, I've yet to talk to a single person in favor of option 2.

Lets face it, ALL of the presented options suck as none of them address the identified reasons the mule deer are declining. 


-DallanC


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Not TOTALLY true... :O—–-: 
Mojo..There were 3 options on the table., ALL THREE reduced permits.
O-2 was the largest permit reduction though.

Leaving deer status Que was hardly even mentioned at Rac's and briefly
at the board level..Not choosing one of the 3 options was not realistic..

O-2 is moving ahead FAST,,,I've been in DWR offices several times since
the new plan was passed........
The chatter on the phone lines is incredibly busy explaining TO 1,000s
of hunters what the current situation is, AND WERE it is going in 2012...

I think if for some reason plans changed again,,AND FLIP / FLOPed,,,,,,
It would be TOTAL disaster,,,Public relations, management strategies,
and the DWRs reputation would suffer.....
Most hunters/people don't have a clue the DWR is NOT Calling the shots,,
But they certainly are the ones suffering the consequences.. :twisted:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Yeah I understand the Wildlife board makes the decisions and the DWR has to follow them whether they like it or not, sounds like typical government BS if you ask me, some politician in some committee decides something and then some poor sob down below takes the heat on it, kind of like an IRS worker I guess, folks always seem to forget who really drives the decisions. :evil: 

BTW nothing in goverment moves fast. :lol:


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Most hunters won't realize how bad this sucks until they start getting the...

*"SORRY UNSUCCESSFUL FOR GENERAL DEER (OPTION #1)" 
"SORRY UNSUCCESSFUL FOR GENERAL DEER (OPTION #2)" 
"SORRY UNSUCCESSFUL FOR GENERAL DEER (OPTION #3)"*

*YOUR SOL THIS YEAR BUT THANKS FOR THE MONEY AND TRY AGAIN NEXT YEAR!*

letter in the mail from time to time.

Or

For those that *"don't care if we hunt every year"* kind of guys, when they still can't seem to find any more or bigger bucks (even with a whopping 3 more bucks per 100 on the hill). The advantage these guys will have is they will only feel frustrated every 2 out of 3 years rather than every year now.

And we are all going to love it when we get notice in 2 or 3 years that to meet the buck/doe objective the DWR will need to cut additional tags (beyond the 13,000) or when we hear that the special interest groups want to increase the buck/doe ratio in "X" number of the 29 units to make them more of a "premium area" also requiring tag cuts...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Not TOTALLY true... :O---:
> Not choosing one of the 3 options was not realistic..
> 
> It wasn't realistic because the board was steamrolling ahead with option 2 in their big backpack full of god knows what else.
> ...


It's quite amazing what 15 minutes of conversation and education will do to someone's view of the same aforementioned notions.

I guess it just depends on the carrier of the message because similar to what Dallan mentioned, 95% of the folks I've talked to are outraged by the decision, the remaining 5%, despite the information, are clear that they are willing to hunt less and shoot big bucks in lieu of opportunity.... for themselves and others.

The draw application period is coming up. Sure would be easy to make a mandatory survey before applying, then we'd really know what the _majority_ want.

I'm not sure the wildlife board would like to see such a survey put into place.......


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I would like to see a survey given to DWR personel, to choose options 1, 2, 3 or 4 (ie: no change).


-DallanC


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Not TOTALLY true... :O---:
> ...


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> b)The new minimum buck to doe ratio is 18:100 on each unit. If the buck to does ratio falls below that line it turns into a limited entry unit until the buck to doe ratio comes up to 25:100. That sets the stage for massive tag tags beyond the 13,000 cut tags in 2012.


*EVERYBODY NEEDS TO READ THAT QUOTE CAREFULLY! * Bullsont nailed exactly what's wrong with the 29 unit plan. It's not the splitting into 29 units that is the real problem. It's a mathematical certainty that every unit in the state will eventually become limited entry. EVERY unit will drop below the 18:100 ratio at some point. Then those units become limited entry until they achieve an unhealthy and unheard of 25:100 ratio. The number of tags cut is not 13,000. Not even close! It will be multiple tens of thousands of tags cut by the time it's all said and done.

Why didn't the board adopt an 18:100 policy for re-establishing the unit as a general hunt? Because they want all units to be limited entry, high dollar units. Many people here have no clue what the WB just signed on for. It's downright criminal! The 25:100 ratio mandate is so shady and corrupt it makes me want to puke.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've already heard people talk/joke about poaching does to keep it above the 18:100 ratio. How crazy is that???


-DallanC


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> I've already heard people talk/joke about poaching does to keep it above the 18:100 ratio. How crazy is that???


It's absurd. The deer herd on one entire unit could get down to as low as 118 animals. As long as that 18:100 buck-to-doe ratio is maintained everything is hunky dory under the new management plan. The health of the herd in its entirety is not taken into account at all. It's just gross mismanagement by the wildlife board.

What we hunters need is biological management for the health of the herd. Buck-to-doe ratios will fluctuate with birth and death rates, but as long as there are plenty of does the herd will always replenish itself.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

They should make the whole state LE, and then allow nearly unlimited spike buck hunting. This will provide both opportunity and quality for those that want it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

svmoose said:


> They should make the whole state LE, and then allow nearly unlimited spike buck hunting. This will provide both opportunity and quality for those that want it.


Don't give goofy any more ideas..........


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

There can not be an official map because the Board has not set the boundaries of their units. They first must decide where each deer is born, lives and dies, or some fluff like that.....


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Packout said:


> There can not be an official map because the Board has not set the boundaries of their units. They first must decide where each deer is born, lives and dies, or some fluff like that.....


 aFREAKINmen! As it stands, for what I noticed the Current Creek/Avitiquin unit to be managed as one? They going to get the Ute tribe to sign on to it also?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Packout said:


> There can not be an official map because the Board has not set the boundaries of their units. They first must decide where each deer is born, lives and dies, or some fluff like that.....


I stand corrected, not official, but proposed draft I reckon. I am surprised to see 3 pages of this and only see two comments of not only how messed up the whole thing is, but what about how absurd the regions are!! 29 units, yet it appears at first glance to have half of the state in only about 5 of them, which appears to defeat the whole purpose of micro management. I am very unhappy with the whole thing and while I tried to be positive about it, knowing the hose job was coming, but there is frankly NOTHING to be happy about with this whole thing! Less opportunity for no purpose whatsoever, yet much higher tag prices and a DWR already hurting budget wise now to be made worse... otherwise great job WB!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Packout said:


> There can not be an official map because the Board has not set the boundaries of their units. They first must decide where each deer is born, lives and dies, or some fluff like that.....


I have to laugh at the idea that we can draw boundaries around where a deer is born, lives and dies. I think one could argue that is actually impossible since some deer summer together but winter in different ranges and the same could be said for winter ranges. In other words once you carry that concept out statewide you either have one big statewide unit again or deer will have to cross boundaries at some point. Does anybody understand what I'm saying here?


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

Hence the reason why the WB worded the boundaries the way they did. Not one board member has complete and accurate information as to the minute dynamics of every herd in the state, I highly doubt the DWR has this info. Can you imagine the time and money spent to get this info and once you do the info is obsolete since it would take years and herds change. So why word the boundaries as to the birth, life and death of the deer? One simple answer, more power and control given to the WB from the WB to manipulate hunting in Utah for whatever reason.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It bothers me that the opponents to micro managing keep using the 13,000 figure and the 3 buck increase and the DWR didn't want this as propaganda to support their agenda. 

For starters I totally believe the DWR didn't want option 2 because it makes their job harder. I'm sure if a rule was to stand up and close the lid on your garbage can when knocked over was proposed for garbage men. Then they would appose it.

Its my understanding the 13,000 figure came from the DWR when they realized option 2 was coming. IMO to garner support against option 2. What biological basis is behind the figure of 13,000?

Sure some units are sitting at 15 buck per doe. So that makes a 3 buck increase on some units. But where I come from it lies below 10 buck per doe and realistically could be as low as 5 bucks per 100 doe post hunt. Increasing the B/D ratio on a unit like my home unit would really help out. Considering at this current time almost a majority of doe go unbred. And the ones who do are reluctantly bred by 2 points late in the season because there is no other option. And a fawn born with one less month to grow up before its first winter is basically doomed to fail. Hence a very low doe/fawn ratio and a very high fawn mortality rate. 

Throw in predation, overhunting, and it no wonder why my unit has gone from the greatest to the worst in the last 2 decades.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Speaking of propaganda.........


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

lol


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> It bothers me that the opponents to micro managing keep using the 13,000 figure and the 3 buck increase and the DWR didn't want this as propaganda to support their agenda.
> 
> You know what I agree with you, I wish they would use the more realistic number which will more than likely be much higher than 13,000. :mrgreen:
> 
> ...


You can throw in elk, vehicle, poaching, and habitat also. :mrgreen:


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

So whos putting in for west desert? Wonder how many guys theyre going to shove into that small unit with no real mountain ranges.


----------



## Trophyboat (Jan 15, 2008)

hell its called hunting, if you have to be successful or shoot something big each time you go out then go to the game farm or play hunting video games. I am gonna take what they serve and make the best of it. Times are changing in every aspect and more towards the worst.
Thats my two cents.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

jahan said:


> You can throw in elk, vehicle, poaching, and habitat also. :mrgreen:


I considered these factors but left them out.

The jury is still out in my mind on elk displacing deer on winter range. For one I have never personally witnessed elk harassing deer. Not that I don't believe it can happen just never seen evidence to support it. Second I believe deer are relentless when they need the food. During the bad winters of the 80's I had a place up in Morgan. I had some serious issues with the deer eating off my hay stack. So I chained my Great Dane and GSP to the stack. It worked for about 3 days until I came home one evening to find both dogs run ragged half dead and 50 deer eating within 5 ft of both of them. Also I have witnessed umpteen times deer and elk feeding in close proximity to each other with no issues. Granted this was on summer range.

Cars, Until any factual data comes out to prove that Utah's deer herd suffers more than a ball park figure of 10,000 on the high end and 3000 on the low. I cant believe this is a significant reason to the deers decline. Not to mention the traditional hotspots that I used to see several deer killed on the roads has few deer killed today in comparison to yrs past.

Poaching is negligible in the big picture when it comes to overall herd numbers.

Habitat, I will agree with you on that one. But not under the same premise. The dreaded "Dixie Harrow" has taken 1000s of prime deer habitat off of Monroe and turned it into grassland. Where I once could count on substantial deer populations today are void of a single deer after the harrow came through. To add insult to injury these areas I speak of were the last vestiges of good deer habitat left in my neck of the woods. I'm told to be patient that restoration takes time. But some of these projects were done over a decade ago and still no real evidence that the sage is regenerating. I can only assume its because cattle and elk graze is hampering the efforts. I'm not certain.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > You can throw in elk, vehicle, poaching, and habitat also. :mrgreen:
> ...


Deer are resourceful, but they still have their limitations. I also hope that these habitat projects really take hold.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Nice reply Elkfromabove... as mentioned, what he stated is just the tip of the iceberg on negative effects... and as goofy seems so adamant to point out through his tunnel vision, you can only see about 10% of the iceberg.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Quote from Iron Bear: "The jury is still out in my mind on elk displacing deer on winter range. For one I have never personally witnessed elk harassing deer. Not that I don't believe it can happen just never seen evidence to support it."

I should be able to find my video from several hunts, post hunts and wintering grounds of elk deliberately chasing deer off choice food sources for you to use as references... From my experience it does happen regularly, and in a harsh winter with deep or crusting snow, I have witnessed multiple dead deer near food sources where elk were present, yet no elk mortality was found.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> The jury is still out in my mind on elk displacing deer on winter range. For one I have never personally witnessed elk harassing deer. Not that I don't believe it can happen just never seen evidence to support it.


I have personally seen a huge bull gore and kill two does once at a hay stack.

Besides competition between elk and deer can be not only direct, but indirect as well. Meaning not only do you have elk that may chase deer off in direct competition but elk may eat a food source and when the deer come along it may be gone. Sure deer are relentless when searching for food but it all comes back to simple math....if they burn more calories trying to get food than they get from eating food then they starve. Elk may in fact be forcing deer to make a much bigger effort to obtain food and that will kill more deer.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Nice reply Elkfromabove... as mentioned, what he stated is just the tip of the iceberg on negative effects... and as goofy seems so adamant to point out through his tunnel vision, you can only see about 10% of the iceberg.


BS there buddy,,,,,,,I've been involved with almost all surrounding states doing
EXACTY what UTAH will now be doing, for OVER the last 20 years,,,,works great..

There is no reason on gods green earth Utah cant do unit management like
almost EVERY OTHER western state!!!
We sure have a few opportunist in Utah that refuse to see the advantages
of unit management........Putting the right amount of hunters in the right 
areas is VERY important...As other states have recognized years ago.....
Utah seem to be slow to fallow on many issues,,I SAY ,its about time!


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

What I dont understand, is if the 29 units are so bad, why are all the surrounding states using this method. I guess they should all move to our current system :roll: It seems to me UTAH is always a decade late on everything. And with the current system we have right now, we have ONE deer hunt for rifle, colorado has up to FOUR. Maybe micro managing works? There is not one other state with the system that we have, is there a reason for that? Maybe because it doesnt work. I think its time for a change and am all for 29 units


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > You can throw in elk, vehicle, poaching, and habitat also. :mrgreen:


I considered these factors but left them out.

The jury is still out in my mind on elk displacing deer on winter range. For one I have never personally witnessed elk harassing deer. Not that I don't believe it can happen just never seen evidence to support it. Second I believe deer are relentless when they need the food. During the bad winters of the 80's I had a place up in Morgan. I had some serious issues with the deer eating off my hay stack. So I chained my Great Dane and GSP to the stack. It worked for about 3 days until I came home one evening to find both dogs run ragged half dead and 50 deer eating within 5 ft of both of them. Also I have witnessed umpteen times deer and elk feeding in close proximity to each other with no issues. Granted this was on summer range.

Cars, Until any factual data comes out to prove that Utah's deer herd suffers more than a ball park figure of 10,000 on the high end and 3000 on the low. I cant believe this is a significant reason to the deers decline. Not to mention the traditional hotspots that I used to see several deer killed on the roads has few deer killed today in comparison to yrs past.

Poaching is negligible in the big picture when it comes to overall herd numbers.

WOW. That is all i can say! :roll:


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

As far as the cars portion of things, I think its Utah State, someone is starting a study this year. The thesis is on deer migration and herd health directly in relation to manmade roadways or obstructions. They're going to attempt to catalog all deer hit and killed on the roadway as well as compile a list of the state roads and mileposts with the biggest problems. The highway safety numbers are based solely on reported crashes. In my experience 1/3 on the low end to 1/2 on the high end of all deer/elk accidents are reported meaning the numbers compiled by highway safety would need to be doubled or tripled for the accurate number of deer killed by cars. The DWR is now contracting with a private company who drives state roads collecting the carcases. They are compiling their records from what I hear and providing them to the DWR and the individuals conducting the study. The plan is to erect high fences in the high mortality areas. This is just hearsay but I hope it works out.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> What I dont understand, is if the 29 units are so bad, why are all the surrounding states using this method. I guess they should all move to our current system :roll: It seems to me UTAH is always a decade late on everything. And with the current system we have right now, we have ONE deer hunt for rifle, colorado has up to FOUR. Maybe micro managing works? There is not one other state with the system that we have, is there a reason for that? Maybe because it doesnt work. I think its time for a change and am all for 29 units


Yes Colorado has been very successful, if you mean a 50% reduction in the deer population since micromanaging went into affect, then you are correct. Utah has has little or no decline in deer population over the same time period. Plus once again, comparing Colorado to Utah is apples to oranges. Also Nevada has some great bucks, but good luck on drawing a tag.

I do agree with there can be some changes in the hunt date structure, I do like that about the Colorado system.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Fishracer said:


> WOW. That is all i can say! :roll:


 :lol: :lol: :lol: Thats not saying much.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Fishracer said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > jahan said:
> ...


fishracer 
elk do in fact affect deer. the lands holding capacity for any game is limited. you could have 1000 cows and destroy the terrain or 2000 elk or 6000 deer you cant have 1000+2000+6000= for a total of 9000 animals. Something will give and it will be the weakest link at first. then the rest will follow if something isnt done to correct the problem. This is called carring capasity. Since we have had increased elk herds our deer have suffered. Areas that once had loads of deer and no elk now have no deer and loads of elk. Its not rocket science.

Elk are a non native species like the carp and chub are to our trout waters. if the chub population goes up the rainbow population goes down. Its that simple


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Fishracer said:
> 
> 
> > Iron Bear said:
> ...


I actually don't think this is fishracers opinion, I just think he accidentally lost one of the quote HTML's from Iron Bears quote, I tried to fix it. :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Elk are a non native species like the carp and chub are to our trout waters. if the chub population goes up the rainbow population goes down. Its that simple


who told you that elk are non-native to Utah?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> TopofUtahArcher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice reply Elkfromabove... as mentioned, what he stated is just the tip of the iceberg on negative effects... and as goofy seems so adamant to point out through his tunnel vision, you can only see about 10% of the iceberg.
> ...


What you continue to omit is that the deer herds in these other western states are struggling as much, or MORE, than Utah's deer herd. I am guessing you fail to mention that when you sell option 2 to all the folks you say like it. If unit managing were the answer, why are the other states, that you state have been doing it for 20 years now, experiencing declining deer numbers? The state you keep mentioning as the ideal model, Colorado, has seen a BIGGER decrease in deer populations that Utah, both in total numbers and in percentage of total decline per 100 deer. So, WTF do we want to copy that? O|*


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Mule deer herds in the western states have all been declining in general for
a number of years,,,,,,,,,,,I would argue Utah's deer will be in the 
230K to 260K range when spring time rolls around..............

I've been looking over quite a few wintering deer herds this winter, and have
not seen the numbers I've seen in years past on any of them....

I'll tell you right now, NO BS, The bull elk numbers are waaaaaay off too.

But, take it for what its worth,,,,Just one guys opinion that spends 200 days a
year on a mountain somewhere.......

We'll see how it all pans out when permit numbers are released in May......

And as far as Colorado gos,,,,Why don't ya push a little "regional" general deer
hunting ideas over there and see how fast you get ran out of town?????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Mule deer herds in the western states have all been declining in general for
> a number of years,,,,,,,,,,,I would argue Utah's deer will be in the
> 230K to 260K range when spring time rolls around..............Based on NO facts or science, just saying..... And, once again you missed the point, which is that unit management does NOT ensure healthy deer herds. In fact, it does NOTHING to help deer populations, as what you are talking about is hunter management.
> 
> ...


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Goofy I have spent many days on the Manti this winter and have seen 10x the deer this year as I did in previous years. All times of the day I can go up on the mountain and find deer.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> This is probably very close to how they will look,,,,,
> I suspect they might change a couple big units...
> I believe Manti and San Rafael should be split in to two...
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_prop ... option.php


Why split the Manti and San Rafael? What are there like 1000 deer max on the San Rafael? Seems like a good idea to combine the two.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> Goofy I have spent many days on the Manti this winter and have seen 10x the deer this year as I did in previous years. All times of the day I can go up on the mountain and find deer.


This has been my experience this year also, but I realize that really doesn't necessarily mean there are more deer because I am seeing more deer. I went through Price Canyon and from Spanish Fork to Helper there were well over 300 head of deer and about 20 head of elk. The most I have ever saw going through that canyon and I have been through that canyon hundreds of times. Also saw an elk and deer feeding side by side. 8) :O•-:


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Fishracer said:
> 
> 
> > Iron Bear said:
> ...


I was saying that i cannot believe anyone would think that elk do not compete with deer. Just because they have never seen an elk harassing a deer. :roll: and that road kill does not effect the deer heard until there is factual data. I thought you had to see it to believe it? I guess it is hard for some people to think before they speak. Pure ignorance! No wonder we are in the mess we are in.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

So have they put together a proposal on how many permits they're putting in each of the units?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> So have they put together a proposal on how many permits they're putting in each of the units?


They haven't fully decided the units yet is my understanding. Still need to figure out where a deer is born, lives and dies and they will have it all figured out. :O•-:


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Gotcha that should be interesting 8)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Fishracer, I am a skeptic and I am hardly ignorant on the subject. If you care to have the debate I could post circles around you. So do you believe everything you hear? Are you a free thinker? Have you ever pondered the issues or do you just spat insults based on popular conceptions? I'm no spring chicken to the deer herd issues. And my mentalities are hardly the reason for the deer declines.


----------

