# in before the lock...



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/33589241


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

It is ironic, how many people said micro-managing the deer herd would do nothing and how this would never happen.... In fact I remeber only hearing doom and gloom, yet many of the biologists have commented how it is easier to manage on unit by unit levels, instead of trying to manage an entire region. Interesting indeed...


Maybe all of the other western states biologists and sfw weren't wrong after all??


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

In fairness I do believe the weather has helped as well....


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> In fairness I do believe the weather has helped as well....


Don't you know rebel the weather is the only reason our deer herd is doing well! ;-) all the other stuff means nothing. o-||


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

The small units have nothing to do with it
We have had several very mild winters. Wait until we get a bad winter and see what's up.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

cklspencer said:


> The small units have nothing to do with it
> We have had several very mild winters. Wait until we get a bad winter and see what's up.


And how does micro managing herds for proper buck to doe ratios effect "what's up" over regional management???

I'm patiently waiting an explanation:mrgreen:


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I think it's all the money raised at the "Expo" that's making the difference.:canada:


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Maybe all the eagles have stopped carrying off the fawns.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

cklspencer said:


> The small units have nothing to do with it
> We have had several very mild winters. Wait until we get a bad winter and see what's up.


I listened to the broadcast twice today....

It Clearly stated:
" The exact same units 20 years ago were at 8 bucks per 100 does,
(Under regional managment)
Same units now are at 21 bucks per 100 does...."

Overall herd size that weather dictates is not the issue.
This is talking flat out buck to doe ratio..:!:....

And anyone thinking close to 20,000 dead coyotes over the last
two years is not helping over all deer herd size,, is knutz.........


----------



## Archin (Oct 5, 2013)

This is great news. Think they will give more tags this year? more bucks the more chance the heard matures? Utah might be breaking state records in the up coming years!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wait a minute. I thought bucks displace doe and starve out fawns. Can't have more buck and increase the herd at the same time.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

_Based on data gathered through the survey, biologists estimate 84 percent of the doe deer in Utah and 82 percent of the fawns survived in 2014, the news release said.

"Those are great survival rates," Shannon said. "There's no question that mule deer populations are growing in Utah."_

I think it is safe to assume that the short term improvements in the doe and fawn survival can be primarily attributed to a good weather cycle. This trend had already started following the break of the drought before micro management was introduced. In the short term, coyotes bounties have probably helped too, but if earlier studies are accurate it won't have a lasting impact.

Micro management affects only buck:doe ratios. Beyond that it offers very little in terms of total herd health and well being.

I am excited to get out and hunt this fall though. Hopefully I find that monster I have been looking for.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

No, we will get a record snowfall next winter and loose 3/4 of our herds. Thats the way it works and the reason we can't have anything nice. Mother nature is a bitch. I will gladly let the air out of my 2-point this fall and cross my fingers I'm not right.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> No, we will get a record snowfall next winter and loose 3/4 of our herds. Thats the way it works and the reason we can't have anything nice. Mother nature is a bitch. I will gladly let the air out of my 2-point this fall and cross my fingers I'm not right.


Haha now thats funny!!


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> I think it's all the money raised at the "Expo" that's making the difference.:canada:


Ya just had to throw that out now din'tcha! (High five!)


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

It good news. but like said before we get a bad winter say good bye to the deer heards again.We have been lucky to have these small winters the last couple years.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Winter? With the way our water and snow totals look, our summers could be the killer. Low water levels and consequently poor growth in habitat and the plants deer utilize to survive could lead to fewer deer putting on the necessary fat reserves....and predation rates will naturally go up too!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Wait a minute. I thought bucks displace doe and starve out fawns. Can't have more buck and increase the herd at the same time.


Yeah....in critical times! Anything critical about our weather patterns the past couple of years?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Global warming is a bitch...


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Winter? With the way our water and snow totals look, our summers could be the killer. Low water levels and consequently poor growth in habitat and the plants deer utilize to survive could lead to fewer deer putting on the necessary fat reserves....and predation rates will naturally go up too!


Perfect reason to shoot field bucks! Plenty to eat..


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Some quotes from the news letter:

"On general-season units that are comprised mostly of public land, biologists saw an average of 21 bucks for every 100 does. Twenty years ago, the average buck-to-doe ratio was eight bucks per 100 does."

"Shannon says the higher buck-to-doe ratio is good news for hunters - it means more bucks, and older bucks, will be available this fall.
In addition to bucks comprising a higher percentage of the total population, the total number of deer in Utah is also increasing."

Link to newsletter:http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1604-apply-now-time-is-running-out.html


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Some quotes from the news letter:
> 
> "On general-season units that are comprised mostly of public land, biologists saw an average of 21 bucks for every 100 does. Twenty years ago, the average buck-to-doe ratio was eight bucks per 100 does."
> 
> ...


 The only thing this statement tells me is what we already know. The winter of '93 killed a hell of a lot of deer. I agree with others and believe weather has more to do with survival rates above everything else.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> The only thing this statement tells me is what we already know. The winter of '93 killed a hell of a lot of deer. I agree with others and believe weather has more to do with survival rates above everything else.


Yes, weather does dictate survival rates......

NOT buck to doe ratio's.....That is the topic....:!:....


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Yes, weather does dictate survival rates......
> 
> NOT buck to doe ratio's.....That is the topic....:!:....


I guess Coyotes only eat buck deer then.;-)


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> Yes, weather does dictate survival rates......
> 
> NOT buck to doe ratio's.....That is the topic....:!:....


So, weather and lower coyote numbers increase overall herd size .... ok ... but what factors in your opinion support b/d ratios?


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Yes, weather does dictate survival rates......
> 
> NOT buck to doe ratio's.....That is the topic....:!:....


So, is the increase in the deer herd due to higher buck to doe ratios or is it more likely that buck to doe ratios have improved as a result of a larger deer population while fewer deer tags are available?

I'm not sure how comparing buck to do ratios in 1994 to current ratios does much to prove or disprove the effectiveness of option 2.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

SLCHunter said:


> So, weather and lower coyote numbers increase overall herd size .... ok ... but what factors in your opinion support b/d ratios?



herd growth
limiting buck harvest
increasing doe harvest
Those are the only three ways I know of that increase b/d ratios


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Well habitat restoration gets to say. Things would have been much worse if we hadn't. Can't we apply the same logic to option 2. And we didn't have to auction off Utah's wildlife to the highest bidder to get it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> herd growth
> limiting buck harvest
> increasing doe harvest
> Those are the only three ways I know of that increase b/d ratios


You don't get your 1st one if you do too much of your 3rd one.

Here is my take on all this. We, as people, do what we can to manage what we consider healthy herd numbers for deer. We do what we can to increase herd numbers when we feel they are below the healthy limit. But when it is all said and done, Mother Nature is in charge, and as was stated before...she is a bit...of a problem.

We can limit tags, increase tags, do predator control, try to repair habitat, etc...but when it comes down to it...Mother Nature is in charge. She will ultimately dictate where all this goes, not us. She has been kind the last few years. But we could be in for a whole lot worse, and it could happen really quickly.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

TS30 said:


> You don't get your 1st one if you do too much of your 3rd one.
> 
> Here is my take on all this. We, as people, do what we can to manage what we consider healthy herd numbers for deer. We do what we can to increase herd numbers when we feel they are below the healthy limit. But when it is all said and done, Mother Nature is in charge, and as was stated before...she is a bit...of a problem.
> 
> We can limit tags, increase tags, do predator control, try to repair habitat, etc...but when it comes down to it...Mother Nature is in charge. She will ultimately dictate where all this goes, not us. She has been kind the last few years. But we could be in for a whole lot worse, and it could happen really quickly.


I agree. I was just pointing out the 3 things that I know of.

Weather will always be the driving factor, which also drives nutrition. The one control that humans have regardless of the weather is available habitat and whether it is suitable or not for sustaining life.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yeah....really the only thing that people can say accurately about the switch from region management to unit management is that it helped increase buck/doe ratios by decreasing buck tags. That's it. 

But, buck to doe ratios most certainly help or hurt survival rates of deer...as I have said many times, high buck to doe ratios have most certainly hurt fawn survival rates in both Colorado and Nevada during critical times of extreme weather patterns.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Let's get something straight! We are not doing something new with managing DEER unit by unit because of Option #2. We've been doing that since 1933 when we broke the state up into 4 units and as time went on the numbers grew. In 1955 when I was going deer hunting (not shooting) with my dad, uncles, brothers and boy cousins, 2 years before I could get have a license, Utah had 64 deer management units. (We've had as many as 81).

We are simply managing BUCK HUNTERS unit by unit with Option #2! And when you manage buck hunters by reducing or not increasing permits as we've been doing, you're going to leave more bucks on the mountain regardless of the population. The DWR has stated (to the Mule Deer Committee) that each additional buck number added to the unit ratio costs us 5% of the buck permits on that unit. Is that what we want?


----------



## rsb_924 (May 30, 2014)

*my two cents.*

i think people need a better idea or understanding on deer managment. so here is my two cents.

The first step in deer management, and one often overlooked, is the establishment of a clear, well defined objective. Deciding on what is to be accomplished is essential because there is no single ideal deer management program. Different objectives may require totally different management actions.
For example, if the objective is to increase the number of deer in an area where there are few or no deer, absolute protection from all causes of mortality is the most important management action. If the objective is to produce trophy quality bucks, important management actions are to keep the herd in balance with food supplies through adequate harvest of antler less deer, to protect yearling bucks until they reach an older age when antler development is maximum, and possibly to initiate habitat improvements that increase available food.
Where the objective is to reduce serious damage in agricultural crops, important management actions are to increase harvest of antler less deer and to arrange for adequate hunter access to insure that enough deer are harvested. All of the examples cited are simplified versions of basic deer management programs. Each has a definite objective and each requires different management actions. Thus, the proper management activities are dependent solely on the objective or objectives.
The examples above also contain the three major components of deer management programs.
These are
1) Deer population regulation, 
2) Habitat manipulation,
3) People management.
Almost all deer management programs contain some aspect of each of these three components. The most troublesome component is the latter, is people management, since different people have different objectives and differing attitudes toward deer. Some want more deer, some want fewer deer, some are opposed to deer hunting, and so forth. On a biologic basis, enough is known about deer to successfully achieve various management objectives;
To understand why not only the number but more importantly the sex of deer harvested is critical to population regulation, some basic facts of deer population dynamics must be examined. First, bucks are polygamous and will mate with many does. Unless they are malnourished, virtually every doe two years old or older will produce offspring each year of their lives. Older does more often have twins and younger does more often have single fawns.
Average fawn production for healthy adult does is approximately 1.7 fawns per doe per year. Does rarely breed during their first fall, with no more than one in every 4 producing a fawn at one year of age. Male and female fawns are born in equal numbers, and thus, the ratio of bucks to does in the fawn segment of the population begins at 1 to 1. The ratio of adult bucks to adult does tends to remain near 1 to 1 in un-hunted populations.
In contrast, does predominate in most hunted populations, especially those with heavy buck-only hunting. Ratios commonly range from 1 adult buck to 2 to 4 adult does. If fawns are taken into consideration, the ratio of antlered to antlerless deer will range from 1 to 2 or 3 in non- or lightly hunted populations to as high as 1 to 8 in populations receiving heavy buck only hunting pressure.
To stabilize a deer population at any particular level, the total number of deaths each year from all causes must equal the number of births. Herds generally can be stabilized by harvesting equal numbers of antlered and antlerless deer so long as total annual mortality approaches the number of fawns born.
The major component of most deer management programs is deer population regulation, and the only economically practical method of population regulation is hunting. The number and type of deer harvested by hunting can be adjusted through imposition of various hunting regulations including restrictions on the sex of deer harvested, types of legal equipment, season starting dates, and season lengths. Provided that adequate hunting pressure is applied to an area, the following harvest ratios can be used as a rule of thumb for achieving population regulation goals through hunting.
For every 10 antlered bucks harvested, if the goal is for the population to:
1) Increase rapidly then harvest no antlerless deer;
2) increase slowly then harvest 5 antlerless deer;
3) Stabilize at current level then harvest 10 antlerless
Deer.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Cause there is only one way to skin a cat. 

Or is that the political bs the DWR is pushing? 

And I suppose we are to believe Utah underwent perfect deer weather for 50 yrs.

Wow we sure like this river in Egypt don't we.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Let's get something straight! We are not doing something new with managing DEER unit by unit because of Option #2. We've been doing that since 1933 when we broke the state up into 4 units and as time went on the numbers grew. In 1955 when I was going deer hunting (not shooting) with my dad, uncles, brothers and boy cousins, 2 years before I could get have a license, Utah had 64 deer management units. (We've had as many as 81).
> 
> We are simply managing BUCK HUNTERS unit by unit with Option #2! And when you manage buck hunters by reducing or not increasing permits as we've been doing, you're going to leave more bucks on the mountain regardless of the population. The DWR has stated (to the Mule Deer Committee) that each additional buck number added to the unit ratio costs us 5% of the buck permits on that unit. Is that what we want?


How do you "manage" unit by unit when your not managing the hunters unit by unit? That's not management! Or are you suggesting that they are unrelated?? Or are you just not making any sense??? Head in the sand??? 1955 policies don't work for 2014 problems..

It is a proven FACT hunters were not dispersing themselves throughout the regions. Look at the draw! Units next to each other have completely different odds! Why???

I know what your saying and it's the dumbest thing I have ever heard...you can't manage anything unless you are managing all controllable variables... And as much as you guys want to pretend it doesn't matter, BUCK/DOE RATIOS DO MATTER!!

I want our biologists to manage for healthy deer herds! I want them to manage!!! I want them to use every option available!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> We are simply managing BUCK HUNTERS unit by unit with Option #2! And when you manage buck hunters by reducing or not increasing permits as we've been doing, you're going to leave more bucks on the mountain regardless of the population. The DWR has stated (to the Mule Deer Committee) that each additional buck number added to the unit ratio costs us 5% of the buck permits on that unit. Is that what we want?


Yes


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> BUCK/DOE RATIOS DO MATTER!!


Sure they matter...I don't see anyone saying they don't! But, they matter on both ends of the spectrum....too high also matters and can negatively affect a deer herd just as too low can. 8 bucks/100 does is too **** low....just as 50 bucks/100 does is too **** high!

What the DWR has been trying to do for a long time is diversify how deer are managed--we have premium mule deer units (like the Henry's or Pauns), we have LE units (like the Book Cliffs) and we have general units (like the Beaver). What drives me crazy is that some guys like Airborne want the whole state managed for trophy mule deer; these people think that we shouldn't have units managed for the masses....in other words, they want the trophy units, the above average units, and then they want the general units all managed for more bucks!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Limiting buck harvest by limiting tags is much preferable to limiting buck harvest through lack of buck deer. Which is what was happening pre option 2.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Limiting buck harvest by limiting tags is much preferable to limiting buck harvest through lack of buck deer. Which is what was happening pre option 2.


Oh come on, IB....surely you aren't that dumb--look at pre option 2 hunter success and post option 2 hunter success. More bucks were absolutely shot prior to option 2....

...I would much rather have fewer bucks to hunt than not get to hunt at all!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Sure they matter...I don't see anyone saying they don't! But, they matter on both ends of the spectrum....too high also matters and can negatively affect a deer herd just as too low can. 8 bucks/100 does is too **** low....just as 50 bucks/100 does is too **** high!
> 
> !


Agreed 8/100 is too low and 50/100 is to high so let's settle right in the middle at 30/100.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Agreed 8/100 is too low and 50/100 is to high so let's settle right in the middle at 30/100.


Great...then, we can all kiss our opportunity to hunt goodbye! That's my whole point....we already manage some units for ratios that high....why should all of them be managed that high?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh come on, IB....surely you aren't that dumb--look at pre option 2 hunter success and post option 2 hunter success. More bucks were absolutely shot prior to option 2....
> 
> ...I would much rather have fewer bucks to hunt than not get to hunt at all!


I believe success rates are higher satisfaction is higher and revenue is the same.

I must give you credit. You could find good deer even in the worst of times. That's because your a super hunter. But that's not the case for the average Joe. He was getting pissed cause he didn't like hunting for 5 days and only seeing one forked horn.

Dam average Joe trophy hunters.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Great...then, we can all kiss our opportunity to hunt goodbye! That's my whole point....we already manage some units for ratios that high....why should all of them be managed that high?


Yep if we are going to try and emulate a wildlife tapestry where predation is left to do what it wants. There is no room for a 100,000 tag general hunt that is harvesting 30,000 plus buck. Not when there is only 300,000 deer. That's the problem with going all natural. It just doesn't permit mass harvest by humans. Now if you wanted to limit predation you can get you opportunity right there.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I must give you credit. You could find good deer even in the worst of times. That's because your a super hunter. But that's not the case for the average Joe. He was getting pissed cause he didn't like hunting for 5 days and only seeing one forked horn.


Some of us super hunters are perfectly happy chasing forked horns and spikes around...to us hunting is about a lot more than the size of horns an animal has on its head!

I saw a total of 3 does on opening weekend of the rifle hunt this year....it was also one of the best opening rifle hunt weekends I have ever had! For some of "super" hunters, the overall experience is much more important than the number of monster bucks we see!


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> What the DWR has been trying to do for a long time is diversify how deer are managed--we have premium mule deer units (like the Henry's or Pauns), we have LE units (like the Book Cliffs) and we have general units (like the Beaver). What drives me crazy is that some guys like Airborne want the whole state managed for trophy mule deer; these people think that we shouldn't have units managed for the masses....in other words, they want the trophy units, the above average units, and then they want the general units all managed for more bucks!


Hold yer horses cowboy!! All I said on this whole dang forum is 'yes' and you lump me into a category! Moderation in all things buddy. I am fine droppin tags to get a higher buck to doe ratio but I don't think every unit in the state ought to be a trophy unit. Your words not mine pard. Pretty sure option 2 didn't make the whole state like the Henrys. Pretty sure option 2 left some units with lower buck to doe ratios and others with a little higher. Seems moderate to me.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Some of us super hunters are perfectly happy chasing forked horns and spikes around...to us hunting is about a lot more than the size of horns an animal has on its head!
> 
> I saw a total of 3 does on opening weekend of the rifle hunt this year....it was also one of the best opening rifle hunt weekends I have ever had! For some of "super" hunters, the overall experience is much more important than the number of monster bucks we see!


Seeing a few more bucks isn't the same as seeing 'numbers of monster bucks'. You have some sort of superiority complex that you need to sit on your high horse claiming yours is the best way and that others can only enjoy their experience seeing monster bucks! Live your life, but don't believe for a second that your way is better than any one else's. This is why we have opportunity units and high B to D units, there is something there for everyone. Judas frickin priest, some peoples children!

Arguing on the internet is dumb and I am dumb to even participate. Fact is I like option 2, opportunity for some, a few more bucks for others. Life is amazing and I am glad to be here!


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Agreed 8/100 is too low and 50/100 is to high so let's settle right in the middle at 30/100.


Great idea! As has been mentioned we only have to cut tags by 5% to increase buck to doe ratios by 1. I'm sure everyone would be thrilled to see tags cut by 50-75%. We can be sure to maximize the resource that way. :shock:

Is 8 too low? Well, it doesn't leave a lot of room for error and probably leaves a lot of hunters feeling frustrated. I see know reason to increase ratios above 15-18 on the 3 year average (post hunt numbers by the way). Keeps plenty of the bucks around and most hunters are happy they can see a few bucks while hunting.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Daimler fact is that you can harvest more deer if you reduce how many get killed by other factors. 

That cutting tags by 5% is some political bs to make it sound less appealing. Is the DWR biologist oblivious that cougar kill deer? Why is the only answer to reduce hunter harvest? 

Again denial, politics and agendas. And the hunter who pays for it all is vilified and relegated to hind tit.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

The only thing that is gospel is, if there are too many bucks the DWR doesn't know what they are doing, if there aren't enough bucks the DWR doesn't know what they are doing ,too many little bucks the DWR doesn't know what they are doing, too many big bucks (never gonna happen) the DWR doesn't know what they are doing. This forum should change its name to DWRhelpwanted.com then they could shop on here for biologists, apparently we all know more than they do.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

bugchuker said:


> The only thing that is gospel is, if there are too many bucks the DWR doesn't know what they are doing, if there aren't enough bucks the DWR doesn't know what they are doing ,too many little bucks the DWR doesn't know what they are doing, too many big bucks (never gonna happen) the DWR doesn't know what they are doing. This forum should change its name to DWRhelpwanted.com then they could shop on here for biologists, apparently we all know more than they do.


I saw this coming for years. I've predicted all these things happening. Have I ever told you how smart I am and how much stuff I know about everything?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

predators, habitat and weather??

Really?? Y'all can't be that dumb. 

Part of option WTF is the genetic modification of mule deer chromosomes.

Several bucks from the most primo, genetically superior units in the west were captured and their super genes were synthesized. Part of this modification was in the male / female chromosome the Bucks passed on to their offspring. Buck deer now have the ability to give birth to triplets at 1 year of age. 

To compensate for the booming populations, doe's now hibernate in late November. 

There YA have it. Pregnant bucks and hibernating does. And do not for one freaking second forget this was all because of superior genetics.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Everything is looking great......now you just have to draw a tag.------SS


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I just want to know what..."in before the lock" means?


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in+before+the+lock


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

well it's on the right track with Mcfly involved. Now we need a few more comments from Goofy. An insult here and there (although the few remarks about being stupid have come close) and we should see a shut down and a ban or two before you know it......cheers!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm not up on all this new internet slang.:sad:
Heck, we should have a sub forum titled... in before the lock.
It would probably be the most viewed sub forum UWN had.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

6 pages in one day. This rivals a one eye thread. Hot topic;-)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SLCHunter said:


> So, weather and lower coyote numbers increase overall herd size .... ok ... but what factors in your opinion support b/d ratios?


That would be opt 2 ...


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I don't have time to read this whole thing.

Just curious, if we are having the highest doe/fawn survival that we have in years, wouldn't that mean the population of Doe's is higher, which would lower the buck to doe ratio? 

If the additional fawns are what increase the buck ratio, that doesn't mean we have older and better deer, that means we have more youngins running around.

Just a thought....


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Random- In this case, there are more bucks AND more doe. The survival rates are off the charts, creating an increase in population. Some of us have been preaching this since before Micro-Buck-Management (opt 2). 

It takes years to get the fawns on the ground, mature the doe fawns to be able to have babies and get those babies to a mature, reproducing member of the herd. We are just got the 2nd crop of fawns to reproduce in this latest herd increase. This year will be the 3rd crop to enter reproduction which will have babies, increasing the herd by a huge number. All of that has little to do with Micro-Buck-Management.

Of course Option 2 has protected bucks in some cases, but not in many of the units I am familiar with. The Wasatch West has an additional 3,000 buck permits over historical use- pre Opt 2. 3,000 additional hunters are in no way "saving" bucks.

Here is the scary part-- Monroe Mtn deer had extremely low fat measurements going into the Winter. Of course the Winter has been so mild the deer will survive. But why such low fat measurements on a herd with predator control, buck hunter cuts, and little "human encroachment"? What happens to those deer when we get an harder winter?

Deer can not be stockpiled. Carrying Capacity is always changing and we are in a current upswing in ability to grow deer. One month of storms and that all changes-- for better or for worse.


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> I don't have time to read this whole thing.
> 
> Just curious, if we are having the highest doe/fawn survival that we have in years, wouldn't that mean the population of Doe's is higher, which would lower the buck to doe ratio?
> 
> ...


+1

Yup, it's called fawn saturation, as you already know. Hope the deer hunters have a fun season this year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> Here is the scary part-- Monroe Mtn deer had extremely low fat measurements going into the Winter. Of course the Winter has been so mild the deer will survive. But why such low fat measurements on a herd with predator control, buck hunter cuts, and little "human encroachment"? What happens to those deer when we get an harder winter?


Because predators--whether human or not--are NOT what is limiting the herd....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout said:


> Here is the scary part-- Monroe Mtn deer had extremely low fat measurements going into the Winter. Of course the Winter has been so mild the deer will survive. But why such low fat measurements on a herd with predator control, buck hunter cuts, and little "human encroachment"? What happens to those deer when we get an harder winter?
> 
> Deer can not be stockpiled. Carrying Capacity is always changing and we are in a current upswing in ability to grow deer. One month of storms and that all changes-- for better or for worse.


100% agree. The hardest thing for us humans to grasp is we really don't control this. We think we can control things, and we can have an impact in the short term....but we can't control what happens overall. And it's kind of scary.

Hypothetical: 2015 is a major drought year. Next winter hits us hard and long, bringing in huge amounts of snow. How is the outlook for the 2016 hunt with Option 2?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

TS30 said:


> Hypothetical: 2015 is a major drought year. Next winter hits us hard and long, bringing in huge amounts of snow. How is the outlook for the 2016 hunt with Option 2?


That's exactly what scares me....option 2 didn't bring us these good conditions that have allowed more does and fawns to survive. And option 2 isn't going to save them when weather conditions turn for the worse.

The reality is that when weather/habitat/environmental conditions are bad, predation goes up. And, conversely, when those conditions are good, predation goes down.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Dang it PO!!! Quit spouting truth!!!

It's easier to just tie all of the good things happening to the latest management fad, that by the way has no historical backing of success anywhere it's been tried, 

One serious question though, I'd love to see buck harvest numbers over the past decade. Pre implementation of Opt Kiss My $&@ and during this savior of a plan.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Packout said:


> Here is the scary part-- Monroe Mtn deer had extremely low fat measurements going into the Winter. Of course the Winter has been so mild the deer will survive. But why such low fat measurements on a herd with predator control, buck hunter cuts, and little "human encroachment"? What happens to those deer when we get an harder winter?
> 
> Deer can not be stockpiled. Carrying Capacity is always changing and we are in a current upswing in ability to grow deer. One month of storms and that all changes-- for better or for worse.


Id ask the harrowing done on monroe should be taken into account. Substantial acreage has been harrowed on top. In the middle and down low. For what is worth I've been watching it like a hawk. The only successful harrowing for deer meaning it resulted in sage regeneration in a plot up near the dry creek ranger station. All the ground harrowed from six patch to box creek resulted in grass. I've yet to see any sage coming back. Extensive aspen regeneration work being done in Greenwich canyon is also decreasing capacity. The work done on the north slope mid mtn below hunters flat is showing some positive signs that sage will return. But for the time being it's not good habitat. I haven't been down to see the harrowing above Koosharem res. but I sure don't see many deer on the roads over there since they harrowed. Telling me that ground is not being utilized as much as it was before treatment. And this yr they are getting ready start treating some 40,000 on the north end slash stack and burn. So this too will skew capacity.

Monroe is the dirtiest Petri dish to use in the state when it comes to deer. IMO monroe is being used to help convey the status quo. That its habitat and predation has no effect so let's just forgo any of that nonsense and keep pumping millions and some day billions into habitat.

Keep in mind none of these land management practices are decided by the DWR or wildlife interests. It's FS and BLM and they aren't in the browse business there in the graze business.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

How long does it take for sagebrush and bitterbrush to regenerate and take hold of land that has been cleared of P&J? Should it be expected that it would take a year? two? ten?


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

IB you sound like you might be pro state land management?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

No he is more along the lines of kill every predator aside from two of each to save for Noah. He's not calling for extermination though.

Most of his post are directly or indirectly geared towards predator removal.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> No he is more along the lines of kill every predator aside from two of each to save for Noah. He's not calling for extermination though.
> 
> Most of his post are directly or indirectly geared towards predator removal.


More specifically lion removal.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Not poking at you either IB. I like people with strong conviction and backbone.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Not poking at you either IB. I like people with strong conviction and backbone.


Like a lion


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

No offense taken 

We can also lower hunter harvest by shifting tag allotment. So if I were in the deer committee and the DWR told me the only way to increase B/D ratios was to cut tags. I literally would tell him to stuff it. And that a biologist or wildlife employee should know better than that.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I hate lions


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

GeTaGrip said:


> IB you sound like you might be pro state land management?


I'd expect the state would be in the graze business as well.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Very impressed BTW. 8 pages and not even a warning yet. Where's one eye? That's all it should take. Come on Buddy, where are ya? Hope your not chasing spikes around hoping to make them drop their massive racks or out re-counting the b/d ratios.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I am guessing his Chevy S-10 broke again


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am guessing his Chevy S-10 broke again


While looking for sheds


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

This BS proves only one thing, there aren't biologist at the DWR anymore, they must be Post grads. Having a higher buck to doe ratio DOES NOT mean that there are more deer, and trying to sell this bucket of crap is sad. If you have 2 deer, 1 buck and one doe, your buck to doe ratio is through the roof, yet you still only have 2 deer. It is simply amazing how the DWR says don't use your eyes, don't notice how you don't see near the deer (bucks or does) you have years past, but our b/d ratio is up so conversly the deer numbers are up. I was here in the early 90's, the buck to doe ratios sucked because they froze and starved to death. I am for small unit management, but lets not let horrific science cloud the issue. WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DEER, notice they don't compare statistics to the 60's and 70's. You can't look at a population graph, pick out 1 good year and claim victory, or, if we are so succesful, I guess since we have more deer, more bucks, we can have more tags? B/D ratios and overall deer population have nothing to do with each other, and unless you close your eyes, you can see that for yourself!!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Critter said:


> While looking for sheds


Of the one eyed buck. Or maybe scouting for Eagles in case the feds open up a hunt this fall.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

martymcfly73 said:


> Of the one eyed buck.


Didn't we see that the one eyed buck was finally found?

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/111393-sad-ending.html

Whoot! top of page.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Didn't we see that the one eyed buck was finally found?
> 
> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/111393-sad-ending.html
> 
> Whoot! top of page.


Sorry for the loss. Prayers with the family.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

hossblur said:


> This BS proves only one thing, there aren't biologist at the DWR anymore, they must be Post grads. Having a higher buck to doe ratio DOES NOT mean that there are more deer, and trying to sell this bucket of crap is sad. If you have 2 deer, 1 buck and one doe, your buck to doe ratio is through the roof, yet you still only have 2 deer. It is simply amazing how the DWR says don't use your eyes, don't notice how you don't see near the deer (bucks or does) you have years past, but our b/d ratio is up so conversly the deer numbers are up. I was here in the early 90's, the buck to doe ratios sucked because they froze and starved to death. I am for small unit management, but lets not let horrific science cloud the issue. WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DEER, notice they don't compare statistics to the 60's and 70's. You can't look at a population graph, pick out 1 good year and claim victory, or, if we are so succesful, I guess since we have more deer, more bucks, we can have more tags? B/D ratios and overall deer population have nothing to do with each other, and unless you close your eyes, you can see that for yourself!!


Of course they wouldn't compare it to the 60's. They shouldn't. Nor should you or anybody else.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Lunker really wants this thread locked. 

I hate cougars. Go Utes!


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Obama is the best president we have ever seen
Spikes will never be a big bull
The monre deer herd is thriving
Hillary Clinton will be an even better president than Obama


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

We've had Option 2 for deer in Wyoming for years; way before it was popular in Utah. 


Hey, how 'bout them Wyoming antelope? Option 2 baby.

.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

OK, you're all dumb an stupid. This thread is dumb and stupid. The DWR is dumb and stupid. Obama is dumb and stupid. Deers hunting is dumb and stupid. Deers are dumb and stupid. everybody South of Salt lake are...


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> OK, you're all dumb an stupid. This thread is dumb and stupid. The DWR is dumb and stupid. Obama is dumb and stupid. Deers hunting is dumb and stupid. Deers are dumb and stupid. everybody South of Salt lake are...


.....now we're finally getting somewhere!


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

All I know is that the dress is white and gold


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

LaVell Edwards was very over-rated as a coach and was a product of the system. Mendenhall is a tool.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

BPturkeys said:


> OK, you're all dumb an stupid. This thread is dumb and stupid. The DWR is dumb and stupid. Obama is dumb and stupid. Deers hunting is dumb and stupid. Deers are dumb and stupid. everybody South of Salt lake are...


I'm not sure that is good enough. Doesn't it require mentioning *SFW *a few times to get a big game thread locked here?


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

oh come on, is that all you guys got?? I've got one that will really get this thread locked.. Long range hunting is for evil people with no ethics!! 8)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I only ever long range shed hunt. Catch and release naturally. Anybody who does differently is a vegan wannabe tool


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> LaVell Edwards was very over-rated as a coach and was a product of the system. Mendenhall is a tool.


This man is very smart!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Whittingham is a tool as well. A dull one who is still piggybacking off of urban Meyer's success.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lock material ? No. 

Hall of shame material ? Yes

Great news about Utahs deer herds twisted into this-----Pathetic IMO.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

people just being light hearted. no harm no foul. Hope the deer herd can survive it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Oh come on, Goof! People just having a little fun on a thread that had burned out. If it will help you get more interested I could say there are way too many elk on the Wasatch and I think they should give out more cow tags.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Some people lack a sense of humor.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Haha well, lets try this. I for one LOOOVE SFW and EVERYTHING they stand for. In fact; I think the only hunting in Utah that should be allowed should be via conservation and expo tags!! Lock it up baby!!!!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

3arabians said:


> Haha well, lets try this. I for one LOOOVE SFW and EVERYTHING they stand for. In fact; I think the only hunting in Utah that should be allowed should be via conservation and expo tags!! Lock it up baby!!!!


Not sure I agree entirely with this....but you got me thinking. With the Wasatch being so overpopulated with elk, what about if the DWR arranged for an auction tag at the hunt expo for a 3-hr unlimited cow elk helicopter hunt? You get 3 hours from take off until you have stop pulling the trigger. No other restrictions. How much do you think Goof would pay for that one?

SFW could keep 50% of the money raised to earmark it for projects to help reduce hunter participation, and the other 50% can go specifically to wildlife projects on Antelope Island. Win-win for everyone, I'd say!

Edit: Top. Of. The. Page!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I also just heard that the DWR and SFW are doing a joint investigation into whether lunkerhunter2 actually hunts lunkers or not. Internet rumors are flying around right now that he actually catches only small fish but extends his arms fully and puts the camera close to the fish to make them look bigger. 

Heaven help us all!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I could say there are way too many elk on the Wasatch and I think they should give out more cow tags.


I was currious about your January Wasatch cow permit TS,
See any ..?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

TS30 said:


> I also just heard that the DWR and SFW are doing a joint investigation into whether lunkerhunter2 actually hunts lunkers or not. Internet rumors are flying around right now that he actually catches only small fish but extends his arms fully and puts the camera close to the fish to make them look bigger.
> 
> Heaven help us all!


Its true. My arms are very ape-like and I can stick them out a long ways. My 9' sturgeon was actually only around 25" but with them arms it looks the size of the boat. My 5-point bull was really actually a spike. Again them arms make it look much bigger. You should see other certain parts of me anatomy.:mrgreen:


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Did I mention that the pulled pork sandwiches at the Expo were real good?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I also would like to mention that NR can put in for points for a OIL hunts and Residents can only put in for 1.

It's only a matter of time before someone moves to Utah becomes a resident then draws Desert Bighorn, Rocky Mountain / California Bighorn, Rocky Mountain Goat, Moose, and Bison in 5 years consecutively.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> I was currious about your January Wasatch cow permit TS,
> See any ..?


So many that I couldn't even decide which one to shoot!  Just hackin on ya, Goof. Trying to lighten the mood around here.

Muscle, as much as that would pizz me off...that would be one incredible run of awesomeness, and I'd want to shake that guy's hand! It is a joke that NR can do that and residents can't.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I think we should give nonresidents 75% of the tags, but raise the price. That way we earn way more money for conservation. Residents just want to piss and moan about opportunity v. quality...


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Oh another thing, 

The Deadline for the draw is March 5th. 

The Application Withdraw Deadline is March 19th. 

The Drawing Results available May 29th.

W.T.S.F.

It's an electronic drawing system that takes less than 5 minutes.

Black Bear takes a week.

The Hunt Expo takes a week.

No reason it should take 3 months. 

They should either more the actually drawing up or move the application period back to May.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Very True Muscle.
If and when someone draws a special tag, or even a general tag, it is a whole lot tougher to get work vacation schedules moved around if you work with 15-20 or more people. By the end of May most plans are set in stone on vacations for the year.


----------

