# 2011, LOWEST number of deer harvested since 1936



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

A few facts and trends: These are general season deer ares: 75,201 hunters afield

2011 only yielded a total buck deer harvest of 18,929 STATE WIDE..lowest since 1936

Fewest number of ' deer hunters afield ' SINCE 1945...(Wold War 2)

Last year of regional deer hunting was offered,,will be interesting to see 2012 numbers.

General season elk, spike and any bull combine:

While the number of hunters afield has risen, every year since 2007..

THE NUMBER of bulls harvested HAS dropped over the same time frame..interesting.
2011, Spike and general season bull, 4,207 harvested, 37,944 hunters afield..
Any thoughts :?:

NOTE: These are GENERAL season numbers only..


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> A few facts and trends: These are general season deer ares: 75,201 hunters afield
> 
> 2011 only yielded a total buck deer harvest of 18,929 STATE WIDE..lowest since 1936
> 
> ...


Guys that would have normally drawen a deer tag didn't get that tag last year due to the new smaller deer units. Same guys still wanted to hunt and the only tags available where spike and general bull tags so they got one. It was there first time elk hunting and didn't find one to harvest. Just a guess.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

NO YAK,,

THESE ARE 2011 NUMBERS,,, LAST YEAR OF REGIONAL HUNTING...

2012 numbers for when unit management started are not available yet...


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

My bad. I was just guessing anyway.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Haha the deer herds are in great shape...we need opportunity goofy!!!


I read those statistics and wasn't the least bit surprised...But dammit I better get my tag every year!!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

General season buck deer harvest peaked in 1983, That year 82,552 buck deer were harvested..

Basically, since then, 30 years of decline in Utah regarding deer in every aspect.

I hear ya Reb :!: This 'opportunity' bs dose NOT sit well with me :evil: 

Some folks better get it through their head, deer, wildlife, are a limited resource..
And need to be managed accordingly :!:


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

My next best THEORY would be the Utah mountains aren't as remote as they used to be. We have been coming to Utah since the early 1980's and what I notice is the easy of access with ATV's is directly correlated with the decline in deer herds. Roads that used to be inaccessable after a storm in a 4X4 truck now are easily accessed with a ATV so the animals are always easy to get to rather than having to but your boots on and hike in the mud to get to them.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

losing wintering grounds is the biggest and poachers are another one.You cant blame Atv's for it sorry that is not even true. O yea people are not getting off there a$$ and hiking to see deer. Losing feed and birth areas is killing it as well.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

This trophy hunting mentality is what does not set well with me. What a bunch of BS. How about managing the animals for health and issuing the tag’s based on that?

I'm also curious as to what the estimated number of in Utah was in 1936?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I hear ya Reb :!: This 'opportunity' bs dose NOT sit well with me :evil:
> 
> Some folks better get it through their head, deer, wildlife, are a limited resource..
> And need to be managed accordingly :!:


yeah...because Colorado and Nevada are seeing huge increases of deer despite cutting way back on tags! :roll:


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I see it as a combination of many things - namely:

Fewer hunters / fewer deer = lower harvest.

Lower deer numbers are due to three or four factors hitting the herd at the same time: loss of winter range, decrease in the health of available winter range, more roads / development (i.e. less habitat and more roadkill), and deer being pushed out of previous range by higher numbers of elk.

Think about it - 30 years ago there was probably half the population we have here in Utah now. Lots of available habitat and winter range that wasn't in late stage succession, fewer roads / development, AND very low numbers of elk. Now everything has flipped and we're seeing the results. Human population and pressure is only going to get higher, there will be more roads and development, and elk are here to stay. The ONLY thing we can do to bring deer numbers back up is to get the available habitat and winter range back into shape and this takes decades and tons of money to do so. Even doing this won't bring them back to 60s, 70s, and 80s numbers, but it will be better than what it is now. Just about everything else is like putting a band aid compound fracture - it ain't going to work!

Deer numbers are so poor right now, that for the time being, I've mainly switched to elk. In the any bull area I hunt, I don't have to find that elusive spike to pull the trigger, and you gotta admit, elk beats deer as table fare any day of the year. I sincerely hope deer numbers improve from here on out, but unless the available habitat improves substantially over the next 10-20 years, I don't see it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I suppose I'll nibble on this.



goofy elk said:


> Fewest number of ' deer hunters afield ' SINCE 1945...(Wold War 2)


I would attribute it, in part, to lack of interest. Yes, you may argue poor hunting is part of it and I might agree with you for some folks. However, for many more there are other reasons. Other interests, not enough time, too much hassle to apply, the list is long. Do you think option 2 will make a big difference either way with a lot of these folks?



goofy elk said:


> 2011 only yielded a total buck deer harvest of 18,929 STATE WIDE..lowest since 1936


Fewer hunters, fewer harvested because of lower numbers of hunters afield. Also, hard winter in some regions and bluebird weather (at least where we were) dropped the harvest rates. Even still, we had an awesome hunt.

Question; With a mild winter before 2012, the rate of harvest and absolute numbers should go up. does option 2 get credit for that?



goofy elk said:


> While the number of hunters afield has risen, every year since 2007..
> 
> THE NUMBER of bulls harvested HAS dropped over the same time frame..interesting.
> 2011, Spike and general season bull, 4,207 harvested, 37,944 hunters afield..
> Any thoughts :?:


People want opportunity. They may be hitting general season and spike areas too hard because of this? What is the solution? Cut back on the opportunity areas more or open up more areas of the state to general bull? Thoughts?

Does anyone *not* argue that there are concerns abut the deer herd?


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

Maybe there are just more bad hunters now. More and more people don't get off their quads every year.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Uni said:


> Maybe there are just more bad hunters now. More and more people don't get off their quads every year.


Your kind'in ,right :?:

Because what I've seen in the last 30 years , there's hardly a stone unturned
out there, any were. If there's game, guys find it..Don't care how far you get back in..

Heck, Even the big bucks in the Escalante wilderness are NO MORE :shock:
A place that used to always hold a few giants...gone.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Goofy,

I'm weary of this argument. Your point is the herd is suffering so we need to decrease opportunity? Are you saying that people who oppose you just want to kill the deer herd into an oblivion? It's hard to have a meaningful conversation after that point, so why bring it up? 

You could just as easily make the conclusion that cutting deer tags have not helped. Or you could make the conclusion that fewer hunters means fewer deer harvested. 

You might want to take a look at success percentages over time. It is interesting that percentages have remained fairly constant regardless of hunters in the field - even in 2011. 

I'm really sick of people pretending that biology proves we have to have a limited entry hunting system or there can be no herd. What did DWR do in 1938 to increase the herd? Preditor control? yes! Habitat restoration? not really. Limited entry? hardly. Cut tags? not even. I don't know what they did that worked. I'm under the impression they did little compared to what we do now. Whatever they did - it worked very well for a few decades. Conversely, what we are doing isn't helping. 

I feel low deer numbers are usually just an excuse for those who prefer exclusive opportunities to eliminate the general hunt. They blame the general hunt for all the herd decline. We are all concerned about the decline of the deer herd. We are all willing to make sacrifices. It is just that exclusive hunters see this as an opportunity to turn hunting into an exclusive privlege - even after the deer herd increases. 

I'm not going to convince you that the herd can grow even if there is a general hunt. I'm under the impression that exclusive hunters don't ever process the fact that females are decreasing too, even though there is no general hunt for them. 

Because anterless numbers are decreasing, I am convinced there is a bigger problem than tag numbers. I'm willing to make sacrifices, but I have seen so many ineffective changes that I don't want to sign up for another. 

I like the general hunt. I like to see a lot of people get a lot of deer. I like to hear the multiple shots opening morning. I want to see a bigger herd so we can have a bigger hunt. Some guys don't like it. That is fine. We can argue politically, but stop pretending to understand biology that you don't understand. Stop pretending general hunters are stupid and don't understand how to interpret data. Nobody understands why the herd is as low as it is. Changing how many bucks are killed is not going to change how many fawns are born and survive to adulthood - that is where the problem of population growth is.


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

Just ask yourself "What is different now, from back then" and you will probably find your answers.

I don't think theres just one reason.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

provider said:


> I feel low deer numbers are usually just an excuse for those who prefer exclusive opportunities to eliminate the general hunt. They blame the general hunt for all the herd decline. We are all concerned about the decline of the deer herd. We are all willing to make sacrifices. It is just that exclusive hunters see this as an opportunity to turn hunting into an exclusive privlege - even after the deer herd increases.
> .


+1


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well provider, it's like this,
I talk the Utah hunters, and potential Utah hunters every day.
I look at our deer herds every day......Here's what I'm seeing and hearing.

More and more I hear Utah residents saying their done with Utah general hunts..

Almost daily, I'm telling non-res guys wanting info Utah's general deer is tough,
150 buck can be had, but it's **** tough on most general units........
Most non-res guys are looking for 170 stuff to make it worth while to come..
I tell them Limited entry is FOR SURE their best bet...

Anyone not realizing the the drop in quantity and quality is driving away deer
hunters from Utah IS NOT paying attention........

I'm simply going to keep throwing hard numbers and facts at this crowd,
It's the only way to get some to realize what's really go'in down


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You can only kill a certain percentage of what you have available. Fact

If you want quality you have to kill less. Fact

If the deer herd is declining tags need to be cut. Fact

The deer herd in utah has been sliding down hill and has been for many years despite what the dwrs deer counts say and anything we can do to curb the slide will result in more tags in the future. 

You simply cant point to one thing and say its the reason why the deer herd is tanking. Wheelers, advances in weapons, destruction of habitat, new and larger roads, cheat grass, inadequate predator control, increased elk population, ect. You can work on these items and turn it around slowly but my guess is no one wants to give up their slice of cause of decline. So we will all have to take a hit in the tag pie because you can only kill a certain percentage of game you have available. 

All states are declining in deer numbers. They all have the same problems utah has. Some simply have more problems than others.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

One more.



goofy elk said:


> More and more I hear Utah residents saying their done with Utah general hunts..
> 
> Almost daily, I'm telling non-res guys wanting info Utah's general deer is tough,
> 150 buck can be had, but it's **** tough on most general units........
> ...


I don't dispute a word you are saying, but I get the impression you are talking with fellow "hard-core" hunters like yourself. And in that crowd, what you are saying is probably spot on. I would say however, that this doesn't represent the "average" hunter or potential hunter. For many hunters, the term "'150" or "170 buck" has no meaning to them. It might as well be Chinese. I have a good friend who used to hunt with his dad and my father and I back in the day. Our dads have now passed on and I have been trying to talk him into joining me again "for old times sake" up on the mountain for a general deer hunt. When I went over what has changed in the application process since he last hunted, his eyes glazed over. I won't give up but I doubt he will hunt anytime soon. He couldn't give a rip about how big the bucks were that he might see, but other factors keep him away. In my circle of friends, that is more common than grousing about not being able to tag a wallhanger every year. But then, maybe I'm the atypical guy and others represent the "true" average hunter, or maybe not.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy do you be leave in everything you hear ?Do you be leave in Oboma ?

the more I hear of this 

More and more I hear Utah residents saying their done with Utah general hunts..

it make me happy. less people I got to deal with every year and dont have to worry about them getting my tag.
What unite are you talking to this people in? We have 30 unites and I know you are not getting to all the unite to talk to people.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

You love sighting numbers goofy. 

How many cougar are in Utah? How many deer are killed by them per yr?

I keep bringing it up because I read 2 pages of comments and not a mention of predation till SWB's. 

You could eliminate the deer hunt all together and the deer herd would not increase. Because it would just serve as more food for predators. In that respect they are compensatory. 

Habitat, roads and weather. Drink Kool aid much? What are we going to do about those factors? 

How about 1080 what roll does that play in your deer harvest timeline goofy?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well provider, it's like this,
> I talk the Utah hunters, and potential Utah hunters every day.
> I look at our deer herds every day......Here's what I'm seeing and hearing.
> 
> ...


I think that it was good that goofy started this post and the direction that it is headed in. Internet and other sources of media are starting to really detract from what hunting was or can be. At the mention of inches like 150 buck or 170 stuff you have to wonder. Why would that keep people from hunting? I used to dream about 4 points when I was young. Seeing a 2pt on the Monroe in 1990 was an awesome sight for me. I was too young to hunt back then but I sure did everything I could to push deer towards my Dad and he would have gladly harvested any legal deer.

With the media drawing attention to trophy class animals and every animal posted on the world wide web being a monster I can see how the first timers can be dissapointed about the outcome of their hunts. Furthermore with hunts changing from 9 day to 5 day to 3 day hunts and 5 regions to 30 regions I can see how other priorities can displace big game hunting as a focal past time. By losing outdoor participation we lose a lot of support and are becoming the minorities in this state. Hunters are starting to lose heritage and we will eventually be under ridicule for being heartless animal killers.

I gotta agree with goofy, the sky is falling. We need to get people less focused on how they measure up to the hunters smiling back at them on the internet and get back to getting away from the grind and in the field to breathe some fresh air. The more hunters the merrier. I don't want hunting to become a competitive privatized sport. COME ON GUYS WE ARE BETTER THAN GOLF!!!! :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Your numbers while accurate, are misrepresenting the truth. Hunter numbers were down in 2011 because the DWR cut tags by 6,000. It is impossible to put more hunters afield than there are tags available. Secondly, if you apply the success ratio of 28.9% (actual percentage for 2011) to the no longer available 6,000 tags, that is an additional harvest of 1,734 for total of 20,663. That is higher than 2010 (19,365) and roughly equivilent with 2009 (22,964), 2008 (20,755), 2005 (19,688), 2003 (20,906), and 2002 (21,954). The fact is that the success ratio in 2011 of 28.9% is only slightly lower than the average for the previous 11 years (30%) which is probably abonormally high because of outliers in 2007 (36.8%) and 2006 (38%). I believe those years were the result of early snow storms.

Is it tough to kill 150+ buck in Utah? Absolutely, but guys do it pretty regularly. Guess what...it's also hard to kill a 150+ in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and California. Yes, if I'm willing to wait more than 10 years then I can drastically improve my odds of killing a buck of that caliber. I'm not all that interested in that scenario though. I want the chance to pursue a buck of that caliber, if I succeed then that is just gravy. Right now, I can do that on a pretty regular basis in Utah.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Lets see, 1983, what was there, 250,000 hunters? Funny how we keep cutting tags and losing deer. Perhaps we should cut some more tags!! That has worked miracles!! Since 1983 we have lost 180,000 hunters, and what do we have to show for it? Fewer deer!! Now this is a new thought, perhaps hunters have less to do with deer numbers than ANY of the other factors.

Oh yeah, I will bet you there were more 30" deer killed in 83' than there were last year even including CWMU, govs tags, etc. Guess managing for trophies has been super successful also huh? Deer, or any animal ARE BY DEFINITION NOT A FINITE RESOURCE. Every spring you get more, unless you kill all the pregnant females.

There is ZERO reason for doe hunts ANYWHERE in a state that is at historic lows in deer population. Without does, you get now fawns, without fawns you loose your herd.



goofy elk said:


> General season buck deer harvest peaked in 1983, That year 82,552 buck deer were harvested..
> 
> Basically, since then, 30 years of decline in Utah regarding deer in every aspect.
> 
> ...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy, 

You can speculate all you want about the desirability of a Utah General deer tag and make it the foundation of your argument, but until they don't sell out, it is moot and unfounded. Is it probable that a Utah general tag is less desirable than it was 25 years ago to someone looking for the criteria you sighted? Probable, but that's not an issue because we still have customers buying those tags. Maybe, just maybe a 170"+ buck on the wall isn't the biggest contributing factor to the appeal of having a deer tag? Maybe there are a handful of hunters and youngsters that haven't succumb to egotism controlling their perspectives? Dunno, but it's possible......


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

We've been cutting tags for years and it hasn't fixed the problem. 

Maybe the problem isn't the hunters. Maybe we should look at managing the deer instead of micro-managing the hunters.

I blame the DWR and the SFW for our current situation. The DWR for ignoring the predator issue and the SFW types for focusing so much on tag cuts.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well provider, it's like this,
> I talk the Utah hunters, and potential Utah hunters every day.
> I look at our deer herds every day......Here's what I'm seeing and hearing.
> 
> ...


so you're disappointed in the fact that OUT OF STATERS don't want to come here because it's tough to kill 170 plus inch deer? :roll: Those poor guys, what are they going to do if they don't get enough inches each year.... I'm glad goofy that you got to have plenty of opportunity hunting and chasing any sized deer in this state that you wanted to but you're all about the inches and want to take that choice/opportunity away from others based on wanting bigger deer instead of herd health. I'm willing to sacrifice not getting a tag if it helps the population but not just in order to grow big bucks and that's all sfw and their supporters are for.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> Your numbers while accurate, are misrepresenting the truth. Hunter numbers were down in 2011 because the DWR cut tags by 6,000. It is impossible to put more hunters afield than there are tags available. Secondly, if you apply the success ratio of 28.9% (actual percentage for 2011) to the no longer available 6,000 tags, that is an additional harvest of 1,734 for total of 20,663. That is higher than 2010 (19,365) and roughly equivilent with 2009 (22,964), 2008 (20,755), 2005 (19,688), 2003 (20,906), and 2002 (21,954). The fact is that the success ratio in 2011 of 28.9% is only slightly lower than the average for the previous 11 years (30%) which is probably abonormally high because of outliers in 2007 (36.8%) and 2006 (38%). I believe those years were the result of early snow storms.
> 
> Is it tough to kill 150+ buck in Utah? Absolutely, but guys do it pretty regularly. Guess what...it's also hard to kill a 150+ in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and California. Yes, if I'm willing to wait more than 10 years then I can drastically improve my odds of killing a buck of that caliber. I'm not all that interested in that scenario though. I want the chance to pursue a buck of that caliber, if I succeed then that is just gravy. Right now, I can do that on a pretty regular basis in Utah.


 Excellent post!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

That Dahlmer fellow is pretty smart. 

A guy can wait 5+ years for a decent WY tag, NV tag, or CO tag on a system similar to our LTD units. It takes 10+ years for a LTD Utah permit, only because we choose to use a convoluted point system with 6 different ways of distributing deer permits. There are hunts in WY, CO, NM, NV that stink also.

As for the harvest numbers, since 1988 we have cut hunters by 160,000 and buck harvest has gone down 47,000 since that time. If hunters were the problem then we should be over flowing with deer these past 25 years. Alas, we are not and some rationing of permits must occur to protect a herd dwindling from reasons other than HUNTERS.

If we carry more bucks then maybe the predators will eat more bucks and allow more doe to survive and bear fawns. That must be how we grow deer herds by eliminating/reducing the two-legged buck hunters so the predators will stop eating as many doe. 

We all care about deer, just seems it is for different reasons. 

The wheels on the bus go........


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> Your numbers while accurate, are misrepresenting the truth. Hunter numbers were down in 2011 because the DWR cut tags by 6,000. It is impossible to put more hunters afield than there are tags available. Secondly, if you apply the success ratio of 28.9% (actual percentage for 2011) to the no longer available 6,000 tags, that is an additional harvest of 1,734 for total of 20,663. That is higher than 2010 (19,365) and roughly equivilent with 2009 (22,964), 2008 (20,755), 2005 (19,688), 2003 (20,906), and 2002 (21,954). The fact is that the success ratio in 2011 of 28.9% is only slightly lower than the average for the previous 11 years (30%) which is probably abonormally high because of outliers in 2007 (36.8%) and 2006 (38%). I believe those years were the result of early snow storms.
> 
> Is it tough to kill 150+ buck in Utah? Absolutely, but guys do it pretty regularly. Guess what...it's also hard to kill a 150+ in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and California. Yes, if I'm willing to wait more than 10 years then I can drastically improve my odds of killing a buck of that caliber. I'm not all that interested in that scenario though. I want the chance to pursue a buck of that caliber, if I succeed then that is just gravy. Right now, I can do that on a pretty regular basis in Utah.


I like your reasoning. C'mon goofy. I give you credit for being a zealot for your cause, but that was weak.


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

I can't wait for the 12 numbers. The gut feel was a lot of people took or had chances to take animals. If the numbers go up I'm sure we'll be hearing about the success of the new system - ummmm nope.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Interesting points being made, But no one can deny the steady drop in
total harvest numbers.........RIGHT or Wrong?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I say right.

NOW, the bigger piece to this puzzle, Estimated deer hear size.
While Utah's estimated deer her size has come down slightly over this same time period.
I personally do NOT believe it matches the TRUE picture equailing the fall off in harvest.

Any of you mathematicians ,'dahlmer', care to explain how these estimates seem high?
Over exaggerated?

2011, almost 300,000 estimated deer in Utah, YET only 19K ,or so, general bucks killed?
Get the picture?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SteepNDeep said:


> I can't wait for the 12 numbers. The gut feel was a lot of people took or had chances to take animals. If the numbers go up I'm sure we'll be hearing about the success of the new system - ummmm nope.


NOT according to the 3 DWR check-in stations I visited during the 2012 rifle hunt.

All 3 told me same as 2011 or below.........We'll see.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I have not see a DWR checking station in over 10 years. They still run them? wow...


-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

yeah...actually, I have run through check stations every year on the rifle hunt as long as I can remember. In fact, a lot of the deer harvest information the DWR collects comes from these stations. In my area, for example, the check station is usually near the sand ledges just west of Koosharem Reservoir or at the junction heading toward the town of Koosharem. This is a good spot because you have several units worth of traffic coming through these areas...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

As Dahlmer mentioned tag cuts explain the hunters afield number in 2011 and also the harvest number. That was not only not a surprise but was expected. The success rate is the rate that tells us the most and it was pretty average. I don't see anything from the 2011 numbers that tells us anything we didn't already know or expect.

Goofy is right though that there is a growing "bad" reputation regarding the Utah general deer hunt amongst many hunters. IMHO opinion there a lot of factors but the 2 main factors there are first the growth in popularity of "trophy hunting" and the growing complexity of the hunts and drawing a tag.

Despite NBR's sarcasim and rhetoric not many people want to hunt every year at the expense of the deer herds future. That was never the real debate. The debate has always been centered around how many "mature" bucks people harvest and have an opportunity to harvest while hunting. That single factor drives the rest of the discussion. That single factor drives more misconceptions, more incorrect data to be thrown around, rhetoric, personal attacks and spawning of arm chair biologists than anything else. Many hunters arean't all that concerned about "trophies" and don't want to see their opportunity to get out and hunt cut for that single factor and some hunters do. Hunters are passionate about what they want in their own personal hunting experience. Nearly all agree that we do not want to over harvest to the deterimant of the herd. When you look at most forecasts and reports from people like the Eastman's hunting mag you'll notice that trophy quality is central to those reports. Trophy hunting is driving this sport and the future of it in Utah. Do you like where it's headed?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Hunters are not the only thing that kills deer. Why do only look to mitigate buck mortality with reducing hunter opportunity? I have never heard you suggest otherwise. 

Is there any other way fathomable to decrease buck mortality? 

I think a majority of hunters think there are too few buck not that they don't score high. It's deceiving to characterize it like a insatiable quest for inches. When for most it boils down to today I walked 5 miles see 30 doe 2 bucks both were 2 pts. I haven't even laid eveys on a 4pt in 3 days of hunting. That is the kinda stuff most deer hunters are worried about. Not a 200" buck.

Biology or not 5/100 b/d ratios may be viable for the herd but not for the hunter.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

To tell you the truth BullS, there are parts of " like were it's headed " I dont like...

Trophy quality mentality in on a freight train, gaining speed!

I personaly dont mind general season areas, BUT, IMHO, Some of them are being abused 
to the point it IS A MAJOR part of the growing bad reputation they have.....

The Nebo unit is a perfect example, I've had LONG discustions with Denis Sutherland on this subjct 3 times since the first of the year.He totaly agrees units like Nebo need help!
And cutting permits is something that should indeed happen, BOTH deer and elk...

But , how do we change it, and cut tags on units like Nebo, THAT NEED IT,
WITHOUT the oppertunity group sreaming cuts are being driven by "trophy mentality" ?

That's were I'm seeing the biggest issue here!

And honastly,I'd hate to be in you guys shoes, RAC & Board members, You guy are about
to get hit hard at the next round of meetings regaurding this issue. Best of luck! 
And I do mean it


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I couldn't agree with Bullsnot more. 

I've tried to argue for the general hunt many times and get told I just want to kill something no matter what. Exclusive minded hunters than claim they understand biology and I don't. 

The hypocrisy became very apparent to me when I went to a meeting that Don Peay conducted. He said the 65% of hunters who prefer opportunity to quality are like the occupy wall street movement and don't understand data. He then went on to say he's called the meeting because everything we've been doing for 20 years isn't working. 

It's not that I'm not willing to make sacrifices, it's that I don't want hunting to become exclusive in the process. Additionally, I'm convinced that trophy hunters are so fixated on inches and exclusivity that they can't think past general hunter restrictions. I suspect the problem lies with birth rates and fawn survival. Deer populations can double and double again in a few short years. 

Goofy, on a personal note I didn't tag a deer in 2011 because I passed a 2-point and a decent 3 point opening morning. I was encouraged by some bigger deer that I saw but didn't get a shot. I guess I need to start killing those little ones so you don't freak out that the harvest is down.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I think a majority of hunters think there are too few buck not that they don't score high. It's deceiving to characterize it like a insatiable quest for inches. When for most it boils down to today I walked 5 miles see 30 doe 2 bucks both were 2 pts. I haven't even laid eveys on a 4pt in 3 days of hunting. That is the kinda stuff most deer hunters are worried about. Not a 200" buck.
> 
> Biology or not 5/100 b/d ratios may be viable for the herd but not for the hunter.


Well IB, You and I are 100% together on this one :!: Totaly agree....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

provider said:


> Goofy, on a personal note I didn't tag a deer in 2011 because I passed a 2-point and a decent 3 point opening morning. I was encouraged by some bigger deer that I saw but didn't get a shot. I guess I need to start killing those little ones so you don't freak out that the harvest is down.


Not "freaking out" over the fact harvest is down in 2011:!:

I'm freaking out because deer harvest has been DECLINING FOR 30 STRAIT YEARS


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Interesting points being made, But no one can deny the steady drop in
> total harvest numbers.........RIGHT or Wrong?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I say right.
> 
> NOW, the bigger piece to this puzzle, Estimated deer hear size.
> ...


Well if you base it on 15 bucks to 100 does, there are only 45000 bucks in Utah. That would be a harvest of 42%, which would be way to high IMO.

Even based on 25 to 100 (which we all know is way to high) there are only 75000 bucks - 25% harvest rate.

This of course doesn't count winter/predator kill.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Uni, I've been waiting for some one to take a stab at this,
A couple of things, to get acurate numbers, LE numbers would need to
be taken into account, OR estamated LE herd size reduced from the 300K....

BUT, for the most part, your numbers are close,,, dosnt add up.

I've been saying this for years now..


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It's not that easy to quantify. It's beyond my mathematical ability. It has to do with the count (300,000) being done post hunt along with classification. So if I remember correctly there are young buck that show up as doe but then start to grow horn that spring and are shot that same yr never getting classified as a buck. :?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I hope everyone quits hunting GS. Won't hurt my feelings one bit.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> I personaly dont mind general season areas, BUT, IMHO, Some of them are being abused
> to the point it IS A MAJOR part of the growing bad reputation they have.....
> 
> The Nebo unit is a perfect example, I've had LONG discustions with Denis Sutherland on this subjct 3 times since the first of the year.He totaly agrees units like Nebo need help!
> ...


Isn't the above one of the reasons given for the passage of Option 2 - allowing the DWR more flexibility to manage individual herd units instead of having to manage on a macro, regional level? The next 4-5 years (if they don't change the plan in mid-stream) will be interesting to say the least.

I do agree that the "inches" craze is doing hunting no favors. Sure we all want to shoot a nice buck, but when that is the over riding drive to hunt, heritage seems to go out the window. I am dumbfounded when hunters applaud less competition in the field. Less competition means fewer to advocate for hunting in the future! Given that we are already such a small percentage of the population, this mindset is not doing us any favors w/r/t the future generations.

I still contend that if quality habitat isn't available, the rest of this argument is a moot point. If deer don't have enough to eat and room to roam, it makes sense that recruitment will continue to spiral downward.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

MWScott72 said:


> I still contend that if quality habitat isn't available, the rest of this argument is a moot point. If deer don't have enough to eat and room to roam, it makes sense that recruitment will continue to spiral downward.


It only makes sense if your in complete denial that predators actually kill deer. And they do live in Utah.

So what evidence to you have to support habitat is *the* limiting factor other than the deer herd is not growing?

You mention roads being a problem too. What happened to the other 75% of the state that is undeveloped? Book Cliffs Henry's, Paunsy West desert Uintah's Elk ridge all have less deer than before. Basically the same trend as the rest of the state in terms of population. Bountiful?

Did the deer and rabbit habitat degrade in all these places at almost the same rate? Did porcupine habitat degrade at the same time also? Did the practices of poisoning and eradicating predators have no effect from the 30's to the 70's?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> You mention roads being a problem too. What happened to the other 75% of the state that is undeveloped? Book Cliffs Henry's, Paunsy West desert Uintah's Elk ridge all have less deer than before. Basically the same trend as the rest of the state in terms of population.


habitat loss is not only contributed to roads and development...it can also be traced back to things like fire suppression, grazing practices, and moisture among other things.


Iron Bear said:


> So what evidence to you have to support habitat is *the* limiting factor other than the deer herd is not growing?


What evidence do you have to support that habitat is NOT the limiting factor? That question can be posed right back at you...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Not "freaking out" over the fact harvest is down in 2011:!:
> 
> I'm freaking out because deer harvest has been DECLINING FOR 30 STRAIT YEARS


Oh?

The first number is the year, the second number is the bucks harvested, the third number is the antlerless harvested (archery), the fourth number is the hunters afield, the fifth number is the percentage.

1981 - 80,627 - 0 - 211,467 - 38.1%
1982 - 75,065 - 0 - 222,305 - 33.8%
1983 - 82,552 - 0 - 228,907 - 35.9%
1984 - 63,044 - 0 - 193,662 - 32.6%
1985 - 59,045 - 0 - 210,313 - 28.1%
1986 - 60,610 - 0 - 193,977 - 31.2%
1987 - 65,969 - 953 - 200,746 - 33.3%
1988 - 68,125 - 1,057 - 222,377 - 31.1%
1989 - 57,381 - 1,169 - 208,037 - 28.1%
1990 - 57,220 - 1,021 - 207,241 - 28.1%
1991 - 51,415 - 1,337 - 203,625 - 25.9%
1992 - 54,804 - 1,266 - 213,937 - 26.2%
1993 - 24,763 - 2,192 - 140,701 - 19.2%
1994 - 27,699 - 0 - 86,121 - 32.2%
1995 - 24,594 - 0 - 97,823 - 25.1%
1996 - 32,939 - 0 - 103,892 - 31.7%
1997 - 28,144 - 0 - 105,088 - 26.8%
1998 - 30,216 - 0 - 106,201 - 28.6%
1999 - 29,583 - 139 - 93,290 - 31.9%
2000 - 30,728 - 126 - 94,304 - 32.7%
2001 - 25,355 - 112 - 88,798 - 28.7%
2002 - 21,954 - 53 - 95,264 - 23.1%
2003 - 20,906 - 89 - 85,553 - 24.5%
2004 - 25,954 - 138 - 81,260 - 32.0%
2005 - 19,688 - 122 - 81,204 - 24.4%
2006 - 28,396 - 108 - 83,710 - 34.1%
2007 - 28,001 - 108 - 77,525 - 36.3%
2008 - 20,755 - 84 - 86,522 - 24.1%
2009 - 22,964 - 122 - 80,470 - 28.7%
2010 - 18,967 - 165 - 81,482 - 23.5%
2011 - 18,929 - ? - 75,201 - 25.2%


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

People complain all the time, doesn't mean it is truth.

Where I hunt there are big bucks and we see them every year, on the bowhunt. By the muzzleloader you might see them in the thick pines and by the rifle hunt you very rarily see them. Then come November you see them again.

Cut tags that will solve all of the problems, NOT!

One guy I know shot two giant bucks in the same area on Nebo two years in a row...Then the third year he only see's small bucks and all of a sudden the unit sucks and needed tags cut. He didn't stop to think that it took years for those two giants to get as big as they did and that it would take a few more years for the small bucks to grow.

People want a hunt like they have on the Henry's every year but they don't realize that even in the good ole day's not every year was as good as others. A big buck in the ole day's had the whole towns attention for a reason.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ya, ya EFA, I've looked at all those numbers.

There's certain spikes back and forth, BUT hey, Bottom line,
We've gone from harvesting 80k plus deer in Utah down to BELOW 20k...

There were guys on this forum less than a year ago debating that there was 
NOTHING wrong with Utahs deer herds.....CRAZY........

JHaas, you reading this?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Not "freaking out" over the fact harvest is down in 2011:!:
> ...


Goofy i think elks numbers just smacked a few upside the head. Lol

The data to me says about 1/3 of the hunters are successful every year. The division has been cutting tags because the resource has been drying up. I dont think they cut them fast enough and soon enough. Are tags are going to be continue to go down until things are fixed or nature finds a balance. Our tags are NOT getting cut because the inch guys cant find a 200" buck! Our tags are getting cut because there are less deer to hunt every year. It just compounds the fact tags need to be cut when you put 300 bucks in fuel drive all weekend and you see a hundred does and rarley see a buck.

Packout sarcastically alluded to having a few more bucks in the herd might give the predators something to eat besides a fawn or a doe. I actually think there is some truth to that. I think it makes for a short rut which equals more fat on the deer after the rut. It leads to earlier births which leads to less fawn predation. I would rather have all the fawns being born around the same time. This gives the fawns the best chance of survival.

Maybe we can open the whole state up to spike deer and make you draw a branch antler tag. Lol


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Uni said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting points being made, But no one can deny the steady drop in
> ...


I'll try to answer these questions. All of my numbers are based off 2011 data. That data indicates the following...herd size was approximately 286,000. There is no published average for buck:doe ratios so I added the 3 year averages for all the regions and divided by five which is 16.6. The statewide fawn:doe ratio for 2001 was 61:100.

My process required that I make a couple of assumptions. First, I understand the ratios expressed as a percentage would look like this [16.6(bucks)/100 does+16.6 bucks (116.6 deer)=14.2%] and [61 (fawns)/100 does+61 fawns (161 deer)=37.9%. I also assumed that 75% of does were bred (probably low) and that 80% would have twins. I also assumed that 50% of fawns are bucks.

Based on those numbers, post hunt herds include 40,600 bucks (286,000x14.2%). Additionally, of the remaining 245,000 deer 93,000 are fawns [(286,000-40,600)x37.9%]. Of those 93,000 fawns, 46,500 (93,000/2) are bucks. That means post hunt there are approximately 87,000 bucks. That would leave a harvest ratio of about 25%. Obviously there is die off from predators, vehicle collisions and winter kill that would effect that number.

Here is where I believe the real problem lies. Based on my math there are still 152,000 breedable does. If 75% of those does are bred and 80% of those does have twins that means 182,000 new fawns should be born the following spring. Why are these fawns not surviving? Predation? It's a contributing factor. Habitat? absolutely. I believe the causes are many and varied accross the state. If fawn:doe ratios could be increased to 80:100 the herd would flourish. I don't know how to do that.

I don't believe we have an underabundance of bucks for the most part. Here's an interesting statistic...the state records what percentage of bucks they viewed while doing counts were 3 points or better. In GS units, the high was 59% and the low was 33%. Most units were above 40%. Clearly some areas could use some help in that regard, but I think most are doing OK.

Goofy is correct in saying the deer numbers are troubling and have been on a negative trend for a long time. If there were a magic bullet to turn things around, I'm sure it would have been solved by now. I believe the numbers of the 50's and 60's are an anomoly and there is no realistic expectation of ever seeing those numbers again. From what I have read, I understand that grazing practices played a large part in changing the habitat during the 30's and 40's. It created a early/mid stage habitat succession. Coupled with predator management strategies and limited competition deer numbers exploded. This was followed by habitat management strategies that limited burns, lumbering, etc and resulted in much of our habitat moving to climax stage. This combined with more liberal predator management and increased competition led to declines in carrying capacity. Heavy winterkill in the early 90's followed by severe drought conditions in the late 90's early 2000's further damaged already poor habitat conditions. In addition, development has further fragmented habitats and have overtaken much of the winter range the deer heavily relied on.

So, what is the answer? I don't know. I am encouraged that deer numbers do seem to have stabalized somewhat during the last decade. Habitat efforts will take decades to pay off. Micro management will not contribute in better herd quality for the most part. It may help in a few areas that are really struggling as that can be managed on a more individualized basis.

As far as the numbers go, Utah's are as accurate as any other states. If we are off, every other state is off as well. They all use the same forumulas to calcualate numbers. No doubt they are not 100% accurate. I do think they are reasonably accurate though.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dahlmer i cant disagree with why you said the deer numbers have crashed. So it must correct.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I got to say, Excellant posts by both SW and Dahlmer.... 

Pretty much spot-on :!:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

That Dahlmer is a smart guy. I am glad he posted that info as I am tired of doing the calculations over and over again for these guys every year or two. Hope they remember it this time.

SW- there may have been some sarcasm intended, but also some truth-- as predators have more deer to eat. Predators are an issue. I'd wager you are probably wrong about the fawning issue. The studies (current and past) have shown the bulk of fawns born are within the first rut window, even with buck numbers in the sub 10per100 range. You have seen the Books-- are there enough bucks to breed the doe herd out there? Why has the Book Cliffs herd lost 20% of its population in the last 4 years? Why has the SJ Elk Ridge deer herd not rebounded in 20 years after issuing a fraction of the historical buck permits? 

Sure we cut hunter numbers to protect the buck herds and that is fine. What isn't fine is the desire to cut buck tags to grow 170" deer. We have cut 160,000 hunters over the past 25 years and reduced buck harvest by 47,000. Buck hunters are not suppressing our deer herds. Something else is. CO, WY, NV, UT, AZ, NM, ID all want to know what it is-- which is probably out of our control anyway. These posts are tiring because no one has the correct answer.

WHERE ARE ALL THE FAWNS GOING?!!


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Packout sarcastically alluded to having a few more bucks in the herd might give the predators something to eat besides a fawn or a doe. I actually think there is some truth to that. I think it makes for a short rut which equals more fat on the deer after the rut. It leads to earlier births which leads to less fawn predation. I would rather have all the fawns being born around the same time. This gives the fawns the best chance of survival.


Actually, the opposite is true. Higher buck numbers results in more competition for does and the bucks going into the rut in worse condition. Several studies have been done regarding what estrus cycle does were bred in and there was overwhelming evidence that virtually all does were bred during their first cycle. If I can find the studies I will provide a link.

Colorado is a great case study regarding high buck ratios. I spoke to several of their biologist before the 07 and 08 winters. They indicated that because many of their units carried buck:doe ratios north of 25:100 that a severe winter would be catastrophic for their deer herds. Take a look at Colorado's herd numbers following those winters. They estimated herds '06 at about 612,000. In '08 herds were estimated at 466,000. That is a drop of nearly 25%. Most of Colorado's premier units (take a look a the Gunnison basin)remain far below '06 numbers and are showing no sign of recovery.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

packout 
Ive never said having them bred early is the end all fix. It could be a slice of the problem though on our general deer units. 

Also how many times do I have to argue killing the coyotes will increase our deer herds. 
I actually think predators are to blame for the most part. The san juan has the highest bear population its ever had if im not mistaken. Heck I see bears or bear sign everywhere now days. Same with coyotes. How many times have I said over and over 1080 will fix our deer population. 1080 was the driving factor for our deer explosion. It was also some of its undoing. The deer over grazed the winter grounds and the winter grounds simply haven't recovered.

I think what sfw did with the coyote bounty was a good thing. This is hard to say for me because I dislike a lot of what they do.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Utah population increases:



> Census Pop. %±
> 1850 11,380  -
> 1860 40,273 253.9%
> 1870 86,336 114.4%
> ...


We have 1.4 million more people now than in 1980, DOUBLE the population! More humans = more roads, more cars, more houses, more development, more intrusion into natural habitat etc etc. Whats amazing is people think there is a quick fix to this and that somehow waving a magic wand will return us to herd sizes of the 1980's... guess what, short of some major disease that kills 60% of human the population, it aint happening.

-DallanC


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

IB wont let the 1080 thing go,,, I havn't even resonded to it.

Why, Cuz 1080 isn't coming back!

It's not an option, unfortunatly.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> MWScott72 said:
> 
> 
> > I still contend that if quality habitat isn't available, the rest of this argument is a moot point. If deer don't have enough to eat and room to roam, it makes sense that recruitment will continue to spiral downward.
> ...


Not to beat a dead horse, but there is a reason you find fewer deer in marginal desert habitat as opposed to "better" habitat located further up the mountain or on agricultural farmland - they have more to eat/drink. Come to think of it, taking the human element out, more deer can often equal more predators, because they have more to eat - right?

IB - I don't doubt that predators have a significant impact on deer numbers, but if you're going to deny that habitat doesn't also play a major role, I think you fooling yourself.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dahlmer said:


> I'll try to answer these questions. All of my numbers are based off 2011 data. That data indicates the following...herd size was approximately 286,000. There is no published average for buck:doe ratios so I added the 3 year averages for all the regions and divided by five which is 16.6. The statewide fawn:doe ratio for 2001 was 61:100.
> 
> My process required that I make a couple of assumptions. First, I understand the ratios expressed as a percentage would look like this [16.6(bucks)/100 does+16.6 bucks (116.6 deer)=14.2%] and [61 (fawns)/100 does+61 fawns (161 deer)=37.9%. I also assumed that 75% of does were bred (probably low) and that 80% would have twins. I also assumed that 50% of fawns are bucks.
> 
> ...


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

DallanC said:


> Utah population increases:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hunt out of Manti, there hasn't been any new roads, the town really hasn't expanded much since 83' and there ain't no deer. I know this isn't true everywhere, but much of the habitat in the state is the same, or like the manti, better(sheep not allowed to eat to the dirt). We need more deer. After we have more deer THEN we can argue about how many should be bucks, how big they should be, etc., etc! But wanting 17% bucks, when you have no deer is meaningless. If you have 100 deer, thats 17 bucks. If you have 10,000 in your unit you have 1700 bucks. I would prefer more bucks, not just one huge one is a tiny population. Doe hunting is unethical if your herd is spiraling downwhere.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Dallan,

I have a hard time believing population growth is why the herd is struggling all over the State. A lot of the population is concentrated. The deer don't seem to struggle with development - Bountiful for example. There are a lot of places that have had hardly any increase in development for decades and they are struggling the same. Additionally, there are fewer deer tags which should reduce human impact even more. I love to rifle hunt Salt Lake County when I don't draw somewhere else. Its a 3+ hour drive. I see about as many bucks there as I do on the Boulders Muzz hunts. 

Its possible people negatively impact deer populations, but I don't believe the two are inversely proportional.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Habitat is the reason we don't have 2 million deer in Utah. It is not the reason why we have 300,000. What tells me a goober on the computer that the deer are not at or above capacity? All you have to do is look at them and see the deer that are present are not skinny sickly hovering around hay stacks in town dead under every other tree when out looking sheds. I'm not seeing any evidence of it what so ever. Nor do I hear of deer in these conditions on any significant level. 

How many acres does it take to sustain a deer? I going to go ahead and say just about every acre in Utah has some habitat value to a mule deer in Utah except pavement salt flat water surface and slickrock. They will eke out a living just about everywhere else. So how many acres are potential deer habitat in the state of Utah? Millions? How many acres does it take to sustain a deer? We have 800,000 cattle in Utah. I cant find a figure on how many sheep we have. I bet its near a million. So I find any deer we are getting over 300,000 are just starving and being hit by cars not only hard to believe but as you can tell by my tone offensive. Especially when there are serious professionals tasked with providing quality viability or opportunity to the masses. 

This is what I know? Predators are a common denominator in all of the deer herds in the west doesn't matter what state what hunter management style what population roads graze whatever. They all had a campaign against predators. Read my signature. I don't want anything eradicated or exterminated. I'm not saying bring on the 1080. I'm saying there is evidence and precedence that animals that do in fact kill deer have an effect on herd numbers. OMG they are a factor. Unless you try to tell me that any deer over 300,000 is gonna die anyway. BS also you gotta believe deer are at capacity so believe the higher B/D ratio is putting more stress on the fawns and pregnant doe. Another reason to ignore common sense. Enough with the taking from the hunter. Hasn't it proven itself not to work? Lets get comprehensive about predators too. And when your talking deer that means cougar and coyote and bear and even bobcat. Maybe wolf someday hopefully not. We try to assign a number to everything that kills deer but predation. That's backwards. Money is not a factor either. The predator control budget is a tiny fraction compared to habitat dollars. That don't really increase the herds. 

Another observation, I don't ever remember Yellowstone being overrun with deer. I also don't think they ever poisoned all the predators there either.

I have concerns the habitat restoration efforts I have personally witness have served to reduce deer capacity on Monroe both summer and winter. Then we have a comprehensive study there being conducted that may very well be used as the answer to capacity and predator relations for the whole state. From my perspective a self fulfilling prophecy. For biologist types who tend to deny predators as a possible go to tool to achieve human desired game population increases.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Iron Bear,

I think you might be on to something. I studied forestry in the 90's and was a firm believer at the time that habitat was the answer to increasing the herd. I also believed fire would improve the herd. This state has been burned over twice since then. There are a lot of places in the state that haven't changed much and the deer disappear just the same. 

You talk about Yellowstone. You could say the same thing about the high country in Zion National Park. Sure there are some deer there, but nothing like there once was. Plenty of deer down low, all year, mingling with tourists and development. There is plenty of range up high. No livestock, no development, no hunters. Makes you wonder what they are afraid of in the high country. 

Perhaps the deer are doing so well around cities because of the lack of predators.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

[/quote]I hunt out of Manti, there hasn't been any new roads, the town really hasn't expanded much since 83' and there ain't no deer. I know this isn't true everywhere, but much of the habitat in the state is the same, or like the manti, better(sheep not allowed to eat to the dirt). We need more deer. After we have more deer THEN we can argue about how many should be bucks, how big they should be, etc., etc! But wanting 17% bucks, when you have no deer is meaningless. If you have 100 deer, thats 17 bucks. If you have 10,000 in your unit you have 1700 bucks. I would prefer more bucks, not just one huge one is a tiny population. Doe hunting is unethical if your herd is spiraling downwhere.[/quote] The habitat is NOT the same! There is a massive pine beetle problem, sage brush stands are old and thus poor winter energy sources for deer, cheat grass has taken over a large portion of traditional winter ranges, among other degradation if habitat. I have far more deer on my land now days then there was during the peak deer population years. If poorer habitat isn't the cause, what is? I do agree the best way to get more bucks is to grow more deer, however.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

The lower slopes east and west of Manti could use a great amount of improvement. Up high there is plenty of feed for sheep, cattle, Deer, elk etc but the wintering areas need to be improved. The WMA's around Manti have alot of potential but they need some investment.

There are also alot more predators in those mountains then in years past. Bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote etc are all higher now then in the 70's.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Goofy, I still read these forums and I still see a good amount of mature bucks year in and year out (yawn...). Maybe you should become a vegetarian, that way you can find something to harvest.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think with the return of the 9 day hunt statewide and with favorable hunting condition last year. 2012 harvest % could be in the high 30s. Our party went 7 for 7, with all 3 point or better bucks. Personally, if we continue to keep the harvest % in the 30s, I think we are going in the right direction. Cutting tags in 1994 had nothing to do with "growing the herds". Do you guys really think in 1994 , the Biologist concluded that if they cut tags, the herds will come back? I think they were just hoping to maintain the usual trend and keep the harvest % rate at or about the same or close to the average. What if they decided to raise the tag numbers to 200,000 for the next 5 years. Do you think the harvest % would still be in the 30s? I'm guessing years 2-5 would see the hunter success rate drop into the teens or maybe single digits by year 5 and the buck to doe ratio would drop below 10:100 in many units. Although Biology is very important, hunter satifaction is also important and should not be ignored.

QUESTION FOR AMY
Will we continue to see an individual report for each of the 30 sub-units?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I hate to even post on this subject because for the past five years I have observed drastic decline in both deer and elk numbers, only to be accused of not leaving my truck to hunt.

Last year the DWR screwed me and my boy out of a general deer tag, due to sending out a letter stating I had drawn a Hennery Mnt lmt entry tag only to take it back because they screwed up. Last year I had sixteen points going into the limited entry draw for deer. This year after arguing with all my might with a bunch of dumb ASSets in the main office, I apply for lmt entry deer with 16 points. Both my 15 year old boy and I have TWO general deer points going into this years draw and my boy does not want to apply or hunt this year. My boy is smart enough to relize that hunting deer in Utah is like hunting leprechauns.

Already this year I cost the group we hunt with 30 extra dollars as we went by the map in applying for general deer units instead of retaining the services of a lawyer and a surveyor to figure out the bounderies of the new 30 unit general deer draw. It is getting to the point that even old time hunters as myself question our sanity of trying to hunt or apply in Utah year after expecting things to get better and dealing with the same old BS. Hunting in Utah is starting to get old and stale.....Big


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> I hope everyone quits hunting GS. Won't hurt my feelings one bit.


Well mcfly, Your wishes may be coming TRUE :!:

I spoke with a friend from Fallon yesterday, It appears, at this point applications
are DOWN considerably from previous years. Sparking this DWR news release:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... g-out.html

Last year, I debated with some on this forum about this issue,
I thought there would be left over general deer tags, and there was...
Looks/sounds like this trend is/will continuing to grow.

And like BigB,
I too know a growing number that refuse to put in for general deer,
My wife is one, and several in her family, Its LE tags or out of state :!: 
They are done hunting general deer in Utah.....


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Sorry to hear you family is giving up Goofy. Hopefully it opens up at least 7 tags for my family and friends that passed their hunter safety last year and will be hunting big game for the first time this year. No youth in that bunch.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Sorry to hear you family is giving up Goofy. Hopefully it opens up at least 7 tags for my family and friends that passed their hunter safety last year and will be hunting big game for the first time this year. No youth in that bunch.


Giving up :?: HELL NO :!:

Going were it's better :?: ,,,,,HELL YES :!:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Herd quality can not be measured in inches. Any push to say our herd needs to improve in inches is a self-serving statement. Herd health has NOTHING to do with inches. Never has, never will. There is no rational argument it does or can. 

Now, hunter satisfaction, for some, is measured strictly in inches. But hunter satisfaction and herd health are not the same thing. 

Lastly, bucks don't have babies. If you really want to increase the number of deer in Utah, it won't be done with buck deer tag numbers.

*edit- Goofy, I got that release in an email form last night. And yes, I'll still be applying.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

let me set the record strait here, I'm buy NO MEANS saying Utah should,
"manage by inches"

I AM saying, previous ways of managing deer herds are TOTALY unacceptable..
Letting units drop to below 10 to 100 ratios was a freak'in joke!
3 and 5 day deer seasons, another complete joke!
Letting hunter satisfaction levels drop to the point hunters are quiting, 
TOTALY UNACCEPTABLE!!!..............INHO.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

I hunt out of Manti, there hasn't been any new roads, the town really hasn't expanded much since 83' and there ain't no deer. I know this isn't true everywhere, but much of the habitat in the state is the same, or like the manti, better(sheep not allowed to eat to the dirt). We need more deer. After we have more deer THEN we can argue about how many should be bucks, how big they should be, etc., etc! But wanting 17% bucks, when you have no deer is meaningless. If you have 100 deer, thats 17 bucks. If you have 10,000 in your unit you have 1700 bucks. I would prefer more bucks, not just one huge one is a tiny population. Doe hunting is unethical if your herd is spiraling downwhere.[/quote] The habitat is NOT the same! There is a massive pine beetle problem, sage brush stands are old and thus poor winter energy sources for deer, cheat grass has taken over a large portion of traditional winter ranges, among other degradation if habitat. I have far more deer on my land now days then there was during the peak deer population years. If poorer habitat isn't the cause, what is? I do agree the best way to get more bucks is to grow more deer, however.[/quote]

Lets be honest then, and I am not slamming you, but look at the sanpete valley. Every year there is more and more sage plowed under to grow hay. Hell in the last few years you guys are growing corn. The pivot lines are everywhere. We used to hunt the face out of scott millers place for deer. Rarely did we go on the mtn, we hunted the foothills, caught deer coming to and from the fields. Now, even with all the improved agriculture, food as far as the eye can see, still no deer. 89, other than a turn lane, hasn't become I-15, every guy in the valley has hounds and chases endlessly. However, there are a LOT of does killed.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hossblur, any bets that with the increasing number of areas plowed under for hay and corn that those property owners are also increasing their complaints about deer eating and destroying crops? Any bets that the DWR is between a rock and a hard place--either they piss off landowners or they piss off hunters. I am willing to bet that all the doe harvest on the Manti is because of depredation issues...


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Yep - the Manti doe hunts are a depredation issue and should not be viewed as indicative of statewide management practices as a whole.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Dead doe is a dead doe, doesn't matter when. I understand crop loss, and depredation, but why isn't this done exclusively pre rut? Not only are they killing does, but they kill pregnant does. I still have some problem with the whole issue, seems like with the ag. department paying for the pivots, and mtn permits,and trappers, there should be some give and take with depredation(domestic cattle and sheep create a lot of damage on public lands) perhaps there could be more give and take. Seems throwing out a dozen or so doe tags to every land owner against the foothills accounts for a boatload of dead deer, and if it was succesful at protecting crops you wouldn't need to due it year after year. I STRONGLY SUPPORT PUBLIC GRAZING, so we don't need to argue, BUT we kill WAY TO MANY DOES, many are pregnant which kills two, and also some of the bucks who wasted valuable energy breeding them for nothing.

The first 30" 4x4 that can carry a fawn, will be the first, we are spending too much time and effort on the bucks, not enough on the herds.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Umm, News flash...

They DID AWAY with all of the Sanpete/Gunnison valley doe permits last year(2012)...

There may have been a hand full of mitigation permits, BUT just a hand full.

Basically, there were almost ZERO doe tags on Manti in 2012, should continue 2013.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

news flash, there will be plenty of depredation tags for both does and cows put out. Great, at least their might be a few more does.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well hoss, here's a link so you can look for your self.

I'll go one step further, give ya the numbers 

Page 16, 2011 annual report. Manti/16
mitigation, depredation, Gunnison and Sanpete COMBINE: 164 does harvested.

2012, numbers will be out in 2 week, But I can tell ya right now hoss,
The numbers dropped by more than half with the removal of the draw hunts..

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

So, were talking about 75 does, that for the most part are resident, field deer.
And that's from Fairview to I-70, that's really not much for that stretch


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

hossblur said:


> Lets be honest then, and I am not slamming you, but look at the sanpete valley. Every year there is more and more sage plowed under to grow hay. Hell in the last few years you guys are growing corn. The pivot lines are everywhere. We used to hunt the face out of scott millers place for deer. Rarely did we go on the mtn, we hunted the foothills, caught deer coming to and from the fields. Now, even with all the improved agriculture, food as far as the eye can see, still no deer. 89, other than a turn lane, hasn't become I-15, every guy in the valley has hounds and chases endlessly. However, there are a LOT of does killed.


Lets look at a few issues you bring up: 1)This land you mention that has been coverted from sage to hay/corn, which I question happening on a scale anywhere near what you imply, whose land is it? If I improve MY land to make a better living for ME, am I then somehow beholden to you and others to feed wildlife? 2)I do NOT grow corn, except for sweet corn that I sell at my road-side produce stand. 3)I have had MORE deer on my property the last two winters than ever before, and that inlcudes the hay-days of the 50's-80's. Care to explain why? Again, no corn has been raised on my 700+ acres in over 30 years, and alfalfa hasn't been raised in over 10 years. I have grass pastured land, winter-forage planted land, and sage covered land. Odd as it sounds, I grow feed for MY livestock, not wildife.........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hossblur, any bets that with the increasing number of areas plowed under for hay and corn that those property owners are also increasing their complaints about deer eating and destroying crops? Any bets that the DWR is between a rock and a hard place--either they **** off landowners or they **** off hunters. I am willing to bet that all the doe harvest on the Manti is because of depredation issues...


And, shouldn't the land owners complain? I am pretty sure they don't improve their land, at VERY high costs, strictly to satisfy 'sportsmen'........I BEGGED the DWR to come get the HUNDREDS of deer out of my fields this winter, with NO results. During a three week period....when the daily highs were 4-5 degrees.....I was losing more than a ton of hay a day to deer and elk. That is more than $200 out of MY pocket every DAY. I don't mind feeding a few deer/elk, but several hundred........no thanks!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

hossblur said:


> Dead doe is a dead doe, doesn't matter when. I understand crop loss, and depredation, but why isn't this done exclusively pre rut?


Because the bulk of the problem deer show up on PRIVATE land post rut...............



goofy elk said:


> So, were talking about 75 does, that for the most part are resident, field deer.
> And that's from Fairview to I-70, that's really not much for that stretch


I know of several land owners that tire of no action/responses from the DWR, that remove the problem deer.......so I assert far more than 75 does are taken out in this stretch...... :shock:


----------

