# Unit By Unit Managment



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

I was just curious, how many would support unit by unit management IF buck/doe ratios were set at 15-100 (Current Objective) resulting in tag numbers staying the same??????

If your answer is No, 

Why????????


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

My opinions on the worth of smaller unit-based management aren't solely dependent on buck-to-doe ratios.

Unit management isn't about managing deer — they're already managed on smaller unit levels. The new unit-based management plan is, instead, about micro-managing hunter numbers with the intent of boosting the ratio of bucks to does.

(1) If it could be solidly demonstrated that winter competition from more bucks wouldn't have a detrimental effect on winter doe-fawn survival and reproductive rates, I'd be neutral on the issue.

(2) If it could also be solidly demonstrated that the overall benefit to the herds outweighed the reduced hunting opportunity caused by permit number reductions necessary to achieve these higher buck ratios, I'd be in favor of it.

So far, though, the evidence for either seems weak to nonexistent.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I want to make this completely clear, this is my opinion and not an official position of UWC. Now that I have that out of the way, the 15 to 18 is not my biggest heartburn, even though I don't like it, it is the upper end that scares the hell out of me. The three year average would have to reach 25 buck to doe ratio before they supposedly go back into the general hunt, which means it will likely stay LE. That is why I even had heartburn with option 1 also.


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

I support unit management, which in turn requires unit hunting. I do not like the higher end of the 25 ratio like stated above. I would like to see this dropped to anything above 20 could have increased tags on that general unit. 
I realize more bucks will compete with does/fawns on winter range, however more bucks will ensure more does being breed earlier. More does being breed earlier creates a shorter fawning season, which in turn creates less fawn loss due to predators. Fawns being born earlier will also have them ready for the winter, at least as ready as they can be.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The poll is misleading, IMHO. It implies that the 2012 plan will be the beginning of unit management, when in truth the deer have been unit managed under the existing plan already. To be accurate, the question should ask if people support having HUNTERS managed by unit as opposed to just deer being managed by unit. So, based on the inaccurate options, I must refrain from voting one way or another.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

I have hunted deer in the same area for over 25 years. there used to be many deer in the area it was not uncommon to see a 30 inch buck back then, and 4 points where seen daily. the hunting pressure was not even close to what it it now days.
I believe that it is due to the fact that there are so many areas where deer used to be in large numbers that there just not there anymore. when word gets out that someone knows an area that holds deer these areas are getting pressured more heavily now days than they used to.
so to me I do believe the area I enjoy hunting needs to managed to bring hunting back to what is was like 20+ years ago. yes it sucks if I don't get a deer tag every year if it make the hunting experience better then I'm OK with it as long as it don't end up like trying to go limited elk hunting. if I can draw a deer tag 2 or 3 times in a 5 year period I can live with that but if it ends up taking 10 or more years to draw then no I wont support the cut in tag numbers.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

No to little itty bitty units.........

First off all I have to do is look at the proposed Manti/San Rafael unit to get the feeling this more than about micro-management. Its flat out about limiting hunters to the LE level. 

The state of Utah has more than enough area to support the current number of hunters, if not for the LE hunts. That is a fact. I guess the next step will be to assign each hunter a tree to sit in or under and you cannot hunt anywhere else.

The problem is not the hunters and all you need to look at is the Thousand Lakes LE to support this.


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

For the record I support managing hunters by unit. I wanted to make that clear in case everybody couldn't gather that from my previous post. 
I completely agree with Ramrod's post.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SLCMULEY said:


> For the record I support managing hunters by unit. I wanted to make that clear in case everybody couldn't gather that from my previous post.
> I completely agree with Ramrod's post.


 :O||: :O||: :O||:


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

I Agree with SLCMULEY, Well said.


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

I agree with Huntaholic's post. Take a look at 1000 lakes, this is a prime example of why unit management is needed. 1000 lakes has its unique deer problems as all units do. 1000 lake's problem is not from being over hunted.

IMO there are 3 main reasons that we can control or at least help with in order to help deer herds on individual units:
1- Control over hunting (take the HOTSPOT hunting shifts out of the equation)
2- Control predators when needed
3- Help revitalize the deteriorating range conditions

I believe we have taken great steps to address #2 and #3. We will finally be addressing #1 next year.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

SLCMULEY said:


> I agree with Huntaholic's post. Take a look at 1000 lakes, this is a prime example of why unit management is needed. 1000 lakes has its unique deer problems as all units do. 1000 lake's problem is not from being over hunted.
> 
> IMO there are 3 main reasons that we can control or at least help with in order to help deer herds on individual units:
> 1- Control over hunting (take the HOTSPOT hunting shifts out of the equation)
> ...


Yes please look at Thousand Lakes. 16 Years of micro-management with nothing to show for it. Nothing.........That unit was far better the 5 years previous to the last 16. How about fixing the problem for once.

As for "hotspoting", get real. So called hotspoting is so far down the list of real problems it should not be even talked about.

I know, I know you are going to control hunters, except on the Manti's. That is going to be the dumping ground so the DWR can keep the money coming in. Just say it, micro-management is completing the step to the whole state being LE. Say it.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

My only dog (or deer) in the fight is the Wasatch extended archery. I would like to continue to hunt it in its current form--I would like for all archery deer tag holders to be able to hunt it just like we do now. I hope the wildlife board doesn't screw that up--but they probably will. Because of this I don't know where I sit in this vote--the extended is a different thing because of many factors, proximity to SLC being the biggest--should be interesting to see what happens in 2012. My guess is that you have to hunt your drawn unit in the regular archery season, then the wasatch opens up to everyone with an archery tag til the end of November. I hope anyone who draws any archery tag can hunt it from Aug 20 til Nov 30. . . we will see.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Airborne said:


> My only dog (or deer) in the fight is the Wasatch extended archery. I would like to continue to hunt it in its current form--I would like for all archery deer tag holders to be able to hunt it just like we do now. I hope the wildlife board doesn't screw that up--but they probably will. Because of this I don't know where I sit in this vote--the extended is a different thing because of many factors, proximity to SLC being the biggest--should be interesting to see what happens in 2012. My guess is that you have to hunt your drawn unit in the regular archery season, then the wasatch opens up to everyone with an archery tag til the end of November. I hope anyone who draws any archery tag can hunt it from Aug 20 til Nov 30. . . we will see.


I am not an archery hunter but I do agree with you. I wouldn't mind seeing more extended units I think the entire timp unit would make a great extended archery unit. I have talked with many archery hunters that are considering switching to rifle or muzzle loader.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Personally I can live with unit "hunter" management if buck to doe ratios were left at 15:100 AND they didn't have to get up to 25:100 to restore tags.. (Deer are already managed on a unit by unit basis).

To me the unit part is a "detail" but cutting cuts with no biological benefit is doing Utah hunters a great disservice and only furthers the misconception that cutting tags actually helps deer herds.


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

Everyone talks about this deer plan making Utah a LE state but hasn't Utah been LE for decades now? Ever since they split the state into regions and limited the numbers of tags on those units didn't that make us a LE state? I am new to all of this so tell me if I am wrong but won't unit management even out the hunting pressure? I to am worried about the high buck to doe ratio targets and would like to see a lower ratio numbers and not see them cut so many tags. However, it seems logical to me that spreading out the hunters will have a positive effect and help the buck to doe ratio?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

100% YES!!!!!

The important issue here is sound management. 29 units give the DWR a better oppurtunity to focus management on each unit, for the entire year! In fact I believe the old time biologist had the state broke down to 62 units. I believe they refered to these units as cradle to grave units.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Fritz said:


> Everyone talks about this deer plan making Utah a LE state but hasn't Utah been LE for decades now? Ever since they split the state into regions and limited the numbers of tags on those units didn't that make us a LE state? I am new to all of this so tell me if I am wrong but won't unit management even out the hunting pressure? I to am worried about the high buck to doe ratio targets and would like to see a lower ratio numbers and not see them cut so many tags. However, it seems logical to me that spreading out the hunters will have a positive effect and help the buck to doe ratio?


WOW,,,the new guy has more common seance than most of the others!!!

Spot on! way to go Frtitz....


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

SLCMULEY said:


> For the record I support managing hunters by unit. I wanted to make that clear in case everybody couldn't gather that from my previous post.
> I completely agree with Ramrod's post.


+1


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

With a buck/doe ratio of 15/100. What if 12 of those buck are 2pt and spike? Is that a problem? Just wondering if that's an issue to anyone. Are doe selective on what kind of buck they let breed them? Or do they let the first buck that tries get it done? :?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Goofy, I think you have the blinders on. Look into the future and you will see where this is headed. When a unit gets to 15 or below they will make it LE. (I know you say the state is already LE) Then they will try to manage a troubled unit for how many years to get it back to a 25 to 30 bucks? (Forever)
Then we get these units to 25 to 30 why not make them premium LE. We have them so good now we will manage for 40 to 50 bucks. How many tags do they give out on the Henry's each year? How long does it take to draw a tag? Do you see where this is going now? The wrong way!

Deer herds are hurting! Managing hunters in this manner is not going to be the solution. Unless you want your hunting opportunities to be every 5 to 15 years!

How many units will become LE? How many tags will be lost beyond the 13,000 they already plan to cut? Will they ever give an LE unit back to general season opportunity hunting? (I think not)

When does it stop? (It won't) How many hunters are you going to loose? (___________)

They already manage unit by unit!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The Henry's only has a population objective of 2000 and last figure published 1400 deer if I remember right.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> The Henry's only has a population objective of 2000 and last figure published 1400 deer if I remember right.


And it is managed for premium limited entry. Look at how well that has worked. :shock:

How many tags do they give out? How are you going to feel when other units are managed the same manner? -)O(-


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

"Are doe selective on what kind of buck they let breed them? Or do they let the first buck that tries get it done?" I think it depends on how ****ty the Does are in that area.  But seriously, I think everyone has a different opinion on that. I personally believe the doe would rather a big buck but i think they will mate with what is around. I am for a unit by unit management but i don't want it getting into 3pnt or bigger or anything like that. I like the 15/100 ratio even with 2 points in it. Some of you are picky about the size of your antlers but even though i want some big antlers to put on my wall, i do it for the meat and the good times and 2 points are tasty! :EAT:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> The Henry's only has a population objective of 2000 and last figure published 1400 deer if I remember right.


This is because they manage for 30 does to 100 bucks. The bucks are stuggling to get pregnant and produce healthy fawns because they are preasured to grow 200" racks every year. Expending the nutrients for the racks is causing them to have be unhealthy during their lactation period. Consequently the fawns are not going into the winter as healthy and strong as they should. I think we should manage for higher doe ratios so the does can distract hunters and reduce the buck harvest. That will reduce the preasure on growing racks and allow the bucks to focus on healthy pregnancies and rearing healthier fawns for winter survival. :roll:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Dannyboy said:


> *"Are doe selective on what kind of buck they let breed them? Or do they let the first buck that tries get it done?"* I think it depends on how ****ty the Does are in that area.  But seriously, I think everyone has a different opinion on that. I personally believe the doe would rather a big buck but i think they will mate with what is around. I am for a unit by unit management but i don't want it getting into 3pnt or bigger or anything like that. I like the 15/100 ratio even with 2 points in it. Some of you are picky about the size of your antlers but even though i want some big antlers to put on my wall, i do it for the meat and the good times and 2 points are tasty! :EAT:


Great question..... Yes they are picky about the buck that breeds them. Mature bucks will "work" the doe and get her knowcked up on their first estrus cycle. Most immature bucks will observe and learn from the big boys. Immature bucks will get a shot on the second cycle late in the season. The doe's instinct to get knocked up takes over and allows just about any buck to do it.

In the absence of a mature buck population the majority of does will resist breeding untill the 2nd cycle and therefore cause a whole slew of late season breeding for the herd which will in turn struggle to get the fawns ready for winter. Worse if it's an early winter, disasterous if it's also a hard one.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

Dannyboy said:


> "Are doe selective on what kind of buck they let breed them? Or do they let the first buck that tries get it done?" I think it depends on how ****ty the Does are in that area.  But seriously, I think everyone has a different opinion on that. I personally believe the doe would rather a big buck but i think they will mate with what is around.i think a majority of them will breed with the dominate buck in the area. but just like in the real world, theres always that 2 point who will sneak behind his buddies back...  I am for a unit by unit management but i don't want it getting into 3pnt or bigger or anything like that. I like the 15/100 ratio even with 2 points in it. Some of you are picky about the size of your antlers but even though i want some big antlers to put on my wall, i do it for the meat and the good times and 2 points are tasty! :EAT:


agreed! 2 points taste way better then some 7 year old 4x4 who has been eating sage brush, dirt and cedars his whole life :lol: 


horsesma said:


> And it is managed for premium limited entry. Look at how well that has worked. :shock:
> 
> How many tags do they give out? How are you going to feel when other units are managed the same manner? -)O(-


heres how i feel about it: -)O(- -)O(- -)O(- _/O _/O _/O **O** **O** **O** :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: :O>>: -#&#*!- -#&#*!- -#&#*!- -#&#*!- -#&#*!-


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Fritz said:


> Everyone talks about this deer plan making Utah a LE state but hasn't Utah been LE for decades now? Ever since they split the state into regions and limited the numbers of tags on those units didn't that make us a LE state? I am new to all of this so tell me if I am wrong but won't unit management even out the hunting pressure? I to am worried about the high buck to doe ratio targets and would like to see a lower ratio numbers and not see them cut so many tags. However, it seems logical to me that spreading out the hunters will have a positive effect and help the buck to doe ratio?


Your right "Fritz". 16 years of LE in some form or another and you have what? You have half the state tied up so that a handful of people can be selective of which big boy they can shoot. The rest of the bucks on those units die as mother nature see's fit. The rest of the remaining part of the state (not the premium parts) are used by the general hunters. For 16 years those 5 units have risen and fallen based on mother nature. The information that was gathered for each of those 5 units was based on small units within those 5 units. They have endured drought, heavy snow, mismanagement of fire and a long list of other problems.

So, now that has not been good enough. So now some want to make the areas smaller. That unto itself does nothing, but limit the hunters to a geographical area. It will not put or take more animals from the mountain. What it will do is remove any option you have to very where you hunt. You put in for your hunt in January to find out after the spring reports come out that the area you selected got hammered by mother nature. To bad, you just wasted your points.

So the only thing in Option #2 that is going to do anything, is to remove 13000 hunters from the field from hunting bucks. That will most likely put more bucks on the mountain for the remaining 75000 hunters. Now if an area is low on doe's (underobjective) how will having more bucks increase the herd? It won't.

Now those 13000 hunters that you just removed are now going to be fighting for those 75000. You think you have a butt plug now! You don't have enough Exlax to undo the plug that is coming. But don't worry, you can sit in your easy chair with your beer and look at that once in a lifetime buck on the wall, while you wait to see if you can get lucky enough to get maybe one more shot.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The Monroe unit buck to doe ratio has steadily dropped for the last 16 yrs. Opening the door to other factors that IMO has caused that deer herd to not recover. The reduction in buck to doe has had little to do with mother nature. And even with the so called LE system put in place in the last 16 yrs the amount of hunters hunting that unit has seen a negligible drop in numbers. Opponents to option 2 may admit Monroe has some issues that need to be addressed and to make that unit LE but leave the rest alone. But as soon as the 3000 hunters cannot hunt Monroe the will go elsewhere. It's nice to think they will evenly disperse to the rest of the state but the reality is they will go to the next place that they hear has good hunting. Like the Beaver, Pavhant potentially lowering the buck doe ratio on those units. So I ask where does it end? I think the effort should be in making sure these new units have a substantial allocation of tags so they don't turn into Henry's type hunts. It's very conceivable a unit like Monroe if it had 7500 deer and a buck doe ratio of 20/100 could easily provide a sustainable hunt for 2500+ hunters so long as the tag allocation didn't too heavily favor riffle hunters.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Great question..... Yes they are picky about the buck that breeds them. Mature bucks will "work" the doe and get her knowcked up on their first estrus cycle. Most immature bucks will observe and learn from the big boys. Immature bucks will get a shot on the second cycle late in the season. The doe's instinct to get knocked up takes over and allows just about any buck to do it.
> 
> In the absence of a mature buck population the majority of does will resist breeding untill the 2nd cycle and therefore cause a whole slew of late season breeding for the herd which will in turn struggle to get the fawns ready for winter. Worse if it's an early winter, disasterous if it's also a hard one.


Then why is the fawn survival rates not very high on LE units as you would expect with all the monster bucks running around?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

CS.... That is an awesome question that I do not have the answer to as I am an armchair/book biologist. I only know what I read and then you also have to consider the source.

Perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that their are a lot of big boys and not enough does to produce a viable fawn population. Is the Henries not a large enough unit that a 2K deer population as an objective seems pretty low? Perhaps predators play a big roll in a small doe/fawn population. 5 fawns is 25% of 20 and 1% of 500. It's all about sheer numbers I think. I have stated before that high buck:doe rations are worthless if all you have is 50 does. So 2000 deer for the size of the Henries I believe is a low number.

Then again isn't fawn survival down in a lot of units not just in the LE units? Other factors must be afoot.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

You're right "Iron Bear". Where does it end......

16 Years ago we lost 110000 tags. The sale point was exactly what is being sold now. "We need to keep the hunters from bunching up". "We got to many hunters on the mountain". "The deer herd is crashing." "We can have bigger deer and they will everywhere". When does it end..... When you are assigned a tree and you can't hunt anywhere else?

If Monroe has a problem, well then fix the problem at Monroe. Not the symptoms, but the problem.

And if is as bad as you say, Why are those 3000 hunters still hunting there? Don't get me wrong, if the area is in trouble fix it. The tools to do so are already in place. Use them. Give the fixes a chance to work. If you are worried about the 3000, then assign those 3000 tags to the archery bucket. I can assure you those 3000 archers are not going to run to Beaver or Pahvant.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> Then why is the fawn survival rates not very high on LE units as you would expect with all the monster bucks running around?


In some cases it is high. In others predation may account for it. And others it just may be the herd is at capacity.

The Henry's may have a lot of winter range but the summer range is relatively limited. But once they put a hurtin on the cougar the population increase significantly.

The Book Cliffs IMO has a predation issue.

Give me some examples and I will research the matter and give you a definitive answer as to why. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Thousand Lakes


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> And if is as bad as you say, Why are those 3000 hunters still hunting there? Don't get me wrong, if the area is in trouble fix it. The tools to do so are already in place. Use them. Give the fixes a chance to work. If you are worried about the 3000, then assign those 3000 tags to the archery bucket. I can assure you those 3000 archers are not going to run to Beaver or Pahvant.


Because if you live in Sevier or Piute county you can hop on your ATV and be hunting in 30 min from home. It's a great place to hunt after work. And there is a road every 200yds so you can access it with little effort. And like in my and my families case tradition.

I am in total favor of a heavy archery tag allocation to limit harvest while still providing hunter opportunity. Rather than a 5 day riffle hunt. (If you cant harvest a little buck in 5 days with a riffle on Monroe then you got some issues)


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> Thousand Lakes


I suspect predation. Based on my count in the period of 06 to 09 only 13 cats have been harvested. With a comparable deer population to Monroe (no exact figures since they lump plateau together) and more elk. I would estimate the cougar population to be in the same realm. And its anyone best guess what the coyote's effect is.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fritz said:


> Everyone talks about this deer plan making Utah a LE state but hasn't Utah been LE for decades now? Technically, yes. But, it is about to become far MORE limited! Ever since they split the state into regions and limited the numbers of tags on those units didn't that make us a LE state? I am new to all of this so tell me if I am wrong but won't unit management even out the hunting pressure? I am truly confused why ANYONE thinks the Wildlife Board is better 'qualified' to disperse hunter pressure than actual hunters. Seriously, WTH does ANYONE think the pinheads on the Wildlife Board can do a better job of dispersing hunting pressure? The ONLY time the Wildlife Board has been effective at dispersing pressure in by LIMITING the number of over-all hunters, meaning limited and premium limited entry units where there is very little opportunity to hunt for the general public! I to am worried about the high buck to doe ratio targets and would like to see a lower ratio numbers and not see them cut so many tags. However, it seems logical to me that spreading out the hunters will have a positive effect and help the buck to doe ratio? Again, what indicators are there that leads you to believe the Wildlife Board will 'spread' hunters out better than hunters do on their own?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > And if is as bad as you say, Why are those 3000 hunters still hunting there? Don't get me wrong, if the area is in trouble fix it. The tools to do so are already in place. Use them. Give the fixes a chance to work. If you are worried about the 3000, then assign those 3000 tags to the archery bucket. I can assure you those 3000 archers are not going to run to Beaver or Pahvant.
> ...


----------



## Fritz (Mar 1, 2011)

I agree that we should not cater to only the trophy crowd and I would like to see as much opportunity as possible. My point was that we are already a LE state and all of this does not change that fact one way or the other. I am intrigued by the point of this original post, in that we go with the lower buck doe ratios with the smaller units. One of the major problems I see is that with the growth in this state it will be impossible for all the people who grew up here and all the hunters moving in, to hunt every year, where ever they want. It just doesn't seem possible. I would also hate to see how many hunters would be in every hole, if they went back to an over the counter hunt. 

What I want is for the state to find the solution that will allow as many hunters as possible to hunt, while sustaining a healthy herd and a decent opportunity to harvest a deer. Would spreading out the hunting pressure, with lower ratios, allow for more hunters over the long term? Again, I am not a biologist and am just getting into this, so please tell me if this is wrong. It seems like all of the states around us (Nevada, Colorado) do the same thing. How is this working for them?

I to would like to see more opportunity for archery hunting. I have spent many years chasing deer with pointy sticks and have loved every minute of it. I have seen a lot of deer, scared many but have only killed a few. It seems like, further promotion of Archery hunting will give more opportunity, without over harvesting the herds.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I find it interesting that some use the desire to hunt every year (which is true for most) as a negative. The folly in this argument is that people are currently waiting 3 years to hunt some regions of the state and all tags are going in the draw. The general hunter has not been able "to hunt every year, where ever they want" for 18 years. Just 5 years ago a guy could buy a deer tag shortly before the hunt started. The fear (as proven through past management decisions) is micro units open the door for specific, non-biologically based lobbying to decrease tags in small units, thus increasing the wait to actually hunt.

How has that micro-management of hunters helped the San Juan deer herd? Point is a Wildlife Board member used this as an example in support of micro-managing hunters. He said the San Juan once produced 2,500 (or so) bucks harvested and now it only produces 40. The problem with our herds lies outside the harvest of bucks, on most units. The current/old Mule Deer Management Plan had a trigger in it to protect units where the buck to doe ratio fell (which ironically was micro-management).



> Again, I am not a biologist and am just getting into this, so please tell me if this is wrong. It seems like all of the states around us (Nevada, Colorado) do the same thing. How is this working for them?


 Well-- Nevada has seen a 20% decrease of total deer, with a 100% increase of bucks (that means they lost about 30,000-40,000 doe), and the lucky Nevada applicant gets to hunt decent deer. They have a 3-8 year wait to hunt their average units, which have 40-50% success rates, of which 40-50% of bucks are 4 points. Nevada hunters wait 3-8 years for a 25% chance of shooting a 4 point, all while the NDOW biologists warn of the damage to the herd created by carrying too many bucks. Colorado cut hunter numbers, grew incredible bucks, then learned they can't stock-pile bucks when Mother Nature killed herds. Their overall numbers are down over the past 4 years. Colorado also allows their hunters to hunt elk on a more liberal basis, which keeps hunters hunting.

In the end, the unit by unit management has been shown to be used to grow larger bucks, not more productive deer herds. If Mother Nature blesses us with great conditions over the next 5 years then micro-management will appear to have worked. If Mother Nature curses us with poor conditions then micro-management will not have worked. It will all be a matter of perspective.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Fritz said:


> I agree that we should not cater to only the trophy crowd We already cater to the trophy hunter. But they want more because they are tired of waiting.and I would like to see as much opportunity as possible With option #2 you are going to see less opportunity.. My point was that we are already a LE state and all of this does not change that fact one way or the other.  Yes we are an LE state. Now we are talking on just how small. If their logic holds true for 24 units, why not 48 or 96. I am intrigued by the point of this original post, in that we go with the lower buck doe ratios with the smaller units. One of the major problems I see is that with the growth in this state it will be impossible for all the people who grew up here and all the hunters moving in, to hunt every year, where ever they want. It just doesn't seem possible. I would also hate to see how many hunters would be in every hole  And you have not lived through the days of 200,000 hunters. While it was a pain, we survived. So to some of us, what we have now is heaven. But the fact is we are not going back, which we should not. As far as some of these LE hunts go, I'm having a hard time not calling them what they really are, A high fence hunt., if they went back to an over the counter hunt.
> 
> What I want is for the state to find the solution that will allow as many hunters as possible to hunt, while sustaining a healthy herd and a decent opportunity to harvest a deer.  That it what I want as well Would spreading out the hunting pressure What pressure?, with lower ratios, allow for more hunters over the long term? Again, I am not a biologist and am just getting into this, so please tell me if this is wrong. It seems like all of the states around us (Nevada The guys I know hunt Utah becasue they can't draw a tag in Nevada, Colorado) do the same thing. How is this working for them?
> 
> I to would like to see more opportunity for archery hunting. I have spent many years chasing deer with pointy sticks and have loved every minute of it. I have seen a lot of deer, scared many but have only killed a few. It seems like, further promotion of Archery hunting will give more opportunity, without over harvesting the herds.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Well said!!!!!!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Do other states have the same issues that we have amoung the resident hunter pool? How hard is it for residents of say Montana and Myoming top draw a premium or high quality tag? Does point creep affect them as well? It apears that Nevada has an isseu from what I just read but I do not know what the herd numbers in Nevada are. I just read that Montana runs at about 200K elk, 300K mulies and 250K white tails, while colorado carries about 350K head of elk.

So considering the resident hunter pool numbers and the amount of animals available do they see point creep issues like we do or is this just a Utah thing based on hunter numbers vs lower herd numbers than in those states?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Good question


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> In the end, the unit by unit management has been shown to be used to grow larger bucks, not more productive deer herds. If Mother Nature blesses us with great conditions over the next 5 years then micro-management will appear to have worked. If Mother Nature curses us with poor conditions then micro-management will not have worked. It will all be a matter of perspective.


 Well stated, as usual!


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

And to think we already have something to blame it on whether it works or not. :O•-:


----------

