# DWR Wants To Hear From Deer Hunters.....



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Meeting at CEU in Price on Feb 16th. Open agenda to discuss mule deer management. Rumor has it some bioligists and division folks will be attending.

http://www.sunadvocate.com/index.php?ti ... e_id=20930


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Got the email Kris. I am sure it will be a good forum for discussion and learning. I am assuming that minutes or a transcript will be kept; right?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> Got the email Kris. I am sure it will be a good forum for discussion and learning. I am assuming that minutes or a transcript will be kept; right?


That's a 10-4 MH. It should be a good meeting. Am looking forward to seeing if we can etch out a few more details than what has been given out so far for the upcoming changes proposed... :O•-:


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

Waste of time, they listened so well before.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

reaper said:


> Waste of time, they listened so well before.


Maybe, but there is only one way to find out. :mrgreen: I will let you know after the meeting. :lol:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

BTW if anyone is interested in car pools let me know.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

Just FYI — the DWR will be holding similar open houses in other areas throughout the state over the next 2–3 months. These won't be like RAC meetings. Just more of a chance to talk one-on-one with the biologists and managers, to hear about efforts that are underway, and to share your concerns about Utah's mule deer herds. These meetings will be publicized locally, and I'll try to post information here as soon as they're scheduled.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks Amy!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks again Amy! You are the beez kneez! ;-)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's a new DWR link on declining deer herds and efforts being made.

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


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Anyone from the salt lake area planning on attending that has room for 1 more?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> BTW if anyone is interested in car pools let me know.


If anybody want to meet me at my place I can drive! :mrgreen:  
So I'll be there.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

mikevanwilder said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > BTW if anyone is interested in car pools let me know.
> ...


That's very generous of you Mike.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

It would be nice to see one of these meetings in each county this year. Keep us posted.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I think they need to have one in every one of the proposed deer units, so that the local bioligists can report on that unit's deer heard and the public opinion/commentary/suggestions for that specific unit may be heard. 

Anyone planning on driving down from Cache Valley? I'll go but I've driven to the last 4 of these...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Here's a new DWR link on declining deer herds and efforts being made.
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/fact_sheet ... g_deer.pdf


"Mule *deer numbers* are declining..", "..*lack of deer*..", "..is focused on improving *deer herd numbers*.", ".. \to help our struggling *herds*.", "..healthier *deer populations* statewide.", "..threat to *mule deer fawns*,..", "..important to our *deer populations*.", etc., etc., etc.

Nowhere in the body of the article does the DWR mention bucks, let alone trophy bucks. Could it be that they know that a healthy deer *population* will subsequently include a healthy population of trophy bucks?

And the multi-pronged efforts are:
"Restoring crucial habitat"
"Increasing predator control"
"Reducing highway mortality"
"Stopping serial poachers"
"Limiting the spread of disease"
"Performing valuable research"
"Monitoring deer herds and winter range conditions".

So what happened to:
"Reducing the number of permits by 13%"
"Regulating the numbers of hunters per unit"
"Shortening seasons in many units"
"Raising the buck to doe ratio to 19-25"
"Eliminating statewide archery season"?
Could it be that some of the "efforts" in Option #2 don't help deer populations?

Note also that the article is about a multi-year effort, not a year and one-half effort.

With this article, along with the upcoming public meetings Amy has mentioned in this thread, maybe the DWR is trying to school the Wildlife Board about biology, huh?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

This was an excellent meeting!! Thanks to the division for having the open house.

The format of the meeting was a laid back. They had some biologists, CO's, volunteer services, folks from USU doing the mule deer studies, etc. They had a station set up for each and you could walk around and have one on one conversations with them. I learned a lot and understand a lot things much better than I did before. 

I would encourgage folks to make it out to future meetings.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Hey Kris did they give any indication of when they will be holding more of these in other locations? IT would be good to know to plan out schedule, carpools, etc.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

MadHunter said:


> Hey Kris did they give any indication of when they will be holding more of these in other locations? IT would be good to know to plan out schedule, carpools, etc.


No they didn't. They told us the other meetings weren't finalized but that there would be more and they'd let us know. As soon as I hear anything i'll be sure to post it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> This was an excellent meeting!! Thanks to the division for having the open house.
> 
> The format of the meeting was a laid back. They had some biologists, CO's, volunteer services, folks from USU doing the mule deer studies, etc. They had a station set up for each and you could walk around and have one on one conversations with them. I learned a lot and understand a lot things much better than I did before.
> 
> I would encourgage folks to make it out to future meetings.


That's GREAT NEWS! I'll be going! Amy also promised to keep us posted.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Once I get my notes organized I'll post some of the questions that were asked and some of the answers to those questions.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I missed it, They always seem to have these meeting on Wednesday and thats when i'm "on call". I'm glad it was good. I plan on going to the one they have here in Utah county. Was there a theme or was it just general question and answer?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dannyboy, there was several tabless set up; for example, there was a Law Enforcement table, Deer management table, habitat table, ect. I believe there was a total of 7 tables with at least 15 division representatives. You could ask any question you wanted.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

How was the total turn out? Guess?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Not too many people I would say 50 or so, but you could come and go as you wanted, so some may of come and gone without me noticing.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> This was an excellent meeting!! Thanks to the division for having the open house.


Thanks to you, jahan and everyone else who took the time to make the drive and attend it!



elkfromabove said:


> That's GREAT NEWS! I'll be going! Amy also promised to keep us posted.


As soon as I receive dates, times and locations, I'll be sure to post them.



elkfromabove said:


> With this article, along with the upcoming public meetings Amy has mentioned in this thread, maybe the DWR is trying to school the Wildlife Board about biology, huh?


Not really. We actually presented an in-depth version of this information to the board members at their work session on Dec. 1. Here are links to the audio from the meeting (there are three audio files) and the slide shows we presented.

What we realized during that round of RAC meetings is that we need to do more work in talking to the general public about mule deer biology, the challenges our herds face and what we're doing about it all. We're embarking on that outreach campaign right now, and the piece Goofy posted is the overview. The open houses are also a key component.

We've put together a new mule deer information section on our website, and we'll be adding to it over the next month or so. I'm personally working on a piece about mule deer habitat and all of the work we've done with the Watershed Restoration Initiative. I hope to have it posted next week.

We'll have some posts about mule deer on our blog (including a recap of last night's meeting), and we'll be posting more on both facebook and twitter. We'll also be sending a number of mule deer stories to the media and adding more photos and videos to our site.

I hope this answers some questions and sheds a little light on where we're headed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Amy, you ROCK!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Dang I missed it!!!! I wish I could have made it, but the kids Baseball kinda took the driving wheel....


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Baseball in February? You're a slave driver TAK.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Baseball in February? You're a slave driver TAK.


Thats the way we roll in Price. 8)


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Baseball in February? You're a slave driver TAK.


Guess I needed more detail... Baseball meeting.....

Ya gotz to make plans for this sort of stuff :mrgreen:


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

NHS said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Baseball in February? You're a slave driver TAK.
> ...


U in Price?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

NHS said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Baseball in February? You're a slave driver TAK.
> ...


Are you in Price? Did you show up to the meeting and lurk?


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not in Price now. You can take the boy out of Price, but can't take Price out of the boy.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

He is way too much of a pretty boy now to be seen in Price, LOL!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

NHS said:


> I'm not in Price now. You can take the boy out of Price, but can't take Price out of the boy.


I can verify this. My father and mother (and their family) were born and raised in Price/Wellington/Huntington. You can't get that stuff off no matter how hard you scrub!
:lol:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Please, please, please get back on subject folks and leave the cute personal "jokes" and comments to PM's. I hate having to shuffle through pages of this sort of stuff to get the information the thread title tells me is there!

Mods, is it possible to cut this sort of stuff out of the middle of a thread and move it to Everything Else?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

This guy walks into a bar...... :O•-:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Please, please, please get back on subject folks and leave the cute personal "jokes" and comments to PM's. I hate having to shuffle through pages of this sort of stuff to get the information the thread title tells me is there!
> 
> Mods, is it possible to cut this sort of stuff out of the middle of a thread and move it to Everything Else?


There were four comments, not much shuffling, but it is all in fun to lighten the mood.  What information are you missing, send me a PM if you have anymore questions that weren't addressed.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

Good grief elkfromabove. Lighten up a little. **O**


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Heaven forbid we have any fun on the internet!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Squirrel! _O\


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

OMG... Really? WOW!



elkfromabove said:


> Please, please, please get back on subject folks and leave the cute personal "jokes" and comments to PM's. I hate having to shuffle through pages of this sort of stuff to get the information the thread title tells me is there!
> 
> Mods, is it possible to cut this sort of stuff out of the middle of a thread and move it to Everything Else?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

TAK said:


> OMG... Really? WOW!
> 
> WOW I agree TAK OMG :O•-:
> 
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Yipes! Guess I'll just have to do what I do when I'm in a group conversation that turns into a two or three person private conversation and just walk away. No, I'm not quitting the forum, I'll just quit threads that slip into such nonsense. We're raising 3 grandkids, ages 8, 7, and 4, and I have to fight for time on the computer versus PBSkids and RadioDisney and I have to make my computer time count for something.

And, FWIW, I thoroughly enjoy this website and find plenty of fun and humor in your posts that stay on or near subject.

See you on another thread!!!

Now, carry on!! Let's see, you were somewhere near a baseball meeting in Price.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I made it but didn't have alot of time to stay. So I got my questions out but not alot of answers. It was a nice way of doing it but I don't see how this will affect the WB.
One station I was at, the one with the largest group of people, the only thing they cared about wa sthe LE deer units and how to make them better.
There was alot of concerned people that showed up and voice there concerns though hopefully it gets noticed.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> I made it but didn't have alot of time to stay. So I got my questions out but not alot of answers. It was a nice way of doing it but I don't see how this will affect the WB.
> One station I was at, the one with the largest group of people, the only thing they cared about wa sthe LE deer units and how to make them better.There was alot of concerned people that showed up and voice there concerns though hopefully it gets noticed.


This doesn't surprise me one bit..

I talk to guys on the mountain every day watching wildlife, shed hunting, hound guys..
I guarantee you, opt 2 is steadily gaining popularity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Ignorance iequals bliss......................... :O•-:


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > I made it but didn't have alot of time to stay. So I got my questions out but not alot of answers. It was a nice way of doing it but I don't see how this will affect the WB.
> ...


I don't think option 2 had anything to do with it. They were talking about have mangement hunts on all LE units not just Henries and Pauns. They think then all the big bucks will come out. 
I was just wondering why worry about the LE units when its the whole state that is the problem. Most of the LE units are doing just fine with the herd size.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> I was just wondering why worry about the LE units when its the whole state that is the problem. Most of the LE units are doing just fine with the herd size.


Not quite accurate. The LE units are well below population objectives for the most part. Just one of MANY examples of how higher buck:doe ratios do NOT equate to higher deer populations.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Ignorance iequals bliss......................... :O•-:


Nope,,

More bucks = bliss...............


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Well, at least you're finally being honest about your agenda. It has NOTHING to do with healthy herds and higher deer populations. As long as it is easier for you to find antlers for you and your paying clients all is well. Sad!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nope,,

I don't guide general season anything..

These hunts would be for my kids, family, friends,,,,,,and heck, I might even get a tag..


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > I was just wondering why worry about the LE units when its the whole state that is the problem. Most of the LE units are doing just fine with the herd size.
> ...


Well shows how much I know. I don't spend alot of time on the LE Deer units. I don't even care to draw one of those tags. I can find bucks that are just as big or bigger than most all the LE units except maybe Henry and Pauns, on general units. Now shooting those buggers is awhole nother game.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Well crap Mike I wish we would have known we were in a group right next to you.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I was the guy all alone looking lost. I guess I need to get a shirt or something so I can be recognized.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

We got there a half an hour early and stayed a little past nine, it was a great meeting. Got into a little heated discussion with that group you mentioned. It all ended well with handshakes at the end. :mrgreen:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

mikevanwilder said:


> I made it but didn't have alot of time to stay. So I got my questions out but not alot of answers. It was a nice way of doing it but I don't see how this will affect the WB.
> One station I was at, the one with the largest group of people, the only thing they cared about wa sthe LE deer units and how to make them better.
> There was alot of concerned people that showed up and voice there concerns though hopefully it gets noticed.


Should've stayed Mike.....there were intersting conversations that developed as the evening went on. REAL interesting conversations! The group you speak of continually refered the "Henry's model." The were eventually reminded that if the entire state, or even all the LE units for that matter, went to the Henry's model that maybe 2 or 3 people that were standing in that room would ever hunt one of those units in their lifetime. Their faces went a little white when you could tell that comment actually registered.....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> The LE units are well below population objectives for the most part.


That's true but objectives were set by the legislature without much biological consideration. Really the only consideration was "there were once that many" and they were not set by the division. I had a long coversation with the biologists about objectives vs. carrying capacity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I get that, but.......my point still has validity. Buck:doe ratios are NOT even among the top five factors that limit deer populations. Carrying capacity is mostly dependent on winter range and fawn survival rates. Buck:doe ratios should NOT be the focus of deer management. This is like focusing on the color of the plane when trying to figure out how to get it off the ground.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> I get that, but.......my point still has validity. Buck:doe ratios are NOT even among the top five factors that limit deer populations. Carrying capacity is mostly dependent on winter range and fawn survival rates. Buck:doe ratios should NOT be the focus of deer management. This is like focusing on the color of the plane when trying to figure out how to get it off the ground.


Understood and agreed.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorance iequals bliss......................... :O•-:
> ...


Higher buck to doe ratios! Equals more pressure on does, and less fawn retention. I though you knew this Goofy?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

horsesma, I do know that , AND THAT different units have different variance capacities..

Within the current regions, there are units that buck to doe ratios can be raised WITHOUT
effecting fawn retention.....Next year, we can start to work that direction.

I know there are some VERY extensive deer counts going on right now state wide.
Not only that , but, after last years poor deer hunt many hunters thought lot of bucks
would carry over to this coming year..There are a few areas this is true, But again,
Most ares did not! many areas the B to d ratios have gone down...

I'm really looking forward to see 2011 deer counts and B to D ratios that will be out soon.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I get that, but.......my point still has validity. Buck:doe ratios are NOT even among the top five factors that limit deer populations. Carrying capacity is mostly dependent on winter range and fawn survival rates. Buck:doe ratios should NOT be the focus of deer management. This is like focusing on the color of the plane when trying to figure out how to get it off the ground.


That is exactly what one of the biologist told us. He said they wish they could get away from managing to a objective number and manage to carrying capacity like they use to. He said before legislation mandated they manage to a certain number of animals they would go out look at deer, look at habitat and other factors to figure out tag numbers.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

jahan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > I get that, but.......my point still has validity. Buck:doe ratios are NOT even among the top five factors that limit deer populations. Carrying capacity is mostly dependent on winter range and fawn survival rates. Buck:doe ratios should NOT be the focus of deer management. This is like focusing on the color of the plane when trying to figure out how to get it off the ground.
> ...


I do think this would work well with unit managment for general deer hunts
on most units...


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Why not a majority or not all units?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Here's a pic from the meeting....can anybody guess which one is Jahan?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

The one with the monkey face?

Just a WAG..... Jahan is the one with the flag t-shirt!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> The one with the monkey face?
> 
> Just a WAG..... Jahan is the one with the flag t-shirt!


Nope, he is the other SHORT guy two over from the flag guy.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Flag guy is my pops. So can anyone spot bullsnot or Nambaster in this picture also?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

The one in the flannel jacket lookin thing is Jahan right?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> The one in the flannel jacket lookin thing is Jahan right?


The "good looking one" is also a correct answer. :mrgreen:  :lol: :O•-:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Just a WAG..... Jahan is the one with the flag t-shirt!


Wrong. :lol: Jahan is that mean looking S.O.B. (Dad taught me not to mess with short guys.)

Why is it that when folks talk carrying capacity, the only ones talking about water are the biologists? Fact is, carrying capacity is directly correlated to water, yes? We know how much water there is each year in a region. But nobody (that I know of) measures the water in any particular deer management unit. So the DWR is, out of necessity, basing carrying capacity on traditional populations.

But now we're going to try to manipulate buck/doe ratios. That makes traditional populations (at 15/100) irrelevant. In other words, carrying capacity is unknown. No matter how you look at it, a buck doe ratio of 25/100 can only be achieved by a reduction in population. Carrying capacity (unfortunately) isn't even a consideration.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Finn....you're right about water. More specifically we discussed precipitation and weather at length with the biologists. They showed us a graphic of the Manti unit (still trying to get my hands on it) where it showed during Utah's mule deer hey days in the 60's where we got almost perfect mule deer weather(including precipitation) for 15 years straight. The last 20 years have been very turbulent with harsh winters and long periods of drought. They of course do the buck to ratios because thats what legislation mandates so their hands are tied. The biggest problem is folks blame the DWR for that situation rather than legislators and the wildlife board. 

I asked sprecifically about carrying capacity and where we are at statewide. They didn't really know but if they had to guess they said we are probably close to carrying capacity in a lot of areas.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

So if the DWR suggests tag cuts is that something that y'all will support?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

If they said that it would help deer herds.....I would support tag cuts.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Here's a link to the meeting notes from the DWR...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/blog/2011/visi ... bout-deer/


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

So if the DWR is concerned about fawn survival rates, and one of their solutions is reduced hunting pressure.......you and your group would support tag cuts?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> So if the DWR is concerned about fawn survival rates, and one of their solutions is reduced hunting pressure.......you and your group would support tag cuts?


I can tell you that the DWR is definitely concerned with fawn survival rates...in fact it's one of the biggest problems they face.

I think tag cuts in that scenario would not be a long term solution and I would like to hear the long term plan and some other more sustainable solutions. Since I believe in growing more deer to preserve hunting opportunities I would like to explore other ways to reduce pressure rather than...well cutting opportunity. That seems like a paradox to me. I would certainly like to hear a lot more about how that would work, explore other solutions to reduce pressure such as shortened seasons, make late season hunts earlier etc. etc.

I stand by what I said though...if ultimately that is what's best for the resource I would support tag cuts.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Thanks for choking that down! I agree that we could look at other methods of reducing hunting pressure without tag cuts. But I agree with the DWR that we should be looking at reducing pressure in some areas quickly......2011 season!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's what drives me nuts about the general season deer hunts.
Guys (e,g,WtoU)) get on here and say " hunting bucks has no impact on herd health"..
" cutting deer permits is only a social issue"
" we can have 97K deer permits hunting a deer herd of 225K"

I COMPLETLY DISSAGREE WITH ALL THIS BS..

And I also do not think 11 bucks to 100 does is healthy when over half are yearling bucks
trying to breed does!! And with young bucks the does don't get breed until the second
rut....Causing EXSTREAMLY young, small, fawns going into the winter..
This is WITHOUT doubt part of the fawn recruitment problem.

I will be extremely disappointed if there are not deer permit cuts this year, we cant afford
to wait for option 2 to reduce permits.......Especially still having region wide hunting this year.

I'm in full support of cutting the 13K general deer tags this year,,AND PUSHING IT!

Guy's ,,our deer herds are hurting bad! We need to take action right now..
And the DWR knows it!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It really should be no suprise to anyone if the UDWR cuts permit numbers for 2011. The UDWR was talking 2011 permit reductions under the Plan they had last Fall. No reason to claim victory for either side.

Back on the subject of Utah deer-- why has the herd in the Book Cliffs declined in numbers? Has carrying 30+ bucks really helped that herd? Just wondering.....

Some are quick to talk about how great Colorado is and how Utah should manage like Colorado. So who is willing to lobby the Board to implement DOE hunts on 90% of Utah's future units? That is how Colorado manages their herds. Anyone?


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

IMHO raising the buck/doe ratio will only help with breeding and fawn retention due to early season breeding. 
Looking at the past herd counts I notice that around 30% of the bucks counted are 3 pt or better. 
That being said a herd with a 20/100 ratio equates to 6 breeding bucks 3 pt or better per 100 does. Do you guys think this is enough?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> IMHO raising the buck/doe ratio will only help with breeding and fawn retention due to early season breeding.


Then why doesn't the Bookcliffs, Henry mtns, Pauns, etc have higher fawn recruitment than General Season units?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I ABSOLUTLY DO NOT think 6 (mature) 3 point or better bucks per 100 does is good at all.

And then look at struggling units like Monroe, you might only have 2 or 3 mature bucks
per 100 does right now,,,,,,,,,,,,I MEEN COME ON! 

Is it real that hard to see why fawn retention is low?

And I'm not saying general units need to carry 30 to 100 like the Book Cliffs,,,,BUT ****,
I think the new numbers associated with option 2 are much better for breeding purposes.


----------



## HunterDavid (Sep 10, 2007)

SLCMULEY said:


> IMHO raising the buck/doe ratio will only help with breeding and fawn retention due to early season breeding.
> Looking at the past herd counts I notice that around 30% of the bucks counted are 3 pt or better.
> That being said _*a herd with a 20/100 ratio equates to 6 breeding bucks 3 pt or better per 100 does*_. Do you guys think this is enough?


SLCMULEY: I think you fat-fingered the calculator on this calculation. 100/20= 5 not 6.

HunterDavid


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Is it real that hard to see why fawn retention is low?
> 
> And I'm not saying general units need to carry 30 to 100 like the Book Cliffs,,,,BUT ****,
> I think the new numbers associated with option 2 are much better for breeding purposes.


Goofy, try to answer me this, why is the fawn recruitment low on LE units also?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > IMHO raising the buck/doe ratio will only help with breeding and fawn retention due to early season breeding.
> 
> 
> Then why doesn't the Bookcliffs, Henry mtns, Pauns, etc have higher fawn recruitment than General Season units?


The Paunsy fawn recruitment is good,,,It's one of the only units in the state were
the deer herd is OVER objective and their doing doe hunts.....

The DWR web site is down right now so I cant look at the Henry and Books numbers.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, here in the Bookcliff's numbers.

They have the Bookcliffs split in North and South.

North
2007-2008: 46/100 and the post count is 33 fawns to 100 does.
2008-2009: 46/100 and the post count is 18 fawns to 100 does.

South
2007-2008: 40/100 and post count is 28 fawns to 100 does.
2008-2009: 25/100 and post count is 18 fawns to 100 does.

Looks like great fawn recruitment with all those bucks :roll: :roll: :lol: Option 2 doesn't look good if this is the kind of recruitment we will be getting. This only proves that having higher buck numbers doesn't equal more fawn recruitment.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Finn....you're right about water. More specifically we discussed precipitation and weather at length with the biologists.


Did they have anything to say about disappearing farmlands? We've lost 500,000 acres in the past decade, and for all intents and purposes, that's mule deer winter range and especially critical in hard winters and slow springs. After all, the deer don't gather at hay fields because they love alfalfa, but because it's irrigated land.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Here is some data from the DWR. If you believe their numbers.

Monroe Objective 7500

2003: 4200
2004: 5100
2005: 6550
2006: 7000
2007: 7500

This shows that the deer are increasing in numbers from year to year.

Fawn/Doe ratio

1999: 68
2000: 58
2001: 48
2002: 57
2003: 64
2005: 57
2006: 95
2007: 55

This shows that fawn recruitment is pretty good. 2007 should have been a banner year for harvest since the doe to fawn ratio in 2006 was 95. It took a dive in 2007 to 55/100 maybe because the deer was reaching carry capacity.


% of number of 3 point or bigger.

2000: 27%
2001: 39%
2002: 37%
2003: 37%
2004: 54%
2005: 27%
2006: 38%
2007: 33%

The number of mature bucks in the herd is good.


So based on these numbers what is wrong with the Monroe? Either the numbers are incorrect or their must be another major issue.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

These look like the "computer numbers" the DWR has been using and IMHO,,
Are not worth the paper there written on....

And I"VE BEEN IN THE Book cliffs EVERY year ,,,both the North and south parts
looking at deer ,,Winter ,Spring, And fall......

If you believe those 18 to 28 survival rates on fawns, I've got beach front 
property for ya in Nebraska...

All you have to do is go out there right now and see all the fawns and yearling's..
I MEEN SERIOUSLY,,,come on.
I know you've been in the Book's,,,,Do you really think the fawn survival is that low?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Typical response of if you can't prove it wrong dismiss all the information. I have a better idea, since there are several on this site that know more than the biologist, why don't we just get rid of all the DWR biologist and let these guys turn this state into a Henry's unit, then we can have 10,000 people hunt a year, but we will be seeing more bigger bucks. That is what you want right Goofy, big bucks; which ironically will net you big bucks in the pocket book. I am just calling a spade a spade here, you want big deer every where because you can financially benefit from it, I think it is important that the good people here on the forum know the truth.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

jahan, I DONT GUIDE general units,,AND don't plan on starting too either,,,,
Even if they do get good...

Honestly , I'm burnt out on guiding and have been getting away from it for
a couple years now........

I'll always do a few, but my years of doing 30 to 40 hunts a year are over.......


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, the DWR numbers are the only ones we have right now. If the DWR numbers agree with your beliefs then you say they are accurate, but if they prove you wrong then you dismiss them. What gives?

I wouldn't believe your numbers or experiences in the Bookcliffs either.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

There hasn't been 97,000 general hunters since 2002 when there were 102,718

Year Hunters
2003 90770
2004 86505
2005 85931
2006 88452
2007 82747
2008 91750
2009 86572

The number of tags we are handing out makes sense with deer numbers and tag cuts at this point won't do much positive for the future of our sport. LE units are facing the same challenges as general units. The solutions for sustainable deer herd numbers and growth have little, if anything to do with cutting tags....blah blah blah...we've been through all this.

I too see many using numbers to prove certain points then calling the numbers BS when they contradict their point. I'm all for a logic based conversation using data and facts to articulate a point but bickering on the subject isn't really accomplishing much.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

finn,

I dont think anybody should be claiming victory. Our deer herds are at 250,000! It is really a sad situation regarless of what our personal opions are.        

I am just glad that the DWR is acknowledging the need to reduce hunting pressure. Based off the data and findings of their biologist!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No doubt Muley!

I've actually been very impressed with the DWR personnel I've visited with this
winter in the field. They have all acknowledged the problem with declining deer herds.

It even gos farther , I've talked with BLM and Forest service personnel and biologists,
They have all agreed as well, Most deer herds in trouble.

I'm just glad it looks like something will be done THIS YEAR!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

This is not breaking news as the UDWR has been talking permit reductions for 6 months now. Welcome to the party.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Packout said:


> This is not breaking news as the UDWR has been talking permit reductions for 6 months now. Welcome to the party.


While this is true, 6 months ago they were leaning more toward doing the
reductions along with implementing option 2..........2012.

Now it looks more likely that deer permits will be cut at the May 5th meeting
for this coming fall.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> jahan, I DONT GUIDE general units,,AND don't plan on starting too either,,,,
> Even if they do get good...
> 
> Honestly , I'm burnt out on guiding and have been getting away from it for
> ...


Goofy, why do you care? If your not going to guide or hunt. Is it about money? Less hunting= bigger money for bigger bucks?

You say you talk to the biologists and they agree that the herds are declining, but apparently you don't listen when they say that not one of the options that was presented recently was from a biological standpoint! What gives? What is your thinking here?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is COMING FROM THE DWR biologists ,, FINALY agreeing tag cut are NEEDED!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Would you mind sharing the names of these biologists? I'm sure they wouldn't mind being contacted so they can educate the public.

In short, I think you are full of ****.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> jahan, I DONT GUIDE general units,,AND don't plan on starting too either,,,,Because?
> Even if they do get good... Because?
> 
> Honestly , I'm burnt out on guiding and have been getting away from it for
> ...


I think this post gives away your (and others') real motives, ie: Big bucks = big bucks for less work!


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

I think this discussion has opened different point of views. It is definitely challenging to look at the whole picture. 
I like the fact that the Monroe unit was opened up as an example on this topic. This is exactly what needs to happen, *look at each unit alone and make; hunting, predator, habitat, and highway mortality decisions/adjustments on an individual basis.*
My previous post was only meant to point out mature bucks doing the breeding and not thinking all 20 bucks in the ratio are meant to breed a healthy herd. I would also like to point out this statement only helps with fawn retention on one angle, this being *more does getting impregnated earlier and sending our fawns into the winter as healthy as we can*.

There are still issues when dealing with fawn retention:
- Predators
- Winter feed / overall carrying capacity
- Highway mortality

Our views may be different but I am certain we have the same goals in the end


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> This is COMING FROM THE DWR biologists ,, FINALY agreeing tag cut are NEEDED!





Treehugnhuntr said:


> Would you mind sharing the names of these biologists? I'm sure they wouldn't mind being contacted so they can educate the public.


I hadn't heard any of this either.....as of the meeting in Price on the 16th they were NOT singing this song. I've got some emails out....we'll see what they say.

If they changed their tune it will be real interesting to see if they stumbled unto to some data to cause a change of heart of if there is some political pressure in the background......that's assuming they are really saying what is being stated in the last few pages is even true.

Anis was very adiment that tag cuts would not help deer herds.....to say something different now is more than just a little change in opinion with no real additional data coming in since then...something seems fishy here...I need to get more details though.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I know the 2010 numbers that came in were pretty scary. I also believe at least one at the DWR felt the same.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, what about your guide hunting website where it says........


For a five-day General Mule Deer hunt the outfitting cost is $2,500.00 with a License fee of $263.00 We can guarantee you a permit for this hunt.
50% deposit required where permits are guaranteed for the hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

My brother still does some general deer once and a while..

But I haven't done ANY general season deer or elk for 8 (?) years or more...

Not going to ether.

If some wants to book a general hunt,,,,,,,someone else will be guiding it.,,not me.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> I know the 2010 numbers that came in were pretty scary. I also believe at least one at the DWR felt the same.


This gist if what I'm hearing is the division is getting lots of pressure to start managing to the 18:100 buck to doe ratios this year so they are feeling the heat to cut some tags to get there now. Ultimately it's the wildlife boards decision but I think they board wants something to come from the division that will help them come up with a number. The division has another month before they publish their recommendation.

As far as hunting pressure effecting fawn recruitment.....I'm told that deer are hunted year round by one predator or another, they dodge vehicles, are always looking for food, always have humans around, and have a host of other things they've got to deal with. Essentially they are a steak on legs and they know it. In other words I was told by a regional Wildlife Program Manager that hunting pressure has very little overall effect on fawn recruitment. If it did...it wouldn't just be deer tags you'd have to cut elk tags as well and consider any other hunts going on such as cat, bear, moose, antelope, and other hunts. Heck by that logic grouse hunters are hurting deer herds. Deer herds continued to grow in the early 70's despite the presence of 200k deer hunter in the field so it seems that hunting pressure isn't a major factor in fawn recruitment.

Long story short guys...as long as there are enough bucks to breed (somewhere in the 5-7:100 range) all the does, then cutting tags is not a biological issue and a declining deer herd is not necessarily a sign that we are over hunting them.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Snot, is your last post in speculation or does it come from a credible source? If so, is the whole post based on this source?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

My post was a summary of the conversation that I had with Justin Shannon, a Wildlife Program Manager with the division.

Ok this sentence was speculation on my part:

"Ultimately it's the wildlife boards decision but I think they board wants something to come from the division that will help them come up with a number. "

The rest was all part of our conversation.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

snot,

Are you really saying that your group will ok with 5 buck per 100 doe? :shock: :shock: :shock: 

Good assumptions. The info that I read stated, that they feel we need to reduce hunting pressure. Not my spin, just their words. No from the WB but words to the WB!!!

But if you really support 5 to 100 then it really does not matter what they are seeing. If this is your stance good luck on support, that is crazy to me!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> snot,
> 
> Are you really saying that your group will ok with 5 buck per 100 doe? :shock: :shock: :shock:


I never said that.....all I said in a nutshell is that I want to clearly define the line between social issues and biological issues. To be clear I support letting the 15:100 buck to doe ratio in the 2008 plan work for the 5 years it was supposed to be working for.

I have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL if a persons agenda is that they want more bucks to hunt or bigger bucks to hunt. I can completely understand that. I support the LE program. All I'm saying is let's first clear the air about what is biological and what is social. Do I think we should manage 100% to biology? NO. Do I think that we should manage 100% to social desires? NO. Do I think the hunting public should be able to decide if they want general units managed at 15:100 or at 18:100 buck to doe ratio? You betcha.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> I know the 2010 numbers that came in were pretty scary.


Depends on what numbers you want to look at, I suppose. I'm looking at the classifications and I don't see anything scary. But I do see that the worst fawn numbers in the state are on some of our LE units. Fillmore and LaSal both took a serious nose dive. But otherwise, I don't see any evidence that the sky is falling.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> snot,
> 
> Are you really saying that your group will ok with 5 buck per 100 doe? :shock: :shock: :shock:
> 
> ...


Come on dude, no one eluded to the "group" being ok with those types of ratios, that's silly- made up bull ****.

-^|^-


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's the latest buck/doe and doe/fawn numbers.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... ey=CP6KvjQ


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Here's the latest buck/doe and doe/fawn numbers.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... ey=CP6KvjQ


What date are these figures from? To clarify, are these the figures as of 12/31/2010 or November 2010?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

You are 100% correct. Those ratios are silly and bull****. So is the fact that some say if the biologists and DWR support tags cuts then we will show support. Yet here we are still discussing and trying to spin numbers and answers. 

Truth is some would push for no tag cuts until all the deer were gone and that is what is truly silly!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> My opinions are not coming from aquatic biologists!


Where are your opinions coming from then? Father/SFW, where?



> So is the fact that some say if the biologists and DWR support tags cuts then we will show support. Yet here we are still discussing and trying to spin numbers and answers.


I think you haven't read a lot of posts or you don't understand them. If the biologists say that cutting tags will help the herd then people will support. Option 2 isn't going to fix the deer herds. It's more of a social issue that doesn't focus on the issue. We need to focus on fawn recruitment and how does killing fewer bucks address this?

Don't repeat the stupid answer that we need more bucks to breed more does because even LE units show that fawn recruitment is low.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Like I stated earlier. I am glad to see the DWR aknowledging the need the reduce hunting pressure. That is something that I thought would put alot of us on the same page. I read many post stating that if one biologist or if the DWR felt it was necessary then heck yes we would support cuts. Well from my understanding this has happened and those same sportsmen are now questioning the motives and need to still reduce tags.

No need to argue. I simply asked the question and it was answered. Thanks! Just trying to gain perspective.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I also think it's pretty pitiful that on a mountain the size of the Henry mtns we only have a little under 2,000 deer. The Wasatch Front has more deer than the Henry mtns with less winter range. I would hope to have triple the amount of deer, but why aren't the fawns surviving with such awesome genes received by their fathers? What is killing the fawns before they reach adulthood is what we should be talking about. Once we address this issue then we will see our deer herds explode again.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> You are 100% correct. Those ratios are silly and bull****. So is the fact that some say if the biologists and DWR support tags cuts then we will show support. Yet here we are still discussing and trying to spin numbers and answers.
> 
> Truth is some would push for no tag cuts until all the deer were gone and that is what is truly silly!


Who are these mysterious biologists you and goofy speak of? Show me the money! If the division came out and said that it's gonna create more deer, I'd be here singin the same tune as you are. So please, put me in contact with these people!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> So is the fact that some say if the biologists and DWR support tags cuts then we will show support. Yet here we are still discussing and trying to spin numbers and answers.
> 
> *Truth is some would push for no tag cuts until all the deer were gone and that is what is truly silly*!


Now you are just being confrontational....stop before you lose all credibility.

*FOR THE RECORD I WOULD SUPPORT TAG CUTS IF IT HELPS THE RESOURCE!!!!* I would not (do not) support tag cuts if it simply grows a few bigger bucks ON GENERAL UNITS which is all we've discussed for the past 4 months straight. I haven't said one thing that contradicts that. I can't make that any clearer.

Clearly you are just getting frustrated and now you are trying to discredit me and others that share my views in much the same way many are trying to discredit the division if they say something that doesn't agree with their values.

Like Tree....show us what you speak of and we would be on board right next to you.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> I am glad to see the DWR aknowledging the need the reduce hunting pressure.


_*Show us where this is being said please*_.....I called and talked to division folks today and I shared what they told me....I even gave you a name and title of a person I spoke to.

Heck I personally asked the question about hunting pressure at the Price open house as a fact finding exercise....not a prove a point exercise....and I have shared the answer I got. I was speaking to no less than 3 biolgists at the time.

We will ask the question again at all the open houses that Amy has posted and share the honest, non-biased answers. If the bioligists say that hunting pressure effects deer herds then I will re-evaluate....its not complicated. I'm searching for the truth....not an answer that supports my agenda.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

bull,

All I am doing is asking questions. If the answers ruin credibilty then so be, however that is not my intent! My intent is to gain a prespective.

Please show me in my previous posts when I have ever made this about bigger bucks. My sole concern is a healthy growing deer herd for my children to enjoy in years to come. To claim other wise is misrepresenting of what my stance on the issue is. I am asking questions as to not assume. You seem more intrested in assuming then listening to actual answers given.

Tree,
If I really believed the info that I have seen would change your mind, I would share it in a second. The problem is I do not believe any info or even a smoking gun would change your mind. :? 

I will tell you this. The info that I recieved in the past week has set my mind at ease on some issues. I believe that we are going to head in the right direction. I am actually less frustrated then I have been since last November. We will see how this all turns out, but I can not complain after reading the information I recieved. I believe some of the right indivuals are making some good recommendations based off of real biological data that has been analysed.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> 
> All I am doing is asking questions. If the answers ruin credibilty then so be, however that is not my intent! My intent is to gain a prespective.
> 
> Please show me in my previous posts when I have ever made this about bigger bucks. My sole concern is a healthy growing deer herd for my children to enjoy in years to come. To claim other wise is misrepresenting of what my stance on the issue is. I am asking questions as to not assume. You seem more intrested in assuming then listening to actual answers given.


The big buck comment was not necessarily directed at you but as a characterization of the issue as a whole. It was not intended to say you made that comment.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Like I stated earlier. I am glad to see the DWR aknowledging the need the reduce hunting pressure. That is something that I thought would put alot of us on the same page. I read many post stating that if one biologist or if the DWR felt it was necessary then heck yes we would support cuts. Well from my understanding this has happened and those same sportsmen are now questioning the motives and need to still reduce tags.
> 
> No need to argue. I simply asked the question and it was answered. Thanks! Just trying to gain perspective.


Please give us the name of the division bioligist that said this.It very well could change my mind. I personally don't think it is "hunting pressure" as much as it is pressure in general. What I mean by that is there are alot less people hunting now than there were 20-30 years ago but there are alot more people in the hills due to snowmobiling,atvs',hikers,photographers,snowshoers,cross country skiers,and other users.
I don't think the deer differentiate between any of the user groups. They never get a chance to relax and this may very well be why there is such a high fawn mortality rate along with other factors.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> 
> All I am doing is asking questions. Again and again, of whom? Who are these great biologists you are privy to? If the answers ruin credibilty then so be, Your credibility and the answers you come up with are questionable because you keep avoiding disclosing the source of your information! however that is not my intent! My intent is to gain a prespective. NO! You've made it clear that your intention is to prove, and persuade us to believe in, your agenda! Your remark to Tree below shows that!
> 
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Elkfromabove,,,,,,,You have a PM.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> 
> Tree,
> If I really believed the info that I have seen would change your mind, I would share it in a second. The problem is I do not believe any info or even a smoking gun would change your mind. :?


I'm not sure why you think I am entrenched in certain beliefs, I am not. I am completely willing to consider any perspective, given items to actually consider. Please give me something to chew on. Goofy did, and I appreciate it and it allows each of us to understand where one another are coming from. I'm willing to make myself vulnerable to your way of thinking and am clear that I have very little clue to what your perspective or way of thinking even are. Why exactly do you pretend to know, speculate and project where we are all coming from?

Again, I don't have a reason that I need any of these things to be true. I'd like to wake up tomorrow and have all of the reasons for the recent changes be valid and pure. Maybe I'd go fishing and spend more time with my family instead of spending most of my waking time traveling everywhere, attending meetings etc.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

So according to some info I got overnight it appears there may be some units in the southern and southeastern regions that may end up having lower than 15:100 buck to doe ratios after the counts are done. Some of those same units may have some really low fawn:doe ratios which constitute some tag cuts. Cuts in these areas make sense to me.

As far as hunting pressure causing low fawn:doe ratios....I didn't see anything indicating that. I think the message was that hunting pressure needs to be reduced in some areas because of the low fawn counts....low fawn counts meaning future buck production will be low. Reducing tags will ensure buck:doe ratios remain where they should be. That doesn't mean that hunting pressure is causing low fawn counts.....the bad winter last year did that and predators are doing thier part.

None of this is official of course....just speculation.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> So according to some info I got overnight it appears there may be some units in the southern and southeastern regions that may end up having lower than 15:100 buck to doe ratios after the counts are done. Some of those same units may have some really low fawn:doe ratios which constitute some tag cuts. Cuts in these areas make sense to me.


Why is it still secretive? What units in Southern/SE? I for one would like to know as I have hunted the SE for a long time.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > So according to some info I got overnight it appears there may be some units in the southern and southeastern regions that may end up having lower than 15:100 buck to doe ratios after the counts are done. Some of those same units may have some really low fawn:doe ratios which constitute some tag cuts. Cuts in these areas make sense to me.
> ...


Nevermind, thanks for the help!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > So according to some info I got overnight it appears there may be some units in the southern and southeastern regions that may end up having lower than 15:100 buck to doe ratios after the counts are done. Some of those same units may have some really low fawn:doe ratios which constitute some tag cuts. Cuts in these areas make sense to me.
> ...


JuddCT,,,,,,You have a PM.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JuddCT said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > So according to some info I got overnight it appears there may be some units in the southern and southeastern regions that may end up having lower than 15:100 buck to doe ratios after the counts are done. Some of those same units may have some really low fawn:doe ratios which constitute some tag cuts. Cuts in these areas make sense to me.
> ...


I know you said nevermind but the info I got wasn't specific....so I really don't know what units we are talking about. Besides the counts aren't done....this isn't official info. It's speculation only.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy did you even read your own PM that you have been passing around. You seem to have missed it.

The biggest issue is fawn recruitment not as much buck/doe ratios. If a buck/doe ratio falls to a certain point then of course your going to limit harvest. One of the main reason buck/doe ratios are low is because of fawn recruitment. Without many fawns reaching adulthood then you don't have a healthy doe or buck population.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk and Muley73 it's pretty simple. If you have a fawn recruitment of 30 to 40 fawns per 100 does then how long can a herd stay healthy with low recruitment numbers? If we fix the fawn recruitment to 60/70 fawns per 100 does then we have just increase our deer herd and made it more healthy because the recruitment is high.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

coyoteslayer said:


> The biggest issue is fawn recruitment not as much buck/doe ratios. If a buck/doe ratio falls to a certain point then of course your going to limit harvest. One of the main reason buck/doe ratios are low is because of fawn recruitment. Without many fawns reaching adulthood then you don't have a healthy doe or buck population.


That's pretty much it right there.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Like I stated. I'm ok with the response. Not at all happy with the info and numbers. But comfortable with the response. 

I have been hard on the DWR, but I will be the first to acknowledge if I believe they are taking positive action.

Read into the info what you will. I have and I like the response.

I will say this I have had many tell me that the deer herd is fine, that the numbers are fine. That the trend is not anything to be concerned with. That letter would tell me the DWR does not believe this and that gives me hope!

Cheers gents!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I will say this I have had many tell me that the deer herd is fine, that the numbers are fine. That the trend is not anything to be concerned with. That letter would tell me the DWR does not believe this and that gives me hope!


yes but you act like the sky is falling. Some areas are struggling and some areas are NOT. We need to focus on the struggling areas and keep the areas that aren't struggling from going down that same path.

I could show you a lot of mature bucks this summer, but if you cannot find them during hunting season then that isn't my problem.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Elkfromabove,,,,,,,You have a PM.


Thanks a bunch! Now I'll be able to sleep a little better at night! :lol:

There certainly are many things to consider when trying to manage deer and I will agree that some units are in trouble and that all units need to be managed specifically for the causes of the deer herd decline in each unit.

We do disagree however on the best way to manage them specifically. You think Option #2 is the key. I think it is NOT! It is not the ONLY way to proceed, nor the BEST way to proceed, nor even a VIABLE way to proceed. It is OVERKILL if your main goal is to increase herd numbers. Option #2 appears to be the ideal way to proceed if your goal is to increase the number and ratio of trophy bucks in the herd, but even then, there is no biological advantage to having 18 to 25 bucks per 100 does and that high of a buck/doe ratio has even been shown to be detrimental to a healthy herd. We already have a deer management plan with established procedures to address problems per unit and simply don't need Option #2.

Consider the following:
1) The classification information (buck/doe ratios)(fawn/doe ratios) which has been presented, and which you apparently accept, was gathered without Option #2.
2) The problems with predators (coyotes, cougars) on troubled units were identified and procedures to correct those problems were implemented without Option #2.
3) The impact of hunting pressure was identified and can, and has, and will be, resolved without Option #2. by isolating currently established units/regions and limiting the permits available (or shortening the season).

Additionally, Option #2 carries with it far too many consequences which are detrimental to a sound deer hunting program.

I will acknowledge that Option #2 has generated a lot of energy and enthusiasm to address the declining mule deer population and that's good. And one thing I know, if Option #2 is implemented and works, I'll be satisfied. If it doesn't work, and goes by the wayside, I'll also be satisfied. In any case, it won't end my deer hunting career.


----------

