# How did the southern RAC?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Well how'd it go, were all tag numbers passed or what happened?


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

They voted to impeach Obama, succeed from the union and reduce archery tags by 99% for anyone without a documented birth certificate proving they were born in Southern Utah. :O•-: 
o-||


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

They voted to keep the deer tags flat. 

The RAC was not comfortable with the DWR recommendations for antelope tag increases on Parker. 

Very interesting meeting. Collectively, this group does not like to increase tags even if a population is growing. 

There was a lot of discussion by the cattlemen about getting horses under control in the west desert and killing more cow elk - which are over objective. 

My Take: Virtually everyone there was affiliated with a special interest group. The RAC and the special interest groups seem to hate the general deer hunt. They will not be satisfied until opening day of the deer hunt is very quiet and big bucks are easy. 

My concern: One guy (last name Christensen - from Glenwood) With SFW - I'm guessing? got up and gave a big speech about how there were 1.2 million deer in 1993 and we need to cut tags because we now have 318k. There was a strong applause afterward. It didn't smell right to me. I checked the numbers. There were actually fewer deer in 1993 than in 2012. 

This indicates to me how biased these meetings are. You can spew wildly false data and nobody will contest it if you conclude the data means we should cut tags. Instead, you will get an applause.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Yeah....Christensen is with SFW. He has been pushing for tag cuts for a few years now.....wasn't 1993 the first year that the deer hunt was a draw?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

If it wasn't 93 it was 94. There was a hard winter kill 92-93. The Christensen guy got up and said he is a general hunter, but he doesn't put in any more because there are no deer. He now has 7 points. I bet he's getting plenty of hunts in that are not general hunts. 

These guys go on exclusive hunts and then think the general hunt needs to be managed the same way. If only they could get rid of the general hunters, then the general hunt would be great!!!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

So they kept the deer tags the same as last year or they changed them like the DWR wanted the tag numbers to be this year? And what about all the new cow hunts and tags did they go through?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So they kept the deer tags the same as last year or they changed them like the DWR wanted the tag numbers to be this year? And what about all the new cow hunts and tags did they go through?


Yes they are going to kill all the animals on the Monroe.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > So they kept the deer tags the same as last year or they changed them like the DWR wanted the tag numbers to be this year? And what about all the new cow hunts and tags did they go through?
> ...


Lol marty

I think Christensen is muley75's dad. Hes a nice guy


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

1.2 million deer, WOW! Or was it my buddy Cody himself spewing those numbers? Either way maybe M73 will come on here and "own" his words and tell us where he or his dad got those numbers. Or at the very least share whatever it is they're smoking.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I missed this one on purpose but by the sounds of it, the entire village of Loa was in attendance (to applaud such dumb numbers). A "family reunion" if you will. I would like to know where they got those numbers, too.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

That was DeLoss Christensen and to say he's with SFW, or more precisely, with Don Peay, is the understatement of all ages. He claims to be one of the original players when SFW started. And you never know from meeting to meeting (he attends almost all of them) what facts he's going to spew out to make his point. But it's almost impossible to call him out at the time, especially since he "remembers" so many details that you can't even write them down, let alone remember them. I've only had 2 personal encounters with him, both of them negative. Once he saddled up to me at a SFW wolf open house in Cedar City and accused me of calling him a bad name on the internet (I didn't and wouldn't) and the other time was at a Wildlife Board meeting where he openly, though muffled, rediculed me from the audience for supporting, in behalf of UWC, the DWR's recommendations for some antlerless elk tag increases which SFW didn't want. I'm not even sure what he said, but it got a big laugh from his buddies around him and some rather stern looks from the Board. Another thing he's infamous for is making a long statement before asking a loaded question during the questioning period. And usually, it's a series of loaded questions intended to make the DWR (or someone else) look foolish. Luckily, he wasn't at the SE RAC tonight or we probably would have had another encounter since there were only a handful of people here. He's a piece of work!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I wouldn't worry, Option WFT?, and other issues, will work themselves out. Besides, we base a lot of our management on hunter satisfaction, so I'm sure the people will be heard, and biologically sound, democratic, wildlife management will prevail. We just have to go through the process, and trust in our leaders.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

So let me get this straight. This Deloss guy who spews BS numbers is Dons buddy and claims to be one of the original players for SFW is Muley73's daddy and also the daddy of the soldier that SFW sent on a free fishing trip to Alaska?


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

elkfromabove-

DeLoss is quite a character and loves to spout off in public meetings. He used to regularly post on monstermuleys but has been quiet for some time now. He made some pretty interesting comments to me during a break at a Wildlife Board Meeting last summer. Personally, I took the comments as a compliment because I know that our views are vastly different on most issues. One thing is for sure, he is passionate about mule deer. I don't agree with most of his positions or arguments, but the guy has a great deal of energy and passion when it comes to mule deer.

Hawkeye


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> I wouldn't worry, Option WFT?, and other issues, will work themselves out. Besides, we base a lot of our management on hunter satisfaction, so I'm sure the people will be heard, and biologically sound, democratic, wildlife management will prevail. We just have to go through the process, and trust in our leaders.


I'm also sure the people will be heard! :roll: Especially when we allow 6 or 7 "offical" speakers from one group get their 5 minutes (or more) ie; At the Southern RAC we had two from the Sevier SFW Chapter, Braden (last name?) representing the State SFW one time, while representing the Beaver SFW Chapter on another issue, Deloss representing the state SFW and/or himself on several issues, Troy (Justenson?) representing the State SFW, and one or two who just said SFW. And that's not counting the individual SFW speakers who sided with them.

And I'm also sure we'll get biologically sound wildlife management! :roll: :roll: ie; At the Southern RAC we heard no increases in deer tags in the Zion, Pine Valley, Panguitch Lake and Monroe units because it's "overcrowded", we heard reducing the Plateau pronghorn buck tags to 135 because our counts must be way off cause pronghorn can't possibly reproduce that much that fast ("our counts can't be right" came up a lot for deer and elk as well), we heard the ever present 3 (or 4) point hunts, and the additional 20 to 25 buck to doe ratio tier. And disappointingly to me personally, not all of these came just from SFW. Additionally, at the SE RAC we had one RAC member praise the DWR for managing the hunter numbers on the 30 units because that's what was needed, but a while later when the UBA's proposal to keep the same weapon ratios on the units with late elk hunts came up, he voted not to support it because it doesn't comply with the current elk management plan and we can't change the plan in midstream.

We can trust "our" leaders alright. We just have to decide who our leaders are going to be and do something about our decision.

Edited:  Sorry, I shouldn't leave you with the impression that everything went badly at these two RAC. The Southern RAC passed UBA's proposal and both RAC's kept most of the permit numbers recommended by the division. And they both passed the DWR's recommended changes to the mitigation permits/vouchers. Additionally, the audiences in both meetings brought up the damage the wild mustangs are doing and that may put the BLM on alert that something needs to change, which it does. Also, I met some new friends and had personal conversations with leaders from MDF and UBA. I guess I'll keep going, after all.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Yeah, Brayden Richmond is the SFW guy from the range ride along the Parowan Front that responded instantly to the suggestion that we needed to remove up to 600 mouths in order to let the range improve with, "600? Don will never go for that. Who's going to take that to Don and the committee? Rusty, you'll have to do that one because I already now what he's going to say." 

I'd like these SFW jokers like DeLoss who have enough time and money to show up with their endorsement of a common statement go out and try to do an ACTUAL COUNT. I keep hearing people suggest that Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada do ACTUAL COUNTS but when I've contacted head biologists with each of those states on this and other issues, they laugh and say an ACTUAL COUNT is impossible and especially so in Utah. Does nobody else find it amazing that so many will stand and say the same damned thing over and over and over again in the name of SFW? Again, I'm not bagging on anything the group does in our state for wildlife and I don't give rolled up turd ball to argue about how they make money other than it seems to me that the representatives and leadership of SFW are virtually the only group to show up at every meeting pushing an agenda to set future policy. Then, people say that the other groups that don't show up aren't doing anything.....bullcrap. They aren't there doing their best to limit opportunity and limit science based management. I also find it interesting that if you disagree with their "statement" that you must be anti hunter and hate the people of SFW when nothing could be further from the truth. Glad you were there, Lee. I'm sure that the division appreciates it, all be it privately.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

The Northeastern RAC was about the same as the other two, but they seem to be doing more to actually solve the problems there. I didn't record all of the regional updates at any of the RAC's, but the regional supervisor (I think that's the proper title) really gave a detailed update which included 12 new or refurbished/improved guzzlers for a specific large, scattered pronghorn herd, an actual bear den count, an ongoing sagegrouse habitat project and count, a carp removal from some lake (2,500 lbs), several resolved and unresolved poaching cases and a bunch of other stuff. Maybe, in the interest of time, the other regional sups don't give such detail, but it was good to let the public know they don't just sit around the office drinking coffee or ride around in their new trucks.

In any case, there were only 3 or 4 of us civilians who spoke of the 10 or 12 in the audience, and for the most part, we agreed on the issues at hand, especially on the UBA proposal. In fact, Troy Justensen of SFW pitched in for UBA on their proposal because there was no UBA member present. He couldn't represent UBA with the details, so he asked Anis to help explain it, which he did. And, of course, we/I/UWC backed them up.
Additionally, Troy brought up a proposal to transplant 250 of the doe pronghorn on the Plateau rather than kill them, but in the end it was agreed to keep the number of tags and transplant an additional 250 to the west desert. There was a question from the RAC about the seemingly high number of pronghorn tags on that unit, but a simple biological explanation from Anis put the issue to rest.

There was more of a discussion in this RAC about the changes in the mitigation permits and vouchers which included the definition of the buffer zones (the area outside of the landowner's property where the animals hang out until it's dark enough to go feed on the crops) and how wide they should be. Carrie from the RAC was concerned about some abuse of the vouchers which can be sold and she was afraid some of the landowners would try to perpetuate (grow) the herds that invade their land by planting more wildlife attractive crops just to get high dollars for the vouchers. But an explanation from Scott, the DWR presenter, on the procedure and language also resolved that problem and in the end, the DWR proposal passed unanimously. 

As in the other RAC's, most of the numbers passed, but these folks wanted to reduce the number of Book Cliffs buck deer tags by 25% in order to get the quality (trophy) up in that LE unit. It was close, but the chair broke the 4 to 4 tie. And they proposed a split in that unit. Apparently, the north end and the south end are quite different when it comes to habitat, private property, migration issues, etc. The DWR will discuss that.

All in all, the NE RAC was the most cordial (and casual and organized) one so far. I wish they were all like that, but someone else will have to report on the other two 'cause I need some sleep!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> In any case, there were only 3 or 4 of us civilians who spoke of the 10 or 12 in the audience,[/quote
> 
> Civilians? Who where the others? SFW? :?
> 
> ...


UWC reps are classified as civilians?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, there were only 3 or 4 of us civilians who spoke of the 10 or 12 in the audience,[/quote
> ...


Only one SFW person as far as I know, one UWC person, one from a local grazing organization and one from a local ranch who had depredation issues. I'm not sure who or why the other "civilians" were there. And the term "civilians" was tongue-in-cheek and refered all of us other than the highly inflated number of government personell in uniform(DWR, FS, BLM) who were there and the RAC members who represent various entities in an official goverment capacity. And, yes! If there was anyone in that building that was a civilian, it was the 70+ year old former National Guard Spec 4, electrician, welder, janitor, door to door salesman, newpaper carrier, high school graduate, almost college graduate, father of 6, grandfather of 15 (so far), part-time trophy hunter and avid fisherman, it was the UWC rep! (Geez, don't you hate it when you have to explain a joke?)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Elk thanks for the update! You said 
"one RAC member praise the DWR for managing the hunter numbers on the 30 units because that's what was needed, but a while later when the UBA's proposal to keep the same weapon ratios on the units with late elk hunts came up, he voted not to support it because it doesn't comply with the current elk management plan and we can't change the plan in midstream."

Do you remember his name? Did they say why they were going it cut the archery tags and then turn around and give them to the late hunt?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Elk thanks for the update! You said
> "one RAC member praise the DWR for managing the hunter numbers on the 30 units because that's what was needed, but a while later when the UBA's proposal to keep the same weapon ratios on the units with late elk hunts came up, he voted not to support it because it doesn't comply with the current elk management plan and we can't change the plan in midstream."
> 
> Do you remember his name? Did they say why they were going it cut the archery tags and then turn around and give them to the late hunt?


I'm sorry, I don't remember his name and, unfortunately, I haven't taken detailed notes, but I'll try to do better in the future. In any case, I'll get that info from the minutes which will be written in a week or so.

As to the archery and muzzy tags, as I understood it, they don't actually take them away from any early hunts, they just issue them differently percentagewise on the late hunts. It's 50% rifle, 30% archery and 20% muzzy on the early hunts, but 65% rifle, 20% archery and 15% muzzy on the late hunts. I haven't looked into the elk management plans, but apparently that's the way it was written even before these late hunts came up. And it was written that way because success rates are normally lower on the late hunts and the DWR wanted it to improve per the higher rifle rate while the UBA (and SFW and UWC) wanted more opportunity for archers and muzzy hunters. FYI, the hunts on the units involved are new hunts this year and were scheduled to spread out the hunters who felt it was too crowded. Always, always, always, there are unintended consequenses attached to almost every thing we do. Sometimes they're good and sometimes not so good, depending on our expectations.

Edited: I'm sorry, but I failed to mention another subject that came up in the NE RAC and that was a proposal made by that RAC some time ago that Wounded Warriors would like to have some hunts for our disabled vets at Camp Williams and Dugway and they had some tentative approval from the military. Apparently the DWR didn't follow through with any further talks about working that out and Anis had to admit the error and promised to do something about it. Even on military bases, the DWR has full management of the wildlife and the Army or National Guard cannot arrange that without the approval from the DWR. I can't speak for UWC nor would I dare speak for any other group on that issue, but that soundsl like a great idea to me regardless of unit permit numbers!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Is SFW backing this proposal? or did they get blindsided? 

If they are they are always looking to screw the archer and then complain about the quality when they give the most effective weapons the easiest time to kill the most mature animal.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Is SFW backing this proposal? or did they get blindsided?
> 
> If they are they are always looking to screw the archer and then complain about the quality when they give the most effective weapons the easiest time to kill the most mature animal.


They are backing this proposal and did so at all 3 RAC's so I don't think SFW was blindsided!! In fact, as I stated, it was Troy Justensen that brought it up at the NE in the absence of UBA. If they have any hidden motives, I don't know what they would be. We could be the ones being blindsided or could it be possible that they are mellowing a bit? I would hope it was the latter. Time will tell, I guess.


----------



## huntinfanatic (Aug 3, 2012)

For those wondering were Deloss got his numbers he gave a detailed explanation over on monstermuleys, he meant to say '83 not '93. 
The southern rac voted to cut bull tags on monroe from 29(DWR recommedation) to 25 tags. 
They voted to extend the hunt dates on the pauns/skutumpah cow elk hunt. 
They voted in favor of the Plateau increase in buck tags but only by 50% of the recommendation(I think the total number was 179 tags between the 3 hunts). I think they would have voted for the full increase had they heard the presentation from the biologist before voting(for some reason he didnt give his speech until the antlerless recommedations). Once they heard what the bio had to say they tried to fix their error by voting to increase the doe tags from 500 to 750. Its uncertain what going to happen(SFW might pay to trasplant some). Its just my opinion but I think whats going to end up happening is that the wildlife board will ignore the rac and go with the dwr recommendations(269 buck tags and 500 doe tags.)
They voted in favor of the dwr general deer recommendations with the exception of the monroe, panguitch, pine valley, and zion units. In those units they voted to leave permit numbers the same as 2012 due to overcrowding complaints and safety issues and access issues on the zion unit(private property and national park.
They voted in favor of the dwr recommendations on everything else.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

huntinfanatic, EXCELLANT report right there!

Your hired


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> huntinfanatic, EXCELLANT report right there!
> 
> Your hired


Yes, it was EXCELLENT!

Does that mean I'm fired? (I hope so!) :V|:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lol
No


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Maybe I'm not reading far enough into some of your posts sorry for asking again but did the 250 cow tags on the Monroe and the 550 on Fishlake pass?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes go ahead and take a look at the Southern RAC post on MM and you can see the #s that my dad is talking about. They are the DWRs numbers so believe them if you want. But take a look if you would like to see the logic. 

As far as Loa, I really have no idea where that is coming from. I would guess there was just about no one from Loa at the RAC meeting and Deloss is not from loa. Never has been. 

DeLoss's #s do make sense and his knowledge is from a much bigger picture than most of you can understand are choose to accept. So go ahead and beat up all you like, yes my brother did go to AK fishing. Yes my dad and Don do email occasionally. No you guys really have no idea if Don and him are buddies it's speculation as usual. Ie the whole Loa comment. 

I'll say it again... Most of you laughed and ridiculed Opt 2. Said it would never pass. Had plenty to say about DeLoss and me and the "Loa" "Glenwood" "Southern RAC" Crew. All I have to say is.. What unit did ya'll put in for this year???


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Your dad seems like a **** good guy to me, I met him awhile back at a wildlife board meeting and contrary to belief on this forum, a lot of guys, including myself, share MANY of his views...

Personally though, I have the opinion that the biologists in this state and many other states are full of shiz...and fudge/twist their "numbers" as far as buck/doe, population estimates and hunter success rates...way to much butt kissing to their superiors IMO...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Your dad seems like a **** good guy to me, I met him awhile back at a wildlife board meeting and contrary to belief on this forum, a lot of guys, including myself, share MANY of his views...
> 
> Personally though, I have the opinion that the biologists in this state and many other states are full of shiz...and fudge/twist their "numbers" as far as buck/doe, population estimates and hunter success rates...way to much butt kissing to their superiors IMO...


It has nothing to do with the biologists, and "their" numbers. They are just collecting data, and biologists collecting buck to doe data, and population estimates, have no bearing on the collection of hunter success rates. One is a function of educated observation and counting of animals by means of a standardized process. While the collection of hunter success numbers is a completely separate process, separate from the biological part of population estimates, and buck to doe counts. The problem is the policy barons, and what gets done with those numbers.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Its amazing how some of your have been "involved" for decades yet still haven't got a clue as to how this all works. Its even more amazing how those who are actually doing something in regard to policy and management aren't on this or MM spewing venom at each other based on assumptions but are focused on finding real results in the interest of the wildlife. Cody, I threw "Loa" out there as a random place just as your father came up with random numbers based on what he assumes those number might have been based on what he calls flawed data. Why use flawed data to make more flawed data if that is the case? Arguing an assumption with another assumption, is that productive? I would suggest it isn't.

Do any single one of you think, with DWR being self funded, that they wouldn't rather sell MORE tags for a healthy 500,000 deer in our state other than have to listen to some of you boob and wine about needing to eliminate tags so that MAYBE someday we will see that number of deer again? You're foolish to believe that they don't. Take a look at the budget for the division, then take a look at the conservation and convention dollars. Who, for the time being, shoulders the majority of the financial burden of managing wildlife in Utah? Then, who shoulders the majority of the stewardship of that public trust? Present all the $1 million dollar giganto cardboard checks you want and call it a "donation", its still WE as a majority of hunters and anglers that fund the division. So, to keep suggesting that the biologists in the field are drumming up random numbers to formulate what they think will impress or satisfy their superiors is a pathetic stance. To think that Anis and other bios wouldn't like to wear a crown of success for rehabilitating mule deer herds in our state is ridiculous and irresponsible.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

klbzdad-
I never suggested the division doesn't want to see more deer and sell more tags, thats exactly what I think they are trying to do. And yeah, they would love that crown...... the problem is this-revenue generation and keeping people happy  

What I do think, is they don't want to tell the entire truth.....

Lets just say I am right, and on a unit like say, Cache, Buck/Doe ratios are in horrible shape, way below what they claim (yes, I believe they are) and populations are much lower than "estimated" and they admit it one year...

They would be burned at the stake, you know it and I know it (fired, black eye on the entire division, etc) .....the way the political system works in government is ugly and IMO they are giving best case scenarios and sugar coating the hell out of everything. If you think they have nothing to lose by telling the truth you are wrong, government politics are ugly, look at the entire system for a second....its no secret, hell most of the guys on here blame it....

Example-
Look at the fun little write up on the divisions page every year before the deer hunt, my god its always good news, after reading it I would assume we are riding high on the mule deer hog.......

I also think biologists spend more time sitting behind a desk then actually in the field, that is sad....again, politics.....


I dont base my opinion on this off some crazy off the wall random thoughts, I know and talk to biologists both current and retired and those working for different agencies, these thoughts aren't all just randomly jumping through my head :mrgreen:


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

UWN is really a pathetic place recently. Nothing but I'm right/you're wrong (prove it!) and a bunch of keyboard jockeys that just like to heard themselves type... line after line of speculation, conjecture and twisted statistics (which are 100% correct 60% of the time).



> boob and wine


I'll take two and be done here!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I can agree with a good part of what you are saying, Rebel. But sportsmen, anglers, hunters and a select few have forced the division into having to "sugar coat" anything if they are sugar coating at all. But then again, maybe I'm someone who would rather take his lumps now and figure out a better way in the mean time rather than tell those interested that I've been doing something when really I haven't done a **** thing. The problem lies directly in what you've said, they'd be burned at the stake if they told the truth, yet **** them all for not telling us what we don't really want to hear right now. Not a great place to be and I think everyone has been put in this kind of position in their life. Shouldn't WE be fostering an environment where if the deer population, based on science and factual data, are never going to recover the division and some of the conservation groups yelling for policy should be able to tell the truth WITHOUT being hung for the world to see? 

I'm just as guilty at making assumptions based on emotion and what I feel I see in the field as anyone. But if you let a toothache fester long enough, you'll loose that tooth but only after it ruins your health. Why should we fester? If our herds are in so much trouble that stable population numbers are being fabricated, I'd certainly like to see even ONE of our biologists fess up so that we can start talking about the solution. Having been very involved with politics, I know how they work, and I know political motives can create the best liars. That said, I personally hate the politics of wildlife in Utah just as bad as the politics of Washington DC. I'd personally like to see biologists tell all of us to eat our shorts and start doing what the hell they need to do to help the wildlife in Utah. That would silence most of the criticism, would it not?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yeah, it is so obvious that the biologists across every Western state got together, to cook the Mule deer numbers, it is plain as day. Here in Utah, they inflated population estimates to try to show that the deer herd had grown by 32,450 animals. And then inflated the hunter success numbers on top of that, all so they could justify cutting ~$60,000 from their budget. The problem is obviously the only people that are actually looking at the wildlife, rather than everything else. :roll:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

derekp1999 said:


> UWN is really a pathetic place recently. Nothing but I'm right/you're wrong (prove it!) and a bunch of keyboard jockeys that just like to heard themselves type... line after line of speculation, conjecture and twisted statistics (which are 100% correct 60% of the time).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In science, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test that hypothesis, to see if you can prove or disprove it. Then, ultimately, others test it independently from you, to see if they get the same results.

Speculation and conjecture are when untested, or already disproven, ideas and beliefs are thrown out. They are what ifs, or maybes that have no plan, or means for testing their validity. Sort of like Option WTF?

Hypothesizing, testing, and proving what is _right_ for wildlife, is what is best for wildlife, and us as hunters. Policy that is based on conjecture, and arbitrary numbers and goals, is neither good for wildlife, or hunters.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

REBEL did you participate in several counts last year with the DWR. Were a lot of their counts bogus?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I agree with what Deloss wrote on MM. This generation of hunters has some challenges to figure out. They'll never know what it was like to not have to pick a weapon type, to have to draw a general season tag, to hunt Fishlake on the opener and then run up on the hill after work and on and on.

Where I do disagree is the constant attack on hunters. To understand my disagreement takes some basic biologic fact. The buck mule deer has one purpose in life. To breed mule deer doe's. So are all receptive doe's being bred every fall? I'm going to side with the DWR and say they are. Again I'll use the Premium LE units as an example. Population trends on the Henry's will paint the same exact picture as the rest of the state. Fact and not debatable, this herd with basically no hunting opportunity is not growing more deer. If Deloss and the rest of the make hunters stay home crowd could understand this we'd be farther along.
The other point of contention I have is the insistence that this generation of hunters be forced in to theories developed by old timers like Deloss and myself. 

Speaking of hypotheses, in my twenties and early thirties I could hunt all three seasons and we had deer. The muzz hunt was in November and we had deer. The were over 150k hunters every year and we had deer.
Since 1994 we've cut hunters and herds have declined, we've hunted with only one weapon type and herds have declined, we've moved hunts out of the rut and herds have declined. 

Maybe this generation will actually stop looking and doing what doesn't work and use a model that does work. 

I'd start with the Wasatch Front as a model and go from there. Ton of opportunity, either sex for archers, a pumpkin patch during the rifle hunt and plenty of smokepolers.
Why does a unit like this that gets hunted hard keep up with units like the Henry's and Pauns for herd populations?? I know and I'd be happy to buy a beverage of choice for the first under 40 year old hunter with the correct answer. :O•-:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Maybe the Heneries is at herd objectives. The range won't support more deer. 
Also, the henries is not being managed for a huge deer herd but rather huge bucks.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Maybe the Heneries is at herd objectives. The range won't support more deer.
> Also, the henries is not being managed for a huge deer herd but rather huge bucks.


I think You mean capacity, not objective. And that has been my argument about the entire West, it is a matter of what is limiting capacity. That is where the answer lies.

So managing for huge bucks, limits your ability to grow huge numbers? I guess the good old days never happened?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wileywapati said:


> I agree with what Deloss wrote on MM. This generation of hunters has some challenges to figure out. They'll never know what it was like to not have to pick a weapon type, to have to draw a general season tag, to hunt Fishlake on the opener and then run up on the hill after work and on and on.
> 
> Where I do disagree is the constant attack on hunters. To understand my disagreement takes some basic biologic fact. The buck mule deer has one purpose in life. To breed mule deer doe's. So are all receptive doe's being bred every fall? I'm going to side with the DWR and say they are. Again I'll use the Premium LE units as an example. Population trends on the Henry's will paint the same exact picture as the rest of the state. Fact and not debatable, this herd with basically no hunting opportunity is not growing more deer. If Deloss and the rest of the make hunters stay home crowd could understand this we'd be farther along.
> The other point of contention I have is the insistence that this generation of hunters be forced in to theories developed by old timers like Deloss and myself.
> ...


Two very different places, neither one has as many deer as they did in 1980. Though the comparison could make for an argument to not decrease opportunity, if you want to actually grow numbers.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the Heneries is at herd objectives. The range won't support more deer.
> ...


I agree with you on this and I think you're a very well "read" man. I am all willing to let the Biologists manage our herds for capacity but the people should have a say in what type of "quality" hunt they want. 
I believe game and habitat management can coincide with hunter management. This is where you and I differ greatly.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


The problem is, we are not trying to manage for capacity. We don't have a good handle on what is limiting capacity, yet we are trying to overcome the capacity limitations with "solutions" that are proven failures. Piling on with more of these, while ignoring the bigger picture, is a step backwards. Some of these "solutions", like a particular "option", can actually have the effect of reducing capacity further. Take care of the game and habitat, and hunter management becomes mute.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Ridge, if the Henry's were at objective we'd 
Be killing doe's. 

Tree my point still remains. If the doe's are
Being bred, why aren't we seeing any positive
Long term gains, especially since option WTF
Tells a bunch of us where to go or to stay 
Home?? 

I agree tree btw.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wileywapati said:


> Ridge, if the Henry's were at objective we'd
> Be killing doe's.
> 
> Tree my point still remains. If the doe's are
> ...


The does are being bred, and fawn to doe ratios show this. But hunter management does just that, it manages hunters, and that is it. We do not have fewer deer today because we had too many hunters, or predators 30 years ago. If this were the case we would have seen over all downward trend reversals, when we started cutting tags 20 years ago. But just like with predator control, if the prey base is declining due to environmental or habitat factors, then removing predators, can not raise the prey base. This is because predation is not the root cause of declines, therefor removing predators, or hunters, is not going to raise the number of deer. Doing some of that, may actually have the reverse affect.

If you have not followed my tinfoil hat proposal, over the last 2 years, much of it has been rehashed here in the last few days. Start with the "Prove Lonetree Wrong" thread. I have intentionally kept the acid rain/nutrient theory simplified, for the sake of understanding. It is actually, very complex, and interconnected.

In the bigger picture, grassland Muleys have been bucking the down ward trend. The acid rain theory, can account for this anomaly. Grasslands and their soils hold more biomass, and are capable of turning over nutrients faster, and buffering the affects of increased acidity.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Ridge, if the Henry's were at objective we'd
> Be killing doe's.
> 
> Tree my point still remains. If the doe's are
> ...


What many hunters will tell you now is that the does aren't being bred in the first estrous...often they will cite Todd Black's article as biological proof to support their opinion. These people will say that fawns born late won't survive because they don't have enough time to pack on the needed fat. The funny thing is that the work being done now with the vaginal implants on does to track their fawns survival is showing that the does are being bred in the first estrous....

I have been saying this for years now on this site--in order to grow the deer herds you have to know what the limiting factors for the deer herd are. What is it that is keeping the herd from growing. Right now, it is obvious that fawn recruitment is the major problem...what we need to know now is why are the fawns dying. The problem with most hunters and most of the strategies recommended to fix the "deer problem" is that they have nothing to do with fixing the limiting factors. The only thing that is recommended is curbing hunter harvest which has already been proven to NOT be a limiting factor....


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

WY2U,

My sentiments exactly. Although I'm not going to complain if tags are cut when the herd or ratios are decreasing, in a sense I think tag cutting has amplified the problem as there is a false sense something is being done. Its been a distraction to figuring out why more babies aren't replenishing the herd. 

Wiley,

I'll be 40 next month - I'm trying to get that glass of grape juice out of you. I'm one of a few people that will drive from Southern Utah to Salt Lake to hunt on years when I don't draw. I love packing in and hunting with the crowds. I usually see more bucks opening morning than any other day because the pressure pushes them around. 

I suspect a couple of things keep the the herds strong on the Wasatch. (1) The deer can escape the preditors better - especially in the winter. There is a lot of talk that development displaces deer, but my observation is they thrive around it. I suspect the preditors usually will not follow them into town during the winter and spring. (2) No livestock to compete with - better feed. A lot of forage is knee high or better - even in the driest months. 

One other thought - the deer on the Wasatch are smart!!! I can find good deer, but they are very hard to kill. All traffic is walk-in. They see hikers all year long and are hunted four solid months a year. They pretty well have us patterned out.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> wileywapati said:
> 
> 
> > Ridge, if the Henry's were at objective we'd
> ...


And what would cause does to be bred during the second estrous, across the entire Western US for 20 years? That is a problem when you have very low deer numbers, and other conditions that disrupt does going into estrous, weather etc. That has been part of the problem in the past, and it can be a limiting factor, but has not been for many years now. There are nutrition studies that have been done, with captive Mule deer, where they alter the nutritional intake of the deer. You can get sustainable fawn to doe ratios with malnourished deer. But, you get flat line populations. Add nutrition, pack on some fat, and you see fawn to doe ratios, along with overall numbers increase.

Our deer herds have been poised to rebound for several years now. But the 2010 spring was very wet, as was the 2011 spring. The 2011 spring was one of the wettest, and latest on record. So then we shift 180*, the 2011-2012 winter is the driest on record, and the rest of the spring, summer, and fall, were hot and dry. possibly the driest on record. We then went into a average, but cold winter. In the absence of the extreme moisture, and more importantly what is in it, the deer herds saw an estimated 10% increase in numbers. For those that harvested a deer last year, did it look pretty healthy? Was it packing good fat reserves?

This spring, so far, is right on schedule, it is snowing as I type. April 15th is the mean date of the normal final spring snow storm. It should dry out from here, and we should see increased deer numbers. If we get a sustained wet spring, the deer herd will not grow.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> WY2U,
> 
> My sentiments exactly. Although I'm not going to complain if tags are cut when the herd or ratios are decreasing, in a sense I think tag cutting has amplified the problem as there is a false sense something is being done. Its been a distraction to figuring out why more babies aren't replenishing the herd.
> 
> ...


Yes, but the Wasatch has followed the same trends, as the rest of the Western United States. ~1/5 the highly unsustainable 1980s numbers, and mostly flat since the 1990s.


----------

