# No Mule Deer?



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I have been out in the field for the past several weekends and I am very discouraged as to the lack of deer that I am not seeing state wide. In areas that have traditionally held fair to good numbers I am seeing only one or two here and there. It is very eerie! Almost like a spaceship come down and gathered them up from off the face of the earth. I do not think that you could find a hundred thousand mule deer in Utah today if you turned over rocks and counted pictures. I would go so far as to say you would be hard press to find fifty thousand mule deer in the state of Utah.

Where has all of Utah’s mule deer gone?

Most concerned Big


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Dunno bigbr. Been out a few times (mostly from roads and a couple hundred yards in due to back surgery soon) and have seen dozens and dozens of younger deer with a couple larger bucks. From the Uintas to the Raft River and Grouse mts, not as many as I would have thought but still fair numbers. Interesting though....good luck!


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

I think the deer herd in Utah is suffering across the board. The Utah DWR is more concerned with the elk population, and is letting the deer herd suffer. I've hunted the same area for the last 20 years, and have seen that herd just flat disappear. It is truly sad. I hunt the Central Unit...and just by them dropping the hunt to 3 days, that tells you the DWR knows there is a problem with the herd...But rather than cutting the number of permits, they keep that number up (cuz they need the money), and drop the number of days. The same number of deer will be killed, as hunters may not pass up that early opening morning buck. 

Having said that, it hasn't seemed like there have been as many deer harvested (based off of posts here) that there were last year, but the quality of the bucks is ridiculously better. Maybe people just aren't posting their spikes & two points. I don't know what it is...


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

I spend a lot of time in the Central Region and I have seen a larger number of smaller bucks this year. In fact I have seen more bucks this year during the archery hunt that I have seen the last couple years. Not seeing very many of the bigger deer but I usually don't see them untill later in the year. I am not a big fan of the 3 day rifle hunt and the shortened archery and ML hunt in some areas but it will be interesting to see if they work in a couple years. Last year was the first year of the shortened seasons in the area I hunt and I think it has made a differeance along with a good winter of seeing more deer this year.

I also hunt some during the archery hunt in the Southern Region and although I did not make it down this year I have talked to some other guys that hunted down there and there seems to have been a pretty good winter kill down there. The group I usually hunt with saw very poor numbers of deer compared to previous years. I talked to a wildlife biologist from the souther region at the State Fair over the weekend and he said that deer herds took a pretty good hit thjis past winter in the south.

Mark


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

MarkM said:


> I spend a lot of time in the Central Region and I have seen a larger number of smaller bucks this year. In fact I have seen more bucks this year during the archery hunt that I have seen the last couple years. Not seeing very many of the bigger deer but I usually don't see them untill later in the year. I am not a big fan of the 3 day rifle hunt and the shortened archery and ML hunt in some areas but it will be interesting to see if they work in a couple years. Last year was the first year of the shortened seasons in the area I hunt and I think it has made a differeance along with a good winter of seeing more deer this year.
> 
> I also hunt some during the archery hunt in the Southern Region and although I did not make it down this year I have talked to some other guys that hunted down there and there seems to have been a pretty good winter kill down there. The group I usually hunt with saw very poor numbers of deer compared to previous years. I talked to a wildlife biologist from the souther region at the State Fair over the weekend and he said that deer herds took a pretty good hit thjis past winter in the south.
> 
> Mark


+1 I hunted up north on the opening and seen plenty of deer. I live in the southeastern unit and have not seen the deer that I have in the past down here. I have seen tons of does and almost all of them have had 2 fawns, one had tripplets.
I have talked to several DWR folks who have stated that the deer herds in the southern part of the state took a big hit this winter.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I've seen a lot of smaller bucks this year, but I am seeing a lot of 3's and smaller 4's this year as well so I think the area I hunt in the SE unit did okay in terms of winter kill.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

In the northeastern area I have seen a really large number of deer, particularly a lot of does with two fawns. I'm seeing mostly smaller bucks, but over all I'm encouraged by the number of deer in this area.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

one thing I have noticed in a few areas where the deer seem to be making a comeback is that word gets out and these areas are getting hunted harder than in years past.  

I have hunted the same area for over twenty years, the last couple years in the area where there used to be five to eight hunters hunting the mountain we hunt there has been twenty people or more on the mountain  making trying to find large bucks almost imposable.
This year I will be hunting a new area further back in the hills. there are not as many deer in the area but I hope the reduced pressure makes up for the lack of deer.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The deer are still there. Just in form of cougar and coyote scat. 

I call hog wash on the winter kill B.S. You never hear a mention of a significant winter kill in the last couple decades. Just rumor and hearsay. I remember the last significant winter kills in the 80s and early 90s. And the evidence of one is undeniable. 

Geez! Deer herds have been declining for 40yrs. And the so called habitat continues to decline as well. Even though there is less deer to consume it. I don't buy it. Deer range in Utah is largely in fair to good shape. In some cases excellent. Not poor.

One thing is the LE cougar hunt for the last 30yrs has steadily raised and maintained a thriving population of cats. I some cases even the DWR will agree an overpopulation.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> The deer are still there. Just in form of cougar and coyote scat.
> 
> I call hog wash on the winter kill B.S. You never hear a mention of a significant winter kill in the last couple decades. Just rumor and hearsay. I remember the last significant winter kills in the 80s and early 90s. And the evidence of one is undeniable.
> 
> ...


Iron - I've noticed your posts on many threads beating your drum about predators. They do have an impact no doubt.....but they always have. It doesn't make any sense that all of a sudden a sustainable population of deer that once withstood predators now suddenly is not-sustainable because of those same predators. At the VERY LEAST predators can only be a part of the problem but the bioligists are not blaming predators, at least in large part, for the issues we are seeing.

Nature and history tells us the population declines in prey species is cyclitic at worst. Meaning if the predators were really to blame for population declines then those populations would cycle up and down....they would not constantly trend downwards over long periods of time.

You can have your opinion but I believe in the science on this issue.

I'm sure you have a bunch of info in your back pocket waiting for someone to call you out so fire away and let's discuss it. But please no conspiracy theories.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Mule deer??? Is there another kind?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Sure we have whitetails around. No one cares but they're there.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

*Elk*, that's the problem today! Here is how it all went down:
1) We started cutting back on the number of sheep herds grazing the hills
2) The over-grazing by the sheep kept the elk herds down...summer graze was not available for elk
3) The elk herds grew as the hills produced more feed...due to less sheep over-graze
4) The larger elk herds started competing with the deer for food..IN THE WINTER...and since they do better in the winter than deer, the deer herds started to suffer.
5) Combine that with a tough winter or two and BAMM...down go the deer herds

Basic my friends, basic.


----------



## fyfcalls (Dec 13, 2008)

In Wyoming I remember a 4pt or better season for at least 2 or 3 yrs in a row and benefitted very well from it. When they lifted the point restriction there were many more mature buck than I could ever remember seeing and it seems as if the heard has really stayed strong since the lifted restriction (as far as I can tell.. no numbers to back it up just what I see). Why doesn't Utah do the same?


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

Utah tried it on Fishlake, claimed (on paper) it did'nt work, B.S. I hunted before, during, and every year since, it did and would work!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Bullsnot, You do realize before we got here in Utah before predator control there were few Mule deer. Yellowstone an area that has seen 0 predator control mule deer herds have remained relatively low since records have been kept.

The deer herd in Utah exploded with heavy predator control in the 30s and started its decline at the same time as the outlawing of poisoning predators. I would argue that a population of cougar on a statewide basis would take 20 to 30 yrs to recover. And as I see it that is just what we have. Today its not uncommon for me to see cougar scat on a daily basis on the mtn. Something that was a very rare sight in say the 70s and 80s.

Introduce Wolf into Utah and if the elk herd declines will you point to habitat?

I understand the benefit the DWR and special interests get from a lacking deer herd. After all we all are clamoring to get our hands on a LE elk tag once every 10 to 15yrs. In contrast to the days of past its pathetic.

With the deer herd in such bad shape and really no stand out answers you would think the DWR would entertain some "out of the box" ideas. Say 3pt or better or close the doe hunt or even maybe really control predators down to the point that they could make a comeback.

But they wouldn't even entertain the idea of an open over the counter tag for a cat. You could even limit it to only certain units.*NOT ONCE NOT IN THE LAST 40 YRS.*


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

+ 1000, if we dont start thinking out of the box, and have a paradigm shift in the way we are currently headed I am afraid of what the future holds for deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Bullsnot, You do realize before we got here in Utah before predator control there were few Mule deer. Yellowstone an area that has seen 0 predator control mule deer herds have remained relatively low since records have been kept.
> 
> The deer herd in Utah exploded with heavy predator control in the 30s and started its decline at the same time as the outlawing of poisoning predators.
> 
> ...


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Didn't you boys read a **** thing I wrote...it has very little to do with predators..they never did poison lions much, it has nothing to do with Roosevelt...aside from the CCC camps, Roosevelt didn't do much in the Utah hills, three points or better, nine points or nothing, no does, does OK...all these schemes just manage hunters, not deer herds...just take 5 minutes and plug the history of the Utah deer herd into what I said about sheep...there's your answers. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Well BP, I would agree with you that the elk boon in utah has had a significant effect on the deer herd, and also that the fish and game folks don't manage the deer, they manage the hunters. But to blame the entire decline of the deer herds on elk isn't realistic, there is more to it than that, and I'm sure you agree to some extent.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Why sure, I understand that many factors are at play in the decline of the deer herds, maybe some predation, loss of habitat, better hunting methods... and access to areas not before available(due to more roads..oil and mining roads mostly)...and another biggy..road kills. Compared to the 50's there are lots more cars on the roads, hence more road kills. Speaking of road kills, did you know that road kills take more animals than all the hunters put together, and I suspect you can throw in the lions with the hunters. For the most part, hunters and hunting pressure play VERY little role in overall herd populations or health, therefore don't expect much help with deer herd recovery by trying silly little hunter management schemes. 
Please don't think that I am blaming the Elk personally, I am sure they're mostly nice critters, but the fact remains that they do out compete deer for scares food in the winter, and lordy lordy, don't think that I am in favor of bringing back the sheep. As I said before...I don't have a solution.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Bullsnot, You do realize before we got here in Utah before predator control there were few Mule deer. Yellowstone an area that has seen 0 predator control mule deer herds have remained relatively low since records have been kept.


Ever consider that our herds have been unnaturally high due to human interference? Humans overgrazed and practiced ridiculous, inhumane predator control that killed far more than the target species, among other things. like loss of traditional winter range due to encroachment and artificially elevated numbers of animals that share similar range, such as elk, which have virtually no predators other than humans, at least in Utah.

Balance- something humans are not good at.

Selfishness- Something humans have cornered the market on.

Off topic, but I get a kick out of the anti-wolf argument that wolves kill for fun and waste animals, when in my opinion, humans are far more wasteful than any wolf or animal will ever be. But these types of reasonings seem to be lost when someone has a self motivated agenda.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> Why sure, I understand that many factors are at play in the decline of the deer herds, maybe some predation, loss of habitat, better hunting methods... and access to areas not before available(due to more roads..oil and mining roads mostly)...and another biggy..road kills. Compared to the 50's there are lots more cars on the roads, hence more road kills. Speaking of road kills, *did you know that road kills take more animals than all the hunters put together, *and I suspect you can throw in the lions with the hunters. For the most part, hunters and hunting pressure play VERY little role in overall herd populations or health, therefore don't expect much help with deer herd recovery by trying silly little hunter management schemes.
> Please don't think that I am blaming the Elk personally, I am sure they're mostly nice critters, but the fact remains that they do out compete deer for scares food in the winter, and lordy lordy, don't think that I am in favor of bringing back the sheep. As I said before...I don't have a solution.


Yes, I am aware that road kills are well into that catagory: some numbers I have seen are 50K plus I believe. Given the guesstimate that there are 3000 to 4000 cougars in the state, that equates to a lot of deer taken out at about 50 or so per cat per year. Then comes a bad winter and wham, the herd is decimated.

And Tree, I agree wholeheartedly that deer numbers are un-naturally high due to human interference for this state. With the dwr trying to regulate hunters and not the deer, the problems are that much more intense. With the mentality of todays hunter, I seriously doubt most would ever agree with management practices that would reduce their opportunity to kill a deer. But who knows, stranger things have happened...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Off topic, but I get a kick out of the anti-wolf argument that wolves kill for fun and waste animals, when in my opinion, humans are far more wasteful than any wolf or animal will ever be. But these types of reasonings seem to be lost when someone has a self motivated agenda.


Sorry, but I can't let this pass without comment. While I agree humans have caused more destruction of wildlife than wolves, last I checked wolves have never helped bring back 'endangered' species by spending BILLION$ and by changing how they do things. And, speaking of a "self motivated agenda".......what do you think the "self motivated agenda" is/was for MOST of the power players behind the wolf 'reintroduction'? Who does more for wildlife, the 'wolf lovers' or hunters? :O•-:


----------



## Pops2 (Jul 28, 2010)

A LOT of houndsmen would disagree strongly that the cats are over populated. they say they are burning 4X as much gas to find a track to run compared to ten years ago (not 4X the $ but 4X the gallons). that leads me to believe there is something else is at work. I would venture over developement & over population is bleeding the land dry for people's baths, lawns & the industrial growth over the last few decades. thousands upon thousands of acre's that served as food & cover are now subdivisions while old neighborhoods go empty.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Off topic, but I get a kick out of the anti-wolf argument that wolves kill for fun and waste animals, when in my opinion, humans are far more wasteful than any wolf or animal will ever be. But these types of reasonings seem to be lost when someone has a self motivated agenda.
> ...


I think the word you might have been looking for is 'meddle'. :?:


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Off topic, but I get a kick out of the anti-wolf argument that wolves kill for fun and waste animals, when in my opinion, humans are far more wasteful than any wolf or animal will ever be. But these types of reasonings seem to be lost when someone has a self motivated agenda.
> ...


----------



## dunn_gary (Sep 11, 2007)

I know a great book on mule deer that all of you should read. It was written by Dennis Austin, a retired field biologist for the DWR. As he is a good friend of mine, he gave me a signed copy. After having read it, I feel it should be required reading for every employee of the DWR from top to bottom. Problem is, he gave a few copies to the head honchos of the DWR and they refuse to read it. It is available from the Utah State University Press, but he also has it in a few stores around the state. But if you would like to get a copy directly from him, pm me, and I will get you his contact info. It will clear up a lot of the debate over the predator issue as well as habitat, etc. It would also be great reading for those who have private ground, for ranchers on grazing, etc. Any hunter in Utah, who calls himself a hunter should also read it. This book is written by a man who has over 30 years experience in the field, and includes research by others as well.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

First of all I don't think the concerns of 50 houndsmen that want to play tag with cats. Should even enter the radar of the DWR and protecting the concerns of 100,000s of big game hunters. 

Second I have never herd a houndsmen ever think there were enough cats. :roll:

Another bit of BS. They have been running a cougar study on the Monroe Mtn unit for the last few yrs. At one time they had nearly 30 cats collared. They also have limited tags on the unit for cats so the population is very strong. This has certainly had its effect on the dismal deer herd that did exist. And the idea is to see how much predation cats will do on elk. And they do. This info will be used to tell us that cats don't kill as many deer as we thought and they do however feed on elk more.

All I can ask for is an example of a unit that has been kept largely void of cougar and coyote for a sustained period of time. (decades) That has seen a drastic deer herd reduction and never recovered. Anywhere where mule deer live in the U.S. Other than private lands which control predators heavily.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> Why sure, I understand that many factors are at play in the decline of the deer herds, maybe some predation, loss of habitat, better hunting methods... and access to areas not before available(due to more roads..oil and mining roads mostly)...and another biggy..road kills.


This sums up it pretty well. Add to it the elk population increase and you pretty much have all the major factors.

The problem is you have some guys emphasizing only one aspect of the problem and after a while they think there is only one solution to the problem. Iron argues it's the predators, someone else says it's the elk, someone else says it's the habitat. Guess what you're all correct. But I will say I think predators are only small portion of the issue compared to other problems.

It is my belief that Utah will more than likely never have a sustainable herd of more than 200,000 animals, if that, in the future. When wolves come, you can halve that number.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> Didn't you boys read a **** thing I wrote...it has very little to do with predators..they never did poison lions much, it has nothing to do with Roosevelt...aside from the CCC camps, Roosevelt didn't do much in the Utah hills, three points or better, nine points or nothing, no does, does OK...all these schemes just manage hunters, not deer herds...just take 5 minutes and plug the history of the Utah deer herd into what I said about sheep...there's your answers. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution


Sorry but I have to disagree with this. First Roosevelt put the policies in place that reversed the previous policies (or lack thereof) that nearly caused the deer and elk to be wiped out. His policies paved the way for recovery and are still the base model for game management. The nuts and bolts may have changed but the policy is still in place.

Second the first and arguably the most important step in managing any game species is management of the hunter. Learn from history here guys.....the hunter nearly wiped them all out a century ago.


----------



## Pops2 (Jul 28, 2010)

yes MARKET HUNTERS that would shoot a dozen or two deer a NIGHT on the lamp and then sell them at the market just after first light. or that would shoot a hundred or more ducks & geese w/ one pull of the trigger on a battery of punt guns.
the wildlife began to comeback quickly after market hunting was banned. they took another big hit during the depression when a lot of people poached to feed the family. 
alot of it is just pure carrying capacity. whitetails are booming in the east because the lane is nowhere near carrying capacity, even w/ urban sprawl. out here the water (or lack thereof) limits the carrying capacity of the land. industry locks up a lot of it & takes it out of the water cycle population growth & urban sprawl take a lot out & removes alot of browse from the environment & replaces it w/low nutrion ornamental shrubs & grasses.
but also for every cow or sheep on the land that is one less deer or elk that can eat that scrub. urban sprawl reduces the land for the same number of stock and game. that magnifies the effect of competition. it also concentrates the game making predators more effective. even if they are over hunted, the predators can have an effect beyond their numbers if the game is concentrated, because even a lion or coyote loves fresh meat. basically if ten lions are killing 1 deer a week on 100G acres the effect is less obvious than if 5 lions are killing 3 deer a week on 50G acres.
the tree hugger caused propagation of oldgrowth forrest doesn't help. oldgrowth forrest supports the least volume & variety of wildlife and every year more & more of it get "protected."
i would also agree that technology has boosted hunter success at killing game. 50 years ago almost no one had rifle & scope combos that would let them take shots at 500 or even 800 yds. now w/ supermags all over the place & 24X scopes guys take the shots (not always well placed because they don't know how to make a wind call) all the time and kill more than they recover. 
basically it isn't any one thing but alot of things tied together.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you boys read a **** thing I wrote...it has very little to do with predators..they never did poison lions much, it has nothing to do with Roosevelt...aside from the CCC camps, Roosevelt didn't do much in the Utah hills, three points or better, nine points or nothing, no does, does OK...all these schemes just manage hunters, not deer herds...just take 5 minutes and plug the history of the Utah deer herd into what I said about sheep...there's your answers. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution
> ...


Now I have to disagree with you BIG time, bullsnot. First, Roosevelt is on my Five worst President's in US history list. He started America down the progressive path that has led us to the mess we are in now. Second, he took accountability away from the individual and put pinheads in Washington over the 'welfare' of wildlife. While Teddy was a lover of wildlife, he opened the floodgates to pinheads who are IDIOTS to make decisions that are based on feelings and insanity. Third, his policies, while they helped in the short term, have had negative effects on the long term, which is the norm when the federal government gets involved in ANYTHING. As you correctly assert, we still 'manage' game under the same premises that Roosevelt installed over a century ago. And, how we 'manage' game today is messed up. We manage for minimum numbers instead of managing for abundance. Case in point is the wolf issue; the feds and the 'wolf lovers' want a minimum number of wolves, a minimum number of elk/deer/moose/grouse/squirrels/ferrets/turtles/fish/etc. What I mean is that they focus on the minimum number of a species we should have and set management policies based on the minimums rather than focusing on how to make the species abundant and set management policies based on how to have abundant populations. This is typical of government in all areas, not just wildlife management, from NCLB to EPA to FDA, the focus is on the minimum rather than on abundance. This is why I HATE what Teddy Roosevelt did to this country, he started us down a path completely in the opposite direction the Founders put us down.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Wow. That may be the first time in my life I've heard TR blamed for our modern wildlife woes. Wow. I'll need to let that one digest a while. 

I think the premise you present - management for the minimum as oppossed to management for abundance - very interesting. It certainly is a completely different paradigm. Very worthy of some thought. You've given me something to think about. Thanks.

One thing I'll throw out to consider though - One thing TR did was assert that some things are worth preserving for the sake of preservation, because the value of some things/places is above financial. And I think there is value in that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Pro - I understand what you are saying but for a century we have had many species that have made a great recovery. While I can understand there are needed changes and there may be a way to "fine tune" what's been done to make the policies relevant in todays world the track history speaks for itself, recovery all over the place. I won't speak to anything Mr. R did outside of wildlife management cause that's out of scope for this discussion.

The wolf is a different scenario. That canadian grey wolf was never here, so it makes no sense to recover it. The wolf re-intro (oxymoron in itself since this isn't the native species) has a political agenda behind it and the anti's are simply using our rules against us but is being done outside of the spirit of what the rules were suppose to represent.

Why be so dooms day? You guys are sitting here complaining about declining populations then crucifying the people the and fundamentals that got the populations healthy in first place. Without them you wouldn't know any better and probably never would've even had the chance to hunt in this country and to complain about declining populations. I'll be the first to say it's a changing world and changes are needed, but I don't think it's worthwhile to demonize those that paved the way for what we DO have today.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Pro - One other thing...educate me on something. In all of Utah's (forget other states for a moment) management plans for deer (or any other big game species) where are you getting they are specifically managed for minimum numbers? Every management plan I have seen was designed to get the state to a maximum population objective while providing hunter opportunity. I will agree all day that they aren't executing well but I have not seen a management plan ever realeased in Utah where the management plan is based on minimums?

From the 2003 released deer management plan:

"The 2002 post-season population estimate for mule deer in Utah was 280,000 deer, far below the long term management objective of 426,000 deer."

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


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> One thing I'll throw out to consider though - One thing TR did was assert that some things are worth preserving for the sake of preservation, because the value of some things/places is above financial. And I think there is value in that.


I agree there is value in preserving some things, but at what cost? For example, the whole historic site nonsense that forces businesses and even homeowners to 'preserve' buildings for the "sake of preservation" that is determined by a select few and the costs are borne by the many. Same goes for such places as The Grand Staircase that Clinton determined is 'worth' preserving. Once we start down the slope, that TR SHOVED us down, it is **** near impossible to stop the ensuing mudslide.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I'll throw out to consider though - One thing TR did was assert that some things are worth preserving for the sake of preservation, because the value of some things/places is above financial. And I think there is value in that.
> ...


Matter of perspective I guess when you consider the alternative. That being no preservation at all. Wait...didn't we try that a century ago? Maybe we don't agree with every place preserved or every type of preservation...I don't...but I believe in the concept and the bigger picture.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Pro - One other thing...educate me on something. In all of Utah's (forget other states for a moment) management plans for deer (or any other big game species) where are you getting they are specifically managed for minimum numbers? Every management plan I have seen was designed to get the state to a maximum population objective while providing hunter opportunity. I will agree all day that they aren't executing well but I have not seen a management plan ever realeased in Utah where the management plan is based on minimums?
> 
> From the 2003 released deer management plan:
> 
> ...


Good questions. And, I like your use of numbers and reference to the deer management plan(s). One thing I notice is one page 13 (Table 1). For each Region there is a buck:doe ratio objective, which is the MINIMUM ratio desired. You will find, that since 2003, that the UDWR ALWAYS cites the latest buck:doe ratios and compares them to the MINIMUM objective that the existing deer management plan calls for. The number of tags, and the season dates/lengths are based on maintaining the MINIMUM buck:doe objective for that area/Region.

Now, lets look at the Limited Entry hunts: the number of permits, the season dates/lengths are based on MINIMUM objectives such as harvest age objectives and success rates. If these hunts were instead managed for abundance, the number of permits and the season dates/lengths would be completely different.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Now I have to disagree with you BIG time, bullsnot. First, Roosevelt is on my Five worst President's in US history list. He started America down the progressive path that has led us to the mess we are in now. Second, he took accountability away from the individual and put pinheads in Washington over the 'welfare' of wildlife. While Teddy was a lover of wildlife, he opened the floodgates to pinheads who are IDIOTS to make decisions that are based on feelings and insanity. Third, his policies, while they helped in the short term, have had negative effects on the long term, which is the norm when the federal government gets involved in ANYTHING. As you correctly assert, we still 'manage' game under the same premises that Roosevelt installed over a century ago. And, how we 'manage' game today is messed up. We manage for minimum numbers instead of managing for abundance. Case in point is the wolf issue; the feds and the 'wolf lovers' want a minimum number of wolves, a minimum number of


Pro, this is the most asinine statement I have ever read on this site. Without the work of Roosevelt, big game hunting in North America would be virtually non-existent. Perhaps you should do a little research and recheck your history.

Here, I have posted a couple links that talk directly about what Roosevelt as meant to us and how he forever changed wildlife management in North America in a very positive way:
http://www.huntright.org/heritage/Aldri ... Model.aspx

http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/HuntersConservation/

http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?id ... &task=view

Without Roosevelt, the Public Trust doctrine, and the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, hunters and anglers would NOT have put their hearts, souls, energy and financial resources on the line to assure that wildlife would flourish. License dollars and self-imposed excise taxes on rods and reels, guns and ammo financed the recovery of our wildlife populations and we continue to do it today. We have continuously supported sustainable and dispersed wildlife populations in large part managed through fair-chase hunting and the harvest of surplus game animals. Without Roosevelt, our wildlife would be managed by the private sector and many/most of us would have little or no hunting opportunity and wildlife would have no protection. As is, and because of Roosevelt, the public has strong incentive in keeping and establishing healthy wildlife populations. We should--as do most hunting groups--be praising Roosevelt because without him and his work, we wouldn't be elk and deer hunters today!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > GaryFish said:
> ...


Something I would expect to be read in a Cloward and Piven manual. :? How does it go? The ends justify the means. That fits right in with the current mindset in Washington. :evil:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Now I have to disagree with you BIG time, bullsnot. First, Roosevelt is on my Five worst President's in US history list. He started America down the progressive path that has led us to the mess we are in now. Second, he took accountability away from the individual and put pinheads in Washington over the 'welfare' of wildlife. While Teddy was a lover of wildlife, he opened the floodgates to pinheads who are IDIOTS to make decisions that are based on feelings and insanity. Third, his policies, while they helped in the short term, have had negative effects on the long term, which is the norm when the federal government gets involved in ANYTHING. As you correctly assert, we still 'manage' game under the same premises that Roosevelt installed over a century ago. And, how we 'manage' game today is messed up. We manage for minimum numbers instead of managing for abundance. Case in point is the wolf issue; the feds and the 'wolf lovers' want a minimum number of wolves, a minimum number of
> ...


I was wondering when the resident TR fan club president would chime in.  I put in bold why I object to TR and what he did. I will ALWAYS trust the private sector MORE than the public sector. Why anyone would put more trust in INDIVIDUALS in Washington than in INDIVIDUALS locally escapes me. :?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Pro - My wife just got her hunters safety earlier this year and I talked her into both a muzzy deer hunt and an elk rifle hunt. I am so excited to put her on some deer and elk I can't hardly stand it. The best part is she is just as excited as I am. We don't agree and that's fine but I am very excited that I have this opportunity and I know that this isn't possible in just about every other country in the world. I am feeling very lucky and grateful right now for what I have.....I just can't see it any other way right now.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> [Good questions. And, I like your use of numbers and reference to the deer management plan(s). One thing I notice is one page 13 (Table 1). For each Region there is a buck:doe ratio objective, which is the MINIMUM ratio desired. You will find, that since 2003, that the UDWR ALWAYS cites the latest buck:doe ratios and compares them to the MINIMUM objective that the existing deer management plan calls for. The number of tags, and the season dates/lengths are based on maintaining the MINIMUM buck:doe objective for that area/Region.
> 
> Now, lets look at the Limited Entry hunts: the number of permits, the season dates/lengths are based on MINIMUM objectives such as harvest age objectives and success rates. If these hunts were instead managed for abundance, the number of permits and the season dates/lengths would be completely different.


By establishing "minimum" objectives, the DWR IS managing for abundance that is the point. 
Without these "minimum" objectives, population numbers would drop to dangerously low levels. I am not sure what your point here is...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I was wondering when the resident TR fan club president would chime in.  I put in bold why I object to TR and what he did. I will ALWAYS trust the private sector MORE than the public sector. Why anyone would put more trust in INDIVIDUALS in Washington than in INDIVIDUALS locally escapes me. :?


So, you would much rather have a European model of wildlife conservation? Brilliant. Don't you realize Pro, that you couldn't hunt. And, wildlife numbers would be pitifully low without Roosevelt? Again, your comments are asinine and history has proven it!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

If I understand what Pro is saying on this, I think the point is that now we manage with the "we can't let populations drop below XX,XXX head." 

In stead of managing with the approach of "the habitat can support no more than XXX,XXX, so lets get the number UP to that."

Is that right Pro? Manage to the maximum, not the minimum.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Pro - My wife just got her hunters safety earlier this year and I talked her into both a muzzy deer hunt and an elk rifle hunt. I am so excited to put her on some deer and elk I can't hardly stand it. The best part is she is just as excited as I am. We don't agree and that's fine but I am very excited that I have this opportunity and I know that this isn't possible in just about every other country in the world. I am feeling very lucky and grateful right now for what I have.....I just can't see it any other way right now.


This is exactly the point....in virtually no other place in the world outside of North America could your wife do this. That is why the North American Wildlife Conservation model has been so successful.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Pro - My wife just got her hunters safety earlier this year and I talked her into both a muzzy deer hunt and an elk rifle hunt. I am so excited to put her on some deer and elk I can't hardly stand it. The best part is she is just as excited as I am. We don't agree and that's fine but I am very excited that I have this opportunity and I know that this isn't possible in just about every other country in the world. I am feeling very lucky and grateful right now for what I have.....I just can't see it any other way right now.


I too feel lucky and blessed by what we have as far as hunting. I just strongly believe we could have it BETTER if we managed differently. That deer hunt your wife is excited for, which I am glad to hear, will soon be more difficult to obtain thanks to a 'new' deer management plan that WILL reduce opportunity for hunters. The days of obtaining a general season deer tag on a yearly basis are soon to be GONE.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Pro - My wife just got her hunters safety earlier this year and I talked her into both a muzzy deer hunt and an elk rifle hunt. I am so excited to put her on some deer and elk I can't hardly stand it. The best part is she is just as excited as I am. We don't agree and that's fine but I am very excited that I have this opportunity and I know that this isn't possible in just about every other country in the world. I am feeling very lucky and grateful right now for what I have.....I just can't see it any other way right now.
> ...


I'm not completely disagreeing with you on that point. I'm only disagreeing on what is to blame for the issues we have.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > [Good questions. And, I like your use of numbers and reference to the deer management plan(s). One thing I notice is one page 13 (Table 1). For each Region there is a buck:doe ratio objective, which is the MINIMUM ratio desired. You will find, that since 2003, that the UDWR ALWAYS cites the latest buck:doe ratios and compares them to the MINIMUM objective that the existing deer management plan calls for. The number of tags, and the season dates/lengths are based on maintaining the MINIMUM buck:doe objective for that area/Region.
> ...


How can you manage to MINIMUM anything and be also managing for abundance? That is an oxymoron.


GaryFish said:


> If I understand what Pro is saying on this, I think the point is that now we manage with the "we can't let populations drop below XX,XXX head."
> 
> In stead of managing with the approach of "the habitat can support no more than XXX,XXX, so lets get the number UP to that."
> 
> Is that right Pro? Manage to the maximum, not the minimum.


Bingo, and we have a winner! Managing to the minimum assures we stay near the minimum. Managing to the maximum increases the odds of reaching the maximum. Who hopes for minimum wage? Don't most hope for the maximum wage possible?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


Then what do you attribute them to? I blame the way we manage wildlife for the state wildlife are in. Many people, IMHO, focus on the symptoms rather than the cause(s). In this case, we look at low buck:doe ratios and think that is why we have 'poor' quality/quantity, when I contend buck:doe ratios are merely a symptom of what is hurting deer, NOT the cause of why deer are hurting.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

You have me thinking about the minimum/maximum change in thinking here Pro. 

Thinking out loud for a moment - In order to get UP to the maximum, that would require a couple of seasons of little or no hunting, in order for populations to increase to or above the maximum carrying capacity. (plus predator control of course) Would that be socially acceptable in the hunting community? Financially feasible in the short term with DWR? I don't know the answers. Just asking the questions.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> You have me thinking about the minimum/maximum change in thinking here Pro.
> 
> Thinking out loud for a moment - In order to get UP to the maximum, that would require a couple of seasons of little or no hunting, in order for populations to increase to or above the maximum carrying capacity. (plus predator control of course) Would that be socially acceptable in the hunting community? Financially feasible in the short term with DWR? I don't know the answers. Just asking the questions.


I don't think so. If we keep doing things the way we do them now, then yes we would have to cut permits. But, if we start actually managing wildlife for abundance, more like how the private sector manages livestock, we would have more wildlife to hunt meaning an INCREASE in permits and season lengths. If a cattle rancher ran his operation based on minimum objectives he would be out of business in short order. Instead, successful ranchers mange for maximum production from cows via high calf:cow ratios and cows that produce health fast growing calves that are ready for market ASAP. The successful rancher doesn't carry excess bulls to be admired, he only carries enough bulls to ensure his cows get bred during the desired time frame. One he is at carrying capacity (the maximum) he can then be assured of maximum production. If he is at the minimum capacity his operation will sustain, one small set back and he is in a world of hurt.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> If I understand what Pro is saying on this, I think the point is that now we manage with the "we can't let populations drop below XX,XXX head."
> 
> In stead of managing with the approach of "the habitat can support no more than XXX,XXX, so lets get the number UP to that."
> 
> Is that right Pro? Manage to the maximum, not the minimum.


I think the minimums are being misunderstood here.

Minimum age objectives in LE units are there to ensure animals reach maturity, they don't want younger animals to be harvested. No one can argue this is a bad thing. This is where I think our general units have gone astray and why I like antler restrictions.

Minimum buck to doe ratios is a bit trickier. This is a way to measure the health of the herd. Along with recruitment rates and many other factors. I don't interpret the plans to aim for the minimums. Besides that doesn't necesarily tie directly to overall populations objectives, that only speaks to percentage of membership of that population. We know that 25 bucks can breed 100 does just as successsfully as 50 bucks can. We know that 5 bucks per 100 does cannot breed all does leaving fertile does without being bred. Also the buck to doe ratio speaks to how many mature bucks there are that can pass on solid genes. Again this isn't tied to overall population objectives but can effect recruitment and future numbers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

By managing deer/elk to minimum objectives, such as buck:doe/bull:cow ratios, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' and the herd takes a huge hit. If the herd is at the max end of the spectrum, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' can be absorbed better and the herd will rebound much quicker.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Then what do you attribute them to? I blame the way we manage wildlife for the state wildlife are in. Many people, IMHO, focus on the symptoms rather than the cause(s). In this case, we look at low buck:doe ratios and think that is why we have 'poor' quality/quantity, when I contend buck:doe ratios are merely a symptom of what is hurting deer, NOT the cause of why deer are hurting.


The DWR examines buck/doe ratios to better understand herd dynamics...but they NEVER look at buck/doe ratios as a symptom or cause of why deer are suffering. Every single subunit across the state is looked at in terms of herd dynamics--buck/doe ratios, fawn/adult ratios, fawn/doe ratios etc. Those numbers are then compared to objective ratios...if ratios are below objective, then causes are sought out as to why ratios are NOT meeting objectives. Each individual deer subunit plan lists probable causes as to why management objectives are not being met...then, actions are taken to try and mitigate the causes.

In reference to minimum versus maximum objectives, you are off base. Deer objectives, for example establish both a minimum and a maximum objective...in other words usually ranges are used as an objective--the buck/doe ratio range for general season deer units is 15-25. By theory, if the maximum objective is exceeded, measures should be taken to reduce the ratio similarly to when the minimum objective is not reached. In other words, maximums are already being used.

As far as increasing deer above carrying capacity or above maximum numbers goes...well, exceeding maximums can be just as dangerous as being below the minimum. Also, what many people fail to recognize is that our deer populations are at carrying capacities in many situations; otherwise, there would be more. If they weren't at carrying capacity, the populations would be increasing. The reason the DWR and RMEF and MDF have done so much work on habitat is to hopefully increase carrying capacities so that populations can grow. Again, if you were to take a look at the individual subunit plans for deer units, you would see that the DWR is careful not to exceed carrying capacity.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> By managing deer/elk to minimum objectives, such as buck:doe/bull:cow ratios, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' and the herd takes a huge hit. If the herd is at the max end of the spectrum, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' can be absorbed better and the herd will rebound much quicker.


I like the sound of that! How do we do it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > If I understand what Pro is saying on this, I think the point is that now we manage with the "we can't let populations drop below XX,XXX head."
> ...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> By managing deer/elk to minimum objectives, such as buck:doe/bull:cow ratios, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' and the herd takes a huge hit. If the herd is at the max end of the spectrum, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' can be absorbed better and the herd will rebound much quicker.


Well that's true but this is the rock and the hard place the DWR finds itself in. Hunter opportunity versus maximum wildlife numbers. This is why we are all chiming in on this issue....no one totally agrees on where that line really is.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I Instead, successful ranchers mange for maximum production from cows via high calf:cow ratios and cows that produce health fast growing calves that are ready for market ASAP. The successful rancher doesn't carry excess bulls to be admired, he only carries enough bulls to ensure his cows get bred during the desired time frame.


So, in other words, the successful rancher wants a "minimum" number of bulls and once he exceeds that minimum he removes those excess bulls from his herd? Hmmm...sounds familiar. It is also the same reason the DWR has been gradually increases LE elk permits for the past how many years now? Too many bulls, reduced calf production, reduced recruitment....isn't this what we have been doing?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It would seem though, that there is no need to remove any excess bulls/bucks until the maximum carrying capacity has been met.

Also - the analogy doesn't carry completely - because with cattle, there is no difference in value between male and female cows in the economic value. Where with game, there is a significantly different value placed on bucks/bulls over does/cows.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Then what do you attribute them to? I blame the way we manage wildlife for the state wildlife are in. Many people, IMHO, focus on the symptoms rather than the cause(s). In this case, we look at low buck:doe ratios and think that is why we have 'poor' quality/quantity, when I contend buck:doe ratios are merely a symptom of what is hurting deer, NOT the cause of why deer are hurting.
> ...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > GaryFish said:
> ...


Ok let's try a different approach on the LE units age objectives because you are stuck on the word minimum and not understanding how that works. If you want buck deer on SJ for example to reach 10 years old. The only way to do that is by following a complex model that says you can't shoot any bucks under 7 years old. From there is anotherr formula that tells you how many tags to issue that will ensure many of the bucks reach 10 years old. You can't manage for the maximum in that case without the minimum. It's part of the formula.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> It would seem though, that there is no need to remove any excess bulls/bucks until the maximum carrying capacity has been met.


Not true...it only takes a certain number of bucks/bulls to breed the cows/does. So, if the excess males are not removed from the population when the population is below carrying capacity, then herd production and growth is severely slowed. This is why the term "excess" is used...those "extra" males are not needed for the population to grow. IN deer, for example, it is understood that 5 bucks can breed 100 does, so any buck above that 5 is "excess". That is also why Pros idea that we are managing to the "minimum" is false. Our statewide buck/doe ratios are 15-25/100 that means we are, in reality, establishing a goal far above the minimum necessary. It also allows the herd setbacks WITHOUT risk of endangering the population.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

But why remove any bucks at all, if the habitat can support twice as many deer?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > By managing deer/elk to minimum objectives, such as buck:doe/bull:cow ratios, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' and the herd takes a huge hit. If the herd is at the max end of the spectrum, one bad winter or one year of 'over-harvest' can be absorbed better and the herd will rebound much quicker.
> ...


That's my point, the hunter opportunity will be GREATER if we maximize wildlife numbers. With the Limited Entry disease taking over every aspect of game management, hunter opportunity is decreasing at rapid rates. Judd ask how can we get to maximum instead of minimum. I think we do that by educating hunters/sportsmen and by changing the priorities around. Instead of focusing on how big the antlers are on harvested animals, we should focus on healthy herds with maximum calf/fawn production. Instead of focusing on harvest age averages (pure insanity!) we should focus on having the maximum number of cows/does available to give birth to calves/fawns each spring. Instead of focusing on success rates in excess of 70% on Limited Entry units, we should focus on how to increase the number of permits available to the public. In other words, stop worrying about managing for high success rates, which mandates MINIMUM permit allotments, and find ways to maximize permit numbers, even if that means success rates lower than 50%.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Ok let's try a different approach on the LE units age objectives because you are stuck on the word minimum and not understanding how that works. If you want buck deer on SJ for example to reach 10 years old. The only way to do that is by following a complex model that says you can't shoot any bucks under 7 years old. From there is anotherr formula that tells you how many tags to issue that will ensure many of the bucks reach 10 years old. You can't manage for the maximum in that case without the minimum. It's part of the formula.


IMHO, your whole premise is flawed from the beginning. I know you used a 10 year old buck as just an example, but a 10 year old buck would be SMALLER than the 6 year old buck 'your' way says is not to be killed. There are MANY ways to get 10 year old bucks on a giving unit. Limiting the number of permits based on harvest age averages is one way. A bad way, and a mentally lazy way at that. Moving season dates around, changing the number of permits issued to the differing weapons, closing off _some_ roads/trails, and other tools that allow higher escapement can get the older class bucks w/o restricting opportunity like the current management plan does. In other words, I contend the formula being used is flawed and is NOT based on sound science.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Again, the DWR, at the RAC's and elsewhere, always refer to the MINIMUM objectives, and as long as they are meeting the MINIMUM they are fine with keeping things as they are. This is because they manage to the MINIMUM instead of the maximum.


That is because the numbers fall within the objective range...on the flip side the DWR also manages for numbers that exceed the maximum--like doe permits and more bull permits. There are numerous deer subunits across the state that have exceeded the "minimum" objective and even the "maximum" objectives.



proutdoors said:


> Tell me *ONE* Region/subunit that has exceeded the buck:doe maximum objective in the last 10 years. I can list several that are at/below the minimum. Theory doesn't mean squat, what matters is reality, and reality shows that the UDWR manages to the minimum.


You should have looked at the big game numbers before this comment because there are many: Nine Mile, Range Creek (06 and 07), Wasatch Mountains, Salt Lake (every year), Southwest Desert (06, 07, 08)...to name three. Also, the reality is that several deer units are exceeding the maximum population numbers as well and doe permits are being issued to bring that number down.


proutdoors said:


> [ Who advocated managing ABOVE carrying capacity? Talk about a red herring...:roll:
> I am saying we should focus more on what the limiting factors are and less on MINIMUM objectives that hunters desire.


I am not sure anyone was advocating it, but I addressed it because of Garyfish's comment: "In order to get UP to the maximum, that would require a couple of seasons of little or no hunting, in order for populations to increase to or *above the maximum carrying capacity*.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> But why remove any bucks at all, if the habitat can support twice as many deer?


Carrying excess bucks hampers the growth of the herd. Even if the habitat can support twice as many deer (which does NOT exist in the west), the lower the buck:doe ratio, as long as there are enough bucks to bred the does, the quicker the herd will grow.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> But why remove any bucks at all, if the habitat can support twice as many deer?


Again, because the bucks are "excess". If your population is below the carrying capacity and you want it to reach that level, the best way to get it there is to allow the maximum number of does the chance to breed in give birth to viable offspring. By killing the "excess" bucks, you are actually going to increase recruitment and herd growth. This is what many hunters do not understand...buck hunting has very little affect on populations in general. By eliminating hunting, you would be limiting herd growth--the exactly opposite of the desired effect.

woops...looks like Pro beat me to it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That's my point, the hunter opportunity will be GREATER if we maximize wildlife numbers. With the Limited Entry disease taking over every aspect of game management, hunter opportunity is decreasing at rapid rates. Judd ask how can we get to maximum instead of minimum. I think we do that by educating hunters/sportsmen and by changing the priorities around. Instead of focusing on how big the antlers are on harvested animals, we should focus on healthy herds with maximum calf/fawn production.


Now, this is something we can agree on...

...but, of course, in my opinion, allowing the private sector control of our big game would only make this worse not better. Because of the value of big game and the love of horns, the public management of game as established by TR becomes even more important today...sadly, many are forgetting this idea.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

How many times will this exact thread or topic come up in a year? This is the real question. Don't any of you fellas have tags to fill?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So this question. The MINIMUM number of bucks needed to service 100 does is 5. But why manage to that? Why not manage to 50/50 before the season? If habitat is not at capacity, how would that limit production? The 50 does woulds still get covered, but there would be more bucks, so more bucks reaching maturity, and more trophy opportunities? I can see the 5:100 or even 15:100 if the habitat is maxed out, but if it isn't, then why go with a ratio that small?

I get the concept you are explaining - as the same applies to Pheasants - something I am probably more familiar with than deer dynamics. But still - if habitats are not maxed out, then how can more bucks limit herd growth? I get it if things are maxed out - as clearly there is only so much food to go around. But if not, then why manage to fewer bucks?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the DWR, at the RAC's and elsewhere, always refer to the MINIMUM objectives, and as long as they are meeting the MINIMUM they are fine with keeping things as they are. This is because they manage to the MINIMUM instead of the maximum.
> ...


Not true. the DWR may issue permits when numbers exceed maximum objectives, but the DWR does NOT manage for such. I have attended numerous RAC's and Wildlife Board meetings, and all I hear from the DWR is that they are meeting the MINIMUM objectives.



wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me *ONE* Region/subunit that has exceeded the buck:doe maximum objective in the last 10 years. I can list several that are at/below the minimum. Theory doesn't mean squat, what matters is reality, and reality shows that the UDWR manages to the minimum.
> ...


Salt Lake is unique because it is actually managed for maximum opportunity via being archery only. I would like to see where these other subunits were above 25:100 buck:doe ratios. Maximum population numbers is misleading, since the objectives are set based on human factors more often than not. Most population objective maximums are set based on limited carrying capacity, yet another example of MINIMUM criteria.



wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > [ Who advocated managing ABOVE carrying capacity? Talk about a red herring...:roll:
> ...


Far enough. 8)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> So this question. The MINIMUM number of bucks needed to service 100 does is 5. But why manage to that? Why not manage to 50/50 before the season? If habitat is not at capacity, how would that limit production? The 50 does woulds still get covered, but there would be more bucks, so more bucks reaching maturity, and more trophy opportunities? I can see the 5:100 or even 15:100 if the habitat is maxed out, but if it isn't, then why go with a ratio that small?
> 
> I get the concept you are explaining - as the same applies to Pheasants - something I am probably more familiar with than deer dynamics. But still - if habitats are not maxed out, then how can more bucks limit herd growth? I get it if things are maxed out - as clearly there is only so much food to go around. But if not, then why manage to fewer bucks?


Hunter opportunity...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

If the land is not at its maximum carrying capacity, where do you lose the does?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > That's my point, the hunter opportunity will be GREATER if we maximize wildlife numbers. With the Limited Entry disease taking over every aspect of game management, hunter opportunity is decreasing at rapid rates. Judd ask how can we get to maximum instead of minimum. I think we do that by educating hunters/sportsmen and by changing the priorities around. Instead of focusing on how big the antlers are on harvested animals, we should focus on healthy herds with maximum calf/fawn production.
> ...


Again, you trust an INDIVIDUAL that is employed by the government more than you trust an INDIVIDUAL that isn't employed by the government, and I do NOT!

Let's look at Utah game management, the every people you so distrust are the ones calling the shots. We have limited entry hunts why? :shock: The 'public management' of game just means a select few INDIVIDUALS get to decide what is 'best' for wildlife instead of many INDIVIDUALS. Why you think a Wildlife Board, made up of connected INDIVIDUALS, are better stewards of the wildlife than thousands of INDIVIDUALS that would directly be affected if allowed to make decisions, is still a mystery to me. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> If the land is not at its maximum carrying capacity, where do you lose the does?


You won't, but if a harsh winter comes along and you have a 50/50 buck:doe ratio, the herd suffers greater than if the ratio is at 10:100. Even though during 'normal' years the carrying capacity is higher than the actual population, having excess males puts the herd at risk during droughts/harsh winters/disease.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> [
> Let's look at Utah game management, the every people you so distrust are the ones calling the shots. We have limited entry hunts why? :shock: The 'public management' of game just means a select few INDIVIDUALS get to decide what is 'best' for wildlife instead of many INDIVIDUALS. Why you think a Wildlife Board, made up of connected INDIVIDUALS, are better stewards of the wildlife than thousands of INDIVIDUALS that would directly be affected if allowed to make decisions, is still a mystery to me. :?


That's just it pro, when the private sector is in charge only the individual owner of the land or owner of the game makes the decision...our lousy wildlife board is better than that. And, despite your mistrust of RACs and the WB...most of the time they do listen and follow what the professional biologists have to say. And, despite the things I don't like about the management of wildlife in Utah it is still a million times better than what I saw in Germany where the private sector is in charge!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> How many times will this exact thread or topic come up in a year? This is the real question. Don't any of you fellas have tags to fill?


Funny, YOU are on your computer asking others why they are on a computer. Oh the irony. -_O-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Again, you trust an INDIVIDUAL that is employed by the government more than you trust an INDIVIDUAL that isn't employed by the government, and I do NOT!


When it comes to wildlife management, you better believe it. Here's why: 
1) the individual employed by the government is educated and trained to manage wildlife
2) the individual employed by the government has no financial motivation in regards to his/her decisions
3) the individual employed by the government is a public servant and is thus made responsible of his/her decisions by the public
4) the individual employed by the government is charged with the well-being of wildlife whereas the private individual may or may not have reason to look out for the well-being of the animal (the private individual may want to destroy acres of deer habitat to build a ski-resort, for example)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Going so quickly to the 'European' still hunting so early? Come on, why do that instead of right here in the US of A? We have plenty of states that have mostly privately held land to look at. I ask, are the wildlife gone or nearly gone in these states? Let's look at Texas, this state is made up with very little public land, and they have how many deer and other game animals available to be hunted? There are MORE of some African species in Texas than in Africa. Why? Because it is profitable (I know, a dirty word in the progressive world) to make sure there are abundant numbers of animals available to hunt. The government, and your Wildlife Board, have no incentive other than the 'goodness' of their souls to have abundant wildlife available. Germany is a TERRIBLE example for you to use, it isn't that the game management is in the hands of the private sector, it is that it is in the hands of the nobles. Sadly, the direction Utah is headed in more apt to end up like Utah than turning the land/game over to the private sector could ever do.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> lunkerhunter2 said:
> 
> 
> > How many times will this exact thread or topic come up in a year? This is the real question. Don't any of you fellas have tags to fill?
> ...


I am sitting at 9,200' elevation right now glassing for sheep. How dare you accuse me of being on my pc. :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you trust an INDIVIDUAL that is employed by the government more than you trust an INDIVIDUAL that isn't employed by the government, and I do NOT!
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > lunkerhunter2 said:
> ...


I don't believe you, I bet you are no higher than 9,157' at this moment.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

You got me! I am actually around 9,155'. Found a monster ram though! hehe


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> You got me! I am actually around 9,155'. Found a monster ram though! hehe


Sweet! I will be heading out tomorrow for another go at the elk on the Wasatch. I don't have a tag, but I have several friends trying to let the air out of a big stinky.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

So how are the bull to cow ratios on the Wasatch? Out of whack? Doing ok? How does W2U think it is doing?
lmao good luck on the hunt... I'm going down to kill more foxes!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Ok let's try a different approach on the LE units age objectives because you are stuck on the word minimum and not understanding how that works. If you want buck deer on SJ for example to reach 10 years old. The only way to do that is by following a complex model that says you can't shoot any bucks under 7 years old. From there is anotherr formula that tells you how many tags to issue that will ensure many of the bucks reach 10 years old. You can't manage for the maximum in that case without the minimum. It's part of the formula.
> ...


I just picked random numbers. Fine a 6 year old buck is bigger than a 10 year old buck....not the point. The point is the "minimum" age class is used as part of the calculation to achieve your desired age class. You will never have 6 year old if you are killing 2 year old deer. And the moving of season dates and number of permits are another part of the equation, they already take those things into consideration. The minimum is just part of the science involved to get your maximum.

Sorry but you need to think this one through.....you are just stuck on a word and nothing more because the science makes complete sense.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Agreed and I will state what I believe the issues are but this is where we come full circle and arrive right back to where we started on this whole conversation and start the argument all over again.

I blame the loss in winter habitat, too many roads in our mountains, the increase in elk population, and too many tags issued. So one of my propsed solutions that will preserve opportunity but ensuring less deer are killed is by doing antler restrictions. 10,000 small bucks won't be shot on the first day of rifle season but that will only fix areas with weak buck to doe ratios. The next thing we've got to do is close down roads in areas with too many so that deer can have a place to go hide. Lastly we have to figure out what we can do for these animals on their wintering grounds. I don't have an answer for the last one other than preserving ground for these animals in their ranges. Beyond that all we can do is fly them south for the winter. Nothing you can do about the elk. They belong in our mountains too.

The problem is I have seen the overtone in your arguments that you want to preserve opportunity but you also want to see lots of deer. Dude that's where we all are...and we are all searching for answers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I just picked random numbers. Fine a 6 year old buck is bigger than a 10 year old buck....not the point. The point is the "minimum" age class is used as part of the calculation to achieve your desired age class. You will never have 6 year old if you are killing 2 year old deer. And the moving of season dates and number of permits are another part of the equation, they already take those things into consideration. The minimum is just part of the science involved to get your maximum.
> 
> Sorry but you need to think this one through.....you are just stuck on a word and nothing more because the science makes complete sense.


Umm, I acknowledged you just used 10 for reference. :?

Since you mention science lets use it, shall we? Science says you CAN kill 2 yr old bucks and still have 6 year old bucks in the herd if you manage the herd with science and common sense. Unless you kill EVERY 2 year old buck, which would only happen intentionally not by accident, you will have older class bucks in the herd. Right now, on a unit like the Henry Mt, the older age class bucks there are obtained through rationing and rationing alone! I use the extended Wasatch Front as a perfect example. There are numerous 5+ yr old bucks munching on grass while enjoying the city view as I type, and not a ONE of them is alive because the 2 yr old bucks were not harvested due to antler restrictions/limited permit numbers. They are alive because management tools that allow high escapement AND high opportunity were employed 10+ years ago. Now, I am NOT saying the whole state should be archery only and have a season that lasts 3+ months, but it shows there are more ways than what you say to get that monster buck in the herd population.

As for season dates for Limited Entry hunts, they are based less on 'science' and more on hunter demands. Science does NOT say we should hunt bull elk in September with a rifle. If the season dates were changed along with the weapon allotment percentages you could offer far more permits and still have the hunter desired 'trophy' class animals in the mix. FWIW, there is NO scientific reason to have the average buck harvested by 5-6 years of age, that is purely based on hunter demands. The Henry deer unit was made Limited Entry under the premise of 'helping' the herd POPULATION rebound, NOT to produce monster bucks. But, as is more often the case, the premise such things are sold under often are nowhere near reality and in this case the herd POPULATION growth has been stunted BECAUSE of the focus on the harvest age of the bucks which has forced an excessive number of bucks to be in the herd in order to reach the objectives set in the DMP. The health of the deer herd is NOT the top priority of the current management policies on the Henry unit, how much funding can be brought via conservation permit sales is. That is NOT science, that is a travesty!


----------



## dunn_gary (Sep 11, 2007)

Again, I'm going to post this. You all have an opinion, and much of what I am reading hear is not even necessarily educated guesses. Get Dennis Austin's book. It's called "Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Some of you may find it supports your conclusions, and others will be refuted. Dennis is absolutely one of the top wildlife biologists in the Rocky Mt. area. 

"Dennis D. Austin graduated from Utah State University in 1970 and '72 with BS and MS degrees in range and watershed science. He briefly worked for the Bureau of Land Management and then for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for more than 30 years, from 1972-2003, as a research scientist and wildlife biologist at Utah State University and on the Cache Wildlife Management unit. He has published over 50 technical reports and over 100 newspaper and magazine articles."

This is taken from his book. I have known Dennis since 1980. PM me if you want to contact him for a copy of his book. He'll even autograph it for you if you would like. One person has pm'd me already, and I hope that more of you do. Then you can make educated guesses instead of what some of you are doing now.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I would say its the rifle-muzzy hunters killing everything off. -8/- They are too successful and generally not picky when it comes to what they shoot. 

The front doesn't allow the rifles or muzzle loaders and wa la you have Henry mountain quality bucks running around up there with a buck to doe ratio of 37-100. You also have high predators ie bears, cougars and coyotes. 

You also wont see guys hanging their tag on a spike or two point buck up there! 

easy fix if you ask me! :O•-:


also where did the 260" archery buck come from this year. oo thats right public land with a general tag. 

So I guess there are no more big bucks in Utah right? wrong! :shock:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The deer herd is in decline or in poor historical shape statewide. Agreed?

All the factors mentioned for the cause of deer herd reduction or lack of recovery. Are not present in all of Utah's units.

1. If its road kill then why isn't the So. Eastern unit doing so much better than the rest of the state.

2. Elk aren't present in all of Utah's units with hurting deer herds.

3. The high Uintah's and Book cliffs aren't over run with ATV's.

4. We all know areas that aren't over hunted. I hunt private lands that surely are not over hunted by humans. Yet the herds continue to drop or not recover.

5. Winter kills are generally isolated especially in the last 20 yrs.

6. Development or winter range loss. Take a look at 90% of the state that hasn't seen vast subdivisions crop up. Southern South Eastern, West, North West, Central.

7. Granted I have seen plenty of old sage that may or may not provide much sustenance. But I have also witnesses some really prime sage that has great growth. (Specifically Monroe.)

There is only one common denominator in all of the West's declining deer herds.*Predators* And I will go one farther and say LE predator hunting.

50 deer per cougar. 2000 cougar means 10000 deer. How many deer coyotes eat is anyone's guess. But I would guess it as much or more than what the cats account for. Especially when it comes to fawns. :V|:

Thank you I'm done for now.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Henry Mtn. They don't let anyone hunt it. It is also under objective and never recovers there only like 700 deer out there. More winter range than you could ever believe. I bet it has never seen a winter kill and its not over run with human activity. And consistently the buffalo herd increases yr after yr. 

I don't think its a habitat or capacity issue that wont allow the deer herd to grow on Henry's. And the buffalo are supposed to be in direct competition with cattle. But yet they thrive without a predator. No capacity rule on them bison huh? Only deer.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> I would say its the rifle-muzzy hunters killing everything off. -8/- They are too successful and generally not picky when it comes to what they shoot.
> 
> The front doesn't allow the rifles or muzzle loaders and wa la you have Henry mountain quality bucks running around up there with a buck to doe ratio of 37-100. You also have high predators ie bears, cougars and coyotes.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that should solve everything, lol :shock: :roll: :O•-:


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Iron Bear,

There is an error in your math. 50 x 2,000 does not equal 10,000. It equals 100,000. That is the flaw with the cats and yotes account for so many deer per year. If cats eat 100,000 deer per year and yotes eat the same or more per year that would that would be 200,000 deer. Throw in road kill, hunting, and all other forms of mortality and 250,000 deer die each year. This would be nearly 2/3 of entire deer herd in Utah. Deer in Utah would be extinct in less than 10 years.

Later,
Griff


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

GRIFF:

Your numbers are correct and I understand where you are coming from. But one has to take into account additive and compensatory predation factors, it isn't just simple arithmetic, it can get quite complicated. I have no true idea how many deer are taken out by yotes, bear, etc., but the numbers on the cats is pretty well proven. Even at half the estimated annual kill per cat, that is a crapload of deer from just one predator. But as stated on previous posts, thats just a single factor in this whole mess.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Deer numbers in some of my spots are down. I think that is because of the odd weather year. Of course deer in my pasture and orchard are way up. Here are some random thoughts without having read the whole thread.

-Mule deer are not at their historical lows. Mule deer numbers were very low when the pioneers came to Utah and even in the early part of the 1900s there was no open season.

-The Henry Mtns herd has doubled since they stopped hunting it. Only problem is the increase in deer numbers has mostly been bucks. That is great for the lucky hunter who draws, but the herd has not increased its productivity.

-The Front is its own animal. Not many guys are smart enough or in shape enough to hunt it. The areas south and north of the front grow big bucks also (just not as many) and are rifle hunted. Access is the largest contributing factor to growing these deer.

-All weapons are more efficient. Bows to 120+ yards. Rifles to 700+ yards. Muzzleloaders to 300+ yards. All segments of the hunting community are killing at high rates when compared to just a decade or so ago.

-Technology has increased. Rangefinders, scopes, binos, bows, expandables, sabots, ATVs, etc....

-People have more free time to scout. I mean who really scouted 30 years ago like many guys do today? Most people loaded in the truck Thursday and went camping at deer camp and the first time they set foot on the mountain was the day before the hunt. Now guys are watching these deer 365 days a year.

-Like it or not, pressure must be reduced. I like the short hunts. Some guys don't. Now they are in place lets give them a couple years and see what really happens. If the results are negative then lets try something different. At least something is being tried today.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey Iron Bear,,,The new 12 year lion management plan is out.
For the next three years Monroe is on split season hunting,,,Harvest objective.
In fact 3/4 of the state is that way,,over the counter, unlimited tags ...
Lets see ye go shoot one of them collared Monroe cats..

And here's a buck I found still in velvet today in the Bookcliffs..[attachment=0:bi65wx4w]100_1985.jpg[/attachment:bi65wx4w]


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

That is one pretty buck goofy! Always love your pics!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> -The Front is its own animal. Not many guys are smart enough or in shape enough to hunt it. The areas south and north of the front grow big bucks also (just not as many) and are rifle hunted. Access is the largest contributing factor to growing these deer.


I agree, which is why I brought the Front into the discussion since it was asserted the ONLY way to get older class bucks was via antler restrictions and limited entry units managed for older class bucks through extremely limited permits being issued. The Front has many unique issues that allow for mature bucks to thrive, my point is that escapement is high on the Front which allows for tons of opportunity and amazing quality with the herd right at 'carrying capacity'. This same model won't work across the board throughout Utah, but is shows there are a multitude of options out there if we are willing to look for, and implement them. 8)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

just something to ponder that is blatantly obvious to me.

areas the deer hunting supposedly sucks meaning general areas is the same areas it takes max points to draw cougar tags. Do guys like to hunt small dink cats and wait 10 years to hunt them or do they want B&C cats with high points.

I know the answer. they want B&C cats when they draw the tag. Well its not rocket science areas where there are B&C cats you will have lots of lesser cats and female cats.and all kinds of cats in between. more cats means less deer. 

don't ask a cat hunter if he can find cats cause 9 out of 10 times they will just say they cant. I guess the dogs are more stupid these days.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > -The Front is its own animal. Not many guys are smart enough or in shape enough to hunt it. The areas south and north of the front grow big bucks also (just not as many) and are rifle hunted. Access is the largest contributing factor to growing these deer.
> ...


And therein lays the problem proutdoors. The mentality of todays hunter is so much into antlers and inches I'm not sure how willing we would be to do some of the things necessary to achieve the objectives you are for: increased opportunity and more animals. I was really hoping there would be more input and a following for the UWC, but I am afraid most hunters today just don't want to be bothered with the hard stuff. It seems to be all about ME ME ME. I wish/hope I am wrong


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy 
I think we found your hunting dog in the bookcliffs. Do you want him back or should we put him down? -_O-


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Griff, Correct 100,000. I look at these kind of figures and think of it as a probable estimate. 

It has been done before here. Unfortunately I am the worst person around to articulate it. But the math is there to give you the conclusion that predators are the one factor that limit deer herds more than any other today and it is the one factor that could be handled the quickest and cheapest. 

I will try to offer a formula. I think it can be applied statewide or on any individual unit.

Take the total # of deer in unit. Figure how many doe there are. Then figure how many fawns may be born in spring. Figure the est cougar population and what they eat. Apply that to the fawn recruitment figure with a dash of coyote and it seem plane to me where the deer are going. 

I must say Pro is most excellent at doing these equations for me. But if any one wants to take a whack at it the please do. Prove me wrong.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Let's look at Texas, this state is made up with very little public land, and they have how many deer and other game animals available to be hunted? There are MORE of some African species in Texas than in Africa. Why? Because it is profitable (I know, a dirty word in the progressive world) to make sure there are abundant numbers of animals available to hunt. The government, and your Wildlife Board, have no incentive other than the 'goodness' of their souls to have abundant wildlife available. Germany is a TERRIBLE example for you to use, it isn't that the game management is in the hands of the private sector, it is that it is in the hands of the nobles. Sadly, the direction Utah is headed in more apt to end up like Utah than turning the land/game over to the private sector could ever do.


Yeah...let's look at Texas:
"It is generally acknowledged in Texas that if you want to hunt, you have to own a place, 
know someone, hunt on some of the limited public areas within the State, or lease a place to hunt. It is ironic that in Texas, a state with more than 262,000 square miles, that hunters are faced with such a land access problem....A number of special problems exist in providing adequate hunting opportunities for Texas residents. Problems are: the lack of access to private lands for hunting; high costs of a hunting lease and leasing practices of private land- 
owners; crowded conditions on public hunting lands; uneven distribution of wildlife and lands available for hunting; low harvest rates; and critical loss of high quality wildlife habitat in certain areas of the state."

yeah...sounds like a great plan. Texas is 97% private...the public can't hardly even hunt in that state!
http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available ... 537099.pdf


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

dunn_gary said:


> Again, I'm going to post this. You all have an opinion, and much of what I am reading hear is not even necessarily educated guesses. Get Dennis Austin's book. It's called "Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Some of you may find it supports your conclusions, and others will be refuted. Dennis is absolutely one of the top wildlife biologists in the Rocky Mt. area.
> 
> "Dennis D. Austin graduated from Utah State University in 1970 and '72 with BS and MS degrees in range and watershed science. He briefly worked for the Bureau of Land Management and then for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for more than 30 years, from 1972-2003, as a research scientist and wildlife biologist at Utah State University and on the Cache Wildlife Management unit. He has published over 50 technical reports and over 100 newspaper and magazine articles."
> 
> This is taken from his book. I have known Dennis since 1980. PM me if you want to contact him for a copy of his book. He'll even autograph it for you if you would like. One person has pm'd me already, and I hope that more of you do. Then you can make educated guesses instead of what some of you are doing now.


Gary I haven't read the book yet but I do know that publicly the state has blamed winter kill and drought in the 2000's and earlier for struggling deer numbers. Obviously the winter kill is a two fold issue 1 - The severity of the winter obviously and 2 - The lack of wintering grounds so deer are forced to find forage at higher elevations in deeper snow and colder temps.

The drought is a tougher topic. What can we really do about drought conditions? Not much in my estimation and why I haven't brought it up until now.

I do however think it's time to start thinking "outside the box". I think the generally accepted science still has to be our foundation but it's time for new ideas too I believe.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Going back to the "wasatch front model" I want to be clear on something. I'm not pushing antler restrictions so I can go out and hunt monsters. I'm pushing that idea so the herd is healthier. The objective with the idea is simply to lower success rates. This will increase the number of overall deer, will ensure good genes are being pass on since more bucks will make it maturity, and increase the buck to doe ratio which is dangerously low in many units.

Limiting access by either permantly closing some roads or during hunts will give deer escapement opporunities and again lower success rates since most hunters will concentrate in roaded areas. 

The best part is you don't have to limit hunter opportunity. You can still sell the same amount of tags. And oh BTW...this would also be an added benefit for the more reclusive hunter that likes the idea of getting away from the crowds. 

We've beat this to death now...not sure there is much more I can contribute on this thread but it has been a good discussion.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Where have all the mule deer gone? What the best available science tells us:
http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... ndex2.html


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> will ensure good genes are being pass on since more bucks will make it maturity, and increase the buck to doe ratio which is dangerously low in many units.


Flawed logic. Doesn't a yearling spike have the SAME genes as a spike as he will at 6 1/2 years old? I think so. A 1 1/2 year old dear can breed can it not? That statement has and makes no sense.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > will ensure good genes are being pass on since more bucks will make it maturity, and increase the buck to doe ratio which is dangerously low in many units.
> ...


Let me explain. Yes a big dominate herd bull has the same genes at 1 1/2 years old as he does in his prime. The thing is though that not all males have desireable genes. When large numbers of males exist the mature animals that are in their prime fight it out and only the worthy breed. We don't know if a spike will become a good dominant bull or if he'll be physically inferior until down the road. He could be blind in one eye, have bad hearing, no sense of smell. He will die young but if he is allowed to breed young then he can pass on genes before he goes. Also if a spike is say prone to specific diseases due to his genes he will die off before reaching maturity and other mature bulls will ensure he never breeds. In the absence of mature bulls that younger bull may breed, pass on a gene that makes his offspring susceptible to disease then die off. You then have a weaker population of animals that will have a shorter life span. This is the whole point of the bulls/bucks fighting for cows/does. To ensure the strongest genes are passed on.

In the absence of sufficient numbers of mature males the younger, and in some cases inferior, males will also breed since there are only a few around to challenge.

Make sense now?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Yes, but it is a numbers game. 
There is a 50/50 chance a doe/cow will be bred with a superior buck/bull but there is also a 50/50 chance she will get bred with a mature inferior animal. 
Example: there is a 6 1/2 year old 2X2 with bad genes(insert bad gene here) and a 2 1/2 year old 4x4 with excellent trophy genes. The 2x2 is obviously the more dominant of the 2 and i would guess he will beat out the smaller buck and get to breed the doe. You still end up with bad genes. Does that make sense?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

But the paradox is that we define "good genes" as those that produce the biggest antlers, yet, the bucks with the biggest antlers are the ones that we as hunters like to kill.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Yes, but it is a numbers game.
> There is a 50/50 chance a doe/cow will be bred with a superior buck/bull but there is also a 50/50 chance she will get bred with a mature inferior animal.
> Example: there is a 6 1/2 year old 2X2 with bad genes(insert bad gene here) and a 2 1/2 year old 4x4 with excellent trophy genes. The 2x2 is obviously the more dominant of the 2 and i would guess he will beat out the smaller buck and get to breed the doe. You still end up with bad genes. Does that make sense?


You're right it is a game of averages. But the law of averages says the more bucks that are allowed to reach their prime the more desireable genes will be passed on. Weaker inferior bucks will be weeded out at a higher rate. I don't know about the 50/50 numbers you states above but I will say that more mature bucks means overall beter genes are being passed on. There will always be exceptions to the rule of course.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> But the paradox is that we define "good genes" as those that produce the biggest antlers, yet, the bucks with the biggest antlers are the ones that we as hunters like to kill.


That's true but if more mature bucks are in the herd then it is somewhat offsetting. We're trying to improve the current situation not reinvent the wheel so to speak with the antler restrictions concept.


----------



## Pops2 (Jul 28, 2010)

i will second the fact that TX is not a good example of game management unless you like the idea of paying $1000 for permission to hunt 200 acres of scrub that will only hold a deer if you feed him corn year round and you have to share the land w/ 9 other guys you don't know that are trying to shoot the same deer but not feeding him. so yeah TX is great if you like shelling out $1200 for someone else to shoot the deer you fed all year.
or maybe you want to shell out $7000-10,000 for an elk that is actually native and feeds off the natural browse (Davis Mtns in w TX).
the average Texan pays about $3000-5000 for hunting rights on GOOD land that holds deer year round. even farmers having thousands of dollars of crop damage are trying to get people to shell out a few hundred $ for the priveledge of killing feral hogs.
ALL the antelope (except for about 8-10 tags) are landowner tags that will cost you some $$$$. the only thing you can really hunt on the cheap (not counting gas) is birds & rabbits on the public land. while we're there, TX is more than 3X the size of NC & NC has 100,000 more acres of public land.
TX is a great example if you are freaking rich and are cool w/ the european model of the landowner owning the wildlife because even w/ the native whitetail deer most are "livestock" due to bringing in monster rack bucks from the north eastern USA.
a lot of texans hunt public lands for deer & elk in other states because it is cheaper than hunting in TX.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: No Mule Deer? Parting shots*

Wy2ut, I must say that you are having a profound effect on Pro, I remember two years ago you and I arguing with Pro about the devastating effect that so many bucks on the Henneries were having on fawn recruitment and herd growth and now he is the one to champion the argument about lower buck to doe ratios. My how times have changed!

A few observations:

Coming from a family of miners, farmers, cattle and sheep people, I have always favored the multiples use concept on public lands and so I cringe when I hear people spout hands off policies on public lands. I for one believe we had a lot more deer in Utah when we had large public land grassed by sheep rather than cattle. And another observation; I am not seeing many deer at all in the recent burn areas of this state, the elk and sheep love year old burns, but deer seem to avoid them like the plague, which causes me to rethink some of our habitat management policies and procedures. I for one believe that controlled or uncontrolled burns are counterproductive to mule deer as a short term management tool. As a hunter I have always concentrated my hunting activities in bitter brush our high yield forage areas of the state for deer hunting. If deer hunters have not read Kurt Darners books, they should, because they give the keys to proper deer habitat. However, we still have some darn fine deer habitat in our state that hold very low or should I say almost nonexistent numbers of mule deer.

Predator control is just a punch phrase in Utah, we do not practice predator control under any sense of the word, and we practice lip service with an environmental correctness to appease the girly men of the fringe. For He!! Sakes as a former trapper I can tell you that we are limiting a valued resource be branding trappers as trailer trash as the enforcement wing of the DWR has done for the last twenty five years. If you really want to know the health of our predator and deer herds, talk to a good knowledgeable trapper, they shoot straight and do not pull any punches, don't harass them and brand them as outlaws . And one more thing issue trappers cougar permits.

I hold some reservations about farming for wildlife as I think some elk farms and CWMU's are counterproductive for the long term benefit of free ranging wildlife and public hunting. I just have not seen an increase to public hunting opportunity as was sold when Garth Cater initiated the PHU program. It has been my experience that for the most part we have just created more national parks with no publicly accessible recorded boundaries, which leads to fraud and deception on the part of a few CWMU operators. I do support private property owners benefiting from wildlife utilizing their property; however I think that private property conglomerates feel that they have taken title or ownership to the wildlife and that was never the intent of wildlife which is the steward and property of the state. I take this prospective more from an experience popper and not a prince.

I am of the opinion that we have managed to manage hunter's right out of the sport of hunting with the restrictive seasons and shortened hunts. I would not mind so much not hunting deer every year if I could hunt another big game animal once in three years, but omg I do not see the deer herds increasing at all under the caps. And there is no reason in the world that Utah should not be the antelope capitol of the world other than we seem to grow our moose and antelope for trade goods for turkeys and a few sheep. Has anybody been down on the Parker and seen how we have ranched the antelope right off the mountain. I do not think they left enough antelope down there for seed and you had better bring the long rang artillery because they are on the run at the first sight of any human activities. There is no reason for moose or goats to be a once in a life time hunt and speed goats should be on the menu at least once in every five years. If we can't have mule deer every two years give us some diversity of species like speed goats.

One last thing that has bothered me to the core and that is a little management tool called the game of numbers. Utah has a profound way of bring ratios in to perspective by eliminating large numbers on the unbalance side. If for example we have low buck numbers in an area such as the Thousand Lake unit, the DWR goes in and take two thousand does off the unit in three years and then wonders were in the he11 all the deer went. This same example holds true for elk on the Fish Lake. I agree with Pro when he says we manage for the minimum and cite the above as prime examples of adjusting the buck to doe ratios through drastic means in order to assure that you will be at or below the minimum.

I do not have all the answers but I can see the results&#8230;&#8230;Big


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

bigbr
the division has never gone into an area and shot out the does or cows to make the buck, bull ratio better.
that line of thinking is absolutely false.

they may have had an elk herd or deer herd over population objective or had problem elk or deer that were causing crop damage and needed to be culled. They issue more tags then they want killed because the kill average is usually around 30% and sometimes like in your example where a perfect storm happened so to speak and hunters benefited in the form of an easy kill and the elk or deer were decimated. 

but they were never hunted to increase the buck to doe ratio!


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2010)

the deer are still here, you just have to get off the roads and hike to some remote spots to find them. i spend alot of time in the central and south eastern units hunting archery, muzzleloader and rifle. opening weekend of the archery hunt in central utah i saw well over 100+ deer a day, with about half of those being bucks. many were spikes and 2 points, but i saw several decent sized bucks too. although there isnt the number of deer that everyone would like to see, if you are willing to do a little pre-season scouting and put some miles on your boots, finding deer for the hunts is very possible.


----------

