# Management hunt ideas



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I've been reading about some experiences people have had with the management deer hunts and I can't help but think there must be a better way. The goal of these hunts is not to weed out bad genetics, but rather to allow people to harvest some of the less desirable bucks. Limiting harvest to 3 points on one side is one way of defining an undesirable buck although it's marginal. I hear of great management bucks that people can't shoot because they have a 2" sticker on the antler. There are surely plenty of bucks out there with 4 or more points on each antler that no premium tag holder is going to shoot. One idea would be to simply have an extra season somewhere that would target some of these bucks. Since the biggest trophies get hunted the hardest, a new season could be designed to minimize harvest of those bucks. Make something that would set a hunter's expectations a bit lower so they'd be satisfied with a management-type buck but without imposing point restrictions. Possible scenarios:

3 day rifle or ML hunt directly after the LE rifle hunt
3-5 day ML hunt directly after the LE muzzy hunt.
Archery tag valid for bucks during the general season elk hunt

I'd love to hear some opinions about this. What outcome would you predict if the management hunts were replaced with one of these hunts?

My choice would be for the 3-day ML hunt right after the rifle season. I think the biggest bucks would have become pretty wary by then and would stay out of ML range for the most part. A lot of the bucks that rifle hunters passed on would then be available to people with the late ML tag. Personally I'd be a lot more excited about a tag that gave me a high probability of taking a decent buck WITH a small chance at a monster as opposed to a tag where I was forced to settle for something.


----------



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

You already have that tag, it's called a general season rifle tag. You have an opportunity to kill a nice buck or a monster buck, you have to hunt hard. Putting a muzzleloader hunt after the rifle hunt like it used to be would eliminate too many bucks and would eliminate mature bucks that during there most valuable time, breeding season. No other hunts are needed, you have LE units and GS units all with three hunts, you have management hunts on the LE units. The division isn't doing a bad job, and you have plenty of opportunity. Why should my expectations be lowered because others want to lower the expectations. There's opportunity along with quality in our state, no need to ruin that.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think we already hunt our deer to extinction. Ahh its a no from me


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

1-I, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's nothing new though.

SW, we've got over 60 bucks per 100 does on the Henrys. I don't see that as hunting to extinction. Way too many bucks going to waste down there, just trying to figure out a better way to harvest some of those bucks. 

Sorry, I thought the management hunts were better understood by most.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

There is already a managment hunt on the henry mountains. No need for another one down there.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Hunt their sheds thats how to hunt the junkers on the henries.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Me likes the muzzy before the madness. --------SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Could be coming soon to the Book Cliffs: Action Item, Wild life board.

*Fall 2014 - Target Date - Management Buck Tags on the Book Cliffs
MOTION:​*​​​​I move that the Division be asked to review the buck management tags on the Book Cliffs. People are
always reporting the presence of big two and three point bucks in that area. Perhaps these permits could be given to
youth. This is to be addressed during the revision of the Deer Management Plan in 2014.
Assigned to: Bill Bates
Action: Under Study
Status: Pending​
Placed on Action Log: December 1, 2011


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

For some reason the Books have always held some huge 2 and 3 pt deer. I remember one year coming out when it was 3pt or better and seeing a 2 pt on a ridge that had to have a 36" spread and 24" tall. He would of made one great looking mount. 

He reminded me of a rack that I saw in the basement of Ray's Bar in Green River. Now that buck did have a 40" spread and close to 36" tall and was taken along the Green River back in the early 60's. I often wonder what ever happened to that rack whenever I drive through Green River since Ray's has been sold a couple of times since I saw it back in the early 80's.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Sounds like a good thing on the bookcliffs right?

Until you realize the deer in utah are maneged by buck to do ratios. So you kill a two point you have to cut tags for the regular le hunt. Now your making people shoot a certain deer instead of letting them draw a good tag hunt for a good buck, fail to kill a good buck and settling on the last day for a two by three.

You would be supprised how many dink/managment deer get killed in bookcliffs already! 

Managnent tags on a general tag is stupid! 

This is why I'm against the managment tag on any other units in the state except the premium hunts.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I think management hunts are equivalent to polishing turds personally. But the powers that be have given us turds, so why not polish them to a high sheen? If I could be Don Peay for a day I would get rid of LE hunts as we know them. They are purely the result of an entitled mentality. Forcibly increased odds of success at a terrible expense. Sure you may draw a tag and kill a trophy buck, but the cost to our sport is horrendous. And what will that trophy really mean anyway? It's kind of like playing a video game with cheats enabled. I would love to see the LE hunts be phased out completely and have the public land returned to the public. SW, you know how it feels to take a big buck on a general hunt. That, to me, is the definition of success. 

I know with our political climate that LE units are here to stay, but it still pains me to see entire hunting units managed so wastefully.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Now your making people shoot a certain deer instead of letting them draw a good tag hunt for a good buck, fail to kill a good buck and settling on the last day for a two by three.
> 
> You would be supprised how many dink/managment deer get killed in bookcliffs already!


I have always thought the best way to reduce the number of bucks on a unit would be to issue more buck tags. Far superior than the management hunt/point restriction crap.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

El Matador said:


> I know with our political climate that LE units are here to stay, but it still pains me to see entire hunting units managed so wastefully.


What? Wastefully????????????????

It apears that you dont understand the history of these units ...

There are reasons they 'are what they are', and managed as LE ..


----------



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

El Matador said:


> I think management hunts are equivalent to polishing turds personally. But the powers that be have given us turds, so why not polish them to a high sheen? If I could be Don Peay for a day I would get rid of LE hunts as we know them. They are purely the result of an entitled mentality. Forcibly increased odds of success at a terrible expense. Sure you may draw a tag and kill a trophy buck, but the cost to our sport is horrendous. And what will that trophy really mean anyway? It's kind of like playing a video game with cheats enabled. I would love to see the LE hunts be phased out completely and have the public land returned to the public. SW, you know how it feels to take a big buck on a general hunt. That, to me, is the definition of success.
> 
> I know with our political climate that LE units are here to stay, but it still pains me to see entire hunting units managed so wastefully.


LE hunts have nothing to do with entitlement, we have 30 general season deer units, why can't we have a few that contain a lot of trophy bucks ? Your the one who wants to be entitled to a tag because we can't have a few nice units to hunt . You come with the fight you can only hunt them every 20 years, then stop putting in for it and hunt the GS units. Anyone who applies for the Henries, Pauns, or other LE units has no room to talk, you're putting in for it for a reason and it's not to shoot a small buck. If you put in for it you enjoy the fact there LE units to. I understand buck ratios need to be brought down you already have management hunts for that, which is more buck tags resulting in less bucks. It's fine the way it is.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> What? Wastefully????????????????
> 
> It apears that you dont understand the history of these units ...
> 
> There are reasons they 'are what they are', and managed as LE ..


yup...you are right; they have history. They have a history of people believing that if tags are cut, the deer numbers will jump through the roof. And, we have a history of seeing that cutting tags will only increase the numbers of bucks and not necessarily the herd. Yeah...there is a history on those units and the history should be teaching us that limiting tags won't do anything but change buck/doe ratios and will do little to increase overall deer numbers. But, like you, we have too many tard hunters out there that don't get it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I like the suggestion of another archery hunt later in the year. Deer are hard enough to shoot as it is with a bow and later after rifle and muzzy hunts make it harder still, but you'd still get a few..


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> yup...you are right; they have history. They have a history of people believing that if tags are cut, the deer numbers will jump through the roof. And, we have a history of seeing that cutting tags will only increase the numbers of bucks and not necessarily the herd. Yeah...there is a history on those units and the history should be teaching us that limiting tags won't do anything but change buck/doe ratios and will do little to increase overall deer numbers. But, like you, we have too many tard hunters out there that don't get it.


You'ld SUCK at history.:mrgreen:.

That fact is EVERY SINGLE on of then have had to be CLOSED due
to over harvst when they were general season units ...no BS--per the DWR.:!:.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Goofy, I know the history plenty well. I used to hunt the Henry's before they closed it, and I saw how well the unit supported hundreds of hunters. There were huge bucks killed down there every year, but you had to get off the roads a mile or two to kill them. Unfortunately for me this was back when I was a teenager and had not yet been introduced to the concept of hunting away from roads. The unit was closed to hunting when I was about 17. The Henrys can grow big deer with 200 people hunting it each year, so to me it is extremely wasteful to be giving out only 75 tags (and over a third of those are "management tags"). It's no secret that guides and outfitters love LE units and you are certainly entitled you your views on how deer should be managed. I'm entitled to mine too however, and for me and my style of hunting the LE units are poison.

1-I, you have made hundreds of posts about how "your" Monroe unit has been mismanaged. It is very hypocritical to call me "entitled" and out of line for making a post about how my childhood hunting area is being, in my opinion, mismanaged. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting on any thread that I start, and from replying to any of my posts. Your comments are inflammatory, uneducated banter and add nothing of substance. I will give you the same courtesy. Thank you. 

Wyo, I completely agree with your comments.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> You'ld SUCK at history.:mrgreen:.
> 
> That fact is EVERY SINGLE on of then have had to be CLOSED due
> to over harvst when they were general season units ...no BS--per the DWR.:!:.


This one is pretty funny. Over-harvest by whom? Lions and harsh winters? Looking for a good ROFL icon...

:laugh:


----------



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

El Matador said:


> Goofy, I know the history plenty well. I used to hunt the Henry's before they closed it, and I saw how well the unit supported hundreds of hunters. There were huge bucks killed down there every year, but you had to get off the roads a mile or two to kill them. Unfortunately for me this was back when I was a teenager and had not yet been introduced to the concept of hunting away from roads. The unit was closed to hunting when I was about 17. The Henrys can grow big deer with 200 people hunting it each year, so to me it is extremely wasteful to be giving out only 75 tags (and over a third of those are "management tags"). It's no secret that guides and outfitters love LE units and you are certainly entitled you your views on how deer should be managed. I'm entitled to mine too however, and for me and my style of hunting the LE units are poison.
> 
> 1-I, you have made hundreds of posts about how "your" Monroe unit has been mismanaged. It is very hypocritical to call me "entitled" and out of line for making a post about how my childhood hunting area is being, in my opinion, mismanaged. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting on any thread that I start, and from replying to any of my posts. Your comments are inflammatory, uneducated banter and add nothing of substance. I will give you the same courtesy. Thank you.
> 
> Wyo, I completely agree with your comments.


First, I will post as I please. Second there is plenty of mismanagement, in both ways. Can more deer be taken off the Henries sure, should they no. You have 30 other units that are fully huntable to you every other year, your one of those people who think you should be able to hunt when you want, where you want, and as much as you want. It isn't sustainable. I agree more tags could be given, but I wouldn't want to see any more given, does it increase deer? No, but that's not what the argument is about. The argument is about why a few units can't be left less hunted than other. It's ridiculous that there are 30 GS deer units, and the same people who feel they can hunt everything every year think that those few "trophy" units should be ruined because they need a few more currently premium units to go to **** just because people feel they need to kill everything. I enjoy the Monroe unit, I wouldn't want to see it turned LE, but I also don't want to see the buck:doe ratios plumet, or their to be nothing but tiny bucks. Why would you want to do that? A few more tags sure, but hundreds of more tags, NO. I understand a lot of people don't like my opinions, and you don't simply because I'm disagreeing with you, and you don't like my a-hole approach of disagreeing with you. Everyone on here vouches opportunity, opportunity, opportunity, and you believe because of this forum you are the majority. I don't believe trophy hunting should take over, but opportunity shouldn't ruin all chances to have a few places where there are truly mature majestic animals.

Also what did you bring to the table besides just a proposal?


----------



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

El Matador said:


> This one is pretty funny. Over-harvest by whom? Lions and harsh winters? Looking for a good ROFL icon...
> 
> :laugh:


Your right, there is no way over-harvest could ever happen (esspecialy in the opinion of many on this forum). My god we can shoot as many as we want, when we want, and there'll always be plenty left, even when we've killed the last one. Your right there's never been such a thing as overharvest.-_O-

Units are made LE for specific reasons, maybe you're the one who needs some education.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

For the record, I hunted EVERY SINGLE ONE of them when they were
general at one time or another---The lifting of antler restrictions on 
the Henrys, Book-cliffs, and Oak city put them in the cellar, forcing closures...

San Jaun , the Paunsy ,and Veron were just COMPLETLY OVER HARVESTED,
Causing closures on those units-----------------End of history leason 1....;-).


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Goofy: Most of the state was open to general season hunting when the Books and Henrys were closed down. Can you explain why so much over-harvesting would have taken place on those 2 units only? They are some of the most remote and roadless units in Utah. 

Some actual numbers for the Henrys, "per the DWR":

1993: 570 hunters afield, 181 bucks harvested (32% success)
1994: 443 hunters afield, 104 bucks harvested (24% success)
1995: 263 hunters afield, 46 bucks harvested (17% success)

Harvest objective on this unit was 300 bucks. The drought of the late 80s/early 90s followed by the bad winter of 92/93 pretty much wrecked the herd. Then all the predators which had been feeding on a herd of thousands of deer became concentrated on just a few hundred deer. Hunter harvest had little or nothing to do with the decline of deer on the Henry's and Books. When populations hit bottom they could no longer support hunting. 200 hunters chasing 20 buck deer? Buck:doe ratios did fall too low and the units were closed, but mother nature killed 90% of the deer before hunters ever had a crack at them. Now that the population is back up it could easily support hundreds of tags again. 

There aren't any antler restrictions on general units right now, but those herds aren't being over-harvested. To say that the removal of antler restrictions led to over-harvest (which in turn led to population decline) is simply not correct. If it were you would see the same thing happening on all of our general units because they also lack antler restrictions and have the same hunting pressure which existed on the Henry's and Books in the early 90s.

To concede one point to you, I think the Pauns is very well suited to being LE. It has many roads and a lot of private property. The deer need to be protected somehow so it lends itself very well to those regulations. Same with Vernon and a few others. The Henrys and Books are totally different though and would have plenty of escapement under general season type hunting.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Antler restic's were keeping ALOT of hunters AWAY from BOTH the Henrys & BC's ..

The year they removed AR's from BOTH units they were FLOOED general hunters!!!

ONLY TWO YEARS OF THIS A THEY WERE CLEANED OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And GEZZ, Winter kill on both those units is EXSTREAMLY low, even in winters like 92.
So much surounding desert country, PLUS were the deer winter anyway, DOSNT HAPPEN.

I gaurantee you, I've spent more time on those two units in the winter than 99%
of anyone on this forum...............Been there, done that.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I personally don't know anything about these units but if the buck count is low then certainly there should be a limited harvest for about 5 years coupled with an increased effort to reduce natural predators to bring the herd back into balance. One good indicator is the doe count. If the doe count is quite high and the buck count quite low then it is in all likelyhood due to hunting. If both counts are low then hunting and natural predation along with carrying capacity of the area would be where you should look.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I wasn't there to see why each of those deer died during the early 90s, but over harvesting does not add up. If the harvest objective was 300 bucks that mountain had to be producing more than that each year during the 80s. But they shot 104 in 1994 and 46 more in 1995...you're saying that wiped out the herd? I don't buy it. Something killed a whole lot of does down there and it wasn't hunters. The does are what make new bucks, and they went from producing 300+ to less than 50. So if you don't believe it was starvation and predation, what was it? Disease maybe? Aliens? -Ov-


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> I personally don't know anything about these units but if the buck count is low then certainly there should be a limited harvest for about 5 years coupled with an increased effort to reduce natural predators to bring the herd back into balance. One good indicator is the doe count. If the doe count is quite high and the buck count quite low then it is in all likelyhood due to hunting. If both counts are low then hunting and natural predation along with carrying capacity of the area would be where you should look.


This is spot on. These units were closed for a few years, just as they should have been. After the closures they should have been re-opened gradually until they could carry a full load of hunters. The limited tags became too valuable though and the greed of a few has kept it closed to the public for 17 years now.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Antler restic's were keeping ALOT of hunters AWAY from BOTH the Henrys & BC's ..
> 
> The year they removed AR's from BOTH units they were FLOOED general hunters!!!
> 
> ...


So, now you claim that winter kill does not happen on the Book Cliffs & Henries? :shock::shock::shock:

The populations on those two units crashed in conjunction with every deer herd across the state. The removal of antler restrictions may have resulted in an increase of hunters for a year or so, but the numbers indicate that by the time they closed the units after 1995, hunters afield had dropped in half from 1992.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I won't say that winter kill didn't do damage to the Henry's and Book Cliffs but I was out there when they dropped the antler point restriction in the Books. There were 10 times as many hunters that year than in the previous couple of years and every 4 wheeler that you saw had a spike or 2 pt on the front rack. After a couple of years of this it was hard to find a decent buck even in the deeper canyons that I hunted. Then the last year that it was open 1995 I managed to only see a couple of bucks in the deeper canyons or even along the roads and on the gas platforms.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Who cares about all the bs above!
This has turned into another circle jerk.

The op original post wanted managment tags on le units and general hunts. He wanted to know if you agree or dissagree with him.

Imho he doesn't understand the purpose of the managment tags and why they are not needed on any of the non premium hunts.

Since we already have them on our premium le hunts we don't need more of them on the premium hunts. All they need to do is up a few tags if its over the buck/doe ratios. Guess what that's what they do when there over!

Also those hunts are durring the rut after the rifle hunt and you can now use what ever weapon you want because its an anyweapon hunt. So EL can just apply for those hunts if that's the way he wants to hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> So, now you claim that winter kill does not happen on the Book Cliffs & Henries? :shock::shock::shock:


NO---- I'm telling you it's much lower than what can happen in higher
elevation or uran type units-------------Never said it "dosent happen"!

Said it was extreamly lower ......

A unit like Kamas could loss 80%+ deer herd in an extream winter......
Were the Henrys, IMO, Coulds NOT.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

El Mat,

If you were Don Pay for a day, you would love L.E. Don loves the exclusive hunts. That is where he gets his capital - political and monitarily. Don Pay would never have come to the surface without L.E.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> The op original post wanted managment tags on le units and general hunts. He wanted to know if you agree or dissagree with him.


The original post says nothing about general hunts. The focus was on replacing the existing "Management Hunt" with a different type of management hunt: One with no antler restrictions but tailored to target the less desirable bucks by virtue of season dates and weapon types.



> Imho he doesn't understand the purpose of the managment tags and why they are not needed on any of the non premium hunts.


The purpose of the management hunts (as I understand them) is stated in the original post. I agree that they aren't needed on general hunts - that was never expressed or implied.



> Since we already have them on our premium le hunts we don't need more of them on the premium hunts. All they need to do is up a few tags if its over the buck/doe ratios. Guess what that's what they do when there over!


I agree! I never asked for more management hunts, I only suggested changing the existing ones. Increasing tags when ratios rise too high - that would be fantastic. Clearly they didn't do that, because we HAVE management deer hunts. Merely increasing buck tags would be a much better solution than having a management hunt (imo), but the guys who set tag numbers won't allow that to happen. Heck, the Henrys have been 20-50% above objective for like 5 years or more and they never increase tags more than a few percent at a time.



> Also those hunts are durring the rut after the rifle hunt and you can now use what ever weapon you want because its an anyweapon hunt. So EL can just apply for those hunts if that's the way he wants to hunt.


I don't want to hunt 3-points, hence the reason for this thread. I want to hunt bucks - if I choose to shoot a 3x or a 4x with crab forks then so be it. The 3-point or less tags do allow for some of the excess bucks to be harvested, and that's much better than nothing. However, I feel that there are still a whole lot of bucks out there going to waste because they don't fit the criteria for a trophy buck or a management buck. Who's going to kill a crab forked 4x4 on the Henrys? Nobody!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> I think we already hunt our deer to extinction. Ahh its a no from me


SW,

Here lies the crux of my torment in all of these discussions. In a post regarding L.E. hunts, you still can't get hunter management off of the brain.

At what point do we realize that a deer population should be able to replenish itself far above the 10-15% take on the general hunt. At what point do we realize the herds across the west have a bigger problem than buck hunters?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

El Matador said:


> The original post says nothing about general hunts. The focus was on replacing the existing "Management Hunt" with a different type of management hunt: One with no antler restrictions but tailored to target the less desirable bucks by virtue of season dates and weapon types.
> 
> The purpose of the management hunts (as I understand them) is stated in the original post. I agree that they aren't needed on general hunts - that was never expressed or implied.
> 
> ...


You can shoot crabby junk bucks on any unit in the state. Still its a no vote for me on your managment hunt. Sorry I'd rather be able to go down on that unit and pick up sheds then to see it shot out like a general rifle unit.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

provider said:


> SW,
> 
> Here lies the crux of my torment in all of these discussions. In a post regarding L.E. hunts, you still can't get hunter management off of the brain.
> 
> At what point do we realize that a deer population should be able to replenish itself far above the 10-15% take on the general hunt. At what point do we realize the herds across the west have a bigger problem than buck hunters?


Whether you like it or not hunter managment will always be part of deer managment.You simply can't harvest more than you have.

If you think I'm un aware of the "bigger problem across the west" your mistaken.

The problem is tooo many rifle tags lol.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

provider said:


> here lies the crux of my torment in all of these discussions. In a post regarding l.e. Hunts, you still can't get hunter management off of the brain.
> 
> imo. Hunter mangement is the best tool we have right now until
> the answers as to what the real factors holding deer numbers down,
> ...


jmho.....


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

SW,

I guess the answer to my question has been answered and my suspicions are confirmed. At no point will you get hunter management off of the brain - even in discussions regarding L.E. 

Goofy,

I probably will never realize option 2 needs to be used. Hunters will naturally gravitate to the areas that are doing well. If there is a statewide hunt, and numbers are sustainable across the state, hunters will figure out the good areas on their own. We don't need to fret about one mountain if most areas are doing fine. Hunters will abandon a lousy area naturally. I believe there are some exceptions, but am speaking in generalities. If b/d ratios are super low, I'm okay with tag cuts - that indicates high hunting pressure and makes sense to me. Leave the does alone except in ag. areas and set the tags according to b/d ratios. Nothing else is needed. 

I used to sign off on all of the hunter restrictions, they didn't work. The state had an excellent deer herd for decades without option 2. I predict the herd will look the same in 2016 as it did in 2006. (5 years before option 2, 5 years after.) Time will tell. 

I don't think we will see an improved deer herd until we manage cats like we did in the 40's, 50's, 60's - and option 2 isn't going to fix it. 

Even if the problem is bigger than cats, DWR isn't going to figure out the problem as long as sportsmen groups are satisfied with tag cuts. Hunters should be putting a lot of pressure on the DWR to increase the herd. That is what they are paid for. Otherwise they should be fired. 

Those are my thoughts whether or not you care to hear them. I'm sure you disagree, but its been good to discuss. I'll let you have the last word as I'm not putting any more time into it. (I wish I could get all of the hours back that I've put into these boards, its embarrassing when I think about it.)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

provider said:


> Goofy,
> 
> I probably will never realize option 2 needs to be used. Hunters will naturally gravitate to the areas that are doing well.
> 
> ...


^^^^^^Thie 'bigger' problem for deer, IMO, Is Habitat- Habitat-Habitat ^^^^^^^


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> ^^^^^^Thie 'bigger' problem for deer, IMO, Is Habitat- Habitat-Habitat ^^^^^^^


I tend to buy into the habitat theory, but how do you explain ares that have not been impacted in over 100 years and yet the mule deer are struggling at similar rates to area that have been impacted. The state of Nevada is a prime example of this where huge tracts of summer to winter habitat have been virtually untouched, yet herds are still down.--------SS


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Over grazing by cattle men and sheep herders in th early 1900's
through the mid century caused PRIME conditions for deer herds
to explode-------- 

There are tons of study's out there that all come to this conclution.

Controlling forest fires for many ,many years, also a huge factor.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Over grazing by cattle men and sheep herders in th early 1900's
> through the mid century caused PRIME conditions for deer herds
> to explode--------
> 
> ...


 I'm down for an experiment......lets get some sheep and light some stuff on fire! I'm ready for another mule deer explosion. Unfortunately I think, based on the studies that I have read, that these factors are far more theoretical than factual. I think that the most truth lies in the fact that no one really knows. I have even read studies that link global warming to mule deer decline. These studies are very compelling, but really smart people are very convincing......even when they are wrong. Surely with all the brains and resources available, I hope to see some headway during my lifetime. A world without mule deer hunting is a sad proposition.------SS


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

It would be very revealing to see buck/doe numbers for the area over the last 20 years.


----------

