# B/D Ratio Study



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Some of us have been waiting for this study to publish. I'm sure Kent will see to it that the mule deer committee has this info if they don't already. I hope it will be presented to the WB when the time comes.

"This finding suggests that relatively low male/female ratios typical of heavily harvested populations do not influence population dynamics because recruitment remains unaffected."


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

But... But... This can't be!!!

How can the smartest napkin writing biologists
In Southern Utah be wrong???

How can a corrupt / rogue Wildlife Board be wrong???

I vote we tell even more hunters to stay home and raise
Buck to doe ratios even more. 

This tactic has proven to do absolutely NOTHING
Everywhere it's been tried.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Yay, lets issue a boat load more tags and get it down to an 8/100 ratio! Put that study to the test! :doh:


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Can't say I've ever met or known anyone that wanted to go below 15 RANDOM. I'm certainly not saying that.

What I am saying is that once all doe's are bred as early as estrus will allow, carrying excess bucks doesn't do squat. Hasn't on Colorado's west slope, Hasn't in over a decade in Nevada, Hasn't in Wyoming, Idaho or Montana.

I'm fine with your opinion that you are happy hunting every three years to see more bucks when you do get the chance, but stop with the B.S. line that this type of management is to save our herds. It's B.S. pushed out to the gullible that ignore fact.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think that anyone is saying that 15, 20, or even 99 bucks to 100 does is going to save the deer herds. But what if we only have a 15:100 ratio and the DOW issues enough tags to kill enough bucks to where it is down to a 10:100 ratio, what then. The problem with hunting is that the vast majority of hunters want to see bucks, be it 2pts or 4pts and the vast majority of them will shoot the first one that they see. 

So now we issue 84,000 buck tags with what ever the population of bucks is. How many tags could the DOW issue if the buck population doubled from what it is today? Could they double the tag numbers to 160,000 which would allow more hunters into the field? Even when they issued 200,000 tags the vast majority of hunters still shot the first buck that they saw, if it was a huge buck they headed to the news paper office to get their picture taken and placed in the paper, if it was spike they went home with a filled tag. 

It is my opinion that if you want to issue more buck tags you need more bucks. Now weather the numbers are gained by cutting tags and letting some survive the hunt or hoping that more of the fawn that are born each year are bucks. They have to come from somewhere.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell,

I am aware that managing for BD doesnt solve population issues. Knowing the BD is important though. Can you point me to a study saying what BD you need to not only sustain population but help grow it? How many bucks does it take to knock up those does?

You have said time and time again you want more hunters afield. I am just asking how this study supports that notion? They call Monroe a relatively low BD at 14. We have many units at 15. So lets issue a ton more tags. Then what? Did this study conclude that having a BD of 10 is healthy? Because by issuing more tags and having a greater harvest, that is what just happened. 


I hunt every year, btw.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

CRITTER, these ratios are post hunt. Even under the old plan (2008) if a unit was below 15 to 100 restrictions kicked in for the next season. This contingency was already in place.

My point is and always has been, that once every doe is bred, we are done with biology.
This brings us to the social aspect of who gets to kill deer and what is the pain tolerance for deer hunters. My pain tolerance is low. I want to hunt every year and if science and historical data proves that carrying excess bucks has no benefit for our herds and is only catering to the trophy side of hunting, then I have a problem.

Just like I told RANDOM, you guys that are fine with hunting every three or four years are part of the customer base just like I am and deserve to have your input heard. Remember that 70% of Utah's hunters are just like me and want a tag every year to take part in the friends and family aspect of hunting. Our voices haven't been heard since the Wildlife Board was annexed by Wayne County. 

Show me a benefit to stockpiling excess bucks and I'll be the first guy on the bandwagon
until then let hunters freaking hunt.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

RANDOM, I don't have a specific study but was told WAFWA determined 12 -100 would breed every receptive doe.

We also have several units above 17 - 100 and yet we only went up 200 permits??


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Yay, lets issue a boat load more tags and get it down to an 8/100 ratio! Put that study to the test! :doh:


They did that... years ago in the Indianola valley they took it down to 7/100, then went and captures does and checked for pregnancy rates. They noted no difference in pregnancy rates over higher b:d units.

History... whats that saying about "doomed to repeat it" again?

-DallanC


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder why Mother Nature missed the mark by so much? Geez if you leave it up to her she'd have it about 45/100. And can you imagine mule deer survived more than 49,925 years before we got here to correct that b/d ratio. But one must understand in those 49,925 yrs there was plenty of selenium in the soil and we never had dry hot summers and cold wet winters. And also there was no houses or roads on the wasatch so 10s of thousands of deer could migrate all over the state and keep the hills of utah abundant with deer.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So there isn't any natural selection in mule deer? Mother Nature played another joke on the mature mule deer buck. Made him run around with all them horns burning precious calories for no benefit.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

One last thought. 

Mule deer buck should rub their velvet in April and May.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> So there isn't any natural selection in mule deer? Mother Nature played another joke on the mature mule deer buck. Made him run around with all them horns burning precious calories for no benefit.


With DNA research, they now know long ago 1 species of deer was in America, and got divided into east coast and west coast by glaciers. These seperated groups evolved into Whitetail and Blacktail deer. Over time, where the two overlapped, a new hybrid was created: Mule Deer. Do some research on it, its fairly fascinating stuff. I'm not sure where the Coues deer fit into this though.

-DallanC


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

7 Bucks per 100 Does? Must be that long Archery season and the 86% Harvest Rate,after all the Rifle Hunters And Muzzy Hunters % rate is oh so low<:grin:


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I hate to point out the obvious, but at some point the B/D ratio will affect recruitment rates. Taking it to an extreme, when the ratio reaches 0% there will be no pregnant does. Therefore, at some percentage (I don't know the number) the B/D ratio will have an effect.

Also, at some point issuing more buck permits will not result in significantly increased hunting success. Suppose, for example, that enough tags were issued to take 95% of the bucks every year, and for simplicity assume that the only buck mortality was from hunting. Later, if enough tags were issued to take 99.9% of bucks it would only increase the harvest by 4.9%, not a very big change in harvest rate, but it would be a catastrophic change in the number of surviving bucks.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Smoke and mirrors massmanute. Most of us just want to hunt deer every year, we just want to hunt, for hell sake, what don't you guys get about that. 

We don't give a crap if there is one buck or fifty thousand. As long as enough does get bred to create a few bucks every year, that's all we're concerned about. Check out the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and wake up. 

Hunting every year, that's all, it's just that simple. If you turn every hunter in Utah loose with the best equipment technology can provide we'll never kill ever buck on the mountain. Therefore the does get bred and the fawns are born every year and we want to hunt them. There are enough bucks left of private land every year to far exceed the number needed to bred the does. Next thing you know some jerk is going to try to tell you the bucks on private land won't leave the private to bred the does on public land.

There never has been and never will be a biological reason to keep a single hunter from having a tag to hunt deer. The more hunters, the more the deer move, the greater the chance a of killing a buck. The less hunters the fewer bucks are killed and buck numbers need to be kept to a minimum. 

Bucks eat winter feed thus starving the does and there fawns. Bucks fight and kill other bucks, wasting bucks hunters could have shot. Bucks cause vehicle accidents during the rut, running without regard onto highways causing unnecessary auto wrecks. The very last thing we need are extra bucks. In truth, as hunters we'd be better off if predators took more bucks, not less.

If the DWR was doing it's job, they would be extending season dates to ensure there is no carry over of extra bucks, especially during years when weather conditions prevent hunters from accessing better deer country. How often do we have an early snow, that forces hunters out of the mountains early and the next year you see all of these older bucks running around. If they'd extend the season, this would not happen. More hunters could fill there tags and keep those bucks from carrying over, wasting limited forage, and killing each other during the rut.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It drives me nuts getting on this forum and reading how guys are complaining
about "Not being able to hunt every year" ????????????

REALY? --- It's no one falt but your own if you dont have a tag!!!!!!!!-- OR TWO!

Hell, buy a spike elk permit, Then buy a cow controll permit, hunt TWO elk on
the Wasatch, I-80 to Hwy 6 clear to Duchane..........

Times change, CHANGE WITH THEM !!!!!!!!!!... Or just sit back and bitch!.....


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Recap. 
Who is supporting less than 15-100 B2D??

Excess bucks don't do squat. 

Goofy swallowed the Wayne County hook 
Up to the swivel.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Gbell,

If you want 15/100, then why are you upset? Thats what the GS are managed for. They cant get it on the dot all the time. Some units are 14/100 and some 16 or 17/100. Other than a handful of LE areas. Is that what you are upset about as far as GS goes? That extra 1/100? Dang buck messing up our ratio...


You keep saying i hunt every 3/4. I hunt mule deer, in utah, every year. Same as elk.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Times change, CHANGE WITH THEM !!!!!!!!!!... Or just sit back and bitch!.....


What? Anybody who's hunted big game for more than a couple years has seen plenty of changes. Regulations used to be reasonably stable; now they change every year.

But if we're going to walk our talk about being conservationists, changing with the times isn't always an option. Sure, we can blow around like dead leaves in the wind. But with hunter recruitment dropping, rampant human population growth, habitat loss and degradation, attempts to privatize public lands, commercialization that sets ridiculous hunter expectations, etc., we need to do better than that.

Bet you actually think the same thing.

"Even a dead fish can go with the flow." - Jim Hightower


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, supposedly, they have issued more buck tags on Monroe because they realized that they have UNDER SUBSCRIBED the unit. My Uncle got a call a little bit ago and asked if he wanted a tag. He said yes, but why? They told him that they under subscribed the unit. 
****, they finally have some deer coming back and they want to kill every last one of them. 
However, this last weekend while on Monroe, We saw lots of little bucks. The buck to doe ratio we saw and counted as pretty close to 40/60 split. But thats lots of 2's and small 3s and spikes. But they were bucks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder what the coyote study has to do with Monroe's boom in little buck. I too am witnessing.


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

osageorange said:


> If you turn every hunter in Utah loose with the best equipment technology can provide we'll never kill ever buck on the mountain.


Wow! And I suppose the story that open sights and rudimentary cartridges took bison down from millons to less than 1,000 is just fiction?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

^^^and we have a winner^^^

High success low opportunity philosophy is the
Norm in Utah. 

This is why I have a problem. This philosophy
Has been proven non beneficial to growing overall
Populations, but is popular amongst that crowd. 

So the question remains, if you could hunt the Henry's 
Twice in your lifetime or the Wasatch Front Extended 
Every year, which philosophy are you gonna choose?

I realize the above example is extreme but it accurately
Reflects the dilemma.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why not replace a few hundred natural predators with about 10000 hunters. 

Why do we have to have capacity cougar? 

And don't give me the houndsman bs. Theres only 50 of them. The DWR and whoever else has no problem placating 100,000 deer hunters.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I thought it was well established YEARS ago that the number at which herds started to decrease was >11/100 buck to doe. This study, with both study groups well over that ratio tells us absolutely nothing new. 
What more bucks to doe ratio does is help us sell tags.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Good thought Clarina, and a great picture to support your argument. But you loose, sorry, those are cow buffalo heads son. We don't kill females, remember, we just sell buck tags.
Bucks are a waste to the population.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I wonder what the coyote study has to do with Monroe's boom in little buck. I too am witnessing.


What did I tell you 4 years ago about coyote's on Monroe???..


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'll give you that.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Not to worry ample hunters will share the "truth behind the hype" that reducing coyotes on the Monroe has had nothing what ever to do with an increase in deer. Nothing. Or so little as to make removing coyotes a ridiculous waste of money. The recent near perfect deer production weather has worked it's magic, as we knew it would. With near perfect weather, more deer, more bucks, more tags, more hunters. Will the number of deer decline again, it will, as soon as the current weather pattern changes and works against increased deer population, in matter of a few years, give or take.

Trying to control deer populations is old and faulty science. Besides, the number of hunters on the Monroe or any other mountain will have no effect on the doe population one way or the other. How many times does that need to be repeated by wildlife scientists before hunters get it through there heads.

Example- in the faulty science years of the past entire deer units have been closed to hunting for years at a time by deer managers, during the years when the area has been closed to hunting it hasn't increased the doe population by a single animal. The only increase has been in the number of bucks. Not a single doe has been added to the population, due to the closure. Why do you think they never close an area to deer hunting anymore. All it ever did was put more worthless bucks in the area. Worthless in that those bucks produce zip in the way of growing more deer. 

Area closers have always been a fool hardy loss of hunting for no justifiable reason as have 99% of the other less restrictive but equally foolish measures imposed on hunters of the past. 

The light has finally gone on. Goofy, Critter RamdomElk know it, but won't admit it, DallanC, Finnegan, Gbell, JuddCT know it as do most of the regulars on here. Maybe Iron Bear is the exception, not sure what the Iron Bear knows. Never again will there be fewer deer tags. If anything is going to change it will be a lifting of Leavitt's misguided 97,000 tag ceiling. Watch and see.

Sleep well, our tags are safe.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I know that hunter harvest and predation are compensatory in terms of overall deer population as you have hinted to. So a buck I don't kill is cougar food. Only problem is I only get to hunt in august during daylight and I only get to shoot one buck. A predator has no restrictions. So yes close hunting down all together and do nothing about predators and you will see little to no gain in population. Just more buck. Now the real question that is unanswered is are deer at capacity. Which is a in answered question and is not answered by the fact that the population has not increased or has been relatively stable. 

As for the Monroe in particular I will be happy to explain the if's and's or why's on that unit. When I can get to a PC. I'm going cross eyed on this phone.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It is really too bad I don't have more time for this.

On page 2 of this study, another study conducted By Chad Bishop in Colorado was cited. It reads as follows:

"In response to apparent declining mule deer (_Odocoileus hemionus_) numbers in Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment is not justified in Colorado."

In a nut shell, higher buck to doe ratios reduce deer numbers, it is that simple. If you guys keep asking for less deer, don't be surprised when you get........oh yeah, less deer.

Combine the effects of higher buck to doe ratios, because of reduced buck harvest, with hormone disruption that further drives deer health down, and at times increases at birth sex ratios from ~50:50 to as much as 66:33 in favor of males, and you have the perfect recipe for deer herd suppression, and continuing decline.

Hormone disruption? That would be the chemically induced hormone disruption that drives internal selenium, zinc, copper, and magnesium deficiencies, that are exacerbated when conditions drive environmental deficiencies of these elements. Internal, hormonally driven deficiencies verses environmental deficiencies: When hormone disruption occurs, and the endocrine system, specifically the thyroid is damaged, it induces auto immune conditions. Under these circumstances, internal demand for selenium, copper, zinc, and magnesium, are increased, and animals become susceptible to a myriad of diseases and conditions. This sort of deficiency can many times only be detected by liver assay, simple blood tests do not show deficiencies. In the case of environmental deficiencies, it is driven by external circumstances such as grass tetany, and nitrate deposition. This sort of deficiency can become the point that drives hormonally deficient animals over the edge, into crash.

Now everyone please tell me how it is that we had lower buck to doe ratios back in the good old days, lots of bucks(because we had lots of deer), lots of hunters, and big bucks. Are you going to tell me that was not the case?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And since I won't be back for awhile, lets not forget the other major pieces of Western mule deer science that have come about in the last decade. First being that predator control has not been shown to be able to increase mule deer numbers, these studies have been posted several times here. And secondly, the only thing that has been shown to increase deer populations, is nutritional inputs. This includes both micro nutrients such as the dramatic effects of selenium supplementation conducted by Flueck with black tailed deer in Northern California, and macro-nutritional supplementation conducted by Bishop in Colorado. Again these things have been covered, numerous times. And then we have the issues of hormone disruption(formerly, very much related to, and still known as selenium deficiency here), that has not really been studied, because everyone is scared to ****ing death to touch it. This may well have larger implications than several other issues combined, relates very much to nutrition, and has implications for all wildlife.

All you "quality", higher buck to doe ratio, antler restriction, hunter restriction, predator control guys, don't have a leg to stand on, you never did, and you never will. You are a part of the problem, and have been for 20 years, advocating for policies that are detrimental to mule deer and hunting, while diverting much needed resources away from areas that could actually help to increase the understanding of mule deer, while growing more of them, rather than wasting our time and money on bull **** scams and schemes like predator bounties, micro units, hunter management, and every other ploy that has been shown to not work over and over again.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Good thing they didn't reintroduce wolf in utah before we started to grow the elk herd. See 2000 wolf in utah would have pulled the plug on growing an elk herd. Didn't have much to do with weather selenium cars or atvs. Elk enjoyed 30 yrs with humans doing a major majority of the killing. Which we can control. Predation on the other hand is unregulated. And left alone predation will reach capacity. One predation is at or near capacity we start to see reduction in herd size. 

Guys like to remind us that's buck do not give birth. But do they also realize that a dead doe does not give birth also.

Unfortunately Mother Nature never accounted for a general hunt. Our harvest is new to the equation. We can't hunt indiscriminately and not expect to see effects. 

In my house I have a budget. If a new person moves in with us I must make financial adjustments to compensate for the extra burden. So if we are to facilitate a general hunt where 100,000 hunters expect to go afield and then harvest 25K or more deer. We can't have capacity predation. Good weather or not.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Hunters are the new person in the house in case anyone missed that part. So we must compensate.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> Good thing they didn't reintroduce wolf in utah before we started to grow the elk herd. See 2000 wolf in utah would have pulled the plug on growing an elk herd. Didn't have much to do with weather selenium cars or atvs. Elk enjoyed 30 yrs with humans doing a major majority of the killing. Which we can control. Predation on the other hand is unregulated. And left alone predation will reach capacity. One predation is at or near capacity we start to see reduction in herd size.
> 
> Guys like to remind us that's buck do not give birth. But do they also realize that a dead doe does not give birth also.
> 
> ...


You know Iron Bear at one point I would have agreed fully. I liked higher buck:doe ratio's, and I liked the thought of predator control doing some good. I've read a lot over the past year and the past few months especially. Studies on mule deer for the most part, or things closely related to mule deer. Predators are for the most part picking off the weak or sick that would many times die eventually anyway. What makes an animal weak, sick, or more suseptible to disease? Nutritional deficiencies. See you might look at predation as the root cause when in reality most animals that fall prey to predators would have died anyway. Predator control has been proven to do little or no good. I believe in predator control for small game, such as pheasants, chukars, grouse, waterfowl, etc. so I guess predator control in our state may be helping something but one things for sure, it's having little effect on big game populations. Now as for our deer herd compensating for a GS hunt, let me ask you this, do you really believe harvest of rooster pheasants is the reason our state has very few wild pheasants left? NO, because you only need one male for 10-12 hens, the problem is those 10-12 hens don't exist because the necassary habitat they need does not exist. If you had a few males and bunch of hens a population could rebound very quickly, if you have 10 roosters and 1 hen it isn't going to rebound very well. Our deer herd is missing and being effected by more than predators which have been proven to do little good with control of, and higher than needed buck:doe ratio's. Every time I see or hear people talking about predator control I just kind of laugh, because they have just believed what they have heard over the years and not looked into other more important reasons as to why our wildlife have been in decline. Do your self a favor, look into it, read all the studies you can find and then read some more, I think you'll be surprised what you find out the more research you do.We can't continue to waste time and resources on things like predator control that will yield no results for now or the future, we need to find the problems, research them, and fix them. The past 30 years of management in Utah for mule deer have just been spinning wheels, we really haven't gotten anywhere now have we? We have to stop wasting our time.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I guess you are just faith based. Because you have to assume that the deer transplanted in the study here in Utah would have died for some other reason than the cougar or coyote that killed it. And then you worry about a few poaching here and there as if they had any bearing on the deer herd. So I guess it's back to how you stand, on 2 legs or 4 that makes a difference in if your kill maters or not. Again these studies often sight body condition and the lack of body fat and conclude forage must be poor. Let's not over complicate wildlife management for simple animal husbandry. Put a pack of wolf outside your cattle herd or a cougar near your flock of sheep and see what that does to their body condition. Do that to them 24/7/365 and just watch. Make them winter with predators and see what happens to body condition. And it won't matter how good the graze is. Because they will spend more time and energy trying not to be eaten. We know shed hunters can have a negative effect on deer because they scare them. Yet shed hunters only hunt during the daylight mostly on the weekends. And never has a shed hunter sprung out of nowhere and suffocated or bled out a deer. So yes the deer are probably concerned about a shed hunter bumping into them. But I bet nothing gets the heart pumping like the sight sounds and smell of a cougar and it's kills. By the way happen over 100,000 times a yr in Utah. 

I bet you the howls of a coyote will freeze a fawn right out of feeding and send the mother packing. So to deny predation as a factor only when it comes to mule deer is not only ignorant and suspect but down right offensive to my sensibilities. So I will openly admit I overplay the predation card here but primarily due to the amount of denial that exists here on the topic. You guys can go on for pages expressing all the reasons for deer decline and many time not until I chime in is the word predator or cougar even mentioned. But by god a poaching happens and some here will literally call for the death penalty. Habitat! Since you need a study to tell you how it works where has habitat restoration ever increased deer. At best we can only say if we hadn't then? What? I would have only seen 3 buck instead of 4 during my 2 week long archery hunt. I'm just a tougher sale then that. 

If I could somehow bring back the widespread use of 1080 poisons then you would assume our weather and habitat has really make a turn for the better. That's a funny thought.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> I thought it was well established YEARS ago that the number at which herds started to decrease was >11/100 buck to doe. This study, with both study groups well over that ratio tells us absolutely nothing new.
> What more bucks to doe ratio does is help us sell tags.


I don't know anything about the history of this study, but I know a little bit about its context. Recruitment is not what we'd like it to be on many units and on a few units, recruitment is too low to sustain the population.

So, since at least 2008, a growing number of hunters have been calling for an increase of the B/D ratio on general season units from 15/100 to 25/100. These guys adamantly insist that higher ratios are needed for successful fawn production. Obviously, the same people also advocate antler restrictions and more tag reductions.

Not coincidentally, Biologist Todd Black offered a theory that does aren't being bred during the first estrus because there aren't enough mature bucks to cover them all. Fawns bred during the 2nd estrus are born late and are therefore less likely to survive. If his theory were to be correct, trophy hunters would finally have some biology on their side

Because it only involves two units, this study doesn't disprove Todd's theory. It only shows that higher B/D ratios don't improve recruitment...one perceived remediation to a theoretical problem.

There's mountains of evidence to show that another popular idea doesn't work - antler restrictions. But then the DWR kissed the trophy crowd right on their tushes when they implemented management hunts (antler restrictions) on the Pauns and Henries anyway.

I don't think this study is necessarily significant, but it takes us one more page into the story. It's the next page that worries me...age class management for ALL units. That fight's coming soon and I'm not taking bets on a winner. This is Utah, after all.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

Iron Bear, I agree with you. I know that predators are not the main reason of our deer decline. But IT PLAYS A HUGE FACTOR! Let me explain:
So my dad grew up in southern Utah. His family were sheep herders. I remember stories of them killing yotes and cougars to help keep the sheep alive. This was back in the 50-60's. My dad died 10 years ago, and how I wish I could talk to him about this. But I remember him talk about poisons and bounties to help his sheep. I think he said the bounty was more for fun, but cant remember for sure. But he said the more predators they killed, the better the sheep were for the summer on the mountain. That was a common practice back then, poison and killing on sight. It was also that time, before and during, that they did alot of chaining. This is also the same time know as the "GOOD OLD DAYS". So is this a coincidence or mother nature at her best? I would like to believe all of the above. 

I would love to see poison re introduced. Be we know that wont happen. I do believe, however, that predators, people, cars, habitat, shed hunters, scouting, vehicles, access to more land by roads year around, and my list could go on, has some impact on the deer. The deer are literally chased 365 days a year by humans. 365 days a year by predators. Back in the Good Old days, they were chased by 300,000 people for 2 weeks. Then they had to deal with the limited predators for the rest of the time. 

Now this is just my opinion. NO FACTS or SCIENCE behind this. Just what I THINK AND WHAT MY DAD EXPERIENCED.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> I guess you are just faith based. Because you have to assume that the deer transplanted in the study here in Utah would have died for some other reason than the cougar or coyote that killed it. And then you worry about a few poaching here and there as if they had any bearing on the deer herd. So I guess it's back to how you stand, on 2 legs or 4 that makes a difference in if your kill maters or not. Again these studies often sight body condition and the lack of body fat and conclude forage must be poor. Let's not over complicate wildlife management for simple animal husbandry. Put a pack of wolf outside your cattle herd or a cougar near your flock of sheep and see what that does to their body condition. Do that to them 24/7/365 and just watch. Make them winter with predators and see what happens to body condition. And it won't matter how good the graze is. Because they will spend more time and energy trying not to be eaten. We know shed hunters can have a negative effect on deer because they scare them. Yet shed hunters only hunt during the daylight mostly on the weekends. And never has a shed hunter sprung out of nowhere and suffocated or bled out a deer. So yes the deer are probably concerned about a shed hunter bumping into them. But I bet nothing gets the heart pumping like the sight sounds and smell of a cougar and it's kills. By the way happen over 100,000 times a yr in Utah.
> 
> I bet you the howls of a coyote will freeze a fawn right out of feeding and send the mother packing. So to deny predation as a factor only when it comes to mule deer is not only ignorant and suspect but down right offensive to my sensibilities. So I will openly admit I overplay the predation card here but primarily due to the amount of denial that exists here on the topic. You guys can go on for pages expressing all the reasons for deer decline and many time not until I chime in is the word predator or cougar even mentioned. But by god a poaching happens and some here will literally call for the death penalty. Habitat! Since you need a study to tell you how it works where has habitat restoration ever increased deer. At best we can only say if we hadn't then? What? I would have only seen 3 buck instead of 4 during my 2 week long archery hunt. I'm just a tougher sale then that.
> 
> If I could somehow bring back the widespread use of 1080 poisons then you would assume our weather and habitat has really make a turn for the better. That's a funny thought.


Okay lets tear this apart. First the poaching thing, if people were left to think they could poach all the time and anyone could poach without consequences it would have a very negative effect and would hurt our herds. That is why I post poaching cases, not because it is having an extensive effect on our herds but because it is illegal, and you can't let people get away with it or they'll just keep doing it and more people will do it. They're stealing from me and you, and yes I will always have a problem with the POS who shoot things out of season and/or waste them.

As for putting a coyote or cougar on my cattle, they aren't wild, deer and elk have always dealt with predators, it's healthy for a herd to have sick and weak animals taken out of the herd so the better suited genes and animals survive. You know that thing about the strong survive while the weak traits die off, it's supposed to happen in a natural environment. You can't compare cattle to deer/elk/etc. it's just a ridiculously stupid comparison.

As for you not being easily convinced of these other reasons, you are very easily convinced that the one constant thing deer and elk have always dealt with is the biggest problem. What hasn't changed over all these decades, the predators. A lot of habitat has been destroyed, deficiencies have become more common as well as abnormalities, and yet you think that the thing that has remained the same predators is what is causing declines? Lions numbers are very low, and what proof do you have that coyote populations have boomed and effected the deer population? There's no real proof or research proving that point, there is research disproving it though. So tell me other than the old tale you've heard from old guys around town, what proof do you have? Of course coyotes and cougars eat deer, but do you really believe they are limiting a statewide herd from having 100,000 more added to it? There's bigger issues at hand.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

1I, I wished it was just people brother!!

The Wildlife Board bought in to this crap and went
Rogue essentially doing what PETA and HSUS could
Never do in this state. Take hunters out of the field. 

It's time to attack the social aspect of deer management
In Utah. If this management plan is not a benefit
To our herds then why continue with it. 

I got a full copy of the study forwarded to me, not
Just the abstract and have corresponded with one
Of the authors. You all know my stance on mule deer
Fecundity, and the full text spells out my beliefs. If habitat
Is suspect, excess bucks do in fact have an effect
On pregnant doe's and the viability of their young. 
How many twin fawns are we giving up to feed a buck??


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

1 eye you want to talk about predation making the herd stronger and passing on superior genes. But managing for a 15/100 b/d ratio is not negatively effecting the gene pool? 

So doe's don't care who breeds them? Any ole button head will do? What about the greater good when it comes to that. 


So because deer have lived with predators for ages they aren't scared of them? Don't look now but that deer in the hills today is less than 8 yrs old and doesn't know that it has been dealing with cougar for eons. So it's scared as heck of that cat and is loosing weight trying to avoid it. Just like a sheep or cow would be. Domesticated or not.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

heres a thought why doesnt the DNR start farm raising bucks and then they can go dump them out in the areas to populate the areas...they do this with fish 

haha im just kidding


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

phorisc said:


> heres a thought why doesnt the DNR start farm raising bucks and then they can go dump them out in the areas to populate the areas...they do this with fish
> 
> haha im just kidding


And pheasants, too.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> 1 eye you want to talk about predation making the herd stronger and passing on superior genes. But managing for a 15/100 b/d ratio is not negatively effecting the gene pool?
> 
> So doe's don't care who breeds them? Any ole button head will do? What about the greater good when it comes to that.
> 
> So because deer have lived with predators for ages they aren't scared of them? Don't look now but that deer in the hills today is less than 8 yrs old and doesn't know that it has been dealing with cougar for eons. So it's scared as heck of that cat and is loosing weight trying to avoid it. Just like a sheep or cow would be. Domesticated or not.


Okay Iron Bear I'm guessing that when deer populations were booming those deer weren't afraid of predators or worried about them were they? That stress has always been there predators are nothing new or something that have significantly changed over the last 3 decades we've watched the decline. Something else is wrong UNDERSTAND THAT. The Monroe had some of the lowest buck:doe ratios in the state when the fawn study started, and yet 90% of does were bred, so I doubt an excess of bucks is gonna rebound our herd.


----------



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

phorisc said:


> heres a thought why doesnt the DNR start farm raising bucks and then they can go dump them out in the areas to populate the areas...they do this with fish
> 
> haha im just kidding


Seems to be what were doing with pheasants and other upland species because we have an incompetent state wildlife agency interested in dollar signs instead of sustainable wildlife management.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay lets tear this apart. First the poaching thing, if people were left to think they could poach all the time and anyone could poach without consequences it would have a very negative effect and would hurt our herds. That is why I post poaching cases, not because it is having an extensive effect on our herds but because it is illegal, and you can't let people get away with it or they'll just keep doing it and more people will do it. They're stealing from me and you, and yes I will always have a problem with the POS who shoot things out of season and/or waste them.
> 
> As for putting a coyote or cougar on my cattle, they aren't wild, deer and elk have always dealt with predators, it's healthy for a herd to have sick and weak animals taken out of the herd so the better suited genes and animals survive. You know that thing about the strong survive while the weak traits die off, it's supposed to happen in a natural environment. You can't compare cattle to deer/elk/etc. it's just a ridiculously stupid comparison.
> 
> As for you not being easily convinced of these other reasons, you are very easily convinced that the one constant thing deer and elk have always dealt with is the biggest problem. What hasn't changed over all these decades, the predators. A lot of habitat has been destroyed, deficiencies have become more common as well as abnormalities, and yet you think that the thing that has remained the same predators is what is causing declines? Lions numbers are very low, and what proof do you have that coyote populations have boomed and effected the deer population? There's no real proof or research proving that point, there is research disproving it though. So tell me other than the old tale you've heard from old guys around town, what proof do you have? Of course coyotes and cougars eat deer, but do you really believe they are limiting a statewide herd from having 100,000 more added to it? There's bigger issues at hand.


so many holes in that it didn't need torn.

Once somebody, anybody can definitively prove what areas have compensatory versus additive predation in light of all of the other factors such as habitat, road kill, drought, fawn recruitment and the timing of such, etc. etc. etc......you may have something.

One thing I have found..........of all those that are very well studied on predation, I have yet to see ANYBODY that can provide foolproof data that can define ANY area as being one or the other. The fall back theory always becomes that all areas, in reality, are at full carrying capacity at any moment in time so it must be compensatory predation. The argument is thin at best. I have read wolf activists harp that tune for years.


----------



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

Iron Bear we are all in this because we want to see the best for our wildlife , but we can't spin our wheels on things we've tried that haven't worked or we are accomplishing nothing. I don't have your answer as to what exactly needs to be done, but killing predators isn't going to save mule deer I think if you educate yourself a little on the subject you'll agree it's a bottomless pit with minimal to no results.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I would say the same about pouring millions into habitat. Which by the way is the vehicle that SFW and conservation tags use to make hunting a high dollar affair. When the state or conservation group pimps out a tag to the highest bidder for hundreds of thousands of dollars I suppose it puts since fuzzy warm blanket over since it's for a good cause. 

I say the same to habitat restoration. Where's the beef?


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> I would say the same about pouring millions into habitat. Which by the way is the vehicle that SFW and conservation tags use to make hunting a high dollar affair. When the state or conservation group pimps out a tag to the highest bidder for hundreds of thousands of dollars I suppose it puts since fuzzy warm blanket over since it's for a good cause.
> 
> I say the same to habitat restoration. Where's the beef?


Isn't the fact that you have to have food and water to live proof?


----------



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

If I put a cow in a field with not much forage and a cow in a field with lots of forage which do you think will survive and do better? I mean we are still comparing cows and deer aren't we?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

There is plenty of deer food out there for as many deer as we have today. For the most part restoration efforts on Monroe have served to reduce capacity for deer and increase capacity for cattle and elk. Dixie harrowing to be specific.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> If I put a cow in a field with not much forage and a cow in a field with lots of forage which do you think will survive and do better? I mean we are still comparing cows and deer aren't we?


The one that doesn't have a grizzly bear in it.


----------



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

Iron Bear said:


> The one that doesn't have a grizzly bear in it.


But the coyote and cougar has always been there, don't you understand that? Something else is wrong, something has changed to create such declines.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

No not too many cougars from the. 30s to the late 70s. 

Since cougar live on deer and we want to hunt deer so much. Cougar should be managed on a per deer basis rather than on a per acre basis. I'll let the degrees figure out the best ratio.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Another thought 1 eye, what makes you so sure that predator reduction and removal has nothing to do with increasing a deer herd. And has never worked or resulted in an increase in deer. 

I can name a few units. Pine valley Zion panguitch east canyon. I've been told of them taking a bunch of cat off of Spanish fork and had a boom in deer the yrs following. So it's not as if there is no evidence of predator control not working as a tool to help increase populations. The question as Mr Muleskinner has pointed out is are the deer at capacity or not. A question not answered just assumed. I remember the winter of 83 and we very we'll may have been at capacity then. And with a bad winter we had a true winter kill and 100s if not 1000s of deer right in town. Now for the most part deer in town are year round residents. Which I don't blame them. I'd rather listen to a pet dog that's all bark and no bite then live terrified that the cougar over there that killed my buddy last week was about to get me. (Bountiful UT)


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Habitat is a worthy investment, I'm no fan of wealth
Tags and the management baggage it brings
But when sportsmen and taxpayers invest a ton of cash
It sure makes it unpopular to sell and develop that acreage. 

Canine and feline predation reduction is a maintenance
Item. Mostly a feel good type deal that has minimal effect. 

Coyotes have to be targeted geographically and killed
At a specific time of year or it basically don't do 
A whole hell of a lot. If we've got a bunch of dudes out killing
Non pregnant females and a few males the litters born
In the spring ensure that there won't be much of a dent. 
If you target one unit and hit it after the females have been 
Bred with a lot of kills you take care of the litter of the year
Plus the dogs killed. 

Cats... Will continue to be protected wildlife and reducing their numbers
Will be like pulling teeth. 

Anecdotally, the area I hunt on the front is full of coyotes and the herd has
Been stable in that area for the 20 years I've been hunting there.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

IB
They took a bunch of cats off timpanogos and the deer herd temporarily boomed. Until the cats came back


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I am not a biologist, but let me propose an idea that might get me criticized from all directions. Maybe the problem with the declining deer herd is not a one-dimensional problem. Maybe it's multifactorial.


That said, my own pet theory is that the biggest factor causing the decline in the deer herd is loss of habitat, most likely loss of good winter range. Like I said, I'm not a biologist, but that's what makes the most sense to me.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I just found an interesting study by George E. Gruell titled "Post-1900 Mule Deer lrruptions In The lntermountain West: Principle Cause and Influences". The date of the study was 1986.

The Conclusion and Management Implications section included the following statement.

_Of four hypotheses that may have favored mule_
_deer population increases between the early 1930's_
_and mid-1960's, the most likely is that successional_
_changes in deer habitat were primarily responsible._
_Much evidence shows that woody plants preferred_
_by mule deer markedly increased in mountain val-_
_leys and on slopes of the Intermountain West fol-_
_lowing settlement. Succession to shrubs and trees_
_seems to have mainly resulted from livestock graz-_
_ing and a marked decrease in fire occurrence. Con-_
_servation measures, predator control, and livestock_
_reductions all complemented the habitat improve-_
_ment that led to population increases._
_Toward the end of the 20th century, the condition_
_of mule deer habitats in_
_Urban expansion onto mule deer habitat has, of _
_course, been an increasing problem in recent years. _
_This underscores the need to maintain productive _
_deer ranges elsewhere. _
_Mule deer habitats reached optimum levels during _
_and following a period of extreme disturbance by _
_livestock grazing, logging, and fire. Considering the _
_current approach to wildland management, it is _
_unlikely that these lands will again be disturbed as _
_extensively as they were formerly. Thus, mule deer _
_habitats will continue to decline in both area and _
_quality by loss to human development and succes-_
_ sional advances. _

The Research Summary includes the following statement.

_This report evaluates four hypotheses for the_
_dramatic increase in mule deer populations that_
_occurred in the lntermountain West between the early_
_1930's and mid-1960's:_
_1. Succession of rangelands from grass dominance_
_to dominance by woody plants created vast expanses_
_of optimum mule deer habitat._
_2. Conversion of coniferous forests to shrubfields_
_by logging and wildfire improved mule deer habitat,_
_especially the availability of browse._
_3. Conservation and predator control dramatically_
_reduced deer mortality._
_4. Reductions in numbers of livestock on the open_
_range increased the amount of forage available to_
_mule deer._
_The author's investigations of mule deer popula-_
_tions, mule deer ecology, and long-term trends in plant_
_communites support hypothesis 1-succession of_
_grasses to woody plants was the principal cause of_
_the mule deer lrruptions; the remaining hypothetical_
_factors contributed but were not critical. The invasion_
_of woody plants was set in motion by intensive graz-_
_ing, which suppressed or eliminated competing_
_grasses, and by a marked reduction in the size, inten-_
_sity, and frequency of tires, which had periodically_
_eliminated and suppressed woody plants, and had_
_maintained ranges that were predominantly bunch-_
_grasses. The absence of fire was brought about by the_
_reduction in potential fuels by intensive grazing, elimi-_
_nation of Indian ignitions, breakup of fuel continuity_
_by development of ranches, communities, and roads,_
_and organized fire suppression._
_Conversion of forests to shrubfields by logging and_
_wildfire affected a relatively small part of the West,_
_hence had localized impact on deer numbers. Simi-_
_larly, conservation and predator control, and reduc-_
_tions in livestock numbers, alone could not have been_
_more than contributing factors._
_Mule deer habitats reached the optimum balance of_
_trees, shrubs, and herbs during and following a period_
_of extreme disturbance by livestock grazing and_
_absence of fire on the open range, and fire and log-_
_ging in the forests. ln recent decades this habitat has_
_deteriorated as succession proceeds toward overly_
_large, dense stands of shrubs and trees that are not_
_as productive as in former years. The productivity of_
_mule deer habitats in the lntermountain West can only_
_be restored and maintained by reintroducing or_
_simulating the perturbations that created them: judi-_
_cious use of grazing, logging, and prescribed fire._


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

^^only study or paper I actually believe


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Timpanogas yes. Not Spanish fork. Thanks SW. 

Habitat is important no doubt about that. And habitat is certainly the reason we will never see a million deer in utah again. But habitat is not the reason we only have 300K deer. 

Back to bass akward management. What if the DWR rac and W/B went to managing hunters on a per acre basis. Never mind how many deer are in a unit. The DWR could asses the quality of hunting habitat in a unit then set tags based on how many acres a unit has not deer. Then what if they sold tags OTC and didn't record how many they sold. So it was anybody's guess how many hunters were actually there. 

Wouldn't that just be as stupid as can be. Then when someone suggested maybe we should get a handle on these hunters. The DWR says oh the deer those hunters are killing would have just died some other way so stuff it. Besides there are 50 guys out there who think we don't issue enough tags and we can't cut tags and pi ss them off.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

^^^Bear the above is irrelevant as long as
We are talking about killing BUCKS and buck to
Doe ratios are maintained. 

If buck to doe falls below 15, then restrictions
Should kick in, JUST LIKE THE 2008 PLAN SPELLED
OUT.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Back the the river then. 

If upwards of 100k deer being killed is irrelevant,


----------



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

Iron Bear the quality of the habitat can be very limiting though. Do you think the west that has been and is continuing to be destroyed by cheat grass is as beneficial to wildlife as it was before cheat grass won the west? I firmly believe if you could find a way to get rid of this terrible grass that causes frequent fires, has a short growing season, and is all but worthless as a food source you would have better deer numbers, but we haven't really fought it off yet in anyway. I've seen a few attempts, problem is what they find that will kill cheat grass usually doesn't allow anything to grow in an area, it's very resilient. It also effects the soil and how the other plants around it get their nutrients. It basically makes it so it is the only thing that can grow well wherever it is. Anyway back to deer harvest. I like you used to believe that more bucks would help the population, but do some research and take a step back and really think about it. Why would an excess of bucks in a population be doing any good? It would just be taking food out of doe's and fawns mouths during critical winter months, that's why hunts are placed where they are placed as well. You don't need more bucks when 90% of the does in an area are being bred with a 13-14:100 buck to doe ratio, you just don't need it, you need to figure out why you are getting good breeding results but what the problem is after that as to why your herd can't rebound and grow. I don't believe our state is anywhere near carrying capacity, habitat work is great and I think we can all agree on that, but the problem hasn't been fixed, we've tried these things like predator control and the likes before, it doesn't cause the herd to rebound, lets stop making the same decisions hoping for different results.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Bear, we haven't killed 100k deer in years. With 90K hunters and
An overall success rate of 30% we aren't even killing a third
Of that. 

Still, if the post hunt buck to die ratio is above
15-100 there's no biological reason not to kill 300k. 

I'll say it again. If the doe's are being bred let people hunt.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I was saying that cougar kill upwards of 100K. But who knows for sure. Because we turn a blind eye to cougar. We don't know how many there are. We don't know how many there should be. All we do is chalk it up to compensatory and ignore the issue and cut cougar tags when houndsman say we need to. 

1 eye if the deer herd is not at capacity that buck isn't going to stave a fawn out. 

Just for the record I'm not advocating for high b/d ratios. I do however question suppressing b/d ratios to the margin. Especially when a majority of the buck left to do the breeding are spike and 2 pt. I also want to ask the question. If low b/d ratios are no problem for deer. And a natural b/d ratio like 40/100 are a recipe for disaster. How did mule deer ever make it to the yr 2000 without going extinct. 

Did 50,000 yrs of evolution somehow get it wrong?

Why do we only suppress male female ratios in deer but no other species. 

Accept for domesticated animals and we both know that none of the rules that apply to wild animals apply to domesticated animals. There are no animal husbandry lessons we have learned in the domestic world that can be applied to wildlife. Right! You just can't compare the 2.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

:grin:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

I remember when Doug Miller (may he rest in peace ) And the DWR said Sage in Southern Utah was dying off and it's destroying the deer herds, I almost fell off my couch. I had just finished off an archery hunt.. I stumbled over all that dying Sage for 5 days. I'am six foot. and most of that stuff you couldn't see over.. Guess what? it's no different 7 years later. Granted some loss of habit.. Does 50 years of miss management factor in here with anyone?


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Doug Miller was a smart man, and seemingly a very nice man. He was smart enough to know, as are the current outdoor media programers, that you speak the party line or your access to the department goes south on you. If the dept. goes south on you, your television show goes south shortly thereafter. 

I'm guessing Mr. Miller didn't know a dying sagebrush steppe from a moon rock. He was quoting dept. professionals, as he was inclined to do, whether he believed them or not, and why wouldn't he believe them? After all, they've never been wrong in the past, unless you mean this time on the sagebrush prediction your referring too. Nobodies perfect you know. You ever been wrong about anything?


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So there isn't any natural selection in mule deer? Mother Nature played another joke on the mature mule deer buck. Made him run around with all them horns burning precious calories for no benefit.


Interesting ib. I'm just trying to figure out why fawns come out 50% male if the so called "excess" bucks aren't needed in nature.

I wonder how the genetics are being affected when there are only a few pencil spikes left to do the breeding. In my mind when there are only 5 or 15 small bucks to fight for the 100 does, what's the chance that the best genetics are the only ones that are passed on by bucks? Yes I realize does pass on genetics too, but in my mind the best genetics still get diluted over time if some of the bucks doing the breeding are genetically inferior. Imo, The older the buck the more likely it has good genetics for longevity of life, which should be the genetics passed on. When there are no mature bucks to fight off the little bucks, it's more likely that little bucks breed and it's very likely at least some of those young bucks have inferior genes to mature bucks that have proven they have decent genes for survival. What if that small buck isn't made to live past two or three years old, but still passes on its genes because of lack of mature genetically superior bucks. I guess many of the kill every buck that's not needed for just impregnating does think that hunters only harvest the weakest and poorest genetics, but I dought that is true. I would think that higher bd radios would give a greater likelihood of the best genes being passed on. I'm open to a point so shoot away if I need to be educated. No I have no source for anything here, just trying to think it through.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Flinger you don't need educated on it. You are correct to a great degree. Mule deer herds would fair better and have better overall health if the B/D ratio closer to that found in nature without hunting pressure. B/D ratios have nothing to with deer management aside from hunting. People will say that we only need 12-15 bucks to breed 100 does but I would challenge anybody to prove that it creates as healthy of a herd as when the B/D ratio is set by mother nature.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

And the train veers right off the track. 

I wanna hunt the unit where 30" bucks are a more
Common kill than a "pencil spike" or the first thing
With antlers a hunter see's. 

I'll let Random and TS handle the genetic discussion
This go around. 

Peace and happy 24th fella's!!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm still on track. 

Let's reduce predation so that we can allow for more hunter harvest. If we reduce predation enough B/D ratios will be about as important to us as they were in the 80s and early 90s.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell you couldn't have me more wrong. Here are some facts:

1. I hunt mule deer every year. I don't try and force anything, I analyze my options and choose based on what the system will allow. Its a pretty simple concept.

2. I don't want to manage on all units for 30" deer. I like what the premium units offer and I like what GS offer.

3. As far as genes... Well I don't even know why I need to explain this one. I am not naive and listen to years and years of studies on the concept of DNA. It is facinating stuff, and really makes a hell of a lot of sense when you aren't busy being stubborn.

4. BD should be a measured byproduct of other means of management. Like mule said, natural herds or the most successful. I find it hard to believe if we stop hunting, it will go below 10/100. But, i suppose we don't know. Your persistence on issuing a far greater number of tags annoys me for that reason. You have no basis besides "let us hunt." Yeah, let us try and kill everything and get it to the point we say "s***, maybe we shouldn't have done that." I would rather under issue and not hunt than over issue and start a long downwards spiral. 

5. When I am not in a conversation for a few pages, keep my screenname out of your mouth. You didn't quote me at a relative time or use it for something positive, you used it as part of your mini pun yet failed at any truth. Somehow I can type it out right in front of your face and you can't read what I say. Just like earlier, I said I hunt every year and your very next post neglected that. Listen, it pays off.

I won't go back and forth and don't want to sidetrack this, as I am sitting back reading. So let me be.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

I just blew milk through my nose. Mature bucks breeding does. Where did that idea come from. 

While these browse stealing, fawn starving, mature bucks are banging heads, ripping out the forbes and the brush causing considerable erosion and in some cased killing each (other another documented waste of a buck) fighting, the pencil spikes are slipping in and impregnated the does. 

It's natures design for the young bucks to do the breeding. That's what the ruts all about, distracting the worn out, over aged, habitat destroying older bucks, so the young bucks can get the does bred. Once a buck has bred the does for a year, he's finished and worthless and as GBell say's, a liability to the health of the herd. In some ways its like a bee's sting once he sticks it in it can never be used again. Biologically speaking a buck needs to die before their second breeding season. Ask any biologist.

The unanswered question that needs to be answered by biological science is, what kind of harm have mature bucks breeding in there second third and even their fourth year done to our deer herds. Can this problem ever be reversed or will our deer herds forever decline because of the neglect and mismanagement of allowing older bucks to bred the does. It could take decades before the true cost to our deer are determined.

We should be grateful there at least a few informed sportsmen that are holding the line on these matters.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Did you just say that had we never started hunting or managing herds, that a mature buck would have never bred with a doe? Or would not have bred more than once or twice? 

I would love to read that paper....


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Refer to post 73.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

osageorange. I'am wrong more times than I'am right. thats what happens to old mature, wore out Bucks.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Said I'd avoid this whole buck size / genetic thing. I have no willpower
I guess. 

I do have a couple questions though. 

Most of the quality guys say to many hunters
Kill small bucks. So if most hunters kill the first
Yearling they see on opening morning, how can they
Be responsible for doing the breeding. 

Second question. 
Going back to 1994, when we cut buck hunters in half,
To 2010 when we chopped another 10,000 hunters. I'd be 
Curious to know when your theory will eventually bear fruit?
Is it a 25 year turn around?? Will we see results in 2019??
What magic number of buck hunters do we need to get down
To? 50,000?? Were down to + - 85,000 hunters from 200,000 + 
And have been for a decade and a half. WTF?? Where's the
Gains??


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

reading that hurt my eyes and my brain.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Crayon version
1994, we cut hunters to grow deer. 

Where's the deer and when can we expect a payoff
On this scam y'all keep trying to perpetrate??

Simple enough question. 

Give it a go Osage.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

A deer not harvested by a hunter is likely to be killed by another predator. Leave more deer on the range because hunters harvest less and predators will have a better chance at survival. And their population will increase.

Let me put it this way. The cougar says "you gonna eat that? cause I will if you don't" 

So cut hunting all together and do nothing to predators. And we will see little to no gain in overall population.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

GBell said:


> Crayon version
> 1994, we cut hunters to grow deer.
> 
> .


No,
Tag numbers were cut in 1994 in response eo the massive winter kill of 92.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

I can't justify it GBell. I'm on your side. Put those hunters back in the field so we can kill those bucks that are ruining our deer herds. I said earlier give archers muzzleloader and rifle hunters each a month to hunt. We can't kill enough bucks because if nothing else there are plenty of bucks on private land that will move out into the public land to do the breeding. The private land owners never kill any of the breder bucks. Right? Private land owners focus on mature bucks because they know what you and I know, mature bucks are killing their fawns by taking protein out of the field. 

More hunters killing more bucks and we hope they focus on the mature bucks, and we're on the road to recovery. Let those young bucks get the job done and remove worthless bucks. 

Thats what people have been trying to get through to you guys. We took away the hunters in 94 and deer herd dropped like a rock we made more Limited Entry Units the deer numbers on those units declined even more. How else can you explain whats been going on? I can't. Put the hunters back, kill as many bucks as you can, like we did when we sold over the counter tags and the deer herds will explode in numbers again. Just like they did prior to 1994.

Look at the data charts. As soon as Leavitt cut those tags the decline started. Simple as that. Simple as that. Simple as that. Simple as that. That is the point you have been trying to make isn't it Gbell over and over and over for the last 20 years. I agree?

The Wildlife Board understands that and the Division's biologist understand it. There has been a huge change in the last few years in the thinking of the decision makers. The guys that have been causing this mess are no longer in charge. Your tag numbers are safe. If anything now right now is an ideal time to push for more tags. There is every reason to believe that sportsmen can put a lot more hunters in the field if thats what we really want to do. Make it happen more tags and more hunters means more deer.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> No,
> Tag numbers were cut in 1994 in response eo the massive winter kill of 92.


IE. To grow deer.

Same as a tax Goofy, once those tags are gone they ain't
Coming back.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

On private land do the bucks spend winter, spring and summer eating the same protein as the does and fawns or do they segregate like they do on public land?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> Said I'd avoid this whole buck size / genetic thing. I have no willpower
> I guess.
> 
> I do have a couple questions though.
> ...


Wasn't the total number of huntable bucks almost cut in half by 1994 from what there was in the late 1980s?
Seem rational to me, to keep the ratio the same.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

They segregate in both places muleskinner. What's your point?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> IE. To grow deer.
> 
> Same as a tax Goofy, once those tags are gone they ain't
> Coming back.


GBell,
your doom and gloom is killing me. 
There are several sub-units that saw a tag increase this year due to their herd sizes increasing.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

One more thing about bucks killing fawns.
In general, mature bucks don't even live in the same feeding areas as does and fawns for about 11 months of the year. Only during the rut, do they spend time together.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

You serious ridgetop? Bucks and does/fawn may not share the same three feet but they eat from the same range. 

I know your smarter than that ridgetop. You know extra bucks do nothing for the deer herd. The only thing extra bucks provide is antler hunters an argument to keep guys like me from getting to hunt every year.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

osageorange said:


> You serious ridgetop? Bucks and does/fawn may not share the same three feet but they eat from the same range.
> 
> I know your smarter than that ridgetop. You know extra bucks do nothing for the deer herd. The only thing extra bucks provide is antler hunters an argument to keep guys like me from getting to hunt every year.


True and I'm sure that a few extra bucks post season does nothing for those hunters morale when their seen, giving them something to look forward to next season.
Or for those guys that like to go out looking for shed antlers or taking pictures of a few older age class bucks.

Lets just have all the tags over the counter, like the pheasant hunt.
That has been a huge success, right?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So how many acres is needed to sustain a deer? It takes more acreage to sustain a 150lb deer then a 1500lb cow? There are almost 3 cows for every deer in Utah. Habitat is so poor that cattle numbers in Utah have been on a steady increase since the 1940s. Apparently cows don't need selenium. And we have more domestic sheep in the hills then deer. How many acres to sustain a sheep? 

Some here talk as if any deer in the hills over 300,000 is going to starve to death. But cattlemen and wool growers are doing just fine. Someone should tell them that the habitat is in dire straights.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

So range and habitat is the same 
All 12 months of the year?? 

I wasn't aware that the state came in to
All this new winter range. 

I guess a few of you are happy to let
The deer winter at 9500 feet. 

As far as doom and gloom, 
Back in. 08 the committee set a pie in the sky goal of 350,000
Thinking it would not be reached. That objective has been met. 
Since then we've put a couple hundred tags back. 

The scam is so deeply ingrained with some of you
Ya can't see past the end of your own noses.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

We haven't reached 350k?

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1379-dwr-gives-deer-herd-update.html

-332k

-and... No... No way!!! An increase in tags from last year? I don't have time to look but I believe the approved number exceeds last years.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This is good ! The DWR should be writing this stuff down...op2:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Sorry folks, I just don't believe that the only reason to protect and grow our deer herd is so that we can hunt them. I will never believe that an excess buck that is not required to ensure breeding of each living doe is a waste of space. I am pretty certain that Mother Nature would agree. I am not sure what Kool-aid glass I will be accused of drinking from due to the fact that I believe deer should be managed for the sake of the deer first. Not just as a convenience to create as many hunting tags as humanly possible.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

ridgetop, the pheasant hunt has been a huge success, not a single pheasant hunter has ever been denied a opportunity to hunt. No one has ever taken a pheasant hunt away from anyone. We can all still hunt pheasants, large family groups, have a great time together, tell stories while were all having lunch at the church, kids all get to hunt every year, grandfather dads and ten kids of all ages even the 8 year olds get to walk the field and flush pheasants and be part of the hunt. It's great. Thats what the deer used to be like and that what we're trying to get back to. Just let everybody get a tag and go on the deer hunt. How many more times do we need to explain it to you? It not about the deer or the pheasants, its about allowing us to hunt.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Planted pheasant hunting is not the same as pheasant hunting at its prime. Shoot a wild rooster and you will know it isn't as easy as the shook up planters.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Who said any thing about planted pheasant hunting? We hunt wild pheasant every year. So can you. I wouldn't hunt a planted pheasant if it was the last bird in the State. We hunt wild roosters and its not easy. Who said your entitled to a pheasant every time you buy a pheasant hunting license and drive a ditch bank? Its a license to hunt. There are plenty of wild pheasants just like there has alway been you just need to get off you lazy butt and put some miles on. You think you should be able to kill pheasants from the road?

Here the truth randomelk rooster don't have chicks. We don't kill the hens. We just hunt and kill extra roosters, the ones that are taking feed from the chicks and the hens. Thats why the Division nor the Wildlife Board has ever no not ever recommended a reduction is pheasant licenses. It still over the counter like deer tags should be so we can all take our families and friends on the hunt.

How many hunters have had to stay home on the open day of the pheasant hunt because they weren't allowed to buy a pheasant hunting license? Zero! Everybody can go.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

osageorange said:


> ridgetop, the pheasant hunt has been a huge success, not a single pheasant hunter has ever been denied a opportunity to hunt. No one has ever taken a pheasant hunt away from anyone. We can all still hunt pheasants, large family groups, have a great time together, tell stories while were all having lunch at the church, kids all get to hunt every year, grandfather dads and ten kids of all ages even the 8 year olds get to walk the field and flush pheasants and be part of the hunt. It's great. Thats what the deer used to be like and that what we're trying to get back to. Just let everybody get a tag and go on the deer hunt. How many more times do we need to explain it to you? It not about the deer or the pheasants, its about allowing us to hunt.


osageorange, 
I thought you were being sarcastic for most of your post but now I think you really believe the crap you have been saying.
You guys are complaining about deer hunters being cut in half since we lost over half the deer herd in the early 90s.
But we have lost almost 80% of the pheasant hunters due to very few pheasants to hunt any more.
In 1980 we had 84,868 pheasant hunters
In 2011 we had 14,188
If we over hunt the bucks like you guys want, we will see a huge drop off in hunter participation. Hunters don't want to go out for hopes of maybe a chance of seeing a legal buck.
I know I'll stop hunting deer when that time comes, just like I and all my family did with pheasants.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

First off, I am not a road hunter so keep your assumptions to yourself.

Second off, if you are that oblivious to the ENORMOUS pheasant decline, you should respectfully walk away from this conversation. A license to hunt doesn't have anything to do with the population. It is struggling. MOST of the ring-necked kills are WMA planters. They are pretending the sport is alive and well. I didn't buy into it, but based on your comments it is tricking a large number of sportsman.

"we just hunt and kill extra roosters" - hahahahahahahaha. How do you know these are EXTRA roosters? 

"Thats why the Division nor the Wildlife Board has ever no not ever recommended a reduction is pheasant licenses" - There isn't a pheasant license, and it is apparent they don't care much about pheasants. They just raise and release and call it good.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/remaining-permits.html

here are some available deer tags Osage. Maybe it is you that needs to get off your lazy butt. Dedicated hunter was under drawn last time I looked as well. I would love to see you out there pulling some barbed wire with me. You can even scout for wild roosters while you are at it.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

ridgetop you make me smile. 70% of the deer hunters in Utah just want a tag so we can go deer hunting. How many surveys, how many polls, how many times do you need to have it printed across your forehead? It's not about how many legal bucks we get to see, its having the tag in our pocket the family around the camp fire the dutch oven on the coals and our back packs in the high country. We want the opportunity to hunt deer. Just because you guys want us to all stay home so you can have more mature bucks is wrong and it don't mean your going to have your way any longer. We are going to go back to more tags and more deer hunters. Your not paying attention. The people that were taking our opportunity to hunt deer are gone from the system. We are going to get our tags back and you can take that to the bank. I know you don't like it and you will whine and bawl about it all you want but you can't stop it and even if you could you wouldn't because your a whiner not a doer. There are more tags this year and there will be more tags next tag until Utah is allowing people to hunt deer again. Bucks do not have fawns, roosters do not have chicks. That message has finally after twenty some odd years registered the in minds of the guys the are make our hunting decisions.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Gordy,
A couple months ago you were all about doing what the survey supported? You were positive we should follow the outcome of the survey given by the DWR. I believe that the highest percent in that survey said they wanted higher B/D ratio? I guess you only support the survey when it supports your views? Wayne County, Glenwood, Southern Utah, corrupt WB ....it really just comes down to anybody that doesn't 100% support your personal views.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

These pheasant releases the Division has started are just two years old. Boys we've been hunting pheasants long before these releases started. What don't you get? We're not hunting released pheasants we're hunting wild birds and we have always hunted wild birds. We've never stopped hunting wild birds and so could 200,000 others if they wanted to. It exactly the same with deer if they will let us. You tell me how can 200,000 buck deer hunters spread across the entire State harm deer? Give me one good proven reason why one single hunter should be kept from hunting buck deer in Utah every single year? I'll shut up if you can.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Oh. My. ***.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

That's what I thought ramdomelk, nothing. An Oh. My. ***. is the best you can do! That's pretty much what I said you would do isn't it? 

Who cares how many deer there are, who cares how many wild pheasants there are?

70% of us want a tag. Hello! Give us a tag! 

If Oh. My. ***. is the best you can do then give us a deer tag.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

How about we just give you an ostridge tag instead so you can hunt big bird. Im not stupid enough to go chase imaginary birds so I wont buy the tag.

You cant just issue 200,000 tags! If you did you would kill tooo many bucks. The BD ratio would drop below 10/100 or less and areas or units would be shut down. This is two plus two math. Cutting tags has nothing to do with growing deer herds! Buck to doe ratios as long as there not toooo low have nothing to do with growing deer herds its all social.

I like 18-20 bd ratios so im happy


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

osageorange said:


> ridgetop you make me smile. 70% of the deer hunters in Utah just want a tag so we can go deer hunting. How many surveys, how many polls, how many times do you need to have it printed across your forehead? It's not about how many legal bucks we get to see, its having the tag in our pocket the family around the camp fire the dutch oven on the coals and our back packs in the high country. We want the opportunity to hunt deer. Just because you guys want us to all stay home so you can have more mature bucks is wrong and it don't mean your going to have your way any longer. We are going to go back to more tags and more deer hunters. Your not paying attention. The people that were taking our opportunity to hunt deer are gone from the system. We are going to get our tags back and you can take that to the bank. I know you don't like it and you will whine and bawl about it all you want but you can't stop it and even if you could you wouldn't because your a whiner not a doer. There are more tags this year and there will be more tags next tag until Utah is allowing people to hunt deer again. Bucks do not have fawns, roosters do not have chicks. That message has finally after twenty some odd years registered the in minds of the guys the are make our hunting decisions.


I may have sipped a little koolaid now and then but you my friend, have guzzled way too much spiked punch.
Your the one that has me laughing now.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

ridgetop, so we're both humored. Thats good, right? Setting here sipping our koolaid. The flavor's changed hasn't it? It's not the same koolaid you were sipping is it. How are you enjoying the taste for our koolaid, for a change?

swbuckmaster, you didn't read the early posts. We will never kill to many bucks because of the private land bucks that we can't hunt. It might be social you guys but it's not to our deer. They've realized finally that we can kill more unneeded public lands bucks because all of the private land bucks that are safe until the public land deer hunt is over. Once the hunt is over and the rut starts the private land bucks move out into the public land and breed the does. Heres the prove. Drive out on the range the first week of November, find a few herds of deer. They'll all be does. Two weeks later after the rut starts go back out and find that to same groups of deer. What do you see? Bucks with does. Where did these bucks come from? Nobody could find them the first week of Nov. Did they fall out of the sky? Where they in caves under the ground? No they were on private land. Once the rut started out they came. Just like they have always done back in the 80 and like they still do today. You can not and will not kill to many public land bucks. It's impossible. Like GBell has been trying to explain to these guys, there will always be enough bucks to bred the does and these extra public lands bucks are upsetting the fecundity capabilities of our deer populations. We've been leaving these bucks in the field for over 20 years and you can see the results, fewer and fewer over all deer. If the reproduction system gets screwed up like it has been for twenty years, you can see the result.

But, it's okay now, the koolaid flavor has been changed. ridgetop thinks his is bitter mine's amazing.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Yeah, because no one hunts private land... Predators and winter kill don't exist... And there is no extended archery on wintering grounds.... 

Yeah, them bucks are soooo safe.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

randomelk you know I'm right, you know how many extra bucks live on private land that private land hunters never kill. 

You know predators have no significant impact on deer numbers, we've been telling you that for 20 years as well. The biologists all tell you guys that. Do we need to go over the whole predator management nonsense with you again to? Personally I don't mind if we kill predators, they kill does not just bucks, they kill does have fawns that turn into bucks I can hunt next year but over all predators are not a factor, remember.

Winter kill........are you out of your mind randomelk. Deer have lived through a couple hundred thousand winters and an equal number of dry summers. They've thrived. Climates take away, climates gives back. Weather changes give us no reason to reduce tags the State should issue to hunters? It was Leavitt in 94 took all our tags away not the Division. The Division hated that, Leavitt fired the Director and reorganized the entire big game dept at the Division for opposing his tag cutting BS. Don't try to blame those tag reductions on the biologists or the Division. The Division wasn't the least bit concerned over the loss of those deer due to winter kill because they knew those deer would come right back if we'd just keep selling over the counter tags and allowing hunters to kill bucks. If it had been up to the Division we'd still be hunting deer with over the counter tags and you all know it. 

So a nasty winter kills off a bunch of deer, like it has done for centuries and centuries before any human ever kill one, right? So a nasty winter kills off half the Utah deer herd next year, so what does that have to do with issuing hunters a deer tag. According to the data I'm seeing we had 600,000 deer a few years ago, now we have around 300,000, like GBell just tried to explain to you, taking 100,000 tags away did what? NOTHING. How many deer would we have right now if those 100,000 had been allowed to hunt. The answer is more deer. It's the lack of hunting, the lack of killing bucks thats holding any kind of recover back.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Cody, that's not exactly correct. I absolutely
Stand 100% behind my big mouth. 

70% of the responses wanted to hunt. Period. 
The other questions were asked like do you want
To kill a big deer or a small deer. 

The interesting part of the survey asked about restrictions,
There was support for pretty much none. Even road closures. 

So yeah everybody wants to hunt "big bucks" but
Nobody wants to impose restrictions to do it. 

Regardless, this latest study included an area from
The Peoples Republic Of Southern Utah as a test site. 
It was conducted by BYU, Colorado DWR and Utah DWR. 

It showed no benefit to stockpiling bucks to overall deer herd populations,
The study also confirmed the Nevada study that showed fecundity suffers
When winter range, in bad years can't support stockpiled bucks and
A generation of young is degraded or lost. 

Nutshell. 
If you believe in population dynamics, I'll type slow for Ridge and Skinner here,
You must accept that young ( viable breeding age wildlife ) must ALWAYS outnumber
Grandparents. The continued loss or degradation of the incoming generation
Is always detrimental to exponential population growth. There is absolutely no other way
To compete with exponential take, none. So what you all accept is nonsensical. 
You wish to protect an entity that after a certain level only reduces the chances
For that exponential growth by degrading, at a minimum, or starving out the 
Next incoming generation. It ain't that hard of a concept.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Everyone keeps talking about excess bucks. No one can give a for sure number on where excess begin. Further, while hunting we don't know if we are shooting from the excess pool or these young wanted pool. You can say its based on number of points, which would then create a point restriction only further promoting "big bucks" you all love to hate. I don't know where you guys got access to a young buck count and a grandpa buck count?

Aside from a handful of premium units, its not like the b/d or deer numbers are through the freakin roof. We pretty much maintain them at this point. Also, we have to err on the side of caution that the counts are off. I would rather lean to the high side just in case its a lot lower than counted.

This isnt a proposed management plan. To repeat myself about BD, this is a byproduct count of one in my eyes.

Again, you guys are taking massive claim to nature by saying let everyone hunt. I would honestly rather further restrict hunting and be a every few year hunter then be responsible for killing off the deer like we did buffalo. And you guys can say issuing another 150,000 tags wont do this, but you have no clue what it would do. You are talking about more than doubling the tags! I don't own the deer, and think sometimes we mess with mother nature more than we should.

That is why I personally err on the side of caution. If the by product is bigger bucks and a higher BD, so be it. Nature isn't stopping them according to you, yet somehow they did fine before we had 300,000 hunters.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't know how you can compare study areas in completely different states?
Was the predator controls the same?
Winter range conditions the same?
Winter and late spring weather conditions the same?
ATV use the same?

In a nutshell: I'm very satisfied with the way things are headed right now. 
I'm one of those 70% that wants to hunt each year but not at the price your willing to pay.
I don't have a lifetime tag but I'm convinced I still can get a tag every year the way things are now.
I have never seen so many mature bucks as I have seen this there.
I also have seen a lot of 1 1/2 year old bucks. Which tells me that the bigger bucks are not killing them all off.
Seen lots of fawns this year too.
So go ahead and keep fighting for more change and I'll keep enjoying some of the best hunting conditions I've seen in 30 years.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random Brother, I'm in no way saying go back
To 200,000 deer tags if it means the doe's are not 
Getting bred and there aren't excess bucks for hunters 
To kill.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

GBell, then how many tags are you willing to go back to? If not 200,000 why not? Your surely not one of these guys wanting to keep hunters from getting a tags are you? If so give us a good reason because nobody else has been willing or able to. Have you got a leg on both sides of this fence? Maybe I misjudged what you been saying. 

No matter. There will be no more tag cuts, only more tags. Get over it.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I don't get what is so important about having a tag if there are no deer to hunt. If the act of hiking during October is what turns you on, do it. What difference does having a tag make?


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Dumb question bugchuker. But it does explain how far you guys live from reality. You ask whats so important about having a tag if there are not deer to hunt?

Have there always been deer to hunt? Were there deer to hunt in the 1980, 1990, 2000? Are there deer to hunt now? 

It's simple if are there are any deer to hunt we want a tag. You tell me, if anybody gets a tag why shouldn't everybody get a tag. It's a buck hunt. Listen its a buck hunt! We're not hunting or killing the does bugchuker. If the deer some how did disappear from the State, which they won't, it won't be because we are hunting bucks by giving everybody that wants one a tag. Tell us if we're not killing the does, What difference does it make if we have a tag?

I've never said anything about being turned on to hike around in October or any other time. I'm only interested in hunting deer in October. If I wanted to I could hike around 11.5 months a year why do you guys think I should be satisfied wander around without a tag during the deer hunt? Give it a try bud, tell me why I'd want to hike around without a tag? Is that what you'd do?


----------



## fishreaper (Jan 2, 2014)

DallanC said:


> With DNA research, they now know long ago 1 species of deer was in America, and got divided into east coast and west coast by glaciers. These seperated groups evolved into Whitetail and Blacktail deer. Over time, where the two overlapped, a new hybrid was created: Mule Deer. Do some research on it, its fairly fascinating stuff. I'm not sure where the Coues deer fit into this though.
> 
> -DallanC


I believe coues deer are a subspecies of white tails. They're the ones found there in Arizona and New Mexico eh? Smaller bodies and quick?


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Gbell, Do high male to female ratio hunt areas have to have extremely limited tags or have to provide an "easy" kill? During the past few years, the hunt I look forward to EVERY year is one where I'm chasing and SEEING 1 to 8+ year old animals at about a 3% success rate of harvest. Lots of public land too and just a GS tag. To me it's much more fun to "have a tag in your pocket" AND chase/see mature bucks/bulls, but I don't feel the need to have to kill much. If someone just wants meat, moo cows are much easier and cheaper per pound. So what is the success rate of your favorite big game hunt?

I'm still waiting to be educated with some compelling evidence that mother nature had it all wrong with the mule deer???

Edit: Just for clarification, the 3% success rate is the overall, not a personal success rate.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I guess there are two extream ends of the spectrum were seeing here. Osage and the shoot everything, pound everything till its shut down cause they gota have a tag. Then there's the sfw shut everything down by auctioning everything off. Im glad its where it is now and our general hunts aren't catoring to the fringe nut jobs.

Osage in utah you can still get a tag every year or every other year if your a die hard rifle guy. In fact ive never not drawn a tag and ive killed 8 four points in 10 years. My daughter has drawn a tag every year and has killed one buck in two years. Hopefully will both kill another buck this year. While your sitting on the side lines complaining were playing the game and drawing tags every year. I guess ill never see your side of the argument because it goes against common sense. I also like to see bucks in october. Your plan will eliminate that.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

swbuckmaster two extremes you say. Maybe. I'll concede my demands are toward the far side but not the extreme far side as you claim. The extreme far side would be pre 1970 don't you think? You know what Utah's deer hunt was pre 70 right? Either sex. Right? It was buy an over the counter tag and shoot any deer. Right? 

Would you consider OTC either sex more extreme or less extream than OTC buck only?

So you'd have to agree if your rational that I'm not as extreme as I could be. I won't kill a doe deer. Will not do it. Does are critical to deer populations Right? I only hunt the excess. 

Now let's take a minute and look at what you and Gbell and others are saying. 

You say I'm at one end of the tag demand and the sell everything by auction hunts are at the other end. Your glad its where it is now and our general hunts aren't catoring to the fringe nut jobs. So I think what your saying is you Gbell others that want more General Season tags but not as many as I do or others that want more LE (higher BD ration) tags but don't want them all auction to the highest bidder are somewhere in the middle. Some leaning more to the left others leaning more to the right sort of thing right? Every hunter every group of hunters every strata of hunters have there own idea of how many tags should be issued right?

What make one group of guys and the kinds of hunts they want any more or any less important than mine. You guys think I'm nuts you think the auction buyers are nuts why aren't you guys as nuts as anybody at either end of the spectrum. Were the hunters in the 1970's nuts for buying either sex tags? They weren't it was the norm at the time. It was the norm for every body to buy over the counter bucks tags in the 70's 80's and the early 90's. Why am I nuts for wanting that to be the norm again? Simply because you want something different? That makes me nuts? 

Here's were the rubber meet the road swbuckmaster and your smart enough to understand it. Your saying you like it now. Your saying you like it that Leavitt took away my ability to buy a tag every year. Yes you do if you glad it's the way it is now. Your saying you'd like guys to say home unless they bow hunt. They can't hunt buck deer with a weapon of choice every year. Your saying you like less tags. If Leavitt had cut the tag to 50,000 rather than 97,000 would you like that, you like 97,000 may you'd like 50,000. Gbell wants more tags but not as many as I do. What if Leavitt had cut the tags to 120,000 would Gbell be happy with that or would he want 140,000, or 160,000. ridgetop and randomelk want less tags. You all want what you want. Gbell wants what he wants randomelk wants what he wants ridgetop wants what he wants 200,000 hunters want what they want and any body that doesn't agree with you Gbell ridgetop ramdomelk or any of the other 200,000 is nuts because we want what we want right and that by your logic make everyone on either end of the sprectum but you nuts right.

For twenty years the system slanted heavily toward reducing tags it has shifted and is now slanting toward increasing tags. 

swbuckmaster if you haven't recognized it your simply not paying attention or your looking from to far way from the core of the system.

I've become bored with this thread. Every point has been echoed sufficiently at this time for those what want to hear to hear. For those hunters like Gbell and the many others that have been whining about loosing there tags get over it do and do little real world analysis of the make up of the Wildlife Board the Division administrators and the other factors that control tag numbers in the State. There will be changes and the changes will be a steady increase in the number of tags. If as you guys have been saying this is a social not a biological issue that by darn I want more tags and so I to have got just as much to be glad about as your glad about. 

Watch the tag counts again this year and then call me an extreamist..


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

When deer numbers go up tags go up it has nothing to do with whos on the board. Funny thing is with all the surplus of bucks your whining about the fawn crop the last two years was as good or better then its been in years. So I guess bucks dont kill fawns after all. If what your saying was true with bucks killing fawns the deer would have taken a dive the last two years and more tags would have been cut.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The deer herd is simply not at capacity. So there is no excess anything. Besides predators. 

I want unlimited OTC any sex 3 season tags back. But the only way we could have that is to take the lions share. Pun intended.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> When deer numbers go up tags go up it has nothing to do with whos on the board. Funny thing is with all the surplus of bucks your whining about the fawn crop the last two years was as good or better then its been in years. So I guess bucks dont kill fawns after all. If what your saying was true with bucks killing fawns the deer would have taken a dive the last two years and more tags would have been cut.


You are thinking these "excess" bucks are actually helping with the fawn crop? Are you crazy? (sarcasm) Maybe with more bucks, all of the does are actually getting bred.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Im not making a stayment their helping grow deer herds. Thats never been my stance! I'm clearly stating they didnt kill fawns and the herd grew dispite what the doom and gloom killem all tag grabbers think. 

The general deer herds are right where they should be with buck to doe ratios! 

I dont care if OO or anyone else doesnt get a tag. He just doesnt know how to play the game. In utah if your a diehard rifle hunter you can pull a tag every year or every other year. There are left over tags! Same with muzzy and archery. No excuse to not get a tag and hunt! I dont have a lifetime liscense and ive never not drawn a tag in my life. Going on 8 four points in 10 years of hunting. 

He sounds like that big stupid full grown man with a diaper on saturday night live that always say in a fake soft child like voice "but I dont want to hunt with a lesser weapon", "but I dont want to hunt any species but deer". Well then sit on the sidlines and watch me hunt is all I got to say!


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Im not making a stayment their helping grow deer herds. Thats never been my stance! I'm clearly stating they didnt kill fawns and the herd grew dispite what the doom and gloom killem all tag grabbers think.
> 
> The general deer herds are right where they should be with buck to doe ratios!
> 
> ...


I'm with ya.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Scott, I don't honestly believe the tags will
Come back like they should. My opinion is
You'll see a shell game like we've seen with our
Elk. 

The grow a bigger pie philosophy is step one
In this plan. Step two, is the soon to come point
Creep with these tags. Step three will be the entitlement
Phase of " I waited three years to draw a general
Season archery tag at Strawberry and if I see other
Hunters and few "Quality" bucks, it sucks". Cut tags
Grow more bucks vicious circle. 

As far as stockpiling bucks having no effect, wait till 
We get an average winter again and fawn viability takes
A dive. If ya want to feed one buck through the winter vs
Feeding a doe carrying twins, the social aspect of having bucks
To kill WILL have an effect on the biological aspect of growing a
Deer herd. 

Its funny how this theory works so well with waterfowl. 
Slot and hen bag limits, but can't be understood with 
Ungulates.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Gordy you very well may be correct with the pie philosphy. 

The way I see it on the other is our general deer herd has been stabile for the last 10 to15 years. The only thing I hear people talk about is how bad the hunting sucks. The last three years I dont hear that as much. Its been replaced by I need a tag. I honestly could give a rip because ill still hunt my area where you have big bucks, no rifles, long seasons, and endless tags. 

As for my kids my oldest has been chasing deer every year as well. Shes been on a few nice bucks durring the rifle and archery hunts. Things look better imho in those areas then they have in years. Im actually excited to take her in those areas. I quit hunting those areas over ten years ago because all I ever saw was orange rifle hunters looking at me through their scopes and no game. Every where I look in those same areas deer numbers look like there going up. I see improvment. It could all be in my head but im satisfied.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

GBell said:


> Scott, I don't honestly believe the tags will
> Come back like they should. My opinion is
> You'll see a shell game like we've seen with our
> Elk.
> ...


+1

The last mule deer plan took some good people a lot of hard work to accomplish, and it was steam rolled half way through its tenure. Even then when option 2 was being worked on, a lot of work went into it to try and have that plan work for most hunters. The two tier system was simple and seemed to solve some social issues. The lower tier would provide more opportunity for those who wanted to hunt more often and the upper tier would provide a few more bucks with less avaliable tags; a trade off that seemed pretty fair at the time.

These B/D ratios are POST HUNT numbers. I certainly don't see/hear anyone screaming to drop the ratios to bare minimum to allow more tags, like some on here seem to be asserting. I agree with goofy and believe we should leave the current plan as is for this next 5 years, and simply tweek it here and there to improve what can be improved. We've been lucky with 3 mild winters in a row, and the deer numbers have shown an uptick in several areas and even in other states; but don't be fooled folks, nothing has been solved as far as their population issues, and B/D ratios won't address them either, for the most part.

We DON'T need any more cannibalization of general units to make more LIMITED ENTRY units, and you folks know what I mean by that. Stop changing things mid stream and let things work for a while. If the science is positive for the critters, implement it, if not, don't.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Ill fight any buck to doe ratio greater then what we have now on any of our general deer units we have now.


----------

