# Tree, Bullsnot and Dennis Austin on the Radio



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Listen to UWC with Steve Brown on 1320 KFAN on Wednesday the 18th. We will be speaking with Steve Brown on his show 'Inside the Outdoors'. Retired DWR biologist and mule deer author Dennis Austin will also be on and we will be discussing issues mule deer face in Utah. Show starts at 7pm.

http://1320kfan.com/index.php/shows/inside_the_outdoors


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Sweet! I'm glad I just checked this!


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

Huddled in a small corner if my house, it's the only place that 1320 comes thru


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

already have learned a lot. I always thought this state was loaded with deer when the settlers came out here


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

utahgolf said:


> already have learned a lot. I always thought this state was loaded with deer when the settlers came out here


Lewis and Clark took detailed notes about the wildlife the saw when they explored the west. Its the first record we have of animals. They stated the Mule deer were extremely rare to run across. Elk, Bison, Bears... Wolves, all common but the "long ear'd deer" were very uncommon.

-DallanC


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Very interesting and informative.

Tree & Bull,

Let us know any other insight Dennis gave off air!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Marvelous! Is there any way to get recordings of the show?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

So all I heard from our lates wildlif cooperative leaders is fawn recruitment questions. You could tell that it so pained Tye and Chris to learn that cougars, coyotes, bears, and bobcats are major players durring low deer counts.

Fawns are harmed and stress by over utilization of the habitat and human activities.
Winter range is crucial to herd strength and year to year studies and research is need to see where we come from.

Fire suppression and reseeding is vital needed.

Livestock grassing is cruitial and should be utilized to remove 50% of the spring and summer understory and grasses.

Cutting highway speeds would save thousands of deer a year.

And Steve Brown instructed the Wildlife board to pull their head out and issue every abled body person a deer tag because that is how we pay for all the deer fixes.

Sure answers all my questions. Utah can really only suport 50,000 deer and should sell tags for 500k hunters. Thats what I got out of all this.....Big


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

500 cougars boys, thats it.! No more...done.....end....over!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > already have learned a lot. I always thought this state was loaded with deer when the settlers came out here
> ...


Most of the western Native American big game pictographs and petroglyphs are of bighorns, pronghorns, moose, bison and elk, but few mule or blacktail deer if any.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

DallanC said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > already have learned a lot. I always thought this state was loaded with deer when the settlers came out here
> ...


Lewis and Clark skirted allot of mule deer country, they are not the best indicator. There are 20 plus trapper journals that shine a little better light on mule deer. And the Utah "Pioneers" are even worse than Lewis and Clark. When they rolled into the Salt Lake valley bison had been absent for ~60 years, but had been very plentiful prior to that. Also the Utah "pioneers" would have told you there were no beaver either.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> So all I heard from our lates wildlif cooperative leaders is fawn recruitment questions. You could tell that it so pained Tye and Chris to learn that cougars, coyotes, bears, and bobcats are major players durring low deer counts.
> 
> Fawns are harmed and stress by over utilization of the habitat and human activities.
> Winter range is crucial to herd strength and year to year studies and research is need to see where we come from.
> ...


Talk about keeping the blinders on. :roll:

I thought it was very insightful (even though it was scrunched into less than an hour - which could explain why so few questions were asked by Tree & Bullsnot on air and why I asked them to give additional information from off air).

Obviously everyone agrees we need to control predators (some not as vocally as others), but we all agree on that. I was amazed that he felt a bobcat will take 6 deer a year when bears would only take 4/year? Obviously he thinks we need to up the slaughter on cougars (which some think are non existant) and coyotes during critical times and I agree.

I also liked the foresight he had to also agree that we need to prep winter range now for when populations do increase. Seems like it is a hand in hand thing that we need to be doing now (not just one or another like assuming predator control is more important than habitat work).

In all he said exactly what I thought he would (with much more insight of course).

I have to give Pheaz and SWBuckmaster some credit as he seems to agree to an extent that "Pressure" in general has hurt the herd (fat indexes) - mainly fawns. My question then would be how do we control everyday people (dogs on trails/hikers/campers/etc) and not just hunters? I guess I think it would be crazy to do this as they hikers/campers/dogs/etc. aren't going to give up just to grow a few more deer.

Thanks guys!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> > utahgolf said:
> ...


"moose" glyphs, I can find you way more deer glyphs than elk or moose.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

JuddCT said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > So all I heard from our lates wildlif cooperative leaders is fawn recruitment questions. You could tell that it so pained Tye and Chris to learn that cougars, coyotes, bears, and bobcats are major players durring low deer counts.
> ...


All the studies I have seen, and in one case helped fund, show bears are far more predatory on fawns and calves than previously believed.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

sounded like austin was for more tags as well, at least when referencing the desert units and focus much more on habitat. be nice for the state to work out grazing and planting efforts to help the winter range. I'd show up and help seed! sure a lot of people would.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> A forest service truck pulled up and we spent almost an hour talking with Mr. Rasmussen a Fish Lake Biologist residing in Salina. Here is a summarized account of that conversation. In a joint effort with DWR and Forest service biologist, eighty different deer of all ages and sexes where fitted with radio transponder collars in the summer of 2009 on the Monroe Mountain. These collars transponder sent out vital statistics daily so that biologist could know almost instantly of mortality. Mr. Rasmussen reported that of the 80 deer collared only 17 remained alive as of the date we talked and that sixty % of the mortality was due to predation and of that the majority offenders were mountain lions. Coyotes were a close second with no reported human mortality, hunting or otherwise. Mr. Rasmussen reported that with all of the hunts occurring on the mountain that overwhelming pressure was being placed on the elk herd and the herd was leaving the mountain almost a month and half earlier than in years past to the winter range, which put un intended consequences on not only for the elk, but for the deer. The Elk Management objective for the Monroe is set at 1800 animals with the all-time high being approximately 1500 elk reached sometime in the early 2000's and the current low of 800 animals in, (I believe he said 2008.) Currently the estimate is about 1000 elk on the Monroe.
> 
> The increase in pressure causing the elk to move to winter range early is a catastrophic problem for Monroe's deer herd in the fact that the extra month .5 consumed forage on the shared winter range is causing deer to die of starvation as the deer are being driven out by the elk and forced to forage on much less and least productive nutritional forage and areas. The second big problem is that the elk are now showing up in agricultural areas once tolerated by farmers foraged by deer, but are now asking that the elk be destroyed to reduce crop damage. Most farmers have tolerated the deer, but will not tolerate the elk foraging on their crops as the damage is to serveir. Those few deer come out of winter distressed and in poor condition are producing lower numbers of fawns with high mortality rates due to predation. Even controlled burns and spring tooth harrowing projects have done little to firm up the decline in deer numbers on the Monroe. Mr, Rasmussen recommends that an aggressive predator control program be implemented immediately and that in order to try and stabilize the deer herds, he recommends a ten year closure to any deer hunting on the unit and reduced hunting pressure on the elk herd.
> 
> I would have to agree with the conclusions of Mr. Rasmussen and would say that this is not only a problem for the Monroe but most of the fish lake and probably the State of Utah. The State of Utah's Deer herds are in serious trouble and to those few hunters arguing that Utah must have a continued general hunt! I say that 2010 may have been our last general hunt for Mule Deer in Utah as the mule deer may have suffered more than they can endure&#8230;&#8230;Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dont get me wrong, it was a good listen, but IMHO Mr. Austin seems a little too 20th century. The Mule deer/Black tail deer decline encompases UT, ID, CO, MT, WA, WY, OR, CA, NV, AZ, and NM. In some of these places you cant attribute vehicles, predators, hunting, or people preassure, and yet they are as a trend flat or declining. You have all heard me babble on about minerals. Well along with, and completely complementary to, soil and plant nutrition are directly intertwined. These things effect the over all health of deer, which in turn affects over all deer numbers. So reseeding and range management are very key peices to all of this. We need to think big picture here. What other big habitat change have we seen since the early '80s that is bad for wildlife and hunters?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think Mr Austin couldn't explain everything in 40 minutes. 

2 items from the interview--

-We have lost whole migrating segments of the herd. I believe Big and I talked about that one day a couple years ago. It is known, but not really talked about much.

-He mentioned cougars and cougar numbers. My personal view is there were over 40 cats killed in less than one year, from Dry Creek in Alpine to Provo Canyon (when the sheep were transplanted), and the deer recovery was incredible. Of course the rebound was short lived due to the 2004-05 winter....


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)




----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bigbr said:


> So all I heard from our lates wildlif cooperative leaders is fawn recruitment questions. You could tell that it so pained Tye and Chris to learn that cougars, coyotes, bears, and bobcats are major players durring low deer counts.
> 
> Fawns are harmed and stress by over utilization of the habitat and human activities.
> Winter range is crucial to herd strength and year to year studies and research is need to see where we come from.
> ...


Huh? I guess we hear (or see) what we expect to hear (or see)!
No one said anything about issuing 500k tags or the habitat supporting 50,000 deer, or issuing a tag to every able bodied person, or anybody pulling their head out of anywhere. Those (and other of your statements) are your interpretations of what they actually said based on your preconceived notions and your desire to ridicule those things which don't agree with your preconceived notions.

What I heard was 4 men calmly discussing a common problem and 3 of them seeking workable solutions from the biologist among them. There was no bantering or challenges or arguing. And, yes, there were some surprises, but that's what you get when you're looking for answers. The key is to consider those answers and use them to make decisions and establish policies and you can bet that Tye and Chris will do that even if it isn't in their personal best interest to do it. They want to increase the deer herd as much as you or I do.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I was in a meeting with Governor Herbert in Wellsville, so I missed the radio show... sorry Treebum.

For those interested regarding the meet with the Gov and how it pertains to the needs of our deer herd, the comic relief commentary provided by "The Don" and the Boehner-like heart-felt moment shared by a USU Professor of Business (I forget his name, even though I took a class from him back in the ice-ages) were thankfully short and to the point, and thank goodness they didn't specify that all of us need to hold hands and pull out each other's wallets in support of any particular special interest groups (though they had over 100 "constituents" for those who remember my question at the DWR AGM a year ago November - ha, ha). They simply said "Help us help our deer, they need help". 

I would be very interested in hearing a recording of the conversation with Dr. Austin and the boys... though we are not at the "Best of times", as has been stated, we are still in a hay day of sorts pertaining to true historical data regarding Mule Deer.

I am seeing a slow and steady comeback of the species in my travels which include hundreds of hours in farm fields in N. Utah as well as hearing about it from speaking to hundreds of local sportsmen in my place of business.

Thanks again for banding together in working to improve our hunting heritage and the opportunity for my three kids to eventually have a hope of getting a tag to pursue big game in our home state. 
Lance


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Let us know any other insight Dennis gave off air!


It might be worth pointing out that Austin is the author of a book, Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners, that I can personally recommend as being well worth the price.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Dont get me wrong, it was a good listen, but IMHO Mr. Austin seems a little too 20th century. The Mule deer/Black tail deer decline encompases UT, ID, CO, MT, WA, WY, OR, CA, NV, AZ, and NM. In some of these places you cant attribute vehicles, predators, hunting, or people preassure, and yet they are as a trend flat or declining. You have all heard me babble on about minerals. Well along with, and completely complementary to, soil and plant nutrition are directly intertwined. These things effect the over all health of deer, which in turn affects over all deer numbers. So reseeding and range management are very key peices to all of this. We need to think big picture here. What other big habitat change have we seen since the early '80s that is bad for wildlife and hunters?


the implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program.


----------



## bigdaddyx4 (Jan 11, 2008)

I would also like to hear it if there is a recording somewhere. I missed it due to the meeting as well.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

It was a good listen, and put the right emphasis on predator control. Having predators around is not a bad thing when herds are at or near carrying capacity, but when herds are trying to recover it can be a big detriment. While range quality was discussed, one thing they didn't talk too much about was weather. Elkfromabove posted a link to a NEVADA STUDY that cited summer precipitation as the primary factor in Nevada's periods of rapid population growth. We have had a rash of very dry summers over the past 6-8 years, which leads to lots of skinny deer heading into fall.

So let's shoot some varmints, work on the habitat some, and pray for summer rain.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Just looked at the link on the radio station and they have a podcast in three sections... going to listen now.

I have had Brown with me hunting on our property in Box Elder for deer with a smokepole and he said he hadn't seen a buck as big as the one we saw in his lifetime.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://www.hupc.org/Archive/newsletters ... dators.htm


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Dont get me wrong, it was a good listen, but IMHO Mr. Austin seems a little too 20th century. The Mule deer/Black tail deer decline encompases UT, ID, CO, MT, WA, WY, OR, CA, NV, AZ, and NM. In some of these places you cant attribute vehicles, predators, hunting, or people preassure, and yet they are as a trend flat or declining. You have all heard me babble on about minerals. Well along with, and completely complementary to, soil and plant nutrition are directly intertwined. These things effect the over all health of deer, which in turn affects over all deer numbers. So reseeding and range management are very key peices to all of this. We need to think big picture here. What other big habitat change have we seen since the early '80s that is bad for wildlife and hunters?
> ...


Phragmites, not just here in Utah, but nationaly.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> He mentioned cougars and cougar numbers. My personal view is there were over 40 cats killed in less than one year, from Dry Creek in Alpine to Provo Canyon (when the sheep were transplanted), and the deer recovery was incredible. Of course the rebound was short lived due to the 2004-05 winter....


This, IMHO, highlights why focusing on predators is not wise. Sure, getting rid of predators could very well allow more fawns to survive, but if the winter range isn't improved its all for nothing. In fact, it could easily cause more harm, as having a herd over carrying capacity when a harsh winter hits, will kill a LOT more deer than the predators will. The peaks and valleys of the deer population will be greater, and the health of the herd will be worse. It still boils down to improving habitat, winter habitat specifically, as the primary limiter on deer populations! Nothing else comes close. Until we get that as the primary focal point, we will continue to see what we see today!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bigbr said:


> A forest service truck pulled up and we spent almost an hour talking with Mr. Rasmussen a Fish Lake Biologist residing in Salina. Here is a summarized account of that conversation. In a joint effort with DWR and Forest service biologist, eighty different deer of all ages and sexes where fitted with radio transponder collars in the summer of 2009 on the Monroe Mountain. These collars transponder sent out vital statistics daily so that biologist could know almost instantly of mortality. Mr. Rasmussen reported that of the 80 deer collared only 17 remained alive as of the date we talked and that sixty % of the mortality was due to predation and of that the majority offenders were mountain lions. Coyotes were a close second with no reported human mortality, hunting or otherwise.


Either Mr. Rasmussen doesn't know what he is talking about or you had a serious lack of communication...here are the real stats:
I spoke with Vance Mumford (DWR biologist for Monroe) about deer survival on Monroe...

According to Vance the current collar study showed in 2009/2010 that adult survival of deer is very good (86%) but that fawn survival was not (27%). The cause of death of the fawns can be broken down to 48% of the fawn mortality was simple winter mortality, 29% of the fawn mortality was linked to predation, 5% was linked to road kill, and 19% was unknown. He also mentioned that the predation numbers were compounded due to a dry growing season the previous summer. In other words the fawns came into the winter smaller than normal and then had to deal with a severe winter and late spring. Because of this high rate of mortality we saw far fewer yearling bucks during the hunt this past year.

Last winter, Vance has said that as of the middle of February 2011 only 2 fawns have died so far--1 from coyote predation and 1 road kill. He felt like last winter we saw very good survival because the summer of 2010 was a great growing season and the fawns went into the winter in great shape. He also mentioned that the winter ranges melted quickly.

FWIW, Vance is the biologist who is in charge of this collar study on Monroe...I received this information last spring on a trip out on Monroe with Vance picking up a collar from a fawn that was killed by a coyote....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Interesting WtoU, I visit quite regularly with Vance myself,
He is one of the administrator's at our SF gun club....

Knew him when he was a CO as well.

Ill follow up with him next month and get a resent up date.


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Nice work boys.......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Interesting WtoU, I visit quite regularly with Vance myself,
> He is one of the administrator's at our SF gun club....
> 
> Knew him when he was a CO as well.
> ...


I see Vance quite regularly...I will talk to him again too.


----------



## blackdog (Sep 11, 2007)

TopofUtahArcher said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Dont get me wrong, it was a good listen, but IMHO Mr. Austin seems a little too 20th century. The Mule deer/Black tail deer decline encompases UT, ID, CO, MT, WA, WY, OR, CA, NV, AZ, and NM. In some of these places you cant attribute vehicles, predators, hunting, or people preassure, and yet they are as a trend flat or declining. You have all heard me babble on about minerals. Well along with, and completely complementary to, soil and plant nutrition are directly intertwined. These things effect the over all health of deer, which in turn affects over all deer numbers. So reseeding and range management are very key peices to all of this. We need to think big picture here. What other big habitat change have we seen since the early '80s that is bad for wildlife and hunters?
> ...


How exactly is the CRP bad for wildlife and hunters???????????????? :?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> This, IMHO, highlights why focusing on predators is not wise. Sure, getting rid of predators could very well allow more fawns to survive, but if the winter range isn't improved its all for nothing. In fact, it could easily cause more harm, as having a herd over carrying capacity when a harsh winter hits, will kill a LOT more deer than the predators will. The peaks and valleys of the deer population will be greater, and the health of the herd will be worse. It still boils down to improving habitat, winter habitat specifically, as the primary limiter on deer populations! Nothing else comes close. Until we get that as the primary focal point, we will continue to see what we see today!!


By that line of thinking we need wolf here in Utah to keep our elk herds from exploding and then crashing. Utah is in no danger of a deer overpopulation. :roll:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dennis whole point about predators was based on carry capacity. He said if we were at carry capacity he said we should back off predators and let them do there thing. He made it clear that he thinks we are not near carrying capacity on most units, which I was surprised to hear. So he said until we are there, we should kill off as many predators as possible to help the herd rebound. He also made it clear that we will never have the deer populations we use to have. This is what I got from listening to him.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

As soon as you back off predators the deer population will drop under capacity.

That's why I advocate for a responsible predator control program that is designed to benefit the hunter. I don't know the numbers I will let the PHD's figure that part out.

If unit *X* has *Y* deer and *A* is the mortality rate and you traditionally harvest *B* amount of bucks and doe. Then you could have *C* cougar. And still have a viable hunt.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> As soon as you back off predators the deer population will drop under capacity.
> 
> That's why I advocate for a responsible predator control program that is designed to benefit the hunter. I don't know the numbers I will let the PHD's figure that part out.
> 
> If unit *X* has *Y* deer and *A* is the mortality rate and you traditionally harvest *B* amount of bucks and doe. Then you could have *C* cougar. And still have a viable hunt.


I'm not disputing our countering any of what you have written. One question; What constitutes "responsible" predator control? How is that quantified? What are our objectives based on for deer? Obviously predator objectives would be based on the deer objective (With a whole bunch of other factors thrown in). But what is the end goal here? No predators and lots of ungulates to hunt? Are we shooting for some kind of ecological balance? If so, what does that look like?

I think these discussions often get convoluted because each individual has their own version of "optimal" management and the desired result. Interesting and educating just the same.

Regardless of perspective and affiliation, I'm impressed with anyone who does more than complain and takes action for what they stand for. Thanks to all who give a ****.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Right now in Utah I'm not sure you can kill more lions without bring
poisons and all out government trapping into it.......
And then they would be killing the kittens off before their a year old.

2012 you can buy UNLIMTED harvest objective tags on 37 UNITS!

And with the new cougar management areas, and objective harvest
numbers set so high,,,,NOT ONE SINGLE AREA WILL EVEN CLOSE!
Unless female sub-quota is filled, I don't even see this happening...

And IB,,,I put more emphasis on coyotes than lions as far as predator problems go BECAUSE that is were the problem exists........


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

It was great to have Dennis on the show with us. For the record we sought out Dennis and have been speaking with him for a year now. We asked if Dennis would do the show with us and he accepted. When asked to do the show he told me he wasn't much of a talker and didn't want to do it on his own so Tree and I said we would support. The way it turned out he had plenty to say and that was good! We weren't even needed on the show to be honest and that's just fine.

In short his message was the raising buck to doe ratios will not help mule deer production. He discussed some of the challenges we face and some of things we could do better. 

I've spoken with him at length and of course have read his book and we WELCOME all sides and ALL opinions. 

We spoke a little off air about the pressure comment he made and I'll be honest it caught me off guard. With an open mind I asked him in more detail what he meant by it since LE units have many less tags yet have no better fawn production. It seemed he was more concerned about the year round pressure during critical times like shed hunting, scouting, and other types of use. Those were things deer didn't have to contend with just a few decades ago. We will be addressing this issue more with Dennis to understand better his thoughts on that subject.

It seems we should also clear up some misconceptions about predators and what has been said on these boards....I've never said that predators aren't a limiting factor. I've only said that a "kill em all" scenario is not feasible and I stand by that. I have also challenged all of you to donate to coyote control when you put in for tags. It is needed. Cats can be a limiting factor as well and I spoke off air with Dennis about the recent changes to the cougar management plan. The changes being that we are driving cougar permit numbers based on adult doe mortality by collaring does. He stated that measuring doe mortality was good but cats primarily kill bucks and will also kill fawns so it's not a super accurate picture of the impact cats have. It's all fine and great to yell and scream that cats are a limiting factor but we simply will not be allowed to kill all the cats so the challenge will be finding a sound scientific way to measure their impact and react.

Also while from a biological standpoint 30-35 MPH zones would be great to reduce roadkill like in Yellowstone NP I doubt that will be a feasible option for most motorists in many areas and would be difficult to implement. He did mention that entire migrating herds have been wiped out by vehicles.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Goof,

How are you certain that the bigger problem is with coyotes and not cougars? Most studies I have seen point more to cats being a limiting factor, especially in adult deer. I'm not dismissing coyotes as a limiting factor, just relative to cougars. 

Also, I agree that there are way less cougars than there were even 5 years ago, but if we are looking at solely growing more deer and that's the #1 focus, all other things be damned, is it possible that cougar numbers are still not conducive to a large increase in deer populations? What about certain areas? We tend to talk about animals in "statewide" terms. Isn't the point of having small management units so we can look at each one individually?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Tree,

I think when one buys a deer tag they expect a good hunt. I realize that "good hunt" is all over the place. But we can agree a vast majority of deer hunters are not satisfied with the current status or the current trend. And doesn't a significant portion of the DWR's revenue come from big game hunting? 

I wont be the final judge on what "responsible" is. But is falls somewhere between near extinction and low enough to allow for abundant hunter harvest to be "compensatory" not "additive"  given the unit is at or near capacity. 

Trying to manage for maximum cougar populations while allowing virtually unlimited buck harvest. Coupled with all the other mentioned factors have led us to option 2 and looking to limit the hunter as a tool to help deer herds. Bass ackward if you ask me. We cant really control all the other factors with out spending billions of dollars and 100s of yrs. Given we are at capacity which I doubt. With simple policy change we can decrease predation and increase the margin in which we can harvest deer without decline. Given weather is good ect. Just another reason to not manage with such small margins anyway. 

SWbuckmaster gets this margin surplus bit.

Funny how the ripples in a pond can become waves. Monroe was once one of the greatest in the world for deer hunting. Now one of the worst. The cougar study and unlimited hunting is largely to blame. Well the wrong family hunts and lives and at the bottom of that Mtn. And all they need was Dons blessing and walla option 2.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Good he!! tree, do you want to get on a snowmobile and follow me
around for 2-3 months,,,,,,you'll figure out how few of deer there 
are , how many yotoes are running around,,,,and how few cat tracks
are cut, ON MOST units.....

That said , there are a few units that still have good cat numbers,
Monroe has collard cats all over it, the lion study, no one really kills them.
Wasatch , west is still limited entry only, Yes there are a good number there,
Kinda funny, I'd bet my last dollar the highest concentration of lions 
in the whole state is right on the Wasatch front!
From the point of the mountain north to I-84. The biggest contributing 
factors there is, No dogs allowed in SL county on watershed and the
simple fact north of there you deal with environmental, granola crunching
idiots...............


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Tree,
> 
> I think when one buys a deer tag they expect a good hunt. I realize that "good hunt" is all over the place. But we can agree a vast majority of deer hunters are not satisfied with the current status or the current trend. And doesn't a significant portion of the DWR's revenue come from big game hunting?
> 
> ...


I don't know the unit like you do, but there is one huge thing I notice you are missing. Elk. It is now a great elk unit, I think this is a huge factor that people like to overlook.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > *The cougar study and unlimited hunting is largely to blame.* Well the wrong family hunts and lives and at the bottom of that Mtn. And all they need was Dons blessing and walla option 2.
> ...


I totally 100% disagree with Iron Bear on the Monroe Mountain issue...I have said this numerous times and I will say it again...if you look at the Monroe Mountain Lion study a couple things really jump out: 1) When lion numbers were at their very lowest is the same time mule deer numbers on Monroe started to drop 2) When lion numbers were at their very highest deer numbers were actually increasing.

A couple other interesting notes on Monroe Mountain--currently fawn/doe ratios are hovering around 35 fawns/100 adults (an awfully low number) and the current deer collar study has shown that fawn survival is also very low (27%) while adult doe survival is good (86%). The deer collar study has shown that 48% of fawn mortality was simple winter kill, 29% was through predation, 5% was roadkill, and 19% was unknown.

What all these things say to me is that lions are NOT a limiting factor for deer herd numbers on Monroe because: 1) when lions were at their highest deer numbers were increasing and vice versa 2) of the 29% of fawns preyed upon, most were coyote kills 3) the highest cause of mortality associated with fawns was winter mortality (which can be traced back to poor health).

To me, it seems really obvious...the biggest limiting factors for herd growth on Monroe are coyote predation and habitat (elk may be a problem as they compete with deer for available forage). But, none of the studies and/or information gathered by the DWR shows lions as a major player in the deer decline. Also, and interestingly, the deer collar studies and winter/spring fawn/doe counts really back each other up and show similar problems--fawns are not being recruited into the herd.

So, sorry, but I just don't see that killing a bunch more lions on Monroe is going to make a significant difference. And, blaming the fawn recruitment to hunters makes even less sense to me...the limiting factors on Monroe Mountain and the reasons for the decline in deer numbers is NOT lion or hunter induced!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I haven't had a chance to listen to the whole thing, but plan on finishing it tonight. This goes along with pretty much my understanding of the problems that Utah faces re: mule deer populations. 

There's been much talk regarding Option 2 and how bad it will be for hunters in general. I've sat back and not said much - but here is my opinion on how "option 2" would be a benefit to the herds:

1: Unit Boundaries - These are difficult to set because mule deer are a migrating species, but boundaries should be set in regards to population or habitat segments (meaning a group of mule deer that live in the same area). Each population segment may face different limiting factors. Here is why having more units allows for custom tailored management plans for each unit. They seem to have done a decent job IMO.

2: Funding and Man hours - without this, option 2 will not work. Units need individual attention and won't get it without the manpower to do it.

3: Allow biologists to make decisions - this may be the hardest part - take out the politics and let the biologists set a plan and follow through with it. They are interested in a healthy population - so should hunters. The big bucks will follow.

4: Follow through - management plans take years to work their magic. Set one and let it run - don't change it next year just because the population hasn't doubled yet. There are too many variables to think things will change overnight - if the stars align, it could happen quickly - but most likely it won't.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

That study is a propaganda mill. Trying to show that cougar don't only eat deer they eat elk too. Only thing is they didn't start on the elk until all the deer were gone. And the elk are doing fine so whats the beef with cougar? :roll: Same with the one on Stansbury. The two worst deer units in the state. Also with the lowest buck doe ratio's. The low buck doe ratio is exacerbated by the high cougar population.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> To me, it seems really obvious...the biggest limiting factors for herd growth on Monroe are coyote predation and habitat (elk may be a problem as they compete with deer for available forage). But, none of the studies and/or information gathered by the DWR shows lions as a major player in the deer decline. Also, and interestingly, the deer collar studies and winter/spring fawn/doe counts really back each other up and show similar problems--fawns are not being recruited into the herd.


In an email conversation I had with Vance Mumford following our trip last spring to recover a collar from a dead deer, Vance told me that most research shows that when the deer herd is producing lots of fawns and habitat is productive then the predators have a small effect on deer populations. However, for the past 3 years we have had poor fawn production with less then optimum habitat conditions on the Monroe. With these current conditions he feels the predators (coyotes and cougars) can have an effect. He thinks the coyotes are likely having a greater effect than the cougars. Coyotes often take a large portion the fawn from birth to a few months of age.

For these reasons, he said that the DWR has raised the cougar harvest objective to 12 cougars on Monroe and they are starting intensive coyote control.

Personally, I think the DWR is making decisions on Monroe based on what the evidence they are gathering is showing...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> That study is a propaganda mill. Trying to show that cougar don't only eat deer they eat elk too. Only thing is they didn't start on the elk until all the deer were gone. And the elk are doing fine so whats the beef with cougar? :roll: Same with the one on Stansbury. The two worst deer units in the state. Also with the lowest buck doe ratio's. The low buck doe ratio is exacerbated by the high cougar population.


Just out of curiosity, Iron Bear, do you have any idea what the cougar study is even studying?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Yep! cougars :mrgreen:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wrong W to U,,,The HO quota on Monroe in NOT 12...

There are 12 early split season permits,,,,

BUT Monroe is part of the Monroe cougar management area and the
harvest objective quota is 93 or sub quota of 28 females...........................

MORE THAN enough to kill every single cat on Monroe starting March 5th
if the folks in Sevier/Piute want to.....Unlimited, over the counter lion permits...

Better get your story right


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Yep! cougars :mrgreen:


Yup, that's what I thought...the extent of your knowledge of the "cougar study" ends with the fact that the study is studying cougars. :roll: Yet, somehow, you know that it is simply feeding the "propaganda mill". :roll:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> I have to give Pheaz and SWBuckmaster some credit as he seems to agree to an extent that "Pressure" in general has hurt the herd (fat indexes) - mainly fawns. My question then would be how do we control everyday people (dogs on trails/hikers/campers/etc) and not just hunters? I guess I think it would be crazy to do this as they hikers/campers/dogs/etc. aren't going to give up just to grow a few more deer.
> 
> Thanks guys!


This is a good point, one that usually gets overlooked in these neverending debates about the deer herd. Back in the Grad school days at Colorado St., I took a class from a professor Terry Spraker on (in part) wildlife herd health. We often hear the terms "consumptive" wildlife use, such as hunting or fishing (with harvest) and "non consumptive" use (bird/wildlife watching, hiking, photography etc.) His assertion was essentially that there is *no such thing* as non consumptive use. His reasoning is that any interaction with the herd does stress the animals and lower fat indexes, which affects winter survival.

With that in mind, if the above is true, it is reasonable to assume that any extended hunt seasons will have a higher net predatory effect on the herd over and above what is harvested by hunters. The same applies to the general public's activities, but that is an area that is more problematic to regulate. It may be possible in some situations though. It also stands to reason that those guys that spend every evening watching the wintering deer from relatively close range as I always see this time of year are also "harvesting" some of them in a way too.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Wrong W to U,,,The HO quota on Monroe in NOT 12...
> 
> There are 12 early split season permits,,,,
> 
> ...


I will concede to you on this one...

...all I know is that when cougar numbers hit bottom following the peak in lion permit numbers, the mule deer population was at its lowest the following year (4200) in 2003....and once lion permit numbers were drastically cut (starting in 2002) and lion numbers started to rebound, deer numbers started to increase.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The problem with the predator argument is that its too focused, coyotes vs lions, etc. How did we get so many coyotes? Well first we got rid of wolves, this left a vacuum for a canine predator, Viola enter the coyote. So we had coyotes, no big deal, at least until we decided they needed to go also. So we start shooting and trapping coyotes, but it does not seam to reduce their numbers(And no, poison wont do it either), why? Well, because if you shoot/kill either of the alpha pair of a coyote pack(the only pair of the pack that normally reproduces), the betas and omegas will start breeding. And they don't breed at the same rate as the alpha pair, they produce bigger litters. This leads to larger and more aggressive packs. This is their evolutionary response to coming up through the ranks in the presence of wolves. With out other predators they breed out of control. So we turn up the pressure, but all this does is increase the cycle, and create smarter dogs. I know, I'm guilty of it, in the early '90s my only call was squeaking noises made with my mouth, then it was fox urine and hand held calls, then electronic calls, night time howling, mainlining with a needle, etc. And even so there places with only singles, pairs, or no coyotes at all, that also have flat, or declining deer numbers.

If you read the HUPC article I posted, written by Austin, the inference is balance. Take a deep breath, promise mom that you wont act out, and read the part about wolves and low deer numbers in particular. I'm not saying that wolves will save deer, but we have to look at all of this much differently that we have been. By severely suppressing predators, are we just setting them up for an explosion?, yes! By growing herds past carrying capacity are we just setting them up for a crash?, yes! Did we create a coyote problem?, yes! You cant blame predators for any of this, until we blame ourselves first. Biodiversity on both sides of the equation, predator and prey, is what is needed here. It is not as easy as just lowering predator populations, unless you like the whole yo-yo effect that it creates. Stabilization and diversity of predator and prey populations should be the emphasis. This can be applied all the way down to the dirt that feeds the plants, that feed the deer, that feed the lions, etc. Even that description is way too linear. Any time ecologies experience monoculture, weather it be through invasion, or selection, it throws things out of balance. Piling on to the imbalance wont fix things, it will only make things worse. I know, thats how we do things in this state.

How many studies do we have to do to see that predation, by coyotes in particular is not even close to being the bigger part of the problem. Yes if you look at this example or that example, you can make a case for predation. But not across the entire Western United States. There are places with no vehicle fatalities, the deer are flat or declining. There are places with very very low predation, and yet deer are flat or declining. Human pressure? thats probably what killed off all those Wasatch front deer? No, we have a declining Biodiversity problem. For you older guys that opine the "good ol' days" Think back on it, what else besides deer did you use to see more of? What things did you not see? How does this mesh with your fathers and grandfathers experiences. This of course varies from area to area, but its more than just deer. And all of the specific examples are irrelevant, I dont need to hear them.

Biodiversity. Or we can just farm big game, thats what allot of these people really want, just without the fences. Buy your ticket at the gate, access is easy, and "success" is not even possible, its not even probable, its guaranteed, OAC, restrictions may apply, side effects include drymouth, and further destruction of the resource.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Good post Lonetree....


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Catherder said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > With that in mind, if the above is true, it is reasonable to assume that any extended hunt seasons will have a higher net predatory effect on the herd over and above what is harvested by hunters. The same applies to the general public's activities, but that is an area that is more problematic to regulate. It may be possible in some situations though. It also stands to reason that those guys that spend every evening watching the wintering deer from relatively close range as I always see this time of year are also "harvesting" some of them in a way too.


I agree. And I think extended can be applied to all hunts, not just the late ones. Utah is unique in that a big game season lasts a long time. Starting in mid August with the bow hunt and continuing past the first of the year with late cow hunts. I think this length of pressure is causing higher winter mortality.

Contrast Utah to Wyoming, where archery hunts begin the first of September, and it is a rarity to have a hunt continue much past Nov. 1st.

I know this is comparing apples to oranges when looking at different states and realizing that declining mule deer populations is not unique to Utah - but I've always though condensing seasons couldn't hurt.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Good he!! tree, do you want to get on a snowmobile and follow me
> around for 2-3 months,,,,,,you'll figure out how few of deer there
> are , how many yotoes are running around,,,,and how few cat tracks
> are cut, ON MOST units.....
> ...


No need to wrinkle your panties, I was simply asking a question, which you kind of answered with conjecture.

You missed my point. The point I was making is supporting your theory/belief of there being less cats. But, is the "less cats" we are talking about enough? Do we need even less cats to see noticeable deer herd growth? I get it, you like to hunt cats and make somewhat of a living off of doing so, so you obviously have some concern over there being lower cat numbers. It's fair for you to think this way, given the circumstances.

So is it sensible or is it because there aren't any interests looking out for coyotes? I know the hounds men have been fighting tooth and nail with the division and other groups not to let cats become the target of the deer issue. Does that make them less of a cause or more of an obstacle because they have proponents?


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Either Mr. Rasmussen doesn't know what he is talking about or you had a serious lack of communication...here are the real stats:
> I spoke with Vance Mumford (DWR biologist for Monroe) about deer survival on Monroe...
> 
> According to Vance the current collar study showed in 2009/2010 that adult survival of deer is very good (86%) but that fawn survival was not (27%). The cause of death of the fawns can be broken down to 48% of the fawn mortality was simple winter mortality, 29% of the fawn mortality was linked to predation, 5% was linked to road kill, and 19% was unknown. He also mentioned that the predation numbers were compounded due to a dry growing season the previous summer. In other words the fawns came into the winter smaller than normal and then had to deal with a severe winter and late spring. Because of this high rate of mortality we saw far fewer yearling bucks during the hunt this past year.
> ...


Wy2Ut,

I stand by what I posted over a year ago and I have talk with Jim Lamb in depth on the Monroe deer problem and his comments support those comments of Mr. Rasmussen. Jim was a DWR biologist but has recently transferred and is now a State Biologist out of Loa.

My reason for posting this little excerpt was to show support for the Biologist interviewed in this radio show.

My apologies to Tye (Tree) and Chris (Bull) for my first post, I was a bit caught up in the "I told you so," hyperboley. As interesting as the interview was with Denis, and I forget his last name, most of the history and issues he brought up, we have already discussed and concluded for the most part.

The only argument left to be hashed out is do we continue to issue a large amount of deer tags each year and continue under the illusion of a general hunt, which in my opinion has not been the case since 1993. Or do we look at another approach that is not perfect, but does not over sale the resource on a yearly basis and looks at a more refined management plan. Do I agree that it is perfect? Hell no! But I do not support the Idea that SFW is the Boogie Man either. I also have some concerns about not completing the prior deer management plan.

What I do take issue with is the fact that those of us who have posted on the sight for the past four or so years and have raised the red flag that our deer herd are exponentially in trouble, have been berated, ridiculed, labeled and discredited at every turn. To the point that only a poster that is "presumed" to have sheep skin in biology need comment on this board. There are several of us that post on here that have been around the block a time or too and we have seen a little bigger picture of what Utah was and what it has become. I am a little concerned.

Every one love wildlife and wants to hunt, what is at the heart of the matter hear is responsible stewardship.

Big


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> My apologies to Tye (Tree) and Chris (Bull) for my first post, I was a bit caught up in the "I told you so," hyperboley.
> 
> Big


Thanks Big.

Speaking for myself and I doubt Tree would disagree, or any others from UWC for that matter (feel free to flame me if you don't)..... I'm not interested in being "right" and I recognize that I am not always right. I am not always right when posting on this forum. What I am interested in is in getting to the bottom of things and doing what is best for Utah wildlife and hunters with my little tiny role that I have in the grand scheme of things. That will mean sometimes I have to eat crow but I'm ok with that. It's a complex situation and I think seeking answers without bias will go much further than egos and agendas.

I think that having a biologist on the show with great credentials and does not work for the division was important. It's important not because we want to prove anybody right but rather give us talking points to seek out solutions we can somewhat agree on. It's important to find common ground and adjust when better information comes our way. Dennis doesn't agree with the division on some things and he mentioned a few of them last night. He mentioned pressure, the division disagrees and so did I until last night. This morning I'm thinking more about it and wanting to know more about the subject. Having other viewpoints with substance I think is a positive thing, NOT to discredit the UDWR but rather to give us other viewpoints that have substance to them so we can take a long hard look at how we are doing things. I(we) believe this is very important to seeking out answers in this process being wrong sometimes comes with the territory.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Every one love wildlife and wants to hunt, what is at the heart of the matter hear is responsible stewardship."

Agreed, but responsible stewardship is not Option WTF? managing for more bucks does not increase deer. Does bring forth fawns, and hunters shoot bucks. In the "Good ol' days" buck to doe ratios were low. Increasing buck to doe ratios does not get us to more deer. And the arguement about micro manageing smaller units is BS also. Smaller units is for the sole purpose of limiting hunters, which has the sole purpose of increasing the buck to doe ratio, which does NOT grow deer. Option WTF? is NOT even a step in the right direction. Unless your goal is to NOT increase deer herds, and rather you only want to hunt less frequently in exchange for less pressure from other hunters. Option WTF? does nothing to "help" deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> The only argument left to be hashed out is do we continue to issue a large amount of deer tags each year and continue under the illusion of a general hunt, which in my opinion has not been the case since 1993. Or do we look at another approach that is not perfect, but does not over sale the resource on a yearly basis and looks at a more refined management plan.


We need to start by agreeing that target buck to doe ratios as they exist now are not the problem for our declining deer herds in Utah. There are 2 completely different issues in play and I believe some mistakenly lump them into one issue....it's more like the chicken or the egg situation.

1 - Target buck to doe ratios around 15:100 - 18:100 make no biological difference. Dennis affirmed this last night. Granted some units are low and need attention and as has been said if a unit drops below a target then tags should be lowered. The fear is though when a tag numbers on unit are lowered (LE status) they never come back. As Dennis mentioned fawn recruitment AND mortality (doe must be bred and a fawn must be born for it to be able to die) is the real issue and saving a few bucks won't help that.

2 - Mule deer production and population growth. This is real problem and frankly has little to do with buck only hunting unless we get way out of control. Predators, vehicles, fire, habitat....these are the real issues we need to address.

So if deer herds are really declining at the rate some fear then likely what is happening is we are seeing less bucks because there are less deer.....not the other way around.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Bullsnot

Pressure is about as much of a smoking gun as coyotes, it only works in some places. Fewer than where the coyote arguement works. I am sure it is absolutly devastating in those places where it is a problem, but again very small part of the problem.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> Bullsnot
> 
> Pressure is about as much of a smoking gun as coyotes, it only works in some places. Fewer than where the coyote arguement works. I am sure it is absolutly devastating in those places where it is a problem, but again very small part of the problem.


You may be absolutely right.....I simply want to hear more on the subject and better understand Dennis' perspective and how big of a problem he believes this is, when it's a problem, and what we may or may not be able to do about it.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Bullsnot
> ...


We can start by reducing access by ATVs and snowmobiles to certain places, at certain times of the year, or all together in some places. I've been contributing to that battle since the early '90s. Small successes here and there have made little difference, and the lobbies that push these uses through the FS management plans typically get their way. Further more I can show you examples of places that had much higher historical access and use, that no longer do, and the deer are no better for it. Not to say that these areas are not better off overall though. I tend to prefer places that you can not even get a horse into, where you dont come across other people very often. These places are not neccassarily any better off from a wildlife perspective than areas with more traffic. Not to belittle the idea, it was once a firmly held general tenate of mine over a decade ago. I just dont see it with deer, at least not in a broad or general sense. In those smaller places where it is a problem, by all means.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-ri ... 02769.html


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

svmoose said:


> I haven't had a chance to listen to the whole thing, but plan on finishing it tonight. This goes along with pretty much my understanding of the problems that Utah faces re: mule deer populations.
> 
> There's been much talk regarding Option 2 and how bad it will be for hunters in general. I've sat back and not said much - but here is my opinion on how "option 2" would be a benefit to the herds:
> 
> ...


What you suggest is what the original 5 year management plan calls for *without Option #2*. Option #2 doesn't add anything to improve the unit deer populations. It just muddies the water with less revenue and, likely, fewer Dedicated Hunters to provide the manhours. Anyone bothering to actually read the December 2008 management plans, including the unit plans, should realize that! All of your suggestions are already there!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> What you suggest is what the original 5 year management plan calls for *without Option #2*. Option #2 doesn't add anything to improve the unit deer populations. It just muddies the water with less revenue and, likely, fewer Dedicated Hunters to provide the manhours. Anyone bothering to actually read the December 2008 management plans, including the unit plans, should realize that! All of your suggestions are already there!


I've read it. 30 hunting unit does have one difference and that is hunter and harvest management for these population segments. With oversized areas you may see a concentration of hunters in popular areas. While you can always sit back and say that buck harvest doesn't matter. I think it does in some cases.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Big,
Great post, I am curious where all the guys saying we are at carrying capacity went?????? Or that pressure has no effect on the deer????? The truth is we officially have under 300,000 deer in the state now. We should be trying and throwing any possible fix at the problem. Whether we personally think it's the best idea or not.

If Mr. Brown thinks money is solution, then let's triple tag cost and freaking generate some money!!! Id be willing to bet we come out ahead even if the rate increase scares off some hunters.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A couple of more "Odds-and-ends" comments on the thread. Slow day at work.

1.


bullsnot said:


> I simply want to hear more on the subject and better understand Dennis' perspective and how big of a problem he believes this is, when it's a problem, and what we may or may not be able to do about it.


I would be interested in hearing more of this as well. I only have handwritten notes from the original lecture and couldn't find any online links from the Prof. on the subject. (He is still at CSU and is now working on Chronic wasting disease.) But it is clear that many biologists do feel "pressure" from various areas is a problem.

As for what we could do about it? That isn't easy but here are a few possibilities.

A. Extended hunts may have to be carefully looked at and possibly reduced. Sorry Extended Wasatch archery guys. But there are other "extended" hunts as well and the total length of the hunting year with the various weapons may need to be reduced.

B. Maybe there are some things that we can do regarding the general public. Maybe some of the convention tag largesse can go towards a series of PSA ads teaching the public what to do when they encounter wildlife and encouraging them to not "love them to death". My experience with the public is that they wouldn't dream of harming deer, esp fawns, but they often make well meaning but devastating mistakes when they encounter fawns and other animals. The mortality from this could be rather high where a high human presence is found.

C. As I mentioned before, get people to leave the deer alone on the winter range. Coming back from a recent fishing trip, I saw 2-3 vehicles parked very near wintering deer herds in the WMA between Mona and Santaquin, including one genius that looked to be only about 50 yds away, (at least as it appeared to me from the freeway.) C'mon, we all like to watch them, but for he%% sakes give them some space and use a spotting scope. Maybe banning or reducing public access to winter range WMA's may foster increased wintering survival. Reducing OHV traffic could help in certain areas and times as well as a statewide reg. as they have in the North restricting shed hunting.

2.


elkfromabove said:


> 3: Allow biologists to make decisions - this may be the hardest part - take out the politics and let the biologists set a plan and follow through with it. They are interested in a healthy population - so should hunters. The big bucks will follow.


Sounds great, but with our regs made as they are by the Wildlife Board, do you think they will go for "really" implementing that? Didn't think so.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Big,
> Great post, I am curious where all the guys saying we are at carrying capacity went?????? Or that pressure has no effect on the deer????? The truth is we officially have under 300,000 deer in the state now. We should be trying and throwing any possible fix at the problem. Whether we personally think it's the best idea or not.
> 
> If Mr. Brown thinks money is solution, then let's triple tag cost and freaking generate some money!!! Id be willing to bet we come out ahead even if the rate increase scares off some hunters.


Did you listen to the show or did you just pick out what you liked? Dennis very clearly said that cutting tags won't help deer biologically. I fully admit that there is clearly a gap between tag cuts won't help and pressure hurts so put your thinking cap and understand there is something missing from his comments. We'll find out what that is.

Steve Brown didn't say the solution was money......just go back and listen to the show. Don't pick and choose comments to twist what was said. Use the correct context of what was said.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

In a perfect world we would be in total harmony with "nature" and a balance in all things dealing with wildlife. However as I have saddly experianced, nature runs in cycles and those cycles can be tempered by human intervention but in most cases the law of enthropy takes over and murphy previels.

As has been mentioned on this forum by greater anamilogist than I, the fact that bucks do not give birth to fawns and I most humbley conceed that point. However with that being said, two spikes breeding one hundred does maybe possible and perfered on the Vernon unit, but 2/3's of sportsmen voted that it was not sporting or healthy for a aneamic deer herd to try to recover to a sastaining harvestible yeild over the long term.
Sportsmen can no longer expect that we can hunt mule deer without some sacrifice and it may not be biologically supported, but it is darn sure expected in the public persception arena. We no longer have a GENERAL DEER hunting season. We now have thirty limited entry units and yes, this is pure hunter control with limited biological benifit. 

In my opinion if we are to have any succses with young hunter recrutment, we must produce a huntible product. And for the vast hunting pool this is limited to male deer. Should we continue to basterdize our deer herd without making an attempt to provide the hunting public with a fair chance at harvesting a buck, then we only inflate the demand for speculators to reasonabley hunt on land that holds such sufficient bucks to meet such expectations. Which empowers the aristocrats and serves to promote private property wildlife ranching and the surfs are left to forage in a barrin public waste land.

Big


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

For those that have not read these:

http://www.createstrat.com/i/globalwarmingdoc2.pdf

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/06 ... barometer/

Pay attention to the time line in the second one.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

A flexible policy with balance as a goal, would in part manage for the cycles. Find out how to buffer for the highs and lows, and shoot for sustainablity. I keep zooming out in my research, and feed is still winning out as the biggest factor. And diversity still wins out as a solution.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> A flexible policy with balance as a goal, would in part manage for the cycles. Find out how to buffer for the highs and lows, and shoot for sustainablity. I keep zooming out in my research, and feed is still winning out as the biggest factor. And diversity still wins out as a solution.


LT ,

I have made this same argument on many post throughout the last few years. Mule deer can no longer be used as the sole cash cow for the DWR.
Big


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> That study is a propaganda mill. Trying to show that cougar don't only eat deer they eat elk too. Only thing is they didn't start on the elk until all the deer were gone. And the elk are doing fine so whats the beef with cougar? :roll: Same with the one on Stansbury. The two worst deer units in the state. Also with the lowest buck doe ratio's. The low buck doe ratio is exacerbated by the high cougar population.


I can say will certainty that your comments on the Stansbury are NOT accurate! Before the bighorn sheep herd was introduced on the Stansbury range in 2006, the lion population was knocked way down, and once the bighorns were on the range, the lion population was monitored very closely, and when more bighorns were added in 2008 the same thing occurred. The mountain lion population is NOT why the deer are struggling on the Stansbury range. The range has had several major fires that have devastated winter and summer ranges. Also, one of the unintended consequences of the bighorn sheep introduction was; due of the removal of all domestic sheep on the range, the dynamics of the available feed has changed. Between the fires and the change in feed due to the removal of domestic sheep, they have been major limiters on the deer herd. Mountain lions are NOT one of the primary limiting factors on this range, of that I am sure! 
On a side note, it was rare to see an elk on the Stansbury range pre-2006, now half of the Oquirrh herd resides on the Stansbury......just saying....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

bull,
You are right, I did only take what I wanted to make my argument. I was just trying to fit in on this site. Guess that only works if you are arguing from a certain perspective.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> .....that cougar don't only eat deer they eat elk too. Only thing is they didn't start on the elk until all the deer were gone.


I gotta disagree with you on that one IB, I've been running my dogs off of lion killed elk carcasses since I started into hounds back in the early 80's....that was years before the deer herd around here crashed. I suspect cougar have been preying on elk ever since Adam got his ass kicked out of the Garden of Eden!


----------

