# Parker Mountain Power



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

Anybody heard about plans to generate electricity on Parker mountain? That's got to affect the deer/elk there. (Sage grouse are usually not up in that area.)

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/...mbiotics_ Riverbank_ 2011 - Study Request.pdf

Evidently there will be a reservoir somewhere northeast of Parker knoll (Dog lake?) and the water will travel down towards Otter creek to generate electricity during peak hours and then water will be pumped back up during off-peak times. :shock:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

that's interesting. Thanks for the link.

I'm curious about your comment about affects to the deer/elk: in your opinion, how would this affect them?


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

The effect would be from the construction that would take place.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

doc -- I understand. I'd love to see their EA (Environmental Assessment) if they get that far.

Roads are already there -- I doubt much improvement would be necessary. Construction of the pond to hold the 6,000 acre feet of water would be necessary -- but would that be a negative or positive affect to wildlife? Pipeline, turbine, other equipment would need to be constructed -- possible negative affects to wildlife.

I'm not trying to argue that the project is good or bad -- I'm just trying to picture the scope of the project, and weight the pros vs. cons.

It's obvious this project is in the early stages. It will be something to keep an eye on.


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm not sure it would be a big negative effect in the long run but during the construction phase it would "relocate" some of the animals and possibly change some migration routes. Many deer migrate off the area going down over the "drop-off" when they get pushed a little. It was always interesting to watch the bucks run across the flats for the drop off back when there were a lot more hunters in the area.

The water could also be an issue in years of dry conditions. Some years the "lakes" and ponds are pretty dry later in the year.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lots more hunters and TONS literally THOUSANDS more deer. The Parker is sure a sad sad representation of poor management.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

Bear lake has a similar proposal - pump during off hours, generate during peak demand. been on the table for years - aint happened yet. wouldnt hold my breath on this one either....


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

A perpetual motion machine? Unless the laws of nature have changed these things can’t have a net gain. :?:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Lots more hunters and TONS literally THOUSANDS more deer. The Parker is sure a sad sad representation of poor management.


That's funny....I was thinking the exact opposite. I have been hunting the Parker pretty hard the past few years because of how good it seemed to me!


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

I've actually had discussions with the the group that is pitching the plan from the get go. Where it will be located is on the top of the Parker Rim. I really don't think it will have negative impacts on elk, deer, or the sage-grouse. The foot print will be so small on top and the road getting there will be existing roads for the most part. It's pretty amazing how it will work. Anyway, i don't see it as a huge impact and think the mitigation efforts and dollars generated will far out weigh any negative things. That's must my opinion though.

Todd


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Cooky said:


> A perpetual motion machine? Unless the laws of nature have changed these things can't have a net gain. :?:


.........................................Coal fired power plants operate best at full capacity all of the time. So the electricity used during the day is where the set point is made................................................


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> Bear lake has a similar proposal - pump during off hours, generate during peak demand. been on the table for years - aint happened yet. wouldnt hold my breath on this one either....


I think they dropped the Bear Lake proposal. Too much negative publicity. Time will tell. I ain't holdin' my breath either.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Cooky said:
> 
> 
> > A perpetual motion machine? Unless the laws of nature have changed these things can't have a net gain. :?:
> ...


Sorry Fishrmn, I used the "edit" tab instead of the "quote" tab. My bad. I owe ya another quarter.

sorry man


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

So we are going to use public money to build an electric plant that uses more electricity than it makes… but it does it cheaper sometimes… and it’s environmentally friendly.
I wonder if it’s too late to buy stock.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

W2U,
You should have seen it in the early 80s. I really was amazing. I could tell you some pretty neat stories, but I'm sure they would pale to over abundance of game I'm sure you have been chasing out there. 

One funny irony, I actually grew up hunting the Parker with a bunch of DWR Fisheries guys. Great times and memories. Too bad 3 point or better hurt it so bad. Makes me sad to see it now.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

You're gonna make me a rich man. 'Course I ain't gonna hold my breath. :mrgreen:


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

no perpetual motion machine here... simple concept. pump the water up at x$ per unit, then let it run back down the hill and generate electricity at x+y$ per unit. pump at cheap rate, generate at expensive rate. they dont propose this stuff if it doesnt make money enough to make a profit. its the peak power consumption rates they want to capture.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Making money from this project requires that electricity is generated and wasted at another facility. 
That waste electricity used the same resources to generate as did the electricity sold at full price. 
This project creates a demand to continue wasteful power generation.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Cooky said:


> This project creates a demand to continue wasteful power generation.


Not necessarily. The power from coal fired generators is nearly constant, 24 hours a day. They generate as much as they need during the day, and allow the "excess" that is produced at night to be sold quite cheaply. (If you can, you should wash your dishes and clothes in the middle of the night.) They're gonna produce it whether anyone uses it or not. This project will use cheap electricity to pump water uphill at night. Then when the rates are up they'll allow it to run downhill through a turbine during the day. If I could buy $20 bills for $10, I would buy as many as someone would sell me. I'd sell my house at half price to get started if I could guarantee that kind of return. You'd only have to turn your money over one time to be back in the black. After that, it would be all profit.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> W2U,
> You should have seen it in the early 80s. I really was amazing.


What unit wasn't great in the early 80s? Wasn't that when mule deer numbers peaked?



Muley73 said:


> Too bad 3 point or better hurt it so bad.


I don't remember that unit ever being 3-point or better....but, I am sure it was just like every other mule deer unit that had those regs--a good attempt at growing more big bucks, but ultimately just a good way of limiting hunters without any positive results as far as the deer go...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad 3 point or better hurt it so bad.
> ...


3 pt or better worked in both the Henry's and the Books quite well and it wasn't a draw area either but general season tags. They just had those restrictions. Both units didn't go down hill until they opened it up to any buck. Then it only took about 3 years to shoot them to pieces before they closed them.

I watched it happen in both units.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> Both units didn't go down hill until they opened it up to any buck. Then it only took about 3 years to shoot them to pieces before they closed them.
> 
> I watched it happen in both units.


And the winter of '93 that wiped out populations across the entire state didnt have an impact? Wow....

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > Both units didn't go down hill until they opened it up to any buck. Then it only took about 3 years to shoot them to pieces before they closed them.
> ...


That was part of the problem but both of those areas were gone by 93 anyway.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

It is funny how people's memory is different than what actually happened:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8351 ... NTING.html

"The DWR has monitored the impact of this harvest strategy for five years, now.

On the positive side, the postseason buck/doe ratio was higher for the Book Cliffs than for the five buck-only units nearby. Postseason counts revealed an average of nine bucks per 100 does in the buck-only areas, and 18 to 100 in the Book Cliffs.

Other data was not so encouraging. While the number of spike and three-point buck increased, the percentage of two- and four-point bucks decreased.

More interesting is the fact that the percent of three-point and four-point bucks counted after the season was higher on buck only units than in the Book Cliffs. This indicated fewer bucks were living long enough to reach their potential as trophies."

"Another problem is the high rate of illegal kills. For every 100 legal deer checked, 48 sub-legal bucks were shot and left."


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> "Another problem is the high rate of illegal kills. For every 100 legal deer checked, 48 sub-legal bucks were shot and left."


Good find on the article. That is amazing! However, you do know that you are quoting the DWR and in some people's minds they can't count very well. :O•-:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How many legal deer where checked? 100?

How and the heck did they come up with those numbers? :roll:


Walk the hillsides looking for dead 2pts? I call BS.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Or did half of the guys with legal bucks admit to shooting a 2 pt and letting it lay?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Iron -- you realize that that article wasn't really written in 1990 don't you? It was actually just written a couple hours ago -- the DWR was monitoring this thread, saw the direction it was going and hurriedly wrote that article and got it posted to the archives at the newspaper so it would look like it was written in 1990.

It's all part of the same conspiracy. It's been on-going for like 60 years, and everyone at the DWR is in on it. Somehow, nobody has leaked this conspiracy to wikileaks yet. but, it will come out sooner or later.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

30 yrs.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Alright , this thread is officially high jacked..........antler restic's , here we go.

Here's the funny thing, You NEVER hear anyone that ACTUALY spent time hunting
those A/R units back in the 80's say,,,," Antler restrictions didn't work" ,, NEVER!

Its always some , college educated, Study nut, THAT WAS NEVER EVEN THERE!

The hard winter of 93, ya right, These units were shot out from 89-91..
NOT ONLY that, But , hard winters just are not quite the same on the Henry's
and Book Cliffs. Lots of lower country for deer to escape deep snow........
I was there on those hard winters and I can tell you, The winter kill there
was nothing like Central Utah where there were dozens of dead deer in every
canyon.

Illegal kills on antler restricted units,,,,LOL!
In all the years I spent hunting AR unit, all 3 hunts, TWO BUCK TAGS, I only
found, heard of , a hand full of buck shot that were too small,,(illegal 2 or 3 pts).

Law enforcement (DWR)on those units was not even very plentiful, to say the least.
Ya, the DWR had a cabin on the Henry's, and a trailer or two in the Books,,

But you sure the hell didn't see them much! Especially on the bow hunt, 2 years I 
spent almost the entire archery hunt (30+ days)on the Henry's, NEVER SAW A FISHCOP!

The following year I spent the entire rifle and muzzy hunt in the Books and
only saw one.............who was making all these busts on illegal kills anyway?!

I've spent entire winters in the Book cliffs, NEVER see a CO..........
Ran into Hal Black once in a while out there, But that it as far as the DWR gos..


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The funny thing about you guys who really believed these things work is that you have absolutely zero evidence to prove it...in fact, the only thing you do have is your memory of something that existed over 20 years ago. Yet, when documented counts are shown to counter your memories, you try to discount them. You guys kill me....

...the funny thing is that EVERY western state has come to the same conclusions that Utah did and EVERY western state has found the same results.

I wonder....is the world flat in your eyes, Goofy? Or, did you actually fly to the moon to see that it is really round?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well W2U,,,,,It's obvious, you weren't there to see it,,,were you.

And I will say, for some reason , Oak city didn't do as well under antler restics....
Even though , I did kill a big 3x4 there one year too.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> The hard winter of 93, ya right, These units were shot out from 89-91..
> NOT ONLY that, But , hard winters just are not quite the same on the Henry's
> and Book Cliffs. Lots of lower country for deer to escape deep snow........


Geez, Goofy, do you even pay attention to what the DWR says about some of these places? The Henry's, for example, has been (according to the DWR/BLM range trend studies) has been limited by summer habitat not winter. But, that's not what makes me laugh about your comments...

...If you didn't have your head so far up in the clouds, you might have stopped, thought a few minutes, and realized that the DWR gives you option 2 guys a pretty interesting argument. But, you miss it completely because you are too dang busy trying to discount all of the data that they are giving you...

...in the newspaper article above and all the information you read when it comes to antler-point restrictions, fish and game agencies--not just Utah's--claim that the hunting pressure becomes so focused on the oldest deer that units start losing the number of 3-point or better deer and the number of mature deer. If this is true, and if the number of mature deer declines as a result of antler-point restrictions, then, by your reasoning what should happen as a result? Don't guys like you repeatedly claim that it is a terrible thing that spikes and two-points are doing so much breeding? Why is that supposedly so bad in your eyes? Haven't you claimed that if the young bucks are the only ones left to breed that fawns will be born later and have a hard time surviving critical times?

Go back and look at the fawn/doe ratios and fawn/adult numbers immediately following those 3-point or better years....at least on the Henry's you will find that the fawn/doe ratios were terribly low despite having buck/doe ratios relatively high (at least in comparison with the surrounding units).

The funny thing, again, though, is that you can't make that argument yourself....


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Goofy -- how 'bout Bumblebee?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > Both units didn't go down hill until they opened it up to any buck. Then it only took about 3 years to shoot them to pieces before they closed them.
> ...


^^^^^^^^
I was referring to this statement W2U!!!!!,,,Who's not paying Attention?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

PBH said:


> Goofy -- how 'bout Bumblebee?


You mean Commanche, Browse?

Or the old Bumble Bee ridge and I were discussing?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

For about the thousandth time. If you want big bucks, protect big bucks. If you want little bucks, protect little bucks. If you kill all of the big bucks, the little bucks are left to do the breeding.

Spikes should be killed on sight.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the 'funny thing' you don't take into consideration W2U..

Take a unit like Nebo, The buck to doe ratios are struggling tremendously...
It will probably go limited entry status in 2013.................

I say, now we have individual units, why not try Antler restrictions on Nebo
for just 2 years and see if the buck to doe ratios recover enough to keep it from
to a LE status?????????????????? Why not W2U?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Read what Fishrmn said....the problem is that you are NOT protecting the mature portion of your herd. So, you are left with only the very young immature bucks...and, buck/doe ratios do NOT improve. That is what states that have tried these regulations have learned...they don't accomplish the goal of more and/or bigger bucks. Instead, they result in fewer bucks and fewer large mature bucks.

My opinion is that units where buck/doe ratios are lower than objective should see a reduction in tags. If buck/doe ratios are too low, fewer bucks need to be harvested. I look at a unit like Monroe where this has been the case and I believe you could also reduce harvest by changing the date of the rifle hunt...that is the nice thing about a unit-based management system. I believe the DWR could very easily issue the same number tags on the Monroe and see an upward trend in the buck/doe ratios on Monroe and actually limit harvest just by moving the rilfe hunt dates back earlier into the month...from what I have seen, the deer on Monroe migrate off the mountain much earlier than in other units. This migration leads to a lot of killing of deer off the winter range..


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

goofy -- bumblebee, now part of the pine valley unit. 3-point or better restrictions, then LE, now open. Tell me a bit about how successful it was.



With 3-point or better restrictions, which animals get shot? A: 4-points and larger
with 3-point or better restrictions, which animals don't get shot? A: 3-points, 2-points, and spikes. 
What's left to do the breeding? A: it ain't the big ones 'cause they done got shot.

Are there really only 3 people that can see this logic?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm done debating something that's not even going to happen....or what did happen.

I say now we have opt 2,,,,,,just take units like Nebo, Monroe, south slope,north slope,..
Every one with B/D ratios around 10 to 100 and cut the permits in half of what they were last year.....estimated hunter numbers............................That's a start.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I can beat a dead horse for yrs.  Some of you have seen me do it. :lol: 

It's not like anyone passes on a 4 pt so they can hold out for a 2pt or spike. So the argument of 3pt or better is bad because it kills all the big bucks leaving only little ones to do the breeding. Doesn't hold water. 

Any 4 pt on any general unit has a great big bullseye on it. And if it presents an opportunity it will be shot 3pt better rule or not.

I think the thinking on 3pt or better is give the young bucks some time to grow get smart before they are slaughtered by road hunters.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> It's not like anyone passes on a 4 pt so they can hold out for a 2pt or spike.


Cant speak for others, but I have passed on 4pts to shoot 2pts. Cant eat the antlers and the 4pt was way more work from where it was at to make it worth it to ME. Antlers only represent a legal animal to harvest, nothing more. Most of my most memerable hunts have been of smaller deer (shot while hunting with my boy or wife etc).

-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

3 1/2


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > It's not like anyone passes on a 4 pt so they can hold out for a 2pt or spike.
> ...


And most of my bucks and the ones my family have taken have been 2 or 3 points because there was no reason to wait for the 4 points. I've NEVER passed up a shot on a legal buck that presents a quality shot. And I think it's foolish to go home empty handed if there was an opportunity to harvest a legal deer. Tags don't taste any better than antlers!


----------



## johnboy (Nov 22, 2011)

might be a dumb question but i'll ask it anyway
Would it not be better to find a sustainable number of bucks per unit and cull the does to suit that particular number
Therefore the meat hunters would get their meat from the excess does and hopefully the buck size would grow
limit the buck harvest to mature animals


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

johnboy said:


> might be a dumb question but i'll ask it anyway
> Would it not be better to find a sustainable number of bucks per unit and cull the does to suit that particular number
> Therefore the meat hunters would get their meat from the excess does and hopefully the buck size would grow
> limit the buck harvest to mature animals


This would be possible on a unit that is above the unit's herd objective...otherwise, you are harvesting the reproductive portion of your herd which is a bad idea when you are trying to grow the herd. So, in Utah, this is a bad idea on most units and in most situations.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> It's not like anyone passes on a 4 pt so they can hold out for a 2pt or spike. So the argument of 3pt or better is bad because it kills all the big bucks leaving only little ones to do the breeding. Doesn't hold water.
> 
> Any 4 pt on any general unit has a great big bullseye on it. And if it presents an opportunity it will be shot 3pt better rule or not.


The difference is that when regulations allow the harvesting of small bucks, many people don't wait until they see that 3 or 4 point before they shoot. This allows some of those older bucks to escape harvest. But, when all of the harvest is focused on one group of deer, every hunter is looking for that 3 or 4 point.

Like Fishrmn keeps saying, if you want more 3 and 4 points, you have to protect them...you can't focus all the harvest on them.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy.. Your Right On! I know how much time you have put in down on Parker and other areas that have been listed. I have done the same. I've caught hell for my opinons in the past.. But here goes... Them that don't get it! will never get it!....As far as their opinons I COULD SHIVE GET!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Them that don't get it! will never get it!...


I'll second them there opinions...thems that ain't a-able to understand, ain't a-never gonna!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> oldfudd said:
> 
> 
> > Them that don't get it! will never get it!...
> ...


Especially when the FACTS (not their personal opinions) are against them!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just a question for W2U, Fishrmn, PBH, even tree,,,,,,,,Oh ya,,JUDDCT too.

How much time did you 'anti-antler restriction"guys spend on the 3 & 4 point or
better units when the ARs were in place?

And johnboy, harvesting the older class animals is exactly what ARs do.....

Some of these guys think ARs, and putting all the pressure on older class animals
kills every mature buck in the unit....That's BS.

Some guys don't get,,,,80% of Utah's general season buck harvest are YEARLING bucks.
Give these yearling bucks a free pass for a year or two + opt 2 holding hunters back....

The buck to doe ratios will be fixed in a couple years,,,,,Then the DWR can lift
restrctions and raise permits..Come on bullsnot, lets try it on Nebo,Experiment a little.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One thing that I do know that on the antler restricted units when they had them a lot of hunters went home with tag soup when they didn't find a animal that fit their standards. At least I know that I did along with a couple of my hunting partners. It wasn't about shoothing the first leagle buck that we saw. 

We also found out on those hunts that taking home meat for the freezer was secondary to having a enjoyable hunt with friends and family.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just a question for W2U, Fishrmn, PBH, even tree,,,,,,,,Oh ya,,JUDDCT too.
> 
> How much time did you 'anti-antler restriction"guys spend on the 3 & 4 point or better units
> when the ARs were in place?
> ...


Goofy I appreciate your differing opinions in such debates as I think competition is important. However, you have yet to give me one shred of evidence (other than your personal time in the mountains) as proof of your beliefs. Please give me something that shows your opinion is true. I promise I'll read the findings and such and come to an opinion which could change my mind. But you just want me to beleive you at face value and discredit the published reports/findings of the DWR and biologists that are entrusted with the resource (not to mention all the other findings spread out over the western states against Antler Restrictions). Please give me something to believe you other than the standard *"I've been there so I know better than everyone else"*


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just a question for W2U, Fishrmn, PBH, even tree,,,,,,,,Oh ya,,JUDDCT too.
> 
> How much time did you 'anti-antler restriction"guys spend on the 3 & 4 point or
> better units when the ARs were in place?


A lot...I grew up spending a lot of time on the Fishlake, Monroe, Parker, and Bumblebee units...I have spent a lifetime learning them and loving them!



goofy elk said:


> Some of these guys think ARs, and putting all the pressure on older class animals
> kills every mature buck in the unit....That's BS.


No, we don't believe they kill every mature buck, we believe that they reduce the number of mature bucks and actually have the exact opposite effect than what is desired. We understand this because we also understand that EVERY western state has tried them and concluded that they do NOT work.


goofy elk said:


> Some guys don't get,,,,80% of Utah's general season buck harvest are YEARLING bucks.
> Give these yearling bucks a free pass for a year or two + opt 2 holding hunters back....


Some guys don't get that on a general season unit that 80% of the harvest SHOULD be yearling bucks. These GENERAL season units are not trophy units and should not be managed as such...they are units that should maximize opportunity for the general crowd at the expense of trophy quality. Some guys don't get that you can't increase the number of mature bucks by killing them...

....Goofy, I'll tell you what....I will agree to "trying-out" some APRs on a unit like Nebo if you can find one published study done on mule deer that shows that they can actually increase the number of mature bucks and improve buck/doe ratios. You find one study or any kind of credible evidence outside your memory that shows they can achieve what they set out and I will start listening to you....agree?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Please give me something to believe you other than the standard *"I've been there so I know better than everyone else"*


Hah...you beat me to it!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy,

Here is a good synopsis of AR:

http://buffalo.uwex.edu/files/2011/01/Antler-Restrictions-The-new-fad.pdf


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I edited my post because it was not even up to speed with this post. looks like it was hijacked.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

No crap. All he needs is a few hundred thousand dollars and nearly unlimited free labor. And he could do a study to validate himself. And you guys could then see some truth in what he is saying.

Did I just defend Goofy? -)O(-  :mrgreen:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Come on. Back during the 3 point restrictions You could get anterless permits over the counter. If you wanted a meat harvest...OH! and them that don't get STILL don't get it.So will just let it go for now.I will never change the way other people feel and fer sure never change the way I feel.Just because a guy is 66 yrs old do that make him stuuupppied? HEY!,, Got an idea. Lets used some of the graphs, and stats that the DWR through out a few years back..


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Come on. Back during the 3 point restrictions You could get anterless permits over the counter. If you wanted a meat harvest...OH! and them that don't get STILL don't get it.So will just let it go for now.I will never change the way other people feel and fer sure never change the way I feel.Just because a guy is 66 yrs old do that make him stuuupppied?


But if he ignores the FACTS it can make him stubborn, correct?

I'll use my Father-in-law as an example. When I married my wife I married into a great Hunting family in the Sanpete valley (PRO can attest to this as I think my FIL sold PRO his first elk call or so PRO told me once). Anyway, my FIL once believed AR restrictions were the save all for *"HIS"* struggling unit and he wasn't going to be convinced in the contrary. You would ask him to explain himself and he would quote his time in the field (which I argue blows past any of you on here) on *"HIS"* unit. Well after a few years of the DH program in which he and I worked on the unit, meeting with biologists, and talking. He finally opened up and decided to actually add to his already great wealth of personal knowledge by looking into the published studies. Where do you think he stands now in regards to AR. :lol: Yep, he quotes *"HIS"* experience and the countless studies already done in the west and says AR flat out don't give the desired return. Funny how an old experienced dog can still learn new tricks *WHEN HE WANTS!*


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Here is a link to some interesting stuff from 1987....read the information about 3-point or better regulations.

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/ojs/index.php/w ... /1738/2086


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Let's make this simple. Let's say you have three bucks in a herd. One is a 4 point, one is a two point, and one is a spike. If you kill the 4 point, you're left with a two point and a spike to do the breeding. You have a two point that you hope will survive and grow into a 4 point next year. You have young bucks trying to survive a winter. If you kill both the 4 point and the 2 point, you have a genetically inferior animal doing all of the breeding. And what do you have left at the end of the hunt? The littlest deer on the mountain.

Now if you'd kill the spike, you'd have a 4 point and a 2 point left at the end of the hunt. You'd have the biggest deer on the mountain doing the majority of the breeding. You'd eliminate the smallest and the genetically inferior animal. You'd have a 4 point that is a bigger bodied animal that is more likely to survive the winter, and you'd also have a 2 point that would probably follow the 4 point around and survive the winter. If you were going to kill 2 of the three and killed the 2 point and left the 4 point, you'd still have the best deer doing the breeding, you'd still have the deer most likely to survive the winter.

You can't kill big bucks and expect to have big bucks. If you protect little bucks, you'll have little bucks.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

The flaw in your post is this...you have no idea of the genetics of either the spike or the two point. Just because they haven't matured doesn't mean they are not genetically the same, better, or worse than the mature 4 point.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So in AR units every mature buck gets killed each yr? 

Someone going to jump you on the genetically inferior comment.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I guess we can add Parker to the list of units Goofy knows everything about. I want him on WB. Is there anywhere in the State you haven't "been there and done that?"


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

There's no flaw in it. A spike mule deer is genetically inferior to a branch antlered animal. PERIOD. Mule deer have, by definition, bifurcated antlers. Spikes don't have them. There are plenty of instances where there are mature bucks with 2 points. And either way, at the end of the hunt, and at the beginning of the next year's hunt, there is a greater chance of having mature, branch antlered deer available if you kill the spike and leave the biggest deer to survive. If you kill the biggest deer on the mountain, you leave the smallest. If you kill the smallest, you leave the biggest.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> So in AR units every mature buck gets killed each yr?
> 
> Someone going to jump you on the genetically inferior comment.


No, not every mature buck gets killed. But if you concentrate the pressure on the mature bucks, more of them will get killed. And you're left with little bucks, not bigger bucks. And YES spikes are genetically INFERIOR to branch antlered deer.


> Mule deer antlers are bifurcated; in other words, they "fork" as they grow, rather than branching from a single main beam, as is the case with whitetails.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

absolute bs! 

there is nothing saying a spike deer wasnt just born later in the year because its dady was a young buck that finised his breading in late december. So the fawn was just born late. This caused him to miss the best time of year to put on weight because the forage he was eating was drying out ect.

you wont know what its potential is until its mature. Im sure if you let it mature 99% of them anyone would tag on a general unit and most would tag on a LE unit. 

So you going to tell me a spike elk is inferior? They have forked antlers! Ive seen plenty of spike elk on farms turn into absolute monsters in less the 6 years.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Nope. Elk are an entirely different animal


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

JUDDCT. I to am from the Beautiful Sanpete Valley.Ask your Father in Law, Who I'am sure is a wise man Comin from Sanpete. What happened to the area? Black Canyon. Reeders Ridge, Canal Canyon. The Shoe.I for sure complained about the restrictions.first 3 years . eating tag soup,.I hunt archery only. On the 4th year the place was un real. Haven't seen that many deer down that way sence I was a kid. The place i beleive will never be what it was. Micro Management or what..


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Mule deer bucks, unlike black-tails and whitetails, do not normally develop spike antlers as yearlings. A spike antlered mule deer may be a genetically inferior animal or have been a late-born fawn. Mule deer usually sprout forked antlers as their first headgear.

So, both of you are correct; however, Fishrmn's original post remains valid. If you focus all the hunting pressure on the mature deer, the immature deer are left to do the breeding. This may also lead to more spikes because more immature deer are doing the breeding and could possibly lead to more late-born fawns...


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It sure is interesting how good conditions can make a certain stance Brilliant, while poor conditions make the same stance ludicrous.

I watched a guy use the WAFWA Mule Deer publication to further his stances, then turn right around and ignore the same publication.

Read what WAFWA has to say about antler restrictions:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/mule_deer_wafwa.pdf

I would never want all the pressure placed on the best qualities of the herd for a general season. I would never sell most of my best cows as they are coming into their prime to keep the heifers. If I had a 3 year old cow with 2 teats I would sell her. Placing all the pressure on the best segment of the herd? Why not just make it Limited Entry and call it good. (well it already is LTD entry, just not that restrictive-- yet)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> I guess we can add Parker to the list of units Goofy knows everything about. I want him on WB. Is there anywhere in the State you haven't "been there and done that?"


Heres some of my Parker mountain stuff marty..
My wife 1992..[attachment=4:38263rrp]ja.jpg[/attachment:38263rrp]

My 2005 archery buck..[attachment=3:38263rrp]tylers turkey 001.jpg[/attachment:38263rrp]

I've spent 100s of days on the Parker Mcfly,
I've even learn how to kill antelope out of tree stands there,,Dam fun hunt.[attachment=2:38263rrp]100_0891ts.jpg[/attachment:38263rrp]
View from our stands...[attachment=1:38263rrp]100_0894tv.jpg[/attachment:38263rrp]

AND ,,my wife and oldest boy probably have enough points to pull
the archery tags AGAIN THIS YEAR!......were going back... *()*

My 2009 archery parker buck..[attachment=0:38263rrp]100_0914tba.jpg[/attachment:38263rrp]

Mcfly,,,,20 years of guiding hunts for a living,,,,I've covered some ground!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why don't we have spike and 2pt buck only restrictions?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Do any of you guys realize the crap you guys argue is just crap? Antler restrictions are no different then slot systems for fish! You will see more fish/bucks but the majority will be under the slot. Do slot systems allow for more fishing/buck opportunity? YES! Do you get to kill every fish/buck you catch/see? NO

Its funny how some of you argue that with antler restrictions only the small bucks will be doing the breading. Who do you think is doing the majority of the breading right now on the general units? Thats right the smaller bucks! 

There are fundamental flaws in both general units/antler restriction systems imho. That is you have immature deer doing the breading. Fawns are born later in the year in these systems resulting to a prey base spread out in the summer "easier meals for coyotes" then if they were all born in a months time. It also insures a higher percentage of fawns going into the winter with less body weight, resulting in higher winter mortality rates. 


If the deer herd is more balanced with a mixed age of bucks the deer herd is more healthy. It just sucks in this system no one is allowed to hunt! 

So which is the lesser of the evils? Put your politics aside! Its a system that still allows more hunting opportunity, less success rates, a diverse population of different aged bucks!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

doesn't matter never mind.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Since you brought it up. Slot limits on fish are completely different than antler restrictions. You can't kill and release a buck that is too small for the regulations. And... if you care to look, the most common size of fish in a body of water that has a slot limit is within the slot. Fish that grow bigger than the slot are legal to harvest. And most of them are. It is a perfect example for my argument. If you protect smaller bucks, you'll see smaller bucks. If you protect big bucks, you'll see big bucks. If you kill the biggest, the ones that are left are smaller. If you kill the smallest, the ones that are left are bigger.

Kill the smallest bucks and leave the biggest and best to do the br*ee*ding. You'll see bigger bucks, and you'll produce bigger bucks. Bigger bucks are more likely to survive winter. They are more likely to br*ee*d during the first estrus cycle of the does. They are more likely to produce fawns that will survive.



swbuckmaster said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Elk are an entirely different animal
> ...


 You may or may not believe facts, but elk do not have bifurcated antlers. And a spike deer may someday be a respectable buck, but it is not what you want left in the herd. I'd like to see a 500" elk, let alone a 500' mule deer buck. You're letting emotion get the best of you.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Black Canyon. Reeders Ridge, Canal Canyon. The Shoe.I for sure complained about the restrictions.first 3 years . eating tag soup,.I hunt archery only. On the 4th year the place was un real. Haven't seen that many deer down that way sence I was a kid. The place i beleive will never be what it was. Micro Management or what..


So what is that you think AR will do? I need to make sure I understand your argument first before I can resond? You think AR will increase the herd or just grow bigger bucks?

Also, we can agree that the deer herd will NEVER be what it was like when you were a kid. 
Thanks


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

My, oh my. I didn't realize how much we are locked into the antler/trophy mentality. Big, little, genetically inferior, genetically superior, trophy, meat, quality, all have to do with, or the lack of, the size of the the antlers/horns in any one year, and virtually nothing more. The actual size, speed, quickness, health and elusiveness, take a distant second to the horns. In fact, the bigger horned animals are actually freaks of nature, that's why they are so rare.

By that logic, Michael Jordan is genetically inferior to Mark Eaton, and Audrey Hepburn is genetically inferior to Dolly Parton. I guess it's all in the perspective.

And most other outside factors are disregarded as well, except when they affect the antler size. That's why, in a normal rainfall year, there is a higher percentage of "trophies" than during a drought and why a buck may be a trophy one year, but not the next.

Personally, that's an expensive, time-consuming, never-ending train ride I prefer not to take.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> By that logic, Michael Jordan is genetically inferior to Mark Eaton, and Audrey Hepburn is genetically inferior to Dolly Parton. I guess it's all in the perspective.


Maybe we can employ SFW/DWR to "Genetically Enhance" the bucks already out there in the same way that Dolly Parton is "Genetically Enhanced"? Well not the SAME way but you know what I mean.

:lol:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Since you brought it up. Slot limits on fish are completely different than antler restrictions. You can't kill and release a buck that is too small for the regulations.
> 
> Thats right you cant kill them so they were seen and released
> 
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Im not going to argue the three point or better rule because that wasn't my point. It has its flaws as well. go back and read the rest of my previous post and there in lies a better solution!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree.























Mark Eaton is absolutely genetically inferior to Dolly Parton.

Seriously, is this what years of eating racoon and playing a banjo do to a person?   

Disclaimer: I was just razzing and I actually play the banjo. Racoon? No, but I have a green name and so does goob. So, close.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

:lol: Ill take one Dolly Parton over over a hundred Mark Eaton any day of the week. Not into eat'n Eaton!


----------



## johnboy (Nov 22, 2011)

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter,nsf/we ... 8r49r?open
I'll put this link ,that maybe of interest , A main difference though is a lot of the deer are on private property


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The main difference is they can use 1080 to control wild dogs. What dogs are left can eat roos, wallabies, pigs, ect. So the fallow deer can multiply much faster. 

Don't have lions

And last I looked there bears are to slow to catch the deer. No wonder their deer are growing in numbers.

Love it over there. If I ever get the chance i want to shoot a camel. ever get


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Love it over there. If I ever get the chance i want to shoot a camel.


That would make a interestin shoulder mount as long as you had a real tall celing in a room to put it in.

I was just thinking of how interesting how this thread went from a power plant to deer herd management and ended up down under. :O•-:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sportsmen are funny. They always want fish to be mammals. No matter how much we want them to be, fish never will be mammals, and thus comparing fish management to deer management is just a really funny thing to do. You guys are funny.

But it doesn't stop there. We like take it a step further, and give fish feelings, and credit for being "smart" or "dumb". We do the same thing with deer.

Personally, I blame Walt Disney for this fault that sportsmen always want to anthropomorphize animals.


----------

