# Unit 18 needs help



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

There was an article in the Tooele paper yesterday about the mass habitat planting in the Stockton Hills that will take place tommorrow. Here's what the Biologists said about the units deer herd. Quote: Tom Becker, biologist for the DWR in Tooele County , said it's hard to tell what the mule deer population currantly is in the county because biologists use trends instead of numbers. He said mule deer trends over the past few years have been stable, but they have been stable at a lower than normal level. 
We have made a little headway with buck numbers, but the population still has a long way to go, to be where we want it. 
Becker said DWR officials would like to see 15 bucks for every 100 does because that means the population will be able to increase. Although mule deer are not endangered, Becker said people should be concerned because the buck to doe ratios have been consistantly low over the past several years, except for two years ago when winter conditions were harsh and less hunters were hunting deer. (2010 opening day rifle snow storm). 
Talking about the planting: Becker said it won't be an immediate fix to the low population levels when the plants are put in. 
It takes 15-25 years, depending on what happens with the weather, for the plants to get to the point where they help the populations. he said, it takes a long time, but that's our only choice. 

So I am again pleading with the Cental RAC members and WB to reduce the proposed tag numbers by at least 20% on unit 18 and the same could be said about units 19a and 19c.
Lets get the buck numbers up above the 15/100 ratio NOW! This "lets wait and see what happens" attitude needs to stop and lets take some action now.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Add Unit 16a to the 'needs help' on the central RAC...both deer and elk tag reductions.

A side note.
The SE RAC in Price has recommended That Manti, unit 12/16b/16c and San Juan unit 14a
have buck ratios raised from 15-17 TO 18-20....
This will cut (DWR) recommended deer tags 1,300 on the Manti and 400 on San Juan..

Also LE elk on the Manti cut from 482 permits to 360....BOTH GOOD MOVES , IMHO.

As ridge has mentioned, Now we have units in the central region needing the same action.
RAC meeting, April 17, Springville.......Thanks.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I hope they will take action. This is why I was in favor of creating smaller units statewide. I really hope they can get the attention they deserve. I'm torn on the Manti - I'm okay with the deer changes. For Elk - Why can't they just move the rifle hunt out of the Rut on these "opportunity" units. They could increase tag numbers and lower success rates, making these units much easier to draw.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

And now we see phase 2 of the trophy agend come to light.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> There was an article in the Tooele paper yesterday about the mass habitat planting in the Stockton Hills that will take place tommorrow. Here's what the Biologists said about the units deer herd. Quote: Tom Becker, biologist for the DWR in Tooele County , said it's hard to tell what the mule deer population currantly is in the county because biologists use trends instead of numbers. He said mule deer trends over the past few years have been stable, but they have been stable at a lower than normal level.
> We have made a little headway with buck numbers, but the population still has a long way to go, to be where we want it.
> Becker said DWR officials would like to see 15 bucks for every 100 does because that means the population will be able to increase. Although mule deer are not endangered, Becker said people should be concerned because the buck to doe ratios have been consistantly low over the past several years, except for two years ago when winter conditions were harsh and less hunters were hunting deer. (2010 opening day rifle snow storm).
> Talking about the planting: Becker said it won't be an immediate fix to the low population levels when the plants are put in.
> It takes 15-25 years, depending on what happens with the weather, for the plants to get to the point where they help the populations. he said, it takes a long time, but that's our only choice.


What did he say about the number of tags the DWR suggested...was it his suggestion?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Add Unit 16a to the 'needs help' on the central RAC...both deer and elk tag reductions.
> 
> A side note.
> The SE RAC in Price has recommended That Manti, unit 12/16b/16c and San Juan unit 14a
> ...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > There was an article in the Tooele paper yesterday about the mass habitat planting in the Stockton Hills that will take place tommorrow. Here's what the Biologists said about the units deer herd. Quote: Tom Becker, biologist for the DWR in Tooele County , said it's hard to tell what the mule deer population currantly is in the county because biologists use trends instead of numbers. He said mule deer trends over the past few years have been stable, but they have been stable at a lower than normal level.
> ...


He didn't say.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

You cant have more deer by killing more deer. If you want more deer, you have to kill less deer.

This concept is so easy a third grader could figure it out. But, unfortunately, the DWR cant make money unless they sell tags. It's like paying your Mastercard with your American Express card. It doesn't work. How do you do more with less? Answer, you dont. You have GOT to cut tags if you want more deer. Period.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Here's concept to more deer, fawn survival.................


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> You cant have more deer by killing more deer. If you want more deer, you have to kill less deer.
> 
> This concept is so easy a third grader could figure it out. But, unfortunately, the DWR cant make money unless they sell tags. It's like paying your Mastercard with your American Express card. It doesn't work. How do you do more with less? Answer, you dont. You have GOT to cut tags if you want more deer. Period.





Huntoholic said:


> Here's concept to more deer, fawn survival.................


Tex, did someone hack into your account or what? Huntoholic is spot on! You don't get more deer by having more bucks, you get more deer by having more fawns.....and the ONLY way to get more fawns is to have more does. Yes, even a 3rd grader ought to be able to grasp this! :O•-:

I am upping one of my cattle herds....get this.....I am doing so by keeping more heifers, NOT more bulls......who would of thunk...... :?


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

huntaholic is right on the money i love watching the bucks also not to mention putting one in the freezer when i m lucky enough to get a permit, but to have more bucks in the herd you got to have there mommas kicking em out and than they have be able to survive everything from fast moving vehicle s to coyotes and cougars and everything in between some of this is not in our control but alot is better winter ranges with quality forage is a great start putting the slam on the preditors is another and one little thing when folks are driving through winter range it really pays to slow down its tough on front ends and even tougher on the deer and elk that get hit.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Why not do both? Cut buck tags and doe tags? and more. Improve habitat, build more safe crossings, decrease the speed limits in concentrated deer areas and around crossings and then enforce it, (tickets anyone), reduce the coyote population. 

I can do without a deer tag here and there and hunt other species to improve the herds, bucks and does alike. There is a ton of hunting available out there people. I put in for the dedicated hunter and have zero intentions on filling the tags. Have not hunted deer in 4-5 years anyhow but I still hunt far more than most people.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> > You cant have more deer by killing more deer. If you want more deer, you have to kill less deer.
> ...


Why dont you use a year and a half old bull to do all your breeding?
Then , as soon as hes done with his first year, Shoot him, Put him in the freezer.

Start that same process over every year ,, for say for the next 20 years..
let us know how that works out for ya in the cattle business...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> And now we see phase 2 of the trophy agend come to light.


Just wondering, what's your problem?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Why not do both? Cut buck tags and doe tags? and more. Improve habitat, build more safe crossings, decrease the speed limits in concentrated deer areas and around crossings and then enforce it, (tickets anyone), reduce the coyote population.
> 
> I can do without a deer tag here and there and hunt other species to improve the herds, bucks and does alike. There is a ton of hunting available out there people. I put in for the dedicated hunter and have zero intentions on filling the tags. Have not hunted deer in 4-5 years anyhow but I still hunt far more than most people.


Your spot on Mr. Mulesskinner!
I would think that even a 3rd grader should be able to figure this out. :mrgreen:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > And now we see phase 2 of the trophy agend come to light.
> ...


Just call them like I see them.

You wanted micro units, you got them. You wanted tag cuts, you got them. You wanted better post season counts from the DWR and you got it. You wanted Buck to Doe ratios raised, so half the GENERAL season units have been increase.

Just call them like I see them.......................................


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Why not do both? Cut buck tags and doe tags? ......


Go back and check how many tagges have been cut since 1995. Go back and see how many tagges where removed last year. Just cutting tagges does not work to create a healthy herd.

Per the DWR the herd is stable and has been for many years.

Here's a noval idea, how about giving the lastest rounds of changes a chance to work.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

here's another novel idea.......if deer don't die they live. If you do ALL of the things that I mentioned above it would stand to reason that herd populations would grow. Herd populations may very well be stable right now but they have also been trending down for decades correct? I don't think for a minute that deer populations can't increase if all methods available are utilized to a degree. I never said ANYTHING about JUST cutting tags. Not once.


----------



## Duckking88 (Dec 7, 2009)

Mr. Muleskinner wrote:



> here's another novel idea.......if deer don't die they live. If you do ALL of the things that I mentioned above it would stand to reason that herd populations would grow. Herd populations may very well be stable right now but they have also been trending down for decades correct? I don't think for a minute that deer populations can't increase if all methods available are utilized to a degree. I never said ANYTHING about JUST cutting tags. Not once.


+1000

Great post Mule It seems more and more people for and agianst OPP. 2 just pick just one section to argue for or agianst. I have hunted unit 18,19b, and 19a alot and its deer herd problems have been that way for quite awhile. I would love to see actual counts for those units per 100 does. I can honestly say it is well below 15 bucks. All the things posted above would greatly help the deer herd in all areas. Once agian great post Mule.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


Fair enough but I sure see it a lot differently. I don't see it as a purely trophy issue at all. I see it as trying to preserve what little resourse we have right now.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Duckking88 said:


> Mr. Muleskinner wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1,001


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> here's another novel idea.......if deer don't die they live. If you do ALL of the things that I mentioned above it would stand to reason that herd populations would grow. Herd populations may very well be stable right now but they have also been trending down for decades correct? I don't think for a minute that deer populations can't increase if all methods available are utilized to a degree. I never said ANYTHING about JUST cutting tags. Not once.


I commented on your tag cut part because it indicated to me that tagges have not been cut to any degree. Everything that you have listed has been tried including a 60% cut in tagges. I also pointed out the tag cuts because that is what this thread was about.

Now some new ways are being tried and before they even have a chance to see what will happen ALL that can be said is cut more tagges. Geez I wonder why I commented on tag cuts.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

ridgetop said:



> [
> Fair enough but I sure see it a lot differently. I don't see it as a purely trophy issue at all. I see it as trying to preserve what little resourse we have right now.


I know we see things differently. And for that I am truely sorry. But when all I can see is the focus on the one part of the big equation that truely is the least important, what other conclusion can I come too.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Why dont you use a year and a half old bull to do all your breeding?
> Then , as soon as hes done with his first year, Shoot him, Put him in the freezer.
> 
> Start that same process over every year ,, for say for the next 20 years..
> let us know how that works out for ya in the cattle business...


A couple of problems with your cute little scenario. 1)Not every buck is killed as a yearling. If that were the case...coupled with the supposed absence of mature bucks....there would be ZERO fawns as there would be NO does bred! You do realize ALL general season buck hunts end BEFORE the rut, right? 2)You are missing the point/purpose of males in a herd. This is either due to intentional or unintentional ignorance. I know HUNDREDS of cattlemen, and not a single one carries excess bulls on the range. They only keep as many as needed to do ONE thing, breed the cows. If you run cattle and carry 30 bulls for every 100 cows, you will be out of business in short order. For that matter, if you carry 10 bulls for every 100 cows you will be fighting a losing battle. Now I understand a buck can't breed as many does as my bulls can breed cows.....I have ONE bull that breed a herd of 70 cows, and ALL 70 calves were born in a 30 day window. Impressive is an understatement. That means he breed more than 2 cows a day for a month straight, and this was in pasture, not corral.

I was talking with a good friend this morning, he commented on how many dead deer he has seen this year from road kill, and how many deer are still hanging down low. I made the round trip to Mt Pleasant again today, lost count at 500 head between Manti and Mt Pleasant within 300 yards of the highway....in the middle of the day! I went looking at turkeys yesterday up 12 Mile, and the number of deer in Mayfield and west of Mayfield for this time of year is crazy. My point; killing fewer bucks, killing more coyotes, and issuing fewer doe tags will do NOTHING...except possibly make things WORSE...if the underlying causes are not addressed and fixed FIRST! The reason the deer herd is low in population is NOT because of a low number of bucks, or a high number of coyotes, it is because there is a lack of quality winter feed! Sorry, but FACTS do matter....at least to me!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Why not do both? Cut buck tags and doe tags? and more. Improve habitat, build more safe crossings, decrease the speed limits in concentrated deer areas and around crossings and then enforce it, (tickets anyone), reduce the coyote population.


We have been doing both....actually we have been doing all of the above, and have been doing so for DECADES. Now what? Do we keep doing the same failed actions and actually expect a different outcome? I believe that is the definition of insanity....

I am curious, how do YOU suggest we "improve habitat"? I mean differently than the MILLIONS of dollars that have been spent on habitat improvement over the last 20+ years. Where do suggest we get the funds to improve habitat, build 'safe' crossings, and 'enforce' the law to slow down in certain areas, and reduce coyote populations? Do we just ask the POTUS to have the Federal Reserve issue a few billion pieces of paper, or what? :?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

-_O- Rant, after Rant, after Rant......


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Safe crossings have not been done for decades, there was hardly any of them 15-20 years ago. Habitat has been taken away for decades, not improved. The speed limits have increased from 55 to 75 (higher in some areas) in the past few decades. I don't know how much the coyote population has decreased in the past few decades but I would bet that it hasn't hardly at all. Those there, aside from the coyote population are the FACTS.

Have tags been cut, you bet, enough? No. Unless some fairly drastic measure are taken mule deer are going to go the way of the bison.

I am not a biologists and I don't know how to improve habitat other than what has been happening with projects like today. Urban sprawl hasn't helped, nor has the advent of the ATV, drought and bad winters have had their effect as well for many years. I won't pretend to know all of the answers but I am pretty certain that the several methods that I mentioned do have a positive affect. To say that they have no effect is short sighted. A lot of you act like it is just one way or another. No middle ground, no combination of things. I have long thought that deer tags should have been cut and I think that they should stick for a long time. Maybe people need to come to grips that wildlife is a finite resource as is our land. While elk herds have done great, deer herds have plummeted. I think that elk are part of the problem for deer as well. Is it a problem for me personally? No. I would rather hunt and harvest elk meat any day over a deer but I do recognize the importance of mule deer and don't want to lose it as a viable resource. I am willing to sacrifice though and a lot people are not because they are entitled.

Enforcing of speed limits pays for itself and would have an effect that would stick and would have other benefits that go far beyond our wildlife. People don't come to Utah and fear tickets. Maybe they should. People drive too **** fast. They feel that they are entitled to do so. I believe that law enforcement is entitled to ticket every person that speeds and I would not have a problem if that is how it is done. Would it have an effect? You bet it would. How about every ticket within a deer crossing zone goes to fund mule deer preservation? I don't know all the answers but I am pretty certain that the answer can not be given in a single sentence.

Since you called me out, maybe we can issue a few million, but not billion pieces of paper. We can make cuts in all sorts of places. No additional printing required.

Here's a few places that we can target:

Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants, $60,475,000 total funding
Farm Operating Loans, $1,559,136,000 total funding
Farm Ownership Loans, $1,072,791,000 total funding
Farm Storage Facility Loans, $134,811,000 total funding
Farmland Protection Program, $77,518,000 total funding 

I can give you about 2000 other funding programs that could afford to take a hit as well or be eliminated entirely.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Mr Muleskinner said:
> 
> 
> > here's another novel idea.......if deer don't die they live. If you do ALL of the things that I mentioned above it would stand to reason that herd populations would grow. Herd populations may very well be stable right now but they have also been trending down for decades correct? I don't think for a minute that deer populations can't increase if all methods available are utilized to a degree. I never said ANYTHING about JUST cutting tags. Not once.
> ...


We're talking about the tag cuts right now because it's what is being discussed right now at the RACs and at the WB meeting. No tags have been cut in the Central region since 1994. I don't know about you but I saw a difference in the amount of bucks I was seeing in the field from 1995 -2000, so I think the tag cuts were a big help. Maybe not in growning the deer herd but in maintaining a good percentage of huntable bucks. It seems like in the last ten years that group of huntable bucks keeps getting smaller with no relief from hunting pressure. (except for 2010). After the WB makes it's decision next month, you won't hear a peep from me about tag numbers for the next three years until some new data is available to show what the trends are doing at that point.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Skinner & Ridge are spot on!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Since 1994, in round numbers, more than 30,000 bucks across Utah are being left on the mountain every year from what was harvested in pre-1994 years. If more than 30,000 extra bucks are being left on the mountain every year for more than 25 years and the herd has not increased, I fail to see how any more tag cuts will some how be better or make the over all deer herd more healthy.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Since 1994, in round numbers, more than 30,000 bucks across Utah are being left on the mountain every year from what was harvested in pre-1994 years. If more than 30,000 extra bucks are being left on the mountain every year for more than 25 years and the herd has not increased, I fail to see how any more tag cuts will some how be better or make the over all deer herd more healthy.


That would be true if we had 340,000 deer as per pre 1993 but we don't. Also, why are you comparing statewide numbers when we're talking about unit 18. I know some units in the state are doing really well and could handle some extra pressure from hunters but I'm not talking about those units. So stick to the topic please. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> -_O- Rant, after Rant, after Rant......


I know, and I wonder when you will cease........ :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Safe crossings have not been done for decades, there was hardly any of them 15-20 years ago. Habitat has been taken away for decades, not improved. The speed limits have increased from 55 to 75 (higher in some areas) in the past few decades. I don't know how much the coyote population has decreased in the past few decades but I would bet that it hasn't hardly at all. Those there, aside from the coyote population are the FACTS.


Ummmm, 20 years is TWO DECADES, hence my stating the FACT of safe crossings have been being installed for decades. SFW came into existence MORE than two decades ago....again two is PLURAL.....and since SFW crawled out of the gutter and had a pep rally on the State Capital steps, they have been drumming up MILLIONS of dollars that have been spent on habitat improvement projects, hence my stating yet another FACT.



Mr Muleskinner said:


> Have tags been cut, you bet, enough? No. Unless some fairly drastic measure are taken mule deer are going to go the way of the bison.


More than 100,000 permits have been cut over the last two decade*s*. How many do YOU think would be 'enough'? Cutting permits has proven to NOT work, but hell....lets double down and close hunting down for a decade or two....I am sure by then we would have a deer Utopia and hunters would be lining up by the thousands to apply for the 5 permits issued.......Is that drastic enough....?



Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am not a biologists and I don't know how to improve habitat other than what has been happening with projects like today. Urban sprawl hasn't helped, nor has the advent of the ATV, drought and bad winters have had their effect as well for many years. I won't pretend to know all of the answers but I am pretty certain that the several methods that I mentioned do have a positive affect. To say that they have no effect is short sighted. A lot of you act like it is just one way or another. No middle ground, no combination of things. I have long thought that deer tags should have been cut and I think that they should stick for a long time. Maybe people need to come to grips that wildlife is a finite resource as is our land. While elk herds have done great, deer herds have plummeted. I think that elk are part of the problem for deer as well. Is it a problem for me personally? No. I would rather hunt and harvest elk meat any day over a deer but I do recognize the importance of mule deer and don't want to lose it as a viable resource. I am willing to sacrifice though and a lot people are not because they are entitled.


 Who are the ones acting 'entitled'? I contend it is those calling for cuts to buck permits! There is NO evidence whatsoever that shows reductions in buck permits helps boost deer herd populations for more than a few fleeting moments at best. *NONE!* However, there is ample evidence that reducing buck permits hurts deer populations, hurts hunter recruitment/retention, and artificially makes deer a 'finite' resource. I don't know of a single person on this forum, or else where that thinks there is only one way to help the deer herds. Just because many of us have been able to actually learn from past mistakes and KNOW that reduced buck harvests do NOT help deer numbers, does not mean we only advocate one idea.



Mr Muleskinner said:


> Enforcing of speed limits pays for itself and would have an effect that would stick and would have other benefits that go far beyond our wildlife. People don't come to Utah and fear tickets. Maybe they should. People drive too **** fast. They feel that they are entitled to do so. I believe that law enforcement is entitled to ticket every person that speeds and I would not have a problem if that is how it is done. Would it have an effect? You bet it would. How about every ticket within a deer crossing zone goes to fund mule deer preservation? I don't know all the answers but I am pretty certain that the answer can not be given in a single sentence.


Land of the free.......not if you had your way! Why stop there, why not go for a complete ban on all vehicles that can exceed 15 mph? I was traveling 20 mph UNDER the speed limit tonight, and yet I had a deer hit me between Manti and Sterling. I had only passed OVER 500 deer and 100+ elk driving from Ephraim to that point. How many more deer/elk do you want hanging out by the highways? Highways that were here back when deer herds were in excess of 350,000 head......



Mr Muleskinner said:


> Since you called me out, maybe we can issue a few million, but not billion pieces of paper. We can make cuts in all sorts of places. No additional printing required.
> 
> Here's a few places that we can target:
> 
> ...


 I would LOVE to see 99.99999999& of all federal spending, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Pipe dreams about cutting farm subsides is of mine as well.....it would force farmers to actually thrive/survive/fail on their own merits. I am guessing you listed farm subsidies as an attempted dig toward me, to bad you have no idea where I stand on such issues...... :roll: We are $15 TRILLION in debt as a nation, and yet here you are calling for MORE to be spent on policies that have PROVEN to NOT work......BRILLIANT!

Oh, I didn't "call you out", I simply asked for you to clarify your positions since YOU offered an opinion. Maybe you should change your name to Mr Thinskinned......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Since 1994, in round numbers, more than 30,000 bucks across Utah are being left on the mountain every year from what was harvested in pre-1994 years. If more than 30,000 extra bucks are being left on the mountain every year for more than 25 years and the herd has not increased, I fail to see how any more tag cuts will some how be better or make the over all deer herd more healthy.
> ...


I was wondering when the stick to the topic police would be issuing warnings...... :mrgreen:


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Lets just hold powwow's about once a week, do a rain dance and take care of the bad range conditions. Or just pray.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Pro,

A huge majority of the safe crossings have been built in the past 10 years. Check the DOT budget. A few of them were done twenty years ago but not many and most were not effective.

More habitat has been lost than "improved" ten fold. Much of the habitat that has been improved is land did hold a lot of deer to begin with. Not all of it but a lot of it. It's akin to trying to get deer herds to find a new home. The mule deer trail of tears. Development, mining operations and road construction alone have had a huge impact. ATV trails through every neck of the woods have not helped either. Mule deer handle pressure different than many game animals. Elk have also pushed mule deer out. Predators have had an impact as well. It is not as simple as just providing adequate winter feed. If it were that simple it would have been dealt with a long time ago.

I also didn't state that driving slower will eliminate hitting deer. That would be absurd. People have hit deer before on bicycles. Slower driving does increase effective reaction times though and ticketing would have a positive outcome far reaching side effects. Mortality rates would also decline.

You would make a perfect politician. You twist facts and twist words and try cover them with interjections. I never called for more spending. What I was referring to would not cost another dime. Reread and quote me if can prove me wrong. You haven't and you won't.

I don't presume to know anything about you other than I do know that you are against government spending (from your statements). I mentioned the farm subsidies to touch a cord like I see you attempt when the opportunity presents itself. To deny this would be well............denial.

!!!!!!!! and CAPITOLS do not make you any more correct than:  :| :mrgreen: _(O)_ -)O(- :O•-: :arrow: :idea:   :? 8) :lol: 

Do you have anger management issues or something? You don't have to be condescending or come off as a drama queen. Go have a cup of tea and take a deep breath. We have different opinions about things and "facts" are relative to differing points of view and differing means and methods. Your method may suit you but that doesn't mean it has to suit me.

I am educated and I can think for myself. I choose to form my own opinions rather than have somebody try to force feed them to me.

No hard feelings.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

ridge, 
why are you so worried about 18? is it in your back yard or something? one of your old favorite holes that you cant locate good bucks in anymore? is it all of 18 that is in bad shape? or 18a? 18b? areas on both? 

just trying to understand is all. if im correct, this is the area east and west of tooele. seems to me the habitat is pretty good, especially the winter range portion. the few times ive been out there, seems like they have an endless supply of winter range to the west and very little road kill. my guess is with as open as some of that country looks to be, i cant help assume the rifle hunters put a hurt on the deer year after year. another thing i might suspect is there are a few more predators in the area than some might think. looks like theres alot of ground they can hide in. which brings me to my next point. im no expert and i dont know first hand what its like, i havent spent hardly any time out there. but it seems that the county is quite big, steep and rugged with some deep canyons. think its possible that alot of the deer are hiding in those areas and not along the roads anymore, like they did in the past? muleys are the kings at hiding in plain sight... i dont imagine there are very many roads in this unit that can get you in to the 'good deer country'. its all horse back or foot travel from what i can gather. i dunno. just thinking out loud. i would think not only this unit, but many others in this state are in this situation and need some special attention. my suggestion is, cut rifle tags by ALOT, for 3 years. see if it makes a noticable difference. after that, add or subtract more tags depending on what the data shows. my guess is, that it will. have an all out war on predators on certain units. do away with HO hunts and kill them all. a single lion eats 40+ deer a year. killing 5 lions will save somewhere around 200 deer a year. you do the math... and lastly, do your best to kill every stinkin coyote in the area. i bet money if those 3 things were done, youd be able to find a few more shooter bucks in them hills


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > Since 1994, in round numbers, more than 30,000 bucks across Utah are being left on the mountain every year from what was harvested in pre-1994 years. If more than 30,000 extra bucks are being left on the mountain every year for more than 25 years and the herd has not increased, I fail to see how any more tag cuts will some how be better or make the over all deer herd more healthy.
> ...


The point is the change in 1994 was huge. Thats why they did it. A significate number of tagges have been cut, far greater than anything since. Which then says a lot of bucks where and are being left on the mountain compared to pre-1994. We can haggle over exact numbers, but that is not the point. That change that we made in 1994, which was far greater then anything being proposed, has not made our herd healthier. Bucks or Does. I fail to see how cutting handful of tagges, as compared to what has already been done, is going to be some kind of life saver.

So if there are herds that could handle additional pressure why are you not addressing the problem of unit 18 by saying something like "lets move 1000 tagges from 18 and put them on units such and such". But alll that can be talked about from your side of the fence, is cutting tagges, period.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


That's the problem IMHO,,There's NOT anywhere to move a 1000 deer permits to..
At least in the central region.......

The central region also needs to to help other units besides 18 as well..
Recommended general deer permits on 16a should be reduced by 1000+..
I would like to see this drop from 4,400 to 3K,,increase BtoD ratio to 18-20..

Wasatch , central antler less elk permit recommendations are to high..
Current creek should be reduced from 1,650 to around 1k..
Avintaquin should be reduced from 900 back to 600 as it was in 2011..
Diamond F, Springville, Strawberry area, 1,450 needs to be cut 50% minimum,
The curent wolve situation there have changed that elk herd dramatically..

LE elk tags, With intense spike hunting on both Nebo and the Wasatch
recommended LE tags are still to high..
Nebo, reductions from 108 to 100 in not enough. needs to drop to 75.
Wasatch, The DWR recommended an increase of mature bull tags to 652 for 2012..
Should be more in the neighborhood of the 2010 numbers of 500..

OK bull, I know your reading this,,,central RAC Tuesday,,,,Lets do the right thing


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Yep Bull lets do the right thing. Let's ignore the hyperbole and follow the Biologist. 

See you at the meeting........


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


How about adding 1,000 tags to unit 20. How does that sound. I'm pretty sure that unit could handle it.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> ridge,
> why are you so worried about 18? is it in your back yard or something? one of your old favorite holes that you cant locate good bucks in anymore? is it all of 18 that is in bad shape? or 18a? 18b? areas on both?


Shaun, to answer some of your questions. Yes, 18 is in my backyard and front yard too. 
I have no problem finding bucks and mature ones at that. My biggest problem, is with the Stansbury Front being over hunted. You can go up there in the summer and fall and see hundreds a does with maybe 2 or 3 bucks in the mix. Like any unit in the state, if you look hard enough you can and will find a few good bucks. Personally, I have no problem finding big mature bucks, except along the Stansbury Front. I really wished the Stansburys and Oquirrh mnts. could be split into units 18a and 18b but I don't think that will ever happen. The Oquirrhs have a much higher buck/ doe ratio than the Stansburys. Also, the Stansburys have been hit by big wildfires in the last couple years, which has been hard on the winter range. (lots of cheat crass). When this has happened with other units, they have shut them down for a few years and then went to LE. (like Vernon, Henrys and the Book Cliffs). I'm not asking for that to happen. The coyotes are out of control and they can't kill them from the air because of the steep rocky narrow canyons. I firmly believe that the buck/doe ratio should be set at 18-20 because of all the private land and hard to reach wilderness within unit 18, which causes over hunting in the easy access areas along the Stansbury Front, Onaqui Mnts and the foothills around Tooele.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Pro,
> 
> A huge majority of the safe crossings have been built in the past 10 years. Check the DOT budget. A few of them were done twenty years ago but not many and most were not effective.
> 
> ...


Pro, he has a point. :mrgreen:

Mr. Muleskinner, your welcome at my campfire anytime. Thanks for your input and openmindedness.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Pro,
> 
> A huge majority of the safe crossings have been built in the past 10 years. Check the DOT budget. A few of them were done twenty years ago but not many and most were not effective. I am not disputing that the majority of 'safe' crossings have been built in the last 10 years....that was not the issue now was it?
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Pro, he has a point. :mrgreen:


He does indeed, right where you do.....on the top of his cranium. :^8^:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Ridge, what is the doe:fawn ratio on the Stans? Just curious what your observation is.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Ridge, what is the doe:fawn ratio on the Stans? Just curious what your observation is.


I honestly think it's under 10 and just might be closer to the 5/100 range. Like I've said before. I have spent A LOT of time in Nov. watching the rutting bucks and have never seen more than a 10/100, even during that time of year. In 2009 there was about 40 does in the fields near my house and I never saw a single buck with them the whole month of Nov. or Dec. In 2010, two 2-3 year old bucks did show up. I talked to the Biologists yesterday and before 2010, the buck/doe ratio had been around 11 for several years. In 2010 it shot up to 18(because of the big storm during the 3 day hunt) This last fall it has dropped to 14.5. with a three year average of 13.5. With the upcoming 9 day season, I do believe strongly the ratio with contiue to drop, if a few more tags are not cut from what is propossed. Also, for what's worth. The Biologist said the recommended tags are a little higher than what he propossed but are not too far off. The final decision came from Salt Lake.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Ridge, what is the doe:fawn ratio on the Stans? Just curious what your observation is.
> ...


He asked about the doe/fawn ratio, not the buck/doe ratio!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Come on Ridge, stay focused.....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Opps.  
I can't remember exactly what he said. A lot of fawns are dying between birth and the 1st winter. Seems like he said the winter ratio was around 20:100 but I can't remember exactly. I do remember, he said the fact that so many fawns are dying is very alarming. It might be coyotes or lions or the drought that we have been in. Not really sure what the cause is but it's not because of too many bucks around.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Opps.
> I can't remember exactly what he said. A lot of fawns are dying between birth and the 1st winter. Seems like he said the winter ratio was around 20:100 but I can't remember exactly. I do remember, he said the fact that so many fawns are dying is very alarming. It might be coyotes or lions or the drought that we have been in. Not really sure what the cause is but it's not because of too many bucks around.


My observations. I did not see very many yearly deer at all this past year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Opps.
> I can't remember exactly what he said. A lot of fawns are dying between birth and the 1st winter. Seems like he said the winter ratio was around 20:100 but I can't remember exactly. I do remember, he said the fact that so many fawns are dying is very alarming. It might be coyotes or lions or the drought that we have been in. Not really sure what the cause is but it's not because of too many bucks around.


You didn't say Becker suspected low buck numbers as a potential cause either...... :O•-:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Opps.
> ...


Always trying to put a spin on things. Nice.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

This whole thread/debate is pointless to me without knowing what the biologist that does the counts in the area has to say...how many tags did he suggest? Why did he suggest this number of tags? Are the low buck numbers influencing the fawn/doe ratios? Will decreasing the tags increase the fawn/doe ratios?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> This whole thread/debate is pointless to me without knowing what the biologist that does the counts in the area has to say...how many tags did he suggest? Why did he suggest this number of tags? Are the low buck numbers influencing the fawn/doe ratios? Will decreasing the tags increase the fawn/doe ratios?


I have an idea. Why don't you call him and ask him yourself. :|


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ridge, you began this post with some information you gained from a personal conversation and ended it with the idea that the unit needs help so we should cut tags to get the buck/doe ratio up! But, you never did address the real meat and potatoes of the issue--does the biologist believe that the number of tags the DWR recommended is too high to increase that buck/doe ratio, or does he believe that the number of tags will allow the buck/doe ratio to increase? That is the bottom line...

IF you are so worried about this unit, you should call him and ask him that question and at least get his opinion...I am not worried about it. I trust that the DWR knows that the buck/doe ratio needs to go up and are taking the necessary steps.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


No spin, simply stating FACT!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I've talked to Becker enough to get what's going on out there. If you guys want more info. than what I've already stated. Then Talk to him yourself. I have enough info. to come to my conclusions.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I have enough info. to come to my conclusions.


Me too...the unit has increased from 8000 to 9000 deer in the last three years. And, based on past harvest success rates, 2500 tags will not kill all the bucks. A 20% decrease in tags would put the unit in a category above even the units that are going to be managed in the 18-25 category (If the Unit were to be managed for 18-25 bucks/100 does, 2200 tags would have been recommended...you are recommending 2000 tags be issued). If the unit is at 10/100 right now, 810 bucks live on it. If the DWR issued 2500 tags, and 22% (approximate past success rate) of the tag holders harvested, 550 bucks would be harvested. Even if you increased the harvest success rate up to the statewide average--30%--you still would be harvesting fewer bucks than what will be alive...and that doesn't even consider what will be recruited into the herd with yearlings. So, I think a 20% reduction in tags is totally uncalled for...!


----------



## Duckking88 (Dec 7, 2009)

Wyo2Utah 

I have spent alot of time hiking, hunting, enjoy units 18, and all the 19 units. I would love to see the real counts. It is very hard for me to believe there are 800 bucks on that unit. Me and my famliy are one of the few camps that are sussecful year in and year out.(no Chest pumping or bragging intended.) And we are lucky to get 2 or 3 a year for 10 to 12 hunters. Multiple times this winter we watched large herds of does with no bucks with them for weeks. I agree with Ridge and Mule do the things listed above and numbers will go up for all deer not just bucks. Fawns make bucks but bucks make fawns, the object is to make a heathly deer herd period. Kill predators, help winter range and feed, reduce roadkill, and help deer survie if that means cutting tags then so be it. do I want tags to go away no but human hunting pressure is the easiest to control with the least amount of money spent. and for pro just cuz I cant resist FACT.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, the 200+ hunters that have already been cut from the unit are not enough?


----------



## Duckking88 (Dec 7, 2009)

I had not seen that they had went through with the 200 cuts IMHO no, I would like to see all of those units around 300 to 350 cuts. That deer herd is in bad shape. If they could show me the deer numbers trending upward for the next three years then I would be completly fine with what there doing but in some of the data above show as soon as the bad weather of 2010 slowed hunters down the numbers jumped up just to be dropped back down the next year then that tells me there are either too many hunters or there to sucssful. Once agian buck numbers to me all just means a heathly deer herd.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I was just looking at how many people have been hunting that unit in the past...2500 tags is over 200 less than what has been hunting there. The deer herd has been trending upward for the past 3 years...just not the buck/doe ratio. The herd has actually increased...which tells me that the buck numbers are sufficient--perhaps below objective, but enough to get the job done. After two consecutive years of poor fawn production--2007 and 2008--the herd has since rebounded well and fawn production has been adequate since. Also, buck harvest in 2010 was only slightly lower than in 2008 and 2009...the 200+ fewer tags is enough to make up that difference.

I say if the herd is again below 15/100 next year following the hunt...make more tag cuts the following year until it reaches objective. But, there is no definite need to further cut tags now when fawn/doe ratios are good and the herd is increasing.


----------



## Duckking88 (Dec 7, 2009)

Wyo- Good to know I thats the case and the deer herd is increasing. Then I agree watch this year and if the B/D ratio is still below the set ratio then cut more tags if needed. I still believe we need to do the other things posted above as well but like stated before that cost money and thats a tricky thing to track.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Duckking88 said:


> Wyo- Good to know I thats the case and the deer herd is increasing. Then I agree watch this year and if the B/D ratio is still below the set ratio then cut more tags if needed. I still believe we need to do the other things posted above as well but like stated before that cost money and thats a tricky thing to track.


I think with the switch from region management to unit management it may take a few years for the DWR to really get their tag numbers where they need to be...I see no reason to be alarmed about the unit where we need to cut loads of tags now.

I do agree that other things should be done now as well...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I've been trying to stay out of this thread but I have been reading it and listening to folks opinions. I have been discussing these issues, including the calculations for tag numbers, with bios and division personnel for the past several weeks.

There is a lot of emotion about the numbers right now since we are going to unit by unit hunter management. A lot of folks feel strongly about specific units. I have really tried to take emotion out of most of this and focus on the numbers and look at the best available data we have including how hunters feel about these units that have hunted them. The buck to doe ratio objectives should be set based on hunter desires as best as we can measure them and the tag numbers should be based on the best data we have from there. We all know that that the buck tag numbers have little to do with growing deer populations but have a lot to do with hunter satisfaction and that's where the emotion comes in.

Here is what the division has provided me after lots of conversation regarding tag numbers on general deer units:
[attachment=0:3fj6r38l]numbers.png[/attachment:3fj6r38l]

I have more questions to ask and look forward to the public input at the meeting. No matter what happens some will be happy and some will not be but I can promise that what is best for the resource will be the top priority.

There are still some discussion that need to happen regarding elk IMO as well.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Years back we drew tags for the for the 19B Vernon limited area. We scouted our tails off and literally combed the countryside and I mean the entire unit. We saw very few deer overall and only one buck. He was an absolute monster but our experience there had us very concerned. While I am certain that there were many deer that we missed, we called the DWR and notified them of our experience. We told them of the amount of time we spent scouting and hunting and then provided them with gps logs of our routes that we had covered. They were astonished to say the least. They apparently went back out there and reassessed the situation. Next thing you know the unit was shut down. I don't know how long the unit was closed and we have not hunted it since. I do know others that have hunted it since and have had great success.

While I recognize that it is not the same unit and some years have passed, my point is that sometimes drastic measures are needed at times. Don't be surprised if within a few years of data collecting that the same thing does not happen to other units in the state. Long term and short term it might be the right thing to do in some units.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

In the process of locating thunder chickens the last few days i really like the looks of the unit so far this year the deer we saw were in great shape after the winter and we noticed new antler developement on alot of the deer one bunch of 30 had 8 bucks in various stages of new developement i would have liked to see more fawns in the group but i think that by taking more coyotes this to will look brighter also. it may not be the brightest forcast but i have seen positive developement in population and buck to doe count s over the last couple of seasons.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

mack, I'm not going to argue that the unit is looking better but it's sad to see it finally starting to make some headway and now they(DWR) just want to go back to business as usual. I know my group is going to have one heck of a banner year.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

very true ridgetop just becouse its looking better only puts a emphasis on just how for down the unit went


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> mack, I'm not going to argue that the unit is looking better but it's sad to see it finally starting to make some headway and now they(DWR) just want to go back to business as usual. I know my group is going to have one heck of a banner year.


Oh come one....that's BS and you know it. The DWR recommended about a 400 tag cut from that unit per Bullsnot's numbers. Your desired percentage of tag cuts is ridiculous and would turn that unit into an LE unit.

The most frustrating thing about your comments, though, is that you concede improvement in the unit, yet you still are not happy with all the tag cuts. What this does is it totally supports the fears that many of us had with this switch to unit-based management. Even if that unit is at objective, people like you will complain if tags are increased....and, if you are so worried about the number of bucks, why not trash your tags instead of guaranteeing a "banner year" for your group? Seems a bit ironic to me...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > mack, I'm not going to argue that the unit is looking better but it's sad to see it finally starting to make some headway and now they(DWR) just want to go back to business as usual. I know my group is going to have one heck of a banner year.
> ...


Ironic to me as well. Well said!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

A lot of the guys who support option 2 don't care about the herds. They care about limits. Limiting everyone else, so they can limit out.

:lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


+10000000000

For someone so worried about the number of bucks sure doesnt worry about friends and family killing them all. o-||


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

coyoteslayer said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


if youre as worried about the bucks on this unit as you claim to be, you and all your friends/family need to eat your tags this year and the next and the next.... want change? want to make a difference? start with yourself...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I guess this question I have can go out to the last five posts. Do you guys have some sort of Dementia? I don't want to be rude but are you freaking crazy? Go back and re-read my comments. I never said that I was even hunting unit 18 this year. I did say that I was hoping they would change the ratio from 15-17 to 18-20. If it did go to 18-20, then more tags would need to be cut. I did say that I have only shot one buck on unit 18 and that was in 1985. I think I have been doing my part. When talking about the the area being over hunted on unit 18, I talked about the Stansbury Front. I can promise you that I will not be hunting that area any time/year soon. I am going to be scouting and maybe hunting a brand new area this year. So it may come across as over confident but I am looking forward to a great year with friends and family. The idea of burning or eating tags, would be the worst thing someone could do if they wanted to see tags lowered in any unit. The more bucks killed, the lower the ratio, the lower the tag numbers. Make sense. :roll: With a very good harvest in the next couple years. I don't think the ratio will surpass 15 bucks per 100 does, so more tags may be cut then. So with that in mind and the fact that I haven't killed a deer in many years. I just may take my turn this year. So if I do tag one, I guess I'll need to do some repenting. 
Does anyone out there support what I'm saying? Please PM me your support if you do not want to get publicly blasted by these few know it alls. I'd like to know that I'm not alone in this thought process.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I've stayed out of this thread as their are many polarizing views and that includes me. If a unit is below objective they should cut tags. However, I think a 15-17 ratio is fine and I don't think we need to raise them right now. Who truly says they speak for the masses when most deer hunters don't frequent forums and are probably living paycheck to paycheck and work a lot. This is mainly a social issue to which it is hard to see who is the true majority.

I respect Ridge and his views as he typically expresses them MUCH BETTER than most who support the higher ratios on certain units. To imply he needs to burn his own tag is way too much of an assumption as he is a sportsmen like the rest of us and it is his tag and he can do as he pleases. Just like if I decide to shoot a meat buck, it is my decision. 

Let's get this round of tag allotments out of the way and preserve what opportunity we can. I'm just sick of all the changes that occur during management plans. We just need to get good estimates over the next few years so we really try to get an understanding of unit by unit HUNTER MANAGEMENT so we can really focus on the more important limiting factors facing mule deer population growth.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Let me get this straight. I'm a "know it all" just because I support 15-17 ratio. :roll:

This is a social issue nothing more. But the simple fact is that high buck to doe ratio's are not fixing the herds. No one from the other side of the fence ever gets on here and talks about a tag increases.

"Ridgetop" don't take this wrong. You do have a right to express your views. While we don't agree on this topic, I don't think you are crazy or have dementia. I don't care if you hunt any unit or unit 18. That is for you to decide. But there are units out there that have the ratios and hunts that you have expressed that you like. Yet it appears that instead of sitting on the side line and waiting for that glorious hunt, you some how still feel the need to take up space on the lowly general hunts. I do find this ironic.

PS... Good luck on your tagges and hunts this year. And I do mean that......


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Let me get this straight. I'm a "know it all" just because I support 15-17 ratio. :roll:
> 
> This is a social issue nothing more. But the simple fact is that high buck to doe ratio's are not fixing the herds. No one from the other side of the fence ever gets on here and talks about a tag increases.


Exactly...this is a social issue. Ridgetop, wants more tags cut because he knows that tag cuts mean more mature bucks in the future. This isn't about fixing the herd or herd growth; this is about more bucks and better buck hunting. The thing that irritates me is that people who want tags cut are pushing that idea under the guise that it will help "the herd". Ridgetop's initial post in this thread talked about a dire need to do something now to save the herd...sorry, but that is pure BS. The herd is on the incline, not decline. And, it has been increasing despite low buck/doe ratios. That tells me that there is no dire need to do something now...

Also, I wonder why people, like myself, are called "know-it-all's" for disagreeing...can't the same thing be said about you, Ridgetop? Couldn't I just turn that question right around onto you? Afterall, how do you "know" that the 400+ tags scheduled to be cut aren't enough? What makes you "know" that after a good harvest this year we won't be above 15/100 on that unit?

You have every right to your opinion and we can agree to disagree...that's fine. But, when you come on here and express a strong opinion, don't expect everyone to just fall in line and agree. Because, as far as I am concerned, there are "know-it-alls" on both sides of the argument, and you fit that category every bit as much as I do!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

W2U and huntoholic. You guys have over 4,000 post between the two of you and I bet close to half of those are trying to discount someone else's opinion. I can't say the same about myself. Just go back and look at my very first post on this thread. I quoted the Tooele County Biologist from the paper. 
He said, the herd is stable but not growing. Despite what your numbers might say. 
He said, people should be concerned because the buck to doe ratios have been consistantly low the past several years.
He said, we have made a little headway with buck numbers(3 day hunt and snow storm of 2010), but the population still has a long way to go.
For eight pages now you guys have been either trying to discount what this Biologists has said or about my comments trying to back him up. That does come across as you know more.
You always say, "trust the Biologist" but not in this case, I guess. 
I brought this article up in the first place for your benifit and I can see your very hardlined with your beliefs.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

GEZZ,
Per the DWRs OWN deer herd numbers,,,Herd status estimate size..

Post 2009,,,,,301,700

Post 2010,,,,,293,700

Post 2011,,,,286,100

Read this W2U & Hunto......3 year DECLINE in deer herds....

Checking stations STATE WIDE that the DWR survey..3 yr DECLINE in buck harvest.

Hunters satisfaction indexes on MOST general season units...3 year DECLINE...

You guys that say you believe the DWRs numbers better pay attention!
Because even our own DWR knows the deer herd is declining....


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Goofey, I'm sure they will put their spin on those numbers too.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm sure they will admit that the deer herds are declining in some areas and some areas are not. It's not a big secret. I don't believe anyone has ever said our deer herds are doing fabulous. We have cut a lot of tags since 1994 with no major signs of improvment. This is a FACT. It's safe to assume that cutting tags isn't the answer to solving our mule deer herd issue.

BUT we don't need to worry anymore folks because SFW made a statement that in just 3 to 5 years then they will double our deer herds. We all just need to be patient for the next 3 to 5 years and then everything will be peachy.  

Goofy, if there is a 3 year decline in buck harvest then that is good news because that would mean more bucks survived the hunts.

Maybe we need to stick to one deer management plan and give it time to work instead of changing plans every few years because we want to see results NOW instead of patiently waiting for the plan to work.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Talking about the planting: Becker said it won't be an immediate fix to the low population levels when the plants are put in.
> It takes 15-25 years, depending on what happens with the weather, for the plants to get to the point where they help the populations. he said, it takes a long time, but that's our only choice.


So we need to harvest more deer in this area to give the browse plants a chance to grow before they are all eating up from the mule deer in that area. I believe if we try to increase the deer population in an area where habitat restoration is taking place then we are lowering the success rates of our efforts because mule deer would kill a lot of the new browse before it really had a chance to grow.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

A declining deer herd and the best you two Goofy's can come up with is cutting BUCK tagges. O|* 

Let me get this straight, cut over 8000 tagges and some how expect the number of bucks being harvested to be increasing. O|* 

The last time I checked the recommendations being proposed are from the DWR. O|* 

And you are right "ridgetop", I will be here offering a average guys opinion each and everytime a Trophy hunter wants to shut the rest of us out for no other reason then to have the mountain to themselves.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Deleted my post. I just dont care anymore


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Deleted my post. I just dont care anymore


I was going to ask you if you really wanted me to answer the second question? I walked out the truck to get the information that was handed out at the RAC and you deleted.

As far as the first statement, please show me any where that I've said to run amok of tagges.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Can you guys come up with any reason why there should be tag cuts? It sounds to me that you think there should never be any tag cuts. For any reason.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> And you are right "ridgetop", I will be here offering a average guys opinion each and everytime a Trophy hunter wants to shut the rest of us out for no other reason then to have the mountain to themselves.


Wow, just keep piling on the fear factor lies.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just thought I'd remind everyone what general season deer camps
looked like in Utah a few years ago.................[attachment=2:3381npsu]thumbnailCATVTJBU.jpg[/attachment:3381npsu][attachment=1:3381npsu]thumbnailCA00SW8Q.jpg[/attachment:3381npsu][attachment=0:3381npsu]thumbnailCA0FZL7F.jpg[/attachment:3381npsu]


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just thought I'd remind everyone what general season deer camps
> looked like in Utah a few years ago.................[attachment=2:1moa08ri]thumbnailCATVTJBU.jpg[/attachment:1moa08ri][attachment=1:1moa08ri]thumbnailCA00SW8Q.jpg[/attachment:1moa08ri][attachment=0:1moa08ri]thumbnailCA0FZL7F.jpg[/attachment:1moa08ri]


Funny, I still see great deer camps with good bucks. THESE DAYS are "my good old days".

If we are just cutting tags to grow bigger bucks I want nothing to do with it. If the unit needs tag cuts as there are insufficient bucks to breed the does I'll listen with an open mind.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well judd,
Lets see your photos from your " good ol days now" stuff....

Just curious what your harvesting, or seeing your so pumped up about..


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Just thought I'd remind everyone what general season deer camps
> ...


Judd, glad to see you come to my defense with an open mind and I respect your thoughts too. I have had many UWC members tell me that they may not always agree with what I post but they do understand where I'm coming from and agree with some of my comments but as you can see, they're not going to get involved in this debate at all.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well judd,
> Lets see your photos from your " good ol days now" stuff....
> 
> Just curious what your harvesting, or seeing your so pumped up about..




It is all about perspective. My point is that "the good old days" depends on your personal experiences and it is hard to relate to others as you have built up emotions gained from the hike in under the starlight to the missed 35 yard bow shot to the joy of seeing a younger hunter take a little fork horn. Or like last year... placing your wife in a spot on opening morning where a sweet 29 in heavy horned 4x4 has been using as his escape route while you push through his bed in heavy timber, you hear a shot and think "she got him". However you walk up and see it was another very intelligent hunter who put in the work and effort to get to a good vantage point and make an incredible shot (dang thing would have walked 50 yards in front of her, oh well). These highs and lows are what make these days "my good old days"' the pure thrill of the hunt!

By the way, my largest buck is weak 165 4x4. But I see deer of that size all the time on the general hunt, I'm sure you do as well. To me that is great, it might not mean the same thing for you as I can tell your pictures have some great deer.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk said:
> ...


Actually, there have been several UWC members involved in this debate and several who may be members, but if they're not, they are promoting UWC's primary interests of promoting opportunity without damaging the resources.

I just reread every post and have realized that there are those who claim/believe that raising buck/doe ratios and cutting buck tags is pertinent to growing the herds in spite of their inability to show historical and statistical evidence. Then there are those who claim/believe that the buck/doe ratios and cutting buck tags has virtually nothing to do with the growth of the herd as evidenced by their references to studies and data. I have to side with the latter.

My question is to those who want tag cuts in units that are under the buck/doe ratio objectives, where are your proposals to *increase* the buck tags in units that are currently *over* the buck/doe ratio objectives, ie; Units 1, 4/5/6, 7, 11, 13A, 20, 21A, 25B, 28, & 29? We heard over and over again with the promotion of Option @ that fair is fair. Well, is it or is it not?

Well, you say, we can just raise the 15-17 buck/doe ratio objectives to meet the current ratios which are higher (See the above.). OK, then *lower* the 18-20 buck/doe ratio objectives to meet the current ratios which are *lower*, ie; Units 9A, 21B, 24, & 25A! Fair is fair!

Per your statements and photos, I also see where you are coming from and as a UWC member I respect your viewpoint, but only for you, not for me. My memories of great deer camps have few photos and even fewer "trophy" bucks, but they were great deer camps in every sense of the word because they were with family and friends. The opportunity was, and still is, much more important than the size of the antlers!


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

JuddCT said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Just thought I'd remind everyone what general season deer camps
> ...


i agree. we still see and kill some awesome deer every season. each year it seems to get better and better....

if youre hunting GS deer units and expecting to see 30" bucks every time you step out of the truck, you are and will forever be hunting the wrong state. it will never change no matter how big the deer numbers get...



goofy elk said:


> Well judd,
> Lets see your photos from your " good ol days now" stuff....
> 
> Just curious what your harvesting, or seeing your so pumped up about..


we all cant be God of hunting... :_O=: to some of us, hunting and killing deer is more than just about horn size and filling every tag with monster bucks.


----------



## bugleboy1 (Jan 6, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that first picture is from Mexico, I've seen that picture somewhere before, besides, why would a few of those guys be holding two racks, One is a muley and the other is a coues!


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

bugleboy1 said:


> I'm pretty sure that first picture is from Mexico, I've seen that picture somewhere before, besides, why would a few of those guys be holding two racks, One is a muley and the other is a coues!


good point! and the middle pic, is just of average sized deer for a GS hunt. our camp and others i know of pull bucks like that every year off the mountain....


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just thought I'd remind everyone what general season deer camps
> looked like in Utah a few years ago.................[attachment=2:3otme8dt]thumbnailCATVTJBU.jpg[/attachment:3otme8dt][attachment=1:3otme8dt]thumbnailCA00SW8Q.jpg[/attachment:3otme8dt][attachment=0:3otme8dt]thumbnailCA0FZL7F.jpg[/attachment:3otme8dt]


Goofy it's funny that you use the top picture to describe the good old days in Utah when this picture didn't take place in Utah. Because like someone already pointed out the coues deer in the picture. The rest of the pictures are nothing special because hunters have success like this every year. There are a lot of nice bucks out there on public lands, but they don't hang around roads where most hunters hunt. They hang around the 10,000 plus elevation and their big because they aren't stupid.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > JuddCT said:
> ...


Once again you guys discount what the Tooele County Biologist is saying about his own unit and what he has studied and observed. Only to go off of some data(from a different area) that you have pulled out of your butt to match your own beliefs.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> W2U and huntoholic. You guys have over 4,000 post between the two of you and I bet close to half of those are trying to discount someone else's opinion. I can't say the same about myself. :roll: Go back and actually do the math before spouting off like this...the bottom line is that you stated your strong opinion. IF you don't want to be disagreed with, don't state your opinions. Just go back and look at my very first post on this thread. I quoted the Tooele County Biologist from the paper.
> He said, the herd is stable but not growing. Despite what your numbers might say. HIS numbers, not mine, are the ones saying that the herd is growing. The numbers that I have used are coming directly from the DWR and him!
> He said, people should be concerned because the buck to doe ratios have been consistantly low the past several years.HE very will might have said that, but he didn't say that we are in dire need of doing something now and we must lower the tags...that was your opinion.
> He said, we have made a little headway with buck numbers(3 day hunt and snow storm of 2010), but the population still has a long way to go.That is a bit of a hyperbole...the unit objective is not far off...
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> GEZZ,
> Per the DWRs OWN deer herd numbers,,,Herd status estimate size..
> 
> Post 2009,,,,,301,700
> ...


This thread isn't about the statewide decline, it is what about what is happening on the Stansbury unit...stay awake goofy!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Can you guys come up with any reason why there should be tag cuts? It sounds to me that you think there should never be any tag cuts. For any reason.


Yes, and we have said it all along...when a unit is below objective tags should be cut. Tags should be cut on the Stanbury unit....I just can't figure out why you think 400+ is not enough...?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Once again you guys discount what the Tooele County Biologist is saying about his own unit and what he has studied and observed. Only to go off of some data(from a different area) that you have pulled out of your butt to match your own beliefs.


Again, HIS numbers are showing growth, and HIS numbers are showing increased fawn/doe ratios DESPITE low buck numbers on the Stansbury unit! IN 2009, the herd estimate was 8000, in 2010 the herd estimate was 8700, and 2011, the estimate was 9000...those are HIS numbers.

Now, show me where the Tooele county biologist is saying something different...?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Funny how those buck to doe ratios, and fawn to doe ratios, dont exactly correlate. 

Does this mean that under Option WTF! that a unit could have an increasing population, which would mean more bucks in general. But because the buck to doe ratio is not increasing, tag numbers would stay depressed? I am just wondering. Back in the good old days, the buck to doe ratios were typically well below 20:100, but there were more deer in general. So if populations tick upward, and grow substantially(which is what we all want), but buck to does ratios dont increase, we dont issue more tags, right? Even though there are more deer, bucks included.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Ridge, what is the doe:fawn ratio on the Stans? Just curious what your observation is.
> ...


W2U, I thought I answered your question about what the Biologist recommended for tag numbers. It took me awhile to find it but it's on page 5. He didn't give an exact number but it sounds like his were within 10% or so but just guessing. I hope you took your blood pressure meds. after that last rant. 

Well it's been a good debate anyway. It sounds like the DWR needs a few "put and take" (fishing analogy) or sacrifice units and unit 18 will be one of them. So I'll deal with it and pray for more rain in the meantime.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> I honestly think it's under 10 and just might be closer to the 5/100 range. Like I've said before. I have spent A LOT of time in Nov. watching the rutting bucks and have never seen more than a 10/100, even during that time of year. In 2009 there was about 40 does in the fields near my house and I never saw a single buck with them the whole month of Nov. or Dec. In 2010, two 2-3 year old bucks did show up. I talked to the Biologists yesterday and before 2010, the buck/doe ratio had been around 11 for several years. In 2010 it shot up to 18(because of the big storm during the 3 day hunt) This last fall it has dropped to 14.5. with a three year average of 13.5. With the upcoming 9 day season, I do believe strongly the ratio with contiue to drop, if a few more tags are not cut from what is propossed. Also, for what's worth. The Biologist said the recommended tags are a little higher than what he propossed but are not too far off. The final decision came from Salt Lake.


let me guess? you did most, if not all these deer counts from a road? :roll: fyi, the winter range is ENDLESS for those deer in that area... just because they dont choose to rut or winter in the hay field by your house, doesnt mean they arent there. muledeer go where they want to go. they have no set pattern or routine, they just do as they please. it would surprise you at where some of these bucks in the unit choose to winter... and yes, im speaking from experience. some winter as high as 8600'. i know you think you know all about the unit and what its current deer population is like, but in reality no one does. you could spend every day on the mountain and still not know exact numbers. each canyon is different and holds different amount of deer. not every canyon has a set 'x' amount of bucks, 'x' amount of does and 'x' amount of fawns. it doesnt work like that. some canyons have really high buck numbers, others dont. some of the best looking country in the unit doesnt even have a deer in there! you just gotta find where the deer like to be, and i promise its no where near a road


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly think it's under 10 and just might be closer to the 5/100 range. Like I've said before. I have spent A LOT of time in Nov. watching the rutting bucks and have never seen more than a 10/100, even during that time of year. In 2009 there was about 40 does in the fields near my house and I never saw a single buck with them the whole month of Nov. or Dec. In 2010, two 2-3 year old bucks did show up. I talked to the Biologists yesterday and before 2010, the buck/doe ratio had been around 11 for several years. In 2010 it shot up to 18(because of the big storm during the 3 day hunt) This last fall it has dropped to 14.5. with a three year average of 13.5. With the upcoming 9 day season, I do believe strongly the ratio with contiue to drop, if a few more tags are not cut from what is propossed. Also, for what's worth. The Biologist said the recommended tags are a little higher than what he propossed but are not too far off. The final decision came from Salt Lake.
> ...


Don't you roll your eyes at me. Your "guess" is far from correct. Back on page 4 you said, that you have spent very little time on unit 18 but you sure seem to know a lot about an area you've spent very little time on.



shaun larsen said:


> ridge,
> why are you so worried about 18? is it in your back yard or something? one of your old favorite holes that you cant locate good bucks in anymore? is it all of 18 that is in bad shape? or 18a? 18b? areas on both?
> 
> just trying to understand is all. if im correct, this is the area east and west of tooele. seems to me the habitat is pretty good, especially the winter range portion. the few times ive been out there, seems like they have an endless supply of winter range to the west and very little road kill. my guess is with as open as some of that country looks to be, i cant help assume the rifle hunters put a hurt on the deer year after year. another thing i might suspect is there are a few more predators in the area than some might think. looks like theres alot of ground they can hide in. which brings me to my next point. im no expert and i dont know first hand what its like, i havent spent hardly any time out there. but it seems that the county is quite big, steep and rugged with some deep canyons. think its possible that alot of the deer are hiding in those areas and not along the roads anymore, like they did in the past? muleys are the kings at hiding in plain sight... i dont imagine there are very many roads in this unit that can get you in to the 'good deer country'. its all horse back or foot travel from what i can gather. i dunno. just thinking out loud. i would think not only this unit, but many others in this state are in this situation and need some special attention. my suggestion is, cut rifle tags by ALOT, for 3 years. see if it makes a noticable difference. after that, add or subtract more tags depending on what the data shows. my guess is, that it will. have an all out war on predators on certain units. do away with HO hunts and kill them all. a single lion eats 40+ deer a year. killing 5 lions will save somewhere around 200 deer a year. you do the math... and lastly, do your best to kill every stinkin coyote in the area. i bet money if those 3 things were done, youd be able to find a few more shooter bucks in them hills


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

:roll: :roll: :roll: youre right. i SAID that. just like you SAID alot of things also, doesnt mean it makes it true....


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I've communicated with Ridge about this unit, and I am in agreement with him on some things in principal. As for this year, I'm fine with the divisions recommendations, but I also want to keep an eye on that unit once this new hunter management plan has a year under its belt. The unit is just starting to perk up as Ridge has said, so a watchful eye is never a bad thing. I have no doubt Ridge could find and kill a good buck on 18 anytime he wanted to, and I know his jaunts within that unit are far from the road. Myself, I keep an open mind and ear to those who have concerns, and try my best to understand where those folks are coming from. I have no great desire to be "RIGHT" in any discussion, or as it has been on several forum, arguments. :shock: 

We are a passionate group we hunters, but sometimes that passion is poorly aimed. Too bad. Good luck on the draws all.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I flew with Tom (biologist) this past Saturday on much of this unit counting antelope and did deer classifications last fall with him. I will try my best to summarize my conversations with him since we spoke for hours on the subject of deer on the Oquirrh\Stansbury.

The deer population in this neck of the woods are WAY DOWN compared to what they looked like in the 40's. The biggest single factor in all of this is range conditions. A major fire (I saw it from the air to get perspective) burned alot of wintering ground on the back side of the Stanbury range 2 years ago. Tom described it as devastating for deer. The density of plants that deer need during certain times of the year on the rest of the range is way down compared to range conditions in the 40's and has largely been taken over by cheat grass. The cheat grass is choking out necessary summer forbes. The sage brush is old and producing very little new growth from year to year and is critical to wintering deer. On the positive side we saw some of the habitat work that has been done and he showed me where much of it is being planned to be been done. I got see the areas where sage brush has been thinned to promote younger sage to come in that produce lots of annual growth and areas where the P&J has been taken out. Some of it has been replanted. He also stated that if we could get the weather to cooperate for the next 5 years consectutively that he will look like the best biologist in the state and would expect a lot of deer population growth on this unit.

The buck to doe ratios have struggled on these units for a while and the recent recommendations will mean less hunters hunting this range by 15%. That is a big number and should bring with it optimism from those that love this unit IMHO. The division feels good about these numbers as it is a pretty big cut compared to the last 3 years. If the tag cuts do not get the job done the division will be ready and willing to issue more tag cuts in their recommendations. 

I personally feel good about the direction of the unit as far as buck to doe ratios go and I feel very confident that Tom has his finger squarely on the pulse of it and is very much interested in seeing growth in the herd numbers and an increase in buck to doe ratios. I am concerned about the poor range conditions on this unit but I am also optimistic about future projects to enhance it.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Back in 2006 (When a significant drop in deer numbers were seen for whatever reason), the unit was described as lacking in summer range as well as winter range...the fire probably has done little to help! Hopefully, good weather, lots of moisture, and some of the habitat projects will help improve the unit! Thanks for the info, Bullsnot!


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

so heres a question... do you think that the lack of water might have something to do with lower deer numbers on this unit? theres water, but no where near the amount that most of the other units in the state has.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

not sure what your asking. Are there the same springs and streams as in the past? 
I think so. 
Has there been very poor moisture content in the vegitation?
I think so. 
That's why the Stansbury mountains( from Deseret Peak to I-80) burned in 2008 and then again worse in 2009. I think the South end of the range burned in the late 1990's. The drought has caused a lot of fawns to die of malnutrition. According to the Biologists.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

no im talking about the fact that alot of the creeks, streams and seeps are right along an atv/motorcycle trail or truck road, in the bottoms of the canyons and that might discourage deer from using it? maybe causing them to move to more remote areas where people might not be looking? and add on top of that, a drought... probably not favorable conditions for deer or deer reproduction.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot, thanks for your reply and awareness of the units West of I-15. I think you know what my concerns are by now. 
After reading several of Shaun Larsens posts, I just need to look harder and be a better hunter. I think if I continue to follow his advice, all will be ok and someday I might turn into a decent hunter. That guy(shaun larsen) is quite the "Gaston", he can do no wrong. Have you guys seen all the things he kills on a yearly basis? WOW :shock: I bet he's quite the ladies man too. :roll:


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> After reading several of Shaun Larsens posts, I just need to look harder and be a better hunter.


its amazing what a person can find when they put a little effort into something...


ridgetop said:


> That guy(shaun larsen) is quite the "Gaston", he can do no wrong. Have you guys seen all the things he kills on a yearly basis?


now wait a second. perfection has nothing to do with the conversation. so lets leave comparing me to jesus out of this.

i am fortunate enoug to hunt ALOT, each season. hunting is my passion in life. but in order to be successful, you either need to be extremely determined and patient or lucky. now, i know im nowhere near as an experienced hunter such as yourself, so it mostly has to be all luck and no skill to run into the deer that i have. heres a few bucks ive taken off 18 in the last few years. i know these deer might not be considered to be "wall worthy", but for a lucky kid they arent bad. i bet 85% of the GS deer hunters out there wouldnt let these deer walk. im 7 for 8 (burned a DH deer tag in 2010. saw and passed up many decent deer)
2007








2008








2009








my brothers 2010 deer








2011

























ridgetop said:


> I bet he's quite the ladies man too.


and yes, even one of my ladies was able to find a buck on an afternoon hunt in 18. not bad for a first timer.








its so easy, even a girl can do it!! :O•-:

i have other pics, but they arent digital.

so... i guess youre right. they arent there.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Congrats Shaun on some fine success. You can probably add narcissism to your resume. Funny how you said earlier in this post how you didn't know much about unit 18 but now claim to have killed all these deer on it. :? I'm a little confussed by that. Why the photoshopped pictures? A little embarrassed to show the houses in the background.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> Congrats Shaun on some fine success. You can probably add narcissism to your resume. Funny how you said earlier in this post how you didn't know much about unit 18 but now claim to have killed all these deer on it. :? I'm a little confussed by that. Why the photoshopped pictures? A little embarrassed to show the houses in the background.


because if you spent the time on there that you claim to spend, youd know where some of those pics were taken  i cant make it that easy for you...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Looks like your half way to making the bone collectors pro staff. Lol :lol::shock::-?

When you start shooting a few without the milk on the lips you'll for sure be a shoe in. :-?

Ridge i think you just found out what happend to all the deer you passed up. :-(


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> When you start shooting a few without the milk on the lips you'll for sure be a shoe in. :-?


 :roll: well we all cant be the "buck master"...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Maybe I should change the title of this thread to: Unit 18 needs help from shaun larsen!  

Just messing with ya shaun.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Stay on topic, ridge! :O•-:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

we went on a four hour ride today up Settlement Canyon and saw about 15 head total. Not that it is a good or bad sign. They did appear very healthy and had plenty of good food around. It was nice to see them none the less and a great day to get out.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> we went on a four hour ride today up Settlement Canyon and saw about 15 head total. Not that it is a good or bad sign. They did appear very healthy and had plenty of good food around. It was nice to see them none the less and a great day to get out.


See any turkeys?



proutdoors said:


> Stay on topic, ridge! :O•-:


Sorry pro.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

No we didn't and that was a big surprise. We rode up to the snow elevation and hung around there for a while and found a few nice meadows but never saw a turkey. We were all pretty surprised that we didn't.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nice to see you enjoyed *PRIVATE* property................... :shock: :mrgreen:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I won't even ask.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I won't even ask.


Ask what? You do know what " :mrgreen: " means, right? :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Or, are you suggesting it is possible to go on a four hour ride up Settlement without being on private land? :O•-:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Actually yes it is. I should have been more specific in that it was a four hour ride total. Not just four hours up. I t was more like four hours around. We rode to the camp site and crossed the road to the north. Rode the trail up the the left fork adjacent to the new power line and stopped at the top at the fence where the private property starts, cooked up some meat in a dutch oven, ate, rode part way back down and turned north up another draw, crossed a ridge and turned back down hill again and headed back towards the parking area. We stopped a few times because the horses and mules haven't been ridden real hard. As far as I know we never placed hoof on private property once.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

That explains why you didn't see very many deer/turkeys.................. :O—–-: -/|\- -O|o-


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

which is all the more reason federal land needs to remain federal land so that the state can not sell it to private owners.................................. :O—–-: -/|\- -O|o-


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That explains why you didn't see very many deer/turkeys.................. :O---: -/|\- -O|o-


Referring to muleskinner being on public land.

The fact that the Oquirrhs are about 70% private lands, I really thought it would have fallen into the 18-20 buck to doe group. If you look at where the access on this unit gone to in the last 30 years. Although there are less hunters on the unit now, the land that is huntable is a lot smaller in size than it once was. Here's some examples from 30 years ago.
Camp Williams was open to hunting: now closed to everyone
Rose Canyon: now closed to public
City creek / West Canyon : closed to public
Foothills around Cedar Fort: Mostly closed to public
Five Mile Pass: closed to shooting and hunting
Ophir Canyon: closed to camping and dirt roads leading out of canyon now gated off and posted.
Upper Soldier Canyon: Closed
Settlement Canyon: closed to muzzleloader hunting and gated off
Just these areas alone once held well over a thousand hunters now only a few hundred have access to these areas that are still open. Which causes more crowding within the open to public areas and more pressure on the other two mountain ranges within the unit..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> which is all the more reason federal land needs to remain federal land so that the state can not sell it to private owners.................................. :O---: -/|\- -O|o-


Umm, so since there are FEWER critters on federal land than private land, your logic concludes we need less private land and more federal land. Are you sure you don't work in Washington DC?

Ridge, if you think muzzy hunters stay out of Settlement, or that the majority of those who see the Private Property signs stay out, you are kidding yourself. And, the fact that fewer hunters.....according to you.....on the private land, one would think the buck:doe ratios would be over 20:100 up Settlement. But, as you well know, the buck:doe ratios are no better there than on the 'over-hunted' public lands. I wonder why...... -Ov- Could it be that the struggling deer herd is NOT because of buck deer hunters? Just saying......................


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

you are a master at taking things out of context Pro.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> you are a master at taking things out of context Pro.


 :mrgreen:

Actually Pro, I do think there's a chance the buck to doe is 20+ in the Settlement Canyon area.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Mr Muleskinner said:
> 
> 
> > you are a master at taking things out of context Pro.
> ...


Based on what data? I suppose there is a chance of me winning the lottery as well.........

As for Mr Muleskinner, what exactly have I taken out of context, just wondering so as to better understand where you are coming from.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

i agree there are no mule deer in the oquirhs everyone should look other places and let us poor unfortunate locals try to find a milker to feed are starving families. few deer plus lots of predators poor winter range and a siteing of bigfoot are maybe that was my son on one of his walks equal few deer and fewer bucks.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

proutdoors said:


> Mr Muleskinner said:
> 
> 
> > which is all the more reason federal land needs to remain federal land so that the state can not sell it to private owners.................................. :O---: -/|\- -O|o-
> ...


Yea I am pretty certain that I do not work in DC. My brother and I have owned a construction company since 98. Zero federal or local handouts. All blood, sweat and tears. Steel, concrete and pipe. I have the back, knees and calluses to prove it.

You couldn't possibly think that there are fewer critters on public land could you? Be realistic. In specific areas the concentration of animals may be higher on private land as it would stand to reason since getting access to hunt that land, let alone set foot on it, is often impossible. The critters know where they are safe for sure. Show me two identical properties that border each other, one public and one private, and I can tell you which side the animals prefer. My logic concludes that private land is private land regardless of the head count. Access to private land is limited at best, always has been, always will be.

Not even the best of politicians can put a good spin on that......not when it comes to access and opportunity for the general public.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I truly have NO idea what you are trying to say/imply/assert................ *-HELP!-*


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I am not trying to imply anything at all. I said what I said. No more, no less.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

pro, you don't need "data" every time. Like Muleskinner was saying, common sense tells you that private property has less hunters per acre and less deer are being killed than on public. 
I have seen for myself the amount of bucks on private lands and/or hard to reach public land surrounded by private. All of the other units that contain mostly private lands have much higher buck/ doe ratios than the mostly public units. That's why I believe the Oquirrhs do have a 20+ ratio and the Stansburys / Onaqui range has a below 10/100 ratio but together, they average around 13 or so.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I am not trying to imply anything at all. I said what I said. No more, no less.


Now who is acting like a politician? I asked for you to clarify where I took things out of context....and this is all you can come up with? -BaHa!-


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Geez Pro.......

I make a post that I went on a freaking ride and made some observations that were neither good nor bad:

*you comment that I must have enjoyed private property.
*you insinuate that I can't be truthful if I claim that I didn't.
*you then state that I didn't see any animals (or enough of them in your opinion) because I did not go on private property.
*you question whether I work in D.C or whether I belong there or something to that affect.

Regardless of what I say you want to turn everything into a debate. Everything doesn't need to become a standpoint or a position. Somethings can just be observations.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Geez Pro.......
> 
> I make a post that I went on a freaking ride and made some observations that were neither good nor bad:
> 
> ...


Good hell almighty! Take a chill pill. Do you not understand the little smilies I added along with those comments? You best relax or you're going to have a stroke!! You either have TERRIBLE reading comprehension skills, or you or the thinnest skinned feller out there......which is it? I was having some fun, YOU took things WAY to personal and got all butt hurt. My comments on the private property was a playful jab at your dislike of private land and your preference to public land. And, KNOWING that almost all of Settlement Canyon.....even BEFORE the second gate.....is PRIVATE I figured I would give you a little grief. Then, when you once again over-reacted, I decided to keep razing you. I know it is wrong, but its like teasing the monkeys at the zoo.....wrong but **** fun! :twisted:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

You asked me to clarify and I did so reluctantly knowing in advance there would be a rebuttal. Maybe, if we ever meet, you'll see that I am considered quite intelligent by everybody that knows me, I am fairly well read, educated and I am far from thin skinned. I am also real easy to get along with, with minimal effort and I go out of my way to help people. That said, I don't know of anybody that needs a stranger to publicly make blind presumptions about them. I don't know anybody that appreciates it or welcomes it. I have seen you defend a certain person, while others were criticizing him, because you felt that they may not know or understand the entire story. I agreed with your stance even though I did not comment on that thread. I didn't want to get caught up in the same argument and be ill-informed of the matter. You defend that guy, yet with me you feel that you are warranted in playing games, or having some fun with me or however you choose to put it. I am all for a good roast and making jabs in jest but it was obvious that you were just taking a shot at me. You have admitted as much. It's no coincidence that people that choose to tease the monkeys only do so outside of the cage. Nice analogy by the way. I found that it was fitting.

I am not angry. I don't need a chill pill as I am actually quite relaxed most of the time. My mules are my chill pill.

I don't "dislike" private property. I just don't promote making public land either private or state owned/controlled. I prefer to have the right to hunt where the critters are versus asking for permission and then having them tell me what is OK and what is not. I never trespass if property is clearly marked and rarely ask permission to access it if it is.

This was my first trip up Settlement Canyon. It was not a scouting trip nor was I actively searching for anything. I was just enjoying a ride with some friends that live in Grantsville and we saw about 15 head of deer and no turkeys. It was not a judgement as to a lack of wildlife in the area. I lived just outside of Yellowstone for years and experienced the same thing on numerous occasions.

I am not here to make enemies, I have told you so before and I will only take confrontation so far on a public forum.

As far as this :mrgreen: goes......No I don't necessarily know what it means. It could be laughing with somebody or laughing at them. For all you know my grandfather could be a bucktoothed china man and I took it as an insult.

 this could be an obscene gesture

-O\__- this is no doubt my brother round penning his mule.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> ... I don't know of anybody that needs a stranger to publicly make blind presumptions about them. I don't know anybody that appreciates it or welcomes it...


+1 1/8! I know Bart and you two would probably get along great. As crazy as he comes across he is actually a pretty good guy. I have a lot of respect for him. These forums tend to lose the personality of the authors.



Mr Muleskinner said:


> ...people that choose to tease the monkeys only do so outside of the cage.


This is great. I might have to steal it! :mrgreen:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have no doubt that Bart and I would and probably will someday get along. I appreciate his backbone.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I have no doubt that Bart and I would and probably will someday get along. I appreciate his backbone.


Oh ya, he's a big flipflopper...give him 6 months and he will be onto a new flavor. :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

-^|^-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Mr Muleskinner said:
> 
> 
> > I have no doubt that Bart and I would and probably will someday get along. I appreciate his backbone.
> ...


LOL,,
Some of his posts makes me think of Senitor John Kerry :!:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Kick me in the teeth!


Hay viene el entertainment.

:mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Mr Muleskinner":17lw8usf]I have no doubt that Bart and I would and probably will someday get along. I appreciate his backbone.
> ...


LOL,,
Some of his posts makes me think of Senitor John Kerry :!:[/quote:17lw8usf] :mrgreen:

I would rather be a person known to change my views from time to time, than be someone who sticks with a view.....that has been repeatedly been shown to be deeply flawed/wrong....................but hey, that's just me. :O•-:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

agreed..........wait.............disagree..............wait...............agree


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

What is the point of having discussions if everyone is supposed to maintain the same exact views they have always had? Is one smarter for never admitting they are wrong from time to time, or is a person smarter for admitting when they are in error, or being humble enough to actually LEARN? The more I learn, the more my views change..................just saying...


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What is the point of having discussions if everyone is supposed to maintain the same exact views they have always had? Is one smarter for never admitting they are wrong from time to time, or is a person smarter for admitting when they are in error, or being humble enough to actually LEARN? The more I learn, the more my views change..................just saying...


Wow...are you actually starting to listen to me or did you come up with this on your own? These are my thoughts exactly Bart, but I think you already know that. 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

No, I came to this all on my own.....hence my disdain for SFW now, as opposed to when I thought they were actually looking out for wildlife and hunters................. -/|\-


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Flipflopper.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

“When you're finished changing, you're finished.”
Benjamin Franklin


----------

