# Plateau/Thousand Lakes LE Deer



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

See the harvest statistics for the rifle hunt last year on this unit?

18 for 21 on the rifle tag with an average of 6.4 years old.

Only 34 tags total last year (quite a bit less than Oak Creek or San Juan).

Anybody seen any of these bucks shot last year on the rifle?

Does this area have good genetics?

Still trying to decide where to possibly apply my 10 resident deer points this year.


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

DO NOT waste 10 points on that hunt!!!!!! It should not even be a LE hunt. I have seen fewer and fewer good bucks come off of there. 

There are always one or two, but so is there on just General Units......which this should be!!


NO WAY IN HECK would I waste 10 points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I'd be curious to know which parts of the unit you're getting the negative information from. I do not know this hunt well at all, but reliable sources tell me it can be good if hunted correctly. I understand the road access to be limited and the best hunting away from the roads. Even so, I would look at this unit with 6-8 points but not 10. I'm just a little behind you, and there are a bunch of hunts that take 9-12 points that are great hunts. Do a little searching on each of those hunts and decide which one's for you because they all have their pros and cons. For example, the Oak Creek is one I've got my eye on. It has big deer but is very rugged. So if you like to hike and glass a lot it would be a good option. If your time is limited, look for one of the more popular CWMUs. You'll likely only have 5 days to hunt, but you'll probably still kill a decent one.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I know the DWR tried to take this unit off the LE list because they felt like they couldn't get the buck/doe ratio up to where a LE unit should be. They felt like the number of depradation tags and depradation issues on the unit left it below the level of what an LE unit should be....I am sure there are some really good bucks on this unit; however, you must understand that the buck/doe ratio on this unit is below other LE units and the hunting, therefore, is going to be more difficult.


----------



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

Take the 1000 Lake Plateau off the LE units turn it to general, and swap it for the Monroe unit and make it a new LE unit.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Granted. Thousand Lake.Elk Horn will never be what it once was.Before the LE was put on this unit held some great bucks east of SR 72 and west of SR 72. I'll say this one time or may be two. as it's been beat to death. When they took the 3 point restrictions off the area it went down the tube west mountain will never be the same. Ive hunted that country for over 40 years, have drew the Thousand Lake tag twice sence going LE. Seen very few good bucks. Seen some monster Elk. If the DWR thinks the buck doe ratio is wacked now! take the LE off this unit and pandoras box will open just like it did when the 3 point was removed,The deer population will crash! quility bucks will be hammered the first year LE is removed,if you think the buck doe ratio is screwed up now.wait spent over 20 days on the west side of SR 72. and you would play hell finding a buck that would exceed 4 point. The last year of the 3 point restrictions we counted 34 bucks over the 3 point restrictions in one aftenoon. this area was destroyed in one season and will never come back!!
Monroe should been posted LE unit years ago! Did anybody listen??


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

oldfudd said:


> Granted. Thousand Lake.Elk Horn will never be what it once was.Before the LE was put on this unit held some great bucks east of SR 72 and west of SR 72. I'll say this one time or may be two. as it's been beat to death. When they took the 3 point restrictions off the area it went down the tube west mountain will never be the same. Ive hunted that country for over 40 years, have drew the Thousand Lake tag twice sence going LE. Seen very few good bucks. Seen some monster Elk. If the DWR thinks the buck doe ratio is wacked now! take the LE off this unit and pandoras box will open just like it did when the 3 point was removed,The deer population will crash! quility bucks will be hammered the first year LE is removed,if you think the buck doe ratio is screwed up now.wait spent over 20 days on the west side of SR 72. and you would play hell finding a buck that would exceed 4 point. The last year of the 3 point restrictions we counted 34 bucks over the 3 point restrictions in one aftenoon. this area was destroyed in one season and will never come back!!
> Monroe should been posted LE unit years ago! Did anybody listen??


Let me ask one question. How many deer hunters hunt this unit each year?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I only have one point, but I put in for Thousand Lakes archery.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Pro. iunderstand. I hunt with nothing but Bow and Arrow.When I seen what happened to that terrific herd in 3 days of my last gun hunt,.I hung it up. Hate to say this, but darn every person that hunted that unit after restrictions were removed went nuts. 4 point kill it sprike kill it 3 point kill it 2 point kill it. .Thats the 2nd worst outa control slaughter i've ever seen. I never fired a shot. although I had plenty of chances. all I'am saying it's just kinda slow down that way now. hope I didn't upset anyone.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I drew Thousand lakes archery deer with zero points in 06,,,,,,
Fun hunt, a half step above general season because of less hunters.
But for gwad sakes don't burn 10 points there now,,,,,,,May be 10 years ago though.


----------



## Pudge (Nov 24, 2009)

I spend lots of time on 1000 lake and wouldnt waste 10 points on that unit. :!:


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

Thanks for the info guys.

Its looking like I will either take a chance on San Juan/Oak creek or just keep holding out/putting in for Paunsagunt Muzzy till I draw.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

oldfudd said:


> Pro. iunderstand. I hunt with nothing but Bow and Arrow.When I seen what happened to that terrific herd in 3 days of my last gun hunt,.I hung it up. Hate to say this, but darn every person that hunted that unit after restrictions were removed went nuts. 4 point kill it sprike kill it 3 point kill it 2 point kill it. .Thats the 2nd worst outa control slaughter i've ever seen. I never fired a shot. although I had plenty of chances. all I'am saying it's just kinda slow down that way now. hope I didn't upset anyone.


I'm trying to understand, but one point keeps coming up that I'm not getting my hands around. This unit has been an LE deer unit for the better part of 15 years. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but when I look at the total number of tags each year it looks to me like there is only around 34 tags issued for deer on this unit. I don't recall there being more than 60 or tags issued at it's high point of being and a LE. Please explain.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Before it was LE, It was managed under the antler restrictions "4 pt. then 3 pt. or better".
And oldfudd is spot on,,,,It was deer hunting at its finest..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Goofy, are you saying antler restrictions work better for quality than Limited Entry? Honest question.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Before it was LE, It was managed under the antler restrictions "4 pt. then 3 pt. or better".
> And oldfudd is spot on,,,,It was deer hunting at its finest..


I think "PRO" knows where I'm going with this. For the better part of 15 years there has only been 34 to 60 deer hunters hunting this unit. Go look at the square miles of this unit. I'm just guessing but it would not surprise me if it was one hunter for 20 square miles. Please explain how this is worst than unlimited hunters, even with antler restrictions.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's my take on antler restrictions, It provides a TON of opportunity on general season
units while at the same time some outstanding quality.........

At least that's how I saw it for all the years I hunted those units...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's my take on antler restrictions, It provides a TON of opportunity on general season
> units while at the same time some outstanding quality.........
> 
> At least that's how I saw it for all the years I hunted those units...


I'm not letting you off that easy. You claimed it was at it's finest under antler restrictions, you said NOTHING about maximum opportunity. So, please clarify, are you saying quality is better under antler restrictions than under Limited Entry?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my take on antler restrictions, It provides a TON of opportunity on general season
> ...


And I'll take one step further. More hunters is better than fewer hunters?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hard to compare the two now,,,,,15 to 20 years ago deer hunting was better everywhere.

I suppose we could find out if we took Pahvant , Fishlake, Monroe, and the Wasatch
and put 3 point or better on them for a while and see what happens........

I guarantee those units would be "finer" or better quality in a few short years without
cutting into opportunity..


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Hard to compare the two now,,,,,15 to 20 years ago deer hunting was better everywhere.
> 
> I suppose we could find out if we took Pahvant , Fishlake, Monroe, and the Wasatch
> and put 3 point or better on them for a while and see what happens........
> ...


I'm sorry, but in all reality that unit is all but shutdown. In 15 years it has not recovered. If all people can say it is because of lifting a point restriction that this unit has not recovered, all I have to say is..................well you have left me speechless. That unit has a problem and it ain't hunters. Until you identify it and fix it, it will never be what it was.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Most deer units in Utah will never be what they once were no matter what changes
or management plans are imposed....


----------



## brettb (Aug 23, 2009)

I have hunted west of SR 72 for deer since 1990. The antler restrictions IMO need to be brought back. The deer herd is far from what it used to be. Hunters are shooting anything with antlers. But hunters aren't the only issue affecting the deer herd. I have watched the Fishlake National Forest come in and destroy habitat with logging, and poorly managed prescribed fires. Huge slash piles have sat for upwards of 12 years with nothing being done. Old burns that didn't burn the forest clean, have left stumps and half burn't trees littered throughout the hillsides. Now this year the Forest Service came through with backhoes and dug huge trenches in front of old two track roads (the logging roads) to keep the atv's off of them. Which in turn has closed them to any access of attempting to clean up the old logging slash.

In the areas of logging the deer, and elk have all but disappeared. I used to see herds of deer and elk throughout the forest. Now, I see a couple of small groups of deer, and zero elk. 

I think the DWR and Forest Service need to get together and figure it out. What was a great place to hunt, has become more of a frustration. I say clean the forest and bring back antler restrictions. Two things in my opinion that would help.


Brettb


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

how is any of the stuff the forest service is doing harming the deer??? Wouldn't all of those things create more browse for deer???


----------



## brettb (Aug 23, 2009)

The amount of logging slash left in the forest is so thick that it has prevented any plants from growing. The logging was done 10-15 years ago. If the Forest Service would clear the area the vegetation would thrive....which should lead to better deer habitat.

Brettb


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Hard to compare the two now,,,,,15 to 20 years ago deer hunting was better everywhere.
> 
> I suppose we could find out if we took Pahvant , Fishlake, Monroe, and the Wasatch
> and put 3 point or better on them for a while and see what happens........
> ...


You still didn't answer the question! Pahvant, Fish Lake, Monroe, and the Wasatch are not Limited Entry. You made the claim that quality would be better under antler restrictions than under Limited Entry. Why won't you defend/justify such a claim?

And, you can not guarantee anything in regards to quality, so don't make such a claim. Dealing with hypothetical situations may be fun, but it isn't dealing with reality in any way.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Hard to compare the two now,,,,,15 to 20 years ago deer hunting was better everywhere.
> ...


The way Thousand lakes is now there are a few two points being 
shot on the limited entry hunts,,,,,Lots of 3 points went down in 06.
Under 4 point or better I know of several bucks that would not have
been harvested in 06,,,A couple had some real potential.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So goofy, you're saying antler restrictions lead to higher quality than Limited Entry. Interesting. 8)


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> So goofy, you're saying antler restrictions lead to higher quality than Limited Entry. Interesting. 8)


On Thousand lakes,,,,,Yes.

I also think Monroe would be a good candidate for antler restricts...

Anything to keep yearling bucks from getting shot,,I'm all for.

And yes, I don't like seeing spike hunts on elk either.

I'm not into killing "bambi" anything.........But that's just me.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Explain how having all hunters be forced to target the caliber of animal YOU want to hunt will cause more of them to be around? And, how will that in any way benefit the overall health/population of deer/elk where this is done?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

We can debate this til were blue in the face,,,,Antler restricts are not coming back 
so whats the point?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The reason antler restriction isn't coming back is the fact that it doesn't work. You don't force everyone to hunt 3 point or better and magically there is more mature bucks in the herd. You will have big 2 points doing a lot of the breeding.

Thousand Lakes is very limited to the number of tags so I don't know how much more limited you can get than that.

Antler restrictions also slows down the growth of the herd.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

AH! crap! restrictions worked on this unit. it ain't never coming back! Unless we get some one like THE GREAT AND POWERFUL DON PEAY to say we need to do this!! IT MAY COST SOME DOLLARS!! BUT THE GREAT AND POWERFUL HAS SPOKEN!!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

OldFudd, what makes you think that 3 point or better will work better than the LE restriction that is already in place?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well oldfudd all us guys that saw what we had with antler restricts know what it was...
Everyone else just doesn't have a freaking clue!

Them 1980s were great, Unlimited deer tags,,Two buck tags every year for archery guys,
The Henrys, Book cliffs, Oak City, were all GENRAL SEASON.......

Tons of opportunity and lots of great deer.......But they say antler restricts don't work???
Go figure?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Everyone else just doesn't have a freaking clue!


BUT, yet you have never once came up with a good explanation why antler restriction would solve the problem.

Please post why antler restriction would work so much better.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Because bucks are not shot as Bambi's,,and allowed to grown up..pretty simple.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well oldfudd all us guys that saw what we had with antler restricts know what it was...
> Everyone else just doesn't have a freaking clue!
> 
> Them 1980s were great, Unlimited deer tags,,Two buck tags every year for archery guys,
> ...


I get it now, hunting was great, deer populations were high, all because of antler restrictions. -/O_- -_O-


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Because bucks are not shot as Bambi's,,and allowed to grown up..pretty simple.


No, it's not that simple.

You aren't looking at the bigger picture. If you force everyone to target the older class bucks then you will end up with fewer older class bucks in the herd. Yearling bucks and big 2 points will be the majority of your breeding bucks. Also with antler restriction then your allowing more yearling bucks to survive on the winter range which will then take up space that is needed by does and fawns. Remember goofy it only takes 7 bucks to breed a 100 does. The more bucks you have on the winter range then fewer fawns will survive. Fewer fawns surviving means fewer deer= less hunting opportunity.

Yes, LE units also target the biggest bucks, but they are managed to 25-30/100 buck to doe ratios so you will always have mature bucks.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Don't you guys just love how yote and pro pounce on every post some of us put up?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Don't you guys just love how yote and pro pounce on every post some of us put up?


I'm sorry if you feel like your being pounced on. I just wanted you to explain to me why you think antler restrictions are so much better. This is a discussion forum.

If you strongly believe that antler restrictions will work then please explain yourself. Dont just post this and call everyone clueless.



> Because bucks are not shot as Bambi's,,and allowed to grown up..pretty simple.


If it were that simple then don't you think we would be doing that right now?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the best way to explain myself,,,
I like to hunt and harvest deer that look like these....[attachment=4:1qad9hjc]100_1422.jpg[/attachment:1qad9hjc][attachment=3:1qad9hjc]100_1421.jpg[/attachment:1qad9hjc][attachment=2:1qad9hjc]100_1415.jpg[/attachment:1qad9hjc][attachment=1:1qad9hjc]100_1420.jpg[/attachment:1qad9hjc][attachment=0:1qad9hjc]100_1416.jpg[/attachment:1qad9hjc]

This is what bucks look like when given the chance to grow up..........
that's what antler restrictions provide.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Those type of bucks still exist on general season units today. I know a lot of people that would love to shoot a buck like those, but I doubt that it was ONLY because of antler restrictions that those bucks grew to maturity. I know that HABITAT, weather, and terrain all play an important role.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

I'll put it to ya this way.DWR officer told me the reasons for the low deer numbers just on this unit, not talking bout other units. #1 Sage Brush was dyin off. and there for winter range was less than in the past.#2 Buck to doe ratios were out of balance. # 3 Poaching. that all started when the road was paved.# 4 Lions and Coyotes,# 5 Bad Winters.#6 Dry Summers.#7 Harvests has been down, to many leaves were on the trees during the rifle hunts.# 8 The dreded full moon.#9 to many four wheelers. So On And So fourth.Sounds like the stories printed in the slc trib everytime the harvests percentags go down,I'll say it one more time, DWR step up to the plate, ur department blew it when you removed restrictions and killed off dang near every buck on that entire unit.West side of State Road 72 its never come back its never coming back! Thats a fact. Ask the locals who have run cattle on that unit for 10 ,20, 30,40, years, these are guys the know a hell of alot more than any of us forum folks. Its runied. the DWR blew it, They didn't listen to what people who love this area were saying, and they still remain mute when you ask them bout the area. MONROE MOUNTAIN is in the same boat.As for finding a good buck on the unit west of SR72 I challenge you to find more than about a half a dozen!


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

It seems like most bioligists agree that antler restrictions "don't work". I'm not sure why they say this, and what specific things are not working. I know there are a lot of factors involved and point restrictions are only one factor. But I will agree with those that say hunting was great under the 3 point or better system. Maybe that's because they were more remote areas and had fewer hunters, who knows. The FACT is, that we don't have any areas right now that are managed that way, so who's to say what they would be like? The main arguments against point restrictions are: 1) Many yearlings are shot anyway and left to rot. 2) Giant 2 points going unharvested, and 3) More bucks in the herd leads to higher winter kill. Can the first 2 arguments really coexist? If all the 2 points are shot anyway, wouldn't the big 2 points be shot as well? And how many giant 2 points are there in the world that never develop into at least a 3 point? I'm sure they are quite rare. I see the 2 and 3 year old 2 points quite a bit, but I'll wager that those are the ones becoming crab-forked 4 points when they're 4, 5, 6. I would love to see some 3-point or better areas again. The problem is, most of the areas that seem to fit the bill (somewhat inaccessible, rugged, plenty of winter range, far from major cities) are already LE. The Henrys, Book Cliffs, etc. that used to be good 3 point areas are now off limits to general hunting. My stance is that point restrictions work well under the right conditions but finding those conditions in Utah these days is not easy. If the Thousand Lakes unit is so trashed already, like many people here are saying, it may be a good area to try. Even so, I'm not sure what a point restriction would accomplish that limiting tags would not.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

So, Oldfudd, you don't believe it's a habitat problem, but all the DWR's fault? If the habitat isn't a problem than the place should be over-run with does. We aren't issuing a huge amount of doe tags right?

Are you seeing huge amounts of does when your in the mountains. Does the majority of does have 1 or 2 fawns?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

So please tell me CS, in all of your wonderful glorified wisdom that you post so often, are you saying that Antler Restrictions have NO merit in Mule Deer Management? :?:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So please tell me CS, in all of your wonderful glorified wisdom that you post so often, are you saying that Antler Restrictions have NO merit in Mule Deer Management?


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

I use to believe that antler restriction would work until I studied more on the subject and read several articles. I also listened to the opinions of others, and then I came to the conclusion that antler restriction doesn't work.

If your going to manage a unit for maximum opportunity then you cannot have more bucks on the winter range competing with does and fawns for food and then expect their to be more mature bucks and more deer for that matter. Again, it only takes 7 bucks to breed 100 does.

More does means more fawns= more deer, therefore, more bucks.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> by coyoteslayer on Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:53 pm
> 
> So please tell me CS, in all of your wonderful glorified wisdom that you post so often, are you saying that Antler Restrictions have NO merit in Mule Deer Management?
> 
> ...


Thought so....you are talking about "Hunting Management", which is what Utah is currently doing for Mule Deer. Antler restriction hunting is NOT a black and white management tool. It DOES, DID and IS currently working in several states, for mule deer, white tail, and if memery serves, elk as well, for the goal it was designed to accomplish. Does it work over the long haul to create a larger, more stable general deer herd? Nope, doubt it. But it does work under certain conditions for specified goals. So, to make a bold black and white statement that it Does Not Work, is....how does "HE" put it...? "Inane!" 

One of the biggest reasons most wildlife agency's 86'ed the point restrictions was because of us, the hunters! We didn't have the desire or whatever you want to call it to be able to properly identify the animal we were shooting! As a result, anywhere from 60 to 100 percent of the annual leagal harvest was achieved in killing illegal lesser point bucks, left to rot on the mountain. There are other factors as well, but you get my point... :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> So please tell me CS, in all of your wonderful glorified wisdom that you post so often, are you saying that Antler Restrictions have NO merit in Mule Deer Management? :?:


I won't speak for CS, but IMHO, based on data from numerous states and numerous biologists and numerous studies, antler restrictions do not work, short term or long term.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Thought so....you are talking about "Hunting Management" No, more along the lines of a biological standpoint which is what Utah is currently doing for Mule Deer. Antler restriction hunting is NOT a black and white management tool. It DOES, DID and IS currently working in several states, for mule deer, white tail, and if memery serves, elk as well, for the goal it was designed to accomplish. Does it work over the long haul to create a larger, more stable general deer herd? Nope, doubt it. But it does work under certain conditions for specified goals. So, to make a bold black and white statement that it Does Not Work, is....how does "HE" put it...? "Inane!"


Antler restriction for deer wouldn't be a good management tool. It would slow down the growth of the herd.

Most states moved away from antler restriction than those who are participating in it. There is also a lot of differences between whitetail and mule deer. Whitetail can adapt in many places that mule deer cannot.

Yes, its true that spike tags helped increase the mature bull population, but the reason we still have a lot of mature bulls is because of LE elk tags.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> I won't speak for CS, but IMHO, based on data from numerous states and numerous biologists and numerous studies, antler restrictions do not work, short term or long term.


I too have read many of these studies....and the conclusions vary over different states, different regions within those states, and the different reasons for such utilization. They DO work as I posted previously....for some intents and purposes. They also have worked well in conjucntion with LE. It all depends on what you mean "they do not" for...

It's a good discussion, but highly emotional, probably has been debated on here numerous times :mrgreen: But just making a blanket statement "Antler Restrictions Does Not Work", doesn't cut the mustard. I agree with a lot of what you talk about with regards to wildlife management Pro...but also disagree with some. So, in that text, please enlighten me as to what you mean when you say antler restrictions dont work: dont work for what, exactly? And remember, my mind is old and feable, and it takes a bit for things to sink in.. :mrgreen:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> Antler restriction for deer wouldn't be a good management tool. It would slow down the growth of the herd. I have NEVER seen in any study where antler restrictions reduced herd growth...please let me know where you get this data from
> 
> Most states moved away from antler restriction than those who are participating in it. There is also a lot of differences between whitetail and mule deer. Whitetail can adapt in many places that mule deer cannot. Yes, there are more states that do not use it than do, but that does NOT mean it doesn't work for those that do...and of course whitetail are much different and more adaptable than mulies, who said they weren't?
> 
> Yes, its true that spike tags helped increase the mature bull population, but the reason we still have a lot of mature bulls is because of LE elk tags.


Yep, LE works quite well....but it is also utilized WITH antler restrictions, and both seem to accomplish the goals intended with such use... :mrgreen:


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Isn't Utah already using some antler restrictions on some units? Henrys and Paugs, both have a managment hunt. Its not exactly the same as you guys are fighting about but it is a Antler Restriction to help the over all deer herds on that unit. Actually I think it helps both sides of the argument, one they are using it because to many of the smaller bucks are breeding with the does and the buck to doe ratio is getting to high. Second they are using it to help the unit have more bigger bucks.
Okay I'm ready! :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html



> Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.
> 
> Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> Isn't Utah already using some antler restrictions on some units? Henrys and Paugs, both have a managment hunt. Its not exactly the same as you guys are fighting about but it is a Antler Restriction to help the over all deer herds on that unit. Actually I think it helps both sides of the argument, one they are using it because to many of the smaller bucks are breeding with the does and the buck to doe ratio is getting to high. Second they are using it to help the unit have more bigger bucks.
> Okay I'm ready! :wink:


No, Utah has started issuing 'management' tags on the Premium Limited Entry units under a false pretense. Those who pushed and support management tags believe you can 'weed' out so-called inferior genetics. This is complete rubbish, it is impossible to do so in a free ranging herd where does carry the SAME genetic potential for inferior antlers as bucks do. You could weed out every inferior buck every year and maybe, maybe, in 100 years you would see a reduction of inferior bucks in the Henry deer herd.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> mikevanwilder said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't Utah already using some antler restrictions on some units? Henrys and Paugs, both have a managment hunt. Its not exactly the same as you guys are fighting about but it is a Antler Restriction to help the over all deer herds on that unit. Actually I think it helps both sides of the argument, one they are using it because to many of the smaller bucks are breeding with the does and the buck to doe ratio is getting to high. Second they are using it to help the unit have more bigger bucks.
> ...


Oh see that why I said I was ready, because I knew there was something to it, and I would be let known of it too. So for it to do what they said is there goal they would have to also take the does with the inferior genes, which would be impossible to discifir from regualr does.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> by proutdoors on Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:51 pm
> 
> http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html


Yes, I have seen and read the entire WAFWA report, which left out more than a few things, but generally I agree with it. All I am saying, which seems to be falling on deaf ears, is that point restrictions has and is currently working in some areas for the pupose it was intended to do so. As a whole, point restrictions will not work long term as they do short term...

http://www.wogameandfish.com/hunting/mule-deer-blacktail-deer-hunting/wo_aa075504a/



> WASHINGTON'S 3-POINT REGULATIONS
> Until 1997, modern firearms mule deer hunters could shoot any buck in most eastern Washington game management units (GMUs). Although mule deer numbers were in decline, hunters continued to tag an essentially stable number of deer. Between 1987 and 1991, the average mule deer harvest in Washington was 18,400. However, significant winter mortality in 1992, followed by additional winterkill in 1994, reduced the population significantly. Harvest fell to 11,261 in 1993 and to 11,063 in 1995.
> 
> The worst was yet to come. During the exceptionally hard winter of 1996-1997, more than 60 percent of the deer in some areas of eastern Washington died. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife responded by imposing 3-point regulations region-wide. It also eliminated doe tags and reduced the season to nine early October days. The combination of fewer deer and tighter regulations predictably resulted in a reduced harvest. Only 5,196 mule deer were tagged in 1997 and 5,435 in 1998.
> ...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> by proutdoors on Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:56 pm
> 
> mikevanwilder wrote:
> Isn't Utah already using some antler restrictions on some units? Henrys and Paugs, both have a managment hunt. Its not exactly the same as you guys are fighting about but it is a Antler Restriction to help the over all deer herds on that unit. Actually I think it helps both sides of the argument, one they are using it because to many of the smaller bucks are breeding with the does and the buck to doe ratio is getting to high. Second they are using it to help the unit have more bigger bucks.
> ...


So if the Management Tags aren't designed to do as the DWR is saying,


> Why a management buck deer hunt?
> Removing excess bucks on the Paunsaugunt and Henry Mountains limited-entry units-while protecting the larger bucks in the herds-is the goal of the management buck deer hunt.
> These two units have high buck-to-doe ratios. Harvesting smaller-antlered bucks will preserve trophy-class bucks and provide more room for does. Having more does in the herds will result in more fawns being born. Having more fawns will help ensure that these herds remain strong and healthy into the future.


 then do you know who is pushing the "get rid of inferior genetics" thing?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I have NEVER seen in any study where antler restrictions reduced herd growth...please let me know where you get this data from


I don't think you need to see a study, but common sense would tells you that it does.

Example: If both herd *A* and *B* both had a population of 1,000 deer.

If herd *A* had a buck/doe ratio of 15/100 and herd *B* had a buck to doe ratio of 30/100

Which herd would grow faster? Herd *A*, because it would have more does in the population giving birth to more fawns.

If a hard winter hit and both herds lost 500 deer then herd *A* would rebound faster.

A deer herd doesn't grow faster because there is more bucks in the herd. If you have good habitat then you will have MORE deer.

I like this quote:

*Good management means regulated harvest. There is one concept in good deer management that is gaining ground by leaps and bounds

(1) Pay MINIMUM ATTENTION to the actual numbers of deer;
Pay MAXIMUM ATTENTION to the condition of the browse, the range. If you have good browse, you cannot help but have mule deer.

(2) Mule deer's worst enemy is overpopulation.*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

So if the Management Tags aren't designed to do as the DWR is saying,


> Why a management buck deer hunt?
> Removing excess bucks on the Paunsaugunt and Henry Mountains limited-entry units-while protecting the larger bucks in the herds-is the goal of the management buck deer hunt.
> These two units have high buck-to-doe ratios. Harvesting smaller-antlered bucks Doesn't this mean inferior buckswill preserve trophy-class bucks and *provide more room for does*.* Having more does in the herds will result in more fawns being born. Having more fawns will help ensure that these herds remain strong and healthy into the future.*This is what I have been saying all along
> 
> [quote:2s84va3w]then do you know who is pushing the "get rid of inferior genetics" thing?


[/quote:2s84va3w]


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

:roll:


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

CS I'am talking about one unit. West of SR 72 NOT every unit in the state. Loss of summer range on this unit NO! loss of winter range on this unit NO! Game Management on this unit NONE.Doesn't anyone understand this unit was shot out in less than 5 days after the restrictions were removed! Unit should have been shut down for atleast 2 years to get the Buck Doe RATIO back in balance. The reason the Buck to Doe Ratio was WACKED! You guessed it! They shot the Bucks out in 5 days.!! I seen it happen made me want to puke.!A unit that had been 3 point or better that didn't see alot of pressure cause you couldn't go down there and fill a tag with spikes and 2 points. Doesn't it stand to reason when it was opened up to any buck, and the population was booming, that people would flock in bunches to fill there tag with anything that had an antler? It HAPPENED! Trying to find a camping spot that year was almost impossible! was out of control. camps with up to 8 and 9 bucks hung.Had one guy try and sell me a 2point buck because the old party hunting crew had killed one to many. I went down to Loa and turnned his dumb a-- in.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The exact same thing happened on the Henry's, Oak Creek and Book Cliffs,,,,,

When they lifted antler restricts, these units were completely shot out in two years..

The result was loosing general season hunting,,, after complete closures for a few years,
They then reopening to limited entry as they are today...

There was a 7 year stretch we spent 3 full weeks every year between Boulder and the
Henry's.....Man we used to chase some big bucks on general hunts with antler restrictions.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

I have been frustrated with our deer herds also.

I think what most hunters would like to see is more mature bucks. the problem as I see is this, everyone wants to go deer hunting every year and everyone wants to be successful. if the average hunter thinks a 2 point is going to be the only buck they will see during the hunt, then not to many hunters are going to pass and let them get bigger. then every year we lose more winter range and habitat. 

I also feel the state is to eager to hand out depredation tags when it could take something as simple as a fence to solve the problem. 


so what will it take to put more mature bucks back in our herds? cut back tags? is there anything the average Joe do to help with habitat? I for one would not mind volunteering a weekend or two to work on habitat or fencing to help out our herds.maybe are forum needs to start a volunteer group to work on projects, then maybe the board will start paying attention to us


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

Don't know if antler retrictions are the best tool either but I did witness first hand the destruction of the deer on the Monroe unit within 3 years after the 3 point or better restriciton was lifted (i believe 1989). Bowhunted the unit prior and 4 years after-there was a significant loss of bucks of all ages present after just two years (the Piute atv trail and ever increasing elk herd took a toll on the habitat also around the same time). The place used to be wonderful-too bad.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Eyecrazy. I also hunted Monroe Mountain Archery. What a great place this was to archery hunt deer. The year before they took the 3 point off we pulled into a place to set up are old tent, it was dark when I turnned around in a big sage brush flat, There was 26 bucks having a late night snack. Never forget it. The following year was a joke and it still is when it comes to deer hunting. Prime unit should have been shut down like they did the Book Cliffs... Nobody listened back then. I see it becoming a LE Unit in the future,


----------



## archery01 (Feb 4, 2010)

Ive hunted Monroe since 88. I believe it was 3 pt or better until 91. Anyway during restriction and year after was amazing, but since has been poor. Definitely alot more elk which plays a role. What I dont like is every year I see alot of yearlings but they dont seem to carry over. Younger bucks are also not as effecient at breeding. I have noticed a difference with shorter hunts.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Two years before they lifted antler restricts my brother and I were on the Henry's
opening morning of the archery hunt..We hiked up from Bull Creek pass in the dark,
As it stated to get light, we were in the top tree line when we spotted two bachelor
groups of bucks. We tried to low crawl and got within a 100 yards when the two groups
merged together on the skyline with a red sunrise illuminating all 27 racks....

I think about that day often and wish I would have had a good camera back then....
27 bucks and a red sunrise.........It was unbelievable.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Bart 
I am starting to think the antler restriction is better for the general public. I hate the whole Le bonus point butt plugg. I hate the whole SFW pimp tags. If I could hunt every year and be forced to kill a 4 point I would rather have that then hunt every 20 years and kill a 4 point buck. If tards kill lesser bucks treat them like a poacher. 

coyote
sure the herd will grow faster with 7 bucks per 100 does but all the bucks you will be hunting will be yearlings. Tards with rifles shoot yearlings at 1000 yards and then complain there are not 4 points "da". I would still rather hunt this style of hunt every year than then hunt one time in 20 years like SFW is going to make our herd in the near future. ill get my 4 point either way cause I'll work for it.

If I had my way Id get rid of all the rifle tags and make it archery only. you want to see what proper management looks like with over the counter tags and 4 month seasons go hike the hills of the front. There is Henry quality bucks and lots of them. you just have to get off you keister if you want to hunt them. its not for the lazy, week minded, and defiantly not for road hunters.

For the rest on here that accuse me of being an archery only guy or don't know what I'm talking about. I like to hunt, I want to hunt every year, I don't want to hunt small bucks, so I sacrifice my primary weapon which would be a rife so i can do both. If i could hunt every year with a rifle and kill front quality bucks I would put the bow in the trash.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Bart
> I am starting to think the antler restriction is better for the general public. I hate the whole Le bonus point butt plugg. I hate the whole SFW pimp tags. If I could hunt every year and be forced to kill a 4 point I would rather have that then hunt every 20 years and kill a 4 point buck. If tards kill lesser bucks treat them like a poacher.


If I thought antler restrictions would help the deer populations I would be all for it. I have yet to see any credible study or data that shows antler restriction increase over-all mule deer populations. Antler restrictions, by design, restrict hunters. It may restrict differently/less than Limited Entry, but it still restricts, and for what purpose? It sure isn't for biological purposes.

I'm also souring more and more on the Limited Entry concept. For deer, it's less troubling to me since there are only a few Limited Entry units. Although, word on the street is that SFW and a few other special interest groups are pushing to have deer managed like elk where most/all of the deer herds will be under Limited Entry. This is very troubling and a dangerous road to travel down. There is NO biological reason or benefit to managing mule deer for 'trophy' class bucks. Yet, that is almost always the guise used to push limiting permits. Limited Entry game management benefits a very small segment of the hunting populous, yet it is being sold as the 'savior' of game management in the 21st century by those who profit the most from the conservation tags TAKEN, not given, from the public.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Bart
> ...


Fook U! :shock:



proutdoors said:


> I'm also souring more and more on the Limited Entry concept. For deer, it's less troubling to me since there are only a few Limited Entry units. Although, word on the street is that SFW and a few other special interest groups are pushing to have deer managed like elk where most/all of the deer herds will be under Limited Entry. This is very troubling and a dangerous road to travel down. There is NO biological reason or benefit to managing mule deer for 'trophy' class bucks. Yet, that is almost always the guise used to push limiting permits. Limited Entry game management benefits a very small segment of the hunting populous, yet it is being sold as the 'savior' of game management in the 21st century by those who profit the most from the conservation tags TAKEN, not given, from the public.


i agree


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

At this point in time antler restriction or LE wont increase the overall deer herd.

*THE* factor is predators. Check the time line. Outlaw poison, LE cougar hunting. Steadily down hill from their.

Monroe has 20 collared cats. How many are not collared? Those 20 cats would eat 50 deer each a yr if they had them. (they are chowing on elk more now) That is 1000 deer yr alone. What do coyotes account for? The hunter harvest of of Monroe has ranged anywhere from 500 to 900 deer a yr over the last 10 yrs.

Wipe out the cats. Have the DWR fudge the #s on cougar populations for the houndsman and treehuggers. Like they do deer now for the deer hunters. And let them prove the #s wrong. Go LE with tag #s in the ballpark of 2500 on a unit like Monroe. And distribute tags between hunts to maintain somewhere around a 40% success rate. Then you can worry about antler restriction to better the quality of the herd.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> At this point in time antler restriction or LE wont increase the overall deer herd.
> 
> *THE* factor is predators. Check the time line. Outlaw poison, LE cougar hunting. Steadily down hill from their.
> 
> ...


yes


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

One thing the DWR is very good at is following a Management plan....

So as far as lions go,,,,,Well, the new plan go's through 2021.

And as far as Monroe's go's,,,,the lion study isn't going anywhere either.
The coyote numbers on Monroe are staggering to say the least, It is unreal to go on
a mountain and break as many miles of snowmobile track as I do and then return the
next day and find packs of yote tracks on every one of them. I'd hate to even guess how
many coyotes are on Monroe is right now.....Someone better start shoot'n!


----------

