# New Deer Management Idea



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I saw this on another forum and decided to 'poach' it and get some feedback from folks. This is from Don Peay, founder of SFW, lets stick to the pros/cons of the idea, not make it a slam SFW fest please:


> The DWR is going to review deer managment plans in 2008 for 2009-2015.
> 
> Here is an idea i would like some feedback on.
> 
> ...


I like it, in fact I would love to see the elk managed under a similar plan as well.

PRO


----------



## FishlakeElkHunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I think it sounds pretty good!

One unit I have been thinking about a lot lately and I have discussed with a bunch of friends is we would like to see the Pahvant go to LE Deer tag, just like Henry and Pauns........I think within just a few short years you would see the Pahvant surpass the Pauns for huge bucks coming off.............


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Well I am not sure how I feel about it. Like with I 400 I do not want to not hunt each year, but yet I can not drive to other areas farther away to hunt. I would want the areas I hunt to fall into the A category not the b. If I wanted the B cat I would put in for the draws or do the DH where ican not take deer every year. To me it seams like a plan by trophy hunters to get bigger bucks. That is cool, but why should I give up my hunts for them and vise versa.


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

So why should I have to give up my trophy hunting for general season hunters? When you have anterless hunts to choice from why do you need a hunt for bucks if you not a trophy hunter? 

Weatherby, why not have a split where both type of hunters can get what they want? I would give up some years of hunting in order to get a chance at a bigger buck more often.


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

This thread is going to get messy!  

I dont really like the thought of having to pay 120 some odd dollars to hunt in an area I have been hunting all my life.
I dont really care if there are 32" monsters in there or not.
Right now there is plenty of respectable deer where I go.
At first glance I am not a fan of this proposal.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> So why should I have to give up my trophy hunting for general season hunters?


You should that I agree. No one should have to give up anything, but we both know that is not how it is going to be.



> Weatherby, why not have a split where both type of hunters can get what they want? I would give up some years of hunting in order to get a chance at a bigger buck more often.


Why spilt things at all? Both hunters can get what they want now. This year I have seen 6 or more 30" plus bucks all with in 30 min of the front. The big bucks are in other places besides the premium units. So I do not understand. I hunt with guys that are nothing but trophy hunters yet they have not and will not ever put in for deer drawings. The reason is they can and do find there trophies most years. Do I thropy hunt no but does not mean I do not want to kill big bucks. We already have to make enough choices just to hunt so why make more? Like I said I am not sure how I feel about the idea just yet. Need more time and info to make up my mind.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

silvertip

+1 on your whole post. Well said.


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

utfireman said:


> So why should I have to give up my trophy hunting for general season hunters? When you have anterless hunts to choice from why do you need a hunt for bucks if you not a trophy hunter?
> 
> Weatherby, why not have a split where both type of hunters can get what they want? I would give up some years of hunting in order to get a chance at a bigger buck more often.


It isn't all that easy to draw an antlerless tag either, They have greatly reduced the number of doe tags given out over the last 5 years.
I dont think this is any compensation for a loss of hunting oppurtunity


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

They increased the antlerless tags this year


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Yall better take a seat, its about to get real ugly in here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

















I just might head up to Don's house with some KY and my membership fee to join SFW!!!! Just that little bit of info and I am ready to sign up. Its time hunters start paying to help increase the quality of our deer herds. I could go on but am curious to see where this thread goes.


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> They increased the antlerless tags this year


I would love more doe tags, That is good news.
Is that for the 2008 season? The numbers for 2007 were less than the year before.
Do you know how many they added and where did you find out?


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

Isn't the average draw period for alot of LE units averaging about 4-5 years anyway?
I know this isn't true for some like the pauns or henry's but it seems that most were not much over at least five years on the trophy units.
Plus with all the CWMU's it can't be that bad to draw a trophy type unit tag in Utah for a resident at least.
Im no numbers guy or a pro but it doesn't seem that bad in Utah for a chance at a trophy buck.
Heck look at all the bad boys harvested this year that you see here and on muleymadness etc..
I'm thinking Utahs trophy bucks are doing fairly well.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

This idea blows. Just more Horn Hugger retoric!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> This idea blows. Just more Horn Hugger retoric!!


Please explain how *your* definition of hunting is more 'valid' and should be the only one that matters. I see this as a compromise where *you* can have areas managed for the type of huntinig *you* prefer, and the "Horn Huggers" can have areas managed *their* way. Why does that "blow"?

PRO


----------



## callofthewild (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> wileywapati said:
> 
> 
> > This idea blows. Just more Horn Hugger retoric!!
> ...


i think that the only thing that could possibly blow about this is that the area that i hunt and hold dear to me might be classified as a place that does not best fit my hunting style. how would they divide up what areas would be managed for what type of hunting? i just do not want to find a new place to hunt if the pahvant is not the best fit for me in this system.


----------



## COOPERD (Sep 16, 2007)

Well I have to agree with Pro, the deer arent doing unbelievably well, why not fix the problem, let the guys who hunt horns, the guys dont, each have their own area. I know there is alot of guys who hunt the first few days looking for a toad, on the last day settle on a 2 point. Some people say they are getting there moneys worth , some just want to fill the freezer.


----------



## thrillathehunt (Nov 10, 2007)

Pro . . . I know you asked that this not be a SFW slam-fest, but I have seen too many Don-sponsored "solutions" that are for the benefit of his special interest friends and clearly to the detriment of the average Joe to fully separate the idea from its proponent.

I think this is a bad idea . . . both for my personal hunting preferences and for the good of hunting in general. Think of how many people you know who got so frustrated when the DWR started dividing the state into regions and they could no longer draw a tag for their traditional area . . . or could no longer hunt with their families because half drew out in one region and the others in a different region . . . that they gave up hunting altogether. 

What we need right now is to increase the number of individuals who are involved in hunting, support hunting, and help advance wildlife management conservation initiatives. It seems to me that this is going to do just the opposite. It will further limit hunting opportunities for all and will drive more hunting supporters from the sport because it will arbitrarily cut up the existing general deer boundaries to fit Don's preferences, and will displace a great many hunters from their traditional areas because their "style" doesn't fit the designated style for their hunting area.

I don't consider myself a trophy hunter . . . but I definitely do try to go after the big guys. I don't feel compelled to harvest a deer every year, but there is no question that I anxiously wait all year for the chance to be out chasing them and could not go four years without hunting just for an easy score on a large buck once every five years. My love is for the time spent out in the hills, enjoying the chase, savoring the experience and piling up the memories. A hard earned worthy harvest is nice . . . but definitely secondary to the overall experience. Life's too short to spend 80% of it on the sidelines waiting for a chance to play.

As several others on the forum have mentioned, there are big bucks out there on every unit. You don't hear the average Joe trophy hunter complaining that there aren't any big bucks because he understands that he has to work hard for a big muley buck. Moreover, he knows that if he puts in his time and works his tail off, his opportunity will eventually come -- regardless of whether he is on a public land or a limited entry unit.

It seems to me, what Don wants to create are more tags for limited entry units . . . and therefore more guaranteed guiding fees for him, and more private hunting reserve opportunities for his friends. I don't know why the rest of us should limit our hunting opportunities to help accomplish those special interest goals. 

I don't begrudge Don working for his own interests, but I clearly don't think this is in the long term best interest of hunters and hunting in Utah.

My two cents . . .


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> It seems to me, what Don wants to create are more tags for limited entry units . . . and therefore more guaranteed guiding fees for him, and more private hunting reserve opportunities for his friends. I don't know why the rest of us should limit our hunting opportunities to help accomplish those special interest goals.


Don does NOT guide, so he recieves no guide fees. SFW has had a survey up on their site asking about this subject, 500+ in favor of it, 100 opposed. This does NOT soound like it is a "Don Peay" driven issue. He is merely getting feedback on an issue members of SFW say are important to them. You ask, "I don't know why the rest of us should limit our hunting opportunities to help accomplish those special interest goals." So, we should just manage to *your* 'special interests'? :?

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

So what is the best solution for our deer herds? Most of the money spent on habitat isnt the general season areas because they arent as big of an interest and we only manage deer for quantity and they even fail at that. LE units make more money so more interest is focused on LE units like the Paunsgant, Henrys, Book Cliffs etc. We should be managing our deer better and looking at ways to make our general season better for hunting in the future. We can't continue to kill 70 to 80% of our yearling bucks every year.

If the DWR decided to micromanage units like other states then people wont get to hunt their favorite hunting spots every year and fewer tags will be issued so fewer hunters will get to hunt.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

At first glance I liked it. But, the more I think about it the less I like it. I worry that this is a proposal that is just to make people money off something that exists now but requires effort to find and harvest. There are many hogs taken every year on general units and they are found through hard work and "hunting". Increasing the trophy units will not make any more money for the DWR unless they raise everyones tag price to pay for "trophy hunters" units beyond what it actually cost them to maintain. That would not even be fair IMO, if trophy hunters want the units they should pay for most of cost involved. Notice i did not say all because other "regular" hunters would also benefit.

So who is going to benefit from this? The dear? Because the herds will be healthier or larger. (Antler size only) Or the trophy hunters? And if we produce units that manufacture deer as legendary as the bulls that are being taken on some of utah units than that attracts the hunters who need guides or special services. And this is what *I* think is behind this idea and other driven by antler size instead of the health of the herd, or it range land.


----------



## thrillathehunt (Nov 10, 2007)

My "special interests" are these: 

1) an opportunity to hunt every year . . . preferably in an area of my choice and preferably with my friends and family 

(whether there is a harvest or no harvest, and a trophy or no trophy -- those are things I can take responsibility for on my own)

2) continued protection of wildlife, habitat, hunting privileges and future opportunities for my kids and hopefully their kids to participate in the activities that have enriched my life

I'm sorry my "special interests" are such a threat to SFW's agenda.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> My "special interests" are these:
> 
> 1) an opportunity to hunt every year . . . preferably in an area of my choice and preferably with my friends and family


It depends on where you like to hunt because some people who like to hunt Southern every year dont get to and every region is selling out now so some hunters didnt even hunt this year. What will the next 5 year look like compared to now. Better or Worse?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> 2) continued protection of wildlife, habitat, hunting privileges and future opportunities for my kids and hopefully their kids to participate in the activities that have enriched my life
> 
> I'm sorry my "special interests" are such a threat to SFW's agenda.


I am guessing from this, you think that I am involved in some way with driving SFW's 'agenda', that is flat out not true. Ironically, IMO, SFW is committed to the "continued protection of wildlife, habitat, hunting privileges and future opportunities for my kids and hopefully their kids to participate in the activities that have enriched my life" as well. 

The amount of fear and conspiracy believers when it comes to certian groups/indivuals amazes me. For example:


> And if we produce units that manufacture deer as legendary as the bulls that are being taken on some of utah units than that attracts the hunters who need guides or special services.


 Really, do you really believe that is what/who is pushing this, guides? Come on, you can do better than that. :roll:

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I have been able to hunt out of state quite a few times and if I was a Non-resident of Utah then I probably don't think I would hunt general season deer in Utah. Maybe down south. The deer hunting in other states is 10 times better than in Utah. Like the boys in Colorado said, "Utah is famous for its two points." Yes I know the Henrys are fantastic, but look at all the money spent on habitat and they dont issue a lot of tags.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> And if we produce units that manufacture deer as legendary as the bulls that are being taken on some of utah units than that attracts the hunters who need guides or special services.Really, do you really believe that is what/who is pushing this, guides? Come on, you can do better than that.
> 
> PRO


No Pro I do not think that guides are behind this. I know my post makes it seem as though thats what I meant. I just mean to point out that other than antler size what is the real benefit of making them "Trophy units" we could manage heards objectives to be higher and increase oppurtunity to take *A DEER* with out the need of antler size. I dream of a big buck one day too but, managing for antler size instead of herd health has always seemed a bit off to me. I have always thought that with a healthy herd trophy animals will naturally occur at a higher rate.. However I am not a biologist so what do I know.


----------



## thrillathehunt (Nov 10, 2007)

Alright Pro,

The second quote wasn't mine, but I will give you one actual example of where the conspiracy theories come from . . . here is my last personal experience with Don and his agenda . . .

I was at the RAC meeting last fall where the DWR was proposing an expansion of the boundaries for the Sanpete Valley extended archery area . . . for the record, I have never hunted it, but I am an archer and since it represents another hunting opportunity, I am all for it.

Anyway, the DWR's biologists presented to the RAC and the gist of their message was that opening up the extended archery hunt was having the desired effect of keeping the elk off the highways, reducing accidents, lowering mortality and significantly reducing depredation problems. They also made it very clear that the actual harvest of big bulls was extremely low. They recommended expanding the hunting boundaries to improve public access, increase hunting opportunities, and utilize more easily recognized and sensible boundaries.

Don was there fighting the DWR tooth and nail on the recommended expansion because the change in boundaries would have allowed public access behind the CWMU of one of his large contributors. Again, the proposal would have *expanded access *and *increased hunting opportunities for the general public *. . . but because it could have reduced the number of elk filtering on to his buddy's CWMU he was lobbying against it. I was with a local Sanpeter who called him out (in a personal conversations) for what he was doing and he had absolutely no other rationale for his opposition to the proposal.

I understand the SFW does some good things . . . but my experience is that some of the "paranoia" is justified.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Just straight up....I don't like the idea....however I also don't rifle hunt. I do know that if this was extended into the archery season I wouldn't be a fan of it. I also think that if this doesn't extend into the archery season and only applies to the rifle season...more people are going to pick up archery or muzzy and hence the archery/muzzy season will turn into the craziness that the gen. rifle deer season is....and that is why I stopped rifle hunting, to get away from that craziness

I also agree with the idea that I don't want to give up the opportunity to hunt every year...or the opportunity to take a buck every year. The hunt is so much more that just horns! That applies to both sides of the argument. I would rather hunt a buck than a doe but honestly don't have a problem plugging a smaller deer to fill the freezer. I wait until the very last possible moment before I take a smaller deer. Of course everyone wants to take the "monster" but if that opportunity doesn't come to me then I still want to take a buck. So I don't like the "antlerless only" if I'm not a trophy hunter.

Now on the idea of trophy mule deer being in the gen season areas...it's true. It may mean that the hunter has to work harder for that trophy but then doesn't it make it all the more a trophy? Just a thought. Big deer don't just solely habitat the LE areas...Get out and find the bad boys, they are everywhere just do a lot of scoutin' and be prepared to hold off on the smaller deer. Don't shoot the first deer you see i.e. the small 6" tall spike you see at 7:00 on opening morning (unless you don't care about the trophy). 

I do however think that management for the gen deer season in Utah has got to change. I'm not sure exactly how this should be done (my last brain cell can't wrap around the whole complicated mess) but something has got to be done. I will leave this charge to people more intelligent and more informed than me. In that change I do believe that the health of the herds is definately important. I agree that the healthier the deer are the faster and more likely they are to become decent trophyable deer. I also believe that the average joe will see more trophyable deer and have more opportunities at harvesting better deer when the herds are healthier herds. 

The bottom line is...I don't want to give up my opportunity to hunt just to make it more easy to plug a monster buck. I hope that some kind of arangement can be reached so that it will benefit all three parties involved....the trophy hunters, the average joe, and the deer.


----------



## COOPERD (Sep 16, 2007)

I think the deer hunting on public land is awesome. the deer in Utah dont need any help, they are every where. Big bucks, everyones favorite 2 points, we are set!!! :roll:


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Maybe we should close all hunting for deer for at least 6 years to get all the current small deer everywhere to their full monster potential! Ha ha ha...just kidding! :roll:


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> Just straight up....I don't like the idea....however I also don't rifle hunt. I do know that if this was extended into the archery season I wouldn't be a fan of it. I also think that if this doesn't extend into the archery season and only applies to the rifle season...more people are going to pick up archery and hence the archery season will turn into the craziness that the gen. rifle deer season is....and that is why I stopped rifle hunting, to get away from that craziness
> 
> I also agree with the idea that I don't want to give up the opportunity to hunt every year...or the opportunity to take a buck every year. The hunt is so much more that just horns! That applies to both sides of the argument. I would rather hunt a buck than a doe but honestly don't have a problem plugging a smaller deer to fill the freezer. I wait until the very last possible moment before I take a smaller deer. Of course everyone want to take the "monster" but if that opportunity doesn't come to me then I still want to take a buck.
> 
> ...


This may well be one of the best dang posts I've heard.
Good job.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Bad Idea, I am goin huntin while I still can.

So, I only contrubute to the hunting industry every 4-5 years?, and when I do I have to make up for the years I didn't buy extra equipment, didn't buy tags, forgot how to put in for the draw, lost interest because all my kids play SOCCER on saturdays, what is Don trying to do make America a whiimpier place?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW seems to sum it up pretty good. This is just another reason i do not like these groups that say they advocate the hunting for everyone. More like only their biggest contributers.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I did some thinking about this. Maybe I am not very smart, but this is my thoughts. Say you are waiting to hunt the b areas there is nothing saying you can not shoot a 2 point right. So what does this actually do to help anything. The only thing it does do is micomange the state, and help with drawing odds. It in theory allows more people to draw good tag more often. There has to be something better for the deer and the hunters then this.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

A lot of people say that we should micromanage our deer herds, but are they willing to face the fact that they wont be able to go hunting every year and that they probably wont get to hunting their favorite spot every year?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

BART ya know I've got nothing but respect for you and your willingness to get involved.
That being said, I've been mentored by a man that I consider wise to a point that the philosophy is overly simple.

If I have said it once I've said it a million times. MANAGE WILDLIFE IN THE INTEREST OF WHAT IS GOOD FOR WILDLIFE, NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE AMOUNT OF BONE ON A SPECIES HEAD. This plan comes right out in the open and states that it BLATANTLY MANAGES FOR RACK SIZE AND BUCK TO DOE RATIO'S. 

As you know with your work with I-400 how this philosophy works with the elk herds
now you would like to do the same thing with deer that you are trying to undo with elk???

When will we in the state try to manage our herds according to what is best for the 
herds and not what is best for opportunists or horn huggers???


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Gordy, so what do you think is best for our mule deer herds?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Gordy, how is this 'idea' anywhere near what the elk plan is? The current elk plan manages the overwhelming majority of the state and elk herds for "horns". This plan is saying to manage certain areas, based on the percentage of hunters preferring certain management styles, instead of a blanket management plan that in truth makes few/nobody happy.

You asked a great question:


> When will we in the state try to manage our herds according to what is best for the
> herds and not what is best for opportunists or horn huggers???


In truth, NEVER. That is not the only role of the DWR. The DWR is givien the unattainable task of managing for "what is best for the herds" AND what the hunters desire. Like it or not, that is how it is, and it is no different in ANY state I cam think of.



> As you know with your work with I-400 how this philosophy works with the elk herds
> now you would like to do the same thing with deer that you are trying to undo with elk???


I disagree that this is doing what you imply. I400 is all about *BALANCE* and diversity, I see this idea as somewhat going along the same direction. Let the opportunists have theie units, let the horn huggers have theirs. Why manage units/regions in a way that appeases neither group? If 70% of the hunters want to be able to shoot yearlings, then manage 70% of the states deer herds as such. Let the 30% have 30% of the deer herds managed to their preferred 'standards'.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> A lot of people say that we should micromanage our deer herds, but are they willing to face the fact that they wont be able to go hunting every year and that they probably wont get to hunting their favorite spot every year?


If there is a vaild reason for it then yes. If the reason is to make the drawing odds better for others then no. This idea does not help the heard but helps helps the trophy hunter.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO, I can't seem to get what is in my head out so that you can understand. It does not matter what 70% 95% or 100% of the hunters want. Without a resource there will be no 
option for any percentage to get what they want. 

There are two camps or idealogies in effect right now. I'm leaning towards one and you and the quality hunters are leaning towards the other. We can either make people hunt and work for a deer while letting them hunt every year or we can basically guarantee 95-100% success
every 13 or 14 years like we now do on elk. My point is that you are working your tail off trying to get more elk hunting opportunity and at the same time trying to adopt the philosophy
with deer that you are trying to overcome with elk.

I would propose that we get hunters hunting again. Not riding ridgelines on ATV's from the middle of August till the end of the muzz elk hunt in November. Close a majority of the 
roads for hunting season. Crack down HARD on Illegal ATV use. Give the wildlife some refuge 
by allowing walk in access only or horseback access only. Look at making struggling area's 
combo area's for rifle deer and elk hunts. 

I have a copy of a plan for one of the most deer depressed area's in the state. I'll send it your way when I can get to it. I'll try to print it and bring it to the Northern Region RAC meeting. 

We are at a point now where we as hunters ( with the tools we have to use ) have raised our effeciency to the point that we are bordering on blurring the lines of fair chase. 
Two way radio's, rifles capable of killing consistently at ungodly ranges. Muzz guns capable of 300 yard and further kills, archery equipment that extends ranges, game camera's, ATV's
that get us into area's that were once so deep dark and nasty that only the very dedicated few would dare go. It used to be that wildlife had a reasonable chance of eluding a hunter
now if you are intellectually honest you can't make the same claims.

I am not intending to get on a soap box and proclaim myself holier than anybody else because of the way that I hunt. I use an ATV and a modern compound bow. But if I had 
to choose between not hunting or using a stick with a piece of string, wooden arrow and my own foot power to get me in to the hills the choice for me would be a no brainer


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > A lot of people say that we should micromanage our deer herds, but are they willing to face the fact that they wont be able to go hunting every year and that they probably wont get to hunting their favorite spot every year?
> 
> 
> If there is a vaild reason for it then yes. If the reason is to make the drawing odds better for others then no. This idea does not help the heard but helps helps the trophy hunter.


I hate to be devils advocate here. I still do not agree with this management strategy. I am for the management of the herd over antler size. But i do not think we should say we are not going to help a certain type of hunter. This should not be a hunter against hunter thing. If all we are doing is just fighting because we think our type of hunting is better we all lose.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I hate to be devils advocate here. I still do not agree with this management strategy. I am for the management of the herd over antler size. But i do not think we should say we are not going to help a certain type of hunter. This should not be a hunter against hunter thing. If all we are doing is just fighting because we think our type of hunting is better we all lose.


That is what I am saying. I am all for helping the herds. But helping one group out over anouther is not helping the herd. If we help the herd and all hunters I for one would be all for it.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

This type of management strategy concentrations on both the health of the deer herd because you issue permits based on the health of the herd and it helps to satisfy hunters. It falls along the lines of LE units. *LE units don't manage for antler size either.* They manage for buck to doe ratios. If you micromanage units then you can also focus on buck to doe ratios. If you have a high buck to doe ratio then you will have bucks that have very good antler growth and everything down to a spike. You will focus on each area and the habitat in that area and also find out just how many deer that particular area will hold.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

WOW yote you make a post that I agree with mostly. You said this


> This type of management strategy concentrations on both the health of the deer herd because you issue permits based on the health of the herd and it helps to satisfy hunters.


The problem is if you issue the right amount of tags that will leave hunters not hunting or changing unit or weapons. That does not satisfy hunters.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Weatherby, are hunters satisfied right now??? The best management plans focus on satisfying the majority of hunters and what is best for the deer herd. People dont get to hunt every year and 5 years down the road then you see this even become more of a reality. The amount of hunters add to the pool each year increases faster than the amount of tags issued.


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Weatherby, are hunters satisfied right now??? The best management plans focus on satisfying the majority of hunters and what is best for the deer herd. People dont get to hunt every year and 5 years down the road then you see this even become more of a reality. The amount of hunters add to the pool each year increases faster than the amount of tags issued.


Coyote,
Not looking to argue just get clarification. You say the amount of hunters added to the pool each year increases faster than the amount of tags issued. But, (this is where I need the calrification) there are other threads that are saying that we are losing hunters every year because of the lack of recruitment of the younger generations. Where are the overwhelming number of applicants coming from if we are losing hunters to all the reasons mentioned in other threads.

I know you may have not said these things but you seem to have a better recollection (sp?)than I do for this stuff.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Weatherby, are hunters satisfied right now???


Not they are not. If they where how come you can read though just about every post made and find people complianing about the deer hunts.



> The best management plans focus on satisfying the majority of hunters and what is best for the deer herd.


Agreed. But you have the order backwords. The best plan focus on the deer then the hunters.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

truemule, I realize you addressed your post to slayer, but I would like to respond to a few parts of it.

1)The number of 'applicants' increase each year, yet the number of tags issued decreases each year. The DWR also did a study showing *60%* of those who apply for LE and O.I.L tags never buy an actual hunting license, hence the new requirement to buy a hunting license before applying.

2)We are losing hunters because opportunities are dwindling, fewer parents are introducing kids to the sport, people are becoming more 'urbanized' which does NOT encourage hunting.

3)Many people want to have a chance at 'trophy' animals while not having a great passion to 'just hunt' every year with little chance of putting an animal on the ground. This, IMHO, is a factor that folks like wileywapati fail to recognize. To say we just need opportunity is half-right, we need to improve the experience in order to recruit and KEEP new hunters. To say being able to carry a weapon around, knowing you may never see a legal animal, is HIKING, not hunting. We need to improve opportunity AND quanity/quality in order to make the sport appealing to those who are not hard-core hunters like many of here on this forum are. I say, *BALANCE* is the key. We CANNOT manage the whole state just for the opportunists, nor can we manage the whole state for "horn huggers", like what has happened for the most part to our elk herd, and why I400 is a good option. Offer a product people want, and people will buy the product. Give the consumer a poor product, don't be surprised when they stay home, or shop elsewhere. I am willing to pay more for a quality product and save a little to afford it, than buy a poor quality product every year and feel 'cheated'. I haven't released an arrow on a deer since 2001, or on an elk since 2003.

PRO


----------



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

Thank you Pro, I addressed it to coyote only becasue his post brought up the thought. I appreciate anyone who has input. 

I think # 1 on your list was thepart of knowledge I was lacking. I did not realize that there were that many people that just put in and didn't buy a license every year.

As for the other answers I am on bored with except maybe the I400 part.  :twisted: That one I'm still on the fence about. But like the direction is headed.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I may have jumped the gun a bit in my first post. I was thinking mico-management. Some say our deer herds are doing fine, compared to what??? As a kid I don't remember 16in wide 4pts with, along with 1/2 bases??? I see nothing compared to the deer when I was a kid. This alone tells me the herds are not healthy. Deer numbers are recovering thanks to some mild winters and wet summers. I like the idea of micro-management of several smaller units. Some areas would benefit from being closed all together for awhile. Some of you say ou don't want your area affected, its not about you, its about the animals and my future grandkids hunting. As most know I hate SFW and Paye. But I am happy to see him finally looking towards the deer herds.Nobody can deny he has done some great things for our Elk, but we need to watch him and make sure deer hunting does not turn into a once in a lifetime hunt also. Or that he then helps his buddies with our deer like he has with the elk in sanpete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with Gordy, we should not manage for horn growth. But I think manageing smaller units will create helthier herds, that in turn will promote horn growth.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Greenhead 2 said:


> I may have jumped the gun a bit in my first post. I was thinking mico-management. Some say our deer herds are doing fine, compared to what??? As a kid I don't remember 16in wide 4pts with, along with 1/2 bases??? I see nothing compared to the deer when I was a kid. This alone tells me the herds are not healthy. Deer numbers are recovering thanks to some mild winters and wet summers. I like the idea of micro-management of several smaller units. Some areas would benefit from being closed all together for awhile. Some of you say ou don't want your area affected, its not about you, its about the animals and my future grandkids hunting. As most know I hate SFW and Paye. But I am happy to see him finally looking towards the deer herds.Nobody can deny he has done some great things for our Elk, but we need to watch him and make sure deer hunting does not turn into a once in a lifetime hunt also. Or that he then helps his buddies with our deer like he has with the elk in sanpete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with Gordy, we should not manage for horn growth. But I think manageing smaller units will create helthier herds, that in turn will promote horn growth.


I concur! 

PRO


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Who is going to determine what is healthy for these herds??? Is it going to be the "customers" or will it be professional Biologists?? You are still missing my whole point.
It ain't about what the customer wants it is about what is healthy for the herds. right now the "customer" is dictating our elk situation and all agree that maybe the customer has bit off a bit more than it can chew. I saw this same thing a few years back with the elk. Don told all of us that we needed a bigger pie so we could all have a slice, well the pie ain't going to get any more done or much bigger. How many of you have been waiting 14 or 15 years for your slice of the pie?? How much higher of a bull to cow ratio do we need to get to before we cut into the middle of the pie instead of just nibbling around the edges. How many 400 inch bulls does the state need to produce before we give out enough tags to bring the herds back to a healty balance???

The example is right in front of you. You've all seen it, we've all felt frustrated by the rules,
this is the exact same type of course that you are going to take with deer. Is there a reason for it other than Quality VS Opportunity units???

I'll say it once again, manage for the health of the herd statewide, We are restricted enough in Utah as it is.


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Gordy I think an area should hold the maximum amount of animals it can hold, This is a healthy herd. By breaking the state into much smaller units vs huge regions, the DWR and real biologist could keep and do better counts. Then allow the appropriate tags, or no tags. Ample feed cover and population will determine a healthy herd and antler growth. I have seen many 2pts with does this month. That can't be healthy for the herds right???? Im with ya on the whole pie elk thing, I don't trust SFW, and always think they have other things motives, and my best intrest as joe blow hunter is not one of them!!!! Pro don't agree with me, it makes me think I am wrong when you do haha!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Pro don't agree with me, it makes me think I am wrong when you do haha!!!


I'll work on that. :twisted:

I have been researching this topic for a few weeks now, and I have noticed EVERY state in the west they struggle with the same issues. I went on Nevada's website and read their deer management plan. A couple of things I jotted down from there:



> 1)Increasing human population growth will exert a consistent and largely irreversible negative impact on mule deer habitats.
> 
> 2)Habitat is the single greatest factor affecting mule deer density and distribution.
> 
> ...


1)We MUST try and minimize habitat destruction, and maximize habitat restoration.

2)See #1

3)Many hunters see vegatation on traditional winter ground and assume it means there is adaquate sustainable feed for deer/elk, when in truth most of what is there is of little/no value to the health of the animals in the area. Deer are more affected by this than elk, hence the elk thriving in areas where deer struggle.

4)You can see this is NOT just SFW pushing their 'special interests' on the majority, since Nevada as far as I know does NOT have SFW in their state. Yet, the hunters there are as diverse in what they expect from the DWR as Utah is.

To me it comes down to *BALANCE*, "Define, develop, and sustain *BOTH* trophy and opportunity hunts throughtout the state" should be the overall OBJECTIVE of the mule deer management plan for Utah.

PRO


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

GH2 the good thing is that I agree with you. I think that there are various things that can be done statewide and also on a micromanaged unit level. The other good thing that I just realized is that I or someone from BOU will have a seat at the table along with the other groups. I WILL NOT SUPPORT MORE RESTRICTIONS OR A INCH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY BIOLOGIC DATA. If we are looking at managing for inches and ego's I will definately oppose this plan. If we are going to manage in the interest of deer and their interconnected environment count me in.

How are the birds down south?? They seem to be pretty savvy up north
It's a miracle if ya can get anything into the deke's. I'm thinking a trip down south may be in the works. Bicknell?? Redmond?? I know of a little piece of water south of Otter Creek that used to absolutley kick ass.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> The other good thing that I just realized is that I or someone from BOU will have a seat at the table along with the other groups.


I look forward to getting a good solid plan from this group that I also will be a part of as a member of one of the "other groups"(UBA).

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)




----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

Is SFW proposing this now? If so is there anywhere to see this plan???? I would Email him, but Im still waiting for a reply to my issues and several emails over the extended hunt in sanpete!!!!!!! They were sent a year ago, still no reply??? The birds are scared of Redmond, bicknell the water is low, so is ottercreek. Give me a shout if you come down. I will be up north with RJ to get my swan over thanksgiving, Mabey we can get tigether then.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Is SFW proposing this now? If so is there anywhere to see this plan????


No, this is something on their website where there is a poll you can take about it. Don Peay posted this on another forum for feedback only. It has not been proposed at the three RAC's that have met so far, so it will NOT be approved this go around, as it must be proposaed at three or more RAC's to be implemented, I learned that the hard way last year. This WILL be discussed when the mule deer committee gets together in 2008 to draw up the new management plan for mule deer. I, and apparently maybe Gordy, will be on that committee, as will a rep for SFW, MDF, and a few others.

PRO


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

I have to say that there has been a lot of good things said and a lot of things that I can only choose to disagree with. Someone on here said, they have a special interest and it is hunting every year taking the responsibilty on their own to get a trophy or not. And I know you said not to bash Don or SFW, but this statement made me realize why I have such a craw in my jaw about this sort of stuff. I can not stand the process that takes things out of my free hands and utilizes the government to (insert real whiney voice here) make it better for me. I do have a respect for government and its executive divisions ie: DWR, and I do think they have a role, but that role crosses the line when it makes me wear a seat belt and tries to make it easier for me to kill a big buck. When will Don realize that the thing that makes big bucks so cool is that they are so hard to come across. I have a lot more to say about this, but I will take a break for now.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Well said, Epek.

I'll add this - this proposal demonstrates an ethic that in my opinion, does more harm to hunting than PETA or the Humane Society could ever do. Shame on Don Peay. And to the hobbyists who support his line of b.s., shame on you, too.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I was out on the extended wasatch archery hunt this morning thinking about this topic. As I was pondering deer management and how to increase trophyable deer and also allow everyone the opportunity to hunt every year and also do what was best for the deer herds....I heard (at 7:30) this morning a huge crash through the trees and watched a dandy 4x4 buck (about 27" in width and 22" high with deep forks, killer eye guards and lots of mass...obviously numbers aren't exact... :lol: ) step out infront of me. I was ready and at full draw. I took careful aim, judged the distance, calmed my heart rate and concentrated on the shot....I let the arrow fly and........................................****, I realized I had estimated the distance a bit too close and I shot just under his belly. Of course the deer turned away and in a kind of mocking gesture just meandered up and over a hill. I tried to follow but to no avail. As I was beating myself up about this unfortunate event I had an epiphany (revelation....for those simple minded folk). This is what I was thinking....

That buck I missed I'm sure would not be included in the TROPHY MULE DEER HUNTER MAGAZINE or made a screen saver for everyone to enjoy. I was also sure that there were bigger bucks in the forest than this guy. I realized however that this buck (all though not the biggest) would have been a trophy for me! Not solely because of antler size but mostly based on the experience itself. That buck would have been a trophy because I worked my butt of to harvest the dirty bugger. I had worked all year practicing my shot...I had studied all kinds of maps and read all kinds of articles to best help me in my endevour. I had spent lots of money and time pursuing this animal and chasing my dreams. The time spent with family and friends in the hunt and the events of this year would always be remembered and summed up by this extended archery buck. Those reasons alone would have made this buck a trophy for me, whether he was a 2 or a 3 or a 4 or a dirty old, nasty, bastage with tons of trash to show off...I realized it didn't matter. So, what right does DON JUAN or any other guy have to tell me whether the deer I want to harvest with the tag I bought with the money I earned is a trophy or not? It just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the desire to plug an old boy like the aforementioned. However, just because I have dreams of a deer that would make it into TROPHY MULE DEER HUNTER MAGAZINE, in my mind, doesn't make the deer I just harvested any less of a trophy!

I was also thinking this morning about diamonds. Yes, diamonds. If every Joe Schmoe could walk down any given trail and find a nice fancy diamond...would that make it less valuable? My answer is YES! The same goes for the dirty old, nasty, bastage with tons of trash to show off. If every Joe Schmoe could plug one of those bad boys every 4-5 years....would it make him less valuable or desireable to the "trophy" hunter? 

So, my thoughts are, that if this idea is going to actually be put into place then I for one would rather things stay the way they are... if those are my only options. Like I said before, let's manage the herds for the benefit of the herds and let those that want to hunt deer have the opportunity to take whichever "TROPHY" they desire!

Just something to chew on from a guy that loves to hunt!


----------



## Cold Track (Sep 11, 2007)

Epek, UZABOW, you both couldn't have put it any better. I myself am somewhat a Trophy Hunter, but dang sure don't set around feeling bad if I don't get a hog. Keying in on the word HUNTER is the important thing here and a lot of people have lost grasp of that. Everyone wants a trophy, but there are a lot who want it too easy. Someone said earlier about Utah's elk being so great, and they are.But I'd
pass five 400 inch bulls to shoot a trophy buck. Don't get me wrong, I want my chance at my once in a lifetime trophy out of the pick up, but the value of a huge bull has been lost somewhat as compared to a trophy buck. We need to manage our herd as a whole, for health, and population growth. It's hard enough keeping people interested in hunting, getting new people into the sport, and especially keeping a kid interested with little or no success. Push for this proposition and in my opinion it will only make it that much harder. I passed 10 to 12 four points this year and didn't take a buck. I didn't feel bad, I could have taken what might be considered a trophy, I had a good time and fun HUNT. There are big bucks out there, you just have to HUNT. Don't cheapen big bucks by turning deer hunting into LE elk units, please don't make it harder to interest and keep intereted the youth, don't make it so some family hunts don't happen anymore because the family can't draw their favorite area, and don't communize hunting in this state by telling me I can only hunt certain areas.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah so a lot of you guys dont like this type of proposal, but i dont see anyone coming up with something better. Mullet Finn, you do a lot of preaching on here, but lets here your plan if you even have one. Obviously there is a problem with our deer herds because we talk about stuff like this constantly.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS this proposal has nothing to do with mule deer management. This is a proposal to create additional LE areas.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yeah in a way then its set up to create more LE units. I think micro-managing units would be better. We cant continue to kill 70 to 80% of our yearling bucks and expect to have more mature bucks. We need to focus more on habitat. Hunters pay for habitat each year and we need to find out where this money is going and how it benefits you and I.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Hunters pay for habitat each year and we need to find out where this money is going and how it benefits you and I.


Don't you mean how it benefits THE DEER?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

UZ-A-BOW said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > Hunters pay for habitat each year and we need to find out where this money is going and how it benefits you and I.
> ...


no he said it right
its all about me, me, me, me .... :?: .maybe I should ask Pro first. if i said this right :wink:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I picked up a dandy four point in a central unit that is not LE. Hell, why even shoot em if you like deer "horn"? Just wait it out and pick up the leftovers.... unfortunately, I can't eat what I picked up... so that just doesn't quite do it for me. :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sagebrush nice try, but I also meant the deer because the habitat is for the deer. This habitat restoration benefits you and I because it improves the health of the herd which mean more opportunity.

Sagebrush, by the way, is this topic ok to talk about or is it forbidden also.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I just got back on the computer after days of hunting. I don't have time to read all of the posts that have been made thus far. I have however read the oppening statement from Pro and I have to say that I am ALL about drawing less and hunting more quality. There are so many other opportunities in state and out for guys who have to "kill" something every year. I would be fine to only draw every few years for better critters. 

I can hunt with my kids or other family or friends on the times that I am waiting. It's not all about me anymore.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I hear a lot of talk here on micro management units and people saying they don’t want any more LE units. What the heck is a micro unit? If they limit the tags available isn’t that just another way of saying LE unit. You aren’t going to convince me by just making the units smaller you will miraculously have more deer. 

I think if people got off their lazy buts and off their 4-wheelers they could find a big buck. I seem to have been able to do it with a bow for the last 5 out of 6 years. I also see them on the winter ranges after the hunts are over. There are places you can get a good buck if you look and hunt hard enough. A friend of mine did it this year on NEBO on the rifle hunt of all places.

Could it be better for deer in Utah? My answer is YES! Will it be good for hunters? I don’t think so unless you can draw the tag.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Well said, Epek.
> 
> I'll add this - this proposal demonstrates an ethic that in my opinion, does more harm to hunting than PETA or the Humane Society could ever do. Shame on Don Peay. And to the hobbyists who support his line of b.s., shame on you, too.


Feeling a little arrogant are we? Glad to see you hold your veiws is such high regard that anyone that sees things different is labeled as worse than PETA or H.S. :roll:

There is one part of this "*idea*" (IT IS NOT A PROPOSAL *YET*) that hasn't been mentioned by anyone. It is the part that I believe makes this a viable solition. It has to do with the drawing of tags for the different areas. Those who attack this *idea* and those who like this *idea*, did you even bother to read the **** thing, or did you just make the typical knee-jerk reaction and start labeling folks?

PRO


----------



## ridgetops (Sep 16, 2007)

What I don't like or understand about the plan. Is, how will this work for lifetime and dedicated hunters? It seems like they will be able to put in for type B tags every year and if they don't draw out, they will be garranteed a type A tag and that doesn't seem fair.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetops said:


> What I don't like or understand about the plan. Is, how will this work for lifetime and dedicated hunters? It seems like they will be able to put in for type B tags every year and if they don't draw out, they will be garranteed a type A tag and that doesn't seem fair.


This idea *if* implemented, would be part of the new deer management plan, and the lifetime/dedicated hunters would be addressed before being approved. I seriously doubt such a loophole would be put in play.

PRO


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

So....how does this effect ARCHERY?


----------



## ridgetops (Sep 16, 2007)

A thought I had was .... what if there was a draw for many sub-units but a person could only put in for *one* unit only and that way the trophy hunters could get first shot at the trophy areas and the non-trophy hunter could put in for the easier to draw (non-trophy) areas. Then there could be a second draw, where a person then could have *five* choices to draw out on. If a person still draws unsuccessful, they would then get a bonus point.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Ridgetop,
From the original post:


> The other major isssue under Utah's Current System is that everyone can put in for the super quality, thus making the drawing odds very long. When the hunter wanting higher quality doesn't draw, they don't hunt. When the causual hunter doesn't draw, they are happy hunting lower quality units, maybe not happier, but tolerant.
> 
> Under the future System, you would have to pick Type A or Type B, and stick with that choice for say a five year period.


UZ-A-BOW, it has NOT been drawn up yet, this is JUST an idea, where the aithot of it is asking/looking for feedback/suggestions. If you have any ideas for the archery seasons, please share.

PRO


----------



## ridgetops (Sep 16, 2007)

I understand the first post. All I'm saying is, I don't see how the DWR could legally make a lifetime or dedicated huter not hunt, if the don't draw. They have already bought(pre-paid) their tags and are entitled to them. JMHO


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

To be honest I am quite impressed by the way that the archery is managed...it seems to work. I wouldn't do anything to change it. I think however that this works so well because of the nature and success rate of archery hunting.......


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I so wish that Pro's opening statement would have said nothing about Don Peay or SFW. I totally see the sway of this proposal going the way of every other SFW argument. I think that I would be all over this and find it as a huge positive even if I had never seen who it was from. I also think the "anti's" would have like it if they hadn't seen who it was from. 

Quality over Quantity for me any day! I am not so arrogant that I have to have a tag every year and not spend a few off years with friends and family helping them get their quality critters.


----------



## rifle666 (Sep 25, 2007)

i guess my post was not good enough,
i got moderated
so i guess i cannot participate in this discussion.

and why does that surprise me? :evil:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Finnegan said:
> 
> 
> > Well said, Epek.
> ...


Read it again. I didn't label anyone - I labeled the ethic that supports this line of thinking. Simple fact is that no anti-hunting organization has ever succeeded in forcing Utah hunters to stay home. But this "idea" will do exactly that. It's just another verse of the same old song that keeps elk tags at an unneccessary minimum.

Back when I was just a kid, we hunted a canyon that could only be accessed by one steep, narrow, nasty road. Since almost nobody had 4X4s back then, the road was impassable when it got muddy. But the canyon was a consistent producer of big bucks. Starting in '68, somebody started diverting a roadside spring down the road to prevent other hunters from getting up there. They made a habit of doing that every year until '72 when they got caught in the act. I wasn't there, but I heard they got the living daylights kicked out of them.

Now I'm not advocating violence against anybody. But I advocate enough "arrogance" to oppose guys who want to keep other hunters home in hopes of improving their own hunt. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't agree with that, Pro.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

rifle666 said:


> i guess my post was not good enough,
> i got moderated
> so i guess i cannot participate in this discussion.
> 
> and why does that surprise me? :evil:


Sure wasn't me.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Quality over Quantity for me any day! I am not so arrogant that I have to have a tag every year and not spend a few off years with friends and family helping them get their quality critters.


So I am arrogant that I want to hunt each year?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yeah so a lot of you guys dont like this type of proposal, but i dont see anyone coming up with something better.


What is wrong with the way things are now?



> CS this proposal has nothing to do with mule deer management. This is a proposal to create additional LE areas.


+10000000


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> But I advocate enough "arrogance" to oppose guys who want to keep other hunters home in hopes of improving their own hunt. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't agree with that, Pro.


I guess I see this completely different than you do. I see this as a way to manage for *BOTH* groups as opposed to only one. When you add in the key component of making one chose which type of 'hunter' one is, it will enable those who just like to hunt the ability to do so. In fact, I believe this 'idea' would be better than the current plan for those who just want to hunt every year. That is why I "don't agree with that".

Weatherby, there are MANY, in fact I dare say MOST, deer hunters NOT happy with the way things are right now. Just because *you* are content does NOT mean everyone is.

This idea is a way of looking to IMPROVE hunting, to say the DWR should not look at ways to improve hunting is ABSURD. The BEST way to recruit new hunters is to make it more appealing. MANY hunters and potential hunters find big mature bucks more appealing than fork horns, that is a FACT. Does it have anything to do with sound biology? No, but in order to recruit hunters it is a neccesity, and w/o hunters you can kiss the biology aspect goodbye. The DWR must manage for both biological reasons and hunter appeal reasons. That is their ROLE in the grand scheme of things.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Weatherby, there are MANY, in fact I dare say MOST, deer hunters NOT happy with the way things are right now. Just because you are content does NOT mean everyone is.


Agreed but that still does not anwser my question. What is wrong with the system as is?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Agreed but that still does not anwser my question. What is wrong with the system as is?


Many people would like to see more big bucks in the mix, many rifle hunters would like to hunt close to home every year, which if you live in the southern half of the state you can NOT do today.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Many people would like to see more big bucks in the mix


This is what I do not understand. Do they want them tried to the road so they can find them. I am sorry but I am sick of hearing there are no big bucks or the bucks are not here like they used to be. BULL they are they just as much today as yeasterday.



> many rifle hunters would like to hunt close to home every year, which if you live in the southern half of the state you can NOT do today.


I can understand this. This is one of my issues with I400. Like has been said not evey one is going to be happy. This idea is not going to change that. The fact that people think the south has more bigger deer is not going to change. That will make more people want to hunt the south so that means more people will not be hunting.


----------



## EPEK (Sep 11, 2007)

Lets just keep it as it is and everyone that only wants to hunt every 4-5 years, take 3-4 years off after every year you "get to hunt" That way, those guys who "always and only kill big bucks will not be out there in those off years and leave it to us less capable guys that can't get the big ones. Since we still wouldn't be able to find the big ones, the herds would grow and every 4-5 years you other type of hunters get back out in the field and pass up all of our shooter bucks and get the one that gets your picture on the cover of a magazine. Remember a rolling stone gathers no moss.
The main thing I don't like about it is that in order to entice someone to give up hunting for 4 out of 5 years, that is only 4 times in the next 20 years, you would have to pretty much gaurantee them a toad will be available in a "well managed" deer unit say like the Henery mountains. And Then the lot of other hunters that choose the other option will have to be piled ontop of each other in order to keep the Holy units Holy.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Great post epek.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

we should all know by now that SFW pretty much gets what they want. I would dare to say that a allot more LE units will made just for deer in the year 2009. Then when people can not get tags the bitching will start all over again.

Maybe I or a few others here that hunt in the northern part should hope that the LE units stay down in the sourthern area of the state. Seeing how access to public land up here is not all that great it is all ready crowded enough. 

could not have said it any better than EPEK in his last post.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

This is the part that peaked my interest:


> If Utah made two different kinds of deer hunts, pick which one you would want. Type A will be managed for 15-12 bucks per 100 Does post season. Type B will be managed for 35 bucks post season. If you pick a unit within Type A, you can probably hunt most every year. If you apply for a unit in type B, you will draw a tag every 4 years or so. If you apply for Units in A, you can NOT apply for hunts in Units B. And Vice Versa.
> 
> Then, if 60% of the hunters want Units Type A, the 60 percent of Utahs deer units are managed for 15-20. And 40% want type B, 40% are managed for 35. The main key would be to try and manage the product produced, with the desire of the customers.
> 
> Right now in Utah, about 10% of the units are managed for higher quality and 90% are managed for general season. This is NOT A good match for what Utah deer hunters want. Some want more opportunity, some want more quality. Neither one is right, it is a simple matter of personal preference.


To me, it all about *balance*, balance of the deer herd needs and the demands from the hunters. Many hunters ARE willing to forego hunting 4 out of 5 years, and I dare say the percentage is much higher than 10%, which the amount of Utah managed per their desires. Yet, this is the group that is being called selfish or bad for hunting, what a croc. I say those that wish to have the bulk of the state managed to their desires and forget the others are the ones that are not helping hunting out.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

I am all for helping out, but why should I? Selfish your dang right. Here is my issue with the whole thing. You want to have better changes of getting a big buck. There are big bucks every where so why take away from my hunt. You want a big buck I will tell you where there are 6 over 26" right now. So why take away that just to allow other's to get a easy hunt on "thropy unit" Makes no sense.

The DH program only lets you take 2 deer in 3 years. If the idea is not taking deer every year join that program or just buy a tag and not shoot a deer. If so many people are so willing to give up there hunts each year what is stoping them from doing it now?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

People like me dont forego 4 to 5 years because I like to hunt out of state also. So if I didnt get a tag in utah then I dont just stay home and twittle my thumbs because I will hunt other states which have better mule deer hunting I might add and its easier to draw most areas.

Anyone want to go to NM next year to hunt big bulls with me?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Exactly. Your not willing to stop hunting for 4-5 years. You will find other ways/places to hunt.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > The DWR is going to review deer managment plans in 2008 for 2009-2015.
> >
> > Here is an idea i would like some feedback on.
> >
> > ...


1) If 30% of customers wanted black shoes and 70% wanted white shoes, a store very well may stock 90% black shoes...it comes down to profit. IF a store can buy/purchase black shoes at a cost that allows them for a greater profit margin upon the resell of those black shoes they very well may stock mostly black shoes. It comes down to not only what the customer wants, but what is most profitable for the company.

2) My biggest concern with such a plan has already been brought up...right now the DWR is fighting the massive problem of decreasing hunter numbers year in and year out...if we further limit opportunity, do we further reduce the number of hunters we recruit in our state?

3) Managing a unit to a 35/100 buck doe ratio is one thing while accomplishing such a goal is another thing. The Thousand Lakes Mountain has been a "trophy" or "B" unit for quite a few years; however, the DWR has not been able to increase the buck/doe ratios to a "trophy" level...as a result, they are recommending this unit be opened up to general season hunters. How many other new units will fall into this same type of problem?

In order to make a unit a true "trophy" unit, many factors become involved. If the factors limiting the trophy potential of a unit are outside DWR control, that unit will NOT become a trophy unit regardless of tag numbers and regulations.

3) Right now Utah has 27 general season units, 8 limited entry units, and 2 premium units. In other words, 27% of our units are "trophy" while 73% are general. I think the SFW quote is very misleading...we have 10 LE deer units.

4) There are some significant disadvantages in managing for 35 bucks for every 100 does. These include: 1) Lower population growth potential...in such a management style, fewer does will be available to give birth to fawns. With fewer does, how can deer populations increase quicker? I see this as a way to hinder population recovery...2) Limited opportunity...which I am adamantly against 3) Decreased profit from DWR (unless of course tag costs increase to reflect the numbers of tags lost)...decreases in profit can only lead to increases in tag costs. Which, to me, means one more step towards turning hunting into a rich man's sport.

5) Right now, any Utah deer hunter has the opportunity to hunt "trophy" deer in any general season unit...like many others have suggested, these deer are there. Nobody has taken this opportunity away; however, by further reducing opportunity, the opportunity of a meat hunter to harvest an animal is reduced...I don't believe that is good balance. I believe hunting opportunity should ONLY be reduced when the good of the herd or the animal is at stake...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Exactly. Your not willing to stop hunting for 4-5 years. You will find other ways/places to hunt.


Weatherby, Im willing to quit hunting in utah 2 to 3 years but that doesnt mean I can't hunt out of state when im not hunting in Utah.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Yote that is my point. You might be willing to not hunt in one place but your still hunting other places. Your not willing to give up hunting. There are a lot of people who can not or will not hunt other places much less out of state.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> Yote that is my point. You might be willing to not hunt in one place but your still hunting other places. Your not willing to give up hunting. There are a lot of people who can not or will not hunt other places much less out of state.


Then they could chose the Type A units and do so! :roll:

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yote that is my point. You might be willing to not hunt in one place but your still hunting other places. Your not willing to give up hunting. There are a lot of people who can not or will not hunt other places much less out of state.


Weatherby, the post isnt about giving up hunting totally. Its about picking what areas you want to hunt. If I didnt draw my "trophy" area in Utah then I would hunt out of state. WHY? Because I can!!!!


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

Pro
exactly that is what we have now. The issuse will be taking the A units and turning them into B uints.

Yote

You can do that now.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yote
> 
> You can do that now.


I know I can and I did have a great year of hunting. This year in Utah I didnt harvest a buck because I didnt find the type of buck I was after. I could have harvested any of the 30 two points i saw or the 3 point with a cheater, but I let them walk because I dont get a big thrill in killing 2 points. I feel there is no sport in it, but I dont look down on other people for killing their mighty two points.

I hope that most of those two points survived the hunt because it will make the hunting better next year!!!


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Coyote, what if you didn't have the money to hunt out of state every year? Then what? What if you had 4 children that are of hunting age, could you afford to take them out of school for weeks at a time to hunt different states? I don't think so. This idea depletes hunter involvement even more. I have to tell my kids that the big buck they dream of can only be hunted every 4-5 years, or that they can chase spikes every year. Currently they can dream of that big buck every year; they usually don't harvest their dream buck but the excitement and loss of sleep is still there. You all remember when you couldn't sleep on the night before the opening day of the deer hunt (sometimes I still have this problem). The idea of a big buck crossing your path was so exciting that sleep was all but impossible. In my opinion, with Don's IDEA a lot of these kids will lose their excitment to hunt, especially big bucks. Why would we ever want the future of the sport to only get to hunt every 4-5 years? And please don't tell me they can hunt for a doe every year. Killing a doe is about as exciting as my yearly rectal exam at Dr. Jellyfingers office, which could be exciting for some but not me.

Sure my kids could tag along with other family members that had a tag that year, but if I know most kids like I think I do, they want to have the chance at a big buck every year. They have that now; not a great chance but the chance and excitement are still there.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sure. I understand that some people couldnt afford it, but if you put aside 30 dollars each pay check which is 60 dollars a month times 12 months then you have $720 dollars to spend on your hunting tags. I posted a survey on the old DWR forum and 73% of the hunters spent 2,000 dollars or higher on hunting each year. If you have kids that are old enough to hunt then I would make them earn half the money.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34, the Type A units would be managed just as the general units are NOW, so your kids could still be sleepless hoping to come across a mature buck on opening morning. you would have *fewer* hunters applying for Type A tags than now because one would have to decide what 'pool' to be in. A Type B hunter would NOT be able to apply/draw a Type A tag. That takes "30%" of the deer huntuers out of the picture for Type A tags.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> sfelk34, the Type A units would be managed just as the general units are NOW, so your kids could still be sleepless hoping to come across a mature buck on opening morning. you would have fewer hunters applying for Type A tags than now because one would have to decide what 'pool' to be in. A Type B hunter would NOT be able to apply/draw a Type A tag. That takes "30%" of the deer huntuers out of the picture for Type A tags.


+1


----------



## sfelk34 (Oct 17, 2007)

Pro, then are you saying that the Type A tags will be just like a general tag of today? If so, then maybe this idea could work for everyone. What am I talking about, SFW is involved I can't like it can I?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sfelk34 said:


> Pro, then are you saying that the Type A tags will be just like a general tag of today? If so, then maybe this idea could work for everyone. What am I talking about, SFW is involved I can't like it can I?


1)Yes, Type A tags would be managed just as the general tags are today.

2)If you believe all the nonsense and ignore the MANY great things SFW has done for wildlife and hunters, I suppose you can't like it. If you instead look at the facts and results on the ground, and judge this 'idea' based on it's merits rather than on the anti-SFW garbage spewed by many, then the answer is yes! 8)

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

We already have type B units for the horn hunters, So why do we need more type B units?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> We already have type B units for the horn hunters, So why do we need more type B units?


If you bothered reading the posts on this you would know the answer already. :roll:

Right now 10% of the deer herd statewide is managed for "horn hunters", yet there is more than 10% of the hunters that clasify themselves as "horn hunters", hence the need/desire to increase the opportunitie for this type of hunter.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> If you bothered reading the posts on this you would know the answer already. :roll:
> 
> Right now 10% of the deer herd statewide is managed for "horn hunters", yet there is more than 10% of the hunters that clasify themselves as "horn hunters", hence the need/desire to increase the opportunitie for this type of hunter.


Funny...had YOU bothered reading the posts on this you would know that Utah right now Utah has 27 general season units, 8 limited entry units, and 2 premium units. In other words, 27% of our units are "trophy" while 73% are general. I think the SFW quote is false...

So, to reiterate the above question...why do 30% of the hunters need more type B units when they have nearly 30% of the units already?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

So you are telling me they do not have enough area to hunt in right? 10% is not that much.
it sounds more like, * I WANT MORE!*
do they not get the same 4-5 years wait to hunt just like now?


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

WOW,

I don't really want to comment too much but there are two things (as I have learned from a few of my mentors).

Let me change directions.

1) deer in certain areas of the west have not and will not rebound unless we take time to do winter feeding (regardless of how tough the winter is). There just is not that much GOOD winter habitat left. Look at where elk were some time ago? The rebound began with winter feeding.

2) The next basic for the managment plan must be changing the opener for deer.

From there the biologists would be able to make some better decisions for deer. As quoted from another post by two individuals


> *person 1*It should be changed to read something to the effect of, "It shall begin on (exact date (not day))" or "It shall begin as voted on by the wildlife board each November meeting previous to the season..."
> 
> *Person 2*
> .... this is reality and something needs before these conflicts get out of hand and we have a ugly situation. ... and working on ways to get the legislature to change the law on the rifle deer opener. I say it should be a varied opener determined by the Wildlife Board with MAJOR input from the DWR.


*IMO *we shouldn't create a 30 / 70 system until we have the utah deer herd where it needs to be. Getting it where it needs to be will never be accomplished by a silver bullet.

We are all gonna have to give up something, it doesn't necessarily have to be hunting, possibly changing our methods, and including limiting our weapons as needed, but not hunting over all.

IF any thing should be proposed to the RACS and wildlife board concerning deer it should be those two items at this point.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So, to reiterate the above question...why do 30% of the hunters need more type B units when they have nearly 30% of the units already?


You are being intellectually dishonest on this, I am stunned. :shock:

27% of the units does NOT compute into 27% of the land or deer numbers. The 10% is the percentage of deer managed under Type B units, that means *90%* of the deer herd (statewide) is managed as Type A units. Comparing apples and oranges does not make a steak, it makes a fruit salad. Stop trying to make a steak out of fruit. :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Firstarrow said:


> *IMO *we shouldn't create a 30 / 70 system until we have the utah deer herd where it needs to be. Getting it where it needs to be will never be accomplished by a silver bullet.


I get the basic gyst of your post...a couple things I can't let slide, though: 1) we already have a 30/70 system 2) by creating more type B units we may actually be hindering our deer herd from getting "where it needs to be".


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

He is what I do not understand. Why do we need type A or type B units at all. The state allready has both now. If you are a type B person you can still hunt the type A area and still get just a good of buck. So why would you want to limit yourself more then you are now?


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

WHOOPS ---  SPIKED FROM PAGE 6 Making a post prior to reading the rest...30/70


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Right now 10% of the deer herd statewide is managed for "horn hunters", yet there is more than 10% of the hunters that clasify themselves as "horn hunters", hence the need/desire to increase the opportunitie for this type of hunter





proutdoors said:


> Stop trying to make a steak out of fruit.


your above quote is selfish Pro, remember it is for the deer herd

sounds like you are doing a good job of this...the horn hunters have enough area as it stands right now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> So why would you want to limit yourself more then you are now?


I reply back with, why would you want to 'waste' a tag on a yearling animal? Answer, because it is the type of hunting *you* prefer. Neither type of hunter is better/worse than the other, and to manage* 90%* of the deer population to ONE and giving *10%* to the other is not sound hunter management, and yes the DWR *is* charged with managing hunters as well as wildlife, like it or not.

I haven't killed a buck since 2001, 100% by choice. This 'idea' will not directly hurt/help me. If I desire to go after big bucks, I can simply buy an archery tag and hunt the WF extended area. This is about managing to ALL demands, not just ONE as best possible. To ingore/neglect one segment of the hunting populous is unwise and does NOT bode well for the future.

I agree firstarrow, we MUST improve/increase winter range for deer. I ask, where has the overwhelming bulk of the funds that has gone into this come from? Answer, Type B managed units. Like or hate conservation tags, they fund the majority of habitat restoration/protection projects in Utah.



> your above quote is selfish Pro, remember it is for the deer herd
> 
> sounds like you are doing a good job of this...the horn hunters have enough area as it stands right now.


Is it less selfish to want 90% of the deer herd for *your* type of hunting? It is for BOTH the deer herd AND the deer hunter. That IS how it works, like it or not!

I do NOT guide deer "horn hunters" as it stands right now! Thanks for playing.

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

the only one's that want to change things seems to be the big outfitters like SFW Why? My guess is the almighty $$$$$$ none other.

Like that has been said if the average hunter wants a trophy then he will have to hunt just a little harder for it. or pay the big bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> the only one's that want to change things seems to be the big outfitters like SFW Why? My guess is the almighty $$$$$$ none other.
> 
> Like that has been said if the average hunter wants a trophy then he will have to hunt just a little harder for it. or pay the big bucks.


SFW is a special interest org., that is obvious. The changes are requested from the bottom up of these groups. People join groups like SFW *because* it gives them a voice. Enough SFW members have made noise about this to get the power players(Peay) to respond to their requests and demands. You see this as a bad thing, I see it as an example of how to get your voice heard. You have a much better chance of being heard and taken seroius if you are part of a loud and united voice than as an indivual. That is WHY people join groups like SFW, MDF, UBA, RMEF and other groups, it gives them a way to have their voices heard. FYI, SFW is NOT an outfitter, nor are most of their members outfitters/guides. :roll:

PRO


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

weatherby25 said:


> > Quality over Quantity for me any day! I am not so arrogant that I have to have a tag every year and not spend a few off years with friends and family helping them get their quality critters.
> 
> 
> So I am arrogant that I want to hunt each year?


Maybe Arrogant was a strong word.

It sounds like with the proposal that you would be hunting every year or at least most every year.

I could have a little time between hunts in order to hunt a better area than you as far as quality. Were both happy that way. How could this not make sense?

The people that have problems with this cause they are ok with smaller bucks don't make sense to me. What is the value over a doe or a small forkie? We have beat this dead horse into the ground.

There are many other opportunities to hunt. (other states etc...)

When I was younger, we could hunt all the hunts. It cost us $10 to get an archery permit on top of our rifle tag. We could kill 2 deer a year. Those days are gone. I hate talking to people who say that they wont hunt this state ever again because of what the DWR has done to it. Hello................It's not the DWR.... It's not you and I,,,,,,,,,,It's more populated in this state. Hunting will never be the same and there is never such a thing as "leave it the same". Things change and we need to make adjustments that work for EVERY ONE OF US.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

so, Pro, you believe it is ok for 30% of the deer hunters to have more than 30% of the units managed in their favor?

What kinds of side effects will such a deer hunting management plan have? Is such a plan necessary?

Right now, as is, both trophy hunters and meat hunters have an opportunity to chase the animals of their choice...why do we need to change?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Because a lot of people dont like the way things are now. Its crazy to manage a large unit like the Central region because the unit is sooo diverse and many areas get hit harder than others. Some areas the deer are struggling and will probably never make a come back, but we keep still tags like everything is fine because the overall region its 15/100 when areas within the region are much lower than 15/100 bucks per does.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I ask, where has the overwhelming bulk of the funds that has gone into this come from? Answer, Type B managed units.


you are not serious here, are you? Do you really think the 937 LE deer permits made more money for the DWR than the 95,000 general season permits?

If the state gave up some of those general season permits to make some more LE units, we would lose funding...unless the state made those type B units cost more. And then, what have we done? Took one more step towards making hunting a rich man's sport!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Because a lot of people dont like the way things are now. Its crazy to manage a large unit like the Central region because the unit is sooo diverse and many areas get hit harder than others. Some areas the deer are struggling and will probably never make a come back, but we keep still tags like everything is fine because the overall region its 15/100 when areas within the region are much lower than 15/100 bucks per does.


so....what does this have to do with Type A and Type B units? Isn't this about micromanaging?

It also makes little sense to change a unit that is struggling to a Type B unit...this would only further limit the herd and keep doe and subsequently fawn numbers down.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Right now 10% of the deer herd statewide is managed for "horn hunters", yet there is more than 10% of the hunters that clasify themselves as "horn hunters", hence the need/desire to increase the opportunitie for this type of hunter


Huh...Don't those "horn hunters" have the opportunity to hunt for horns in any general season area in the state?


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Huh...Don't those "horn hunters" have the opportunity to hunt for horns in any general season area in the state?


+1 That is what I have been saying.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> coyoteslayer wrote:
> Because a lot of people dont like the way things are now. Its crazy to manage a large unit like the Central region because the unit is sooo diverse and many areas get hit harder than others. Some areas the deer are struggling and will probably never make a come back, but we keep still tags like everything is fine because the overall region its 15/100 when areas within the region are much lower than 15/100 bucks per does.
> 
> so....what does this have to do with Type A and Type B units? Isn't this about micromanaging?
> ...


Type A and Type B units would be the same as micromanaging. If the DWR was to divide the Central Region into 5 units then they could better manage our deer herds and how many animals are harvested per unit. They could manage an area like the nebo unit to be 25/100 buck per does. The Hobble Creek Area 15/100 buck per does, The Deep Creek range 25/100 bucks per does. The Tintic Mountains 15/100 bucks per does etc.


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> I could have a little time between hunts in order to hunt a better area than you as far as quality. Were both happy that way. How could this not make sense?


Agreed that is what we have now.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Archery and ML only areas. Different seasons dates for different units


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

fatbass said:


> What's wrong with 30/100 for all areas? *-HELP!-*


As buck/doe ratios increase, the reproductive capability of the herd decreases...in other words, the more bucks a unit has the fewer does and, as a result, fewer fawns. When the reproductive capability of the herd decreases, herd growth slows and hunting opportunity decreases.

It is GOOD for many of our units to have buck/doe ratios below 30/100 because it allows them to grow faster...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> fatbass said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with 30/100 for all areas? *-HELP!-*
> ...


Finally I agree with something you posted. :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> It is GOOD for many of our units to have buck/doe ratios below 30/100 because it allows them to grow faster...


True it might, but it reduces the quality of the unit. Do we want quality or quantity or have a good mixture of both. I spent a lot of days on the Bookcliffs last year and I believe the Bookcliffs buck to doe ratio is higher then 30/100 buck/does and almost every doe had one or two fawns. The Bookcliffs has great habitat and has plenty of room for more deer. Why do you think the DWR, SFW, MDF, and other groups focus more on the Henrys, Book cliffs, Paunsguant???


----------



## SteepNDeep (Sep 11, 2007)

You guys post too fast. I can't even get through this and am not caught up yet. The general units are fantastic for anybody who is willing to get off their sorry self and make something happen. More management is not bound to solve much of anything related to the deer hunt. You want kids to hunt with their dads and grandpas etc? Then let us stay with at least the 5 unit strategy. Give me a freakin break- every year this is an awful pain at my "house" where my brother and I went Ded to make sure we can hunt where we want. I worry every year not just about hunting but about if my Dad will get the unit I chose, will my cousin get his tag, will my uncle get his etc. We can't get 6 tags in one unit to save our LIVES on a consistent basis. I am for statewide on everything - everything. I realize that day is long gone, but you must respect the fact that people are only able to affect a situation related to nature - not create it. Yes, if you throw a dozen guys on some sacred mountain named Henry every year they will all have multiple chances to pass up most people's dream buck while chasing some ridiculous garbage truck of a deer. Fantastic. Screw the rest of the population right? I disagree that the people are reflected by SFW's polls. They are SFW folks. Sorry for posting out of sequence I just can't get to it all yet, but I will later. 

More regs = bad
More freedom to HUNT = good

Invisible hand could just as easily guide this scenario as any.

Give a man the opp to screw something up and he may get it right after all. 

Give a group of men the chance to get something right and they will screw it up for sure.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I believe that most--if not all--hunters want to shoot a big buck. I also believe that most hunters equate good deer populations and strong herds by the number of bucks they see during the hunt...so, when an idea comes up that asks for an increase in buck numbers, many hunters jump at the idea (knee-jerk) and say they like it. But, what these same hunters often do NOT understand is that higher buck numbers can actually have a negative effect on the herd.

I believe strongly that the way for the state of Utah to appease a higher number of deer hunters--both "A" hunters and "B" hunters--is through total population management. What I mean is this: if we want to see more bucks and bigger bucks, the key is to increase our deer population so that there are more deer and consequently more bucks and more quality bucks.

I believe it would be not only foolhardy but dumb to try and manage units below population goals/objectives for higher buck/doe ratios because these ratios would only limit the total population.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I spent a lot of days on the Bookcliffs last year and I believe the Bookcliffs buck to doe ratio is higher then 30/100 buck/does and almost every doe had one or two fawns. The Bookcliffs has great habitat and has plenty of room for more deer. Why do you think the DWR, SFW, MDF, and other groups focus more on the Henrys, Book cliffs, Paunsguant???


1) Exactly what I am getting at...regardless of great habitat, room for growth, and good pregnancy rates and survival rates of fawns, growth on the Bookcliffs would be limited because of its high buck/doe ratio. The reason is simple: if the buck/doe ratio on the same unit were 15/100, it would have more does giving birth to fawns. For every 100 deer, the Bookcliffs would have 15 fewer does...than if that ratio were lowered to 15/100. For every 100 deer, that is 15 more does giving birth! Obvioiusly, the unit with 15/100 buck-doe ratios will have higher growth potential.

2) I don't believe one second that the DWR, SFW, MDF etc..focus on the Henry's, Book cliffs, and Pauns any more than other areas...I was in the hills just yesterday and saw acre upon acre that had been cleared by pinion juniper stands to increase winter range and habitat for deer. This kind of habitat work is evident throughout the state...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I believe that most--if not all--hunters want to shoot a big buck. I also believe that most hunters equate good deer populations and strong herds by the number of bucks they see during the hunt...so, when an idea comes up that asks for an increase in buck numbers, many hunters jump at the idea (knee-jerk) and say they like it. But, what these same hunters often do NOT understand is that higher buck numbers can actually have a negative effect on the herd.
> 
> I believe strongly that the way for the state of Utah to appease a higher number of deer hunters--both "A" hunters and "B" hunters--is through total population management. What I mean is this: if we want to see more bucks and bigger bucks, the key is to increase our deer population so that there are more deer and consequently more bucks and more quality bucks.
> 
> I believe it would be not only foolhardy but dumb to try and manage units below population goals/objectives for higher buck/doe ratios because these ratios would only limit the total population.


You are starting to make some sense, either that or I need food to keep me from agreeing with you. 8)

However, if a certain segment of the hunting crowd desire something, the DWR is 'mandated' to manage to it. The current LE elk plan is a perfect example of this. You said, "I believe it would be not only foolhardy but dumb to try and manage units below population goals/objectives for higher buck/doe ratios because these ratios would only limit the total population." To prevent this from being foolhardy and dumb, I suggest we take only areas that are at/near population goals/objectives for the Type B hunters. :mrgreen: If I am not mistaken, the Henries, Book Cliffs, and Pauns are all/near objectives, evidence that you CAN have higher buck/doe ratios and a healthy herd at the same time. I would even go so far to say that having buck/doe ratios higher than they are on many/most general units would benefit the herd health and INCREASE fawn recruitment due to more does bred during the first estrus cycle increasing the survival % of fawns because they will be more likely born during days that improve their survival odds.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I would even go so far to say that having buck/doe ratios higher than they are on many/most general units would benefit the herd health and INCREASE fawn recruitment due to more does bred during the first estrus cycle increasing the survival % of fawns because they will be more likely born during days that improve their survival odds.


I disagree...I think in many cases higher buck/doe ratios would be detrimental. In units where winter range is a limiting factor, for example, increased buck numbers could/would negatively affect the doe and fawn segment of the population. Those extra bucks would outcompete does and fawns for the available forage...on such units, it is vital that buck/doe ratios do NOT get higher. Not only would the extra bucks reduce the reproductive potential of the herd, but they would also outcompete does and fawns for food.

If you look at the population numbers for our deer units, you will notice that almost all units have sufficient numbers of mature animals...the reason our state has 15 as a goal is because this number generally assures units of having a good cross section of ages among the bucks...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut you are right about to high buck to doe ratios because it would cause problems like we have with the elk herd, but I know the DWR could do a heck a of a lot more for our deer herds than what is currently going on right now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> If you look at the population numbers for our deer units, you will notice that almost all units have sufficient numbers of mature animals...the reason our state has 15 as a goal is because this number generally assures units of having a good cross section of ages among the bucks...


There are biologists here in this state that disagree with you on this, in fact some have gone so far to blame, in part, the lack of older bucks in the herds to low fawn recruitment, which leads to lower overall numbers. Higher numbers of mature bucks ensures more does being bred during the first estrus cycle, which leads to more does 'taking' and more fawns being dropped during the timeframe where survival odds are highest. Does bred by younger bucks are more likely to be bred late, meaning the fawns will be born late, lowering their odds of surviving the critical first year. Too high of buck/doe ratios will indeed limit fawn recruitment, but I do NOT believe 30/100 is "too high". And, as long as the DWR does NOT conduct yearly counts and uses models and trend data, do we really know how many bucks are in a given herd population? Call me a skeptic, as I have seen this to not always be the case, but I seriously doubt many of the reported ratios. That ought to get you fired up. :twisted:

PRO


----------



## Firstarrow (Sep 28, 2007)

Guys & gals

Let's stop argueing about what we expect to harvest. (Mods if this needs it's own topic, please move it) If we want to continue to hunt deer in Utah and get kids excited about it again, we need to grow our herd!

*Bottom line we need to have higher recruitment. *

More does getting breed, then delivering live fawns, and those fawns surviving into their second spring. Manage our deer herd like a herd of cattle! Get earlier fawns each spring, reduce the # that are lost due to predation and other factors.

IF we get this, (regardless of the 30 / 70 thing and hunting horns or not - they will actually work themselves out), our herd grows.

We need to look at what needs to be done to get the correct # of fawns out of every years crop. To do this will require asking some tough questions, and doing the right thing for a few years.

So, # 1 what do we need to do to get the does breed earlier?

#2 what do we need to do to help see that more make it through the winters?

#3 What do we need to do to see that fawns survive longer than being dropped?

#4 When are we gonna let the biologists do their job and manage the herd through effective hunting practices?


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I read the first few pages and skipped to the end here.

Everyone wants a guarantee with everything they buy. Some hunters are no different, they want a guarantee that no matter how little time they put in, no matter how little they hike.....they will get a trophy.

Utahs deer are very different than elk. You can't just go to any corner of the state and find a 400 bull. But you can go to *ANY* corner of this state and find a 200 buck.

Limiting hunting opportunity for many to give some an easy chance at a big buck is not worth it (at least not at the scale you are proposing). And I hope you just pulled those numbers out of the air because I think you will find no where near 60% is accurate for hunters who just want a tag every year. I think it would be closer to 95%.

I will be the first greedy SOB to come out and say it, If it is POSSIBLE, I want a tag every year! :shock:

At this stage of my life I only hunt trophy class deer, I hunt a few different general season areas in the state including the Northern unit where I consistently find trophy animals. I like it how it is and I'm all ears for adding to the system not taking away.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I dont believe their counts either because they mostly count from the roads or by airplane and if they can't even count buffalo correctly which is a very large animal compared to a deer


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> We need to look at what needs to be done to get the correct # of fawns out of every years crop. To do this will require asking some tough questions, and doing the right thing for a few years.
> 
> Input anyone?!!!


1)Ensure enough mature bucks in the herd to breed the does during the first estrus cycle, this means higher buck/doe ratios than currently in place in most areas.

2)Improve habitat, mainly winter grounds. Conservation groups are doing more in this arena here in Utah more than *any* other western state. This needs to be encouraged and increased.

3)Keep predators at levels that allow deer to increase when 1 and 2 are met. Prevent wolves from moving in an causing havoc on our struggling deer herds. I see a sharp increase in bear numbers in many parts of the state, this does NOT help the deer in any way.

Right now, 2 and 3 are being addressed, 1 is being neglacted IMHO.



> And I hope you just pulled those numbers out of the air because I think you will find no where near 60% is accurate for hunters who just want a tag every year. I think it would be closer to 95%.


These numbers are based on surveys taken, "not just pulled out of the air".

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> These numbers are based on surveys taken, "not just pulled out of the air".


I was not surveyed nor was any one I know.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

*"These numbers are based on surveys taken, "not just pulled out of the air".

PRO*

I still have a hard time believing that. If you conduct a survey the right way you can get it to say whatever you want. You are saying 40% of those buying a deer tag each year would gladly sit out for 4-5 years to have a guarantee at a "trophy"?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> *"These numbers are based on surveys taken, "not just pulled out of the air".
> 
> PRO*
> 
> I still have a hard time believing that. If you conduct a survey the right way you can get it to say whatever you want. You are saying 40% of those buying a deer tag each year would gladly sit out for 4-5 years to have a guarantee at a "trophy"?


First, even on the Henries there is NO "guarantee" of a trophy.

Second, I believe the numbers on the SFW website is 500+ in favor of this 'idea' and around 100 opposed. You do the math, I am not overly concerned at this point with those numbers because I talk to enough hunters in real life to know there is a FAIR number of hunters who would gladly do such to IMPROVE their odds of harvesting a 'trophy class' buck. I also 'know' that many elk hunters, myself included, are willing to wait multiple years to INCREASE their odds of harvesting a 'trophy class' bull. To assume that only elk hunters are of this mindset make no sense to me.

PRO


----------



## weatherby25 (Sep 10, 2007)

> Second, I believe the numbers on the SFW website is 500+ in favor of this 'idea' and around 100 opposed.


I have been looking allover for this on the website and found nothing of the sort. The closet thing I found was this


> Would you favor more restrictions on the Utah General Deer Hunt to increase the buck-to-doe ratio and overall deer quality?


 I could not find this Idea anyplace on there site. I voted yes to that poll but if that poll is refuring to this idea I would have voted no. I am sure that would be the case with many people also. I am sure that SFW would not be trying to be shady or sneaky would they??


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Trophy this trophy that...Pro you sound like you're in the rut :lol: J.k.

Well that would make sense you feel the general public thinks the way you do, after all you are a guide, from what I gather a member of some hunting groups....I would have to think most of your constituants are pretty trophy driven. I still disagree though, most my hunting friends and family are much more casual about it and I think they are a better representation of the masses.


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Do any of you in favor in any way disagree that in any general season area in Utah you can find trophy class deer?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

10000ft. said:


> Trophy this trophy that...Pro you sound like you're in the rut :lol: J.k.
> 
> Well that would make sense you feel the general public thinks the way you do, after all you are a guide, from what I gather a member of some hunting groups....I would have to think most of your constituants are pretty trophy driven. I still disagree though, most my hunting friends and family are much more casual about it and I think they are a better representation of the masses.


I associate with my "constituants' during hunting season. I associate with 'common folk' most of the time. I talk to people in my archery club, on this and other hunting forums, family (none of whom are in the 'biz'), lifelong friends *DAILY*. I say that I come in contact with "the masses" plenty to get a good feel for where the 'common man' is coming from. I make no qualms about me being a "trophy hunter/horn hugger/horn hunter", in fact I take great pride in it! I also make no apologies for guiding fellow "trophy hunters/horn huggers" either. Many/MOST of them are as passionate about hunting and improving it for current and future generations as you and I are. In fact, I dare say many of them 'care' MORE than many of the 'casual' weekend hunters. They may have 'selfish' motives, but they DO more than the average smuck when it comes to conservation and game management because of their 'motives', whatever they may be. It is easy to paint trophy hunters as the problem like Finnegan likes to do, but that is as close to reality as hippies being the solution to the crisis in the middle east, both are far from the TRUTH. These groups like SFW and MDF among others put money, sweat, RESULTS on the ground that beneift ALL hunters. Are they perfect and do everything 100% right 100% of the time? Of course not, but where would wildlife in Utah be w/o these groups?



> Do any of you in favor in any way disagree that in any general season area in Utah you can find trophy class deer?


Nope, what is your point?

PRO


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

So I can't help but notice, and mind you I skipped a couple pages, but there seems to be a real lack of concern about what's best for the deer in all of this. I realize that we all are here because we enjoy hunting, but in the end, aren't we really just a management tool used to maintain the herds in the best possible health really? So maybe I'm a little naive but shouldn't the herds be managed on what is the most sustainable, healthy options based upon the habitat and forage available? I'm just as excited to go hunting as the next guy, but I think my "right" to a tag should come second to the management for the greater good. And not to sound to preachy, but I think that the guys who really want a big deer, and are willing to work for it, generally get one. I truly feel that a lot of the pressure to create higher buck to doe ratios and more "trophy" bucks is based upon the principle of semi-instant gratification. "We want giant bucks 50 yards from the road." 
Conversely, there are too many people who want to hunt, for everyone who wants a tag to have one. 
So in the end, shouldn't it be based upon the overall health and what's best for the herd?


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> So I can't help but notice, and mind you I skipped a couple pages, but there seems to be a real lack of concern about what's best for the deer in all of this. I realize that we all are here because we enjoy hunting, but in the end, aren't we really just a management tool used to maintain the herds in the best possible health really? So maybe I'm a little naive but shouldn't the herds be managed on what is the most sustainable, healthy options based upon the habitat and forage available? I'm just as excited to go hunting as the next guy, but I think my "right" to a tag should come second to the management for the greater good. And not to sound to preachy, but I think that the guys who really want a big deer, and are willing to work for it, generally get one. I truly feel that a lot of the pressure to create higher buck to doe ratios and more "trophy" bucks is based upon the principle of semi-instant gratification. "We want giant bucks 50 yards from the road."
> Conversely, there are too many people who want to hunt, for everyone who wants a tag to have one.
> So in the end, shouldn't it be based upon the overall health and what's best for the herd?


+1 good post.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

*PROOUTDOORS WROTE*

I saw this on another forum and decided to 'poach' it and get some feedback from folks. This is from Don Peay, founder of SFW, lets stick to the pros/cons of the idea, not make it a slam SFW fest please: *UNQUOTE*



weatherby25 said:


> > Second, I believe the numbers on the SFW website is 500+ in favor of this 'idea' and around 100 opposed.
> 
> 
> I have been looking allover for this on the website and found nothing of the sort. The closet thing I found was this [quote:3sf1usbn]Would you favor more restrictions on the Utah General Deer Hunt to increase the buck-to-doe ratio and overall deer quality?


 I could not find this Idea anyplace on there site. I voted yes to that poll but if that poll is refuring to this idea I would have voted no. I am sure that would be the case with many people also. I am sure that SFW would not be trying to be shady or sneaky would they??[/quote:3sf1usbn]

Pro you say this proposal is from Don Peay himself, then why is it you can not see/view it on their website? Except for that silly poll. which I voted no on.

So what forum or website did this come from?

the poll does not say anything about helping the deer herd, just restrictions. restrictions are not conservation's ideas. habitat, purchasing land to stop development of winter range are more in line with conservation's ideas.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush, I pasted it off a thread on MonsterMulies in the mule deer section. I like how you are implying I made this up, atta boy! :roll: 

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Sagebrush, I think you need to quit drinking 6 cups of coffee in the morning.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

not applying that you made it up...but I would not put past you either.. I have been on the MM site and did not find something on there.

so what about the conservations ideas on this idea?


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

CS just looking for answers..what are you looking for?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> not applying that you made it up...*but I would not put past you either*.. I have been on the MM site and did not find something on there.
> 
> so what about the conservations ideas on this idea?


Yeah, I am sure Don Peay would like that. Give me a break. Real classy.

"so what about the conservations ideas on this idea?" You lost me, I have no 'idea' what you are asking.

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

your a real class act Pro.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> your a real class act Pro.


I don't recall accussing you or anyone else of making something up and putting someone else's name on it. Disagree with this/me, just don't make accusations you CANNOT backup or verify!

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Ok here is what I found on MM site
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 15599.html
if this is the story it does not look like the one you posted here the words have been changed.
BTW i typed in deer managment plans in 2008 for 2009-2015. for the search and this is what came up. it is about nebo

or would you care to provide the correct link for us.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

the original statement you posted in the beginning of this thread is different


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> Ok here is what I found on MM site
> http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/D ... 15599.html
> if this is the story it does not look like the one you posted here the words have been changed.
> BTW i typed in deer managment plans in 2008 for 2009-2015. for the search and this is what came up. it is about nebo
> ...


That is it, I did nothing more than cut and paste, what did I supposedly alter?

PRO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> proutdoors (1387 posts)
> Nov-11-07, 11:11 AM (MST)
> 68. "RE: Liberal Nebo Limited Entry Proposal"
> Gordy, you wrote: *"*Once a unit goes into a LE Unit it stays that way, regaurdless
> ...


I did NO such thing, what a dirty lowlife thing to do. I was qouting Gordy, to imply I said it is a LIE, an intentional one at that. Thank you for showing your true colors and for attempting to change the subject at the same time.

You see those little *"* ? Do you not know what they mean, are you that DUMB or just a first class hack?

PRO


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

Pro, believe me, I'm not coming down on any trophy hunter. I said it before, I hold out for trophy animals, I pre-season scout, I put in many days for my hunt and have invested in hundreds of dollars of hunting equipment and I successfully see big bucks almost every year.

What I don't get (and we are talking about deer here) is why are so many of you "trophy hunters" always jumping on the band wagon when an idea comes up about limiting *hunting opportunity * in areas to greatly increase the odds of any Joe Shmoe to get a trophy buck. And you say "I am willing to sit out for five years to do that"?

I enjoy pursuing deer every year, no I don't get trophy bucks every year, not even every five years, but that is what makes a trophy buck to me is seeing them and after years of hard work and improving my hunt finally connecting.

So maybe a better question is, Is this a plan for "trophy hunters" or just hunters who are not patient and won't do what is required to find big deer and are willing to loose opportunity to be (not guaranteed but) given an easier chance at a big buck?

Again I'm not coming down on horn driven hunters, first and foremost we should manage for the health of the herds and if possible, I want a tag every year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Again I'm not coming down on horn driven hunters, first and foremost we should manage for the health of the herds and if possible, I want a tag every year.


I believe our deer herds are healthy, as evidenced by the steady increase in both overall deer numbers and buck/doe ratios. So, I see the opportunity to tweak the way we manage both the deer and the deer hunter. From a biological standing, 5-10 bucks per 100 does will get the job done, from a hunter standing, that is way too low of a ratio. Bumpersticker phrase like "mannage for the health of the herd" or "trophy hunters are a bigger threat than Peta" ala Finnegan, may sound nice, but the reality is we MUST manage with the hunter in mind as well as what is 'best' for the deer herds. Hunters are what fund deer management, so to simply ignore them and their desires is foolhardy and shortsighted.

PRO


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I agree Pro, we do need to have hunters in mind when managing our deer (they by in large fund the management) but I know way more hunters who have given it up because they couldn't get a southern tag every year or the area they used to hunt on went LE or they can't get on that private ground any more or can't hunt close to home now........*lost opportunities* (I realize some of those changes were inevitable).

I don't think we are going to loose to many of the "trophy hunters" if we don't turn 40% of the state into book cliffs, henry mountains type hunts but I do think a lot of the people who used to hunt those areas and now have to wait 4-5 years to get a tag will say "forget it!".

If you want to make the average hunter happy, work on simplifying the system and create more *hunting opportunities *not *less opportunity with a increased chance at a big buck.*


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

that post of mine was edited after I saw the error: 
now back to your original post of this thread it is different from the MM starting post of all this management idea.

I still can not find where this is from Don Peay.

where is the plan of the DWR at? 
Here is an idea i would like some feedback on.
your statement at the beginning so is this your idea?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> There are biologists here in this state that disagree with you on this, in fact some have gone so far to blame, in part, the lack of older bucks in the herds to low fawn recruitment, which leads to lower overall numbers. Higher numbers of mature bucks ensures more does being bred during the first estrus cycle, which leads to more does 'taking' and more fawns being dropped during the timeframe where survival odds are highest. Does bred by younger bucks are more likely to be bred late, meaning the fawns will be born late, lowering their odds of surviving the critical first year. Too high of buck/doe ratios will indeed limit fawn recruitment, but I do NOT believe 30/100 is "too high". And, as long as the DWR does NOT conduct yearly counts and uses models and trend data, do we really know how many bucks are in a given herd population? Call me a skeptic, as I have seen this to not always be the case, but I seriously doubt many of the reported ratios. That ought to get you fired up. :twisted:


You are right; it did get me fired up...

1) First of all, UTAH DOES DO COUNTS EVERY SINGLE YEAR! I don't know how many times I have told you this, but you still can't get that through your head. Utah does population counts for elk and deer and antelope every single year...you are still confusing aerial counts with yearly counts. Utah does aerial counts on a 3-year rotational basis, but they do ground counts EVERY YEAR!

Also, every single state in the country uses population trends and models to assess wildlife...utah is no different than Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Montana...in this regard.

2) 30/100 is too high for units that are struggling from a population standpoint...it is simple, you cannot recruit new animals into a population without does. If you lower the number of does in a population by adding bucks, you decrease recruitment and the reproductive potential. Those extra bucks you are wanting to add will replace does...

....also, if you look at the data, most units within Utah are having good fawn recruitment. The fawns are surviving through the winter...it is after that first winter when we lose deer. This doesn't have anything to do with when the animals are born. You guys love that Todd Black stuff, but the percentage of older bucks in our herds is getting the job done as evident by the number of fawns surviving their first winter!

3) Of course you don't believe the data...because it doesn't support your agendas!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> where is the plan of the DWR at?


This isn't the entire DWR plan, but it is the current plan in a nutshell...

I copied this information from a presentation given at a RAC meeting:

"Over the years, there has been some disagreement among the Division of Wildlife Resources, RAC and Board members, and the public on how deer and elk should be managed in Utah. We feel that this disagreement is largely because the Division of Wildlife Resources has not adequately provided information describing the purpose of different types of deer and elk management and what each type is designed to accomplish. As such, we will be presenting an informational item discussing deer and elk management practices in Utah. The purpose of this informational item is to inform the public about how we manage deer and elk populations and why we manage them the way we do. Additionally, we will be discussing the advantages/disadvantages of different types of deer and elk management. Lastly, through the use of several computer models, we will show how deer and elk populations respond to different types of management. After this presentation, we hope that the public will have a better understanding of how deer and elk populations are affected by different types of management and what we hope to accomplish through the use of different management."

"Deer management

Manage deer in 2 ways:
1) General season--for opportunity
2) Limited entry--for quality

Distribution
27 General season units
8 Limited entry units
2 premium limited entry units

General season deer management
Advantages:
1) Maximizes reproductive potential of the population
2) Maximizes hunting opportunity

Disadvantages:
1) Lower quality of bucks than limited entry units
2) Lower success rate
3) Potential for crowding issues

Why manage for 15-20 bucks/100 does?
1) Enough bucks to impregnate does
2) Maintains a healthy age structure in the buck segment of the population

Limited Entry deer management
Advantages:
1) Quality of bucks harvested is very high
2) High success rate
3) Few hunters to compete with

Disadvantages:
1) Lower population growth
2) Limited number of hunters draw a permit

Why only 25-35 bucks/100 does?
1) Maximize opportunity while maintaining high quality
2) 1:1 ratio does NOT equal higher quality

The DWR then showed several models...the first model showed how reproduction decreases as buck/doe ratios increase.

Utah Deer managment summary:
1) Increase the number of bucks/100 does, decrease population growth
2) Increase population growth, increase hunting opportunity
3) Increase hunting opportunity, decrease quality of harvested bucks
4) In Utah, try to stay somewhere in the middle--General season- opportunity,
Limited entry-quality, premium limited entry-very high quality

Antler restrictions and deer management
1) Often proposed by hunters
2) Tried by numerous western states--UT, CO, ID, WY, MT, WA, OR
3) Research shows they do NOT work--
a. Lower harvest
b. Lower success rates
c. Fewer hunters afield
d. Shift hunting pressure to older bucks
e. Fewer mature bucks
f. increased illegal accidental kill"

Again, these are things the DWR showed in a RAC presentation...not something pulled from thin air!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The nebo unit right now is at 12/100 bucks with approx. 17,000 deer total. There is a lot of good winter range on this unit for more growth. The deer has grown from 15,000 deer to 17,000 deer in just a few year which means the habitat is good. The problem with the unit is the fact that its below objective and it gets hit pretty hard because it very close to home so many of the yearling bucks dont survive the following year. The nebo herd is bigger than the bookscliffs herd, but the Bookcliffs has a lot more bucks. I would like to see the nebo unit managed as 25/100 buck to doe ratio. I would like to see the DWR make the property they own more productive like it was years ago and then even more deer would added to the overall total population.

There is always things that we could be doing. The statement that everything is ok and why fix it is mindless thinking because just like the nebo unit is below objective and something needs to be done to bring it well above objective.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> The nebo unit right now is at 12/100 bucks with approx. 17,000 deer total. There is a lot of good winter range on this unit for more growth. The deer has grown from 15,000 deer to 17,000 deer in just a few year which means the habitat is good. The problem with the unit is the fact that its below objective and it gets hit pretty hard because it very close to home so many of the yearling bucks dont survive the following year. The nebo herd is bigger than the bookscliffs herd, but the Bookcliffs has a lot more bucks. I would like to see the nebo unit managed as 25/100 buck to doe ratio.


Again, Coyote, because the unit is below objective, the worst thing the DWR could do would be to change the buck/doe ratio objective. The unit needs those extra does...changing that objective will only slow the growth down.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> that post of mine was edited after I saw the error:
> now back to your original post of this thread it is different from the MM starting post of all this management idea.
> 
> I still can not find where this is from Don Peay.
> ...


If you can't tell on this forum the difference between what is qouted and what is written by the poster, I can't help you. Hint, on this post you should be able to figure out what part I quoted you and what part I wrote myself. :roll: The comments before and after the "quoted" part is MY words. Doe sthat clear it up? I didn't see a need to post the entire thread, I was only interested in this 'idea' Don posted. I suppose I could ask Nebo to post *his* idea/proposal for the Nebo unit, but that has very little to d owith this topic.

wyo2ut,

1)I have told you NUMEROUS times I do NOT trust ground counts as much as aerial counts, the other states you mentioned get aerial counted yearly or bi-yearly, Utah only does it at the MOST once every three years.

2)You are saying fawns are surviving, but just the older/stronger deer are dying?? How is that possible?

3)My agendas? And, just what are my agendas? And what are your noble agendas? Please enlighten me to what my agendas are. :?

PRO


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

after going thru all the responses I found it Pro where Don posted this 
might add I really do like your reponse on it

Don, 
I love this idea! In fact, I would love to see this implented for elk as well. I am more than willing to be involved in anything that will enable this to be implemented. You let me know when/where and I will be there. You have my cell # and e-mail. Feel free to let me know what I can do to assist, whether it is helping conduct a scientific survey, gathering/analizing the data garnered, to helping come up with the Type A units and Type B units. Lets get this going, that way we can have some data to take to the Deer Committee to go thru and implment as part of the new Deer Management Plan.

PRO


quite the little puppy dog are we not?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: 

might add also it seems not quite the reponse from others that you would expect for something being so great.
Have A Good Day


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Again, Coyote, because the unit is below objective, the worst thing the DWR could do would be to change the buck/doe ratio objective. The unit needs those extra does...changing that objective will only slow the growth down.


Yes, Wyo2ut, but i dont think the DWR should manage deer herds so that every year 70 to 80% of our yearlings get harvested because I see it as very poor management. The two days I was in Colorado I saw at least 150 bucks. The difference between Colorado and Utah is like comparing night and day. We need to do a lot of serious habitat projects and where our sagebrush is died then we need to clear it out and plant more sagebrush and bitterbrush to replace the old dead sagebrush.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Pro you need to get more information out at times leaving people in the dark does not help this. Don did the same thing with his poll it only ask a simple question.

"Would you favor more restrictions on the Utah General Deer Hunt to increase the buck-to-doe ratio and overall deer "

now if said idea of his was posted I'm sure the results would be different.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)I have told you NUMEROUS times I do NOT trust ground counts as much as aerial counts, the other states you mentioned get aerial counted yearly or bi-yearly, Utah only does it at the MOST once every three years.
> 
> 2)You are saying fawns are surviving, but just the older/stronger deer are dying?? How is that possible?
> 
> 3)My agendas? And, just what are my agendas? And what are your noble agendas? Please enlighten me to what my agendas are. :?


1) To say that you don't trust ground counts compared to saying that the DWR doesn't do counts yearly is a huge difference...is it not? Again, though, when the numbers don't support your agenda, you don't trust them...ironic!
2) Just because a deer is older, does NOT mean it is stronger. And, I am not making this up...the numbers show it. Look at the fawn survival rates... 
3) I think your agenda is obvious...you want to increase the trophy hunting potential in Utah. My agenda is to maintain the hunting opportunity I currently have.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> after going thru all the responses I found it Pro where Don posted this
> might add I really do like your reponse on it
> 
> Don,
> ...


More insults. The tactic of someone unable to hold his own usually responds with personal attacks. If liking an idea and be willing to get off my A$$ to help out and SHOW UP, makes me a "puppy", so be it. I good/great idea will NEVER be liked by all, so to base my support of something on the popularity of it by others would make me a sheep, I prefer to be a "little puppy".There are MANY examples throughout history/game management where the 'popular' opinions were proved faulty/wrong/foolish, so you go ahead and gage what the majority likes/dislikes before forming 'your' opinion on a topic, I'll pass. Attack me all you want for getting my hands dirty and doing things I believe in, it is easy to be a sideline critic, much harder being in the game. I'll be at the RAC tonight if you would like to call me more names up close and personal. Then you can see how an insult from the likes of you is a compliment to me, I would simply shake your hand, smile, and say thank you! :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> Pro you need to get more information out at times leaving people in the dark does not help this. Don did the same thing with his poll it only ask a simple question.
> 
> "Would you favor more restrictions on the Utah General Deer Hunt to increase the buck-to-doe ratio and overall deer "
> 
> now if said idea of his was posted I'm sure the results would be different.


What does a thread on *another* forum about the Nebo unit offer to 'enlighten' anyone on this topic here? NOTHING!



> 1) To say that you don't trust ground counts compared to saying that the DWR doesn't do counts yearly is a huge difference...is it not? Again, though, when the numbers don't support your agenda, you don't trust them...ironic!
> 2) Just because a deer is older, does NOT mean it is stronger. And, I am not making this up...the numbers show it. Look at the fawn survival rates...
> 3) I think your agenda is obvious...you want to increase the trophy hunting potential in Utah. My agenda is to maintain the hunting opportunity I currently have.


1)I question the yearly counts on many parts of units, since the DWR admits there are MANY parts of regions/units that don't get counted and they rely on models and trends.

2)To say a fawn will/does survive over 1-5 year old deer defies biology and LOGIC. Only in rare cases will a fawn survive in conditions that KILL mature deer, it most certainly is NOT the norm.

3)Wrong! What a shock. My agenda is to increase opportunity for ALL types fo hunters, not just 'meat' hunters. I also am not satisfied "maintaining" what we have unlike you. I desire to IMPROVE what we have, for ALL types of hunters, not just 'my' kind of hunters. You also make a very telling comment IMHO;


> My agenda is to maintain the hunting opportunity *I *currently have


 you seem to be concerned with *you*, while most, if not all, the things I have been oushing benefit others far more than they benefit me, in fact many like I400 are NOT in *my* interests and 'opportunity'. There is a change in the wording of the proclamation for dis-abled archers who currently qualify to use crossbows, this benefits hunters like coyoteslayer, but benefits me not one bit. Ask coyoteslayer or the DWR who wrote and proposed this change. I for the life of me can't see how this will "increase the trophy hunting potential in Utah", which according to you is 'my' agenda.

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Yes, Wyo2ut, but i dont think the DWR should manage deer herds so that every year 70 to 80% of our yearlings get harvested because I see it as very poor management. The two days I was in Colorado I saw at least 150 bucks. The difference between Colorado and Utah is like comparing night and day. We need to do a lot of serious habitat projects and where our sagebrush is died then we need to clear it out and plant more sagebrush and bitterbrush to replace the old dead sagebrush.


Again, you are a hunter that equates good populations with lots of bucks...a good population, though, is one with adequate bucks and numerous does. IF 70-80% of the yearling deer are harvested that means that 20-30% of the yearling deer are NOT harvested. To me, that assures that older bucks are recruited into the population and assures for a good variation in age classes.

In comparing Colorado to Utah, you must remembr that they have a deer population of over 600,000...compared to Utah's population which is less than 300,000. With a population double ours, it is much easier to manage more of those deer for trophy quality. Even so, a quick review of Colorado's deer management plans and summaries shows that some of their units are managed with lower buck to doe ratios too!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Even so, a quick review of Colorado's deer management plans and summaries shows that *some* of their units are managed with lower buck to doe ratios too!


Key word is *some* not all or most. 

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> In comparing Colorado to Utah, you must remembr that they have a deer population of over 600,000...compared to Utah's population which is less than 300,000. With a population double ours, it is much easier to manage more of those deer for trophy quality. Even so, a quick review of Colorado's deer management plans and summaries shows that some of their units are managed with lower buck to doe ratios too!


Yeah they do have double the amount of deer. They also micromanage their deer herds. They have 3 rifle seasons. They have better habitat. Everyones blames low deer populations in Utah on the drought but wouldnt Colorado get affected by the drought just as much as we do because we get the same storms as Colorado does. I just wish the DWR would use the DH program and get their hands dirty and do some hard core habitat projects.

Colorado manages their deer herds a lot better than Utah because they dont have 5 general seasons regions for the ENTIRE STATE.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, would it be great if we killed 80% of our yearling elk every year. NO because the quality would go down because less bulls would recruited to the herd. There become a point where killing 70 to 80% of our yearling buck is just tooo much.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)I question the yearly counts on many parts of units, since the DWR admits there are MANY parts of regions/units that don't get counted and they rely on models and trends.
> 
> 2)To say a fawn will/does survive over 1-5 year old deer defies biology and LOGIC. Only in rare cases will a fawn survive in conditions that KILL mature deer, it most certainly is NOT the norm.
> 
> ...


1) As is the case with other states...they dont' count every single animal...they rely on trends and models to figure out population estimates.

2) No, it doesn't...you surely don't think that the only deer that die are fawns, do you? What the information tells biologists is that fawn recruitment isn't the problem or limiting factor of a population when fawns are surviving but older deer are not...there could be numerous reasons why a fawn might survive the winter but die as a two year old.

3) If your agenda is to increase opportunity for all types of hunters, why are you so for an idea that would decrease opportunity for ALL types of hunters. Again, increasing buck/doe ratios will decrease opportunity...not just for meat hunters, but for ALL hunters! To me, your agenda is to increase opportunity for trophy hunting only! In fact, your I400 and this idea would NOT benefit me at all...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> 1)I question the yearly counts on many parts of units, since the DWR admits there are MANY parts of regions/units that don't get counted and they rely on models and trends.
> 
> 2)To say a fawn will/does survive over 1-5 year old deer defies biology and LOGIC. Only in rare cases will a fawn survive in conditions that KILL mature deer, it most certainly is NOT the norm.
> 
> ...


1) As is the case with other states...they dont' count every single animal...they rely on trends and models to figure out population estimates.

2) No, it doesn't...you surely don't think that the only deer that die are fawns, do you? What the information tells biologists is that fawn recruitment isn't the problem or limiting factor of a population when fawns are surviving but older deer are not...there could be numerous reasons why a fawn might survive the winter but die as a two year old.

3) If your agenda is to increase opportunity for all types of hunters, why are you so for an idea that would decrease opportunity for ALL types of hunters. Again, increasing buck/doe ratios will decrease opportunity...not just for meat hunters, but for ALL hunters! To me, your agenda is to increase opportunity for trophy hunting only! In fact, your I400 and this idea would NOT benefit me at all...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> > Even so, a quick review of Colorado's deer management plans and summaries shows that *some* of their units are managed with lower buck to doe ratios too!
> 
> 
> Key word is *some* not all or most.


Because they have 600,000+ deer to work with...

Interestingly, though, Colorado also only offers its 4.5 million citizens about 90,000 tags...again, you have higher buck/doe ratios, you will also have much less opportunity...

By way of comparison, Utah offers its 2.5 million citizens about 97,000 tags...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> Everyones blames low deer populations in Utah on the drought but wouldnt Colorado get affected by the drought just as much as we do because we get the same storms as Colorado does. I just wish the DWR would use the DH program and get their hands dirty and do some hard core habitat projects.


Colorado blamed their huge decline in deer numbers during the drought on the drought too...but, I wouldn't expect you to know this because you don't read the information Colorado publishes. But, for argument's sake, Colorado's deer herd would have been affected differently than our population during the drought because their habitat was affected differently than our's and because their habitat received different amounts of rain.

I just wish you could open your eyes and see all of the habitat projects that have already been done and are in the process of being done...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Colorado blamed their huge decline in deer numbers during the drought on the drought too...but, I wouldn't expect you to know this because you don't read the information Colorado publishes. But, for argument's sake, Colorado's deer herd would have been affected differently than our population during the drought because their habitat was affected differently than our's and because their habitat received different amounts of rain.
> 
> I just wish you could open your eyes and see all of the habitat projects that have already been done and are in the process of being done...


Oh yes here is the other personality of the multiple personality Wyonut. Yes I realize and know every well they had a drought, but we still have people today who say that our deer are still struggling from the drought, but Colorado deer herd is doing much better and has rebounded faster. Colorado's DWR does more habitat work.

Wyo2ut, yes the DWR do some projects, but you never see some hard core habitat projects. Should we take a trip over to Doc Steeles. You can meet me at your Brother's house in Santaquin and I show what a wasted land the DWR owns and all they do is spray it every year, but do nothing more. Thousands and Thousands of acres of land just wasted when it could be very productive land.

By the way, Utah and Colorado have about the same type of weather. We get the storm first and then Colorado gets the same storm. The time we had a major drought the storms didnt pass by Utah and dump on Colorado.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> In fact, your I400 and this idea would NOT benefit me at all...


That may well be, but the *entire* state will NOT be managed under I400 nor this idea. There would be MANY areas managed to the type of hunting *you* prefer. You on the other hand, could careless what others desire as hunters, as long as *you* get yours. Newsflash, MANY hunters have different expectations of what type of hunt they want to experience, yet you seem to dismiss these hunters, in fact you say they are the selfish ones, which is such sweet irony. I have no desire to make the entire state managed to 'my' preferred type of hunting. If were all about me, there would be NO rifle hunts for any species except deperdation hunts, muzzys would be true 'primitive' weapons and be giving a small percentage of tags, the large majority of tags for ALL big game species would go to archers. But, since this is NOT about me, I have never made a serious push to do so. That would maximize opportunity would it not? :wink:

PRO


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Holy Cow, I go play in the marsh for a few days and return to 20 pages of posts.

Ha Ha how long untill I can put in for the first management buck tag??
I can see it now, THE BUCK MUST NOT HAVE 4 POINTS ON MORE THAN ONE ANTLER.
IF HOWEVER THE SUCCESSFUL HUNTER HAS HIS BUCK CHECKED THE HUNTER WILL RETAIN THEIR BONUS POINTS.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> Holy Cow, I go play in the marsh for a few days and return to 20 pages of posts.
> 
> Ha Ha how long untill I can put in for the first management buck tag??
> I can see it now, *THE BUCK MUST NOT HAVE 4 POINTS ON MORE THAN ONE ANTLER.
> IF HOWEVER THE SUCCESSFUL HUNTER HAS HIS BUCK CHECKED THE HUNTER WILL RETAIN THEIR BONUS POINTS*.


 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: *\-\*

Dang that is classic Gordy! :mrgreen:

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Spare me your weak attempt at claiming your agenda has the best interest of all hunters...


proutdoors said:


> > In fact, your I400 and this idea would NOT benefit me at all...
> 
> 
> That may well be, but the *entire* state will NOT be managed under I400 nor this idea. There would be MANY areas managed to the type of hunting *you* prefer. You on the other hand, could careless what others desire as hunters, as long as *you* get yours. Newsflash, MANY hunters have different expectations of what type of hunt they want to experience, yet you seem to dismiss these hunters, in fact you say they are the selfish ones, which is such sweet irony. I have no desire to make the entire state managed to 'my' preferred type of hunting. If were all about me, there would be NO rifle hunts for any species except deperdation hunts, muzzys would be true 'primitive' weapons and be giving a small percentage of tags, the large majority of tags for ALL big game species would go to archers. But, since this is NOT about me, I have never made a serious push to do so. That would maximize opportunity would it not? :wink:


Newsflash for you, Pro...trophy hunters already have the opportunity to hunt trophy deer! Not only are trophy hunters able to hunt trophy deer on general season units but also on LE units...provided they draw a tag. What you want is to take away the Type A hunters opportunity so that you can increase the Type B hunters chances of killing a bigger buck.

I, too, have no desire to make the "entire" state managed to my style of hunting...Utah is not. We have 37 deer units, 27 are general units, 8 LE units, and 2 premium LE units. What you want to do is take away some of those 27 general units and make more LE units...and at what cost?

I hope Utah never becomes like Colorado in deer hunting...I hope we never offer such limited opportunity. Afterall, Colorado offers only 90,000 tags for 600,000 animals in a state with a population of 4.5 million. I am glad that our significantly smaller population of people gets 97,000 buck deer tags for its much smaller population of deer!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> I hope Utah never becomes like Colorado in deer hunting...I hope we never offer such limited opportunity. Afterall, Colorado offers only 90,000 tags for 600,000 animals in a state with a population of 4.5 million. I am glad that our significantly smaller population of people gets 97,000 buck deer tags for its much smaller population of deer!


I agree 100%! :shock: And, you have never, nor will you, heard my advocate such.

I do however, believe there could be a better *balance* in Utah. 90% of the deer population is managed for Type A hunters, yet I believe more than 10% would prefer to see a higher percentage of mature bucks in the mix, the Type B areas.

PRO


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO probably 95% of the deer hunters in Utah just want the opportunity to walk their rifles through the woods every October and drink beer with their buddies back in camp.

If we are going to go with majority rule like we do with all other tag allocations in Utah 
I want 5 more LE Units turned in to general season area's.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> PRO probably 95% of the deer hunters in Utah just want the opportunity to walk their rifles through the woods every October and drink beer with their buddies back in camp.


Dont throw the way you hunt into the mix.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> PRO probably 95% of the deer hunters in Utah just want the opportunity to walk their rifles through the woods every October and drink beer with their buddies back in camp.
> 
> If we are going to go with majority rule like we do with all other tag allocations in Utah
> *I want 5 more LE Units turned in to general season area's*.


Do you mean LE elk units? If so, we are closer to being on the same page than I thought. 8)

PRO


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS I don't hunt deer with a rifle, the rest I plead the 5th!!

PRO c'mon now you know I ain't talking about elk.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> CS I don't hunt deer with a rifle, the rest I plead the 5th!!
> 
> PRO c'mon now you know I ain't talking about elk.


If you are talking about deer, we are miles apart.  Your ilk already have 90% of the deer population, now you want more? What the.....?

PRO


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> There are biologists here in this state that disagree with you on this, in fact some have gone so far to blame, in part, the lack of older bucks in the herds to low fawn recruitment, which leads to lower overall numbers. Higher numbers of mature bucks ensures more does being bred during the first estrus cycle, which leads to more does 'taking' and more fawns being dropped during the timeframe where survival odds are highest. Does bred by younger bucks are more likely to be bred late, meaning the fawns will be born late, lowering their odds of surviving the critical first year.


This idea has been brought up numerous times by different people...usually, the idea is associated with the paper written by Todd Black.

I meant to talk about this idea earlier in this thread, but forgot to...so, I am going to now.

According to the Western Alliance of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which includes working groups of biologists from 23 states, Mexico, and Canada (including Todd Black himself), "Buck-only seasons generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does. Wide buck:doe ratios and an abundance of younger males may delay the timing of breeding, but there is no evidence this significantly affects the reproductive rates of does or the number of fawns that survive to adulthood in a mule deer population.

Some people have expressed concern that heavy, buck-only harvest degrades the gene pool of a population, but there is no evidence to support loss of genetic diversity as a result of younger males breeding does. Buck-only seasons can effect changes in age structure, sex ratios, and timing of breeding, but these do not significantly affect the population as a whole. Under normal conditions, fawns are born at a time when habitat conditions are optimal."


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> CS I don't hunt deer with a rifle, the rest I plead the 5th!!


So you just label 95% of all rifle hunters beer drinkers. Is that what the UBA thinks about our rifle hunters in this state. WHY?????Why do archers look down on rifle hunters??????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :shock:

If that is the case then I would never want to be part of a organization that looks down on other hunters just because of the weapon they hunt with. That is pretty low. But maybe you can help it because you have been brainwashed to label rifle hunters as beer drinking party hunters


----------



## 10000ft. (Oct 29, 2007)

I think the big *X factor *here is Pro or Don or whoever is proposing making the number *40%* of the states deer hunting a 4-5 year wait for an easier chance at a big buck (aka LE). Based on the fact that 40% of all deer hunters would be willing to give up long held family traditions of going on the deer hunt every year and hunting areas they have hunted since they were kids and sit out for 4 or 5 years.

Every weekend warrior, trophy hunter, first time hunter, woman, dude, small town kid, old man......would like to shoot a big buck but when it comes down to it I don't believe anywhere close to 40% would be willing to sit out 4-5 years for an easier chance at a big buck.

Any one can do a dirty pull to the right 1000 people with loaded questions and come out with the results they set out for. Lets call things what they are, this has a major trophy agenda behind it that translates to, take away opportunity from all hunters to allow some hunters to have an easier chance at a trophy animal.

I'm with Wapati, lets take 50% of our current LE units and change them back to general season. The real trophy deer hunters can hunt the trophies every year on every geneal season unit.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > CS I don't hunt deer with a rifle, the rest I plead the 5th!!
> 
> 
> So you just label 95% of all rifle hunters beer drinkers. Is that what the *UBA *thinks about our rifle hunters in this state. WHY?????Why do archers look down on rifle hunters??????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :shock:
> ...


Wrong group! Not that it matters, Gordy was poking fun, I believe. I sit on the Board of UBA, get your groups straight. :|

10000 ft, the percentage of Type B managed areas would eb determined based on comprehensive surveys, conducted by the DWR, NOT by SFW nor I.

PRO


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Wrong group! Not that it matters, Gordy was poking fun, I believe. I sit on the Board of UBA, get your groups straight.
> 
> PRO


Sorry Im bad. Gordy is with *BOU* BOWHUNTERS OF UTAH


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

CS It's BOU and if something has crawled in to one of your orifices today
I'm sorry. PRO and I don't see eye to eye on much but there is still respect shown.
If ya want to jump my **** on every post I make things will get pretty interesting around here
pretty **** quick.

Lighten up CS I don't have a hope in hell of bringing Bart over to my side of thinking 
and he'll tell ya the same about me. So do I run up another 20 pages of posts trying to convince him?? Or you?? It ain't going to happen.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Easy there Gordy!!!! I was just teasing you.   You need to smile once in a while and not be so serious all the time.

BTW this isnt about Pro. My post was a comment to thinking 95% of all rifle hunters are beer drinkers but I guess that is what they teach in your organization which is sad because all hunters should be united and support each other not be divided.

So maybe, just maybe BOU could stand for *B*eers *O*n *U*s


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Maybe the DWR should have a poll on some of these changes that come up. We all know that going to a RAC meeting is just that attending. 

The DWR can have a poll on their web site with the proposal spelled out.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I pulled these quotes from another thread on this site hope you do not mind;

Not shooting big bucks= more big bucks. You have to have a pretty contained area to keep all the big bucks on your property. If you are trying to maintain a trophy area, that's fine... but it's not your ethical duty to do so. Now, if everyone who hunts an area agrees to a size limit (QDM) that's different.

If being a trophy hunter means that I love the outdoors, would like to shoot big animals and spend time with friends and family then I guess I fall into that mode. On the other hand my idea of the self-proclaimed trophy hunter is that he is rude, ruthless to kill and intimidate other hunters, and doesn't enjoy hunting unless he gets a "big one". That is what we are referencing, most of us just like to hunt and getting a deer whether big or small is just a bonus. 

I ran into a hunter a few days later helping my friend on his hunt and tell him what I shot. He says congrats and all that jazz about "it will taste good", then proceeds to tell us that if people would leave the smaller bucks everyone would all get "big ones". That could be right but I shot it, tagged it, dragged it and took it to get processed. I wasn't feeling guilty about it, why should anyone else??? Shoot whatever makes you feel good as long as it is legal


Problem is that the Trophy hunters are out there trying to make everyone see things their way. 

More people need to get involed in some of these discussion, but I can see where intimidation can play a big role in this.
some of us have a harder time than others putting words on paper than speaking out.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

Here we go....kickin' a dead horse again. Round and Round and Round and Round......... o-|| o-|| o-|| o-||


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> Maybe the DWR should have a poll on some of these changes that come up. We all know that going to a RAC meeting is just that attending.
> 
> The DWR can have a poll on their web site with the proposal spelled out.


I'm actually surprised Ol one eye hasn't done a poll on this yet :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> Maybe the DWR should have a poll on some of these changes that come up. We all know that going to a RAC meeting is just that attending.
> 
> The DWR can have a poll on their web site with the proposal spelled out.


Funny, that is EXACTLY what Don Peay said he would like to have happen.  What a good little puppy! :wink:



> Problem is that the Trophy hunters are out there trying to make everyone see things their way.
> 
> More people need to get involed in some of these discussion, but I can see where intimidation can play a big role in this.
> some of us have a harder time than others putting words on paper than speaking out.


I say the 'meat hunters' are every bit as 'guilty' as trophy hunters on this topic. :roll:

Why would someone be "intimidated' to share their views? Unless they haven't 'thought' it out very well and are just spewing nonsense one has NO reason to 'question' their position.

PRO


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

First off the DWR needs to listen to the hunters. I'll keep sayin over and over and over, The day they took off the 3 point or better regs, And shot out most of southern utah,Like fishlke the pahvant , And most of all the Book Cliffs,, The DWR won't agree thats what happened, Then how do you account for seein 35 shooter bucks on 1 mountain on the Fishlake Pahvant unit. at 2 in the affternoon, The last year of 3 point or better, and the year of the kill off when they lifted the 3 point regs. Seen 5 deer on the same mountain. and it's been down hill ever scence. So the boys over on north temple need to lisen UP!


----------

