# DWR at it agian.



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33956333&ni...2k-general-deer-hunting-permits&s_cid=queue-1

What are you thoughts on this? Are the numbers really increasing, I personally don't think so.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

sweet! more people able to get out there and do what we all love!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

hunting777 said:


> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33956333&ni...2k-general-deer-hunting-permits&s_cid=queue-1
> 
> What are you thoughts on this? Are the numbers really increasing, I personally don't think so.


I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. I heard that someone was putting out selenium licks and this certainly will be attributed to the increase in buck counts and deer counts overall.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm just excited that all the pictures that went with the article were actually of mule deer. That's a pretty good improvement for ksl...


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Having been out recently scouting for turkeys, I believe the increase. I have been seeing tons of deer, coming off very few winter kills, and the number of healthy looking fawns from last year is impressive to say the least. This has been on the Wasatch West, 9 Mile Anthro, and Huntington Canyon areas.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

hunting777 said:


> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33956333&ni...2k-general-deer-hunting-permits&s_cid=queue-1
> 
> What are you thoughts on this? Are the numbers really increasing, I personally don't think so.


Mule deer numbers have generally increased across the West, with some exceptions, its not just Utah. Understanding why, how to maintain that, and where the numbers are going in the future, is where questioning the DWR is very warranted.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And they are not adding 2K more tags, those tags were taken away a few years ago when they first saw the population increasing. 

That's like hiking the price of a $300 dollar item to $500, and then putting it on sale for $400. It is because of things like this, that the division has no credibility with hunters.

They keep claiming that deer are doing as good as in the early '90s, so why don't we have pre '94 deer tag numbers?????????


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Still Probably Won't Draw 

*()*


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> They keep claiming that deer are doing as good as in the early '90s, so why don't we have pre '94 deer tag numbers?????????


That is an interesting question-- They are managing to a different buck to doe than was carried in the early 1990s. Look at the Division's data and you'll find that current management ratios are for 2-5 times more bucks per 100 doe than were carried in the early 1990s. If we want 7 per 100 on the Heber or 5 per 100 on the Fillmore then we can issue 140,000 tags and have at it. And don't forget there are 2 million acres enrolled in the CWMU program, when back in the early 1990s I'd guess the PHU acreage was less than 500,000 acres. And some municipalities have made it illegal to hunt within their annexations, while a lot of other huntable grounds were turned into subdivisions, lakes, etc. Lots of "general season" lands have been reduced, which in turn reduces opportunity.

Wouldn't it be nice if everything stayed the same....... I'm just happy to see, first-hand, that the deer have made a significant increase in population. Enjoy it now, a winter will reduce the gains sometime down the road.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I noticed the increase in LE Deer, LE Elk, and the decrease in Cow Elk. Get some people through the point pool, and also stop killing so many Cows.


Also, I know people love to complain about this hunt, but the youth Any Bull has 166% of the tags they had last year. Not bad for a youth-only opportunity.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Packout said:


> That is an interesting question-- They are managing to a different buck to doe than was carried in the early 1990s. Look at the Division's data and you'll find that current management ratios are for 2-5 times more bucks per 100 doe than were carried in the early 1990s. If we want 7 per 100 on the Heber or 5 per 100 on the Fillmore then we can issue 140,000 tags and have at it. And don't forget there are 2 million acres enrolled in the CWMU program, when back in the early 1990s I'd guess the PHU acreage was less than 500,000 acres. And some municipalities have made it illegal to hunt within their annexations, while a lot of other huntable grounds were turned into subdivisions, lakes, etc. Lots of "general season" lands have been reduced, which in turn reduces opportunity.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if everything stayed the same....... I'm just happy to see, first-hand, that the deer have made a significant increase in population. Enjoy it now, a winter will reduce the gains sometime down the road.


Well said.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Packout said:


> That is an interesting question-- They are managing to a different buck to doe than was carried in the early 1990s. Look at the Division's data and you'll find that current management ratios are for 2-5 times more bucks per 100 doe than were carried in the early 1990s. If we want 7 per 100 on the Heber or 5 per 100 on the Fillmore then we can issue 140,000 tags and have at it. And don't forget there are 2 million acres enrolled in the CWMU program, when back in the early 1990s I'd guess the PHU acreage was less than 500,000 acres. And some municipalities have made it illegal to hunt within their annexations, while a lot of other huntable grounds were turned into subdivisions, lakes, etc. Lots of "general season" lands have been reduced, which in turn reduces opportunity.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if everything stayed the same....... I'm just happy to see, first-hand, that the deer have made a significant increase in population. Enjoy it now, a winter will reduce the gains sometime down the road.


I understand the dynamics quite well, but thanks.

Here is the problem with what you are happy about. So with 500 deer and buck to ratios of 15-100 you have 65 bucks. If the buck to doe ratio was 20-100 you have 83 bucks. All good, you now have 18 more bucks in your herd of 500.

Now lets look at fawn to doe ratios, lets say in the first scenario of 15 bucks to 100 does, that you have fawn to doe ratios of 50 to 100. When you increase buck to doe ratios from 15-100 to 20-100 you have then reduced your fawn to doe ratio to 42 fawns to 100 does.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...39256&uid=2129&uid=4&uid=3739928&uid=70&uid=2

So we are still fine, its enough fawns to maintain the herd, and we have bucks to hunt. Yet when that winter comes along, those higher buck to doe ratios now become a liability. Bucks don't have fawns, and reduced fawn to doe ratios mean even more limited production capacity, the ability to rebound has now been exponentially reduced.

This scenario takes longer for deer to recover, and since recovery would be a multi-year affair, if you throw in another winter, or overly wet springs, or major drought, then you set this back again. Now you are in a situation of suppressed deer numbers, that make subpar recoveries, and then decline again. Remaining flat, and vulnerable to additional challenges. Which is the situation seen for the last 20 years, but only partly related to buck to doe ratios.

Buck to doe ratios are only higher now, in part due to reduced buck hunting. The DWR tied tag numbers to buck to doe ratios under Option 2, only a few short years ago, they did not manage for, or intentionally create those higher buck to doe ratios. They are just trying to bend them to their "management". Higher populations with lower buck to doe ratios are always better and more resilient, with same overall buck numbers. In the early '80s with lower buck ratios, but more deer, the deer rebounded quite well from the severe '83 winter, because they had the capacity to do so. As buck to doe ratios climbed in the early '90s, along with and because of several other factors, they did not rebound after the winter of '93 as well, which was not as severe, because they did not have the capacity to do so.

We have been hunting buck only for 40+ years, so it does not matter if we are talking about buck to ratio management. If it is as good as it was in the early 1990s, like the DWR claims, then that's the level of tags that we should see.

They say the deer are increasing, and they are "very excited!" about the high buck to doe ratios, so they MIGHT increase tag numbers?

Tying buck to doe ratios to tag numbers was nothing but a BS way to reduce tag numbers for the special interests, while attempting to apply a biological metric to justify the cutting of tags, as deer numbers increased. This now also has the affect of applying a pressure that has been shown to decreases fawn to doe ratios, which along with other factors, predisposes for unrecoverable crashes.

Yep, enjoy it while you can, and tell your kids sorry, we did not care enough about their hunting.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT I will never buy into the BS about higher b/d ratios hurt our deer numbers because we are not at carrying capacity. If we were at carrying capacity you wouldn't see elk rebound like they do. You wouldn't see the bear population increasing. You wouldn't see our deer herd gaining in numbers three years in a row. You would in facts see the exact opposite. 

Now if we were at carrying capacity higher b/d ratios would effect the deer reproductive numbers because we would have less does in the herd.


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> I understand the dynamics quite well, but thanks.
> 
> Here is the problem with what you are happy about. So with 500 deer and buck to ratios of 15-100 you have 65 bucks. If the buck to doe ratio was 20-100 you have 83 bucks. All good, you now have 18 more bucks in your herd of 500.
> 
> ...


I agree with your whole post but would just like to add that I think the MIGHT part of the conversation is because the DWRs hands are tied to please the wildlife board and special interests groups, not to scientific reasonings and that's why it is a MIGHT. I think if the DWR did not have to go through this strenuous public process and have so many anchors tied to them pulling them down better decisions would be made and tags would increase for sure. These little public meetings for units though I think will yield support for even higher buck to doe ratios and very little increase in tags because of social pressures they deal with from every side


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

SW, This has nothing to do with carrying capacity, it is completely regardless of that. You can call it BS all you want, it is peer reviewed science http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...39256&uid=2129&uid=4&uid=3739928&uid=70&uid=2

If we are under carrying capacity and we have 20-100 ratios and 500 deer we have the same amount of does as if we have with 20-100 ratios, at carrying capacity.

And no we are not at carrying capacity, if we were deer would not be increasing. The functional carrying capacity has been shown to be nutrient/health related, which means the increase is based on those factors. And higher buck to doe ratios suppress fawn numbers, that is the science, those are the numbers, they don't have feelings on the matter, they just are what they are.


----------



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

swbuckmaster said:


> LT I will never buy into the BS about higher b/d ratios hurt our deer numbers because we are not at carrying capacity. If we were at carrying capacity you wouldn't see elk rebound like they do. You wouldn't see the bear population increasing. You wouldn't see our deer herd gaining in numbers three years in a row. You would in facts see the exact opposite.
> 
> Now if we were at carrying capacity higher b/d ratios would effect the deer reproductive numbers because we would have less does in the herd.


Your so far from understanding it it's sad. It more has to do with the health of the herd, not the destruction of the herd from high buck to doe ratios. When the crash comes, and you have significantly more bucks than if ratios were more reasonable, you have less does to repopulate your herd and it will happen much slower than when the next big winter comes in wipes out our herd and we need fawn factories but we chose antlers for the short term and destruction of our herds with slow recovery long term. It makes the herd much more susceptible to a long term crash with very slow recovery. If you can't understand that and are comparing elk and bears to mule deer then you better be able to convince me an apple is an orange or I don't buy in to your BS brand of thinking.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

1-I, oh yeah, that's a big part of it. That is why they cooked up the buck to doe ratio metric to tie tags to. It is a BS biological metric to justify decreasing tag numbers, in spite of increasing deer numbers. That way they can call it "scientific management".


----------



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

Lonetree said:


> 1-I, oh yeah, that's a big part of it. That is why they cooked up the buck to doe ratio metric to tie tags to. It is a BS biological metric to justify decreasing tag numbers, in spite of increasing deer numbers. That way they can call it "scientific management".


It's a sad story, especially in this state. This state is probably one of the worst from what I've seen if not THE worst in some respects, and what do we have? A powerhouse called SFW running these agendas blindly up our ass in the background while we feed them the funds to do so. If you go to one of these meetings, the loudest voices are even higher buck:doe ratios and no increase in tags.... Even this year, at least down here. All you have to do is go to the ksl link in this post and realize how uneducated 90% of the Utah public is on sound wildlife management that is sustainable. 90% of the comments are criticism about thinking of raising tag numbers because now we are just going to decimate the deer herd with those tags. The boogy man that never exhisted scares lazy people who don't spend enough time to find the deer are scared they won't see a buck around every corner. It's sad for the future of both our states wildlife and huntig tradition for the future.

At times reading all the comments, posts, and media in general. I do feel bad for the DWR because they have so much push back and complaining from every single side it's hard to keep people happy in any way. I feel bad until I see they've all but sold out to certain economic and social pressures and set sound science and wildlife management aside, then I realize I don't feel so bad anymore. There job is to manage our wildlife for present and future generations to enjoy and IMO that's not what they're doing at this time.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> SW, This has nothing to do with carrying capacity, it is completely regardless of that.
> 
> If we are under carrying capacity and we have 20-100 ratios and 500 deer we have the same amount of does as if we have with 20-100 ratios, at carrying capacity.
> 
> And no we are not at carrying capacity, if we were deer would not be increasing. The functional carrying capacity has been shown to be nutrient/health related, which means the increase is based on those factors. And higher buck to doe ratios suppress fawn numbers, that is the science, those are the numbers, they don't have feelings on the matter, they just are what they are.


A deer herd with 20/100 and under carrying capacity will rebound and grow while a herd at carrying capacity with the same buck/doe ratio will consume all the mag cloride, fertilizers, and what ever you say deer need to sustain to maintain life and decline.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> A deer herd with 20/100 and under carrying capacity will rebound and grow while a herd at carrying capacity with the same buck/doe ratio will consume all the mag cloride, fertilizers, and what ever you say deer need to sustain to maintain life and decline.


No, at carrying capacity they can't grow, but that does not mean they will decline, the two are not mutually exclusive. While if they are under carrying capacity they have the _potential_ to grow, but not as fast or well as if the ratio was 15-100.

Carrying capacity is not a static condition either. So if they are at carrying capacity, but that limiting factor changes, in favor of growth, you are again better at 15-100, especially after said growth. If we had lower buck to doe ratios a few years ago, we would have even more deer right now.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

One eye you have never been one to read or comprehend anything on these posts. So it wouldn't take much for you to see an apple as an orange. All I have to do is talk spike hunting, Monroe mountain or one eye bucks. Bahha!!!

Napoleon Dynamite "Idiot":


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt
The missing link to carrying capacity is probably the winter range. Cows, sheep, elk, deer and in some situations bear all use similar food sourses in spring, summer, and fall. Cows and sheep winter in pastures, bears hybernate, elk winter higher than deer. The deer may be in a nutrient deficient zone in some areas thus making them more susceptible.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt
> The missing link to carrying capacity is probably the winter range. Cows, sheep, elk, deer and in some situations bear all use similar food sourses in spring, summer, and fall. Cows and sheep winter in pastures, bears hybernate, elk winter higher than deer. The deer may be in a nutrient deficient zone in some areas thus making them more susceptible.


We know nutrition is at least a part of the limiting factor for deer. The only significant increases that have been brought on in deer over the last 25 years, were by nutritional supplementation.

The most common mineral deficiencies observed across the West and multiple species, including elk, deer, antelope, moose, and bighorn sheep, are copper and selenium. Selenium deficiencies have been tied in part to enviromental deficiencies, but copper is almost impossible to become deficient in, solely through diet, but goes hand in hand with metabolic disorders, which can create internal mineral deficiencies. In the last case, the deficiencies are not because they are not getting it in the feed, but because they are depleted, or there body can't utilize what it has. In which case they need more than normal to over come the deficiency, even though their feed is adequate. The two supplementation studies that increased deer numbers used selenium supplementation, and macro nutrient(fat, protein, fiber) supplementation.

So how does that square with the last 20 years of declined and suppressed numbers, that have been increasing over the last couple years? What changed all over the West to bring about this change?

There were migratory herds that have increased, along with resident herds, and in all ecoregions. What ever changed needs to take this into account, along with buck to doe ratios.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Looks like LT and #1 eye have quite the Bromance brewing.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Looks like LT and #1 eye have quite the Bromance brewing.


1 eye is a changed man. Now that he's been educated.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree, 
how is it that 5 extra bucks per 100 does will kill the fawns, when those bucks don't even summer or winter in the same areas as the does and fawns? 
Sometimes the bucks are only spending about 30 days (during the rut) a year with the does and their fawns.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> Now lets look at fawn to doe ratios, lets say in the first scenario of 15 bucks to 100 does, that you have fawn to doe ratios of 50 to 100. When you increase buck to doe ratios from 15-100 to 20-100 you have then reduced your fawn to doe ratio to 42 fawns to 100 does.


Perhaps I'm not understanding something here. Are you saying that 20 bucks per 100 does will breed those 100 does at a lower rate than the 15 bucks?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> I noticed the increase in LE Deer, LE Elk, and the decrease in Cow Elk. Get some people through the point pool, and also stop killing so many Cows.
> 
> .


The decrease in cow permits are draw tags only.....

This DOSE NOT COUNT cow control permits sold.....

There now will be 15 units OTC cow permits can be purchased to hunt.

Including the Dutton unit this year...

More cows will be killed this year, not less.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

hunting777,

I'll tell you what I think. I think I will go to the southern RAC meeting, listen to the RAC members talk about how dangerous the deer hunt is, question reports of herd improvement, explain why there should be no tag increases; and the general hunt will continue to yield to the obsession of trophy hunting. An increase in 2000 tags across the state isn't enough to make one blink.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

goofy elk said:


> The decrease in cow permits are draw tags only.....
> 
> This DOSE NOT COUNT cow control permits sold.....
> 
> ...


Well, if you want to get technical we don't know if more cows will be killed because we don't know the success rate.

OTC Control permits mean you are hunting cow while hunting something else. Most people stop hunting when they knock 1 of the tags down. (Have to take the meat somewhere). So really, we don't know if more or less cows will be killed.

What we do know is that they reduced draw tags by 2,000.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree,
> how is it that 5 extra bucks per 100 does will kill the fawns, when those bucks don't even summer or winter in the same areas as the does and fawns?
> Sometimes the bucks are only spending about 30 days (during the rut) a year with the does and their fawns.


Huh? Most bucks summer and winter in the same areas as the does and fawns....they might not travel in the same groups or together with does and fawns, but they do live in the same areas. Also, an addition of 5 bucks may be an addition of 5 yearling bucks....which will often even travel together with does and fawns!

Like LT said, carrying capacity is an ever changing number...obviously the past two mild winters have allowed carrying capacity to grow a bit and give deer more room thus the increases we are seeing. However, that number could easily go down this summer without adequate rain and even further down next winter. The reality, though, is that carrying capacity has declined from historic highs....and for times, like now, when carrying capacity has seen slight increases, we are much better off having fewer bucks and more does in our herd. Think of it this way: if I were to start my own herd of moo cows and wanted to increase my small herd of 10 to 100 as fast as I possibly could without buying more cows, I would certainly only want one bull to breed those cows. I wouldn't want my small herd of 10 comprised of 5 bulls and 5 cows because that would decrease the number of new calves I could recruit into my herd. The same concept applies to deer....when weather patterns are tough and carrying capacity declines as a result, we don't want a herd full of bucks because our herd will not rebound from losses in tough times nearly as quickly!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree,
> how is it that 5 extra bucks per 100 does will kill the fawns, when those bucks don't even summer or winter in the same areas as the does and fawns?
> Sometimes the bucks are only spending about 30 days (during the rut) a year with the does and their fawns.


 Read the study I posted. When you look at unhunted populations, or populations with reduced buck hunting, you will see higher buck ratios, and suppressed herd numbers. In the lead up to the early '90s crash, and across the last 20 years, we also see skewed sex ratios in a lot of populations that favor males. This is more male deer being born, or more male deer surviving. At birth ratios should be 52 males to 48 females, coming to a 50-50 ratio within a week or so. The majority of your fawn loss should be males over the next few years.

With the fawn to doe ratios, it is not that the bucks "kill" the fawns. In herds with higher buck to doe ratios, the does have fewer fawns.

And with skewed sex ratios you tend to see non breeding bucks, what Geist has referred to as "shirkers". These populations also tend to exhibit symptoms and signs of endocrine disruption, which would play into the shirker observations, and skewed sex ratios, as endocrine disruption and metabolic disorders disproportionately affect females, especial during and after pregnancy.

I'm am quite sure there are other factors that play into this dynamic, but this part is clear: Increased buck ratios have a suppressing affect on productivity. Under stable conditions that do not challenge survival, like high fence ranches with fed animals, this is not an issue. But under the variables of free ranging wild herds, this affects the resiliency of the herd.

The numbers in the study:" In response to apparent declining mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) numbers in Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity."


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

If The DWR said it ok . then by rule of THE GREAT AND POWERFUL QZ! It's got to be true. You think they got the ok from PEAY if you want to PLAY. HE MAY BE THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I don't have a clue how the divison comes up with their made up numbers because with a ratio of 20 per 100 on general units I never see a 1 to 5 ratio in the field when I've counted. The success ratios on the cow elk they say they have on a growing out of control herd doesn't jive either. HOWEVER I'm happy with the deer hunt now the way it is with their made up numbers. If they cut tags again I'll be dissapointed. It's the exact opposite for the elk situation. 

On a side note is it a coincidence the elk herd is tanking while the deer herd on the Wasatch is increasing?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I don't have a clue how the divison comes up with their made up numbers because with a ratio of 20 per 100 on general units I never see a 1 to 5 ratio in the field when I've counted.


Just an FYI... A 20/100 ratio is not 1 buck for every 5 deer...the 20 means 20 bucks for every 100 does. That means you have 20 bucks in 120 deer or a percentage of 16.6 not 20! So, if the buck/doe ratio is 20/100, you shouldn't see 1 buck for every 5 deer.


----------



## GeTaGrip (Jun 24, 2014)

RandomElk16 said:


> Well, if you want to get technical we don't know if more cows will be killed because we don't know the success rate.
> 
> OTC Control permits mean you are hunting cow while hunting something else. Most people stop hunting when they knock 1 of the tags down. (Have to take the meat somewhere). So really, we don't know if more or less cows will be killed.
> 
> What we do know is that they reduced draw tags by 2,000.


And of those 2000 reduced permits 1020 are Wasatch permits, of those 1020 Wasatch permits 920 of them are late season Wasatch permits. They aren't killing elk with them so why sell em?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Just an FYI... A 20/100 ratio is not 1 buck for every 5 deer...the 20 means 20 bucks for every 100 does. That means you have 20 bucks in 120 deer or a percentage of 16.6 not 20! So, if the buck/doe ratio is 20/100, you shouldn't see 1 buck for every 5 deer.


:shock:

Is this some of that "New math" I've heard about?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I don't have a clue how the divison comes up with their made up numbers because with a ratio of 20 per 100 on general units I never see a 1 to 5 ratio in the field when I've counted. The success ratios on the cow elk they say they have on a growing out of control herd doesn't jive either. HOWEVER I'm happy with the deer hunt now the way it is with their made up numbers. If they cut tags again I'll be dissapointed. It's the exact opposite for the elk situation.
> 
> On a side note is it a coincidence the elk herd is tanking while the deer herd on the Wasatch is increasing?


You come tell us how much you like made up BS numbers after the next decline. The goal is supposed to be sustainability, have fun worshiping ashes, and explaining to your children why you did not want to sustain a flame for them.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> :shock:
> 
> Is this some of that "New math" I've heard about?


Not sure if that were a dig at me or not, but....yeah, it is!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Not sure if that were a dig at me or not, but....yeah, it is!


If you can't tell, that means I tempered the sarcasm perfectly......Too dry.

 Not a dig at you at all. Watching some people on this forum just reminds me of watching my grandfather do "old math", I want to take the pencil out of his hand and stab him with it.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

Look at this way...

If you have a herd of 1,000 deer with a buck:doe ratio of 20:100 you do not have 200 bucks, in fact you do not have even 167 (20/120=16.67%) because you have not accounted for fawns which are represented at 50-60:100 on most units or approximately 1/3 of a herd with no bucks in it. That means that in a herd of 1,000 deer you would expect about 100 bucks. Increasing buck:doe ratios comes at the expense of the productivity of the overall herd. Regardless of capacity you have fewer does as a percentage of the herd which in turn results in fewer fawns. Over time this trend could become very problematic.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

+1


-DallanC


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> Look at this way...
> 
> If you have a herd of 1,000 deer with a buck:doe ratio of 20:100 you do not have 200 bucks, in fact you do not have even 167 (20/120=16.67%) because you have not accounted for fawns which are represented at 50-60:100 on most units or approximately 1/3 of a herd with no bucks in it. That means that in a herd of 1,000 deer you would expect about 100 bucks. Increasing buck:doe ratios comes at the expense of the productivity of the overall herd. Regardless of capacity you have fewer does as a percentage of the herd which in turn results in fewer fawns. Over time this trend could become very problematic.


I would argue, that with other factors, it has already been very problematic over the last couple decades.

And its not like the DWR set out to create higher buck to doe ratios, for the benefit of "Quality". They are only trying to own, and put a positive spin on the reality of the current situation. They did not tie tag numbers to buck to doe ratios, until 20 years after higher buck to doe ratios had become the norm. And then it was only to justify reducing tag numbers as deer numbers were rising.

Its simple bait and switch, why do you think the new SFW president is coming from the retail market, and the DWR Director came out of the book cooking department, rather than the science side?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I will say this. I sent an email to every member on the Southern Utah RAC and noted its about time we get some sort of increase. One person responded and said that the general response to the KSL article is negative in that a lot of hunters do not want to see an increase in tags.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> I will say this. I sent an email to every member on the Southern Utah RAC and noted its about time we get some sort of increase. One person responded and said that the general response to the KSL article is negative in that a lot of hunters do not want to see an increase in tags.


A lot of hunters are not versed on the science or reasons for doing this, and the DWR and special interests like it this way.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

provider said:


> I will say this. I sent an email to every member on the Southern Utah RAC and noted its about time we get some sort of increase. One person responded and said that the general response to the KSL article is negative in that a lot of hunters do not want to see an increase in tags.


Uneducated or shortsighted or both. Just look east to Colorado if you want to see what happens when you manage for high buck:doe ratios. Most units in Colorado were being managed north of 25:100 and many over 30. Their deer herds took a beating in the winters of 2007 and 2008 and herd numbers are not recovering. You have to have high enough doe numbers to keep production levels positive.

If the DWR is going to manage towards buck:doe ratios they should keep that window between 15-17:100 and shoot more bucks if they get too high. Plenty of mature bucks will be present at that level.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> Uneducated or shortsighted or both. Just look east to Colorado if you want to see what happens when you manage for high buck:doe ratios. Most units in Colorado were being managed north of 25:100 and many over 30. Their deer herds took a beating in the winters of 2007 and 2008 and herd numbers are not recovering. You have to have high enough doe numbers to keep production levels positive.
> 
> If the DWR is going to manage towards buck:doe ratios they should keep that window between 15-17:100 and shoot more bucks if they get too high. Plenty of mature bucks will be present at that level.


Yep, read here. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3785094?sid=21105775760831&uid=4&uid=3739928&uid=3739256&uid=2


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"[T]he preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country." - John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law. (1765)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dahlmer said:


> Uneducated or shortsighted or both. Just look east to Colorado if you want to see what happens when you manage for high buck:doe ratios. Most units in Colorado were being managed north of 25:100 and many over 30. Their deer herds took a beating in the winters of 2007 and 2008 and herd numbers are not recovering. You have to have high enough doe numbers to keep production levels positive.
> 
> If the DWR is going to manage towards buck:doe ratios they should keep that window between 15-17:100 and shoot more bucks if they get too high. Plenty of mature bucks will be present at that level.


Nevada had the same thing happen there...

http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n.../Wildlife_Education/Publications/muledeer.pdf


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT
You can spin the numbers all you want it doesn't matter if it's 20/100, 1/5, or 20 bucks and 100 does. I've never gone out and counted a hundred twenty deer and had 20 bucks. It's more like half that. It's still doesn't mater because you missed the point.

My point is I'm happy with the ratio I'm seeing now. I don't want to see tag cuts on an increasing deer herd and I don't ever want to see it managed like it was the for the last 20 years with 10/100 or less. If it was so good to manage with that ratio we would have seen a growing deer population in that 20 year period. It was stagnate or declining! The deer hunting now is as good as I've seen it in the last 20 years. So you can take your BS science and stick it. Remember bucks are expendable and the vast majority of hunters don't want to shoot does.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT by your logic and using your numbers if man was completly out of the picture hunting deer you would have your 52-48/50 ratio and a declining deer herd. How come we still have deer millions of years later? We shouldn't with your science and that high of bd ratios.


Maybe with the high bd ratios the predators are taking more bucks because the odds of them killing a buck are closer to 50 50. Now you nock that bd ratio back and the cats still have to eat. Now the odds of them catching a buck are less so the predation is on the producing end of the herd. 

Even I know what would happen if tards started hunting the producing end of things in utah. We would have a crash!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT by your logic and using your numbers if man was completly out of the picture hunting deer you would have your 52-48/50 ratio and a declining deer herd. How come we still have deer millions of years later? We shouldn't with your science and that high of bd ratios.


I'm not LT, but I'll take a crack...this is exactly one of the reasons that before man came around we had very wide swings in population numbers. Numbers would rise exponentially before crashing and then rise again.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> You can spin the numbers all you want it doesn't matter if it's 20/100, 1/5, or 20 bucks and 100 does. I've never gone out and counted a hundred twenty deer and had 20 bucks. It's more like half that. It's still doesn't mater because you missed the point.


Hmmmm....I have had many days when I have gone out and counted more bucks than does, even on general units. When I hunted the Pauns with my bow a few years ago, I had days when I only saw one or two does and 30+ bucks...does that mean that my observations met reality? On the flip side, I have also had days when all I counted were does...does that mean bucks didn't live on that unit?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hmmmm....I have had many days when I have gone out and counted more bucks than does, even on general units. When I hunted the Pauns with my bow a few years ago, I had days when I only saw one or two does and 30+ bucks...does that mean that my observations met reality? On the flip side, I have also had days when all I counted were does...does that mean bucks didn't live on that unit?


Your still not getting my point.
Perception is reality and their numbers are just as big a swag as mine are. It still doesn't matter what I or the divison says the numbers are I'M HAPPY WITH THE WAY IS RIGHT NOW!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I'M HAPPY WITH THE WAY IS RIGHT NOW!


Me too....I am happy too with the numbers of bucks and mature bucks I am seeing! BUT, will I be 2,3,4, or 5 years from now? That's my concern...the future! Are deer being managed NOW in a way that will benefit the future? That's what I am worried about....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT
> You can spin the numbers all you want it doesn't matter if it's 20/100, 1/5, or 20 bucks and 100 does. I've never gone out and counted a hundred twenty deer and had 20 bucks. It's more like half that. It's still doesn't mater because you missed the point.
> 
> My point is I'm happy with the ratio I'm seeing now. I don't want to see tag cuts on an increasing deer herd and I don't ever want to see it managed like it was the for the last 20 years with 10/100 or less. If it was so good to manage with that ratio we would have seen a growing deer population in that 20 year period. It was stagnate or declining! The deer hunting now is as good as I've seen it in the last 20 years. So you can take your BS science and stick it. Remember bucks are expendable and the vast majority of hunters don't want to shoot does.


Your not grasping this at all, we had lower buck to doe ratios, and higher populations before the early '90s.

Only after the buck to doe ratios climbed did we see the big decline, and the resulting suppression of numbers. Which has been documented, and quantified in multiple states. It does not matter how you feel about the math, or your inability to use it, your feelings can't change the math or facts of the matter.

You can like right now all you want, a lot of people like what they are seeing right now. But general increases in most areas won't sustain populations through a crash especially while we maintain higher buck to doe ratios.

So take your illiteracy, and inability to do math and stick it! People like you are a big part of the problem, while thinking you are part of the solution. You don't know the first thing about any of this.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT 
I'm grasping things just fine. I understand deer hunting isn't going anywhere unless the anti hunters shut it down. There's been deer for millions of years there will still be deer as far as I'll ever be able to foresee. We will always have swings in deer numbers. The division will always have to adjust and account and adjust for those swings. 

I know we have been in a drout for the last ten plus years. Just like WTU says things can change for the worse if we don't get any moisture this summer and the deer numbers could go down. Who gives a crap. We could also see good summer rains and mild winters again and see increasing deer numbers. You will never control mother nature but we can control the effect we have on the deer. We can affect the social side of hunting that you seem to neglect.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

So just out of curiosity does anyone know why there is an increase, I mean after all we have low selenium which has only gotten worse, we have 2,4-D usage out the kazoo which is causing sickness death and deformities, we have glyphosate usage which is causing all sorts of problems. Seems about the only thing different that I can see is there are fewer coyotes around because of the coyote bounty.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Only after the buck to doe ratios climbed did we see the big decline, and the resulting suppression of numbers. Which has been documented, and quantified in multiple states. It does not matter how you feel about the math, or your inability to use it, your feelings can't change the math or facts of the matter.
> 
> You can like right now all you want, a lot of people like what they are seeing right now. But general increases in most areas won't sustain populations through a crash especially while we maintain higher buck to doe ratios.
> 
> So take your illiteracy, and inability to do math and stick it! People like you are a big part of the problem, while thinking you are part of the solution. You don't know the first thing about any of this.


What is it Lonetree first you've said it was the great dust bowl in the depression that's caused the increase in deer numbers. Then you've said it's the lack of selenium in the soil because of she'd hunters that caused the decline in deer numbers. Then you say it's pesticides causing the problems and now your saying bucks steal nutrients from fawns and the fawns die. Face it your all over the place.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Seems about the only thing different that I can see is there are fewer coyotes around because of the coyote bounty.


Ouch...really? You can see that? I don't think I have even noticed a difference...

And, you haven't seen that we have had really mild winters (I saw a news report the other day that said we have had 60 days of above average high temperatures since the start of December!).


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

After all of this, are we interested in growing more deer or just more targets??


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've seen more coyotes on my daily commute this past winter than the previous 10 years combined.


-DallanC


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Fairly certain LL's coyote comment was sarcasm...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT you cant say the good old days was caused by low buck to doe ratios without saying we had 1080 to keep the predators down. We also had less oil and gas rigs and roads. We also had less people, less traffic, larger winter ranges, less invasive weeds like cheat grass. We simply had the right mixtures of the right things to have a big deer herd. It's not the same any more! Migration routs have been fenced off. Utah population is ten times larger then it was. Water on farmers land is being piped under ground where it flowed in ditches and streams before. Yes we have pesticides that very well could be a cause of some of the problems. Heck I even see the rabbit decline as part of the problem. Less rabbits means coyotes may switch to deer. Rabbit numbers are up as high as I've seen them in the last 20 years. It's easier for a coyote to catch a stupid rabbit then deal with a doe trying to smash or kick it's brains in while it tries to kill it's fawn. 

There are no magic bullets and this is why I prefer to manage the social side. Tag cuts in the declines, tag increases in the up trends. The funny thing is the tag grabbers want tags faster but the divisions own three year trends affects the amount they can issue. They need three years of increasing deer to issue more tags. The big buck slayers are pissed on the reverse trends because they can see a crash and the three year trend won't show it for three years.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

WOW! Talk about about a bunch of arm chair conjecture. Seriously, most of you guys don't have a clue about the basics here. There is no harm is disliking me, but its your own futures and hunting that is on the line when you ignore reality. 

You can dismiss what I present all you want, its not really me that you are saying is full of ****. You are dismissing the work of hundreds of researchers and biologists, and you are dismissing your own futures in favor of ignorance. 

You can say what if? and what about? And "I think", and "I feel", All you want, it does not change the math or the reality of the situation. Some of us, have actually studied this stuff, for years. Both the background and research side, and the real world field side. And that does not include most people here.

So keep arguing against anything I say, just because I say it. But remember, you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against the future of hunting, out of spite.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Longer Seasons > More Tags

Lower Success < Higher Success

#Science


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Lonetree said:


> You are dismissing the work of hundreds of researchers and biologists, and you are dismissing your own futures in favor of ignorance.


Multiple personality disorder?

In the hundred of posts you've ranted with never a reference or citation to a credible study. Back to e-bay bidding on a Jr Biologist kit from some guy in Utah.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Multiple personality disorder?
> 
> In the hundred of posts you've ranted with never a reference or citation to a credible study. Back to e-bay bidding on a Jr Biologist kit from some guy in Utah.


I'm not on the same page with lonetree on every issue, but to imply that he hasn't posted credible scholarly research is a little ignorant and a little lazy. Peer reviewed research appears to be the foundation for much of his opinion...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Multiple personality disorder?
> 
> In the hundred of posts you've ranted with never a reference or citation to a credible study. Back to e-bay bidding on a Jr Biologist kit from some guy in Utah.


Seriously? And LL says I have no reading comprehension skills. You must be brain dead. Its not all on this thread, but I've dropped more reference material and citations, some from people I work with with, in the last few days than most of you will read in a lifetime.

Click on my profile, look at all my posts, read the reference material, and then come tell me that. You do what? Something in the hotel industry?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Longer Seasons > More Tags
> 
> Lower Success < Higher Success
> 
> #Science


How does that grow, or maintain deer herds for the future?

Hunter management does not grow deer, and the current hunter management is a recipe to suppress growth.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

And for those interested in bigger bucks. This is from a link posted earlier about Nevada Deer, that also has information about the suppression affects of higher buck to doe ratios, like has been seen in studies in CO. From this link: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n.../Wildlife_Education/Publications/muledeer.pdf

"In addition to creating more deer via conser-
vative quotas, many of Nevada's sportsmen also want
to produce bigger bucks. Since for the first few years
of a buck's life, antler size is highly correlated with
age, many people assume that age is the primary
determinant of antler size. Therefore, it is believed
that reduced mortality, through more conservative
quotas, will enable bucks to attain higher ages, result-
ing in an increase in older deer, and consequently
increasing the number of deer with large antlers. This
may be the result in more heavily hunted states with
extremely aggressive buck harvests, or in areas with
very low buck ratios (single digit), or also in areas in
which the mature bucks suffer much higher mortality
than the younger age classes. However, conservative
quotas have not resulted in more large bucks in
Nevada. Ironically, the data and literature suggest that
Nevada may actually be limiting antler growth by
maintaining such high buck ratios and such conserva-
tive harvests."


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Lonetree said:


> How does that grow, or maintain deer herds for the future?
> 
> Hunter management does not grow deer, and the current hunter management is a recipe to suppress growth.


Right now, Utah is above their wanted B/D. So, rather than add 3,000 more permits to the week long war zone- why don't we just extend the season longer or put in Multiple seasons.

Deer learn quick to hunker down or move to private when the four wheelers are pumping on every ridge.

I do think you're right on the recipe to grow deer.

Nutritional needs- Access to and acquiring essential nutrients

Habitat - especially wintering grounds

Moderate Predation - enough Cougs and Yotes to kill off the sick and old.

Moderate Hunting - to keep the ratios and populations in check


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> Right now, Utah is above their wanted B/D. So, rather than add 3,000 more permits to the week long war zone- why don't we just extend the season longer or put in Multiple seasons.
> 
> Deer learn quick to hunker down or move to private when the four wheelers are pumping on every ridge.
> 
> ...


Hey, that's more comprehensive than I've seen around here for quite some time.

I like the idea of longer seasons, or multiples, but tags need to increase with this. As far as hunter management goes, you could probably find some consensus there, its just not my focus.

The only thing missing is the explanation for why in every Western state, we did not see rebounds after the early '90s crash. Predation has not been shown to be a limiting factor, but "nutrition" has.

The nutrition factor is not so simple. You look at the data from every Western state, and the corresponding nutrient deficiencies that go along with the post early '90s crash is copper and selenium deficiencies. There are others, but these are the primary ones.

For those that have paid attention, you know I point to herbicide use to explain this. Based on the evidence, its pretty hard to refute. I walked away from this theory several times over the last couple years. My initial attempt at making this connection is documented here on this forum. I had to be convince by some one else, and see it for myself.

Anyway, you have to be able to explain the nutritional deficiencies seen over the last 20 years of suppressed deer numbers. Winter range loss can't explain it, fire, predation, hunter numbers, etc. can't explain this reality.

You see high buck to doe ratios, mineral deficiencies, and suppressed herd numbers concurrent and after the early '90s crash, in every Western state, in more than just deer.

You have to be able to account for those realities, and currently that is not being done.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

To add to LT's start, the effects of reduced herd fecundity are compounded
By all of these things, nutrition, habitat and weather. 

All are dynamic and all have played a part in the productiveness
Of our herds. A doe may scrape by on crap winter range, eating deficient
Feed and through harsh weather but will she give birth and if the fawn survives
How long until it becomes productive and adds to the herd??

I asked a page back if we were growing deer or just growing targets and nobody
Took a stab. It's easy as hell to grow targets, tell hunters to stay home, shorten seasons
And whack females. YA know like what is making our elk herds crash one by one starting
With the Wasatch. 

Any plan that has to do with growing more targets has proven historically to be a detriment
To increasing populations in the long run. You see it in Nevada, Colorado and here with our
Own elk herds. The next time this philosophy works will be the first.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

My goal is to grow deer. But to do that, you have to understand what does and does not grow deer. If there was an understanding about those factors, we would see a return on investment, in the management strategies employed. Yes, we are in an uptick, but you can't point to anything in any "management plan" that can explain this. And if Utah had better management that Idaho, or Idaho had better management than Montana, we could see those differences play out in the wildlife, but you can't, the story repeats itself across the West.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> And for those interested in bigger bucks. This is from a link posted earlier about Nevada Deer, that also has information about the suppression affects of higher buck to doe ratios, like has been seen in studies in CO. From this link: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n.../Wildlife_Education/Publications/muledeer.pdf
> 
> "In addition to creating more deer via conser-
> vative quotas, many of Nevada's sportsmen also want
> ...


So that's why bucks on the Henry, Pauns, and Books are such rutty little critters not worth the effort to wait a decade or more to hunt them. The high buck:doe ratios have suppressed their antler growth...

I'm not doubting the study. I'm saying that if lower ratios would add a few inches on 15 bucks per 100 does vs. what we're seeing now with 40-50 bucks per 100 does on the PLE units it's kind of splitting hairs to say it would be beneficial to buck size to have lower ratios. It might be technically accurate, but it's not worth the trade off.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

LT,

Science in this regard is irrelevant. If "science" says tags should be increased and the majority of feedback from the public says "don't increase," then management will sway that way. Here's relevant -if you agree with the increase, and haven't expressed your thoughts to the RAC, then you and your "science" will get plowed over. (Its transformed from biological science to political / behavioral science.)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

willfish4food said:


> So that's why bucks on the Henry, Pauns, and Books are such rutty little critters not worth the effort to wait a decade or more to hunt them. The high buck:doe ratios have suppressed their antler growth...
> 
> I'm not doubting the study. I'm saying that if lower ratios would add a few inches on 15 bucks per 100 does vs. what we're seeing now with 40-50 bucks per 100 does on the PLE units it's kind of splitting hairs to say it would be beneficial to buck size to have lower ratios. It might be technically accurate, but it's not worth the trade off.


 The Pauns and the Henry's are suppressed herds, in part because of high buck ratios. The Pauns has some other serious issues that intertwine with its high buck to doe ratios as well.

Yes there are large antlered deer on those units. Large antlers are a function of several factors, mostly due to environmental influence. Antler growth is epigenetic in nature, meaning environmental influences act on the genetic expression of antler growth.

So you couple the epigenetic factors, with reduced harvest, and you have bucks that will grow large racks anyway, that grow older. Using the strategy of reduced harvest and increasing buck to doe ratios in these situations also means you have a lot of old deer that just die, they never get harvested.

Because the conditions exist for large antler growth in these areas, with lowered buck to doe ratios you could potentially have more overall deer, larger racks, and more tags.

Those situations are not solely a function of reduced harvest, they exist because of other factors, and in spite of current management. They are exploited examples of multiple conditions. If higher buck to doe ratios and reduced harvest was all it took to create a unit like the Henrys, then you could reproduce that anywhere, by simply cutting tags, that is not the case.

Whether you want to look through the record books, or listen to old timers, it is a known that we had lower buck to doe ratios, higher overall deer populations, and more 4 points shot prior to the crash in the early '90s. Bifurcation was more uniform across the board, and you saw more mass in younger animals. There is no trade off, lower buck to doe ratios will get you more overall deer, with the same number of bucks, or MORE, and more mass. All while growing resilient herds.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

provider said:


> LT,
> 
> Science in this regard is irrelevant. If "science" says tags should be increased and the majority of feedback from the public says "don't increase," then management will sway that way. Here's relevant -if you agree with the increase, and haven't expressed your thoughts to the RAC, then you and your "science" will get plowed over. (Its transformed from biological science to political / behavioral science.)


 BINGO! The only thing I would add is to express your thoughts to the RACs and Wildlife Board WITHOUT THE INSULTS!


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

provider said:


> LT,
> 
> Science in this regard is irrelevant. If "science" says tags should be increased and the majority of feedback from the public says "don't increase," then management will sway that way. Here's relevant -if you agree with the increase, and haven't expressed your thoughts to the RAC, then you and your "science" will get plowed over. (Its transformed from biological science to political / behavioral science.)


The RAC system is a joke. The belief that expressing your views in that forum will have any impact on DWR policy is laughable.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

willfish4food said:


> So that's why bucks on the Henry, Pauns, and Books are such rutty little critters not worth the effort to wait a decade or more to hunt them. The high buck:doe ratios have suppressed their antler growth...
> 
> I'm not doubting the study. I'm saying that if lower ratios would add a few inches on 15 bucks per 100 does vs. what we're seeing now with 40-50 bucks per 100 does on the PLE units it's kind of splitting hairs to say it would be beneficial to buck size to have lower ratios. It might be technically accurate, but it's not worth the trade off.


I would argue that the Henries and the Pauns are not worth the wait. It's a 20 year wait for the Henries today and 12-15 for the Pauns. 10 years from now it will be 25+ minimum for the Henries and 18-20 for the Pauns if you are already in the pool. If you are starting today you will never draw a Henries tag and will likely never draw a Pauns either.

Fact is, most guys dream every a giant record book buck every February when they apply for those tags. The reality is that most will kill a buck that scores less than 180 gross far below the minimum 190 net. I think a guy has better odds killing a really nice buck hunting every year on general units in multiple states.

My dad got lucky and drew the Pauns a few years ago with 1 point. It would not have been worth a 15 year wait. The groups and individuals pushing for limited hunting opportunities are selling a reality that does not exist. The top CWMU's in the state are averaging gross B&C scores in the 160's at best.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> LT,
> 
> Science in this regard is irrelevant. If "science" says tags should be increased and the majority of feedback from the public says "don't increase," then management will sway that way. Here's relevant -if you agree with the increase, and haven't expressed your thoughts to the RAC, then you and your "science" will get plowed over. (Its transformed from biological science to political / behavioral science.)


 That is why management is supposed to be science based. That's the problem with "conservation orgs"(thanks for the like EFA) they are nothing but political organizations that lobby against the majority of hunters, for their own political gain, and fiefdoms.

The DWR is supposed to support and enforce scientific management, they have bowed to the special interests, and work hand in hand on this agenda, supported by large numbers of sportsmen that want particular things, more deer, more bucks, etc, but do not know how that is achieved.

 Its not "my" science that will get plowed under, it is the future of deer populations and hunting that will. If the will of the people is to undermine healthy deer populations, unintentionally or otherwise, and that is what happens, that is a failure of the DWR, and the conservation orgs that have a disproportionate voice in the process, not my failure.

Maybe the UWC should get an education on mule deer, and work towards an agenda that supports mule deer, and mule deer hunters. Another uninformed voice at the table, is nothing but another nail in the coffins of hunters.

You can attempt to justify how the BS management is implemented how ever you like, you are only blaming sportsmen for the failures of the DWR, and a broken process.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

Dahlmer said:


> I would argue that the Henries and the Pauns are not worth the wait. It's a 20 year wait for the Henries today and 12-15 for the Pauns. 10 years from now it will be 25+ minimum for the Henries and 18-20 for the Pauns if you are already in the pool. If you are starting today you will never draw a Henries tag and will likely never draw a Pauns either.
> 
> Fact is, most guys dream every a giant record book buck every February when they apply for those tags. The reality is that most will kill a buck that scores less than 180 gross far below the minimum 190 net. I think a guy has better odds killing a really nice buck hunting every year on general units in multiple states.
> 
> My dad got lucky and drew the Pauns a few years ago with 1 point. It would not have been worth a 15 year wait. The groups and individuals pushing for limited hunting opportunities are selling a reality that does not exist. The top CWMU's in the state are averaging gross B&C scores in the 160's at best.


I agree. I'll not apply for either one. Maybe a management tag just to be on the unit an see all the animals while hunting, but then I'm not a trophy hunter.

I know a guy that finally got on the HM unit and shot a really nice buck but was a little disappointed it wasn't the buck of his dreams. He told me once that if he had it to do over again he would not have gone Premium LE and gone for more frequent tags on "lesser" units.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> That is why management is supposed to be science based. That's the problem with "conservation orgs"(thanks for the like EFA) they are nothing but political organizations that lobby against the majority of hunters, for their own political gain, and fiefdoms.
> 
> The DWR is supposed to support and enforce scientific management, they have bowed to the special interests, and work hand in hand on this agenda, supported by large numbers of sportsmen that want particular things, more deer, more bucks, etc, but do not know how that is achieved.


Therein lies the rub.

_Mission statement of the Division of Wildlife Resources

Our mission is to serve the people of Utah as trustee and guardian of the state's wildlife._

A few different ways to interpret the DWR mission statement isn't there?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Daisy said:


> Therein lies the rub.
> 
> _Mission statement of the Division of Wildlife Resources
> 
> ...


Here is the model for how that is supposed to play out.

North American Model of Wildlife Conservation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation


Wildlife as Public Trust Resources
Elimination of Markets for Game
Allocation of Wildlife by Law
Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose
Wildlife is Considered an International Resource
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy
Democracy of Hunting
*Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy*

The North American Model recognizes science as a basis for informed management and decision-making processes. This tenet draws from the writings of Aldo Leopold, who in the 1930s called for a wildlife conservation movement facilitated by trained wildlife biologists that made decisions based on facts, professional experience, and commitment to shared underlying principles, rather than strictly interests of hunting, stocking, or culling of predators. Science in wildlife policy includes studies of population dynamics, behavior, habitat, adaptive management, and national surveys of hunting and fishing.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ife_Conservation#cite_note-Organ_et_al_2012-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ife_Conservation#cite_note-Organ_et_al_2012-1



If you stick with the science, and what grows and sustains populations, everything else falls into place.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

_"Our mission is to serve the people of Utah as trustee and guardian of the state's wildlife."_

Furthermore, that is not a "mission", that is a MANDATE dictated by public trust doctrine, because the wildlife "belongs" to the people.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

LT,

The Fishery Biologist in me agrees with your last two posts in principle, however a wise old fish manager once told me "Managing wildlife is not about managing wildlife, it is about managing people."


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Daisy said:


> LT,
> 
> The Fishery Biologist in me agrees with your last two posts in principle, however a wise old fish manager once told me "Managing wildlife is not about managing wildlife, it is about managing people."


Managing people is about two things, keep them happy, and keeping them from depleting a resource.

So yeah, short term thinking will bring you to appeasement strategies, that may accomplish both of those things in the short term. And for the short term that is a strategy that can be employed. But at some point you have to work on the hard stuff, and take care of the future, or sink long term into a cycle of short term people management, that not only can not create or foster long term sustainability, it eventually nullifies the routes of short term appeasement as well. Then you have no long term strategy, as those goals have slipped further away, while your short term strategies disappear as well. So then you start trying to craft other short term strategies that exploit and fit the current situations, all the while getting further and further from sustainability. Thats the pattern of the last 20 years of people management that has ignored the realities of wildlife science. Option 2 and the current management of big game is just another iteration of that.

Its a trap.............

And its bad management policy whether we are talking about government, business, or wildlife.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Dahlmer,

I attended a RAC 2 yrs ago. Herd numbers and b/d ratios were increasing. RAC members were expressing that there are too many hunters. Only one RAC member, Clair Woodbury, was willing to stand against it. I got up and briefly expressed that they keep cutting tags and they are going the wrong way. Clair later expressed that only one person from the "public" has commented and everyone else was representing some special interest. A biologist, who I went to school with, later noted I was against the grain (I wasn't at the entire meeting to know.) Did I get my way? No - the DWR suggestions to increase tags on some units were ignored and were unchanged. Did it do any good? Absolutely. If I would not have been there, SFW & the likes would have made all of the comments and they could have stroked their ego with unanimous consensus of comments. I will go again this year. There is one person there who represents my interests & he needs to be supported with more voices.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> Dahlmer,
> 
> I attended a RAC 2 yrs ago. Herd numbers and b/d ratios were increasing. RAC members were expressing that there are too many hunters. Only one RAC member, Clair Woodbury, was willing to stand against it. I got up and briefly expressed that they keep cutting tags and they are going the wrong way. Clair later expressed that only one person from the "public" has commented and everyone else was representing some special interest. A biologist, who I went to school with, later noted I was against the grain (I wasn't at the entire meeting to know.) Did I get my way? No - the DWR suggestions to increase tags on some units were ignored and were unchanged. Did it do any good? Absolutely. If I would not have been there, SFW & the likes would have made all of the comments and they could have stroked their ego with unanimous consensus of comments. I will go again this year. There is one person there who represents my interests & he needs to be supported with more voices.


That is good that you have, and are doing this.

Politics, beliefs and feelings should not be driving the policy process, they have a role, but not in the determination of what the sound science is, which should be the basis for decisions.

Cutting tags after declines is one thing, you can make the scientific case for it quite easily. But when you cut tags, and change the rules in the face of increasing populations, you know its nothing but politics and BS. You don't need to know anything about the science at that point, to know that the people pushing that agenda, are completely full of it, and know nothing about what they are influencing.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

LT,

Perhaps politics, beliefs, and feelings should not be the driving policy process, but they are. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of acres of beetle kill instead of a few thousand acres of logging. I was required to take a class in college - human dimensions in natural resources. The entire premise of the class was it doesn't matter how good your science is, emotions win. Contact your RAC and tell them a tag increase is okay. It can't be any more a waste of time than spinning wheels on this thread!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

provider said:


> Dahlmer,
> 
> I attended a RAC 2 yrs ago. Herd numbers and b/d ratios were increasing. RAC members were expressing that there are too many hunters. Only one RAC member, Clair Woodbury, was willing to stand against it. I got up and briefly expressed that they keep cutting tags and they are going the wrong way. Clair later expressed that only one person from the "public" has commented and everyone else was representing some special interest. A biologist, who I went to school with, later noted I was against the grain (I wasn't at the entire meeting to know.) Did I get my way? No - the DWR suggestions to increase tags on some units were ignored and were unchanged. Did it do any good? Absolutely. If I would not have been there, SFW & the likes would have made all of the comments and they could have stroked their ego with unanimous consensus of comments. I will go again this year. There is one person there who represents my interests & he needs to be supported with more voices.


 What I like best about this post is that you realize it will take time, persistence and numbers to make an impact, but that you will indeed make an impact. This current RAC and Wildlife Board attitude didn't happen overnight and can't be changed with one visit to one meeting by one member of the "public". Thanks! And you're not alone!


----------

