# Quit Crying



## topaz (Feb 24, 2010)

Every time that the state of Utah tries to change something for the good the people go crying saying its not going to work all, because the want to hunt with there families, tag prices will go up, and we can't hunt in the same areas. Well,guess what guys this is going to work look at the facts and stop being two faced and conceded. Give it five years and we will have our deer Population back, we will be making more money, and we will he honored to be given more tags. This will also increase the chances of being able to hunt with your families. If you are planing on going to another state Go for it but why don't you do your research, because the neighboring states have already put this into effect , this has increased their animal population and larger families are hunting together.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

topaz said:


> neighboring states have already put this into effect , this has increased their animal population


Can you provide me something that shows evidence of this? I'd like to read it.

Thank you.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2010)

it wont increase the over all population. it will just increase the buck numbers, which in time will create an unhealthy deer herd. like its been stated before, the bucks dont give birth to the fawns, does do.


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Topaz, explain to me exactly how this will create opportunities for families to hunt together? Give it five years.....funny, the current five year plan just got changed in its second year! Last year when the DWR did a survey, the number one concern was OPPORTUNITY. 29 Limited tags per unit and a 15% decrease DOES NOT create OPPORTUNITY!


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Topaz, what happens if we have a couple of hard winters and we lose 50-80% of the herd, we are right back to square one. What then? You really need to think about what was done yesterday.........


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Topaz, I have to agree with the others and ask how you came up with your method of reasonong? 

How will the decision made yesterday increase buck numbers when the science and biology refutes what you say? Have you even read the science and biology of the Mule Deer Management plan that was approved and implemented only a year ago? Did you attend the RAC meetings and listen to the data presented by the PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE AGENCY who is well trained and has ALL of the information from not just UT, but ALL of the 17 western states involved in the Western Assn of Fish & Wildlife?
Have you bothered to read herd reports from neighboring states? I think you'll find that many are in more dire condition and decline than those here in Utah. 
As ut1031 asks, how does reduction in tags equal increased opportunity for anyone? I concede that there may be an increase in opportunity to harvest an older age class of bucks in some units, but at the expense of doe/fawn recruitment and winter survivability? 

Ahh, ignorance truly is bliss.


----------



## topaz (Feb 24, 2010)

Well what happens if we have a 50 to 80 percent this year were not back to square one were lower than before maybe everyone needs to go back to high school and take Biology


----------



## topaz (Feb 24, 2010)

well why keep doing what were doing now by killing them off then you all will keep complaining and why are we building in there winter quarters??? think people think!!!!!


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

Including you and SFW!!!!


----------



## topaz (Feb 24, 2010)

"HELLO PEOPLE WELCOME TO CHANGE"


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

Soooo.......????? You dont have a real answer??


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Quit crying? You mean I shouldn't feel bad for losing so much hunting opportunity for really no reason? I should feel good about not drawing a deer tag as often, not being able to bow hunt statewide or even region wide? I should feel good that the WB took hunting opportunity away from me when all the information said that doing so would do nothing to help the deer herd?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

topaz said:


> "HELLO PEOPLE WELCOME TO CHANGE"


You have no idea!!!

And we thinking people are still waiting for your proof/evidence/explanation!


----------



## .54 (Sep 24, 2007)

Topaz, it sounds to me like you would be better off crawling back under your bridge. You are saying a whole lot of nothing.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Topaz - still waiting for your proof/evidence/explanation! 
(jeopardy music playing) :O•-: o-||


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I should be able to draw a tag now that everyone is pissed off. Probably won't even be as crowded. This is just like in 93 when a bunch of people quit. It will be nice again


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

Even though I don't side with Topaz at all, He does have a small point. Most hunters were complaining before this happened about the lack of hunting success. Your complaining is what got the attention for change. Now they made a change we complain. I don't think it would have mattered what change we would have complained. I guess with that said hunters were still more happy to get a tag ever other year with low success then the current change that was passed.


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

Brookie said:


> I should be able to draw a tag now that everyone is **** off. Probably won't even be as crowded. This is just like in 93 when a bunch of people quit. It will be nice again


And with all those people quitting and less tags being given out, you'll be paying more. With all those people quitting and less revenue coming in, less work will get done. With less work being done, how do you expect the herds to grow??? :roll:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

topaz said:


> well why keep doing what were doing now by killing them off then you all will keep complaining and why are we building in there winter quarters??? think people think!!!!!


Fishermen sometimes talk much like this. They know there is a problem, and ask for change, but the changes they often ask for do nothing to correct the problem. If the problem is building on winter ranges, what good will the WB's change to hunting do?

The first step in correcting a problem is: IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM

Once the problem is identified, then steps should be taken to correct THAT PROBLEM.

The Wildlife Board can see a problem: Deer herds are going downhill. So, they have made a change. The problem with the change (change deer hunting to support a higher buck to doe ratio) is that it does NOTHING to correct the problem (deer herds are struggling).

How will this new BUCK HUNTING CHANGE help our doe\fawn population??

I think this is why people are upset. The WB hid behind a scape-goat in order to appease a small, but wealthy, special interest group.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> Even though I don't side with Topaz at all, He does have a small point. Most hunters were complaining before this happened about the lack of hunting success. Your complaining is what got the attention for change. Now they made a change we complain. I don't think it would have mattered what change we would have complained. I guess with that said hunters were still more happy to get a tag ever other year with low success then the current change that was passed.


Well I don't know about that....there were key groups and a lot of trophy hunters complaining. A lot of guys on these boards that supported the status quo never complained that I ever saw. There were complaints, no doubt, but I don't know that I would say we as a group were complaining.


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

vaporpestcontrol said:


> Even though I don't side with Topaz at all, He does have a small point. Most hunters were complaining before this happened about the lack of hunting success. Your complaining is what got the attention for change. Now they made a change we complain. I don't think it would have mattered what change we would have complained. I guess with that said hunters were still more happy to get a tag ever other year with low success then the current change that was passed.


We wouldn't be complaining had they actually passed something through that benefited the deer herd. I and almost everyone I know, we would all give up hunting today, and not say a word if they had the facts to back up their plan. I have killed way more than my fair share, I have a great time just hunting with my teenage daughters, family and friends and getting them on their animals. that's my concern, their future and the future of their kids. I am not selfish or greedy as some keep saying about those of us who oppose option2, this plan just wont do anything except take away opportunity, push hunters out into other hobby's and increase cost for a already expensive game.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

reaper said:


> I am not selfish or greedy as some keep saying about those of us who oppose option2, this plan just wont do anything except take away opportunity, push hunters out into other hobby's and increase cost for a already expensive game.


This represents my feelings on the subject quite nicely.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

I went out a lot this year and every time I got back in my truck after a long hike. I had hunters telling me there aren't any bucks not even a 2 point. I heard that so many times. Do a search on this site and you will find it every where. NO BUCKS' You don't think the complaining that is all over the web and in your back woods got this going. Some started this for change and we got it, and we complain. Most didn't like any of the options. There is a time when you make the best out of the situation. I hate to see what is going on but I don't see the herds getting worse or better so we will just loose 5 years. We will both survive for another change.


----------



## vaporpestcontrol (Nov 6, 2009)

Reaper-I have killed way more than my fair share, I have a great time just hunting with my teenage daughters, family and friends and getting them on their animals. that's my concern, their future and the future of their kids. 

I agree, Not everything is set in stone. I would imagine them having a good percent going to youth hunters like they do now. They have always been favored in utah which I like. I have not heared they will change.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Nobody will disagree that our deer herds are hurting and something needs to be done, but where we disagree is that option 2 WILL NOT DO ANYTHING to fix this.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

Topaz is putting this post on everywhere. He is very uneducated on the subjects and i think is just trying to start i fight. I would ignore him if possible.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Danny Boy.. agree with ya... I wouldn't go as far slammin the man and his education TOPAZ.. it's a forum> it's his opinoin>. to much body slamming goin on. Anyways got to toss this out there, The powers that are running this entire sham need to go back to school ,take a class in stats and biology.Cause sombody SWF or WB , DWR... whatever, has missed the boat! It's greed the feeds these machines. Ya Think?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

topaz said:


> Well what happens if we have a 50 to 80 percent this year were not back to square one were lower than before maybe everyone needs to go back to high school and take Biology


Are you currently taking HS biology? I think it's a fair question.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

topaz said:


> Give it five years and we will have our deer Population back, we will be making more money, and we will he honored to be given more tags. This will also increase the chances of being able to hunt with your families. If you are planing on going to another state Go for it but why don't you do your research, because the neighboring states have already put this into effect , this has increased their animal population and larger families are hunting together.


C'mon topaz, We're still waiting! Tell you what! We'll let you off the hook if you can justify/explain just one of your brags about how Option 2 will fix things!

1- "..we will have our deer population back,"
2- "..we will be making more money,"
3- "..we will be honored to be given more tags."
4- "This will also increase the chances of being able to hunt with your families."
5- "..this has increased their (neighboring states) animal population..."
6- "..larger (You mean more?) families are hunting together."

Don't quit on us now, especially since you've done all the research you've asked us to do!!


----------



## .54 (Sep 24, 2007)

Oh I chuckled at that one EFA


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

Topaz, 
I just happen to be sitting here by my brother in law who is from Nevada. He's telling me just how good it is to hunt in Nevada once every 6 years. He has been saving to come back here so he can hunt because in Nevada, with their high buck to doe ratios that you belive will fix everything, he and his family can't draw tags. He is also in one of their RACs and has informed me that their overall deer population is on the decline because...... wait for it......... they have too many bucks!!! Huh, who would have thought?????? Oh by the way the wholly land (Colorado) is also seeing their overall deer population decrease. Why is that?? Oh, they have several units and too many bucks too. Do you see a connection????


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I know, let's all waste our time arguing with a troll. Right now this Troll-paz is eating your lunches and laughing his a** off while you all are eating your hearts out and crying the blues.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Elkoholic8 said:


> Topaz,
> I just happen to be sitting here by my brother in law who is from Nevada. He's telling me just how good it is to hunt in Nevada once every 6 years. He has been saving to come back here so he can hunt because in Nevada, with their high buck to doe ratios that you belive will fix everything, he and his family can't draw tags. *He is also in one of their RACs and has informed me that their overall deer population is on the decline because...... wait for it......... they have too many bucks!!!* Huh, who would have thought?????? Oh by the way the wholly land (Colorado) is also seeing their overall deer population decrease. Why is that?? Oh, they have several units and too many bucks too. Do you see a connection????


What was that again?


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

If all of these other states show a decline in their deer herds then why is everybody trying to draw tags in them? I have lots of friends who worry about drawing tags in other states before they worry about getting a tag here. I have been hunting one of the special areas in the state for the last 5 years, only because I see more deer, more bucks, and less hunters then I do on the normal areas. It seems to be working in that area. I know its not exactly like the new system, but in ways it is.....less time to hunt, smaller area, and less hunters then normal. I see an average of 100 plus deer a day where I hunt, I cant say that about the rest of the state,except on premium units. Give it a try.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

dark_cloud said:


> If all of these other states show a decline in their deer herds then why is everybody *trying* to draw tags in them?


No one is saying they don't like seeing, hunting and killing big deer. It's about the expense it comes at and the ignored public input in regards to this.


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

I under stand the TRYING part but dont we already do that anyway.


----------



## Dannyboy (Oct 27, 2010)

I take back my accusations on his education but i do stand by the rest.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> It's greed the feeds these machines. Ya Think?


This statement has been thrown around, what does this even mean? The state will be taking in less money, therefore it is all about the money??? That logic is illogical. What money is going to whom from where? I can appreciate people having too small of an area to hunt or having worse chances of drawing; those are both logical arguments, but I don't get the argument that it is all about the money. I don't like the change either right now, but if it is successful in 5 years, hard to argue against. Everyone has complained about how bad the deer herds are and now the decision is made to change things with the intention of improving them--granted, the biologists do not support this change, but the herds have not been improving in the recent decade or two. So, trying a new path similar to what Colorado has used and had great success with appears to be a logical path to try. Again, I don't like the idea, but throwing out the typical political argument that it is all about the money holds no water in this case, doesn't it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The greed is NOT just about money, it is about antlers as well. The puppet masters in this, SFW, will get more funds via conservation permits from this IDIOTIC farce of a plan. This whole thing is eerily similar to Obamacare, from how it was sold as being what is good for the masses, to we have to pass it to see what is in it, to the blatant bribery to garner votes. I am truly ashamed to have once been a supporter/defender of SFW. That will NEVER happen again!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> So, trying a new path similar to what Colorado has used and had great success with appears to be a logical path to try.


That's the rub, Colorado has NOT experienced 'great success' by going down this path; their deer herd has *DECREASED* by more than 40% since going with higher buck:doe ratios and 'micro' managing. During the SAME time, Utah's deer herd has INCREASED slightly. Go figure; Utah experiences a slight INCREASE in deer populations and its considered a miserable failure, while Colorado experiences a DECREASE of almost HALF the herd and its considered a "great success". WTF? :?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I liked what Ernie said at the WB meeting, it scares the hell out of him that we are going to go to a system like Nevada where it takes 6 years to draw a tag. People from Nevada are coming here to hunt so they have the OPPORTUNITY to hunt. Sure they got big bucks, but if you can't hunt them what is the point.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> That's the rub, Colorado has NOT experienced 'great success' by going down this path; their deer herd has *DECREASED* by more than 40% since going with higher buck:doe ratios and 'micro' managing. During the SAME time, Utah's deer herd has INCREASED slightly. Go figure; Utah experiences a slight INCREASE in deer populations and its considered a miserable failure, while Colorado experiences a DECREASE of almost HALF the herd and its considered a "great success". WTF? :?


I have heard you throw around that figure (where is this report shown?), yet I have a customer and a cousin who hunt there regularly and have nothing but good things to say about how many big bucks are all over the place. Every year they say how CO has done it correctly. They have stopped even trying in Utah and make the annual migration. I have not ever hunted there, but after hunting every year for the last 13 and taking only one shot including one round in the DH program, I am certainly open for a change. 
Again, I am no fan of this turd, but I am certainly fed up with the status quo enough to the point of being willing to give something a try.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

When Colorado implemented the higher buck:doe ratio, the mule deer population was just over 800,000. As of their latest count, the population is around 430,000.

As for seeing 'many big bucks', that is NOT an indication of a healthy herd. You can go to the Henry unit and see LOTS of big bucks, but do we want to manage the whole state the same way as we manage the Henry unit?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to management practices directed at increasing numbers?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > That's the rub, Colorado has NOT experienced 'great success' by going down this path; their deer herd has *DECREASED* by more than 40% since going with higher buck:doe ratios and 'micro' managing. During the SAME time, Utah's deer herd has INCREASED slightly. Go figure; Utah experiences a slight INCREASE in deer populations and its considered a miserable failure, while Colorado experiences a DECREASE of almost HALF the herd and its considered a "great success". WTF? :?
> ...


I get tired of this status quo argument. We were not status quo, they just implemented a new management plan which addresses alot of the REAL issues to grow deer herds. They didn't give it any time to work before coming up with this new option. Now keep in mind the Deer management plan they just passed nearly identical to the old one beside this micro managing crap. Look at Nevada, that is more closely to what Utah will look like than Colorado IMO.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Moderator note--Just so no one is too confused, Topaz made the same post in two different forums (against forum rules), so I merged the two topics all in one into this single thread, so the comments from the archery forum thread of the same topic is now found here also. So, the result is that the software places all of the posts in chronological order, which may inject some posts in between posts that were back to back...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

**** moderators, always trying to keep things running smoothly, WTH?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> When Colorado implemented the higher buck:doe ratio, the mule deer population was just over 800,000. As of their latest count, the population is around 430,000....


What has Utah's herd done in that same time period? That decrease may have zero relation to the change in the plan.

For the 3rd time, I do not support this turd, but I am certainly willing to look at the options out there. To work with these figures, I would like to compare the CO to the UT.
UT has:
84,899 square miles with a population of 2,784,572 (25% increase since 2000), which is 33 people per square mile.
Mule deer plan states that deer population was 302,000 in 2007 (is there a more recent figure?) = 3.55/sq mile.
Currently 95,000 non LE tags = (assuming if all hunters were hunting simultaneously evenly divided among private/public, which is certainly not the case) 1.11 hunter/sq mile

CO has:
104,094 square miles with a population of 5,024,708 (20% increase since 2000), which is 48 people per square mile. 
Using Pro's figures-430,000 deer = 4.13/sq mile
Pro will soon say that CO issues 95,000 tags I predict :mrgreen: = 0.91 hunter/sq mile.
So, Utah has a much lower human population density, only about 15% lower deer population density (although the west desert may skew that figure as it has much lower deer density due to desert conditions) combined with slightly higher hunter density. 
How many whitetails does CO have? 
How many deer did UT have in 2000?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > When Colorado implemented the higher buck:doe ratio, the mule deer population was just over 800,000. As of their latest count, the population is around 430,000....
> ...


95,000 tags. :shock:


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

I explained it on the boycott thread . So read it there. Micro-management works......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> I explained it on the boycott thread . So read it there. Micro-management works......


Your 'explanation' is based on theory, with NO reality involved! You, nor anyone else that supports micro-managing HUNTERS can offer up so much as ONE example of where micro-managing BUCK HUNTERS has lead to an increase in populations. I wonder why? :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> huntnfool said:
> 
> 
> > I explained it on the boycott thread . So read it there. Micro-management works......
> ...


Here's a few examples pro,,,,,

The Paunsaugunt , Deer numbers were in the toilet.....they closed it.
TO ALL HUNTERS,,,for 4 or 5 years, re bonded nicely..

The Henry's, Oak City, And the Best One The BOOKCLIFFs!

All three of these were doing VERY well right through the antler restriction period.
VERY,very good numbers of deer, These were opened to general season hunters
and FLOODED with hunting pressure for3 years and all but destroyed,,,
I'll never forget making several trips to the Henry's and Book cliffs in the early
90's and hardly even seeing A DEER!!! They closed those to HUNTERS for a
few years,,,,,rebounded nicely to what they are today......

ALL OF THOSE WERE DUE TO REDUCING HUNTER PREASURE!!! there's a few for ya!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

So you're saying we need to reduce the state general season tag allotments by 97%? This is essentially what you'd be doing in order to compare micro units to the Henry's and book cliffs. By my math, using a rough acreage estimate and tag average through the LE deer units, that's roughly 2200 tags statewide for the general season deer hunt. That'd be a 90% harvest reduction for bucks. 

You'd be ok with that?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here's a few examples pro,,,,,
> 
> The Paunsaugunt , Deer numbers were in the toilet.....they closed it.
> TO ALL HUNTERS,,,for 4 or 5 years, re bonded nicely..
> ...


That's your examples, really? Lets get through your smoke and mirrors and look at reality for a second; 
The Pauns, Deer numbers where in the 'toilet' because of what? Was it because the buck:doe was between 10-15:100? Or, was it because of MANY reasons? I don't know if the Pauns "re bonded" (whatever that is), but I do know the herd, even after 15 years of being under EXTREMELY limited entry with buck:doe ratios hovering around 50:100, the herd is STILL under population objective.

As for your other examples, ALL three, including the "BOOHCLIFFS" are UNDER population objectives, even though the Henry unit has a buck:doe ratio of 65:100 and has had MILLIONS spent on habitat restoration and predator removal, plus having no elk to compete with.

Poor examples, try again.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tree , Pro stated there were "nor anyone else that supports micro-managing HUNTERS can offer up so much as ONE example of where micro-managing BUCK HUNTERS has lead to an increase in populations. I wonder why?"

This statement is false,,,,,Just offering up a few examples...

And for me , NO, I'm not OK with that kind of reductions.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

AGAIN,, MORE BS PRO,,,,The Pausagaunt is OVER it's deer population OBJECTIVE right now...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Tree , Pro stated there were "nor anyone else that supports micro-managing HUNTERS can offer up so much as ONE example of where micro-managing BUCK HUNTERS has lead to an increase in populations. I wonder why?"
> 
> This statement is false,,,,,Just offering up a few examples...
> 
> And for me , NO, I'm not OK with that kind of reductions.


No, my statement was, and still IS correct!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Stated that reduced buck harvest "lead" to increased deer populations is misleading and downright false. Did they increase in population while they were under limited harvest of bucks? If the answer from you is yes, than you must believe the buck to doe ratio was below what is biologically needed to breed all does. In this case, drastic tag reductions will absolutely result in a population increase, but that speaks to a buck SHORTAGE. Nowhere in the state do we currently have a buck shortage. Many areas do have a surplus.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > huntnfool said:
> ...


Goofy I have pointed this out to you several times and you ignore me every time but I'll try again.

All the units you mention above have high buck to doe ratios, except Oak City. The problem with high buck to doe ratios is they cannot sustain herd numbers with much hunting pressure as you have pointed out.

So if you do not support drastic tag cuts how can you say this model will work for general units?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bullsnot,,I believe we can do medium reductions with GOOD results...

I was simply using those units for an example,,,,Hunting pressure was reduced,
and those units recovered ,,,,plain and simple.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Bullsnot,,I believe we can do medium reductions with GOOD results...
> 
> I was simply using those units for an example,,,,Hunting pressure was reduced,
> and those units recovered ,,,,plain and simple.


If they have recovered, WTF are they still limited entry?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Because limited entry or "unit management" WORKs,,

And I for one, am very glad to see it going to be used throughout the state in 2012.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If WORKS? Really? Is that why the Book Cliffs, after 15+ years of being limited entry is barely half of population objective? If that is "WORKING", I hate to see what failure looks like.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

You've just touch on a REAL PROBBLEM,,

As has been admitted by the DWR,,,objective numbers, in most cases, are higher 
than actual carrying capacity's!! 

The simple fix is set objective number at carrying capacity,,,,,this isn't rocket science.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> You've just touch on a REAL PROBBLEM,,
> 
> As has been admitted by the DWR,,,objective numbers, in most cases, are higher
> than actual carrying capacity's!!
> ...


This is one of the most ironic posts I have ever read. The very same DWR says that just about EVERY sub-unit is currently AT carrying capacity RIGHT NOW, yet you quickly dismiss that and call their numbers bogus. So which is it: does the DWR know what they are talking about or not? Or, do you only use their numbers when it fits your agenda? :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'll type this REEEEALY slow PRO,,

Our current herd objective are inflated,,,BOGUS numbers...

Carrying capacity numbers will fluxuate, find a good "within range" number.
FOR EACH UNIT.

Use Those numbers in 2012 when we start unit management..


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Our current herd objective are inflated,,,BOGUS numbers...


So goofy, do you trust Colorado's herd counts? You've been quick to compare Utah with Co. Are they valid?

Tye


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'll type this REEEEALY slow PRO,,
> 
> Our current herd objective are inflated,,,BOGUS numbers...
> 
> ...


I read your words, but they just do NOT add up. YOU have used the DWR to back up your theory that the Book Cliffs are at carrying capacity, yet at the same time YOU dismiss the numbers the DWR uses. You can't have it both ways, either you believe the DWR has a good idea of what is going on, or they are clueless. For YOU to imply they know what they are doing in regards to your precious Book Cliffs, but they are in La La Land for the general season areas, is inane.

You are right about carrying capacities changing year to year, I will go further and say it changes from day to day. However, the Book Cliffs deer population has been fairly static over the last 10 years, even though many conservation projects have been carried out on this unit. So much so, that SFW and others have pushed to introduce a bison herd to the Book Cliffs, that doesn't sound like an area that is hurting for vegetation no does it?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

PRO,,The Bookcliff numbers are 8,050,,,,I'd say that's pretty close...

The general season numbers for Wasatch, Diamond fork,Heber area is 16,500!!!

Can you see the difference there PRO? Its far from "insane".


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yep, I see the difference. If it agrees with how YOU FEEL you tout it as "pretty close", if it doesn't its way off and the DWR is corrupt. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Par.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> PRO,,The Bookcliff numbers are 8,050,,,,I'd say that's pretty close...
> 
> The general season numbers for Wasatch, Diamond fork,Heber area is 16,500!!!
> 
> Can you see the difference there PRO? Its far from "insane".


What do you think would make such a difference in the accuracy of the count on the Wasatch, Diamond Fork, Heber area (or any other unit you think has a bad count)?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I think it has to do with the numbers they start with on their computer models..

From what I understand, there hasn't been an actual count done on the Wasatch
for a long time..OR A LOT OF OTHER UNITS for that matter..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And again, how with what was implemented change this? Is it the decrease in funding that will get it done?


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Where did Troll Paz go????


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

Pro,

It will not increase the herd total. Only time will do that. You have a bad winter kill on your herd nothing will bring the numbers back but time. So in the mean time you work on the other aspects of it. Habitat, predators etc. Then when your numbers start to come back you have everything else in place to support those numbers. Micromanagement is a part of that. If I'm managing 5 herds of deer and one herd gets hit with something that decreases my numbers below what I want. ie.. bad winter kill, overharvest etc. I want to be able to decrease the harvest of that herd without affecting my other 4 herds. Thus I can't give out x number of tags and let people hunt all 5 of my herds together. I have to be able to control the number of hunters on each individual herd. I have to set numbers for each individual herd seperately. I have to be able to decrease the harvest on my hurting herd and at the same not increase the pressure on my other 4 herds. If I can't do that all 5 of my herds will be negativley affected. This is a basic part of wildlife management. We do it with every other species in this state.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, how does limiting hunter harvest of bucks affect fawn recruitment? Do bucks give birth?


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

I won't even bother answering your question. When the buck to doe ratio get in balance you have got to be able to control that ratio. Letting people hunt where ever they want you can't do that. You can't decrease the pressure on the monroe and let your extra hunters go to the Pahvant. You do this you buck to doe ratio on the pahvant is now out of whack. And so on and so on. until your whole system is out of whack. You HAVE to micromanage each herd individually that includes hunters.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> It will not increase the herd total. Only time will do that. You have a bad winter kill on your herd nothing will bring the numbers back but time. So in the mean time you work on the other aspects of it. Habitat, predators etc. Then when your numbers start to come back you have everything else in place to support those numbers.Wouldn't this work have been done even under the other two options? Micromanagement is a part of that. If I'm managing 5 herds of deer and one herd gets hit with something that decreases my numbers below what I want. ie.. bad winter kill, overharvest etc. I want to be able to decrease the harvest of that herd without affecting my other 4 herds. Thus I can't give out x number of tags and let people hunt all 5 of my herds together.Again, you are talking about hunter harvest and the killing of bucks...buck harvest does NOT affect the health of the deer herd unless the number of bucks falls below 6-7 bucks/100 does. This is NOT happening on ANY of the units. So, again, do bucks give birth? I have to be able to control the number of hunters on each individual herd. I have to set numbers for each individual herd seperately.Why? Again, the number of hunters per unit or the number of bucks killed per unit does NOT matter unless harvest is so high that buck/doe ratios fall below a certain level. Again, though, this isn't the problem. The does are being bred and giving birth to fawns. The problem is that fawns are NOT surviving. Decreasing buck harvest or knowing where each hunter is hunting will NOT change that. I have to be able to decrease the harvest on my hurting herd and at the same not increase the pressure on my other 4 herds. If I can't do that all 5 of my herds will be negativley affected. Again, why? You again are talking about the hunter harvest of bucks...which does NOT affect herds as a whole. This is a basic part of wildlife management.The most basic part of wildlife management is that the females portion of the herd controls the population. That is why most of hunter harvest is focused on the male species. We do it with every other species in this state.Also, with every other species we control population numbers through the hunting of the female species. If the number of other big game species exceed population objectives, female tags are given out...on the other hand, when the species is below objective female tags are not given out but male tags are!


Again, your whole argument is based on buck hunting...bucks don't give birth!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> When the buck to doe ratio get in balance you have got to be able to control that ratio. Letting people hunt where ever they want you can't do that. You can't decrease the pressure on the monroe and let your extra hunters go to the Pahvant. You do this you buck to doe ratio on the pahvant is now out of whack.You are ASSUMING that the extra pressure adds up to overharvest. This is NOT true. Overharvest is not happening in any unit in the entire state. And so on and so on. until your whole system is out of whack. You HAVE to micromanage each herd individually that includes hunters.


You are making the assumption that we don't have enough bucks to breed the does...but this is not true. The does are being bred and fawns are being born, the problem is with the survival of fawns to adulthood.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

huntnfool said:


> I won't even bother answering your question. When the buck to doe ratio get in balance you have got to be able to control that ratio. Letting people hunt where ever they want you can't do that. You can't decrease the pressure on the monroe and let your extra hunters go to the Pahvant. You do this you buck to doe ratio on the pahvant is now out of whack. And so on and so on. until your whole system is out of whack. You HAVE to micromanage each herd individually that includes hunters.


That whole argument is based on the premise that the buck to doe ratios "are out of whack" in many units in the state. Based on biology there is NOT a buck to doe ratio problem in Utah. There is only a hunter "I don't see enough 4 points" problem in Utah.

If you want to see more trophies in Utah then that's fine, but be up front about that and please don't try to pass off these plans as they are for what's best for the herd.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

huntnfool said:


> I won't even bother answering your question. When the buck to doe ratio get in balance you have got to be able to control that ratio. Letting people hunt where ever they want you can't do that. You can't decrease the pressure on the monroe and let your extra hunters go to the Pahvant. You do this you buck to doe ratio on the pahvant is now out of whack. And so on and so on. until your whole system is out of whack. You HAVE to micromanage each herd individually that includes hunters.


Irrelevant argument. As Packout quoted the DWR did a study years ago in a region with a 7:100 ratio, they went in and killed a couple hundred does to determine how many where getting bred. Even with the terrible ratio, it was still upwards of 90% of does got bred.

Most of the regions in the state are hovering right at 15:100, twice that of the area studied above. It seems we have enough bucks, we need to work on fawn retention.

Now do you want to argue the results of that study or admit that there are enough bucks to breed the does? If there are enough bucks, then restrictions on buck hunters is irrelevant.

What option #2 did do however, is cause a roughly $700,000 budget shortfall for the DWR at a time when we need money the most. Seems incredibly short sighted to hamstring the DWR that way.

-DallanC


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

huntnfool said:


> Pro,
> 
> It will not increase the herd total. Only time will do that. You have a bad winter kill on your herd nothing will bring the numbers back but time. So in the mean time you work on the other aspects of it. Habitat, predators etc. Then when your numbers start to come back you have everything else in place to support those numbers. Micromanagement is a part of that. If I'm managing 5 herds of deer and one herd gets hit with something that decreases my numbers below what I want. ie.. bad winter kill, overharvest etc. I want to be able to decrease the harvest of that herd without affecting my other 4 herds. Thus I can't give out x number of tags and let people hunt all 5 of my herds together. I have to be able to control the number of hunters on each individual herd. I have to set numbers for each individual herd seperately. I have to be able to decrease the harvest on my hurting herd and at the same not increase the pressure on my other 4 herds. If I can't do that all 5 of my herds will be negativley affected. This is a basic part of wildlife management. We do it with every other species in this state.


The current deer management plan already allows that! We've shortened the season on several units in trouble. Option 2 doesn't allow anything new in that regard!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Bullsnot,,I believe we can do medium reductions with GOOD results...
> 
> I was simply using those units for an example,,,,Hunting pressure was reduced,
> and those units recovered ,,,,plain and simple.


Goofy the disagreements between us hunters lies in the fundamentals. You make a living from harvesting trophy animals. There is nothing wrong with that but it makes you look at things a bit differently.

You've talked about the Henry's, Vernon, and the Books many times. I have read many of your posts very carefully. You define "decimation", "shot out", and "low numbers" as there are not many BIG BUCKS. I do not define those words as you do. I am more concerned about the overall health of these herds so those words to me speak more to the status of does and fawns than they do to big bucks. So in my eyes the Henry's, Vernon, and the books were NEVER SHOT OUT regardless of how many hunters showed up unless they issued doe tags and/or after the hunt the buck to doe ratio was below the minimum biological standard. And to me they were NEVER RECOVERED until the doe and fawn portion of the population grew and stabilized to the point that hunter harvest had little effect.

Based on that your arguments that the history of these units prove your point makes no sense to me based on what we know from a biological standpoint and what we know about herd dynamics, specifically what we know to be true about does and fawns and how they determine sustainability.

If your agenda is big bucks then let me say now that I agree with everything you've ever said. You are spot on. Option 2 is the best thing for big bucks, although I don't think it will have a big impact. My agenda however is overall herd health and your points are way off when it comes to that perspective and I have science to back me up on that.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Many of these posts, mostly in favor of raising buck to doe ratios on a unit basis are based on unquantifiable speculation. Based on results, the wildlife board deems "unquantifiable speculation" as an effective way to extrapolate data and set policy to manage wildlife.


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

The current plan doesn't already do this. The current plan shortened the hunt on the monroe and allowed all the monroe hunters to move to the surrounding subunits and put aditional pressure on them. All that did was lower your buck to doe ratios on the surrounding subunits. Then everyone ran back to the monroe and pounded it.....That is why you have to be able to manage the hunters.....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> The current plan doesn't already do this. The current plan shortened the hunt on the monroe and allowed all the monroe hunters to move to the surrounding subunits and put aditional pressure on them...


Maybe, but that does NOT mean that the additional pressure changed the buck/doe ratios on those other units to the point that they are suffering. It also doesn't mean that those other units saw an increase in buck harvest. Again, you are worried about buck harvest when that isn't the limiting factor in our population. Instead of focusing limiting buck harvest, we need to focus on increasing fawn recruitment.

If you blow a tire in your car, what do you fix? Obviously, the tire. If you changed the spark plugs, your car is still going to run poorly because you have a blown tire. The problem is that we are seeking to fix our car/deer herd by changing the spark plugs/buck numbers when the problem is the blow tire/fawn recruitment.


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

The monroe example did affect the buck to doe ratio on the pahvant. The buck numbers are down this year from last. When the increased pressure was put on the Pahvant last year because of the shortened hunt on the monroe. I spend a ton of time there as do most of my friends and family. The buck numbers are down from a year ago. When I'm down there and I watch two spike fighting over who gets to breed thier mothers because they are the only bucks in the whole canyon there's a problem.
As I stated time is the only factor to produce more deer. But you need to work on the other factors while you are waiting. If I blow my tire and while I am fixing my tire I notice that my brakes are bad do I do nothing until my whole car is dead or do I take notice and prevent future problems. Putting Micromanagement in place now is looking into the future. You have to be able to micromanage. You can't manage ever herd in the state the same. As far as I concerned this has been a long time overdue. Once again this does little to fix the deer herd now but it will make it easier when and if the herds come back to control your buck to doe ratios. That is all.....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

huntnfool said:


> The monroe example did affect the buck to doe ratio on the pahvant. The buck numbers are down this year from last. When the increased pressure was put on the Pahvant last year because of the shortened hunt on the monroe. I spend a ton of time there as do most of my friends and family. The buck numbers are down from a year ago. When I'm down there and I watch two spike fighting over who gets to breed thier mothers because they are the only bucks in the whole canyon there's a problem.


Again from a biological standpoint there is nothing wrong with the scenarios you are describing as long as buck to doe ratio don't get too low which they aren't. Mature bucks are not required for breeding. A young buck has the same genes at 1 1/2 as he does at 5 1/2.

The REAL problem is you aren't seeing enough 4 points right?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> The REAL problem is you aren't seeing enough 4 points right?


And the solution to that is simple... Quit shootin' the 4 points. Take the spikes out of the gene pool and leave the big bucks. The yearlings are the most expendable part of the resource. But everybody wants the new world record buck.

Fishrmn


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

If I'm seeing 75 does and only 2 spikes in a canyon THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Don't put that trophy bull crap on me.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> If I blow my tire and while I am fixing my tire I notice that my brakes are bad do I do nothing until my whole car is dead or do I take notice and prevent future problems.


But, do you fix your breaks if the breaks aren't broke? That's the problem...the buck/doe ratio isn't broke, so why are we trying to fix it?

What you see and what is there is also two different things. You are making the assumption that you see every deer in the canyon. Again, the problem isn't that the does are NOT being bred. The problem is that the fawns are NOT surviving.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The assumptions and speculation continues.

Why exactly do we have this thing called science?


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

You can show me proof that every doe is being breed? When deer counts happen do they see every animal in the unit ???? Yes I fix my brakes before they are wore out. Helps me in the long run. Fix it before it is broken....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

huntnfool said:


> If I'm seeing 75 does and only 2 spikes in a canyon THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Don't put that trophy bull crap on me.


Sorry but gotta call BS on this post. There isn't one unit in Utah that is at a 2.6 to 100 buck to ratio. In other words the bucks were there, you just couldn't find them. I don't see how not finding bucks that DO exist is the problem of the current mule deer plan?


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

I spent 4 years of my life studying wildlife management not exactly and arm chair quarterback here. Micromanagement works....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

huntnfool said:


> I spent 4 years of my life studying wildlife management not exactly and arm chair quarterback here.


Really!?!?! Then exactly how do you prove that every doe has been bred and how do you count every single deer?


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

All I'm saying is if I had 5 healthy herds I would want to micromanage them to keep them where I want their numbers to be. That is the best way. I'm not saying that would allow me to grow more deer, only manage what I've got... That is the only part of option 2 I like. And that was not an option in the other options.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> You can show me proof that every doe is being breed? When deer counts happen do they see every animal in the unit ???? Yes I fix my brakes before they are wore out. Helps me in the long run. Fix it before it is broken....


So, studies and observation by trained biologists over many years aren't valid regarding does being bred or anything else for that matter? No one is going to be able to show you "proof" that every single doe is being bred, but they do have models and proven hypothesis that can tell them certain things regarding all of the things we are talking about. It comes down to trust. Who do you trust for your information? It would seem to me that people that study these things for a living have a better idea than any of us regarding deer. Even if it isn't finite, it is as close to perfect as they can get with the information and resources they have at the moment, otherwise they'd use different methodologies. So for me personally, I'll trust the professionals.

huntnfool, low buck to doe ratios are NOT a major cause in the decline in deer populations in our state, period.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Bullsnot, Your right , I love hunting and seeing, photoing, GOOD animals..
I also enjoy non-trophy hunts with my kids, there just as fun.

And, I do have a little different take on opt 2.
As has been pointed out many ,many ,times, All three options were REALY
quite similar in management philosophy, But no one has addressed the "attitude"..

And here is what I mean about "ATTITUDE".......
As Packout, Tree, and others have pointed out, There was a FULL TOOLCHEAST
of options that have been available to the board , and others, that could have 
have been applied to deer herds that were biologically solid, and would help herds..

Why were the "tools" not used in the past?????

I believe, JMHO, The WB has been upset for a long time about general hunts.
Its has been like trying to get your kids to do something that they don't enjoy,
OR may-be not their idea,,For what ever reason, the WB has ignored these
tools and options that have been available.......

BUT NOW, option 2 is their baby, I will be shocked if the board doesn't go out
of their way to make this thing work, And its OUR JOB to hold their feet to the fire.


----------



## huntnfool (Sep 16, 2007)

NEVER SAID IT WAS..... I'm done with this pissing match.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

We also know that increasing buck/doe ratios can have a negative impact on fawn recruitment...as studies in both Colorado and Nevada have shown.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> BUT NOW, option 2 is their baby, I will be shocked if the board doesn't go out
> of their way to make this thing work, And its OUR JOB to hold their feet to the fire.


Actually, what I foresee is this: 1) tags will eventually be significantly cut almost across the board and unit-by-unit 2) buck/doe ratios will rise significantly 3) herd numbers will stay below objective 4) some hunters will be happy because the number of bucks and the number of mature bucks will increase 5) the DWR will fight the RACs and the Board every year to give out more buck tags because herd productivity is going to pot 6) Eventually we will be in the same rut as the LE elk hunts...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> BUT NOW, option 2 is their baby, I will be shocked if the board doesn't go out
> of their way to make this thing work, And its OUR JOB to hold their feet to the fire.


I sincerely hope you're right in that they will open up the tool chest and use all of them.

If you are right about the "attitude" part of the equation that would be sad indeed as that would be very childish, careless, and completely unprofessional to not use tools that work simply because it wasn't your idea. If that is the case that would be a sad chapter in Utah's mule deer history.

The scary part is though the events of last week show that we have no way of holding their feet to the fire. If their plans don't work, what is our recourse?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I have an idea.......


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I have an idea.......


...oh chit... :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I have an idea.......


I am pretty sure it is just a fart. :O•-: :mrgreen:


----------



## dark_cloud (Oct 18, 2010)

How many of the people crying about this option do there part on predator control? Are they just complaing beecause its change and they dont like it? Lots of you keep saying you have to keep the fawns alive, I agree, but I bet more then half don't do anything to help out on the predators. If everybody would help out and get involved in helping the herd other then taking part in the annual deer hunt you might have something. Some of the most popular areas to hunt deer, dont see any coyote hunters. I can go out for coyotes and never see another hunter. I hunt low land flats and even canyons in the higher elevations and nobody is there, ever. Lots of deer use these areas for wintering grounds and spring time habitat. My number one call to use is a fawn in distress call :shock: I know coyotes are not the number one issue but if more people would help there would be a few more fawns that would make it. I think option #2 needs some help, but I like the micro management of smaller units. I dont think you need to up the buck to doe ratio, but the smaller units keep areas from getting to much pressure. I have seen many areas produce for years and then have very few bucks and does. If option #2 isnt the answer then what is. What we have been doing isnt working so something needs to change. Lets her some ideas that would be better then option 2 and are different then what we have already


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

huntnfool said:


> NEVER SAID IT WAS..... I'm done with this **** match.


Wait a minute .007, you called me out while I was at work, at least let me respond before you take your ball and go home. 8)

If I have five deer herds, and one gets hit with higher than expected/desired mortality, I want as many does in the mix as possible so that the herd rebounds as fast as possible. The more bucks in the herd, the slower the recovery will be. That is why carrying excess bucks causes, more often than not, declines in overall populations. There is NOTHING in what was passed that will make a dimes worth of difference in addressing the issues suppressing populations, that couldn't have been addressed WITHOUT taking hunter opportunity away.

I know a young man that killed a nice two point this year on the Pahvant, it was his first year hunting and he was lucky enough to have his grandpa along to share the experience with. His little brother is obsessed with hunting, how sad would it be if little brother were to lose interest in hunting all because 'adults' want to increase their odds of killing a mature buck.....


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

DallanC said:


> What option #2 did do however, is cause a roughly $700,000 budget shortfall for the DWR at a time when we need money the most. Seems incredibly short sighted to hamstring the DWR that way.-DallanC


It's not shortsighted at all if you're goal is to make the DWR to rely on you to provide them with habitat/operational monies through the "Conservation Donation Tag Program"... the more the DWR relies on outside funding/fundraising, the tighter the trap gets.

The guys running SFW have been working very hard for years - following a rigid business plan - so that they could eventually get the DWR so far under their thumb that they could assume power over them through political legislation so that they could take the action that we witnessed last week.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Dark Cloud, I have about 4000 rounds of Coyote control that I will be putting to use as often as possible. I also will use my first choice rifle application to take away someone's tag in one of the South, South East or North Eastern units to do my part there too.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

quit voting Republican, This is what happens when one party has all the power. They know they can do what ever they want.


----------

