# The new deer plan- Poll



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Alright, without this turning into an everything I hate about SFW thread (It's getting a bit tiresome), what exactly is it that you oppose or support about the new deer plan?

I personally can see the merits of managing by micro units, but am a bit apprehensive about how it might be used. I believe instead of blanket managing the whole state to one goal, we would be better off using comprehensive management, depending on the unit. Some units could be for opportunity, some less so and obviously others would be LE etc. I think managing this way and doing our best to reflect the desires of Utah hunters would create a win/win.

I also think that reaching a buck to doe objective of 25/100 before increasing tags on any given unit is very excessive for general season units and that dropping that number down, with that number being predicated on the management strategy of the specific unit would be more realistic and manageable.

The track record in Utah for regaining opportunity once it has been lost is not a good one. I'd prefer to see opportunity maintained and the actual problems to deer population declines concentrated on. 

I also believe we are in for increases due to habitat projects that may be finally paying off. Which will more than likely be partially attributed to unit management and high buck to doe ratios, if indeed it does happen as I feel it may.

Lastly, I think human beings as a whole don't like to feel helpless, some more than others, but we all like to feel like we are in control, avoiding vulnerability. In the end, I think the greatest contributor to our deer population decline aside from reformed grazing practice and reduced predator control (poisoning) is WEATHER. Like it or not, this is the consensus among biologists in my experience. Sever winter and drought don't bode well for life, bottom line.

Enough rambling. What's your opinion? 

Please keep it civil.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I believe that if we are managing hunters, then the bigger the units the better. If we are managing Deer, then we need to go small. 

There are several areas that get slammed by hunters and other areas that dont see hardly a person. The only way to take the pressure off those areas is to limit the amount of peope going there. I don't like it but the reality is different. 

I chose micro units with varying ratios. Pretty much what your second paragraph said was why I voted that way but did not read what you had said until after so I wouldn't be swayed in my thinking.

Nobody tends to think like me anyway so we will have to see where this goes. :mrgreen:


----------



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

You left out the "I just don't give a crap any more" vote...


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2011)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> You left out the "I just don't give a crap any more" vote...


+1


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Whats done IS DONE....

After 2014 , or so, There might be a few changes added in with buck to doe ratios,

But I honestly DOUGHT IT...

Whats getting tiresome, or a bit entertaining?,,,,are the guys on this forum in denial.
IMHO, opt 2 will not change much for years to come, including ratios.
we are finally going to see a deer plan stay the same for a number of years.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yes, Goofy, the Wildlife Board has never changed course due to pressure, right? What done is done means squat when it comes to the Board. And, WTH is "dought"? For such a smart guy you sure.....


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

elk22hunter said:


> Nobody tends to think like me anyway :mrgreen:


Goat whisperer.... -()/-


----------



## reaper (Nov 18, 2010)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> You left out the "I just don't give a crap any more" vote...


I think most people, including myself think this way.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

I voted for the 4th option. I support instead of I would accept would have even been better.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> You left out the "I just don't give a crap any more" vote...


This kind of attitude scares me. This is the reason our state is being taken over by a small vocal group of people. If the silent majority starts to speak up thinks WILL change. Don't feel it is hopeless because it isn't. It isn't going to be easy, but we are getting there. The average Joe is starting to get heard. Anyways enough with my rambling. :mrgreen:


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

I didn't vote because I didn't feel like any of the options truly represented my feelings. I don't think buck to doe ratios need to be as high as 25:100. What needs to happen is for the deer populations to meet management objectives. 

I want to see more bucks. But I also want to see more does. I think the big issue is getting overall population numbers higher, then increase the buck to doe ratios. Increasing them now will only hinder population growth. When herd numbers reach management goals, then cull some does and manage for more bucks. It's a win-win. 

The only real way to increase buck to doe ratios is to kill does. Or kill fewer bucks. The same proportion of bucks and does will be born (roughly) every year, every decade, etc. 

That being said I do think smaller units will be a good thing -- if there's enough resources to manage the units the way they should. It will more definitively manage hunter experience, and deer population dynamics, provided the units are biologically (not politically) based and managed.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Well, I typed up my comments but they didn't make it to this site. I'll try again.

I like the idea of the change. I don't think for a minute the buck/doe ratio will ever reach the stated goal, especially state wide. There are too many variables and too much diversity in climates state wide.

I like seeing lots of bucks and I love to see big bucks when I'm out hunting. Maybe this change is just the ticket for those two worlds to come together every year.

I'm sure the area I like to hunt in will have a very limited number of tags and that being the case I'll opt out of the draw and hope a younger hunter will get the tag that might have been mine. Then I'll just go camping and shooting grouse with the gang that does draw tags.


----------



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

jahan said:


> TEX-O-BOB said:
> 
> 
> > You left out the "I just don't give a crap any more" vote...
> ...


Yer on glue dude! This sate is being run by BIG money, BIG politics, and BIG special interest. And they don't give a shat about little Joe hunter. They have lost sight of the FACT that it's the little guy who buys a box of shells, a tank of gas, and an orange vest and takes his family out for a nice deer hunt that drives the hunting economy. Take that guy out of the equation and all you got left is nuthin! It's not about a family outdoor activity anymore, it's all about big horns and bigger money. It will be the END of hunting as we know it. 20 years from now we'll be just like Europe. Hide and watch.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="TEX-O-BOB":1nynt1od]You left out the "I just don't give a crap any more" vote...
> ...


Yer on glue dude! This sate is being run by BIG money, BIG politics, and BIG special interest. And they don't give a shat about little Joe hunter. They have lost sight of the FACT that it's the little guy who buys a box of shells, a tank of gas, and an orange vest and takes his family out for a nice deer hunt that drives the hunting economy. Take that guy out of the equation and all you got left is nuthin! It's not about a family outdoor activity anymore, it's all about big horns and bigger money. It will be the END of hunting as we know it. 20 years from now we'll be just like Europe. Hide and watch.[/quote:1nynt1od]

I don't disagree with you, but I am going to try like hell to prove you wrong. :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I voted for smaller units and varying ratios. If my thoughts interest you then read on.

I took a look at the map of the proposed units. Then I decided to look at other maps, hydrography, terrain, vegetation distribution, climate zones. It occurred to me that we do need change and we need it to be in accordance with the factors that are changing or being affected in the state.

I think that hunter management units do not necesarilly have to be the same ones used for wildlife management. The population and buck:doe rations on each wildlife unit should vary depending on the factors I mentioned above.

Another factor that needs to be considered and I don't think I anyone has touched on it is the personell resources needed to manage not only the wildlife but to enforce the boundries being layed out. With less revenue coming into the DWR and not enough COs as it is. How on earth do they plan to enforce such a complicated array of unit boundries?

I believe that in the end will do what is right and succeed. I just hope it's not after we have tried everything else and failed.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

jahan said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I am going to try like hell to prove you wrong. :mrgreen: :lol:


Count me in Jeremy.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I voted for being able to accept hunter unit management but with varying ratios on each unit because honestly a healthy ratio for one unit is not a healthy ratio for another unit. Areas that have a lot of winter kill can't get by with as high a buck:doe ratio as a unit that has minimal winter kill. Plus I think we need to hold the "rule makers" to their word. If you're gonna break the state up into smaller units so that they get more "attention" then let's see them get more attention. Oh wait they won't because the DWR is losing money in the budget and with the loss in revenue from less deer tags being sold. Laughable...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Whats done IS DONE....
> 
> After 2014 , or so, There might be a few changes added in with buck to doe ratios,
> 
> ...


History has proven this to be completely false!!! The current changes will be in place for while, can't deny that, BUT people that make an effort to get involved in the process CAN be heard and CAN cause change to happen. It just takes some time.

There are a group of us that have committed ourselves to speaking for others in that process. We WILL make a difference!!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> I voted for being able to accept hunter unit management but with varying ratios on each unit because honestly a healthy ratio for one unit is not a healthy ratio for another unit.


I voted the same way. Herd production and the dynamics of each area should be considered. A herd with higher production can be managed at a lower buck to doe ratio.


----------



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

> I don't disagree with you, but I am going to try like hell to prove you wrong.


Well, I admire your sand.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I too voted for varying ratios. I mostly archery hunt so I am bummed about losing statewide archery so I wanted to vote keep it like it was, but a decision has been made so might as well make the best out of a bad situation. There is more to this deer plan that has yet to be laid out and that is what concerns me. These are the questions that I have that may directly affect hunter opportunity and success of this plan.

1. Will Bonus and Preference points be merged? To me this only makes sense. If the whole state is going to be small LE than put every deer unit in the same draw. The only problem I foresee is what to do with those hunters with PP and BP in the bank.

2. Will PP/BP still be awarded if the hunter is unsuccessful on his first choice but draws one of his following choices? Personally I like the current system of obtaining a PP if you don't draw your first choice. You would still get to hunt a lower quality unit almost every year with the opportunity to accumulate points until you decide to cash in. People who so desire can hunt a mid-quality unit every few years or hold out for a high quality unit every 10-15. Those who are content with the lower quality units will be pretty much guaranteed a tag on their first choice. This is how I see opportunity maintained and the best way to keep most people happy.

I am sure I have more questions, I just can't think right now. The varying ratios is what will be key. If they try to manage the entire state like the Book Cliffs and shoot for high buck/doe ratios on every unit, we are all screwed.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

So what are some of you trying to accomplish with all these extremely confusing scenarios? Better odds of killing a big buck? Decrease hunter numbers? Keep other hunters from hunting your turf? Make hunting easier for the lazy guys? What???

What is the wildlife board trying to accomplish? 

Are our mule deer herds on the brink of extinction and drastic measures are needed immediately or else...? 

Is it possible that you've been duped into thinking there is an immediate problem so someone else may benefit? 
I for one am not seeing a drastic need to turn everything upside down.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JHas said:


> So what are some of you trying to accomplish with all these extremely confusing scenarios? Better odds of killing a big buck? Decrease hunter numbers? Keep other hunters from hunting your turf? Make hunting easier for the lazy guys? What???
> 
> What is the wildlife board trying to accomplish?
> 
> ...


 :idea: You may be on to something..........


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Why can't they change the way they measure the health of the herd to fawn to doe ratio instead of buck to doe?
That will be the only way to help increase deer herds. I guess if they were really concerned about the deer they would change it but I think we all know that isn't there concern at all.
JHas I feel the same way for the most part.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Maybe we should add another option to the poll:

Stay with me now because this is cutting edge mule deer management.

-Keep 5 hunting units like the ones we have now.
-When deer populations go up, increase tags. :shock: 
-When deer populations go down, decrease tags. :shock: 
-RACS and/or Wildlife Boad are not allowed to set tag quotas. Only DWR biologists will be allowed to set tag quotas. If the biologists prove incompetent, we'll fire them and hire more capable biologists.
-Kill more predators.
-Find ways to limit freeway mortality.
-And lastly, absolutely ban the use of terms like "fawn recruitment", "carryover", "Buck to doe ratio" "management units" "holding capacity" etc.. by hunters, RAC members and the Wildlife board.

Tell me why this will not work.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't convolute things, simplicity gets rid of the grey areas and the beneficiaries of wildlife pimping like the color grey.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

JHas said:


> Maybe we should add another option to the poll:
> 
> Stay with me now because this is cutting edge mule deer management.
> 
> ...


 :_O=: :_O=: :_O=:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

JHas said:


> Maybe we should add another option to the poll:
> 
> Stay with me now because this is cutting edge mule deer management.
> 
> ...


Because human nature dictates that simple solutions cannot be the correct ones. If it is not complicated, convoluted and confusing it is not processed as rational by the human psyche. Just look at all the unecessary drama in peoples lives. Completely unecessary, pointless and yet there it is! *\-\* *\-\* *\-\*


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JHas said:


> Maybe we should add another option to the poll:
> 
> Stay with me now because this is cutting edge mule deer management.
> 
> ...


It won't work because it doesn't leave any room for someone to take advantage of the system. :O•-:


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

JHas has my vote for Governor. We need someone with a little common sense at The State level. He must be a true conservative as well...only a conservative could have come with a plan that actually makes sense.

And please remember that bullsnot is not the same as bulls**t.  I like this bullsnot feller, but not in the same sense that fixed blade likes fellers. :shock:


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

JHas said:


> Maybe we should add another option to the poll:
> 
> Stay with me now because this is cutting edge mule deer management.
> 
> ...


+1 well said


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> When deer populations go up, increase tags.
> -When deer populations go down, decrease tags.


You would still have coffee shop goofy saying we have NO deer even though people still see a lot of them.



> If the biologists prove incompetent, we'll fire them and hire more capable biologists.


I hope people like goofy don't have a say in the proving the incompetents part of the biologist job.



> And lastly, absolutely ban the use of terms like "fawn recruitment", "carryover", "Buck to doe ratio


What is wrong with using these terms? Obama's might group ban words too :lol:

If you want to know the health of the herd then you're going to study fawn recruitment, buck/doe ratios etc.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I gotta vote "None of the above".

Utah's human population will continue to grow. Development plans are already made and ready to proceed. Natural gas and shale industries are a lot more feasible than they were just a couple years ago. What's left of Utah's agricultural economy is struggling. And we've enjoyed a few wet years (and this year's a doozy), but this is still Utah, so another serious drought is coming soon. Think about the consequences of these facts and add it all to everything else that's been discussed in the last 6 months. Hunting unit boundaries and elevating ratios - that's our response? WTF?

Back when the mule deer committee was hashing out the 2008 management plan, I suggested that it become a standing committee in order to direct the plan's strategies and address these concerns. I about got laughed out the door.

Okay. But at least with that committee, there was somewhat of a representation of all the stakeholders, (and their names were public knowledge), working with the best biological data available. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but a **** sight better than what's taken place since.

Even at that, unit management and harvest reduction were included in the committee's recommendation, albeit in a mechanism that allowed for some choice.

Compare that ludicrous suggestion to the fact that each year since, major changes to the plan have been made, based on emotions and anecdotal observations. More changes are already planned - all of them focused on killing deer; not a one is focused on dealing with the obvious problems of growing and sustaining deer. And that committee has been replaced by...well, let's see....uh...there's a lot of divisive speculation, isn't there? But let's just say their names won't be posted at any RAC meeting. And ironic that in a blue state like Utah, these new plans tend to favor government control even to the point of defining a quality hunt. :shock:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Wow, I did not expect to see the numbers show that on this site?  :mrgreen:  

Sure makes you wonder what the average joe hunter really wants? Instead of hearing what a handful say the average joe hunter wants! :?


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Muley73 said:


> Wow, I did not expect to see the numbers show that on this site?  :mrgreen:
> 
> *Sure makes you wonder what the average joe hunter really wants? Instead of hearing what a handful say the average joe hunter wants! *:?


Doesn't make me wonder at all. "Average joe hunter" simply wants to hunt, not wait years and years for a tag. He/she wants to see our herds grow, not continue to shrink. Pretty simple. :roll:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> ......Instead of hearing what a handful say the average joe hunter wants! :?


Well if you have some other numbers, feel free to post the survey results along with who, what and where it was taken.

But I don't think you will.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I also vote none of the above. Unit management is one of those slippery slopes that scares the hell out of me. If there was no corruption in this world I would be all for it and vote the 4th option, but there are already people lining up to manage "their" own special little unit. Then when "their" unit is nearly impossible to draw, they will flock to another unit and hurt the odds of drawing in that other unit after they realize how bad it sucks to not hunt for 5+ years. I feel there are so many options out there to explore with season dates, weapon allotments, ect and maybe slight tweaks to the old plan that would have been much better than the road we are going down. It is ironic people are saying give the plan a chance, WTF we didn't give the last plan a fair shake did we?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

JHas said:


> -RACS and/or Wildlife Boad are not allowed to set tag quotas. Only DWR biologists will be allowed to set tag quotas.


Sounds good in theory, and I'm sure the Wildlife Board and its "patrons" are going to gladly cede the control they currently enjoy to the biologists and the DWR. -Ov-

I definitely do favor the biologists making the calls on big game management decisions, but....

"If the biologists prove incompetent, we'll fire them and hire more capable biologists."

Fair enough, but just who is going to decide who is competent or incompetent? The funny thing about hunting and especially fishing forums is that seemingly *everyone* thinks that they know more than the biologists and the question of who "WE" is that will do the decision making could be a thorny one.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Wow, I did not expect to see the numbers show that on this site?  :mrgreen:
> 
> Sure makes you wonder what the average joe hunter really wants? Instead of hearing what a handful say the average joe hunter wants! :?


Your post is again way out of touch. You should hang it up before you lose all credibility.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > -RACS and/or Wildlife Boad are not allowed to set tag quotas. Only DWR biologists will be allowed to set tag quotas.
> ...


IMHO our problems today are not for the lack of deer, elk, or any other wildlife species.

We simply have too many chefs (WB RACs SFW MDF etc...) spoiling the broth and our so-called representative system is no longer functioning and is in total chaos.

Before we start turning our world upside down (like is happening now) we need to first return to a single source of direction/information (DWR). Allow them to do the job we pay them to do through our taxes, then expect that they will perform their jobs.

The DWR is heavily influenced by only a few organizations that are not representative of the majority and are good at telling us the sky is falling when in reality it is not. We need to find a way of making citizen representation equal instead of assuming everyone belongs to a group.

Reduce the number of chefs before we take the next step.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

bullsnot,

Hang up what? My opinion? Thought you wanted to hear the voice of all average joes? Well I promise you I'm as average as they get!

As far as my credibility? I really am not sure I follow you on that? I'll bet you, you could not guess what option I even voted on this poll.

So I guess the UWC represents the views of average hunter. If that hunter agrees with their groups views? If that hunter does not agree them they should hang it up. 

One question for the UWC. How many of the your board have been past board members on other sportsman groups and what groups did they represent?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> One question for the UWC. How many of the your board have been past board members on other sportsman groups and what groups did they represent?


I'll bite: ALL OF THEM. Now what?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73, I have only been a member of two other groups of which I have never did more than pay my due for one year. The first one was UBA about 3 years ago and the other was BOU last summer. Not sure what this has to do with anything, but I have nothing to hide.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> I took a look at the map of the proposed units. Then I decided to look at other maps, hydrography, terrain, vegetation distribution, climate zones. It occurred to me that we do need change and we need it to be in accordance with the factors that are changing or being affected in the state.
> 
> I think that hunter management units do not necesarilly have to be the same ones used for wildlife management. The population and buck:doe rations on each wildlife unit should vary depending on the factors I mentioned above. I believe that in the end will do what is right and succeed. I just hope it's not after we have tried everything else and failed.


Madhunter,

I would hope that the biologists and the board would do likewise as you have done.

In the past I have always used precipitation information to narrow down my search for a hunting area, however given the past record of DWR recommendations, deer hunters would be shut down over 60% of the years either due to winter kill our drought kill.

As I agree with as the most prevalent theme on this board, Wildlife managers in Utah have thrown their hands in the air and have resorted to the only means of stable management in the equation and decided that *people management *is the only means to appear to correct wildlife problems. The shell games and the blame game that have arisen on this and other boards are just another excuse for wildlife managers to do what they dam well please and that for the most part is small measures to appease with little to no direct benefit to the benefactors they are charged with protecting.

IMHO&#8230;.Big


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Huntoholic said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > ......Instead of hearing what a handful say the average joe hunter wants! :?
> ...


"Muley73" 
I was wondering if you had any numbers yet?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

JHas said:


> We simply have too many chefs (WB RACs SFW MDF etc...) spoiling the broth and our so-called representative system is no longer functioning and is in total chaos.


I agree with you about this and there would be nothing that would make me happier than to release the Wildlife Board members with a vote of thanks ( :?: ) and disband the entity once and for all. I would love to see the DWR as the sole entity calling the shots. The practical problem is that the various groups and politicians behind the scenes are not going to willingly surrender the power they have.



JHas said:


> The DWR is heavily influenced by only a few organizations that are not representative of the majority and are good at telling us the sky is falling when in reality it is not. We need to find a way of making citizen representation equal instead of assuming everyone belongs to a group.


I would submit that the *Wildlife board* more fits this description than the DWR, but the point is well taken. Reform of the system should be a primary goal of entities like UWN. A good starting point, if the WB cannot be done away with (unlikely to happen IMO) would be to have a WB with checks and balances via the DWR actually having a couple of voting members on it. Taking a hard look at the RAC system would also be helpful. Finally, the politicians will always be getting their fingers in the "soup" as well. Not much you can do about that.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Catherder said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > We simply have too many chefs (WB RACs SFW MDF etc...) spoiling the broth and our so-called representative system is no longer functioning and is in total chaos.
> ...


Your points are well taken.

Trying to reform the current representative system through the WB or Racs is simply a waste of time. Like you said they are not going to give up their power easily. Useful reform would need to be accomplished within our state legislature through an organized effort.

Are you aware of any organization whose main purpose is to get us back to the basics of true representation? Let me know...


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Whats entertaining is you guys keep throwing these votes up like you will get a different outcome. It's like a website ran by Al Gore asking if his followers would vote for GW if he ran again. SFW will always lose...Option 2 will always lose....Tag cuts will always lose! 

What you have is a vocal minority that is always crying wolf. It's getting old! Why not work on something positive. Look on other hunting websites and see what there opinion is. You might find out that in fact you are not the average joe. Have at it!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

sharpshooter said:



> Whats entertaining is you guys keep throwing these votes up like you will get a different outcome. It's like a website ran by Al Gore asking if his followers would vote for GW if he ran again. SFW will always lose...Option 2 will always lose....Tag cuts will always lose!
> 
> What you have is a vocal minority that is always crying wolf. It's getting old! Why not work on something positive. Look on other hunting websites and see what there opinion is. You might find out that in fact you are not the average joe. Have at it!


So you are saying there are other hunting websites and forums besides UWN, that is blasphemy. :shock: :mrgreen: :lol:

So lets look at some unbiased data if you will, lets refer to the survey done by the DWR not to long ago. By far the most encompassing survey done yet and the results are contrary to what you are saying. Over 70% of people want to hunt, so I hate to say it, but we are not a vocal minority, I would say this group is a silent majority that has now awaken to BS that is going on and hopefully will start to get vocal. o-||


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Over 70% want to hunt? Should be 100%. I'm in that same category. What I want and what should be done is sometimes two different things. Some people have a hard time with that though.
And can we establish what "Average Joe" is that you guys represent? I'm pretty sure I fit into that category, but I could be wrong.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

sharpshooter said:


> And can we establish what "Average Joe" is that you guys represent? I'm pretty sure I fit into that category, but I could be wrong.


Great question! What is the definition of an Average Joe Hunter? We may need a new thread...


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

sharpshooter said:


> Over 70% want to hunt? Should be 100%. I'm in that same category. What I want and what should be done is sometimes two different things. Some people have a hard time with that though.
> And can we establish what "Average Joe" is that you guys represent? I'm pretty sure I fit into that category, but I could be wrong.


Actually 100% want to hunt. What the numbers actually indicate is that the 70% that just "want to hunt" just want to be able to get out and hunt without any expectations of size of animals/trophy quality. They just want a tag. They want to be able to harvest a deer if they get the chance. They are in it more for the experience than the kill or the trophy.

I am one of those guys in the 70% group. I am not concerned about antlers because I can't eat them. I just want a tag in my pocket and a chance for my kids to have a tag in their pocket. It's not rocket science or a complicated equation for that matter. General season hunting no longer exists in Utah.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Over 70% want to hunt? Should be 100%. I'm in that same category. What I want and what should be done is sometimes two different things. Some people have a hard time with that though.


I think what Jahan was saying is that 70% of the hunters want to have the opportunity to hunt every year. 30% are hoping to draw their LE tag and if they don't then they are happy sitting out until they draw their LE tag. Some might hunt GS once in awhile, but it's not the highest priority for them.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Sharpshooter,

I guess I don't read the results the same as you? Overall it looks like guys are ready for a change. I'm new here but it appears to me there's a handful of passionate regular posters that are against the changes that sincerely believe they represent the "average joes." It's kind of like the old gang at "Cheers." Which is great-have at it. 

But the poll results don't seem to match up to what one would expect on here. I think it's safe to say most of Utah's deer hunters are ready for some changes.

Think I've about reached my magic number to get into the super secret fishing forum and might now bid this dead horse farewell for a time. Keep at it boys. -O\__- 

I'm going -|\O-


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

sharpshooter said:


> Over 70% want to hunt? Should be 100%. I'm in that same category. What I want and what should be done is sometimes two different things. Some people have a hard time with that though.
> And can we establish what "Average Joe" is that you guys represent? I'm pretty sure I fit into that category, but I could be wrong.


What we stand for is probably being a bit over simplified. When we say "average Joe" that essentially means the masses. It essentially means that we strive to capture what the hunting public at large wants. It's impossible to make a plan that pleases everyone but it's our stance that social issues should largely be governed by the desires of the majority.

Having said that we do not ingore the desires of smaller groups. We also consider landowners, outfitters, and quality hunters as well. We recognize and support landowner rights, outfitters that operate legally, and the Limited Entry program for those folks that prefer quality over opportunity.

Most of these discussions, particularly this one, have been centered around general deer herds on public lands. From that perspective we support what appears to us as what the masses want and the 2008 mule deer survey tells us that most prefer the opportunity to get out and hunt above cutting tags for better quality. That does NOT mean we are anti quality. The "average Joe" is an expression that has just seemed to stick as a way to summarize that point of view since they make up a vast majority of that masses. That is not meant to say that all "average Joes" agree. There are some that are all about quality, and that's ok. We will continue to be advocates for the limited entry program for that reason.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mrad said:


> But the poll results don't seem to match up to what one would expect on here. I think it's safe to say most of Utah's deer hunters are ready for some changes.


I know you left, have fun in the super secret forum, but I thought I'd respond to this anyway. I think that most hunters, if not all, want to see more deer. We all pretty much agree on that. We all know that there must be some things changed to accomplish that. Here is the dilemma we all face right now:

1 - It's a myth that by raising buck to doe ratios from 15:100 to 18:100 statewide will help deer herds. These are quality numbers, not biological mule deer productivity numbers.

2 - I think just about everyone wants more quality. The question is do most hunters want to hunt much less to accomplish that? We believe the answer is no. Most, me included, want our cake and eat it too but when faced with only being able to have one or the other then most choose to hunt. Now if cutting tags in this scenario would help deer herds I'd be all over it. I was in favor of cutting tags until I learned that it wouldn't help deer production.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I know you left, have fun in the super secret forum, but I thought I'd respond to this anyway. I think that most hunters, if not all, want to see more deer. We all pretty much agree on that. We all know that there must be some things changed to accomplish that.


And once again things get complicated.

We all want more money too but some of us do not want to WORK HARDER to get it. Some of us want something for nothing.

By the way, where in Utah's traditional deer areas are the deer herds so low that a hunter couldn't find a mature buck if they worked hard for it?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JHas said:


> By the way, where in Utah's traditional deer areas are the deer herds so low that a hunter couldn't find a mature buck if they worked hard for it?


Nowhere that I am aware of. I know of a handful of very nice bucks that came off the Stansbury last year and it has one of the worst buck to doe ratios in the state.

I had a meeting with a gentleman from the division the other day, one that probably knows his stuff very well and his words eluded to most hunters as being misinformed or not informed at all, especially when it comes to biology, yet many complain and speculate on things based on what? Misinformation or no information at all. The sad part is that a lot of this information or lack thereof is being used to push agenda that is actually getting passed off as sound management.

Is it wrong to want to have more bucks and less people? Nope, just a difference in philosophy, but one that is shared by a minority segment. So in my opinion, pushing that agenda on the majority segment is just plain wrong.

By the way, I created this thread for my own curiosity because I was curious as to what people specifically like and don't like about the new plan.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

Just wondering if everyone has seen as many deer out turkey hunting as I have? Looks like option 2 is already having positive results. JK.

Later,
Griff


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

sharpshooter said:


> What you have is a vocal minority that is always crying wolf. It's getting old! Why not work on something positive. Look on other hunting websites and see what there opinion is. You might find out that in fact you are not the average joe. Have at it!


I'll ask you the same question as "Muley73"...

If you have some other numbers, feel free to post the survey results or links along with who, what and where it was taken.

Most of the surveys I've seen have been pretty well split.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

elk22hunter said:


> I believe that if we are managing hunters, then the bigger the units the better. If we are managing Deer, then we need to go small.
> 
> There are several areas that get slammed by hunters and other areas that dont see hardly a person. The only way to take the pressure off those areas is to limit the amount of peope going there. I don't like it but the reality is different.
> 
> ...


Scott, care to share some insider info on those units that hardly see a person - cause I have hunted across the state and haven't found a place like that because of the season dates and limited public lands. Disclaimer - no I don't hunt from the roads either!

Tree, I can't pick one cause you didn't include a choice for:

"I'd like to see science based management of deer used to increase overall deer numbers, which will improve buck to doe ratios, while using hunter opportunity whenever and wherever it is possible to help manage ratios and populations according to objectives derived from SCIENCE"


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Please somebody explain, who is going to come up with this "Science" based management?????? o-||


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> Please somebody explain, who is going to come up with this "Science" based management?????? o-||


Definitely not the Option 2 people....

Even when the numbers come back that the sky has not fallen as far as they had hoped, we will still throw people out of hunting for a few more bucks and a lot more restrictions.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm glad to see this forums poll results is coming more in line with what
I've been hearing in my travels,,... 

Looks to me like the poll is saying 45 that support unit management and
30 that do not, or want things "unchanged" ..

I know that in the past few months around 75% of sportsmen, AND DWR
personal I've spoke with are in SUPPORT of deer unit "hunter" management....

I've found it pretty much overwhelming ever since last falls deer season 
almost everyone thinks something has needed to be done with our general deer...

I've always thought opt 2 would be a good move,,,,and better focus.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Muley73 said:


> Please somebody explain, who is going to come up with this "Science" based management?????? o-||


**** fine question as always Cody. I would bet ten bucks (pun intended) there are more than a few fine good ol' boys down south that have the answers we are all looking for! They may not be biologists, but they **** well know what's best for the deer and elk herds! Would appreciate an introduction to some of 'em if you got the time... _(O)_

Hope you survived the winter well and didn't put on too many pounds. Fall comes around pretty fast and the hills get steeper every year! :shock:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Are some people really asking for more numbers, data, etc...? Last I heard, the guys who pushed Option 2 (which is not what the Board passed) were "sick and tired of hearing about Nevada", Nevada's biologists opinions of how more bucks are hurting their deer herd, and how long hunters in NV are waiting to hunt deer. They never answered one question about our current limited entry units' problems and lack of growth. They scoffed at Colorado's biological data showing hunter management didn't increase the productivity of their deer, then used Colorado as the example of fine management. What we have failed to ever have from Muley, Goofy or other micro-management of bucks proponents is any kind of data showing how micro-managing hunters statewide will give us a better herd. 

As for the poll, it is poorly worded (sorry Tree). There should never have been a "I support things the way they have been for years" question because the past Management Plan called for microing out struggling units, cutting tags, etc.... That answer makes it sound as if the UDWR was planning on doing nothing, which is not true. 

Now we have special "Deer" meetings where the Board gets together and focuses on bucks, some lamenting how they may never draw a Henry Mtns tag and allowing public comments from their buddies in meetings which were advertised as "No Public Comment". They use WAFWA to base their management strategy and then go against WAFWA, talking about antler restrictions even after every state has found them to fail. They talk about bucks and then they talk about bucks and they talk about the 1960s. Then the reminisce of years gone by and millions of deer. When they have a question and ask the UDWR biologist about it they become argumentative if they don't like the answer. And in the end they talk more about bucks. 

In a perfect world, micro-managing buck deer hunters would be fine and great. In Utah's politically based wildlife management system we will see the opportunity to hunt whittled down and lobbying to reduce tags further and further. The elk management has shown us this to true. Even when elk units have been above the stated social objectives, the lobbists came out against tag increases.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'm glad to see this forums poll results is coming more in line with what
> I've been hearing in my travels,,...
> 
> Looks to me like the poll is saying 45 that support unit management and
> ...


Unit management and option #2 are 2 different critters. What this "poorly worded" (  )survey tells me is that unit management is the smaller issue and that most have an issue with raised statewide buck to doe ratios.

People have scoffed and balked at the unit management, myself included, but while we discussed the merits of hunting bucks on smaller units, the much bigger issue of raising buck to doe ratios, the lack of benefits to the deer in doing this and the number of hunters that it requires to be eliminated to achieve this has taken a backseat.

To me, the bigger issue is the buck to doe objectives, restricted opportunity and increases being almost impossible to attain due to a ridiculous top end and a history of tags disappearing and never being given back.

Remember all of these LE units? They were put in LE status to increase deer numbers and deer health, some now have over 40/100 bucks, which I'm seeing as how a lot of you pro guys are seeing as a healthy herd. ????? They don't seem to be increasing tags on these units. These units have huge restrictions. Again, how are they doing population wise??

Here's a couple of questions (Not opinions);

When pretty much every single state in the west is under objective, at what point do we consider objective to be the issue, not the deer numbers?

Are we maybe being unrealistic and holding onto the past when we think we can have 450k deer in Utah?

In Utah, is this "objective", which is roughly a 33% increase in deer numbers being used as a tool for people who benefit from reduced opportunity and bigger antlers?

Again, just questions that I am contemplating as well.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> Are some people really asking for more numbers, data, etc...? Last I heard, the guys who pushed Option 2 (which is not what the Board passed) were "sick and tired of hearing about Nevada", Nevada's biologists opinions of how more bucks are hurting their deer herd, and how long hunters in NV are waiting to hunt deer. They never answered one question about our current limited entry units' problems and lack of growth. They scoffed at Colorado's biological data showing hunter management didn't increase the productivity of their deer, then used Colorado as the example of fine management. What we have failed to ever have from Muley, Goofy or other micro-management of bucks proponents is any kind of data showing how micro-managing hunters statewide will give us a better herd.


+1,000,000

I am still waiting for that exact answer...I can't figure out how killing less bucks will grow more fawns.

Goofy, are you or your buddy Muley ever going to answer this question?


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

If more buck are hurting Nevada's herd then they are over objective. What good would the extra does be if there is no room for the herd to expand? 

"I am still waiting for that exact answer...I can't figure out how killing less bucks will grow more fawns."

It's about seeing more bucks. There I said it. Will you quit asking it over and over now? I got a feeling you already knew the answer though. After all ain't that what most of the debates on here are about? quality vs. opportunity?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I'm glad to see this forums poll results is coming more in line with what
> I've been hearing in my travels,,...
> 
> Looks to me like the poll is saying 45 that support unit management and
> ...


Goof I think you haven't quite picked up on what's happening here yet, have you? Option 2 was at least 3 significant changes. The UWC is trying to figure out which of those 3 changes really bother people and which ones don't. The UWC is trying to do something positive. So rather than discuss all of the elements that option 2 covered we are trying to break them up and tackle what people really have a problem with.

Bottom line. People seem to be able to live with unit hunter managment. That doesn't mean that folks feel any better about the other changes that were in option 2. It's time to move on. Option 2 is irrelevant and an expression that is outdated. Now there is unit hunter management, raised minium buck to doe ratios, and units having to go up to 25:100 before tags are restored. These are now seperate issues that should be handled as seperate issues.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

sharpshooter said:


> If more buck are hurting Nevada's herd then they are over objective. What good would the extra does be if there is no room for the herd to expand?
> 
> "I am still waiting for that exact answer...I can't figure out how killing less bucks will grow more fawns."
> 
> It's about seeing more bucks. There I said it. Will you quit asking it over and over now? I got a feeling you already knew the answer though. After all ain't that what most of the debates on here are about? quality vs. opportunity?


Yes and that answer is ok. We are just tired of people trying to sell these plans as "they will help deer herds". The surveys say most people would rather hunt than give up opportunity for quality. So quality folks sell these plans as being biological to get support. Some of us are tired of that. If you want more quality, fine. Just don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly where our deer herds are so bad that we need to take these drastic measures. How about a specific location?

Goofy? Muley73? Anyone? How about a location?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

sharpshooter said:


> If more buck are hurting Nevada's herd then they are over objective. What good would the extra does be if there is no room for the herd to expand?


Not true...like Utah, they are trying to grow their herd. But, the higher buck/doe ratios and "extra" bucks are competing with fawns and hurting recruitment...making it difficult to grow their herd.



sharpshooter said:


> It's about seeing more bucks. There I said it. Will you quit asking it over and over now? I got a feeling you already knew the answer though. After all ain't that what most of the debates on here are about? quality vs. opportunity?


Isn't the argument for unit-based management and the reduction in tags to improve the overall deer herd? So, you are saying to hell with the deer herd and its overall health? You don't care if the fawns and does of a unit struggle as long as you are able to see more bucks?

That's the thing...I wouldn't care so much about these changes if we were NOT trying to increase the number of deer. But, we are. It makes zero sense to carry more bucks unless the unit is at or over its overall objective...


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Tree--

Was this or is this an official UWC poll? What are the plans and intents of an internet (not a random survey) poll? 

If you asked for opinions perhaps you should have had a few more options. You know what they say about opinions. Not sure how you can pigeon everyone's opinions into 5 choices.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

No, it was for my own curiosity. Definitely not comprehensive. I more or less wanted to create dialogue centered around what people didn't like about the recent changes. Like bull has said, there are several issues here and I think many people disagreed for different reasons. Just curious to see what they were.

I am clear there are all sorts of holes in the poll, my intent was to be vague and let posters fill in the holes.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

sharpshooter said:


> It's about seeing more bucks. There I said it. Will you quit asking it over and over now? I got a feeling you already knew the answer though. After all ain't that what most of the debates on here are about? quality vs. opportunity?


Thanks for being honest, at least you can admit it. I think what has ticked me off the most is that the plan was passed under the premise that it would help increase the herd/health. When it fact it was just to get a few more bucks on the hill for those who can't seem to find them.

I don't like the buck to doe ratios that have to be met in order to increase tags (what was it like 25/100?). Seems like an easy way to make more premium limited entry units (please notice I used the word "premium" as needing to draw each year has already made our "general deer hunt" limited).


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> sharpshooter said:
> 
> 
> > It's about seeing more bucks. There I said it. Will you quit asking it over and over now? I got a feeling you already knew the answer though. After all ain't that what most of the debates on here are about? quality vs. opportunity?
> ...


I think that's a little harsh. I'm sure there is some of that, but I can also see why even the best of hunters would like to see more bucks. I'd venture to guess that all of us would like to see more and bigger bucks. I think the cost is what people are most concerned about.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Sharp- What price are you willing to pay for seeing more bucks that do little, if anything, to increase the health of the overall herd? The Southern Region already had a 3 year wait for some to draw a deer tag. Are you willing to wait 5 years? 10? For every buck Nevada carries, it is 1 to 1.5 less doe they can carry. In years of die off (drought or hard winters) the herd has less females to reproduce and rebound. If you have 500 bucks and 500 doe going into winter and half die then you are left with 250 doe to reproduce. If they had 200 bucks and 800 doe and half die then you are left with 400 doe to reproduce. The rebound on the herd with more doe comes in almost half the time as the herd with less doe. The Gunnison Basin in CO is an example of this.

I do agree that the top end of the buck to doe objective should be lowered back to 20. The 25 number came out of the Deer Committee as a concession for other opportunity (regional hunting). Now we are micro-ing buck hunters there should not be a need for such a large buffer in the objective. Unfortunately, those opportunities have been taken away, but the 25 number stayed in place. 

Jhas- I will say that the Monroe and probably the Stansbury would have been microed for buck hunters this year due to the low buck counts. This was called for in the old-current Plan, which the UDWR was never allowed to implement.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I think that's a little harsh. I'm sure there is some of that, but I can also see why even the best of hunters would like to see more bucks. I'd venture to guess that all of us would like to see more and bigger bucks. I think the cost is what people are most concerned about.


I think you're dead wrong. The best of hunter will find bigger bucks without any welfare help.

You still haven't told me where this so-called deer disaster is located...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > sharpshooter said:
> ...


Agreed, my statement was too generalized. I agree we all want to see more bucks. However, I do not want to see them at the expense of herd health/growth by cutting opportunity tags.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Packout said:


> Jhas- I will say that the Monroe and probably the Stansbury would have been microed for buck hunters this year due to the low buck counts. This was called for in the old-current Plan, which the UDWR was never allowed to implement.


Low buck numbers...

How is the deer herds doing on these units?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JHas said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's a little harsh. I'm sure there is some of that, but I can also see why even the best of hunters would like to see more bucks. I'd venture to guess that all of us would like to see more and bigger bucks. I think the cost is what people are most concerned about.
> ...


Me? I don't see a deer _disaster_ Ask goofy a muley73, they'd have a better answer.

And I agree with your first statement, but I don't know one hunter that would scoff at the prospect of having a more bucks if it wasn't tied to opportunity loss.

I'm not sure you are following things very well. I don't believe that reduced buck hunting will do anything but cause less people to have the opportunity to be in the field and be in charge of their own destiny, whether it is to hunt from their ATV, hike fifty miles or frame their tag and stare at it while they drink whisky on their couch. It's their prerogative that is suffering from these ridiculous changes.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

It is you that is having issues not following. All this confusion is exactly what is turning hunters away. If your new org is about the masses, you better learn to speak their language. 

Clue me in, are we worried that the deer herds are in trouble or are we trying to make hunting easier for the lazy minority. Im all ears!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JHas said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > Jhas- I will say that the Monroe and probably the Stansbury would have been microed for buck hunters this year due to the low buck counts. This was called for in the old-current Plan, which the UDWR was never allowed to implement.
> ...


Deer on the Monroe unit are struggling...but not because of low buck numbers.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

JHas you now have me confused, but I'll let Tree explain.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

JHas said:


> It is you that is having issues not following. All this confusion is exactly what is turning hunters away. If your new org is about the masses, you better learn to speak their language.
> 
> Clue me in, are we worried that the deer herds are in trouble or are we trying to make hunting easier for the lazy minority. Im all ears!


Wow, I'm not following, but I'll try to explain with partial info.

We (The UWC) are NOT looking to make hunting easier for the "lazy hunter" as you put it. We DO NOT support the tag cuts of the new plan, nor does the majority of our membership.

Though I personally don't believe that there is a "disaster" concerning deer, I certainly think we as a state would have been better off spending our time and resources on growing more deer instead of concentrating on growing a few more bucks.

Are there a few units, such as Monroe and Stansbury that could use a few more bucks to buffer them from actually having too few bucks to breed does? Sure. But as has been stated over and over and over, a couple of more bucks per hundred does is going to pacify the hunter that wants to see a few more and bigger bucks when they do actually draw a tag.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

If you look up the term Average Joe Hunter in the dictionary, you'll see my picture. I am horrible at multi-tasking and when people start using fancy language on me I automatically throw my guard up.

I ATTEMPT to reduce everything I hear to it's lowest common denominator as do many others.

So far I have reduced this mess to the following:

*More bucks vs. healthy normal (created by god) deer herds.*

I choose the latter and I have no doubt that most of the other Average Joes (the one's not pictured in the dictionary) would agree.

I hope that your org. is successful so that we can get the power back into the right hands (the public) but you will never succeed if you do not learn to simplify for dummies like me.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Right on. I figured we were on the same page, so I was confused when you kept directing your questions towards me. 

Your LCD is correct and thanks for your support.


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

PackOut, It seems like we are running in circles. In the end we all want the same thing. To be able to hunt big bucks year in and year out. If it was that easy to fix then it would have been done by know. 

If a herd is so far under objective how can more bucks hurt the productivy of the herd? Isn't that why they set objectives. So that we know that a certain range can handle so many deer?. I would like to know what the optimal buck to doe ratio is because apparently we are already there.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

sharpshooter said:


> ....I would like to know what the optimal buck to doe ratio is because apparently we are already there.


Optimal from what stand point?

Breeding?
Large Racks?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Sharpshooter- This topic contains so many issues that each side tends to use "this" against the other side's "that". You a right on two items in your last post- if it was easy to fix it would have been done and we all want more deer. I just can't see why we would give up our opportunity to hunt deer when the return is not what people will really want .If we get a great weather pattern then Micro-management will have worked. If we get horrible weather then Micro-management will fail. Mother Nature will control our deer herd much more than us fighting over buck hunters and if we manage for 15 or 18 bucks per 100 doe. I believe that simply micro-ing units and a 10% tag cut will not produce what you and many others want to see- a visible increase in mature bucks. 

Which brings me to your question of what the optimal buck to doe ratio is. That depends on managing the herd to biological needs or social desires. For certain, carrying more bucks does not grow the productivity of a deer herd. If simply carrying more bucks grew a herd's productivity then the San Juan would be over-run with deer, the Henry Mtns would be bursting at the seems after being micro-managed for 14 years and the Book Cliffs would not have lost 15% of its herd over the past 2 years. Yet those units provide us the opportunity to hunt them only a handfull of times in our lives if we are lucky and draw odds get better with new micro-units competing for hunters.

There is something wrong with mule deer herds far worse than buck hunters. Squabbling over buck hunters is like arranging chairs on the Titanic. The Titanic is sinking and some guy says "lets arrange those 5 piles of chairs into 60 rows". Unfortunately, the past decisions made have just focused on bucks.


----------



## ut1031 (Sep 13, 2007)

Now that was a GREAT post Mike! The weather is by far the greatest threat to our wildlife....


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

.45 said:


> elk22hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody tends to think like me anyway :mrgreen:
> ...


Hahahaha, Glad to see that you are still getting a kick out of that one.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ut1031 said:


> Now that was a GREAT post Mike! The weather is by far the greatest threat to our wildlife....


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> sharpshooter said:
> 
> 
> > If more buck are hurting Nevada's herd then they are over objective. What good would the extra does be if there is no room for the herd to expand?
> ...


I'm glad Nevada came up! Maybe that will give us an idea where we're possibly headed and whether or not we want to go there.

I Googled "buck to doe ratio nevada" and came up with http://www.rmgameandfish.com/whitetail- ... rm_aa0946C. (I hope the link works, and ignore the word whitetail in the site link 'cause there ain't any (yet) in Nevada either!)

Note it's written pre-2004 Nevada deer season and it gives the deer population numbers at 100,000, down from 250,000 in the late 1980's. It also gives the buck to doe ratios in _some_ units as high as 45 to 100 and the hunter success rate near 50%, with a third of those 4 point or better bucks. (Non-residents had a 48% 4 point or better success rate.) However, it doesn't give the number of tags issued, though it says they will go down. Well, I searched further to get those current tag numbers as well as the current deer numbers. In 2009, the herd numbers were still at 100,000 and the number of tags issued was a whopping 16,268 total buck tags and 394 doe tags. That works out to 167 tags per 1,000 deer which is almost exactly 1/2 of Utah's ratio, 332 tags per 1,000 deer. Also note that Nevada has 110 units.

I guess you can look at it any way you want, but it tells me several things. Mini/Micro-managing hunters doesn't grow herds. Big buck to doe ratios don't grow herds. Cutting tags in half doesn't grow herds and doubling the time waiting for a tag doesn't grow herds. And I also suspect raising the price of tags doesn't grow big herds.

Those strategies may grow more big bucks, but I also noted in the article that Mike Cox, the Division spokesman said, "I think, overall, that hunters need to do a little more homework to find those areas that other people haven't been willing to work." AND "If you're willing to glass and treat it like a bighorn sheep hunt, you are going to find some huge bucks." In other words, he's saying it doesn't make it any easier either because even if you draw that prime unit, it's small enough that most of the hunters are looking in the same places for the big 'un. 
BTW, You won't find it much different in the neighboring states.

I don't think the Utards will let those issues go that far, but it will be a sad day if we do! IMHO, of course!!!


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Packout, I think your right for the most part. Anyway you look at it, the outlook ain't good for mule deer. Hope somebody can figure it out soon.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I fined it interesting that the new 30 unit plan is now being used by the DWR
under the news release quote,"How the DWR is ensuring the future of Utah's deer herds"
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/learn-more/mule-deer.html

Trust me,,,,This new deer herd management plan is growing in popularity with the DWR.


----------



## mr.seven (Sep 18, 2007)

hey i think i,m lost i been hunting in what i thought was utah and seeing plenty of bucks,but after getting on here and finding out there are no deer here,where am i and who,s moving all the sheds here that i see people finding.i,m LOST


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Packout said:


> Sharpshooter- This topic contains so many issues that each side tends to use "this" against the other side's "that". You a right on two items in your last post- if it was easy to fix it would have been done and we all want more deer. I just can't see why we would give up our opportunity to hunt deer when the return is not what people will really want .If we get a great weather pattern then Micro-management will have worked. If we get horrible weather then Micro-management will fail. Mother Nature will control our deer herd much more than us fighting over buck hunters and if we manage for 15 or 18 bucks per 100 doe. I believe that simply micro-ing units and a 10% tag cut will not produce what you and many others want to see- a visible increase in mature bucks.
> 
> Which brings me to your question of what the optimal buck to doe ratio is. That depends on managing the herd to biological needs or social desires. For certain, carrying more bucks does not grow the productivity of a deer herd. If simply carrying more bucks grew a herd's productivity then the San Juan would be over-run with deer, the Henry Mtns would be bursting at the seems after being micro-managed for 14 years and the Book Cliffs would not have lost 15% of its herd over the past 2 years. Yet those units provide us the opportunity to hunt them only a handfull of times in our lives if we are lucky and draw odds get better with new micro-units competing for hunters.
> 
> There is something wrong with mule deer herds far worse than buck hunters. Squabbling over buck hunters is like arranging chairs on the Titanic. The Titanic is sinking and some guy says "lets arrange those 5 piles of chairs into 60 rows". Unfortunately, the past decisions made have just focused on bucks.


Not even a mention of predation? Weather is the answer? What weather pattern can you identify that was the reason for the deer boom from the 30's to the 80's.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... bility.pdf

I assume you may be referring to winter as the primary reason for deer decline. But the data compiled contradicts winters being worse than historic averages. One may say precipitation then. The data also contradicts that notion also.

It's not as if the period from the 30s to the 90s was void of dry or wet yrs. But the deer herd sustained a consistent increase during most of that era. What is consistent during that era is an all out war on predators coyote cougar bear and wolf. I have come a ways from thinking that killing predators is solely what Utah's deer herd needs or the west for that matter. But I firmly believe it is a keystone piece to the equation. All our efforts will be in vain if we don't take a comprehensive and assertive stance on predator control with the goal of improving hunter outlook.

Can anyone deny that the cougar population in Utah that falls somewhere between 2000 and 3000. Are taking an estimated on the low end 75,000 deer and on the high end 150,000 deer per yr? And some say coyotes are doing even more predation on deer than cougar. So what is the figure attributed to them? More than 100,000? IMO I don't believe coyote are having that kind of effect. But it may be substantial enough to warrant some action on them.

It's clear that statewide the deer herd is pretty much stagnant. I can attribute the amount lost to predation to fall within the estimated fawn crop annually. Throw in hunter harvest roadkill and the occasional winter kill and its plain for me to see why the deer herd is not increasing. And in some yrs declining.

I have been asked in terms of buck/doe ratios. Why aren't the deer herds in the Books Henry's or San Juan exploding? My answer is they do and did when predation was addressed. The henry's unit almost doubled in population from 04 to 08 when cougar tags were increased substantially. Zion, Pine Valley and Panguitch have also seen good increases between 05 and 08 when cougar tags have been issued in those units in high numbers. To the point all three of those units were over objective in 09. These three units also average a buck doe ratio above 20/100.

What I'm getting at is not one single issue solved will remedy the deer problems. A higher buck doe ratio wont help so long as predation is not decreased. And lower predation wont necessarily help if the buck doe ratio is low. I have come to believe we need buck doe ratio's above 15/100 since a vast majority of the buck figured in these ratio's are young 2pt. I firmly believe we need more mature bucks in the herd to facilitate early breeding and hence early fawning.

And lastly I have no problem with limiting how many hunters can hunt on any given unit. That just make sense to me. Limited entry has become a dirty word in Utah. Mostly due to the way Utah uses it. Colorado and WY have LE but issue enough tags to give a good chance to hunt. Maybe not in the unit of your choice. I would be happy with the UWC if they focused there efforts on preserving our hunting opportunities through the LE system rather than expending efforts to get rid of it all together.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I fined it interesting that the new 30 unit plan is now being used by the DWR
> under the news release quote,"How the DWR is ensuring the future of Utah's deer herds"
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/learn-more/mule-deer.html
> 
> Trust me,,,,This new deer herd management plan is growing in popularity with the DWR.


Not in the Southern Region office!!! Trust me! They're just under the mandate to comply with the directives of the Wildlife Board, nothing more. And any public interviews, articles, or announcements are simply PR-designed to make those directives look good. After all, you don't rip on the boss in public if you want to keep your job!


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Too cold for fishing!

As much as I HATE the titanic analogy.... Some guys would like to take their chairs over and listen to the band play while some guys want sit right infront on the latrene and complain about how bad it STINKS.

I'm for moving my chair over closer to the band, because I realize (sadly) we're on a slow sinking ship and I'd just as soon enjoy it while I can. I'm all for doing all we can to slow it down, but human population growth is what it is. Can you guys imagine what Utah is going to look like in 50 years? Even 10 years? Not wanting to sound all doom and gloom, but Utah's muleys really have a tough tough future ahead. We need to be looking ahead loooooonnnnngggggg term.

As for all of these extra bucks eating up the house and home don't we have to reach some kind of carrying capicity before this argument even begins to make sense.

And here's a thought for those of you concerened about the DWR not having the man power to enforce all of the new regions. They'll have lots of extra time with 13,000 fewer people to check....  

Lots of ways to spin things. o-||


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> [
> 
> "Can anyone deny that the cougar population in Utah that falls somewhere between 2000 and 3000. Are taking an estimated on the low end 75,000 deer and on the high end 150,000 deer per yr? And some say coyotes are doing even more predation on deer than cougar. So what is the figure attributed to them? More than 100,000? IMO I don't believe coyote are having that kind of effect. But it may be substantial enough to warrant some action on them."
> quote]
> ...


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

The sky is falling again...

Once again, where in the state are our deer herds hurting so badly that we have to resort to these drastic measures that will do nothing for the actual long term health of our herds?

I am not talking buck numbers, I am talking about overall deer herd health.

This is all about lazy hunters. Some of you guys want me to give up my annual hunting so you lazy hunters can easily see and shoot bigger bucks.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Mrad said:


> As for all of these extra bucks eating up the house and home don't we have to reach some kind of carrying capicity before this argument even begins to make sense.


The Utah DWR is of the opinion most of Utah's deer herd ARE at carrying capacity. Therefore, this argument makes sense......



Mrad said:


> And here's a thought for those of you concerened about the DWR not having the man power to enforce all of the new regions. They'll have lots of extra time with 13,000 fewer people to check....


True, but with THOUSANDS of new border miles to patrol, their workload will increase, and thanks to the lost revenue from the reduction in permits they will have less manpower and less resources at their disposal to 'check' the hunters.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

I think hunters will check themselves especially if they can get a guaranteed tag outta turning someone in with poor map reading skills.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Boy now if that aint the truth now Mrad....

AMAZING how poaching permits has turned every law abiding citizen into a CO..


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I am really surprised by the poll results so far. I would never have imagined the majority would support hunter management, one way or another. I think Goofy has a point about option 2 gaining some momentum. Tree, I have mostly agreed with most of your comments/responses in this thread. I know I've said this before but it really comes down to two groups of people. Those who want to hunt ever year, reguardless of how many people are hunting around them and how few bucks they see. And then those who would like to see more 3 point or better bucks and less hunters around them. IMHO 
Sure, if we grow the herds larger, there will be more deer, which means more young bucks but if there's more hunters than these young bucks can get away from, there will and has been very little carryover of mature bucks. I think most people who support option 2 want to see more mature bucks (none yearlings) and less hunters to contend with. Not that they think it's a great management tool to grow the deer herds. For some reason in the last few years, "Trophy Hunter" has become a dirty word. When just over 20 years ago, people were proud to show off their buck in public and it was a way to bring a group of hunters together. Now things are so divisive.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Iron Bear,,,,,Your so far out in LEFT field on lions its a frek'in joke!
> 
> Even IF there are 2K lions left,,,,,,,,They sure the hell don't live on deer alone.
> Most of then have an elk diet these days...................
> ...


Well Goofy are you going to take me out? My offer stands always and I'm a payer too. The same goes for any of your houndsman buddies. Finding a houndsman willing to take you out and let you shoot a female is about as tuff as getting a 30 inch buck these days. And if I do go out a fill one of these HO tags. In your mind will I be entitled to b!tch? I bet not you see a houndsmans is one of the most selfish sportsman around. And a master of misinformation. They would protect their hobby of playing tag to the demise of 97,000 deer hunters. -)O(-

Ive told you and Kenvin this a few times before. If you think the cougar hunting sucks now. Just keep pushing for more cougar and see how many you have in the future. As deer herds continue to decline. The answer to more cougar is more deer.

And yes I do believe a cougar kills a deer per week on average. 2000 cougar thats about 100,000 deer.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> They sure the hell don't live on deer alone.
> Most of then have an elk diet these days...................


I agree once the deer bottom out like they did on the Monroe they do move to elk. That is why the elk herd was reduced to half its size during the cougar study on Monroe in a matter of 2 yrs. Good for you houndsman you have the potential to be part of the demise of the elk hunter too. Unfortunately you guys hold the keys to this situation. We need your dogs to effectively harvest cougar. And we also rely on your information to make assessments on the population and tag allocations for cougar. IMO you houndsman have a opportunity to be hero's but sadly you turn out to be zero's.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> I am really surprised by the poll results so far. I would never have imagined the majority would support hunter management, one way or another. I think Goofy has a point about option 2 gaining some momentum. Tree, I have mostly agreed with most of your comments/responses in this thread. I know I've said this before but it really comes down to two groups of people. Those who want to hunt ever year, reguardless of how many people are hunting around them and how few bucks they see. And then those who would like to see more 3 point or better bucks and less hunters around them. IMHO
> Sure, if we grow the herds larger, there will be more deer, which means more young bucks but if there's more hunters than these young bucks can get away from, there will and has been very little carryover of mature bucks. I think most people who support option 2 want to see more mature bucks (none yearlings) and less hunters to contend with. Not that they think it's a great management tool to grow the deer herds.* For some reason in the last few years, "Trophy Hunter" has become a dirty word. When just over 20 years ago, people were proud to show off their buck in public and it was a way to bring a group of hunters together. Now things are so divisive*.


All you have to do is follow the money ridgetop, and you will find your answer as to why the word "trophy" has the association to it you elude to. Back in the day, those big bucks were killed for many reasons: skill, luck, perseverance, ability, etc&#8230; Today, those big bucks are being bought and paid for, grown specifically for that outcome. And it is being done to the demise of the overall herd health, and the other hunters of which you speak. I don't classify most of the hunters in your second group as "trophy" hunters just because they want to see more mature animals and don't like to share the mountains with so many hunters. I think they are in a third group that lies between the first and "trophy" hunters.

Doesn't make any difference at this point really. Until "ALL" hunters wake up and stop with the selfish -me, me, me- attitude, and transfer all of that emotion to what is best for the wildlife, we will continue down the path to where eventually there will only be the haves and the have nots in hunting: those who have the tags, and those who don't.

I believe we have or soon will reach a breaking point with the mule deer in the west. For far, far too long the various wildlife agencies have managed to "maintain" herds, not to grow them, and they are failing at even doing that, in general. Wildlife management that caters to itself with social and political biology will fail. It will fail the public who put their trust in them, and it will fail the wildlife they are duty bound to protect. For the most part, the science is there. Yet it is manipulated, dismissed and even ignored in far too many instances. There are still important biological factors that are still not understood. Unfortunately, there is no push or desire great enough to pursue them by those who are in charge. Even a way of scientifically measuring carrying capacity is not really understood. Biologists are basically making a guess or going by data that is not proven. Some studies show carrying capacity could be FAR larger than most methods of calculation currently demonstrate. And studies done in several states indicate it is very difficult if not impossible to accurately measure on a large scale.

We as hunters must be the advocates of our heritage, and we have to stop the selfish infighting we propagate day in and day out on these forums and in the "real" world. We must push hard to get the right decisions made by those who are in charge. We can no longer expect a "short term solution" to be the savior of our wildlife. We can't expect "right now!" management to work. Long term (I'm talking decades here) goals have to be instituted and worked towards. And we, this generation of hunters, must do it so that our future generations can enjoy what we once did.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Well put Lobo!


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> [quote="Iron Bear":12ftb6b7][
> 
> "Can anyone deny that the cougar population in Utah that falls somewhere between 2000 and 3000. Are taking an estimated on the low end 75,000 deer and on the high end 150,000 deer per yr? And some say coyotes are doing even more predation on deer than cougar. So what is the figure attributed to them? More than 100,000? IMO I don't believe coyote are having that kind of effect. But it may be substantial enough to warrant some action on them."
> quote]
> ...


[/quote:12ftb6b7]

Of course cougars don't "just" kill deer, but the deer IS their MAIN food source. New biological studies indicate that when the big cats are depleting their main food source, instead of nature culling them down, they will move alternately to a new food source (your elk) then back to the deer. This is devastating to the deer herds, as they have no chance to recover. It is not only the killing factor either, it is the "ecology of fear" that biologists are learning that have devastating effects on the herds growth. That same factor is being found in the predation by coyote's, which exponentially retards a herds health and growth. The yotes are a huge predation factor to our herds today.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lobo , I agree, Yotes right now are the biggest predication problem facing deer herds.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

As for hunters watching "their own" for a chance at a tag...Makes you wonder what if we threw 13,000 tags back into the draw and made them 3pt or better or management tags LOL

Oh the possibilities -_O-


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Lobo , I agree, Yotes right now are the biggest predication problem facing deer herds.


I dought you know what predication means. :lol:


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Mrad said:


> As for hunters watching "their own" for a chance at a tag...Makes you wonder what if we threw 13,000 tags back into the draw and made them 3pt or better or management tags LOL
> 
> Oh the possibilities -_O-


Well, actually, no, it doesn't make me wonder at all. And your point is? :shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I am really surprised by the poll results so far. I would never have imagined the majority would support hunter management, one way or another. I think Goofy has a point about option 2 gaining some momentum. Tree, I have mostly agreed with most of your comments/responses in this thread. I know I've said this before but it really comes down to two groups of people. Those who want to hunt ever year, reguardless of how many people are hunting around them and how few bucks they see. And then those who would like to see more 3 point or better bucks and less hunters around them. IMHO
> Sure, if we grow the herds larger, there will be more deer, which means more young bucks but if there's more hunters than these young bucks can get away from, there will and has been very little carryover of mature bucks. I think most people who support option 2 want to see more mature bucks (none yearlings) and less hunters to contend with. Not that they think it's a great management tool to grow the deer herds. For some reason in the last few years, "Trophy Hunter" has become a dirty word. When just over 20 years ago, people were proud to show off their buck in public and it was a way to bring a group of hunters together. Now things are so divisive.


This is a good post ridge and captures this debate quite well IMO.

I will say this....from my perspective the ONLY reason that "trophy hunter" is becoming a dirty word is the preception that they want it all. At first there were limited entry units. Now we see general units where quality is becoming increasingly important at the expense of the ability to get a tag. We see elk units that have approved plans for average age of harvest being ignored simply because people "fear" that quality might decrease.

Over the years the opportunity crowd has been easy to please. Just let me hunt. The quality crowd is insatiable. 15 years ago a 320 bull was something to be quite proud of. Most didn't know what a 320 bull looked like. Now a 320 bull is a disappoinment and there are no signs of this mentality slowing down. We have outfitters boycotting the Governor's tag because it's been almost 2 1/2 years since we've produced a world record. People are afraid to post their 2 points for fearing of being run off the forum. I think many people are growing tired of the politics and the "want more" mentality that comes with trophy hunting. Remember opportunity guys like big racks too. Its all a matter of prioroties to the individual I guess..


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Spot on bullsnot!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot, I agree on many points that you and the UWC crew are pushing. Really I do. 8) 
But I think your missing the point about people wanting quality. Quality can mean a lot of different things to a person. I think most people (including myself) when thinking of a quality hunt, it's one with few other hunters around, seeing a few mature bucks and having enough time to hunt them to be successful. It's not about killing the biggest buck on the mountain. Also, on one of your surveys posted on the UWC site, it claimed that 70% of hunters, just want to get away from it all. That's a lot easier to do with less hunters in the field. I also believe that at least half of the people who puts in for a limited entry tag, are doing so, just to hunt in an enviroment with a higher buck to doe or bull to cow ratio. I feel your frustration when the RAC and maybe now the board will turn down an increase in tags. I do believe we could be a lot more liberal with the tag numbers and still have a quality hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

*()* *()* Ridge hits a home run....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> bullsnot, I agree on many points that you and the UWC crew are pushing. Really I do. 8)
> But I think your missing the point about people wanting quality. Quality can mean a lot of different things to a person. I think most people (including myself) when thinking of a quality hunt, it's one with few other hunters around, seeing a few mature bucks and having enough time to hunt them to be successful. Here is where you and I are in different realms. The problem I have with your mindset is that what you want can only happen by taking from others. In order to have few other hunters around there must be rationing of permits. Also, your definition of success can mean a lot of different things to a person as well as quality does. To me, punching the tag is NOT how I measure success. It's not about killing the biggest buck on the mountain. Also, on one of your surveys posted on the UWC site, it claimed that 70% of hunters, just want to get away from it all. That's a lot easier to do with less hunters in the field. To me, getting away from it all means the rat race of every day life, NOT getting to remote areas where I see no other humans. If I want that I will head to the Outback and look for dingos. I also believe that at least half of the people who puts in for a limited entry tag, are doing so, just to hunt in an enviroment with a higher buck to doe or bull to cow ratio. Then stick with limited entry units, don't try and make every hunter in Utah hunt to your standards! I feel your frustration when the RAC and maybe now the board will turn down an increase in tags. I do believe we could be a lot more liberal with the tag numbers and still have a quality hunt. Again, using your own words, quality means many different things.......To many, a quality hunt means being able to hunt with family and friends, to others it means being able to enjoy HUNTING more than once every 5 years!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I do believe we could be a lot more liberal with the tag numbers and still have a quality hunt.


Do you realize the difference between quantity (GS) and quality (LE) hunts? If you want to have a more quality hunt then put in for LE units instead of trying to turn GS units into LE units. Maybe your tired of getting your UNSUCCESSFUL letter in the mail every year.

BTW there is a lot of quality bucks on GS units because I see them every year. I guess I need to start posting pictures of bucks this summer.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Ridge, I see where you are coming from and agree. To some a "quality hunt" is (#1) less hunters. I get it. To others a "quality" hunt (#2) is not predicated on the amount of competition in the field or size of bucks seen. To me, the new plan is telling all of us that #1 is how we SHOULD think. Blanket managing to the higher buck to doe ratio is serving one segment of the hunting population, when there are several. It's about as in-comprehensive as seasoning every **** thing on the grill with the same seasoning. We have quite a few slices of haddock out there bro. And don't be putting that lemon pepper **** on my center cut Ribeye!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Then stick with limited entry units, don't try and make every hunter in Utah hunt to your standards!


 If my standards got any lower, how could I concider you a friend? :O•-: I'm not trying to make any one choose something against their will. Just giving my point of view, without the insults of course. You know I'm just joking about the low standards thing.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> If my standards got any lower, how could I concider you a friend? :O•-: I'm not trying to make any one choose something against their will. Just giving my point of view, without the insults of course. You know I'm just joking about the low standards thing.


The fact we are friends shows how low your standards are, at least in the friend department. How can reducing permits do anything BUT take their options away?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Yote strikes out at the plate,,,,,

Tree hits a single.....

Pro hits one deep ,, But caught for an out...

Ridge still leads 1 - 0


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yote strikes out at the plate,,,,,
> 
> Tree hits a single.....
> 
> ...


Goofy didn't even make the team because even after the coach tried to help him by placing the ball on the tee then he became the weakest link to the rest of the team because he struck out every time. :mrgreen:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Just giving my point of view, without the insults of course.


Who insulted you? I haven't seen any posts that were insulting to you.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> bullsnot, I agree on many points that you and the UWC crew are pushing. Really I do. 8)
> But I think your missing the point about people wanting quality. Quality can mean a lot of different things to a person. I think most people (including myself) when thinking of a quality hunt, it's one with few other hunters around, seeing a few mature bucks and having enough time to hunt them to be successful. It's not about killing the biggest buck on the mountain. Also, on one of your surveys posted on the UWC site, it claimed that 70% of hunters, just want to get away from it all. That's a lot easier to do with less hunters in the field. I also believe that at least half of the people who puts in for a limited entry tag, are doing so, just to hunt in an enviroment with a higher buck to doe or bull to cow ratio. I feel your frustration when the RAC and maybe now the board will turn down an increase in tags. I do believe we could be a lot more liberal with the tag numbers and still have a quality hunt.


I can certainly understand your frustration ridgetop, and agree with some of what you say. There are a fair number of hunters today that do NOT give a rats rear about other hunters, they just want for themselves, and if that means taking away from the others, then so be it. It's like that in many facets of life, and that really is too bad. I've read enough of your posts here and on other sites to know you are a good man, and one that has many times offered and indeed, helped other hunters asking for such. I really don't think your intention is to take away the hunting lifestyle that so many folks love, but in essence, that is what your train of thought is professing.

How about we (ALL HUNTERS), yes, you too goofyelk :mrgreen: push those in charge of producing our herds health and numbers do their **** job!? Let the health of the herds come first and opportunity and quality will follow. I would be willing to wager that all those folks who "just like to go out with their families and hunt for hunting's' sake" would be more than willing to sacrifice if they understood that that sacrifice was being done for the benefit of the herds and the future of our heritage. I know I would and so would a whole lot of other hunters I know. Anyway, just food for thought. o-||


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Just giving my point of view, without the insults of course.
> 
> 
> Who insulted you? I haven't seen any posts that were insulting to you.


Just saying that too many people try and get their point across by insulting others. Not me personally per say.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

lobo, I AGREE 100% WITH growing bigger , better, more healthy deer herds.

I just believe we have a better chance of accomplishing this with unit management.

The ONLY way to fix units with low buck to doe ratios is hunter management.
The ONLY way to stop hot spotting is UNIT management...
The ONLY way to help struggling units when hunts are REGIONAL is SHORT hunts,
(or antler restric's) ,,, Short hunts suck, No one wants to try short term antler restics.
We cant control mother nature,,(weather),,,,,WE CAN control hunting pressure.

Deer are a LIMITED resource, Those how think we can put UNLIMITED permits
in the field hunting and not have an effect on the herds are wrong.......IMHO.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> lobo, I AGREE 100% WITH growing bigger , better, more healthy deer herds.
> 
> I just believe we have a better chance of accomplishing this with unit management.
> 
> ...


While we are past the days of unlimited tagges, we should not be past the days of hunting. Having a hand full of tagges for 4 or 5 hundred square miles is wrong. The way it is going, I think you should divide the whole state into 2 acres lots and assign tagges based on that. Put a bucket in the middle of those two acres and let everybody go sit. But then if we did that, we would not need guides...........


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> lobo, I AGREE 100% WITH growing bigger , better, more healthy deer herds.
> 
> I just believe we have a better chance of accomplishing this with unit management.
> 
> ...


And the ONLY way to help lazy hunters kill mature bucks is through the Trophy Management Welfare Act (Option 2).


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why do the opponents of option 2 keep comparing the proposed new LE units to the traditional LE units as far as tag allocation? 

2009 hunters afield:
Henry's 49
Paunsaugunt 237
Book Cliffs 634
Filmore Oak creek 51
La Sal Dolores Triangle 18
Plateau Thousand Lakes 34
San Juan Elk Ridge 50
South slope Diamond Mtn 125
West Desert Vernon 199

Just a few GS units hunters afield:
West Box Elder 2287
Ogden 2372
East Canyon 3717
Kamas 2686
Nebo 3647
Oquirrh Stansbury 2839
Pahvant 2932
Beaver 3864
Panguitch Lake 3985
Pine valley 4486

Are you guys suggesting option 2 will bring tag allotments from the 1000's down to 10's or 100's like the current LE units have today? I have heard nothing of this kind of tag cuts. Maybe you are privy to info the rest of the state isn't. 

And yes hot spotting is a serious issue in a regional or statewide system. I can point out a couple examples. As the deer herd grew on Pine Valley hunters afield have gone from 2491 in 2000 to 4486 in 2009. And the Panguitch unit has gone from 2304 in 2000 to 3985 in 2009. Monroe hunters afield have dropped from 2913 in 04 to 1699 in 09. They decided to go somewhere else. My instinct tells me if and when the deer herd recovers on Monroe the word gets out and they will come back in force. Given some time I figure I could make the argument that 4500 hunters on Pine Valley is too many. Resulting in a declining Buck Doe ratio then a lower overall population over time. Why not limit that unit to hypothetically 3500 hunters in order to facilitate a decent hunt for decades rather than a few yrs? 

Keep in mind predation must be kept in check in order for any given unit to have long term hunter sustainability.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> bullsnot, I agree on many points that you and the UWC crew are pushing. Really I do. 8)
> But I think your missing the point about people wanting quality. Quality can mean a lot of different things to a person. I think most people (including myself) when thinking of a quality hunt, it's one with few other hunters around, seeing a few mature bucks and having enough time to hunt them to be successful. It's not about killing the biggest buck on the mountain. Also, on one of your surveys posted on the UWC site, it claimed that 70% of hunters, just want to get away from it all. That's a lot easier to do with less hunters in the field. I also believe that at least half of the people who puts in for a limited entry tag, are doing so, just to hunt in an enviroment with a higher buck to doe or bull to cow ratio. I feel your frustration when the RAC and maybe now the board will turn down an increase in tags. I do believe we could be a lot more liberal with the tag numbers and still have a quality hunt.


Tree had a good response but let me add something from my personal prespective. I think you are somewhat missing the point from the opportunity side of things.

The "opportunity" and "quality" crowd aren't all the different in wanting few hunters in the field and seeing large animals. I get that and we all want that as individuals. Where the two sides disagree is what price are we willing to pay to get there? I think UWC has a good grasp on the concept that you speak of because as individuals many of us feel the same way. But when faced with what hunters as a whole have to give up to get there many of us feel it's not worth the trade off. The trade off is that we get to hunt much less. Hunting means a lot of different things to different folks. For some it's their church. For some it's about tradition. For some it's about teaching the youngsters. For some it really is just about hanging the biggest rack ont he wall. There is nothing wrong with any of those scenarios but the management plan should match the desires of the public. Niether side should have it all their way. We should have units that are managed for all types of hunters.

We talk about the good old days of the 60's and 70's when there were a pile of deer. There were also A LOT of hunters in the field. Many more than today. From your prerspective do we really want to grow deer herds? Sure there would be more deer but there would also be more hunters. Does the thought of more hunters in the field bother you as well?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Are you guys suggesting option 2 will bring tag allotments from the 1000's down to 10's or 100's like the current LE units have today? I have heard nothing of this kind of tag cuts. Maybe you are privy to info the rest of the state isn't.


What is the reasoning behind any tag cuts at all on these GENERAL season units? Is it to increase the number of quality bucks? Isn't the point of a general season unit to maximize opportunity at the expense of quality? So, basically what the pro option 2 crowd wants is to keep the same number of LE areas and to slowly--one step at a time--increase the quality of general season units by making the acquisition of tags more and more limited.



Iron Bear said:


> I can point out a couple examples. As the deer herd grew on Pine Valley hunters afield have gone from 2491 in 2000 to 4486 in 2009. And the Panguitch unit has gone from 2304 in 2000 to 3985 in 2009. Monroe hunters afield have dropped from 2913 in 04 to 1699 in 09. They decided to go somewhere else. My instinct tells me if and when the deer herd recovers on Monroe the word gets out and they will come back in force. Given some time I figure I could make the argument that 4500 hunters on Pine Valley is too many. Resulting in a declining Buck Doe ratio then a lower overall population over time.


Hmmm...the Pine Valley is a good example of "hotspotting"? I beg to differ (actually hunters are probably hunting this unit because it is good. But, the "hotspotting" is not a negative thing)...as the number of hunters afield have increased over time on this unit, so have the number of deer. In fact, Pine Valley is one of the few units in the state where the deer herd is over objective. This is in despite of the fact that the number of hunters has increased...it seems that the number of bucks killed on this unit has not impacted the overall herd health. In other words, this example gives us opponents of option 2 a lot of ammunition in showing that the number of bucks harvested will NOT impact herd health and herd growth...



Iron Bear said:


> Why not limit that unit to hypothetically 3500 hunters in order to facilitate a decent hunt for decades rather than a few yrs?


Because it is unnecessarily limiting what hunters can do...because having more than 3500 hunters on that unit will not hurt the herd. IN fact, if you look at the numbers on the Pine Valley, the buck/doe ratio has actually climbed from 17/100 in 2004 to 22/100 in 2010. And, the number of bucks 3 point or better has climbed from 37% in 2006 to 50% in 2010. It seems to me that the unit can handle even more pressure than it is already getting...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Why do the opponents of option 2 keep comparing the proposed new LE units to the traditional LE units as far as tag allocation?
> *And what makes you think that when the herd does not recover, that more tagges will not be taken away. Sorry history is more on my side. All you need to do is look back to 1993. The whole thing with the LE Hunts was to give those that wanted to just hunt for huge bucks a place. They took all the premium places and gave them to the LE. Now that's not good enough.*
> 
> Are you guys suggesting option 2 will bring tag allotments from the 1000's down to 10's or 100's like the current LE units have today? I have heard nothing of this kind of tag cuts. Maybe you are privy to info the rest of the state isn't. *Maybe you should look at history.*
> ...


*The problem is they keeping taking the masses and putting them on smaller and smaller pieces of ground. Then complain there are to many people. You could double the tagges on every LE unit and it would do nothing to the quality of the animals. *


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Huntaholic and Wy2 you make some good points. I wont argue with your logics on this matter.

As to LE and hot spotting. For the fears Huntaholic points out which I share. I would prefer to see efforts go into making sure tag allotments stay satisfactory for the masses. Rather than throwing hunter management out because of said fears. 

As to Pine Valley I haven't studied the numbers to conclude that 4500 hunters are too many. My original sentiments were just a hunch. Wy2 (our favorite subject) Can you tell me why you suspect Pine Valley's deer herd has grown? In spite of increased hunting pressure. And what do you say to the relatively large number of sustained cougar tags given out on this unit along the same time line as the deer herd increase? You can add Panguitch and Zion to that as well. Is there even a sliver (in your mind) of possibility that sustained and heavy predator control can facilitate herd growth and include more hunter opportunity?  

Just hope all know I am not an advocate for limiting hunter opportunity. I do believe in hunter management though. I'm not a trophy hunter I'm a family hunter. My wishes are to have a bountiful resource for all to partake in. Even to the extreme degree in today's terms. I want to get our 3 seasons back. I'm so crazy I believe if managed properly Utah should and could have 600,000 + deer.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Wy2 (our favorite subject) Can you tell me why you suspect Pine Valley's deer herd has grown? In spite of increased hunting pressure. And what do you say to the relatively large number of sustained cougar tags given out on this unit along the same time line as the deer herd increase? You can add Panguitch and Zion to that as well. Is there even a sliver (in your mind) of possibility that sustained and heavy predator control can facilitate herd growth and include more hunter opportunity?


Sure....I have always believed that predator control can influence herd growth. I believe intensive predator control could help Utah's deer herds throughout Utah immensely...but, the predator that really needs to be controlled is coyotes.

As far as mountain lions are concerned, I believe they can and do affect deer in certain situations and are capable of holding populations down...this might have been the case on both the Panguitch, Zion, and Pine Valley units. I do know a study was done not long ago on Pine Valley that showed mountain lions as a limiting factor to the deer population...that is probably why it has high harvest objective numbers for lions. But, I do NOT believe this is the problem on Monroe....as I have pointed out to you many times, the rise of mountain lion numbers on Monroe coincided with a rise in deer numbers....and the fall of mountain lions coincided with a fall in deer numbers. If mountain lions were truly limiting deer numbers on Monroe, the opposite would have been true.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Say that cougar on Monroe aren't the reason for the deer herd situation. Could it be the Dixie Harrow projects limiting deer habitat? I am anxious to get back up there this yr to see if Dry Creek and Six Patch have started any regeneration. They haven't as of yet nearly 5 and 10 yrs later. And the lack of wintering deer above Koosherem Res is ominous to me.

On the other hand the Elk and cattle look like they are doing fine in those areas. :mrgreen:

Monroe has not seen cougar tag allocations like Pine Valley or Zoins ect. Nor for a sustained amount of time.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Say that cougar on Monroe aren't the reason for the deer herd situation. Could it be the Dixie Harrow projects limiting deer habitat? I am anxious to get back up there this yr to see if Dry Creek and Six Patch have started any regeneration. They haven't as of yet nearly 5 and 10 yrs later. And the lack of wintering deer above Koosherem Res is ominous to me.


I doubt that the Dixie Harrow projects are limiting deer habitat; in fact, I believe they are starting to really improve the habitat....but, that's just opinion.



Iron Bear said:


> Monroe has not seen cougar tag allocations like Pine Valley or Zoins ect. Nor for a sustained amount of time.


Actually, Monroe has seen very significant tag allocations for lions...From 1990 to 2000 the number of lion tags on Monroe was very comparable to the tag numbers on Pine Valley from 2000-present. The interesting thing is that when cougar numbers on Monroe were at their very lowest--around 2002--is also the same time that Monroe had its worst fawn/doe ratio at 48/100 and worst fawn/adult ratio at 27/100. If lions were limiting the deer herd, this would have been the exact opposite. And, it is at this time--when lion numbers were at their lowest--that deer numbers began dropping. Also, deer numbers began increasing from 2002 until about 2008...the same time period that lion tags were significantly limited to help lion numbers rebound. So, as the deer herd was increasing, so was the lion numbers.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Say that cougar on Monroe aren't the reason for the deer herd situation. Could it be the Dixie Harrow projects limiting deer habitat? I am anxious to get back up there this yr to see if Dry Creek and Six Patch have started any regeneration. They haven't as of yet nearly 5 and 10 yrs later. And the lack of wintering deer above Koosherem Res is ominous to me.


Hmmm...I found this information on the internet:
"Habitat treatment tools being used in our area include chaining, Bullhog, Agri-ax, chainsaw, Bobcat Brushsaw, double and single drum Lawson aerator, Dixie Harrow, rangeland disc/drill, fire, and livestock. Once sagebrush sites reach 20% cover, the understory of grass and forbs decrease proportionately. Ideal rangeland should contain between 10-12 percent sagebrush. Many of the sites we target for treatment are over 25% and as high as 40%. If the understory is poor we will seed at the time of the treatment, otherwise, we will add seed only where needed. Sites that have a high percent of sagebrush cover also have a high percent of litter, bare ground and rocks. The inner spaces (between the brush)become almost barren of vegetation because of heavy grazing and trailing by cattle, elk, and deer. This creates high soil erosion potential on these sites. A sagebrush-dominant site can utilize 5-7 times more water than a grass-forb community. Old-age sagebrush that becomes decedent is not as palatable for deer compared to younger healthier sage. Our Dixie Harrow post treatment data shows, sagebrush averages 32.4% on untreated sites and 6.7% on treated sites. (These data reflect a "twice over" Dixie 
Harrow pattern to achieve a 90-95% initial reduction in sagebrush. A "once over" pattern will reduce sage 50-60%). The "twice over" pattern represents a 470% decrease of sagebrush on these sites. The grasses average 18.9% in the untreated sites and 40.5% on treated sites. This represents a 215% average increase in grass production post-treatment. The forbs average 4.5% in the untreated sites and 7.7% in the treated sites for a 170% increase. We see an increase of bare ground and litter the year immediately following the treatment. This soon changes as the vegetation increases and the litter melts down. With 
sagebrush reduced, grasses and forbs fill in the site and the percentage of bare ground is reduced dramatically. The treated sites reduce soil erosion greatly. A more natural flow of watershed function can occur than in a monoculture of sagebrush. Other plants that respond well on our treated sites are bitterbrush and snowberry, 2 highly sought- after brush species by deer. The old decedent plants are removed by the treatment causing increased vigor to the remaining young plants. Bitterbrush sites that were Dixie Harrowed in "The Rocks" responded very positive. Forbs respond to a mechanical treatment almost like after a fire. Many wildlife species find the treatment areas very attractive for palatability and nutritional needs. We have to treat large amounts of acres to disperse grazing pressure on newly treated areas. Another positive aspect we see in the long- 
term is a "healing trend" in the untreated areas. As animals find the treatment areas more attractive, the adjacent untreated areas are receiving less pressure and are showing positive numbers in grass and forb production. This increases the size of the overall treatment area because of the affect the treatment has in the buffer areas. 
The Dixie Harrow has been manufactured in 3 different sizes: 15 ft., 25 ft., and a 38 ft. The larger 2 harrows can be also used to treat sage in pinyon-juniper habitats and remove trees as well. We are also using the Bobcat Brush saw to cut re-growth of pinyon-juniper in old chainings. Maintenance of old chainings is an urgent issue. If we don't re-treat them before the understory starts to diminish again, the cost to reseed and re-treat will be 4 times greater. Mechanical treatments help set back the succession curve like fire. The Dixie Harrow is only one of the tools available to land managers today. We feel it is 
one of the best tools for sagebrush ecosystems. We have successfully treated and monitored thousands of acres with objectives in mind for deer, elk, and sage grouse and are finding positive results."


----------

