# Moroe archery deer hunt closes.



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Just wanted to cat call the morons who believed that Monroe's deer herd isn't in trouble. I just seen that the DWR will close the general archery deer hunt on Sept 2nd due to low buck pop. Ha Ha Ha! I have argued this for yrs here. And to all those who feel the DWR's biologist are gospel. I guess you can believe that that its true. Monroe's deer herd sucks! Next step will be to close it all together for a while.


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

Where is this published? I do know one of the issues there is that it has been a cougar study area for 10+ years. They claim they have most all cougars collored on that unit. Trail cams and just seeing them without collars tells me thay don't. There are supposed to be 20-25 collored cats. Well the ones I have seen don't have any. To be consevative there are 40 cats on the unit at one deer per week that is @2000 deer per year. I wonder why the deer herd is have a hard time.

Drifter


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

DWR website under Latest news. Changes made to archery deer hunt. On second thought they may be trying to help the deer herd for the cougers. LOL.


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

There are a few reasons that deer herd is struggling. I feel cats have a big kill on the Monroe. The next big issue is that unit has roads everywhere there are a few nasty places but it is 4 wheeler and truck heaven. Next is the elk herd. There were a lot of deer and very few elk 30 years ago and now the elk have their impact on the deer herd. I love the elk but there is a impact to the deer herd. For the size of the unit there should be a lot more mature deer taken off of that unit during the hunts. It is actually hard to find a good 4+ year old buck on the Monroe now.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The elk herd on the Monroe is around 50% of what it was 5-6 years ago, so it's a reach to blame the struggles of the deer herd on the elk population. 

Iron Bear, you contradict yourself in your first post. You say I and others are morons for believing the DWR biologists and their numbers, yet now that their numbers say buck:doe ratios are low enough to reduce ALL weapon season hunting days, you agree with them. What gives? Did they suddenly wise up, or is it easy to believe numbers they post when they agree with your assessment? :?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Pro I never mentioned a name did I. Or maybe your name is moron? :? 
No contradiction. Yes it is easy to agree with numbers that coinside with what one see's. And I hardly believe the buck doe ratio is the problem with the herd. #s in general is the problem. I dont buy your expert knowledge on Monroe so dont try to sell it to me. ELK, DEER or COUGER. Dutton may be another thing. Been there once (20yrs ago) and never been back agian. But no regular around here spends more time on Monroe than I. So it will be a hard sell and not worth your time. Oh yah I forgot you have nothing better to do with your time than pontificate on this site. :mrgreen:


----------



## drifter (Feb 19, 2008)

Bart I said they have an imapct!! I did not blame it all on the elk. I think the order of impact is Cougars, All the traffic during the hunts. (easier for road hunters to harvest) then the elk. There is an impact from elk but again i did not say it was just them. You state in the last few years the numbers are down. Well they came back across from the Fishlake Beaver or Dutton after the counts. There are a lot of elk. The deer herd has been going down hill on that unit for 25+ years. I know the state as a whole is down also but the Monroe has taken a real hard hit.

Drifter


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Wish they would do that on the Cache unit. At least you guys still have some deer on the mountain.


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

Do your part to help solve the problem. Get a spike tag and thin the elk herd this year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

To clarify, the *ONLY* reason hunts have been shortened is due to buck:doe ratios! Overall population numbers have NOTHING to do will season lengths. Having an understanding of policies, why they are what they are, and the criteria that dictates agreed upon actions such as shortened season dayes and closures helps when trying to sound credible.

The number of elk on ANY unit in Utah during the summer has no/little impact on deer populations, it is the number of elk on winter ranges shared with deer that MAY have an impact on deer populations. I see numerous habitat projects that have either been completed or are in progress on the Monroe that will help the deer herd big time.

drifter, IMHO habitat which includes all the numerous roads/trails all over the mountain have by far bigger impacts on deer numbers than all other factors combined. An increase in cheat grass and pinion juniper, a decrease in aspen groves, older less productive browse, increased OHV use/trails, increased development, increased traffic on highways, combine to have negative effects on deer numbers. Having said that, as I said at the beginning of this post, shortened seasons have NOTHING to do with deer populations and is based 100% on biologists assessed buck:doe ratios.

FWIW, killing spikes will INCREASE the number of elk on the Monroe as it will lower the bull:cow ratio allowing for more cows to be in the mix which will result in MORE calves being recruited into the herd, so go ahead and thin out the bull population. That is exactly what the DWR wants to help INCREASE the elk population closer to objectives.


----------



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

*Re: Monroe archery deer hunt closes.*



Iron Bear said:


> But no regular around here spends more time on Monroe than


I'll put up a fight against that, I'm on Cove/Monroe mountain nearly every day, how bout you? Where do you live Iron Bear? I live about a mile from the base of the Cove.

Anyways, yes buck to doe ratios on the Monroe/Cove mountain range is way off wack and the quality of bucks has gone down considerably but the Monroe/Cove mountain range does have a good deer herd just not a quality buck herd. Doe tag numbers: DWR gave out 300 doe tags for the Sevier Valley area more than anywhere else in the state by a long shot, meaning the doe's are doing just fine meaning the deer herd isn't getting hurt the buck's are getting hurt. I can tell you living here my hole life without looking at bucks and does the overall deer population on the Monroe/Cove mountain range is fine its the buck to doe ratio that the problem lies. There's lots of deer, but there isn't very many quality bucks. So the question is why?

Now with that said its obvious the problem isn't the elk or the doe numbers would be suffering as well, it isn't really the lack of quality habitat, and it isn't that the cougars are killing too many deer (although the cat numbers on the Monroe region could be controlled a lot better). The problem lies in the way the landscape of the Monroe/Cove mountain range has changed over the past two decades. The places a giant buck once could hide aren't there anymore, once on the Monroe region a buck could lie down miles and miles away from the nearest road, sadly that isn't true anymore, places that once had no vehicles have trucks and four wheelers driving down them on a daily bases. There is the true reason the Monroe/Cove mountain range has drastically dropped in the quality of bucks it holds. Is the DWR and Forest Service a giant part of the problem the quality of bucks on the Monroe/Cove mountain range is struggling....ABSOLUTELY..... I'm glad to see seasons cut on this region and I hope they separate it into its own region for a few years but until the forest service and BLM nocks its self in the head and realizes trails must be closed to raise quality bucks no matter what the season dates and tag numbers are the quality of bucks on the Monroe/Cove mountain range isn't going to improve much.



proutdoors said:


> drifter, IMHO habitat which includes all the numerous roads/trails all over the mountain have by far bigger impacts on deer numbers than all other factors combined. An increase in cheat grass and pinion juniper, a decrease in aspen groves, older less productive browse, increased OHV use/trails, increased development, increased traffic on highways, combine to have negative effects on deer numbers. Having said that, as I said at the beginning of this post, shortened seasons have NOTHING to do with deer populations and is based 100% on biologists assessed buck:doe ratios.
> 
> FWIW, killing spikes will INCREASE the number of elk on the Monroe as it will lower the bull:cow ratio allowing for more cows to be in the mix which will result in MORE calves being recruited into the herd, so go ahead and thin out the bull population. That is exactly what the DWR wants to help INCREASE the elk population closer to objectives.


Well stated pro, although I think there is still plenty of good habitat on the Monroe/Cove region trails just need to be closed down for a difference that will be noticed. But very well stated on the spike comment and it is actually what needs to be done, there are a lot of bulls and not so many cows on the Monroe range so if anything this is to raise cow and calf numbers making for a better elk herd not a smaller one.

To sum it all up for you

The non-problems:
*-elk
*-quality of habitat

The little problems
*-cougars
*-length of season

The big problems
*-too many trails and no hidey holes left for a buck to become big, there is barley a few feet between one four-wheeler trail to the next on the Monroe/Cove mountain range.
*-The places left without roads, well aren't far enough away from roads to hide bucks.
*-Road hunting is very successful on the Monroe region (both on elk and deer) which is a huge problem.
*-Nothing is enforced, point blank in the last 5 years I've been checked once by a game warden, and 0 times by a forest service ranger, and in the last five years I have seen 1 game warden and 1 forest service ranger. Trails that are closed are used anyways and very heavily with no consequences for the people doing it so they do it again, and again, and again.....

What needs to be done
*-trails need to be closed, and not just with a sign but with a locked gate and a fence
*-Wildlife officers (at least 1 forest service, and 1 game warden) need to be in full force someone up on the Monroe/Cove mountain range every day


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The DWR data shows that buck harvest numbers stay the same or increase with shorter rifle seasons. I think it is little more than a feel good move that will accomplish little/nothing.

A better way to thin out the bull population than killing spike is to kill more mature bulls. The management hunt was never given a chance to succeed or to know if it was succeeding. If they issued more primitive weapon tags and fewer rifle tags you could kill more bulls without killing off the quality. A spike killed this year could very well be the son of spidey.

OHV use and increased OHV trails is a habitat issue, so habitat is still the biggest negative factor on deer/elk numbers, on the Monroe or elsewhere.


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

Increased elk numbers combined with constant cattle grazing is the main factor for lack of deer on Monroe. Add to the fact that the mountain has become a four wheeler haven since they put the big trail network throughout the mountains.

Monroe used to be deer heaven up until the late 80's

Yes there may be less elk than there was five years ago but 20 years ago the elk and deer herds were more balanced. This same trend has happened to many of the mountains in central/southern Utah. The emphesis on trophy elk put an end to the great deer hunting we used to have in these mountain ranges, IMO no consideration was given that the increased elk numbers combined with the summer cattle grazing would turn the open areas in these mountains into grasslands which have no benefit for deer. The increased ATV use did not help either.

Deer can't eat grass and can't eat trees so there is not much for them anymore when all there is around is old growth timber and clearings with grasses (elk and cattle trample down any mid successional plant species that try to grow).

Fire suppression also takes its toll.

Add these problems with other factors like predation and winter range competition and the muley does not stand a chance.

Its time for the DWR to do something for the deer.

Yes elk do effect deer on the summer range


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

#1 dont care to get into a peeing contest. But we have a place just north of manning medows. Also we have a small ranch in marysvale. Im not sure what measuring stick your useing but if you believe cove still has a good herd then keep it a secret. I know of hundreds of of hunters that would head over that way if that was the case. I base my opinion on other locals, cattlemen, sheep herderds, and long time hunters on Monroe. There is a consenses. The deer herd is in huge trouble compared to historical #s. Whats new with roads and trails on Monroe? In the last 40yrs the only new roads opened in my area are the ATV trail threw Browns dairy to Anderson and over to Upper box creek. Sure there is tons more traffic. But I still dont belive that effects deer like people think. How does one explain the #s of deer seen on the tar yrs ago and a lack of deer today. For example as you headed over the summit from Sigard to Koosherem res. You were a fool to speed threw the area due to deer on the rd. And today not a single deer. Coinsidently the dreaded dixie harrow has been threw the whole region and now elk can be seen there when never seen before.

IMO elk/cattle have definatly effected deer on Monroe. Maybe not directly but indirectly. As mentioned the Dixie harrow has been all over that mtn ripping up sage and planting grass. Examples: Six Patch, Dry Creek. Traditonal deer strong holds. Just after D.H. No deer. Doesnt take a scientist to see that. Ive herd the argument the sage there was not productive. Well it sure isn't now. Why replant with grass? How will that help browse. Seems to me it only improves graze. Do the feds care about deer. Absolutly not they do however care for cattle graze lease. Hence managment for grass over sage. (not rocket science) Threw the 70s and 80s over hunting was a major issue. Does anybody remember multiple doe tags. I personaly seen camps with dozens of hunters literaly with refrigerated semi trailors from California being filled with deer and taken off the mtn. Doesn't anybody remember the riffle hunts in the 80s. It was like a war zone. Then the banning of poisening predators. And about 10yrs later the first sighting of cougers and sign. (tracks and kills) A real rarity prior to the 80s. Throw in a few bad winters and here we are.

If you nock a man down to the ground and tie his hands together. Then a boy can finish him off. Wich is exactly what has happened on Monroe. With such a small deer herd in comparison to historical #s it doesnt take much to keep it down. I am in favor of a closure of all deer hunting on Monroe until we see a larger herd. And I would encourage sheep herders and cattleman to kill as many predators as possible.

Nothing new the same rant Ive had for yrs. O|*


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This closure affects five units,,,,,,,,This is from the DWR news page.

Five units closed starting Sept. 2

When the chance to hunt statewide happens on Sept. 2, five units will already be closed to general archery buck deer hunting. The following units will be closed starting Sept. 2. The units will close because of the low number of bucks on the units:

Central Mountains (Nebo) 
Oquirrh-Stansbury 
South Slope (Vernal) 
La Sal (La Sal Mountains) 
Monroe

I also have all the mountain lion statistics for the last 20 years on Monroe,
I thought about posting them but its ALOT of info.........
The bottom line on Monroe lions is overall DECREESING numbers and average
age harvesting of 2.5 year old cats,, And low success pursuit... Lion are a small factor.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I am in favor of a closure of all deer hunting on Monroe until we see a larger herd. And I would encourage sheep herders and cattleman to kill as many predators as possible.


What you are asking for would HURT overall deer numbers in the long run. Closing the unit to buck harvest would only result in an increase in buck numbers w/o addressing a single limiting factor on deer numbers. That means it would restrict the number of does on the unit, thus resulting in fewer fawns born each spring, thus resulting in fewer deer recruited into the herd each year. The Henries is limited entry and yet the deer population has grown at a slower rate than most general season areas, this despite more habitat projects per sq/mile than the general season areas, since it was closed and then opened to LE. Buck:doe ratios over 30:100 hurts population growth.

You disparage dixie harrows, and imply they are bad for deer. Really? :? Back before fire suppression was the 'rage' in the west fires where a regular occurrence and the best way to ensure younger browse was available for deer. Using a harrow thins out older less productive browse and allows younger more efficient browse to take hold benefiting deer more than elk/cattle. Browse doesn't show up as quickly as grasses, so folks think all that is growing is grasses. People also make the mistake of seeing older browse and assuming it is useful for deer. Just because there is vegetation in the area does not mean it will sustain deer. And, vegetation on summer range is rarely a population limiter, it is the winter range that affects deer populations.

I believe it was drifter who claims there are at least 40 mountain lions on the Monroe, and that lions kill 2000 deer a year. I doubt there is 2000 deer on the Monroe at any given time during the year, so how can lions kill 2000 deer and still have as much as a single deer on the unit? :?

The number of OHV's on the Monroe has climbed big time over the last 20 years. Small towns like Marysville and Annabelle basically survive economically from OHV usage on the Monroe. Same goes on the other side of the mountain in Koosharem. How can all this activity not affect deer/elk populations? The Monroe is a great area, but when both deer and elk are struggling it should tell you there are deeper issues than just the number of elk/lions on the unit. Old unproductive browse, increased human activity on the mountain, increased traffic on the highways, fewer healthy aspen stands, increased pinion juniper stands, all dwarf the elk population/livestock/predators, in being limiting factors for deer populations on the Monroe and other units.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wheres COLD TRACK???? I would love to here his opinion of lions on Monroe..
I would dare say the majority of cats on Monroe are living on elk,,,,,Just like 
they are on every other unit in Utah were the elk numbers are doing very well.


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> The DWR data shows that buck harvest numbers stay the same or increase with shorter rifle seasons. I think it is little more than a feel good move that will accomplish little/nothing.


I can definitely believe that, when talking to people they become more rushed to shoot the first fair sized deer they see because of the small amount of time there is to hunt. And now the Muzzleloader on the Monroe is cut to 5 days, guess well see how that works out. And I agree on the management bull hunt on Monroe to, it should have been given time to work and the spike hunt should not be up there this year.

As for everyone putting up the cow/elk fight. Trust me deer and elk can be together and cows can be in the area and not bother too much. Does it put some added stress on the land?....Yes. But last year I watched around 40 elk, 30 cows, and around 50 deer live in about a 1 by 2 mile flat last year and live there together from spring until snow fell. Bottom line is the cows and elk don't have an effect during spring/summer months with the exception that cows do drink and dry out a lot of the water holes used by the wildlife, the cows aren't in the deer's winter habitat feeding it off, if anything there in the elks winter habitat feeding it off and when the deer drop down in this area there are relatively few elk that drop as low as the deer in this area which means there isn't much competition on the deer's winter range, its whats there when they get to it. Cheat grass for the most part needs to be done away with, this is one way how cattle grazing differs from the old sheepherders grazing the sheep will eat things like cheat grass/fox tail even after it has turned yellow, cattle won't do this until everything else in the area is gone. So really cows help elk more, sheep/goats help deer more because of the grazing techniques they have and the Monroe has nearly been transformed nearly 100% to cattle. When local people say the deer herd is struggling usually they mean the amount of quality bucks they see now isn't what it used to be, and there's no argument there but in most areas the doe numbers aren't struggling to badly.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The ATV activity increase over the last 20yrs is exactly the same time line as the increase in the elk pop.

How does one explain that? Elk arent effected by ATVs? They seem to be bothered more by ATVs than deer as far as being scared of them.

I recently took my grandkids to the Grand Canyon North Rim. Tons of deer from Fredonia south right along the tar. Tons of cabins and ATVs down there. Are Arizona deer just diffrent than Utah. I can tell you the area doesnt get over hunted. LM. Just like in the case of Elk on Monroe. DWR polocy has turned a blind eye to deer as they pursued trophy elk hunting for dozen instead of managment for a large deer pop for 1000s.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Isn't it fun to argue over the same topic every few months? 

I think Todd Black's article on Secondary Predation would be a wise read for everyone who has or thinks they have an opinion on cougars and predation. A quick summary would be that cougars eat deer, but when deer numbers fall too low to sustain cougar populations then the cougars turn to elk to support their populations. While they prey on elk, they are still preying on deer as deer try to rebound, thus keeping deer populations supressed. Of course there must be X number of cougars on a unit to keep the deer numbers down. 

As for closing the season early, it has been proven (wink Pro) that the shorter seasons have been part of the rebound in BUCK to DOE ratios on most units which had the 5 day hunt in place. The real question will be if that correlates to higher FAWN to DOE ratios. I am content with the shortened seasons, in proportion, for ALL weapon types. I am unsure of how they have set the rifle dates later.

Goofy-- Thanks for posting the units which will also close on Sept 2. I believe most people have no idea.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> As for closing the season early, it has been proven (wink Pro) that the shorter seasons have been part of the rebound in BUCK to DOE ratios on most units which had the 5 day hunt in place. The real question will be if that correlates to higher FAWN to DOE ratios. I am content with the shortened seasons, in proportion, for ALL weapon types. I am unsure of how they have set the rifle dates later.


Not so fast my friend. I have talked with Anis about season lengths many times, as well as other biologists, it has NOT been proven that shorter seasons have had positive results. In fact, Anis and the others cited the improvement of habitat as the single biggest reason buck:doe ratios increased in the southern half of the state, NOT the shorter seasons. In fact, their data showed that hunters kill basically the same number of bucks with shorter seasons, but that the average buck killed is younger.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

We can debate until were blue in the face about lions , ATVs ,and season lengths affects
on deer herds, and all the contributing factors,,,,,,,,,,But the single biggest issue is,
Habitat, Habitat, Habitat, Period.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

KISS

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

you have a population of under 15 bucks per 100 does. This doesn't mean to me that the cougars are eating all the deer. 

you have a mountain with 4-wheeler tracks all over it. so tards will have easy access with a rifle/bow this explanes the 15 bucks per 100 doe scenario to me. Either that or there is a poaching problem 

If their is a loss of total deer numbers it is related to forage, predators, or vehicles IMHO

i think elk numbers can have an impact on deer number because I seldom see lots of deer in elk areas and I always see high numbers of deer in elk absent areas. Im just a ******* so what do i know.

I do know it is hard to argue with the Pro because he knows his stuff. :mrgreen:


----------



## High Country (Apr 27, 2008)

This post makes me laugh reading all the reasons why people think that the deer populations are down. I have hunted Monroe for about 25 years and have watched the deer populations go down. However, we harvested a 30" 4 point 4 years ago on the muzzle loader hunt, heavy horned 3 point same year, 20" nice 4 point last year on the archery hunt, and have chased many other decent bucks over the years. And to top it off, I have never seen a mountain lion in the 25 years. I'm not saying that they aren't there, I just don't think that there is an abundance of them.

Let's look back at 15 years ago when there were a few good units in Utah for deer. Why was that. 3 POINT OR BETTER. We hunted the Book Cliffs and Monroe and had people that hunted the Henry's and each unit had big deer where you didn't look twice at a 24" bucks because they were not big enough, and the 2 points were just as big as them. The units opened up to any deer and hunters were shooting whatever they saw. The deer populations started to drop.

The Book Cliffs and the Henry's closed for a few years and opened up as a Limited Entry unit and TA DAH, we have bigger bucks and more deer on the units. How many roads and atv trails do these units have?

The DWR should have treated Monroe like the others 15 years ago and we would not have this issue that we are having today. 

Monroe still has a lot of deer. I can see 30-40 a day and a dozen of them are little bucks. They need to grow up and if you look hard and know where to go, you'll find the nice ones too.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

sure you can have a better buck to doe ratio in units with high atv traffic but you will have to restrict hunters. This state doesn't need another LE unit where they limit the hunters so you can drive around on a wheeler and shoot a 24" buck

A better solution to increasing the buck to doe ratio without limiting the hunters is make it an archery only area. Look at the front low atv traffic, no rifles, no winter range, high hunter traffic and high preditors= high buck to doe numbers and large bucks with over the counter tags and long 4 month seasons.

KISS!! :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

High Country said:


> The Book Cliffs and the Henry's closed for a few years and opened up as a Limited Entry unit and TA DAH, we have bigger bucks and more deer on the units. How many roads and atv trails do these units have?


Bigger bucks from LE yes, more deer because of LE NO! The Henries with their extremely high buck:doe ratio has grown in population at lower levels than the general season southern ans southeastern regions have over the last 10 years. I doubt there is an unit in Utah that has as many OHV trails/usage per sq/mile as the Monroe. Add in all the cabins and soon to be oil pads everywhere and the deer will always struggle on the Monroe. And 3 point or better restrictions would have zero impact on deer populations. Bucks are NOT the key to deer populations, does are. And the best way to increase fawn production is to have healthy does giving birth to healthy fawns. And that takes healthy winter range, which has NOTHING to do with the quality/quantity of bucks on a given unit.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

"And 3 point or better restrictions would have zero impact on deer populations."

I totally disagree,,,,,,May not improve overall numbers, But it will improve the buck's.
We need to quit shooting spikes and two points in my opinion.

And for 3 point or better not working??, ( before that, 4pt or better ), I call
$ul$ CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was there , saw it with my own eyes, The Henrys and the Books look very similar
today as they did in the 70s and 80s when they were general season with point restrictions.

WHAT GIVES?????? People who think point restrictions don't work were obviously not there,
Because they WORKED! ( and don't give me Bio's claim this and that BS)


----------



## High Country (Apr 27, 2008)

Well said Goofy Elk !!!!!!!! I have been saying for years that the 3 and 4 point or better units should have stayed the way they were. These were the days when it was fun to go hunting and your blood would get pumping due to the deer that we would see. Didn't see to many hunters in those days either.

Yes Pro, the does and fawns are needed to have a deer herd. Another problem is that the 2 points and spikes are the ones doing most of the breeding. If the buck:doe ratio is down, then there is not very many bucks that are breeding the does, and the ones that are left to do that, are very young and this also will not help the genetics of the herd.

The overall population of people has increased in the years and so has the hunting population. Homes are being built where the deer USED to call home. And there are more hunters that will shoot anything that walks in front of them with antlers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I was there , saw it with my own eyes, The Henrys and the Books look very similar
> today as they did in the 70s and 80s when they were general season with point restrictions.
> 
> WHAT GIVES?????? People who think point restrictions don't work were obviously not there,
> Because they WORKED! ( and don't give me Bio's claim this and that BS)


I was there as well. Anyone saying the quality was similar on the Henries under 3 point or better with what we have today has NO credibility on the subject. Either the old saying is true, "The older I get the better it was", or you haven't been down on the Henries in the last 5 years!

Expecting every deer hunter to pass up spikes and two points is arrogant. Why should YOU be able to tell a 14 year old kid he has to pass up a two point just so goofy will be able to _feel_ better because he may see one extra mature buck during the course of a year?

Funny how just a few posts earlier goofy said the problem is, "habitat, habitat, habitat", which I agree 100% with. But, now he is saying antler restrictions is the answer. Until the habitat issue is fixed, antler restrictions won't do a **** thing! The best way to get more mature bucks to increase the number of deer on a given unit. More deer equates to more bucks, more bucks equates to more mature bucks running around. Fix the habitat and the so-called buck problem will be fixed right along with it. And, the youth/meat hunters won't be forced to hunt to a SMALL number of hunters 'standards'. I have this crazy idea, those of us who like shooting big bucks can place an antler restriction on ourselves w/o making others do it "our way". I say that is how a steward of the wildlife and a steward of hunting would address the issue. Crazy I know, but it is the American way.

I don't buy for a minute that there are more hunters today that are willing/eager to shoot a 2 point than back in the 70's-80's. In fact, hunters are more concerned with size more than ever today. People used to hunt just for the fun/family aspects as well as for meat than today. Not that I say there is anything wrong with hunting for size, but when High Country asserts such silliness I have to chuckle.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

"I was there as well. Anyone saying the quality was similar on the Henries under 3 point or better with what we have today has NO credibility on the subject. Either the old saying is true, "The older I get the better it was", or you haven't been down on the Henries in the last 5 years!"PROs quote.


Alright PRO bud,,,,Your just about to cross the line!
I was on the Henry's every year from 79 to 88, Archery and rifle, Never saw you.
Been back there on many occasions hunting lions in winter, watched it go from being
shot out by general season and closed back to what it is today.
I've spent months on that mountain, And it was the same in the late 70s as is is today.
Just ask Skull, He Knows. I'd say your the one with NO CREDIBITY. 
And at least try to spell it right, Henry Mountains.

Almost forgot. This is a Monroe post, I believe antler restrictions on Monroe is a much better option than closing it down to shorter seasons.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

One point that I have not seen to much talk on is the fact that we have half the hunters that we had in the 70 & 80's. I think places like Monroe are seeing the results of many problems at the same time. It is very difficult for anybody to trouble shoot a problem when there are many reason's contributing to that problem. 

Personaly I think with all the fires and range work that has been done in the last few years we are going to see an up swing. We have already reduced the number of hunters in the field by half. The drought conditions have easied and mother nature has gotten rid of all the useless vegetation. We already have LE units that are restricted to even fewer hunters and they are in the crapper as far as quality. If some of what you guys are saying is true these unit should be off the charts with big deer, but they are not.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Alright PRO bud,,,,Your just about to cross the line!
> I was on the Henry's every year from 79 to 88, Archery and rifle, Never saw you.
> Been back there on many occasions hunting lions in winter, watched it go from being
> shot out by general season and closed back to what it is today.
> ...


Oh no, not the dreaded goofy line. :roll: Should I lock my dead bolt tonight now? *\-\*

I have never heard Skull say the quality was as good back in the 80's as it is now. In fact, you are the only person I know to make such an outrageous claim. As for the spelling, it is the Henry Mountains, OR the Henries. BOTH are correct. I guess technically it is Mount Dutton, but I just say Dutton, I hope that doesn't make me lose credibility on that unit in your eyes as well. :? Next you're going to tell me the quality is as good on the Books, oops I mean the Book Cliffs (I don't want you correcting my spelling of that as well), as it is on the *HENRIES* today. -_O- FYI, it is spelled "credibility", not "credibity". :wink: Remember, you started the spelling war. _(O)_ And, it's "you're" not "your" when referring to me crossing the line.|-O-|

I say there should be neither antler restrictions or shorter seasons. I believe the best option for the Monroe is to continue to improve the habitat.

Thanks goofy, you've put a smile on my face today even though I'm not on the mountain. *OOO*


----------



## Greenhead 2 (Sep 13, 2007)

I think 3pt or better restrictions statewide should be implemented along with more archery permits given out. Take permits from rifle and muzzy guys and extend the archery hunt by two months. On top of all that, your permit would only be valid within 50 air miles of your zip code! Just a thought?


----------



## Alton (Sep 13, 2007)

I have hunted Burrville area and top of monroe for 30 years. In the late 70's and early 80's the deer hunting was awesome there were groups of bucks every were. There was three time as many hunter then than there is know. In my opinion it is the Habitat if you improve on that the deer will come back. They have been doing alot of chaining on the Burville side and that is were I have seen the majority of the deer so that is a good thing.There are still a few big bucks there you just have to hunt harder get off the ATV and go after them.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

*Re: Monroe archery deer hunt closes.*



#1DEER 1-I said:


> What needs to be done
> *-trails need to be closed, and not just with a sign but with a locked gate and a fence


Better yet, do what Colorado has been doing - put up a huge burm, trees (big trees), rocks along with a closed sign. I've heard from guys that this is really working well and increasing herds and quality in spots that were once overrun with 4 wheelers.


----------



## Rock Pile (Jul 15, 2008)

Attaininga a big buck state by way of 3 point or better would be a wonderful idea if there wern't so many "Shoot first and ask questions later" hunters out there. I hunted the Henries for many years before it closed and part of that time it was 3 pt or better. I came across alot of dead two points. Nothing like having some target practice on small bucks before you find the big one.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Rock Pile said:


> Attaininga a big buck state by way of 3 point or better would be a wonderful idea if there wern't so many "Shoot first and ask questions later" hunters out there. I hunted the Henries for many years before it closed and part of that time it was 3 pt or better. I came across alot of dead two points. Nothing like having some target practice on small bucks before you find the big one.


That there is the one of the reasons antler restrictions do NOT work. The other is, when you target older class bucks, they tend to get shot more than younger bucks, which defeats the purpose of the restrictions. Best solution is to increase the overall number of deer which WILL increase the number of older class bucks in the mix, and can be done w/o reducing hunter enjoyment/opportunity. Improve habitat, minimize human interaction with deer during winter and when fawns are being born, reduce highway fatalities, and improve habitat. Anything else is just 'feel good' policies based on emotions and NOT biology!


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

> Improve habitat, minimize human interaction with deer during winter and when fawns are being born, reduce highway fatalities, and improve habitat. Anything else is just 'feel good' policies based on emotions and NOT biology!


Fail, fail, fail and fail. 
Mule deer are wide open spaces critters. Space is something that cant be created and habitat is more likely to be lost than gained, either by growth or by lack of opportunity. 
Limiting human interaction and fawn highway fatalities is an impossiblity or as close as you can get to impossible as controling the animals or people or people's encroachment isn't likely or realistic.
If everything else is a feel good policy, we're screwed.

"Biology" is reserved for revenue purposes and will remain this way until people have had enough or the resource becomes depleted. I know...figures don't lie, but the way I see it liars do a lot of the figuring.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

My favorite part of these threads is when people start bagging on people for their spelling. :lol: Oh man I love that ****.  

I vote 3 point or better restrictions in most of the state but the area where oneeye lives.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Just a few thoughts.............

1)I think Monroe would be the PERFICT place to try 3 point or better and see what happens, in a about three years,,,,,,,,All the doubters would learn a good lesson.

2) Limited entry hunting is targeting the older class bucks now,,Don't use that for an excuse why 3 point or better wont work.

3) Smaller bucks were shot on Antler restricted units years back. Don't believe it would happen as much with the current laws and a little education.

4) My spelling sucks,, Always has, always will.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just a few thoughts.............
> 
> 1)I think Monroe would be the PERFICT place to try 3 point or better and see what happens, in a about three years,,,,,,,,All the doubters would learn a good lesson.
> 
> ...


At least you didn't get a nickname for you poor spelling. Why do you think I got labeled D.A.H.B. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

1BandMan said:


> > Improve habitat, minimize human interaction with deer during winter and when fawns are being born, reduce highway fatalities, and improve habitat. Anything else is just 'feel good' policies based on emotions and NOT biology!
> 
> 
> Fail, fail, fail and fail.
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Just a few thoughts.............
> 
> 1)I think Monroe would be the PERFICT place to try 3 point or better and see what happens, in a about three years,,,,,,,,All the doubters would learn a good lesson. We have already had it proven numerous times in numerous states w/o any conclusive evidence that it works as you say, but tons of evidence to refute it. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
> 
> ...


----------



## str8shtr (Jul 4, 2008)

Excuse my ignorance and Im not trying to start anything but please explain. If having spike only units is good for the elk heard how can the opposite ( 3 point or better ) be good for the deer herd? Honestly Im asking. I to was around for the 3 point or better days and never seen the upside only the 2 points left to rot. In my opinion it has to do with habitat I dont know about you southern boys but here in the northern we have things bad. The houses get higher and higher into the winter range and the natural migration routes are being blocked by so called summer homes. In my opinion the cache unit should have been closed 3 or 4 years ago. I know some is predation,winter kill and other factors but if we dont start doing something about the habitat loss we may as well all move to Missouri and hunt whitetails. By the way I can not back this up with any biological data just simply an observation by a guy that lives here.
Str8


----------



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

How bout this, anyone who has a problem with how many trails are on the Monroe, e-mail the Fishlake Forest service and let them know of your concerns. Here's there e-mail:

[email protected]


----------



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

And for other regions who don't know the Monroe, here is one sample of an area on the Monroe that is absolutely over ran with trails. This area is 1 mile wide and about a mile long at its longest point, and around 1/2 mile long for the most part, now lets see how many miles of trails are on this 1X1 mile block using google earth.(all red lines are 4-wheeler trails, the 2 black lines show 1 mile) Don't pay any attention to the black splotch marks.

[attachment=0:30alik2x]CMT.jpg[/attachment:30alik2x]

.... All these trails add up to around 7.26 miles worth of trail on an area 1 by 1 mile wide, makes me kind of sick to see how many trails are actually on areas on Cove/Monroe Mountain.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

that map makes a northern rifle tag look good!!!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

It kind of looks like a really pi$$ed off dragon. :shock: :mrgreen: :lol: I have never been down there, so is the norm or did you pick out an extreme spot?


----------



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

Hate to say it, but for most spots its the norm, whether trails are open or closed or not even marked trails at all they are used heavily because there simply is no forest service rangers or game wardens ever around.


----------



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

Just to show there are many areas like this, I'll post a couple more areas. I didn't add up the amount of trail but this area is around 1.5 miles long and .7 miles wide. Doesn't it look like it should be obvious why very few big bucks can grow on the Monroe/Cove range. This is across a canyon about 1 mile away from the first photo I posted.(black line is 1.5 miles, the yellow .7 miles)
[attachment=0:20ppng22]dss.jpg[/attachment:20ppng22]


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Those are the legal trails, add in the illegal OHV activity and it's even worse.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> And for other regions who don't know the Monroe, here is one sample of an area on the Monroe that is absolutely over ran with trails. This area is 1 mile wide and about a mile long at its longest point, and around 1/2 mile long for the most part, now lets see how many miles of trails are on this 1X1 mile block using google earth.(all red lines are 4-wheeler trails, the 2 black lines show 1 mile) Don't pay any attention to the black splotch marks.
> 
> [attachment=0:3rmqqtca]CMT.jpg[/attachment:3rmqqtca]
> I am not against any of what you have posted in this reply but my thoughts on this photo are this:
> ...


----------



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

Last one unless you need more proof that too many motorized vehicle trails are on Cove/Monroe mountain.

This area is 1.7 miles long, and 2 miles wide. This photo is about 1 and a half miles north east of the last photo I posted.


----------



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

lunkerhunter2 said:


> I am not against any of what you have posted in this reply but my thoughts on this photo are this:
> If you look at the elevation of these photos and where the trails are there isn't much for trails that are "on top" of the area you highlighted. People still would have to get off their ass's and walk/hike to the ridge tops to find the deer. I know there are deer down low(been hunting there for 20+years) but all the guys on quads are hunting the bottoms of the valleys for the most part and not climbing to the deer on top. IMHO this is not a real good argument for the trail hunters in the area destroying the herds.
> I also think there are too many roads in the area. Kenny Springs used to be very good hunting and i saw a lot of big bucks killed around there and shot a few nice ones myself. It was a nasty road that most people would not take a vehicle on. Now, you can drive a Caddy right to the spring and not see an animal. Whoever did that should be shot. It ruined that section of the mountain. Monroe will never be the same. It has been changed too much over the years. I will probably never put in for a southern deer tag again. I killed a buck every year i had a tag for southern deer. Yes, i shot 2-points but more often than not, i shot a 3-point or better. The largest buck i ever killed down there was killed in 2004. The last year i was down there. From what my family has told me, it is a shadow of its former self now. I'm done with my rant now.


I may not be reading you right but from what I'm getting from you, you don't think all the trails on top are a problem, well I can't agree with that at all. The first photo I posted on the very right side of the photo is where my One Eyed buck lived, if a buck like him can live to be that big with that many trails can you imagine what he could/would have turned into if there weren't seven and half miles of 4-wheeler trails on a one by one mile flat plain pad? One eye was shot by a road hunter with a bow. Last year I watched 4 deer get shot by people off there 4-wheelers in the first photo I posted, that was just on the bow hunt, I seen 2 more get shot there off 4-wheelers on the muzzleloader hunt, all 2 points of young size who just hadn't got there smarts together yet and were taken out by road hunters obviously with no chance to get big anymore. This year I expect to see the same thing, young bucks being killed off 4-wheeler the opening morning of the bow hunt. THERE ARE TOO MANY TRAILS everywhere on Cove/Monroe mountain, high and low there are trails like I've posted, both on BLM (the deer's winter range) and forest service land, probably even worse on there winter range above Annabella where there are trails everywhere. I know of 2 different trails (illegal, closed down trails) leading onto signal peak as of today that are pretty heavily traveled, Signal Peak was one of the last places that had no trails going to it, and its a heavy fine for those who get caught but there's never anyone there to catch so there is fairly high traffic especially on one of the trails. With trails there would be less road hunter kills, less road hunter kills gives young bucks to get a brain on themselves and start getting big.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

lunkerhunter2, it isn't just about having trails go where the deer hide, it's about the constant presence of humans during the entire year. Many of those trails go right through fawning grounds. A doe gets stressed with human activity during fawning time, which lowers the chance of survival for her fawn(s). Same goes for deer during the winter, just the stress put on does can cause them to abort their fawns during this crucial time. Fawn recruitment is the key to population growth and increased numbers of bucks in a given unit.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

all for hunting of humans on Monroe say "aye"...but seriously...take that crap to Little Sahara...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

makes me sick to see what a bunch of low life dirt bags on bikes can do to an area. the good news is i could care less about that area. you southern guys can have it.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> lunkerhunter2 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not against any of what you have posted in this reply but my thoughts on this photo are this:
> ...


No, that is not what i meant. I meant that the trails in the vally will still require people to get off their bikes and hike up to the roadless ridges to find the deer. I have to quit typing now, i just lost 50% of my eyesight and can't comprehend what i am typing. I will get back with you tomorrow.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Not that I believe that ATVs are the answer to deer problems. I will add some fodder. The forest service recently has posted signs on every single road in some areas on Monroe. Roads we all figured were closed. Out threw sage brush and what not. Just bostering in my mind that the Forest Service is making land management decisions on Monroe (and just about all other mtns in utah). Which means deer are way down the list. Elk however fit better in the mix better. As the forest service manage for cattle graze. And recreational use not hunting. 

I do however believe the DWR and Mule deer foundation and deer hunters alike have dropped the ball on the issue and havent demanded better mule deer management for 30yrs. Elk have had the opposite expierience for the last 30yrs.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I would like to respond to the health of the Monroe deer herd thread. 

I have read almost all the posts on this thread. Some people believe that 3 point of better is the answer. Others believe that mountain lions might be the reason for the decline. Some have even blamed all the road access, but the number #1 reason for the deer declining is HABITAT. 

I would first like to address Goofy elk's statement where he states that the 3 point or better restriction works. First, hunters get the impression that if we allow more bucks to survive then we will have more bucks; which may be true to a point, but it's simply not the case. The higher the buck to doe ratio is; the lower the fawn survival becomes, and fewer does are giving birth to fawns. We are seeing this problem right now with our elk herds. Habitat is the ONLY way were ever going to have more bucks and more deer for that matter. More does means more fawns are born which means more bucks are added to the herd. We should be harvesting 30 to 40% of our deer annually. Remember it ONLY takes 7 bucks to breed 100 does.

When we have good snowfall, and then wet spring followed by another good snowfall then more vegetation grows. This allows more deer to survive because the carrying capacity has increased. When we have years of drought then we see deer numbers decline because less vegetation grows on the winter range making it harder for deer to survive. The summer ranges during a drought year usually will provide enough food for deer because the summer range covers a larger area of land. The winter range needs to be in top shape with good vegetation growth, otherwise, deer will die on the winter range. Fawns are usually the first animals to die. This will lower the recruitment. Studies have also shown that doe fawns usually have a higher survival rate than buck fawns. Mother Nature engineered it that way. We SHOULD see an increase in our deer herd next year because of all the moisture we have receive as long we don't have a harsh winter.
Next, predators such as mountain lions and coyotes will also decrease deer herds only if the deer are struggling because of habitat. If we have good deer HABITAT then deer can usually handle predation without being greatly affected. Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that predators will also increase even if deer are decreasing if predators have another reliable food source such as elk, rabbits and other rodents.

Lastly, roads can also be a factor on the Monroe. There is always more escapment when the terrain is less accessible, but it's funny that the spider bull is the "New World Record," and he came from a unit that is very accessible. Once again, roads may or may NOT be a factor, but the #1 factor is HABITAT.


----------



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

coyoteslayer said:


> I would like to respond to the health of the Monroe deer herd thread.
> 
> I have read almost all the posts on this thread. Some people believe that 3 point of better is the answer. Others believe that mountain lions might be the reason for the decline. Some have even blamed all the road access, but the number #1 reason for the deer declining is HABITAT.
> 
> ...


I can agree but disagree with this statement, near Monroe mountian the habitat is not in that bad of shape right now, in fact it is fairly good. Roads need to shut down though, because certain areas of habitat are not utilized by some animals because of all the traffic.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG you guys,,,,,two years of three point or better and you've got a high enough buck to doe ratio at least your not stuck with shorten hunting seasons.

Fine, fine, fine.....Discredit antler restrictions,,,,,Liv with your 5 days rifle hunts forever.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Goofy, how would it work? The higher the buck to doe ratio is the lower the fawn recruitment becomes. You need more does to give birth to more fawns. You don't need more bucks to breed the does. You need to improve habitat, and you will have more deer. 

One eye, I agree, they need to close more roads.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Very , very , simple. If there are no yearly bucks harvested for two years.....well,
BIG boost to the buck doe ratio..........Pretty easy math in my book.

And CS,, I go hunting for a week or so,, and They let you BACK? 

What are they thinking?????????

Guess I'll jump to the Nebo elk thread, Tell ya how screwed up the unit is,,,,,,,and,
You'll lose it!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Very , very , simple. If there are no yearly bucks harvested for two years.....well,
> BIG boost to the buck doe ratio..........Pretty easy math in my book.
> 
> And CS,, I go hunting for a week or so,, and They let you BACK?
> ...


BUT how is having fewer yearlings bucks killed every year going to increase the fawn recruitment so that more does are giving birth to more fawns? The last thing you want is more bucks taking up more space on the winter range. Again it only takes 7 bucks to breed 100 does.

Miracles happen Goofy. I'm back. 



> Guess I'll jump to the Nebo elk thread, Tell ya how screwed up the unit is,,,,,,,and,
> You'll lose it


Be my guest if that makes your day better.


----------



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

We'll I guess I'll be the first to say welcome back coyoteslayer, and its good to have a heavy poster like you back as long as you behave and don't go back to some of the stupid and worthy of being banned crap you brought to the forum for a while. Aside from that, Monroe mountain hasn't changed all that much since way back when, except new motorized trails cut through areas, and too heavy of hunting. Once there were a lot of deer, now there aren't that many, so what's the problem? Towns around Monroe mountain haven't grown to the point they've taken up much Mule Deer country at all, there's plenty of sage brush and bench left for winter range. There is habitat on and around Monroe mountain to support a great deer and elk herd together, not have a great elk heard and a sad looking deer herd. 

So if the elk are doing so good, the question is; Why is the elk herd doing so well, and the deer herd doing so crappy? Three years ago I was worried about the number of cow elk on Monroe mountain but once they shut down the cow hunt on the Monroe unit, there are a lot of cow elk up on Monroe, but probably an even amount of bulls, but to add to that I also see plenty of young elk calves that are healthy and growing. If the elk are surviving so well with cow and bull numbers probably equal on Monroe mountain, then why can't the mule deer do it as well with the same mountain? 

Its simple the elk have no cow hunt on the Monroe unit, but Sevier County(Monroe region) has the largest number of doe tags given out. The elk are Limited Entry with only the biggest bulls getting killed (until the last 3 years with the management hunt and spike hunt which was a mistake) on a hunt you'll only draw every 10 or more years on average, whereas the deer are a general hunt for the entire southern region and the only limit to size is 5 inches or bigger. The elk herd is run quite differently on Monroe than the deer which is why there is such a discrepancy as to why elk on the Monroe region are booming and the deer have been and are still headed down hill. 

On an up note this year I noticed far less people on the Monroe region for the bow hunt since the DWR put it to region specific, and the hunt ends Sept.1 making a smaller amount of time to hunt Monroe which is what this thread was originally started for. Also the rifle hunt and muzzleloader hunt are both only 5 days on Monroe, and on top of that BOTH the RIFLE and the MUZZLELOADER start on Wednesdays which may give even better chances for the deer to survive. The Monroe unit is in need of some help and needs to be separated off into its own region or with separate restrictions during region wide hunts like it has been this year for years to come.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Here is some data from the DWR. If you believe their numbers.

*Monroe Objective* 7500

2003: 4200
2004: 5100
2005: 6550
2006: 7000
2007: 7500

This shows that the deer are increasing in numbers from year to year.

*Fawn/Doe ratio*

1999: 68
2000: 58
2001: 48
2002: 57
2003: 64
2005: 57
2006: 95
2007: 55

This shows that fawn recruitment is pretty good. 2007 should have been a banner year for harvest since the doe to fawn ratio in 2006 was 95. It took a dive in 2007 to 55/100 maybe because the deer was reaching carry capacity.


*% of number of 3 point or bigger.*

2000: 27%
2001: 39%
2002: 37%
2003: 37%
2004: 54%
2005: 27%
2006: 38%
2007: 33%

The number of mature bucks in the herd is good.

So based on these numbers what is wrong with the Monroe? Either the numbers are incorrect or their must be another major issue.


----------



## HOGAN (Sep 8, 2007)

Welcome back Justin, I like the way you are handling yourself, glad you are back.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The whole reason for the shorter season is the BUCK to DOE ratio....

Nothing to do with ,,Objectives,,Fawn recruitment..
This is strait from the DWR,, Then look at the deer management plan.....Its Buck #s period!

Five units closed starting Sept. 2

When the chance to hunt statewide happens on Sept. 2, five units will already be closed to general archery buck deer hunting. The following units will be closed starting Sept. 2. The units will close because of the low number of bucks on the units:

Central Mountains (Nebo) 
Oquirrh-Stansbury 
South Slope (Vernal) 
La Sal (La Sal Mountains) 
Monroe 
Boundary descriptions for the five units are available at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2009_biggame. Once you reach that part of the site, click on the "General season buck deer units with shorter season dates" selection.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, Goofy, I know they shortened the season on these 5 units. This is just a bandaid. It will not solve the problem. Goofy, a healthy herd has everything to do with fawn recruitment. You need a high fawn suvival every year in order to increase the deer population. The numbers show that the deer population is increasing. BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE HABITAT.

You don't need more bucks on the unit goofy because *bucks don't give birth to fawns*. You need more does that will give birth to more fawns and *hopefully 50% of those fawns are bucks.*

As the numbers show there is a good number of mature bucks already in the herd. *Goofy, if you start protecting the bucks in the herd then you are slowing the progress of that herd.*

Bucks will take up more space on the winter range. Does and fawns should be taking up that space, NOT more bucks.

Again tell me how having more bucks in the herd is going to increase the deer population???


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Another thing Goofy. The DWR closed down the Vernon unit for 5 years. This would have protected 100% of the bucks. I also would bet that poaching was still going on during that time. The first year the Vernon unit was opened up again then it was a slaughter. We have been giving out a limited number of LE tags ever since. The deer herd has never recovered since that time. There use to be 3 times the number of deer. They also gave out 1,000 tags before they had to close the unit. BTW they shouldn't have closed the unit.

I believe the two major factors are happening on the Vernon unit.

1. Habitat isn't up to par.

2. Poaching. :evil:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I didn't read all the garbage posted in this thread, and I am not going to. But, a couple of observations: 1) The number of bucks in a population doesn't give an indication of a strong or struggling deer population (the best example of this is the Henry's where the deer population is struggling, but the buck population is strong) 2) The DWR has spent a lot of time and money on improving the deer habitat on Monroe Mountain...these habitat projects--like the Dixie Harrow--will pay off. It just takes time. 3) If you are continually hunting the same areas and are having poor success, you are stupid. It doesn't take much for brains to realize that doing the same thing year in and year out and expecting different results is not smart. 4) I have spent a lot of time on Monroe the past 6 or 7 years because I live in Monroe. In that time frame, I have watched my wife kill 3 mature bucks with the only three tags she acquired and pass up numerous yearling bucks...also, in that time frame, we have had to wade through literally hundreds of does to find a buck she was willing to shoot. 5) The Monroe Mountain deer population struggled more when mountain lion numbers were really low than they are now that mountain lion numbers are increasing. In fact, if you look at population numbers 10 years ago when lions were almost nonexistent on the range and compared them to now you would see that growth is better with high lion numbers...in other words, lions are NOT the limiting factor for growth on the range. 6) Antler restrictions will not improve the number of bucks on a unit...state after state after state has seen this through actual trial. It doesn't make sense to repeat the past. 7) If shortening the hunt on the Monroe range doesn't improve buck/doe ratios, I would suggest that changing the season dates would. In my opinion and experience the past 6-7 years, I have seen the deer move off the mountain and into the valleys every year making the rifle hunt a slaughter fest. I feel like an earlier hunt would help more bucks survive the hunt....this should also increase buck/doe ratios. 8) Higher buck/doe ratios, however, can also lead to slower herd growth because bucks generally outcompete does/fawns for the available habitat. This phenomena has become evident on the Henry Mountains...9) The number of doe permits issued in Sevier Valley is due to the number of deer living in the valley. These deer are generally year-long residents and obviously are causing problems to where the DWR needs their numbers thinned.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Wyo2ut, a miracle has happened. :lol: :lol: We finally agree upon something. I use to believe that protecting bucks would help the herd and hunter success, but then I read other peoples statements, and I did my own research.

3 point or better will never work.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

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

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

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


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I didn't read all the garbage posted in this thread, and I am not going to. But, a couple of observations: 1) The number of bucks in a population doesn't give an indication of a strong or struggling deer population (the best example of this is the Henry's where the deer population is struggling, but the buck population is strong)
> +1
> 
> 2) The DWR has spent a lot of time and money on improving the deer habitat on Monroe Mountain...these habitat projects--like the Dixie Harrow--will pay off. It just takes time. 3) If you are continually hunting the same areas and are having poor success, you are stupid.
> ...


IMO, if hunters really are concerned about deer numbers or game numbers in general, they will concede to more restrictions on harvest and weapon types. In many instances the division is put in a no win situation with a populace that doesn't want to lose opportunity, holds no bars when it comes to complaining and is overly apathetic when it comes to action.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> This essentially means that the holding capacity has been met, no?
> 
> IMO, if hunters really are concerned about deer numbers or game numbers in general, they will concede to more restrictions on harvest and weapon types. In many instances the division is put in a no win situation with a populace that doesn't want to lose opportunity, holds no bars when it comes to complaining and is overly apathetic when it comes to action.


Yes, if the population isn't increasing and bucks are outcompeting does for available forage, the habitat has reached its capacity. This is also why much work has/is being done to improve habitat on the Henry's. From what I understand and have read one of the major limiting factors to the overall population on the Henry's is summer range which is exact opposite to most ranges...

Also, reducing/changing hunter harvest numbers will only increase a herd population if one of two things is happening: 1) does are being harvested 2) does are not being bred by the bucks remaining after hunts end. This is the most basic management principle that most hunters flat out don't get. Decreasing buck harvest only changes buck/doe ratios and usually has no impact on the herd's actual population. If the goal is to improve buck/doe ratios, the best thing to do is reduce harvest. The DWR is trying to increase the buck/doe ratio on Monroe to appease hunters--it is NOT to improve or increase the overall deer population. The DWR's management plan calls for reduced hunt seasons...this, hopefully, will help more bucks make it through the hunt. Increasing the buck/doe ration on Monroe, though, IMO, could best be accomplished on Monroe by moving the hunt back to a time when deer have not moved into winter range; however, this may not be plausible due to other hunt seasons...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

In the end, only 3 things will improve deer number _throughout_ Utah.

-Improved habitat.

-Improved habitat.

-Improved habitat.

And on a smaller scale, less competition for forage and winter range with other ungulates and livestock.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

For those interested, this link--although 6 years old now--details the Monroe range and its past problems...check it out:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/range/pdf/wmu2 ... ro-sum.pdf


----------



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

It seems to me a few are saying that fawns and a good number of big bucks/bucks period can't do good together, I am all foe having a healthy deer heard as the bottom line but that is also saying give up there will never be enough habitat or room to have a lot of good bucks and fawns. Then (whoever said it) you say that you hope to have a lot of fawns and hope most of them are bucks, that is going back on what you said because wouldn't a lot of buck fawns make for future problems? Monroe mountain has plenty of quality habitat to support a good number of does, a good ratio of fawns to does, and a good buck/doe ratio as well.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Then (whoever said it) you say that you hope to have a lot of fawns and hope most of them are bucks, that is going back on what you said because wouldn't a lot of buck fawns make for future problems? Monroe mountain has plenty of quality habitat to support a good number of does, a good ratio of fawns to does, and a good buck/doe ratio as well.


One eyed, how would it cause future problems if hunters are harvesting bucks? If you have more does giving birth to more fawns, and maybe 50% of those fawns are bucks then you have increased the buck to doe ratio PLUS you have more hunter opportunity.

The best way to solve this problem is improving habitat.


----------



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

coyoteslayer said:


> One eyed, how would it cause future problems if hunters are harvesting bucks? If you have more does giving birth to more fawns, and maybe 50% of those fawns are bucks then you have increased the buck to doe ratio PLUS you have more hunter opportunity.
> 
> The best way to solve this problem is improving habitat.


Funny because living in the area this seems to be what has been happening for the past 2 decades. Fawns get a couple years old and are killed as a 2 point. Its not so much the amount of deer with bone on their head on Monroe because there are plenty spikes and 2 points, a few 3's and not many 4's past that good luck I know of two bucks with more than 4 points. How will any of us see any of a giant bucks offspring if they are all shot at 2 years old? I think the quality of bucks on Monroe is the problem not the number, so if an area is sustaining 2 points and spikes now, and doing good with does and fawns why couldn't those same bucks just have some time to grow, pass on there genes before being put down like they are now at a spike or two point age? Sorry but Monroe Mountain used to have giant herds of deer with giant bucks, not much of the actual winter range has been taken by people yet although there area a lot more trails running through both winter and summer ranges, other than that what other than extra roads and the DWR's philosophy to make money has changed? TOOOOOOOOO many tags and the DWR's agenda to make money is one of the biggest problems.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Well the DWR is managing for quantity not quality. The more buck fawns you have born on the unit then the more likely some will survive to become 4 points or bigger. Not all the bucks are being killed as yearlings.

If the DWR was managing for quality then they would increase the buck to doe objective to 25 to 30. They would reduce the number of hunters on that unit.They would turn the unit into a LE unit, and you could only hunt that unit every 7 to 10 years or so. You will then see giant bucks with limited oportunity.


----------



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

You can have both quantity and quality, it doesn't have to be one or the other especially in the area where speaking of, winter range is still there, habitat hasn't been lost to development for the most part, and the most important habitat is still around and there is a large quantity of it compared to other areas in the state. The DWR could keep regions separated for the bow hunt, and keep the Monroe range with the same or more restrictions as this year. A great buck to doe and doe to fawn ratio is possible on the Monroe range, just like the cow to bull numbers are nearly the same and cow to calf is still doing good. I admit you might not can have both in some areas of the state but it is achievable on the Monroe unit if the DWR is willing to cut down on tags for the southern region overall and take a budget loss from there "cash cow" which is what I like to call the deer hunt(s). The Monroe unit both winter and summer habitat is in great shape for a good quality deer herd and good quality elk herd both that also have a good quantity and offspring survival. But their is habitat loss, but it is not the habitat loss your thinking of, it is that there is a motorized vehicle trail going through every crack and crevice, every hidey hole, every peace of important winter range, every peace of doe fawning areas, and just plain everywhere. High and low Monroe/Cove mountain is covered in trails, trails that put stress on animals during the winter, trails that put pressure on does when pregnant, trails that become longer and more spread out as people abuse there right and create new trails or add on to the trail that already exists and everyone follows behind them. There is a "shoot 500 feet from the nearest road" I don't know how many places on Monroe mountain where you walk 500 feet and don't hit another ATV trail. Trail closures would, #1-put less stress on all deer during the winter months, #2- put less stress on pregnant does so they don't loose/slip their fawns, and #3 make habitat better and more usable with less stress on the animals that use it. If deer can't have a good buck to doe as well as doe to fawn ratio explain how elk are doing so well, a lot of the cows I've seen have calves(half or more) there is every type of bull elk and probably the same amount of cows as bulls and yet there are still plenty of calves making it too. I've seen more elk calves per cow I've seen than fawns to does? Isn't in your way of thinking that the DWR is going for quality not quantity on Monroe with there the LE thing? So why so few fawns and so many elk calves? I've been on Cove mountain every day for the past month almost so I can tell you there are more calves than fawns on a unit apparently the DWR is shooting for quantity for the deer herd and quality for the elk herd, well its obvious to me the elk are doing well in quality and quantity and the deer are beginning to do bad in both categories, so what could it be? Over hunting perhaps and to many trails because even though the elk have to deal with the atv trails as well they still don't get the road hunting pressure that the deer do because of THE AMOUNT OF TAGS being given out. I'm not saying turn the Monroe into an LE deer unit (yet, but it sure is working with the elk up there) but its time to take steps to improve both quality and quantity for the Monroe unit before things really start going down hill.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> So why so few fawns and so many elk calves? I've been on Cove mountain every day for the past month almost so I can tell you there are more calves than fawns on a unit apparently the DWR is shooting for quantity for the deer herd and quality for the elk herd, well its obvious to me the elk are doing well in quality and quantity and the deer are beginning to do bad in both categories, so what could it be?


One reason you are seeing more calves is because Elk are more hearty animals. Elk don't winter kill like deer. Elk can survive on a wider variety of foods. Elk tend to be more of a herd animal than mule deer. Elk are stronger and bigger than mule deer. It's easier for the DWR to manage elk. Deer compete with Elk for food.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Monroe archery deer hunt closes.*



Iron Bear said:


> Just wanted to cat call the *morons* who believed that Monroe's deer herd isn't in trouble. *I just seen* that the DWR ...





Iron Bear said:


> No regular around here spends more time on Monroe than I. So it will be a hard sell and not worth your time. Oh yah I forgot you have nothing better to do with your time than pontificate on this site. :mrgreen:





Iron Bear said:


> I base my opinion on other locals, cattlemen, sheep herders, and long time hunters on Monroe. There is a consenses. The deer herd is in huge trouble compared to historical #s. Whats new with roads and trails on Monroe?


I can't tell if you are serious, are you? You call people morons and have several other condescending remarks on anyone who does not agree, but "I just seen" and "No regular around here spends more time on Monroe than I" compared to "I base my opinion on other locals, cattlemen, sheep herders, and long time hunters on Monroe. There is a consensus." So, which is it, you are the most familiar with the area than anyone or you are actually blowing out your arse and only basing your thoughts or lack thereof based on other's opinions? I can't tell if you are serious or not and your condescending adversarial tone is quite a turnoff. Pro had it right-contradictions throughout!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Would any amature biologist around here like to adress the fact that 2pts are breeding does. 

Habitat seems to be a great excuse to say its out of our hands. How about polocy and game management? 
Does anybody believe that the DWR has managed the states deer herd well over the last 30yrs? The only factors to a poor deer herd are mother nature and ATV's. Then what is the purpose of the DWR it sounds to me as if it were out of there hands. Except Elk. Now thats a diffrent critter. Special regulation and harvest management can have a possetive effect on them. What a bunch of BS.

Ask yourself what kind of elk herds would we have if the elk had the same polocies to deal with as deer have. O|*


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Would any amature biologist around here like to adress the fact that 2pts are breeding does.


Well most 2 points are sexually mature, but I would bet that there are quite a few older bucks breeding the does as well. As long as the does are getting bred then that is all that matters.

So what is your point?


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> How will any of us see any of a giant bucks offspring if they are all shot at 2 years old?


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you just shoot a small 2x3, with 2 weeks left in the season???


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Natural selection is the point. Are you kidding me? The whole reason behind rut behavior. The passing on of good high quality genetics. Pathetic a doe has to resort to doing a 2pt to get nocked up! :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Natural selection is the point. Are you kidding me? The whole reason behind rut behavior. The passing on of good high quality genetics. Pathetic a doe has to resort to doing a 2pt to get nocked up!


How do you know that 2 point isn't the offspring of some giant buck. Genes are genes and does carry them also.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Natural selection is the point. Are you kidding me? The whole reason behind rut behavior. The passing on of good high quality genetics. Pathetic a doe has to resort to doing a 2pt to get nocked up!
> 
> 
> *How do you know that 2 point isn't the offspring of some giant buck*. Genes are genes and does carry them also.


Finally!!!! I have been wondering thousands of times how one doesn't ask them self this question.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Would any amature biologist around here like to adress the fact that 2pts are breeding does.


Sure, I would love to....
"Buck-only seasons generally have little effect on mule deer populations because the remaining bucks breed all reproductively active does. Wide buck:doe ratios and an abundance of younger males may delay the timing of breeding, but there is no evidence this significantly affects the reproductive rates of does or the number of fawns that survive to adulthood in a mule deer population.

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

I strongly suggest reading the infromation from this site (and not just the page I have linked you to):

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

Interestingly, the same information states, "Restricting season length reduces hunter days in the field, but doesn't necessarily reduce buck harvest or improve buck:doe ratios." I feel that the reduced season lengths on Monroe will have little or no effect on buck/doe ratios...just like the DWR has been telling the RACs for years now on the 5 day hunts.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> .......Pathetic a doe has to resort to doing a 2pt to get nocked up! :roll:


But is this not what happens when you restrict to 3point or better? I'm not sure I understand how you can remove the higher qualitity gene pool and expect to get higher qualitity animals.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > .......Pathetic a doe has to resort to doing a 2pt to get nocked up! :roll:
> ...


BINGO!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://allenpress.com/system/files/pdfs ... 46-953.pdf



> Studies characterizing male reproductive success as highly skewed with a small number of mature dominant males monopolizing breeding are criticized for depending too heavily on behavioral observations and circumstantial evidence. This study, however, found that physically immature males 1.5 to 2.5 years of age fathered *30 to 33 percent* of offspring in the populations examined, even where larger, mature males were present.


----------

