# Doubling Utah's deer herd in a few years



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

How can it be done? None of us can be that satisfied with the amount of deer there are now as compared to there used to be. Bringing Utah's herd back up to 400,000 deer or more dosen't seem impossible, even over a short period of time. Cutting back on buck tags and allowing almost no does to be killed would defienently be a big step. And the current predator control objectives that are going on will also help, trying to prevent car and deer collisions is a big one, and habitat improvement. What else could be done to bring Utah's deer herd to record setting numbers? I'm not looking to fight with anyone just would like to see what everyones opinions are. Doubling the deer herd as well as the DWR trying to ensure that all units meet buck:doe ratios is on the top of my list, but there are simply too many tags given out in areas to do this. I understand the DWR needs its income but I would rather pay a higher price for less tags then see the deer herd suffer because tags need to be sold for money, not conservation.


----------



## WeaselBrandGameCalls (Aug 16, 2010)

I recently took a little road trip to areas I haven't been to in a few years. The number of homes and even entire neighborhoods built on wintering grounds and migration routes blew me away. Those are areas that are crucial to the survival of deer and elk.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

There is absolutely zero chance to double our herds. Too many roads, cars, people, developed areas, ski resorts, predators etc. You really think anyone can counter act that?

You might as well be hoping for a future Unicorn hunt. We may see some mild improvements in herds in areas, but doubling populations? Not a chance. Deer numbers are dropping across ALL western states. Nevada is down to under 16,000 tags statewide? Yea hows that working out for them... they are reporting herds are still dropping.

Give it another decade and you will be wishing we had as many deer as we do today.


-DallanC


----------



## Chuck (Mar 28, 2012)

eliminate the elk


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Actually leaving the nonproducing bucks in the herd through the winter will not help grow the herd. You only have so much food so it should go to the does and their fawns. I too am pretty pessimistic about DOUBLEING the numbers. Too many holes in the bucket. We cant even keep it level!


----------



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

DallanC said:


> There is absolutely zero chance to double our herds. Too many roads, cars, people, developed areas, ski resorts, predators etc. You really think anyone can counter act that?You might as well be hoping for a future Unicorn hunt. We may see some mild improvements in herds in areas, but doubling populations? Not a chance. Deer numbers are dropping across ALL western states. Nevada is down to under 16,000 tags statewide? Yea hows that working out for them... they are reporting herds are still dropping.Give it another decade and you will be wishing we had as many deer as we do today.


I think if in some way we could find a way to fight off and reclaim sites overtaken by cheat grass and bring back better range conditions we would have a pretty good opportunity to double herds at least on many units. Cheat grass and predators are a couple of the main limiting factors I can see that aren't allowing herds to boom a little more then they are. It's good to see an inititive being taken on coyotes, hopefully one day cheat grass will be able to be taken out and replaced by a more productive and useful plant for deer and elk. The problem of losing habitat due to developed areas is big, but what's worse is the winter ranges that are left are being overran by cheat grass and little to nothing is being done to stop the infestation of it. Sage brush stands are getting old and young lucrative sage brush stands are all but unheard of. Wherever their is sage brush now it seems there is cheat grass and after a fire or the sage brush grows old enough to die the cheat grass is all that will remain, so if the current winter ranges were made to be as absolutly lucrative as they possibly could be, I think doubling herds on many units is a very possible thing.



Chuck said:


> eliminate the elk


NO



10yearquest said:


> Actually leaving the nonproducing bucks in the herd through the winter will not help grow the herd. You only have so much food so it should go to the does and their fawns. I too am pretty pessimistic about DOUBLEING the numbers. Too many holes in the bucket. We cant even keep it level!


I agree, but units should meet their buck to doe ratio objectives, and tags should be given in a way that makes it so they do.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

+1 on making the available range the best it can be. I would also like to see many of the rural ,high speed roads have their speed limits reduced at night. I came close to hitting a deer on US 40 towards heber last summer, barely missed it and nearly crashed doing it. I was going below the speed limit and after, I went even slower. Guess how all the jerks behind me reacted. They nearly ran me off the road!! I pulled over so they could pass. Later down the road there were two cars off the road after hitting deer. It really pisses me off how people drive in the mountains!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Double the herds is a Dream.. Buck to Doe ratios. Which Public Unit has Worked in over the last 5 years. Increase the Tags in places like Thousand Lakes.. HUGE MISTAKE.. Doe Tags,,HUGE MISTAKE..
Go Out And Kill Yotes **** Straight. Increase the amount of Private Property up North..Sure,, nobody can afford to hunt it.. Cut the Tags and combine the Muzzy Hunters with the Rifle Hunters.. Limit the number of Archery Tags and NO State Wide. .. OOPS! Done That. Discourge people from hunting Utah and encourage hunters to go outa State. Limited Road Units...


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

Cut he numbers in half would be a start. Winter range and vehicle collisions are for sure a big problem. ATV's, 100 yard bows, 200 yard muzzleloaders, and 1000 yard rifles sure don't help. EVERYBODY pick one season to hunt (including youth). Double the price of a tag and only hunt every other year. Have management hunts on all LE units for more hunting opportunity. And do away with the doe hunts.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Doubling might be a stretch, but I think improvements can be made.

_Note that everything that I say is my opinion and observation. These are not absolutes._

I agree on several topics that have already been addressed and dont feel much need to expound much upon them, but here are the issues I personally see as a hunter:

1- deer on the highway seem to be the biggest threat in my eyes. One personal observation (not saying this is correct, but a theory I have) is that deer like to be near highways (especially in dry areas) because the rain runoff to the sides of the road are creating vegetation for the deer to eat because the water pools up on the sides of the road allowing for green vegetation to grow which in turn attracts the deer. I see this with rabbits all the time, and think it may be the case with deer. Additionally the areas highways run through are obviously in areas that the deer herds traditionally cross (see other threads on this topic).

2- Habitat. I think that habitat is suffering from various factors that are causing the deer numbers to decrease. Obviously encroachment of humans is a big factor, but I also think that the areas we are pushing the deer into dont support the herd numbers due to food supply. The biggest opportunity I see here is food source planting in areas that the deer have established populations, but need to grow.

3- Elk. I genuinely think that there is an equilibrium that has to be met with the elk population. Biologists will tell you that elk and deer live in harmony but they are competing for the same food sources, which means the strongest species will ultimately win out in my eyes. I have seen elk chase deer off of food sources just because they dont like them there (even if there is enough food around).

4- Water. Due to the old policy of "every fire dead out," pinion pines and junipers have begun growing at elevations that they historically never grew in. Each tree can drink up to 100 gallons of water a day, which is depleting the water supply in certain areas. Studies have indicated and demonstrated that by participating in lop-and-scatter projects with the DWR and BLM, eliminating these trees that have sprouted up can restore aquifers and springs that had previously dried up in the past. Once these are restored, game animals naturally begin to return to the area.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Houndhunter.. U as Nuts as I'am.. Hell the next thing ya know they will be building a Road up through the BOOKS> Sure that won't increase Poaching or ROAD KILLS...


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

Thats my back yard and it makes me sick. That road makes no sense! Here is a nutty idea, bring back the 10-80 for coyotes and watch the deer come back just like the 1950's.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> How can it be done? None of us can be that satisfied with the amount of deer there are now as compared to there used to be. Bringing Utah's herd back up to 400,000 deer or more dosen't seem impossible, even over a short period of time. Cutting back on buck tags and allowing almost no does to be killed would defienently be a big step. And the current predator control objectives that are going on will also help, trying to prevent car and deer collisions is a big one, and habitat improvement. What else could be done to bring Utah's deer herd to record setting numbers? I'm not looking to fight with anyone just would like to see what everyones opinions are. Doubling the deer herd as well as the DWR trying to ensure that all units meet buck:doe ratios is on the top of my list, but there are simply too many tags given out in areas to do this. I understand the DWR needs its income but I would rather pay a higher price for less tags then see the deer herd suffer because tags need to be sold for money, not conservation.


OK, I'll bite. (Help keep me from Jonesing about the hunt.)

1. I don't even think "the Don" is saying that we can quickly get the herds up to 400,000 head.

2. "Cutting back on buck tags" Yes, cutting back on buck tags will help buck:doe ratios but I have yet to hear a sensible explanation how this will increase the overall deer herd numbers. Last I checked, bucks do not give birth. Besides, you already got your wish to some extent with option 2. DallanC mentioned Nevada and he is spot on. Good buck:doe ratios, lousy herd numbers. Shocker.

3. "allowing almost no does to be killed would defienently be a big step." Agreed, but what are these big doe hunts you refer to? Other than some localized doe hunts like on the front, there aren't any except depredation tags on private property. And that is an entirely separate issue.

4. "the current predator control objectives that are going on will also help,"

Sure, this might help, a little, but how much?

5. "trying to prevent car and deer collisions is a big one, and habitat improvement."

Sure, these help. Again, some.

6. "just would like to see what everyones opinions are"

Here's mine, FWIW. Habitat improvement, predator control, roadkill prevention, and on occasion, tag cuts if the the population is below certain levels, all have their place and can help some. However, expectations have to be realistic. We will *never* have the perfect storm of habitat changes that allowed the deer numbers to reach their peaks in the 1950's that some people yearn for. We will never get a lot of our winter range back that developers have built on and we'll never tear up roads that have interfered with deer migration patterns and wintering. Unless the DWR goes overboard on elk tags, the elk are here to stay. Yes, lets do what we can and the problem needs to be attacked by multiple means, but expectations need to be kept realistic.

Probably the best thing you could do to give a boost to the herds is pray for wet weather and mild winters. If you have this, you will see the herds spike for a time regardless of what the Wildlife Board/SFW pushes through at that moment in time.


----------



## HighmtnFish (Jun 3, 2010)

I don't think we are going to see any real improvements in the deer herds. There has been to much winter range lost and too many migration routes have been disrupted.
Improving winter range and protecting migration routes are the most important things we can do to improve our deer herds. But instead of creating quality winter range we are planting houses on it. Instead of protecting migration routes, we are putting subdivisions, highways, and fencing the routes off and fragmenting the little bit of winter range that is left.
If you can find a place in Utah where you can improve the winter range and preserve the migration routes then the deer herds will improve also.


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

What will help? Closing every 4-wheeler trail. Not a popular statement, but its true.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Bax* said:


> Doubling might be a stretch, but I think improvements can be made.
> 
> _Note that everything that I say is my opinion and observation. These are not absolutes._
> 
> ...


+100.....absolutely Especially on the habitat issue. Holding capacity is something that sportsmen claim to understand but almost NONE have a minute of experience doing a survey of specific winter habitat and then hate on the biologists who are actually doing the studies. Without winter habitat, they continue to struggle!

Also, there is NO way we will ever see 400,000 deer in Utah ever again. Not for lack of want....its physically impossible and if you believe the three dopes that try to sell you that bill of good, I wanna sell you a highway through West Valley City with ocean front property along the entire stretch! I would be happy to see slow gradual increases but we have to measure stable numbers as success. Drastic increases will equate to very bad results within a couple of years that the herds would NOT be able to recuperate from.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Here is one that I am a bit confused on: Buck to Doe Ratios

How have we arrived upon the current ratio that we follow? And what made us decide that this was the correct ratio to follow? Could it be too high or too low?

These are questions that I personally do not have an understanding of or and answer concerning so I would hope that someone could weigh in for me (Lonetree?)


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Uni said:



> What will help? Closing every 4-wheeler trail. Not a popular statement, but its true.


So in our national parks where ATV trails ARE restricted and there is no hunting, deer populations are exploding? Oh wait, no they arent...

-DallanC


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

DallanC said:


> Uni said:
> 
> 
> > What will help? Closing every 4-wheeler trail. Not a popular statement, but its true.
> ...


Exactly right Dallan. On the Panguitch unit, there are literally hundreds of visible deer including some large, no, VERY LARGE bucks on the Cedar Breaks Monument where there are very few roads and what roads there are, only get used by personnel or for other official use. While that seems impressive, its not. There are larger bucks on the unit on public land running across four wheeler trails all the time. The ones on the park are just more visible because there is less pressure for them to do anything but eat and sleep.


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

Less stress on deer is a good thing. Saying otherwise is just ignorance.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

No right or wrong answers when it comes to opinions. Drought conditions throughout the western states over the past two decades haven't helped either. Sure, some years are wetter than others, but not on a consistant basis. 

Roads don't have quite the effect on population the way you think. Just come visit oil/gas country to find out. Loss of habitat (winter range) to development has definately taken it's toll...

Buck to doe ratios. They need to be balanced. The only way is responsible harvest of both. Lots of whitetails back east, lots of roads, lots of people - and they shoot does as well. Not saying mule deer compare, but managing a healthy mix has merit. A single buck cannot breed 30 does, but 8 to 10 can...

The deer numbers will never be back to what they were years ago in any western state. The only thing you can do is try to put together the best mathematical model you can to predict carrying capacity of a species. The carrying capcity equations do not come out of the clear blue sky. They are based on real time study of healthy and thriving populations.

I've read alot of unhappy and angry posts about the draw deer units now. Why is that? Hmmm, let's just think about that for awhile...


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> The only thing you can do is try to put together the best mathematical model you can to predict carrying capacity of a species. The carrying capcity equations do not come out of the clear blue sky. They are based on real time study of healthy and thriving populations.


It would be great if there actually was a mathematical equation to determine capacity, but there isn't. Far too many variables. As I understand it, carrying capacity is a concept that can only be measured relative to traditional population and existing conditions. Biologically, carrying capacity refers to maximum population. Sustainable population over the long term is something else.

We can tell when a population has exceeded capacity. One solid indicator is the population's impact on its habitat. We can also predict reductions in capacity, as the DWR has done this year with elk and the drought. Of course, we know how predictions work. But such predictions are necessary from time to time if we want to sustain populations because excessive population reduces carrying capacity. Again, excessive population reduces carrying capacity.

If an effort to double Utah's deer population was sincere, (it isn't), it would be incredibly reckless and irresponsible. There's not a shred of evidence that Utah has such capacity and plenty of indication that we don't. The result would likely be a population crash with questionable chances of recovery.

I don't necessarily buy into Todd Black's theory http://muledeercountry.com/2009/05/it-all-starts-with-the-bucks/, but he sure makes some good points and brings up some important biological questions. Pursuing answers to those questions is the direction we need to be going if we want to conserve our current deer population. Investing in the research makes a lot more sense than wasting money killing coyotes.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

High Desert Elk said:


> Buck to doe ratios. They need to be balanced. The only way is responsible harvest of both. Lots of whitetails back east, lots of roads, lots of people - and they shoot does as well. Not saying mule deer compare, but managing a healthy mix has merit. A single buck cannot breed 30 does, but 8 to 10 can.


Actually, one buck can handle that many does....and more. http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> High Desert Elk]Buck to doe ratios. They need to be balanced. The only way is responsible harvest of both. Lots of whitetails back east said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com[/quote[/URL]]


[/quote]

Then why aren't there more deer already? Why worry about reducing the number of buck tags when one mature buck can handle 40 does by himself (while not worrying about other bucks, predators, etc.)? Not buying it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Finnegan said:


> High Desert Elk said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you can do is try to put together the best mathematical model you can to predict carrying capacity of a species. The carrying capcity equations do not come out of the clear blue sky. They are based on real time study of healthy and thriving populations.
> ...


Yep, you're right. Carrying capacity pertains to a thriving and successful population already in place (hence my last statement in the quote above). You're right about the many uncertainties and variables too. Carrying capacity also serves as the base line or control for exponential growth/decay and linear increase and regression when one or more variables are compromised. Carrying capacity maintains the status quo. Statistical control and unpredictability are just that...educated guesses.

Kinda funny, when i studied wildlife biology and ecology prior to finishing out in another science dicipline, we all sat around and talked about these same kind of issues with no real solutions either... *OOO*


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

So, the top biologists in THE WORLD who make up the Mule Deer Working Group don't know squat....have a nice day.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

klbzdad said:


> So, the top biologists in THE WORLD who make up the Mule Deer Working Group don't know squat....have a nice day.


Never said that, but you just did. I just don't believe the reality of a single buck taking care of 30+ does. That gives a 1:30 buck to doe ratio. Natural selection will not support that. For that to be a valid conclusion, it has to work in a lot of places. Game parks don't count. o-||


----------



## M Gayler (Oct 3, 2010)

All the things you said! Plus get rid of elk!!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

www.muledeerworkinggroup.com Or do you just like to read your own snarky posts to other people's posts? There is science and data to support my claim along with the biology that gives you THAT exact conclusion. Go read it, I have.

Get rid of elk? Clearly there are some stirring the pot that can't do basic math and refuse to accept how the DWR is funded (they employ the game wardens, not just the bios everyone seams quick to discredit WITHOUT anything but an opinion). And while my perspective of elk / deer interaction has changed.....they do not compete for the same winter foods AND their biology is both different. Are elk aggressive toward deer? I've seen it but not to a degree that it would be detrimental to the herd of mule deer I chase from early spring until the end of muzzy season. And not the wintering herd I spend time among because there are very few elk there.

Oh, and that website clearly defines how the buck to doe ratio is tied into doe/fawn and even how its a tool for holding capacity. The bios have it right but there is too many other factors humans can't control or have already done that will take decades to undo.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Privatize wildlife management and mandate a minimum of 100,000 deer tags.

F socialism! And the North American hunting model its gone awry. So long as we hire environmentalists and naturalists to manage our hunts.

Or we can continue to try and emulate an ecosystem that does not accommodate a "general hunt" as we know it. *If you want to go with mother natures plan then quit hunting because she never made arrangements for you.* You cant have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My thoughts:

- Habitat conversion - Pinyon-Juniper encroachment has probably done more in Utah to suck up quality mule deer habitats than development. Bax talked about how bad PJ is to the system. Conversion of PJ back into multi-age class sage steppe in all areas where it occurs.

- Whitetail deer - I know it isn't popular in Utah (yet), but if you really want to double the deer population, think about whitetail. They THRIVE in fragmented habitats where development has taken out mule deer habitats. Every farm valley and river corridor in Utah that is slowly being converted to 20 and 5 acre lots could support thousands of whitetail as mule deer disappear. Whitetail are more prolific, more aggressive, and can rebound from drought/severe winter much faster because of it. It is ABSOLUTELY a different hunting experience than for mule deer, but could certainly take hold in areas where habitat fragmentation has taken its toll. So aggressive trapping (from other states) and transplanting in EVERY farm valley and river corridor in the state would accelerate the expansion of whitetail and could, within a decade, double total deer populations in Utah. We are the only mule deer state I am aware of, that doesn't also have significant whitetail populations. Perhaps we should look into it.

I'm not saying I advocate an aggressive expansion of whitetail deer. But the question posed was how could we double Utah's deer herds. Aggressive expansion of whitetail deer would do that.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Cutting buck tags does not compute for doubling a herd. If you want to double the percentage of bucks and make the hunt easier, that computes. Shooting bucks is really a now or later game. Bucks do not contribute to the exponential growth that the overall deer herd is capable of achieving. 

The bigger concern is why are there fewer does? Why is the herd not replacing itself? There are a lot of areas where the herd is decreasing - and there are virtually no doe tags. Get the herd growing and the buck population will follow.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The only doe tags that are given are to minimize depredation issues or on units that are above objective. While I wish that we didn't have to worry about crop depredation by deer, it is a good PR tool and necessary. The point is that stopping all doe tags is not going to happen...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Bax* said:


> Here is one that I am a bit confused on: Buck to Doe Ratios
> 
> How have we arrived upon the current ratio that we follow? And what made us decide that this was the correct ratio to follow? Could it be too high or too low?
> 
> These are questions that I personally do not have an understanding of or and answer concerning so I would hope that someone could weigh in for me (Lonetree?)


Bax,

BD ratios at their current objectives are a social issue. The objectives reflect a ratio where hunters state they are generally satisified with the number of bucks they see, the size of bucks they see, etc. Biologically speaking the ratios could be much lower than current objectives and we'd still have plenty of bucks. In other words the current targets are all about trying to balance hunter satisfaction while in the field with the opportunity to hunt.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> - Whitetail deer - I know it isn't popular in Utah (yet), but if you really want to double the deer population, think about whitetail. They THRIVE in fragmented habitats where development has taken out mule deer habitats. Every farm valley and river corridor in Utah that is slowly being converted to 20 and 5 acre lots could support thousands of whitetail as mule deer disappear. Whitetail are more prolific, more aggressive, and can rebound from drought/severe winter much faster because of it. It is ABSOLUTELY a different hunting experience than for mule deer, but could certainly take hold in areas where habitat fragmentation has taken its toll. So aggressive trapping (from other states) and transplanting in EVERY farm valley and river corridor in the state would accelerate the expansion of whitetail and could, within a decade, double total deer populations in Utah. We are the only mule deer state I am aware of, that doesn't also have significant whitetail populations. Perhaps we should look into it.
> 
> I'm not saying I advocate an aggressive expansion of whitetail deer. But the question posed was how could we double Utah's deer herds. Aggressive expansion of whitetail deer would do that.


I've been bringing up whitetails as a solution for years. Many states have both whities and muleys so they do co-exist just fine. There are so many people that just want to hunt, I cant help but think every whitetail buck killed is 1 more muledeer buck left alive.

Bring'em on!

-DallanC


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

DallanC said:


> GaryFish said:
> 
> 
> > - Whitetail deer - I know it isn't popular in Utah (yet), but if you really want to double the deer population, think about whitetail. They THRIVE in fragmented habitats where development has taken out mule deer habitats. Every farm valley and river corridor in Utah that is slowly being converted to 20 and 5 acre lots could support thousands of whitetail as mule deer disappear. Whitetail are more prolific, more aggressive, and can rebound from drought/severe winter much faster because of it. It is ABSOLUTELY a different hunting experience than for mule deer, but could certainly take hold in areas where habitat fragmentation has taken its toll. So aggressive trapping (from other states) and transplanting in EVERY farm valley and river corridor in the state would accelerate the expansion of whitetail and could, within a decade, double total deer populations in Utah. We are the only mule deer state I am aware of, that doesn't also have significant whitetail populations. Perhaps we should look into it.
> ...


I agree. It would save a lot of mule deer. Plus provide more opportunity.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Bring on the whitetails and watch mule deer disappear! Its a holding capacity issue. JP and human encroachment and changes in migration routes to and from those winter ranges are huge issues. Adding more mouths to the consumption pool helps how? If you're wanting to replace the mule deer, knock yourself out but ask any QDM professional (I have) and they will tell you that there is a reason whitetails are in virtually every other state around Utah and very rare within the state. I'll play stupid and let a QDM person state the obvious.....

Stable numbers with gradual increases as habitat improvement and reclamation projects take hold. Thanks for reminding everyone of the social purpose of b/d ratios bullsnot! Easy to forget how quickly we forget:/


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I am neither pro or con whitetails, but here are a couple of thoughts on it.

1. With the establishment of any new species to an area, there are unintended consequences. They can be good, bad, or catastrophic. These problems may include disease, hybridization, or other issues. The problem may not even be to mulies. For instance, whities are not overly susceptible to eleaphora (carotid parasite). However, moose are extremely susceptible as we have discussed on this board. Not saying it will happen, but is wiping out the moose population a suitable price to pay to introduce and spread whitetails?

2. As Gary noted, whities do well in smaller suburban and "broken" habitat. We already have municipalities complaining about urban mulies. Will these cities be any more eager to have whitetails eating the mayors prize rosebushes? 

3. Kind of along the same lines, it does seem to me that mulies are increasingly filling the niche that whitetails are supposed to take in suburban,farmland, and interrupted habitat areas. If whities supplant these deer are we any better off, simply replacing one species for another? 

4. Whitetails are already here in some degree in Northern Utah and in the Heber valley (and maybe others). Given time, the population should increase on it's own if they are able to be wildly successful in the states habitat. The fact that they have been reported here for many years and yet are not overly common would suggest to me that maybe they aren't "the answer" to many hunters prayers.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You guys cant believe whitetail will save us all can you?

Why do you think they kill does and pay farmers for crop damage? Its because it another type of government bail out for these people and were paying for it. It will only get more expensive with whitetail.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I threw the whitetail thing out in response to the initial question of how can we double Utah's deer herds in a few years. If that is the desire, then whitetail are certainly part of that answer because of the way the key habitats have been fragmented so much. Mule deer populations have dropped off in those instances. And under those conditions that are detrimental to mule deer populations, whitetail can thrive. so really, if mule deer aren't using the habitats, then why not infuse whitetail into that? 

Go ahead and ask your QDM folks about whitetail. Mule deer working groups of course will say no, as there is only so much food to go around. And that is true if your primary objective is to get mule deer. However, if you change the assumption from "mule deer only" to "any deer is a good deer" then things change drastically. 

Utah has hundreds of thousands of acres of mule deer habitats that are not favorable to whitetail deer, so the whitetails would not eliminate mule deer. However, we also have thousands of acres that used to be very good mule deer habitats that due to irreversible changes (development and resulting fragmentation), whitetail would do exceptionally well. 

Is it something we SHOULD do? Probably not. But if the goal is MORE DEER, then it certainly COULD be part of meeting that goal.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Got an IDEA, Lets change the Rifle Hunt to 3 Days. No lets change it to 5 Days. No Lets change it to 9 Days..That should really put the Deer Herds on the come back trail! Then you wonder why hunters question wildlife management.. Some where along the line bout 25 years ago who ever they R.. Screwed Up.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I grew up in whitetail country (OK), and as much as I love whitetails, UT (i.e. Mule deer) don't need any more competiton. If the concern is just "more deer", sure, the whitetail can fill that want; HOWEVER, the question isn't "more deer" - it's "more mule deer". If whitetails become well established in UT, you can bet the mulie numbers will tank even further. No one wants that!

If you want to shoot a whitetail, limits and seasons are liberal in states that have them. Tag prices usually aren't near as bad as other species to boot.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

It has little to do with adaptability of one species or another. Mule deer are just as hardy as ******'s. I'd argue mule deer are more adaptable. Is there a square mile in Utah that a mule deer could not live? From Bountiful to BFE and from Kings Peak to the bed of the Virgin River mule deer will live anywhere. 110+ degrees no water for miles and then 20 below in the GSL swamps in the winter. And its not all habitat and cars either. And would someone look at a map and realize less then 5% of the acreage in Utah has been developed. 

Those whitetail that seem so tuff back east? Put 2000 or more cougar in Pennsylvania and then see what the deer herd looks like. Actually put 10,000 and make it about the same cougar to deer ratio as Utah. What does the coyote population look like back east? Do whitetail get hit by cars? Do the 1.2 million hunters in Penn have a higher or lower harvest rate the Utah? I'll bet its higher. What is the primary mechanism to control deer populations back east? 

Just thought I would inject a little more reality to the conversation.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The habitat thing is a real deal though. And while 5% of the state is developed by your argument, much of that is also exceptional mule deer habitat. We like to live in the foothills. Along rivers. In fertile valleys. In places that don't get buried in snow. All things that the deer tend to like. 

And I would suggest that there is plenty of land in Utah where mule deer could not live. In fact, I'd say about 1/3 of it. The Salt Flats. Most of the west desert. Draw a line from the Oquirrh Mountains south to Delta, west to Nevada, and north again to just about the Idaho border. Sure, there are some pockets of places - the Stansburies, and some other pockets. But much of this land is also locked up as part of the UTTR. Then look to central Utah. While there are some deer on the San Rafael, it is less than prime deer habitat. The badlands surrounding the Swell. Add in the National Parks and we have less and less accessible habitats. So yea, there are plenty of acres in Utah that don't support mule deer. In fact, I'd be surprised if even 1/3 of the State supported mule deer, or at least could be considered decent habitat. 

Which to me, means that the suitable habitats that we do have, are that much more valuable. 

I'm all for predator management. I couldn't agree with you more on that aspect of things.


----------



## Towhee (Oct 23, 2012)

I was thinking the same thing about the habitat. Driving through utah is seems that the only place affected by human encrochment is the wasatch front. From Tremonton South to Nephi I can definatley see where the winter range has been ravanged by the housing boom however south of nephi it still seems pretty deer friendly. I know i could be missing something and in other areas of the state I know highway traffic has increased and there are a few more gas and oil wells in the eastern part of the state but alot of the state still seems the same as it was forty years ago. This leads me to believe that the central and southern parts of the state must be plagued with juniper encrochment, plant succession, and predator numbers?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Don't kid yourselves....the development of I-15 has effectively cut off loads of prime winter habitat for deer. Combine that with increased development in even some of the rural areas--like my town of Monroe--and I can see how winter habitat has been greatly affected. Then, you start combining that with fire supression and juniper encroachment along with plant succession and you have a real problem. The predator thing is simply hunters' scapegoat...the truth is that if you have the habitat you will have the deer.

I have said it a hundred times...the Monroe is the perfect example--when the lion population was its very lowest the deer population crashed; then, when the lion population began to increase, so did the deer population. Habitat and mild wet winters are the key to good deer populations...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> The habitat thing is a real deal though. And while 5% of the state is developed by your argument, much of that is also exceptional mule deer habitat. We like to live in the foothills. Along rivers. In fertile valleys. In places that don't get buried in snow. All things that the deer tend to like.


And it's not just about the quantity of habitat but also about the quality of the habitat for mule deer. The history behind this subject in Utah is very interesting but in short grazing practices and the changes in them over the last 100 years has greatly contributed to the boom and busts in mule deer numbers. Anybody care to guess what value a 40 year old sage brush flat has from mule deers perspective? How about P&J that has creeped up to 7k ft in some areas? Ever seen the understory of P&J? That stuff never used to be above 5K ft if you've ever seen historical range photos. How about cheat grass that chokes out critical forbes in the summer that help mule deer fatten up and make it through the winter?

Predators do kill deer but that only matters if the area could sustain more mouths to feed if the predators didn't kill them. I would wager that some areas in Utah could see a benefit in deer numbers from fewer predators but how big of a benefit would that be without a corresponding improvement in the habitat quality? There may be an oddball area or two that would buck the trend. Other areas would suffer without predators and mule deer numbers would spike, eat everything in site and then crash and crash for a long time. Those winter forage plants take a lot years to regrow to the point they actually benefit deer in the winter range because they have to grow well above snow line.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> when the lion population was its very lowest the deer population crashed; then, when the lion population began to increase, so did the deer population.


I thought it was the other way around - lion populations followed deer herds by about 1-2 years. When deer crash, lions follow. When deer increase, lions increase. Did I miss something.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

I was asking myself that very predator question but then Gary asked it first...... www.muledeerworkinggroup.com They even talk about whitetail expansion and why they aren't in Utah.....concerning adaptability of a mule deer vs whitetail...yeah, its proven that mule deer are VERY habitat sensitive where whitetails are the ones living in cities and towns back East where population densities are unequaled by any Midwest area, let alone Utah. Maybe you have the breeds mixed up....OR maybe we should cross breed the boogers with ninja skills to fend off our 1,000,002 cougars that we supposedly have in our state.


----------

