# 2012 deer unit boundaries finalized and approved



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the news link for units.....

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -2012.html

And if your interested in locking in a unit for 3 consecutive years,,,
here's the DH info.....

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... years.html


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

This won't be a popular response but I'm sorry to see the dedicated hunter hour requirement reduced.


----------



## 2litl2l8 (Jan 16, 2008)

A little inconsistency I noticed. The Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael unit it shows the unit is huge. This unit also includes the San Rafael unit, which is also listed separately and as just the southern part of the Manti/San Rafael unit. Is that an error or what?


----------



## lone hunter (Jan 23, 2008)

bullsnot, I agree. I had no problem with the 40. Nothing worthwhile is, or should be, easy. Glad to see the program at least continuing.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

The units are actually bigger than I suspected. One thing that I have to admit is that "things are not always as bad as I say they are". 

I guess my biggest gripe is the reduction in tag #'s required to implement this issue. Ideally I would like to hunt both the Cache and the Chalk creek/east canyon/Morgan south rich units, but I guess that this is something that I can warm up to. Goofy wins this round. 

My feelings are still hurt about the reduced season that we had last year, but hopefully that type of nonsense will be forbidden in WB meetings in the future.


----------



## OPENCOUNTRY (Jan 25, 2009)

So are the Limited Entry units still there?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Well, my haunts just got split into 4 separate units. What a frickin' hose job by a bunch of bumbling idiots!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OPENCOUNTRY said:


> So are the Limited Entry units still there?


Yup, still there..
With the exception of Thousand Lakes, It will be a general season unit
beginning next year..

And Nam,
Quite certain the description that passed was the Manti/San Rafael combine version.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

So how long till we know how the archery hunt will run. Will we still have the whole state or will we choose a region. I personally hunted three of the small units last year. Sometimes in the same day even :? Thats going to be tough. The temptation to shoot a deer that is just over the border will be pretty real!


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

> And Nam,
> Quite certain the description that passed was the Manti/San Rafael combine version.


Huh? I was just saying that now I have to pick between these 2 units.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

And you thought the draw "butt" plug was bad now......... Ha Ha Ha

By the time they get done carving the permits up for special groups and reducing tag numbers some of you guys will not be hunting for sometime. On top of that there are going to be guys like me that up till now had only put in for one draw and one choice. Not no more. That baby is going to be filled out all the way with all choices available.

I kind of wonder how many guys where passing on animals and now they will not be because they will only be hunting ever 4 or 5 years........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

This is the hunting world's version of Obamacare!


----------



## OPENCOUNTRY (Jan 25, 2009)

Wow! I turn 18 tomorrow. I can't imagin what it will be like when i'm older! it's a good thing i have a lifetime!!!!


----------



## rdoggsilva (Apr 6, 2011)

OPENCOUNTRY said:


> Wow! I turn 18 tomorrow. I can't imagin what it will be like when i'm older! it's a good thing i have a lifetime!!!!


The way things are going, you will need it.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

OPENCOUNTRY said:


> Wow! I turn 18 tomorrow. I can't imagin what it will be like when i'm older! it's a good thing i have a lifetime!!!!


Dude... you do know that the odd of you drawing an LE permit are worse than you wining the lottery right? You are definitely going to need that lifetime.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> This is the hunting world's version of Obamacare!


I think I would compare it more to Social Security. By the time it's my turn it will not be there. Obamacare only costs more out of pocket to have.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

All we can do is try to make the best out of a bad situation, and let the W.B. know how we feel as hunters. Let your voices be heard and it will make a difference. 

Don't wait! Start now! Join the UWC! Sign our petition, get out and let your friends know the future of hunting in the state of Utah depends on them. It is free to join. 8) 

Opportunity and family tradition are at stake here. Please don't sit on the sidelines and hope it will get better.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I do hope we can get the 15-20 per 100 buck to doe ratio back as per the 2006 deer plan. I think the 18 to 25 is a little too high in the general areas.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I do hope we can get the 15-20 per 100 buck to doe ratio back as per the 2006 deer plan. I think the 18 to 25 is a little too high the general areas.


+1
The new units don't worry me as much as the higher buck to doe ratio's. The 25 number is way to high for the general units.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Again, no concern for the actual deer herds. Just crying about personal inconvience. I am really glad the people I talk to are more open minded than the consistant 20 that post on this site.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Again, no concern for the actual deer herds. Just crying about personal inconvience. I am really glad the people I talk to are more open minded than the consistant 20 that post on this site.


The irony is that what passed and lead to this 30 unit plan was NOT a concern for the actual deer herds, but for personal convenience to make it easier to find big bucks. If ignoring biology is what you call 'open minded', I see yet another similarity with this group and with those who support Obama......so **** 'open minded' that there brains have fallen out!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Again, no concern for the actual deer herds. Just crying about personal inconvience. I am really glad the people I talk to are more open minded than the consistant 20 that post on this site.


Please show me any data that shows the deer herds have been decreasing over the last ten years. If you want the deer herds back to what they were in the 70's you are living in an unrealistic world. If this would truly help deer herds I would be behind it 100%, but it doesn't and you know it.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

jahan said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, no concern for the actual deer herds. Just crying about personal inconvience. I am really glad the people I talk to are more open minded than the consistant 20 that post on this site.
> ...





> D. Population Status
> The 2007 post-season population estimate for mule deer in Utah was 302,000 deer, well below
> the long term management objective of 426,000 deer. The statewide deer herd slowly increased
> for several years after the disastrous winter of 1992-93. However, the herd decreased during
> ...





> Although the statewide deer population declined in the early 2000s due to drought and reduced
> habitat quality, recent weather conditions have resulted in an increasing deer population (Figure
> 2), and in 2007 all 5 regions were meeting the minimum population objective of 15 bucks per
> 100 does (Table 2). Although current permit levels are below the 97,000 permit cap due to the
> ...


Here's proof for the decline in deer population over the last 10 years. However, it's not something that either of the plans would have been able to avoid.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

gwailow said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Muley73 said:
> ...


Here's proof for the decline in deer population over the last 10 years. However, it's not something that either of the plans would have been able to avoid.[/quote:16ex3yni]

This is from the old management plan, it seems to be leveled out to me to slightly increasing. Sorry it is missing the last 3 years.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

The micro units can and should be used to help grow our herds. Regardless of buck harvest. Again the WB asked for micro unit plan. The DWR presented the plan which included the increased buck doe ratio. 18 - 25 was their number not the WB. Again I supported option 2 rather vocally and my intent is for a tool that can help grow more deer not easier big bucks. Many on this site refuse to believe or listen to that logic. To do so is not open minded. Again I am thankful that some are open minded enough to look forward and make tough decisions now.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So opened minded in your opinion means to agree entirely with you and option 2, I see how that works. Then I will have to say you need to be more opened minded about why many of us don't like the new management plan. It is the loss of opportunity when there is plenty of evidence that it will not grow the herds. My issue isn't as much the micro-units as the 18-25 buck to doe ratio. 

BB, bucks don't breed bucks, you know this. So how is increasing bucks going to increase the herd? I will agree on one thing we don't have a great answer on is what is that magic number of bucks to does that will successfully breed all of the does. Your theory assumes it takes more than 15 bucks per 100 does to properly breed all of the does. We don't have great evidence saying that is the case. There is evidence out there saying you only need 5-7 bucks to 100 does to do this. I don't have an answer on this and I personally would like to see some studies done to try and tie this number down. If there was a comprehensive study done showing that is really does take 18 or more buck to breed a 100 does, then I would be for cutting buck tags, but that is not what the evidence shows right now.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Again, no concern for the actual deer herds. Just crying about personal inconvience. I am really glad the people I talk to are more open minded than the consistant 20 that post on this site.


You sure moan a lot on here :roll:

You fit in great. Except you moan a lot about others instead of big game issues.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> The micro units can and should be used to help grow our herds. Regardless of buck harvest.


How? What is focusing on the buck portion of the herd going to do for production?



Muley73 said:


> Again the WB asked for micro unit plan. The DWR presented the plan which included the increased buck doe ratio. 18 - 25 was their number not the WB.


Remember though that the division was directed to come up with the new buck to doe ratios and different options by the WB. The WB just didn't know how many tags would have to be cut to achieve it and why they directed the disvision to come up with them.



Muley73 said:


> Again I supported option 2 rather vocally and my intent is for a tool that can help grow more deer not easier big bucks. Many on this site refuse to believe or listen to that logic. To do so is not open minded. Again I am thankful that some are open minded enough to look forward and make tough decisions now.


I am all ears. If it will help I'd just like to know how. It's true that there are a lot of hunters out there that believe these changes will help but a lot of those hunters still measure herd health by antler size. Ask them and most will tell you that the Henry's is the healthiest herd in the state. I'm open minded enough to know that I'm not always right but all indicators say this was a soical change, not a biological change.


----------



## stick (Jun 11, 2008)

+1 on the soical change. 
Watch the 2012 expo have 300 tags avalible???????? 

And other special interests????? while the average hunters see the back door.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull, 
To think that you can not implement better corrective actions on a micro unit system is close minded.

As far as buck die ratio, you know my stance on that. I have posted on here and have discussed in pms with you what my thoughts were. So I guess I do not understand being pinned as only a big antler guys does not make sense to me.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> Bull,
> To think that you can not implement better corrective actions on a micro unit system is close minded.
> 
> As far as buck die ratio, you know my stance on that. I have posted on here and have discussed in pms with you what my thoughts were. So I guess I do not understand being pinned as only a big antler guys does not make sense to me.


In fairness you have said that you aren't all that concerned with buck to doe ratios and I was not attaching the label to you of being a big antler guy. I was talking about the preceptions of many of the hunters around the state.

On the flip side I have also said I'm not all that concerned about the micro units, rather I am more concerned about the buck to doe ratio changes and loss of tags. I can see the advantages of micro units from the hunting perspective. It gives us more flexibility in adding or removing tags which is a legimate social issue. There is no other corrective action that can come from the recent change other than tag allocations. Remember that mule deer micro units have been around since 2008 for everything other than hunter tag allotments.

Having said all that I do not think the micro "hunting" units will do anything to improve mule deer production. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no difference between 12 vs. 18 bucks per 100 does from a biological piont of view which is from a big picture perspective what micro hunting units were designed to accomplish. That is only a change for the hunter. What I'm asking is how does focusing on stabilizing/improving buck to doe ratios through the use of micro "hunting" units and tag allocations do anything for fawn and doe mortality rates? I think it's a fair question since you have said this will help deer.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Bull, 
I understand that we have looked at the units as micro units before. However we manager in regions. When one unit was struggling we just shifted the pressure to other units in that region, without control. What happens if we hurt those units with added pressure and the original unit takes longer to recover? 

In the region system we took an average of all the units. We should manage specific to what each unit really is or has available not what it averages when added the numbers of surrounding units. With the new system we can truly focus on what helps and hurts each unit. Maybe hunting pressure make no difference on some units it may have a huge impact on others. Coyotes may be wiping out on area while they are nit an issue in a unit close by. Now we can address each unit and not have to throw in the other units and go with an average. 

I truly understand the concern about loss of hunting oppurtunity . What I truly can not wrap my head around is the view that micro management is not an absolutely wonderful tool to help grow our deer herds regardless what the fix is. 

It comes down to people not being able to hunt where ever they want with who they want every year. Please explain to me how that has anything to do with biology?????????????


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Can anyone point to a situation where ANY government ran micro-management policy has EVER worked?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

10yearquest said:


> So how long till we know how the archery hunt will run. Will we still have the whole state or will we choose a region. I personally hunted three of the small units last year. Sometimes in the same day even :? Thats going to be tough. The temptation to shoot a deer that is just over the border will be pretty real!


What I have heard is we have lost the state wide hunting for archery.Next year we have to pick a unite to hunt for so long then we can hunt the extended hunt after that.It sucks.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

dkhntrdstn said:


> 10yearquest said:
> 
> 
> > So how long till we know how the archery hunt will run. Will we still have the whole state or will we choose a region. I personally hunted three of the small units last year. Sometimes in the same day even :? Thats going to be tough. The temptation to shoot a deer that is just over the border will be pretty real!
> ...


Where did you hear that?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

10yearquest said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > 10yearquest said:
> ...


At the board meeting....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

10yearquest said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > 10yearquest said:
> ...


This is what the WB passed last December. In 2012 archers must choose a unit just like the any weapon and muzzy hunters.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

BOOOOO! Again. I bowhunt in three of these little units and I may forget which one my deer tag is for! :twisted:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Muley73 said:


> What I truly can not wrap my head around is the view that micro management is not an absolutely wonderful tool to help grow our deer herds regardless what the fix is.


The way I see it I don't see any reason why the recent changes will cause more fawns to be born and more fawns to survive to the following spring. That's the only real way to increase buck production is to increase overall herd production.

Micro units will certainly spread out pressure more evenly based on number of bucks in an area. It may even help BUCK populations come back to our socially designated ratios in an area. It won't help herds grow though going back to the fawn issue.



Muley73 said:


> It comes down to people not being able to hunt where ever they want with who they want every year. Please explain to me how that has anything to do with biology?????????????


I agree with you on both points here. As I said before this is a social issue, nothing more. Since it's not about biology the gripe that folks can't hunt/roam as they did before becomes a legitimate gripe.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> is is a social issue, nothing more. Since it's not about biology the gripe that folks can't hunt/roam as they did before becomes a legitimate gripe.


Bingo! It really frustrates me because on one side of the road is one unit and another on the other and up the road aways another. The deer know nothing of these boundries and the boundries mean nothing to biology. A fawn on one side has the same chance as the one across the road. If I want to hunt deer and elk together like I have for many years I will have to stay on the right side or be limited to elk only in two of the three areas I hunt in. I am just kiddin about open rebellion but it does cross ones mind!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Just wait till a major summer fire rolls through a micro unit... the screams will be enormous.


-DallanC


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> What I truly can not wrap my head around is the view that micro management is not an absolutely wonderful tool to help grow our deer herds regardless what the fix is.


The reason it will not be a wonderful tool is because it will be abused. It will be used to create more premium LE units with less tagges and the tagges that are removed will never be returned.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Speaking of things not returned. Lets fantisize for a moment that 10 years from now it all has worked. Will we ever get the tag numbers back? Will the price of tags come back down (we all fully know that with tag reductions will also come fee hikes)? Will we be able to hunt anywhere we want?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

A tragic comedy! This stuff is entertaining!

10year,
Thanks for publicly stating your willingness to poach! Your point is one that others have said would be an issue. I have argued that sportsman are better than that. I guess I stand corrected. Oh wait I said sportsmen, I'm still good. I don't believe actual sportsmen will poach because of the smaller units.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

:roll:


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> 10yearquest said:
> 
> 
> > dkhntrdstn said:
> ...


yes at the board meeting. It sucks because we hunt three different units every year in one day. Then next year we will wont be doing much deer hunting driving 100+ miles every weekend or after work wont work now.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Hey muley thanks for publicly showing that you dont read posts before replying. Keep it up your making a great case for yourself! Note the last line in my previous post I WAS KIDDING.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

10year,
Just saw that you posted that comment several times. Do what you gotta do buddy.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

10yearquest said:


> Speaking of things not returned. Lets fantisize for a moment that 10 years from now it all has worked. Will we ever get the tag numbers back? Not likely! It hasn't happened thus far. Will the price of tags come back down (we all fully know that with tag reductions will also come fee hikes)? Again, not likely! The DWR, like everyone else, will get used to the income and will make plans accordingly! Will we be able to hunt anywhere we want? Nope! Once we go down this road, we'll end up like every one of our neighbors. Oregon - *65* units, New Mexico - *69* units, Arizona - *80* units, Idaho - *99* units, Nevada - *110* units, Wyoming - *142* units, Montana - *162* units, and Colorado - *185* units. We're just getting started!!!


EVERY ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS have traveled this road in various forms for several or many years and in every case are still losing their mule deer populations in the long run! They also are losing tags. In 2009, Nevada had an estimated 100,000 mule deer, but issued only 16,662 total tags (buck, doe, resident, nonresident, archery, muzzy, rifle, and youth). That's 167 tags per 1000 deer, while Utah issues 331 tags per 1000 deer. So that's roughly 1/2 the number per 1000 deer. So if we follow Nevada's lead, we won't have to cut just 13,000 tags, but about 47,500!!

Edit: And, FWIW, some of Nevada's "WB" believe there are only 50,000 deer because the Division miscounted and/or are lying, and they want to cut 3,000 more tags. Along with that, they've threatened in a statement to fire the wildlife biologists if they don't bring the deer population back up to the 1980's numbers of 250,000.

But even Nevada's not the current lowest tags per 1000. Try New Mexico at 126 tags per 1000 mule deer, or Montana at only 84 tags per 1000 mule deer. In fact the nearest one to us is Oregon at 305 tags per 1000 deer, but most of those are for bucks of any species (Mule Deer, Whitetails, or Blacktails), not just mule deer (edited). And the other neighbors are in the 200's.

Admittedly, most of the buck to doe ratios are higher in other states, but who gets to hunt 'em and how often? We tend to look at our neighboring states and envy their programs, but fail or refuse to see the outcomes. My dear departed mother used to tell me, "Son, learn from the mistakes of others, 'cause we don't live long enough to make them all ourselves." As I've said before, it's too bad she wasn't everybody's mother!!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> Just wait till a major summer fire rolls through a micro unit... the screams will be enormous.
> 
> -DallanC


Or the majority of it becomes Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or Wild Lands per Sec. Salazar's Order # 3310, or the Onmibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, or the current push to have Congress "help" decide which Utah public lands have wilderness characteristics, or the efforts of SUWA and UWC (edit; that's Utah Wilderness Coalition, not the other one) to "save" Utah's public lands!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove, that's some interest data you came up with. Can you list what the buck to hunter ratios are. I could be way off, but I came up with about 1370 hunters per 1000 bucks. 
I'd also like to know how many elk permits were given out in 1991, 2001 and now this upcoming season. I'm guessing it dropped bigtime from 1991 to 2001 but this year we have a lot more tags than ten years ago. The same thing just may happen with our deer tags. :?: 

Packout, that comment about the overaged does actually came from the Tooele County Biologist, he says it has become a problem with the West Desert herd.

Also, could it be assumed that most of the reduced tags will be coming out of the 5 struggling units. Most other units should be left the same. Nobody has really brought this up and it seems like the most pratical thing to do. Then the over objective units can recieve additional tags, if needed. I hope the RACs push for that direction.

Huntoholic, I'm sure your much smarter than myself. No offense intended with my comment, I was just messing around. Are you sure you and Pro are not related?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> e
> 
> Also, could it be assumed that most of the reduced tags will be coming out of the 5 struggling units. Most other units should be left the same. Nobody has really brought this up and it seems like the most pratical thing to do. Then the over objective units can recieve additional tags, if needed. I hope the RACs push for that direction.


Agreed, I'd personally see no issue whatsoever with restricting harvest on units with buck to doe ratios like they have. It should be done.

Contrarily, The SW Desert, Zion etc. would be the units that could sustain a higher harvest, but unfortunately, I don't they passed this plan with doling out more tags in mind.

As far as your elk analogy, the number of bull elk we have in this state vs. the number of tags given out to harvest them, aside from over-hunted general units, is very low in comparison to other states. But, as long as we can have pride in being at the top of B and C entries.......


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I used the elk example because people keep saying the tags will be lost forever but the limited entry elk tags have been increasing. I am for more tags but when the elk committee
came back with the statewide elk hunter survey and the majority wanted to keep the elk plan as is, I was shocked. Why would the deer hunters in general feel differently? Just a thought.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Comparing elk and deer is like comparing apples and oranges. As tree pointed out, the elk herd has more than doubled since major changes occurred. Want a make a wager on whether that will happen to the deer herd? Also, even though elk permits have gone up, SLIGHTLY, the same people that pushed the deer permit reductions, have kept upping the harvest age objectives on elk thus REDUCING the number of bull elk permits that are giving out! We have a rationing type management going on, that is clear. Sadly, the major players are lining their pockets BIG TIME along the way.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> Then the over objective units can recieve additional tags, if needed.


The only thing that is going to happen with the over objective units will be an increase in Doe permits. The issue with increasing the number of bucks from 15-18 to 18-25 will be the justification for not issuing more buck tagges. In the middle of all this the word will get out the unit is great and then the odds of drawing a tag will get worse. The DWR will see that they can increase the price of the tag, because they have so many people wanting a tag. Then we will be told that this is the fair market value of those tagges, because so many people want them. Then they will make a few more permits available.

The only thing that will upset the plan will be drought or a bad winter.

Oh by the way, this is almost exactly the way the elk are handled on the Manti's, just replace Doe's with Spikes.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Also, could it be assumed that most of the reduced tags will be coming out of the 5 struggling units. Most other units should be left the same. Nobody has really brought this up and it seems like the most pratical thing to do. Then the over objective units can recieve additional tags, if needed. I hope the RACs push for that direction.


That's not exactly true. Tags will be coming out of every unit that is below 18:100 buck to doe ratios. Technically they could drill us right between the eyes and if they followed the plan the way it was passed and any unit below that, starting next year, will go limited entry until they hit 25:100. There are a lot of general units in Utah that are below 18:100 buck to doe ratios on a 3 year average. There is no contigency period built into the plan either.

Personally I don't see how, with the plan as written, they can only cut 13,000 tags in 2012 compared to 2010. If the plan is followed much deeper cuts would be needed to follow the plan.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

They cut 7000 this year already right? So 7000 + 13000 next year = 20000 tags reduced / lost.


-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

The 7k that were cut this year are supposed to be a part of the 13k cut they have recommended. BUT, the 7k included an additional 2k (4k total) from the NE, which was not a part of the original plan, rather an idea spawned by a handful of North Easterners inspired by Del Brady. Because people that live in the Basin are the only ones that hunt in the NE.......... :roll:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

The whole point of my concern is that the division of units and the cutting of tags in order to meet the buck to doe ratios AND the population objectives will go on forever because those are the only things (add controlling predators per Iron Bear) that contribute to the decline of the herds that are easily controlled. And because when we don't see the results we want, to those making the rules, it just means we didn't go far enough. That, and the fact that you can't socially increase the buck to doe ratios AND biologically increase the total population in the same unit under the same plan (Either you replace some fawn bearing does with bucks or you don't.) means we're just getting started, folks. That is, unless we can persuade the Board to stick to the original 2008 5 year plan!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

So besides the buck doe ratio what about the 2008 plan can not still be implemented?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Ridge- your hunter numbers per deer might be right. Then base the 30% success rate and hunters kill 40-50% of the bucks each year. Sounds about right. Utah issues approx 1 tag per every 3 deer. Nevada issues approx 1 tag to every 10 deer. Colorado issues about 1 tag for every 6 deer. For Utah to be like NV we would have 30,000 tags statewide or to be like CO we would have approx 45,000 tags-- including CWMU and LTD tags. As for the dry doe theory, I guess we'll let the coyotes handle that. OR we could be like Colorado and issue doe tags on every unit--- even when their deer herds are 50-70% below population objectives. You know how much everyone wants Utah to be like CO.

Muley- So now you want to actually follow the 2008 Plan? How convenient...... Read the Plan and answer your own question, which I imagine you have done seeing how leading your question is. 

Tree- You are just selfish! You should know better than to question those who are selfless and make the proper decisions for us-- because they just had to do something.......


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> So besides the buck doe ratio what about the 2008 plan can not still be implemented?


With the lose of revenue per the reduced number of tags/hunters; the reduction of DWR staff; the likelihood of fewer numbers of dedicated hunters; the reduced number of required dedicated hunter hours per hunter; the increased demands on the division by the public to micro-manage each and every unit (Don't forget_ my_ unit), ie: classify, count, capture, check and collar deer; assess the amount and quality of habitat and maintain or upgrade it; the increased coordination with federal agencies' schedules and activities such as logging, burning, chaining, grazing, road closings, spraying, etc.; increased law enforcement; possible conflicts with the plans of other species; the ongoing wilderness issues; the probable increased costs of predator control, and the PR nightmare when the general hunting public actually read the 2012 Guidebooks, yes, I would guess that there are a few things that won't get done or done well. And I'm sure I missed a few other unintended consequences. The name Pandora comes to mind!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I understand the tough issues. However a lot of the reasons you just listed are exactly the reason I support micro units. Just because they are tough issues to address does not mean we should not be addressing them on each and every unit!!!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Divide up the state into micro units allowing comprehensive management and implement blanket policies for the whole state. Brilliant minds at work......


----------

