# Buck to Doe ratio



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

I know that I have brought this subject up before and have heard the same reply about the youth hunters but if you stop shooting spike bucks this has to increase the buck to doe ratio. Why can't the young hunters wait for a forked horn buck or just simply enjoy the hunt for the outing with their family? If not, the tags are going to be cut each year until the objective of each unit is met.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The answer to this is using antler restrictions on a short term basis when unit managment starts in 2012.....Every time I bring this up there are the the ones that say, 
"It dosn't work"....
But I think antler restics would work GREAT on units with low buck to doe ratios if put
in place for two year increments.. Giving a boost to ratios, and then being able to issue
more permits on units that reach specified numbers QUICKER..

ESPESALY on chronic low buck to doe units that will go to limited entry if ratios don't improve..

I think antler restics should absolutely be in the tool chest for the new 29 units,,,,,,,,
I think there could be big advantages if they were used correctly...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I thought spikes where the so called runts of the litter. I believe a mule deer spike in it's first year of antler growth would likely never be more than a 3-point in its life time. If that is the case why would I want to let the runts breed? Under the 29 unit plan, which is controlling the hunter numbers, why would I want a buck on the mountain that is most likely never going to be hunted under a point restriction taking critical feed?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I thought spikes where the so called runts of the litter. I believe a mule deer spike in it's first year of antler growth would likely never be more than a 3-point in its life time. If that is the case why would I want to let the runts breed? Under the 29 unit plan, which is controlling the hunter numbers, why would I want a buck on the mountain that is most likely never going to be hunted under a point restriction taking critical feed?


Bingo! We have a winner! If you want to see big bucks, protect the big bucks. Harvest the smaller bucks. Weed the spikes out of the gene pool. Antler point restrictions do not work unless the number of hunters is reduced to the same levels as limited entry units.

Fishrmn


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I thought spikes where the so called runts of the litter. I believe a mule deer spike in it's first year of antler growth would likely never be more than a 3-point in its life time. If that is the case why would I want to let the runts breed? Under the 29 unit plan, which is controlling the hunter numbers, why would I want a buck on the mountain that is most likely never going to be hunted under a point restriction taking critical feed?
> ...


So, let me get this straight, SPIKES ARE RUNTS?
So you both were born with your adult teeth?
You didn't have to mature like any other living thing in this world?

Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

huntnbum said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


They probably weren't breeding very effectively in your scenario either. I think that is the point. :roll:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Most yearling bucks are in fact 2 points. (2 points on each side) Most bucks are never actually a spike. We are talking mule deer of course. That's why others are saying that spikes are runts, because only the smallest bucks are ever actually spikes.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Califbowmen said:


> I know that I have brought this subject up before and have heard the same reply about the youth hunters but if you stop shooting *spike bucks *this has to increase the buck to doe ratio. *Why can't the young hunters wait for a forked horn buck* or just simply enjoy the hunt for the outing with their family? If not, the tags are going to be cut each year until the objective of each unit is met.


As I mentioned in my previous post most yearling bucks are two points. So spikes and two points are generally the same age. There are exceptions of course.

One thing to consider is that younger bucks have a higher mortality rate than older bucks. So if you kill say 10 smaller bucks you can say 5 of those 10 would have died the following winter anyway. If you harvest 10 mature bucks chances are only 2 of them would of died over the winter. So it's actually healthy to kill younger bucks proportionally and to kill bucks of all age classes.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

huntnbum said:


> So, let me get this straight, SPIKES ARE RUNTS?
> So you both were born with your adult teeth?
> You didn't have to mature like any other living thing in this world?
> 
> Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!


As I understand it, Yes mule deer spikes are runts. If you have a limited carrying capacity which do you want to breed your females, a first year spike that only grows to a 3-point or a first year 4-point that grows to a 6-point.

Do you understand genetics?


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

No one knows if the spike is going to turn into popeye or a weak horned buck, if you shoot it. I have never seen any proof of this.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

On units identified with low buck to doe ratios, how can anyone argue that
NOT shooting yearling bucks is not a good thing?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> On units identified with low buck to doe ratios, how can anyone argue that
> NOT shooting yearling bucks is not a good thing?


"Califbowman's" statement was about spikes.

I guess I don't understand why a farmer of big mule deer would want to have a bunch of runts eating the feed and passing poor gene's on.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I guess I don't understand why a farmer of big mule deer would want to have a bunch of runts eating the feed and passing poor gene's on.


Even a farmer or rancher of normal mule deer would not want to promote inferior genetics. The only thing that protecting smaller bucks does is promote smaller bucks. It doesn't help buck to doe ratios, it doesn't help genetics, and doesn't keep more bucks except smaller bucks. If you want bigger bucks, protect the biggest bucks. Does a rancher kill the biggest breeding bull? Nope. The majority of the beef that you eat is yearling heifers. The biggest bulls are kept for breeding.

Even whitetail ranches cull spikes and protect the largest bucks on their property. Sure, they let someone shoot the biggest buck on the ranch, but only after the buck has sired many offspring, and only to someone willing to pay the price.

Fishrmn


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> On units identified with low buck to doe ratios, how can anyone argue that
> NOT shooting yearling bucks is not a good thing?


Ok I'll bite. If a unit had a low buck to doe ratio it would be good to limit harvest of all age classes, not just yearling bucks. Again yearling bucks have a higher mortality rate so killing say 50 mature only bucks would have a bigger impact than killing 50 bucks from all age classes.

Why? Because many of the yearling bucks that you spared will die over the winter anyway whereas most of mature bucks you killed would've survived the winter and bred the following season.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Trying to cull out inferior genetics in free ranging deer/elk is like sticking your hand in the Mississippi River expecting to slow the flow.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Most mule deer spikes are due to lack of nutrition or being born late, NOT genetics. 

Trying to FORCE hunters to focus on yearlings or older class bucks via antler restrictions gets us what? I mean besides divided/confused/frustrated? Instead of advocating focusing on the 'inferior' and/or 'superior' bucks, how about this crazy idea; let hunters harvest whatever class/age of buck they so desire?  This is yet another well intended but flawed idea. We need to focus on the FAWNS not on the bucks!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> ...many of the yearling bucks that you spared will die over the winter anyway whereas most of mature bucks you killed would've survived the winter and bred the following season.


Are you talking about first-winter fawns or second winter yearlings? I honestly haven't run across any stats on this, but my best guess is that a yearling would have a pretty good chance of making it through the winter since it's already survived one of them.

Also at what point would death from age-related factors in mature bucks equal or exceed the winter mortality rate of fawns or yearlings? Honest question - I don't know the answer, but it seems obvious that an older buck has fewer years ahead of it than a healthy younger one. :|


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

In my opinion, it would be much more effective raising buck to doe
ratios by using antler restrictions than doing this............
From the 2011 application book:

* The Oquirrh-Stansbury; Monroe; Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits;
and South Slope, Vernal hunting units are only
open during the following season dates:
General archery deer: Aug. 20-Sept. 4
General muzzleloader deer: Sept. 28-Oct. 2
General any legal weapon deer: Oct. 22-Oct. 26

And, at the same time, letting hunters enjoy a FULL season on those units.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

An even better idea would be to NOT raise buck:doe ratios to such absurd levels as 18-25:100.

Just keep focusing on the buck population, and we will keep going in circles.........while doing NOTHING to help improve the carrying capacities, which is why we have low deer numbers.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro,
Please explain how 18-25 bucks is absurd? I think that would be closer to a biologically balanced herd than we currently have. Are you not always argueing that decisions should be biologically backed?

Here's a quick trivia for you. Name the one buck that is currently protected by the state in all hunting areas?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

We have low deer numbers mostly because of HABITATE #1..and then,

I would also argue the increased elk population to be more of a factor
than what has been realized by everyone,,,including the DWR .....

An other MAJOR factor is mother nature,,,many years of drought,
Last year many areas HAMMERD with snow , high winter kill,
Now a winter pushing 150% to 200%+ snow packs !!!!!!

Predators,,,,,with coyotes at the very top as far as deer are concerned..

I believe this is why we have low deer numbers right now........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> We have low deer numbers mostly because of HABITATE #1..and then,
> 
> I would also argue the increased elk population to be more of a factor
> than what has been realized by everyone,,,including the DWR .....
> ...


Yet you applaud an increase in buck:doe ratios, which means less opportunity.......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> Please explain how 18-25 bucks is absurd? It is absurd because it does NOT help the deer herd grow, which was them main premise used to justify taking away opportunity. I think that would be closer to a biologically balanced herd than we currently have. Based on what? What data do you have that shows a herd is 'better' biologically balanced with ratios of 18-25:100 as opposed to 12-15:100? Are you not always argueing that decisions should be biologically backed? Yes, I contend we should not be taking opportunity away unless there is clear biological evidence that doing so is warranted. And, since the overwhelming majority of BIOLOGISTS do NOT agree with your assertion, I tend to dismiss it as being valid and biologically sound.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I think more bucks equal MORE opportunity,,

And I believe it would be smarter to use antler restics to raise 
buck to doe ratios THAN shortened hunting seasons................


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I think more bucks equal MORE opportunity,,


Really, even though right away there will be at least a 13,000 permit DECREASE? What math are you using?



goofy elk said:


> And I believe it would be smarter to use antler restics to raise
> buck to doe ratios THAN shortened hunting seasons................


I am confused why you think we 'need' higher buck:doe ratios?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

A herd that is not being hunted by humans would be at 12-15 bucks? Is an unhunted herd more or less biologically sound than a herd been hunted by humans? I am not saying we have to be at what that herd is at, I am just trying to understand how being closer to what is natural is absurd?

Still waiting to an answer on the trivia question. There is an answer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You didn't say what is 'natural', you mentioned 'biologically balanced'. Two completely different things. What a herd buck:doe ratio would be w/o humans is irrelevant, as no such herd exists. What we need to do is manage wildlife with hunters,not for hunters. And, the ONLY reason to raise the buck:doe ratio higher than 10:100 is FOR hunters. To spin it as being FOR the deer is dishonest and not based on biology.

I won't be able to sleep tonight until you tell me the answer, so do tell.


----------



## MuleyCrazy (Jun 6, 2010)

> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk said:
> ...


Okay, technically speaking you BOTH are correct. Pro is right when he says that their will be a 13,000 permit decrease and there will be less hunters hunting, and less opportunity for hunters to harvest a deer because those 13,000 hunters won't be hunting. But goofy is also correct when says, more bucks equal more opportunity for a hunter to harvest a buck. How you ask, well it is quite simple. For example, if you hunt as specific area that has a 10:100 buck/doe ratio and then you hunt an area that has a 20:100 buck/doe ratio you obviously have a _better_ chance of harvesting a buck in the area that has a 20:100 buck/doe ratio. All goofy is saying is that if there are more bucks, hunters have a better chance of harvesting a buck because there are just more bucks, and in turn more opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

But, if you can't get a tag, you have NO opportunity! Yes, it is that simple.


----------



## MuleyCrazy (Jun 6, 2010)

I know and I hate the idea of 13,000 less tags. You are totally right when you say that hunters won't have the opportunity to hunt if they can't draw the tag, i fully understand that. All i am saying is if there are more bucks you have a better chance of killing a buck.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Pro, 
It does matter. Why would we ride the edge on the low end? This is not biologically responsible? It only matters because some scream more bucks is not biologically sound. That is untrue! Yes we should find a middle ground but 12-15 is too close to the bottom end. We should prepare for the worst, not hope for the best! 

You always have an answer, so I'll ask again. What is the one deer that is protected on our deer hunts?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Having ratios on the lower end IS preparing for the worst! The higher the ratio, the slower the herd can recover from winter kill. disease, drought. When a herd is at/near carrying capacity, having a higher number of bucks in the mix is a recipe for disaster. A harsh winter will affect the fawn population the most. That means the following spring there will be fewer deer recruited into the herd, and that fewer does will give birth as well. This compounds the problems, as it does a double whammy resulting in a much slower recovery for the herd. The more does in the mix, the quicker the herd can rebound and get back up to being productive. 

I have NO idea what the answer is to your question. Are you happy now? :roll:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Why do we focus so much on the buck to doe ratios when the ratio of fawns to does is more important. Many people who are in favor of higher buck to doe ratios are the same ones who are saying that there isn't enough bucks to breed all the does. 

Show me the proof where does aren't getting bred. 

If we focus on the fawn to doe ratio more then data will tell us how many fawns are being born per 100 does. We also need to focus our attention on what is killing these fawns after they hit the ground.

When hunters see does without fawns they may think it's because that doe never got bred, but maybe their fawn was killed by coyotes.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

If higher buck to doe ratios are so great then why isn't our elk herd exploding? There should be plenty of bulls to breed all the cows when you have ratios as high as 60/100. We should have a lot of calves hitting the ground and we would need to issue more elk tags to harvest all the surplus elk, but we aren't issuing a high number of tags.

The reason is because the higher the bull to doe ratio becomes the less productive the herd becomes. We are forced to kill more cows to keep more more bulls alive. Fewer cows means fewer calves being born.

Same with deer....If you have a high buck to doe ratio then X number of deer need to be taken out of the herd because the winter range only holds so many deer. If we want more bucks on the winter range then does need to be harvested which means fewer does are giving birth to fewer fawns. 

This slows down the production of the deer herd like it has the elk herd.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2011)

Fishrmn said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I thought spikes where the so called runts of the litter. I believe a mule deer spike in it's first year of antler growth would likely never be more than a 3-point in its life time. If that is the case why would I want to let the runts breed? Under the 29 unit plan, which is controlling the hunter numbers, why would I want a buck on the mountain that is most likely never going to be hunted under a point restriction taking critical feed?
> ...


WOW! i didnt know we had so many Utah Muledeer Biologists on this forum! i have a question. have any of you guys actually witnessed what you claim to be a true fact?? my guess is probably not. you've just "heard" that spikes are not going to be trophy quality, EVER. 
4 years ago, i was scouting for the bowhunt in an area that i spend alot of time in every year. on this trip i saw a doe with 2 fawns. one of her fawns caught my attention when i noticed that the whole left side of his face and neck was covered in dried blood and his left ear was almost completely gone. there was just a stub basicaly. i figured the little guy had a run in with a cat and got away. but would probably later die because of infection. 2 months later, i ran into this deer again on the muzzleloader hunt. he looked to be in great condition, all his wounds had healed and his left ear was gone. i nick named him "louie". to make a long story short i saw this buck the next year and he was a spike. the year after that he turned into a 2x3. last year when i spotted Louie, he was a 3x4 buck. he wasnt the biggest buck on the mountain, and he probably wont ever be. but he was a buck that many would consider to be a "trophy" deer. just because a deer is a spike one year doesnt mean he is going to be a junk buck forever. there are a few different factors other then genetics that play a role in antler growth.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> A herd that is not being hunted by humans would be at 12-15 bucks? Is an unhunted herd more or less biologically sound than a herd been hunted by humans? I am not saying we have to be at what that herd is at, I am just trying to understand how being closer to what is natural is absurd?


A herd that was not hunted by humans, including the other predators and trying to control the environment (fire suppression), would have large swings.
Its called a "cycle". Some years there might be large numbers and other years there would be a lot less.

So what natural numbers do you have to support a natural ratio?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Well, the WAFWA mule deer working group has looked at the current and historical data. They came to the conclusion that antler point restrictions do not work in growing mule deer herds or in producing larger bucks to hunt. That seems like solid information to me. I can't understand why some want to place ALL the hunting pressure on the mature buck segment of the herd BEFORE those bucks have had a chance to breed. Of course antler restrictions work for elk- such as in Utah where the young bulls are killed while the older bulls survive and breed. Also they work on elk in Colorado, because while the young bulls are protected, the older bulls breed before they are hunted. Antler restrictions remove the most effective breeding bucks before they are even allowed the chance to breed 1 doe.

Muley- On buck hunts I would guess the buck that is safe would be the one with anlters less than 5 inches or the buck with no antlers. What do I win? Now if there is a doe hunt in that area then all bets are off....

Some of you guys should sign on with the new mindset being brought forth of "100% success rates". That is a current push from some who believe that the historical management of deer hunters having success rates of 15-40% over the past 50 years is flawed. More bucks usually does not mean more permits in Utah. Yeah, permits might increase a small percentage of the herd, but then you hear the "the DWR is destroying the Henry Mtns, or the Book Cliffs, or the Vernon, etc...." and permit increases are lowered. 

The sad thing is some will never be satisfied. 18-25 bucks is what they already have on many units. Those guys are not happy today with the numbers, they sure won't be happy with the same numbers tomorrow. You'll see unit specific special interest groups lobby to reduce hunter numbers even more when micro-management does not produce their desired results.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Some of you guys should sign on with the new mindset being brought forth of "100% success rates". That is a current push from some who believe that the historical management of deer hunters having success rates of 15-40% over the past 50 years is flawed. More bucks usually does not mean more permits in Utah. Yeah, permits might increase a small percentage of the herd, but then you hear the "the DWR is destroying the Henry Mtns, or the Book Cliffs, or the Vernon, etc...." and permit increases are lowered.
> 
> The sad thing is some will never be satisfied. 18-25 bucks is what they already have on many units. Those guys are not happy today with the numbers, they sure won't be happy with the same numbers tomorrow. You'll see unit specific special interest groups lobby to reduce hunter numbers even more when micro-management does not produce their desired results.


I think it all boils down to the amount of money paid for these tags by the rich. If the tag doesn't sell as high as the special interest group wanted it to then they want to see a reduction in tags to make the tag more valuable in the future.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> The sad thing is some will never be satisfied. 18-25 bucks is what they already have on many units. Those guys are not happy today with the numbers, they sure won't be happy with the same numbers tomorrow. You'll see unit specific special interest groups lobby to reduce hunter numbers even more when micro-management does not produce their desired results.


Yup. And even more so because most hunters' skills aren't what they need to be. That's not a slam on anybody - just a simple truth that humans are relatively deaf, blind, noisy, scared of the dark and always in a big hurry...completely opposite of deer. Everybody thinks scouting is important, but I think spending a few days on the mountain before the hunt, just hanging out, would do more to improve a hunter's success - slow down, quiet down, reset your senses.

Meantime, with more human harassment than ever before, deer have understandably become a lot harder to hunt. Deer learn from each other, if they live long enough. Only the smart survive.

But we'll trust our personal observations as an accurate indication of what's going on, (even while admitting the "necessity" of as much technology as we can afford to buy). :O•-:


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

The natural ups and downs do determine overall deer numbers. That is true whether there are 12 bucks or 40 bucks. What you are saying is human hunters are the only factor we can really control. So I believe we should control them.

The 12-15 bucks has not grown more deer. Why would that suddenly change now? The DWR has never prepared for the worst, that is not their main goal. The goal has always been max opportunity. It has not been successful.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> The natural ups and downs do determine overall deer numbers. That is true whether there are 12 bucks or 40 bucks. What you are saying is human hunters are the only factor we can really control. So I believe we should control them.
> 
> The 12-15 bucks has not grown more deer. Why would that suddenly change now? The DWR has never prepared for the worst, that is not their main goal. The goal has always been max opportunity. It has not been successful.


Now that's hitting the nail on the head!.. :O||:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> What you are saying is human hunters are the only factor we can really control. So I believe we should control them.


Hunters are controlled because there is 97,000 tags right now. Reducing tags hasn't worked either. We need to focus more on fawn survival, habitat, predators, road kills etc instead of hunters because hunters aren't the limiting factor if we are only killing bucks.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think 90% of us want to control hunters. It is HOW we control them where people differ. The UDWR has not managed on max opportunity for almost 20 years. Max opportunity is unlimited licenses, statewide hunting, long hunting seasons, no weapon restictions. I would never call for that, just like most of the pro-micro guys are not calling for closing down the whole state for 5 years.

According to many 17-22 bucks have not grown the herds on some units either. 

The problem is sooooooooo much bigger than bucks (and thus buck hunters), but unfortuately some just won't ever understand that fact.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Packout,
You are 100% right. If we do not address the other issues we will not fix the problem!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

73 He's talking about YOU!!!!

Ya cut funding and ya want more management?!?!?

Ya remove future investors and you expect more return?!?!?

Did you find a money tree??? Did the state strike gold???

Ya can't get there from here and this tactic won't amount to a squirt of p!$$ as far as the big picture is concerned


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

WW,
Hahaha, I wish I really had a say! Funding will be there. My heck it has doubled in resent years. Adding hunters will not help at all. I'm not saying we should cut tags, but adding tags will not help the herd at all, regardless of the added dollars. 

How the heck were you going the implement these changes before the resent changes? Are you saying they can not now be implemented. 

And I'm not just talking to you. Because neither one of us really matters in the big picture, just a little friendly discussion on the forum. If either of us really mattered we would not be wasting our time on a forum! Just killing an even on the couch watching football, cheers!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

I did just get off the phone with the general deer hunt survey. Maybe that will do a little good!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > ...many of the yearling bucks that you spared will die over the winter anyway whereas most of mature bucks you killed would've survived the winter and bred the following season.
> ...


For the sake of this conversation a buck isn't a buck until it grows antlers, i.e. 1 1/2 years old before that it's a fawn. Don't fawns nurse their first winter? At any rate the source of the idea that yearling bucks have a higher mortality rate than muture bucks came from Anis Auode during the central RAC meeting about the mule deer changes. Besides it makes sense because the weaker animals are being weeded out during their first few years of life. They aren't as apt at avoiding predators, they haven't learned some tough lessons.

As for the second part of your question I don't know what the graph would look like for mule deer bucks mortality by age (hunter mortalities excluded) but I would guess it would look like a roller coaster being high at first then dropping with time where it bottoms out when a buck reaches his prime then begins to rise sharply afther that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> > The natural ups and downs do determine overall deer numbers. That is true whether there are 12 bucks or 40 bucks. What you are saying is human hunters are the only factor we can really control. So I believe we should control them.
> ...


I believe you guys are still missing the point. History has shown that you can't really control deer numbers either up or down through buck only hunting. I'm all for new ideas and trying something different but telling 13,000 people that they no longer can enjoy a public resource on an annual basis for NO GOOD REASON is lot like cuttin your hand off to get rid of a headache. You not only do nothing to solve the problem, you create new ones, and hamper yourself even more.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Should we open the buck tags back to an unlimited basis statewide?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73, noone is saying that we should. People are saying that cutting tags only to save a few bucks is a very bad idea.

Cutting tags and worrying about hunter harvest should be last resort not the first. There is more important things we should be addressing than buck numbers and how many hunters are in the field.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Not true. I've read over and over that hunter harvest makes no difference? Am I misunderstanding that comment?


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Don't fawns nurse their first winter?


No, I believe that they usually wean at about four months. That first winter, they're gnawing on the brush along with the adults.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Cody once you start taking tags you are taking the dollars at a 4 to 1 ratio. 

Like I said you can't get where you and DC want to get going down the road you are going.

By the way I saw this first hand today when I got out to Lee Kay around 12:15 and was told the Range now closes at 1:00 on the weekends. I have a pretty good idea why.

Cody the numbers show that even cutting BUCK HUNTER numbers in half will result in basically the same number of dead deer. It don't work anywhere it has been implemented it hasn't worked here since 1994 and it won't work now.

You can allow 100K hunters in the field. 

You can manage for the Don Peay SFW 100% success shoots. You can manage under the "Glenwood Limited Opportunity Model" or you can cut success rates for those 100K in the field. Either way it's going to equal 22,000 - 27,000 dead deer.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Should we open the buck tags back to an unlimited basis statewide?


YES, for hell sakes YES!!!..but first we need to eliminate these LE areas/hunts and open the entire state up to hunting instead of forcing most hunters onto smaller and smaller areas...not even the best areas! Tell me what biological reason half the state basically is closed to hunting while we force the masses to crowd onto the smaller remaining areas. WHY, what good does that do for the general overall health of the deer herd! NOTHING! Is it just coincidence that the deer population has declined ever since we started this manage for big buck/trophy hunting.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

While your at it BP ya might as well sell unlimited elk tags and open all
the L/E elk units up as well............. :| :?: :| 

PLEASE oh pleaase tell us your kidding??


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Yeah, your right Goofy, what I meant to say was lets limit more and more and more hunting and charge more and more and more for tags so at least a few really lucky/rich people can really have a "quality" hunt. Hell, 13,000 this year, a few more thousand each year over the next few years and we'll just about have 'er done. I just can't figure out why we have any "open" areas at all..maybe you could enlighten me on that subject Goofy, you seem to be the expect of deer management on this forum.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Muley73 said:


> The natural ups and downs do determine overall deer numbers. That is true whether there are 12 bucks or 40 bucks. *What you are saying is human hunters are the only factor we can really control.* So I believe we should control them.
> 
> The 12-15 bucks has not grown more deer. Why would that suddenly change now? The DWR has never prepared for the worst, that is not their main goal. The goal has always been max opportunity. It has not been successful.


No that is not what I was saying. Hunters are not the only thing we control. I believe you where the one saying that if hunters where removed that there would be higher buck to doe ratios (12-15 being un-natural). I indicated that man has his finger into much more than hunting, i.e. fire surppression, removal of predators, etc. So where is this area that has no man intervention so we can see what the real natural order is? The real cycle of feast or famine that is very much what mother nature does.

What is the worst that the DWR should be prepared for?

The statement that "the DWR's goal has always been max opportunity" is flat out BS. If that was the case then half the state would not be LE hunts. A truer statement is that we have been controlling hunter numbers for over 15 years and we still only harvest 30%. Maybe it would be smarter to try something really different, like fixing the real problems.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I have seen the Henrys and the Book cliffs deer herds shot out to the point
they had to close them for a few years to recover....

And I'm not a fan of cutting permits,,AND I'm also not a fan of to many permits..

If Utah were to open ANY of the limited entry units up to general season,,,,,
The same thing that happened in the late 80s would, no doubt, happen again..
I would certainly hate to see that a 2nd time....

Regardless of option 2 , Deer numbers are struggling almost state wide on general units..
I would not be surprised to see tag cuts THIS year on deer , elk , and antelope....
I know all the areas I have been to this winter are not carrying as many animals as 
they have in recent years past.......


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Why not use the GS model statewide? Open all of the LE units to general hunting, Make them LE if they fall below 12:100, open them back up when they are 18:100? Seems like a logical way to keep the dips from being too deep.

Now that I've said that, I disagree completely with the above statement. :shock: There are a certain percentage of hunters that are willing to forego having a tag every year in lieu of one every 6-10-15, they have a say for their philosophies, just as much as opportunity guys have theirs. The problem is, there is crossover in both areas, including myself. If I had to choose, I'd choose opportunity and I'd guess that an overwhelming majority of hunter would do the same. Pick your poison? Aint gonna happen, most will complain and rightly so, it is very difficult to take away what has been given for many years.

So what is the solution? I honestly may support unlimited tag sales for general season under the outline of the first paragraph. I also think, barring severe winter kill, that the B to D ratio isn't going to change very drastically, regardless of how many tags are issued. It's a simple economic model and the balance is self sustaining. If Utah was selling enough tags to "shoot out" herds, they wouldn't be selling that many tags for long, because no one would want to come to Utah to hunt. It seems to me that this would be similar to the typical cyclical ups and downs we see with deer populations.

I just don't understand where the "Hunters are fed up with hunting Utah and are going to sop buying tags" mantra comes from. I'd buy it if tags didn't sell out every year, but they do.

It's all hyperbole, self serving propaganda and tactical social psychological manipulation.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok Gents,
Here is what I hope is my final post on this subject. (Which is probably not true, but I'll hope as that seems to be the status quo).

I personally believe that if every hunter in Utah was asked if he/she would like to hunt deer every year, the answer would be 100% YES. I know I would and I can't imagine that most if not all would feel the same way. It is what we love to do. It makes memories, it brings up old memories, it is what we cherish as hunters! 

My fear is that if we continue down the road we are on we will lose our deer herds. Regardless of how many tags we sell each year. If the deer go so do our memories and traditions. It is the deer that bring these memories not just camping trips in Oct. I remeber days of 5 buck per hundered doe. But the difference was in those days you would see 300 head of deer. It kept you intrested in going out and working at it. Today you can still find bucks and even some big bucks, but the deer are gone as a whole. 

My fear is that if we keep to the status quo that number will continue to decline. We have done nothing to this point to show anything different. Not the DWR, not the WB, not SFW, not MDF, not BOU or UBA, not NRA, not SCI, not RMEF, not Don Peay, not DeLoss Christensen, not Gordy Bell, not Tye Boulter, not Bart Hanson, not Tony Abbot. NOBODY OR NO GROUP has fixed this or slowed this problem. Let me be clear in that it is not from lack of effort by anyone or group. However we all choose to disagree and pizz on each others legs. Bottom line is nothing gets done or accomplished.

I firmly believe that 29 units will never come to pass. Too much crying and bitching. I firmly believe that the Mule Deer Commitees plan will not be fully or successfully applied. I firmly believe we will all continue to fight and bicker and call names, rather than work together to fix the problem. I have come to this theory based on the reactions and posts on every forum I read and every meeting I have attended in the past 25 years. 

It will be a sad day when the hunters have all quit because the deer are gone and the only ones to blame will be ourselves. For our selfishness and hard headedness on every angle of the issue. 

No matter what side "WINS" if we all continue to fight we will all lose in the end.

As the years go on and I have watched this unfold, I surely enjoy my days following my dogs after birds on open cheat grass and lava rock covered basin! Out of state upland permits are a lot less expensive and the issues seem alot less complex. 

Good Luck to All, I think it might be our only chance!

CC


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Muley73, the doom and gloom posts are starting to get old. Im not saying the deer are in perfect shape, but I have seen a lot of deer this year which leads me to believe that the deer are still there. Yes the herds are struggling in some areas and we need to focus our attention on these areas to make them better. We need to kill a lot more coyotes, lions, minimize road kills.

Every year people post pictures of bucks they have killed on public lands. Every year people post pictures of bucks on the winter range on public lands and then people say the deer are almost all gone just so they can push their crazy ideas like 29 units. People want you to believe that if we don't manage deer with 29 units then the deer will disappear fast. It's all BS.

Yes the deer are struggling and we need real solutions not bandaids. BUT the deer aren't close to being gone for good.


----------

