# So....who pays for this abomination?



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Trib Story On Proposed Mule Deer Transplant

I'm loosing faith in the DWR at a rapid pace now. This is about the dumbest damned thing I've ever heard of although the proposal is right there in the WB and RAC packets. Translocation is expensive and the success rate will prove lower than 50% as we head into this winter let alone the next two years of the current project. If there are extra deer on AI, use the most COST EFFECTIVE method of removing them and sell the tags. Spending more than $1000.00 per animals is ridiculous and the proposed release sites are NOT just 60 miles up the road like the current Parowan Front project so the animals are going to be even more traumatized. In my opinion, this idea should NEVER have hit the table until a new method for increasing success rates for the translocated deer was found. What's worse, this is another red herring that sportsmen statewide will end up paying for to benefit who? Dr. Austad?

sfw's "stearing committee" and DWR won't remove 500 of the 3000+ animals damaging their relied upon winter range on the Parowan Front. But will remove a number of the 500 on AI? The Bountiful issue, I'm not smurt enough with personal knowledge of logistics but birth control for city deer should be much more cost effective especially under Obummercare. Doesn't Obummercare provide birth control for all females?


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

Apparently the predator control program is really working huh? Guess we've killed way too many coyotes to control the deer population! HAHAHAHA!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Deer can travel a long way when they need to. I was shown a project by our local Forest Ranger District they were working on with game and fish to track the migration of wintering deer. The tracked deer showed a migration of 100 miles from the low country to the high country. 60 miles is nothing.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

One of the translocated deer that had been missing has been found....SOUTH of Cedar City. I'm sure she didn't catch a ride to get that far south. She missed her target destination by about 20 miles if she was trying to get back to the PF. Mule deer definitely can travel long distances if something triggers that response in them.

What they can't handle is a 200 mile trip in the back of a trailer especially if netted and transported during the winter. Go ahead and try it, I suppose but don't do it to the expense of sportsmen.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I think its okay they tried transplant; however, I wish there was some discussion as to why the new location is under objective. There is already an established deer herd there. Where are the does disappearing to? It seems to me it would better to figure out the problem with the area, then maybe you don't need a transplant. 

No surprises from SFW on this. They never fail to cut general and anterless opportunities.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

No matter what the DWR does they p!ss someone off, if not one, then an other. Some want to hunt Antelope Island. Some think hunting the island is reprehensible. Some want to raise money from limited hunting, some think that's deplorable. Some want predators to eat the extra big game, some think that's ridiculous. Some think transplanting is a waste/abuse of tax money, others think if one deer survives it's worth every tax penny. So with all the personal opinions, everyone different from the next, why should the DWR pay the least bit attention to any of you/us? 

You say it's because they work for you and it's your tax money. I say, it's my money too and they work for me too, so why shouldn't they do what I want rather than what you want, or what other some guy wants? 

FatMan who the he!! are you that you think you opinion is better than the DWR or the least of us? You present your opinion as if you think you have a greater right to have your desires met than I have to mine or some other guys. 

Screw you FatMan, you and your constant b!itching internet buddies. No matter what anybody else says, thinks or does, you b!tch and whine and spew negative sh!t out into the world. 

I think your a self absorbed narcissistic pr!ck with nothing better to do than set in front of your computer and bad mouth anybody with a different opinion. I have the right to think any thing I want! kzzzzzzdad, I hope you go to he!!, you've earned it, in my non-humble opinion.


----------



## royta (Sep 26, 2007)

Wow


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It isn't tax money that funds the UDWR. It is license sales that funds the management of our deer herds. That is why it should be up to the sportsmen of Utah, who have paid for the management of the deer herds, to decide how to handle this situation. Not some bureaucrat who doesn't think it would be appropriate to have hunters dragging deer off of Antelope Island. If the Division of Parks and Recreation want the excess deer removed from Antelope Island without shooting them, then let them pay for it.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Fishrmn-respectfully, because you were: only part of the license sales funds the management of our deer herds, the DWR, now days DWR gets some of their budget from the legislature. But, even it was totally from license sales, it's the same logic as if it was all paid by State taxes, if 90 some thousand people buy deer license, 90,000 different people have 90,000 different opinions as to how the DWR choices to spend the money we all, collectively, spend on licenses. 

The single point is neither you, nor I, nor b!tchy internet buddies, have anymore right to have it their way, over you and/or I.

Honestly................really, don't you get tired of the same 5 guys, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,
about, something, someone, or this, or that or......................................whatever they can dredge up, over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

osageorange said:


> Honestly................really, don't you get tired of the same 5 guys, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, day after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, after day, b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,b!tching,
> about, something, someone, or this, or that or......................................whatever they can dredge up, over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over?


Almost as tiresome as your post.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion." 
— Thomas Jefferson

True to your mission statement. You are tolerate and you do get it, my comment is tiresome and it sucks, just like kzzzzzzdads do after these many years. 

Ya, I know, nobodies making anybody ready them.............still, as far as I'm concerned I think he's a self absorbed narcissistic pr!ck.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Klbzdad

Just an observation but you think the doe transplants is dumb and wont work but support phesant transplants. Irronic isn't it


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Just metro politics. Biological management and mule deer welfare be damned.

SFW invested in deer relocation and they aren't about to accept failure. (In my book, 50% survival is failure. That's just me, I guess.) 

Meantime, Bountiful residents don't want deer but they don't want deer killed. Transplant sounds better, but they don't know half of the transplants will die. So they're all for it.

Public at Antelope Island doesn't want to see dead deer, so kill 'em elsewhere for nothing and out of sight. Problem solved, from their perspective.

Transplants are stupid...but they make everybody feel all warm and fuzzy. 

Meantime, the DWR has to kow-tow. They're public servants, after all.

All of this runs head on into the real problem. If we really want to get into deer management, we're going to have to put deer first. Not politics. Not Republican politics. Not Utah politics. Not PETA politics. Not SFW politics. (SFW, PETA = same thing.)

1. Accept the fact that nature, albeit with extreme human intervention, knows best. If a deer herd is failing somewhere, there's a reason why. Transplanting animals doesn't change that reason. If a unit could support more animals, it would.

2. Promote hunting as the conservation tool that it is. Why oh why is the DWR caving in to metro politics? People's disconnect from nature is a problem to be met, not a condition to be accepted.

3. Open our minds..."environment" is not a dirty word. Don't discard information and ideas just because they come from a non-Republican source. Hi there, Lonetree.

4. SFW is a political fraud, proven and verified. So is the NRA. You already know this.

5. Make up your mind. Are you for mule deer? Or are you for development, temporary jobs and "Drill, Baby, drill!"? Can't have both.

We're at the crossroads. On one side is the politically correct (PETA, SFW, DWR) and on the other is mule deer. Make your choice.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You forgot democrat pos failed politics


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Not hard to trap a bunch of deer. I like the idea of transplanting. If funding is an issue raffle a tag.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Not hard to trap a bunch of deer. I like the idea of transplanting. If funding is an issue raffle a tag.


**** dukes daddy looks like your finally seeing the light!!! Congrats on the windowsectamy!!!

:grin:


----------



## troutmedic (Nov 1, 2013)

Finnegan said:


> Just metro politics. Biological management and mule deer welfare be damned.
> 
> SFW invested in deer relocation and they aren't about to accept failure. (In my book, 50% survival is failure. That's just me, I guess.)
> 
> ...


Great post


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Not hard to trap a bunch of deer. I like the idea of transplanting. If funding is an issue raffle a tag.


No, it's not hard to trap them. It is expensive. And half of them will die within a few months. There could be a net profit by selling tags for the deer that need to be removed. Or there could be a huge deficit by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to trap them and kill half of them. And the half that die will either rot on the side of the road, or feed scavengers and predators.


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

They are unwanted deer in places we can't hunt them. Who cares if 50% of them die after the transplant? What use are they alive in the middle of Bountiful?

As they say, it costs money to make money.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Not hard to trap a bunch of deer. I like the idea of transplanting. If funding is an issue raffle a tag.


Not hard to trap a bunch of deer? Oh? Have you done it? Or seen it done?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Uni said:


> They are unwanted deer in places we can't hunt them


That's just it. Highland has opened an urban deer hunt. Why can't Bountiful? And who, or what would it hurt to hunt them on Antelope Island?


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> No, it's not hard to trap them. It is expensive. And half of them will die within a few months. There could be a net profit by selling tags for the deer that need to be removed. Or there could be a huge deficit by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to trap them and kill half of them. And the half that die will either rot on the side of the road, or feed scavengers and predators.


We transplant sheep, antelope, otters, etc, etc, etc. I dispute 50% die. Sheep and antelope are delicate critters and we don't hear 50% die. Excuse!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

No. Sheep, antelope, elk, turkeys etc don't suffer 50% mortality. But for some stupid reason Mule Deer do. There is a current study going on, that gets a weekly update on this forum, and that is EXACTLY what has happened..... AGAIN.

In summary, we've had 49 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 44 of 102 translocated deer) and 4 slipped collars (2 resident, 2 translocated). *Forty three resident and 52 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.*

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/39192-you-all-have-believe-now.html


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

elkfromabove said:


> Not hard to trap a bunch of deer? Oh? Have you done it? Or seen it done?


1) Create big circle with 8' net fencing all around. Egg shape ok as well.
2) Bait with Apple mash and then string apples in a line. 
3) Keep apple mash coming for a few days.
4) Run cord hooked to gate at opening for big assed net circle
5) Hide behind rock (camo optional)
6) Pull cord and trap deer.
7) Feed sedatives. Troll Kohls and beg excess sedatives from soccer moms.
8) Put on hockey goalie gear and wade into net enclosure with gunney sack.
9) Tackle deer starting with little ones first to work up courage and technique
10) Hog tie with bungie cords and tape gunney sacks over eyes
11) Load in horse trailer 
12) Drop in some local needing more deer.

Really not that hard if you are smarter than the deer.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> No. Sheep, antelope, elk, turkeys etc don't suffer 50% mortality. But for some stupid reason Mule Deer do. There is a current study going on, that gets a weekly update on this forum, and that is EXACTLY what has happened..... AGAIN.


turkeys, chukars, ferrets, condors? Really we can't figure out deer?

Is this a Sevier County Gas Station biologist study? Please cit the source for 50% mortality. In fact give me two. I call BS


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

We can figure out deer. It's easy to translocate them. They're too stupid to adapt to a new location. They seem to die of thirst within easy walking distance of water. It's as if they need to learn from their mothers where to get water. When they get dumped somewhere new, they don't know the local watering holes. They wander. They don't know where the winter range is. Or they don't know when to migrate to the winter range.

Feel free to jump in on the other thread. You seem to know a lot about translocating deer. Of course the biologists that are conducting the study are all amateurs, and would love your input.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> We can figure out deer. It's easy to translocate them. They're too stupid to adapt to a new location. They seem to die of thirst within easy walking distance of water. It's as if they need to learn from their mothers where to get water. When they get dumped somewhere new, they don't know the local watering holes. They wander. They don't know where the winter range is. Or they don't know when to migrate to the winter range.
> 
> Feel free to jump in on the other thread. You seem to know a lot about translocating deer. Of course the biologists that are conducting the study are all amateurs, and would love your input.


So you can't cit the survey? Might want to stick with facts. Of course my opinions are fact!

p.s so you are saying when a guzzler is installed deer never find it? Also isn't winter range down hill away from snow?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Check the link.

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/39192-you-all-have-believe-now.html

No, winter range isn't always downhill. Sometimes it's miles away. Sometimes deer get caught in a mountain valley before they get to the winter range.

Like I said; feel free to jump in on the other thread. Your knowledge would be priceless.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Uni said:


> They are unwanted deer in places we can't hunt them. Who cares if 50% of them die after the transplant? What use are they alive in the middle of Bountiful?
> 
> As they say, it costs money to make money.


We can't hunt SOME of them under the current conditions and regulations (Bountiful and Antelope Island), but those conditions and regulations can change.

Who cares if 50% of them die after the transplant? First of all, what makes you think only 50% of them die after the transplant? We're only 10 months into the 3 year Parowan Front transplant and we've lost 43% of them already and we're not into this winter yet. Second of all, there are a lot of people concerned about the number of them that die, especially those who do the work, those who give an accounting and those who are having to pay for it. A farmer or rancher or gardener who loses 50% of their livestock or crop has a problem. They just doubled their cost per pound/bushel/bale.

What use are they alive in the middle of Bountiful? Good point! They shouldn't be ALIVE in the middle of Bountiful! And there's no viable safe way to capture them for transplanting. They need to be killed by someone.

As for Antelope Island, it's true that they can be captured for transplanting, but it will take as long as two months (depending on the weather and the schedule of the helicopter company) and about $350,000 (without after-transplant monitoring).

It just isn't as simple as some of us may think!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Don't really have a dog in this fight, but it has been fairly well established over various studies in the past 30 years that post-transplant mortality is often very high.

Google gives you this..........http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Proceedings/2003-Western%20States%20and%20Provinces%20Deer%20and%20Elk%20Workshop/The%20Use%20of%20Translocations%20in%20Deer%20and%20Elk%20Population%20Managem.pdf

Fishrmn seems to be alluding to the fact that so far(while it is early in the study), the mortality of the transplanted deer has been markedly higher than that of the resident deer that are being monitored as a control group. This study is being conducted by Biologists from BYU, fwiw.

So dispute it all you want, but given past studies it would seem that you're pissin' into the wind.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Check the link.
> 
> http://utahwildlife.net/forum/12-big-game/39192-you-all-have-believe-now.html
> 
> ...


You posted a link to the ksl story? No mention of 50% mortality.

This is an actual study. Page 9-10. 2 of 22 died. Guess those deer are tougher than Utah deer. http://www.chelanpud.org/rr_relicense/study/reports/4768_3.pdf


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You posted a link to the ksl story? No mention of 50% mortality.
> 
> This is an actual study. Page 9-10. 2 of 22 died. Guess those deer are tougher than Utah deer. http://www.chelanpud.org/rr_relicense/study/reports/4768_3.pdf


Not sure you are reading the study results correctly. Those 2 you are discussing were solely capture related. As far as I could see, there were no mortality statistics listed over time.

Also, this study is not designed to ascertain the viability of deer transplants. It was designed to ascertain the use of summer and winter range for deer in a localized area in washington. Apples to Oranges.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Kwalk3 said:


> Not sure you are reading the study results correctly. Those 2 you are discussing were solely capture related. As far as I could see, there were no mortality statistics listed over time.
> 
> Also, this study is not designed to ascertain the viability of deer transplants. It was designed to ascertain the use of summer and winter range for deer in a localized area in washington. Apples to Oranges.


Keep reading. Page 21-22 might interest you.

Top of page 22 is the best. Survival rate of .8282 over 3 years.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

osageorange said:


> No matter what the DWR does they p!ss someone off, if not one, then an other. Some want to hunt Antelope Island. Some think hunting the island is reprehensible. Some want to raise money from limited hunting, some think that's deplorable. Some want predators to eat the extra big game, some think that's ridiculous. Some think transplanting is a waste/abuse of tax money, others think if one deer survives it's worth every tax penny. So with all the personal opinions, everyone different from the next, why should the DWR pay the least bit attention to any of you/us?
> 
> You say it's because they work for you and it's your tax money. I say, it's my money too and they work for me too, so why shouldn't they do what I want rather than what you want, or what other some guy wants?
> 
> ...


Alrighty then.....someone skipped their bipolar medication today. Here's the thing, if you want to talk ****t about me or anyone else, how about you have the where with all and balls to do it in person. I'm never going to be right all the time and my mind can be changed. Nothing in life is absolute and I'm well aware that includes my opinion and views. I'm even happy to accept criticism from people willing to engage in dialogue. Interesting that you're doing the very **** thing you're accusing me of doing, though. Talk about someone being narcissistic and self absorbed.

sw,

I'm not okay with the division spending taxpayer money on transplants that don't work. That includes the pheasant release. Its not conservation or restoration they are focused on but opportunity and recruitment of young hunters. That I can't help but support especially when sfw picked up the majority of the bill on the peasant project. sfw paid all but salaries of division folks on the transplant and a grant from BYU picked up the other costs for their biologists. I can't wait to see what they come up with all said and done. sfw as a group does great things in Utah but their leadership also do some things that are pretty shady. That's where we can find the most irony.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Keep reading. Page 21-22 might interest you.
> 
> Top of page 22 is the best. Survival rate of .8282 over 3 years.


I read that statistic, and I skimmed the whole thing. Even that statistic is misleading. These deer were largely resident to the ranges. The multiple relocations were used to ascertain usage of summer and winter range in basically one county. NOT to relocate a whole group of deer from one range to another and see how they adapted and survived. As I said before Apples to Oranges as far as studies are concerned.

The 83% survival isn't surprising. The resident deer that are being used as a control for the current Utah study have exhibited around a 10% mortality compared to 44% for the transplants.

I really am not trying to argue here, just stating that most studies have told the same story over the last 30 years. I referenced an article from the Mule Deer Working Group specifically showing studies dealing with transplants with less than 50% survival.

I am not opposed to transplants if they are shown to be biologically impactful and more monetarily efficient than other proposed herd control measures. Science hasn't told me that's the case yet. If it does, I'm all ears.

Good luck on your hunts this year!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You posted a link to the ksl story? No mention of 50% mortality.
> 
> This is an actual study. Page 9-10. 2 of 22 died. Guess those deer are tougher than Utah deer. http://www.chelanpud.org/rr_relicense/study/reports/4768_3.pdf


The link is to a thread that I update as I receive them from the 2 BYU biologists doing the study, but for simplicity, I'll just retype the latest update this one time.

"Mule deer translocation update for October 20-October 26.

We had 1 translocated deer mortality this week. This deer was found on winter range (approximately 6 miles south of (its) release site) partly consumed and not cached. We suspect this deer to have been killed by coyotes.

We are currently missing 4 translocated deer. Most of these deer have been missing for several months now.

We are starting to see more movement toward winter range. It appears that many of the translocated deer will winter near the area they were released (Holden, Utah), though we may have collared deer in a few different locations around the Pahvant mountain range.

We presented an update to UDWR and SFW.

In summary, we've had 49 total mortalities (5 of 50 resident deer, 44 of 102 translocated deer) and 4 slipped collars (2 resident, 2 translocated). Forty three resident deer and 52 translocated deer were alive and accounted for this week.

Thanks to all for continued interest and support.

David Smedley and Randy Larsen" (BYU)

So, from the 102 translocated deer, we've had 44 known deaths, 4 with unlocateable signals and 2 without collars. That's 50, not quite 50% but close. Additionally, some of the ones accounted for are no longer near the release sites east of Holden. They just found one near Kolob Reservoir (125 miles south) and there are accounts of sightings/photos of unidentified collared deer near Scofield Reservior (70 miles northeast) and on the south end of the Monroe range. Now those sightings may not be part of this study, but then, again, they could be. In any case, we can only account for 51% of the translocated deer.

Also, keep in mind we are ony 10 months into a 3 year study. Make of that what you will. I just pass along the study updates.

Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> We transplant sheep, antelope, otters, etc, etc, etc. I dispute 50% die. Sheep and antelope are delicate critters and we don't hear 50% die. Excuse!


Excuse? It is reality....Utah has already tried two transplants in the past: In the first attempt deer were taken from the San Juan and transplanted to the Henry Mountains. All the deer were radio collared that were transplanted. The following spring a lot of those deer were still alive, the following fall the percentage dropped way off and the next spring it dropped off again. After that ALL the deer were dead. Also, back when John Kimball was Director of the DWR, there was some concern about harvesting does on the Beaver unit. So, they decided to take deer off that unit and move them to Indian Peak. It was essentially a disaster. Within a short time they ALL disappeared. There is not a lot of success transplanting deer.

Similar results have been seen across other western states. The idea behind the current transplant was to move the deer to similar habitats from where they came from and hope that they would adapt well....so far, the results are appearing to be the same as what has been seen in the past.

Comparing the successes seen in transplanting mule deer with elk, sheep, or any other big game animal is apples to oranges. Believing that it should be easy is plain stupidity!


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

If you have worked/lived in Bountiful, I am pretty sure you would agree there is a 0.000000000000000000001% chance of a hunt happening within city limits.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Then there should be a 0.000000000000000000001% chance of any relief for the poor fools who have their landscaping destroyed, or who have any other difficulties with deer in Bountiful.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You posted a link to the ksl story? No mention of 50% mortality.


No. I posted a link to a thread here on the forum. The first post in the thread has a link to a KSL story.

The study is ongoing. There have been updates almost every week. The results are exactly what was predicted. They have proven that it is easy to capture Mule Deer. It is easy to transport Mule Deer. The hard part is getting the stupid things to adapt to their new home. 52 out of 102 translocated deer are alive and accounted for. That's pretty close to 50%, and the study is in it's 10th month.

So let's spend $500,000 to translocate 500 deer, and watch 250 of them die before they've spent a year in their new home. Or we could sell 500 tags at $30 each and have $15,000 going to the DWR. 500 deer removed from the areas where they are causing problems, and 500 satisfied hunters.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

klbzdad said:


> sw,
> 
> I'm not okay with the division spending taxpayer money on transplants that don't work. That includes the pheasant release. Its not conservation or restoration they are focused on but opportunity and recruitment of young hunters. That I can't help but support especially when sfw picked up the majority of the bill on the peasant project. sfw paid all but salaries of division folks on the transplant and a grant from BYU picked up the other costs for their biologists. I can't wait to see what they come up with all said and done. sfw as a group does great things in Utah but their leadership also do some things that are pretty shady. That's where we can find the most irony.


Again, both of these transplants--the deer and the pheasants are nothing more than PR stunts. Both the DWR and SFW get their names in press releases and the public gets the idea that something positive is being done. It is just like this little tidbit from the pheasants forever site: "State agencies stock pheasants to provide additional hunting opportunities for their residents. In most cases there is a great deal of pressure from sportsmen's groups to continue these programs, despite their cost and potential problems. Sportsmen's clubs continue to stock because it is easy and gives members a sense of accomplishment. Many individuals misunderstand or don't believe the facts associated with releasing pen-reared birds."

In these two transplant cases, the DWR--I am sure--has received pressure from SFW for the transplants. And, by allowing it to happen and helping it happen, the DWR knows it gets some positive press about something that most people don't realize really won't help anything. IN both cases, the DWR probably looks at the situation as an opportunity to get some good PR without giving up much in return. Afterall, most of the money involved in the work is not coming from the DWR!


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Wyo2ut

You bitch about SFW releasing pheasants here, on multiple occasions you have bitched about habitat work they have done, PR STUNTS??? Bud pull your head out of the sand! It's a sportsmen group doing WAY more than you or any other wildlife group in this state!

Good on SFW and the division on offering some opportunity! Something last year you said they took away!! Haha good hell bud, we all know, if sfw is involved you don't like it, period! Congrats! We know where you stand!

Ask the division who puts up labor to help with most of there projects.....ask Jodie Anderson with the division what group shows up! Your comments are complete bull shiz...

Continue to sit and complain about evil sfw on the internet; I will continue to support them and make a difference!

You are comedy!! Thanks for the giggles!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> You bitch about SFW releasing pheasants here, on multiple occasions you have bitched about habitat work they have done, PR STUNTS??? Bud pull your head out of the sand! It's a sportsmen group doing WAY more than you or any other wildlife group in this state!
> 
> Good on SFW and the division on offering some opportunity! Something last year you said they took away!! Haha good hell bud, we all know, if sfw is involved you don't like it, period! Congrats! We know where you stand!
> 
> ...


HUH? Reread what I wrote. I didn't bitch one bit about them releasing pheasants...I like the idea. In fact, I would compare it to releasing rainbow trout in a reservoir...they might not ever be wild fish, but they do give sportsmen something to target. Also, you have NOT and will NOT ever see me complain about SFW doing any habitat work....thanks for putting those words in my mouth though. So, who should pull their head out?

What you have seen me say is that SFW does things out of ignorance and stupidity...I won't back down from that. Releasing those pen raised birds will NOT bolster the population and transplanting those mule deer will not do any real good at increasing the deer population to the new areas. And, for all the good SFW does--and they do do a lot of good things--they have also done a lot of bad!

Get your panties out of a twist, buddy....


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

^^^^ you make me lol

:grin:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Good....because you seemed awful angry in your last post! I hope your panties are untwisted...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Wyo2ut
> 
> You bitch about SFW releasing pheasants here, on multiple occasions you have bitched about habitat work they have done, PR STUNTS??? Bud pull your head out of the sand! It's a sportsmen group doing WAY more than you or any other wildlife group in this state!
> 
> ...


^^^^ Yes, This. ^^^^^^


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Fishrmn said:


> No. I posted a link to a thread here on the forum. The first post in the thread has a link to a KSL story.
> 
> The study is ongoing. There have been updates almost every week. The results are exactly what was predicted. They have proven that it is easy to capture Mule Deer. It is easy to transport Mule Deer. The hard part is getting the stupid things to adapt to their new home. 52 out of 102 translocated deer are alive and accounted for. That's pretty close to 50%, and the study is in it's 10th month.
> 
> So let's spend $500,000 to translocate 500 deer, and watch 250 of them die before they've spent a year in their new home. Or we could sell 500 tags at $30 each and have $15,000 going to the DWR. 500 deer removed from the areas where they are causing problems, and 500 satisfied hunters.


^^^^ Yes, This. ^^^^


----------



## Uni (Dec 5, 2010)

Would it be best to hunt the 500 deer? Of course.

Is it going to happen? No.

So it's either: Leave the deer where they are, or relocate them.

Have 50 does out of 500 survive is better than having 500 does eating tulips in some city.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Uni said:


> Would it be best to hunt the 500 deer? Of course.
> 
> Is it going to happen? No.
> 
> ...


Or we could hire the WA people and get 82% or 410 to survive.

Reality is hunters are a minority interest and if residents don't support hunting certain areas then you have to have another plan.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> No. I posted a link to a thread here on the forum. The first post in the thread has a link to a KSL story.
> 
> The study is ongoing. There have been updates almost every week. The results are exactly what was predicted. They have proven that it is easy to capture Mule Deer. It is easy to transport Mule Deer. The hard part is getting the stupid things to adapt to their new home. 52 out of 102 translocated deer are alive and accounted for. That's pretty close to 50%, and the study is in it's 10th month.
> 
> So let's spend $500,000 to translocate 500 deer, and watch 250 of them die before they've spent a year in their new home. Or we could sell 500 tags at $30 each and have $15,000 going to the DWR. 500 deer removed from the areas where they are causing problems, and 500 satisfied hunters.


You really think you can mandate hunting to residents in those areas?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Again, you are drawing conclusions from a study that has little relevance to this topic. The washington study is interesting, but not particularly relevant in this case. Studies of transplantation bear out different numbers. Nothing to do with who is doing relocations.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Well, let's see. The article talks about Antelope Island having over 800 deer, with an ideal herd at roughly 300 to 350. That's 450 or 500 excess deer on A. I.. Who lives on Antelope Island? Why can't we start there. I don't think you can mandate hunting in Bountiful. But you can give the residents other options. Live with the deer, or let them be managed with the most effective and cost effective method... hunting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> You really think you can mandate hunting to residents in those areas?


No, you can't force them to hunt themselves, however, if they want the deer "problem" resolved, yes...why couldn't the city, state, and DWR put a controlled hunt in place?

And to Ms. Sally up on the bench, the deer were there first. I couldn't care less if they eat your prized tulips.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I would even go along with the idea of treating them like squirrels. If you have a nuisance squirrel (wildlife) in your yard, you can trap it, translocate it, release it, or kill it. But don't call the UDWR with your problem. They won't do it, or pay for it.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I don't like the idea either. The only part I would support is if the Island would auction off a couple more tags to pay for relocating the deer. Then they only be moved to the New Foundlands and then also controlling most of the lions out there. Then they could have the New Foundlands as another LE.


----------



## Mauserwonk (Oct 29, 2013)

I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that transplanting deer into AI to the tune of some 500 deer OVER the target population will serve only one purpose. The same purpose that has been the driving factor in utah DWR's deer managment policy since I began hunting back in the 70's. To maximize permit sales. Period. If we are going to cough up the $$$ for relocation, wouldnt it stand to reason that they should be re-located to a unit that is under the targeted # with better winter range then Bountifull? Which is almost anywhere in the entire state.. UDWR's deer managment sucks! They are like Obama, always leading from behind. The slicing up of units from five to 40 is here about two decades late. They want to bolster and build up new huntable units, great. But why double down on AI as opposed to bringing other units that are hurting up to par? Ill tell you why, because as long as they can sell permits on units that have nothing but does and fawns they will continue to do so. UDWR is easy to understand, just follow the $$..


----------



## Mauserwonk (Oct 29, 2013)

I should qualify my remarks, I dont lay all blame on DWR for our lousy deer managment. I believe it is the bureaucrats who steal from the DWR's coffers and leave them (DWR) with little or nothing to work with, and they are DWR's bosses. We the sportsmen are getting royaly screwed not so much by the DWR, but by those on capitol hill who ultimatley call the shots.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

orangeboy ya all need to take a chill pill. if ya can't get along then ya better get it on. sounds like the personal hits are just a tad bit over the top.. get off the forum and go man to man. should make you feel tons better WOW.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mauserwonk said:


> I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that transplanting deer into AI to the tune of some 500 deer OVER the target population will serve only one purpose. The same purpose that has been the driving factor in utah DWR's deer managment policy since I began hunting back in the 70's. To maximize permit sales. Period. If we are going to cough up the $$$ for relocation, wouldnt it stand to reason that they should be re-located to a unit that is under the targeted # with better winter range then Bountifull? Which is almost anywhere in the entire state.. UDWR's deer managment sucks! They are like Obama, always leading from behind. The slicing up of units from five to 40 is here about two decades late. They want to bolster and build up new huntable units, great. But why double down on AI as opposed to bringing other units that are hurting up to par? Ill tell you why, because as long as they can sell permits on units that have nothing but does and fawns they will continue to do so. UDWR is easy to understand, just follow the $$..


Actually, they're looking to transplant 500 FROM Antelope Island, not INTO Antelope Island. And FROM Bountiful not TO Bountiful. There's already too many in both places. And the reason they want to transplant them, is because they DON"T want to issue more tags to hunt them in either place.

Additionally, they normally transplant does, not bucks, which will leave the capture units with HIGHER buck to doe ratios and the release units with LOWER buck to doe ratios. However, since the number of does being transplanted is minimal compared to the release unit populations (and usually also to the capture unit populations), and with the current rate of mortality of transplanted does, the ratios there aren't noticeably lower, so the tag numbers aren't likely to change. In other words, transplanting doesn't change the tag numbers, but hunting will!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mauserwonk said:


> I should qualify my remarks, I dont lay all blame on DWR for our lousy deer managment. I believe it is the bureaucrats who steal from the DWR's coffers and leave them (DWR) with little or nothing to work with, and they are DWR's bosses. We the sportsmen are getting royaly screwed not so much by the DWR, but by those on capitol hill who ultimatley call the shots.


The "bureaucrats" on capitol hill DON"T steal from the DWR's coffers! In fact they CONTRIBUTE to it per:

Utah Code-Title 23-Chapter 14-Section 13
*"Wildlife Resources Account"*
(1) The Wildlife Resources Account *within* *the General Fund *is established.
(2) *The following monies shall be deposited* into the Wildlife Resources Account:
(a) revenue from the sale of licenses, permits, tags and certificates of registeration issued under this title or a rule or proclamation of the Wildlife Board, except as otherwise provided by this title;
(b) revenue from the sale, lease, rental, or other granting of rights of real or personal property acquired with revenue specified in Subsection (a);
(c) revenue from fines and forfeitures for violations of this title or any rule, proclamation, or order of the Wildlife Board, minus court costs not to exceed the schedule adopted by the Judicial Court;
(d) *funds appropriated from the General Fund by the Legislature* pursuant to Section 23-19-39;
(e) other monies received by the division under any provision of this title, except as otherwise provided by this title; and
(f) interest, dividends, or other income earned on account monies.
(3) *Monies in the Wildlife Resources Account shall be used for the administeration of this title*.

I'll post this now and edit it later to include Section 23-19-39.

Edit; Section 23-19-39 just gives the DWR credit for issuing discounted fishing licenses to seniors and others. There's not much money there.

BUT, Duh, I forgot DWR's budget money from the state which is sent to match (at 33 1/3%) the money they receive from the feds (USFWS) per the Pittman-Robertson Act. In FY 2013 that amounted to $6,034,530 of Utah tax dollars going INTO DWR's coffers.

Bottom line, if you want to blame anyone for "stealing" DWR money, you'll have to look elsewhere!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Keep reading. Page 21-22 might interest you.
> 
> Top of page 22 is the best. Survival rate of .8282 over 3 years.


The Chelen County study, never transplanted any deer. It only captured them. And what did they give them, to help them cope with stress?

The Chelen county deer are just like the control deer in the Utah study, they have been captured, but not moved. Moving them is what leads to the high mortality rates.

The word relocated is used several times in the study, but that is in reference to "re-locating" the collared deer, via their transmitters.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This is just proof, that if it does not work, and it does not grow deer, the DWR and all the other alphabet soup fiends will be all over it. "what? it does not work!, lets do it"

Buck to doe ratios---Does not grow deer
Predator control-----Does not grow deer
Reduced deer tags---Does not grow deer
30 deer units--------Does not grow deer
Transplanting--------Does not grow deer
Habitat improvements-----Actually grows deer, but when you do it inefficiently, with less than 5% success rates, then you are just wasting time and money, while not growing deer, like the rest of the "Utah Plan".

As for the current translocation study that has not even been completed, and is being driven by people that don't know **** about mule deer. First off, the study is not complete, and I think it is safe to rule it a non-success already. Second, this study is being conducted at a time when mule deer are on the upswing, and doing very well. This is evidenced by the success of the resident control group of deer. Their 10% loss is better than average, and is because conditions are good. So putting that in to "perspective", the 50% loss of the transplanted deer, is also best case scenario. Under marginal, or declining conditions, the success rate would be even lower. And remember, this study is not even half way done.

As for current conditions, improving verses declining, I think we are heading for a decline. Many of the same factors experienced prior to the last 3 crashes, are Omni-present. Cactus/Cryptochid bucks, which first appeared in any numbers during the '50s/'60s, are on the rise. I am watching one in a canyon, where some of the first showed up in the late '60s. And moose declines. I just read in the newspaper that the Ogden herd is "stagnant" but not declining, after spending 7 of 9 days of the rifle hunt, covering a lot of miles on that Unit, I disagree. I travel a lot via "moose trails" and it was immediately noticeable how things were growing in. Nothing had been browsed since last winter. And then I started finding dead moose. 4 total, all of them dead this spring, most still very intact with hides on 2, because of when they "tipped over". When the moose did this in the early '80s, '90s, and 2000s, the deer followed suit. Fortunately all the deer I have seen look very fat and healthy, but the indicators are there. If we enter a period of declining conditions, transplants will be even less successful than they are now.

Yeah! SFW saves the day :shock:


----------

