# Wish list for The Mule Deer Committee



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Honoring Packouts request to start another thread
For debate on suggestions here goes. 

I would ask the Committee to follow the survey results
To a T. 

Specifically bring back the friends and family form
Of hunting that the majority of responses support. 

Adjust permit allocations. I believe the survey will again
Show support in doing so. 

Return to a statewide archery hunt with more permits available
To bowhunters. If not statewide, region wide at a minimum. 

No more LE units unless the unit is below the previously set triggers. 

Streamline the jumbled, complicated regulatory mess deer hunting has become. 

Peace 
GBell


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Eliminate the preference point "loophole" that allows certain hunters to accrue points every year by applying for certain nearly impossible to draw units (Thousand lakes) , yet drawing a tag every year for their "real" desired hunt.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Lower the B: D ratio requirements for every unit, including LE. Or change from B: D to total population to determine permit numbers.

Increase group size limit to allow families to hunt together.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

How about we stick with existing 5 year plans for more than 2 years...?


-DallanC


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Couldn't agree more Dallan. I'd like to go back to the original
2008 plan and see what would have happened if the
Wildlife Board didn't get a wild hair.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

GBell I so fully agree with you on your first post.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

How about dumping THE DRAW LOTTERY for General Season Archery Tags, Leave the draw to LE Archery


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just playing the devils advocate but why all the special treatment for the archery hunters? 

Over the counter archery tags with more tags available for archery?

On the group size what should it be? 10, or 20 hunters? A group of 4 should be good enough. How do you bring back a friends and family type of hunting without increasing tags and most of the ones that I knew that hunted with friends and family were rifle hunters. 

They do need to do something with the point system. There is no way that someone should be able to put in for a unit that they know that they won't draw and then be able to draw another unit before the hunters that put in for that unit as a first choice do.

There are a lot of questions and problems with no good answers out there.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Critter said:


> Just playing the devils advocate but why all the special treatment for the archery hunters?
> 
> Over the counter archery tags with more tags available for archery?


I'm not an archery hunter, but I'm going to assume that it is because of the very low success rate. You could increase the number of tags by 1000 and only kill maybe 150 bucks.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I agree with critter and had the same question on group sizes... I have heard many say their group of 8 hasn't been able to hunt rifle together. I also have had negative experience with large groups filling tags for eachother (the old double down). How big is big enough?

Also, we have had countless arguments on science of deer health, BD ratios, etc etc... So without science, it is hard to just say "lower the buck to doe ratio".

You eliminate LE, I feel the preference point system will be even more flooded. Everyone will put awesome hunts as first choice and it will only flood a new system and they will still be hard as all h*** to draw, eventually becoming a 20 preference point draw. Don't see a lot to gain from it other than letting more people conquer a desired unit. As much as people want to ignore it, the appeal of LE helps Utah revenue and awesomeness in my opinion.


I also disagree with the loophole of preference points. I have never understood it.

I am going to sound negative yet again, but a survey based on opinion is great. Following it to the T is unrealistic. All surveys will be diverse in their answer, and they will also be based on a majority of opinion, and localized opinion at that. I am glad we use them as one tool, but they must remain only ONE of many tools.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Lets compare Buck Deer, Rifle Kills? Muzzy Buck Deer Kills. Antlerless Kills Rifle And Muzzy.
Archery Kills Buck Deer? What has the largest impact on the Deer Herds? Buck to Doe Ratios? I admit I do not hunt with firearms. use to. Bow and Arrow since 1964. When I drew my last tag, Thats one in 3 years.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't think that it should be about what you use to kill a deer with but the opportunity to go out and have a chance of killing one. Of the dozen or so hunters that I know of that have given up hunting none of them would pick up a bow to hunt deer. They are rifle hunters plain and simple, they won't even switch to a muzzle loader to increase their odds of drawing a tag. 

One bad thing about friends and family groups that hunt would be the idea that uncle Joe has a tag but he can't get out and hunt as well as he should, so cousin Jack goes out and shoots his deer for him. Then takes uncle Joe out to where the deer is so that he can tag it. Where is that going to help?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

How about we ask the committee to consider what is best for the animals first and foremost, then consider all the whimsical points suggested by The spectrum of concerned citizens. I agree with the idea of limitless archery tags......if they are for the Bonneville Salt Flats or the Wasatch Front. Other than that I'm good with the current allotment. 

Maybe the mule deer committee should only worry about mule deer and we can have a whiny hunter committee to deal with all of the mind numbing politics and petty arguments. I know quite a few well qualified individuals who could head up the whiny hunter committee.------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

If you still think that everyone in the family has to have a tag to enjoy a family hunt you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment. You can continue to beat your head against the wall or you can adapt to the realities of hunting. Goofy Elk explained his families' application strategy and projected drawing schedule once.....you might want to check it out. I use a similar system, my family draws multiple tags each year and we spend tons of time together.(we kill a few animals too). Even in Utah under the evil new system.-----SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Here's a wish from me to the committee. I have been working the Spanish Fork canyon between SF and Price this year. I pay close attention to the road kill and it blows my mind. This week there have been 6-7 deer hit daily as well as three bull elk. It appears to me that the areas with the deer fence are virtually free of road kill. I think that there are a few more areas that could benefit from the fence. By my observation, I think we lose over 300 deer per year on this 50 mile stretch of road. That is enough loss to warrant consideration in my opinion. ---------SS


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm torn on this committee for a couple of reasons:

1. Does the WB or RAC even care what they come up with?
2. It seems more and more we discuss the social aspects of hunting, will the committee focus on Mule Deer or Hunting?
3. I wish the committee would at their first meeting establish a set of criteria that they can assess themselves with. Goals/etc. that way they are not just meeting to meet.
4. Are the biologists invited? They should be.


----------



## Mr.CheddarNut (Jan 16, 2013)

As a mule deer committee i am inclined to presume that the discussions are for the benefit of the mule deer and their survival and perhaps their growth (in numbers) which is not necessarily directly related to hunter harvest. Keep in mind that a lot of factors play into a declining herd. From my own experience the biggest influence being overall human pressure all year long and super heavy spring through fall. Encroachment, winter kill, road kill to name a few. I would like to see a solid plan that is backed with some science and experience that is actually implemented to the end


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Mule deer committee huh? 

-If this committee is to decide on both social aspects of hunting deer AND mule deer health and sustainability, then two things should happen: First the mule deer committee should be a permanent fixture, not something that goes away until the next 5 year plan is to be drawn up. As such, should any organization or individuals wish to change the current plan in mid stream, it should go through the committee before it goes through the rac's and wb. Secondly, the committee should be split up into TWO seperate groups; one group to mull over and figure out the social implications that so many folks seem to think is important, and the other to focus exclusively on the mule deer health, growth and sustainability, utilizing the best avaliable science. When all the dust settles, the two groups can get together and see what will really, honestly, actually work. With the committee a permanent fixture it doesn't relegate those folks to try and come up with something feasible in three short months, but rather, they would have time to actually research the 'research' that is out there so actual plans to help the deer can be formulated. They should be able to suggest any new science based ideas that may come up during the 5 year plan that might help the deer to the wildlife board as well.

-Anything else is pointless, given the past and present way this state manages it's mule deer herds. It is absolutely ridiculas for a state game agency to manage the animals they are entrusted with based on the whims of those who happen to hunt them, or what a Con. Org 'feels' would be best for the critters. Manage the deer with science, see if there is ANYTHING that can be done to help, and STOP doing what has been proven ineffective more times than the pecks of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked! Help the deer, then help the hunters sustain their heritage. Not that much to ask for, is it?


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

I would suggest raising the price of hunting licenses and using the money to purchase and preserve habitat. It cost more to fill a truck with gas than it does to buy a deer tag. Hunting license fees have not kept up with inflation. If we are really serious about preserving and increasing mule deer we need to stop the loss of habitat.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

oldTimer said:


> I would suggest raising the price of hunting licenses and using the money to purchase and preserve habitat. It cost more to fill a truck with gas than it does to buy a deer tag. Hunting license fees have not kept up with inflation. *If we are really serious about preserving and increasing mule deer* we need to stop the loss of habitat.


If we are really serious about preserving and increasing mule deer, the UDWR needs to STOP doing what has been proven to NOT work many times in the past, and use THAT money to help with habitat issues... In addition, change the way the conservation tags are used and stop patting the CON. orgs on the back with money to build fences and buy more vaginal implants -O,-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I wish that they leave everything alone for 5 years ....

See what we've got in place right now produces.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

I wish they would eliminate preference points or combine them with bonus points, combine the General Season and LE draws and make you choose a unit, no more LE/general units. If you want to hunt bad enough you'll apply for easier tags or go out of state. If you draw any of your choices, points go bye bye and you go to the end of the line.If you don't get to hunt every year, oh well life's tough sometimes.

Do the same with elk, that's a whole different can of worms. 

Give the lifetime license holders their guaranteed tag (not necessarily their first choice).


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Bugs right.....since there are no general tags anymore, why are there two draw pools? Seems kind of silly.-----SS


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Screw life time license holders. Id rather see it go all le units and do away with general tags. Then it would at least be on an equal playing field for all! Stupidest program ever offered in utah! Tell me how its fair for my kids or anyone else's kids that never had the opportunity to buy into the bs plan and they have to sit and wait years while a select few can get a tag every year where ever they want.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

How about make a new general unit for the salt flats and give that tag to lifers.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> How about make a new general unit for the salt flats and give that tag to lifers.


Giving them a tag that isn't necessarily their first choice is just a way for the State to hold up its end of the bargain. They should give them a $500 tax cut and call it good.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> How about make a new general unit for the salt flats and give that tag to lifers.


Then what are you going to do with the dedicated hunters? They have 2 extra tags every year if they don't kill something that could go to another entitled hunter.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Im not a fan of the dedicated hunter program either. I see people abusing the system by coming down and "helping" kids shoot a bow. More like standing arround getting a free pass. I see it abused in other situations as well. I think they need to be out cutting down juinipers, planting sage, digging water holes or doing something for habitate.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Good discussion. 

I posted wish list because I believe that we are dealing
With the social aspect of killing BUCK mule deer. 
Biologists had triggers in place in the 2008 plan prior
To the Wildlife Board going rogue. They managed on a unit
Basis back then as well. 

We've gone all in with the whims of science concerning
Habitat, predators and finally reducing BUCK deer hunters. 
Hasn't worked since 1994 and there ain't gonna be a miracle
Fix 20 years later by doing the same. You speak of maintaining
A 5 year plan that is an exact repeat of the last 20, isn't the definition
Of insanity doing the same thing and expecting a different result. 

I'd really like to know, from all of those that think archers have had gains
Over the last 10 years exactly what we've gained??

AR-301 was taken away by SFW. Statewide archery was taken
Away by, SFW. Please for the love of God explain what bowhunters
Have gained recently. 

Oldtimer, do you understand what Pittman Robertson funding is?
Do you know how those funds are allocated? Do you understand
The matching funding that comes from this program?? Educate yourself
And get back to me.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

Critter said:


> Then what are you going to do with the dedicated hunters? They have 2 extra tags every year if they don't kill something that could go to another entitled hunter.


Phase it out. People will still do projects without being required to do so. If they can't get a good enough turn out, how about require all of the Special Interest groups that pimp out "conservation" tags to do these projects before they get the tags?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

One other wish. 

On struggling units, instead of automatically
Cutting BUCK tags, restrict access. Close a few roads
To vehicles and let hunters hunt.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I have spent all of my hours stripping barbed wire from the country side. In my third year now. I am to the point that I would rather see the tag cost remain the same and/or even come down and make everybody that hunts give back in some way. I don't care if it is picking up trash, planting shrubs or helping a kid learn how to draw a bow or cast a line. 

I would also like to see the point system changed. It is crappola. I agree that the lifetime tags need to be done away with but I would give them a five year notice rather than just pull it.

As far management goes though........money towards science and preservation and keep with the plan and start working on the next one as results and studies dictate.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Holy cow! Some good thoughts on this thread......is it possible? And not one bad word spelled in punctuation marks. ------------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

GBell said:


> One other wish.
> 
> On struggling units, instead of automatically
> Cutting BUCK tags, restrict access. Close a few roads
> To vehicles and let hunters hunt.


This strategy works great in Idaho. My favorite mule deer spot is 3 miles down a road that is closed for the season to limit pressure. Other than needing to make accommodations for those who are disabled, I am all for this strategy. Imagine what Cascade Ridge would be like if they shut the gates for the muzzy and rifle hunts. Leave it open for the stick flippers to make Mr. Bell happy...since he brought it up.-------SS


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

oldTimer said:


> I would suggest raising the price of hunting licenses


Im thinking $200.00 a tag ehh Oldtimer? :smile: Sorry SS couldn't resist :mrgreen:


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

On my best behavior, even with OT!!

I will disagree though, this current plan is
A disaster and can't go away fast enough. 

One other wish that I'm going to catch a lot
Of crap for. 

In the RAC / WB process there needs to be
More representation for hunters along the Wasatch
Front. 80% live here and yet we are stuck under
The whims of a few guys in Glenwood scribbling
On napkins. It ain't a representative system.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I wish that they leave everything alone for 5 years ....
> 
> See what we've got in place right now produces.


So go back to 2008 regional hunting? I'm surprised you are okay with that. 

They should have let the 5 year plan before option 2 run it's course.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

SS I hunt the WFE most of the time. This stick flipper
Ain't got no problem hoofing it like everyone else.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

We need to open up Salt Lake County (South of I-80/East of I-15) to muzzleloader hunters. Like they had in 1999 and before.
That would give more opportunity.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

GBell said:


> On my best behavior.


Me too. I think this is a subject worth acting like grown ups about. Especially when we know that our thoughts are being considered by members of the committee. Disagreement is fine with me, I appreciate the variety of ideas. Just think of this thread as an E-napkin meeting.:mrgreen:-------SS


----------



## oldTimer (Jul 12, 2013)

oldTimer said:


> I would suggest raising the price of hunting licenses and using the money to purchase and preserve habitat. It cost more to fill a truck with gas than it does to buy a deer tag. Hunting license fees have not kept up with inflation. If we are really serious about preserving and increasing mule deer we need to stop the loss of habitat.


 After just reading the thread about the planned auction of the Lake Canyon Unit I would like to retract my previous post. There is no reason for sportsman to work hard, pay more, and sacrifice if after we dedicate our hard earned money to preserving habitat the state just sells it.

Follow the link on the thread it is sickening and demoralizing.

If the state is just going to sell whatever habitat we manage to obtain I agree with Muleskinner that it is better to try to donate your time and improve what we have left.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Just think of this thread as an E-napkin meeting.-------SS

Ha Ha, except we need to get Jake Albrecht 
Signed up on the forum so we can get him to read 
These napkins in the WB meeting. 

Of course there is the little stumbling block of presenting
The Board with a $300,000.00 check right before they vote. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

if everybody would donate some time to the outdoors and get their hands dirty to some extent in the name of preservation and conservation it would go a long ways showing other groups that hunters don't just think about killing. Putting the effort directly towards the betterment of the deer has an affect that makes you feel that you have earned the tag but also reminds you at the same time that we are in no way entitled to have them. We are their stewards and they are a gift. I truly believe that.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Lose the draw system for general season deer hunting. Get in line or on line on a certain date, or don't go hunting. Have statewide archery deer hunting with unlimited tags sold over the counter like they do for elk. Have antler restrictions like they do with elk in designated areas.
What's the difference if you put in for a general season draw or if you stand in line or go on line to purchase a tag? Hell, your odds are probably the same for drawing a tag. There will be years you get a tag and years you don't. You won't have any additional fees, and you won't have another state wiping your a$$ for you.


----------



## bugchuker (Dec 3, 2007)

From the DH model, incorporate a system where people can do x amount of hours to receive a preference point, the people who contribute get a point toward that years draw, points do not accrue.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

In Utah a deer is killed every 5 1/2 minutes by a cougar.

Maybe instead of kicking hunters in the balls. (You know the ones who finance the whole program) we look to make that a deer killed every 20 min instead. And that would result in about 75,000 less dear being cat food a yr.

Or we can pray blame weather habitat and SFW and still be talking about the lack of deer for the next 30yrs.

If Vegas would only take bets on our deer hunting future.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

1. 5 year plan is a 5 year plan.
Once a 5 year management plan is approved by the WB, Utah code prohibits the WB from changing that plan unless there is an emergency that requires a change. That provision in the code was put there for a reason. Given the context of many variables in which a management plan is implemented, 5 years is a minimum frame in which to evaluate results.

2. Establish a standing mule deer committee, open to the public. Publish everything.
The current committee doesn't have enough time to address all the issues, especially since it inevitably must re-hash old issues. The standing committee's goal wouldn't be to make annual revisions to the plan, but to address issues not included in the plan, exam new data, review strategies used in other states (for better or worse) and prepare for the next plan.

3. Require unit biologists to submit recommendations directly to the committee. Publish those recommendations.

4. Review highway fencing program.
While fencing is the answer in some instances, it's not the panacea for highway mortality. In some places (Sardine Canyon), I strongly suspect that highway fencing impedes vital migration patterns. (More research needed here.)

5. Eliminate general season permits. Issue 2 year GS permits instead. Hunt every year, but don't kill every year.

6. Reconvene an ATV committee.
A few years ago, a respected WB member was concerned enough about the impacts of ATV abuse to forward a proposal to the state legislature. The intent was to increase the penalty for illegal use. SFW objected on grounds that it unfairly targeted hunters. (It did.) Negotiation resulted in SFW chairing a committee of stakeholders including sportsmen, state agencies and landowners. The committee drafted alternative legislation that included beefed-up penalties, education and public outreach. That legislation was torpedoed when (surprise!) it was given to Mike Noel to sponsor. As a result, the work of that committee never received due consideration. (Is it possible Rainer Huck refused to participate because he knew he didn't need to? Nah, couldn't be.)

*6. Fund investigative research relevant to habitat quality.*
Range trend studies monitor habitat. But I know of very few studies that investigate. I know, I'm nuts. But I know something is very wrong on the mountain.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Maybe instead of kicking hunters in the balls. (You know the ones who finance the whole program)


If sportsmen could fully fund fund the DWR's budget then maybe your comment would be possible. But the Legislature is is good at making sure they have a say, and thus makes the DWR suck off the General Fund teat.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/about-us/64-what-we-do/about-us/191-financial-overview.html

Considering this, there is a balance in this situation and the cougar proponents also have a voice.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Daisy I could go on for days.

When you combined tax and tag revenue the sportman more than pays the DWR budget. So I understand the money trail and how tags rev doesn't fall into the sets lap.

Now if we are just managing wildlife I have a news flash. We can dissolve the DWR tomorrow and wildlife will do just fine in Utah without our input. But as it stands we really are managing wildlife to hunt. And that means you have to make decisions for hunters. As hunters largely serve the purpose of predator. Natural predators must be managed accordingly.

Hounds man and treehuggers? 

The 50 houndsman in utah can get bent for all I care. When deer hunters want to reduce cougar for more deer that's the hounds an reply to the 100,000 deer hunters.

And as for the treehuggers and concerned public the argument can easily be made cougar hunting is in no way jeopardizing the overall health of the cougar population. 

If they want more cats they need more deer first. No way around that.

I'm just pointing out that having capacity cougar in utah is the single biggest reason we will never get to 500,000 again.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

juddct said:


> 4. Are the biologists invited? They should be.


^^^that^^^


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> As hunters largely serve the purpose of predator. Natural predators must be managed accordingly.


Classic. I agree 100%.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

There are 4 biologists serving on the Committee. Very good biologists I might add. There are also other biologists present to help answer questions. 

Maybe this is out of line to say, as I am a member of the Committee, but my wish/hope is that the Committee will advise in drafting a Mule Deer Management Plan and not just a Mule Deer Buck Management Plan.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

No that would make to much sense


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Could the DWR provide an audio link to the meetings to listen? Or transcripts a week after? I would love that.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Mike, was there a meeting in May??


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

GBell said:


> Mike, was there a meeting in May??


Gordy,

I'm watching all the threads related to the Mule Deer Planning Committee, so I hope you and Mike don't mind if I butt in when I feel I can answer a question about the meeting schedule, agenda, or written minutes. (I'm not going to debate the issues on the internet. I'll simply relay information.)

There was no meeting in May. We've held only 2 meetings thus far: Apr 22nd and Apr 29th. Our next meeting is this coming Tuesday June 17th. We wanted to wait until the survey was completed by the participants.

This next meeting will be to basically draft a general statewide management plan that we can plug the survey results into once they are tabulated and which we can use to make the individual unit management plans. We've been given a rough draft by the DWR and will be able to make the necessary changes we feel are needed to improve the current rate of the yearly population increase which is only 1.6%.

The following meeting, July 1, we'll begin (and hopefully finish) finalizing the plan. (FWIW, I personally think it will take several meetings. We've got a lot of issues to talk about.)

Thanks, Lee Tracy (UWC)


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Thanks Lee, I'll holler your way this weekend. 

I want to make sure I'm getting every bit of the
Data according to my GRAMA. Request. I know
Justin was on leave so I've been being patient.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

GBell said:


> Honoring Packouts request to start another thread
> For debate on suggestions here goes.
> 
> I would ask the Committee to follow the survey results
> ...


Gordy, As I think you discovered, it may not be possible to follow the survey to a T. The respondents seem to want it both ways (quantity/opportunity AND quality/trophies) or they don't know what they want or when they want it, AND, of course, they want someone else (usually bowhunters and muzzy hunters) to pay for it.

Here are the results of the survey: (If any of you want the details/charts etc., email me at [email protected].) (Also, my % numbers are approximated from visual bar grafts and rounded off to whole numbers so the totals equal 100%. The numbers aren't exact, but they're darn close!)

1) How many years have you hunted mule deer or applied for a mule deer permit in Utah?
0-5 Years - 17%
6-10 Years - 15%
11-15 Years - 11%
16-20 Years - 13%
21-30 Years - 16%
30+ Years - 28%

2) Did you harvest a buck mule deer in Utah during the 2013 season?
Did not hunt - 35%
Did not harvest - 45%
Harvested large antlered (24"wide/4point) - 4%
Harvested medium antlered (18-20"wide/3-4point) - 8%
Harvested small antlered (1-2point) - 8%

3) What are your top 3 reasons for hunting mule deer?
Being with family and friends - 69%
Harvesting a large antlered buck - 39%
Putting meat on the table - 36%
Getting away from the usual demands of life - 25%
Being close to nature - 23%
Bringing back pleasant memories - 18%

4) I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size.
Disagree - 55%
Neutral - 20%
Agree - 25%

5) I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large antlered buck mule deer (3+points) 
Disagree - 26%
Neutral - 27%
Agree - 47%

6) I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer.
Disagree - 24%
Neutral - 25%
Agree - 51%

7) I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer, as long as I see bucks.
Disagree - 13%
Neutral - 16%
Agree - 71%

8 ) Were there times during your 2013 Utah mule deer hunt when the numbers of other hunters seriously detracted from the quantity of your hunting experience?
Yes - 35%
No - 32%
Did not hunt - 33%

9) On GS units, how satisfied were you with the number of deer you saw (bucks and does)?
Dissatisfied - 48%
Neutral - 20%
Satisfied - 32%

10) On GS units, how satisfied were you with the size of the bucks you saw?
Dissatisfied - 63%
Neutral - 19%
Satisfied - 18%

11) On GS units, how satisfied were you with the overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience?
Dissatisfied - 33%
Neutral - 28%
Satisfied - 39%

12) Are you willing to accept additional restrictions in order to manage for larger and/or more mule deer bucks?
Yes - 72%
No - 28%

13) Conversion of more general-season units to limited entry units.
Oppose - 45%
Neutral - 20%
Support - 35%

14) More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle(any weapon) permits.
Oppose - 46%
Neutral - 20%
Support - 34%

15) Road and trail closures during hunting season.
Oppose - 51%
Neutral - 17%
Support - 32%

16) Giving up the ability to hunt every year.
Oppose - 48%
Neutral - 18%
Support 34%

17) (Regarding buck to doe ratios) What would you like to see on general season units?
More 18-20 - 52%
Stay the same - 32%
More 15-17 - 16%

18 ) What would you like to see on the following units?
---------Premium Limited Entry
Fewer units - 16%
No change - 61%
More units - 23%
---------Limited Entry
Fewer units - 13%
No change - 52%
More units - 45%
---------General Season
Fewer units - 36%
No change - 45%
More units - 19%

19) Permit Distribution (We currently have a 20% Archery/20% Muzzy/60% Any weapon split)
----------Archery
Fewer permits - 15%
No change - 57%
More permits - 28%
----------Muzzleloader
Fewer permits - 14%
No change - 59%
More permits - 27%
----------Any Weapon
Fewer permits - 39%
No change - 49%
More permits - 12%

20) Rate your level of satisfaction with the length of the seasons.
----------Archery
Too short - 8%
Satisfied - 51%
Too long - 29%
No opinion - 12%
----------Muzzleloader
Too short - 24%
Satisfied - 56%
Too long - 6%
No opinion - 14%
----------Any Weapon
Too short - 23%
Satisfied - 62%
Too long - 10%
No opinion - 5%

21) Rate your satisfaction with the timing of the seasons.
------------Archery
Too early - 18%
Satisfied - 64%
Too late - 1%
No opinion - 17%
------------Muzzleloader
Too early - 24%
Satisfied - 57%
Too late - 3%
No opinion - 16%
------------Any Weapon
Too early - 11%
Satisfied - 74%
Too late - 7%
No opinion - 8%

22) Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week.
Oppose - 35%
Neutral - 32%
Support - 33%

23) A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October.
Oppose - 37%
Neutral - 41%
Support - 22%

24) A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2.
Oppose - 60%
Neutral - 18%
Support - 22%

25) A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days.
Oppose - 59%
Neutral - 19%
Support - 22%

26) A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding.
Oppose - 24%
Neutral - 20%
Support - 56%

27) Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time.
Oppose - 35%
Neutral - 23%
Support - 42%

28 ) Provide a small number of Limited-Entry rifle permits during the first week of November on general season.
Oppose - 21%
Neutral - 29%
Support - 50%

29) Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands.
Oppose - 16%
Neutral - 20%
Support - 64%

30) Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to public rangelands.
Oppose - 20%
Neutral - 23%
Support - 57%

31) Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15.
Oppose -26%
Neutral - 28%
Support - 46%

32) Requiring the purchase of a license or permit to gather antlers.
Oppose - 54%
Neutral - 18%
Support - 28%

Edit: Continuing:

33) If elk are shown to negatively impact deer populations, would you support managing for fewer elk in certain situations to potentially increase deer populations?
-----------All respondents
Oppose - 26%
Neutral - 25%
Support - 49%
-----------Elk/Deer hunters (Deer hunters who also hunt elk)
Oppose - 29%
Neutral - 24%
Support - 47%

34) Would you support mandatory online reporting for GS deer hunts?
Yes - 73%
No - 27%

35) Are mule deer regulations in Utah overly complicated?
Disagree - 28%
Neutral - 34%
Agree - 38%

36) Where did you live in 2013?
Urban Utah - 45%
Rural Utah - 40%
Urban out of state - 6%
Rural our of state 9%

37) Do you primarily hunt public or private lands?
Public lands - 80%
Private lands - 4%
Public and private lands - 16%

38 ) Do you currently belong to a conservation group?
Yes - 21%
No, have never belonged - 58%
No, but have in the past 5 years - 8%
No, have in the past but not in the past 5 years - 13%

39) From Lee: We initially discussed and drafted a follow-up question to the above, asking to identify the conservation group(s) belonged to, but I'm not sure it became part of the survey. In any case, the results of this question were for DWR informational purposes only and the results were not made public, because we have no way of knowing ahead of time what percentage, if any, of any one group we may have targeted for the survey.

From Lee: End of survey update. We'll begin discussing the implementation of these results to the plan in a couple of meetings down the road.

Edited: Sorry about the smiley faces, but numerical eight and right side parenthesis produce it and I haven't yet found a way to get rid of it! Edited again: That's the best I can do! 8)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

12) Are you willing to accept additional restrictions in order to manage for larger and/or more mule deer bucks?
Yes - 72%
No - 28%

Pretty interesting.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

But if ya look below at the proposed restrictions
None of them are supported. 

Agree Lee. Good luck tonight, last week was interesting.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Yeah, you can see a heavy rifle preference. Muzzy would take some damage on these. It would mess me up bad have overlapping muzzy deer, our shortest season, with elk. Often times 2 very different areas.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Bo0YaA said:


> Im thinking $200.00 a tag ehh Oldtimer? :smile: Sorry SS couldn't resist :mrgreen:


And all hunters would require a guide to hunt deer in Utah!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks Lee for the update.



GBell said:


> But if ya look below at the proposed restrictions
> None of them are supported.
> 
> Agree Lee. Good luck tonight, last week was interesting.


Oh, they support them all right.
Just differ on which is a higher priority.
Kind of destroys your idea that most people don't care to see any mature bucks while hunting and would rather just be out there wandering around enjoying nature with a tag in their pocket.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Uh, not quite Ridge. 

If I ask you if you'd rather kill a 30" buck or a yearling
What would you say??

Look at the reasons people give for hunting, time with
Friends and family has been number 1 in the last 2 surveys. 

We are talking about GENERAL SEASON mule deer hunting,
Not Limited Entry. 

People always want more and bigger deer as long as it isn't them
Making the sacrifice to get there. 

If ya want a LE type experience, there's plenty of hunts right here to 
Apply for.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> Uh, not quite Ridge.
> 
> If I ask you if you'd rather kill a 30" buck or a yearling
> What would you say??
> ...


Way to sidestep the issue or comment.
That's my #1 reason for hunting too but I still want to see at least 15 bucks per 100 does wherever I hunt in this state.
BTW, I don't think that 30" buck comment was one of the questions, was it?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I dont think he side stepped the question either because that's what I got out of the results as well. He just said it better then I would have.

Rifle guys think deer grow on trees and the dwr just cant grow them. They dont want to have tag cuts, they want rut hunts with easy big deer and they want bow and muzzy hunters to take the tag cuts if tags are to be cut. Is how I read the results.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ridge, the quality vs opportunity debate is the root
Of almost all of these questions. 

As an opportunity guy it would be hypocritical of
Me to discount the quality guy. 

Both should have a voice. 

In my opinion though, the pendulum between
The two is slanted and has been slanted towards
The trophy / quality side for a while. 

I'd rather see a few more hunters back in the field
Rather than 20 - 100 B2D.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Gordy,

Reference question 17. Looks like to me the slant is toward a higher buck doe ratio? Both sides will always spin spin spin. But if you look at it objectively one thing jumps out in multiple answers. Hunters would like to see better quality. Of course hunters want to hunt and hunt every year if they can. And of course they'd like to shoot bigger bucks also. But when you look at the answers overall it is slanted you are correct but I see the slant toward quality. 
That being said I'm more concerned with focus on growing more deer and I hope the committee is focused on that as their top priority also.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> That being said I'm more concerned with focus on growing more deer and I hope the committee is focused on that as their top priority also.


Well said. Not just grow more bucks (which is easily accomplished by simply not killing them). Grow more deer.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

I like to see BIG bucks and that is the number one reason I like LE opportunities. I also like to hunt with my very large group of family and friends and even without a tag I would still go along for the camp and scouting. During the muzz hunt it gets discouraging when you don't see bucks, small as most of them are they are still fun to see. So a higher buck/doe ratio seems to be the answer there. I'm also a firm believer that it is the large cougar presence that is hurting the deer population where I hunt. I see cougar tracks every year and one year I came upon a recently killed deer with cougar tracks bounding away from it.

As for other things in the mule deer management plan that I'd like to see is this. The allotment for archery tags is set and when the drawing is over there seems to be tags left for some areas. I'd like to see those tags convert to muzzy tags and if any of those tags are left after the muzz drawing, they should then be converted to any weapon tags.

Why? The archers who are serious enough to apply for a given area will draw their tags for that area, the remaining tags will be purchased over the counter, not for the area they were destined for, but more than likely to be used on the extended wasatch hunt.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> I'd rather see a few more hunters back in the field
> Rather than 20 - 100 B2D.


Isn't that managing for hunters, not for deer or herd health?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Cody, Q17 is again a do you want bigger deer question. 
Of course we all do, look at the amount of support for
Proposed restrictions to accomplish this, there's not support
For any of them. Still won't overcome the fact that
7 out of 10 hunters just want to hunt, or the fact that the #1
Reason for hunting embraces the "family hunt" aspect of deer hunting. 

Random, if you think trying to grow more deer has anything
To do with the social implications of harvesting BUCK mule
Deer, you've missed the boat brother. Stockpiling excess bucks
Ain't the way to grow our herds. Which brings us to my point
Of what this whole option 2 sales job was eventually going to be about. Who gets
To choose the way these EXCESS BUCKS are hunted. Either we are
Going to keep telling guys to stay home to grow more EXCESS BUCKS
Or we are going to lower the amount of available EXCESS BUCKS and let
Hunters hunt more than once every three years. 

We know how to reduce predators, which has been proven to be pissing 
In to the wind multiple times, and we've learned how to enhance habitat. 
What we haven't learned is how to manipulate the weather
And how to ensure that every fawn is a contributing member 
Of the herd. I'm absolutely not saying to stop with balancing predators
Or restoring habitat, those items are in place. But please quit with trying to
Insist that hunters conform to reduced buck harvest in the name of growing 
More deer. If you are fine with hunting deer every 5 years that is every bit as valuable
An opinion as mine that wants to hunt every year. No debate. 
Just don't present it in a way that it's gonna help grow the herds like
The original opt. 2 sales job did.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The way that I look at it is that if we have units that were 10:100 bucks and only X amount of hunters allowed into that unit wouldn't they be able to add hunters if that ratio would go up to 20:100 bucks? I am not saying that is the plan for the future but when you have only buck deer hunts you need X amount of buck to support Y amount of hunters, even if the hunt success is only 20%. I will agree that for every buck on the winter ground it will possibly take away food for a yearling doe that may eventually end up having more fawns but that is where improving the wintering grounds needs to come into play. But from what I see using a untrained eye there is plenty of wintering areas for deer in the lower reaches of their range.

On of the side benefits as I see it of a unit with 20:100 or even 30:100 would be larger bucks.

It is also interesting in that when people talk about habitat loss they always mention the Wasatch Front and all the homes that are being built along it taking away habitat. What about the areas in south central Utah? Fish Lake, the Manti and two of the areas that come to mind, the development there is almost non existent except for vacation homes on large lots that don't really take away any habitat.

A couple of the biggest problems that I have see are the highway fences altering the migration patterns of deer. It is kind of hard to put a fence around a area and expect the deer to be able to migrate from their summer grounds down to a wintering area when they have to cross a highway that is blocked by a 8' high fence.

So many questions and not very many answers.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I am not saying that BD is end all gbell, but saying issue more tags is responsible management in what way? How does that grow the herd?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Critter prior to the 08 plan there were 3 units that
Were chronic. Below 15-100 trend. I know Stansbury, was 
One of them and had restrictions placed on the subunit. 
We had the ability to do that back then and further triggers were 
Put in place to deal with any unit that hit these triggers. 
Reduced permits and shortened seasons. 

Random, once every doe is bred there's only one reason
To carry excess bucks, which is exactly what they are. 
Killing these excess bucks doesn't have any negative
Effect as long as the doe's are bred, I guess minutely, you could
Say that in reality it's another body in the population overall,
Personally, I'd like to kill a few more bucks and provide the 
Resources they would consume to a pregnant doe.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

IMO,

The deer plan should be left AS IS til at least 2018...
(other than the points situation needs to be adressed)

Top of my wish list-----*LEAVE The deer plan ALONE!!!!*


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

We should of left the last plan alone.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

As a member of the Committee, I'd like to communicate (via email or even on this thread if you're comfortable with that) with any of you out there that may have answered the survey (and even those who got it, but didn't answer it). We had quite a debate on some of the wording and because some of your answers seem to conflict with other answers I'd like to know if we worded it correctly to actually get the answers we were seeking. I promise I won't even ask you what your answers were, I just want to know your thinking process and I'll focus on the questions I think were too ambiguous.

For those who didn't answer it, I'd like to know why. We only got a 30% response which was quite a bit lower than the 2008 survey (47%). Again, I would just like to investigate your thinking process. DWR needs to get as much information from as many of you as possible for not just the Mule Deer Plan but all the others as well. These surveys provide DWR and you with a two way education and the more that happens, so much the better for the animals.

Thanks, I hope to hear from many of you!
Lee Tracy [email protected]

P.S. This is my own little project , nothing official, and I'll just turn the results over to the DWR.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

The last deer committee had the same problems with the survey. Unfortunate that more work wasn't put into the questions over the past 5 years, because the last committee identified the flaws.

Anyway, I know they don't come cheap, but the DWR seriously needs to hire a good techie.

As is, everybody gets the exact same questions in the exact same sequence. What's required for meaningful responses is an interactive survey that generates questions based upon previous answers. That way, the trophy hunter gets an entirely different set of questions than the meat hunter, the old farts get different questions than the newbies and the questions are tailored to units. (Y'all wanted unit management, then act like it.)

The low participation is no surprise. Hang this one around the neck of the Wildlife Board and the way they dealt with the last committee's recommendations that were based on the survey.

I answered the survey, but can't fault those who didn't. I mean, if SFW is the only voice that matters, what's the point?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> The last deer committee had the same problems with the survey. Unfortunate that more work wasn't put into the questions over the past 5 years, because the last committee identified the flaws.
> 
> Anyway, I know they don't come cheap, but the DWR seriously needs to hire a good techie.
> 
> ...


Thanks! A more targeted individual survey idea never came up.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> I answered the survey, but can't fault those who didn't. I mean, if SFW is the only voice that matters, what's the point?


Only ONE response!!!!

If SFW is the only voice that matters, perhaps it's because it's the loudest and most frequent voice the RAC's and Wildlife Board hears. It's time to speak up with survey responses, emails, RAC and WB meeting attendance, phone calls, DWR habitat project volunteering, attendance at DWR open houses, wildlife license plate purchases, donations on your applications and state taxes, etc. You, the average Utah sportsmen and women provide about 80% of the DWR's budget of $78,580,924 (2013 fiscal year) while the so-called big money conservation organizations provide only about 5%. (The remaining 15% is provided by the Utah general public, which also includes you.) It's time got your money's worth, but you have to speak up to get it. Your individual voice DOES MATTER!

In the meanwhile, I and several others on the committee will continue to speak up for your interests.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I never received a survey, therefore I can not reply.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm in the same boat as ridge. Wish I could have been included.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> I never received a survey, therefore I can not reply.


 That may be true, but you can still make your voice heard per the other avenues and I hope you do, no matter what your views!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> I'm in the same boat as ridge. Wish I could have been included.


I wish you (and every other hunter) could have also, and, in fact, in the future you may because that was one of the committee discussions that didn't get very far with the DWR this time around. But I'm pretty sure it'll come up again.


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

Some thoughts on the survey and survey responses as someone with 15+ years experience with survey design and analysis for fish and wildlife management:

As far as I know (and can tell), the survey wasn't pre-tested. Surveys should always be pre-tested to work out the wording of questions to reduce potential for wording bias. Everybody and their brother thinks they can design a survey until they have to defend the results. There is a lot of work and thought that goes into how a survey is designed and implemented. I'd say almost half of my clients balk at the initial cost of survey research, but they don't realize how taking the time to address issues in the beginning goes a LONG way to defending the results at the end (and a lot cheaper too).

Since someone brought it up, a custom itemized survey based on responses from previous questions wouldn't be useful, as it makes it more difficult to compare results across questions. Also, it would greatly expand the sampling framework (meaning more time and money).

Were there any demographic questions? Did anyone do any followup to determine non-response bias?

A 30% response rate is about the average for these types of surveys, but tests of non-response bias would better be able to tell you if the results represent deer hunters across the state. As presented (and I know the results posted here are second-hand), I'd be hard pressed to make inferences on the results without knowing how these issues were (or weren't) addressed.

As an aside, I didn't receive the survey either.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Mtnbeer said:


> Some thoughts on the survey and survey responses as someone with 15+ years experience with survey design and analysis for fish and wildlife management:
> 
> As far as I know (and can tell), the survey wasn't pre-tested. Surveys should always be pre-tested to work out the wording of questions to reduce potential for wording bias. Everybody and their brother thinks they can design a survey until they have to defend the results. There is a lot of work and thought that goes into how a survey is designed and implemented. I'd say almost half of my clients balk at the initial cost of survey research, but they don't realize how taking the time to address issues in the beginning goes a LONG way to defending the results at the end (and a lot cheaper too).
> 
> ...


 I'll have to admit I didn't even know guys like you existed, but your points are well taken and it sounds like they would have make the responses to this survey MUCH easier to determine. As it is, because there are many seemingly conflicting results, we've already seen some posturing within the committee through emails (written or forwarded) even before we've had the initial hunting management meeting (Thurs, Aug 7th 10am-5pm).

As for any pre-testing, NONE that I know of. We wrangled quite a bit over the exact wording and it was obvious who wanted what results, but our final version went directly to the random list of deer hunters.

Follow-up on the non-respondents was mentioned but was considered a waste of time and money and my feeble attempt on this thread went nowhere (Well, except for ONE brave soul who actually responded to the survey and speculated as to why others didn't.)

Did the results truly represent deer hunters across the state? I guess that's a matter of opinion. Per the 30% response, 70% of Utah deer hunters either don't have enough direct interest in deer hunting to take the survey or, as my ONE reply on this thread indicated, they've resigned to a belief their opinion doesn't count, or the survey questions were too confusing to bother with answering. So, ironically, the 70% are represented by choosing not to be represented, and thus the results from the 30% are all we can discuss. It won't be easy, but I'm pretty sure we'll all do our best to make our points, I know I will!


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

Thanks elkfromabove,
You're right that interest groups will see what they want to see in the data. I'm sure you'll do your best to represent public interests for Utah deer management. 

Most people don't even realize there are researchers like me, including within fish and wildlife agencies. I used to work for a state fish and wildlife agency (not Utah), but now just work as a private contractor. I have very loyal clients that understand the value of human management in fish and wildlife management. Some state agencies have even moved away from having researchers on staff. UDWR got rid of their researcher about a year ago.

There are many reasons why only 30% responded to the survey and without conducting a non-response bias test, the committee has no way of knowing why 70% didn't respond. I wouldn't take a 30% response rate as a failure of the study. As I said before, that's actually a decent response rate (averages are between 25 - 35% for these types of studies). Perhaps it is the wording of the questions, lack of engagement on the issues, or even (as several studies have shown as a common bias on internet studies), hunters are generally older, less likely to use a computer, and be internet savvy.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or want to discuss items further.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Mtnbeer said:


> There are many reasons why only 30% responded to the survey and without conducting a non-response bias test, the committee has no way of knowing why 70% didn't respond.


Maybe 70% of hunters aren't as stupid as the DWR thinks we are? Just guessing. ;-)


----------

