# The DWR's Deer hunt forcast..2013..



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Anyone read this?:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/4...bers-hunting-conditions-vary-across-utah.html

I agree with most of this forcast on the units I've look at this year.

BUT,I dont like the 'twist' that is put on/in some regions/units ...

Example, Quote:
" 
_Units (16A, 17A, 18, 19A and 19C)_
If you drew a permit to hunt on Unit 16A or Unit 17A, plenty of 1 -year-old bucks should be waiting for you this fall.
Biologists say two mild winters, followed by good summer rain, have helped the deer herds on both units. They say most of the deer are in higher elevations right now, but some are using mid-elevation areas too.
Dale Liechty, the DWR biologist who manages Unit 17A, expects a good deer hunt, especially for younger bucks. Dennis Southerland, who manages Unit 16A, agrees. "I'm seeing a lot of yearlings," Southerland says. "I'll often see groups of four or five yearlings together."
On units 18, 19A and 19C, the picture isn't quite as bright. Tom Becker, the biologist who manages the units, says all three units have experienced tough winters over the past two years. He says temperatures have plummeted and have stayed cold until spring. "The cold weather has killed many of the fawns," he says."

So, basicaly in the central region, Nebo ams Wasatch West are best,
BUT, for spikes and two points ..................Very few mature bucks.

Any thoughts???


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Quit killing all of the mature bucks.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

yeah...only one season away from reverting back to an awful buck:doe ratio. The only way that hunters are going to see better quality bucks is by practicing self-restraint on general season units. Killing 1.5 year old animals is a recipe for mediocrity.


----------



## MuleHunter (Jun 6, 2013)

The spikes and two points taste better! I guess us Wasatch West tag holders will be eatin good this winter.....Hollar!


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Seems spot on for the unit I hunt in Northern Utah. I've only made 2 quick scouting trips so far (I'll be rifle hunting) and I've turned up 15 bucks...2 that were 3.5 years old, 3 or 4 2 year olds, and about 10 yearlings. Also, about half of the yearlings I saw were spikes. Usually this time of year I'll find the bigger bucks in one big herd though and I have not been able to find that in my limited scouting. The yearlings are out and about in smaller groups about half the time.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I have a rifle tag for unit 18 (Tooele-Stansbury) I do not have high expectations for this hunt. My daughter had this tag last year and we did not find the bucks in all the "usual places". We never saw a buck on the muzzleloader hunt, just lots of does. The rifle hunt came around and we saw 150-200 does opening morning. We opted for a different canyon the next day and were lucky enough to have a small 1x2 cross our path, and my daughter harvested her first deer. The buck to doe ratio has really been out of whack in this unit for years. Another concern is the fire on the Stansbury Mtns. I'm sure it will displace even more animals.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Yet again, people cant see the forest for the trees. So lets say that we focus on shooting mature bucks this season. Then lets say we have a heavy winter, and we lose most of the yearling bucks. Now what kind of shape are we in? The harvest will be spread across all age groups, which is what is going to happen, regardless of everyones opinion here. That is the nature of humans, which is why we think we need to manage wildlife, with hunter management. Rather than with actual wildlife management. Many of the yearlings that will get shot this season would not make it through a heavy winter anyway, making their loss to hunters compensatory in nature. 

Fixation on short term micro management, of things we really have no control over, under the guise of long term concern, while ignoring the larger, more important, long term situations that impact the future of our mule deer, is ideological liberal paradise. 

"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire" Questions of "quality", and concern about things like buck to doe ratios, that have nothing to do with growing deer herds, are a symptom of short sighted thinking. Utopias are intended to be used, by those that built them, and are therefor constructed through a lens of selfishness, that does not reach beyond ones self, though we like to frame it in ways that do. 

Over 20 years ago we decided to worship ash, instead of preserving fire. Blowing on dying coals might revive the fire for a period, but what do we do, when we have not done the work of collecting more fuel, and the ash is cold? Will blowing do us any good then?


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Yet again, people cant see the forest for the trees. So lets say that we focus on shooting mature bucks this season. Then lets say we have a heavy winter, and we lose most of the yearling bucks. Now what kind of shape are we in? The harvest will be spread across all age groups, which is what is going to happen, regardless of everyones opinion here. That is the nature of humans, which is why we think we need to manage wildlife, with hunter management. Rather than with actual wildlife management. Many of the yearlings that will get shot this season would not make it through a heavy winter anyway, making their loss to hunters compensatory in nature.
> 
> Fixation on short term micro management, of things we really have no control over, under the guise of long term concern, while ignoring the larger, more important, long term situations that impact the future of our mule deer, is ideological liberal paradise.
> 
> ...


why would old man winter kill more 1.5 year old bucks than any other age or sex??? :?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> why would old man winter kill more 1.5 year old bucks than any other age or sex??? :?


Because even yearling bucks will fight and try to breed. In doing so, they weaken themselves. Being younger, and smaller, and less experienced, they are then even less likely to make it through a cold winter with deep snow. Winters are harder on the young and the old.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> why would old man winter kill more 1.5 year old bucks than any other age or sex??? :?


Its telling that you focused on that point alone.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

please show me any study that shows that killing the youngest members of a deer herd has a negligible or positive impact on the overall health of the deer herd...

forget about drought, harsh winters, or development on winter range...all are clearly out of our hands.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> please show me any study that shows that killing the youngest members of a deer herd has a negligible or positive impact on the overall health of the deer herd...
> 
> forget about drought, harsh winters, or development on winter range...all are clearly out of our hands.


The thing is, antler restrictions, and "quality" management, is typically born out of white tail management. And they are typically implemented, with herds that are at, or near carrying capacity. So first off, we are talking about mule deer, second, we are no where near carrying capacity.

As for drought and hard winters, we may not be able to control those, though that is debatable. The development of winter range, we are very much in control of. The only limiting factor being the value we place on the future of wildlife. The biggest threat to mule deer, are the exacerbating conditions, that we pile on during harsh weather conditions.

You like to talk about self restraint, but you do it reference, to short sighted issues, like buck to doe ratios. You make my arguments for me so well. You don't know what you are talking about. You are talking about the short term situation, and the way you perceive it will affect you, next season, that is the extent of your foresight. If we don't kill any bucks this season, but we see poor environmental conditions this winter, and deer decline across the West again, and we see poor "quality", what does it say for your argument? Your arguments are moot, they have no bearing on the bigger picture, reality, or the long term future of mule deer.

Antler restrictions do not grow deer. Buck to doe ratios do not grow deer. And extreme weather does not permanently hold mule deer declines down. Over the last thirty years, things have changed, on a large ecological level, and hunter management is not going to change that. Tell me why bighorn sheep, and moose, which are managed completely differently from mule deer, follow the same trends? Not just here, but across the West. If antler restrictions work, why did we not see a rise in deer, when they were implemented? If your argument is one of "quality" then you are greedily putting the cart in front of the horse, because you must first address the issue of quantity, before you can move to the "quality" question. How come, regardless of the buck to doe ratio, which varies widely across the West, the overall trend of mule deer, rises and falls, synchronously across the West, regardless of the hunter management in place?

What is your forecast? Care to bet on how next years fawn crop goes?

You worship cold ashes, while attempting to justify the liberal utopia you seek to build, with complete disregard for tradition, heritage, conservation, and our responsibility to the future..


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Your arguments are moot, they have no bearing on the bigger picture, *reality*, or the long term future of mule deer.
> 
> You *worship cold ashes*, while attempting to justify the *liberal utopia* you seek to build, with *complete disregard for tradition*, heritage, conservation, and our responsibility to the future..


??? I don't know what the frick you are talking about...I'm just talking about letting a young buck walk in hopes that he'll be bigger next year and there will actually be one more deer in the herd next year too. Geez.

By saying that you should kill the buck because he's gonna die anyways sounds an awful lot like you are trying to grasp at some other factor that isn't within your reach as a buck deer tag holder.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Hmmmm,^^^^^^^^^^^^
I REALLY LIKE stable's common sense right there! And 100% agree.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Hmmmm,^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I REALLY LIKE stable's common sense right there! And 100% agree.


That is because both of you only understand simple concepts, through the lens of the past. If the only foresight we can muster, is that pathetic attempt, we are in more trouble as hunters, than I thought.

So what if we let a mature buck walk, in hopes he will be bigger next year. You know, one more deer for next year. I mean he is bigger, has a better chance of making it through the winter, and he should be a better breeder, right?

Wow, this here comon scents stuff, sho nuff is neat. It doe needa be root'd in any kinda sience or nut'n, as long as it makes sense to a secon yer six grader, then it must be tru, huh?

Those coals are burning down fast.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> ??? I don't know what the frick you are talking about...I'm just talking about letting a young buck walk in hopes that he'll be bigger next year and there will actually be one more deer in the herd next year too. Geez.
> 
> By saying that you should kill the buck because he's gonna die anyways sounds an awful lot like you are trying to grasp at some other factor that isn't within your reach as a buck deer tag holder.


What the frick(really?) I'm saying is that you are a short sighted, liberal, utopia builder. I don't know how else to word it. You adhere to dead and dying, unproven concepts, and philosophies of the past. Because it is easier to throw around old, washed up concepts, rather than look ahead, with a sharp focus, on how we got to where we are.

You and guys like you, dance around these subjects, regurgitating other peoples talking points, like you know what you are talking about. That is a big part of what is wrong with the current state of conservation.

Clinging to disproven beliefs, is no different than head in the clouds wish full thinking, neither one goes anywhere, and is lazy LIBERALISM!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Challenge: How to fix the deer herd? Do you think any of you can come up with a solution that actually increases deer numbers, and has not only, not been tried, but is not just more hunter management?

20+ years of hunter management, and the solution must be to pile on more failed concepts that have never worked? 

Maybe we need to try something different? I do believe that Kurt describes in "the ten principles of conservatism" about the balance between permanence, and change. For those that have not read it, which is most every "conservative" in Utah, you should check it out. I also highly recommend Edmond Burke.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Challange:
Lonetree------YOU tell us what the solutions are!!!!!!!!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I don't even know where to begin with this argument. There are some things that are on the table when it comes to options moving forward. Most of the ones that would be the most effective and impacting in a positive manner are off the table for _social_ reasons. There you go end of discussion...so you and I get to argue over jack all day long if we want to.
I'm gonna kill animals no matter what the forecast is for the year. The frustration with the Utah deer herd is 100% tied with an unwillingness to change under the guise of "tradition". There's no point in talking about extra money for tags to fuel conservation projects or more WMAs because no one wants to pay for it. Utah's conservation model is built off a "wilderness" idea that you have a tract of land that just provides a source of revenue with little investment required. Well that tract isn't getting any bigger and the demand isn't shrinking at the same rate as the resource. So we find ourselves in 2013...a crossroads if you will...and no one wants to change anything big.
So Lonetree and Stablebuck get to argue about antler restrictions when we both know that is a proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to concerns of the resource.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

oh yeah and then people get all bent out of shape over AI tags, but out of the other side of their mouth they won't spend one dollar more on their deer tag if they don't have to even if it means more opportunities in the future.
So I'm not exactly short-sighted mister lonetree...I just am familiar with the "when in rome..." idea...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Challange:
> Lonetree------YOU tell us what the solutions are!!!!!!!!


Goofy, if you had paid attention, you would know that I have already presented, CAUSES to wildlife declines. Until we address, and acknowledge these causes, we can not move forward with solutions. Without even getting to that point, I can tell you that moving backwards is not going to help the situation.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stablebuck said:


> I don't even know where to begin with this argument. There are some things that are on the table when it comes to options moving forward. Most of the ones that would be the most effective and impacting in a positive manner are off the table for _social_ reasons. There you go end of discussion...so you and I get to argue over jack all day long if we want to.
> I'm gonna kill animals no matter what the forecast is for the year. The frustration with the Utah deer herd is 100% tied with an unwillingness to change under the guise of "tradition". There's no point in talking about extra money for tags to fuel conservation projects or more WMAs because no one wants to pay for it. Utah's conservation model is built off a "wilderness" idea that you have a tract of land that just provides a source of revenue with little investment required. Well that tract isn't getting any bigger and the demand isn't shrinking at the same rate as the resource. So we find ourselves in 2013...a crossroads if you will...and no one wants to change anything big.
> So Lonetree and Stablebuck get to argue about antler restrictions when we both know that is a proverbial drop in the bucket when it comes to concerns of the resource.


You are missing the point, entirely. The tradition that people cling to when it comes to deer hunting, is opportunity, an opportunity of "quality", of memories, of just plain opportunity. And that opportunity is achieved through more deer. ARs don't do that, higher priced tags don't do that, higher buck to doe ratios don't do that, fire wont do that.................

You have not mentioned anything, that has not been tried, in most cases several times, over the last 30 years. And I don't mean just here in Utah. The mule deer problem is not singular, and it is not just a Utah problem. What about the other states, that tried ARs, and micro unit management, and increased permits, and predator bounties. Did the mule deer do better in those states, than they did here in Utah? No. But that won't stop many of them, or us, from doubling down on more of the same.

So if we raise the price of tags, create more WMAs, and fund more conservation projects here in Utah, will that increase mule deer in the West? I will tell you right now, no it will not. Until we address the larger ecological problems, questions of "quality", and opportunity are really just unattainable concepts.

As for big change, it does not get any bigger than what I'm talking about. Which is what scares the hell out of everyone, and makes them turn their heads the other way.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Goofy, if you had paid attention, you would know that I have already presented, CAUSES to wildlife declines. Until we address, and acknowledge these causes, we can not move forward with solutions. Without even getting to that point, I can tell you that moving backwards is not going to help the situation.


Paid attention????

It's called,,, Tooo painful to reed LT's posts!

Keep it short LT.

You now have to give solutions to your 'presented causes'

OR, I'm never reading another one of your posts .....


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Two words: "Habitat Loss."

It's funny that no one has mentioned this in the thread yet.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

massmanute said:


> Two words: "Habitat Loss."
> 
> It's funny that no one has mentioned this in the thread yet.


why would anyone mention it...not gonna reverse the trend by mentioning it...

there's an inverse relationship between the number of smith's marketplaces and mule deer...everyone knows that...trying to combat habitat loss has been a losing battle since 1492...


----------



## Charina (Aug 16, 2011)

Lonetree said:


> Goofy, if you had paid attention, you would know that I have already presented, CAUSES to wildlife declines.


I've paid pretty close attention for well more than a year now, and I don't have any idea what you truly think are the causes. Usually, what I come away with from your posts is something like . . .


Lonetree said:


> Without even getting to that point, I can tell you that moving backwards is not going to help the situation.


 . . . which is just skirting the topic telling everyone they have their heads in the sand, and won't listen. If you spent half the time talking about "causes" that you do pointing out how wrong current methodology is, then perhaps the point you seem to want to get across would have a chance of being heard.

Every time I start hearing about micro-nutrients and 'misunderstood' processes, crossed with ignorance of the masses, it just reminds me of the wellness MLM's that too many of my in-laws have been sucked into over the years. Too hard to swallow when there is so much strawmen arguments woven into the message.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

*Can't you all see !? It's the whole greenhouse gas and global warming that is making the deer hunting suck. And since we all know that ain't going to change we may as well blast away at anything with horns or without until they are all gone!*

-8/-:llama:


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

You have to consider who the target audience is for the DNR. Obviously your weathered hunters like Goofy and Stablebuck are not the target audience. But if you consider young hunters hoping for an opportunity to get a first deer the opener has been painted as a chance to finally accomplish getting some experience of harvesting a deer. 

What I take from this article is that the outlook is GREAT for new hunters. I can put down my wii remote, my cellphone, and my ipad and I might have a chance at harvesting a 2 point. If I do that would be an awesome opportunity and my future of hunting could be a great beginning. Swbuckmaster took advantage of whats out there and I don't think he could have come up with better results... His kids learned how to CLEANLY harvest deer. 

The spikes and 2pts provide a valuable service to the hunting community most obviously as the spawn of potentially monstrous bucks in the future. The most commonly overlooked service that they provide however is their nature as disposable and renewable resources. They do not need to contribute to the breeding pool unless all the mature bucks are harvested, However if 100% of yearling bucks were harvested one year. An equal amount of yearling bucks would still refresh in natures inventory so long as the mature bucks survive. 

Based off of what I am reading on Utah's website we are recruiting new hunters and retaining revenue for future generations of hunting. We need to focus on satisfying the new generation of hunters over the trophy hunters. My feelings are never hurt when an old man hangs up his rifle complaining that there is not a deer behind every bush like in the 70's, or 80's, but when I see 14 yr olds dressed in baggy clothing skateboarding and playing warcraft...Makes me wonder if in the future their money will be going to taking away hunting heritage.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Good post Doug, I think you are pretty much on the button with regards to the intent of the DWR's newsletter. I would only add that I think it goes a bit farther than just new or young hunters. There's a ton of hunters who can/do/will take yearlings and two points, who are not new or young. The news put out by the DWR just tells 'em that if you want to kill a young buck, there will be more than a few around. Pretty simple really. I definitely don't read it as a doom and gloom article that says 'there ain't any big bucks roamin' them thar hills fellers, but we got lots of younguns you can shoot!' I hope a lot of hunters can take advantage of the resource and have a really fun time doing it.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Charina said:


> *I've paid pretty close attention for well more than a year now, and I don't have any idea what you truly think are the causes*. Usually, what I come away with from your posts is something like . . . . . . which is just skirting the topic telling everyone they have their heads in the sand, and won't listen. If you spent half the time talking about "causes" that you do pointing out how wrong current methodology is, then perhaps the point you seem to want to get across would have a chance of being heard.
> 
> Every time I start hearing about micro-nutrients and 'misunderstood' processes, crossed with ignorance of the masses, it just reminds me of the wellness MLM's that too many of my in-laws have been sucked into over the years. Too hard to swallow when there is so much strawmen arguments woven into the message.


That's too bad Charina. I would have thought someone as intelligent and articulate as yourself would be able to discern the jist of LT's posts. I don't have the time right now, but I'll start a new post and express what I think he is talking about. Of course, I'm sure LT will correct any misunderstandings I might have. :biggrin1:


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

So, to summarize this thread:

The DWR posted an article saying there are a lot of yearling bucks around this year.

Lonetree thinks everyone is shortsighted, naive and/or high on opiates because they can't offer solutions to the problem of declining deer populations.

Lonetree cannot offer solutions to the problem of declining deer populations.

Goofy, Stablebuck, and others think it's beneficial to the quality of hunting to let yearling bucks walk.

Summary complete. I'm with the crowd that lets 'em walk. I realize that when I pass on a yearling buck, or a 3 point, or even a nice 4 point that's not quite a shooter, that there's a good chance someone else will take that buck later in the season. Winter, disease, or a lion may also take him before the next hunt. But if I pass on 30 or 40 of those bucks, chances are that many of them will be back for future hunts.

On the rifle hunt in 2010 I saw a very handsome 3 point buck. He was probably 3-1/2 years old, perfectly symmetrical, and had a great cape on him. I had the shot at 80 yards if I wanted it, but he was a young deer and I was holding out for something bigger. So he walked. I got some good film of him and moved on. In 2011 I hunted with a muzzleloader, and got some footage of the same buck while scouting that was now a mature looking 3x4. Not a no-doubter, but a good buck that I thought about taking. He never showed up during my hunt, and I didn't see him again until 2012. I saw him in a picture message from my hunting buddy who had shot him not 200 yards from where I filmed him the year before. He was a very nice 4 point, symmetrical and heavy, a buck that probably won't break 180 but should make a great looking mount. I am so glad that he made it through those earlier hunts because he was taken in his prime by a good friend. That is why I choose to let younger bucks walk. On the flip side I have no problem with hunters that choose to shoot younger bucks. In my early years I shot young bucks too and I still hunt elk for meat.


----------

