# Sportsmens last stand.....



## tonyabbott (Dec 4, 2010)

Gentlemen, the time is now if YOU are going to take a stand against the current regime that presides over Utahs wildlife. The only chance I see is the UWC. Now I am not affiliated with them other then I did sign up and donated $50 bucks to the cause.

My contribution from here will be ALL the airtime they want to get their word out. We know what we get with the other groups. Lots of talk and Little action for the majority of sportsmen. I laugh everyday when I get emails and messages from sportsmen asking what can they do and when I tell them they simply go back into hiding.

You want to make a difference then in my opinion join the UWC. Join them now and help them right the sinking ship that the current DWR and conservation groups are steering.

Your kids hunting future in Utah depends on it.

Tony Abbott
801-885-1274
www.myfreehunts.com


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Do they have a misssion statement? who are they?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Very good post Tony... A couple of months ago I visited with my lawyer considering starting a group of my own. Upon the unveiling of the UWC I have sat through a few of their board meetings and I must say that it is a well organized group with the full intention of bringing Utah back to it's traditional roots representing your everyday hunters. In response to redleg you can find their mission statement at their website www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org I am also not a board member, but I am willing to volunteer my free time to their cause.

I was present in the Northern RAC meeting and their input and feedback was very insightful. I also carpooled with a few board members down to Price for he DNR open house and it is a very big relief to find some representation to increase hunting opportunity.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I was talking with a buddy today on this very subject. Here is my take, how many fathers/mothers would put their life on the line to protect their children? Most likely everyone of us would. This last weekend I took my 10 year old daughter turkey hunting. It was the single best day I have EVER had hunting, and I have but 400" bull elk on the ground and 200" deer on the ground, and they pale in comparison. This girl is hooked on hunting, and I will be damned if I will sit back any longer and watch her hunting opportunities being STOLEN all in the name of 'quality'. 

A couple of trolls have been piping up the last couple of days, mocking a fledgling group and lose who whine but don't attend the Wildlife Board meetings. I wonder if these folks truly believe their actions are helping fellow sportsmen, or if they are hurting the sport of hunting by INTENTIONALLY causing division? I, like Tony, have attended many WB meetings, and I have no doubt that under the current system the individual has NO voice at these meetings. For that matter, if you aren't part of the 'right' group you have NO voice. Now a SFW VIP has been appointed to the Wildlife Board and somehow the public is supposed to believe he will be impartial? Really? Are they that **** arrogant? Apparently.....

Back to being the father of a child who LOVES the outdoors........why do so many parents sit back and do NOTHING when they children are getting the shaft? Between the debt the pinheads in Washington DC are straddling our kids with, and the reduced hunting opportunities special interest groups are ramming through, when is enough enough? I LOVE to hunt, but I will NEVER buy another deer/elk tag as long as we have youth that are being denied permits. This is something I have imposed on myself, as I feel it would be wrong for ME to deny a kid a permit so that I can chase mature bucks/bulls. 

As for UWC, I attended their first meeting. I wish I could devote the time/energy to be in the trenches with these fine SPORTSMEN. I also wish them well and hope they stay grounded and focused.


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

Well all I had to do was see the names of two guys that have been extremely helpful to my daughter and I the last couple years and I signed up and donated. I will do what I can when I can to help out and I would recommend everybody do the same. There are some top notch guys behind this. thanks again.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Join the UWC? Really Tony? This what you have been workin so hard on? I though you had this thing covered???????????

Wow, this stuff cracks me up!!!!


What does not crack me up is people fighting toward deminishing our deer herds causing my children to not have amythin to hunt in the future!!!! 

Sometimes I wish the SFW would go away!!! I truly do! I believe it would give Tony nothing to fight against!!!!


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Did the DWR receive the 2011 Western Hunting and Conservation Exposition tag proceeds or are we left to assume from UWC that they feel the funds are still in the hands of SFW?
> 
> 0 dollars from the convention tag application fees are earmarked to go back to the division. We wouldn't have had reason to send the letter if the division was already receiving the money. In addition, You failed to mention that *MDF *partners with SFW.
> 
> ...


This is all good advice by the originator of this post, but I have one glaring question that I just have to ask:

Tony, knowing that you are one of the officers in MDF; what did the mule deer foundation do with the money it derived from the expo permit sales?

It would appear that no one is willing to answer the question that has started all of this revolution in the first place&#8230;.Big


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

"Sportsmans last stand" ?? WOW. :shock: 

Isn't that what Don said on the capitol steps in 1993?

I see hunter management as part of an effort to improve deer herds
working with other ongoing projects..........

The opportunists are crying fowl with irresponsible comments..


----------



## SureShot (Oct 2, 2007)

Amen, Goofy!

Sportsman's last stand? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read. In fact, the current regime--if that's what you want to call it--is doing more to improve the hunting quality than I've seen done in a long time.

You should be cheering instead of crying.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SureShot said:


> Amen, Goofy!
> 
> Sportsman's last stand? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read. In fact, the current regime--if that's what you want to call it--is doing more to improve the hunting *quality* than I've seen done in a long time.
> 
> You should be cheering instead of crying.


Hunting QUALITY is entirely different than improving our herds. That is why people are "crying" instead of cheering. I want my kids to be able to hunt, not merely talk a HIKE and look at the "quality". You have summed up why many of us are NOT happy with the direction Utah is headed in regards to wildlife!


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Join the UWC? Really Tony? This what you have been workin so hard on? I though you had this thing covered???????????
> 
> Wow, this stuff cracks me up!!!!
> 
> ...


It's logic like this that has inspired me to join UWC.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I'll probably tick off everyone, but I can't help it. 

1. The hyperbole on here is getting a bit much. I can come up with a long list of things that are a greater threat to hunting than who was selected to the WB. (This however, is not to be interpreted as an endorsement by me about what has happened.) UWC has a long, difficult fight ahead if they/we are to achieve the stated goals and we don't accomplish a whole lot, or gain much credibility if we are sounding delusional.

2. It cracks me up that guys like Goofy can continue to happily pontificate that "all is well" with how things are being run with the wildlife board when we see what is happening. Forget about option 2 and these endless quality debates. There is NOTHING that can be added to the discussion that hasn't been talked to death on here. Doesn't it bother you quality guys one bit that the WB holds almost absolute power with wildlife decisions and an officer of one of the biggest "special interests" (SFW) can be placed on the board, that checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars can be flaunted in a key WB meeting like a third world country, and that the DWR has no true voice or power to implement ANYTHING that it thinks is best? Keep in mind, quality guys, your turn to be dealt with unfairly by such a questionable government entity could be next. What if UWC or some other entity hits the jackpot financially or politically and starts gaining WB influence by the same means as SFW? It could happen. Would it make it right? When I tell non hunters what has happened recently with the WB, they are aghast. Why aren't hunters? (even the SFW guys?)


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Good words.


----------



## Yonni (Sep 7, 2007)

One word catherder- APATHY! Just another freedom being taken away that we have no say about. Not much that I can do about it anyways! This is the general attitude, heck there are days I feel this way myself. 

What the UWC needs to focus on is educating the public in every way possible, having open forum discussions on a regular basis, open houses, recruiting as many as possible to get the word out. Internet is great, but when it comes to local issues good old grass roots is best. Honestly I am a bit disappointed they have done much of this, they are still new so that is forgivable, but education is what will win this battle!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Yonni said:


> education is what will win this battle!


No truer words have been posted on this site! EVER!!


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Pro--

You've got my vote, give all the tags to our kids, I'm on board with that 100%. I want mine to no only be able to hunt but also have as good of a chance to harvest a 'mature' deer as I did when I was there age. Further I will tell you if that isn't at least a better than 50% chance, at least with my kids, who are way beyond 'an outdoor experience'--meaning if they don't knock something down within the first few years of hunting, than getting up early just to see a sea of orange pumpkins just doesn't cut it with them.

By giving all the deer tags to our kids, I believe that there will still be a reduction in the overall number of buck tags issued/harvested which will work to restore millions of years of evolution and natural history to where are deer herds ought to be with a higher percentage of mature bucks in the population. I'll vote for it.

Hunting quality is one thing but restoring our mule deer herds to the way mother nature intended them to be is another in my opinion. I don't believe this is about hunting quality. I also believe that this restoration can be achieved without a reduction in tags if we can all think out of the box a bit. 


BTW--Tony, and I love you like a brother but, you all honestly believe that UWC will not be an SFW, RMEF, or MDF as it continues to grow (if it does) you are all smok'n the same stuff you did when you were with SFW and a slightly different flavor of smoke when you were with MDF. I don't believe any conservation organization whether its for the 'sportsman' or for the wildlife can survive past the initial pep rally based on 100 50.00 donations.

Todd


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Well I threw my name in the hat with the UWC and even sent them a dollar or two. I also belong to the evil dark-sided SFW and have since day one. I am a life member of FNAWS and NRA. I also throw my change at RMEF and a few others. I use to be a member of Utah Trappers Association but got discussed by the spineless approach they were taking with trapping laws in Utah and have not sent a dollar their way for over ten years now. Oh, add UBA into the mix also along with Pleasant Grove Sportsmen. I do not think that we can have too many sportsmen’s groups, as long as we are headed down the same path together. I believe this was the intent when Don started SFW, trying to unite all the splinter groups into one voice. As with everything we do in life someone is bound to get their feelings hurt and take their ball and go elsewhere. In my humble opinion, it is better the devil you know then the devil you do not.

If I were the UWC I would encourage each and every one of its members to join SFW. Why? Because it is much easier to steer the horse than to kill the dog. If you start a range war as I see this turning out to be, then the only people who lose this battle are sportsmen! Oh yes I have heard time and again from the founders of UWC that they are not trying to bring down SFW, but in fact the action taken on this very board or should I say sometimes in actions by the Mods/UWC founders, have lead me to believe otherwise. I respect each and every poster on this forum, but that doesn’t mean I agree with your positions taken on each and every issue. What I do agree with is the passion and Ideas that each member brings to this board and the love and concern each of us share for our families and for wildlife. I think that we start with the things we all agree with and build a foundation of positive work from there. I know most of the people that are being crucified on this board, day in and day out, and they also have a passion to promote and preserve wildlife and that in and of its self is the greater good for me…
Big


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

bigbr, very good post. Like I've said before I really hope UWC can get more organized and with time , I'm sure they will. I once had a friend ask why doesn't SFW just come on here and answer the question that the UWC wants to know. My answer to that was, it would be a lose / lose situation. All that would happen is the same few people would tear their comments apart like they do any other SFW supporter that comments on here. They getting their mission and agenda acomplished without support from this site. In reality, UWC has a long, long road to success. I agree that UWC needs to be a very well spoken rep. at the RAC/WB meetings in the future and be prepared for a many asortment of questions. For the most part, the various group reps. are there just for formality. Their agenda has been sent to each RAC/WB member weeks and months previous. It will take getting to know these people and gaining their trust. This is why these RAC/WB members have made up their mind on how they will vote before hand. It doesn't hurt to show up in masses to these meetings but I think you should view it as a way to plant a seed for upcoming meetings, rather than banking on instant change. 
On a side note, I do believe that SFW is becoming stagnant with their membership. I have been heavily recruited for a Tooele County board position and to become a member but I have no desire right now. 
Passion is good but the contant beat down on anyone that offers any advice or gives their opposing point of view is not good for your cause.


----------



## tonyabbott (Dec 4, 2010)

Todd, SFW and MDF were nothing alike on how they were ran. I know that for a FACT since I worked for 1 and ran the other. But they could be identical twins now for all I know. And YEs I believe the UWC is different. Could they change? Of course. Will they convert to free handouts from states? I dont think so. So you continue to do what you do for wildlife (whatever that is) and I will do what I do for wildlife. And yes I sent my money to the UWC boys and they are welcome on My show anytime they want because in My opinion they represent more of what I like then all of the other groups put together.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Pro--
> 
> You've got my vote, give all the tags to our kids, I'm on board with that 100%. I want mine to no only be able to hunt but also have as good of a chance to harvest a 'mature' deer as I did when I was there age. Further I will tell you if that isn't at least a better than 50% chance, at least with my kids, who are way beyond 'an outdoor experience'--meaning if they don't knock something down within the first few years of hunting, than getting up early just to see a sea of orange pumpkins just doesn't cut it with them. Tell me, when you started hunting were you worried about how many 'mature' deer you saw? Or, were you just happy to be able to hunt? You want more 'mature' deer, grow more deer. Don't try and artificially prop up the number of 'mature' deer by rationing permits!
> 
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm with Todd all the way on this one..

Glad to see we have a biologist on the forums, AND on board!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

It's easy to "give away the farm" when it comes to hunting bucks/bulls when you know someone or are involved in operating private lands ... No offense meant by this, but some guys reading this who claim they'd give up their tags aren't really giving up their hunts, they are merely shifting them to CWMU properties or they have money to hunt elsewhere. FWIW, I'd still like to see the Biologists have their hands and feet untied so that what really needs to happen can be implemented.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Lance--

Give me 2 people you know personally who "claim they'd give up their tags aren't really giving up their hunts, they are merely shifting them to CWMU properties". I know several guys who that shifted a long time ago but I don't know anyone claiming to give up their tag and then switch to a CWMU.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Pro/Bart—here are the answers to your questions, let me know if you have more. 


PRO--Tell me, when you started hunting were you worried about how many 'mature' deer you saw? Or, were you just happy to be able to hunt?
TODD--I didn’t have to worry because they were well represented in the population. I was more than happy to hunt because I would always at least see deer, several guys/kids now a days can't even say that.

PRO--What was the buck:doe ratio when you/I started hunting?
TODD--Don’t believe they kept that data back then, this is a question for the UDWR, with all the bucks I would guess they didn’t have too. 

PRO--And what exactly did Mother Nature intend them to be?
TODD--I don’t get this question; Mother Nature intended them to be mule deer I guess.

PRO--Do we need to take this all the way out and cease ALL harvest by humans?
TODD--If that is what the data tells us, sure, hunting can get to a point where it is completely additive and should be eliminated, I would have figured you would have know this.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Tell me, when you started hunting were you worried about how many 'mature' deer you saw? Or, were you just happy to be able to hunt?
> TODD--I didn't have to worry because they were well represented in the population. I was more than happy to hunt because I would always at least see deer, several guys/kids now a days can't even say that.


I see just as many deer now as I did then and I see just as many nice buck as I saw back then, but like back then I have to work to find them.

I also know a few guys/kids that don't see any deer. I watch them from my perch every year. They get out of their trucks and start walking about a half hour AFTER light. Walk about 100-200 yards off the road and find a place to sit amongst the other guys that are doing the same thing. Usually they stop to take a look at me through their rifle scope on the way up. On my way down I usually pickup their candy wrappers and soda/beer cans. Sometimes I wil run into them and they tell me that this is one of the worst years for deer they've seen in some time.

The kids aren't losing interest because of the lack of deer, they are losing interest because their dads did not teach them the proper, challenging way to find deer. The best part of deer hunting is finding them.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

The best part of deer hunting is opportunity, and when people start going 4 or more years without a tag they will come to understand this. 

The same people who want to see more and bigger bucks will want the opportunity to hunt them, and while they are waiting for the inflated buck to doe ratios they got with this bickering, it will keep them wanting. 

You think people are not happy now. Wait a couple of years. :O•-:


----------



## sharpshooter (Nov 17, 2010)

Ok Jhas, lets see your general season wall hangers. Surely with all the big bucks you have seen you got a few success pics to show us.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--How old are you? When is back then? I'm sure in you neck of the woods your right, I'm not disputing your opinion and since you don't have numbers, its just that as is mine. 

As to your opinion on how kids are taught about deer hunting, again your opinion and for the most part i would agree but lets just be honest, the Utah general deer hunt is not hunting by any stretch of the imagination. Its total ciaos. Hunting is not driving roads, making drives and pushes and 'scaring up the deer', that's not hunting and I'm teaching my kids to have no part of that.

Todd


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Todd,

I know you and I have discussed the possibility of a larger mature buck numbers having a net positive effect on numbers. Are you or anyone else you know of considering doing a study and somehow documenting what possible effects this might have?

In relation to the above, if you do speculate that higher mature buck ratios are beneficial to herd numbers and health, why is it that our limited entry units, specifically elk ridge, are suffering a similar or even worse demise?

Could there possibly be diseases that we haven't been recognizing? Are there possibly nutrient deficiencies that we are not recognizing due to various man-made situations? Issues with nitrates in the soils and subsequent browse?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Blanding_Boy said:


> As to your opinion on how kids are taught about deer hunting, again your opinion and for the most part i would agree but lets just be honest, the Utah general deer hunt is not hunting by any stretch of the imagination. Its total ciaos. Hunting is not driving roads, making drives and pushes and 'scaring up the deer', that's not hunting and I'm teaching my kids to have no part of that.
> 
> Todd


Well you have told us what you are not teaching your kids, now I am curious as to what you are teaching your kids. I am not asking this out of disrepect and I agree with some. Others I see as splitting hairs. Your thoughts please.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Hunt--

I'm not teaching my kids to hunt (which i really don't call hunting) using the methods i described above, those employed by most Utah hunters. My definition of hunting and how I hunt/teach with my kids is much more different.

Tree--designing the studies is one thing, funding them and funding them for more than just a 2 year MS thesis is another. I'm all for participating in that but finding a funding source is a big problem right now. Believe me, I have theories to be tested more than there is money and maybe time for :? .

With your comment on the LE units specifically Elk ridge--the answer in my opinion has more to do with elk and predators (specifically bear) which both were essentially absent in the 'hay days' of mule deer. Additionally (add on top of that), as is the case in much of our state, the amount of, the timing of, or the lack of precipitation is the biggest single limiting factor we have (IMO). What we don't have in place is a means to justify harvest rates based on annual fluctuation (actually delayed timing as these things don't show the effects one year after the fact) with this precipitation or lack of. Lastly (and you and I talked about this as well and I will put it as tactfully as i can), while certain data (your referring too) being presented might not show an increase (fawn/doe and overall population no's), other data that individuals collect shows/tells a slightly different story.

Todd


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Thats right look to any possible factor that the laymen can not prove or disprove. But what ever you do don't even think about predation as being a factor. 3 units Pine valley, Panguitch and Zion. Compare the herd size acreage ect. Then look to cougar harvest over the last 10 yrs. Thousand Lakes has had less cougar harvested than Monroe. So what would we be out if we went ahead and opened a unit like Elk Ridge to heavy cougar harvest for at least 5 yrs? Is it proven that Elk Ridge is at range capacity and predation is compensatory? Is that even proven on any unit in the state? You want to increase hunter opportunity for the masses but are willing to forgo controlling predation and buy into the unknown unprovable factors. For the life of me I cant understand why you so ardently oppose option 2 and deny predation reduction as a solution to help the deer herd. 

I've had it my apathy level has shot through roof. I need to take a break. I'm gonna go fishin. O|* -O\__-


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Bear--
Who has ever said anything about not addressing predators? I'm all for it, I participate in it as much as i can and as opportunistically as i can, the UDWR and WB recognize it and dealing with it.

Heck, if I was king, i would make over the counter lion and bear tags just like we used to have in the hey days (at least lions that is--don't recall about bear).

Todd

Todd


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Hunt--
> 
> I'm not teaching my kids to hunt (which i really don't call hunting) using the methods i described above, those employed by most Utah hunters. My definition of hunting and how I hunt/teach with my kids is much more different.
> 
> Todd


I understand you are not using the methods you discribed.

I'm asking what methods are you using? If you don't want to publish here you can PM.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sorry Todd. I was replying to Tree's post you beat me to it.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Sharpshooter,

Here is a pic taken in 2004. I have 2 more heads that are not pictured that I have taken since 2004. All are public land bucks killed from 1979 up in a crowded general area. 

I have a brother that I have hunted with most of my life and his collection in my opinion is exceptional. All of his but one are general unit bucks. Maybe he will post them up one day.

Blandingboy, 

I am in my late 40s and I still see quality bucks every year. You just have to put the time in and find them.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Last years archery buck.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Todd, why is the Henry mtn deer herd growing very slow? The Henry mtn has very few elk. I havent heard of a lot of bears on that unit. I know there is mountain lions, but what other issues are keeping the deer population low?


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I agree with JHAS to a point there are still nice bucks out there. But there isn't alot still out there. I find a few nice bucks every year if I put the time in. If I don't put the time in there are very few bucks period.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

pheaz said:


> I agree with JHAS to a point there are still a few nice bucks out there. But there isn't alot still out there. I find a few nice bucks every year if I put the time in. If I don't put the time in there are very few bucks period.


How many do you need? Deer hunting is supposed to be hard and killing nice bucks is supposed to be even more difficult. That is why they call the big bucks "trophys". They're smart, cagey and do not make mistakes very often.

When you received a trophy for playing basketball, football or bowling, first you had to earn it and usually you earned it by putting in the time and work. I'm not sure why some of you would think that deer hunting is any different.

You can't expect to kill a big one every year but when you do find one it sure makes the wait even sweeter.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

Dude I have my trophies you have yours. I am just stating I do not see as many as I did back then. Other than that I am agreeing with ya. Put the time in to get the results. right


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Thats right look to any possible factor that the laymen can not prove or disprove. But what ever you do don't even think about predation as being a factor. 3 units Pine valley, Panguitch and Zion. Compare the herd size acreage ect. Then look to cougar harvest over the last 10 yrs. Thousand Lakes has had less cougar harvested than Monroe. So what would we be out if we went ahead and opened a unit like Elk Ridge to heavy cougar harvest for at least 5 yrs? Is it proven that Elk Ridge is at range capacity and predation is compensatory? Is that even proven on any unit in the state? You want to increase hunter opportunity for the masses but are willing to forgo controlling predation and buy into the unknown unprovable factors. For the life of me I cant understand why you so ardently oppose option 2 and deny predation reduction as a solution to help the deer herd.
> 
> I've had it my apathy level has shot through roof. I need to take a break. I'm gonna go fishin. O|* -O\__-


Responding to my post? Just cause I didn't include predators, which has been beat to death, I am discounting them? Come on now.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--rest assured that I see quality deer each year as well and likely put in more 'time' than just about anyone. However, what is a quality deer to you isn't to me. I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about mature deer 5+ old deer. How many of those do you see each year. Also seeing them on the winter range during the rut and seeing them during a hunt are 2 different things IMO.

Coyote--Already answered..... The amount of, the timing of, or the lack of precipitation is the biggest single limiting factor we have (IMO). What we don't have in place is a means to justify harvest rates based on annual fluctuation (actually delayed timing as these things don't show the effects one year after the fact) with this precipitation or lack of.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Hunt--
> 
> I'm not teaching my kids to hunt (which i really don't call hunting) using the methods i described above, those employed by most Utah hunters. My definition of hunting and how I hunt/teach with my kids is much more different.
> 
> ...


Gotcha. It seems like most expect a turn around or the effects of severe or favorable weather to be apparent the following year, which I'm sure sometimes it is. But from what I gather the effects may be more noticeable, though not as easily attributed years later.

The precipitation thing sure is double edged. Too much and they're screwed, not enough and the same holds true. While southern parts of the state typically endure milder winters than the north, summer range and available water that time of year seems to inhibit population growth more than anything.

We all want more deer and it seems like mule deer have very little known about them. This leads me to believe that studies (More than 2 years) would be very beneficial at this point. They need all the help they can get and information is king. Well, it should be.......

PS, don't be blaming deer declines on weather, Iron Bear is going to blow a gasket if he keeps hearing this. :mrgreen:


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Tree--
I would say rarely do we see a one year + or - turn around from a negative or positive weather event(s). Which is why i indicated and pointed out we presently don't have a mechanism in the models or in our system of management to adjust our harvest rates based on this information. This is mainly due to the lack of counting and classifying deer that ought to be done.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yep. It'd sure be nice of we were spending the time and resources that has been going towards bickering about buck harvest on counts. How about the deer transplant study and action? Expensive as hell yet that's what is being recommended by the top conservation fund generator. And once again, point restrictions recommended by KJ. You been whispering in his ear?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> JHas--rest assured that I see quality deer each year as well and likely put in more 'time' than just about anyone. However, what is a quality deer to you isn't to me. I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about mature deer 5+ old deer. How many of those do you see each year. Also seeing them on the winter range during the rut and seeing them during a hunt are 2 different things IMO.


A deer at 5 years old has the same genes as when he was 2 years old. Having said that I probably see a few 5+ year olds a year. What your point? Are you saying 5 year olds are better for the longterm health of the herd or are you saying 5 year old bucks are better to hunt?

I am not seeing a problem with Utah's mule deer herds and I do not believe the sky is falling. I've seen with my eyes deer populations go up and down over the years and I believe this is a totally natural cyclical issue.

Some of you are playing the "Global Warming" paranoia game to make people think there is a problem so you can make quick changes that do nothing more than line the pockets of a corrupt few.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Coyote--Already answered..... The amount of, the timing of, or the lack of precipitation is the biggest single limiting factor we have (IMO). What we don't have in place is a means to justify harvest rates based on annual fluctuation (actually delayed timing as these things don't show the effects one year after the fact) with this precipitation or lack of.


So managing deer herds with high buck to doe ratios isn't a very good idea when we cannot control mother nature because the herd can be wiped out in a short time or the recruitment isn't very good thus slowing the population growth.. IMO I believe the deer herds rebound faster with more does in the herd. I believe lower buck to doe ratios are better for a healthy deer herd than a higher buck to doe ratio,


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--

I don't recall saying anything about genes. Genes don't matter, for the main reason that you you have absolutely no idea what genes 2/3's or more of your population expresses in genes particularly if you are talking about antler growth which I am not nor have I, its always been about mature bucks. With genes at this point, either have good genes or you don't. The only way to remedy bad genes is to eliminate and start over with proven good genes (assuming you have bad ones). 

I'm saying having enough mature bucks to breed the majority of the does the first estrus cycle is what is important. Having a 20 buck to 100 doe ratio is pointless if your 20 bucks are yearlings and 2 year old deer. If you don't know why, call me sometime and I would be glad to explain. \

The reason you don't see problems with mule deer herds in general is because you don't understand their natural history and some of the things that drive it. You don't understand how increasing another prey source leads to an increase in predators, there's lots of things you don't understand I guess but you are welcome to have your opinion on the sky is falling or not but I've looked at these things long enough to recognize trends and I see a definite trend that if we don't start addressing threats the sky might not fall but the ceiling will certainly be lowered further and further.

Coyote--
Believe what you want I guess but in my professional opinion its wrong. I have always said buck to doe ratios are not important as are the no. of mature bucks in a population. Population dynamics of bucks are more important than ratios. Ratios of doe to fawn are more important than buck to do ratios. 
Your opinion is only supported if the majority of the does get bread, do you or the UDWR have that data? What I am saying in all this is when they get bred is the most important thing. One buck can easily breed 50 does over the course of 2-3 months or more. In some places (southern AZ) this might work but in other places where winter snows are limiting and winter range is limiting it doesn't (IMO). The timing of the rut and the timing of the fawns giving birth is what is critical to population growth. Does can get bred, does can become pregnant, does can give birth virtually any time during the year BUT when they give birth is what will determine survivability of fawns (IMO) and whether or not the population as a whole will increase. If you don't understand why, call me sometime and i would be happy to explain.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

So are you suggesting that we manage to an age objective with deer? If so, how is harvest indicative of what's out there? It seems to me it would only be an indicator of what people are able or willing to harvest, not an accurate cross section of average buck age.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Tree--

I rarely talk to KJ, he would have been better off resigning a long time ago IMO. I have stated before that the research shows that transplants rarely work but a dead deer is a dead deer whether you try and move it from point A to B or whether you kill with a vehicle or a weapon. I think technology and our understanding of trans-locations with other species have increased enough over time that perhaps trying it again with some mule deer somewhere might be warranted but again, its certainly not the solution.

I don't think there is so much bickering as there is a need for adaptive management, research, learning, and doing. All of us should roll up or sleeves and start working on solutions of sound biological principals and management practices that result in positive change (and monitoring them long enough to determine if they are positive, negative, or no effect change) and not on how many deer we are not going to be able to kill. I'm all for the idea of stopping the bickering, pointing the fingers and for start working together to start counting and classifying during different times of year so we can really get a good idea of buck population dynamics, fawn to doe ratios in the summer, fall and spring. Those things IMO are what data you really need to determine harvest rates.

Happy to help with UWC and the whole mule deer thing where I can. I'm not saying I'm the know it all expert on mule deer, I have just enough information to be dangerous I guess, I have some strong opinions and theories I would sure like to test but as I stated, money and time are the hurdles.

Todd


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Blanding_Boy said:


> ....What I am saying in all this is when they get bred is the most important thing. One buck can easily breed 50 does over the course of 2-3 months or more. In some places (southern AZ) this might work but in other places where winter snows are limiting and winter range is limiting it doesn't (IMO). The timing of the rut and the timing of the fawns giving birth is what is critical to population growth. Does can get bred, does can become pregnant, does can give birth virtually any time during the year BUT when they give birth is what will determine survivability of fawns (IMO) and whether or not the population as a whole will increase....


I think I'm following your point here, but I'm having a hard time understanding, why the LE units are not in better shape? I would think they have the most diverse bucks by age and higher buck to doe ratio. These units have been micro controlled for the better part of 18 years.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Tree--

Sorry guys, this has gone way further than I ever anticipated from Tony's original post.

You said, "so are you suggesting that we manage to an age objective with deer? If so, how is harvest indicative of what's out there? It seems to me it would only be an indicator of what people are able or willing to harvest, not an accurate cross section of average buck age".
Not really, I think you certain could get that data and it may in fact be a good indicator but what I am trying to say is this….
First, once we have determined what your carrying capacity of a given population is based on habitat and area where they reside; we should set harvest accordingly to carrying capacity and our population dynamics of our buck population. 
IF you have a good idea of the age class of bucks in a given population and IF you have determined what no. of mature bucks are needed to breed our population of does (given the area/habitat, how fragmented it is, where they breed etc would influence what that no. is) then we could set harvest objectives based on this data. Collecting this data during the rut is an excellent time to do so but you would also need to have some good data on natural winter mortality (again this would be very variable across the state and from unit to unit and year to year). I have always maintained that our harvest rates should be based on what is excess not on a ratio. Harvest rates would vary depending on season of the hunt, type of terrain, weapon, vehicle restrictions etc. You should only be harvesting a certain percentage of your bucks, as such you ought to have a pretty good idea not only how many are there but what are their ages (NOT HOW BIG THEY ARE, OR HOW MANY POINTS THEY HAVE).

Todd


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> JHas--
> 
> I don't recall saying anything about genes. Genes don't matter, for the main reason that you you have absolutely no idea what genes 2/3's or more of your population expresses in genes particularly if you are talking about antler growth which I am not nor have I, its always been about mature bucks. With genes at this point, either have good genes or you don't. The only way to remedy bad genes is to eliminate and start over with proven good genes (assuming you have bad ones).
> 
> ...


You sure assume a lot. First off I never said you did say anything about genes. I said it! And a 5 year old deer will do just fine breeding does no matter the size of his antlers and he'll breed 100s of does if given the chance. A two point will do the same and you know it.

I guess your keen eyes are the only eyes able to see nature as it truly is? I say you do nothing but make everything more complicated than it needs to be in order to back people off of whats true. If folks were to listen to you we would all think the mule deer should be extinct in the next couple of years if we don't start listening to people that speak gobbildigook.

And the most amusing part of your post: "The reason you don't see problems with mule deer herds in general is because you don't understand their natural history and some of the things that drive it". Are you truly this full of yourself?

I'll tell you what, why don't you take me for a tour to one of these so-called mule deer depleted areas so I can see it for myself? I'll pay for gas.

I guess if I see a lot of deer every year I'm really not seeing them because there is no possible way I could understand what I'm seeing? And if I kill nice bucks every year in these same units that doesn't mean they are really there?

Help a dummy out here, I'm trying to reduce your gobbildigook into something that makes sense.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Hunt--

whew!

Tell me what you mean by 'not in better shape'? What does that mean? Are they an increasing population? Are they at carrying capacity? If not, why are they are not increasing may have nothing to do with hunting, it maybe limited habitat, a predation issue, weather, nutrition, competition with other ungulates etc. These in my opinion are all carrying capacity issues. So, if they are not at carrying capacity, all the does are getting bred (and in my case by mature bucks) they are all giving birth and the fawns are alive when they give birth, then there must be something else limiting that population keeping it from growing. Identifying what that is is the big challenge and is why I think these things need to be looked at on an individual unit by unit basis. What limits the deer on the Cache is likely not what limits the deer in West Box Elder County (same region, different unit).

So, help me understand what specific unit you are talking about, what you mean by 'not in better shape' and maybe I can at least give an opinion (which I'm real good with).

Todd


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--

Sorry, I seemed to touch a nerve there, wasn't my intent. Its pretty apparent that you are not following my line of reasoning. Like I said, if you can't understand what I am trying to articulate or my how did you say it gobbildigook' in a paragraph or 2, your welcome to call me. Heck come up to Cache Valley anytime November and we can go for a ride and perhaps I can show you.

Todd


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Pro--
> 
> BTW--Tony, and I love you like a brother but, you all honestly believe that UWC will not be an SFW, RMEF, or MDF as it continues to grow (if it does) you are all smok'n the same stuff you did when you were with SFW and a slightly different flavor of smoke when you were with MDF. I don't believe any conservation organization whether its for the 'sportsman' or for the wildlife can survive past the initial pep rally based on 100 50.00 donations.
> 
> Todd


I'm sorry to hear you feel that way Todd. Sure hope we can prove you wrong.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding,

Articulating is the least of your problems (but a severe one none the less), ego is obviously your first.

I am tracking just fine with your reasoning I just disagree with it. 

I just realized that the problem is not a mule deer issue, it is a communication issue. If you cannot articulate your thoughts to the general public your thoughts are basically worthless. When you knowingly talk over peoples heads, suspicion is usually the first response.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas

Wow really for someone that i have never met, you make some different assumptions based on a few written words on an internet forum. I was trying to keep it simple (hard to bequeath my knowledge in a sentence or 2  ) , wasn't trying to talk over anyone's head.

I sent you a PM, I agree we disagree but I will say that at least some out there understand what I'm trying to say, whether or not I am reaching the general public remains to be determined.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I have always maintained that our harvest rates should be based on what is excess not on a ratio. Harvest rates would vary depending on season of the hunt, type of terrain, weapon, vehicle restrictions etc. You should only be harvesting a certain percentage of your bucks, as such you ought to have a pretty good idea not only how many are there but what are their ages (NOT HOW BIG THEY ARE, OR HOW MANY POINTS THEY HAVE).
> 
> Todd


Ok....so where is the cut off point? How do you determine the point at which bucks are "excess"? Let's say that the goal is for all does to be bred during the first estrous cycle, how do we determine if they are or are not? How do you set up a study that would measure this?

It sounds to me like you are saying that we should raise the number of bucks in our herds because, in your opinion, many of the does are NOT being bred at times that give the fawns a better chance of survival. Am I wrong? I could fall in line with this type of thinking, but given the status of some units and areas not only in Utah but other states--like Colorado--high buck/doe ratios and high numbers of mature deer is NOT assuring for high fawn/adult ratios. So, something else is limiting the herds...

...which brings me to the main problem with managing deer herds--limiting factors. I believe that too many hunters simplify the issue and want to blame diminishing deer herds one just one or two factors. Iron Bear, for example, wants to blame it all on predators...others want to blame it all on hunter harvest. The reality is that a wide range of factors are limiting our herds and these factors all work together in a complex sort of way...for example, a late born fawn may head into winter with insufficient fat reserves. As a result, that fawn may be preyed upon. Blaming the fawn's death solely on predation is naive, in my opinion, because that same fawn may have survived the winter had it been born at a different time or in a different year with different habitat conditions...so, my question is how do we determine what the limiting factors are in more certain terms?


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Bull--

I'm on board with you 100%, I hope you can as well. I'm a member, happy to help, hope you are successful. The other groups that have tried over the past few years have failed or joined the money machine. Again, hope UWC is successful, sincerely, honestly I do.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

JHas said:


> And a 5 year old deer will do just fine breeding does no matter the size of his antlers and he'll breed 100s of does if given the chance. A two point will do the same and you know it.


Do you really think a yearling/two year old buck is just as effective breeding as a five/six year old buck??????

Jhas, I have no idea where you are from or where you hunt but are you really telling us all that the deer herd is in as good as shape as it ever was even in the sixties/seventies???????

Did you really just call someone out about an ego........ :lol: **** Mr. Big Buck, Un-Lazy, Bad-ass hunter,

hey pot, meet kettle  
:O•-:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I don't think there is so much bickering as there is a need for adaptive management, research, learning, and doing. All of us should roll up or sleeves and start working on solutions of sound biological principals and management practices that result in positive change (and monitoring them long enough to determine if they are positive, negative, or no effect change) and not on how many deer we are not going to be able to kill. I'm all for the idea of stopping the bickering, pointing the fingers and for start working together to start counting and classifying during different times of year so we can really get a good idea of buck population dynamics, fawn to doe ratios in the summer, fall and spring. Those things IMO are what data you really need to determine harvest rates.


I guess this is what is so upsetting to some of us...the way our WB works, it doesn't matter what kind of data we do or do not have, they have the power to completely dismiss it. Also, wasn't it just last year that the mule deer committee came up with some ideas and changes in our mule deer managment and here we are again a year later--without even implementing these changes--and we are changing again? Also, regardless of whether the data is or is not flawed, it is the best we have. If the data we do have does NOT lead us to the idea that less tags will increase the deer herds, then why in the hell are we doing it (cutting tags) and what is the point of gathering any data at all?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

A yearling 2 point will get the job done. Maybe not as effective as a mature buck but he will try his hardest to take care of business. I watch it happen every year.

No I am not telling you that the deer herd is the same as back then, some years I think it is actually better and some years worse. Are you telling me that our deer herds are in trouble? Which areas are in so much trouble that we need to implement such drastic measures. Usually when I ask this question I hear nothing but crickets.

I did just call someone out about ego and thank you for the compliment.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I guess this is what is so upsetting to some of us...the way our WB works, it doesn't matter what kind of data we do or do not have, they have the power to completely dismiss it. Also, wasn't it just last year that the mule deer committee came up with some ideas and changes in our mule deer managment and here we are again a year later--without even implementing these changes--and we are changing again? Also, regardless of whether the data is or is not flawed, it is the best we have. If the data we do have does NOT lead us to the idea that less tags will increase the deer herds, then why in the hell are we doing it (cutting tags) and what is the point of gathering any data at all?[/quote]

Now that makes sense...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Believe what you want I guess but in my professional opinion its wrong. I have always said buck to doe ratios are not important as are the no. of mature bucks in a population. Population dynamics of bucks are more important than ratios. Ratios of doe to fawn are more important than buck to do ratios.
> Your opinion is only supported if the majority of the does get bread, do you or the UDWR have that data?


1) I have a hard time believing that fawn/doe ratio is more important than buck/doe ratio IF buck/doe ratios are exceptionally high. Personally, I believe the most important ratio would be fawn/adult ratio because it includes the bucks. We could, theoretically, have a very high fawn/doe ratio but have a population that is not growing because the number of bucks is so high that very few fawns are actually being born and ultimately surviving to adulthood.

2) Todd, do we or the DWR have data that shows that the majority of the does are not being bred? Do we have data or evidence that shows when our fawns are being born? Have we done any studies looking at whether or not the fawns are being born at the right time? Do we have any data that shows what the right time is? Do we have any data that shows that does that were bred late are less likely to give birth to fawns that survive to adulthood compared to does that were bred early?


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Wyoming--

What is the cut off point you are referring too, I don't know what you are talking about here?

As for the how to study, some of the research that is being done is looking at sampling does and inserting a vaginal birth tags/VHF transmitters in them that pop out at birth, which is giving researchers approximate (within a few days) birth date, also gives them fawn survival at birth but still wouldn't exactly answer the question whether it was alive or still born.

I'm not saying to raise the no. of bucks in our herds if its not needed. However, if yearling bucks and 2 year old bucks are doing the bulk of the breeding and does are not being bred by a mature buck the first estrus cycle because they are absent from the population then yes i think you have a problem. This goes against millions of years of ungulate evolution. With the studies you are referring too I don't believe they looked specifically at what I am talking about above with this theory. Also, doing a 2 year MS or even a 3 year PhD study on these things IMO won't really answer the question. This is something IMO that would need to be looked at multiple temporal as well as geographic scales.

I won't dispute for one second that there are likely many other things going on that we don't fully understand, I'm just saying again, millions of years of evolution didn't drive mule deer does to breed with yearling bucks in January (given the latitude of the inter-mountain west) where the peak of the rut is supposed to be in November--fawns hitting the ground in late May early June not late July early August.

Again, I won't argue for one second there are many limiting factors, many of which we don't have control over (weather disease etc). I fully understand its not just the predators as its just not hunter densities and I fully understand the cause and effect problems you refer too, I'm all about it. I also understand equally that these things may in fact be a primary liming factor but until we examine things on a population level we won't know either.

To answer to your question on how we determine these limiting factors. Again, IMO this can only be done through micro management unit by unit management. I don't see how you do this on a region level or a state wide level, you and I both know things on the Cache are different than things on the Pine Valley Mountains. Now you can say all you want that this is what CO and other states are doing and it doesn't work however, none of their management plans are set up to; A--identify the limiting factors B--Actions and strategies to address them specifically (how are they identified, who will address them, when will they be addressed, how are they funded etc). So the answer I guess is through adaptive management, something we really don't do with our deer because it would seem that ALL most people care about and care to manage is HOW MANY WE ARE GOING TO KILL. Management and managing them according to their natural history be damned all I care about is being able to hunt them attitude is short lived if we are even going to have mule deer to see let alone harvest 20 years down the road. Again, respectfully, IMO.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> What is the cut off point you are referring too, I don't know what you are talking about here?


You talked about harvesting only the "excess" bucks...so when does a buck become "excess".


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> I'm not saying to raise the no. of bucks in our herds if its not needed. However, if yearling bucks and 2 year old bucks are doing the bulk of the breeding and does are not being bred by a mature buck the first estrus cycle because they are absent from the population then yes i think you have a problem. This goes against millions of years of ungulate evolution. With the studies you are referring too I don't believe they looked specifically at what I am talking about above with this theory.


Again, though, do we know if the does will NOT breed with a yearling or 2-year old buck the first estrous cycle? Also, if the does are being bred by yearlings and 2-year olds during the first estrous is that still bad?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> To answer to your question on how we determine these limiting factors. Again, IMO this can only be done through micro management unit by unit management. I don't see how you do this on a region level or a state wide level, you and I both know things on the Cache are different than things on the Pine Valley Mountains.


Agreed...but isn't that what we were already doing for the most part. Weren't we already looking at individual units within regions?


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Wyoming--

Sorry, I'm having a problem keeping up with all this. The cut off point would be determined by your overall population, carrying capacity and how fragmented your habitat and your population is I guess, good question.


1)	I have a hard time believing that fawn/doe ratio is more important than buck/doe ratio IF buck/doe ratios are exceptionally high. Personally, I believe the most important ratio would be fawn/adult ratio because it includes the bucks. We could, theoretically, have a very high fawn/doe ratio but have a population that is not growing because the number of bucks is so high that very few fawns are actually being born and ultimately surviving to adulthood.

Response--Theoretically you are right and then you are likely over carrying capacity right? If so then (and heaven forbid) kill more does? Of course unless you have way too many mature bucks then you ought to be issuing more buck permits. BUT IF you are trying to grow a population (which I was referring too) then doe to fawn ratios are more important IMO.

2) Todd, do we or the DWR have data that shows that the majority of the does are not being bred? Do we have data or evidence that shows when our fawns are being born? Have we done any studies looking at whether or not the fawns are being born at the right time?

Response--I don’t know, I doubt it. I don’t know, again I doubt it. Not that I know of in Utah or the inter-mountain west with mule deer.

3) Again, though, do we know if the does will NOT breed with a yearling or 2-year old buck the first estrous cycle? Also, if the does are being bred by yearlings and 2-year olds during the first estrous is that still bad?

Response--I would say no, we don' t know for sure, I'm sure some do/are and it may in fact be that we through our activities (hunting etc) have pushed the rut back to November/December who knows. However, mother nature/evolution didn't drive the doe to bred with a yearling pencil neck buck, this is why dominance, maturity, and with ungulate males antlers are important. Are we messing with evolution? Are we disrupting millions of years of Natural History and Natural Selection? What I am saying is, in the inter-mountain west, a fawn being born in late May early June has a much better chance of surviving the winter and being in good condition going into the winter than a fawn being born in July/August.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Again, though, do we know if the does will NOT breed with a yearling or 2-year old buck the first estrous cycle? Also, if the does are being bred by yearlings and 2-year olds during the first estrous is that still bad?


I read that does will resist breading with immature bucks. They will typically allow the immature buck to bread them on the second cycle.

Breading during the first cycle by any buck young or old is a good thing. It will give the fawn an extra month to strengthen up for the winter.

The book I read is: Mastering Mule Deer by Wayne Van Swoll


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Again, though, do we know if the does will NOT breed with a yearling or 2-year old buck the first estrous cycle? Also, if the does are being bred by yearlings and 2-year olds during the first estrous is that still bad?
> ...


The answer to that is protect the mature bucks and harvest the yearlings.

Fishrmn


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

..


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> > wyoming2utah said:
> ...


Fishrmn you are on to something.

I watch 2 points breed with does every November. The does are willing even when larger bucks are in the area. Actual observation on my part.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I have seen this happen though not very often. I have watched as the dominant/mature buck chases away a smaller competitor only to have a third deer of lesser stature come by and quickly pull the trigger on a hot doe. All is fair in sex and war right?


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Coyote--

read through my post, believe I answered that question already. I have never once said does are NOT getting bred, in fact I believe most are. WHEN AND BY WHO is what this is about at least to me. Getting bred by bambi in January goes against mule deer natural history and evolution. Can a yearling buck bred a doe, yes, do they yes, do they on the first estrus cycle most of the time--THAT'S the question and THAT's whats important IMO. What I am theorizing is that they are not. This is based on what I see in age class of fawns (body size, condition, spots etc) when I do my counts in late August. So, I'm saying NO many, maybe even significant numbers of does are not getting bred their first estrus cycle. Is this totally because there are not mature bucks in the population maybe not, maybe its just strictly a nutrition thing who knows. My point, we don't know and without (at least in UT) a management plan and direction that helps us identify and ask the right question. How many permits and when to kill them is a mute issue IMO.

I understand what you are saying about the Heneries BUT it is just as likely that the Henery mtn. population is limited by summer range and having enough green groceries and nutrition, heck it maybe even the number of coyotes in the fawning areas--point is we don't know what is limiting the Henry deer herd if anything (we may be at carrying capacity). There is a big difference between between does getting bred and having fawns and the survivability of those fawns over the first year. If all the does are getting bred and getting bred in November (which we don't know) and they are all having twins (which we don't know) and the population is not growing, it is being limited by something else. Nutrition, predators, habitat, what ever.

I support a unit by unit management scenario (always have) and reducing harvest if not having enough mature bucks in the population (based on those things i pointed to earlier) is a limiting factor can be supported by good data. I think the reduction in tags was a knee jerk reaction that could have and should have been addressed. The thing is, I don't believe there are good models in place that make recommendations for harvest. Take for example the 97,000 deer tags we (until this year) were operating on. Where in the world did that no. come from? Did it ever has it ever varied since 1993? If so, how much? Have our deer herds varied since 1993? If so shouldn't our harvest no.s as well whether that be more or less permits issued? Hopefully you can see my point.

Todd


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> I have seen this happen though not very often. I have watched as the dominant/mature buck chases away a smaller competitor only to have a third deer of lesser stature come by and quickly pull the trigger on a hot doe. All is fair in sex and war right?


A few years back I killed a 4 point with my bow. The buck had just finished breeding a doe when I let him have it. The doe immediately ran up the hill a few hundred yards, found the nearest buck (a 2 point) and allowed him to breed her without hesitation.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

THANK YOU TODD.... 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Pro/Bart-here are the answers to your questions, let me know if you have more.
> 
> PRO--Tell me, when you started hunting were you worried about how many 'mature' deer you saw? Or, were you just happy to be able to hunt?
> TODD--I didn't have to worry because they were well represented in the population. I was more than happy to hunt because I would always at least see deer, several guys/kids now a days can't even say that. Exactly, and the ONLY true solution is to boost the population, NOT the number of mature bucks!
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Todd, I am glad you have chimed in, I truly am. But, I think you are seeing things through jaded glasses. Your main premise seems to be based on does getting missed during the first estrus cycle due to a lack of mature bucks, but you have NO evidence to back this up. Instead, the data that is available shows this is a MUCH smaller factor than you assert. The Limited Entry units have basically the SAME fawn survival/recruitment rates as the general season areas. Ditto in regards to the data from Colorado and Nevada, the two states the pro-option II crowd uses as examples of success.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Wow. BlandingBoy, you single hand-idly have stimulated the first intelligent discussion I've read in the last three years I've been reading this forum. Even those who are normally full of frustration and ranker are responding with thoughtful and excellent questions. Questions many of us that don't say much have been asking ourselves for a long time. 

I hope you'll continue to respond and give us your observations and opinions. I for one have much to learn and I've got more out of your posts in the last two days than any I've seen here or elsewhere.

Thanks for your time and thoughts. Stay with us because we all love hunting deer.


----------



## fishbate (Jan 18, 2008)

Reposting something that I put in a another subject a few weeks ago. IMO it backs Todd's thoughts on how the maturity of bucks is important.

Here is the source document for an enjoyable read... http://mcbadeer.com/DFG_ROUND_VALLEY_STUDY.pdf

No I don't quote myself often, just when I talk to myself, so this is a rarity, besides I don't want to retype it....



fishbate said:


> Quoting the last part of page 15 and top of 16 in the referenced doc below. I take this as there is a critical point where the health of the herd is dependent upon mature bucks to start the estrus cycle early, so fawns are are born earlier in the year so the mother can nurse, ween the young and start rebuilding their fat reserves to withstand winter. Timing and good habitat improve survival. Where is this critical point on the buck to doe ratio? Got to have mature bucks experienced in the deed to get it started and keep it going. Don't want to start the debate here, but this document has me wondering where that number is.... and then the number buck/does is probably not the same for each subunit in this state based upon the variation the state has in precipitation and habitat.
> 
> Quote here from the reference document::::
> "Lower survival of males in ungulate populations is common (Loison et al. 1999) and studies that
> ...


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Pro--

Jaded eyes, sorry not sure what that means. I think you might have front blinders on. I think if you will go back and re-read my post you will find what i said about LE units. A theory is not evidence, but something that could be should be tested, if you will re-read my post you will see I always stated this was a theory/hypotheis something I would like to test. The data available does nothing to prove or disprove this theory, there has not been research or a study design to even test it. I have as much anecdotal data as the next person to prove my theory. Show me what data dis proves this, please and thanks. Links to research and studies would be sufficient.

Todd


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Simply look at the fawn recruitment rates of the current Limited Entry units versus the recruitment rates of the general season areas. Theories usually have some sort of data to back it up, going off your gut is NOT scientific. You want to test your 'theory', fine, just do NOT do it on general season areas at the expensive of opportunity! A perfect test lab is the San Juan deer unit, I say GO FOR IT!


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Bart--

Your killing be bud, newsflash, there is NO data what so ever on any LE or GS unit that shows the mean birth data of fawns. I have not mentioned recruitment one time in any of my post. For you to paint your pretty picture based on recruitment as a way to refute my theory is a JOKE honestly. Again, I have addressed the LE units and speculated as to why those populations might not be increasing so go through and re-read them.

Oh and BTW, I have plenty of data to support my theory. I have seen plenty of fawns with spots on them into September, if they were born in late May/June you wouldn't see that, that's good enough for me to theorize as to why. Also last time i checked, this was a free country, your big on that, so I'm free to try something on a GS unit if that is what I choose, right? At least doing beats sitting back on an internet forum griping about it all the time.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Oh and BTW, I have plenty of data to support my theory. I have seen plenty of fawns with spots on them into September, if they were born in late May/June you wouldn't see that, that's good enough for me to theorize as to why. Also last time i checked, this was a free country, your big on that, so I'm free to try something on a GS unit if that is what I choose, right? At least doing beats sitting back on an internet forum griping about it all the time.


Blanding Boy, Like yourself, I am also in the mountains on a constant basis and I have witnessed quite the opposite of your observations. I rarely if ever see fawns with spots in September. In fact I would have to say that I see more elk calves with spots than I do mule deer with spots.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--

I want to make sure I'm clear on just exactly what you are saying. Your theory is that the no. of mature bucks in the population has no effect at all on the overall fitness of the population is that what you are saying? Yearling bucks and 2 year old bucks are just fine if that's all we have in the population right? Just so i understand what you are trying to say from your post above, I just want to be clear.

If it is, that's great that would actually be my null hypothesis. Your data would be a great addition to the preliminary data set I have.

If you would be so kind to get me your data that would be great, I need dates, locations (GPS, in UTMs preferably) # of fawns seen, whether or not the doe was present when you saw the fawn(s) and the number of sightings so I can include it in my data set.

Thanks


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> JHas--
> 
> I want to make sure I'm clear on just exactly what you are saying. Your theory is that the no. of mature bucks in the population has no effect at all on the overall fitness of the population is that what you are saying? Yearling bucks and 2 year old bucks are just fine if that's all we have in the population right? Just so i understand what you are trying to say from your post above, I just want to be clear.
> 
> ...


I would be more than happy to START colleting data for you. PM me the specific data you will need and the type of format you will need it in. If you have a pre-made spreadsheet/table that would be even better.

As for my theory: I believe from my OWN experiences and my own eyes that there are already enough mature bucks (3+ year olds) in the population to *effectively* breed the current population of does and when/if the 3+ years olds fail, a two point will take care of business.

Again, I would be happy for the opportunity to assist your data collection efforts.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding Boy, Just one more question. During your own observations/studies etc... Approximately (average is fine) how many 5+year old bucks are required to effectively breed let's say 100 does?

Keep it simple for me, Im just a regular dummy.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas--

Glad to have you help, hopefully I can get it going, if I can/do I would hope to have many helping out, again its a theory worth testing in my opinion. Much of the data everyone could collect with a spread sheet, other data we would have to have lots of techs on the ground with telemetry gear tracking animals daily.

I see we disagree with the mature buck thing, maybe that's where the whole miss communication/miss understanding thing came from, I was talking about 5+ year old deer breeding the bulk of our does, not 3.

As to the no. of bucks to bred the 100 does, good question. What area, what unit? IMO, the answer depends if those 100 does are all in a 20 acre holding pen (which would be two bucks , 5 would be better, get em all done in one week) or scattered out across 500,000 acres (and what those acres are fragmented by--roads, homes, fences, deep canyons, rivers, snow depths), if its highly fragmented I'm going to say 50, if its not 20--just guessing since I don't know where you are referring too. Hopefully you get my point.

So, the answer depends on density/area and location/fragmentation of the unit in my book.

Todd


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Jhas, please tell us what mountain your hunting. I'm guessing there's private property in the area.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Bull--
> 
> I'm on board with you 100%, I hope you can as well. I'm a member, happy to help, hope you are successful. The other groups that have tried over the past few years have failed or joined the money machine. Again, hope UWC is successful, sincerely, honestly I do.


Thanks BB, much appreciated.

I have some questions along the lines of this discussion. This is not meant to be an antithesis to your thoery, only questions. If we are saying that the presence of mature bucks is critical to herd health how do we measure, on a unit basis, how many mature bucks we need to maximize herd health?

I understand that each unit is unique and dispersment is critical to your theory but I'm thinking about this from a wildlife managers perspective and wondering how I manage to this theory even if it be on a test unit. I know you mentioned the average harvest age but that seems to focus on what hunters are harvesting rather than measuring what really exists which would seem to be more accurate to the layman. If my average harvest age is 5 years old but only 7% of hunters were successful (fair representation of archery success on the Wasatch where no firearms are allowed) what do I get from that data? Do I really feel confident that the average buck is 5 years old on that unit especially when hunters are notorious for passing up smaller bucks?

In the southeast region, where fawn survival is low in much of the region, I was told that 1 in every 3 bucks was a 3 point or better. Now I understand the fallacy of saying that 3 points on an antler constitutes a mature buck but from a breeding prespective what does a doe view as a mature buck? Are antler size and dominance what gets her going? It would seem in mule deer that antler size would be the equivalent to nice pecks and a 6 pack. Is there some other indicator of age that a doe may be able to recognize? Scents? What I'm getting at is should we be looking closely at how we define a mature buck? Should much of that definition come from the mule deer does perspective since at the end of the day, if your theory is correct, she would be the ultimate determiner of what a mature buck is. It can't be age because some bucks with poor genetics may always be a small framed 2 point, right?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Jhas, please tell us what mountain your hunting. I'm guessing there's private property in the area.


If I told you, Rebel and his friends would sneak in and kill all the two points.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Question 1--
I've never said the presence is critical, I theorizing that having them do the breeding, obviously they go hand in hand but being present and doing the breeding are 2 different things. Your question is a good one, by sitting down, looking at the landscape, where the deer rut, breed etc. IMO this could easily be done with local expert knowledge and GIS. Then look at the distribution of does during the rut, are they all clumped in one 20 acre patch, are they evenly distributed across the million acre unit what? Once that (your distribution of does) is determined than you figure out no. of mature bucks is need to service that distribution. 

Question 2--don't look at harvest rates then. Get trained biologist and trained sportsman to classify deer on the rut/winter range. I would say with in a year or 3 you ought to have a pretty good idea what your age class and buck population demographics are, if you are wanting mature bucks to do the bulk of the breeding and you only classify 2 on a unit, maybe just maybe you are over harvesting, if there are 100 maybe you are under harvesting.

Question 3--If its not age what is it? What else could it be, as a buck ages, it develops certain physical characteristics and shows its age, and shows its dominance to other bucks and does. Of course we should be looking at what we call mature bucks, and I would think that after millions of years of evolution the does have already figured out what a mature dominate buck is and what characteristics it should posses/display. I agree, what is a mature buck to a doe is like asking what is a dominate male to a girl some like the 6 packs, others like the long nose and glasses. Certainly it will vary but again, natural history of the mule dictates she (in order to be the most fit and have the mots fit off spring) would breed with the most dominate (usually expressed by body size, attitude, other physical characteristics) buck in a given area. IMO antlers are for fighting and bucks with the biggest antlers are not always the most dominate buck, right, because I don't think the bucks too often look in a mirror and say, WOW, i have big horns therefore I am the most dominate. Bottom line does choose which buck to breed them and again the natural history of the species suggest its always the most fit one around. 

The bigger question is, how should we be looking at mature bucks, how many people out there can really classify bucks by age class. Right now, its pretty clear that we just say if its a 3pt its mature or its better. I have seen many 2pt bucks that are way mature and are 5+ years old.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Question 1--
> I've never said the presence is critical, I theorizing that having them do the breeding, obviously they go hand in hand but being present and doing the breeding are 2 different things.


This started out as only semantics but now has me thinking. Another question: In your opinion do does go into estrus at the right time WITHOUT the presence of mature bucks and the bucks are ONLY critical for the actual breeding? I'm not setting you up on this. It's just a biological question that has come up many times and could be important when you think about hunt timing.



Blanding_Boy said:


> Question 3--If its not age what is it?


I guess that's exactly what I'm asking. There are probably studies done on this very thing but I'm just curious and asking your opinion because antler size seems to be at the core of these discussions much more than any other physical attribute. Is it physique? In other words will a doe generally prefer to breed with a 4 point, 23" wide, 3 year old deer with a smaller physique than a 16" wide 2 point, 5 year old deer with a larger physique? I understand that she knows what to look for, I'm asking if WE know what she's really looking for.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Certainly it will vary but again, natural history of the mule dictates she (in order to be the most fit and have the mots fit off spring) would breed with the most dominate (usually expressed by body size, attitude, other physical characteristics) buck in a given area. IMO antlers are for fighting and bucks with the biggest antlers are not always the most dominate buck, right, because I don't think the bucks too often look in a mirror and say, WOW, i have big horns therefore I am the most dominate. Bottom line does choose which buck to breed them and again the natural history of the species suggest its always the most fit one around.


Exactly....so why wouldn't a doe breed with the most dominant buck if that buck is yearling or 2-year old? What evidence do we have that they avoid these younger bucks?

Also, I have read where Dr. Geist theorized/observed the largest antlered bucks to be shirkers....or bucks that avoided breeding at all. He believed their large antlers were a result of NOT breeding....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I'm asking if WE know what she's really looking for.


That's just it...I would bet that weather and precipitation patterns also play a role in when a doe breeds and when she does not. Personally, I don't think we do know what a doe is looking for....we do know that bucks fight for the right to breed. So, we assume that the does are wanting to breed with the most dominant males. I would be interested to know the answer to your question too....


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

In that last question I guess what I'm really asking Todd is that if in the absence of a 5 year old buck to breed will the doe, generally, breed with a 3 year old buck if his antlers are a certain size in the first estrus cycle? 

My whole point is to identify, based on your theory, the minimum standard by which to define a "mature" buck. To me that is critical because what we are trying to do with your theory is to breed does in the first estrus cycle. To effectively manage to that we need to know what the minimum standards are. What is the minimum criteria that a buck must measure up to so that a doe will breed with him in the first cycle?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

If a buck is cabable of breeding (regardless of age), wouldn't he be considered mature?

How about a doe? At what age are they considered mature?


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

Bull--I told you how I define a mature buck, which is based on books, papers, others observations. It has nothing to do with antlers. Some day I promise to go through a presentation to show you pictorially (power point presentation) what I'm talking about, how bucks mature over time. Again, natural history of ungulants in general says that the female will breed with the most 'fit' (mature) bucks in the population. This maturity is mostly about body size and conditions which are expressed by; physical characteristics, attitude (the way it carries itself) around other deer, dominance, etc. Once he reaches 5 years old (as a general rule some could say 3 other 4 a few 6) he as reached maturity meaning he has developed those characteristics above, he is what he is going to be. Genetically speaking, he was this when he was conceived but he doesn't carry a genetic trait list to show everyone and the does are not able to tell this when he is a yearling or 2 year old, maybe even 3. Again, as I said, what exactly it is a doe sees, i can't answer all i can say is if mule deer were jack rabbits it wouldn't matter but they are a longer lived species as such there must be a reason for that and some importance must be given to maturity. 


JHas--I will answer your question with one. When you were 10-12 you were capable of breeding?

A doe generally breeds here second year but (and if i can find the paper i will get it to you) as she gets older (matures) she is more likely to have twins and more likely to raise those twins to at least one year of age.

Think if it in human terms. You and I could all breed when were were in our early teens. Girls start ovulating as early as ten years old. They are physically capable of bearing children but are they 'mature' enough to raise them? I think many similarities could be draw with mule deer, being mature whether your a buck or doe and breeding and rearing young are important factors IMO.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Sounds more like instead of concentrating on bucks, we just need to figure out how to make the does a bit more ****ty.


-DallanC


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> JHas--I will answer your question with one. When you were 10-12 you were capable of breeding?
> 
> A doe generally breeds here second year but (and if i can find the paper i will get it to you) as she gets older (matures) she is more likely to have twins and more likely to raise those twins to at least one year of age.
> 
> Think if it in human terms. You and I could all breed when were were in our early teens. Girls start ovulating as early as ten years old. They are physically capable of bearing children but are they 'mature' enough to raise them? I think many similarities could be draw with mule deer, being mature whether your a buck or doe and breeding and rearing young are important factors IMO.


LOL! This is getting to be too much for me. You guys have made a rock so big that you can't move it. I need a drink.


----------



## Blanding_Boy (Nov 21, 2007)

I'm past drinking.....


----------



## Broadside_Shot (Feb 22, 2010)

I had my first child when I was 20. So your saying that If I waited till I was 25 or 30 that she would be cuter than she is now. Dang!!! :lol:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Broadside_Shot said:


> I had my first child when I was 20. So your saying that If I waited till I was 25 or 30 that she would be cuter than she is now. Dang!!! :lol:


Only if bread by a mature human male.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Blanding_Boy said:


> Bart--
> 
> Your killing be bud, newsflash, there is NO data what so ever on any LE or GS unit that shows the mean birth data of fawns. I have not mentioned recruitment one time in any of my post. For you to paint your pretty picture based on recruitment as a way to refute my theory is a JOKE honestly. Again, I have addressed the LE units and speculated as to why those populations might not be increasing so go through and re-read them.
> 
> Oh and BTW, I have plenty of data to support my theory. I have seen plenty of fawns with spots on them into September, if they were born in late May/June you wouldn't see that, that's good enough for me to theorize as to why. Also last time i checked, this was a free country, your big on that, so I'm free to try something on a GS unit if that is what I choose, right? At least doing beats sitting back on an internet forum griping about it all the time.


Okay, I can see you are getting a tad bit thin skinned. So, this will be my last direct response to you on this, at least on the forum. Anything after this can be taken up with a phone call. 8)

There is plenty of evidence on fawn SURVIVAL rates, and fawn recruitment rates. And that is really all that matters, yes? Does it matter if fawns have spots in September if their survive the winter? Of course not! And, since the fawn survival/recruitment rates are virtually the same for general season areas and limited entry units, IMHO, there isn't any obvious indicators that having more mature bucks in the herd will result in higher recruitment which is the primary force for increasing populations.

I am NOT going to get into a debate on what constitutes a theory, but I always thought theories had more than a field observation about how many subjects in the hills have spots during certain times of the year.

As for this being a 'free' country. I WISH!! But, just for fun lets pretend it is a 'free' country. WTH does that have to do with taking a PUBLIC resource and using it as your own little test lab? Does this mean I am 'free' to make the entire state archery only? Of course not, so your argument is void of logic.

Now, as to why you feel the need to make snide remarks instead of sticking to the subject by suggesting I do nothing but complain on here. You KNOW better than that, so why go down that road? If you have anything further to comment to me on this, feel free to pick up the phone......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Broadside_Shot said:


> I had my first child when I was 20. So your saying that If I waited till I was 25 or 30 that she would be cuter than she is now. Dang!!! :lol:


Actually, the older you are the more likely your kids are to have birth defects........ :O•-:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Pro... I spoke to a homeopathic doctor that told me that only applies to humans (the visit was about fertility treatment). Because of the processed junk we consume as food, our bodies have become highly acidic. This creates a highly toxic environment and is one of the causes of high birthdefect rates amoung older humans. The alkaline diet of herbivores does not produce these toxic environments. He's no veterinarian but I thought he made a good point.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I wasn't trying to be a PIA. Just trying to generate discussion. I understand how WE define a mature buck. I know pictorially how to spot one. It's based on physique. 

I was simply trying to spark conversation about how a doe decides if she's going to breed with a buck in her first estrus cycle or not and the role that anlter size may or may not play into that selection process since that was the scientific problem presented.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Pro... I spoke to a homeopathic doctor that told me that only applies to humans (the visit was about fertility treatment). Because of the processed junk we consume as food, our bodies have become highly acidic. This creates a highly toxic environment and is one of the causes of high birthdefect rates amoung older humans. The alkaline diet of herbivores does not produce these toxic environments. He's no veterinarian but I thought he made a good point.


Interesting food for thought. But, I was just being a wise acre in response to the reference to comparing humans to mule deer. :mrgreen:

That's a good question, if there are no mature bucks in the mix, how would the does know they are getting short-changed? Wouldn't they simply be most receptive to whatever dominant buck is nearby? Seriously, are mule deer does smart enough to look around and hold out for Mr Big? Or, does Mr Notsobig get the juices of the does flowing when he has chased off all the 'lesser' bucks?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

JHas said:


> Blanding_Boy said:
> 
> 
> > JHas--I will answer your question with one. When you were 10-12 you were capable of breeding?
> ...


OK, I had my drinks and after some soul searching, I think I was capable of breeding when I was 10-12.


----------

