# Reality Check



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

_Magical thinking_ is a nonscientific and irrational belief based on emotions and supported by a random correlation. We sometimes believe what we wish to be true. The clinical term stems from beliefs in sorcery and witchcraft.

If I want to believe that my hat is a "lucky" fishing hat because I was wearing it the day I caught 100 fish, there's no harm in that. The fact that my hat had nothing to do with catching fish really doesn't matter.

But magical thinking has no legitimate place in wildlife (deer) management. It's irresponsible and the resource is too important. The obligation we bear is not personal and it's not to our next hunt, but to the future survival of the species.

Unfortunately, through the mandated public input process, magical thinking is becoming epidemic in mule deer management. While such thinking may benefit a few humans in the short term, it doesn't benefit deer at all. In reality, it has the potential to do significant harm.

The most irresponsible example of magical thinking got no traction when the 2008 committee drafted the management plan. But since 2008, attempts to modify that plan have been very successful. So we shouldn't dismiss SFW's proposal to double Utah's deer population as just a pipe dream.

I sure hope the Wildlife Board doesn't take a hit off of that pipe, because back on planet Earth, much as we don't like it, there are some inescapable facts to contend with. Ignoring those facts doesn't make them cease to be facts. Sure, hunters want more deer. But as our parents likely said when we were kids, "The world doesn't revolve around what you want."

It may be more realistic and responsible in the long term to set a different objective: Maintain Utah's deer population at current levels.

Now hold on...before you start calling me names, here's why I suggest that objective. We know what happens when a species becomes over-populated. If we're sincerely concerned about the long term welfare of deer, a potential crash has to be avoided at all costs. And with very limited resources available to address the decline in mule deer across their range, it only makes sense to exercise some wisdom in how we invest those resources.

Keep in mind that available deer habitat is limited.

Now, according to census numbers, Utah's population grew by 29.6% between 1990 and 2000. It's grown another 23.8% since 2000. Nothing indicates that our population growth is going to stop or even slow down in the near future. In fact, a lot of people are working hard to keep that ball rolling and analysts project that Utah's population will swell to 4 million within the next 20 years. This fact has reduced deer habitat and will likely continue to reduce it.

According to the American Farmland Trust, Utah stands to lose 3 million acres of farmland to development by 2020. According to the Farm Bureau, Utah is currently losing farmland at a rate of 500 acres per month. In a desert state like Utah, irrigated land is a key element to productive habitat.

The elk management objective already in place is to add yet another 20,000 animals to the state's elk herds. While there is no scientific study to prove competition between elk and deer, it is a fact that elk will eat available deer forage. If the elk population objective is met, it can only equate to less forage for deer. 20,000 elk eat a lot of forage.

Setting sunshine, lollipops and roses aside, if we were to just sustain deer populations at current numbers for the next 20 years, it would be a considerable accomplishment. Just to achieve that relatively simple objective, given the realities at hand, will require our best efforts.

Fire away!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

There's your mentality that has taken more tags away from hunters than the anti's or SFW combined. More than the high dollar hunt or the quest for inches. 

Wildlife biology although considered a science which would lead one to believe that its conclusions are exact correct and not bias. Don't look know but so is meteorology and we all know just how precise the weatherman is.

Just because you subscribe to the biologists rhetoric and consider it gospel. Doesn't make you any taller then any one else. You horse is doing that for you.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Can't argue with that! Good post Finn!

So if we can only maintain the deer we have does this mean we can only kill a certain percentage of the surplus of the bucks we have? 

In the event the deer numbers keep going down doesnt this mean there will be more tag cuts in the future cause you can only kill a certain percentage of those bucks?

Finn you've put it better then anyone else when I heard you said in a wrack meeting. Utah is growing and Utah needs to look at bow hunting as a way of managing hunters in the future. You said way more then that that night but what you did say made a lot if sense to me. 

I wish I could say I hope sfw fails at growing more deer, because I hate their political spin they put on hunting. I also hate the way they have divided hunters and demonize bow hunters in general. But I can't! I want more deer. I wish the division would have done their job correctly in the first place then sfw wouldn't have even been created. Did I day I hate sfw and the system!


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> There's your mentality that has taken more tags away from hunters than the anti's or SFW combined. More than the high dollar hunt or the quest for inches.
> 
> Wildlife biology although considered a science which would lead one to believe that its conclusions are exact correct and not bias. Don't look know but so is meteorology and we all know just how precise the weatherman is.
> 
> Just because you subscribe to the biologists rhetoric and consider it gospel. Doesn't make you any taller then any one else. You horse is doing that for you.


Not sure im following you ironbear. You saying deer etc should be managed without biologists? or we just shouldn't believe them and so something else?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Excellent post, finn! I would like to hear the Don explain how we are going to grow the elk herd by 20,000 and at the same time grow the deer herd by 200,000....... I would also enjoy hearing some ways this is even remotely possible from those on here who are vocal supporters of the Don and his magic beans.....


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I want to double my cattle herd, but doing so will take double the pasture acreage, and it will also take more than 4 years to accomplish if I don't purchase more cattle and I simply recruit new heifers into the herd. Doubling a herd of cattle is no easy/quick task, so imagine how difficult such a task it is to double the deer herd which has far more limiting factors, from the weather, to habitat limitations, to highways, to diseases, to predators, etc.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Excellent post. A comment or two more.

We argue on here endlessly about factors we can control, and those should not be minimized, but the problem with fish and wildlife management is that many of the most important factors are not in human control. It *is* possible that we could have 3-4 consecutive years of ideal weather and range conditions and see the deer herd size swell to well over 300,000. It has to be realized though that this is temporary and the odds clearly favor an eventual swing back to less ideal conditions and herd size. There is no doubt that if we did have these ideal conditions and numbers , that the proponents for change would be tearing their rotator cuffs patting themselves on the back for their "brilliance". Conversely, we could see a succession of bad winters and range conditions that really send the herd numbers down. We that have been around awhile have seen a few of these years. We know also that when this occurs, the gloom and doom crowd clamors for every imaginable change, and one would think the mule deer will be certified for the endangered species list. The DWR will also be blamed for their incompetence in letting the herd suffer such a fate. I suppose that such is human nature. The same thing happens with fishermen. The best we can hope for is for our leaders and managers to keep a cool head and not do anything rash in either "feast" or "famine" situations.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

A diamond is nothing more than a lump of coal that stuck with the job. As far as I can tell nobody waits for any plan to work. Everyone wants the cure all right now. The deer heard declined over the years due to growth and lose of habitat and predators. We as hunters want an instant answer, it won't happen, we need to stick with the job. We need to hold our elected officials to the iron and quit letting them bounce around like a fart in a skillet trying any plan that sounds good or has the most benefit to them. We are so worried about predators yet what are we doing to control them? Coyote hunting in Utah is free and unregulated how many do it? We are so worried about lose of habitat yet what are we doing to control it. The developers are buying land at record speed and turning the winter ground into houses, golf courses and anything else they can make money at. Everyone loves the pretty deer until they eat their high dollar flowers or trees or runs into their car. Then we must get rid of them. When are we as hunter going to go after these developers and require them to pay for more deer habitat? Or make the people who have to live higher than anyone else pay as well?


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Fin,
Good post. You might be right. Maybe we are kidding ourselves and should find something else to do. Then again, maybe we'll have a few wet Springs with mild Winters and all this goes away. At any rate the future looks dim right now. Nothing seems to help the herd and our population continues to grow. 

I don't even know how to coordinate a hunt this year. Members of our party have 0 to 2 points and are having a difficult time picking a unit. I imagine people are going to naturally leave deer hunting as it takes too much planning. 

I am confident one of your worries will not happen. We are not going to lose 3 million. acres of farmland to development in the next 8 years. There needs to be demand first. That number isn't even close to reality. Another thing, there are a lot of great mule deer hunting areas that are not on farmland. Farmland attracts mule deer certainly, but they do not need farmland to thrive. We aren't talking pheasants. 

SW,
I really wish you would quit trying to sell archery as the indisputable best approach to wildlife management. That is devisive as anything issue you mentioned. From my standpoint it is the least ethical approach to hunting. There are a lot of bad things about archery that don't bleep on your radar. I am confident archery will not solve many mule deer problems.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Provider no I wont. Not as long as people want opportunity to hunt. Because the only way you can Increase opportunity on a limited resource you need to decrease the effectiveness or success rate of the weapons. 

Despite what others on this sight believe you can only kill a percentage of the bucks we have. When our deer numbers go down so do the tags! 

I also don't only preach archery only.

33% 33% 33% tags allocation is what i preach.

If I could hunt every year with a rifle and shoot 4 points id toss the bow in the jordan river. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> If I could hunt every year with a rifle and shoot 4 points id toss the bow in the jordan river.
> 
> .


it could be done now! theres good bucks in every region of the state, they just require more effort to find during the rifle hunt.... please dont throw your bow in the river. theres already enough trash in there. it doesnt need a mathews added to it o-||


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

A couple of points to consider...

We often times view carrying capacity of the land for such things as mule deer as if it is a static thing, it is not. Range conditions can vary widely from year to year dependant primarily on the weather. Some years there may be excess carrying capacity as the mule deer population reaches management objectives, other years it is going to fall short. On those years when populations exceed carrying capacity, two things happen; you get a massive die-off of the target species, and you risk permanantly damaging the range and reducing the carrying capacity for years to come. 

One of the dangers you face trying to expand a population to it's maximum potential, is that you set yourself up for a catastrophic population crash when deer numbers far exceed the carrying capacity of the land on those bad years that are sure to come. In my opinion, that is exactly what happened to the deer population on the Cache in the winter of 1992-'93 and we still haven't recovered nearly 20 years later!

I don't pretend to know all the answers, nor do I pretend to know what the optimal population goals for each unit should be. But I do know that setting population goals too high for a species such as mule deer can backfire on us....that setting population goals beyond the long range carrying capacity of the land is going do more harm than good and we leave the deer herd worse off. This is my worry.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> shaun larsen said:
> 
> 
> > swbuckmaster said:
> ...


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

KevinD has made some very good posts of late. 2 years ago we were struggling to keep our cows on the mountain into Oct with the feed conditions. This year the cows are still on the mtn in January and the feed is enough to carry them until the snow gets too deep. Same can be said for our wildlife, in that some years we can have more and other years we can have less. The highs and lows need to be lessened to allow for sustainability. 

I would LOVE to have 400,000 deer, but just do not know that Nature will ever allow my wishes.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

provider said:


> SW,
> I really wish you would quit trying to sell archery as the indisputable best approach to wildlife management. That is devisive as anything issue you mentioned. From my standpoint it is the least ethical approach to hunting. There are a lot of bad things about archery that don't bleep on your radar. I am confident archery will not solve many mule deer problems.


Tell us again who is being divisive! :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> So if we can only maintain the deer we have does this mean we can only kill a certain percentage of the surplus of the bucks we have?


We can kill 100% of the surplus bucks....even if our population were reduced to 10 deer. If the bucks are surplus, they are extra and not needed.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Despite what others on this sight believe you can only kill a percentage of the bucks we have. When our deer numbers go down so do the tags!


You are correct in saying that we can only kill a percentage of the bucks, but when our deer numbers go down our tags need to go down only if we are killing too many bucks. If harvest percentages are low enough and enough bucks survive for breeding, buck tags do NOT need to be limited....even if deer numbers are going down. Surely you understand this...otherwise, you wouldn't be fighting to restructure tag allotments for bowhunters.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Despite what others on this sight believe you can only kill a percentage of the bucks we have. When our deer numbers go down so do the tags!
> ...


Relax guys, I think you're both on the same page. It's true that we can kill only so many bucks percentagewise before it becomes a biological problem, (or maybe even a trophy problem). It's the number of hunters/tags that it takes to accomplish it that's the issue. And since it takes twice as many archers to do it compared to rifle hunters based on their success rates, we could issue a lot more tags if we had more rifle hunters and/or new hunters moving into archery. At some point tags/opportunities do need to be limited, but with more archers, that limit could be higher. For every rifle hunter that switches, we could issue two archery tags with no change in the harvest numbers. It sounds like a good solution to me!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+1 elk
that is what my limited edumacation is saying.


----------



## Markthehunter88 (Nov 5, 2010)

SW,
are you saying 4 point with a bow is easier?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

> When are we as hunter going to go after these developers and require them to pay for more deer habitat?


I agree. they should make them do the same thing as when the wet lands get taken away.They have to replace so many acrs back some where.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Since this is a "Reality Check", maybe it would be a good idea if SFW members and the rest of us read;

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

pages 19-27 and pages 39-40 to see what others (Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana) have concluded regarding predation and mule deer populations. Doubling the mule deer population in 3-5 years by focusing on coyotes? Not likely!

Edited: PS, The rest of it is a good read also!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Markthehunter88 said:


> SW,
> are you saying 4 point with a bow is easier?


No id say shooting a 4 point with a bow is harder then shooting one with a rifle. But it is easier to have the opportunity to hunt more with a bow then it was to hunt with a rifle. With a rifle the the best opportunity you could do was 2 bucks in three years if your dedicated. With a bow you could hunt every year but you are more then likley to eat the tag if your going for a 4 point.

I liked to hunt more so I chose to go with a bow. Only because of the long season. If they take the perks of choosing a lesser weapon away I will go back to the rifle.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Kevin D said:


> A couple of points to consider...
> 
> We often times view carrying capacity of the land for such things as mule deer as if it is a static thing, it is not. Range conditions can vary widely from year to year dependant primarily on the weather. Some years there may be excess carrying capacity as the mule deer population reaches management objectives, other years it is going to fall short. On those years when populations exceed carrying capacity, two things happen; you get a massive die-off of the target species, and you risk permanantly damaging the range and reducing the carrying capacity for years to come.
> 
> ...


Kevin,

The question I have for you is why should it be unrealistic for Utahans to expect that our state could carry 400K mule deer when only a decade and a half ago the DWR estimates of Utah's mule deer herd were at 800K. I can not beleive that Utah has lost that much habitat when as sportsmen, we have been improving mule deer habitat for the past ten years. Not only that, SFW and FNAWS have been buying up grassing permitts in both critical sheep, deer and elk corridors.

I contend that Mule deer have a bennificial symbiotic afair with live stock grassers. Number one being water development and continued availability as ranchers keep many less habital areas supplied with year round water source and artifiscial water tanks. And second, with live stock comes an aggresive preditor control effort that kept preditors at much lower numbers than we have today. I contended that the limits imposed on ADC and preditor control on federal and state land have caused a large depleation to our mule deer herds. With reduced livestock interest especially the sheep industry and federal wool substities ending, we have seen a large direct decrease in preditor control and mule deer decline. I am convinced that this is a very over looked problem for mule deer.

Big


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> Kevin D said:
> 
> 
> > I contend that Mule deer have a bennificial symbiotic afair with live stock grassers. Number one being water development and continued availability as ranchers keep many less habital areas supplied with year round water source and artifiscial water tanks. And second, with live stock comes an aggresive preditor control effort that kept preditors at much lower numbers than we have today. I contended that the limits imposed on ADC and preditor control on federal and state land have caused a large depleation to our mule deer herds. With reduced livestock interest especially the sheep industry and federal wool substities ending, we have seen a large direct decrease in preditor control and mule deer decline. I am convinced that this is a very over looked problem for mule deer.
> ...


I agree, but we are where we are, yes? Can we really expect to return to the perfect storm for mule deer that was somewhat the result of being irresponsible stewards? Are mule deer the only important thing or is there a bigger picture?

Do you think we should be using similar methods used for predator control that we did in the past, such as 1080, M44s and cyanide guns? Even if we did, as you mentioned, large quantities of sheep coupled with less fire suppression and a host of other things created an environment where mule deer excelled well past healthy numbers. The subsequent crash was inevitable, was it not?

Many biologists who observed the decline of 93' knew it was coming. The range conditions had been depleted and fat indexes on mule deer were too low to even sustain a mild winter, much less a dozen feet of snow in a 3 month period.

Could we have 400,00 deer in 5 years? Sure, if we were willing to do whatever it takes to get there and had some serious cooperation with mother nature. I think it could be a very irresponsible approach and could very well be socially and biologically irresponsible. I guess we will see. I'd love to see a lot more deer, but I personally see some potential downsides considering the costs that may be associated with getting there.

I fear that hunters may be viewed as blood thirsty savages that are only interested in growing vast populations of game for their own pleasure if we aren't a bit cautious in how we approach this thing. It'd be a shame if we allowed that to happen.

If we can do it and maintain a responsible perspective, a rational approach and consider all consequences without emotional knee-jerk decisions, I'm all for it. Let's get it done.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> If we can do it and maintain a responsible perspective, a rational approach and consider all consequences without emotional knee-jerk decisions, I'm all for it. Let's get it done.


Let's see. We have approximately 46,548 square miles of public deer habitat which means we have about 30,000,000 acres. Divide that by about 150,000 deer hunters and that's 200 acres each. Then divide that by 5 years and we have only 40 acres per year per hunter to get in shape, less than 1 acre per week. Fill in all coyote dens, lop and scatter pinyon and juniper, spray all cheat grass and thistles, prune all the bushes so they send out new shoots and runners, put in a small guzzler, plant some forbes, fence any paved roads and destroy any elk wallows. Well, I've got my 200 acres picked out, east from the base of Asay Knoll. Where are yours?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Another good read;

http://www.slideshare.net/UtahDWR/mule- ... april-2011

Click on download.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Could we have 400,00 deer in 5 years?


You mean double the present population, whatever that number is? There's no evidence that it's possible. Just wishcraft. All tangible evidence indicates that if it's possible, it isn't sustainable.

Another little bit of reality - a good share of Utah deer hunters are very much in favor of some of the factors that will limit deer populations and will vote accordingly next November. **** that Salazar!



Treehugnhuntr said:


> I fear that hunters may be viewed as blood thirsty savages that are only interested in growing vast populations of game for their own pleasure if we aren't a bit cautious in how we approach this thing.


We want to kill more predators so we can hopefully grow more deer so we can kill them. You don't think the general public will go for that?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Excellent Post Tree, I see we share the same concerns.

Bigbr, you say the mule deer population numbers dropped from 800,000 to the current level of around 250,000 animals in just the last decade and a half (15 years)?? You may want to recheck your figures. Go to page 45... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... EHlOcJGFcQ

Two questions come to mind when I hear about the SFW's plan to double the size of the mule deer herd in the next 2-3 years. First, is it attainable, and second, is it sustainable without long term resource damage. The first question has been addressed and discussed by many here, but the second question not so much. That is why my previous post focused on it.

One of the things that makes mule deer somewhat unique among other animals they share the range with such as elk or cattle is that much of their diet consists of perenial plants, such as sage, bitterbrush, and junipers. An annual plant can be grazed down to nothing once it seeds and dies by a starving animal with little ill effect for the coming year. Not so with a perenial plant, over grazing/browsing by a starving deer can kill the plant and may take years to rejuvinate.

There is a dangerous precipice we approach as we try to bring mule deer population levels to maximum carrying capacity that many, perhaps even the SFW hierarchy, may not be aware of. Sometimes, I think we need to wipe the Kool-Aid off our chins and think about what we're doing.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Funny thing is KevinD and BigBr and SFW and Finn and Tree and UWC and UDOT make valid points. It takes a plethora of factors to grow and sustain a mule deer herd.

The downturn of public grazing and the downturn of mule deer are mirrored. With responsible grazing, responsible predator control, responsible fire management, and responsible hunting management, should we not be able to increase and sustain deer numbers by X? I think it is feasible.

One problem we have had over the past 2 decades is we have allowed environmentalists to purchase grazing permits and remove livestock from the landscape. This in turn has removed the predator control and allowed grasses to push out the browse and thus the browsers. I have seen this as the case in American Fork Canyon, when Redford purchased the grazing permits and areas which had previously held larger numbers of deer now hold very few as the forage has changed. (I understand we can't have domestic sheep and bighorns overlap, but the result remains) 

For years we have focused the habitat efforts on winter ranges. Yet, in 2008, the UDWR stated we needed to rehab some summer ranges as measured deer fat reserves going into winter were low. Proper fire management would benefit mule deer (and other grazers).

I understand many people hate livestock grazing public lands. It is disheartening to see as the benefits of proper grazing far out weigh the negatives. After hunting the high country of Wyoming and Colorado, plus the years I have spent on both private and public lands in Utah, I believe that proper grazing practices are essential in managing wildlife. Does that mean we can have 400,000 or 600,000 or 300,000 deer? It remains to be seen. I do feel that we could sustain more in many areas.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

bigbr said:


> [Kevin,
> 
> The question I have for you is why should it be unrealistic for Utahans to expect that our state could carry 400K mule deer when only a decade and a half ago the DWR estimates of Utah's mule deer herd were at 800K.


Maybe you meant something other than what you wrote but a decade and a half ago (15 years ago) estimated mule deer populations were roughly the same as they are now. In 1997 the DWR estimated we had about 280k mule deer in Utah. We haven't had 800k deer in Utah for a VERY long time, if ever.

In 1992, before the last big winter die off the division estimated we had a little less than 350k. From that perspective 400k looks like a lot bigger number.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Just because you subscribe to the biologists rhetoric and consider it gospel. Doesn't make you any taller then any one else. You horse is doing that for you.


You miss my point, Amigo. A very wise man recently said that pride is about WHO is right while humility is about WHAT is right.

My point is that responsibility in this matter demands some humility. I'm not taller than anybody. Just want to see some **** evidence. Otherwise, we may as well just get in a circle, light some candles, burn some incense, kill a chicken and pray to the voodoo gods to help us out here.

I've been reading the "other forum" a bit and hell all Friday...are we really this looney-tunes? This "double the population" thing is only one example. Here's a few more that seem to be "subscribed" to:

1. A deer's genetics improve with age. WTF?

2. The buck's genetics determine antler size. Really? That's news to the entire scientific community. Me, I always thought there was a doe involved in reproduction.

3. "Forkies" are doing all the breeding and as a result, their offspring are retarded. ?????

4. Hunting is the cause for declines in population. Straight out of the anti's handbook and apparently, they were right all along? Bull****.

5. It's the DWR's fault...

6. Hunters can and will kill enough coyotes to make a difference. Good gawd all Friday, show me one example, anywhere in the world, where hunters with rifles have had ANY lasting effect on coyote populations.

7. There's plenty of habitat and carrying capacity because the humans say so. (Nobody asked the deer.)

8. Utah hasn't really changed in the past 2 decades. :shock:

9. It's SFW's fault. ****...talk about hubris. SFW is a fart in the wind as far as deer population goes.

10. My favorite - "I'm an outfitter/guide, so I know better than anybody."


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> 3. "Forkies" are doing all the breeding and as a result, their offspring are retarded. ?????


I thought this was a human problem/epidemic these days.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Finnegan said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you subscribe to the biologists rhetoric and consider it gospel. Doesn't make you any taller then any one else. You horse is doing that for you.
> ...


Those are just Letterman's top 10. We don't have time or room for the other 90!


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > shaun larsen said:
> ...


that hasnt been my experience..... and what does it matter to you any ways. i thought you were a die hard bow hunter?

i believe, and correct me if im wrong, that every year there are left over tags in the northern or north eastern unit (i cant remember which one for sure). i know theres "trophy" bucks living in those units. they arent behind every tree, but ive seen them. with a little effort and a good spot that a person has taken the time to learn/scout, they can kill nice deer every year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I've been reading the "other forum" a bit and hell all Friday...are we really this looney-tunes?


 Thanks a lot! Because of you I clicked on there, and now I am depressed. I could only read through a couple of threads. Looney-tunes would be a MAJOR step from the nonsense being spewed over there. :O>>:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> that hasnt been my experience..... and what does it matter to you any ways. i thought you were a die hard bow hunter?
> 
> i believe, and correct me if im wrong, that every year there are left over tags in the northern or north eastern unit (i cant remember which one for sure). i know theres "trophy" bucks living in those units. they arent behind every tree, but ive seen them. with a little effort and a good spot that a person has taken the time to learn/scout, they can kill nice deer every year.


obviously you didnt get the point of my thread. It went straight over your head.

lets break it down again

I said "If I could kill a four point every year with my rifle id toss the bow in the river." I say this because because you cannot draw a tag every year. Let alone hunt the quality of the bucks I want with a million rifle tags issued. Its a pipe dream but if I could I would. I dont want to hunt 140 class bucks im used to hunting 160"-200" bucks every year.

So yes I do choose to hunt with a bow because i like to hunt and have been able to hunt the quality im after every year. Thus the reason I try and push for shorter range weapons. The success rate is so low with a bow you could issue three times the tags as you can with a rifle and it wont effect the quality like a rifle will. If people want to hunt let them have a fall back bow tag. Make them draw a rifle tag. The quality will go up and you will still have opportunity to hunt. Its a win win.

Id love to put in for a rifle tag and if I didnt draw a tag still be able to pick up a bow and hunt quality bucks.

SFW's plan is to do our deer like our elk. OIL tags or years between drawing. This is the problem with managing the majority of the tags with a rifle. The other problem is you get dumb azz deer that anyone can kill despite what weapon they choose because no one hunts truley hunts them until they have 22-24" rack or better on their head. Proof is any Le unit in this state.

Now if you think I have a problem finding deer or big bucks in any region in this state then you are severely mistaken!


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> Now if you think I have a problem finding deer or big bucks in any region in this state then you are severely mistaken!


which is why you call yourself "swbuckmaster"... :roll:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Now if you think I have a problem finding deer or big bucks in any region in this state then you are severely mistaken!
> ...


No
The reason I got that screen name was because about 10 years ago a friend set up my first computer. I told him I wanted to be hooked up to the internet and monster mules was the first site he went to. He asked me what I wanted to be called. I said I didn't care. Buckmaster show was playing in the background. Sw are my initials to first and last name. So that is the name he picked for me.

Im sure it has nothing to do with me killing bucks.

Maybe I take your eye rolling and smerky comments different then if someone else does it to me but its because of your comments about my daughters turkey hunt that makes it more personal to me. I have never said anything on these forums in a negative way to you with your screen name or your kill em all screen name.

Believe me I say we can talk about this in person!


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

SW,
Your theory of opportunity sounds logical; however, it equates "success" with a filled tag. It doesn't consider those that get hit and die without a tag. I would be really curious to find out from the surveys that are gathered how many deer are hit in addition to tagged. I've tried to get the information from the Division but they wouldn't give it up. (Maybe its for the best as anti hunters would freak.)

Memory serving, Archery "success" rates are around 15% across the board. Rifle success rates are about 25%. I wouldn't be surprised if archery equals or exceeds rifle on total hits. I just can't accept that archery is the answer without seeing some credible wound and waste rates.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

provider said:


> SW,
> Your theory of opportunity sounds logical; however, it equates "success" with a filled tag. It doesn't consider those that get hit and die without a tag. I would be really curious to find out from the surveys that are gathered how many deer are hit in addition to tagged. I've tried to get the information from the Division but they wouldn't give it up. (Maybe its for the best as anti hunters would freak.)
> 
> Memory serving, Archery "success" rates are around 15% across the board. Rifle success rates are about 25%. I wouldn't be surprised if archery equals or exceeds rifle on total hits. I just can't accept that archery is the answer without seeing some credible wound and waste rates.


I think more primitive weapon tags is a key to the future of hunting OPPORTUNITY, that is where SW and I agree  ! I bet wounding rates would be about the same or less for archery. C'mon think about how many times you've seen a person with a rifle "lob" a shot at a deer and just say "Dang I missed" without hiking the 300-500 yards to check? Most of those guys wouldn't report that as a hit because they never checked. With archery you are so much closer so you can see the hit/miss much better and walking the 50 yards or less isn't too far for a lazy hunter to check for blood.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

The key to the future of hunting opportunity is to build a strong herd and quit the finger pointing. Time is better spent discussing the things that will actual benefit the deer, rather than urinating in each others cheerios.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> The key to the future of hunting opportunity is to build a strong herd and quit the finger pointing. Time is better spent discussing the things that will actual benefit the deer, rather than urinating in each others cheerios.


I don't like cheerios. I do love Crispix!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > The key to the future of hunting opportunity is to build a strong herd and quit the finger pointing. Time is better spent discussing the things that will actual benefit the deer, rather than urinating in each others cheerios.
> ...


That okay, it will taste the same.............


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

provider said:


> SW,
> Your theory of opportunity sounds logical; however, it equates "success" with a filled tag. It doesn't consider those that get hit and die without a tag. I would be really curious to find out from the surveys that are gathered how many deer are hit in addition to tagged. I've tried to get the information from the Division but they wouldn't give it up. (Maybe its for the best as anti hunters would freak.)
> 
> Memory serving, Archery "success" rates are around 15% across the board. Rifle success rates are about 25%. I wouldn't be surprised if archery equals or exceeds rifle on total hits. I just can't accept that archery is the answer without seeing some credible wound and waste rates.


Provider, you bring up a good point and for the record, I believe there are many misconceptions about archery out there. For instance, I was having a discussion with some hunters out on the Books rifle hunt this year (my bro-in-law drew a tag) who said they watched 3 different hunters shoot bucks opening morning, walked up to the buck they shot, and walked away never to return. I asked why they didn't follow them and get plates or something else on them to turn them in; they stated they initially thought they would come back, but in the end they never did. I also talked to other hunters who said the shot at and "missed" bucks at 300+ yards, but when asked if they checked if they may have hit the animal admitted they never followed up on the shot and could not be sure.

That is the distinction between archery and rifle. An archer almost always knows when they hit an animal; because they are either well within distance of the animal to determine shot placement, or they almost guaranteed to follow up on the shot because each arrow they shoot averages about $25 an arrow (about the same price as an entire box of rifle shells).

Those same hunters who spoke to me about the hunters that shot and walked away from bucks out on the Books made some outrageous claims about archers. They told me they had been told that for every 1 deer harvested, 5 are wounded and die on the archery hunt. They claimed they heard this outrageous rumor from a CO on the San Juan and that archers were to blame for the decline of deer on that unit. I personally am an archer along with at least 13 close friends and family of mine, and in the last 20 years I can count a total of 4 lost animals that were wounded and never recovered and a total of 21 that were harvested and tagged. I will admit one of the lost was mine, which was shot right at dark and a rain storm pounded us that night and I couldn't find any trace the next morning except for my arrow that still had traces of blood. Believe me, when a hunter, archer or rifle or muzzy, wounds an animal and cannot find it, it makes you sick (or should). The problem is, archers are usually the only ones who know if they shot and wounded an animal because they are typically the only ones who follow up on their shots.

Provider, I have one question for you. How many rifle hunters do you know that take a shot at an animal 300+ yards, it does not drop and yet still follows up on the shot to determine if they hit it or not?

For the record, I do rifle hunt on occasion and am not anti-rifle by any means. I love to bow hunt because of weather, up close and personal encounters, less pressure, more opportunity, and if you harvest early, there is great fishing for the rest of your vacation days&#8230;


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

provider said:


> I would be really curious to find out from the surveys that are gathered how many deer are hit in addition to tagged. I've tried to get the information from the Division but they wouldn't give it up. (Maybe its for the best as anti hunters would freak.)


Fact is, anti-hunters have already gone after bowhunters many times in a bunch of states and used grossly inflated wounding rates pulled out of their butts in their attempts to outlaw bowhunting. (Anti-hunters tend to do that sort of thing.) One such campaign in Arizona was a contributing factor to Utah's Prop 5.

If it makes any difference, I researched the wounding issue and published an article on the subject a couple years ago. Worst Utah numbers I could find indicated that archers wound 3.8% on the general archery deer and elk hunts. The numbers are significantly higher on LE hunts: 14.5% on the LE elk and 19.2% on the LE deer.

Here's the full article with tables for all weapons if you're interested:

http://bowhuntersofutah.net/index.php/a ... -side.html


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> provider said:
> 
> 
> > I would be really curious to find out from the surveys that are gathered how many deer are hit in addition to tagged. I've tried to get the information from the Division but they wouldn't give it up. (Maybe its for the best as anti hunters would freak.)
> ...


Great article Finn, thanks!!! While the percentage of wound rate is higher in archery, it makes you wonder if it is because archers are most likey to follow-up on their shot as stated in the article and own up to it... :shock:


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

While I actually agree with SW as far as bowhunting providing more opportunity, I see one fundamental problem. There are many.....maybe even a majority of the masses that want to rifle hunt only. To be honest, I'm one of them. I used to bowhunt and killed several bucks with a bow, but I don't have the interest anymore. By human nature, we will not support things that don't benefit us. So, take all those who don't want to bowhunt out of the equation, and the bowhunters might just be outnumbered by the anti's and then noone hunts. As much as we all hate the hundreds of orange "pumpkins" during the rifle hunt, these are the folks who ensure that we get to hunt. And most of them do so only for the opportunity to hike around in orange one or two days a year while killing a deer a couple of times in their lifetime. Statistically, the same people kill the majority of the deer every year. Those people better be thankful for the masses that protect and fund hunting for all of us. In my opinion, bowhunters do not have enough numbers to continue to be a political force on their own. My ultimate point is that if we are smart, we will recognize our common plight and stick together. Forcing everyone to hunt with a bow is not a viable solution in my opinon, tag allocation must strike a balance between sound management and the demand of the consumers. Realistically, more of those consumers are rifle hunters. Just my thoughts.------SS


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Go back east and try and pitch people don't want to hunt with a bow or short range weapon. Only in Utah is this nonsense preached.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

swbuckmaster said:


> Go back east and try and pitch people don't want to hunt with a bow or short range weapon. Only in Utah is this nonsense preached.


I understand where you are coming from SW, I do. And I also applaud and appreciate your willingness to get involved, to front the ideas you believe in. I respect that and always will; too many hunters sit back in the world of apathy, only to stand up and scream when things have already gone awry.

In this instance, I believe SS have a very valid point. I too am a rifle hunter, though I also carried a bow in my early years, which I still remember fondly. Comparing hunting whitetail back east to hunting mulies here in the west isn't a valid point to make. They hunt with short range weapons there out of necessity for the most part; they simply don't have the vast lands we do here. And using "Utah" as the "only" place for many of these arguments, including the decline of mule deer, is very exclusionary at the least. The problems and issues we face here in Utah are virtually the same throughout the west.

Too many of us are missing the point. We continue to focus on "hunters" and what it takes to manage "hunters" to keep opportunity and deer numbers in line. Until we focus on the true cause of mule deer sustainability, we will continue the infighting and nothing substantial will be gained.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Sorry SW, your comparison to back east is absurd. There, they have a problem with too many deer. Several tags can be bought over the counter and the deer are a DIFFERENT SPECIES that is much more adaptable to habitat changes and urban interface. I still say that management must make sense biologically first, then needs to satisfy demand second. Like it or not, rifle hunters carry alot of demand in this state. In my opinion, bowhunters have great opportunity here in comparison to their fiscal contributions. I think that our Wasatch Late hunt is a showcase opportunity for bowhunters, and I am glad that our bowhunters have it, yet I still hear those who enjoy this opportunity complaining about a bunch of rifle hunters who live with considerably less opportunity while representing the overwhelming majority. By your logic we should only allow motorcycles to drive on I-15 to help solve the traffic congestion problems. 
It's hard to do, but try to look beyond your own benefit for the common good. I don't bowhunt or muzzleloader hunt, but I fully support both these groups as fellow sportsmen and wouldn't want to see them lose any opportunity to do what they enjoy.---------SS


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I guess the part I hate most about Utah is how politics gets in the way of management. You could come up with a win win for trophy vs opportunity with equal tag allotments and some how its a no deal because it offends someone.

How about we just dump the dedicated hunter program and make everyone draw a tag. If you draw the tag you can hunt all three weapons. If your unskilled and don't want to hunt with a bow you voluntarily restrict yourself to a 10 day season but if you are flexible you give yourself a 10 day archery, muzzy hunt and rifle hunt. For a total of 30 days to get'er done.

This should quit the political infighting between bow hunter vs rifle hunter. 

I hope you can see by my post im not a greedy self serving bow hunter like a lot of die hard rifle hunters would accuse me of. I don't care what I kill a deer with in the end. Its dead and on my wall. I just want to hunt! I do know without a doubt managing our deer for rifle mentality will end up just like our elk. OIL and that's what i'm afraid of. You can only kill a percentage of what bucks are available and thats it. This means lower tag numbers and longer waiting if managed mostly with rifles. Again our le elk is proof of this.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> In my opinion, bowhunters have great opportunity here in comparison to their fiscal contributions.


Does this mean only rifle hunters are dedicated hunters. How are rifle hunters more fiscal contributers?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> It's hard to do, but try to look beyond your own benefit for the common good. I don't bowhunt or muzzleloader hunt, but I fully support both these groups as fellow sportsmen and wouldn't want to see them lose any opportunity to do what they enjoy.---------SS


How is what im saying going against the common good of all hunters. It allows more tags. This helps the opportunist. It allows more bucks to mature which helps the trophy hunters. It makes the season lengths equal for all hunters. It makes the pressure spread out equally in all weapons. It also allows everyone an equal chance at drawing a rifle tag for their first choice. In my system you don't loose preference points for drawing your second or third choice tag. So if you don't draw your rifle tag you have a high chance for picking up a lesser weapon tag and still being able to hunt. Im my system you could even reward a person an extra preference point if the don't pick up a lesser weapon thus allowing them a better chance in next years draw.

I guess im having a hard time seeing how im not looking past my own benefit for the common good.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I see alot of your points SW. Your last post does alot more to explain some of your ideas, and I like alot of them. I absolutely agree that areas that can take a great deal of archery pressure should be taken advantage of to create more tags and thus more overall opportunity. I just don't want to see rifle and muzzleloader opportunity turned into archery only opportunity. I grew up hunting where you could hunt all three seasons with a general tag and that was great, I just don't know if our resources can withstand that kind of pressure in most of the management zones in Utah. I do think that there are some zones that can take extreme amounts of pressure due to the topography and those zones need to be managed for opportunity. I think that we can agree that archery is a great tool for management and that there are lots of folks who will convert over to chase better opportunity. Hopefully prudence can prevail and we can find a medium where all compromise a little and all benefit a little while we strive to maintain some kind of sustatinability in the herds. Last note is that all disagreements on my part are stated with the upmost respect. The fact is that these are pivitol times for hunters and unfortunately there are no easy solutions. I respect anyone who is willing to put forth ideas to be considered.-------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Springville Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, bowhunters have great opportunity here in comparison to their fiscal contributions.
> ...


No, it only means that rifle hunters, by their numbers only, represent the market majority and thus must be considered accordingly when management decisions are made. Nothing at all to do with dedication, only numbers of individuals who spend money.

Whether we like it or not, hunting and game are a market. That's why the DWR places monetary value on trophy animals that are poached. Money rules the world, and hunting/game management is no exception. It's not pretty, but it is simple economics.----SS


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks for the explanations


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> No, it only means that rifle hunters, by their numbers only, represent the market majority and thus must be considered accordingly when management decisions are made. Nothing at all to do with dedication, only numbers of individuals who spend money.
> 
> Whether we like it or not, hunting and game are a market. That's why the DWR places monetary value on trophy animals that are poached. Money rules the world, and hunting/game management is no exception. It's not pretty, but it is simple economics.----SS


Ah, but it isn't that simple of economics. When policies are set up to steer the majority of potential consumers to a certain product/service, it isn't accurate to then conclude that is what the majority wants. I guess we could argue the chicken vs the egg on this, but all I am saying is it isn't the simple cut and dried economics you imply, IMHO.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Springville Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > No, it only means that rifle hunters, by their numbers only, represent the market majority and thus must be considered accordingly when management decisions are made. Nothing at all to do with dedication, only numbers of individuals who spend money.
> ...


It reminds me of the fashion industry where we are told by the designers on TV what "everyone" is wearing this season, and lo & behold, "everyone" goes out and buys the stuff that is now in season. And next season it happens again! That's at least 4 new outfits ($$$$) per year!

The latest mule deer fashions are 30 hunter management units, unit by unit archery hunts because state-wide is "unfair", raise the buck to doe ratio, cut 13,000 tags and reduce the revenue needed to manage mule deer.

Next season? Kill all the coyotes, eliminate ALL doe hunts and transplant them instead, shorten the "unfair" archery hunt, cut more tags, and raise the prices of licenses and tags and shift revenue from other programs to make up for the lost revenue.

The following season? Create smaller (and more) units, eliminate extended archery hunts, increase the number of big money conservation tags. And, of course, cut more tags.

That's what "everybody" wants, isn't it? :O•-:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

As the winters deer classifications are rolling in, along with herd estimates and fawn counts,
There are quite a few units that will be trending in the wrong direction badly...So I hear.

Several units dangerously low buck to doe counts this winter,,,,Others with fawn counts still trending downward.....The "Reality Check" here is YES, there will be tag cuts....

AND just a heads up, I've even heard talk of closing units if things don't improve with the cuts.

Some of you may be to young to remember ,,,,
BUT, at one time the Book cliffs, Henry's,San Juan, Veron
and the Paunsy were all general season units, Over hunted and had to be CLOSED....
Then reopened to LE and what they are today, Very good deer units.....

This is most likely the true reality check of were everything with Utah's deer are heading.....
And for the record, I wish it wasn't, I wish we had deer herds to support unlimited tags!

BUT WE DONT.........and that's the reality of the matter.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> As the winters deer classifications are rolling in, along with herd estimates and fawn counts,
> There are quite a few units that will be trending in the wrong direction badly...So I hear.
> 
> Several units dangerously low buck to doe counts this winter,,,,Others with fawn counts still trending downward.....The "Reality Check" here is YES, there will be tag cuts....
> ...


I fixed it for you! What you're suggesting is that all the units are better if they are Limited Entry. Isn't that the ultimate goal of Option #2? And if you wish we had deer herds to support unlimited tags, why in the world do you support Option #2 when we were told time and time again by professional biologists and by studies from this and other states that it would/will not grow the herds?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

EFA, I've seen this whole scenario happen before,, I hunted the Book cliffs,The Henry's,
Vernon when they WERE general season,,,Watched them totally shot out and destroyed..

Now seeing the exact same thing is happening on the South Slope, Nebo, Pahvant, Monroe......

The beauty of OPT2 is now there will be focus of hunter management on these units so they can be fixed...............If that means making them LE, I'm fine with that....
The 'Reality check' here is, those struggling units CAN NOT continue the road they are on...PERIOD.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> EFA, I've seen this whole scenario happen before,, I hunted the Book cliffs,The Henry's,
> Vernon when they WERE general season,,,Watched them totally shot out and destroyed..
> 
> Now seeing the exact same thing is happening on the South Slope, Nebo, Pahvant, Monroe......
> ...


Goofy I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You think making them limited entry and increasing the buck to doe ratio that will fix them? That is what hunter management does right? If so please explain the very low and declining fawn to die ratios on said LE units.

Just want to make sure I understand your point.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hmm, I'm just having a really hard time buying the buck to doe ratio being conducive to more deer. I would tend to characterize it as... mmmm.... bull ****.

Example you say? Well, ok, if you twist my arm.

San Juan Elk Ridge:

3 year buck to doe average: 38/100

3 year fawn to doe average: 34/100 **This means the population is trending down. Hard and fast, but there are relatively high number of bucks.

There other examples that are similar. This is recent data. So what is it you are referring to?

Oh, the flip side?

West desert

3 year buck to doe average: 9/100

3 year fawn to doe average: 70/100 **This means the population is increasing at a fairly good rate, but there are about 1/4 of the relative number of bucks that there are on Elk Ridge.

Obviously these are the two extremes, but if you look at the 2011 deer survival and classification reports, you will see similar examples throughout.

Under the 18-25/100 buck to doe ratio scenario, that hopefully will go by the wayside in a few months for a more comprehensive approach, we will see all but 13 of the new units go to limited entry status. Does that alarm anyone?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I personally believe the lower fawn survival rates on San Juan and other LE
units are more to do with the large number of coyotes on them,, NOT buck deer...

And yes only 13 general units are now above the minimum 18/100.....
Tree, I'm guessing you have had a look at the 2012 B/D numbers as well?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One thing that hasn't been brought up but the Books, Henry's, Vernon, and Elk Ridge had real high buck to doe ratios before the state opened them up to a any buck on the general hunt. Before that they were 4 pt or better and then 3 pt or better. It only took 3 or 4 years to shoot off the vast majority of bucks and the deer herd suffered to where they shut these units down. Now in those years the number of does and fawn in those units suffered also and went from where you could see a couple hundred does and fawns a day down to where you were lucky to see any. During those years I was hunting the Books and watched it go from a fantastic unit and better than it is today to where you were lucky to see a few deer during the hunt. I also talked to hunters that had always hunted the Henry's and they reported the same thing. The first year that the state opened it up to any buck there were more hunters in the area than deer. I do know that in the Books that that year there were more hunters on wheelers than you could count and each and every one of them had a buck deer when they headed back to camp, then the next year it was bad and the year after that it was worse. The last year that the Books was open to any buck and the general season I saw a total of 0 bucks and very few does where once there were plenty and that was in 95. 

The sad thing now is that the whole state is in the same circumstance as those units were in 17 years ago and something needs to be done. I just wished that some on here could of seen the deer that were in those areas back in the early 90's then perhaps you might have a different view of what needs to be done.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Exactly my point Critter, I saw it happen as well...

The same thing is now happening on a number of general units the past 5 years.
The shortened season hunts trying to help them was a DISASTOR!

Regional deer management simply will NOT work on individual units....

We are now just one bad winter away from having to close some units!!

I just glad to see we are FINALLY headed in a positive direction! IMHO.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I personally believe the lower fawn survival rates on San Juan and other LE
> units are more to do with the large number of coyotes on them,, NOT buck deer...
> 
> And yes only 13 general units are now above the minimum 18/100.....
> Tree, I'm guessing you have had a look at the 2012 B/D numbers as well?


Yes, I received the numbers. We'll see how it shakes out in the months to come.

Also, I don't think the shortened season was a "DISASTOR" as you so eloquently put it, but it didn't do anything but pacify a bunch of loud voices from down south.

Yes, if units are below 15/100, cut those tags!!!! Otherwise, there's no reason to do anything unless we are trying to cut hunters and grow a few bigger antlered deer.

What about this?

SUMMARY
Coyote Removal
1. Neonatal fawn survival increased after coyote removal.
Effectiveness of removal was dependent on the abundance
of primary prey (lagomorphs) for coyotes because coyotes
appeared to switch to mule deer fawns at low lagomorph
densities.
2. Winter fawn survival and adult survival did not increase
following coyote removal.
3. The effect of coyote removal on population growth rate was
undetectable.
Mountain Lion Removal
1. Mountain lion removal increased winter fawn survival.
2. Adult female mule deer survival increased with mountain lion
removal, up to 5.5% annually at maximum removal rates.
3. Fawn-to-adult female ratios increased with mountain lion
removal. We predicted a 6% increase at average removal
and up to 27% at maximum mountain lion removal.
4. Mountain lion removal had a minimal, positive effect on mule
deer population growth rates.
Factors Affecting Mule Deer Vital Rates
1. Pregnancy rates of adult females were high (91-98%).
2. Fawn-at-heel ratios in June were high (1.62-1.81) in normal
climate years.
3. Disease was not a factor in mule deer survival.
4. Age was an important factor in adult mortality.
5. Climate was the most important factor explaining survival of
fawns in winter, adult females in summer, fawn ratios, and
population growth rate.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> The sad thing now is that the whole state is in the same circumstance as those units were in 17 years ago and something needs to be done. I just wished that some on here could of seen the deer that were in those areas back in the early 90's then perhaps you might have a different view of what needs to be done.


So are we certain that there weren't too many deer for the range to support back then, resulting in a crash? Just a question, not an opinion.


----------



## fishbate (Jan 18, 2008)

Goofy or Tree - Is there a link to these numbers being referenced? Or a document that can be shared?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Email me and I'll shoot it to you. If anyone else wants it, do the same.

[email protected]


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's an interesting study.

http://www.cfc.umt.edu/HebLab/PDFS/WM_H ... _small.pdf


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've seen that as well to Tree,,
Basically they (DWR) are saying the studies indicate coyotes AND lions are not 
affecting deer herd numbers..........

They are saying "climate" was killing fawns in winter, adult females in the summer,
and the over all population rate................BLAMING GLOBLE WARMING!!!????
Am I reading this summary correct?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Is it not conducive to who you would like to blame? 

"Men willingly believe what they wish to be true. "

-Damon Stone


----------



## fishbate (Jan 18, 2008)

Since everyone is in the reading mood, here is another study out of Colorado referencing the Oak Creek unit in Utah with theories as to why the deer herd is declining in CO and the west. -- http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

Same conclusion on this study as many out there on the deer issue, quoting the fore mentioned study: "Several complex factors acting in combination probably contribute to declining mule deer
numbers."


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Is it not conducive to who you would like to blame?
> 
> "Men willingly believe what they wish to be true. "
> 
> -Damon Stone


Nope TREE, its like this,,,,,Climates do kill wildlife,,,SO DO predators.

WE CAN do something to control predators, BUT we are at the mercy of the climate.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> SUMMARY
> Coyote Removal
> 1. Neonatal fawn survival increased after coyote removal.
> Effectiveness of removal was dependent on the abundance
> ...


Odd, predators are not in the top five, but this is where SFW wants the primary focus to be.......why is that? That, coupled with focusing on the male segment of the deer population makes sense how? #1 and #2 indicate the number of bucks in the herd are NOT a primary limiting factor. How can any sane/honest person deny this? Help me out, goofy/critter/muley73.......


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Is it not conducive to who you would like to blame?
> ...


Fair enough, but at one point is it caustic to our cause and the environment we enjoy to manipulate things to our benefit? Would you support the use of 1080, M77s and Cyanide to reduce predator numbers?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Is it not conducive to who you would like to blame?
> ...


Sorry, but you are not being accurate with your assertions. For one, if there is NO conclusive evidence that 'controlling' predators will result in higher deer populations, isn't it a waste of resources, time/money, to focus on this? Secondly, there are things that can be done to help assist deer survive during harsh weather conditions, such as; improved habitat, healthy herds going into harsh weather periods, more stored water options, etc.. Since humans fall into the predator realm, limiting hunters is inane. And, to conclude BUCK hunters were the primary cause of the decline in deer numbers on the existing LE units is a serious omission of many factors. If one comes to the conclusion BUCK hunters caused the demise of deer on the Book Cliffs, then the herd should be at/above deer numbers before the BUCK hunters 'shot them all out'...... yes? Unless 1 + 1 is no longer 2................


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> The beauty of OPT2 is now there will be focus of hunter management on these units so they can be fixed...


Magical thinking at its finest. :lol:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > The beauty of OPT2 is now there will be focus of hunter management on these units so they can be fixed...
> ...


Well Finn, I guess in a few years we'll see..wont we.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> The sad thing now is that the whole state is in the same circumstance as those units were in 17 years ago and something needs to be done. I just wished that some on here could of seen the deer that were in those areas back in the early 90's then perhaps you might have a different view of what needs to be done.


Nope. I saw, and I still see. "The whole state" isn't in the same circumstance as those units were 17 years ago. Sorry, but it just isn't so. Like it or not, some units are doing well. 14 general units currently have buck/doe ratios of 18 or higher...pretty **** good if you consider the objective was 15 and especially if you consider the realities deer have had to contend with.

But nothing is the same - not the deer, not the land and certainly not the hunters.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > The sad thing now is that the whole state is in the same circumstance as those units were in 17 years ago and something needs to be done. I just wished that some on here could of seen the deer that were in those areas back in the early 90's then perhaps you might have a different view of what needs to be done.
> ...


In my opinion the range was supporting the deer herd at that time quite well and it had been for quite a few years. The one die off that I know about that affected the Books was back in the 60's during the winter. I'm not sure of the year but from what I heard the number of deer skeletons toward HWY 40 was enormous. But as I said about the 80's and early 90's there were deer every where until the DOW opened it completely up to any buck. It took about 3 years to decimate the herd with all the extra hunters that showed up just to shoot a buck.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I'll be honest-- I believe some units will see increased doe, fawn, and buck numbers under the new, blanket micro-buck-management. The problem is those units would have gone to a micro-buck-management situation under the OLD plan. Anyway, it is water under the bridge, as I do not see the appetite to repeal the new, micro-buck-management strategy. 

The negativity of the past few months on ALL these websites is taxing on one's outlook. All I know is I have a tag this year (DH) and hope my son will have one too. We will hunt, pass on yearlings, semi-mature, and mature bucks- just like every year. He might shoot one and he might not. At any rate, we will put boots on the ground and enjoy the Fall. It will just be without Grandpa, uncles, and cousins (they hunt a different unit in our region). I am willing to give it all up if it would actually help the animal I enjoy hunting. 

I knew this issue would divide hunters, but the divisive rhetoric has superseded what I had imagined. Having educated men swearing at me and my wife during a RAC meeting, calling names on the internet, outrageous claims made, being called selfish by our new "Board" chair, masses of hunters vilifying each other, etc... It is a sad state for Utah deer and a worse one for Utah hunters....


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Here's an interesting study.
> 
> http://www.cfc.umt.edu/HebLab/PDFS/WM_H ... _small.pdf


And http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/muledeer.pdf (pages 26-28)

And http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/anim ... a/all.html (page 8


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Critter said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Critter said:
> ...


The bad winter of 92 did that. We lost 100,000 deer that year, from 340,000 to 240,000 and the colder weather in the Basin, the Books and the Northern Region took more than their share. And the bad winter not only took the deer, but it took some of the vegetation and other wildlife as well.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> The bad winter of 92 did that. We lost 100,000 deer that year, from 340,000 to 240,000 and the colder weather in the Basin, the Books and the Northern Region took more than their share. And the bad winter not only took the deer, but it took some of the vegetation and other wildlife as well.


It is interesting in that it was right around 91 or 92 that they opened it up to any buck. It could of been a couple of years earlier. I know that the die off that I was talking about was in the 60's and I heard it from hunters that went out there rabbit hunting. They filled the back of their trucks with antlers and skulls that they picked up off of the ground.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The study may declare an increase of 5.5% in adult doe survival rate per yr and an increase of 6% to 27% in fawn to doe ratio's as minimal. (I'd take those kind of returns on my money) 

Over time when you consider exponential growth those rates strike me as rather reasonable long term. And considering a properly run predator control program that utilized basically paying volunteer skill and labor. It would come with no cost to the DWR or the tax payer and ultimately be a financial windfall for the DWR. It's a no brain'er if the DWR's true intentions were to promote more deer and more hunting. Hands down best bang for the buck.

I'd like to see a study on how habitat restoration and good weather increased a deer herd. Even minimally. :mrgreen:


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> I knew this issue would divide hunters, but the divisive rhetoric has superseded what I had imagined. Having educated men swearing at me and my wife during a RAC meeting, calling names on the internet, outrageous claims made, being called selfish by our new "Board" chair, masses of hunters vilifying each other, etc... It is a sad state for Utah deer and a worse one for Utah hunters....


I agree. That was my motivation for starting this thread. Seems to me that if there's any way to regain focus and come to consensus, we need to follow some basic guidelines. If we have to fight, at least we can have some ground rules.

1. Base opinions on evidence..."Sister #7: The right information helps us make good decisions and become better stewards of wildlife."

2. Grow deer first... Hunt to manage rather than manage to hunt.

Aren't these things the least we should do if we believe in conservation?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> > I knew this issue would divide hunters, but the divisive rhetoric has superseded what I had imagined. Having educated men swearing at me and my wife during a RAC meeting, calling names on the internet, outrageous claims made, being called selfish by our new "Board" chair, masses of hunters vilifying each other, etc... It is a sad state for Utah deer and a worse one for Utah hunters....
> ...


**** straight!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Some of you may be to young to remember ,,,,
> BUT, at one time the Book cliffs, Henry's,San Juan, Veron
> and the Paunsy were all general season units, Over hunted and had to be CLOSED....
> Then reopened to LE and what they are today, Very good deer units.....
> ...


Hold on.....I want to make sure I understand your line of thinking. Ok, I get it we have units now and units in the past that have had low buck to doe ratios and we need to react. I get that and understand that but are you saying the answer is to limit tags to the point that it take many many years to draw and when a unit recovers from a buck to doe prespective that we never restore the tags to healthy levels?

To me this line of thinking is JUST as flawed as saying we should issue unlimited tags. We need to address the problems on some general units as far as buck to doe ratios go by way of cutting tags but trying to make them a one of the units you listed above will mean one day less than 4,000 people will get to hunt deer annually in Utah as each unit eventually has a problem and becomes LE, never to return to general unit status and that is akin to making the deer hunt all but extinct in this state. That is a horrible way to go!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> The study may declare an increase of 5.5% in adult doe survival rate per yr and an increase of 6% to 27% in fawn to doe ratio's as minimal. (I'd take those kind of returns on my money)
> 
> Over time when you consider exponential growth those rates strike me as rather reasonable long term. And considering a properly run predator control program that utilized basically paying volunteer skill and labor. It would come with no cost to the DWR or the tax payer and ultimately be a financial windfall for the DWR. It's a no brain'er if the DWR's true intentions were to promote more deer and more hunting. Hands down best bang for the buck.
> 
> I'd like to see a study on how habitat restoration and good weather increased a deer herd. Even minimally. :mrgreen:


Are we keeping score of the number of studies needed to prove our point or to disprove other views? I'd be willing to go one on one with you if the loser concedes the point. I'll start:

www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/muledeer.pdf (pages 17-20, especially note the charts.)

The weather factor is easier to show because the effects are
immediate, but the habitat improvements don't show results for years. It's also much harder to link habitat improvements with population growth because the weather changes during that time and the weather and the habitat are so closely associated that it's harder to pinpoint the independent cause of those results. However, my offer still goes! Your turn!

FWIW: Paying volunteers is an oxymoron. And if we're paying them and managing a properly run predator control program, where's that money coming from?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

A DH is a paying volunteer. He pays to belong to a program so he can volunteer or donate his time for exchange he gets more hunting opportunity at little to no cost to the DWR. 

I'm no study hound. I wont go there.

So what you are saying about habitat restoration is that you must have faith and good luck in order for it to work sometimes. Even though you may not see the improvement its still there. Sorry I need concrete to build my foundations.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/muledeer.pdf (pages 17-20, especially note the charts.)


Excellent link. Thanks for posting! I truly hope every concerned sportsman will take the time to read the study.


----------

