# Bigger changes must be made (General Deer season)



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

After watching the full on slaughter fest the last 5 days with 4 to go, I just didn't notice much of a different with the new unit by unit way of doing things. Tag numbers are still to high, and a 9 day rifle hunt is just too much time with so many tags. After all that I've seen killed with 4 days left there will be plenty more killed especially on Saturday and Sunday. So what changes need to be made to really improve the amount and quality of bucks that we see and harvest? Here's what I think we do great. 

-Leave the current units being managed as limited-entry, limited-entry
-Manage some general units (7 or 8 units across the state, that may be struggling with buck numbers) with the same amount of tags or slightly more, but make them 4 point or better units to get more bucks and bigger bucks but still keeping them as general units with the same opportunity. Antler restrictions will work, but people have to obey the law and maybe somewhere down the line every 5 years you'll need a management hunt to get rid of some of the big 2 and 3 points that won't grow any more points.
-Manage the other general units across the state with same amount of tags as now or slightly less, but allow any buck with antlers over 5 inches to be taken, which helps manage these units for what they currently have with smaller and medium sized bucks. 
-Only allow youth and dedicated hunters to hunt 1 season, not all 3.
-Keep a 30 day bow season, 9 day muzzleloader season, but YOU HAVE TO CUT THE RIFLE HUNT TO A 5 DAY SEASON on all general units.


I feel that by managing certain general units for big bucks and certain ones for small bucks while still keeping them general units, will help people who want to see bigger bucks a place to go, and people who want to see any bucks a place to go.

Either way the rifle hunt needs to be shortened, and there either needs to be antler restrictions for some areas or much less tags, because harvest was as high if not higher than it always is, and it's time to watch the deer herd grow, and see bigger bucks. End of story.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I always thought a shorter rifle season equaled a higher harvest. With a longer seasons people pass on deer the first weekend hoping for something bigger, and more than a few go home empty handed. You shorten it like that 3 day nebo hunt a few years ago and opening weekend IS closing weekend and anything with antlers died right then and there.


-DallanC


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Right now while I type, I'm eating a steak off of the 2 point I shot this year ..... he's delicious!!! much tastier than the 4 point I shot a couple years ago. You can't eat antlers! the only rack that matters to me is a nice big set of, umm well I won't go there


----------



## M Gayler (Oct 3, 2010)

Oh of course keep a 30 archery season :roll:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm with utahgolf! I think the entire premise of this thread is bull crap!


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 
I think its been a great year, and I see a another good year coming as long as the winter isn't hard on the animals. Lots of new fawns, lots of young bucks, lot less people in many areas. I did see more on the muzzy hunt but I think that is because it has its own tags now rather than coming from the same pool. 

Option 2 has nothing to do with the deer numbers or what is being shot.

We had a good wet year than a mild winter. lots of new fawn recrutment and so on. As long as we don't have some hard winter it will keep getting better. (and we can kill dogs and get 50 bucks) don't know why you are complaining.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I always thought a shorter rifle season equaled a higher harvest. With a longer seasons people pass on deer the first weekend hoping for something bigger, and more than a few go home empty handed. You shorten it like that 3 day nebo hunt a few years ago and opening weekend IS closing weekend and anything with antlers died right then and there.


After a 3 day season last year on Monroe I saw many more medium sized bucks this year, they are all dead now and with the current weather conditions the next 4 days ought to put another big hit in the buck population as well.



utahgolf said:


> Right now while I type, I'm eating a steak off of the 2 point I shot this year ..... he's delicious!!! much tastier than the 4 point I shot a couple years ago. You can't eat antlers! the only rack that matters to me is a nice big set of, umm well I won't go there


Well that's why I'm saying lets have units for both kinds of people. Don't get me wrong I love deer meet, but I love just seeing deer more I don't need to kill every one I see to be happy. Let's have some units for people like me who want to shoot a buck with 4 or more points, keep the opportunity level on them, and also have many units where you can shoot 2 points and manage them for smaller bucks with the same opportunity. No you can't eat the rack, but for all of us I think, the bigger the horns the bigger the pounding in our heart gets when we see them and have a chance to harvest one.



M Gayler said:


> Oh of course keep a 30 archery season :roll:


Archers do their share as well, and with current bows I can see your point. A 15 day archery season seems like plenty to me, but few people would agree. I've killed 4 out of my last 5 deer with a bow and the only spike elk I've killed has been with a bow, it's not as hard as people make it out to be. I would be fine with a shorter archery season.



BirdDogger said:


> I'm with utahgolf! I think the entire premise of this thread is bull crap!


There are some people who want to see bucks that could be there if things were managed right. So lets have some units for both of us.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

You know 1 eye with all your chicken little, sky is falling threads I would ve surprised if there were any animals left on the Monroe at all. By my count in your threads there have been hundreds if not thousands of deer and elk slaughtered. Just like Goofy, there are no elk or deer. Entire herds wiped out. Come on, seriously though it's not that bad.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

All its gonna take is a nasty winter and nobody will have to worry about complaining again....enough said.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

DWR studied the 5 day rifle hunt and the numbers showed a higher kill rate than on the 9 day hunt, just as DallenC stated. And, I agree with utahgolf on which type of rack is "best". Even if I do NOT shoot 2 points. 
Alot of hunters want a meat deer, which is fine with me..........I do wait for a big deer. As Sly's old song says, "Different strokes for different folks".


----------



## wasatchsnowboarding (Dec 18, 2008)

utahgolf said:


> Right now while I type, I'm eating a steak off of the 2 point I shot this year ..... he's delicious!!! much tastier than the 4 point I shot a couple years ago. You can't eat antlers! the only rack that matters to me is a nice big set of, umm well I won't go there


Says the kid who rarely keeps fish so they will get bigger, haha


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

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

Just finished reading this today. My take away was healthy habitat, forage, and fawn to doe ratios. Oh yeah, bigger mature bucks are better contributors to the gene pool for healthy fawn to doe ratios and fawn survival ability.

Just read with an open mind - I know its not UT, but mule deer don't know the difference.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

wasatchsnowboarding said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > Right now while I type, I'm eating a steak off of the 2 point I shot this year ..... he's delicious!!! much tastier than the 4 point I shot a couple years ago. You can't eat antlers! the only rack that matters to me is a nice big set of, umm well I won't go there
> ...


I don't KEEP fish when they get big either. The bigger ones just make for better pullin while I make them late for somethin. But one eye, I understand why people wanna shoot bigger bucks. I just think there's some confusion regarding herd health and basing it upon how many big bucks you see. Habitat and mild winters... You see more ducks, when there's more water. You see more pheasants when there's more crops and cover etc...


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

utahgolf said:


> wasatchsnowboarding said:
> 
> 
> > utahgolf said:
> ...


Ducks migrate a long way way so they dont count and pheasants usually get killed by the house cat or skunks...not very popular predator to kill. Im with you on yearlings being the best eating but, wouldn't it be nice to have the option of a young deer or a somewhat mature deer?


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

ducks need habitat in key breeding areas, when its a low water year and habitat is lacking than we see poor duck numbers. Pheasants aren't basically extinct in utah just because of skunks and house cats. its habitat loss. not nearly as much farming or cover like there was. We have poor wintering grounds from cheat grass and human encroachment, increased competition in those wintering areas, and increased stress from humans activity. Combine that with a bad winter and it makes it tough for deer. Mild winters sure do help when they have to move around to try and find whatever remaining food they can, not sure what will be done to help out the habitat issue.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

utahgolf said:


> ducks need habitat in key breeding areas, when its a low water year and habitat is lacking than we see poor duck numbers. We saw poor wintering grounds from cheat grass and human encroachment, increased competition in those wintering areas, and increased stress from humans activity. Combine that with a bad winter and it makes it tough. Mild winters sure do help when they have to move around to try and find whatever remaining food they can.


So if we have a bad winter this year are we gonna cut tags accordingly? I highly doubt it.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

houndhunter said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > ducks need habitat in key breeding areas, when its a low water year and habitat is lacking than we see poor duck numbers. We saw poor wintering grounds from cheat grass and human encroachment, increased competition in those wintering areas, and increased stress from humans activity. Combine that with a bad winter and it makes it tough. Mild winters sure do help when they have to move around to try and find whatever remaining food they can.
> ...


And I do agree with "BIGGER CHANGES MUST BE MADE"


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

How about we manage some units for deer and some for elk, not every unit in the state for elk. That might make a difference. What have they been doing on the Monroe the last 20 years? Trying to grow a bumper crop of 400 inch elk, not 200 inch deer. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

houndhunter said:


> utahgolf said:
> 
> 
> > ducks need habitat in key breeding areas, when its a low water year and habitat is lacking than we see poor duck numbers. We saw poor wintering grounds from cheat grass and human encroachment, increased competition in those wintering areas, and increased stress from humans activity. Combine that with a bad winter and it makes it tough. Mild winters sure do help when they have to move around to try and find whatever remaining food they can.
> ...


During a bad winter or other scenarios, I think people would be in favor of cutting tags if the data shows that cutting tags will help the HEALTH of the herd and not just help the health of someones trophy room.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Oh yeah, bigger mature bucks are better contributors to the gene pool for healthy fawn to doe ratios and fawn survival ability.
> 
> Just read with an open mind - I know its not UT, but mule deer don't know the difference.


No, the genes of a individual buck, young or old are the same. Even the spider bull was a yearling once, but his genes remained the same.

Also, Does carry HALF of the genes a fawn will end up with.

-DallanC


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I think what they were getting at is mature bucks are better at breeding, more practice and all


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> After a 3 day season last year on Monroe I saw many more medium sized bucks this year, they are all dead now and with the current weather conditions the next 4 days ought to put another big hit in the buck population as well.


What????????? There was a "slaughter" of "medium sized" bucks on the Monroe? I thought there wasn't a single deer left on that unit listening to you guys over the past year? If conditions have improved enough there for there to be a "slaughter" of bucks this year, the current regs must not be that bad. :roll:

Wouldn't most of these so called "medium" sized bucks be harvested anyway with 3 point or better regs?

There are currently 3 separate threads going on here right now about the exact same subject. It is getting ridiculous. I (and others) have commented that the best thing for our herds would be wet weather and mild winters. I still stand by that and pray that it happens. As for the rest, the problem of the longterm decline in the deer herd is complex and will need to be addressed by multiple means. If any of you think one single simple fix like antler point restrictions or others is going to be the cure-all for the herds as I have read in these threads, you are whizzin in the wind.



houndhunter said:


> And I do agree with "BIGGER CHANGES MUST BE MADE"


A wise member on this board wrote recently that the thing he wished for most was *NO* changes be made to our deer management plan for 5 years. I sure agree with him.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> I think what they were getting at is mature bucks are better at breeding, more practice and all


now I'm really confused. So when do you shoot a deer? If we shoot the small ones, they can't get big. But if we shoot the big ones, than we take out the better breeding bucks.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

No I agree with ya, I was just speaking to the fact that more mature bucks is better for the "herd"


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> No I agree with ya, I was just speaking to the fact that more mature bucks is better for the "herd"


I know, just messin with ya


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

I think we should go back to statewide archery and not try to manage the State for trophy's. The 30 unit management sucks and does not help in reducing the harvest!

Utah has been managing deer this way for years and it seems to be working just fine. Hunting for me is as much or more about spending time in the mountains with my friends and family. It is not about getting a trophy every time. I enjoy hunting for meat and am fine with not filling a tag every year.

I am tired of everybody ripping on our deer herd and management when it has served me pretty well the last ten years. I think more people need to learn to hunt and they will better appreciate what we have. 

I just got back from road hunting this evening with my injured 14 year old (blew out his knee in football so he cannot hike like usual) and we saw over 50 deer and one of the largest 4 point bucks I have ever seen on public land (just 50 yards from the road - unfortunately the wrong side of the road!). I am going to say that it isn't as bad as everyone wants to believe in Utah.

If you don't like it here, don't hunt here!!! Just stop ruining Utah hunting traditions for the rest of us!!!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> How about we manage some units for deer and some for elk, not every unit in the state for elk. That might make a difference. What have they been doing on the Monroe the last 20 years? Trying to grow a bumper crop of 400 inch elk, not 200 inch deer. Just my 2 cents.


Spot on.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

bloodtrail said:


> I think we should go back to statewide archery and not try to manage the State for trophy's. The 30 unit management sucks and does not help in reducing the harvest!
> 
> Utah has been managing deer this way for years and it seems to be working just fine. Hunting for me is as much or more about spending time in the mountains with my friends and family. It is not about getting a trophy every time. I enjoy hunting for meat and am fine with not filling a tag every year.
> 
> ...


Blood I agree with you 100% I don't think our herds as as bad as everyone is saying, well compared to the other states anyway. We have been stable in numbers for years while other states have seen drastic decreases in numbers, yes even the wonderful colorado. 
I don't see why everyone want every buck to be a giant. IMO that will ruin deer hunting in Utah just like it has the elk. We in Utah have been so spoiled that now when we don't kill a 400" bull every year something is wrong. The deer hunt is headed in the same direction.
Don't get me wrong I love hunting big bucks, but the key here is hunt. I don't want to kill one every year. That way when I do get one it makes it that much better.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

University of Phoenix needs to start a Wildlife Biologist Degree so all these experts can finally get their degree. 

Sounds to me like someone didn't get a deer this year.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Just to provide a bit of a contrast with Utah, in Alabama they think not so much in terms of a seasonal limit but rather in terms of a daily bag limit. The daily bag limit is two deer. They do have some additional restrictions on taking antlered deer, i.e. within a single daily bag limit only one deer can be antlered, and you can't take more than three antlered deer during the season.

http://www.eregulations.com/alabama2011 ... ag-limits/


----------



## clean pass through (Nov 26, 2007)

#1Deer
Your kinda a "SKY IS FALLING" or "GLASS IS HALF EMPTY", type of guy. Life is too short to always think as negative as you on every game management situation. All your posts seem to look at the worst, with really nothing of substance. Just Sayin!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Without reading all 4 pages ,, I can tell you this much,
Changes ARE coming, and will be made using the hunters surveys that
are currently being conducted ..

I'll post more later ......


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

> Changes ARE coming, and will be made using the hunters surveys that
> are currently being conducted ..
> 
> I'll post more later ......


Great, more changes based on F*up opinions and not biology.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I feel the deer quality has has improved as well.
My last 3 hunts have been:
30" - 09
27" - 10
31" - 12
We are passing up 22-24" bucks that we would have been tickled to get 15 years ago.
I am NOT the great white hunter, or a real trophy hunter. have had a good run of luck......and have been waiting for the good ones, knowing I might not get one. That's okay, don't need to kill every year.
Last year was the first year in my life that I have not had a tag. Had just as much fun hanging out w/the family and friends as when I have had a tag. 
Only thing that will irritate a few people is I don't like statewide archery. Should have to pick an area like the other weapons, and I love to bowhunt...........Sorry, just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

cklspencer said:


> > Changes ARE coming, and will be made using the hunters surveys that
> > are currently being conducted ..
> >
> > I'll post more later ......
> ...


So, what's the problem? We all know that hunters have all the answers, not the educated, trained, experienced government biologists! We see it on this forum all the time! :O•-:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

2full said:


> I feel the deer quality has has improved as well.
> My last 3 hunts have been:
> 30" - 09
> 27" - 10
> ...


"passing up 22-24" bucks" "have been waiting for the *good ones*, knowing I might not get one" "don't need to to kill every year" "don't like statewide archery" Sorry, but that sounds like a "real trophy hunter" to me!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

If we as hunters keep with the trophy mentality, "It will be the end of hunting as we know it." More and more hunters are hanging up their boots because they cannot hunt every year. Waiting 15 years or more for a LE elk tag is where deer hunting is headed if we keep raising age objectives and reducing tags in the name of more inches.

Already we are seeing less and less opportunity. The more you reduce tags in the name of bigger bucks, (a social issue) the more you reduce the opportunity to hunt, but also to retain hunters, their kids, and their kids.

You can do survey after survey, and always get the same answers. Of course people want to see and harvest big bucks. They also want to hunt every year.

We have premium limited entry areas now. If you want to hunt big bucks I suggest you put in for these units. Please don't try to make more and more units into premium limited entry. It will only diminish hunting opportunity.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

So there is a slaughter fest, how could this be if there are no animals? Which is it? Not to be rude, but your line of thinking is the kind of thinking that is ruining hunting traditions and definitely not helping to grow the herds.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

My point was that we see MORE BUCKS, and we see BETTER BUCKS than 10-15 years ago.
So.........something, somewhere must be happening that is helping.
I can remember having to go north of U-20 to bow hunt, and NO muzzle hunt in the South region back in the late 70's and early 80's. The rifle hunt in '78 I saw 6 does the whole hunt, never even saw a buck. 
It's better now than "the good 'ol days" as far as I am concerned.
o-||


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Better now than 15 years ago and the Good Old Days? Can't agree with you on that one.I can only speak of the Fishlake and Boulder units.What we have now. to what these units held back in the day, Look at Mytoge Road area, look at Hann**** Flatts area< Sheep Valley Area. Last Chance. West Tidwell Slopes..Mt Hillguard. Monroe Mountain. Koosherem .Mt Dutton . Jones Corral. West Pavhant , Junction. Marysville. Boulder Tops. Parker Plateau.and last but not least Thousand Lake Mountain. Oh there is Deer in these units, Nothing like it use to be. As for the Deer kills, Didn't R DWR come out some years back that 70 some per cent of animals were harvested in the first 3 days of the rifle hunt?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

oldfudd,
I can't speak to your area as well. Just talking about where I go.
The number I "heard" about deer was 50% of the deer were killed in the first hour. Don't know what the truth is on that type of a fact.
I just know that opening morning as it gets light sometimes used to sound like a war for the first little bit on the rifle hunt before the tags were cut back. I know they used to sell 25,000 non- resident tags in the Southern area, now it's down to 2,200. That has to have made a big part of the difference in that area. That's alot of bucks getting to live each year.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

M Gayler said:


> Oh of course keep a 30 archery season :roll:


YUP! Lets!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

High Desert Elk said:


> http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf
> 
> Just finished reading this today. My take away was healthy habitat, forage, and fawn to doe ratios. Oh yeah, bigger mature bucks are better contributors to the gene pool for healthy fawn to doe ratios and fawn survival ability.
> 
> Just read with an open mind - I know its not UT, but mule deer don't know the difference.


*A Report to the Colorado Legislature
November 1, 1999*

Really? www.muledeerworkinggroup.com Read something newer there.... :roll:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

> I think we should go back to statewide archery and not try to manage the State for trophy's. The 30 unit management sucks and does not help in reducing the harvest!
> 
> Utah has been managing deer this way for years and it seems to be working just fine. Hunting for me is as much or more about spending time in the mountains with my friends and family. It is not about getting a trophy every time. I enjoy hunting for meat and am fine with not filling a tag every year.
> 
> ...


Statewide simply doesn't work, neither does regional. If these tactics had worked we would have seen an increase in the deer population, not been looking for a way to change for better management because our deer herd is disappearing. The 30 unit management will help, if the state gives out tags correctly and accordingly to what different units can handle. And yes hunting is about being outdoors with friends and family, but I'm not saying cut tags, I'm saying keep tags the same but make certain units 4 point or better units, to give trophy hunters a place to hunt without having to wait 20 years for limited entry. It would be a 2 or 3 year down harvest on these units when you turned them to 4 point or better, but once made so 2 or 3 years down the line there will be plenty of 4 point bucks for the taking on the units making it less hard to harvest as long as everyone sticks with regulations and only kills 4 point or better bucks. Maybe even increase tag numbers on these units because success rates will more than likely go down. And maybe this would even make for better opportunities in the future because maybe every few years a management hunt would be needed to get rid of big 2 and 3 points to make sure they aren't what is breeding the herd, giving more hunters opportunities to hunt. I am not for cutting tags, I am more for looking for a way to fix the deer herd and the size of bucks we see in some other way. I would like to see this tried on 7 or 8 units in the state in order to manage some units for bigger bucks. You might have to work harder for your buck on some of these units but it would be worth it to have a few general units managed for bigger bucks and some for smaller bucks, then you would have more choices to deal with you could pick a unit to shoot any buck, or a unit with a chance of shooting a bigger buck.



> How about we manage some units for deer and some for elk, not every unit in the state for elk. That might make a difference. What have they been doing on the Monroe the last 20 years? Trying to grow a bumper crop of 400 inch elk, not 200 inch deer. Just my 2 cents.


Because now they are doing neither. The last 400 inch bull that came off Monroe was the spyder bull since then nothing has broke 400. They aren't doing either anymore, they are just looking to take out everything it seems. Every unit can handle deer and elk, they are always around each other and I've never seen them contend very much for anything. I'm not a believer that elk and deer can't thrive together.



> #1Deer
> Your kinda a "SKY IS FALLING" or "GLASS IS HALF EMPTY", type of guy. Life is too short to always think as negative as you on every game management situation. All your posts seem to look at the worst, with really nothing of substance. Just Sayin!


We'll lets look at the good I love the new predator control initiative. I'm a glass half empty guy on this stuff because places that held 20 bucks a year, many of them 3 or 4 points, now hold a couple 2 points and that is it. Places that held 10 360+ bulls now hold a few bulls around 340-350. Over the last 10 years both the deer and elk herds on the mountain I love the most and the deer and elk herds I love the most have went down hill in a hurry, and I must tell you it's sad to see. Not that much has changed down in my part so a lot of your city explanations that so many of you give don't really apply to the Monroe unit or it's herds. No something else has happen the great Utah DWR everyone seems to be so happy with has over-tagged, over-killed, and kept raising these numbers every year that goes by, and this unit as well as surrounding units are becoming less than a shadow of what they once were every year. It's not fun to watch.



> If we as hunters keep with the trophy mentality, "It will be the end of hunting as we know it." More and more hunters are hanging up their boots because they cannot hunt every year. Waiting 15 years or more for a LE elk tag is where deer hunting is headed if we keep raising age objectives and reducing tags in the name of more inches.
> 
> Already we are seeing less and less opportunity. The more you reduce tags in the name of bigger bucks, (a social issue) the more you reduce the opportunity to hunt, but also to retain hunters, their kids, and their kids.
> 
> ...


I do agree with you to a point, I don't really want to see less opportunity but general units that can boost more bucks and bigger bucks, as well as better populations overall. So what would be wrong with some 4 point or better units with the same or more tags given out in order to try and get bigger bucks on some units and give hunters that opportunity as well? As for the LE elk thing, I don't know why it takes so long anymore anyway, your shooting a small bull after waiting 18 years anyway.



> So there is a slaughter fest, how could this be if there are no animals? Which is it? Not to be rude, but your line of thinking is the kind of thinking that is ruining hunting traditions and definitely not helping to grow the herds.


The 3 day hunt last year really helped, more bucks did make it through. Too bad a 9 day season has undone all that this season. There were a few more medium sized bucks, but not near as many as there used to be, and not as many deer as there used to be. Most of the medium and small bucks I saw earlier this year are now dead. You can't kill everything every year and expect a herd to do better. A slaughter of all the yearling and 2 year old bucks every year, will eventually catch up with a herd, and I think after this year it's going to on the Monroe.



> I can't speak to your area as well. Just talking about where I go.
> The number I "heard" about deer was 50% of the deer were killed in the first hour. Don't know what the truth is on that type of a fact.
> I just know that opening morning as it gets light sometimes used to sound like a war for the first little bit on the rifle hunt before the tags were cut back. I know they used to sell 25,000 non- resident tags in the Southern area, now it's down to 2,200. That has to have made a big part of the difference in that area. That's alot of bucks getting to live each year.


Maybe all those tags and harvests way back when are what ruined our deer herd for today. I get tired of the old stories of tags every year for everyone and most people in the good ole days killed 2 deer to there one tag it has sounded like to me. Maybe that is what put our current deer herd in the situation it's in.

To sum up, I would just like to see some 4 point or better units in order to get bigger bucks on some units, without cutting tags, in fact raise them. This will give opportunity and a chance for bigger and more bucks on some units. It's getting scary in the area where I hunt, watching everything one or two years old getting taken out every year, and then never seeing much during the rut to bring back the herds. There are were 5 big bucks a few years ago I watched and now 3 big bucks I watch every year on the Monroe unit. These 3 bucks do almost all the breeding on the Cove side, I've watched them for 7 years now. The one buck is a 200+ inch (depending on the year) 7X7, the other a 24" 3X4, and a 32 inch wide 4X5. Now these three bucks have been alive for a long time, the 7X7 and 3X4 are probably 9 years old and coming to an end, the 4X5 is probably 7 years old and on his way. Once these bucks are gone, there's just nothing left anymore up there. Like I said I watched 5 bucks about 3 years ago, two of them have not come back the last couple year (both those bucks were about 10 years old). Anyways what I'm saying is after these last few really smart bucks are gone, I just don't see much of a breeding stock. The genes are there on this unit obviously, in all shapes and sizes, but some younger bucks are eventually going to have to be let through the hunts in order for breeding stock, nicer bucks and more of them. Once these 3 are gone, I've seen very little if anything to replace them, just yearlings and 2 year olds, what a breeding stalk that is.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

We already have a handful of 4 point or better units. What makes you think making more of them won't create similar demand and waiting time to draw?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> We already have a handful of 4 point or better units. What makes you think making more of them won't create similar demand and waiting time to draw?


Because of the amount of tags being given out. The 4 point or better units we have now are true Limited Entry units that are very hard to draw because of the limited tags. Without decreasing tags and just putting in place 4 point or better then if it truly increased the waiting time that makes it obvious people want bigger bucks so then why not do it to more units, or half the general units in the state while leaving half to be managed for smaller bucks, without cutting tags. I would only like to see about 10 of the current 30 units changed to 4 point or better and see bigger bucks on a 3rd of the general units with still that chance on the other 2/3 of Utah's units.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

#1deer said:
Maybe all those tags and harvests way back when are what ruined our deer herd for today. I get tired of the old stories of tags every year for everyone and most people in the good ole days killed 2 deer to there one tag it has sounded like to me. Maybe that is what put our current deer herd in the situation it's in.


That's exactly why I think it has improved since the tags were cut back for both resident and non-resident, and the deer were not treated as an unlimited rescource anymore. I don't think the reduction was just for trophy hunting, something had to give as habitat and winter ranges changed, while pressure was still increasing.


----------



## meltedsnowman (Jun 1, 2012)

Dedicated hunters are allowed to hunt all 3 seasons for a reason. We are allowed to harvest 2 bucks in 3 YEARS. T ags for DH cost $180 and you are REQUIRED to volunteer 4 days of YOUR time to dwr projects, which not only costs the dwr less money but also contributes to keeping tag and license fees somewhat reasonable. I would guess most DH arent out for a 2 point, it is generally not considered a meat tag considering the time and expense needed to contribute to the program.


----------



## meltedsnowman (Jun 1, 2012)

One more thing...if all your are seeing is 2 pts...get outta your truck or off your 4 wheeler and go where bigger bucks live...effort = reward


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

> Dedicated hunters are allowed to hunt all 3 seasons for a reason. We are allowed to harvest 2 bucks in 3 YEARS. T ags for DH cost $180 and you are REQUIRED to volunteer 4 days of YOUR time to dwr projects, which not only costs the dwr less money but also contributes to keeping tag and license fees somewhat reasonable. I would guess most DH arent out for a 2 point, it is generally not considered a meat tag considering the time and expense needed to contribute to the program.


Ya since the 15 people I know do so much for wildlife by going to an elk foundation banquet and are able to count those as their hours towards dedicated hunter. That really dose a lot of good and is so deserving for them to get to hunt all 3 season and a guaranteed 2 deer out of 3 years.



> One more thing...if all your are seeing is 2 pts...get outta your truck or off your 4 wheeler and go where bigger bucks live...effort = reward


I have I do, I work my ass off to try and find them don't assume and accuse me that I don't. There aren't many around and very few coming in the future with current management.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

Changing units to 4 point or better would increase the buck to doe ratio to way over 15 bucks per 100 does which would then reduce the total herd size since bucks can't have babies! 15:100 ratio is the optimal ratio established by the wildlife biologists to maintain a healthy herd. Any more than this is just using up winter range resources that could be used by does.

I might be more open to rules requiring at lest two points, but four points is just not reasonable. Some of the spike bucks I see shot are way to small to even produce a reasonable amount of meat. Maybe as a rule, we should leave the babies alone, but we don't need to limit hunting to the bucks that have the best genetic makeup which reach four points. 

I am a Dedicated Hunter and I get tired of the lazy trailer park hunters complaining that we get special treatment! As mentioned, we choose to kill only two out of three years and we give back by paying more for tags and donating significant service hours. I don't know any Dedicated Hunters that would even consider shooting a spike or a two point buck! We are more successful in seeing bucks and killing bigger bucks because we put in the time and resources needed to be a true sportsman. If a higher percentage of tags were allocated to Dedicated Hunters, there would be an increase in opportunity to hunt with even fewer deer killed each year.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Ok, so where are all the hunters going to go that are displaced from your new 4 point or better units. They are going to apply for tags on all the other units without point restrictions which will cause a butt plug on the general season units. You will also have a butt plug on the point restriction units because that will pretty much turn into a L.E. type draw. Congratulations, you just made it impossible to draw any kind of deer tag.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Well I'll venture a bet that things wouldn't change to much with the same amount of tags and I'll still hunt and apply for the same unit. If you increase tags but put 4 point restrictions that will increase opportunity and after 2 or 3 years you'll have plenty of 4 points for the taking and maybe management hunts. There could be the same or more tags. If you disperse these units through the state it would not cause a larger amount of time to draw.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

If only big mature deer do the breeding, it doesnt make any sense to put 100% of the hunting pressure on them with antler point restrictions.... UNLESS you are suggesting implementing 3pt or SMALLER harvesting to protect the big bucks so more will be around for the rut.


-DallanC


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

When you kill only the biggest bucks and protect the smallest, you leave the youngest, weakest, and least experienced bucks to do all of the breeding, and to survive the winter. Spikes should be shot on sight. Get them out of the gene pool. A Mule deer should have bifurcated antlers.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Spikes should be shot on sight. Get them out of the gene pool.


Oh boy, I can see where this is going. Spike general deer hunts and a 10 year wait to draw to hunt for a LE big buck on the same unit. :roll:



#1DEER 1-I said:


> Well I'll venture a bet that things wouldn't change to much with the same amount of tags and I'll still hunt and apply for the same unit. If you increase tags but put 4 point restrictions that will increase opportunity and after 2 or 3 years you'll have plenty of 4 points for the taking and maybe management hunts. There could be the same or more tags. If you disperse these units through the state it would not cause a larger amount of time to draw.


Why would the results be any different than it was when the DWR did this previously (on the Monroe and others)? It was deemed unsatisfactory then and I don't see that it will be different now.

I you want to favor antler point restrictions, then fine. It is just another variant of folks wanting more trophy type hunting on their unit of choice at the expense of "general type" hunting. But please don't try and give us a line of bull that an increased buck:doe ratio that comes of it equals improved *herd health*. It doesn't. It won't do squat to improve the health of the herd as a whole.


----------



## meltedsnowman (Jun 1, 2012)

Ya since the 15 people I know do so much for wildlife by going to an elk foundation banquet and are able to count those as their hours towards dedicated hunter. That really dose a lot of good and is so deserving for them to get to hunt all 3 season and a guaranteed 2 deer out of 3 years.[/quote]
Dunno about that one. I work for mine. Shame on them if that is indeed the case. Thanks to the dedicatex program I was abld to chase a real nice buck for 7 days of crazy steep hunting that resulted in memories, and no antlers. Will try again next year.

I have I do, I work **** to try and find them don't assume and accuse me that I don't. There aren't many around and very few coming in the future with current management.[/quote]

Give the units a few seasons to recover, it hasn't even been a year. If you put in the time and effort a.good buck you will find. Patience. The unit I hunt will be great if things can continue like what I saw this yeR. Far fewer hunters (still to many for my taste) but FAR below the last 15 years of sardines.


----------



## meltedsnowman (Jun 1, 2012)

Lol sorry i havent figured out the.quote part just yet from my phone


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

ok, let me try again I guess as far as big bucks contributing to the gene pool...

True-a big buck has the same genes for survival ability from the day it hits the ground. However, if that same buck is able to make it to the "big buck" status, then he has also passed the survival test as far as ability to evade predators, hard winters, dry summers, etc. unless he is just really lucky. To the blind eye of the hunter, all small bucks are the same as survival ability goes and their genetic contribution to the gene pool is the same.

That same buck also has a dominate gene and a recessive gene. If his recessive gene and the does recessive gene come together, then the offspring buck will be recessive dominate. This gives the case for the buck to be slightly on the short end of the stick for survival in the future. If a Dominate and recessive come together, better chance, and if two dominates come together, then you have the combination for the best chance for survival giving the biggest bucks for breeding...again unless he is just plain recessive lucky.

The small bucks that are dominate all around are likely to be the ones that do some occasional breeding when papa ain't looking. They will be the ones to establish pecking order within their little teenager group.

In short, it's ok to shoot small bucks because you know the bigger ones have what it takes for species survival.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This thread (and the thinking that goes with it) is disturbing! Let's see, we established a 5 year deer plan in December 2008, but halfway into the plan, we decided it wasn't working. So we changed from 5 hunting regions to 30 hunting units, we changed statewide archery hunting to 30 hunting units, we increased the buck to doe ratios from 15/100 to 18/100 on 16 of those units, and we dropped 6,500 permits to fix the problem. Now, halfway into the 4th year season of the 5 year plan, we (some of us) have decided that even the recent fix isn't working, so we now want to make some units into 4 point or better units and/or cut permits even further and cut the seasons in half. And, of course, this is all in the name of improving the herd and recruiting the kids!!!

Well, you're missing some stuff! The units are too big. We need to divide the state into even more units like Nevada (110) or Wyoming (142) or Montana (162) or Colorado (185). Then we need to reduce the tag numbers from 86,500 to 32,829 (New Mexico) or 28,335 (Arizona) or 23,600 (Montana) or 16,662 (Nevada). Then to make up the difference in revenue, we could make 36.8% of them nonresident (Wyoming). Of course we're going to have to bring in some whitetails to make those numbers work, but , hey, we did say BIGGER changes, didn't we? And another thing we can do is split the season as was proposed in 2009 (and is still pending) so that only half of the hunters are in the field at any one time. That is sure to increase the herd.

Next, we can do some DNA work to see which genes are responsible for the big antlers which, of course, improves the herd and cull those bucks who don't make the grade. And maybe we can even figure out if there are genes that make the bucks less secretive so that we see them more often which also will improve the herd. In fact, I just heard yesterday on the radio that some biologists were able to develop embryos (of mice, I think) from combining stem cells of three (not two) different parents (one male and two females), but didn't implant them in a uterus to allow them to grow, but claimed they were viable. Imagine the monster muleys we could come up with, which will improve the herd, of course!

The possibilities are endless in our efforts to reach our ultimate goal of 200" bucks everywhere in Utah! Think about it; (400,000 deer), (25/100 buck to doe ratio = 80,000 bucks), (80,000 bucks = 20,000 4-points), (20,000 4-points = 5,000 200" ers), (5,000 200" ers = 167 per unit), (35% success rate = 477 permits per unit), (477 permits x 30 units = 14,310 permits). So, we'll only get to hunt mule deer three or four times in our lifetime, but oh, what hunts they will be! I can't wait!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

This is my understanding of what will happen, The current 5 year plan will not change.
How many permits that are issued on any one unit is the controlling factor...

The DWR is doing an extensive phone survey for general season deer hunts (2012).
Now that we have 'hunter management" , Opt 2 in place, surveys can be tied directly
to individual units.

They are asking several questions , BUT, the most critical is the 'satisfaction' level...
Hunter choose from, Very satisfied, satisfied, unsatisfied , or very unsatisfied, for
the over all hunt....

Units that receive a 50% or greater unsatisfied/very unsatisfied rating will most 
likely see tag cuts....

And unit that receive satisfied/ very satisfied ratings that are favorable could have
permit increases.....

Questions about over crowding, harvest report numbers and winter deer counts
will also factor into decision that are ultimately made for 2013 ...

The DWRs phone lines are ringing off the hook. On top of that, this is the first year
for real unit by unit deer management, permit numbers will see adjustments .


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Thats dumb... what if I'm unsatisfied because I'm restricted to my tiny unit?

-DallanC


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> This is my understanding of what will happen, The current 5 year plan will not change.
> How many permits that are issued on any one unit is the controlling factor...
> 
> The DWR is doing an extensive phone survey for general season deer hunts (2012).
> ...


I dont like that this group of people will have that much effect on tags. We hear all the time how people are unhappy about there hunt. Mostly guys who put very little effort (road hunters) there are to many people out there that want to shot big deer from the road or 50 yards of the road. Hell there was a guy on here complaining that he saw 2 30" wide bucks and 2 30" tall bucks, complaining! Tags should not be cut because of unhappy hunters. Tags should be cut because the deer heard ( not bucks) warrants tags to be cut.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm shocked also at this thread. (not really) 

7 pages and not a mention of cougar. Fact is there are 1000,s of cougar in Utah. And everyone is in denial about their effect. First and foremost the DWR as if they don't have figures on this anyway. We all know a cougar is said to kill 50 deer per yr. It does not matter if its 25 deer. That still means on the lowest end we loose 40 to 50,000 deer a yr to them. And as many as 100,000. 

OK the cougar population is lower than its been in 30 yrs. Fine so is the deer that stands to reason. Cougar populations should be carefully and closely managed on per deer basis if we are going to prioritize the bread and butter of big game hunting. Other wise its nonsensical to discus hunter management as we have been. If predation is compensatory so is hunter harvest. And to limit one while ignoring the other (predation) which is 5 to 10 times the effect as hunters. Again is nonsensical ignorant at best and borderline insane.


Whats with the notion that antler restrictions take all the big bucks out of the herd more than with out AR? As if a big buck is spared because there is an option to shoot a dink. A 3pt or better buck better stay unseen AR or not. And on a place like Monroe he better stay unseen for his whole life. Because if he is seen at all he will be famous and have a half dozen guys gunning for him. And he doesn't have to be Moby either.

Biology this and biology that. The same guys who play this card also advocate for unrestricted harvest. And often ignore or out right actively deny predations contribution to the matter. 

Example: 4 buck can breed 100 doe. WOW is that right? On what basis can one make that claim? They heard it from biologist friend they know? Did the Mule deer working group tell them this? Utah's flourishing deer herds? Mother Nature actually F'd this one up? Natural selection does not apply to mule deer? Yep! altering the B/D ratio's to extremes is good biology. I mentioned something to this point on another thread. Do we all believe doe are whores and could care less who breed them? If you ever watched deer during the rut those does give even a nice mature buck a workout. How is a buck to do that 25 times in less than a month. And then have enough strength to make it through the winter. Are we also to believe that a buck wont make the choice of survival over and a piece of bum?

Lastly another fact that is rarely talked about here that is absolutely a factor in deer herd declines and recovery. Especially in my neck of the woods (Monroe)

The DWR controls the hunters. And the BLM And FS control the land on which the game lives that the hunters want that the DWR controls. What I am getting at is the DWR has little control of the habitat deer live on. The FS and BLM don't sell deer tags and wont concern themselves with wildlife unless its a endangerment tot eh species. And even as crummy as the deer herd is by our standards its nowhere near endangerment or extinction.

The BLM and FS are in the business of feeding cows though. And they manage their lands for that interest. So go out goes the sage and in comes the grasses. Regardless of whether the sage that was harrowed was old. It held deer right up until the day it was ripped out. What has returned? Grass and more grass in some cases as much as 15 yrs later nothing but grass. Experiment gone wrong? I think not, like I mentioned cattle are the priority in this matter. Hunters not to fear there is a silver lining (I guess). Spider bulls and 20 yr waits to get a tag to hunt the grass loving elk that are thriving on the pro cattle managed acrage the BLM and FS manage. I tell yah its a win win solution for all parties at the table except the family group deer hunters. 

I had more rant but I have to go. Sorry I never gota chance to proof read this post I hope it makes sense.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> This is my understanding of what will happen, The current 5 year plan will not change.
> How many permits that are issued on any one unit is the controlling factor...
> 
> The DWR is doing an extensive phone survey for general season deer hunts (2012).
> ...


Wyoming, as you well know goofy, has a similar survey system with unit-specific questions. The results are used, supposedly, to help manage the next year's deer hunt. Wyoming has 140-some deer units specific to drainages and/or a deer herd. Does our system work? I'm not sure. There were few, if any, tag reductions after the huge deer 2010/2011 winterkill.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm shocked also at this thread. (not really)
> 
> Biology this and biology that. The same guys who play this card also advocate for unrestricted harvest. And often ignore or out right actively deny predations contribution to the matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> The current 5 year plan will not change. (It already did per Option #2. It expires in Dec 2013)
> 
> How many permits that are issued on any one unit is the controlling factor... (Of course! Killing excess bucks, not biology, is always the controlling factor.)
> 
> ...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I have said it before and I will say it again...these are GENERAL SEASON units! That means that harvest of yearling bucks should be high, tag numbers should be high, and hunter success rates should be relatively low. I would be willing to bet that that is exactly what is happening. These are NOT LE units...they should NOT be managed for trophy deer but for lots of opportunity. Tag numbers will NOT take big hits! After two good years of weather, buck/doe ratios will be good and tag numbers will not be drastically cut following the hunt....

...any bets?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm shocked also at this thread. (not really)
> 
> Example: 4 buck can breed 100 doe. WOW is that right? On what basis can one make that claim? They heard it from biologist friend they know? Did the *Mule deer working group* tell them this? Utah's flourishing deer herds? Mother Nature actually F'd this one up? Natural selection does not apply to mule deer? Yep! altering the B/D ratio's to extremes is good biology. I mentioned something to this point on another thread. Do we all believe doe are whores and could care less who breed them? If you ever watched deer during the rut those does give even a nice mature buck a workout. How is a buck to do that 25 times in less than a month. And then have enough strength to make it through the winter. Are we also to believe that a buck wont make the choice of survival over and a piece of bum?
> 
> ...


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> This is my understanding of what will happen, The current 5 year plan will not change.
> How many permits that are issued on any one unit is the controlling factor...
> 
> The DWR is doing an extensive phone survey for general season deer hunts (2012).
> ...


If you really believe this survey is a good way to gather data, i just got one thing to say..... FREAK'N GOOFY!

Finn put it best in another post:


Finnegan said:


> What a particular hunter sees or doesn't see means nothing. I sure wish everybody would get off this kick. Most activity on the mountain is unseen. Don't care how many cameras you've got. Don't care how many days you've been there. The supposition that what you see is what's there is just plain ignorant. Just saying'.
> 
> How does a big buck get big? By not being seen.
> 
> Opt 2 Won't change that. Don't matter how many mature bucks there are, you're going to see the same thing...yearlings all over the place, but no big bucks. But to assume that's actually the case doesn't show much savvy, savvy?


To think that surveying hunters is going to provide a good data for managing wildlife is assenine at best. Hunters need to stop thinking they are entitled to seeing bucks run around the mountain like a flock of black birds let alone kill one every year.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

> Wyoming, as you well know goofy, has a similar survey system with unit-specific questions. The results are used, supposedly, to help manage the next year's deer hunt. Wyoming has 140-some deer units specific to drainages and/or a deer herd. Does our system work? I'm not sure. There were few, if any, tag reductions after the huge deer 2010/2011 winterkill.


To everyone who likes to defend bioligists and the DWR, why is it that tag numbers would be adjusted to the satisfaction levels hunters get, rather than the numbers those great bioligists take while constantly in the field? Why would the DWR need to survey on satisfaction if there numbers are so correct? And why would they adjust tag numbers because of satisfaction rather than the data they've created? Could it be because the DWR realizes they can't possibly know how many deer are actually on the mountain especially when there adding 20 or 30 percent more than what they see?



> Where did you get 4 bucks to 100 does? Did you fail Math? The Biologists say that there needs to be 15 bucks to 100 does. That is not one buck to 25 does! It is 6.67 does per buck (counting fawns). I bet your average college student could handle that many girls in a month!
> 
> It is ironic that the only time the DWR gives a **** about hunter satisfaction is when they are using it to screw up our hunts. They sure don't seem to care about satisfaction when they treat each hunter like a criminal while making their field stops! People are never going to be satisfied since they will always want to see more bucks and no other hunters! This is one of the dumbest ideas that the DWR has ever come up with! The worst part is they won't even ask hunters about their satisfaction with the new 30 unit system!


Okay so pushing nature to it's breaking point is good management? Many units in the state are under a ratio of 15 to 100 and have been for a long time. Is that good management? If bioligists say there should be at least 15 bucks per 100 does, then what about the units not meeting that number? There pushing those units to breaking points and there simply aren't enough bucks on those units. The Monroe unit hasen't seen 15:100 in a very long time, I bet in a decade now. So does 10 years of not enough bucks finally begin to catch up with places? With those ratio's your expecting that every buck they count can breed 100 does, because the Monroe unit was at about 9:100 for 3 years straight, now its at 12:100 for 2 years straight. With those numbers your expecting every buck, big or small, young or old, experienced or not to breed 100 does, that's not good management. Management should leave room for error not push an area to its breaking point and hope everything goes absolutly perfect and everything from a 4 point to a 2 point on those units needs to and will breed 100 does. It can't be happening, if buck numbers are that low, it just can't be happening. So I can't see why anyone will argue a few more bucks are needed, especially on units not meeting objectives. Very little changes were made to help this and the deer populations as a whole out, we just split into smaller units, which would work if tags were adjusted accordingly. 4 point or better restrictions would help because many more younger bucks would make it, as well as the normal big bucks that have learned throughout the years to stay smart, helping make sure all does were being breed and there are enough bucks on the unit.



> I have said it before and I will say it again...these are GENERAL SEASON units! That means that harvest of yearling bucks should be high, tag numbers should be high, and hunter success rates should be relatively low. I would be willing to bet that that is exactly what is happening. These are NOT LE units...they should NOT be managed for trophy deer but for lots of opportunity. Tag numbers will NOT take big hits! After two good years of weather, buck/doe ratios will be good and tag numbers will not be drastically cut following the hunt....
> 
> ...any bets?


General season units have also been made to struggle. Why is it that you and many people on here like to defend the way things are done and yet, the deer population is declining? How do you defend that? It can't even be stablized at its current number, it keeps going down. That must mean something is wrong and needs to change in order to fix the problem. If mule deer are the only big game species in Utah that have been declining, and everything else is growing, there are many excuses but all those animals are being managed good enough to deal with it, and yet the deer herd continues to struggle. The problem can be fixed, some things just need to change.



> Here we go with the "lions are devil's spawn and bios are stupidly over book educated" rational.....yawn. Because you actually have to spend time reading, I'd venture to say you've spent almost ZERO time on http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com. Just a guess though. I tend to believe the world's foremost experts on mule deer as a collective even more than a bunch of us who are agreeably irritated with the results of ANY effort at this point.


Lions are a big problem, there was once 20 collared lions on Monroe Mountain alone, let alone all that didn't have collars, that's too many and every year..... no every week they put a dent in the deer herd, you can't say otherwise.

Four point or better units for maybe 10 units in the state, that aren't meeting objectives would obviously bring the number of bucks up, helping from a management perspective by ensuring all does get bred. It would work because so what people would be targeting big bucks? We do now too right? If we can let the small ones grow and get smarter, while chasing the big smart ones already, what change would that have. Put out the same number of or more tags on these units and success rates would probably drop for 2 or 3 years but eventually would even back out to what they are now. It would not decrease opportunity, it would decrease the success rates for a bit, but it would at least bring numbers for buck:doe ratios up. Then like I said have managment hunts on these units to get rid of big 2 and 3 points that won't grow every few years in order to not induce bad genes into the herd. Trying it on 10 units while not cutting tags maybe even raising them, with antler restrictions would definently not hurt anything. I don't want opportunity cut, I want to see thriving deer herds with good numbers of does and bucks again, not buck numbers pushed to a breaking point where you expect every buck to breed 100 does no matter what buck it is.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

33% 33% 33% tag allocations will allow for more bucks seen while still giving opportunity to hunt. The rifle hunt is a joke! I don't care what anyone says about bow hunters killing or wounding all the deer. Its simply a lie. I've never seen so many deer killed in one day in my life as I saw this year on the rifle hunt. I seriously don't know why we have to manage everything in this state for a 1-3 day hunt with a success rate that is through the roof. I would much rather have a longer season where I can still hunt and at the same time still see larger bucks and or more bucks. archery is a tool that has already proven it works on the front.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

all I can say is if called, I hope everyone says they're very satisfied!!!! I see this as ammo collecting for when they really cut tags and make stuff LE, theyll go back and just say its what the hunters wanted.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I would say most would say they are not satisfied because they are comparing it to the 60's. So it would create a domino effect.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Another sky is falling deer thread...yawn!


----------



## jpolson (Jun 12, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> Another sky is falling deer thread...yawn!


+1


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay so pushing nature to it's breaking point is good management? Many units in the state are under a ratio of 15 to 100 and have been for a long time. Is that good management? If bioligists say there should be at least 15 bucks per 100 does, then what about the units not meeting that number? There pushing those units to breaking points and there simply aren't enough bucks on those units. The Monroe unit hasen't seen 15:100 in a very long time, I bet in a decade now. So does 10 years of not enough bucks finally begin to catch up with places? With those ratio's your expecting that every buck they count can breed 100 does, because the Monroe unit was at about 9:100 for 3 years straight, now its at 12:100 for 2 years straight. With those numbers your expecting every buck, big or small, young or old, experienced or not to breed 100 does, that's not good management. Management should leave room for error not push an area to its breaking point and hope everything goes absolutly perfect and everything from a 4 point to a 2 point on those units needs to and will breed 100 does. It can't be happening, if buck numbers are that low, it just can't be happening. So I can't see why anyone will argue a few more bucks are needed, especially on units not meeting objectives. Very little changes were made to help this and the deer populations as a whole out, we just split into smaller units, which would work if tags were adjusted accordingly. 4 point or better restrictions would help because many more younger bucks would make it, as well as the normal big bucks that have learned throughout the years to stay smart, helping make sure all does were being breed and there are enough bucks on the unit.
> Dude, learn some math! 9 bucks for 100 does doesn't mean that every buck has to breed 100 does. It breaks down to each buck having to service 11 does. And 4 point or better kills the bucks that do the best job of servicing the does. Kill the little bucks (surplus) and leave the big bucks to do the breeding.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

Just for fun Math question...

If 9 bucks per 100 does means that each buck has to service 100 does as #1Deer 1 has stated multiple times, then how many does does each buck have to service if we get up to the objective of 15 bucks per 100 does?

This thread shows how people loose rational thought when they make emotional arguments! The problem is that the DWR refuses to manage based on the SCIENCE of GAME MANAGEMENT and insists on catering to the emotionally driven average hunter and groups like SFW!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

bloodtrail said:


> Just for fun Math question... I don't consider math to be fun.
> 
> If 9 bucks per 100 does means that each buck has to service 100 does as #1Deer 1 has stated multiple times, then how many does does each buck have to service if we get up to the objective of 15 bucks per 100 does?
> 
> This thread shows how people loose rational thought when they make emotional arguments! The problem is that the DWR refuses to manage based on the SCIENCE of GAME MANAGEMENT and insists on catering to the emotionally driven average hunter and groups like SFW!


I don't have a dog in this fight although some of the things parallel Wyoming's mule deer problems. (If you can call it a problem. Mule deer populations go up and down for a number of reasons beyond anyone's conytrol.) I have to ask though, if you build Utah's deer herd back up to 400,000 how, and where, are you going to feed them all in the winter?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay I did think that through wrong. My point is that managing the state and many units to the bare minimum of bucks or less is not good management it should be managed with room for error. 400,000 deer is possible everywhere but the was arch front still have good winter ranges but they need to be fixed to get the most out of it and get rid of cheat grass and it's possible.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Same crap goes on EVERY year. Someone goes out opening weekend usually when its still really hot, doesnt see a buck and runs to post "OMG THERE ARE NO DEER WE GOTTA CHANGE SOMETHING". The hunt doesnt even end before we get these kinds of posts. Year after year like clockwork you can expect it. They ignore the fact there ARE plans in place but no, we gotta do something different, RIGHT NOW!!!

Inevidably, we get a cold snap, deer come out of the woodwork success goes through the roof on the 2nd weekend. People usually start posting doom and gloom about the weather then allowing all the deer to get killed.

Yet then post hunt, people post lots of pictures of bucks showing up for breeding, and come spring, lots of does with fawns.

Its a silly cycle, expecially this year with the extreme dry conditions. Herds need to improve, I doubt anyone would argue this... but things are NOT as dire as a few folk here make it out to be. Took my wife up hunting and found deer were not in their usual places so we had to shift our gameplan a bit... but we did see bucks every single day, and no less than 40 deer a day with upwards of +80. 

/shrug

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Biologically, it takes 5 bucks to breed 100 does. A buck/doe ratio below 10/100 is biologically getting to the point that it is concerning/alarming. A buck/doe ratio of 15/100 is not only above the minimum but also gives plenty of room for error... ON the Monroe this past year, the radio collar study went a step further and started testing the survival rates of fawns and the pregnancy rate of does. Of the does checked, ALL were not only pregnant, but ALL were impregnated during the first estrous. Biologically, a buck/doe ratio of 15/100 is not only plenty high to keep a deer herd biologically self-sufficient, but also high enough to provide for growth....provided that other factors come into play.

For the 1 billionth time, buck hunting is NOT a a limiting factor on our deer herds. Limiting hunters as a means to grow the deer herd is asinine. IF you want to grow the deer herd, figure out why all the fawns are dying. And, based on the collar research thus far, fawn mortality is NOT a result of cougar predation and fawn mortality is being linked heavily to weather patterns and coyote predation--in tougher weather patterns and less favorably water years, coyote predation goes up and in favorable weather patterns and favorable water years, coyote predation goes down. What needs to be done, is being done...more extensive coyote control and habitat work!

The emotional rhetoric after the archery hunt where cow elk were killed, the spike elk hunt, and now the deer hunt is based on fear and not fact. The bottom line is that the elk herd and the deer herds on Monroe or nowhere else are being decimated by hunters...!

Like clockwork these doom and gloom posts show up every year... :roll:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

The only doom and gloom we need to worry about is our economic and political status.

I was told by a biologist last year at the sportsman's show that more bucks and bulls die of old age than they do by other means. By that indicator the impact we as hunters have on deer in general is minimal. The impact on bucks, which are surpluss deer, is almost nil. Go sell your doom and gloom some where else. I'm all stocked up here!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

more bucks and bulls might die by old age on the upper Le units but if that biologist say more bucks and bulls die of old age on a general or open bull units he is full of crap and you're gullible for believing him.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I personally think its about 1/3'rds. 1/3 die to cars, 1/3 die to hunters, 1/3 die to predators / old age / sickness etc.


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Your talking does right?

Because you probably only see 2% of the bucks on any general unit that every die of old age. No where near 1/3 of them. I would also say those bucks are living 95% of their life on private property or some where hunting is illegal. You just dont see bucks reaching 7-9 years old on any general unit. You dont even see bulls reaching that age.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I was talking only bucks and bulls and I am not gullible either. I do , however practice common sense. Common sense tells me that a DWR biologist would be a better source of information than an internet forum. Would the bio have a vested interest in lying or being deceitful? I doubt it. 

BTW, this was not the first time I had heard such a statement. During a cow elk hunt on the Kaiparowits I spoke to the biologist down there and he told me the same thing about bull elk.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I simply cannot sit by and read any more of this crap without voicing my opinion. who ever they told you that is a bold face liar! If it wasn't the case you wouldn't see so many stupid posts about how bad the hunting is in utah. 

I doubt they would even make such a statement Though. Im sure you misheard what they were talking about. 

I for one don't need to listen to these biologists when it comes to deer and the problems in Utah. I know for a fact its all social issues and over hunting that is resulting to piss poor management. You can have all the three day rifle hunts, 5 day rifle hunts, options 2's ect and if they still issue the same amount of rifle tags you simply shoot too many bucks and nothing is going to change. All this crap reminds me of liberals and Rihno republicans. They all sit around pointing fingers changing this and that and nobody has the balls to get anything done to correct the real problem.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I simply cannot sit by and read any more of this crap without voicing my opinion. who ever they told you that is a bold face liar! If it wasn't the case you wouldn't see so many stupid posts about how bad the hunting is in utah.
> 
> I doubt they would even make such a statement Though. Im sure you misheard what they were talking about.
> 
> I for one don't need to listen to these biologists when it comes to deer and the problems in Utah. I know for a fact its all social issues and over hunting that is resulting to **** poor management. You can have all the three day rifle hunts, 5 day rifle hunts, options 2's ect and if they still issue the same amount of rifle tags you simply shoot too many bucks and nothing is going to change. All this crap reminds me of liberals and Rihno republicans. They all sit around pointing fingers changing this and that and nobody has the balls to get anything done to correct the real problem.


+1


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

2% of bucks dying of old age on ANY general season unit is probably high.....

1% ,, maybe.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

One other thought,

This is the FIRST YEAR EVER general season any bull and spike elk permits didn't sell out..

I'm thinking times are changing, Utahns are finaly getting tired of shooting piscutters 8)


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I'll bet a nickel this thread goes over 16 pages.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> I'll bet a nickel this thread goes over 16 pages.


Yep, unless the original poster starts yet another thread. We are now in the "blame the rifle hunter" phase but haven't argued enough yet about cougars, SFW, or crazy landowners near Circleville yet. 6 more pages is about right.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

IBTL o-||


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> One other thought,
> 
> This is the FIRST YEAR EVER general season any bull and spike elk permits didn't sell out..
> 
> I'm thinking times are changing, Utahns are finaly getting tired of shooting piscutters 8)


More likely, Utahns are finally getting tired of having to sort through all the crap to go hunting.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

I know no one really gives a rats ass on what my opinion is, but im gonna share it anyways. Mostly for the fish cops that come on here silently and read whats posted. I think the dwr has done the chitties job on managing our deer herds. They couldnt manage a box of rocks!! We had an extremely mild winter. There was virtually no winter kill the speak of. What a great way to kick things off with option 2. Deer herds were healthy, stable and in some areas on the rise, in the spring. Biologists did the counts to determine tag numbers. Let me say i was less than impressed with the numbers they suggested for tags. 3xs as many rifle tags than archery and muzzy tags in some areas!! I mean really!?! Yeah lets turn loose the most effective group of hunters on the deer in large numbers. Makes sense! Yeah right! I personally witness the slaughter unfold on my favorite mountain last weekend. What a sad day that was. In the first 30 min. I saw more deer get killed than ive seen taken out of there in the last 3 years combined. And nothin was big. Spikes and 2 points were 90% of what was killed. All the progress that was made from the mild winter was wiped out in a matter of minutes. Now the unit is in worse shape than what it was before the big plan to save the deer! If they want this stupid plan to work, that we were all forced in to, lets do it the right way and really limit the numbers or hunters we force into one area! Then when the deer have made substantial improvements, then we up the tags! I have little to no respect for the fish and game for reasons like this! Dont give me the excuse they have a hard job or are doing the best they can. Bull****. They are doing a terrible job for the most part.

Now tear me apart  its just my opinion. Which im entitled to.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

LOL, I gotta say Shawn, I AGREE!. 
At least on some units, NEBO, Wasatch, Cache, Kamas, THOUSAND LAKES, to name a few.

Then there are some units in southern Utah I looked at this year I think will BENIFIT 
bigtime because permits were reduced enough to actually help .....


AND EFA,,,,,REALLY?
General season elk tags are a strait forward as it gets!
Over the counter and hunt **** near anywhere!

Sorry EFA, no "crap" to sort through there, HUNTERS JUST DIDNT WANT THEM, 
End of story.


----------



## shootemup (Nov 30, 2008)

The bigger changes that need to be made are go where people aren't. Complaining about too many hunters in a unit is like complainIng about traffic when you live in new york. Find somewhere else to go where people aren't. 4 1/2 hours hiking in worked out for me and guess what I saw one other person.


----------



## meltedsnowman (Jun 1, 2012)

We are to blame for deer herd decline. 
MAN
We point the finger everywhere, but in the end it us...it will always be us... main reason 
1: HABITAT LOSS! Caused by what? MAN. In the last 15 years the Utah population has absolutely exploded. Winter range is now gated communities full of 2nd homes. Acres of sagebrush, scrub oak, bitter brush and all the other vital winter feed and shelter areas are being replaced with MAN.

2: Have you ever noticed the LACK of food for deer and elk in the late summer months? Overgrazing is a problem. Late summer they are packin on the pounds to prepare for the breeding season and winter, but when a mountain is grazed by 1000 head of fat cows and stinkin sheep it takes a lot of food away that the deer and elk need to thrive.

that's it for now my 4 cents.


----------



## bloodtrail (Sep 20, 2007)

We cannot stop most habitat loss so the only things we can do is improve the remaining habitat and FEED the starving deer in bad winters! Why do they feed the elk at Hardware Ranch? It is so they can have a larger elk population! Money from tags should be used carefully to improve winter habitat and yes to feed the deer durring the winter instead of watching the deer starve.

Better winter survival means higher carrying capacity! Killing the extra bucks has no effect on overall population potential, improving winter survival does! It is not rocket science!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I'm just glad that most folks put alot more thought(whatever level that might represent) into comlaining than they do into hunting. I actually think that this phenomenon, if widely rolled out, could actually be the best management plan for the struggling deer herds. What if we could just get half of the hunters in Utah to forego hunting next year and just get on here to B!tch instead. What a novel idea!! Can we call it the "shed tears instead of kill deers" campaign. Who's in?---------SS


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

Shootemup, cram 1500 tag holders and all their family/friends/kids into a small area.... ill bet there isnt a ridge or canyon that doesnt have people in it no matter how far you hike... 4.5 hours huh? Hmmm...... you must hike slower than i do


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

bloodtrail said:


> We cannot stop most habitat loss so the only things we can do is improve the remaining habitat and FEED the starving deer in bad winters! Why do they feed the elk at Hardware Ranch? It is so they can have a larger elk population! Money from tags should be used carefully to improve winter habitat and yes to feed the deer durring the winter instead of watching the deer starve.
> 
> *Better winter survival means higher carrying capacity!* Killing the extra bucks has no effect on overall population potential, improving winter survival does! It is not rocket science!


HUH?!?! Holding capacity decreases as a population of a winter herd increases. I do NOT want to ride an a rocket you built. We can all complain, and a lot of people do but here's my thought on all this.....its just like voting, if you don't place your vote, you're not allowed to biznitch and moan about who's elected. Start going to your RAC's and start communicating to people where it matters and STOP planning on someone to do it for you! If you don't have the time to make every meeting, join a sportsman's group (I could recommend one or two really good ones and none of them are spelled SFW). And for hell's sake, while most of you guys and gals want to bag on the DWR, how about you educate yourself on the mule deer working group website. SCIENCE....its just that, science and they discuss social, economic, and other issues if you take the time to dive in and learn.


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

shaun larsen said:


> I know no one really gives a **** what my opinion is, but im gonna share it anyways. Mostly for the fish cops that come on here silently and read whats posted. I think the dwr has done the chitties job on managing our deer herds. They couldnt manage a box of rocks!! We had an extremely mild winter. There was virtually no winter kill the speak of. What a great way to kick things off with option 2. Deer herds were healthy, stable and in some areas on the rise, in the spring. Biologists did the counts to determine tag numbers. Let me say i was less than impressed with the numbers they suggested for tags. 3xs as many rifle tags than archery and muzzy tags in some areas!! I mean really!?! Yeah lets turn loose the most effective group of hunters on the deer in large numbers. Makes sense! Yeah right! *I personally witness the slaughter unfold on my favorite mountain last weekend. *What a sad day that was. In the first 30 min. I saw more deer get killed than ive seen taken out of there in the last 3 years combined. And nothin was big. Spikes and 2 points were 90% of what was killed. All the progress that was made from the mild winter was wiped out in a matter of minutes. Now the unit is in worse shape than what it was before the big plan to save the deer! If they want this stupid plan to work, that we were all forced in to, lets do it the right way and really limit the numbers or hunters we force into one area! Then when the deer have made substantial improvements, then we up the tags! I have little to no respect for the fish and game for reasons like this! Dont give me the excuse they have a hard job or are doing the best they can. ****. They are doing a terrible job for the most part.
> 
> Now tear me apart  its just my opinion. Which im entitled to.


How does one watch deer being slaughtered? I hunt in a very popular area and have never actually witnessed another hunter shoot another deer. I have seen hunters walk threw an area and then hear shots, but actually see it with my own eyes? People say this all the time and i have never understood how. Can you fly, own a helicopter? Honest Question.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> AND EFA,,,,,REALLY?
> General season elk tags are a strait forward as it gets!
> Over the counter and hunt **** near anywhere!
> 
> ...


You're right, hunters just didn't want them, but that isn't the end of the story! Getting general season tags may be straight forward, but many of the hunt rules are "crap", and they're just part of the overall picture of Utah big game hunting which gets more complicated (and expensive) every year. 3 Guidebooks (Application, Field Regulations, Antlerless), online only hunt tables, online only maps and unit descriptions, online only applications, required purchase of a license, required online use of a credit card and yearly changes are all taking their toll. To many people, it's just getting too much! We don't need more rules, thank you!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

> For the 1 billionth time, buck hunting is NOT a a limiting factor on our deer herds. Limiting hunters as a means to grow the deer herd is asinine. IF you want to grow the deer herd, figure out why all the fawns are dying. And, based on the collar research thus far, fawn mortality is NOT a result of cougar predation and fawn mortality is being linked heavily to weather patterns and coyote predation--in tougher weather patterns and less favorably water years, coyote predation goes up and in favorable weather patterns and favorable water years, coyote predation goes down. What needs to be done, is being done...more extensive coyote control and habitat work!


Really, you must be right, because everything they've been doing has worked so good. Deer herds have really climbed in numbers what there doing and current ways of doing things must not be limiting.... it's not like mule deer are in decline or anything, and the only big game species to do so.



> I was talking only bucks and bulls and I am not gullible either. I do , however practice common sense. Common sense tells me that a DWR biologist would be a better source of information than an internet forum. Would the bio have a vested interest in lying or being deceitful? I doubt it.


Ya they must be right, there's so many more deer with every management plan they've come up with. I can't imagine a bilogist ever getting something wrong. Although to me it looks like with all that education and time in the field they haven't found an effective way to fix the deer herds with the **** plans they've threw against the wall.



> I for one don't need to listen to these biologists when it comes to deer and the problems in Utah. I know for a fact its all social issues and over hunting that is resulting to **** poor management. You can have all the three day rifle hunts, 5 day rifle hunts, options 2's ect and if they still issue the same amount of rifle tags you simply shoot too many bucks and nothing is going to change. All this crap reminds me of liberals and Rihno republicans. They all sit around pointing fingers changing this and that and nobody has the balls to get anything done to correct the real problem.


True, with the same amount of tags and no restrictions on what you can shoot nothing will change. Current management will continue to send the deer herds on a downward spiral until nothing is left. Each year population goes down, I just don't know why people still think unlimited tags should be issued with more time to hunt. Ya let me tell you that ought to fix things real quick.



> I know no one really gives a **** what my opinion is, but im gonna share it anyways. Mostly for the fish cops that come on here silently and read whats posted. I think the dwr has done the chitties job on managing our deer herds. They couldnt manage a box of rocks!! We had an extremely mild winter. There was virtually no winter kill the speak of. What a great way to kick things off with option 2. Deer herds were healthy, stable and in some areas on the rise, in the spring. Biologists did the counts to determine tag numbers. Let me say i was less than impressed with the numbers they suggested for tags. 3xs as many rifle tags than archery and muzzy tags in some areas!! I mean really!?! Yeah lets turn loose the most effective group of hunters on the deer in large numbers. Makes sense! Yeah right! I personally witness the slaughter unfold on my favorite mountain last weekend. What a sad day that was. In the first 30 min. I saw more deer get killed than ive seen taken out of there in the last 3 years combined. And nothin was big. Spikes and 2 points were 90% of what was killed. All the progress that was made from the mild winter was wiped out in a matter of minutes. Now the unit is in worse shape than what it was before the big plan to save the deer! If they want this stupid plan to work, that we were all forced in to, lets do it the right way and really limit the numbers or hunters we force into one area! Then when the deer have made substantial improvements, then we up the tags! I have little to no respect for the fish and game for reasons like this! Dont give me the excuse they have a hard job or are doing the best they can. ****. They are doing a terrible job for the most part.


I'll say amen to that. After probably one of the mildest winter's in history, the least winter kill in probably decades, and one of the most wet years on record the year before, if the deer herd didn't grow or was not made to be sustained now and no real change has come, you won't get a perfect chance like this very often. If they can't manage a deer herd off of the last 2 years and killed off all progress made in that time, then until some huge changes are made, it will keep going down hill. Well said shaun.



> The bigger changes that need to be made are go where people aren't. Complaining about too many hunters in a unit is like complainIng about traffic when you live in new york. Find somewhere else to go where people aren't. 4 1/2 hours hiking in worked out for me and guess what I saw one other person.


I do, and deer aren't gone but there is no where near as many as there should or could be, end of story.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Fishracer said:


> shaun larsen said:
> 
> 
> > I know no one really gives a **** what my opinion is, but im gonna share it anyways. Mostly for the fish cops that come on here silently and read whats posted. I think the dwr has done the chitties job on managing our deer herds. They couldnt manage a box of rocks!! We had an extremely mild winter. There was virtually no winter kill the speak of. What a great way to kick things off with option 2. Deer herds were healthy, stable and in some areas on the rise, in the spring. Biologists did the counts to determine tag numbers. Let me say i was less than impressed with the numbers they suggested for tags. 3xs as many rifle tags than archery and muzzy tags in some areas!! I mean really!?! Yeah lets turn loose the most effective group of hunters on the deer in large numbers. Makes sense! Yeah right! *I personally witness the slaughter unfold on my favorite mountain last weekend. *What a sad day that was. In the first 30 min. I saw more deer get killed than ive seen taken out of there in the last 3 years combined. And nothin was big. Spikes and 2 points were 90% of what was killed. All the progress that was made from the mild winter was wiped out in a matter of minutes. Now the unit is in worse shape than what it was before the big plan to save the deer! If they want this stupid plan to work, that we were all forced in to, lets do it the right way and really limit the numbers or hunters we force into one area! Then when the deer have made substantial improvements, then we up the tags! I have little to no respect for the fish and game for reasons like this! Dont give me the excuse they have a hard job or are doing the best they can. ****. They are doing a terrible job for the most part.
> ...


This is the first time in history I agree 100% with what shaun says. It was a slaughter! The deer will now be in a recovery the first year into it! The only problem is the dwr wont admit the damage unless there is a three year trend. So we will have to sit back and wait for 3 years until something is done.

And to the guy that said all you have to do is hike 4 hours to get away from anyone. Bull crap! Everyone hiked that far where we were. Most hiked that far the night before and slept on the mountain. They all shot deer and most were 2 points. I saw groups of bucks getting gunned down. They were all pinned down out in the open just like your buck was. In fact I would probably say you were in the same area. The bucks ran back and forth until they were all killed. I witnessed this over and over again.

A rifle is way too successful to allow as many tags as they do. I saw more bucks get killed in one day then Ive seen in 12 years of bowhunting combined! This state manages everything for the rifle and its simply piss poor management.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> I'll bet a nickel this thread goes over 16 pages.


19 pages for a dime.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

A couple more thoughts on this issue,
I would have loved to see antler restrictions used on units with low buck to doe ratios
rather than shortened seasons OR even opt 2 ......

Wyoming is using ARs right now on units in the same situations, the results will be interesting.

Shawn post is a perfect example of the same message being told to the DWR via
telephone,,,,,And the DWR knows the majority of UNHAPPY hunters is growing.

It's nothing more than a business, supply and demand.
The demand for better deer hunting is high, and the supply is low...

General elk tags are a very good example of were this is heading,
Hunters are growing tired of low quality, overcrowded hunts.
They will just quit buying permits,,AND force the DWR to supply a better product


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> This is my understanding of what will happen, The current 5 year plan will not change.
> How many permits that are issued on any one unit is the controlling factor...
> 
> The DWR is doing an extensive phone survey for general season deer hunts (2012).
> ...


Goofy you mean I can lie on my phone survey? I can tell all of my family and friends to lie on their phone surveys and because of our opinions then we can change the Units Regs? hahahaha

Sounds like we shouldn't give a lot of attention to these phone surveys because people do lie or because of their lazyness they can't find deer.


----------



## Towhee (Oct 23, 2012)

How is it that Colorado has almost twice utahs human population yet they still have thousands of more deer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Towhee said:


> How is it that Colorado has almost twice utahs human population yet they still have thousands of more deer.


More habitat is one major reason.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

1EYEDEER do you remember this picture? This buck was taken when you were spewing your vomit that no bucks could be found on the Monroe. I think he is just a better hunter than you were. I know you asked a million question about the exact location of this buck.










1EYEDEER, it's also funny that you're making a proposal about having units 4 point or better when it wasn't to long ago that you shot a little buck. Maybe you should apply those rules to yourself instead of applying those rules to everyone else.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> 1EYEDEER do you remember this picture? This buck was taken when you were spewing your vomit that no bucks could be found on the Monroe. I think he is just a better hunter than you were. I know you asked a million question about the exact location of this buck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know coyoteslayer I do remember that picture, and don't you worry I've seen bucks bigger than that on the Monroe, in fact I missed a 3X4 about exactly that size the first morning because I got off my butt like many of you are assuming I don't do. I'm not saying there isn't a few big deer left in areas, but there is not enough. And justifying there is enough deer by the 4 point that got shot a couple years ago in your picture and the big 3X4 I shot at and missed this year is complete stupidity. No one is saying there aren't bucks left, but the potention for more bucks, bigger bucks, and more big bucks is there and almost all units around the state have plenty of winter range that needs to be improved and could hold double the deer it hold now if management was done right. Yes coyoteslayer there are deer out there still but they are beginning to dwindle more every year.

Now to address your second statement, yes I am going to keep killing. As long as the DWR thinks what there doing is right, I love hunting, deer and elk meat, and the fun of it, but until the division does what we are paying them to do (manage our deer herd) I'm going to continue filling the tags they give me, to help prove what they think there doing right isn't working. If they keep giving me a tag I'm going to keep filling that tag. I shot a 3X4 on Monroe this year, how do I defend this when I complain about the current state coyoteslayer? Guess what I don't have to, they gave me the tag and until they do something to fix things I'm going to go along with their messed up management skills just like everyone else. I'm not going to waste my money on a DWR that is progressivly ruining the deer herd without using it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Towhee said:


> How is it that Colorado has almost twice utahs human population yet they still have thousands of more deer.


And how is it that Nevada has nearly the same number of humans, yet only 36% the population of mule deer as Utah, and Wyoming has 1/5 the number of humans, yet 153% the number of mule deer, and Arizona has more than twice the number of humans, yet only 41% of Utah's mule deer population, and Montana .......... Well, you get the idea! It's habitat, both quantity and quality!! All the other factors mentioned on this thread (and some that haven't been) are secondary.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Towhee said:
> 
> 
> > How is it that Colorado has almost twice utahs human population yet they still have thousands of more deer.
> ...


Find a way to get rid of cheat grass, and I think in Utah all winter ranges could boost twice the amount of deer they do. I agree habitat is the #1 problem, but cheat grass in the #1 contributor to the loss everywhere other than the wasatch front, and little is being done to stop it. But all the secondary things also have their effects.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's a question for everyone. What exactly do you think would happen to the mule deer (Not just bucks) population in Utah if we permanently stopped hunting them? 

Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting that we do.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Here's a question for everyone. What exactly do you think would happen to the mule deer (Not just bucks) population in Utah if we permanently stopped hunting them?
> 
> Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting that we do.


Hmmm, simple question with a complicated answer arrived at through a series of cause and effect scenarios. The short of it: my guess would be the mule deer herd would return to less than pre-1900 numbers, ebbing and flowing numerically-cyclically with the weather. I have a hunch the elk hunters would be in bull heaven... :shock:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Here's a question for everyone. What exactly do you think would happen to the mule deer (Not just bucks) population in Utah if we permanently stopped hunting them?
> 
> Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting that we do.


I think it would look like antelope island expanded to every corner of this state. Deer and huge bucks everywhere. Antelope Island has loads of cheat grass, small wintering area, lots of coyotes, and no hunting pressure. It also has a high natural buck to doe ratio.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Bingo^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Have a freind who just got home from 5 1/2 days of humping not sitting on his Wheeler > Up around the Woodland Area.. Total Count 3 little 2 points 1 small 3 point and 11 Doe, 2 Fawns.. So any you guys have any answers for him? He's been hunting the area for 35 years.. Said he's never seen things as bad as this..He did not Harvest. Said he felt as if he would be a part of the problem slammin a Small inmature Buck..


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Here's a question for everyone. What exactly do you think would happen to the mule deer (Not just bucks) population in Utah if we permanently stopped hunting them?
> 
> Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting that we do.


I was lucky, got to see this experiment happen with my own two eyes!

During the years the bookcliffs was closed to deer hunting , I spent 4 winters
in a row out there. It was freak'in unreal to go from hardly any bucks at all
to what was there when it reopened to deer hunting......
I was there for that too..............WHAT A BLAST!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Anyone have deer population trends for the island in the last 40 years handy? What about the book cliff population trends?

How about Yellowstone National Park? Henry's? Arizona Strip? Paunsagunt? Jicarilla/2C?

These are all areas with very limited harvest or none at all. I'd imagine they might be a good indicator of what would happen to deer populations under the scenario I inquired about. No sense in speculating. Of course we'd have to cross reference winter mortality and range conditions.

Anyone?

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

http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Doc ... hanges.pdf


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Anyone have deer population trends for the island in the last 40 years handy? What about the book cliff population trends?


Bookcliffs, Henry mtns, Vernon, San Juan all show decreases in the deer population.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

In all reallity there were very few deer in Utah pre 1900. Weather it was from our grandfathers or great grandfathers, or market hunters shooting them for their meat if up for debate. 
As for the Henry Mountains or the Book Cliffs, I hunted both of them before the state opened up the hunts on them to any buck. You would see numerious bucks every day and it was normal to pass up quite a few 20" 4pts or better hopping for that bigger one which were there but knew how to hide. Then after the opened both units up to any buck it only took 3 or 4 years I believe to shoot them out to when they closed both units to rebuild the herds.

If you have trouble sleeping at night here is some reading for you.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr206.pdf


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

oldfudd said:


> Have a freind who just got home from 5 1/2 days of humping not sitting on his Wheeler > Up around the Woodland Area.. Total Count 3 little 2 points 1 small 3 point and 11 Doe, 2 Fawns.. So any you guys have any answers for him? He's been hunting the area for 35 years.. Said he's never seen things as bad as this..He did not Harvest. Said he felt as if he would be a part of the problem slammin a Small inmature Buck..


I would say next time, a little more hiking and a little less humping might produce better results as far as hunting goes.... but when the hunting is slow, you have to find other ways to entertain yourself


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> Have a freind who just got home from 5 1/2 days of humping not sitting on his Wheeler > Up around the Woodland Area.. Total Count 3 little 2 points 1 small 3 point and 11 Doe, 2 Fawns.. So any you guys have any answers for him? He's been hunting the area for 35 years.. Said he's never seen things as bad as this..He did not Harvest. Said he felt as if he would be a part of the problem slammin a Small inmature Buck..


Tell him to blame it on Option 2.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> oldfudd said:
> 
> 
> > Have a freind who just got home from 5 1/2 days of humping not sitting on his Wheeler > Up around the Woodland Area.. Total Count 3 little 2 points 1 small 3 point and 11 Doe, 2 Fawns.. So any you guys have any answers for him? He's been hunting the area for 35 years.. Said he's never seen things as bad as this..He did not Harvest. Said he felt as if he would be a part of the problem slammin a Small inmature Buck..
> ...


Or maybe he should switch units. Tell him to hunt down on the Manti unit. I've seen PLENTY of bucks (little and big) down there over the last 7 years. He doesn't even have to go far off the Skyline Drive to find big bucks like this:[attachment=1:34lufrio]ImageUploadedByTapatalk1351389335.778599.jpg[/attachment:34lufrio]

or medium/small bucks like this:

[attachment=0:34lufrio]ImageUploadedByTapatalk1351389368.138870.jpg[/attachment:34lufrio]

Now I realize these two bucks are not GIANTS in some of you Old Timer's books. However, my family and I are having the time of our lives and don't live in the past. THESE are the Good Old Days in my mind! Happy hunting!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

To answer Tree's question..... I think Populations would decline. My guess is that the survival of bucks due to the lack of hunting would drive the B ratios to high numbers preventing the recruitment of fawns into the herd. If we add that to the existing problem of low quality of habitat, we would compound the problem and it would spell disaster for both the deer and the habitat.

But what do I know? I am just some hunter on an internet forum that believes too much of what biologists tell me, what I read in books and studies and not enough of what my forum peers say.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

BTW.... good looking bucks JUDD


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

oldfudd said:


> Have a freind who just got home from 5 1/2 days of humping not sitting on his Wheeler > Up around the Woodland Area.. Total Count 3 little 2 points 1 small 3 point and 11 Doe, 2 Fawns.. So any you guys have any answers for him?


Yea, we just had one of the worst drought years in recorded history. Food sources were affected, deer have moved into other areas. It was a pain finding them I found, but when you found areas that they moved into, there were ALOT of them

Seems to be a boomer year for harvests according to people I've talked too.

-DallanC


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Um Tree I know I know pick me!

B/D ratio's would increase to natural optimal levels that have been tested by eons of evolution and natural selection. (30 to 40/100) But the overall deer herd would see little if any increase. Because predation will not be addressed and predators will take what the hunter does not harvest or the equivalent of. 

Capacity and compensatory right?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> No sense in speculating. Of course we'd have to cross reference winter mortality and range conditions.
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> ...


Nobody reads something that involves......how do you say, BIOLOGY, HISTORY, SCIENCE, and DATA....that requires doing something other than blaming stupid DWR bios and super sized lions!
:O•-:


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question for everyone. What exactly do you think would happen to the mule deer (Not just bucks) population in Utah if we permanently stopped hunting them?
> ...


How many coyotes, lions, bears, highways, bi-ways, bucks with ovaries, and prairie dogs are there on antelope island? Not poking at you, just asking in general


----------



## shootemup (Nov 30, 2008)

Shawn....where is your deer? Slow hiking, fast hiking who cares. Wasatch mts west is a busy unit, maybe you should choose your unit more wisely. My money is where my mouth is where is yours? Bottom line is you complain and smack talk and ill shot big deer


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

shootemup said:


> Shawn....where is your deer? Slow hiking, fast hiking who cares. Wasatch mts west is a busy unit, maybe you should choose your unit more wisely. My money is where my mouth is where is yours? Bottom line is you complain and smack talk and ill shot big deer


its right here.... and i didnt need a rifle to kill it either.








i can back up anything and everything i say... and your buck isnt BIG. hes decent, like mine. but in all reality, its a p1ss head. nothing more than a good GS deer.

i know many people who can hike 4.5 hours and not make it much more than a mile... :O•-:

and i, just like everyone else, had to pick their unit BEFORE tag numbers were released. once tag numbers are set, its too late to back out and pick a different unit because they are going to allow too many hunters in it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The bottom line is: Now that we finally have true deer unit management,
Permit numbers can be adjusted to make units as GOOD or BAD as we want....

It really is 'kinda' up to the hunters of Utah to decide what they want in 'their' unit...

It comes down to a simple question, Lot's of permits and continue the path were on,
OR cut permits, hunt every other year or so, and have a 'higher quality' lower crowded hunt.

It's up to Utah hunters to decide, Majority rules  8) :O||:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> ............................its right here.... and i didnt need a rifle to kill it either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good deer, good job.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The Mule Deer Working Group is a propaganda machine. Driving the mentality that is doing far far more to end general hunting in Utah as we have known it in the past then any other factor hands down. This mother nature control only deer BS. We can manipulate just about every other big game species herd but we have no control over deer. Its weather and habitat huh. Oh yah the MDWG also breaks its arm patting itself on the back for dispelling predation myths concerning mule deer. If your wondering what i'm talking about just look at WY2 or KBLZD posts they are lock step beating the drum. Everything is OK what are you complaining about we have no control and hunters have no effect so continue as usual and quit complaining habitat habitat habitat people bad and predators sure the he11 don't matter.

And also the MDWG is made up of the greatest mule deer minds in Hawaii Alaska California and Oklahoma plus the other relevant mule deer states. Who's the top dog and what his Mule deer credentials? What are his accomplishments in mule deer recovery? :lol: Our very own Karpowitz. Did he needed a resume to get the job? Or do they just draw names out of a hat? 

The people that make up the MDWG very well may have mule deer as a species as a priority to them. But don't confuse that with them having your hunting as part of their priorities. Your hunt is a nuisance to them something they just have to put up with. They do not value your harvest as the primary tool to control deer populations. They prefer that job be done by natural predators. And they love what is is doing to us. I'm not saying they are anti hunting. I'm saying they are anti manipulate mother nature for hunting.

And I say it all the time. The plan mother nature made does not facilitate 100,000 hunters. The pie is only so big someone has to give up their share. We grew up on the predators share during the 40s to 80s. We quit poisoning and predators took their share back and then some. Because there was way more game than what mother nature would have under her plan. (pre settlement) So we have predators back so we need to either micro manage predation to facilitate 100,000 hunters and the harvest that comes from that. Or limit hunter harvest down to a point that is sustainable. I think the DWR is trying to find solutions to the mess they have started with crap like 5 day hunts and extremely low B/D ratios. But I think we have passed around dozens of ideas in the past on how to increase hunter opportunity. And for what ever reason the DWR and board are resistant to this kind of pro hunter experimentation. (so does the MDWG) We are most likely at or near capacity. I could argue for days about how we got there with only 200,000 deer but lets save that for another thread. So if we are at capacity and we are not going to increase it anytime soon. Given we an ever increasing population that is less and less likely to support serious regimented predator control for the sake of deer hunters. Since weather wont cooperate and traffic is only going to increase. Why do we recruit hunters and try to retain them. And if we at capacity why not increase the B/D ratios take more buck off the range in fall leaving more margin for the doe left to winter.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> shootemup said:
> 
> 
> > Shawn....where is your deer? Slow hiking, fast hiking who cares. Wasatch mts west is a busy unit, maybe you should choose your unit more wisely. My money is where my mouth is where is yours? Bottom line is you complain and smack talk and ill shot big deer
> ...


Nice buck at 12 or 13 years old. Do you know Shawn Larsen from Payson who was caught running around naked on a trail camera a few years ago. I believe he's older than 12yrs old.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

coyoteslayer said:


> Nice buck at 12 or 13 years old. Do you know Shawn Larsen from Payson who was caught running around naked on a trail camera a few years ago. I believe he's older than 12yrs old.


Funny guy eh? Atleast i have the ability to "run" around...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > Nice buck at 12 or 13 years old. Do you know Shawn Larsen from Payson who was caught running around naked on a trail camera a few years ago. I believe he's older than 12yrs old.
> ...


I was just asking the question to see if you knew him, but instead you try to insult me which just made me laugh. -_O- -_O- -_O-

So I guess by your reponse then you know him. I don't need the ability to run to kill big bucks.


----------



## shootemup (Nov 30, 2008)

One deer huh.....um good job....shawn...


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Iron Bear.....really? Nowhere will get an argument that lions, tigers, bear, unicorns, dragons, and beaver are killing deer and elk. They should be obliterated! Not because they pose a threat to the ecology of the great mule deer, but because a select few have no other argument to bring to the table. See how rediculous that all sounds? So does your last post.

I was going to rebute everything you posted, but instead, I'll just post the members of the working group, since you're too worried about a lion breaking down your door with DWR Fish Cops in tow on a rage to violate your principles on hunting...somehow.

Current Members
Jim Karpowitz, Director Sponsor, Utah Division of Wildlife

Jim Heffelfinger, Chair, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Shawn Gray, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Andy Lindbloom, South Dakota Department Game and Fish

Travis Williams, Saskatchewan Department of Environment and Resource Management

Kim Morton, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division

Tom Keegan, Idaho Department Fish & Game

Tony Wasley, Nevada Department of Wildlife

Rob Florkiewicz, Yukon Department of Environment

Lloyd Fox, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

Miles Moretti, Mule Deer Foundation

Kevin Rodden, Weybright, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Thomas Kaiakapu, Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Daryl Lutz, Wyoming, Game and Fish Department

Anis Aoude, Utah Division Wildlife Resources

Bruce Trindle, Nebraska Game and Parks Department

Jerry Nelson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Karin McCoy, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Mary Sommer, California Fish and Game Department

Bruce Stillings, North Dakota Game and Fish Department

Don Whittaker, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Brian Wakeling, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Andy Holland, Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife

Quentin Kujala, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Department

VACANT, Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation

Gerald Kuzyk, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Seems to me that some of these people are pretty smart....oh, and I might add that even though Jim K is retiring, he also hunts, and so does Anis, and so does almost every single biologist I know in Utah, Nevada, and Colorado. Hunters are ALL a part of their plan as they discuss public perception, pressure, and other related issues and their affect not only on deer management, but on general perception. They've got you're very argument about lions on their "propaganda" sight as well and it is a valid concern. Some time researching through their ACTUAL RESEARCH would provide plenty for your argument that Sasquatch are good for deer, mountain lions are the holy grail of evil (pun intended). I'd also like to know where the Mule Deer Working Group puts out "propaganda" to advance some sort of cause......

Oh, you mean....like THIS:

2011 WESTERN STATES AND PROVINCES DEER AND ELK WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

I noticed there were hunting groups who sponsor this....SCI, MDF, and your beloved SFW. Hmmmmm I really like page 11 AND 17.

:O•-: o-|| :O•-: o-||


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

coyoteslayer said:


> I don't need the ability to run to kill big bucks.


No... just private property.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

shootemup said:


> One deer huh.....um good job....shawn...


Haha yeah. Id just embarrass you with the others  oh btw, none of which were shot with rifles :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> The people that make up the MDWG very well may have mule deer as a species as a priority to them. But don't confuse that with them having your hunting as part of their priorities. Your hunt is a nuisance to them something they just have to put up with. They do not value your harvest as the primary tool to control deer populations. They prefer that job be done by natural predators. And they love what is is doing to us. I'm not saying they are anti hunting. I'm saying they are anti manipulate mother nature for hunting.


KZBLDAD, In reply to your post all I can add to that is maybe your bio buddies are super hunters like yourself. And can and will put trail cams up in their secret spot and have a handle on every buck and bull like you have and do. (then bich because someone walks into your area :roll: ) As for Anis and Jim my guess is their positions in wildlife management has lent itself to unimaginable big game hunting opportunities that the "average Joe" will never get. And as for SFW and any other conservation group including the UWN. They can all get bent as far as I care. I don't consider myself a member of any of them and was duped into joining the UWN. But like the Mormons I'm sure they will count me as a member for eternity. You see they benefit from this mentality I speak of. The notion that deer hunting needs to improve and they are going to help does wonders for recruitment. The FS and BLM don't want to increase deer they work for cattle. Private hunters and outfitters benefit from less deer. Bio's get to play mother nature to a certain extent and tree hugers get to feel good about restoring ecosystems. And that silly azz hillbilly who actually witnessed the decline first hand is talking unicorns and sasquatch.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay guys this threads starting to go where they always go, bickering at each other and certain people fighting with the same certain people. The threads about changes to help our utah deer herd, that is all.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet a nickel this thread goes over 16 pages.
> ...


Almost there. We hammered predators now and touched on SFW and other organized hunting groups but are still going strong. This one may make 20+. Carry on. :O||:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > wyogoob said:
> ...


Ah, ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, hee, hee. If it didn't go 19 pages I was gonna throw out the "SFW" acronym just to keep the thread rollin'.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

We haven't touched on wolves yet. I'm smitten. Wyoming has a wolf hunt now, so we are running a bunch (hundreds, maybe even thousands) of wolves, their bellies full of deer, elk and moose, into Utah.

I would think you guys would account on the impact wolves will have on future deer herds in Utah.



Ok, ok, I'll go away.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need the ability to run to kill big bucks.
> ...


Nope, maybe you do, but the majority of my hunts are on public land.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

your cheating wyogoob by adding your own post to it.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > wyogoob said:
> ...


Sorry....thought IB would argue with substance and I'm also sorry about throwing out the SFW first. I was hoping for at least 20 pages too. I'll stop now....hope to see everyone out during the idiot bios winter counts and model projection studies.....or at least one of you anyway.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

We also haven't touched on shed hunting and the toll it takes on wintering deer and disrupting fawning.
o-|| o-||


----------



## shootemup (Nov 30, 2008)

Like the kind of embarrassment one might feel after being caught naked on a trail cam.....?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Statewide simply doesn't work, neither does regional. If these tactics had worked we would have seen an increase in the deer population, not been looking for a way to change for better management because our deer herd is disappearing.


I couldn't disagree more. One has virtually nothing to do with the other. The reasons for deer decline have practically nothing to do with buck only hunting strategies. Therefore trying to find a solution to declining deer numbers by modifying buck only hunting strategies is pointless and frankly standing in the way of meaningful progress. In other words quit trying new tires every year to fix an engine that isn't running right. That's like saying obviously Goodyears are crap because my engine is running worse than it ever has.

We can sit here and modify hunting rules over and over and over and over. We can all sit on internet message boards and argue and argue and argue. We can go to RAC meetings and yell at each other. We can sit on our diners and talk about how the division is screwing everything up. But until we all start to really look at what is truly affecting deer numbers we'll never really change anything. They'll just keep declining or stabilize at a much lower number than hunters want to see. About the only thing we can really do with buck hutning strategies is determine how big the bucks are running around out there for hunters to chase and how many hunters get to hunt but it has virtually nothing to do with deer numbers. Fawns and does are the key to deer numbers!!

ENOUGH OF THIS INSANITY ALREADY!!!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Some folks still don't get that buck hunting is surplus hunting.

WOW!


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

MadHunter said:


> Some folks still don't get that buck hunting is surplus hunting.
> 
> WOW!


AMEN!!!!!!


----------

