# Utah deer herd



## Matt26 (Oct 23, 2012)

Utah deer herd is going south faster ever year more should be dune by the dnr like make it 4 point or better the for kids for there first year hunting can shoot any buck deer or they can make it if you shoot a deer smaller then a 3 point you get punished and cant hunt deer the next year


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

The deer will never come back too were they was in the 60' and 70's. And will continue crashing until hunting pressure is drastically reduced. I grew up on Diamond Mountain and when I was a kid there was not alot of deer and very few bucks. After it was turned into LE the deer started to rebound. Diamond has lions, coyotes, and poaching like all other general units, but what it doesn't have is alot of hunters. If hunters want a tag every year then keep the regs. the same. I have had one deer tag in six years on general units and really don't plan on getting another for a while. If hunters want kids too have better opportunity then buy a tag every three years. If hunters want a yearling buck then keep regs. the same. If hunters want something bigger then you got to let the little ones walk by.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

This pain in the butt old man has Preached the 3 point or better. for years, if you want to get gutted out with a dull deer antler and strung up.. Say the words 3 POINT OR BETTER.! People get real personnel with ya. I Think from Monroe Mountain to Fishlake The Boulders and the Parker Plateau should be 3 Point or better for 3 to 4 years. Just say a management test and see if these units rebound. If not, open it up to the way it is now..Some folks think it's worth a try..


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey Matt26. Welcome to the forum.

Your question is a good one. And one worth study. I'm guessing you are pretty new to stuff- this was your first post here at least. I'll try to summarize this, as we've discussed it countless times in the years. If you go back and search some old threads, you'll learn quite a bit.

Long and short of it is this. Many states, including this one, have tried 3-point or better rules in the past. It has never been proven through research to have significant impacts on the numbers of bucks, or the quality of bucks. On the flip side, many guys like Oldfudd felt like the rules worked pretty good and can tell you about specific units where they feel it would be good. Oldfudd is wise and has some great experience. There are many on here like him that you can learn from.

But while the jury is out on the 3-point rules, I'm not aware of any fish and game agency that would say such regulations have accomplished the desired results. And they have ended up dropping the rule after trying it for several years. 

Great question though. One many have asked before you and will probably ask in the future.


----------



## Watcher (Dec 31, 2008)

I don't claim to be an expert on elk/deer managment but I've ran around the woods for more years than I like to think about. Herd animals are cyclical and adaptive.

When I was a kid they cancelled deer season in Minnesota because of the lack of deer. Now they have multiple deer tags in many mid-west states (you have to shoot a doe before you can shoot a buck). Obviously lots of reasons but one nobody talks about is my observation that Whitetails have become increasingly comfortable in semi-urban areas (winter habitat is even more critical in the north). I also watch the Elk around Estes Park CO. I keep wondering if Mule Deer will eventually develop this adaptive behavior.

I would also look closely at Colorao. When I lived there they experimented with a 3 point of better rule for deer and then a 4 point or better for elk. After a number of years they eliminated it for deer because it wasn't working but kept it for elk becuase it was. Obviously lots of reasons again. But one nobody talked about is my observation on the importance of the timing of the rut relative to the hunting season. 

The elk were finished rutting by the time the season started so the loss of mature males could be replaced by the next rut. The deer hadn't started rutting by the time the season started so the loss of mature males had an immediate impact on the success of the breeding does and the gene pool. 

Is it safe to say Colorado's elk and deer herds are as healthy or healthier than Utah's?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Utah's elk herds are doing better than Colorado. And mule deer are struggling big time in Colorado - just like here. Mule deer herds aren't healthy anywhere. I'd suggest that Montana has the best and most stable mule deer populations but that is a function of the quantity and quality of habitats that is simply unmatched by any other state. But 2/3 of that state is private land as well. And the herds in SW Montana are struggling - similar to Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and Idaho.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

The DWR says that antler point restrictions don't work. I was at a wildlife board meeting a year or two ago, and heard DWR director Jim Karpowitz give a very convincing explanation as to why, with limited exceptions, that's the case.

I found this on the DWR website at http://wildlife.utah.gov/blog/2011/your ... eer-herds/



> The subject of antler point restrictions has come up several times in the responses, so I want to comment on it.
> 
> Antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or deer with larger antlers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

If you wanna see bigger bucks, quit killing the biggest bucks on the mountain, or cut the number of tags by about 90%. That means 10,000 or fewer tags. Yeah, right. Like that's gonna happen. Look at the number of people who are complaining this year.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

The smaller bucks taste better, just sayin


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I think anyone who shoots a 3 point or better should be punished...by protecting those big bucks, we will all benefit because there will be more of them!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

utahgolf said:


> The smaller bucks taste better, just sayin


I've said it before, I'll say it again. I've passed on large mature bucks to shoot a smaller one. I eat'em and yearlings are better table fare. I know too many people obsessed with "antlers" and "inches" who end up throwing out their entire deer because "oh we dont really like deer meat". Those people IMO, are more of a problem than some guy who brings his boy along for a hunt and shoots a 2pt.

-DallanC


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

Punish people that shoot a 3 point or bigger? If you can't ever take a big Muley without punishment, what good does it do anyone to have them out there?

I have taken 4 points, 3x4's, two points, and even managed to get a nice 5x6 a few years ago...all in the same area, all during the general hunt. I don't think it is so much a matter of passing on the small ones as it is being in the right place at the right time. I blame nobody but myself if I can't find a large mature deer during the hunt.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

This discussion is exhausting and very confusing to me. Frankly, I'm getting tired of the contradiction every time this comes up. Let's be clear. Are we talking about DEER?...or are we talking about BUCKS? Too often I hear people say the Utah's deer herd is struggling and in the same sentence say that we need to quit shooting bucks... or quit shooting small bucks... or only shoot big bucks...or decrease hunting pressure in order to help the "herd". If you are talking about improving hunting or the quality of bucks, then you make sense, but the number of bucks we shoot has little to do with the growth of the "deer herd". 

It takes 4 bucks to breed 100 does. The "deer herd" is a function of doe numbers and the fawns that survive. What we have is a habitat issue. Soooooo, if you want to improve buck quality for hunting purposes then by all means stop shooting so many bucks/young bucks. But, if you want to improve the "deer herd" you need to pray for precipitation and mild winters. Are there other factors? Yes, but with a couple good years of precipitation and mild winters we can grow deer pretty fast. We just haven't had that for awhile. Sorry if I'm coming off as a jerk, but all the buck:doe management and antler and tag restrictions in the world won't bring back our deer herd.... only bucks. The two are very different. So please, let's be clear on what we are talking about.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

polarbear said:


> This discussion is exhausting and very confusing to me. Frankly, I'm getting tired of the contradiction every time this comes up. Let's be clear. Are we talking about DEER?...or are we talking about BUCKS? Too often I hear people say the Utah's deer herd is struggling and in the same sentence say that we need to quit shooting bucks... or quit shooting small bucks... or only shoot big bucks...or decrease hunting pressure in order to help the "herd". If you are talking about improving hunting or the quality of bucks, then you make sense, but the number of bucks we shoot has little to do with the growth of the "deer herd".
> 
> It takes 4 bucks to breed 100 does. The "deer herd" is a function of doe numbers and the fawns that survive. What we have is a habitat issue. Soooooo, if you want to improve buck quality for hunting purposes then by all means stop shooting so many bucks/young bucks. But, if you want to improve the "deer herd" you need to pray for precipitation and mild winters. Are there other factors? Yes, but with a couple good years of precipitation and mild winters we can grow deer pretty fast. We just haven't had that for awhile. Sorry if I'm coming off as a jerk, but all the buck:doe management and antler and tag restrictions in the world won't bring back our deer herd.... only bucks. The two are very different. So please, let's be clear on what we are talking about.


You can scream it until you die. However, some people will never understand. Good luck!


----------



## Matt26 (Oct 23, 2012)

So then why dont that go about it like are elk just do it spike or two point and see if that works


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Matt26 said:


> So then why dont that go about it like are elk just do it spike or two point and see if that works


That would improve the quality of the bucks.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wyoming has gone to the 3 point or better rules on many units this year ..

I'm watching close, there going to to be some SMOKER ,sleeper, units in
Wyoming that are easy to draw in a couple years. WITH BIG BUCKs :!: 

That's were I'll be deer hunting..


----------



## 90redryder (Oct 10, 2011)

I would actually say that i've seen a good increase in the population since a couple years ago when they drastically cut the number of tags. It sucks to miss a year of hunting but overall its worth it because it really has helped the herd. A few years ago I remember seeing almost no deer in my areas, through the elk hunt this year I saw more small bucks than you can shake a stick at. These small bucks are the bucks that were saved over the last few years from tag numbers being cut. I agree there is alot of work that needs to be done to get the population back up, but I think it is on its way up.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

4 buck to 100 doe! That's the ratio every private wildlife enterprise strives for. Not. Most want it around 30+. After all their in it for the money and most try to maximize the value to their customers. (buck deer)

Maybe the armchair bio's around here could teach them a thing or 2 about what a real biologist told them when they where on a ride along. After all we manage every other big game species male/female ratios to the very extreme of biological viability. It only make sense to treat deer the same way. :roll: 

So if we are at capacity then why talk about maximizing fawn production with low buck doe ratio's. Why not increase available buck to be harvested just before winter. Is maintaining a herd at maximum capacity even responsible? Undo stress on the range and herd in hard times?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

90redryder said:


> These small bucks are the bucks that were saved over the last few years from tag numbers being cut.


*NO. They're not!!!*

They are the babies. Small bucks aren't saved over years and years. Big bucks can be saved for a few years, but small bucks are young bucks. Small bucks come from fawns being able to survive. From does being able to give birth. Not from tags being cut.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Fawn survival is most important.

Mature bucks are more important to the herd than yearling bucks. 

Mature bucks taste good, too.

You can't stock-pile mule deer. If you stop buck hunting for 5 years, you won't have many bucks if the year 5 winter kills them all.

All those yearling doe born in 2011 will be having fawns in 2013. The future is bright and we humans had NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA to do with that. Thank you Mother Nature and your blessing of great fawning conditions in the Spring/Summer of 2011 and your mild winter of 2011/2012...... BUT please bless us with a survivor winter for 2012/2013.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Packout said:


> Fawn survival is most important.
> 
> Mature bucks are more important to the herd than yearling bucks.
> 
> ...


Are you sure option 2 didn't have something to do with it? :mrgreen: 
Kidding I couldn't agree more with this!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I read in the paper tonight that more mature bucks have been killed so far this year than in the last two years combined. Looks like Option 2 is working.  
I wonder how high the success rate will get after this big storm passes in the next couple day. Could be a bad second weekend for the deer(bucks).


----------



## 90redryder (Oct 10, 2011)

Fishrmn said:


> 90redryder said:
> 
> 
> > These small bucks are the bucks that were saved over the last few years from tag numbers being cut.
> ...


When I say small bucks, im not talking spikes, im talking small 3 points. These are bucks that were spikes 2 years ago when they cut tag numbers and had more of a chance to make it through the season because there were less hunters out chasing them. So YES these are bucks that are still out there because tag numbers were cut and they were not killed. Its not a coincidence that an area went from having almost no bucks one year, the next year they cut tag numbers and then two or three years later the place has young bucks all over the place.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

90redryder said:


> When I say small bucks, im not talking spikes, im talking small 3 points. These are bucks that were spikes 2 years ago when they cut tag numbers and had more of a chance to make it through the season because there were less hunters out chasing them. So YES these are bucks that are still out there because tag numbers were cut and they were not killed. Its not a coincidence that an area went from having almost no bucks one year, the next year they cut tag numbers and then two or three years later the place has young bucks all over the place.


The tag cuts were back in 1994. Before that the deer tags were over the counter, and unlimited. Since then there has been basically 97,000 tags. Even with option 2 they managed to sell nearly the same number of tags. If there are does in the area getting bred, there will be bucks next year.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Simple...if you want more deer, you have to drastically reduce the number of elk on the mountain! The elk will always win the battle for winter food, leaving a starving deer population. So boys, what will it be...deer or elk...you can't have both!
If you throw out the Wasatch front and other pockets of recent human habitation that reduce actual habitat acreage, there has really been no change to the environment that would effect the deer populations other than the tremendous increase in the population of elk. The answer is right there in front of your faces...it's the elk!


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Personally I think anyone over the age of 18 ought to only be able to harvest an animal every other or every third year in Utah on the general hunt - meaning mandatory harvest reports for all hunters for all seasons for deer AND elk - If you fail to report, don't expect to be eligible to hunt the following year(s). 

Like others have said, I also feel the elk seasons should be pushed back into mid Oct for rifle with archery and muzzy taking up Sept into mid Oct like all the other states do (except NV) and offer split or second archery and muzzy opportunity late season to afford more opportunity with potential odds of success that mirror rifle success... twice as many archery and muzzy permits to make up for the decline in revenue to reduction of rifle hunting tags.
Specific to the prior post to mine about elk populations competing with deer... though there is no difinitive study on the subject of competition between the two, it is hard to argue that while the elk numbers have gone from 7-8000 animals to 45,000+, the deer numbers have drammatically declined in ALL areas where elk have increased. 

My personal observations over the past 30 years suggest that we have to decide if we want to have deer or elk... we can have both, but we have to accept the fact that there will continue to be a decline in deer as elk increase - and surely their numbers will increase as it has already been suggested that the "goal" is 65,000+ elk by 2014 or so....


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Matt26 said:


> Utah's deer herd is going south faster every year. More should be done by the DNR, like make it 4 point or better. Then for kids, for their first year hunting, they can shoot any buck deer. Or they can make it such that if you shoot a deer smaller then a 3 point you get punished and can't hunt deer the next year.


Would you please explain your reasoning how limiting the buck harvest to 4 point or better will increase the deer herd!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Packout is righ on the money.

On another note....the bucks that we hunt are all surpluss animals. 4 to 6 deer are all that is needed to breed 100 does. The DWR manages most areas for 18:100 B ratios *after* the hunt. That means that before the hunt the D:B ratio is as much as 35:100. That puts the surpluss at around 20:100 by management objectives.

As far as the overall population.... that's a tough one. The area I typically hunt has more deer than I have seen in 20 years. However, when talking to other hunters in that same area I get comments about how they haven't seen any deer. It's all a matter of perspective. There are areas that are struggling no doubt about that but there are areas that are thriving and booming. The general trend of the deer population is, for all intents and purposes, steady. Since we cannot accurately count deer, we have to go off of the population trend.

To grow more deer we need to reduce the doe tags, work on habitat which takes 10+ years to show results and we need mother nature to be kind.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

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?


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

I agree with Packout and Finnegans points, that winter survival rates play a much bigger role than option 2 ever will and that a hunter cant assess a units quality from what he sees with his own two eyes. 

I do wonder, if the general season were set up like the dedicated program in terms of maybe hunters could only draw a general season deer tag 2 out of every 3 years, wouldnt that help in some way? I mean obviously there would be less bucks killed which means more bucks to survive the winter. It may not necessarily translate into a huge jump in fawn production but I would have to think that there would be more does that are successfully bred if there are more bucks around. 

I guess that begs the question, of 100 does that are capable of being bred how many of them ARE successfully bred?

I dont have any biological data to back this up, but common sense leads me to think that while 6 bucks COULD breed 100 does will those 6 bucks literally track down all 100 of those does within a certain square mile radius and successfully breed with everyone? Wouldnt having 15 bucks (or 25 bucks for that matter) increase the number of does that do in fact give birth?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Name one habitat project that has resulted in more deer post treatment? Especially the ones done over 10 yrs ago. 

Name one unit that has more deer post habitat restoration? And can it be directly attributed to the habitat project.

Explain how 4 fork horns breed 100 doe in a timely fashion. How long do you want the rut to last? 4 months Nov to Feb? That is nowhere near mother natures plan. I want doe bread ASAP so fawn can be born when mother nature intended early spring not mid summer. And I want proven entities to do the breeding. For the same reason I don't want Tom Brady's son to start for the Pats. (yet) Sure he has great genes but lets see if he can play first. 

Has anyone asked the doe how they feel about this? :?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How many buck deer are in Utah anyway?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

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?


Truer words have never been spoken. I wish certain people would take this to heart.


----------



## polarbear (Aug 1, 2011)

The point I was trying to make about 4 bucks breeding 100 does is simply that buck management doesn't improve the deer herd as a whole, just the bucks. Do I want more and bigger bucks on the mountain? Of course. I'm just saying that our problem will not be solved by buck management. It will improve hunting but is not sustainable if the bigger problem isn't solved. That's all.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

*Less elk=more deer...more elk =less deer!!*. Why do you guys not believe this. Are you just a bunch of simpletons that think all we need to do is just get a new plan or a new law or new rules and regulations, or maybe some gimmick like 3 points or better and the deer herds will just make a magical recovery, well guess what, the deers aren't listening, hell they can't even read.

Basically, elk are an invasive species in mule deer habitat. They are bigger, stronger, faster and better capable of surviving the winter than deer. The elk eat all the **** food and the deer herds simply go hungry and diminish in size to match what winter food supply is left for them.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> *Less elk=more deer...more elk =less deer!!*. Why do you guys not believe this. Are you just a bunch of simpletons that think all we need to do is just get a new plan or a new law or new rules and regulations, or maybe some gimmick like 3 points or better and the deer herds will just make a magical recovery, well guess what, the deers aren't listening, hell they can't even read.
> 
> Basically, elk are an invasive species in mule deer habitat. They are bigger, stronger, faster and better capable of surviving the winter than deer. The elk eat all the **** food and the deer herds simply go hungry and diminish in size to match what winter food supply is left for them.


Thats funny! I can go on several units where deer and elk co-exist just fine! The only difference is they are LIMITED ENTRY! Wake up people, your killing them!


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

What about habitat loss?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

massmanute said:


> What about habitat loss?


Oops. I posted this before reading the whole thread. Still, think of my last post as emphasizing the habitat question.


----------



## houndhunter (Oct 2, 2010)

massmanute said:


> What about habitat loss?


That is for sure a problem! But some parts of the state have not seen near the habitat loss as others, and the deer are still becoming fewer and fewer. Buck to doe ratios are a big problem I think. Sure there may be 5,6,7,8 or even more per hundred does during the spring and summer, but how is it during the rut?


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

BP has hit one of the bigger pieces of the puzzle I think. Habitat and weather are the next two biggest not necessarily in the right order, but those I think are the top 3, which are all inter-related. Then predators, roads, and finally hunters. Hunters are a drop in the bucket, killing all bucks. They have some affect but little. How about we manage 3 LE elk units to anybull status and up cow permits, two things happen, more opportunity to hunt and less impact on winterground/habitat. More winterground/habitat better deer. But what the heck do I know.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

houndhunter said:


> massmanute said:
> 
> 
> > What about habitat loss?
> ...


I think this is a big misconception about habitat loss. Not all the loss is from development. Alot probably even more is just that the habitat is to old and holds no nutritional value for deer. It still looks to us like its good but its not. There is a ton of factors that play into this the big one I believe is the wildland fire plan. If there where more prescribed burns in the winter grounds then new plant life, full of nutrients can replace the old. Invasive plants are another problem. 
People see sagebrush all over and think there is plenty of habitat which is simply not the case.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Its only going to get worse with deer numbers. You have most of the cities in Northern Utah County drafting depredation type hunts with the DWR for next summer. There are too many nuisance deer according to the cities. People have built their communities on winter range and are now complaining the deer eat their shrubs, etc. These deer killed will not be just bucks but straight across the board. What impact will it have with 5-6 cities doing these hunts?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> Its only going to get worse with deer numbers. You have most of the cities in Northern Utah County drafting depredation type hunts with the DWR for next summer. There are too many nuisance deer according to the cities. People have built their communities on winter range and are now complaining the deer eat their shrubs, etc. These deer killed will not be just bucks but straight across the board. What impact will it have with 5-6 cities doing these hunts?


To be honest not much, most of those animals are city animals, meaning they never leave the city. There are some that go back and forth. I do agree with you that we are building, especially up North, in there winter range.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

jahan said:


> To be honest not much, most of those animals are city animals, meaning they never leave the city. There are some that go back and forth. I do agree with you that we are building, especially up North, in there winter range.


No no no! Yes there are lots of summer animals in city but some of these drafts are proposing hunting similar to the extended archery... well in to late December! This will target all the wintering deer that move down near homes late in the year.

Its going to be catastrophic for any herds from central utah north!

-DallanC


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Packout, Finn and Mike all make great points. Killing bucks has virtually ZERO affect on long-term deer numbers, it's the fawn production we should all be concerned with. Compare the Henry mtns with the West Desert unit...one has over 60 bucks:100 does, the other has like 9. Both units have similar fawn production per 100 does.

There are many more mature bucks out there than you think. With so many people being in the mountains these days, big bucks learn to stay out of sight. We have people riding wheelers all summer and plenty of folks out hiking, biking, walking dogs, etc. The big bucks see people all year now and know how to avoid being seen. Just go out to your favorite spot during the rut and see what comes out. We do not need any more restrictions on killing bucks!!! We need more deer, and with that will come more bucks of every age class.

And Mikevanwilder takes the cake with his comments about habitat quality. The lack of summer rains, fires all being put out, overgrazing or undergrazing, elk populations, human encroachment - these all make it difficult for a deer to find abundant, quality feed.

I also believe predators are a much bigger problem than our DWR thinks. Coyotes are bad but the lions are wrecking way too many deer. Now if the deer populations were up around 200,000 again, lions would be eating a bunch of deer that would die of winterkill anyway. But with numbers so low already, every deer they eat is one that may have survived and reproduced.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest not much, most of those animals are city animals, meaning they never leave the city. There are some that go back and forth. I do agree with you that we are building, especially up North, in there winter range.
> ...


Good to know Dallan, do you have a link to the proposals. I would like to look into them more.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

jahan said:


> Good to know Dallan, do you have a link to the proposals. I would like to look into them more.


Lemme see if I cant dig it up. I dont have it on hand, but I personally know the guy that proposed it for Alpine.

-DallanC


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

El Matador said:


> Packout, Finn and Mike all make great points. Killing bucks has virtually ZERO affect on long-term deer numbers, it's the fawn production we should all be concerned with. Compare the Henry mtns with the West Desert unit...one has over 60 bucks:100 does, the other has like 9. Both units have similar fawn production per 100 does.
> 
> There are many more mature bucks out there than you think. With so many people being in the mountains these days, big bucks learn to stay out of sight. We have people riding wheelers all summer and plenty of folks out hiking, biking, walking dogs, etc. The big bucks see people all year now and know how to avoid being seen. Just go out to your favorite spot during the rut and see what comes out. We do not need any more restrictions on killing bucks!!! We need more deer, and with that will come more bucks of every age class.
> 
> And Mikevanwilder takes the cake with his comments about habitat quality. The lack of summer rains, fires all being put out, overgrazing or undergrazing, elk populations, human encroachment - these all make it difficult for a deer to find abundant, quality feed.


+100000


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

El Matador said:


> Packout, Finn and Mike all make great points. Killing bucks has virtually ZERO affect on long-term deer numbers, it's the fawn production we should all be concerned with. *Compare the Henry mtns with the West Desert unit...one has over 60 bucks:100 does, the other has like 9. Both units have similar fawn production per 100 does.*


This here is the perfect example of why we cannot/should not manage for more bucks. The fawn production ratios in the units compared are the same. Yet one would think that habitat on the henries is far better. So why the low production? TOO MANY **** BUCKS! If the B ratio on the Henries was trimmed down by half we would see the overall number of deer rise.

The reason the Henries is what it is? The trophy genetics. It all equals big $$$


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest not much, most of those animals are city animals, meaning they never leave the city. There are some that go back and forth. I do agree with you that we are building, especially up North, in there winter range.
> ...


Several of us have been working on urban hunts for a few years now. I'm not familiar with the Alpine proposal specifically but I know of 3 proposals out there and helped draft 2 of them. The proposals I've seen include elements that will prevent any "catastrophe"

1. Urban hunting will only be open to select hunters who have been trained, tested and background checked.
2. Urban hunts will not be annual events, but set by city officials & DWR when necessary, (depredation hunt).
3. Urban hunters will have limited time windows on specific days AND specific target animals. Other restrictions may include such things as where the hunter can park or even what clothes he can wear on route to and from the hunt.
4. With very few exceptions, urban hunts can only take place on municipal property.
5. Urban hunters would keep no part of the animal.

It's easy to tell which deer are migrant and which are resident. A city would gain nothing by targeting migrants and with a very limited pool of hunters available, animal control agents and DWR would be highly motivated to put those hunters where they could do the most good in the least amount of time.

I'll also mention that these urban hunt proposals weren't cut from whole cloth. All of the ideas came from existing urban hunt models in other states. Based on the histories of how those hunts evolved, I guarantee that at some point, urban hunts will be a reality here. Next year... 5 years... 10? Don't know, but the day's coming.


----------

