# DWR and DEER TAGS



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Seen on the News that the DWR is going to remove 1900 Deer Permits for the 2013 Hunts.. What Ya think Bout That?


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Well I can tell you who is going to say it's not enough and those that cry foul before they post. -O|o-


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

I guess I should say I don't care as long as I get my Wasatch elk tag  I only plan on hunting the front after mid September this year.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

If I don't draw this year and with age creepin in. I'll jus hang it up.Not drawing a general season 
archery tag last year for the first time since 1963, was like gettin booted in the nerts. like to go
out and stop my hunting life on my terms.looks like that choice will be made for me.. so watch for one
hell of a fire .. on archery equipement sale 50 yrs of stuff..


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Fudd, you have 1 pp (point) for general deer from last year right?

Because 1 point will be the golden ticket for a Boulder archery tag in 6 weeks  

And the boulder buck to doe classifacation last winter was FANTASTIC! 25/100 ..

I think you might be in for one of the best hunts youv'e seen in a lot of years :!:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Seemed appropriate to me. Tags were cut on units that are under the buck to doe ratios objective on a 3 year average.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^^ Because only hunters kill deer. And cutting tags is the only way to increase B/D ratios. 

Plus when you cut tags then say it had to be done because you fools wanted a higher B/D ratios. It kinda is like shifting the blame. A"you asked for it". 

Oh all knowing Bullsnot, how come predator kills are compensatory but hunter kills are additive? 

Just so you know Bullsnot cutting tags is an anti hunting act. So if you want to publicly support anti hunting policy I will always be here to point it out. o-||


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Better change your avatar bullsnot, you anti huntin so and so!  Maybe a butterfly or something.

Iron Bear needs to change his avatar to rush limbaugh or darth vader, because only the Sith think in absolutes.

So oldfudd, if you don't draw and 'hang it up' does that mean you will stop posting on this forum and become a non hunter? That would be a shame


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I find it interesting that Anis said 36% more deer were killed and the herd is larger post hunt than in 2011, but we are still cutting tags overall. 

I also find it interesting that whenever buck tags are decreased, cow tags are increased by at least the same amount. 

To some degree, I don't care about the tag cut. I'm not going to draw this year. All of my friends and family are trying to figure out where and when they will be hunting in the future. I don't know when/where/and who I will be hunting with into the future. I should have gone to the RAC meeting in 2011. SFW won and successfully turned the hunt into a planning intensive event. 

I hope SFW dies a slow painful death by the anti hunting movement. I certainly won't lift a finger to defend THEIR hunting privileges.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

provider said:


> I find it interesting that Anis said 36% more deer were killed and the herd is larger post hunt than in 2011, but we are still cutting tags overall.


You mean all that harvest of bucks didn't destroy the deer herd? How can that be? The DWR's numbers are obviously screwed up....you can't kill that many bucks without ruining the population! Hmmm....maybe bucks don't have fawns!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

All you option 2, SFW haters are in for a long, tuff road!!!

SFW is growing in other states fast now:
http://www.wysfw.org/home

And opt 2 type managment for deer ( LE/LQ ) looks to be coming in Wyoming very soon...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> All you option 2, SFW haters are in for a long, tuff road!!!
> 
> SFW is growing in other states fast now:
> http://www.wysfw.org/home
> ...


If SFW grows, all you option 2, SFW lovers are also in for a long, tuff road as well!!! You just haven't figured it out yet, but you will!

Edited: Or your kids will!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

It's all a matter of prospective EFA.

For those of us that dont mind hunting general deer every other year or so,
And enjoy higher buck to doe ratios, Better quality, 
Looks to be an awesome road to travel.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > All you option 2, SFW haters are in for a long, tuff road!!!
> ...


I wouldn't worry about their kids, the model of hunting they are teaching them probably leads to a much greater chance that their kids will give up hunting anyways because it's all about big animals and everything else is a disappointment to them.


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

I guess I don't fit into any clique. I have simultaneously been outspoken about my concern for SFW's practices. But, I also think the DWR is finally doing the right thing with Utah's deer herds. Those beliefs aren't mutually exclusive. Let's give it a few years and see what happens.

I don't feel like the previous management style worked at all. I'm okay with trying something new. If it doesn't work, we'll know and we can make changes. The new Utah system is very similar to the Colorado system of management, which has certainly worked.

Utah's new system is, in essence, a free-market driven system. Over time, the points required for a given unit will even out and be assigned a "value" by the hunters. There will be no point-creep except on the top 1 or 2 units (see Colorado).

Each hunter can decide how good of a unit they want to hunt and how often. I support it. 

We couldn't continue down the same path we were on and expect it to get better.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Wyoming is now looking at what Utah has done. (option 2)

Lots of talk over there that they will do the same thing.

Only difference, they call them limted quota units, or LQs..

Sound like some VERY strong support from Wyoming residents to go this route.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

grizzly said:


> The new Utah system is very similar to the Colorado system of management, which has certainly worked.


Are you serious? Colorado has lost half its deer population since moving to this system...and it works? How is that working? If anything, Colorado is showing everyone the model for what does NOT work and we went and jumped on their bandwagon...



grizzly said:


> We couldn't continue down the same path we were on and expect it to get better.


Why not? As far as I am concerned, things were getting better and this year's jump in numbers is proof positive...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> It's all a matter of prospective EFA.
> 
> For those of us that dont mind hunting general deer every other year or so,
> And enjoy higher buck to doe ratios, Better quality,
> Looks to be an awesome road to travel.


I disagree with that. I want to hunt every year. it not about the killing for me. It about doing something I injoy doing with family and friends that My father passed on to me.We see bucks and big bucks every year. Hunting every other year is going to push some people way from the sport.Any more it all about killing the biggest buck or bull on the mountain and putting it in the books.What happened to the family time getting together in the hills. that all gone now and it sad to see.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

w2u,

"Are you serious? Colorado has lost half its deer population since moving to this system...and it works? How is that working? If anything, Colorado is showing everyone the model for what does NOT work and we went and jumped on their bandwagon.."

Exactly my thoughts; however, Don Peay and his disciples say we just don't understand data. 

Golf,

I wish your thoughts about their kids bailing out was true. But its my observation that the most avid hunters will pay any price to make sure their kids are successful. Those who care enough to spend the time and money to organize their special interest groups will win the future. No price is too high. I have friends who are over obsessed with this stuff. They ditch their marriages, sacrifice financial security, and forsake God for the hunting god. I have made a decision not to compete with them. Its not worth the price.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

If tags need to be cut based on what the herd needs, I'm all for them. If it's because a certain group, whoever it may be, thinks a healthy herd is based on "inches", then I against them.

I understand everyone has their own personal preferences, but if you're bummed about not getting a deer tag, why not switch to elk on the years that you don't draw a deer tag? IMO, the hunting's better for elk right now than deer anyway...and they taste a whole heckuvalot better!


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

provider said:


> w2u,
> 
> "Are you serious? Colorado has lost half its deer population since moving to this system...and it works? How is that working? If anything, Colorado is showing everyone the model for what does NOT work and we went and jumped on their bandwagon.."
> 
> ...


maybe so, probably the same sort of parents who want every kid to receive a trophy at a sporting event just for participating. But I think trophy hunting mentality is one that will fail in the long run and the parents will wish they would've gone a different route.


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> All you option 2, SFW haters are in for a long, tuff road!!!
> 
> SFW is growing in other states fast now:
> http://www.wysfw.org/home
> ...


Any malignant cancer left untreated will spread quickly...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

TEX-O-BOB said:


> goofy elk":2qhjqxyy]All you option 2 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.wysfw.org/home[/URL]
> ...


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

w2u, if you actually believe that Utah has better a deer hunting experience for the average hunter than Colorado... there really is nothing else that I can say to you. I have have lived and hunted in Utah my whole life, but have hunted Colorado multiple times in the last few years (always on tags that I drew with 0 points) and I can say without a doubt that Colorado is a better mule deer state than Utah.

If you want to be sure you are comparing apples to apples as far as habitat is concerned (since that is most peoples counterargument), look only at border units from both states where herds and terrain co-mingle. Colorado has better mule deer hunting experience, by every metric.

---------
Provider, don't imply I am a SFW disciple. Check out my posts on MM and see how publicly I have questioned SFW in the last few weeks. I have been publicly attacked by the SFW group for posting verifiably factual information.

All I am saying is that you don't have to pigeon-hole somebodies beliefs with a group just because they have the same view on one specific point. I can coincidentally have the same beliefs as a person on one subject, but disagree with them on others. It doesn't make me a shill for SFW.

Stay on message and refrain from personal attacks (like name calling and saying that I "just don't understand data.")

Grizzly


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> It's all a matter of prospective EFA.
> 
> For those of us that dont mind hunting general deer every other year or so,
> And enjoy higher buck to doe ratios, Better quality,
> Looks to be an awesome road to travel.


Nah, it's not just a matter of perspective, but a matter of time! This may appear to be an awesome road to travel now, but they ain't done. You'll wish it were every other year or so by the time they get the hunter numbers down and the buck to doe ratios and the "quality" up to where they think they want to go. The trophy mentality is a never ending road because there's always a bigger one out there somewhere and the one you just got ain't it. Yes, I know, you say you're happy with the one you got this year, but as soon as it's on the wall, you're planning on the next big one. And it's always a big one or nothing. It sorta reminds me of StarTrex's "The Trouble with Trebles" because it not only impacts those who get the ball rolling, but eventually threatens the whole ship.

Case in point! Remember a few years ago when many of us battled the southern boys (not me) over the archery "overcrowding" issue and we eventually proved there was no "overcrowding"? We won, right? And they backed off, right? Oops!! Many of you missed the fact that the Southern RAC was the ONLY RAC that opposed statewide archery, yet we now have lower regulated numbers of archers (and rifle and muzzy hunters) in many of the Southern Region units and the ability to reduce those numbers even further, thus giving the southern boys their victory afterall. And, ironically, now many of those pushing for those lower hunter numbers often won't be able to legally hunt deer on their own property. The roads we travel aren't always straight and we need to be able to see around the bends. What looks good now may not look so good from a different angle!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

EFA, I don't care if I hunt general deer in Utah only once every 3-5 years ..

That would still be more than I have in the last couple decades ..

I'm sitting on ground surrounded by the Nebo, Manti general deer units ..
Grew up hunting the Nebo, It SO POOR now, I've only hunted deer on the Nebo
once in the last 12 years! Yet I sit and watch THOUSANDS of guys in orange shoot
every little buck they see,, AND the herd never rebounds ........

SO I have to travel else were to hunt .. BS! I'm sick of it.

I want to see some decent bucks back on the Nebo Unit, again.. MY BACK YARD unit! 

Until that happens, I don't care (and hope the do) cut deer permits until that's achieved.

In the meantime, my kids and I will travel were ever needed to hunt better deer herds..
But I'm tired of the ' opportunity ' mentality ruining units were I live, and hunted many years.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Guess what everyone. There is a social aspect to hunting and it plays a large part in how things are run. I liked region tag deer hunting way better than this unit stuff. That being said I'm trying to adapt. Now that we have unit specific tags we will see decreases (and hopefully INCREASES) on certain units as herd numbers go up and down. However, should a vocal minority rule the silent majority? Some would say yes and I don't necessarily agree. For a lot of Utah general season deer hunters it is probably more about getting out with family, enjoying the outdoors, hiking a little, road hunting a lot, and having a tag in their back pocket so they can pull the trigger on whatever buck makes them happy. Would most rather shoot a big typical 4x4 once every 5 years or a smaller "yearling" buck every year? I don't care as it should be up to them.

I support tag cuts when they are backed by sound biology. In turn I feel they are not warranted when the reasoning is to "grow bigger bucks". There is a draw system already in place for that for that type of thinking.


----------



## silvertip (Sep 27, 2007)

Tex hit it on the head. The trophy pimps with SFW are ruining traditions and attitudes toward our beloved way of life. If it were up to them, regular schmoes like me would never be allowed to hunt THIER deer again. Don has the board bought and paid for. All we can hope is that the recent bad press that has been cast on those crooks finally starts to snowball and gets more people standing up and being vocal about how they perceive "success" over how the criminals at SFW perceive it.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Goofy. They shoulda closed that Nebo unit off or made it a limited unit years ago.. I can remember the days driving up the canyon to Spring City in the winter, am talking 100's and 100's of deer.As for the orange army blasting away all the young bucks it's never gonna change, I think a lot has to do with frustration.go out hunt a week, all ya see are small 2's and spikes.what the hell..


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

some people don't like to hunt hard or even really like to truly hunt and neither do their kids, and you have to hunt hard on general units for bigger deer. but that's why they want everything limited entry and don't care if they draw a tag for a few years, LE hunts are easier and you see more game, these type of "hunters" are hunters in name only.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

1900 less deer tags = 1900 more cow elk tags for some unit got to make up for the lost money somehow. kind of funny how once the deer tags started getting cut the state is over ran with cow elk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree fudd! Nebo was scheduled to go LE, along with Monroe I believe...
Too bad that didn't happen!!!!!!!!

And as far as a hand full on here that thinking its the ' Trophy hunting ' "group"
pushing opt 2, I call BS! .. yes there are some, BUT most ARE NOT!!!

Tell you guys what, lets just take the buck to doe ratios we have now, get the deer
heads to meet these objectives, and all this talk of ARs, or poor hunting will go away ..

Here's what I want to know,
Why are units like The West Desert, WITH A 6/100 BD ratio not getting BIG tag cuts?

OR Nebo,,,,13/100 BD ratio, cutting deer tags from 4,400 to 4,000???? NOT ENOUGH!

OR S Slope Vernal,, 9/100 BD ratio, A decrease of 350 permits??? again, NOT ENOUGH ..

On the other side of the coin, there are several units doing very well. With high BD ratios..

I think opt 2 is taking us down the right road to even all this out., and DEFFINATLY help ..

IMHO, The Deer tag recommendation's , could be refined, and made better for 2013 ..


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Goofy if those numbers you posted are true thats a shame. The tags should be cut in half. I would also bet 80% of the bucks that are left also reside on privite property where the public hunter will never get to hunt. The nebo was one of my favorite areas to hunt. Its a joke of a unit now!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I hadn't hunted deer in 10 years until last year I picked up a bow, and hit the hills hard scouting a unit which I had spent some time on, but never hunted(the Manti). When the hunt came I hunted hard as well. I didn't do anything crazy or difficult, but certainly had no problem seeing bucks ranging from spikes and fork horns all the way to tall, deep forked bucks with cheaters. I didn't seal the deal, but if I didn't have a tag I wouldn't have been out there seeing all of that and making some of the better memories I have. 

I personally have no idea of the condition of the Nebo unit, but I have heard others say that the Manti is a far cry from what it once was. I support tag cuts if they are deemed a biological necessity. However, I believe that many people are frustrated that they aren't seeing trophies around every bend of the road, and a little mileage on the boots can remedy that quickly.

If a newbie like myself can get out on a heavily hunted unit and see tons of bucks and several that would be considered trophies on any unit, I truly think that part of the problem is perception, and the issue is not entirely related to biology. Again, I support adjustments up or down for true biological needs, which I understand there are some units that are truly struggling, and not just to grow trophy bucks.

The "opportunity"(which seems to be a bad word to some people) I had to have a tag this last year allowed me to have some awesome experiences and failed stalks that won't soon be forgotten. Maybe I'm just not hard core enough, but if I had to wait for 3-5 years between my general season tags, I may lose some of the passion and fire that I developed for the sport and being back in the hills last year. Not trying to pick any fights, just giving my honest opinion on an issue that seems to be be the equivalent of beating a horse that was already beaten and buried.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Your going on a snipe hunt hunting a unit with less than 10 bucks per 100 does!

If sfw/dwr had a clue they would embrace archery as a tool to increase tags while still allowing quality. Tag sales dont have to go down.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Where can you find the most recent buck/doe ratio info for all units?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

gdog said:


> Where can you find the most recent buck/doe ratio info for all units?


Here ya go, BD ratios, recommended tag numbers, Antler less hunt dates, herd sizes.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... packet.pdf

And Kwalk3, out of the 30 general deer units, the Manti is at the top..may-be,the best.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

How do they figure the 3 year average age of the elk out?

Example ive found bookcliffs roadless
2010=6.8
2011=6.8
2912=6.6
Three year average =7.1? 

Not by my math! I come up with 6.73 and slightly trending down

There are quite a few more that dont add up just like that


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

goofy, I agree that the Manti is a great general season unit. I'm honestly curious why it seems to remain steady when it is pretty easily accessible across the unit. There is no shortage of hunter pressure there, and I'm sure there is a fair amount of forkies taken off the unit. What are your thoughts as to why the Manti is doing well and the Nebo is struggling so bad? Like I said, I have zero firsthand knowledge of the Nebo unit besides having driven through it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> EFA, I don't care if I hunt general deer in Utah only once every 3-5 years ..
> 
> That would still be more than I have in the last couple decades ..
> 
> ...


Goofy, Gee, thanks for proving my point!


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

I am with Old Fudd on this, As I have said before, I have archery hunted for over 30 years on Fishlake, the deer herd is nowhere near where it was and probably will not be again. This will be the second year in a row I have not put in to even hunt deer, I will hunt spikes and cows instead. I believe there needs to be bigger sacrifices from all if we ever think anything will change. We could all hunt every year if we could agree on only killing 2 or 3 deer in five years, We should all agree that its about the hunt not about the kill, and put our self serving interests ahead of the deer, they are not coming back!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I agree fudd! Nebo was scheduled to go LE, along with Monroe I believe...
> Too bad that didn't happen!!!!!!!!
> 
> And as far as a hand full on here that thinking its the ' Trophy hunting ' "group"
> ...


IMO, the recommendations don't need to be refined. The communication to the public, or more specifically those who can and are willing to comprehend the reasoning and how data transfers to management can be improved quite a bit. If they'd spend the time to communicate these things before RAC meetings, they would cut down on people taking up their time and shorten meetings quite a bit. Of course those who are unable or willing to comprehend what they are saying will still show up to RACs and continue to moan about their counts and management recommendations. The last sentence has nothing to do with the division, it has to do with the person doing the moaning.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Granted we old farts can't get out and hump them mountains like we use to, we try. but 46 yr old son 41 yr old son 23 and 19 yr old grand sons do..and just seeing lots of small bucks 
(archery Only hunters) I don't feel all units should be LE but when hunters screamed their guts out after the winter of 1983 about the decline in the deer populations on Nebo< Fishlake< Monroe<they should have cut the tags then.. instead they issued thousands of anterless tags, that were called back because the winter had taken like 75% per cent of the herds.. thats when i became a non beileiver in the dwr studies.the people in charge say all the time we need hunter imput.. but more than half of the time when you do voice ya get a letter back stating are you a big game biologist? nope just a guy who has been hunting for 50 years. spends most of his free time scouting. talking to guys who run cattle and sheep. Some units R in better shape than others. so are we going to shoot them all out to.my family is from the Sanpete Valley and I wish i could figure out how to post pictures on here.I've got some antlers that would be concidered Trophy Class now days that were the norm when I hunted the Mantis. i know it will never be that way again..ya very seldom saw 10 guys trying to blow a 2 point into hamburger just cause there was a small antler on it's head


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tell ya what Treehug,

I'm going to keep on "moan'in" about this deer stuff til I see some improvement
on a few units I think needs some help .......

Nebo inparticular, I would like to see it changed to the 18-20 BD ratio ....
Just one of the items on my list.......


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Tell ya what Treehug,
> 
> I'm going to keep on "moan'in" about this deer stuff til I see some improvement
> on a few units I think needs some help .......
> ...


Of course you would like to see Nebo on the 18-20. That was my whole point about everyone with the same perspective as you wanting "their" unit to be the higher buck to doe ratio. You are totally entitled to your philosophies and perspectives, but do you honestly think that just because it's what you consider "your" unit that it somehow holds any credibility? Doesn't it seem a little silly to have big energy on which units, without biological impact, that have the higher buck to doe ratios vs. lower? I'm sure there are plenty of people who just want to be able to hunt "their" unit as well, whether there are 4 points running around everywhere or not.

Would you be willing to swap ratios with another unit to get Nebo on the 18-20 objective? What if that unit "belongs" to someone else and they want a higher buck to doe ratio? Fact is there are probably little goofy's on every unit that want "their" unit to be the higher ratio, due to their desires and philosophies, which I contend are still completely valid.

But the fact still remains we are managing hunters with compromise here and currently, I think the division has done a good job providing both types of units. It just comes down to "your" unit not being on of those that the DWR has chosen to be managed for the higher ratio, so somehow you dissonantly contend a lack of responsible management.

Can you quantify "improvement" in your above statement?

And again, can you please quantify "enough" per your previous post?

All of these arbitrary statements have no beginning and end. They seem to get thrown out with no back story or supporting information.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

When mule deer numbers were at their peak, what was the buck:doe ratios? All you guys wanting even more rationing than we already have, can you answer that for me? Did those in charge even give a rats backside what the buck:doe ratios were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's? Hell no! But guess what,, we had loads of dear and loads of mature bucks in the mix. Now how is tha possible? -Ov-


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Goofy,

And as far as a hand full on here that thinking its the ' Trophy hunting ' "group"
pushing opt 2, I call BS! .. yes there are some, BUT most ARE NOT!!!

All supporters of option 2 are "limited opportunity" hunters. I don't know one person who supported option 2 who doesn't share your EXACT sentiments. You guys hate the general hunt. Every time someone kills something less than 4 years old you act like someone just ate your lunch and destroyed your future. You still hate the crowds - even though you've pushed out 2/3 of the general hunters since '92. You think the general hunt has destroyed the herd and will destroy it into the future. You never reconcile your sentiments with these facts: (1) herds are shrinking in limited entry areas & CO (2) does are declining even in areas where they are not hunted, and (3) numbers of general hunters are now 1/3 what they were in 1992 - the cut didn't fix the herd and your still complaining there are too many hunters.)

I think I get your point. The herds are struggling and sacrifices/changes are needed. (Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.)

I contend, this isn't about biology anymore - its about politics. If the herd improves, do I get my opportunities back? Do my sacrifices pay off with more opportunity in the future? Not with your plan, so I'm not signing up!!!

I wish you would acknowledge that the general hunters have been the whipping boy for 20 years now, and there has been no pay off. General hunters have conceded to more restrictions with a weak whimper. Cuts made sense for a while. Instead of expecting our paid "professionals" to get out and figure out what the real problem is and fix it, we mindlessly cut tags, or dates, or boundaries. It hasn't fixed the problem; therefore, I conclude general hunting hasn't been the bulk of the problem.

I now oppose cutting tags because I think it is a political ploy to transform the general hunt into limited entry hunts. (SFW wasted no time after option 2 passed to try & increase b/d ratios) *I would be perfectly okay with cuts if they were an attempt to improve the herd and eventually increase general hunting success and opportunity. *


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> When mule deer numbers were at their peak, what was the buck:doe ratios? All you guys wanting even more rationing than we already have, can you answer that for me? Did those in charge even give a rats backside what the buck:doe ratios were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's? Hell no! But guess what,, we had loads of dear and loads of mature bucks in the mix. Now how is tha possible? -Ov-


 You dont hear people moaning about food at thanksgiving dinner because there is plenty to go around. Thats the same reason no one gave a rip about buck doe ratios back in a the day. Hunting was like a big thanksgiving dinner!

Fast forward to today and less than 10/100 ratios on some units with less overall deer numbers and its more like eating shoe leather then thanksgiving dinner. So people are going to complain about the food/deer.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> IMO, the recommendations don't need to be refined. The communication to the public, or more specifically those who can and are willing to comprehend the reasoning and how data transfers to management can be improved quite a bit. If they'd spend the time to communicate these things before RAC meetings, they would cut down on people taking up their time and shorten meetings quite a bit. Of course those who are unable or willing to comprehend what they are saying will still show up to RACs and continue to moan about their counts and management recommendations. The last sentence has nothing to do with the division, it has to do with the person doing the moaning.


Lack of information isn't really a problem, although it might appear so. Lack of humility, on the other hand, is a huge problem.

To paraphrase our friend Pudge, humility is about what is right, not who is right. And while many of us will defend our pride at all costs, maybe there's a reason that Pride is one of the 7 Deadly Sins, eh?

Our pride has swollen to such a point that we're actually offended by disagreement and denigrate those with an alternate point of view, regardless of logic, experience or empirical evidence. So we pull together into little affirmation groups, echo the group voice and feel comfortable in our understanding, not because it's right, but because only idiots would disagree.

The problem is that in this context, it's hard to have an intelligent discussion of anything because, according to one source or another, we're all idiots. :lol:


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Finnegan said:


> Lack of information isn't really a problem, although it might appear so. Lack of humility, on the other hand, is a huge problem.
> 
> To paraphrase our friend Pudge, humility is about what is right, not who is right. And while many of us will defend our pride at all costs, maybe there's a reason that Pride is one of the 7 Deadly Sins, eh?
> 
> ...


That is probably the most true and honest made in this entire thread. We speak in absolutes because we have picked a side, unwilling to be persuaded that the other side of the argument is even slightly valid. I definitely have my opinions, but that doesn't imply we shouldn't be able to have a civil discussion on what is best for hunting opportunity and quality in utah.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If we want the deer population to be what it was in the 60's and 70's....my guess is we'd have to get back to the population of people at that time. We don't need to decrease deer tags to get there. We have to increase people tags.

Of course this is in jest. But it's the reality. We've destroyed habitat and especially winter range all over the state. You can't reduce habitat and expect to inverease game. And that goes for ANY type of game. Just doesn't work.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > When mule deer numbers were at their peak, what was the buck:doe ratios? All you guys wanting even more rationing than we already have, can you answer that for me? Did those in charge even give a rats backside what the buck:doe ratios were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's? Hell no! But guess what,, we had loads of dear and loads of mature bucks in the mix. Now how is tha possible? -Ov-
> ...


 Once again, you have missed the forest for the trees! My point is buck:doe ratios are NOT the reason deer populations and 'quality' bucks are scarce. Therefore, it is nonsensical to worry, and set management policies based on factors that are NOT the limiting factors of scarcity in deer numbers!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > proutdoors said:
> ...


Little confused here. So your saying the reason we have less than 10 bucks per 100 does on some of our general units is because the division issues to many tags? Or is that nonsensical and inane thinking and we need to issue a million more tags and try to kill the rest of the bucks off because bucks dont have fawns?

Actually i could care less all im hoping is we manage the number of tags per size of what ever we have to hunt and actually see a deer older than a spike to hunt. Since i like to hunt big deer every year and know thats a pipe dream managing them with rifles i would choose to hunt with a long bow if i could do it every year. But since that wont fly i might have to hunt every other year with my bow. 
Im not talking henry mountain quality either. Just quality like i had when i was a kid.

If deer numbers go up great. More for everone. Thats what we want. Maybe the 6000+ dead coyotes will have a positive effect on our fawns because we both know thats the solution to this mess. Fawn recruitment!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Seemed appropriate to me. Tags were cut on units that are under the buck to doe ratios objective on a 3 year average.


Well its a good thing that buck to doe ratios predict population trends, and over all health of the herds. :roll: Still no sarcasm font huh?

This is *the* problem with Option WTF? Not the 30 units, or even the reduced tags, but rather the very unscientific, and unsustainable (biologically and other wise) criteria(buck to doe ratios) that are used to reduce tags, and "manage" deer.

As someone that is influential, and desires to be part of the wildlife _policy_ apparatus, maybe you can answer a question for me? Will you and the UWC still stand by buck to doe ratios, when and if we see early 1980s, and 1940s, water mark populations? Buck to doe ratios during these times(limited data for the '40s) were low, yet there were large numbers of deer. Under Option WTF? that would mean NO increase in deer tags. I will assume that you would not support it, and just go straight to my accusation. You support a policy that is designed only to reduce hunters, and overall deer numbers, to theoretically produce "more" bucks, yet fewer hunters?

Such statements are darkly ominous for the future of Mule deer, and hunters alike.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"If deer numbers go up great. More for everone. Thats what we want. Maybe the 6000+ dead coyotes will have a positive effect on our fawns because we both know thats the solution to this mess. Fawn recruitment!"

We can cut hunters, we can kill all the predators, and have 70+/100 fawn to doe ratios, and still not grow the deer herds. "Wildlife policy" alone, will not get wildlife or hunters any further along. "Wildlife policy" in the absence of sound science, and a fundamental understanding of said science, is nothing more the than the blind leading the blind, down the path of their ultimate destruction. All the while thinking you are heading home.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

TS30 said:


> If we want the deer population to be what it was in the 60's and 70's....my guess is we'd have to get back to the population of people at that time. We don't need to decrease deer tags to get there. We have to increase people tags.
> 
> Of course this is in jest. But it's the reality. We've destroyed habitat and especially winter range all over the state. You can't reduce habitat and expect to inverease game. And that goes for ANY type of game. Just doesn't work.


TS30,

I read your quote and it really got me thinking. I hear this idea all of the time that people have turned this state into a habitat wasteland where deer cannot live. I suspect this train of thought is little more than slop over from the mindless environmental community who has concluded every single thing a human does is bad, and everything in the absence of humans is good.

These are the reasons I can't accept that an increase in people has decreased the deer. 1) I spend a fair amount of time at Zion National park. I consistently see more deer in the bottom of the canyon where all of the development and people are. There are areas up higher with large sage brush flats and much better deer habitat. There are fewer deer there. 2) Bountiful is developed on deer habitat. Have the deer disappeared? No. The city has to pay someone to kill them off. The deer will likely come back and the city will have to do it again. 3) A number of counties in this state are over 90% federally owned. They have hardly grown by a few thousand people the past 3 decades. The deer herd is struggling in those areas too.

Sorry to be abrasive on this, but I don't think the people blamers have thought this one through all of the way. I've just seen too many examples where deer thrive around development and are disappearing in rural. I can't buy off on it yet.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> TS30 said:
> 
> 
> > If we want the deer population to be what it was in the 60's and 70's....my guess is we'd have to get back to the population of people at that time. We don't need to decrease deer tags to get there. We have to increase people tags.
> ...


The blamers in general have not thought any of the deer issue through. Mule deer are teetering across their entire range, all western states. It has nothing to do with private vs public, that is fundamentally a hunter issue, not a wildlife issue. You can remove huge numbers of predators, and see no change in the trend line. You can fence miles of highway, put in under passes, and still see no change in the trend line. Winter range? yeah we've degraded it, no doubt. But carrying capacity of these ranges is not static either. Two years ago I watched 50 deer struggle on a particle winter range, last year that same range fed 100 healthy deer. Habitat is the key, but their is way more to it, than just having it. And what about summer range? We never hear about summer range. If deer show up on good winter range, it may be of no consequence, because they just spent half the year on bad summer range.

Nitrate deposition (acid rain) has increased as much as 10 fold in the west since the early '80s. Prior to that, it had been relatively flat. This goes hand in hand with increases in overall temperature and atmospheric Co2 (climate change) over the last 30 years. Yet I don't see any special interest groups lobbying the legislature for bounty money, to reduce any of these deer predators.

If hunters were to actually educate themselves, deer might have a fighting chance. If we spent the time and money, on real science, looking for real solutions, rather than arguing logically unfounded ideology and conjecture. Then maybe a real discussion could be had on the issue, that was based in reality, and backed by some data. Until then, hunters are at the mercy of the politicians, the aspiring politicians, and most importantly the _policy fascists _. Wildlife policy is of no use to the wildlife it is intended to serve, unless it is founded in good science, and actually benefits the wildlife. And ultimately, wildlife that suffer from faltering wildlife policy, and a lack of science, mean that hunters will suffer from that faltering policy also.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Nitrate deposition (acid rain) has increased as much as 10 fold in the west since the early '80s. Prior to that, it had been relatively flat. This goes hand in hand with increases in overall temperature and atmospheric Co2 (climate change) over the last 30 years. Yet I don't see any special interest groups lobbying the legislature for bounty money, to reduce any of these deer predators.


Get out your tin foil hats folks
Its acid rain, global warming, and horn hunters taking valuable selenium again thats the real cause of the mule deer decline. :-?

Last i looked the sheep and cows looked fat coming off the same hills as the deer. So im not going down the road of global warming is the problem


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Nitrate deposition (acid rain) has increased as much as 10 fold in the west since the early '80s. Prior to that, it had been relatively flat. This goes hand in hand with increases in overall temperature and atmospheric Co2 (climate change) over the last 30 years. Yet I don't see any special interest groups lobbying the legislature for bounty money, to reduce any of these deer predators.
> ...


Thank you for proving my point about ideology and conjecture. There are reasons for what you see. There are reasons and science that explain what _you_ cant see also. By all means, critique the idea, a good debate on the science is needed here. Do you think that there is a an offsetting effect of carbon sequestration by large bodies of water that weaken my hypothesis? Or maybe the data from the ice cores could be skewed by the "elution" effect? Did your uncle Joe tell you is was chupacabra predation? Or do you have some data to share? Some titration numbers from previously unsampled areas, that show increasing PH and blow my theory out of the water? Don't hold back, what do you have to offer?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Are you thinking that forest buffering, and nitrate starvation, effectively negate the effects of nitrate deposition? Because maybe you did not get the memo, that there is zero buffering effect. Yeah, you see all this time we thought that our nitrate deposition was Nitrogen14 and the forest would just gobble it up, but it turns out that most of it is Nitrogen15, and it passes right through the upper ecological webs, and saturates the soil........But I'm sure you know all about that though.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How come only Mule deer and Jack rabbits are so effected by this. While other species seem to thrive in these same conditions? Is it climate change that has increased the elk herd in Utah? 

I find it hard to believe a species with a dispersal from Mexico to Alaska, west coast to the Mississippi. A species that can eke out a living in 120 degree deserts to 40 below winters. Can live at 12,000 ft or sea sea level. Live in town on a golf coarse and among homes or in the middle of nowhere. Is so drastically effected while all other species don't show the same declines or even increase.

I find mule deer very very hardy and adaptable.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> How come only Mule deer and Jack rabbits are so effected by this. While other species seem to thrive in these same conditions? Is it climate change that has increased the elk herd in Utah?
> 
> I find it hard to believe a species with a dispersal from Mexico to Alaska, west coast to the Mississippi. A species that can eke out a living in 120 degree deserts to 40 below winters. Can live at 12,000 ft or sea sea level. Live in town on a golf coarse and among homes or in the middle of nowhere. Is so drastically effected while all other species don't show the same declines or even increase.
> 
> I find mule deer very very hardy and adaptable.


The Mule deer nutrition and climate change hypothesis' are based on Bighorn sheep research. If you look at Bighorn declines, and Mule deer declines, the trends follow one and other across the west. There are a number of other species as well, but we don't talk too much about Pikas on this forum.

Moose also appear to be suffering the effects also. Not just here, but depending on weather patterns, they have experienced die offs in Alaska and Norway as well. The fact that it happens in Norway and Alaska at the same time is key. If you look at the Isothermal 32* line on the globe(an imaginary wavy line in the northern hemisphere that indicates freezing at a given time) You will see similarities in how weather patterns affect Alaska and Norway in much the same way. Warm water comes up the west coast of the United States and affects the weather in Alaska, and here. The same thing happens with Atlantic currents. In the case of the Atlantic the currents push the Isothermal 32* line further north. This is why the fishing industries in both places are so similar.

Add lots of Nitrates(pollution) to the air, then have weather patterns altered(for whatever reason) and you can have trouble. In the case of warming temperatures, it has created wetter than normal spring patterns. This by itself disrupts deer and Bighorn seasonal migration, and the nutritional value of spring and summer forage. Add in there that the increased rain is bringing with it heavy nitrogen, it compounds the problem. This nitrate deposition affects the nutritional quality of the forage, reducing fat reserves, and leading to mineral deficiencies. This leads to low vigor, low fawn recruitment, smaller antlers, etc. Are there solutions? probably, but we cant get to there with out understanding the problem better. Or at least acknowledging it.

Why is it that we can have wet springs, that bring on a lot of growth, yet the deer don't seem to benefit from it. Look at last spring and summer, very hot and dry. The deer ended up very healthy. Most deer and jackrabbit explosions, the two biggest being the early '80s, and the '40s, were preceded by drought. And actually the rabbits are usually ahead of that curve, hitting peaks in the late '30s and the late '70s. The rabbits may operate on a whole different set of issues, but are triggered by the same things that trigger Mule deer.

Elk numbers are multipronged, but in short, yes, climate is a big part of it. Mountain Goats appear to be equipped to deal better with the current conditions as well.


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

So Lonetree, not arguing or anything just curious what your scientific biological suggestions are? What can the DWR do that would help the problem you are referring to?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Raptorman said:


> So Lonetree, not arguing or anything just curious what your scientific biological suggestions are? What can the DWR do that would help the problem you are referring to?


Study actual problems that affect deer, rather than waste time and money on deer transplants and other "solutions" that have never worked. If we don't have a good biological understanding of what is going on, then we can not craft policy that is beneficial to wildlife, let alone hunters.

Moose declines are being studied by the DWR, but I don't have many details. The problem is nutritionally based though. They should ultimately make the connection to weather, but I don't know.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lonetree said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Seemed appropriate to me. Tags were cut on units that are under the buck to doe ratios objective on a 3 year average.
> ...


I'm not saying that. I'm only saying that the management says thats what we do in that scenario and so I support it. Remember part of that management plan is about hunter satisfaction, its not all biological. I know you'll key in on that so I'm asking nicely now that you don't take that out of context.

If you don't like the management plan put together a proposal when the current plan is up and lets look at it.

If we don't follow the management plan we have nothing but chaos and competing ideals year after year and we head in no particular direction.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Look at last spring and summer, very hot and dry. The deer ended up very healthy.


Hmmm...you have said this a couple times now, but last summer was not very hot and dry for all parts of the state. In fact, many parts of so. utah were very wet and somewhat cool compared to the norm. Yet, deer in these same areas experienced growth and good health....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > Look at last spring and summer, very hot and dry. The deer ended up very healthy.
> ...


General trends, and Southern Utah was not overly wet, like the two springs that preceded last year. For a somewhat monsoonal dependent climate like Southern Utah, those were ideal conditions. Southern Utah was still statistically hotter and drier than normal last year.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> For a somewhat monsoonal dependent climate like Southern Utah, those were ideal conditions. Southern Utah was still statistically hotter and drier than normal last year.


Overall, yes, southern utah was statistically hotter and drier than normal last year...but not last summer. During the months of July and August, specifically, many areas in southern utah way above the norm.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

bullsnot said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


Hunter satisfaction is ultimately tied to good, sound scientific, management and policy. Everyone seems to forget this, or are sold otherwise.

I was at the same meeting as you when the UWC was conceived, I have not wavered in my positions from then, until now. I am proposing the same plan now as I, and others, did then. It is called, NOT Option WTF?

If we DO follow the management plan, "we will have nothing but chaos and competing ideas, year after year and we head in no particular direction." And fewer permits, while we continue to ignore any real solutions. But hey, we're headed somewhere, we are doing something right? That sounds familiar. And in the mean time deer numbers may rebound, and people will rejoice, and we will forget and neglect the science yet again. Or they may continue to falter with no apparent solutions being sought. And years from now, the next time the deer numbers topple, and new _policy_ is enacted, it will create even more chaos. And in that chaos there will be opportunity, opportunity to create more _wildlife_ groups, and promote more _wildlife_ agendas. All the while, the wildlife will suffer, as will us lowly hunters.

"*****" talk about change, and working within the system to achieve that. The problem with always being a conformist, is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; It's the system that will eventually change you!"---Felipe Andres Coronel


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > For a somewhat monsoonal dependent climate like Southern Utah, those were ideal conditions. Southern Utah was still statistically hotter and drier than normal last year.
> ...


Monsoons are the July and August rains. Like I said, "those were ideal conditions". They also came very early, if my memory is correct, the earliest ever, ie. out of the norm, ie. It is the earlier rains, colder spring and early summer rains, that are of more concern. The time when plants are greening up and putting on new growth. But later monsoonal rains can have negative effects, most notably at higher elevations, if they are acidic. This can in real time, as the rain is falling deplete nutrients from plants, and lock it up in the soil, where it is unavailable to plants or wildlife. But monsoons tend to be relatively brief, and any negative effects minimal. But if they are long, and coupled with wet springs, and nitrate deposition, then it is bad news.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Rhetoric can be fun, I understand. If it wasn't for a whole lot of concerned sportsmen getting involved, like myself, the whole state would 18-25 buck:doe ratio objectives and we'd have a lot less tags than we do now.

No one has wavered and no one is conforming. Carry on.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

May and June were very dry last year in Washington County. It was scary dry. You could sneeze and start a wildfire. Analyze whatever you want about the "monsoons" being early. All I know is - the Saints fasted the beginning of July for rain. It rained that week and continued to rain. I've never seen August so green. I would not consider it an overall dry summer.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

Lone Tree,

Maybe we should decrease our carbon emissions by stop allowing all of these "lightining strike fires" to go wild. Maybe we should log and graze instead of just burning our forests off.

The deer in Bountiful haven't really got your acid rain message.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> May and June were very dry last year in Washington County. It was scary dry. You could sneeze and start a wildfire. Analyze whatever you want about the "monsoons" being early. All I know is - the Saints fasted the beginning of July for rain. It rained that week and continued to rain. I've never seen August so green. I would not consider it an overall dry summer.


 :roll: Yeah, that's what I said.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

provider said:


> Lone Tree,
> 
> Maybe we should decrease our carbon emissions by stop allowing all of these "lightining strike fires" to go wild. Maybe we should log and graze instead of just burning our forests off.
> 
> The deer in Bountiful haven't really got your acid rain message.


And this is the best you can come up with? Because you don't understand, and or know.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lone tree if its global warming thats spinning around in your pointy head and you think thats the problem with our mule deer. I have news to tell ya. There aint nothing you can do about it. 

The christians think the end of the world is near, the muslims want to bring on jhad and end the world, and the pointy headed scientific types that dont believe in god think the world is coming to an end by global warming. So in the mean time im going to carry on driving my car and living my life and sleeping good at night dreaming about the big buck im going to arrow this fall.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

AL GORE wants a windmill atop of every car.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lone tree if its global warming thats spinning around in your pointy head and you think thats the problem with our mule deer. I have news to tell ya. There aint nothing you can do about it.
> 
> The christians think the end of the world is near, the muslims want to bring on jhad and end the world, and the pointy headed scientific types that dont believe in god think the world is coming to an end by global warming. So in the mean time im going to carry on driving my car and living my life and sleeping good at night dreaming about the big buck im going to arrow this fall.


There may be something that can be done, you obviously dont know that. But have fun being selfish in the interim. It is attitudes like yours that have sold our childrens future down the river.

And if you are worried about my pointy head being godless, fear not, I believe in many.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Never mind


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Never mind


Exactly


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Never mind
> ...


lol :O---:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Provider,

I think it's pretty clear that animals need healthy habitat to have healthy herds. And I'm not talking short term gains or loses based upon an over acidic rain storm and a powerstroke F350 like Lonetree over there. 

I think the reason why we see more deer in Bountiful is not because the herd is doing well. It's because we've continued to cut off more and more of their historical healthy range they depended upon and they have nowhere else to go. Now I don't have any scientific studies that are Al Gore-approved to support that. I just have my own observations and common sense that lead me to believe that. I'm not simply blaming population booms as the downfall of mule deer. But it's absolutely a factor. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against that. Just like there are no pheasants in Utah anymore. Too many people like me felt the west side in quiet farm country would be a great location to have a home and raise a family. I don't hate people. But we have to realize our sprawl has negative impacts.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

TS30 said:


> Provider,
> 
> I think it's pretty clear that animals need healthy habitat to have healthy herds. And I'm not talking short term gains or loses based upon an over acidic rain storm and a powerstroke F350 like Lonetree over there.
> 
> I think the reason why we see more deer in Bountiful is not because the herd is doing well. It's because we've continued to cut off more and more of their historical healthy range they depended upon and they have nowhere else to go. Now I don't have any scientific studies that are Al Gore-approved to support that. I just have my own observations and common sense that lead me to believe that. I'm not simply blaming population booms as the downfall of mule deer. But it's absolutely a factor. I don't think there is a reasonable argument against that. Just like there are no pheasants in Utah anymore. Too many people like me felt the west side in quiet farm country would be a great location to have a home and raise a family. I don't hate people. But we have to realize our sprawl has negative impacts.


It is not just your power stroke, or one overly acidic rain storm. It is the entire economy of China in the midst of their industrial revolution, filling the air with particulate chemicals. These are then brought across the Pacific, where the particulate matter actually increases, from other sources, and is then rained across the West. The effects of this deposition are then exacerbated by La Nina, or El Nino, and climatically changing weather cycles. Factor in Pacific Oscillation to shift your Isothermal lateral, to determine where it falls, and viola! 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 and acidification in the last 30 years, with half of those increases in the last 10. Our air quality is not getting any better on the Front either.

Pop quiz: Does anyone know why the Amazon Basin is so fertile, and rich, when its soils have very poor redox potential, are anaerobic, and highly acidic?

The winter of 2011-2012 was the driest on record here, same with the spring and summer that followed. So does that mean that the problem ceased? No, it just went somewhere else. Any guesses?

Your "observations and common sense" are just that, yours, supported by nothing. Bountiful is at a very interesting weather split. When we get lake effect snow storms, they either head South of Bountiful, or North of Bountiful, plus it is an Easterly trough, it experiences very different, localized weather patterns. Add some fertilizer to that mix, and maybe there is something to be learned there about deer and weather. Is Bountiful an outlier from the statistical norm? Yes. We should be asking why. They are not cut off from other ranges, they are flat plentiful. The question is why, to the fifth power.

BTW, I read on Facebook, that if you have sex standing up, she wont get pregnant. I tried it several times, and it works.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Ok i put my thinking cap on. Your saying in dry years the plants are some how more healthy and when a deer eats the plant it makes their sperm count some how go up and they are more reproductive? [attachment=0:2o2h3sf1]uploadfromtaptalk1365673982183.jpg[/attachment:2o2h3sf1]


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"Pop quiz: Does anyone know why the Amazon Basin is so fertile, and rich, when its soils have very poor redox potential, are anaerobic, and highly acidic?"

Answer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

For those that read the link: Imagine how nutrient rich dust deposition from the 1930s dustbowl drought, could have played into the deer booms of the 1940s. The '40s are thought to have been the ultimate high water mark for mule deer numbers. 

Why does any of this matter. Because, if we don't understand the big picture, and the real science that affects our game numbers, then we can not have meaningful, science based, wildlife management, or policy. With out a greater enlightenment, and understanding of the natural world, we as hunters will be slaves to those that control the propaganda for their own gain. Disagree with the slavery part? Then why do so many hunters support policy that is bad for wildlife and hunters? That is the epitome of self slavery. And for those that know better, I will remind you, that silence is a sin.

The inner race just hit 150*, back to work, this may take awhile.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> For those that read the link: Imagine how nutrient rich dust deposition from the 1930s dustbowl drought, could have played into the deer booms of the 1940s. The '40s are thought to have been the ultimate high water mark for mule deer numbers.


Except the prevailing jet stream is from West to East, and the dust bowl occurred to the East of nearly all of the Mule Deer's range, and the dust would have been carried even farther East.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > For those that read the link: Imagine how nutrient rich dust deposition from the 1930s dustbowl drought, could have played into the deer booms of the 1940s. The '40s are thought to have been the ultimate high water mark for mule deer numbers.
> ...


The 1930s dust bowl drought did not occur in just the Midwest, think a little bigger. Nice try though, far better than just about anything I've seen on this.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I still believe that a major issue is the fact that we, (man) have taken tons of antlers off of the deer's range. We have antlers on the walls, antlers in furniture and light fixtures, antlers stacked as arches and gates. They're full of nutrients that used to be utilized by rodents, which deposited them back to the soil, which were sucked up into plants that were in the deer's winter range. Nutrients that the deer no longer receive.

For the dust bowl theory to be effective, the origin of the dust would have nearly have to be Siberia.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> I still believe that a major issue is the fact that we, (man) have taken tons of antlers off of the deer's range. We have antlers on the walls, antlers in furniture and light fixtures, antlers stacked as arches and gates. They're full of nutrients that used to be utilized by rodents, which deposited them back to the soil, which were sucked up into plants that were in the deer's winter range. Nutrients that the deer no longer receive.
> 
> For the dust bowl theory to be effective, the origin of the dust would have nearly have to be Siberia.


The source of most of our nitrate deposition is China. So what if was phosphate rich dust crossing the Pacific in the '30s, rather than the nitrates that we are getting today?

Lets say that taking antlers is a piece of it, I agree that it can at least be a piece. So if we leave all the antlers on the ground, and we carry all of own antlers back into the hills, we have just prevented nutrients from leaving the range, and in theory made those nutrients available for the deer. But, with nitrate deposition, the problem is that the acidification and reduced redox potential(the conditions allowing soil to reduce nutrients to forms available to plants, and there for animals) it creates, can render these nutrients unavailable anyway. But the antler issue is still localized, and does account for region wide declines, even if it contributes.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

So your saying there is 3 things that we could do to grow more deer

1. load up hundreds of c130's full of fertilizer and fly over the mountains and fertilize the forbs and do this every year instead of burning every thing to the ground? 

2. We need another drought and dust bowl to blow more top soil in? 

3. Or we need to quit driving our cars and go back to horse and buggies so acid rain wont lock up our soil?


Those sound easy enough and I think the wildlife board might go for it. How about you propose it so we can get back to harvesting more deer you seem to know the formulas the best.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Now you are starting to get it. But......but first, we need to do our homework and understand this better. We need to know how many C130s full of fertilizer, if we should do this before, after, or concurrent with the drought, and we need some numbers on the horses and buggies. If we don't proceed with a well thought out plan, and understanding of how these things will grow deer. They are just arbitrary and capricious experiments, like Option WTF?, that may actually be bad for deer and hunters. 

Second bearing is up to temp, back to work for bit.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Thank you Lonetree. You make me sound sane.  

Not saying your right or wrong. Its just your the only one who knows what your talking about. And you make me look sane in comparison.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> Thank you Lonetree. You make me sound sane.
> 
> Not saying your right or wrong. Its just your the only one who knows what your talking about. And you make me look sane in comparison.


No problem, its easy, I am crazy....maybe I did not mention that before?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I grok Lonetree. His previous posts unintentionally got me on his tangent. I can't say I agree with him, but I have to say that he's opened my eyes to some possibilities well worth consideration.

Hunters tend to focus on what we can kill, or not kill, so that we can kill more of the critters we want to kill. That's not conservation, guys.

Hunters love to toss anecdotal evidence around...so here's mine. I'm seeing a significant reduction in wildlife and the health of wildlife of ALL species, plant and animal, (except elk, and that's going to change soon). Some, like DP, see the DWR's attention to anything other than game animals as a waste of time - a point of criticism against the DWR and the DNR.

That attitude needs to change and time is running out.

So Lonetree has a different attitude. Cool. Right or wrong, at least somebody is paying attention and thinking outside the box. Thinking inside the box obviously ain't cutting it. Buck/doe ratios, antler management, predator management, age management, hunter management, harvest objectives...these aren't considerations of conservation. They're considerations of personal immediate hunter satisfaction, having nothing whatsoever to do with conservation.

For example, I like the _Friends of the Paunsaugunt_...good people. But there's a serious problem brewing there. It ain't the buck/doe ratio, antler management, predator management, age management, hunter management or harvest objectives. Something else is seriously messed up. Several biologists who know a **** sight more than me agree. Try as I have, I can't avoid the conclusion that the problem has to be environmental. (Yup, I said it - the "E" word.)

Environmental science ain't my forte. But since I'm more interested in seeing mulies 20 years from now than I'm interested in killing a big buck this year, all I can say is "Good posts, Lonetree. Keep thinking." Don't care how much deer hair somebody says they saw in a lion turd.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

All the things lone tree has brought up will take acts of god to fix. They are valid points but at some point your not going to quit driving your car so the soil ph level may keep getting more acidic. 
There really is no other way to fix those problems so we will have to deal with what we have.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> All the things lone tree has brought up will take acts of god to fix. They are valid points but at some point your not going to quit driving your car so the soil ph level may keep getting more acidic.
> There really is no other way to fix those problems so we will have to deal with what we have.


Yep, like " buck/doe ratio, antler management, predator management, age management, hunter management or harvest objectives" Good thing you did not read any thing he wrote.

Because of attitudes like that, we have been kicking the can down the road for 20+ years on this. All the while, pawning any semblance of the great empire that we inherited from the likes of Roosevelt, Muir, Leopold, Audubon, and countless others.

Acts of god, moving mountains, the impossible? Last I checked, that was what made us great, not giving up, before even trying. You want to roll over, and give up, by all means, that is your choice. But why make the case, that you do, that everyone else should give up too. Is it so you have company? Guilt management?


----------

