# Personal Responsibility



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

How many of you think the area you hunt deer in has depressed buck to do ratios? How many of you continue to put in for these areas knowing what you know? Why? For only $19.99, I will send you a customized packet (3 words) explaining how you can increase your deer hunting success…

How about this idea? Instead of expecting the DWR to make the tough choice in cutting more tags (because somehow you’ve managed to perform your own deer counts, BtoD calculations, DWR budget analysis, or maybe stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...), why not make the tough choice yourself and cut-up your own deer tag before it’s used? DWR is not forcing you to kill a buck by issuing you a permit are they? It is you that makes the choice to pull the trigger right? You can’t keep killing bucks then in turn blame the DWR for doing nothing when in reality it is you that is pulling the trigger. Walk the walk and EAT THAT TAG!

Maybe we could start a thread showing pics of you guys burning your tags in the name of mule deer conservation. I get all teary eyed just thinking about it.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I personally like this code: "Hit One, You're Done."

During a year, I talk with many hunters and it is concerning how many hit multiple animals, many without a second thought. It was interesting to talk about it in a Committee setting and see who opposed an idea of educating hunters on the effects of shooting more than one animal. 

"Eat That Tag" is a good thing also. Many of us do it. Never hurts to enjoy the outdoors with a weapon in hand. Kill what makes you happy.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

"Kill what makes you happy"
That is a great philosophy Packout! 

I love to hunt and I want to hunt every year. BUT I do not kill a deer every year. That is my choice. When the freezer is still full in the summer then I get way more picky about what I want to shoot. If it's been a year or two since I last killed, then I just look to get a deer. Everyone has their own set of rules and as long as it's legal I'm fine with however they chose to hunt.


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

No way I would ever cut up my tag before the season!
I do have a personal Forked horn or better rule I go by. I feel this gives the Buck one breeding season to pass on his genes.


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

Yeah, pretty much agree with both posts. I have a hunch there are more than a few "by choice tag eaters" out there, and more than a few who shoot multiple critters for one or more reasons. It's a personal choice for sure. I think too much is put on the kill now days, and not far from that-the number of inches involved. Too bad. I'll pull out my hanky now.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Don't get me wrong now, I would never promote "Eat That Tag" to anyone except for those who complain about tag numbers.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I've eaten a tag A LOT over the past 10 years passing on many bucks (some even still haunt me in my dreams). I think this is going on a lot for those of us on this forum.


----------



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

I've been hunting for almost thirty years and have killed a truck load of deer. Back in the day I could buy two buck tags over the counter, and usually draw a doe tag. I hunted with both rifle and bow and usually got ALL my deer EVERY year. Well, times they have changed... Instead of "eating" a tag voluntarily I choose to make the hunt as challenging as possible. I've boycotted camo, I dont own a rangefinder, and I shoot a primitive bow with home made wood arrows. I kill a deer in this state about every three years now and that suits me just fine. If I want to stack up the venison I'll buy a DOZEN deer tags and fly to GA. Mid western states have some great opportunities for hunting deer as well. Like was said earlier, to much emphasis has been placed on instant gratification and killing trophy animals. Hunters these days feel they are "entitled" to a deer. Especially the ones with LE tags in their pockets. Lest we forget folks, it's called HUNTING for a reason. We all need to do our part to help the deer, but there will always be the slobs who ruin it for all of us. After all, ones ethics and stewardship of the land can only be determined by what you do when nobody is looking...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It would be interesting to see just how many would really be willing to eat tag soup instead of having to kill a animal each and every year. Some say that they need the meat, well, that argument went out the window a long time ago. By the time you figure out how much you spend during the hunting season you might as well as go out and buy a side of beef. I personally usually only tag a deer about every 5 years and that is fine by me., and that includes hunting in both Utah and Colorado. 

I have a friend here in Colorado that is compelled to kill a elk each and every year. Some years he will even kill two, a cow and a bull. He has even had to buy a second freezer to keep all the meat. The interesting thing here is that it is for just him and his wife and his wife refuses to eat wild game. I think that a lot of hunters have the same mentality, they figure that since they can get a tag that they need to put it on a animal.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

The AMOUNT of meat isn't the only issue with me. The QUALITY and VARIETY plays a big part. We seldom buy beef now, though we do buy some pork, poultry and seafood. But even that is getting less and less because we fish and make sausage out of the venison.

Bottom line, we take much more pride and have much more fun providing for ourselves. Therefore, I do all I can to fill every tag I'm able to get, but I do it primarily with a bow which means a buck deer about every 3 years.

When I hear the Walmart, Harmons, Albertsons argument, my response is, "When was the last time you heard a group of campers sitting around the campfire bragging about the roasts they bought at Walmart?" :lol:


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

I was down central Utah in the recent past talking to some locals and I got a really interesting platform from a few of them. I ask everyone I talk to that hunts what they think about the new 30 units deer management plan. The overwhelming response from the people I talked to was, "I choose not to hunt Deer anymore, I don't want to be part of the problem". I was pretty impressed by this. These guy's live in a area that used to be plagued by deer, and now there are still deer to be had, nothing like the old day. They have taken it upon themselves to abstain from deer hunting to preserve a species that is on a serious decline. I was impressed by there non-entitled behavior. The folks I talked to now either hunt coyotes or elk with the extra time. I personally choose to archery hunt deer mostly on the extended. With my skill level the deer are pretty safe. I like the attitude I saw in central Utah, good people doing there part to truly help the mule deer.

JHass - I believe the DWR calculates deer tags based on a 20% give or take successes rate over all for deer. So they are counting on 80% eating tag soup.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I have killed only four deer in all of my big game hunting. Two does and two bucks. I only have missed two maybe three years of big game hunting. I have hunted sens I was 14 and now im 32. So out of all f those years. I have not filled a tag or even shot at a deer. I think I have eaten enough tag soup for now and im sure there more tag soup coming to me. So im not going to pay 45 bucks and turn around and light it on fire. no thanks. I have also only killed 3 cow elk and no bulls in that time as well.I do in joy my time in god country with my family and friends. But I all so like the meat in my freezer. It better then a dam cow that had a pill shoved up his butt.


----------



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

I think what Dustin is trying to say is that he'd rather eat deer and elk at $199.95 a pound than buy beef at $6.95 a pound.  :mrgreen:


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

Will someone enlighten me as to how eating a tag will help Mule Deer?
People are foolish to think that eating a tag will help the deer herds. Its the same idea that cutting tags will increase deer numbers. I for one will never burn a deer tag. 

I have to make an argument for the kill part of hunting. Hunting is different to each one of us. Its in my blood, and I can't really explain it any deeper than that. Ever since I can remember, its what I have been consumed with.
For some the majority of the pleasure comes with being in the outdoors with family and friends. For me, I can be outdoors with family and friends without hunting. Hunting is much more to me than enjoying time in the outdoors. The intensity that I crave is in the challenge of the chase, and ultimately the kill. I want to kill every year. I work very very hard to achive this goal. I am also very content most years when I don't.

When you work hard year round perfecting your shooting, locating deer, area research, and on every other aspect it takes to kill a good buck, its extremely rewarding when it all comes together with a kill of a good buck. Again, I will say again that I have had "successful" years and not killed.
I get the idea that if you don't care to kill a buck, to each their own, go fish. Its not a bad thing when people choose to fill their tag, even when deer numbers are down.
IMHO


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Blazing, I totally agree with your thinking, but others do not. Those others want to reduce my ability to hunt every year and I thought it would be interesting to know just how many of those people would sacrifice their own deer tag in the name of what they believe. If they believe that raising buck numbers will help overall popluations then maybe they should "take one for the team" and burn their own tag to save a buck. Maybe show us how devoted to the cause they really are.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

blazingsaddle said:


> Will someone enlighten me as to how eating a tag will help Mule Deer?
> People are foolish to think that eating a tag will help the deer herds. Its the same idea that cutting tags will increase deer numbers. I for one will never burn a deer tag.
> 
> I have to make an argument for the kill part of hunting. Hunting is different to each one of us. Its in my blood, and I can't really explain it any deeper than that. Ever since I can remember, its what I have been consumed with.
> ...


I must say I agree with your post blazingsaddle, with some additional quips to add. I don't think Jhas was intending his post as a way to help grow mule deer herds, I think it was meant as a way for hunters to increase the number of bucks in the units they hunt as a personal measure of "responsibility" in that regard. I may be wrong.

Like said before, it is a personal choice and I think many hunters already make it. It's been said by some very smart folks that hunters embark on a gradual progression through hunting, attaining and surpassing a variety of steps from beginning to end. The kill part as being a necessity to the total experience seems to lessen in importance as the hunter nears the end of this progression. So yeah, I fully understand your point of view at this juncture in your hunting progression: Been there done that.

I know a little about what you are talking about by this being "in your blood".

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=35940&hilit=stillhunterman


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

2012 will be my 9th (fingers crossed i draw a tag  ) deer season where i have been able to hunt. in the last 8 seasons, ive taken 2 does and a buck every year but one when i was enrolled in the DH program, for a total of 9 deer. each buck ive killed except for 1, has had atleast 4 points on one side. 7 of those deer were killed with archery equipment, 1 rifle, 1 muzzy. as many of you know, its not easy to kill a decent buck every year in utah with a bow. i dont shoot the first buck i see. i HUNT. and i pass up some years up to 20 different bucks before i get a shot at one i want. my luck cant go on forever and i know some day, im gonna eat a tag. it wont be the end of the world if i dont fill a tag. im not going to shoot a 2 point just to fill a tag. i have never said that the hunting in utah sucks. ive always thought it was pretty good. never had a problem finding deer, always saw a bunch of bucks and had a great time chasing them. i thought we should just let the road hunters believe they were all gone, and leave the good deer hunting to the guys who are willing to work for it. i was disappointed to see them go to the 30 individual units, but could see the advantages of this change if done correctly. i was also disappointed to see the proprosed tag numbers for 2012. if they are going to cut tags in the name of saving muledeer, THEN CUT TAGS, and not by only 500...

if you dont wanna kill a deer and eat your tag on purpose, go for it. i commend you for your decision. but for me, if i draw a tag, im going to hunt. and if i get the opportunity at a mature decent sized buck, im gonna send a fast moving projectile his way :twisted: . if i never get that opportunity im looking for, oh well. theres always next season...


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

JHas said:


> How many of you think the area you hunt deer in has depressed buck to do ratios? How many of you continue to put in for these areas knowing what you know? Why? For only $19.99, I will send you a customized packet (3 words) explaining how you can increase your deer hunting success&#8230;
> 
> How about this idea? Instead of expecting the DWR to make the tough choice in cutting more tags (because somehow you've managed to perform your own deer counts, BtoD calculations, DWR budget analysis, or maybe stayed in a Holiday Inn last night...), why not make the tough choice yourself and cut-up your own deer tag before it's used? DWR is not forcing you to kill a buck by issuing you a permit are they? It is you that makes the choice to pull the trigger right? You can't keep killing bucks then in turn blame the DWR for doing nothing when in reality it is you that is pulling the trigger. Walk the walk and EAT THAT TAG!
> 
> Maybe we could start a thread showing pics of you guys burning your tags in the name of mule deer conservation. I get all teary eyed just thinking about it.


How much did the DWR pay you to throw this idea out? If the buck ratio isn't being dropped enough because of a burn party, then the DWR will just issue more tags. This wouldn't help anything other than the DWR budget, you should know that.

Maybe they could start issuing Jackelope tags, it's about the same kind of hunt as a general deer tag offers these days.

BTW, I will not be deer hunting your sacred central region units anytime soon if the current proposal is the path it's taking. Maybe some of those land owners that own land on Nebo, Wasatch, west desert should just sell for cabin lots and buy ranch/mountain land in southern Utah where the buck hunting will be better.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

flinger said:


> How much did the DWR pay you to throw this idea out? If the buck ratio isn't being dropped enough because of a burn party, then the DWR will just issue more tags. This wouldn't help anything other than the DWR budget, you should know that.


Well isn't that the plan? Raise buck numbers in order to raise tag numbers? And isn't helping the DWR budget a good thing?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Ill never burn a tag. It takes too many years to draw them. I might turn the tag back in if I cant find the quality im looking for but ill never burn a tag. 

If I shoot a buck and cant find it my deer hunt is over! This has only happened once in my life! 

I wont shoot a doe! 

I have also only hunted with a bow the last 10 or so years and have only taken big 4 point bucks. All except one 3 point that had a broken leg. The leg must have been broken the year before because it could get around and it was solid but it looked painful so I put it down. If the buck doesn't get my heart racing it will live another year!


----------



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

JHas said:


> Blazing, I totally agree with your thinking, but others do not. Those others want to reduce my ability to hunt every year and I thought it would be interesting to know just how many of those people would sacrifice their own deer tag in the name of what they believe. If they believe that raising buck numbers will help overall popluations then maybe they should "take one for the team" and burn their own tag to save a buck. Maybe show us how devoted to the cause they really are.


It is not mine or any of the other publics job to burn there tag. I do not get paid to manage the deer herd, and I pay the DWR to do so. I want tag numbers dropped, but it is not my job to burn my tag that I pay the DWR for in hopes they'll start effectivly managing the states deer herd.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

So having higher buck to doe ratios is not worth the personal sacrifice? I mean think about it, you could single handedly raise the buck to doe ratio and totally bypass the DWR.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

JHas said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > How much did the DWR pay you to throw this idea out? If the buck ratio isn't being dropped enough because of a burn party, then the DWR will just issue more tags. This wouldn't help anything other than the DWR budget, you should know that.
> ...


Artificially raised numbers, it would not be sustainable. Sure more money for the DWR is good, but all I would be doing is subsidizing those who just want to shoot any buck every year.

I think that getting people excited about deer hunting again by having more mature bucks in the herd will give more incentives to people to help the deer herds by getting out and volunteering on projects or landowners improving their property for deer. This would have the greatest real net effect on the deer herd populations, which would in turn increase the buck numbers in a sustainable manner along with the herd size. But if buck to do ratios are still low due to management policies then the likely hood of mature bucks in the herd are low too.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Flinger- so where do all the bucks go on your ranch? You guys don't shoot them. We don't shoot them. Others may shoot them, but that is poaching. Where do all those fawns go? There were dozens of bucks on your place just 5-7 years ago. Doe and fawns all over. Where are they now? Can we lay the blame on the UDWR for the fall off of deer in our area? Not trying to be arguementative, just things to ponder.

I do agree the Nebo should be in the higher age class and that at first glance that is a lot of permits on that unit. I'd guess the end result will be different from the proposal. We'll have to meet up and look at elk one day this fall.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

flinger said:


> I think that getting people excited about deer hunting again by having more mature bucks in the herd will give more incentives to people to help the deer herds by getting out and volunteering on projects or landowners improving their property for deer. This would have the greatest real net effect on the deer herd populations, which would in turn increase the buck numbers in a sustainable manner along with the herd size. But if buck to do ratios are still low due to management policies then the likely hood of mature bucks in the herd are low too.


What is your definition of "mature"?

If a person isn't seeing mature bucks they need to switch units/techniques/etc. My hunting group has switched regions 3 times since I started hunting. It all had to do with proximity/hunting family/opportunity/herd size/big bucks/etc. Our society is so lazy we expect everything to be given to us (we have passed this onto the next generation which is why kids would rather play Cabelas Big Game hunter than go out and find a real buck). The big bucks are there in most units, most hunters are just too lazy to go after them. Yes I'm making a generalization. You all are lazy hunters! :lol:

I took my 5-year old daughter and some of her friends fishing over the weekend. After 15 minutes her little friends started to complain that the fish were not biting. My daughter quickly turned and stated "It's called FISHING not CATCHING". 8) I'm so proud of her!

Flinger this isn't directed at you, I just don't understand why we have to adjust hunter management to get people off of their lazy butts. Isn't that what "Personal Responsibility" is all about? Taking the initiative yourself and doing something? I agree some people need a swift kick now and then (this is what my wife says about me).


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

flinger said:


> Artificially raised numbers, it would not be sustainable. Sure more money for the DWR is good, but all I would be doing is subsidizing those who just want to shoot any buck every year.


I believe you may have this backwards. I think those that just want to shoot any buck every year are subsidizing you.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Packout said:


> Flinger- so where do all the bucks go on your ranch? You guys don't shoot them. We don't shoot them. Others may shoot them, but that is poaching. Where do all those fawns go? There were dozens of bucks on your place just 5-7 years ago. Doe and fawns all over. Where are they now? Can we lay the blame on the UDWR for the fall off of deer in our area? Not trying to be arguementative, just things to ponder.
> 
> I do agree the Nebo should be in the higher age class and that at first glance that is a lot of permits on that unit. I'd guess the end result will be different from the proposal. We'll have to meet up and look at elk one day this fall.


Good points. This southern Utah air is just getting to me along with the emotional trauma this proposal has caused! I was thinking the same, I'll be in touch.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Yes I'm making a generalization. You all are lazy hunters! :lol:


Maybe some. Let me suggest another one that might fit better, impatience.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

JHas said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > Artificially raised numbers, it would not be sustainable. Sure more money for the DWR is good, but all I would be doing is subsidizing those who just want to shoot any buck every year.
> ...


ok, I'll admit that it could be seen both ways. Main point, anyone that thinks that burning your tag is going to save bucks (deer bucks) doesn't understand the process. It might keep that buck around for 1 more year until the DWR issues the next years tags numbers higher because now there are too many bucks in the herd to be at objective. It will all even out. If I wanted to give the DWR $45 I would just give it to them, and not mess with the factors that go into the data.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

flinger said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I'm making a generalization. You all are lazy hunters! :lol:
> ...


I was just kidding and I agree, impatient is also another word that fits.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

flinger said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > flinger said:
> ...


We've been financially and emotionally helping a daughter with 3 children get through some life changing issues, but we were getting flack from her siblings because they thought we were doing too much. They said they weren't going to help until she showed more initiative. It's been a while, but she's now pretty much on her own and, finally, she's at a point where her brothers and sisters would offer their help. Trouble is, she no longer needs it and now they are upset because she doesn't want it.

My questions to you are; 1)Where are those volunteers and landowners NOW, when we need them? 2)If there becomes a sufficient number of mature bucks, why would they think they needed to do anything? 3)Why should it take mature bucks to get people off their couches? 4)How many of those on this forum who claim to spend days in the hills are now spending most or any of those days doing habitat work instead of scouting and/or shed hunting?

Your theory sounds great, but my experience tells me it ain't likely to hold true in real life.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> The AMOUNT of meat isn't the only issue with me. The QUALITY and VARIETY plays a big part. We seldom buy beef now, though we do buy some pork, poultry and seafood. But even that is getting less and less because we fish and make sausage out of the venison.
> 
> Bottom line, we take much more pride and have much more fun providing for ourselves. Therefore, I do all I can to fill every tag I'm able to get, but I do it primarily with a bow which means a buck deer about every 3 years.
> 
> When I hear the Walmart, Harmons, Albertsons argument, my response is, "When was the last time you heard a group of campers sitting around the campfire bragging about the roasts they bought at Walmart?" :lol:


Shameless plug....... :mrgreen:

If you buy pork/beef from me, you WILL be bragging about it to family/friends/neighbors. True story. And, it is VERY reasonably priced. My beef is 100% grass fed, as is my pork, along with my tasty fresh free range farm eggs.... :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I like the suggestion of Jhas, personally. Those who are calling for more tags to be cut should put their money where their mouths are, and pledge to not pull the trigger this fall!

I have been doing a lot of road traveling over the last week, and yesterday around this time I counted OVER 400 deer between Manti and Ephraim, and more than DOUBLE that between Ephraim and Mount Pleasant. All these deer were within a couple hundred yards of the highway. Now lets remember, the snow is NOT driving the deer down....so why are so many deer down so low right now? I went past Nephi around 2:30 this afternoon on I-15, and there were close to 200 deer out in the open. I don't recall the last time I saw that many deer out in the open during mid-day in late March. My question again; why are so many deer down so low right now? Is 'option 2' the cause, is it the $50 bounty, is it the 'do something' mantra of SFW? Or, is it other factors? Of course these are rhetorical questions........


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > The AMOUNT of meat isn't the only issue with me. The QUALITY and VARIETY plays a big part. We seldom buy beef now, though we do buy some pork, poultry and seafood. But even that is getting less and less because we fish and make sausage out of the venison.
> ...


Shameless plug....... :mrgreen:


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I like the suggestion of Jhas, personally. Those who are calling for more tags to be cut should put their money where their mouths are, and pledge to not pull the trigger this fall!
> 
> I have been doing a lot of road traveling over the last week, and yesterday around this time I counted OVER 400 deer between Manti and Ephraim, and more than DOUBLE that between Ephraim and Mount Pleasant. All these deer were within a couple hundred yards of the highway. Now lets remember, the snow is NOT driving the deer down....so why are so many deer down so low right now? I went past Nephi around 2:30 this afternoon on I-15, and there were close to 200 deer out in the open. I don't recall the last time I saw that many deer out in the open during mid-day in late March. My question again; why are so many deer down so low right now? Is 'option 2' the cause, is it the $50 bounty, is it the 'do something' mantra of SFW? Or, is it other factors? Of course these are rhetorical questions........


My wife just told me that she thinks you are seeing all those deer because of the mild winter. I told her is isn't that simple... Ha Ha obviously she doesn't understand mule deer!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)




----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > JHas said:
> ...


I see your point but even if there was 600,000 deer in this state, they would probably still be managed for lower buck ratios. Ten 2 points vs. one 2 point still doesn't get some excited. Now if there was a reasonable chance the 2 points might make it closer to their prime then seeing ten 2 points and hundreds of fawns would be really exciting imo. That reasonable chance comes when the buck to doe ratios are higher (or objectives are higher) than they are now imo. I suppose I look at it differently.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I like the suggestion of Jhas, personally. Those who are calling for more tags to be cut should put their money where their mouths are, and pledge to not pull the trigger this fall!
> 
> I have been doing a lot of road traveling over the last week, and yesterday around this time I counted OVER 400 deer between Manti and Ephraim, and more than DOUBLE that between Ephraim and Mount Pleasant. All these deer were within a couple hundred yards of the highway. Now lets remember, the snow is NOT driving the deer down....so why are so many deer down so low right now? I went past Nephi around 2:30 this afternoon on I-15, and there were close to 200 deer out in the open. I don't recall the last time I saw that many deer out in the open during mid-day in late March. My question again; why are so many deer down so low right now? Is 'option 2' the cause, is it the $50 bounty, is it the 'do something' mantra of SFW? Or, is it other factors? Of course these are rhetorical questions........


Grasses greening up earlier than normal? The moon phase? The coyotes read the newspaper? :?:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I have been doing a lot of road traveling over the last week, and yesterday around this time I counted OVER 400 deer between Manti and Ephraim, and more than DOUBLE that between Ephraim and Mount Pleasant. All these deer were within a couple hundred yards of the highway. Now lets remember, the snow is NOT driving the deer down....so why are so many deer down so low right now? I went past Nephi around 2:30 this afternoon on I-15, and there were close to 200 deer out in the open. I don't recall the last time I saw that many deer out in the open during mid-day in late March. My question again; why are so many deer down so low right now? Is 'option 2' the cause, is it the $50 bounty, is it the 'do something' mantra of SFW? Or, is it other factors? Of course these are rhetorical questions........


How about they are there because if they get to far away from civilization they get constantly get harassed by cats, coyotes and hunters. So this is a safe zone for them!

How about they have always been there. Its traditional wintering grounds and man has encroached with his roads, houses, farms, ect.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Let's blame it on the wild speculation that in the last year or two we broke a 6 or 7 year drought and the forage was/is in better condition for a longer period of time and the does are birthing healthier twin fawns and are producing better milk.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I was in spring city canyon Saturday. Indianola, Fairview , Mont Pleasant areas Friday.
The grass is greening up in the valleys, The deer diet has switched, Deer are low on the grass.
NORMAL ,NORMAL, NORMAL!!!!.................Yes , I saw 600-800 deer,

5 years ago you would SEE DOUBLE THAT NUMBER!!!!!

Especially from Mt Pleasant north to Thistle,,,,,Deer numbers are lower than normal there still..

And the deer that are there LOOK GOOD!..There still should, AS IN THE PAST, be more ...

On topic..Our family ATE 2 general season SE region deer tags last year,,,
Scouted, Never pulled a gun out of the closet during the general deer hunt.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

Goofy-
Why would you not turn the tags back in and let somebody that is willing to at least get their gun out of the closet have a chance? I guess I don't understand this eating a tag thing.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

blazingsaddle said:


> Goofy-
> Why would you not turn the tags back in and let somebody that is willing to at least get their gun out of the closet have a chance? I guess I don't understand this eating a tag thing.


'Cause this way there are two tags that are guaranteed to NOT be filled. If someone else had the tags, they might translate into two more DEAD deer. Hence the whole concept of asking those who want to see more bucks to burn, or eat their deer tags. In that way you can continue to fund the UDWR, who manage the deer, and do your part to limit the harvest of bucks until the buck to doe ratios reach the desired levels.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Or there dedicated hunters and didnt want to burn a tag on a dink buck. Remember you only get 2 bucks in 3 years.

Or they have lifetime licenses and will get a tag next year and by not killing those bucks they will have a crack at them last year.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I understand the sentiment 100% but the concept doesn't work. First there has always been a few people that buy a tag and don't hunt. It's part of the success rates and always has been. Second if a group came together and did it in mass then the buck:doe ratio would climb and nexts years tag allotment would be bigger.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

2) Total hunters afield is less than total permits sold. Around 13% of all general season deer permit holders in 2011 did not hunt.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/hu ... d_2011.pdf


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> On topic..Our family ATE 2 general season SE region deer tags last year,,,
> *Scouted*, Never pulled a gun out of the closet during the general deer hunt.


So, in other words, you weren't actually planning on eating those tags. You 
just didn't happen to find any of those big trophy bucks worthy of pulling the gun out of the closet. You know, those big trophy bucks you think need to do the breeding, but who wouldn't have been able to if you had found them?


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> The AMOUNT of meat isn't the only issue with me. The QUALITY and VARIETY plays a big part. We seldom buy beef now, though we do buy some pork, poultry and seafood. But even that is getting less and less because we fish and make sausage out of the venison.
> 
> Bottom line, we take much more pride and have much more fun providing for ourselves. Therefore, I do all I can to fill every tag I'm able to get, but I do it primarily with a bow which means a buck deer about every 3 years.
> 
> When I hear the Walmart, Harmons, Albertsons argument, my response is, "When was the last time you heard a group of campers sitting around the campfire bragging about the roasts they bought at Walmart?" :lol:


Right on brother - you nailed it in this post!!!


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I understand the sentiment 100% but the concept doesn't work. First there has always been a few people that buy a tag and don't hunt. It's part of the success rates and always has been. Second if a group came together and did it in mass then the buck:doe ratio would climb and nexts years tag allotment would be bigger.


Finally! +1


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

flinger said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Second if a group came together and did it in mass then the buck:doe ratio would climb and nexts years tag allotment would be bigger.
> ...


Well isn't this what you want flinger? I thought you option 2 guys wanted to raise buck to doe ratios. Bullsnot states that if you did it in mass then the buck to doe ratio would climb. This is exactly what I'm telling you, EAT THAT TAG then you can raise the ratio, stop whining at me for being a successful opportunistic hunter, stop hating on the DWR and be able to flock shoot 4 points from the cab of your truck just like in the old days. Everyone wins!


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

JHas said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > bullsnot said:
> ...


I think the disconnect between you and I is that I think 15-17 ratio is still depressed. Burning tags isn't going to have the potential to put the ratio over that for more than a year. Again, why mess with the factors that go into the data, which is what they make decisions off of.

DWR hating? It was just how the DWR presented and explained the recommendation in the packet letter that was disturbing, after yesterdays explanation and apology they have redeemed themselves somewhat.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

flinger said:


> I think the disconnect between you and I is that I think 15-17 ratio is still depressed. Burning tags isn't going to have the potential to put the ratio over that for more than a year. Again, why mess with the factors that go into the data, which is what they make decisions off of. DWR hating? It was just how the DWR presented and explained the recommendation in the packet letter that was disturbing, after yesterdays explanation and apology they have redeemed themselves somewhat.


No disconnect whatsoever and I never meant this proposal (if that's what you want to call it) seriously but I did mean it to be annoying. I knew full well going into this thread that there would not be a single option 2 supporter willing to sacrifice their own hunting privledges for the sake of a mule deer buck. It sort of puts the whole fiasco into perspective I guess.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flinger said:


> I think the disconnect between you and I is that I think 15-17 ratio is still depressed. Burning tags isn't going to have the potential to put the ratio over that for more than a year. Again, why mess with the factors that go into the data, which is what they make decisions off of.


What do you think the buck:doe ratio should be, if it were not 'depressed'? I am curious as to why people want to drive up buck:doe ratios, back in the good ol' days the buck:doe ratios were LOWER than they are now. The reason there were more mature bucks.......more deer!


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

JHas said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > I think the disconnect between you and I is that I think 15-17 ratio is still depressed. Burning tags isn't going to have the potential to put the ratio over that for more than a year. Again, why mess with the factors that go into the data, which is what they make decisions off of. DWR hating? It was just how the DWR presented and explained the recommendation in the packet letter that was disturbing, after yesterdays explanation and apology they have redeemed themselves somewhat.
> ...


Believe me, I've done the equal of this tag burning more than you know in the past and it hasn't done anything to help the bucks on the Nebo unit, in my experience. If I thought mass tag burning wouldn't screw with the data I would be ok with the masses doing it if they wanted to, but we don't want to be lost on how to set an appropriate tag allocation next year too. I guess I shouldn't have taken your "proposal" so seriously. It was a nice poke in the ribs though. 



proutdoors said:


> flinger said:
> 
> 
> > I think the disconnect between you and I is that I think 15-17 ratio is still depressed. Burning tags isn't going to have the potential to put the ratio over that for more than a year. Again, why mess with the factors that go into the data, which is what they make decisions off of.
> ...


I'm just going off the simple assumption that higher ratios equals bigger percentage of mature bucks. I'm not expecting the deer population to go back up to where it was in the 60s 70s 80's anytime soon, if ever, but if we can get the total number of bigger bucks up because of higher ratios on a lower population then it may not seem like its trying to find a needle in a haystack and it would keep my interest up. I've hunted in units that were 18 and above in the past and it seemed to be just about the right balance for me, to me a 15-17 gets a little uninteresting. Call me impatient when it comes to hunting. Main beef is just that Nebo should be 18-20 according to the criteria of roadless/private ratios.


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

Wasn't there an issue a few years ago where anti's where putting in for tags to "save" animals from being hunted?

Seems a little ironic. Maybe they ought to shut it down for a year or two.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JHas, do you ever wonder, if some people just like to be butt heads. Since this post is in result of my comment about cutting tags on the lower buck to doe ratio units. I'll answer your question. I have only killed one general season buck since 1992 and that was on the Wasatch Front. The last buck I've killed in the Central Region was in 1986. So I think I've been doing my part with saving a few bucks for others. The idea of someone burning their tag, make me sick to think about. What a selfish idea. All it does is take away from someone else drawing that tag and would have had that opportunity.
If I thought not killing a buck again this year would help the cause, I would do it but all it will do is add more tags for the following year. Which I'm opposed of.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

More bucks to does = more bucks being hit by vehicles, starving on limited winter range and becoming predator fodder. The increased buck to doe ratios are to appease the horn hunters who are not shooting enough inches every year. While the true issues facing the mule deer are just rumblings in the back ground. When we all stop peeing on each others boots and wake up to the reality of a species in serious decline because of man made environmental impacts. Only then can we work to offset those factors that are taking the wind out of the long term survival of the mule deer here in Utah.

That being said now we can get back to the he said she said circular discussion of who really knows the magic solution for a seemingly hopeless situation.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> JHas, do you ever wonder, if some people just like to be butt heads. Since this post is in result of my comment about cutting tags on the lower buck to doe ratio units. I'll answer your question. I have only killed one general season buck since 1992 and that was on the Wasatch Front. The last buck I've killed in the Central Region was in 1986. So I think I've been doing my part with saving a few bucks for others. The idea of someone burning their tag, make me sick to think about. What a selfish idea. All it does is take away from someone else drawing that tag and would have had that opportunity.
> If I thought not killing a buck again this year would help the cause, I would do it but all it will do is add more tags for the following year. Which I'm opposed of.


You got the butthead part right...


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JHas said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > JHas, do you ever wonder, if some people just like to be butt heads. Since this post is in result of my comment about cutting tags on the lower buck to doe ratio units. I'll answer your question. I have only killed one general season buck since 1992 and that was on the Wasatch Front. The last buck I've killed in the Central Region was in 1986. So I think I've been doing my part with saving a few bucks for others. The idea of someone burning their tag, make me sick to think about. What a selfish idea. All it does is take away from someone else drawing that tag and would have had that opportunity.
> ...


 :mrgreen: 
Do you hunt 19a, 19c or unit 18? 
Have you hunted the Stansbury Front in the last couple years?
I'm guessing the answer is no.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> :mrgreen:
> Do you hunt 19a, 19c or unit 18?
> Have you hunted the Stansbury Front in the last couple years?
> I'm guessing the answer is no.


i have. whats your point?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

My point is, those areas have low buck to doe ratios and get too much hunting pressure. Most people in Grantsville don't even hunt the Stansburys any more because of the recent low deer and buck numbers. So why is the DWR adding more tags to these areas. Is it for more revenue?


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


Your guess is correct. ???


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Ridgetop, if the Stansbury is that bad then I would recommend hunting other places. We use to hunt one area for years until it went downhill and now we hunt new places where we kill bucks.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> My point is, those areas have low buck to doe ratios and get too much hunting pressure. Most people in Grantsville don't even hunt the Stansburys any more because of the recent low deer and buck numbers. So why is the DWR adding more tags to these areas. Is it for more revenue?


Why do people keep giving the DWR tag money for areas that suck? Or do they really suck? You've managed to kill two bucks in the past 20 years, maybe you're looking in the wrong areas?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

JHas said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > My point is, those areas have low buck to doe ratios and get too much hunting pressure. Most people in Grantsville don't even hunt the Stansburys any more because of the recent low deer and buck numbers. So why is the DWR adding more tags to these areas. Is it for more revenue?
> ...


+1 why keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop said:
> ...


Ridge has some honest grips with DWR's own data that show these herds are in the toilet and something should be done because their own data shows it needs to be done.

But nothing has been done for years on the areas hes talking about. nothing!

and all you guys can come up with is a lame excuse how you dont have a problem hunting this area or you know someone that killed a 22" buck there last year. Or he should just go to a different area. bla bla bla!

You cant have it both ways! You either follow the divisions data or the divisions data is crap!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > JHas said:
> ...


I've agreed with Ridge about a couple of those units.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > JHas said:
> ...


Brilliant! Because the division's data tells you there's deer out there then you should keep going and expecting to see deer? Then whine when you don't? Sooner or later a light bulb has got to turn on in your head that tells you to maybe go and find a new area (at least for a little while anyway?). But as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...

I'll just assume the division's data is crap and I'll go where I find the deer, and I'll be a very happy hunter even if I don't find a deer that's to my liking. I at least got out and did something that I love to do - "Hunt" for deer...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JHas said:


> Brilliant! Because the division's data tells you there's deer out there then you should keep going and expecting to see deer?


cant you read? The divisions data says it sucks! The divisions data says loads of tags should be cut but NO they raise the tags.



JHas said:


> Then whine when you don't? Sooner or later a light bulb has got to turn on in your head that tells you to maybe go and find a new area (at least for a little while anyway?). But as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...


Ya we should just hot spot the rest of this state into what these BS units look like instead of the division sacking up and doing whats right!

The man's not complaining he doesn't want to hunt this area. He hunts these areas because he likes to hunt these areas. Who the hell knows why he hunts them that isn't the point. Im glad he hunts them because this means hes not in my spots. But it not right for anyone to have to hunt an area they like to hunt with this sort of BS management. If the Division was doing its Freaking job SFW wouldn't be the big gorilla they are today.



JHas said:


> I'll just assume the division's data is crap and I'll go where I find the deer, and I'll be a very happy hunter even if I don't find a deer that's to my liking. I at least got out and did something that I love to do - "Hunt" for deer...


What the heck do you think hes doing? To me it sounds like hes doing the same thing you are. Hunt for Deer! If he didn't, he wouldn't have hunted for 20 years and only taken 2 deer. Id rather have a guy like ridge out hunting a 10/100 doe area and killing 2 deer in 20 years then having BO Karrate out hunting an area shooting every dink spike he sees for 20 years in a row and then complaining he cant find a bigger buck.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> JHas said:
> 
> 
> > Brilliant! Because the division's data tells you there's deer out there then you should keep going and expecting to see deer?
> ...


He's definitely not doing what I'm doing because Im not whining and Im not trying to change to rules to fit ME. And yes I can read and I'll say it again. Keep going where there are no deer (no matter what anyone says) and you'll find the same results.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Scott the data shows that the WF is just fine also


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JHas said:


> He's definitely not doing what I'm doing because Im not whining and Im not trying to change to rules to fit ME. And yes I can read and I'll say it again. Keep going where there are no deer (no matter what anyone says) and you'll find the same results.


Hes not trying to change the rules to fit ME as you put it hes trying to get the rules followed that were set in place! That is the part you fail to comprehend!

What makes you think hes not seeing bucks? Maybe he thinks his area would be even better if there were twice as many bucks as there is now. I mean going from a below 10/100 unit to a 18/100 unit in my opinion would be a big step up.

Just keep ignoring the data like you are and it wont be long and the area your so fond of will headed in the crapper as well! I mean I used to be bullet proof like you and ten feet tall thinking my area was the stuff!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Coyote are you admitting you only agree with the chit data you want to believe in? Like I said above you cant have it both ways. 

I can guarantee you nothing will be done with my area but if these areas that have less then 10/100 does doesn't get fixed I can guarantee you SFW will shut them down! Then we all loose!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You guys just don't get it but I'm glad a few do. Hopefully the WB does get it , when the time comes. I could/can shoot a 4 point every year if I want to but have choose not to because it's not about killing a buck every year. Especially when I have elk in the freezer. 
What's it about is many of us out here live within a few hundred yards of public land and it would be nice to take my family out for a hike or horse ride and see a few bucks. Right now, that's not going to happen. Also, it would be fun to take the kids out in the hills 5 minutes away from home and find shed antlers in the summer but that's not going to happen either with very few bucks around. There have been about 40 does hanging in the fields and sage flats around my house and not a single buck was spotted with them the whole month of November to do the breeding. What about the people with health problems and can't hike very far or unable to travel very far. To hell with them I guess. You say go somewhere else and hunt. Ok, I say cut tags and if I don't draw, then I'll hunt somewhere else. Even in the 2008 Five Year Plan, it states that if a unit falls below 10 bucks per 100 does, it will go into LE status. That means the West Desert Units would have gone LE. Well maybe. Now with the new plan, they are adding tags. If it wouldn't have been for the 3 day hunt and snow storm of 2010. The Oquirrh/Stansbury unit would be closer to the 10 to 100 doe range.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Hes not trying to change the rules to fit ME as you put it hes trying to get the rules followed that were set in place! That is the part you fail to comprehend!
> 
> What makes you think hes not seeing bucks? Maybe he thinks his area would be even better if there were twice as many bucks as there is now. I mean going from a below 10/100 unit to a 18/100 unit in my opinion would be a big step up.
> 
> Just keep ignoring the data like you are and it wont be long and the area your so fond of will headed in the crapper as well! I mean I used to be bullet proof like you and ten feet tall thinking my area was the stuff!


Your area is the stuff. Your area is my area. Been hunting it for the past 35 years, seen low years and seen high years but it all manages to work itself out.

Now we should probably end this thread as it sounds like you are getting a little upset. Good huntin SW maybe I'll see ya on the mountain!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Coyote are you admitting you only agree with the chit data you want to believe in? Like I said above you cant have it both ways.
> 
> I can guarantee you nothing will be done with my area but if these areas that have less then 10/100 does doesn't get fixed I can guarantee you SFW will shut them down! Then we all loose!


Scott I have friends that bow hunt the WF. They don't complain about the lack of bucks. They said the quality is still there like several years ago. It's harder to shoot out the quality with archery equipment. I thought you would be one of the last people complaining, but I was wrong. I don't hunt archery on the front but I look at data and talk to friends. I have seen the bucks they are killing.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Jhas

So your area is my area and your trying to tell ridge he doesn't have the right to have what you and I have or are you saying it would be ok if our area looked like his area? Just trying to figure out what your saying. 

Maybe we will see each other on the mountain


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

coyote are you having a hard time following this conversation. I never brought up the front in this post until you did. 

what part of me saying after your post there is not going to be any changes to the WF because of the dwrs data and that there better be changes to areas with under 10/100 because of the dwrs data cant you understand? 

This post is not about the WF so dont drag it in trying to take jabs at me!


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

Maybe his area is like ours I don't know. Our area can be very difficult to hunt at times but the bucks are always there just have to work hard to find them. Over the years I have heard many complain about the lack of deer in our area and I just smile and continue with my business knowing that if I work hard I will kill a good buck.

Having said that, if i could not find deer in my area, I would look elsewhere and you would never hear about it.

That's what I'm trying to say. Understand?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Got it!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Haha I was talking to you in general about your silly little grips about your unit.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Haha your about as funny as a fart in church haha

Just be glad i've been warned about doing yo mama jokes


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Why because you would stoop down to a lower level?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

JHas, interesting that you hunt the front. How do you feel about the WB wanting to have "ALL" undersubscribed archery tags in any given unit, be available to hunt the extended season. This could add thousands of new hunters onto the front starting mid-September. The DWR said they will concider the idea. Also, they're going to concider a premium LE type tag for the front for a couple dozen people. How do you feel about those apples. I guess you can just hunt somewhere else if you don't like it.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

I hope a lot of them are youth hunters? I wish them all success? I hope a lot of youngsters kill their first 2 point? I don't know what you want me to say. 

The Wb already tried to change the WF to archery only a few years back and they got spanked for trying.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The Front was already open to 15,000 archers. It was that way when many shot great bucks. Gotta figure 15,000+ archery tags, 10,000 DH, and a few thousand youth who can hunt all 3 seasons. It has had what is essentially unlimited archery tags for 15+ years (even though all tag holders do not hunt the Front) and yet it still has high numbers of mature bucks. 

I am skeptical about shifting leftover archery tags to ML and Rifle. Although I can see most archery tags going before the archery season ends, it could be a problem IF (big if) a substantial number of archery permits change over to ML or rifle on some units.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Ridgetop, I strongly believe the big horn sheep on the Stansbury unit has had a negative effect on the mule deer population. No more domestic sheep grazing and HELPING the range. Also, although you can't take your kids out to see mature bucks running around every where, you can take them on a 10 minute drive and have them enjoy the big horn sheep, yes?


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> Ridgetop, I strongly believe the big horn sheep on the Stansbury unit has had a negative effect on the mule deer population. No more domestic sheep grazing and HELPING the range. Also, although you can't take your kids out to see mature bucks running around every where, you can take them on a 10 minute drive and have them enjoy the big horn sheep, yes?


i have a hard time believing theres enough sheep on the unit to really have an impact. theres not THAT many... and the ones that do live there are in sh1t holes. aleast the ones ive found.

also unit 18 has an awesome winter range. the reason the unit is in trouble cant be because of loss of habitat. its something else.... i personally think it has more to do with the cat/dog numbers and the amount of hunters that hit those hills with rifles. ive personally witnessed what happens there during the rifle hunt. its sad to say the least...


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

shaun larsen said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Ridgetop, I strongly believe the big horn sheep on the Stansbury unit has had a negative effect on the mule deer population. No more domestic sheep grazing and HELPING the range. Also, although you can't take your kids out to see mature bucks running around every where, you can take them on a 10 minute drive and have them enjoy the big horn sheep, yes?
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You are correct, elkfromabove!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Ridgetop, I strongly believe the big horn sheep on the Stansbury unit has had a negative effect on the mule deer population. No more domestic sheep grazing and HELPING the range. Also, although you can't take your kids out to see mature bucks running around every where, you can take them on a 10 minute drive and have them enjoy the big horn sheep, yes?


I'm not complaining about the amount of deer I'm seeing. Just not many bucks. Not even in November when they are rutting. But we do enjoy seeing the sheep. :mrgreen:


----------



## 90redryder (Oct 10, 2011)

An elk in the freezer is enough for me and my woman this year, therefore I didnt even put in for a deer tag and I havent for the past couple years. In these few years of not hunting deer ive noticed alot more big bucks roaming my deer hunting grounds. Last year scouting and during the elk hunt I only had one or two trips where I didnt see at least one big 4 point. Give it one more year and this spot will be ready to take my brother out on his first deer hunt, and I expect that he will have no problem taking a nice buck in his first season of big game hunting.


----------

