# deer hunt questionnaire



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Anybody else get this new questionnaire sent out by the DWR? I just completed it and thought some of the questions were/are pretty interesting…it looks like there has been some interested drummed up in changing the allocation of deer tags and the percentages of tags according to weapons.

It would be really cool if the rifle tags were decreased and archery tags increased…

…I was disappointed, though, when I didn't see any questions regarding statewide archery hunts.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> &#8230;I was disappointed, though, when I didn't see any questions regarding statewide archery hunts.


That ship has sailed, I cant imagine any scenario where it would ever come back.

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> That ship has sailed, I cant imagine any scenario where it would ever come back.


Geez&#8230;.and I though i was a pessimist!

Personally, I believe that as long as we have a revolving door on RAC and WB members that door is always open as long as support is there for it. Speak loud enough and long enough and archers could be heard...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Must of only been sent to archers........


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

It was sent to me today. I had a rifle deer tag in 2013.
I haven't looked at it yet.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> Anybody else get this new questionnaire sent out by the DWR? I just completed it and thought some of the questions were/are pretty interesting&#8230;it looks like there has been some interested drummed up in changing the allocation of deer tags and the percentages of tags according to weapons.
> 
> It would be really cool if the rifle tags were decreased and archery tags increased&#8230;
> 
> &#8230;I was disappointed, though, when I didn't see any questions regarding statewide archery hunts.


That is why the request was made for the input box at the end of the survey. Hopefully you and others who get the invitation utilize that opportunity.

The survey recipients are random. Information used with help the mule deer committee draft proposals for the new mule deer management plan and make recommendations to the Wildlife Board and future working groups.

If you get the invitation and a survey number, please take the time to complete the survey. Those wondering if they've even gotten the invite, check the email you provided to apply for tags in 2013 or have provided to the division in the past. If its not there, sorry, no preference points for future surveys. Or at least that is what my napkin notes say....


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

.... Still waiting for my CC hit


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Anybody else get this new questionnaire sent out by the DWR? I just completed it and thought some of the questions were/are pretty interesting&#8230;it looks like there has been some interested drummed up in changing the allocation of deer tags and the percentages of tags according to weapons.
> 
> It would be really cool if the rifle tags were decreased and archery tags increased&#8230;
> 
> &#8230;I was disappointed, though, when I didn't see any questions regarding statewide archery hunts.


Thanks for completing it! Unfortunately, only about 1/2 of those surveys are returned/answered and usually by the more involved hunters who feel they can make a difference. The other half is more apathetic and just don't bother, but usually have the most to lose.


----------



## silentstalker (Feb 19, 2008)

Why dont they open this up to more hunters? I would love to give my thoughts.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

silentstalker said:


> Why dont they open this up to more hunters? I would love to give my thoughts.


I agree. It should be available to *"ALL" *those who have had a tag in the last three years.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

Kind of sounds like "they" don't want to hear our suggestions or ideas. Maybe new policies are in the works and the public is not going to get a say in the matter.

Smells a little fishy............. but not surprising.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Elkoholic8 said:


> Kind of sounds like "they" don't want to hear our suggestions or ideas. Maybe new policies are in the works and the public is not going to get a say in the matter.
> 
> Smells a little fishy............. but not surprising.


Just simply NOT true ....

These qurastonare's are taken very seriuoly by the DWR and working groups.

In-fact, they WILL play a roll in decision making on managment issues ..

And EFA is correct, the more involved hunters seem to be answering
and submiting sugestions more than the occational hunter ....

I've been pointing out for years these are pushing toward hunters wanting better quality hunting.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Can't anwser the survey if you never get one.

Unless the survey goes to all, it is meaningless to judge what all hunters want.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I don't usually respond to surveys, but I did take the time to complete this one. There were some good questions, and I'm glad I got a chance to give my input.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I've been pointing out for years these are pushing toward hunters wanting better quality hunting.


Except for the fact that the surveys don't bear these results out&#8230;.in fact, the surveys are saying that hunters want more opportunity even if it means less quality! Every survey I have seen in any western state has shown these same results too&#8230;!


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

DallanC said:


> That ship has sailed, I cant imagine any scenario where it would ever come back.
> 
> -DallanC


I can, I'm imagining it right now...8)


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Why should archers not have to pick a unit like everyone else ?????
Yes, I love to bow hunt.............
I don't feel I'm any more special than the rest.
:mrgreen:


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Except for the fact that the surveys don't bear these results out&#8230;.in fact, the surveys are saying that hunters want more opportunity even if it means less quality! Every survey I have seen in any western state has shown these same results too&#8230;!


Oh come on, W2U....don't let the facts get in the way of a good old fashion quality vs opportunity argument! ;-)


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fowlmouth said:


> I don't usually respond to surveys, but I did take the time to complete this one. There were some good questions, and I'm glad I got a chance to give my input.


Thanks!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DWR,
why can't *ALL *deer hunters respond to the survey?
Why can't hunters have access to those on the committee via e-mail, to be able to give input?
Why the closed door meetings?
Amy, can you answer this?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I would think every hunter that applied for a deer tag should be able to respond. Surveys are easy with today's technology.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

wyoming2utah said:


> Except for the fact that the surveys don't bear these results out&#8230;.in fact, the surveys are saying that hunters want more opportunity even if it means less quality! Every survey I have seen in any western state has shown these same results too&#8230;!


+1 Yup! And input on the survey was given by those who had varied views and opinions. In fact, after completing it myself I can tell you that our input weighed heavy on how the survey was completed.

There will be other opportunities to provide feedback but for those complaining about not getting a survey to provide feedback, go to a RAC or contact your RAC or WB reps and ask them why the division didn't spend the money to flash everyone who had a mule deer tag a survey invite. Might have something to do with dismal turnout to local open houses prior to option dookie in the bucket passing? Maybe?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

klbzdad said:


> +1 Yup! And input on the survey was given by those who had varied views and opinions. In fact, after completing it myself I can tell you that our input weighed heavy on how the survey was completed.
> 
> There will be other opportunities to provide feedback but for those complaining about not getting a survey to provide feedback, go to a RAC or contact your RAC or WB reps and ask them why the division didn't spend the money to flash everyone who had a mule deer tag a survey invite. Might have something to do with dismal turnout to local open houses prior to option dookie in the bucket passing? Maybe?


 Thanks, Shawn, for completing the survey! And thanks for pointing out that everybody has an opportunity to speak their mind via the RAC and Wildlife Board system. In fact, you don't even have to be at the meetings! Phone calls, emails, letters and faxes to RAC and Board members carry more weight than you may think. Those things are mentioned all the time at the meetings!

And as far as everyone getting a survey, it may make you feel better about being able to voice your opinion, but it won't significantly change the dynamics of the answers the samples will give. Statistically, 10,000 randomly chosen hunters will have the same opinions as 120,000. Some slight differences may come into play if the surveys were mandatory, but those differences wouldn't be enough to make much of a difference, if any, in the plan. (In 2008, of 120,402 applicants, 18,453 people were sampled and 47% of them responded.)

Additionally, these surveys are based on a 5 year plan that is already designed to encompass yearly number changes in 30 general units, 9 limited entry units and 103 CWMU's.

Lastly, this 5 year plan still has to be approved by the Wildlife Board and you'll still have an opportunity for input there.

However, having said all of that, you are being represented on the committee in some capacity or another, even if you're not aware of it. There are representatives for MDF, SFW, UWC (myself), UBA, all 5 RAC's, CWMU Association, BLM, USFS, USU, BYU, Utah Farm Bureau, Wildlife Board, Legislature, and General Public as well as DWR. (You now know I'm a member, but, by agreement, I will not identify any of the others.).

Additionally, some of the members are also affiliated with more than one group so they bring a varied perspective to the table. And all have voting rights except DWR who are also chairing the committee. And, in spite of how it may appear on this forum to many of you, there has been a great deal of cooperation and agreement between the groups. We've all made proposals that passed and we've all made proposals that didn't pass, but we unanimously agreed on the final questions. (It took 2 three-hour meetings.) Now, whether or not this cooperation extends into the actual planning meetings remains to be seen, but I don't see it changing. We'll continue to disagree sometimes, but we'll continue to make our case and we'll continue to vote and we'll continue to accept the results of the vote. Bottom line, I'm confident we'll come up with the best 5 year plan possible.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Is there away to get hold of a copy of the questions for those of us not in the survey? I would like to see what questions were asked.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lee, thanks for your honesty. 
Why not share some of the questions with all of us?
Also, how many total people are on the committee?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*
2. How many years have you hunted mule deer or applied for a mule deer permit in Utah?







How many years have you hunted mule deer or applied for a mule deer permit in Utah? 0-5 Years







6-10 Years







11-15 Years







16-20 Years







21-30 Years







> 30 Years


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*
3. In addition to hunting buck mule deer, have you hunted other big game in Utah (either by obtaining a permit or applying in the drawing?) (Select all that apply.)







In addition to hunting buck mule deer, have you hunted other big game in Utah (either by obtaining a permit or applying in the drawing?) (Select all that apply.) General-season elk (spike or any bull)







Limited-entry elk







Pronghorn







Moose







Bison







Bighorn sheep







Mountain goat







Antlerless deer







Antlerless elk







Doe pronghorn







None of the above


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*
4. Did you harvest a buck mule deer in Utah during the 2013 season?







Did you harvest a buck mule deer in Utah during the 2013 season? I did not hunt buck mule deer in Utah in 2013.







No, I did not harvest a buck mule deer in Utah in 2013.







Yes, I harvested a large-antlered mule deer (antlers over 24 inches wide, and/or 4 or more points a side.)







Yes, I harvested a medium-antlered mule deer (antlers 18-24 inches wide, and/or 3-4 points a side.)







Yes, I harvested a small-antlered mule deer (1-2 points a side.)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*
5. What are your top 3 reason(s) for hunting mule deer? (Please select only 3.)







What are your top 3 reason(s) for hunting mule deer? (Please select only 3.) Developing my hunting skills/testing my abilities







Competing against other hunters







Getting away from the usual demands of life







Bringing back pleasant memories







For the stimulation and excitement







Harvesting any buck, regardless of size







Being close to nature







Seeing large bucks in their natural environment







Keeping physically fit







Harvesting a large-antlered buck (antlers over 24" wide and/or 4 or more points a side)







Sharing what I have learned with others







Being with family and/or friends







Putting meat on the table







Harvesting any deer (buck or doe)







Seeing bucks in their natural environment







Being on my own







Other (please specify)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

6. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following EXPECTATIONS when hunting mule deer in a general-season unit.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size.​






*Please indicate your level of agreement with the following EXPECTATIONS when hunting mule deer in a general-season unit. I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size. Strongly disagree








I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size. Disagree








I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size. Neutral








I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size. Agree








I am satisfied with harvesting any type of buck deer, regardless of size. Strongly agree​I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large-antlered mule deer buck (3 points on one side or better).​






I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large-antlered mule deer buck (3 points on one side or better). Strongly disagree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large-antlered mule deer buck (3 points on one side or better). Disagree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large-antlered mule deer buck (3 points on one side or better). Neutral








I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large-antlered mule deer buck (3 points on one side or better). Agree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt as long as I harvest a medium or large-antlered mule deer buck (3 points on one side or better). Strongly agree​I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer.​






I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer. Strongly disagree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer. Disagree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer. Neutral








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer. Agree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer. Strongly agree​I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer, as long as I see bucks.​






I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer, as long as I see bucks. Strongly disagree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer, as long as I see bucks. Disagree








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer, as long as I see bucks. Neutral








I am satisfied with my deer hunt even if I do not harvest a mule deer, as long as I see bucks. Agree








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

7. Were there times during your 2013 Utah mule deer hunt when the numbers of other hunters seriously detracted from the quality of your hunting experience?







Were there times during your 2013 Utah mule deer hunt when the numbers of other hunters seriously detracted from the quality of your hunting experience? Yes







No







I did not hunt mule deer in Utah in 2013.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

8. On general-season units, how satisfied were you with each of the following aspects of your most recent Utah mule deer hunting experience? (Select "N/A" if you have not hunted mule deer in Utah during the past 5 years.)
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied 
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
N/A
The number of deer you saw (bucks and does)​






*On general-season units, how satisfied were you with each of the following aspects of your most recent Utah mule deer hunting experience? (Select "N/A" if you have not hunted mule deer in Utah during the past 5 years.) The number of deer you saw (bucks and does) Very Dissatisfied








The number of deer you saw (bucks and does) Dissatisfied








The number of deer you saw (bucks and does) Neutral








The number of deer you saw (bucks and does) Satisfied








The number of deer you saw (bucks and does) Very Satisfied








The number of deer you saw (bucks and does) N/A​The number of bucks you saw​






The number of bucks you saw Very Dissatisfied








The number of bucks you saw Dissatisfied








The number of bucks you saw Neutral








The number of bucks you saw Satisfied








The number of bucks you saw Very Satisfied








The number of bucks you saw N/A​The size of bucks you saw​






The size of bucks you saw Very Dissatisfied








The size of bucks you saw Dissatisfied








The size of bucks you saw Neutral








The size of bucks you saw Satisfied








The size of bucks you saw Very Satisfied








The size of bucks you saw N/A​The overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience​






The overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience Very Dissatisfied








The overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience Dissatisfied








The overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience Neutral








The overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience Satisfied








The overall quality of your mule deer hunting experience Very Satisfied








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

9. Are you willing to accept additional restrictions in order to manage for larger and/or more mule deer bucks?







Are you willing to accept additional restrictions in order to manage for larger and/or more mule deer bucks? Yes







No


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

10. Please rate your support for the following deer hunt restrictions.
Strongly oppose
Oppose
Neutral
Support
Strongly support
Conversion of more general-season units to limited-entry units​






*Please rate your support for the following deer hunt restrictions. Conversion of more general-season units to limited-entry units Strongly oppose








Conversion of more general-season units to limited-entry units Oppose








Conversion of more general-season units to limited-entry units Neutral








Conversion of more general-season units to limited-entry units Support








Conversion of more general-season units to limited-entry units Strongly support​More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle (any-legal-weapon) permits​






More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle (any-legal-weapon) permits Strongly oppose








More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle (any-legal-weapon) permits Oppose








More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle (any-legal-weapon) permits Neutral








More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle (any-legal-weapon) permits Support








More archery/muzzleloader permits and fewer rifle (any-legal-weapon) permits Strongly support​Road and trail closures during hunting season​






Road and trail closures during hunting season Strongly oppose








Road and trail closures during hunting season Oppose








Road and trail closures during hunting season Neutral








Road and trail closures during hunting season Support








Road and trail closures during hunting season Strongly support​Giving up the ability to hunt every year​






Giving up the ability to hunt every year Strongly oppose








Giving up the ability to hunt every year Oppose








Giving up the ability to hunt every year Neutral








Giving up the ability to hunt every year Support








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

11. Utah has 30 general-season deer units.

16 units are managed for 18-20 bucks per 100 does. 
14 units are managed for 15-17 bucks per 100 does.

Which of the following options do you prefer? (Note: If you think 1 of the groups should increase, the other will decrease.)







Utah has 30 general-season deer units. 16 units are managed for 18-20 bucks per 100 does. 14 units are managed for 15-17 bucks per 100 does. Which of the following options do you prefer? (Note: If you think 1 of the groups should increase, the other will decrease.) Manage more units for 18-20 bucks per 100 does (increases quality but harder to draw).







Stay the same.







Manage more units for 15-17 bucks per 100 does (increases opportunity but easier to draw).


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

12. Utah manages for 2 premium limited-entry units, 7 limited-entry units, and 30 general-season units.

Premium limited-entry units: very high quality, very difficult to draw (2013 draw odds were 1 in 74).
Limited-entry units: high quality, difficult to draw (2013 draw odds were 1 in 20).
General-season units: less quality, easy to draw (2013 draw odds were 1 in 1.6).

Given the above information, do you think we should increase or decrease the number of premium limited-entry, limited-entry, and general-season units? (Note: If you think 1 or 2 of the hunt types should increase, at least one hunt type must decrease.)
Fewer units
No change
More units
Premium limited-entry units​






*Utah manages for 2 premium limited-entry units, 7 limited-entry units, and 30 general-season units. Premium limited-entry units: very high quality, very difficult to draw (2013 draw odds were 1 in 74). Limited-entry units: high quality, difficult to draw (2013 draw odds were 1 in 20). General-season units: less quality, easy to draw (2013 draw odds were 1 in 1.6). Given the above information, do you think we should increase or decrease the number of premium limited-entry, limited-entry, and general-season units? (Note: If you think 1 or 2 of the hunt types should increase, at least one hunt type must decrease.) Premium limited-entry units Fewer units








Premium limited-entry units No change








Premium limited-entry units More units​Limited-entry units​






Limited-entry units Fewer units








Limited-entry units No change








Limited-entry units More units​General-season units​






General-season units Fewer units








General-season units No change








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

13. Currently, 20% of general-season deer permits go to archery season, 60% go to any-legal-weapon (rifle), and 20% go to muzzleloader. Should the distribution of permits be different, and if so, how? (Note: If you think 1 or 2 of the weapon types should increase, at least one weapon type must decrease.)
Fewer permits
No change
More permits
Archery​






*Currently, 20% of general-season deer permits go to archery season, 60% go to any-legal-weapon (rifle), and 20% go to muzzleloader. Should the distribution of permits be different, and if so, how? (Note: If you think 1 or 2 of the weapon types should increase, at least one weapon type must decrease.) Archery Fewer permits








Archery No change








Archery More permits​Any-legal-weapon (rifle)​






Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Fewer permits








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) No change








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) More permits​Muzzleloader​






Muzzleloader Fewer permits








Muzzleloader No change








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

14. LENGTH of the seasons 
Too short
Satisfied
Too long
No opinion
Archery​






*LENGTH of the seasons Archery Too short








Archery Satisfied








Archery Too long








Archery No opinion​Muzzleloader​






Muzzleloader Too short








Muzzleloader Satisfied








Muzzleloader Too long








Muzzleloader No opinion​Any-legal-weapon (rifle)​






Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Too short








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Satisfied








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Too long








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) No opinion​
*
15. TIMING of the seasons
Too early
Satisfied
Too late
No opinion
Archery​






*TIMING of the seasons Archery Too early








Archery Satisfied








Archery Too late








Archery No opinion​Muzzleloader​






Muzzleloader Too early








Muzzleloader Satisfied








Muzzleloader Too late








Muzzleloader No opinion​Any-legal-weapon (rifle)​






Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Too early








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Satisfied








Any-legal-weapon (rifle) Too late








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*
16. Below are some possible management options related to season timing and length. Please rate your level of support for each option. 
Strongly oppose
Oppose
Neutral
Support
Strongly support
Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week. (Note: currently, the rifle deer hunt opens on the 3rd Saturday in October, and all other hunts are set around this hunt date. No hunts can open on a Sunday.)​






*Below are some possible management options related to season timing and length. Please rate your level of support for each option. Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week. (Note: currently, the rifle deer hunt opens on the 3rd Saturday in October, and all other hunts are set around this hunt date. No hunts can open on a Sunday.) Strongly oppose







Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week. (Note: currently, the rifle deer hunt opens on the 3rd Saturday in October, and all other hunts are set around this hunt date. No hunts can open on a Sunday.) Oppose







Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week. (Note: currently, the rifle deer hunt opens on the 3rd Saturday in October, and all other hunts are set around this hunt date. No hunts can open on a Sunday.) Neutral







Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week. (Note: currently, the rifle deer hunt opens on the 3rd Saturday in October, and all other hunts are set around this hunt date. No hunts can open on a Sunday.) Support







Open hunts on the same CALENDAR day every year (e.g., October 20) rather than a certain day of the week. (Note: currently, the rifle deer hunt opens on the 3rd Saturday in October, and all other hunts are set around this hunt date. No hunts can open on a Sunday.) Strongly support​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October​






A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October Strongly oppose







A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October Oppose







A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October Neutral







A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October Support







A rifle deer hunt opening day that occurs before the 3rd Saturday in October Strongly support​A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2​






A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2 Strongly oppose







A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2 Oppose







A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2 Neutral







A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2 Support







A rifle deer hunt with only 1 weekend to hunt instead of 2 Strongly support​A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days​






A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days Strongly oppose







A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days Oppose







A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days Neutral







A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days Support







A rifle deer hunt that is shorter than 9 days Strongly support​A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding​






A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding Strongly oppose







A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding Oppose







A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding Neutral







A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding Support







A second rifle season to potentially reduce hunter crowding Strongly support​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time​






Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time Strongly oppose







Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time Oppose







Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time Neutral







Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time Support







Deer and elk seasons that overlap (during the rifle and muzzleloader seasons) so both species could be hunted at the same time Strongly support​Provide a small number of limited-entry rifle permits during the first week of November on general-season units​






Provide a small number of limited-entry rifle permits during the first week of November on general-season units Strongly oppose







Provide a small number of limited-entry rifle permits during the first week of November on general-season units Oppose







Provide a small number of limited-entry rifle permits during the first week of November on general-season units Neutral







Provide a small number of limited-entry rifle permits during the first week of November on general-season units Support


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

17. Please rate your level of support for antlerless deer (doe) hunts in the following scenarios. 
Strongly oppose
Oppose
Neutral
Support
Strongly support
Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands​






*Please rate your level of support for antlerless deer (doe) hunts in the following scenarios. Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands Strongly oppose








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands Oppose








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands Neutral








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands Support








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to agricultural lands Strongly support​Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to public rangelands​






Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to public rangelands Strongly oppose








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to public rangelands Oppose








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to public rangelands Neutral








Hold doe hunts when deer are causing damage to public rangelands Support








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

*
18. In recent years, shed antler gathering has become a very popular activity, and its popularity is increasing. Although little data exists, many sportsmen and women are concerned that it may have negative effects on mule deer. Please rate your level of support for the following:
Strongly oppose
Oppose
Neutral
Support
Strongly support
Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15​






*In recent years, shed antler gathering has become a very popular activity, and its popularity is increasing. Although little data exists, many sportsmen and women are concerned that it may have negative effects on mule deer. Please rate your level of support for the following: Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15 Strongly oppose








Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15 Oppose








Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15 Neutral








Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15 Support








Restricting antler gathering on public lands prior to April 15 Strongly support​Requiring the purchase of a license or permit to gather antlers​






Requiring the purchase of a license or permit to gather antlers Strongly oppose








Requiring the purchase of a license or permit to gather antlers Oppose








Requiring the purchase of a license or permit to gather antlers Neutral








Requiring the purchase of a license or permit to gather antlers Support








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

19. If elk are shown to be negatively impacting deer populations, would you support managing for fewer elk in certain situations to potentially increase deer populations?
Strongly oppose
Oppose
Neutral
Support
Strongly support







*If elk are shown to be negatively impacting deer populations, would you support managing for fewer elk in certain situations to potentially increase deer populations? Strongly oppose








Oppose








Neutral








Support








​
*
20. Would you support an online mandatory harvest survey for general-season deer units?







Would you support an online mandatory harvest survey for general-season deer units? Yes







No

*
21. Please rate your agreement with the following statement:

Current mule deer hunting regulations in Utah are overly complicated.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree







*Please rate your agreement with the following statement: Current mule deer hunting regulations in Utah are overly complicated. Strongly disagree








Disagree








Neutral








Agree








​


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

22. Where did you live in 2013?







Where did you live in 2013? Urban area in Utah







Rural area in Utah







Urban area out-of-state







Rural area out-of-state

*
23. How long have you lived in Utah?







How long have you lived in Utah? 0-5 Years







6-10 Years







11-15 Years







16-20 Years







21-30 Years







> 30 Years







I have never lived in Utah.

*
24. Do you primarily hunt public or private lands?







Do you primarily hunt public or private lands? Public land







Private land







I hunt both public and private land equally.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

25. Are you affiliated with any organizations that relate to hunting or wildlife conservation (e.g., Mule Deer Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, etc.)?







Are you affiliated with any organizations that relate to hunting or wildlife conservation (e.g., Mule Deer Foundation, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, etc.)? I have never belonged to any of these groups.







I do not currently belong to any of these groups and have not in the past five years (2009-2013.)







I do not currently belong to any of these groups, but have within the past five years (2009-2013.)







I currently belong to a group.

*
26. Please tell us which hunting and/or wildlife conservation organizations to which you currently or recently belong. (Select all that apply.)







Please tell us which hunting and/or wildlife conservation organizations to which you currently or recently belong. (Select all that apply.) Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife







Mule Deer Foundation







Utah Foundation for North American Wild Sheep







Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation







Safari Club International







Utah Bowmen's Association







United Wildlife Cooperative







Other (please specify)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It is a geo-political, hunter centric questionnaire, that does nothing for actual mule deer management. It will only feed the distraction, that is hunter management, that gives cover to the serious lack of anything that resembles a mule deer plan. 

Colorado and Idaho studies have shown that nutrition is the limiting factor for Mule deer, so the UDWR wants to know what "conservation" groups you belong to. 

Our habitat restoration programs are 30 years outdated, so the UDWR wants to know if you live in an urban, or a rural setting.

Study after study in the West shows that mule deer predation is compensatory, and not the limiting factor for mule deer, so the UDWR wants to know if you hunt private property.

The science of Mule deer biology has not progressed very much in the last 30 years, so the UDWR wants to know how you feel about shed hunting.

We are not crafting a mule deer plan, we are crafting distractions, and arguments, to prevent anything meaningful from being included or accomplished in a real mule deer plan. Just more of the same, of the last 20 years of ignoring actual mule deer science, biology, and ecology, in a time known as the "quality era". Our great grand children are already laughing at us, while our great grand parents, are rolling in their graves.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

elkfromabove said:


> Thanks, Shawn, for completing the survey! And thanks for pointing out that everybody has an opportunity to speak their mind via the RAC and Wildlife Board system. In fact, you don't even have to be at the meetings! Phone calls, emails, letters and faxes to RAC and Board members carry more weight than you may think. Those things are mentioned all the time at the meetings!
> 
> And as far as everyone getting a survey, it may make you feel better about being able to voice your opinion, but it won't significantly change the dynamics of the answers the samples will give. Statistically, 10,000 randomly chosen hunters will have the same opinions as 120,000. Some slight differences may come into play if the surveys were mandatory, but those differences wouldn't be enough to make much of a difference, if any, in the plan. (In 2008, of 120,402 applicants, 18,453 people were sampled and 47% of them responded.)
> 
> ...


Regardless of what you think, myself and countless others, are NOT being represented on the committee. How can I have representation, in a process, where I have no input, and don't know who my "representative" is. This must be the Democracy part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This would be like not knowing who my congressman or senator is, and not being able to contact them. There is representation for some, and that is all.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> Lee, thanks for your honesty.
> Why not share some of the questions with all of us?
> Also, how many total people are on the committee?


I personally didn't feel comfortable sharing the questions before the survey deadline for fear of being perceived as somehow promoting UWC's agenda while all I'm after at this point is for getting as many participants as possible to fill it out on their own without a lot of collaboration. However, it looks like Lonetree is covering that request and he's about half way through.

As for the number of people on the committee, there are 19 active. There were 20 name plates at the table on the first meeting, but one of them was unoccupied and I didn't notice it on the second meeting. Whether that was an error or a change or a scheduling problem, I'm not sure. And, FWIW, there are 18 men and 1 woman (The missing member is/was also a woman.), and 5 wildlife biologists that I'm aware of, and ages ranging from about 25 to 73 (myself), and all levels of hunting experiences and agendas.
We also have a DWR facilitator (male), DWR Chairman (male) and DWR recorder (female) who have input, but no vote.

Today's kinda busy, but the first chance I get, I'll post the Committee Charter and the Ground Rules for conducting the meetings. That will tell you a lot about the process of coming up with wildlife management plans. We are a legal entity, but not as formal as some. In fact, we're having more fun than some of you may envision, especially since the DWR insists on feeding us beforehand (pizza, chicken). But not so much fun that we don't take our responsibilities seriously and I'll include UWC's mission statement in my next post so you'll see where we're coming from.

Edited, Sorry, I didn't get this posted until after Lonetree finished the questions.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> +1 Yup! And input on the survey was given by those who had varied views and opinions. In fact, after completing it myself I can tell you that our input weighed heavy on how the survey was completed.
> 
> There will be other opportunities to provide feedback but for those complaining about not getting a survey to provide feedback, go to a RAC or contact your RAC or WB reps and ask them why the division didn't spend the money to flash everyone who had a mule deer tag a survey invite. Might have something to do with dismal turnout to local open houses prior to option dookie in the bucket passing? Maybe?


The turn out was dismal, because the average hunter knows the deck is stacked, and the decisions are mostly already made, despite what they have to say. The current process is just another example of that. The only difference, is that the "opposition", to Option WTF?, is no longer an opposing force.

And don't get me started on the lack of biological standing for most of the BS being pushed.

"The Roosevelt Doctrine of conservation determined the subsequent history of American game management in 3 basic respects. 
1. It recognized all these 'outdoor' resources as one integral whole.

2. It recognized their 'conservation through wise use' as a public responsibility, and their private ownership as a public trust.

3. It recognized science as a tool for discharging that responsibility."--Aldo Leopold

Public opinion has a place, but should not dictate wildlife policy. We are currently managing the number of deer licenses based on unrelated, biological factors. Option WTF? has our deer tags tied to buck to doe ratios. There is no good biological reason for this, as it relates to the health of deer herds. The deer herds are not reliant upon the arbitrary B-D ratios set by public opinion. They are however reliant upon the fawn to doe ratios. Anyone want to tie deer tag numbers, to fawn ratios?

What if it were shown that there are conditions, where B-D ratios, are higher than needed, and that under those same conditions, deer numbers are being held down. Would it then be wise to manage under the current biologically disconnected method? Or should we instead be tying tag numbers to biological metrics, that actually reflect the health of deer herds?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> The deer herds are not reliant upon the arbitrary B-D ratios set by public opinion. They are however reliant upon the fawn to doe ratios. Anyone want to tie deer tag numbers, to fawn ratios?
> 
> What if it were shown that there are conditions, where B-D ratios, are higher than needed, and that under those same conditions, deer numbers are being held down. Would it then be wise to manage under the current biologically disconnected method? Or should we instead be tying tag numbers to biological metrics, that actually reflect the health of deer herds?


Maybe your not as smart as I've given you credit for all these years.
The DWR is currently determining tag numbers on herd growth, in addition to B/D ratios.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Lonetree, thanks for the questions. 
Like it or not, hunter management is part of deer management. 
To insure that a certain percentage of mature bucks make it through the hunting season for all general public to view at their pleasure. Hunters need to be controlled, so not too many bucks are taken each fall.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Lonetree, thanks for the questions.
> Like it or not, hunter management is part of deer management.
> To insure that a certain percentage of mature bucks make it through the hunting season for all general public to view at their pleasure. Hunters need to be controlled, so not too many bucks are taken each fall.


Yep, exactly, it is a "part" of game management, it should not be its entirety. Yet that has been the focus of the last 20 years, of "quality" hunter management.

Too many bucks being taken means what? Anything more than 10:100 after the hunt is not biologically necessary to sustain, or grow deer herds. and aesthetics are just that, they have no bearing on deer health or survival. Nice sales pitch on eye candy for "the general public".

B-D ratios are much more complex than hunters taking X number of bucks from the population. The B-D ratio from the time of conception, to the age of 4-5 years old is a very complex thing, with that ratio changing, dramatically over that time frame. Can you tell me what the B-D ratio is at birth, what it should be, or how it has changed at different time frames, over the last 20 years?

Back in the hay day of large deer herds, we typically saw lower B-D ratios, but higher deer populations. Now we have lower deer populations, but higher B-D ratios. And we have seen conditions, and situations where the mature bucks we do have, sometimes are not doing the breeding, leaving it to average deer, and little two points. Despite this, we are still producing large bucks, and deer in general, but the population has been generally held down. That goes for Mule deer everywhere, regardless of the hunter management that is employed. To date, in the last 20 years, hunter management has not been able to produce more deer, any more so than bucks giving birth to fawns.

So what do we do, if it is shown, that the higher B-D ratios we have seen over the last 20 years, are detrimental to the over all health of deer herds? Or if it is shown that it is a symptom, of other things that are detrimental to the health of mule deer numbers? Do we continue to blindly manage as we are doing know?

And if deer are being managed based on population numbers, explain why tags have been reduced, while the population has risen.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Look at the hunters per hunted bucks ratio. Although the B/D ratio was lower when there were more deer in the field, there were more bucks per hunter then too.
Now, even with higher B/D ratios, we have no more bucks per hunter than we did before but if we opened things up to over the counter sales. We would see the bucks per hunter ratio drop big time along with the B/D ratio.
Can you PM me which units where the mature bucks not doing the breading. I'd like to put in for those units.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> Look at the hunters per hunted bucks ratio. Although the B/D ratio was lower when there were more deer in the field, there were more bucks per hunter then too.
> Now, even with higher B/D ratios, we have no more bucks per hunter than we did before but if we opened things up to over the counter sales. We would see the bucks per hunter ratio drop big time along with the B/D ratio.
> Can you PM me which units where the mature bucks not doing the breading. I'd like to put in for those units.


I've posted a picture of a 30" wide, heavy buck, here on this forum, that has never passed on his genes. PM me your email, I'll send you a picture of him on the ground. Over the last 30 years, some of the biggest bucks I have seen, do not participate in the rut.

I am not the only one to see this, my father first pointed it out to me, quite unknowingly. Geist observed this and called these deer "shirkers". Joe Hutto in Wyoming, has seen the same thing, in the deer he has been studying for the last 8 years.

Which of these deer do you think do the breeding?



















So higher B-D ratios correlate to lower over all deer numbers. More bucks do not equal, more deer, or more hunting. Yet we want to manage for more of that scenario?

Why don't you answer my question about sex ratios at birth, seeing as how that and other factors, besides buck hunting, is biologically responsible for B-D ratios.

Why are some of you guys so bent on Option WFT? Would you really trade higher deer numbers, and over all deer health, for less opportunity, because you perceive it to be better "quality".

How come the focus is not on growing more deer?

And who are you going to blame when the "quality", ie. big racks start to disappear, again?

You are welcome for the questions, try answering a few. Not for me.

Has anyone else noticed how good the bighorn sheep hunting is? High ram to ewe ratios, impossible odds, and continual declines, some as much as 90%, for the last 30 years. Did I mention high ram to ewe ratios? We need some more of this?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Here's the Charter of the 2014 Utah Mule Deer Planning Committee:

"1) Purpose:
a. The purpose of the Utah Mule Deer Planning Committee is to assist the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources (UWDR) in updating and revising the Statewide
Management Plan for Mule Deer.

2) Authority:
a. The Utah State Legislature has directed UDWR to prepare a management
plan for each deer herd unit in the state, and submit the plans to the Wildlife
Board for their approval. The statewide management plan is the overarching
document providing guidance for individual unit plans. The statewide deer
plan has been updated at 5-year planning intervals, and is now expired.
b. The Utah State Legislature further directed UDWR to confer with federal and
state land managers, private landowners, ranchers, and sportsmen, during
the development of deer management plans. The Utah Mule Deer Planning
Committee is the vehicle that UWDR has chosen to talk with these
constituents.
c. The Utah State Legislature has directed UDWR and the Wildlife Board to
establish target herd size objectives with consideration for each unit's
biological carrying capacity, land ownership, and seek to balance relevant
multiple uses for the range. During a statewide review of individual unit
management plans in 2012, UDWR established target herd size objectives
at the management unit level. These unit population objectives will be
reviewed through the RAC/Board process on a five year rotation in
conjunction with our habitat monitoring program.
d. The authority of the Mule Deer Planning Committee is limited to that of 
advising UDWR on issues and concerns regarding the mule deer resource,
its use, and impacts of mule deer on other land uses. The committee is
fundamental to the development of the mule deer management plan, but
the content of the plan may be altered by UDWR or the Wildlife Board
prior to its approval and implementation.

3) Expectations and Time Frame:
a. UDWR will produce a draft mule deer management plan, ready for 
presentation to the Regional Advisory Councils (RAC's) by September 30,
2014. Following review and comment by the RAC's, the draft will be
presented to the Wildlife Board in November 2014.
b. The plan will include biological and social assessments, issues, goals,
objectives, and strategies as appropriate.

4) Roles and Responsibilities:
a. Members of the Mule Deer Planning Committee are expected to:
i. Commit to participating until September 30, 2014.
ii. Attend meetings regularly. Each member may designate one
alternate, who may attend meetings and represent the member.
iii. Support group decisions, which will be made through the process
of consensus (meaning all will have a chance to be heard, and we
can support or live with the decisions that are made).
iv. Develop and abide by ground rules formed by the committee." 
(Unanimously ratified)

And here are the ground rules:
"- Everyone participates
- Respect others opinions
- Strive for consensus
- Major decisions without consensus may require a vote (two thirds)
- No side conversations
- Raise hand
 - Use the best available science and consider social impacts"
(Approved, but may be looked at later in future meetings if needed.)


UWC's mission statement:
"In recognition of our civic duty to take an active interest in wildlife conservation, the mission of the United Wildlife Cooperative is to promote responsible and informed participation in the creation of sustainable and biologically sound management regulations, and to lobby for the welfare of wildlife and our proud fishing and hunting traditions."
(All of our proposals have been and will be made with our mission statement foremost in mind.)

Of course, the above given information and the final survey questions are only a portion of the issues that have been discussed and considered and we ain't done yet, folks. I expected some questions and opposition when I let the cat out of the bag, but I will not get into a debate on this forum and I will not give a blow by blow of the ongoing proceedings. Send a GRAMA to the UDWR if you want names or official minutes because I don't take shorthand and my memory is slipping. Also keep in mind, this will all go through the RAC/Wildlife Board process and is also subject to modification by UWDR and the Wildlife Board, but you'll all get your say if you choose to!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"- Use the best available science and consider social impacts" -_O- I have to get me a water proof key board. Considering that Utah's wildlife science is 30 years behind the curve, WTF does that statement mean? Honestly Lee, do you think that you, or for that matter, most of the committee members, are qualified to "Use the best available science"?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Really?, nobody is going to take a guess at which set of antlers belong to the most prolific breeder? Come on, you "quality" guys have it all figured out, school us.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

There's not a flat brim hat or other prize for guessing correctly. Try that....


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

klbzdad said:


> There's not a flat brim hat or other prize for guessing correctly. Try that....


I figured all these "quality" guys would need no incentive at all. I mean they have it figured out, why are they not in here telling us about mule deer sex ratios at birth, the factors that affect that, and how that ratio changes from conception, to birth, to age 5. Why are they not in here telling us what kind of bucks do the breeding, and WHY?. Not to mention how managing for Buck to doe ratios, is so beneficial to deer herds. And I'm not even talking about the part where the bucks have fawns.

I mean this is the crowd that has been implementing mule deer management plans in Utah for the last 20 years, they should be able to tell us all the nitty gritty intricacies of why we are managing mule deer the way we are, right?.

Or is the simple truth of the matter, that we are managing mule deer, and crafting additional mule deer management, blindly, and based on the _feelings_ of some people?

Maybe Lee can shine some light on the questions at hand, I mean he is on an official mule deer management committee, that has legal authority. Hell, they have even been "directed" to "Use the best available science".

How 'bout it Lee, you want to use some science? Start with conception, run through to the rut, and explain what happens in between, and why we are managing mule deer the way we are, in relation to the biological factors that drive mule deer numbers?

I know there are other mule deer committee members on this forum. If you are making, advising on, and affecting mule deer management policy, don't you think you should know something about mule deer?

Anyone? Sex ratio at birth? Which antlers, in the two above pictures belong to the deer that was the most prolific breeder?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

A little food for thought, while you guys scramble to answer what the sex ratio, at birth, of mule deer should be. And which deer in the above pictures of antlers, did the most breeding.

All of you "quality" guys need to remember, that when you choose "quality", you are trading what you perceive to be more bucks, for less overall deer. The only out come for this, is less deer, and less hunting. This is unequivocal. By managing for Buck:doe ratios, we are choosing to manage for less deer, and less hunting opportunity, rather than choosing to mange for more deer, and more hunting. There is no splitting hairs on this, that is it!

Make sure you explain to your children, and grandchildren, why you have traded their sustainable future, for your perceived short term gain, and selfishness.

And those of you with a seat at the table, that think you are in some way mitigating this, or that it could be worse without your participation, keep telling yourselves that. You are sold out, and bought up, just like those selling this bull****. Your participation in any process that furthers this agenda, only adds credence to this sell off of our future.

*Effect of Limited Antlered Harvest on Mule Deer Sex and Age Ratios*

Chad J. Bishop, Gary C. White, David J. Freddy and Bruce E. Watkins
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Vol. 33, No. 2 (Summer, 2005), pp. 662-668
Published by: Wiley
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3785094

In response to apparent declining mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) numbers in Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I guess Utah mule deer hunters have made up their minds. After 20 years of bad mule deer policies, they want more of the same. Which translates into less hunting and less deer. I guess the last 20 years were not bad enough for you. You want even less deer.

Just remember, when you choose for less deer, you don't ever get to complain about having less deer, or less hunting. And remember, "quality" only means higher buck:doe ratios, it does not mean larger antlers. And certainly means LESS deer. Larger antlers only come from environmental conditions, which are separate from age class and sex ratios. Those conditions change, and are not accounted for. But you can keep telling yourselves you are doing this for the deer, and for the benefit of "quality" hunting.

BTW, PETA loves you clowns. They get to simultaneously envy you for doing a better job destroying hunting, than they could ever do, while at the same time still villainize you for killing off the deer. It is like those Obama posters you see in gun stores, that say sales man of the year. Only at the PETA shack, the post says anti hunters of the millennium, followed by UDWR, SFW, BGF, UWC, MDF, ETC.

Don't forget to explain to your children.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree last I looked deer numbers are on the increase in utah for the last three years. As you put it "WTF"?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree last I looked deer numbers are on the increase in utah for the last three years. As you put it "WTF"?


That was before we decided to cut tag numbers, and manage for B/D ratios.

Just like after the early '90s crash, when we severely cut tags. So while the deer were suffering from several limiting factors, including a lack of nutrition, along with other environmental factors, that increased B/D ratios, and lowered fawn:doe ratios, we piled on with more policy, that would amplify those already deleterious affects, and further skew towards higher B/D ratios, and lowered F/D ratios. Which ultimately got us less deer, and a lack of rebound, to pre early '90s numbers.

All other issues aside, those policies had the affect assisting other factors that were holding deer numbers down. That is just how the math works.

So after stagnant deer numbers for years, they start to improve, with improved nutritional inputs/releases, and our response, was to add policy that would stifle that very increase, pure genius.

Why?, because that is how you little girls _felt _about the situation. Regardless of any ecological, or biological facts, that actually dictate reality. And how?, because you guys let other people think for you, and sell you lies, based on those _feelings_.

Make sure to have that talk with your children, so they know how, and why, their future came to be.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest.

This is what we are managing for here in Utah, less overall deer. And some people want to pile on, and manage for even less deer. Any thing that reduces fawn to doe ratios, negatively impacts herds. High fawn to doe ratios increase herd numbers. Higher buck to doe ratios, lower fawn to doe ratios, and decrease the overall number of deer. Or what is known here in Utah as "Quality". We want more "Quality" right?

Make sure to tuck those sheets in tight, under the mattress.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

What is the sex ratio of mule deer at birth?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Bahaaaa!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Bahaaaa!


Laugh all you want, you don't know. And you can't demonstrate other wise, because you rely on other people to tell you how to think and feel.

And this is what they have sold you.

Oh wait, that wasn't a laugh was it, you were calling the other sheep, my bad.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Bahaaaa!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Bahaaaa!


They hear you. They are screaming for their own demise as well.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Come on "Quality" guys, you are always good at changing the subject, or hitting some talking points, but you can never actually explain to us how this "quality" thing works. Why don't you start, with the sex ratios of mule deer at birth.

Or should we just manage mule deer based on how you little girls _feel_ about things, because of the way you have been told to think, and_ feel_.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Can you give me your scientific approach to cleaning coke off my puter screen? I dont want to accidentally erase the photos Bahaaaaaa


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree I hunt a general unit I can draw a tag every year or ive drawn a tag every year for the last 10^ years. Ive killed good a buck 8 of those years. It has no winter range and long seasons. Even has rut hunts. It has high buck to doe ratios and I always see bucks over 200". Ive also never seen selenium deposit while hunting or scouting. The deer herd always rebounds after bad winters. It even has doe hunts. 

It would be a hard sell for me to accept the bull hooey you speak.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

There you go, one more guy that wants to manage mule deer, based on _feelings_, because he doesn't know any better.

Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest.

Utah's mule deer management plan=LESS Deer, and LESS hunting. It is that simple. The last 20 years was not bad enough, we want to lock in 5 more years.

Keep laughing, people like you, are the downfall of wildlife and hunting, because you're ignorant, and choose to be that way.

Proof: You don't even know the very basics about mule deer, but think your feelings can somehow over ride your ignorance. I am glad they have cheerleaders like you.

Sex ratio of mule deer at birth?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree I hunt a general unit I can draw a tag every year or ive drawn a tag every year for the last 10^ years. Ive killed good a buck 8 of those years. It has no winter range and long seasons. Even has rut hunts. It has high buck to doe ratios and I always see bucks over 200". Ive also never seen selenium deposit while hunting or scouting. The deer herd always rebounds after bad winters. It even has doe hunts.
> 
> It would be a hard sell for me to accept the bull hooey you speak.


Because you don't have the faintest idea about what you are talking about, only what rests just short of the end of your nose.

So in your area, the deer have rebounded from the early '90s crash? Can you please confirm that all those 200" deer are breeding?

Also, what is the sex ratio of mule deer at birth, since you have it all figured out. You have seen all these other things, you must know what the sex ratio at birth is then?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

LT I could care less if you think all the 200" deer are sterile.

Ive hunted them every year except this one. Ive even seen them breed. When I saw them breeding I got a tightness sensation in my wranglers!

Lt the deer in that area are frequently over objective as is with little work. I have no doubt if that area had a winter range, no cars, 1080 to keep the coyote, bears, and lion population down it would boom just like it did pre 90's. This is two plus two type math surprised you cant comprehend it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt seems like I saw a figure some where that said there were twice as many does on antelope island as there were bucks. Maybe the bucks get injured while fighting and die. So the numbers may be skewed. Why dont you bedazzle me with your brilliance and tell me. I know you can barely contain that secret


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT I could care less if you think all the 200" deer are sterile.
> 
> Ive hunted them every year except this one. Ive even seen them breed. When I saw them breeding I got a tightness sensation in my wranglers!
> 
> Lt the deer in that area are frequently over objective as is with little work. I have no doubt if that area had a winter range, no cars, 1080 to keep the coyote, bears, and lion population down it would boom just like it did pre 90's. This is two plus two type math surprised you cant comprehend it.


Yet you have nothing to support, your _feelings_, it is just how you and your friends, _feel_ about it. There is no math, there is no biology, or science, or chemistry, to support your assertions. Just you and the other kids on the short bus, reaffirming each others _feelings_, while you destroy Utah's deer herds, and hunting.

You may see certain things in your area, but in the grand scheme of the West, your _feelings_ on what you see in one small area, mean very, very little.

You and the like minded people, that _feel_ the same way, don't know what you are talking about, nor can you demonstrate otherwise. Yet some how we should listen to people like you, about how to manage mule deer?

Sex ratio of mule deer at birth? Tell you what, you can just go with the sex ratio at birth, on your unit. because you know it so well.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Just to be clear. We are looking for what the buck to doe ratio, of fawn mule deer, is at birth. This is some very basic biology. 

If you think that you know something about B/D ratios, or that they should play into mule deer management, well this is where it all starts. So if we are to believe the Option WTF? crowd, they should be able explain this to us.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt my observations are backed up by the dwr reccomdations. Only their observations/reccomdations are about 3 years behind my own because I actually get out from behind my desk and get up on the mountain. 

Lt i maybe riding a short fast bus bit your riding a slow Waggon to the crazy house. 

Lt why is my area an exception to the rule?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt my observations are backed up by the dwr reccomdations. Only their observations/reccomdations are about 3 years behind my own because I actually get out from behind my desk and get up on the mountain.
> 
> Lt i maybe riding a short fast bus bit your riding a slow Waggon to the crazy house.
> 
> Lt why is my area an exception to the rule?


I was born into the crazy house, I need not apply for admittance. Did anyone notice the sky is blue? Does not change the facts of mule deer, or how you don't understand or know them.

Being on the mountain is very nice, but if you do not know what you are looking at, your observations don't mean ****.

So you admit that you have other people do your thinking for you? You support groups that feel the same way as you, that then lobby the UDWR to implement those feelings, so you can then point at those "recommendations" for support of your feelings?

So your area has recovered from the early '90s crash?

What is the sex ratio of the fawns at birth on your unit that you know so well. Maybe the UDWR can tell you?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> LT I could care less if you think all the 200" deer are sterile.
> 
> Ive hunted them every year except this one. Ive even seen them breed. When I saw them breeding I got a tightness sensation in my wranglers!
> 
> Lt the deer in that area are frequently over objective as is with little work. I have no doubt if that area had a winter range, no cars, 1080 to keep the coyote, bears, and lion population down it would boom just like it did pre 90's. This is two plus two type math surprised you cant comprehend it.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Faunoiphilia

You may have misunderstood the conversation, and questions.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I like watching the front page, to see who is logged in, and who is looking at what. It is always interesting to see certain people show up, and see them read threads like this. Many of the same people that promote the bull **** that is Utah wildlife management, and have a say in that policy. It is always interesting to see how they don't dare utter a word, unless they are whispering to the other kids in the echo chamber. Or making policy behind closed doors, with their fellow, sold out, anti hunters. 

You boys have fun, in your continued efforts to ruin mule deer, and Utah hunting. The last 20 years of "quality" management speaks for it self. Less deer, less hunting, and lots of sheeple screaming to be spoon fed more.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

Were I to receive one of these surveys, I would tell them I want more opportunity, even if that meant lower quality.

The survey simply solicits from a random sample of hunters, which is hopefully representative of the whole population of hunters. Its not closed door, not selective, not biased. Its defensible statistical sampling. In most scientific or statistical analysis, it's not possible to survey every individual, so instead they take a sample that represents the population. This is a practice that is widely used, and defensible, in scientific and statistical sampling.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Some on the committee will pay attention, the
Tag whores, not so much. They'll vote to restrict
Access and raise success. This is the SFW Don Peay
Philosophy. 

More of the same. 

I'm 1 for 3 now for GS archery. Tell me again
Why I should give a s#%* anymore.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Lonetree said:


> What is the sex ratio of mule deer at birth?


Now that's a sneaky, trick question, for the most part!:shock: The sex ratio varies with many, many different scenerios, biologically and environmentally. Predictable statistical accuracy on sex ratio's at birth is not conclusive, in general. But I read on the internet once that doe's have a 50/50 birth sex ratio, so it must be true cuz it was on a hunting forum!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't know anything about this committee, so I can't comment other than to mention the fact that Utah's human population continues to boom, energy development is chompin' at the bit and our agricultural (irrigated) lands are disappearing fast.

But last go around with the management plan committee, same conditions were in play. Still, there was a lot more talk about killing deer than there was about growing deer. None the less, the 2008 committee came up with a reasonable "management" plan. Cool that so many stakeholder reps could come together and come to some kind of consensus.

In short order, that plan was gutted like fish at a Friday night BBQ. Just sayin', this committee should be prepared. All your work may come to naught. (That's means EPIC FAIL for you youngsters.)

Primary reason - 2008 committee ran on biology, social demands and neutral revenue.

What the Board subsequently did was based on pathos, b.s. and $$$.

Oh, look, Benson just snatched another 2 million dollars for sage grouse! Well, not for sage grouse, really. Okay, not a dime for sage grouse.

JFP!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Now that's a sneaky, trick question, for the most part!:shock: The sex ratio varies with many, many different scenerios, biologically and environmentally. Predictable statistical accuracy on sex ratio's at birth is not conclusive, in general. But I read on the internet once that doe's have a 50/50 birth sex ratio, so it must be true cuz it was on a hunting forum!


Trick question? Yes, it varies, just like human sex ratios, but within a range. And the mean, is yes of course 50/50. Anything that skews that initial birth rate, one way or the other, more than about 3 percent, shows that you have a serious problem. Correction on specifics: Initial, at birth rate, should look more like 48F/52M, that is brought to 50:50 shortly after birth, with males succumbing to death more readily. I'm sure the RACs and board will take that into account though.

So if you have buck only hunting, and you manage for higher than necessary B/D ratios, you are going to see declines in fawn to doe ratios. This then leads to lower overall deer numbers. Which is exactly what we have seen, many times over the last 20 years.

So what if you had conditions, where you had skewed sex ratios at birth, that also selected for more males? Which then compounds your growth problem. And makes your bad management policies, even worse. Now add to that, a bunch of little girls, that _feel _that that particular situation, is cool, and they want to see more of it.

Did I mention nutrition, Everyone else already did their studies, isn't it Utah's turn to follow the leaders, just like with everything else.

And we have not even got into, how we go from a standard 50:50 birth ratio, to 35:100-10:100 adult B/D ratios. Let alone how a 33F:66M birth ratio could really put a drag on deer numbers.

But I'm sure that the good folks, that influence and implement mule deer policy, have taken all of these factors into consideration, and are making the absolute best management decisions based on science, and with the goal of what is best for mule deer, being the end goal.

Excuse me, I need to go rinse my mouth.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Finn

I know I have seen you mention, little two points doing the breeding and the second estrus cycle. This is all very much a part of that scenario. Bucks breed in response to does being in estrus, plain and simple, the ladies run the show. So if does are in heat, the breeding is going to be done by those deer that can do the breeding, and will respond to the does. If the does do not get bred, then they go into estrus, in the next cycle. Fawns born to does bred late in the first estrus, and fawns born to does bred in the second estrus, tend to be males. While only by a few percent, this then adds to your skewed sex ratios, that then lead to less deer.

So how can you have higher sex ratios, and does not getting bred. Shirker, ****, queer, limp, ambiguous, bucks. Bi-sexuals will still breed, and they keep their rack groomed really nice. It Is simple chemistry, bucks breed does in chemical, hormonal, response to the does being in estrus. If there are bucks, and the breeding is not getting done, or only the small deer are doing the breeding. Then it is because the other bucks, are either physically, biologically, or psychically not capable of getting the job done.

So we take a look around the West, and we look at mule deer. And we see cyclic rates of cactus bucks, and genital malformations that have been affecting them for the last 20 years. These things are epigenetically triggered problems, that can affect large percentages of the population. 

Now if you have something, that disrupts the masculinization window, in the womb, and has life long affects on the deer that are afflicted. Would you not then also see reproductive problems when it comes time for these deer to reproduce, especially if a large enough percent of the population were affected?

Just kidding, we all know its just the coyotes.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Oh, and what if the reproductive problem, had an underlying nutritional problem, driving it as well, that acted in two separate ways, to suppress deer numbers?

Err, uh, I mean PbReEnDgAhTaOzRiS!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

The three point deer in the upper left hand corner of the first picture, was the only deer out of all the deer represented in both pictures, that breed females. as far as we know, the deer in the second picture, unlike other non breeding deer represented in the first picture, does not have any outward physical abnormalities, or malformations. He is the largest deer, in that herd, but does not, nor has he ever bred a doe. The other antlers have been shed while still retaining their velvet, or have broken off.

I think its coyotes, or hunter crowding that causes this.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I haven't been able to get on our computer in a few days. The kids homework is more important.

Lonetree,
I don't even know where your going with all this. I don't care if a small buck does the breeding over a larger one. It just matters that the doe got breed. Although the bigger or stronger bucks usually do the important breeding in most cases.
So now your saying that the environment is causing the bucks to go "gay".:shock:
That must mean some of the does are turning "gay" too and refusing to breed with the bucks.
I'm sure glad that most on this forum understand what your "real agenda" is and it's not in my or our best interest.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> I haven't been able to get on our computer in a few days. The kids homework is more important.
> 
> Lonetree,
> I don't even know where your going with all this. I don't care if a small buck does the breeding over a larger one. It just matters that the doe got breed. Although the bigger or stronger bucks usually do the important breeding in most cases.
> ...


"Although the bigger or stronger bucks usually do the important breeding in most cases." Oh really, would you care to support this assertion, and explain why in one sentence it does not matter, and then it seemingly does? You don't know the first thing about it.

My agenda: To study and understand, the last 20-30 years of large scale Western wildlife declines, with mule deer being a focus. Why? I want MORE deer. I want to further wildlife conservation, and hunting.

You and your ilk's agenda: LESS deer, and LESS hunters.

How many hunters has PETA taken out of the pool? How many hunters has Option WTF? taken out of the pool?

Since you think you know something about buck mule deer, maybe you could explain to us the time frame, and process by which masculinization occurs, during gestation, or does it not matter, do you "not care"?

I dare you, and all the other "quality" guys to sit down, and get out a piece of paper, and a pencil. Then try to write a letter to your children and grandchildren, explaining to them, why you sold off their future. And TRY to explain how your promotion of LESS deer, and LESS hunters, was done with the future of mule deer, and them in mind. You can't do it.

LESS deer RA, RA, RA, LESS deer RA, RA, RA!


----------

