# Option 2 success



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

As for option 2, I never thought it would help our overall deer herd grow leaps and bounds but it would help the sub-units with consistently had low buck/doe ratios increase in post season buck numbers, with even more mature bucks being in the mix. 
For those reasons, I do believe option 2 has been a success and I'm looking forward to see how each sub-unit can be more individually managed in the future.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I would disagree with you ridge. I think option two was and is a failure for what they (the UDWR and $FW) claimed it would do. The sub units are still being managed the same way they were before option 2, minus the number of tags per unit. Hunters killing bucks does not effect population dynamics anywhere near what weather, predators and other factors do. Option 2 falls flat on its face when the herds are faced with multi year droughts and harsh winters. Case in point, the current population drop.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Nobody likes it, but option 3 is to shut down deer hunting entirely for a couple of years and then ease back into hunting.

Do it a few units at a time, depending on their need, for herd bounce back.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> I would disagree with you ridge. I think option two was and is a failure for what they (the UDWR and $FW) claimed it would do. The sub units are still being managed the same way they were before option 2, minus the number of tags per unit. Hunters killing bucks does not effect population dynamics anywhere near what weather, predators and other factors do. Option 2 falls flat on its face when the herds are faced with multi year droughts and harsh winters. Case in point, the current population drop.


I believe they were only saying it would help increase by population only to be political correct but they were hoping to see an increase in buck populations. Without option 2, we'd still be looking at 3 day rifle hunts on those struggling units. I wished they would spit it up more to match the antlerless units.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

^^^^
And 5/100 b/d ratio’s 

It cured the doe are breeding late because only 2pts around to do it theory for me.


----------



## bfr (Apr 26, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Nobody likes it, but option 3 is to shut down deer hunting entirely for a couple of years and then ease back into hunting.
> 
> Do it a few units at a time, depending on their need, for herd bounce back.


Closing hunts are easy, unpopular but easy. Getting them reopened virtually impossible, case in point California mountain lions. Closed by hunters on 20 yr moratorium that was supposed to end in 1990 is STILL closed with no hope of it returning. Close any big game hunts you can kiss them goodbye.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

No matter what the DOW does people are not going to like it. 

For struggling units I think that they need to go to a 5 day season with the hunt starting on a Wednesday. Starting them on a weekend doesn't do any good since they have shown that the vast majority of deer are shot on opening weekend. So lets start in the middle of the week and see how that does.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> No matter what the DOW does people are not going to like it.
> 
> For struggling units I think that they need to go to a 5 day season with the hunt starting on a Wednesday. Starting them on a weekend doesn't do any good since they have shown that the vast majority of deer are shot on opening weekend. So lets start in the middle of the week and see how that does.


 In 2009 they had unit 18 open on a Wednesday and it made no difference at all. There was easily as many hunters out there as any Saturday in the past. So the next year the DWR went with a 3 day hunt, which was terrible since a big 3 day snow storm hit on opening day.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> As for option 2,it would help the sub-units with consistently had low buck/doe ratios increase in post season buck numbers, with even more mature bucks being in the mix.


Yes, I think this is a fair assessment and accurate, although the improved number of mature bucks can also be partly attributed to an overall increase in population due to ideal conditions for several years in the time interval of option 2.

However

Did option 2 help struggling herds struggle less with their herd health as a whole? No

Did option 2 prevent some units like the Boulder from going from a healthy herd to struggling one in the time interval it has been in force? No

Did option 2 prevent the current significant decline in the states herd that so many members on here are so apoplectic about? No


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Yes, I think this is a fair assessment and accurate, although the improved number of mature bucks can also be partly attributed to an overall increase in population due to ideal conditions for several years in the time interval of option 2.
> 
> However
> 
> ...


 But it can prevent a sub unit from being over hunted, if the correct amount of tags are given out.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> But it can prevent a sub unit from being over hunted, if the correct amount of tags are given out.


Sure, but then we get back to the age old question of why the unit is struggling. Evidence would suggest that it is rare that a given unit struggles due to buck hunting. The exception would be if you had a healthy herd with a low B/D ratio, then you would be spot on. That doesn't seem to be the problem right now.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> As for option 2, I never thought it would help our overall deer herd grow leaps and bounds but it would help the sub-units with consistently had low buck/doe ratios increase in post season buck numbers, with even more mature bucks being in the mix.
> For those reasons, I do believe option 2 has been a success and I'm looking forward to see how each sub-unit can be more individually managed in the future.


This is the chicken and the egg discussion here. Did we see this because of Option 2? Or did we see this because the overall herd bounced back because of highly favorable conditions?

I have my personal beliefs and opinion, but it is worth what you paid for it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Opt 2 did not cause the problems that our deer herds are facing right now.

But, opt 2 with be a tool to help fix them.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

What about this option? -- Take a couple of the struggling units and close them down every other year. Do an "accurate" deer count and see if that improves the units population, B/D ratio and so forth.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I hate to keep pounding this fact.

Close down a unit great. Tell me what will stop cougar from eating the extra deer left on the range because humans aren’t harvesting a particular unit?

If it all about increasing B/D ratios then why not kill doe from the herd instead? Hunters have given and given over the last 30 years and we are no better off today then back then. Sure the Ridgetops of the world still shoot big bucks but meanwhile the average Joe can’t hunt with his son or brother. And still folks don’t see that. And cutting tags is still an option in hunters minds. That’s too bad.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I hate to keep pounding this fact.
> 
> Close down a unit great. Tell me what will stop cougar from eating the extra deer left on the range because humans aren't harvesting a particular unit?


Simple - Increase harvest objective permits. Kill a lion, and you get a deer tag. Double the bounty on Coyotes on those units.

I trap, (at least I did in years past) and I had a couple young Lion get snapped. It's not a fun deal releasing a cat from a trap! I wouldn't recommend a "Rooky" trying it. Call the DWR and they will do it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Indiscriminate occasional harvest from hunters hasn’t proven to be effective predator control. Just like occasional hunter harvest of deer and elk hasn’t proven to limit heard numbers. I agree with your assessment that increased predator control is required. IMO cutting tags is as anti hunting as you can get and should be a very last resort. I mean very last resort. The DWR expends 10s of millions trying to keep tabs on humans and how many and where they harvest. Meanwhile almost ignoring what is going on with predators. And most hunters think the same way. 90% fall on the effects of hunters and 10% consideration on the other factors that are really 90% of the things that effect deer.


----------



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

taxidermist said:


> Simple - Increase harvest objective permits. Kill a lion, and you get a deer tag. Double the bounty on Coyotes on those units.


I think you nailed it on the head with this one. I think Predator control is not quite the solution, but would really help. I have seen more lions than ever the last few years. I was reading an article online the other day and here is the title paragraph to the story.

"Mountain Lions also kill 3.4 bucks for every doe they kill. Let us look at this whole picture analytically. If the population of Mountain Lions is only 5000 statewide and they only kill one deer a week then the total of deer killed and consumed by Mountain Lions would be 260,000 a year. https://harvestingnature.com/2012/10/05/mountain-lions-drop-deer-population/"

I have never really researched it, but what is Utah's Mountain lion count?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Or. taxidermest^^^^^^^^
Do what Wyoming has done.
Uses antler restrictions on low BtoD ratio units short term. And rotate them.

This is working VERY successfully according to Wyo residents AND the Wyo DWR.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

There is no cougar count. It’s estimated on paper in an office in Salt Lake City. It’s based on acreage and quality of habitat. So basically the DWR has no clue how many cougar there are.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Or. taxidermest^^^^^^^^
> Do what Wyoming has done.
> Uses antler restrictions on low BtoD ratio units short term. And rotate them.
> 
> This is working VERY successfully according to Wyo residents AND the Wyo DWR.


Yep AI is a great compromise to all parties involved. Allows a person to hunt but limits harvest.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> But it can prevent a sub unit from being over hunted, if the correct amount of tags are given out.


Define "over hunted".


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Opt 2 did not cause the problems that our deer herds are facing right now.
> 
> But, opt 2 with be a tool to help fix them.


Can you explain how a unit that went downhill while option 2 was in force will be fixed by option 2? Shouldn't option 2 have prevented the problem in the first place if it is a remedy?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The one thing that I have never figured out is when the DOW says that they want XXX amount of deer and elk on a unit and then they go ahead and let out doe and cow tags for that unit. It just doesn't make sense if you want to raise the number of female animals to allow hunters to shoot them.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Catherder said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Opt 2 did not cause the problems that our deer herds are facing right now.
> ...


The Beaver unit is one example.
That unit was part of the huge Southern Region deer unit.

It seems Beaver is struggling worse than the rest.

Now, opt 2 allows for specific focus on that ' smaller ' area than the entire region.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> The Beaver unit is one example.
> That unit was part of the huge Southern Region deer unit.
> 
> It seems Beaver is struggling worse than the rest.
> ...


I might argue the Boulder is giving Beaver a run for its money, but OK. So how is option 2 going to "save" the Beaver?

All I could see it do is make sure that it has a decent B/D ratio in a decimated herd. Whoop-dee-doo.

Having the DWR working on helping the overall herd health in Beaver (or the Boulder) is not dependent on option 2.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Ya, Boulder is not fairing that well either. Deer or antelope.

I spent 30 days there last fall.
And we did OK on the deer.

The antelope are poor as I've ever seen them there.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I'd love to see the income from before and after Option 2. I'll bet the DWR took a huge hit after Opt2 went info effect.

-DallanC


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

DallanC said:


> I'd love to see the income from before and after Option 2. I'll bet the DWR took a huge hit after Opt2 went info effect.
> 
> -DallanC


At the very least is is a quick and easy way to reduce hunters. Like that solves the problems.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

I think the increase in B/D ratios that came with option 2 has helped the hunting more than anything. The same thing could have been accomplished if Zion, PV, Beaver, and Boulder and Panguitch were still just one Southern Unit managed for 18 bucks to 100 does. 

I saw hundreds of does and 5 bucks my first 3 years of general deer hunting. I can typically see that many bucks in a given day of hunting. Sometimes much more. My suspicions are the improvement is more from higher b/d considerations than actually having smaller units.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

DallanC said:


> I'd love to see the income from before and after Option 2. I'll bet the DWR took a huge hit after Opt2 went info effect.
> 
> -DallanC


I think they made up for it with elk tags. Spike tags 3 season.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

The only control the DWR has in numbers of deer, is to limit the amount of tags for that unit. At least that's what I've seen them do over the years. They definitely need to give out more Lion tags IMO.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Define "over hunted".


When the buck/doe ratio falls below 15/100, then the bucks are being overhunted in one way or another.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think there's a lot of confusion and different ideas on what the word "struggling" means.
Because option 2 was set up as a means of managing hunters and not the game or habitat.
When I use the word struggling when referring to Option 2, I am referring to a specific unit is having a hard time maintaining the set buck/doe ratio that's assigned to that unit. 
Several units were far below 15/100 ratios before Option 2 but since it was implemented, all those units now are at or above the 15/100 ratio and have a higher percentage of 3 point or better bucks in the mix than before. 


The moment I heard the DWR say that they felt hunters would and could manage themselves. Meaning if a unit or area gets overhunted and bad enough, (excessive low bucks). Then the hunters would just move on and hunt a more productive area and give the "struggling" area a break. It just doesn't work that way, Many people will keep hunting the same areas, no matter how bad they get. People need to be forced not to overhunt those struggling areas through hunter management like Option2. That's why I think it has been successful. We definitely need to manage the deer, predators and habitat more.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

bfr said:


> Closing hunts are easy, unpopular but easy. Getting them reopened virtually impossible, case in point California mountain lions. Closed by hunters on 20 yr moratorium that was supposed to end in 1990 is STILL closed with no hope of it returning. Close any big game hunts you can kiss them goodbye.


That would depend on the quality of a game dept. and not ballots.

Problem with the CA model is the two decades. A lot can and will happen in 20 years.

I am saying 02 years, not 20, and maybe not even entirely in every unit but maybe a muzzleloader one year and then rifle the next. Depends on the need of the unit.

At least UT understands the need to keep coyotes in check. NM's gov'r and her czars are bat[crap] crazy.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I just can’t comprehend why we’d even discuss shutting down hunting in a unit right now. Sure, there will be more bucks alive at the end of the season than there would be if we hunted them, but does that actually help the deer herd at all? 

You guys keep talking about managing hunters, not deer. Until we start managing deer, we’re likely to stay in our regular pattern. 

Managing hunters only works to bless the deer herd if hunters are the limiting factor for the herd. I will disagree vehemently with anyone that says hunters are the limiting factor for Utah deer herds unless they can show me data I have not seen or been privy to up to this point.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> I will disagree vehemently with anyone that says hunters are the limiting factor for Utah deer herds unless they can show me data I have not seen or been privy to up to this point.


Agreed, and its easy to prove. Look at national and state parks here in the state where hunting is not allowed. Deer populations are definitely not exploding, but seem to be following the up and down trends of the normal huntable units.

-DallanC


----------



## bfr (Apr 26, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> That would depend on the quality of a game dept. and not ballots.
> 
> Problem with the CA model is the two decades. A lot can and will happen in 20 years.
> 
> ...


Rotation like that could work, but closing it even for 2 yrs gives the antis and tree huggers a foot in the door. Having seen it first hand I can tell you facts aren't important to them, they will play on emotion and lies to keep it closed. I would hope Utahns would be too smart but remember, a lot of liberal Californians have moved there. I do hope I'm wrong and you're right though.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

bfr said:


> Rotation like that could work...


How is it going to work? What exactly is going to be accomplished by this rotation?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> How is it going to work? What exactly is going to be accomplished by this rotation?


Now now, don't you go applying your fancy logic and reason to this! Wildlife management isn't some sort of science, it is all about gut instinct. If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I would like to see a antler restriction. 
3 point or better for some units 
4 point or better for others
Colorado has show success with this type of restriction


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Hoopermat said:


> I would like to see a antler restriction.
> 3 point or better for some units
> 4 point or better for others
> Colorado has show success with this type of restriction


Links to the studies?
Every thing I have read says otherwise.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

middlefork said:


> Links to the studies?
> Every thing I have read says otherwise.


Another "solution" just because but with the studies showing the opposite.

Someone on here has posted awesome research showing it has a short term benefit and long term detriment in one of these redundant threads we always have....


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm pretty sure it was Stillhunterman who provided the links.

I was just asking for some other justification.

The real question is do we really need to save more bucks? If the answer is yes then maybe it is time to limit the people who kill them. Not just hunt them.

And 80% fawn mortality is not caused only by too few bucks doing the breeding. There are a lot more factors involved.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Point restrictions failed last time......
Why would they work this time ??

I was on the board back then. The biologist admitted the fact that for every legal buck killed, there was one shot and left. 
That's kind of expensive game management.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

All the studies I have read make the claims that when used for short periods 2-3 years they do see positive results. In herd numbers and buck to doe ratios. It's not something they should use for extended periods. But they can watch the herds and make adjustments as needed.

I also believe a 2-3 year antler restriction would be better then an all out closure of an area
https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/con...ive/MULEDEER_ANTLERPOINTREGS_REVIE0006790.pdf


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Has anyone ever seen a study about the effects shed hunters have on the herds. 
I would like to see what effects the increase pressure has on them when we don’t have a set date later in year for shed hunters


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I should clarify my last post.......
I was on the board.before Donnie and the SFW took over.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hooper, the study you link shows that antler point restrictions are basically a placebo effect. They may increase buck/doe ratios temporarily for the short term, but they return the where they were quickly and may even get worse than they were before. 

It’s something to do, but I don’t believe they’ll have the desired effect.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Per the study

APRs DO increase total buck:doe ratios; however results vary and are usually temporary.
• APRs are very popular with the hunting public. However public understanding of the
pros and cons appears to be limited, and is complicated by popular literature concerning
APRs.
• Most benefits occur in ≤ 3 years; use of APRs beyond this often appear to result in
negative impacts to both total buck ratios and mature buck ratios. Continued long term
use of APRs (≥3-4 years) may result in lower total male:female ratios.
• No APR strategy produced a long-term increase in adult (mature) male:female ratios, or
an increase in the number of adult bucks, except in a handful of cases where hunter participation declined significantly, coupled with good fawn production.
7
• Temporary APRs are most effective following a year of high fawn production and recruitment or when doe harvest is increased.
• Managers have found most effective way to recover from chronically low buck:doe ratios is through a dramatic reduction in harvest pressure on males ≥2 years of age (through a conservative limited quota season or very short season length). Available data also tends to support this.
• APRs have been shown to reduce the number and potentially the quality of mature bucks over time.
• Long-term use of APRs may target legal bucks that have not realized their full antler growth potential while protecting bucks with low antler growth potential (i.e., hunters select against legal bucks with smaller antlers). Although not validated by research, this is a concern among wildlife professionals and the public.
• APRs may dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest.
• APRs increase the number of deer shot and illegally left in the field; this can be
significant and has been documented in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana.
• APRS do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with single-
digit buck:doe ratios, pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively few additional fawns (White et al. 2001). The extent to which relative proportions of yearling and mature bucks influence timing of conception and fawn recruitment/survival needs further evaluation.
• Some APRs displace hunting pressure to the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually eroding that segment of the population. Others reduce recruitment to older age classes by displacing harvest pressure to yearling males.
• APRs may decrease interest of hunters whose primary motivation is to obtain meat.
• APRs may discourage beginning and young hunters by increasing the difficulty of
locating and identifying legal deer.
• Long-term use of APRs in areas with limited security/escape habitat potentially impedes maintenance of publically acceptable total and mature buck:doe ratios.
• Empirical studies of APR regulations have not been conducted. We recommend this become a priority research topic for the WAFWA.
• APRs should be viewed as a legitimate management tool in areas with chronically low male:female ratios provided they are applied on a time-limited basis. Managers and the public are cautioned that available data and experience suggest APRs result in no long term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population.

I wouldn’t say it’s a placebo effect. But if used as a tool correctly it can help. And really helps once pressure is lowered on the herd. 
Just how I understood it.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Do you ever think maybe we just expect to much.
If the habitat has shrunk and what we are seeing is the true carrying capacity of each unit. And since the habitat area has shrunk the predators are more effective on the predation of the deer. As hunters we want more deer but if the land is not able to sustain the herd it will not be a healthy herd

Maybe we should invest in winter/spring grounds that are off limits for certain time periods to allow the deer to birth but raise the fawn with out the pressure on them. Kind of like a waterfowl rest area.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think you’re misreading the results of the APR study in some ways, but I think you’re really on to something with the post above. I absolutely think carrying capacities have changed significantly in the last 40 years in this state. 

I also think we remember things being better than they were in “the good old days.” I think people see a stretch of time of really good hunting in an area that isn’t really sustainable, and when things return to “normal” they flip out and demand they return to the outlier.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I do know for a fact this year on north slope we saw 200 does For every buck. 
That is going to be one busy buck


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Hoopermat said:


> I do know for a fact this year on north slope we saw 200 does For every buck.
> That is going to be one busy buck


At least he'll have a grin on his face.:shock:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

2full said:


> Point restrictions failed last time......
> Why would they work this time ??
> 
> I was on the board back then. The biologist admitted the fact that for every legal buck killed, there was one shot and left.
> That's kind of expensive game management.


On this, when I hunted the Henry Mountains back in the 80 with antler restrictions I came across zero bucks that had been shot and left, same with the Book Cliffs in the late 80's and early 90's before they removed the restrictions.

I have however found more bucks left after being shot on plain old general units. I found 2 in one year down on the Southwest Desert and 3 up on the Manti. In most of the instances there was another gut pile within a 100 yards of the dead deer. For some reason when ravens are circling something I have a urge to go look and see what I can find.

I did turn all the dead deer into the poaching hotline for what little it did.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Critter said:


> On this, when I hunted the Henry Mountains back in the 80 with antler restrictions I came across zero bucks that had been shot and left, same with the Book Cliffs in the late 80's and early 90's before they removed the restrictions.
> 
> I have however found more bucks left after being shot on plain old general units. I found 2 in one year down on the Southwest Desert and 3 up on the Manti. In most of the instances there was another gut pile within a 100 yards of the dead deer. For some reason when ravens are circling something I have a urge to go look and see what I can find.
> 
> I did turn all the dead deer into the poaching hotline for what little it did.


So you're saying antler restrictions curtail poaching? I am not so sure about that. I think poaching is a phenomena that began occurring more and more as antlers became trendy. Hunting is becoming more about the antlers than it the chase and all of the other things I (and many of us here) enjoy about it.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I hunted Salina canyon in the early 90's for 2 1/2 days during the bow hunt. I found 3 - 2 points that were shot and left. That was the bow hunt when shots are close. Imagine the rifle hunts when people are shooting across canyons.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hoopermat said:


> I do know for a fact this year on north slope we saw 200 does For every buck.
> That is going to be one busy buck


I have film of 6 bucks together, including two REALLY nice bucks, on the NS when I was helping my bro on the archery hunt this last year. They'll help out at least a little bit.

I remember a day on the Wasatch East a few years back where I found a canyon that I just knew was going to be a travel corridor. A few days later I went and set up there an hour before light. As the lights turned on I saw 125+ different deer walk through and not a single buck. Not even a spike or little forky! I was blown away. I had never seen that many deer without a single buck. Still to this day it surprises me a little bit, but from experience I know what you're talking about happens.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No question,
This is the worst year Ive seen on the winter grounds I frequent since 2002/03/04.

And It's not only deer.
Everything is down.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

I agree the wintering areas are pretty empty this year :!:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I also think we remember things being better than they were in "the good old days." I think people see a stretch of time of really good hunting in an area that isn't really sustainable, and when things return to "normal" they flip out and demand they return to the outlier.


There you go, talking about fishermen again!

Another thing fishers and hunters do that is really whacked: When something is working, they want it changed. For example, as soon as people started catching large tiger trout from Round Willow Bottom on the Boulder, anglers immediately wanted new regulations put in place to "protect" those big fish. Ironically, those big fish got to be big fish under general regulations.

People are funny.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

Critter said:


> On this, when I hunted the Henry Mountains back in the 80 with antler restrictions I came across zero bucks that had been shot and left, same with the Book Cliffs in the late 80's and early 90's before they removed the restrictions.
> 
> I have however found more bucks left after being shot on plain old general units. I found 2 in one year down on the Southwest Desert and 3 up on the Manti. In most of the instances there was another gut pile within a 100 yards of the dead deer.


 This would make some sense with some guys spray and pray and count points later attitude. With point restrictions maybe they would be more apt to count points first and think a little bit longer ? who knows. I don't really want restrictions being mostly a meat hunter myself.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

All the WMA's are closed annually to benefit wintering animals. If they are not being used what changed?


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

middlefork said:


> All the WMA's are closed annually to benefit wintering animals. If they are not being used what changed?


True I'd say just keep it that way but keep the horn hunters and their dogs out


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

7MM RELOADED said:


> True I'd say just keep it that way but keep the horn hunters and their dogs out


I agree. I'm not opposed to shed hunting, but it seems odd Utah allows shed hunters to hit the hills starting Feb. 1 - when the animals are still fighting to survive the winter . . .


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> I agree. I'm not opposed to shed hunting, but it seems odd Utah allows shed hunters to hit the hills when the turkey hunters are trying to hunt turkeys . . .


fixed it for you.

(sorry. Rant. Nothing worse than turkeys fleeing because a shed hunter on an ATV wanted to chase the turkeys....)

I'm not opposed to shed hunting, but the monetary factor involved causes people to be really stupid.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A lot can be said about all the ATV's out there during all the seasons, not just turkey season. This last year during the muzzle loader it was a joke up on the Monroe with all the ATV's flying down the roads. It was a permanent dust cloud from the south end to the north end of the unit. 

But I do think that the state needs to put a real good restriction on shed hunting such as not allowing it until at least May if not even June to give the animals as much rest as they can.

Perhaps that is something a citizen hunter of Utah could bring up at a RAC meeting.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

We had the emergency closure a couple years ago that created the shed hunting season. I was thinking that it was going to become the new normal after that emergency closure. I guess those with the interest won out over those that don't have the interest.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The problem closing a area to shed hunting is what are you going to do with all the hikers, bikers, joggers, ATV's and others that just show up into a area? Granted they might not be hunting antler sheds but they still impact the animals. 

I can just hear the uproar if you shut down a whole area to everyone.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

You can close the gathering of sheds down, but can you ever really close down the winter ranges to recreationists? I'm not sure any kind of shed hunting closure will stop people from getting out...


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm not sure if this article was posted on here previously - maybe by Critter. Very interesting read:

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2...-are-messing-up-elk-reproduction-in-colorado/


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I see this year as an opportunity for the DWR to really use it as a tool.

Along with the new deer management plans allowing the biologists to manage as needed.

The units with low BtoD ratios need ARs.....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ARs are dumb. I will never support them. They don't fix the problem. The units with low buck/doe ratios can be improved simply by reducing tag numbers. ARs can actually hurt units instead of helping them...that has been verified. ARs are nothing more than a way to appease a group of hunters that want to see larger bucks (they are nothing more than a poorly constructed means of controlling hunters and not managing wildlife)...the crazy thing is that ARs can actually reduce the number of larger bucks.

What the DWR needs to do is continue to try and educate the hunting public. Things like this are a great start:
https://html5-player.libsyn.com/emb...heme/legacy/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> ARs are dumb. I will never support them. They don't fix the problem. *The units with low buck/doe ratios can be improved simply by reducing tag numbers.*


Isn't that what is called for in option 2? I thought option 2 was going to solve all of our B/D problems...???

Are you APR fans ready to ditch option 2 or stick restrictions on top of restrictions?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Isn't that what is called for in option 2? I thought option 2 was going to solve all of our B/D problems...???
> 
> Are you APR fans ready to ditch option 2 or stick restrictions on top of restrictions?


Yes, exactly. No need to add more restrictions. And, to be clear, I don't think we have any "B/D problems." The only time buck/doe ratios become a problem is when they are less than 5/100. Biologically, we only need 5 bucks for every 100 does to make sure the does are bred. Buck/doe ratios below the management objective of 15/100 is a social issue and not biological. I have no problem limiting tags to reach such a social objective, but it has nothing to do with low deer numbers or the overall population health.

And, FWIW, option #2 hasn't done anything to improve the herd health...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Yes, exactly. No need to add more restrictions. And, to be clear, I don't think we have any "B/D problems." The only time buck/doe ratios become a problem is when they are less than 5/100. Biologically, we only need 5 bucks for every 100 does to make sure the does are bred. *Buck/doe ratios below the management objective of 15/100 is a social issue and not biological. I have no problem limiting tags to reach such a social objective,* but it has nothing to do with low deer numbers or the overall population health.
> 
> And, FWIW, option #2 hasn't done anything to improve the herd health...


I wanted to like your post, as I agreed with ALMOST all of it. The bolded portion above is something I do have a problem with. I don't support limiting hunting opportunity for social purposes, only biological purposes.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> I wanted to like your post, as I agreed with ALMOST all of it. The bolded portion above is something I do have a problem with. I don't support limiting hunting opportunity for social purposes, only biological purposes.


Ok, that would mean, then, that you also don't support LE hunting units like the Pauns or the Henry's. Or, LE elk hunting units like we have all over the state.

These LE hunts are based purely on social objectives and not biological. They limit hunters for the sake of providing a positive "trophy" experience. This, to me, is social.

Maybe, "social" isn't the right word. But, the buck/doe ratio objectives on LE units or harvest age objectives for elk are not biological in nature.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Fair point, so I will amend my statement. I do not support THESE specific social management practices to limit hunter opportunity simply for buck/doe ratio purposes without a biological reason.

And candidly, I don't know how much I love the LE system to be perfectly honest. But I think a mix of LE and general season is a fair trade off, but unfortunately, there are many that want to have it no longer be a trade off but all go to LE.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Critter said:


> The problem closing a area to shed hunting is what are you going to do with all the hikers, bikers, joggers, ATV's and others that just show up into a area? Granted they might not be hunting antler sheds but they still impact the animals.
> 
> I can just hear the uproar if you shut down a whole area to everyone.


I think the outdoor recreation people have far less impact on the deer. They are typically on trail and constantly in same area. The deer can get comfortably away from them. 
The shed hunters are off trail and following or pushing the herds around. 
Since the goal is to be where the animals are to find the sheds they are constantly pushing them. 
I don't understand why we don't have a season for sheds. I would like to see one and a late one at that
Everyone has also seen the guy trying to get the buck to run to see if his antler will fall off. And at the most important time for the deer.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Hoopermat said:


> I think the outdoor recreation people have far less impact on the deer. They are typically on trail and constantly in same area. The deer can get comfortably away from them.
> The shed hunters are off trail and following or pushing the herds around.
> Everyone has also seen the guy trying to get the buck to run to see if his antler will fall off. If you haven't go drive up Spanish fork canyon right now


Shed hunters are a bunch of goobers who will hike harder in the snow for "brownies" than the do for actual deer lol.

Joking (ish) aside, they will go places that you don't go to "recreate" in search of the antlers. They literally TARGET the wintering areas, even watching the tines fall.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Is it totally unreasonable to totally shut down areas of wintering animals? If people are educated then even the more adventurous should understand annual restrictions.

They do it all the time for raptors.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Hoopermat said:
> 
> 
> > I think the outdoor recreation people have far less impact on the deer. They are typically on trail and constantly in same area. The deer can get comfortably away from them.
> ...


Totally agree. We need a season for it. Like open in June


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Henefer WMA doesn't open up for shed hunting (or any other use for that matter) until the second weekend in April. I would assume other winter ground WMAs have the same restrictions. Why not just make the requirement statewide? No reason why people can't wait a couple additional months to go after them.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

MWScott72 said:


> Henefer WMA doesn't open up for shed hunting (or any other use for that matter) until the second weekend in April. I would assume other winter ground WMAs have the same restrictions. Why not just make the requirement statewide? No reason why people can't wait a couple additional months to go after them.


Ahh the Henefer WMA, my favorite late cow elk hunt ever. RIP.

We hit the henefer WMA for the opener in mid April a few years ago and there were horse trailers lined up like the haulers at a NASCAR race. It was crazy! All the ungulates had headed for higher ground and were long gone by then. I think it's a good idea.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Is it totally unreasonable to totally shut down areas of wintering animals? If people are educated then even the more adventurous should understand annual restrictions.
> 
> They do it all the time for raptors.


Would it be totally unreasonable to shut down shed hunting in areas of wintering animals? No.

Would it be totally unreasonable to shut down areas of wintering animals [to recreationist]? Yes.



Hoopermat said:


> Totally agree. We need a season for it. Like open in June


I completely agree! That way I can go hunt turkeys, and pick up a few sheds before the shed hunters have a chance!!

this whole issue comes down to one thing: money.
The only reason people go nuts over shed hunting is because the antlers are extremely valuable. This is what causes all of the problems. Figure out a way to remove that part, and all the other problems go away.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> . Figure out a way to remove that part, and all the other problems go away.


Coronavirus!


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

PBH said:


> middlefork said:
> 
> 
> > Is it totally unreasonable to totally shut down areas of wintering animals? If people are educated then even the more adventurous should understand annual restrictions.
> ...


I guess if we are dreaming. We could impose a fine if caught with a shed during the closure. Say $100 each shed


----------

