# UTAH is a STUPID place to hunt



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

We live in the heart of deer country in Wayne County where we archery hunt deer every year except this year when both of us did not draw archery tags. We are retired and avid hunters and are not allowed to hunt deer in this state. Archery tags should be unlimited. Archers don’t put a dent in the herds. They worry about recruiting youth into the sport. How about taking care of the hunters you already have. What is the point in bringing youth into hunting when they can’t continue to get even common tags like archery. We have big herds of bull elk yet we are going to have to wait 20 years for a chance to hunt a branch antlered bull. Most of the state is dedicated to wasting the resource producing giant bulls for the fortunate few. You could probably produce 4 smaller branch antlered bulls for every giant. Why must we maintain a big population of bulls simply to produce a few giants. All those “bulls in waiting” don’t produce any calves. Two thirds of the units should be open to any bull for hunting opportunity like it is for deer. Let hunters choose whether they want to wait forever for a giant bull or use lesser points for a branch antler hunt. Of course, the rich folks can hunt what ever they want, where ever they want every year. I have made the mistake of going to their stupid RAC meetings where all the non-hunters occupy the stage and you can’t get a word in. They have allowed and encouraged hunters to hopelessly clog the bonus point system with their non-hunting relatives. I made a mistake staying here, I should have retired to Colorado or Wyoming or Montana- ANYWHERE BUT UTAH.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

You can still move! No one is keeping you hostage, are they? :wink:


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

wow...kinda sounds like wendy and wayne whiner...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is strange but the grass is not always greener somewhere else. Here in Colorado all deer tags are draw only and and unit specific. You may be able to hunt a couple of other units next to yours or you may not. It just depends on where you want to hunt. I can hunt the unit that I live in, if I draw out but can't hunt the unit across the street because it is not the same one. As far as elk, yes we have a lot of them and for archery most of the hunts are for either sex but, if you want a rifle tag then most of the units are for a 4 pt or better. With no real trophy potential except for specific units. So leave that nice eating spike alone or you will be fined. 
The only thing that I prefer Colorado over Utah is on the draws. If the unit is for a trophy animal and the odds say that you need 10 points to draw then you need at least 10 points to draw that tag. Not 1 or 2 like some lucky hunters in Utah do when others with 10+ points get the nice emails saying to try again next year and thank you for your $10.00.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tom,,,,Simply switch to Archery elk,,,,Problem solved.

Boulder,,Fishlake,,Thousand Lakes,,Griffin Top,...

And ya its spikes,,,But you can shoot a cow too.

Tons of bow opportunity in your back yard...


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

You can still buy an archery elk tag.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Maybe I can buy an elk tag. Maybe not. Up to this year I could buy an archery deer tag. GOOFY-This stupid state would not allow me to take an archery cow on the Boulder last year even though there were enough cows to sell cow tags for a rifle hunt. I ate tag soup last year-never got a shot at a spike but had to pass on cows thanks to the Wildlife Board.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Tom, Was archery your first or second choice?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> We live in the heart of deer country in Wayne County where we archery hunt deer every year except this year when both of us did not draw archery tags. We are retired and avid hunters and are not allowed to hunt deer in this state. Archery tags should be unlimited. Archers don't put a dent in the herds. They worry about recruiting youth into the sport. How about taking care of the hunters you already have. What is the point in bringing youth into hunting when they can't continue to get even common tags like archery. We have big herds of bull elk yet we are going to have to wait 20 years for a chance to hunt a branch antlered bull. Most of the state is dedicated to wasting the resource producing giant bulls for the fortunate few. You could probably produce 4 smaller branch antlered bulls for every giant. Why must we maintain a big population of bulls simply to produce a few giants. All those "bulls in waiting" don't produce any calves. Two thirds of the units should be open to any bull for hunting opportunity like it is for deer. Let hunters choose whether they want to wait forever for a giant bull or use lesser points for a branch antler hunt. Of course, the rich folks can hunt what ever they want, where ever they want every year. I have made the mistake of going to their stupid RAC meetings where all the non-hunters occupy the stage and you can't get a word in. They have allowed and encouraged hunters to hopelessly clog the bonus point system with their non-hunting relatives. I made a mistake staying here, I should have retired to Colorado or Wyoming or Montana- ANYWHERE BUT UTAH.


He left out an important point that he stated in another thread, archery was his third choice. I believe everyone that put archery as their first choice drew and most drew second choice also. I am just saying, if you truly want to hunt archery it should be your first choice in my opinion. On a side note, I am not sure that the deer can handle unlimited archery tags, like the elk can handle it, I am going to have to think about that one for a while. Sorry you didn't draw and I understand your frustration.  Like others have said give archery elk a whirl.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Actually he left out a couple important things. First he blames the youth for his inability to draw a tag. While the youth do get a small portion of the archery tags, it's pretty minimal. Most of you will recall that last year, when there wasn't a handful of archery tags set aside for youth hunters, there were STILL plenty of hunters that didn't get a tag. If you doubt me, look back to about june on the forum last year. The real problem is that they have such a small cap on the primitive weapons hunts.

To his credit, Hunter Tom does raise a very viable point. Archery shouldn't be capped, or if it is, it should be a lot higher than it is now to create opportunity. The total number of deer taken by archers in this state is significantly lower than the number harvested by cars annually. If the entire pool of deer tags in this state were archery only, on a banner year you'd still only have about 9400 deer harvested. But the issue isn't the youth getting a small portion of the tags. And the only reason the DWR does that is because the trend of growth in this state shows clearly that if they don't set some aside, kids won't get a chance to hunt, won't take up the sport because the drawings here are such a circus and more of a pain than they're worth. And Tom, don't take it personally that they're focusing on the youth, it's just business. The DWR stands to collect a lot more application dollars off of the youth over the next 50 years if they can get them hooked than they'll get out of you or I. Be honest, we just don't have as many hunting years left as the 12 year olds.

But Tom also has a good point about the current Elk management plan. The elk are being managed specifically for higher conservation tag auction prices, and higher CWMU tag prices to the private land owners. There are probably more bulls that now die of old age on limited entry units than are actually harvested by hunters. That is a travesty and crooked management at best.

*Look here's the deal. If you are sick of the way things are being run, please keep in mind that this IS an election year. The governor of the state is responsible for appointing the wildlife board members that make the rules. It's time to start putting a focus on this issue. I don't think that if 6 of us write one email apeice and send it to one candidate it will make any difference at all. But if we were to organize, put together an email that clearly states our point, that we're being robbed of the chance to utilize a PUBLIC resource, and send it to both candidates, once a week from as many of us as possible, from here until the election, i think they might get the point that this is an important issue. Heck it wouldn't even be that hard, we could collectively write one letter so it would be instantly recognizable after having seen it a couple dozen times, and all you'd have to do is cut and paste it, and then schedule the email for delivery on your outlook program for every monday from now through november second. *


----------



## quakeycrazy (Sep 18, 2007)

Easy fix, vote Caroon for Gov. and you MIGHT see some things fixed that outdoorsman see as important, such as stream access. Vote for Herbert and you WILL NOT see any real changes. It sucks that archery finally ran out in the draw, but that is life and how the wildlife board sees things. Pick up an archery elk tag and good luck.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

quakeycrazy said:


> Easy fix, vote Caroon for Gov. and you MIGHT see some things fixed that outdoorsman see as important, such as stream access. Vote for Herbert and you WILL NOT see any real changes. It sucks that archery finally ran out in the draw, but that is life and how the wildlife board sees things. Pick up an archery elk tag and good luck.


Vote Caroon and you might see more outdoor opportunities taken away. They are all corrupt and to be honest the Wildlife Board is on the bottom of all their priority lists.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

We must limit hunter harvest. Humans cant have a free for all even with a bow. 

We have to maintain a decent number of deer and elk for predators. If hunters were to go out and shoot too many animals what would the 40 collared cats on Monroe eat? Or the 1000 coyotes? 

Hey houndsman love it they play hide and seek with them cats. No self respecting private deer or elk management plan tolerates as many predators as exists on public lands. Predator harvest on public land is larger in Utah than hunter harvest.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. I'm just telling you that the wildlife board isn't a priority because we don't make it a priority. As a group, we count on groups like sfw to do the work for us, and let's face it. They're just as big of a problem now.

At this point, we either organize, and start playing the game, make enough noise and enough of a public spectacle that it demand attention, or we continue to be lazy, let whatever happens happen, then whine about it. But whining won't change anything, and if we don't make an organized effort for fundamental change, we haven't earned the right to complain about the outcome


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Not a stupid place to hunt. Just a stupid place to try to get a tag! ;-)

I don't hunt here any more. I hunt in Montana. And when I retire, if hunting is still my thing, I'll be retiring in Montana.


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

The scenario that you have outlined is going to get worse in the Western states. Even where I live, I have to apply several years in a row to draw a premium tag to archery or rifle hunt. I have applied for over 15 years for a bull elk tag and may never get one during my hunting years. Like Randy says, buy a spike bull tag, go hunting and if you see a nice cow elk, fill your freezer.


----------



## Rabbit_slayer16 (Oct 18, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> We are retired and avid hunters


if your an avid hunter like you say.. do as mentioned before. grab an elk tag.


----------



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

First off Hunter Tom, unlimited deer archery tags is a stupid idea, deer are in a world of hurt in most places in the state as it is, no reason to put more of a hurt on them. I would also say try archery elk, and yes it is challenging especially on spike only units for bow (Book Cliffs, Monroe, Paunsagaunt) but if worse comes to worse you can ride to another unit and shoot a cow elk. So if Utah (although I still feel is doing a terrible job with the deer in certain areas) is stupid because they know any more stress on the already stressed deer herds would be trouble, I will back archery tag limitations. I don't think you realize how many deer are wounded by archer's if you say they have no effect on the deer herd, most people I've talked to wound 2 or more deer there first year and never find any of them, if people would put there bow down once they've wounded an animal, okay but when you wound, pick back up you bow, wound again, and go after another, a deer herd can't handle an unlimited number of tags, in fact I don't feel some places can handle the amount of tags already being given out.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> unlimited deer archery tags is a stupid idea, deer are in a world of hurt in most places in the state as it is, no reason to put more of a hurt on them


1-I, you do understand how minimal the impact archery hunters have on the deer herd right? Just want to make sure you actually understood that before you start beating on an idea that actually has some merit. While I agree that unlimited archery tags makes me initially apprehensive, keep in mind that that is exactly what we currently do with archery elk tags. There are approximately 65,000 elk in the state, there are over 250,000 deer. There is plenty of room to allow a LOT more archery hunters in the field during the deer season, with minimal inpact.

The reason I say that, is if you look back at the last available Big Game report, and do your homework before you start throwing unfounded accusations around, you would probably notice that a total of 20755 bucks were harvested in 2008 between all 3 seasons. You'll also find that only 2551 of them were from archery hunters. That was with 13,300 archery hunters in the field. You could easily up the number of available archery permits by a significant amount without having a very big impact. You could sell another 5000 tags and only expect a harvest of an additional 959 deer based on that same success percentage.

That being said, please keep in mind the fact that there were over 2200 police reports filed during 2009 for car accidents involving deer. Thats the number that were reported. It's estimated that less than half of the accidents that actually occur get reported because of the reluctance to have the insurance company involved and be stuck paying a higher rate. Point being, I think that it's pretty clear that more deer are killed each year by cars than archers.

Additionally, you should take into consideration the fact that archery hunters are in the field during a very mild weather season, that they have minimal stress impacts on the deer, and with the additional hunters in the field you should anticipate the overall success rate to actually go down a little bit.

Let's face it, he's got a pretty good idea increasing archery permits to allow hunters to have something to fall back on with the ever shrinking opportunity the other hunts provide. That's exactly what we do with our elk hunting right now, with significantly lower numbers of animals to chase. Why wouldn't it work for deer?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> quakeycrazy said:
> 
> 
> > Easy fix, vote Caroon for Gov. and you MIGHT see some things fixed that outdoorsman see as important, such as stream access. Vote for Herbert and you WILL NOT see any real changes. It sucks that archery finally ran out in the draw, but that is life and how the wildlife board sees things. Pick up an archery elk tag and good luck.
> ...


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



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

So using the DWR's numbers of around 250,000 deer, if they are meeting there target statewide (which they are not or units like the Monroe wouldn't have archery hunts cut in half, muzz to 5 days, and rifle to 3, who's deer herds are around 10:100 ratio) at a 15:100 ratio, that would mean at your number of 20,755 bucks taken seeing as at the DWR numbers game there would be an estimate of 37,500 bucks in the state at best, that's taking out around 60% of total bucks in the state, okay yes 40% left over will keep things going but why put more tags out, make bow hunting more crazy with more hunters and kill more deer on deer herds that are struggling. Yes there are probably units that could handle the extra tags and be fine, but there are areas in the state that definitely can't afford any more destruction to the deer herds than have already been done. Archery might not have the biggest impact, but it has an impact. 2,551 less deer is 2,551 less deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Sorry 1-I, but your numbers are flawed. Buck:doe ratios are POST-hunt, so that means there are 15 bucks for every 100 does AFTER the hunts are all over. Add in the yearling bucks, that make up the bulk of the harvest each year, and the picture is a bit different than you paint it. Buck:doe ratios have either stayed the same or increased on most sub-units. Only a few sub-units have seen declines in buck:doe ratios. For those areas that have seen declines, I would contend you could have a 3 month season with unlimited permits and see an improvement, IF all the permits were archery permits.


----------



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

I agree the fact that archery has a less effect, I don't agree it has little to no effect.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

That's hilarious. 5000 more archery tags would only net at best an additional 957 bucks harvested statewide. No one said anything about your precious mt monroe. Compare that with the 14000 deer harvested that same year by rifle hunters, and your best argument is mt monroe. Good argument. Let's just call off the archery season all together, that'll save monroe. Whew I feel better.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

The question is how many of you would give up muzzleloader and rifle hunting to buy those extra archery tags? I am not one of those guys and i think 90% of the people hunting now are using their weapon of choice. I don't think that trying to force people to buy archery tags will work. People will either not hunt or go elsewhere.
I agree that numbers are in trouble in the state but have yet to see a plan to help it besides cutting tags across the board which i am not in favor of either. Loss is loss no matter how much frosting you put on it. We all keep saying that we need to recruit more youth(i agree 100%) but we are essentially cutting our own throats if you think about it. More hunters+less tags=more pissed off people. How do you balance that one???
Maybe i should pursue my ties on the res. I wouldn't have to worry about all this bull**** of drawing tags and worry about what i will hunt or not hunt. I could just go shoot whatever i wanted to and not waste anymore money on the state's general fund.
---end rant---


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I think what is being confused here is. What should be and what is.

I will use precious Monroe Mtn as an example.

I absolutely believe archers are a part of why the herd isn't increasing. And even larger effect on size of bucks. That's the what is part. Having said that the gun hunters have even larger effect. On both quality and quantity. throw in all the other factors and its no wonder to me.

What factors can the DWR control to appease the public or increase or decrease herds? Hunters being the easiest and seemingly obvious choice. Predators IMO are another obvious choice. Habitat?

Now again I scream. There are *40 cougars* on Monroe with collars. How many without? And I would put a ball park figure of 1000 coyote. I absolutely disagree with 6500 deer. I would put it at half that. Hunter harvest of 800 deer per yr. WTF do we have 40 cats in that deer herd for? Under what responsible management plan does that make sense? Why the do we yield to predators in the overall big game management plan.

Get rid of the predator's harvest and give that share to hunters. And let the 40 houndsman Utah chase bigfoot. :mrgreen:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There's only 18 collard lions on Monroe now,,,there were 20 but I hear 2 were harvested..


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

This thread has taken an interesting turn or two.

-We have a guy who is mad he didn't draw a 3rd choice permit. First choice next year if you want to hunt.

-Some claim archery has little to no effect on our herds. Ummm, that 20% or so success rate means that archers kill 20 bucks per 100 hunters. Rifle guys and ml hunters kill at a 30% or so clip for 30 dead bucks per 100 hunters. I guess I just do not see the 2 numbers really being that different-- 20 or 30. I do archery hunt, but I have to call it as I see it. 

-Does anyone really believe that cougars on Monroe only stay on Monroe? I mean really? The UDWR killed 40+ cougars from Dry Creek in Alpine to Provo canyon in less than 1 (yes, ONE) year. That proves to me that no one has an honest clue of how many cougars Utah has nor where they live.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Your absolutely right Goofy I got mixed up.

Anyway I scream. There are *20 cougar*with collars on Monroe. How many without? WTF do we have 20 cats in that deer herd?

Another note Monroe's deer herd has been consistently under objective for 20 yrs.

Goofy, From a deer hunters management standpoint can you justify 20 cats on Monroe today?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I know for a fact that most of these lions your so worried about are living on
an elk diet,,,,Not taking even close to the numbers of deer most people think ..

And I'm not saying I "justify" lions anywhere,,,,,But I will say this,
I know a few biologist,,They all pretty much claim a healthy ecosystem has both 
predators and prey, that's just how mother nature works...

And on 75% of all the units in Utah the last 13 year, The DWR has been very aggressive
to ward lion management with very little success in increasing deer heard numbers...
The lion management plans are now taking a very different approach..........


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Newsflash, humans ARE predators!


----------



## TAK (Sep 9, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Newsflash, humans ARE predators!


And one of the most effective!

And maybe you (or anyone) can answer me this..... How many Deer permits was issued in lets say 1970 to 1980? How many are issued now 2000 to 2010?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I know for a fact that most of these lions your so worried about are living on
> an elk diet,,,,Not taking even close to the numbers of deer most people think ..
> 
> And I'm not saying I "justify" lions anywhere,,,,,But I will say this,
> ...


So why loose any elk to cougars? Why not have more elk for hunters to harvest?

Mother nature needs no help. If the goal is to have an ecosystem as mother nature would have it the dissolve the DWR and eliminate hunting all together. Stop all recreation in the forest and put a moratorium on and further development. Absolutely no industry on public lands ranching mining logging.

Instead we are here we aren't going anywhere therefor we are a part of nature. We fulfill the niche as big game hunters that predators like bear wolf and cougar do with out human presence. Sure there is a capacity to any given unit. The issue is that with exception of very few all of Utah's units are under objective. And the objectives aren't high by any means. So why (if the goal is to increase herd size) do we foster a healthy population of predators mainly cougar. What would happen to the deer and elk herds on Monroe if there were only 2 cougar there for a 20 yr period? Would the herd never increase and contract a disease and die off? Would the herd increase until it hit capacity and then the deer would starve?

Please for the sake of this debate do not bring habitat into the fray.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Alright MR Bear ,,Here's the deal..

Wildlife studies have to be done, It is just dumb luck I guess that the cougar study
is taking place on "your" Monroe mountain....Over the last 18 years over 100 total
cats have been collard and studied there.....

The University of Utah was recently granted another 141K to continue,,,,,
You might want to start hunting the Pahvant for deer ,,,,Its better over there anyway.

Here's some links .....
http://www.usu.edu/ust/pdf/2008/august/ ... 084http://

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... ising.html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784708

http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlser ... -541X(2006)70%5B1588%3ACELIUI%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Are you saying the study on Monroe is maintaining a high population of cougar so they can prove that cats eat more elk than we realize. :shock: 

I wonder what the 2500 annual deer hunters there would think about that. I know what this lifer thinks.

And you also concede that this study has made Monroe a poor deer hunting unit. So forget the last 75 yrs of tradition and find a new place to hunt. Because while the study is ongoing and maintaining a so called healthy population of cougar deer hunting will never be any good. Because if that is so we really do see eye to eye. Where we differ is that I would call for an end to the study and tell them to conduct it somewhere else that 2500 hunters go a yr and has the potential to accommodate 5000 hunters if manged properly.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Again Iron Bear,,,Neither you or I can change what has been set into motion on the
Monroe lion studies or the new Cougar management plan that is "solid as a rock" thru 2021.

I am dead serious saying if I were you,,,,,,,,,I'd find somewhere else to hunt deer for at least the next decade or so...I know this sucks, But I sure don't have any way of changing it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I guess that brings us back to Caroon. :mrgreen:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is interesting that you are talking abut the Monroe Mountain area. I hunted this area for a few years 2003-2007 and had no problem in finding bucks. They were mostly small ones but there were bucks on the hill. We did also see a few nicer 4 pts but not in the size that I was looking for. One thing that I did notice on that hill is that most of the hunters never got further than 100' past there truck or 4 wheeler and that most of the deer would just stay inside the tree line. I watched one meadow one night that you had to hike into and saw over 150 deer come into it just before dark, not to mention one huge 7x7 bull elk.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

OK Critter that makes 2 of you. Wy2 being the other.

I can think of hundreds that have been hunting Monroe for more than 4 yrs and have seen the herd go from heaven to hell. I use Monroe as an example because that is where I have the most knowledge and experience. This same situation exists on nearly ever single unit in the state in varying degrees.

I know some real diehards and you would think after such a major decline in the herd on Monroe for the last 30yrs. They would have figured out that the deer were in the tree's and of the road.  :roll: :wink:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I won't deny that the deer herds have declined in the last 30 years. I grew up hunting Provo and Spanish Fork Canyons in the late 60's and early 70's and use to be able to take a drive up after school and bring back a couple of nice bucks whenever we wanted to. But as far a what to do for the situation now that is quite different. I do know that in the 80's in the Book Cliffs and Henry Mountains when it was 3 or 4 pt or better you had a lot of deer. Then the DOW opened it up to any buck and I watched the heard drop to rock bottom on both units. Now after closing both of them for 4 or 5 years the heard is coming back. I know that it wouldn't be very popular but perhaps the DOW needs to drop the permits way down and I mean way down for the entire state. Then the hunters that you have left afterwards would be the hunters and not the weekend beer drinkers that just go for the party. It is a lot like the hunter that complains about there not being any bigger bucks to shoot. He is saying this while he is driving his 4 wheeler out with a 2 pt or a spike on the rack, for some reason he just doesn't know where the big bucks come from.


----------



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

> That's hilarious. 5000 more archery tags would only net at best an additional 957 bucks harvested statewide. No one said anything about your precious mt monroe. Compare that with the 14000 deer harvested that same year by rifle hunters, and your best argument is mt monroe. Good argument. Let's just call off the archery season all together, that'll save monroe. Whew I feel better.


Okay WasatchOutdoors go ahead and tell me about Monroe, seeing as you probably have no idea about it. Maybe you don't realize what it used to have on it compared to what it has now, both in quality and quantity. And you are playing a guessing game at 5000 more tags to 957 more bucks taken, you also put 5000 more hunters afield and crowd up areas around the state even more making the hunting experience less enjoyable. Deer herds in certain areas of the state, and yes the Monroe unit, need help to get going again, and despite what you might think, 5,000 more archery tags won't do any good for areas where deer herds are struggling.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Blaa, blaa, blaa, same old story and agruement, the simple solution, bring on the whitetails! :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Or just put us out of our misery and bring in wolves. :mrgreen:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Actually 1-i it wasn't a guess at all. It was based on the numbers from that years big game report. Take the 2551 deer harvested by archery hunters that year, divide it by the number of hunters in the field and it gives you a success percentage (19.41%). Now multiply that percentage against the proposed 5000 additional permits and you come up with exactly 957 additional bucks that would likely be taken. Yes it might fluctuate from that somewhat, but statistically speaking, when you put additional hunters in the woods, overall success usually goes down. So if anything, that number is pribably on the high side.

And the reason that I think your argument is so preposterous, is that I sincerely doubt that if you issued 5000 more permits, that they'd all head straight to monroe. I'm not saying anything about your monroe, I just think its nuts that you think that because one unit you hold dear is struggling, that we couldn't make adjustments to accomodate that unit. Heck, if monroe is as crappy as you say it is, why would the 5000 additional hunters go there anyway, and I'm pretty confident to say that I sincerely doubt that its archery hunters that caused your mountain to be in the sad shape that you claim it is.

But no, 1-i if you go through my posts, and check it against the sources I usually cite, you'll find that I do my math before I come to the table and start throwing out figures and ideas.

I just think its silly that you base the poor health of one mountain as the reason to dispute a possible state wide plan that would create additional opportunity for those who can't afford to shell out a quarter million on a conservation tag.

But I will concede to you, that putting that many more archery tags out there could create more crowding. The guys who 'troll' for deer by driving the roads with 4 guys holding bows standing in the back of a pickup truck or the guy who cruises all day on his 4 wheeler, could in fact have more of a traffic issue. I doubt parking would ever be an issue though, because it seems like those guys rarely park or get out of the vehicle. 

I've been bowhunting in this state for well over 20 years and the better half of that has been in the northern region, the most crowded region in the state with the least amount of public land. And I rarely run into another hunter in the field until I come back to a road. I think there's room to accomodate more archers in the state.

Besides, they'll all just hunt Monroe right?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> And you also concede that this study has made Monroe a poor deer hunting unit. So forget the last 75 yrs of tradition and find a new place to hunt. Because while the study is ongoing and maintaining a so called healthy population of cougar deer hunting will never be any good. Because if that is so we really do see eye to eye. Where we differ is that I would call for an end to the study and tell them to conduct it somewhere else that 2500 hunters go a yr and has the potential to accommodate 5000 hunters if manged properly.


Newsflash, Mr. Bear, when the Monroe Mountain lion study began, lions had been hunted to a point where a very limited number even existed or used the range as a home. At that time, the deer population did NOT rebound and deer numbers were bottoming out! IF lions were limiting the deer herd, the deer population would have rebounded at that time, but it didn't! Also, during the past ten years of the study, the lion population has gone from very low back up to a high of an estimated 40 cats (now the plan is to lower that number and to try and find a middle ground), YET as the lion population has begun to climb and peak, the deer population has been improving. These FACTS go against everything you continually spout off about...

Also, I would argue/contend that the Monroe deer buck/doe ratios are below objective because the deer are in their winter range seemingly every deer hunt and the young bucks are slaughtered. This is my own personal observation from hunting this unit with my wife. I believe that the buck/doe ratio would increase dramatically and up to statewide objectives if the hunt were simply pushed back to an earlier date when the deer are NOT all on their winter range. But, I am not too worried if this doesn't happen because the new MDMP calls for the unit to be turned into an LE unit if the buck/doe ratios don't climb.

The stupid thing that many hunters continually forget is that buck harvest will NOT have any real effect on a mule deer herd's size. So, eliminating the number of bucks killed by hunters really isn't going to change anything on Monroe other than the buck/doe ratio. I get tired of hunters pointing towards Colorado as great mule deer management. Just because they have limited buck tags so much and increased their buck/doe ratios and created great buck hunting does NOT mean they are managing their mule deer wonderfully. In fact, Colorado has lost about 150,000 deer in the past 4 years...in my opinion due, in part, to increased buck/doe ratios!

The thing that bugs me about these Monroe Mountain complainers is that they are surrounded by mule deer habitat...if Monroe sucks head to the Pahvant, the Beaver, Fish Lake, Boulder, Dutton, or any other unit that is close by!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I like what Dr. Geist said about predators and their effect towards deer: “Inevitably 
predators are blamed for declining mule deer populations, in particular when the survival of 
fawns is low. There is no doubt that today’s predators are effective in killing deer. However, 
predation is not independent of poor habitat quality. Such translates itself less as a reduced birth rate, but as fawns born too small, too poorly developed and too weak to be viable. Here 
predators take fawns that have a low chance of survival anyway. Improved habitat quality, 
which leads to better growth and larger body size in deer, is also expected to lead to large, 
vigorous fawns that are more difficult for predators to catch.” Again, the difference between additive and compensatory predation....


----------



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

> Actually 1-i it wasn't a guess at all. It was based on the numbers from that years big game report. Take the 2551 deer harvested by archery hunters that year, divide it by the number of hunters in the field and it gives you a success percentage (19.41%). Now multiply that percentage against the proposed 5000 additional permits and you come up with exactly 957 additional bucks that would likely be taken. Yes it might fluctuate from that somewhat, but statistically speaking, when you put additional hunters in the woods, overall success usually goes down. So if anything, that number is pribably on the high side.


Until that number ,out of those 5,000 imaginary tags, of deer are on the ground it is a guess. I know you took the % rate of normal success, but there is no guarantee that only 957/5000 tags will be filled.



> And the reason that I think your argument is so preposterous, is that I sincerely doubt that if you issued 5000 more permits, that they'd all head straight to monroe. I'm not saying anything about your monroe, I just think its nuts that you think that because one unit you hold dear is struggling, that we couldn't make adjustments to accomodate that unit. Heck, if monroe is as crappy as you say it is, why would the 5000 additional hunters go there anyway, and I'm pretty confident to say that I sincerely doubt that its archery hunters that caused your mountain to be in the sad shape that you claim it is.


As for this, this is just proof you can't have a statewide hunt or a giant region-wide area and manage all areas the same. Certain areas need different management than others. There is a reason the Monroe is struggling and its because the current management plan isn't helping it out any and it just continues to decline in quantity and quality, and as far as quality it's about bottomed out, buck:doe ratio's are also getting there fast. As for archery hunters not doing the damage, EVERY archery hunter I talk to almost says they've wounded 2 or 3 deer before not filling or filling there tag on the one they finally find, so the numbers that only 957/5000 tags get filled, I can guarantee you there will be plenty more animals wounded and die even if the tag isn't filled on them, reason because most feel wounding an animal isn't taking an animal, and as far as I'm concerned when you wound an animal your tag should be filled. And as for the Monroe unit struggling, there are plenty others around the state struggling too, so its more than just the one mountain. But when a game warden tells you Monroe is the worst deer unit in the state you would think they might try and make it better not worse.



> I just think its silly that you base the poor health of one mountain as the reason to dispute a possible state wide plan that would create additional opportunity for those who can't afford to shell out a quarter million on a conservation tag.


Good statement bud :roll: because everyone has to buy a quarter million dollar conservation tag right? Not like we already have thousands of general tags given out every year huh?



> Besides, they'll all just hunt Monroe right?


I'm not saying 5,000 archers would head for Monroe, but I know of about 10 people who would have went and bought an archery tag this year and headed up on Monroe for there deer.



> Newsflash, Mr. Bear, when the Monroe Mountain lion study began, lions had been hunted to a point where a very limited number even existed or used the range as a home. At that time, the deer population did NOT rebound and deer numbers were bottoming out! IF lions were limiting the deer herd, the deer population would have rebounded at that time, but it didn't! Also, during the past ten years of the study, the lion population has gone from very low back up to a high of an estimated 40 cats (now the plan is to lower that number and to try and find a middle ground), YET as the lion population has begun to climb and peak, the deer population has been improving. These FACTS go against everything you continually spout off about...


So what? It was like a 10 year thing, more time was needed before you can make the conclusion that less lions doesn't equal more deer.



> Also, I would argue/contend that the Monroe deer buck/doe ratios are below objective because the deer are in their winter range seemingly every deer hunt and the young bucks are slaughtered. This is my own personal observation from hunting this unit with my wife. I believe that the buck/doe ratio would increase dramatically and up to statewide objectives if the hunt were simply pushed back to an earlier date when the deer are NOT all on their winter range. But, I am not too worried if this doesn't happen because the new MDMP calls for the unit to be turned into an LE unit if the buck/doe ratios don't climb.


I can agree with the thought they are on the winter range and get slaughtered. And I hope it goes LE soon.



> The stupid thing that many hunters continually forget is that buck harvest will NOT have any real effect on a mule deer herd's size. So, eliminating the number of bucks killed by hunters really isn't going to change anything on Monroe other than the buck/doe ratio. I get tired of hunters pointing towards Colorado as great mule deer management. Just because they have limited buck tags so much and increased their buck/doe ratios and created great buck hunting does NOT mean they are managing their mule deer wonderfully. In fact, Colorado has lost about 150,000 deer in the past 4 years...in my opinion due, in part, to increased buck/doe ratios!


Well bucks are nice to see aren't they? And at least a few respectable ones?



> The thing that bugs me about these Monroe Mountain complainers is that they are surrounded by mule deer habitat...if Monroe sucks head to the Pahvant, the Beaver, Fish Lake, Boulder, Dutton, or any other unit that is close by!


Another point I think is great. Why does Monroe suck so much if the mountains around it aren't in as bad shape? Hmmm could it be its a slaughter fest every hunt (archery, muzz, rifle especially) WasatchOutdoors? This is another reason I think turning Monroe LE would be a good choice, because the current management plan just isn't working for it. Also too many roads, too much easy access, too much road hunting.


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> predators take fawns that have a low chance of survival anyway. Improved habitat quality,
> which leads to better growth and larger body size in deer, is also expected to lead to large,
> vigorous fawns that are more difficult for predators to catch." Again, the difference between additive and compensatory predation....


Yes predators take fawns with a low chance of survival but, with less predators there chance of survival is greater. And I agree good genes are great in a deer herd but if predator numbers were decreased and held down why would the fawn need a larger body size, and need to be harder to catch if there were fewer predators? Even if it was smaller and less vigorous it could make it if its danger of being killed by a predator was less.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So what? It was like a 10 year thing, more time was needed before you can make the conclusion that less lions doesn't equal more deer.


No, it is an ongoing study...and it is still showing the same results--as the lion numbers climb, so do the deer numbers (the Monroe deer population, by the way, is improving not declining). Also, the same scenarios are played out time and again on numerous units and in numerous circumstances. "In years when mule deer populations are lean, some predators such as mountain lions and wolves may consume several wildlife species including elk and small mammals, causing the predators to maintain artificially high numbers. While this has the potential to slow the growth of mule deer populations, scientific studies show that reducing predators does not increase the number of fawns that survive to adulthood. And it's the number of fawns that survive to adulthood that determines the growth rate of a mule deer population."



#1DEER 1-I said:


> Well bucks are nice to see aren't they? And at least a few respectable ones?


Yeah, I love to see bucks and respectable bucks at that...but definitely not at the expense of the herd. And, I definitely don't think it is wise to sacrifice lots of buck tags at the expense of losing deer! Colorado has totally restricted the number of buck tags they offer for the sole purpose of increasing their deer herds and improving the quantity of deer....and, in the process, they have lost almost 150,000 deer in the space of four years. To me, that is a failed management plan!



#1DEER 1-I said:


> Another point I think is great. Why does Monroe suck so much if the mountains around it aren't in as bad shape? Hmmm could it be its a slaughter fest every hunt (archery, muzz, rifle especially) WasatchOutdoors? This is another reason I think turning Monroe LE would be a good choice, because the current management plan just isn't working for it. Also too many roads, too much easy access, too much road hunting.


You talk about how bad the Monroe is yet, in the same breath, speak about how it is a slaughter fest. To me, these are contradicting statements. If Monroe sucks so bad, why is it such a slaughter fest? It seems to me that if it sucked as bad you say it does, it wouldn't be a slaughter fest because the deer/bucks wouldn't be there to slaughter. In contrast, the fact that Monroe attracts so many hunters year in and year out shows to me that it is a good unit...otherwise, it wouldn't be hunted so much. It also shows that young bucks are being recruited into the herd every year and that does are being bred enough to maintain similar harvest rates year in and year out. Granted, if you are looking for a trophy buck, it probably isn't the place to go...but it is a general season hunt where trophy bucks are NOT the management goal.

On that note, therein lies the problem--many hunters think that general season hunts should yield trophy deer....and they do; however, the management goal of our general season hunts in Utah is to offer lots of opportunity at the expense of quality. That is what our general season does...and at NO expense to the deer populations. I contend that the worst thing that could happen to Monroe is that it becomes a LE unit because this would force hunters away from Monroe and to other units...and, from what I have seen on the Monroe, it is handling the pressure just fine despite the fact that it has been falling below management goals as far as buck/doe ratios go.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> As for archery hunters not doing the damage, EVERY archery hunter I talk to almost says they've wounded 2 or 3 deer before not filling or filling there tag on the one they finally find,


I speculate that this has more to do with the company _you_ keep, not with archers in general. Keep typing, laughing is good for the soul and your responses propagate a whole lot of humor.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > As for archery hunters not doing the damage, EVERY archery hunter I talk to almost says they've wounded 2 or 3 deer before not filling or filling there tag on the one they finally find,
> ...


I haven't ever wounded a deer archery hunting and I have been archery hunting a little over 10 years. I don't take shots unless I am completely comfortable. There are always the bad apples, but don't judge all archery hunters off a few bad ones. I try not to judge all Chevy lovers off what I see you post, I hope not all Chevy fans are that crazy. :mrgreen: :wink: :lol:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wy2, Do you really want to do this again? 

I don't think you would believe Monroe's deer herd was in decline unless a biologist told you so. Would 200 cougar on Monroe have any effect on the deer herd? I took predators 30yrs to decimate herd and I will take that kind of time for deer to recover. 

As far as the study goes on Monroe they only know about 20 cats because they have caught and collared them. The total population of cougar on Monroe is anyone's guess. The cougar population on any other unit is a total guess as well.

I don't care how you want to quantify it one dead deer to a cougar is one less deer to bread or be harvested by a paying hunter. And I would rather have the deer evaporate like you seem to think they do without predators. Then let a cat that I never see eat them.

What would happen to Monroe's deer herd if some how you could eliminate any and all predation including human? Would you see any increase at all? Wouldn't you see masses of starving deer?


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

> Good statement bud because everyone has to buy a quarter million dollar conservation tag right? Not like we already have thousands of general tags given out every year huh?


Seriously, you don't get it at all do you? 25 years ago we had nearly 300,00 hunters in the field during the general rifle hunt. Things were good, and the deer herds were increasing in number. The opportunity was there for anyone who wanted it. You could walk in and buy an elk tag over the counter and it was no big deal. Range conditions were great and you could get permission to hunt private land by asking or working it off. Now we live in a world where everyone is about big antlers, horn porn abounds, people will shell out 10,000 bucks for a good shed. And with that emphasis of managing exclusively for trophies, you've got to know that it comes at the expense of opportunity. The only reason we crank out so many big bull elk right now is that most of us realistically will not get an opportunity to chase them. All we need is one "spider deer" to set the tone, and you better believe deer hunting as we know it will never be the same.

5 years ago you could still count on getting a nothern region any weapon tag if you wanted one, and archery tags were a sure bet.

Last year archery sold out in a couple days, northern region tags were gone in about 2 hours.

This year archery tags went in the drawing.

Next year, I guarantee northern region tags will go in the drawing. I also am confident to say that within 10 years, you will get to hunt deer 1 out of 4 years if you're lucky and willing to do a primitive weapon hunt. Opportunity is getting less, unless you have the money to play. More and more public places are getting locked up by private land, because there's some big money in big game hunts. So while you're right that there are thousands of deer tags for public land now, I wouldn't count on that same opportunity in your future.

As far as Monroe goes, I honestly don't give a crap. Close monroe, that's not what I'm even arguing about, yet somehow you keep steering the whole idea back to one stupid mountain. I swear some days having a discussion with you is like trying to convince Rainman that you're gonna have to skip Wapner today. "Monroe, gotta save monroe, jerry wounded 3 deers up there and shot mine in the eye, Monroe, gotta save monroe...."



> Another point I think is great. Why does Monroe suck so much if the mountains around it aren't in as bad shape? Hmmm could it be its a slaughter fest every hunt (archery, muzz, rifle especially) WasatchOutdoors?


WTF? ok so I gotta know. if Monroe is the "worst unit in the state" and there "are no bucks left on the unit" what the heck are they slaughtering? Because that makes no sense at all, if you were to tell me that the time of year puts them on winter range, or that they give too many doe tags or something along those lines, I'd give you some kind of credit, but right now you're telling me that all the bucks (which don't exist on that mountain as per your own words) are being annually slaughtered.

And while I do believe that you know 10 people that were going to Monroe to hunt deer, might that be related to the general area you live in? I personally know at least 10 people who hunted Monte Cristo and another 10 that hunted the Standrod Yost areas. But I know better than to try to imply that everyone in the state is going to flock up there. That being said, you might be right, the Monroe area might get a ton of pressure, heck maybe it's a by product of that god forsaken spider bull being from the area, and now every guy down there has a deer tag too. I don't pretend to know. I don't hunt the area, nor do I have any desire to (I hear the hunting is awful) But I do know that we could create more opportunity to hunt for the general public than we currently do. Yes, we might have to micro manage it some, but I'm betting that a lot of the archers and hunters in general who didn't get a tag wouldn't mind if they had an opportunity for an archery tag even if it were assigned to a specific unit that could handle the presure.

I will ablsolutely agree with you that the deer herds do need some bettter management and be broken down into smaller units, because there are units that need micro managing, but I suspect it is from far bigger prrobelms than archers. 


> As for archery hunters not doing the damage, EVERY archery hunter I talk to almost says they've wounded 2 or 3 deer before not filling or filling there tag on the one they finally find, so the numbers that only 957/5000 tags get filled, I can guarantee you there will be plenty more animals wounded and die even if the tag isn't filled on them


Lord I would loved to have been a fly on the wall for these conversations. Both of them. I can just see you nodding your head and then not saying a thing about it. Maybe you just hang with slob hunters, or maybe I'm just too harsh, but in my camp, when you hit an animal that's yours. Not one person in the company I keep would accept the idea of you going back out in the field after hitting an animal, with any intention other than finding and recovering it. And I can't imagine having that conversation with anyone and not calling them on it. Personally I think you're full of it, but to your point, maybe you do talk shop with the lowest common demoninators in the hunting community. it happens.

Look, 1-I here's the deal. The only reason I'm even arguing the point with you is that opportunities are getting smaller every year. Some people on here have seen the trend and have the wisdom to see where this is going. Some (like yourself) will continue to argue away your own opportunity until the day that you're sitting on the sideline and watching, along with all of your buddies, because you don't have the bankroll to play. It's coming, and if you really don't believe it, keep smoking whatever that is in your pipe. I would LOVE more than anything for you to be able to put this in my face in ten years and tell me I was wrong, but I sincerely doubt that day is coming to fruition.


----------



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

Okay I guess I'll just start out on the cougar crap again, I just don't see how you can believe a numbers game that says when a cougar kills 5 deer in a month that somehow increases the herd size? And if the cougar isn't there to kill those 5 deer somehow the deer herd is in a world of hurt and its going to decrease because there is nothing there killing off deer. How does that work? How can deer by deer get killed and you say that's really making the deer herd go up? I can tell you of the 20 known collared cougars there are plenty more, on the Cove Mountain side of Monroe I know of 4 cats put in trees this winter--none of them with collars (1 old tom, 1 young tom, and 2 females).



Treehugnhuntr said:


> I speculate that this has more to do with the company you keep, not with archers in general. Keep typing, laughing is good for the soul and your responses propagate a whole lot of humor.


Um I think you would be surprised how many are wounded.



wyoming2utah said:


> No, it is an ongoing study...and it is still showing the same results--as the lion numbers climb, so do the deer numbers (the Monroe deer population, by the way, is improving not declining). Also, the same scenarios are played out time and again on numerous units and in numerous circumstances. "In years when mule deer populations are lean, some predators such as mountain lions and wolves may consume several wildlife species including elk and small mammals, causing the predators to maintain artificially high numbers. While this has the potential to slow the growth of mule deer populations, scientific studies show that reducing predators does not increase the number of fawns that survive to adulthood. And it's the number of fawns that survive to adulthood that determines the growth rate of a mule deer population."


Deer numbers are increasing? Are you serious? I do a lot of whining about buck numbers on Monroe but this year I saw less does than I've ever seen in my life on the winter ranges I look at deer during the winter. So you go ahead and believe in that nice numbers game everyone likes to buy into and I'll stick with what I've seen with my own two eyes not whats printed in ink on a piece of paper or in front of you on the computer screen.



wyoming2utah said:


> You talk about how bad the Monroe is yet, in the same breath, speak about how it is a slaughter fest. To me, these are contradicting statements. If Monroe sucks so bad, why is it such a slaughter fest? It seems to me that if it sucked as bad you say it does, it wouldn't be a slaughter fest because the deer/bucks wouldn't be there to slaughter. In contrast, the fact that Monroe attracts so many hunters year in and year out shows to me that it is a good unit...otherwise, it wouldn't be hunted so much. It also shows that young bucks are being recruited into the herd every year and that does are being bred enough to maintain similar harvest rates year in and year out. Granted, if you are looking for a trophy buck, it probably isn't the place to go...but it is a general season hunt where trophy bucks are NOT the management goal.


No one said all bucks were gone, and yes its always great to watch the few forked horns and spikes get slain off 4-wheelers and truck hoods from roads every year, and eventually fewer and fewer will squeeze through the cracks to grow a few years and get a little big. And how is it so contradicting? It would have to be a slaughter fest to go from the unit it was 15 years ago to what it is today and declining buck:doe ratios also prove its a slaughter fest and a pressured unit


wyoming2utah said:


> I contend that the worst thing that could happen to Monroe is that it becomes a LE unit because this would force hunters away from Monroe and to other units


Why, you scared they'll come to your neck of the woods and kill all the deer in your area? Your statement there doesn't complete what it says, you say it would be the worst thing for the "Monroe unit" but only because the hunters there would go to other units. So you explanation isn't bad for the Monroe unit, hell its great for the Monroe unit, its just not as good for the other units.

Okay now WasatchOutdoors:



> Seriously, you don't get it at all do you? 25 years ago we had nearly 300,00 hunters in the field during the general rifle hunt. Things were good, and the deer herds were increasing in number. The opportunity was there for anyone who wanted it. You could walk in and buy an elk tag over the counter and it was no big deal. Range conditions were great and you could get permission to hunt private land by asking or working it off. Now we live in a world where everyone is about big antlers, horn porn abounds, people will shell out 10,000 bucks for a good shed. And with that emphasis of managing exclusively for trophies, you've got to know that it comes at the expense of opportunity. The only reason we crank out so many big bull elk right now is that most of us realistically will not get an opportunity to chase them. All we need is one "spider deer" to set the tone, and you better believe deer hunting as we know it will never be the same.


I will admit its becoming a "horn porn" world and its nice to have opportunity but you can't put so much opportunity(pressure/more permits) on stressed areas and expect "good opportunity" to be there. You can't have ever increase tag numbers in a world where the mule deer populations are going down, and struggling considerably on certain units around the state and still expect good opportunity in the future, sometimes areas need a break or a different management plan and yes Monroe happens to be one of those units that just isn't working out with current things.



> Next year, I guarantee northern region tags will go in the drawing. I also am confident to say that within 10 years, you will get to hunt deer 1 out of 4 years if you're lucky and willing to do a primitive weapon hunt. Opportunity is getting less, unless you have the money to play. More and more public places are getting locked up by private land, because there's some big money in big game hunts. So while you're right that there are thousands of deer tags for public land now, I wouldn't count on that same opportunity in your future.
> 
> As far as Monroe goes, I honestly don't give a crap. Close monroe, that's not what I'm even arguing about, yet somehow you keep steering the whole idea back to one stupid mountain. I swear some days having a discussion with you is like trying to convince Rainman that you're gonna have to skip Wapner today. "Monroe, gotta save monroe, jerry wounded 3 deers up there and shot mine in the eye, Monroe, gotta save monroe...."
> 
> ...


First off, if I recall correctly Utah has the 2nd most public land of any state, so I think your exaggerating on the fact everything is going to be locked up. As for saying I'm "full of it" yes I am sometimes but I know plenty who have told me 2-3 deer on bow hunts. And I should but don't call them on it, mostly because I can't make them stop hunting or fill there tag, because as to my knowledge, there is nothing saying in the proclamation that if they wound an animal they are tagged out. I feel the same way you do, when I hit an animal its mine whether I find it or not, last year I wounded a spike elk,never found it, and filled my tag. And if you do call them on it too most it doesn't matter everyone living around the area feels they are inclined to the mountain itself and anything on it and it doesn't matter that they wounded and kept hunting. And as for the lowest common denominators thing, yes I know a few of them, but for the most part I would say most were not "lowest common denominator" types, but until animal is in hand they don't feel they've filled their tag. But say I'm full of bull on this one, its just another thing you have no first hand experience on and your jumping to conclusions on. And as I said I don't think the money situation and land to hunt on will get as bad as you are exaggerating, but yes the opportunity will probably decrease because of "horn porn" as you put it. And I'll admit it that's sad, there needs to be something between Limited Entry and General (such as micro-managing) that would work better for the deer quality and quantity as well as more opportunity than turning something into an LE unit but in Utah its general(less quality) or LE(better quality) and there's nothing inbetween.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well this has turned into "MOMROE is a STUPID place to hunt" thread.....
This is is true for deer and turkeys....

But on the flip side,, Monroe is a GREAT place to hunt elk and lions!!
And that's no BS.. :wink:


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

Tom.....Sorry to be so blunt.....but if you don't like it, get the **** out. The hunting opportunities are shrinking for all of us, not just you and your wife. Sorry neither of you drew....but you aren't the only ones. I for one, think Utah is a great place to hunt....when I am able to draw a tag. I understand the rules of the drawing game. Do I like it all of the time, hell no....but it's the system we have, so I live with it. Hell, I remember when a deer tag was part of my combination license for only $35 bucks! Now a combo license is $30, and a deer tag is an additional $45....but you don't see me complaining. Times change and situations change.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If I and my family had spent our whole lives hunting Dutton then I'm sure I would have plenty to say about that unit. But I have never been there so I don't have any reference for whats going on there. That why it all about Monroe my guess every single unit in Utah including LE's have a similar problem. 

This is why I point to predators. If there wasn't a cougar study going on Monroe I would have no idea how many cats existed there. All this time I had put the population somewhere around 10 to 20 cats. Thinking that there were that many cats bothered me. Knowing there are 20 collared and estimated 40 cats make me sick. My bet is if Utah undertook a comprehensive approach to counting cougar statewide like they have on Monroe. We would find there are more cats statewide than anyone would guess.

Goofy like to dig and say the Elk and Cougar hunting on Monroe is great. Again to the demise of 1000s of deer hunters. And the benefit of a few houndsman and a handful of elk hunters who have to wait 15+ yrs to go on one hunt.

The answer isn't get used to it and go invade someones hunting ground. Hot spotting is one of the reasons Utah's deer herd has declined. The answer is manage for the masses and let the elite hunters hike miles into the back country and put in for LE hunts and hunt out of state.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

1-I. You crack me up. First you accuse me of just blindly throwing out numbers, when we both know that I'm using the big game report facts and simple math as a reference. Then you base your argument about how you know a few guys who wound deer irresponsibly, and that's why we shouldn't work to create more opportunity. Nice, you've convinced me completely.

Secondly, yes, you're right, Utah has a ton of acreage that is classified as public. You live down south, it hasn't become as big of an issue YET. Come up here and spend an afternoon with me. You can sit on a pulloff on the highway, and glass an area that is thousands of acres, all national forest, tons of wildlife, but all the land surrounding the base of the of the mountain is now privately owned. Yes those 1000's of acres count in the figure they use when they tell us how much public land we have (coincidentally, so do all the salt flat acres in the west desert). But there isn't any access to it. 10 years ago there was. It'll happen down there where you live too. Not today, not tomorrow, but quite possibly during your lifetime.

Third, as you very well pointed out, the residents in your area as you clearly state


> everyone living around the area feels they are inclined to the mountain itself and anything on it and it doesn't matter that they wounded and kept hunting


That right there, that is the root of your Monroe troubles. I still remember the first time I had dealings with you on this board. You were the root of a 97 page string of stupidity, that you started, because you were all bent out of shape because someone had "shot your deer". You're very name on here is based on your feeling of "being inclined to everything on YOUR monroe"

Dude, bottom line, if you are willing to stand there, have a conversation with the locals while they brag about how many deer they wounded on YOUR mountain last year, and then not at least attempt to instill a change of attitude in them, as far as I'm concerned, you've just voluntarily waived your right to complain about it. By letting them off the hook you clearly send the message that you condone such behavior. And if you're not going to stand up for it, then just accept that's how it is, step aside, and let some of us who are willing to fight for change get something accomplished.

Bottom line, my whole point in this discussion has NOTHING to do with your mountain, or the inbred locals that are destroying it with their unnaceptable code of no ethics. You want to save Monroe, great, start doing something about it. You can start by mentoring and coaching some of the Yahoo's that shoot multiple deer, and trying to steer the feeling of entitlement the local community has about Monroe in a postive direction. Heck just speak up the next time someone brags about the 3 deer they wounded last year, and ask them what they think would happen to their ability to hunt there if everyone did that.

I seriously can't believe that this whole thread has become about Monroe. The whole thing started with a hunter who is frustrated and venting about the way Utah's drawing system is going, and now I've got Rainman over here going off about Monroe, Monroe Monroe.

Look, opportuntiy is going away , just a couple 1000 permits here, couple thousand there, and most of us don't do or say a thing. Most of us just stare at the distractions and the shiny keys, and don't put together where this is headed. 30 years ago, the exact figure the DWR used to tell us how many hunters were out on the rifle opener in this state was 297,000.

then they cut it down to 97,000, now it's 94,000. Thanks to 1-I and his inbred gang of yahoo's Monroe is going to become limted entry soon. 93,000. A couple years from now when someone shoots the "spider buck" or some retard wants higher age objectives, or more likely higher buck to doe ratio's they'll come to the conclusion that we can only accomplish it by cutting permits. 84,000.

And there's a bunch of you that will preach that it's ok, because with ever increasing numbers of people, you have to restrict opportunity. And you'll let them whittle your permits down a couple thousand more and won't even say boo. Some of you are ok with that because you have 6 points for deer and your chances are good that you'll draw out before the bottleneck gets too full to accomidate any new applicants, and good for you, and your selfish attitude.

I know that there's a bunch of you that think what i'm saying is off the mark, that it won't ever happen, that there will always be public general permits by the thousands. But seriously, look back and tell me, 20 years ago did any of you think that opportunity for elk would be what is is today? And a lot of us are ok with it because we "can always still go deer hunting while we wait for that elk permit" but look at it, theres a bunch of guys who won't get a tag this year, there's 3000 less than there were 5 years ago. Meantime conservation tags for mule deer hit a record high at auction this year. You think that the smell of money lingering in the nose of groups like SFW who have the wildlife board by the nuts, won't inspire them to further restrict your opportunities if it means they have more to gain from it? Wake up and smell the winds of change here friends, I'm not talking about you losing your chance overnight, that's not how it works. It's much easier to cut your odds by 10% here and 5% there, because you'll all sit there and let them distract you with their shiny keys and political nonsense, and your attitude of not being able to change anything so why bother.

geez I gotta say, a couple of you hit it on the head, Utah is a great place to hunt, if you can get a permit. But I have to wonder how much better it would be if all the damned sheep would wake up and actually start trying to make a change instead of just sitting there wringing their hands and moaning about it.

heck if nothing else, those of you who give a crap, and actually have the stones to try to make a change, at least write an email or make a phone call and tell them what you want. People say the wildlife board isn't a concern to the governor, and they're right, because we don't make it a priority. The squeaky wheel gets the grease friends, make a little noise.

Call Corroon at his office 801-468-2500

if that's not your style email his his campaign headquarters
[email protected]

write the governor a little note and request a response from him. 
http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_governor.html

but get off your butt and do something about it. And Hunter Tom, you're the guy who started this whole thread, I expect you to be the first one to send an email.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > I speculate that this has more to do with the company you keep, not with archers in general. Keep typing, laughing is good for the soul and your responses propagate a whole lot of humor.
> ...


Uhmm, I have a very good idea of how many are wounded. Have you read the latest study on wounding rates in Utah? *The wounding rate on general season archery deer is just under 4%*, that's 1 wounded animal for every 25 hunters. I also speculate that after being wounded by a bow, more deer survive their wounds opposed to being hit by a high powered rifle. One study in Oklahoma, which observed radio collared bucks states that only 14% of deer wounded by an arrow died as a result of the wound. I also contend that the rifle numbers are skewed to the low side because many are unable or unwilling to verify that they hit an animal from a quarter mile away.

So no, I'm not surprised, I'm educated by studies and facts, not by Hank the mailman while sucking down beers at Billy Jim's bar. Misleading people with your hillbilly hearsay is detrimental to all hunters.

Carry on.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

But Tree,

you gotta remember, that according to 1-I


> everyone living around the area feels they are inclined to the mountain itself and anything on it and it doesn't matter that they wounded and kept hunting


Which is really the pot calling the kettle black from some guy who's very first post to most of us started as him accusing one of us of shooting "his one eyed deer".

But to your point, maybe he ought to keep his skewed and unfounded statistics to himself, because it does indeed give hunting a black eye....


----------



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

> WasatchOutdoors: 1-I. You crack me up. First you accuse me of just blindly throwing out numbers, when we both know that I'm using the big game report facts and simple math as a reference. Then you base your argument about how you know a few guys who wound deer irresponsibly, and that's why we shouldn't work to create more opportunity. Nice, you've convinced me completely.





> TreeHugger Uhmm, I have a very good idea of how many are wounded. Have you read the latest study on wounding rates in Utah? The wounding rate on general season archery deer is just under 4%, that's 1 wounded animal for every 25 hunters. I also speculate that after being wounded by a bow, more deer survive their wounds opposed to being hit by a high powered rifle. One study in Oklahoma, which observed radio collared bucks states that only 14% of deer wounded by an arrow died as a result of the wound.


Um can I ask you how those figures are....well..... figured? Let me tell you everyone calls in to tell the DWR they wounded a deer or more than one, so that figure cannot be accurate at all sorry. There is no real way to tell how many deer are wounded, and there is no way to tell that 14% die, I mean really come on :roll: Unless you follow every deer wounded with an arrow in the state you can't come up with that figure. I can take a wild guess as to how many deer get wounded and/or die to, that doesn't make it right. And as for the rifle thing, I notice numbers are only "skewed" when convenient for your argument right?



> So no, I'm not surprised, I'm educated by studies and facts, not by Hank the mailman while sucking down beers at Billy Jim's bar. Misleading people with your hillbilly hearsay is detrimental to all hunters.


Again, your facts, I just don't see how you can get those numbers and think that they are "facts" a fact is something proven without reasonable doubt, and injured deer numbers, and the amount that die from being wounded by an arrow is simply an educated guess and has very much reasonable doubt. As for Hillbilly hearsay, wow your high and mighty aren't you treehugger, seeing as again you have no GOOD facts on the subject. But no, I don't ask the guy over 100 miles away sitting in a leather arm chair (the person creating the figures you keep throwing out) who probably hasn't been anywhere near my area and definitely not long enough to know anything about it.



> You were the root of a 97 page string of stupidity, that you started, because you were all bent out of shape because someone had "shot your deer".


I have a new deer that is "mine" to so maybe there will be another one coming.



> Dude, bottom line, if you are willing to stand there, have a conversation with the locals while they brag about how many deer they wounded on YOUR mountain last year, and then not at least attempt to instill a change of attitude in them, as far as I'm concerned, you've just voluntarily waived your right to complain about it. By letting them off the hook you clearly send the message that you condone such behavior. And if you're not going to stand up for it, then just accept that's how it is, step aside, and let some of us who are willing to fight for change get something accomplished.


First, I complain on whatever I want, yes I should say something about it but go ahead and you'll get no where with them, trust me.



> then they cut it down to 97,000, now it's 94,000. Thanks to 1-I and his inbred gang of yahoo's Monroe is going to become limted entry soon. 93,000. A couple years from now when someone shoots the "spider buck" or some retard wants higher age objectives, or more likely higher buck to doe ratio's they'll come to the conclusion that we can only accomplish it by cutting permits. 84,000.


We'll Wasatch lets just give out unlimited tags on everything and see how great things get okay. You cannot keep tags rising or keep them at the same numbers because land is being taken by houses, cheat grass is destroying every range in Utah, and 4 wheelers don't respect staying on the trail. As for your inbred **** you think your high and mighty don't you-- wow you live in a more populated boy do I wish I could :roll: . We'll have fun in your smog filled city life, breathing in that great air, while I sit in the clean air and stay happy being in an area that doesn't have "great" people like yourself.



> And there's a bunch of you that will preach that it's ok, because with ever increasing numbers of people, you have to restrict opportunity. And you'll let them whittle your permits down a couple thousand more and won't even say boo. Some of you are ok with that because you have 6 points for deer and your chances are good that you'll draw out before the bottleneck gets too full to accomidate any new applicants, and good for you, and your selfish attitude.


Yep like I said ever-increasing permits are just a great idea aren't they Wasatch? :roll: Yes number of people is increasing, deer habitat is decreasing, and so are deer numbers YOU HAVE TO CUT PERMITS EVENTUALLY, you can't increase tag numbers constantly and possibly not again. Supply won't meet demand ever again on deer, so people just need to deal with not getting a tag every year.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Once again 1-I, you got me right there. I'm pure city slicker through and through.

So just so we're straight. The numbers aren't based off of you calling the DWR. They know better than to trust you and Jerry at the bar to call in. 
The DWR conducts phone surveys of a substantial percentage of permit holders, and from that they are able to make a pretty reasonable guess as to what the total harvest each year is. Secondly, is it 100% accurate, no, but it's the best numbers we've got and a hell of a lot better figure to base things on than what you and a couple sevier county residents determine the number is through conjecture and story telling.

And just like you said, you can take a guess at how many animals are wounded, but it still doesn't make it right. So your 2 or 3 deer guess that you threw out earlier falls right into the category of hillbilly conjecture.

And no, i'm not high and mighty, i just know, having grown up on a working cattle ranch in perry, that the heresay that's passed around by the good ol' boys about hunting season usually has very little to do with the actual conditions that exist. The ones that can't get a deer, complain about mismanagement and poor herd conditions, while the ones who got their deer quietly smile and don't say a word.

If I thought that the crap that the ol' boys passed back and forth at Kathy's cafe over breakfast about how there aren't any geese anymore or how the deer herd has gone to crap had any facts in it, I'd have a hell of a time explaining my limit of geese or the nice little doe that Tex's wife shot on our farm last fall.

But hey, like I said, what you and the boys decide is fact at the hillbilly bar is probably good enough to set the regulations by. in't it?



> Yep like I said ever-increasing permits are just a great idea aren't they Wasatch? Yes number of people is increasing, deer habitat is decreasing, and so are deer numbers YOU HAVE TO CUT PERMITS EVENTUALLY, you can't increase tag numbers constantly and possibly not again. Supply won't meet demand ever again on deer, so people just need to deal with not getting a tag every year


And hey, just again so we're clear, I'm not saying that everybody will get a tag every year. Or even that they should, it's that opportunities are being taken away every year. But even in your narrow minded view, you've got to admit, they could in fact manage to give more opportunity overall.

My orginal statement on here was that while unlimited archery tags makes me intially uneasy, you could in fact give out more archery tags than they currently do, without having a big impact. I never said Unlimited tags, I said additional tags. And yes, if it makes you feel better, than Monroe can be excluded from any additional archery tags. But man, it kills me all day long that you have turned everything you touch into a battle for Mt Monroe, and that somehow your perception of your mountain is somehow the barometer for what is happening statewide.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay I guess I'll just start out on the cougar crap again, I just don't see how you can believe a numbers game that says when a cougar kills 5 deer in a month that somehow increases the herd size?


I never said that it would increase the herd size...BUT, it also definitely doesn't mean that it is decreasing the herd size either. Again, the difference between additive and compensatory predation. Read up on it. Learn about it. Ol' Iron Bear read up on it; now he just needs to learn it!


#1DEER 1-I said:


> And if the cougar isn't there to kill those 5 deer somehow the deer herd is in a world of hurt and its going to decrease because there is nothing there killing off deer. How does that work? How can deer by deer get killed and you say that's really making the deer herd go up?


Again, I never said that predation would increase a herd size. The only thing I have said is that mountain lions are NOT the limiting factor for the deer herd on Monroe Mountain and the evidence is in the FACT that when the lion population was its lowest the deer numbers didn't go up...and, when the lion numbers began going up, the deer numbers did to. This proves that lions are NOT the limiting factor in deer numbers.



#1DEER 1-I said:


> I can tell you of the 20 known collared cougars there are plenty more, on the Cove Mountain side of Monroe I know of 4 cats put in trees this winter--none of them with collars (1 old tom, 1 young tom, and 2 females).


Your point being what? That Utah State doesn't have every lion collared that uses Monroe Mountain as its range? Do you seriously think anyone has ever argued that? Do you think that mountain lions stay in one small geographical area and don't roam or what?



#1DEER 1-I said:


> Deer numbers are increasing? Are you serious? I do a lot of whining about buck numbers on Monroe but this year I saw less does than I've ever seen in my life on the winter ranges I look at deer during the winter. So you go ahead and believe in that nice numbers game everyone likes to buy into and I'll stick with what I've seen with my own two eyes not whats printed in ink on a piece of paper or in front of you on the computer screen.


Do you honestly think that I live in Monroe, hunt Monroe every year, spend loads of time fishing on Monroe, and the only place I get my information from is the computer? Also, I would definitely believe the numbers game produced by trained and educated professionals who have spent many more hours estimating, counting, and managing deer populations than some local yocal who demonstrates on hunting forums that he doesn't really have a clue.


#1DEER 1-I said:


> No one said all bucks were gone, and yes its always great to watch the few forked horns and spikes get slain off 4-wheelers and truck hoods from roads every year, and eventually fewer and fewer will squeeze through the cracks to grow a few years and get a little big. And how is it so contradicting? It would have to be a slaughter fest to go from the unit it was 15 years ago to what it is today and declining buck:doe ratios also prove its a slaughter fest and a pressured unit


So, based on what you are saying, if the DWR continues to allow people to hunt Monroe at the rate they have been someday all the bucks will be gone? Are you serious? Also, in above quotes you cry about the rate of predation by mountain lions and now you are saying that the unit has declined because of the "slaughter fest"? :roll: So, the only way a unit can decline is if too many animals are harvested by hunters or if too many predators kill them?

Also, again you are complaining about a few deer hopefully getting big...remember this is a general season unit. Not a limited entry unit where the goal is growing quality animals. General season hunts are supposed to be hunts where the majority of harvest by hunters are yearling bucks or forked horns and spikes...that is the goal! And, that should be the goal--maximize opportunity at the expense of quality!

The thing I find funny about your comment though is this: 15 years ago the buck/doe ratio on Monroe was 9 bucks for every 100 does. Now, that ratio is actually higher at about 13/100! And, if you were to go back and look at the number of hunters hunting Monroe and the number of bucks killed on Monroe for the past 15 years you will find that the numbers of hunters on Monroe and the numbers of bucks being killed are pretty static--they stay right around the average of 780 bucks per year. More interesting, though is the fact that the worst years in terms of buck harvest for Monroe was in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (15 years ago)!

All this garbage you and Iron Bear keep spewing about how bad the Monroe is getting is just that--Garbage. It is not based on fact...and it definitely is NOT true!



#1DEER 1-I said:


> Why, you scared they'll come to your neck of the woods and kill all the deer in your area? Your statement there doesn't complete what it says, you say it would be the worst thing for the "Monroe unit" but only because the hunters there would go to other units. So you explanation isn't bad for the Monroe unit, hell its great for the Monroe unit, its just not as good for the other units.


It is NOT great for the Monroe unit...it would only be great in terms of buck/doe ratio. But, like Colorado, it could actually be the worst thing for the Monroe unit because you would be increasing the number of bucks at what could be the expense of does. If you start replacing does with bucks, your recruitment goes out the window and suddenly your adult/fawn ratios decline. Look at the mess Colorado has found with their "great" hunting....again, they have lost 150,000 deer in the past 4 years due at least in part to high buck/doe ratios! Brilliant!

In terms of hurting my personal hunting experience it would also suck because it would do one of three things: 1) decrease the number of general season tags to where either I don't get a tag, my wife doesn't get a tag, or neither of us get a tag 2) increases the hunting pressure on other units. Not that I am worried about other people shooting "my deer" but definitely increasing the number of people hunting. To me, the outdoor experience is best when you can be alone...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> So just so we're straight. The numbers aren't based off of you calling the DWR. They know better than to trust you and Jerry at the bar to call in.
> The DWR conducts phone surveys of a substantial percentage of permit holders, and from that they are able to make a pretty reasonable guess as to what the total harvest each year is. Secondly, is it 100% accurate, no, but it's the best numbers we've got and a hell of a lot better figure to base things on than what you and a couple sevier county residents determine the number is through conjecture and story telling.


Bingo!

And, the fact is, there is no way of coming up with 100% perfect numbers...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wow, I been b!tching about the downward slide of Monroe for 20yrs and 7+ yrs hear on the internet. And hear we are on the threshold of going LE deer on that unit. I called it 20yrs ago. So I guess this hillbilly can predict some things. 

I do not have any faith in the DWR's projected deer herd #s. I made a point to take some trips down to Monroe this winter. I did some coyote hunting and made a point to find the deer. If there are 6300 deer on Monroe I will eat my shorts. Why don't they put an end to the whole debate and use some technology to get accurate #s. 

As for compensatory and additive predation. I have learned it but I don't subscribe to it when it comes to cats and deer in an environment where we are maintaining artificial herd sizes. Yes that theory make total sense in a place like Yellowstone but that's not what we are trying to accomplish. Also for this this theory only applies when a range is at or near capacity and I don't believe Utah's deer range is anywhere near capacity. Otherwise you would see starving deer and you don't.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Why not implement a mandatory harvest report program? Like LE hunts.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Why not implement a mandatory harvest report program? Like LE hunts.


Why not have mandatory harvest reports?
A few points by the article: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E005349.pdf
1) Mandatory reporting does NOT ensure 100% reporting or 100% accuracy...in fact, sometimes hunters perceive an incentive to actually lie about their success or lack thereof--" Gamesmanship, or perceived dangers from giving true information may cause people to misrepresent the truth (i.e. lie), especially about killing an animal. This might be more prevalent for...hunters who may believe tag numbers would go down if kill rates are high or among individuals who might believe that reporting the harvest of an animal could lower their personal chance of getting a tag in future." 
2) Costs--"When all costs are considered, mandatory reporting may cost about nine 
times as much as an equal size voluntary sample and six times as much per report (see "The costs of big game harvest assessment", page 9). Optimal sampling within the deer or moose programs would produce statistically valid harvest estimates with about 30 per cent of hunters sampled. In these cases mandatory reporting from all hunters could cost as much as 23 times more than optimal voluntary programs." Also, "Statistical methods operate on the principle that a representative sample can provide information which is as good as a complete count, but less (often much less) expensive. In many cases, a complete count is not possible. Mandatory reporting ignores the economic savings which optimal sampling could provide. It should be necessary to demonstrate that the economic efficiency of mandatory reporting exceeds that of optimal sampling (i.e. that a 300 per cent increase in costs produces at least a 300 per cent improvement in information value)."
3) Hunter surveys tend to overestimate harvest which errs on the side of conservation--""Statistical Estimates" of harvest are not expected to be perfectly accurate. They depend on an assumption that the activities of hunters who report are similar to those who do not report or those who are not sampled. This is not always true. Voluntary sampling tends to overestimate harvest because hunters who feel they have something important to report (i.e. a harvested animal) tend to respond at a higher rate than those who do not harvest game. This error is on the side of conservation, but can be corrected, again by statistical techniques. Generally, statistically estimates may be either higher or lower than the true 
harvest, but they are correct "on average"."
4) Mandatory harvest reports tend to underestimate harvest--"Mandatory reports would likely underestimate harvests. Few people would be expected to report killing an animal if they did not and more advantages might be gained by not reporting actual kills. Because harvest information is "added" for mandatory reports rather than "projected"(as with sampling), every animal which is not reported represents an underestimate of the true harvest."
5) A wealth of information aside from harvest is needed to best control big game populations--"Many factors influence the abundance of game and the allowable harvest. 
These include habitat quality, productivity, predation, accidental mortality, as well as subsistence harvests and recreational hunting. Each of these differ geographically, probably annually, and they may interact in complex ways. The important point is that most of these factors are measured crudely or not at all. The value of obtaining extremely high quality harvest information at relatively high cost is undermined by having little or no information on other factors."
6) Mandatory harvest reporting rarely gives drastically different information than samples--"If all other things are equal and unbiased, a proper statistical interpretation of the harvest estimate for a hypothetical WMU would state that "the harvest was probably between 95 and 105 animals, and averaged 100 animals over the past three years." Mandatory reporting would state "the harvest was 96 in year 1, 106 in year 2, and 98 in year 3." There is no reason to believe that mandatory reporting would provide a totally different answer (like the harvest was 50 or 150 animals) and clearly the management decisions from both voluntary and mandatory assessments should be identical."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Wow, I been b!tching about the downward slide of Monroe for 20yrs and 7+ yrs hear on the internet. And hear we are on the threshold of going LE deer on that unit. I called it 20yrs ago. So I guess this hillbilly can predict some things.


20 years ago you started complaining about this and predicting it? Hmmm...so, in 20 years even though the Monroe still hasn't had some kind of drastic collapse or major shifts in hunter harvest numbers, buck/doe ratios, population numbers, etc....and you still believe we need a shift to LE? Funny!


Iron Bear said:


> I do not have any faith in the DWR's projected deer herd #s. I made a point to take some trips down to Monroe this winter. I did some coyote hunting and made a point to find the deer. If there are 6300 deer on Monroe I will eat my shorts. Why don't they put an end to the whole debate and use some technology to get accurate #s.


I bet in all the trips you have made on the Monroe, you still haven't even come close to counting and classifying the numbers of deer the DWR has done over the past 20 years that you have been preaching doom and gloom!

Also, the DWR is using the most up-to-date technology available for counting and monitoring populations. Techniques that are right along the same lines as every other state in the Western US...and, as these techniques improve and new more accurate methods evolve, the DWR and the biologists will switch to these methods...



Iron Bear said:


> As for compensatory and additive predation. I have learned it but I don't subscribe to it when it comes to cats and deer in an environment where we are maintaining artificial herd sizes. Yes that theory make total sense in a place like Yellowstone but that's not what we are trying to accomplish. Also for this this theory only applies when a range is at or near capacity and I don't believe Utah's deer range is anywhere near capacity. Otherwise you would see starving deer and you don't.


You obviously haven't learned anything about what you read because additive and compensatory predation does NOT only apply to populations at or near carrying capacity! Populations at carrying capacity aren't marked by a bunch of starving animals...maybe you should read up on carrying capacity too... -_O-


----------



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

Again I'll start off with the lion debate. So if you put took 10 deer, put them in an area lets say 2X2 miles, and you took 10 more deer in the same size of pen but put a lion in with them, which herd do you think would have more deer left? The one without the lion, now super size that to an entire mountain range with more deer, and more cougars it should have the same results. Yes in a natural environment predators do, do good, but in an environment with 94,000 buck deer tags +doe tags, deer herds can do without.

And as for the DWR's numbers, they don't mean **** to me, when some numbers are obviously "skewed". And as for the 9/100 ratio, sorry but there's no way in hell that's at all right. Do you know how many bucks I used to see on the Monroe? Hell during the rut a decade ago I could see tons of 4 points, about 15 years ago I saw one of the biggest bucks I've ever seen on Monroe, a drop tine with lots of kickers. Trust me there was plenty of bucks and plenty big bucks on the unit not to long ago. So the 9/100 is one of the most stupid things I've seen thrown out yet. And I'll admit part of my fight on this is some more quality as well, Monroe has great genes for bucks in its herd if any could reach the age they need to to show them off. You want garbage, take a look at the numbers (courtesy of the DWR) your throwing out, especially your historical data there.



Iron Bear said:


> I do not have any faith in the DWR's projected deer herd #s. I made a point to take some trips down to Monroe this winter. I did some coyote hunting and made a point to find the deer. If there are 6300 deer on Monroe I will eat my shorts. Why don't they put an end to the whole debate and use some technology to get accurate #s.


6,300 deer??? How many elk do they estimate because if the number isn't around the same or higher, its definitely not right.



> should read up on carrying capacity too...


Deer herds will not reach carrying capacity, not with 94,000 hunters afield. Yes in a natural setting this is a good fight (such as yellowstone). But not in areas where humans are some of the main predators.

And wyo2utah, I spent every **** day on the mountain this winter. Every morning and every night, trust me I've spent more than enough time to get an idea of how many deer are in some areas. I'll tell you one thing I don't see the **** DWR up there more than 1 to 2 days during the months of November-March (easiest time to count populations) so no I don't believe they have any idea whats going on, there never around.


----------



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

Okay I looked it up. So the DWR's numbers say

Estimated deer: 6,300
Estimated Elk Population: 1,050 
-_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- 

Are you kidding, do you know how many elk are on Monroe? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O-


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Okay I looked it up. So the DWR's numbers say
> 
> Estimated deer: 6,300
> Estimated Elk Population: 1,050
> ...


No, but it sounds like you do. Numbers of animals can be deceiving. I generally see more elk than deer, but I know that doesn't mean there are more elk than deer. Elk tend to herd up where deer, especially in the summer are in much smaller groups, if not solitaire. IMO, it is hard to say how many deer and elk there are in an area even if you spend a lot of time in the area. Like many have said, I am not saying DWR's numbers are exact, I know their not, but it is the best number I have to go with.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

There is an article in the Muley Crazy magazine. It was written by a DWR Biologist by the name of Kay.

He stated the fact that deer numbers can be swayed more by politics than anything else.

He talks about the sampling methods used. He goes into great detail to define these methods and show the amount of error potential involved with each method.

His point was the fact that we can make the numbers whatever we want them to be. We can make them look as good or as bad as you like.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Ok, I'm convinced. I am going to lobby for one eye to be the DWR animal surveyor. I have no idea why they would pay salaries for biologists and PROFESSIONALS to do this type of thing when we have #1-DEER 1I with all of the answers in one place.

No more fly overs and winter counts, just one hillbilly, his 4 wheeler, 2 dogs and a case of PBR. At a minimum, it's fiscally responsible.

-_O- :rotfl:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

#1 DEER 1-I, I do remember you shooting a little 3 point buck on the Monroe last year. You complain about the Monroe deer numbers, but yet you don't pass on little bucks. I'm not trying to make you mad. It's just interesting. If your worried about the Monroe then hunt somewhere else so you aren't impacting the deer further by slaying young bucks.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

CS, I read a similar or same article.

I have also read about using FLIR technology to record flyovers and get very accurate data in multiple species at the same time. The governors tag for Mule Deer this yr alone could pay for one. And use the money from the elk to buy a Piper Cub. 

Nominate me to head the DWR and I will fix all the problems with big game management. My first move will be to appoint 1-I as game counter guy. And Pro can hash our #s. I will be taking applications for other positions as well. :mrgreen:


----------



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

Medium sized buck, but yes this year I do plan on trying to look on the Beaver and Fishlake. Also TreeHugger, say what you want, but there is no way there are 6X as many deer as elk on Monroe.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Medium sized buck, but yes this year I do plan on trying to look on the Beaver and Fishlake. *Also TreeHugger, say what you want, but there is no way there are 6X as many deer as elk on Monroe.*


It's not me saying that...... It's the DWR...... who do it for a living...... professionally. I'm not gonna waltz into your work and tell you how to clean toilets and dump lunch trays ............ :wink:

Why would you dispute the estimated deer and elk populations? What's the point?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> TreeHugger, say what you want, but there is no way there are 6X as many deer as elk on Monroe.


No way? this is coming from the same person who claims there is only 5 male turkeys on the Monroe, so why do you have more credibility than biologists?

As for counting/estimating game populations with models and sampling, I admit to having been very skeptical of these methods in the past, even dismissing them altogether in some of my MANY debates with W2U. One of the things I like about this forum is the differing viewpoints that are offered up, which gives me cause to sometimes validate my personal views, and sometimes alter my views, on subjects. Often, even when I deem my views validated I still benefit from being better educated on the subject(s). In regards to sampling and using models, this is a very BASIC SCIENTIFIC method that has worked remarkably well in enough circumstances and with enough different conditions to be a proven SCIENTIFIC means of having a VERY accurate picture of the number of animals in a given unit. Ironically, I became better educated on this subject a month ago while teaching my two FOURTH GRADE daughters science. I suggest people who are so quick to dismiss this and other SCIENTIFIC means of monitoring game populations do a bit of research on the subject BEFORE nominating themselves as experts on population numbers on a given unit. Honestly, 1-I wants to assert he is more of an expert on deer/elk population numbers on the Monroe, while at the same time saying the turkey population on the Monroe is in dire straits as well, not to mention he has NO clue what the actual deer/elk populations are, not the buck:doe ratios, nor the actual predator populations on the Monroe unit.


----------



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

Turkey populations are only hurting in certain areas on Monroe, over by Koosharem there are quite a few turkeys I will admit that. But all turkeys in Sevier County have migrated there none have been released because of some rules with domestic turkey farms that used to be here, so there isn't as many as other places. But there are not 6X as many deer as elk on Monroe, just plain no way.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> But there are not 6X as many deer as elk on Monroe, just plain no way.


So, you are making this assertion based on an actual count of EVERY deer and EVERY elk on the Monroe unit? If not, you're simply talking out your backside with ZERO credibility. :?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > TreeHugger, say what you want, but there is no way there are 6X as many deer as elk on Monroe.
> ...


That wasn't me.

And no one likes the FLIR idea? Forward Looking Infrared camera.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is a picture of the plane DOING THE ACTUAL FLY COUNT ON MONROE...
I took this picture in february,,,,And I believe it was the day Jim Lamb was on board..[attachment=1:280vaxqm]100_1306.jpg[/attachment:280vaxqm][attachment=0:280vaxqm]100_1307.jpg[/attachment:280vaxqm]


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> There is an article in the Muley Crazy magazine. It was written by a DWR Biologist by the name of Kay.
> 
> He stated the fact that deer numbers can be swayed more by politics than anything else.
> 
> ...


Ding ding ding. Correct answer.

Scientific of not.. figures simply don't lie........... The problem is that there are liars that do a bunch if not all of the figuring....... To suit whatever purpose, directive, or outcome that is necessary to be achieved.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Here is a picture of the plane DOING THE ACTUAL FLY COUNT ON MONROE...
> I took this picture in february,,,,And I believe it was the day Jim Lamb was on board..[attachment=1:1yglyw6d]100_1306.jpg[/attachment:1yglyw6d][attachment=0:1yglyw6d]100_1307.jpg[/attachment:1yglyw6d]


I know Jim Lamb very well. I met him 28 years ago in Scotland. I can't see him in the plane however.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I have hunted Monroe(specifically the Burville Canyon and Koosharem area)most of my young life. I could always count on filling my tag along with most everyone else in my family. There were a couple years that were less than stellar but we all tagged out with a little effort. The last time i set foot on those mountains was in 2004. I saw more bucks in the opening 6 hours of that year than i have seen anywhere else in my life in the same time frame. I shot a 24" 4X4 at about 11 am that day. I was home by 4 pm in Clearfield.
Has it changed that much in the 6 years since i was there or have i been in a different area than you are all talking about? I don't see the doom and gloom that is being talked about here. Someone please enlighten me.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I've known Jim for many years now,,,,,,proud to call him a friend..

One of the best biologist you'll ever meet,,,I know the time and effort he and others
put into trying to have as accurate of wildlife counts as possible...

Then to see sportsmen claiming counts are wildly inaccurate or skewed to "whatever"
is really quite disheartening to say the least.....


----------



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

Ahhh, 2004 the days of One-Eye, what some good days those were, for all of us right?

Anyways, I would say since then yes it has decreased in quality and quantity. Yes you may kill a buck on the Monroe but very few will get a 4X4.


goofy elk said:


> I've known Jim for many years now,,,,,,proud to call him a friend..
> 
> One of the best biologist you'll ever meet,,,I know the time and effort he and others
> put into trying to have as accurate of wildlife counts as possible...
> ...


As for this, I don't really think the numbers are skewed, I simply think they are not accurate and it would be very hard to really have a good figure as to how many elk there are, how many deer there are, the amount that are wounded, the amount that die as a result of a wound. Whether you would like to admit it or not my main point to all my stubbornness and arguing is as simple as I think the quantity of deer in general, quantity of bucks, and quality of bucks could go up without sacrificing too much opportunity. Micro-managing would be my first choice and cutting down Utah's units into smaller sizes, my second choice would be turn LE, and my last choice would be to leave it as is.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, your first and second choices will be coming to fruition in the near future, so stand by.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Well this topic sure took off. Anyway 1 eye I complained about the same thing on the Manti as you are complaining about the Monroe. I even had the same gripes about the DWR numbers until Pro steered me right :wink:. As a kid and young adult I remember going up on the Manti with my dad and seeing a ton of deer mostly bucks too. Every year we'd all tag out in the first weekend. Now I go up and see hardly a buck and a ton of does. And I started complaining until I went up a different area on the Manti this year(after the hunts) and seen bucks all over the place. 
IMO with the increasing elk herds the deer are moving to other areas, on the Manti they seem to be moving to lower areas. Hell on anygiven night you can drive between Helper and Price and see 250-500 deer in the fields,(thank goodness for those newly installed deer fences). I just think people need to get off the butts, out of there trucks and off there ATVs to find the deer. 
And to help my point, 2 years ago my buddy and me where hiking up near the Skyline rd and decided to cross over to hike around a knoll that we had seen some deer on before. As we got to the road there was 2 guys on wheelers who stopped to ask how many deer we've seen. We told them a few does and some small bucks. They wanted to know where we had seen the bucks and told them where they asked if there were any atv trails to were they where they were and we told them not within a few miles. They got mad about that and took off. As we walked around the knoll about 200 yards from the road we saw 2 bucks that were both 4x4's and at least 26" wide grazing up near the top of the knoll. Now I didn't get to harvest them, tried but couldn't get close enough before dark. But had we been on wheelers we would of not even seen them.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Another thing is that it seems people think that if they don't see a monster buck every time they go out then the deer herd is in trouble. Like has been said before these units aren't managed for that. If you want that, without working your butt off, just apply for the LE units. but if you want a good sized deer and are willing to work for it, I bet any general season unit will have a deer for you.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> And wyo2utah, I spent every **** day on the mountain this winter. Every morning and every night, trust me I've spent more than enough time to get an idea of how many deer are in some areas. I'll tell you one thing I don't see the **** DWR up there more than 1 to 2 days during the months of November-March (easiest time to count populations) so no I don't believe they have any idea whats going on, there never around.


This cracked me up...maybe this is the reason you aren't seeing very many deer on Monroe. Instead of looking for deer on the mountain during the winter when deer are obviously in their wintering areas, you should start looking for them off the mountain. Do you think the deer walk on stilts or what? Haven't you seen how much snow is on the mountain? Don't you realize that the deer have a hard time feeding let alone walking in 5, 6, 7, feet of snow?

It all makes sense now...you're looking for deer on the mountain between November and March when most of the deer aren't on the mountain anymore! -_O- -_O- -_O-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

mikevanwilder said:


> Another thing is that it seems people think that if they don't see a monster buck every time they go out then the deer herd is in trouble. Like has been said before these units aren't managed for that. If you want that, without working your butt off, just apply for the LE units. but if you want a good sized deer and are willing to work for it, I bet any general season unit will have a deer for you.


Exactly right....Monroe included. In fact, I know that my brother-in-law missed a very nice/big 5x5 on Monroe two years ago, I missed a nice 4x4 two years ago, my wife shot a really nice 3x3 three years ago and missed a 4x4 last year, and my mother-in-law and father-in-law claimed to have seen the biggest buck of their lives three years ago on Monroe.

The Monroe as well as all other general season units in Utah are managed for high opportunity and low quality. This is done for several reasons among those is the simple fact that growth potential for any ungulate population is maximized with high numbers of females and relatively low numbers of males. The more does giving birth the better...if buck/doe ratios were increased, we would replace does with bucks and lose growth potential!


----------



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

wyoming2utah, bottom line is even DWR numbers say that the Monroe unit is the worst in the state, 3 out of the last 4 years it has the lowest buck:doe ratio in the state, and has the worst average overall for the last 4 years.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...now we can agree on something. I will not argue that the Monroe's buck/doe ratio is below objective and steps should be taken to get it back to objective.  

Personally, I don't think that the WB's decision to reduce the hunt down to three days on Monroe is the right way to fix the problem, but if it works, then great. I would simply like to see the hunt dates switched to earlier times in the year when the deer haven't moved into their winter range.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

No need to worry,,,,,,30 limited entry deer units coming soon........

No more region or general season hunts,,,The elk is a done deal for the next five years,
Soooo the deer are on the agenda for this coming year.


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> Personally, I don't think that the WB's decision to reduce the hunt down to three days on Monroe is the right way to fix the problem, but if it works, then great. I would simply like to see the hunt dates switched to earlier times in the year when the deer haven't moved into their winter range.


And really despite all the pushing I do, the only thing I really want to see is the unit be brought back up to at least objective. And I'll agree also that one of the main reasons its suffering is because the time of the rifle hunt is put at a time when the deer show up on their winter range, and people simply go up and slay them from the road. I would like to see the state micro-managed personally because different areas are just different, and have different needs, but yes also pushing back the rifle hunt would definitely help the situation. And wyoming2utah and WasatchOutdoors, I must say to be honest I think we agree on many things, but I do spout off about things that I probably don't need to. I would like to see more and bigger bucks on Monroe, and yes Wyoming2utah there are still a few big boys running around on Monroe mountain and I probably know the buck your father-in-law saw on Monroe, he is a 7X7 in-line heavy horned monster that scored 207 last year and still alive, and everyone wants him this year, and depending on what he does this year he will either be that "spider buck" someone mentioned earlier or begin going down hill. I hope he doesn't ever get shot, but with him and some of the bucks I've seen on Monroe in the past, if there were more bucks, and more that got bigger, it's obvious to me the mountain has great genes but very few reach to the size of potential, and I would like to see a few of that big boys off spring one day.


----------



## Guns and Flies (Nov 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> No need to worry,,,,,,30 limited entry deer units coming soon........
> 
> No more region or general season hunts,,,The elk is a done deal for the next five years,
> Soooo the deer are on the agenda for this coming year.


This will ruin deer hunting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> [quote="goofy elk":3ak1aa39]No need to worry,,,,,,30 limited entry deer units coming soon........
> 
> No more region or general season hunts,,,The elk is a done deal for the next five years,
> Soooo the deer are on the agenda for this coming year.


This will ruin deer hunting.[/quote:3ak1aa39]It will do more than that! It will do more damage to hunting in general than PETA?HS could ever hope to do. :evil:


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Guns and Flies said:


> by Guns and Flies on Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:07 pm
> goofy elk wrote:
> No need to worry,,,,,,30 limited entry deer units coming soon........
> 
> ...


This is the very reason I keep urging people to please please please, get off your butt, and start making some noise, and make the wildlife board a priority. It's not now, because we are a pretty complacent group that just takes it.

Look I know that a lot of you believe that hunts need to be restricted, and that permit numbers might need some cutting. I'm totally ok with compromise. The thing I'm worried about is who is going to decide how many permits, and how they get doled out. And if someone like SFW has any way of profiting from this, none of us will every get our hands on a permit again. It really is time for us to get organized and at least have a guiding hand in how it shakes out. The current RAC and wildife board method isn't working because they don't care what we say at the RAC's and unless you are speaking on behalf of a huge group like SFW you rarely get heard. And let's face it, the wildlife board memebers that are in office right now are suspect at best.

Please take time to make sure that this year, an election year, that the candidates for governor, (both of them) know that we want change.


----------

