# 2012 hunt recommendations are out!



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The permit recommendations by the DWR for 2012 are out...obviously, the WB can change these, but I like the looks after skimming...
...a couple interesting recommendations: 1) "This is the first year of general season hunting on a unit basis. Following Wildlife Board direction, we have developed a recommendation that splits general season units into two objective categories, which strike a balance between hunting opportunity and antler quality on general season units. We recommend managing units that have good access and are comprised of primarily public land for a post season buck to doe ratio of 15-17. We recommend managing units with limited access and a large proportion of private land for a post season buck to doe ratio objective of 18-20. Based on that criteria, this would result in managing 16 units for a post season buck to doe ratio objective of 18-20 and 14 units for an objective of 15-17. To achieve these objectives, we recommend 86,500 permits statewide on general season units (see attached tabamending the statewide plan." 2) "We recommend a slight decrease in limited entry elk permits."

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/bo ... nutes.html


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

This is a little off topic from deer, but I like the recommendation on Blackhorn 209 and this one in particular:



> R657-5-15. Party Hunting and Use of Dogs
> (1) A person may not take big game for another person, except as provided in Section 23-19-1
> and Rule R657-12.
> (2) A person may not use the aid of a dog to take, chase, harm or harass big game. The use
> ...


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I agree with all but the last line.


> 2) "We recommend a slight decrease in limited entry elk permits."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I agree with all but the last line.
> 
> 
> > 2) "We recommend a slight decrease in limited entry elk permits."


I think these are made in lieu of the WBs changing of LE elk harvest age objectives...I don't think the DWR has much of a choice on that one.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I agree with all but the last line.
> 
> 
> > 2) "We recommend a slight decrease in limited entry elk permits."


I saw this as well, why are we increasing Non-Res and decreasing Res tags?

[attachment=0:8cnlw5lz]LE Elk.jpg[/attachment:8cnlw5lz]

2011 is on the left and 2012 recommended on the right. Kind of small, but if you click on it you can see it bigger.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I saw that too JuddCT. Not a big difference, but I don't agree with it. Most of what I have read I like. Especially the last page of eliminating the rule that would eliminate your bonus points if you don't apply for a big game tag for 3 years. I like that over all the archery tags are recommended to be increased. The use of dogs to track downed game is a great idea as well.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> I saw that too JuddCT. Not a big difference, but I don't agree with it.


I looked through more of the tag information and it looks like it would be harder to cut non-resident tags in those specific units as they are pretty low to begin with.


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with all but the last line.
> ...


Its ALL about the money nowadays, plain and simple.They could give a rats azz about more oppprtunity to the average joe shmo hunter. More money from non res tags puts money and "opportunity" in their own pockets.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> bwhntr said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with all but the last line.
> ...


Get ready for a big decrease in the next few years. Many units are reaching objective, so the recommendation will be a significant decrease in LE elk tags across the units that are near objective. It could be as much as 20% when it's all said and done. This was the looking forward that many on here were doing a few years back when they passed age objective increases.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > bwhntr said:
> ...


 O|* *-HELP!-* *-HELP!-* *-HELP!-* I'm going to be 60 before I get to hunt LE Elk. Someone stated before they may as well call it (OIL). I'm starting to believe them.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Ok im I blind or what. I did not see any where on there showing the numbers of tags they are recommendation ?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Ok im I blind or what. I did not see any where on there showing the numbers of tags they are recommendation ?


Go to the link and click on *"Packet for the April RAC meetings"* for April RAC and May Board Meetings and you will pull up a PDF with all the information.

Or just click on this link (http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2012-04_packet.pdf) and it should open it up for you. :O||:


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

So with these recommendations that would mean the biologists have done their springs counts (fawn:doe/buck:doe/etc.). Are those available yet?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Juddct thanks for the link.Ok I got a question. my area they are saying 4000 tags. But how do we know how many tags for each season.So like archery,muzzy and then the rifle.How do we know that number ?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

It is split 60% rifle, 20% muzzy, and 20% archery I believe. But that number you mentioned may include non-res also.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Juddct thanks for the link.Ok I got a question. my area they are saying 4000 tags. But how do we know how many tags for each season.So like archery,muzzy and then the rifle.How do we know that number ?


Page 5-7 breaks each unit down by weapon and by resident vs. non-resident. So I assume you are talking about Wasatch Mountains, Current Creek/Avintaquin unit which would have 1350 resident archery tags.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > Juddct thanks for the link.Ok I got a question. my area they are saying 4000 tags. But how do we know how many tags for each season.So like archery,muzzy and then the rifle.How do we know that number ?
> ...


That what I was looking for.Thanks.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Not one unit in the Central region had a 18-20 ratio??? I thought the DWR was going to propose based on unit accessibility and private land ratio. :roll:

Southern region seemed to get their own way too, so I guess it evens out somewhat.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

My two favorite units were split with one in the 15-17 and the other 18-20. I'm okay with their recommendations. I hope the RACs and WB accept the proposal.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

so... if i was reading the numbers right, those 6 cow moose points i have, are basically no good anymore? they are recommending 0 cow tags for 2012. so they can take my application $ for 6 years, only to say in not so many words "sorry. we cant allow moose hunting anymore because we needed to send our moose to other states to become wolf food in trade for other, more important animals. and now that wolves are making their presence known in this state, the cows that are still left in the state become wolf food also."

...awesome :roll: this state couldnt manage a box of rocks.

i was surprised to see the number of GS deer tags they are giving out. the numbers for most units were alot higher than i expected. guess we'll have to see how this all shakes out!


----------



## provoflyfisher (Jun 12, 2008)

I looked over the permit numbers and see a problem with deer numbers. The total number of permits for 17a and 17b/c for rifle, archery and muzzle loader does not add up on page 8 "2012 RECOMMENDED GENERAL SEASON OBJECTIVES." Does anyone know if Wasatch West is setting permit numbers for 18-20 population objective or is it Wasatch East? 

Thanks!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

provoflyfisher said:


> I looked over the permit numbers and see a problem with deer numbers. The total number of permits for 17a and 17b/c for rifle, archery and muzzle loader does not add up on page 8 "2012 RECOMMENDED GENERAL SEASON OBJECTIVES." Does anyone know if Wasatch West is setting permit numbers for 18-20 population objective or is it Wasatch East?
> 
> Thanks!


It looks like they have them backwards on the total on page 8. Right?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio and a 3 year average (2008-2010) of 694 hunters afield and they are recommending 700 tags. :evil: The Oquirrh/Stansbury has been at a buck to doe ratio for the last 10 years in the 11-13 range and a three year average (2008-2010) of hunters at 2668. They're recommending 2500. There's no way that unit will ever see a buck to doe ratio over 15 with these recommendations. Very sad to see, the same old same old.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I like all the elk data that is presented...I know what tag I'll have in my pocket come September 
...additionally I'm glad to see Utah not skimp on Non-Res opportunities after New Mexico gave Non-Res hunters the shaft this year!


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Wow 500 deer tags cut... :| 

A big thanks to the mountain goat foundation for all their hard efforts.


----------



## UtahMountainMan (Jul 20, 2010)

So is there anyway to take an educated guess on the general season deer drawing odds?

I guess what I am asking, is knowing that the DWR has managed hunting on a unit by unit basis for years (but issued tags per region) is there a place to view the estimated # of hunters in a particular unit last year?

For instance, Central Mountains/Manti, San Rafael they are recommending 1760 archery tags this year. Where can I find the estimated # of hunters who hunted this unit within the SE region last year?


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

UtahMountainMan said:


> So is there anyway to take an educated guess on the general season deer drawing odds?


I sure hope so. Right now I am simply left to my own speculation and I'm guessing that I have about 1:20 odds of drawing 17A.

Gotta love option 2.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

This state simply doesn't get it. If its brown its down!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Yet again the DWR pimps out 86,500 tags on struggling general units and we choose to cry about the 200 expo tags that the MDF and SFW pimp out on health productive units.

We deserve exactly what we get when it comes to hunting in this state.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

UtahMountainMan said:


> So is there anyway to take an educated guess on the general season deer drawing odds?
> 
> I guess what I am asking, is knowing that the DWR has managed hunting on a unit by unit basis for years (but issued tags per region) is there a place to view the estimated # of hunters in a particular unit last year?
> 
> For instance, Central Mountains/Manti, San Rafael they are recommending 1760 archery tags this year. Where can I find the estimated # of hunters who hunted this unit within the SE region last year?


The numbers for 2011 are not out yet but here's a link for 2001-2010. pg. 20-21
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggam ... report.pdf
Looks like according to these recommended numbers, most everyone should be able to draw at least a second choice tag at worse.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Simply unbelievable!!

The general season hunting in Utah will continue its downward side with these
recommendations...Hope the RAC/Board realizes it, And steps in....Cuts permits.

For those that DO get it, and understand how bad the deer herd is struggling,
I feel your pain........

For those that DONT GET IT,,,,,,
Too young,or,
Not enough time in the field,
Or just want to hunt every year til there's no deer at all,,,sad,sad, sad.


----------



## Elkntr16 (Mar 22, 2012)

I asked another guy this, and I'll ask you the same. If you and your family draw a permit this year, with the number of deer being low, will you just throw away your permits, or hunt and kill a buck, reducing their numbers, being a hypocrite. Whine and bitch, but still be part of the problem? I don't care either way, just curious.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> So with these recommendations that would mean the biologists have done their springs counts (fawn:doe/buck:doe/etc.). Are those available yet?


Those numbers are not done and will not be done until probably late may. Tag recommendations are based on post-hunt counts, harvest estimates from last hunt, and winter population estimates. They do NOT include this winter's mortality.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Simply unbelievable!!
> 
> The general season hunting in Utah will continue its downward side with these
> recommendations...Hope the RAC/Board realizes it, And steps in....Cuts permits.
> ...


Hah! I'm glad that the biologists in this state DO get it...that BUCK permits will NOT affect herd numbers! I am also glad that the DWR understands that the switch to unit-based management can be helpful IF we simply do NOT cut tags to appease the doom-and-gloom trophy crowd...

....option 2 just may help the deer if the WB is smart enough to accept the recommendations!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hah! I'm glad that the biologists in this state DO get it...that BUCK permits will NOT affect herd numbers! I am also glad that the DWR understands that the switch to unit-based management can be helpful IF we simply do NOT cut tags to appease the doom-and-gloom trophy crowd...
> 
> ....option 2 just may help the deer if the WB is smart enough to accept the recommendations!


Agreed. Unit by unit management can be a great thing IF done correctly.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Yet again the DWR pimps out 86,500 tags on struggling general units and we choose to cry about the 200 expo tags that the MDF and SFW pimp out on health productive units.
> 
> We deserve exactly what we get when it comes to hunting in this state.


Maybe if they got more of that $ back from the 200 expo tags they wouldn't need to "pimp" out general tags as you say. :roll:


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> For those that DO get it, and understand how bad the deer herd is struggling,
> I feel your pain........
> 
> For those that DONT GET IT,,,,,,
> ...


Can we just all agree that SOME units are really struggling as you say, but others aren't. I wish those who you state "DO get it" would only speak to those units where you have issues and not lump everything together *(Ridgetop has done a good job of this and I need to research those units he is speaking of as I don't spend any time out there). *C'mon, you guys wanted 30 units with hunter management, so speak to them individually when you need to cry.

Oh and my general season hunting has gotten better each year since I started hunting with a gun back in 1993! :shock:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio and a 3 year average (2008-2010) of 694 hunters afield and they are recommending 700 tags. :evil: The Oquirrh/Stansbury has been at a buck to doe ratio for the last 10 years in the 11-13 range and a three year average (2008-2010) of hunters at 2668. They're recommending 2500. There's no way that unit will ever see a buck to doe ratio over 15 with these recommendations. Very sad to see, the same old same old.


What are the hunting success rates on these units? Estimate how many bucks will be killed next hunt and compare it to the past 3 years...is it different? Just curious...!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> so... if i was reading the numbers right, those 6 cow moose points i have, are basically no good anymore? they are recommending 0 cow tags for 2012. so they can take my application $ for 6 years, only to say in not so many words "sorry. we cant allow moose hunting anymore


Oh come on...do you honestly think that the opportunity to hunt cow moose is gone forever?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio and a 3 year average (2008-2010) of 694 hunters afield and they are recommending 700 tags. :evil: The Oquirrh/Stansbury has been at a buck to doe ratio for the last 10 years in the 11-13 range and a three year average (2008-2010) of hunters at 2668. They're recommending 2500. There's no way that unit will ever see a buck to doe ratio over 15 with these recommendations. Very sad to see, the same old same old.


I'm curious as to what the local bios have to say. Have you asked/talked to them about the current recommendation/thoughts? I'd actually really like to know as I can see where you are coming from IF your numbers are correct.

Thanks


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio and a 3 year average (2008-2010) of 694 hunters afield and they are recommending 700 tags. :evil: The Oquirrh/Stansbury has been at a buck to doe ratio for the last 10 years in the 11-13 range and a three year average (2008-2010) of hunters at 2668. They're recommending 2500. There's no way that unit will ever see a buck to doe ratio over 15 with these recommendations. Very sad to see, the same old same old.
> ...


I'd be curious as to the 2011 numbers too...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio


Hmmm...this doesn't look right. Unless I am reading it wrong, it looks to me like this unit had a ratio of 19/100 in 2008, 16/100 in 2009, and 7/100 in 2010 for an average of 14/100 over 3 years. I would really be interested in the 2011 number because that number could really change the 3-year average and could show that the 2010 number is more of an exception than the rule. Also, the 2011 population estimates for both the West Desert, West and Oquirrh/stansbury showed an increase...


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I can't find any antlerless elk hunt recommendation for Fish Lake???


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> I can't find any antlerless elk hunt recommendation for Fish Lake???


There isn't one...it looks like the population estimate for Fish Lake is at objective and with the possibility of that unit being increased, no cow elk permits are being recommended.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio
> ...


I believe 2011 was 6:100, right Ridgetop? Which is why the 3-year was 9:100.

Oquirrh-Stansburry was different. I believe the last three years were 8 (2009), 17 (2010), 15 (2011). So maybe that unit is doing better and the 3 year average isn't really reflective of the 11-13 and is trending up? Looks like the other units Ridge is talking about aren't doing so well and might actually warrant a further tag decrease  (did I just say that?). But I still want to hear what the bio says.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, where are the numbers for 2011...I can't find any.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, where are the numbers for 2011...I can't find any.


Tree sent them out a few months ago. I've got them, PM me you email address and I'll send what I have over.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I found the 3-year averages that included 2011...the interesting thing on the West Desert unit is that despite very low buck numbers the unit still had very good fawn/doe ratios and still increased. Kind of blows the theory out the window that low buck numbers will result in low fawn numbers because all the fawns will be born late...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Oquirrh-Stansburry was different. I believe the last three years were 8 (2009), 17 (2010), 15 (2011). So maybe that unit is doing better and the 3 year average isn't really reflective of the 11-13 and is trending up? Looks like the other units Ridge is talking about aren't doing so well and might actually warrant a further tag decrease  (did I just say that?). But I still want to hear what the bio says.


Agreed...if the unit is trending down, and if the unit is not doing well, I too say that further tag decrease is warranted...the interesting thing is that the population estimate shows an increase. So, I would bet that the bio has some reasoning...I, too, would be curious!


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

I personally just think it's sad they give 25% of LE elk tags to archers and 60% to an weapon! Considering the low success ratio of archery hunters. I just wish the would give more guys a chance to get in the field. 784 archery tags for an entire state with close to 70,0000 elk now seems kinda low.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:



> I personally just think it's sad they give 25% of LE elk tags to archers and 60% to an weapon! Considering the low success ratio of archery hunters. I just wish the would give more guys a chance to get in the field. 784 archery tags for an entire state with close to 80,0000 elk now seems kinda low.


+1

Giving out more archery tags would be awesome. I drew an archer tag last year and didn't kill. But would do it again in a heartbeat. It would definitely cut down on the point creep.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

svmoose said:


> bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally just think it's sad they give 25% of LE elk tags to archers and 60% to an weapon! Considering the low success ratio of archery hunters. I just wish the would give more guys a chance to get in the field. 784 archery tags for an entire state with close to 80,0000 elk now seems kinda low.
> ...


Here is a perspective from a "newer" archery hunter who grew up a rifle hunter:

A lot of the guys out there flat out don't want to turn to archery and there are a large contingent of current any-weapon guys whose voice will be heard (a lot of demand). However, I do think shaking up the allotments helps with opportunity. But at what point do current archers start complaining about overcrowding and new archers screwing up their stalks? Do you really want more archers in the field? You've got a sweet set up (aside from losing statewide) right now. Oh and the archery hunt has very quickly become my favorite hunt.


----------



## bowhunt3r4l1f3 (Jan 12, 2011)

JuddCT said:


> svmoose said:
> 
> 
> > bowhunt3r4l1f3 said:
> ...


I've only ever ran into another archery hunter on the extended deer hunt. I would say it's very rare. First of all everyone is in full out camo. So the chances of seeing them across the canyon is slim to none. Once in a while you see someone but it's no where near the caliber of any weapon hunting. So I stand by my opinion that they should give more guys the opportunity to hunt. Area's like Wasatch and Manti are so large it could handle a few more archery guys.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+1


----------



## gregkdc (May 19, 2008)

Let me get this straight the State goes form a regional hunting system to a draw only hunting system and sold everyone on the idea that this would help the deer herds through better management. However in the end the permit numbers really haven't changed and units that are doing badly are still going to be under a lot of pressure? 
From a business standpoint I have to hand it to them. Think of all the revenue they can now collect from the additional draw fees, especially because nothing has really changed they shouldn’t be loosing this money on overhead. Sorry to be so pessimistic, I'm not trying to troll this subject but this is kind of disheartening. If they need to raise the fee just raise it. Don’t play games, all that does it make so nobody trusts what your intentions are.


----------



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

Of course I am going to put in my two cents about the Monroe unit. They are advising 1,000 tags for what has been the most struggling unit in the state? 600 RIFLE, 200 BOW, AND 200 MUZZLELOADER? Come on, what is this going to do? According to their numbers there are around 4,500 deer total on the unit, and with a 12:100 buck to doe ratio, that would mean there would be about 540 bucks on the unit. And their giving out nearly two tags for each buck on the unit? And that's going to be better managment with more deer and better bucks? They did cut the doe tags which I was glad to see to only 50 tags for the sevier valley but, come on they are in the valley they are not part of the Monroe mountain deer herd. I just don't see any changes here, and I don't see much good coming from it unless they cut tags further.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You have to find those bucks first before you can shoot them. I was down there the last 2 years during the spike elk hunt and both years I saw 0 bucks and that was in areas that I used to see them.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > So with these recommendations that would mean the biologists have done their springs counts (fawn:doe/buck:doe/etc.). Are those available yet?
> ...


Since the spring counts are not in yet, it would seem reasonable to assume that any truly struggling units will be subject to further tag cuts when the final allocation is made by the WB. Right?

Isn't the gloom and doom a bit premature? Lets give the DWR/WB a chance to make it work. It is *their* first go round with unit management as well.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Of course I am going to put in my two cents about the Monroe unit. They are advising 1,000 tags for what has been the most struggling unit in the state? 600 RIFLE, 200 BOW, AND 200 MUZZLELOADER? Come on, what is this going to do? According to their numbers there are around 4,500 deer total on the unit, and with a 12:100 buck to doe ratio, that would mean there would be about 540 bucks on the unit. And their giving out nearly two tags for each buck on the unit? And that's going to be better managment with more deer and better bucks?


Look deeper and do a little math...harvest success rates are hovering around 20%. So, if those numbers hold true and they give 1,000 tags, that is about 200 bucks being shot. Of course that will increase the buck/doe ratio because less than half the bucks are being shot. Add in the new recruits and you will undoubtedly increase the ratio. Also, it was estimated that around 1500 hunters hunted the Monroe in 2010...that is a reduction of 500 hunters...or, if the hunter success rates hold true, that would save around 100 bucks!

That's using your numbers....the DWR actually estimates that the Monroe herd has increased to 5,200 from 4,900. That means there are even more bucks on the unit than you estimated...even if hunter success rates jumped to 30% (Well above the state average) and included all other mortality (if we estimated all buck mortality outside of hunting and including predation based on Monroe's deer collar study numbers, we are losing around 80 buck/year), we still would increase the buck/doe ratio...

You guys get too emotional and don't think things through sometimes...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

gregkdc said:


> Let Think of all the revenue they can now collect from the additional draw fees


Except that the DWR doesn't get any revenue from draw fees...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Yes they do.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought all application fees went to Fallon...? I thought the revenue the DWR generated from hunting came from the sale of tags/licenses...?


----------



## gregkdc (May 19, 2008)

The truth is I went off half ****ed, in my previous post. I guess that we should wait and see if they can even fill that many tags and how many hunters applied but weren't successful. If they have a large number that couldn’t draw and they fill all the tags I will be mad about it later, until then…


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Revenue and Expenses from Application Fees - 2010

Applications - Annual # 396,310

Application Fee Revenue $3,963,100.00____ % of Costs

.

Licensing Staff - Draw Group	$281,429.20____ 8.9%

Credit Card Discount Fees $399,251.00	____ 12.7%

SCI Contract - Fallon $1,108,800.51 ________ 35.1%

Postage Costs - Reimbursed $289,000.00 ____ 9.2%

Front Counters-50% of their time $433,508.00 ____ 13.7%

Proclamations $97,300.00 ___________ 3.1%

Paper for Draw permits $16,428.57 ________ 0.5%

Outreach Staff - 10% of their time $47,262.00	____ 1.5%

RAC and Board Costs $92,534.00 _______ 2.9%

Wildlife/Aquatics Section Prep $165,170.40 ____ 5.2%

Proclamation Review Chair $73,794.00 ____ 2.3%

Overhead 18% of Direct Labor $150,478.78 ____ 4.8%


Total - $3,154,956.46 _______________________ 100%


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

$2.80 per app to Nevada. Now for the DWR to put the lifetime license guys in for a draw amongst themselves doesn't look too awfully expense compared to the $10 per app. The DWR left out of their proposal: Max of 10% of each units tags to lifetime holders. Gonna have to happen with this dual ratio system. 

Another problem with this dropping the top end to 20 is now the units like East Canyon/Morgan, Zion, and some others that have high buck to doe ratios because of the private land and CWMU's will not be able to meet objective even if hunters killed all the bucks on public lands each year. The private land and CWMU herds will keep the buck ratio up. DWR also forgot to propose this to help that problem: A percentage derived from the Private to public land ratio for land providing deer habitat for each unit will be reserved for private land hunting only hunting permits. Either that or make a 3rd tier at 20-25 bucks per 100 does.

Nebo unit got screwed imo. Whats the difference in access/private land for Nebo compared to Wasatch West? (I agree that there was an error in these proposal documents that said that Wasatch West was a 15-17 but it most likely is 18-20) At least Central Region got 1 unit at the 18-20, good for them! :roll:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wy2 wrote.
"Look deeper and do a little math...harvest success rates are hovering around 20%. So, if those numbers hold true and they give 1,000 tags, that is about 200 bucks being shot. Of course that will increase the buck/doe ratio because less than half the bucks are being shot. Add in the new recruits and you will undoubtedly increase the ratio. Also, it was estimated that around 1500 hunters hunted the Monroe in 2010...that is a reduction of 500 hunters...or, if the hunter success rates hold true, that would save around 100 bucks!

That's using your numbers....the DWR actually estimates that the Monroe herd has increased to 5,200 from 4,900. That means there are even more bucks on the unit than you estimated...even if hunter success rates jumped to 30% (Well above the state average) and included all other mortality (if we estimated all buck mortality outside of hunting and including predation based on Monroe's deer collar study numbers, we are losing around 80 buck/year), we still would increase the buck/doe ratio...

You guys get too emotional and don't think things through sometimes..."

I like the way you're thinking there Wy2.

Get this. The 20 to 40 cougar on Monroe kill anywhere from 1000 to 2000 deer in that unit per yr. Just think if we reduced it from 20 to 40 lions to 5 to 10 then we could reduce deer kills to 250 to 500 deer per yr from lions.

Out of those 1000 to 2000 deer almost half are bucks. So even if it does not increase the deer herd by one deer it will increase the buck to doe ratio. And provide a larger slice of pie for hunters. Couple this with the increased recruitment due from coyote reduction and great weather and Monroe could provide enough tags for 2500 hunters and 1000 harvests again.


----------



## one hunting fool (Sep 17, 2007)

I hate the split objectives. It is saying that they do not think they can get the non-limited access to 18-20 bucks. If anything the areas with limited access do to private land should be the least of the hunting communities. Landowners determine who hunts on their land and manage the herd better than DWR ever could. It is the rest of the state that is hurting for deer management. I had such hopes for the RAC in this 18 to 100 does objective and they did what they always do cave to the pressures of lost rev do to forced decreased hunting pressure in bad areas.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

one hunting fool said:


> I hate the split objectives. It is saying that they do not think they can get the non-limited access to 18-20 bucks. If anything the areas with limited access do to private land should be the least of the hunting communities. Landowners determine who hunts on their land and manage the herd better than DWR ever could. It is the rest of the state that is hurting for deer management. I had such hopes for the RAC in this 18 to 100 does objective and they did what they always do cave to the pressures of lost rev do to forced decreased hunting pressure in bad areas.


So, do you hate the fact that the objectives are split, or is it that the wrong objectives are on the wrong units?


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I am going to put in my two cents about the Monroe unit. They are advising 1,000 tags for what has been the most struggling unit in the state? 600 RIFLE, 200 BOW, AND 200 MUZZLELOADER? Come on, what is this going to do? According to their numbers there are around 4,500 deer total on the unit, and with a 12:100 buck to doe ratio, that would mean there would be about 540 bucks on the unit. And their giving out nearly two tags for each buck on the unit? And that's going to be better managment with more deer and better bucks?
> ...


Okay so going off the 5,200 that would be 624 bucks on the unit, at a 12:100 buck/doe ratio. So excuse me there only giving out almost 400 tags more than they estimate there are bucks on the mountain. Now in my opnion buck:doe ratio's on the Monroe aren't at 12:100, but well go off of those numbers. Okay so at a 20% hunter success rate that would mean they would take 125 bucks. Now out of the 1,000 (probably higher) deer the cougars kill on the unit every year well say half are bucks so that would be 500. Now adding those two together your going to get 625, one more buck than by there numbers say....are on the unit. So you tell me, what happens when we get an early snow storm and out of the 600 rifle hunters on the unit, 80% of them become successful and you all but wipe out the deer population on the unit. I don't care what you say you don't give out almost double the tags as there are buck deer to hunt on the unit. Now there are a few good bucks on the unit but nothing like it used to be and places where you could always go and find a good buck, are now desimated and there are no deer there at all, so ya why not put double the tags on the unit and see just how low we can get the numbers. Also don't you think hunter success will go up due to all 3 seasons being longer now than they have for a long time. A nine day rifle and muzzleloader hunt and a 30 day bow hunt. I think that that success rate will clime a little. I do like how they cut the doe tags to only 50 in the sevier valley and feel that even though it is just valley deer, doe tag cuts are useful whenever possible.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> For those that DONT GET IT,,,,,,
> Too young,or,
> Not enough time in the field,
> Or just want to hunt every year til there's no deer at all,,,sad,sad, sad.


I will be 45 in 2 months, is that "too young"? I spend more time in the field than 99% of the people in this state....EVERY day of the year, is that "not enough time in the field"? I haven't purchased a deer tag in over 10 years, is that "just wanting to hunt every year"? Just wondering.............how is it that I "DONT GET IT"? I wonder if its because I don't hang out on MM.......that must be it!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > For those that DONT GET IT,,,,,,
> ...


In need of some Midol Bart? :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

:V|:


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > For those that DONT GET IT,,,,,,
> ...


Pro why don't you deal with the fact that you don't know everything. I work my ass off in the field and you continue to criticize me. I've been on the Monroe unit more in a month than you have in your life. I'm just tired of you trying to defend the DWR and their numbers, and the way they do things. Since when has any branch of the government been completely honest and truthful. I don't know it just bothers me how you think your out there more than anyone, that you know all, and that its your word or no word at all, I'VE SEEN PLENTY AND I WILL TELL YOU, THE DWR'S NUMBERS ARE NOT CORRECT. There is no way they will throw numbers against the wall and have them stick for someone who watches on a daily bases a unit go down in smoke because money is the only important number they worry about. The deer herd is in trouble, and I get tired of people like you who are so far to the side, of simply listening to the numbers where given and going along with them just becasue you think that these educated individuals who don't spend half the time looking at things as someone like me. So what they count a few deer in an area and multiply it to figure out what the rest of the unit is doing, and they call it accurate. That dosen't work for me, what works for me is seeing what I've seen and watching what I've watched. I've watched 5 nice bucks for 10 years, in the same area on a yearly basis, now 2 of them are dead of old age, and there are 3 left. Out of these 3 there all at least 8 years old, now once there gone this area will have no deer over 130-140. There are a few of the remaining smart bucks, but you can't release 2 tags per buck on a unit and expect the unit to start getting better. Pro, I will tell you I spend as much time in the field as you, and don't tell me I don't and I will never be able to take the DWR's numbers as accurate.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio and a 3 year average (2008-2010) of 694 hunters afield and they are recommending 700 tags. :evil: The Oquirrh/Stansbury has been at a buck to doe ratio for the last 10 years in the 11-13 range and a three year average (2008-2010) of hunters at 2668. They're recommending 2500. There's no way that unit will ever see a buck to doe ratio over 15 with these recommendations. Very sad to see, the same old same old.
> ...


Ok, I don't have hard numbers for you but we all know that with the 3 day hunt and huge snow storm that hit opening day, the 2010 success rate was very poor. So the buck to doe ratio was artificially boosted for a year. Reguardless what the 2011 numbers may show, field CO's reported much high than normal harvests in 2011. Quoted "we have checked more successful hunters this year than in many years past". Does this mean all is well or are we back to a lower buck to doe ratio pre 2010? I'm guessing the latter.



JuddCT said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > I can't even tell you guys how disappointed I am with some of these numbers. You have the West Desert, West unit that has a 9:100 buck to doe ratio and a 3 year average (2008-2010) of 694 hunters afield and they are recommending 700 tags. :evil: The Oquirrh/Stansbury has been at a buck to doe ratio for the last 10 years in the 11-13 range and a three year average (2008-2010) of hunters at 2668. They're recommending 2500. There's no way that unit will ever see a buck to doe ratio over 15 with these recommendations. Very sad to see, the same old same old.
> ...


Local biologist believes that we have a real problem in the West Desert Units with coyotes taking many fawns and the winter range is in poor health. He also made the comment that years ago, a hunting mag. highlighted the Stansburys "as one of the best kept secrets in the West for trophy bucks". The next year, that mountain saw 5x the pressure as normal and the pressure has never let up. He said, "the unit has never recovered since that time". He personally thinks more tags should be cut but it's out of his control.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Pro why don't you deal with the fact that you don't know everything. I work **** in the field and you continue to criticize me. I've been on the Monroe unit more in a month than you have in your life. I'm just tired of you trying to defend the DWR and their numbers, and the way they do things. Since when has any branch of the government been completely honest and truthful. I don't know it just bothers me how you think your out there more than anyone, that you know all, and that its your word or no word at all, I'VE SEEN PLENTY AND I WILL TELL YOU, THE DWR'S NUMBERS ARE NOT CORRECT. There is no way they will throw numbers against the wall and have them stick for someone who watches on a daily bases a unit go down in smoke because money is the only important number they worry about. The deer herd is in trouble, and I get tired of people like you who are so far to the side, of simply listening to the numbers where given and going along with them just becasue you think that these educated individuals who don't spend half the time looking at things as someone like me. So what they count a few deer in an area and multiply it to figure out what the rest of the unit is doing, and they call it accurate. That dosen't work for me, what works for me is seeing what I've seen and watching what I've watched. I've watched 5 nice bucks for 10 years, in the same area on a yearly basis, now 2 of them are dead of old age, and there are 3 left. Out of these 3 there all at least 8 years old, now once there gone this area will have no deer over 130-140. There are a few of the remaining smart bucks, but you can't release 2 tags per buck on a unit and expect the unit to start getting better. Pro, I will tell you I spend as much time in the field as you, and don't tell me I don't and I will never be able to take the DWR's numbers as accurate.


When exactly did I say I agree with the numbers the DWR "trows against the wall"? For starters, I was even replying to anything you posted.....if you notice I quoted goofy elk and was responding to HIM, not you. Please try and pay attention! I haven't made ONE mention about the Monroe in this thread now have I? All I am saying is I do NOT believe issuing fewer buck tags on these small units, and killing a bunch of coyotes, will do any good...long term! They are nothing more than band-aids that may make people FEEL better, but they are not addressing to main causes of the current deer population. I base this off of my years in the field, LOTS of talks with biologists...DWR and non-DWR employees......reading hundreds of reports/studies/data. So, you can ramble on about whatever you are ranting about, I do NOT care.... :mrgreen:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Here's another one I don't understand. The SW Desert Unit has averaged about 1,000 tags in the last three years and has a 28:100 buck to doe ratio. This year, they are propossing 700 tags. Looks like someone has decided we need another premium general unit. So the 18-20 objective really doen't mean anything or does the 15-17 ratios for the units to the North. :?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nebo........general deer.

Post 2010 herd estimate, 11,800
Current herd estimate ,,, 10,500

This years buck to doe ratio count,, 10 bucks per 100 does

Recommended deer permits 4,400

Another unit in trouble!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

What's the 3 year average B on the Nebo?How about the fawn recruitment #s?


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> When exactly did I say I agree with the numbers the DWR "trows against the wall"? For starters, I was even replying to anything you posted.....if you notice I quoted goofy elk and was responding to HIM, not you. Please try and pay attention! I haven't made ONE mention about the Monroe in this thread now have I? All I am saying is I do NOT believe issuing fewer buck tags on these small units, and killing a bunch of coyotes, will do any good...long term! They are nothing more than band-aids that may make people FEEL better, but they are not addressing to main causes of the current deer population. I base this off of my years in the field, LOTS of talks with biologists...DWR and non-DWR employees......reading hundreds of reports/studies/data. So, you can ramble on about whatever you are ranting about, I do NOT care....


Yes I'm perfectly aware you weren't talking to me, and that you didn't say anything about the Monroe unit. What I am saying is it just gets tiring reading every post you make with your know-it-all attitude you give off. Every post you make it seems like you think your the best sportsman there could be in Utah and you could manage the deer herd perfectly, because you do think you know it all. And you tell me how less tags, and less coyotes won't equal more deer? There were more deer in every place of Utah years ago if you don't recall, and around where I'm at habitat hasn't changed so darastically that they can't recover and become a bigger more healthy herd. As for the DWR numbers, I've fought with you numerous times on the fact that you think there accurate and I don't That you don't think the DWR has any agenda to money, and I do. Less predators, less tags, less mountain lions, and less roads will equal more deer.


----------



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

goofy elk said:


> Nebo........general deer.
> 
> Post 2010 herd estimate, 11,800
> Current herd estimate ,,, 10,500
> ...


You know what goofy, all I have to say is rediculous.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> [quote="goofy elk":3hzxsh3b]Nebo........general deer.
> 
> Post 2010 herd estimate, 11,800
> Current herd estimate ,,, 10,500
> ...


You know what goofy, all I have to say is rediculous.[/quote:3hzxsh3b]
The last three year average for Nebo was about 3,920 tags. Now 4,400. Why?
And why less tags on a SW Desert Unit that's at 28:100 buck to doe?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Because the SW desert is in the People's Republic of Southern Utah. It's a smart assed way of saying it, but there's a lot of truth in it.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

The DWR had 84,500 stuck their head and just work backwards from there while showing numbers per unit that had a reasonable chance of passing the RAC's and WB. 500 permit reduction a coincidence? no. The number of 18-20 ratio units just barely more than the 15-17 units a coincidence? no. I can hear the dwr saying "hey look, we cut tags and there are more 18-20 units than 15-17". :roll: I can't believe they are still saying they determined the units ratio by how much private and access a unit had instead of PUBLIC OPINION or even management opinion.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

BINGO flinger!! I agree.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

geeze........ :roll: :evil:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yes I'm perfectly aware you weren't talking to me, and that you didn't say anything about the Monroe unit. What I am saying is it just gets tiring reading every post you make with your know-it-all attitude you give off. Every post you make it seems like you think your the best sportsman there could be in Utah and you could manage the deer herd perfectly, because you do think you know it all. And you tell me how less tags, and less coyotes won't equal more deer? There were more deer in every place of Utah years ago if you don't recall, and around where I'm at habitat hasn't changed so darastically that they can't recover and become a bigger more healthy herd. As for the DWR numbers, I've fought with you numerous times on the fact that you think there accurate and I don't That you don't think the DWR has any agenda to money, and I do. Less predators, less tags, less mountain lions, and less roads will equal more deer.


I have an idea....don't read my posts if they tick you off............... :O•-:

Question for you, back in the 80's we had MORE deer and MORE deer hunters, today we have FEWER deer and FEWER deer hunters, so why do you think even FEWER hunters will result in MORE deer? -Ov-

If the DWR's main agenda is money, wouldn't having MORE deer mean more money......................?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Question for you, back in the 80's we had MORE deer and MORE deer hunters, today we have FEWER deer and FEWER deer hunters, so why do you think even FEWER hunters will result in MORE deer? -Ov-
> 
> If the DWR's main agenda is money, wouldn't having MORE deer mean more money......................?


ill be your huckleberry on this question.

It may not increase the deer herds any more then the increase of left over bucks after the season but you can only issue a ratio of tags per percentage of deer. so if your herd was huge in the 80's you could issue more tags. Now that the herd is at an all time low or at least the lowest ive seen in my lifetime I have to agree you have to cut tags.

It makes no sense to issue 1,000,000,000 tags and think that killing every doe and buck on the mountain is going to increase the deer herds all because the dwr needs money.

Its also a social aspect you have to address. Most people I know don't want to hunt units where all the huntable bucks that are left reside on private property or in Le units. So they are left to watch fence lines for any buck stupid enough to cross the boundary. Most the hunters I know don't want to hunt yearling bucks anymore then they want to hunt spike elk. :O•-:


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Question for you, back in the 80's we had MORE deer and MORE deer hunters, today we have FEWER deer and FEWER deer hunters, so why do you think even FEWER hunters will result in MORE deer? -Ov-
> ...


I agree that there is a huge social issue that we all have to come to grips with. Just like you, I have friends (hard to believe, but it is true) and all they are worried about is opportunity for there kids. These kids are pleased to see a 2 year old buck (we have seen plenty over the last few years) and even more excited to see a bigger buck. I like the new objectives with split units between 15:17 and 18 and up. Sure, I think some of the struggling units need a harder look due to low ratios. Overall I like the compromise that has been made with split ratios. Heck, we did lose over 5,000 permits last year.


----------



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

proutdoors said:


> I have an idea....don't read my posts if they tick you off............... Question for you, back in the 80's we had MORE deer and MORE deer hunters, today we have FEWER deer and FEWER deer hunters, so why do you think even FEWER hunters will result in MORE deer? If the DWR's main agenda is money, wouldn't having MORE deer mean more money......................?


Yes we did have more deer, but the fact that there were so many hunters taking so many deer every year is what led us to this point. Fewer hunters will for sure make more deer. How can you say, not shooting a deer dosen't equal more deer in your herd. And as for the money agenda thing, its much easier to not take tag cuts, and let there be more hunters than deer because your making a lot of money, knowing at least some will survive and most hunters are just wasting their money, and won't be successful. One of the biggest examples money is there agenda to me is the spike elk hunts. You give out 14,000+ tags for the state, do you really believe there are 14,000 spike elk in Utah? Or that wall to wall hunters is doing any of them any good? No but the DWR sure does cash in on tags at $45 a piece.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Yes we did have more deer, but the fact that there were so many hunters taking so many deer every year is what led us to this point. You make this assertion based on what? Are you saying the decline in mule deer in EVERY western state is due to hunters, and not habitat/weather conditions/increased roads/atv's/elk? Really? Fewer hunters will for sure make more deer. How can you say, not shooting a deer dosen't equal more deer in your herd. Because bucks do NOT give birth! I have one bull for every 20-30 cows here on my spread, if I want to increase the population, I keep/buy more cows/heifers....not a bunch of bulls! Again, if you want more bucks, grow more deer. Artificially propping up the number of bucks due to rationing of permits is nonsensical, at best. And as for the money agenda thing, its much easier to not take tag cuts, and let there be more hunters than deer because your making a lot of money, knowing at least some will survive and most hunters are just wasting their money, and won't be successful. Wouldn't make more sense to grow more deer? After all, if it is as easy as cutting tags for a few years and killing coyotes, one would think someone would have an example of this being successfully done.......  One of the biggest examples money is there agenda to me is the spike elk hunts. You give out 14,000+ tags for the state, do you really believe there are 14,000 spike elk in Utah? Or that wall to wall hunters is doing any of them any good? No but the DWR sure does cash in on tags at $45 a piece. The spike tags are NOT because of the DWR. They only give recommendations based on directives from the Wildlife Board. The DWR biologists don't come up with the harvest age objectives, nor the spike tag objectives. They simply manage to the directives and the Game Management Plans that are set in motion by the Wildlife Board. I have talked at length with the current and the previous Big Game Coordinators on this very issue. Have you?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I love this place... Just like a soap opera. S.S.D.D. 

#1 do a little research on the NEVADA FECUNDITY STUDY and let me know why carrying EXCESS BUCK DEER is healthy for overall herd health. You do understand we are harvesting EXCESS BUCKS right??


----------



## yak4fish (Nov 16, 2007)

Does everyone realize this is the first year of unit hunter management? I look at the Dutton proposed numbers and they seem about right and this is on a unit that the deer have been stuggling on the last couple of years. Is 700 deer tags to many for Dutton? I don't know, lets give this a few years to shake out and let the DWR adjust as needed. If they cut the Dutton tags to 200 is that better? It is for the 200 that draw but remember this is a general deer unit not a LE.
I really feel now is the time to join the two deer drawings into one. To allow hunters two first choices with the two drawings is not fair to the hunters that are happy on the general units.


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

How about SFW members show their true dedication to the mule deer cause. When all of you receive your deer permits this year, how about getting together at a bon fire and burning your permits before the season. That's right! Don't even use them! You do understand you have the choice of not killing a deer, right? Think about how many bucks will be walking on the ranges next year if you guys do that this year (assuming the weather cooperates)? How many SFW members are there? This could be the solution we've been seeking!

Something else to ponder, if you're hunting an area where you're not seeing many bucks, try going to another area. I know, it's complicated but it seems to work for me every time! But maybe that's why I'm not complaining?

You guys have managed to make a rock so big that you can no longer move it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

JHas said:


> Something else to ponder, if you're hunting an area where you're not seeing many bucks, try going to another area. I know, it's complicated but it seems to work for me every time! But maybe that's why I'm not complaining?


Don't be silly! It makes far more sense to have the Wildlife Board move hunters around. After all, they are able to predict where the bucks will be at any given time, on all 30 units.....didn't you know that? :O•-:


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

JHas said:


> Something else to ponder, if you're hunting an area where you're not seeing many bucks, try going to another area. I know, it's complicated but it seems to work for me every time! But maybe that's why I'm not complaining?


shhh!! dont tell people the secret! let them believe there are no deer left!! :O•-: looking in places other than the 'old honey hole' is a hard concept for people to grasp. thank goodness most of the utards are stuck in their ways and refuse to put in the required effort 

im sure deer numbers are down from what they use to be, but come on. ive never met anyone who actually put effort into getting off the roads and putting the time in who didnt have an opportunity to atleast see some good deer. ive said it all along. doesnt matter what unit you hunt. theres good bucks in all of them. you just have to find them. some are easier to locate than others. they arent behind every tree, even though some of you believe they should be :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Get this. The 20 to 40 cougar on Monroe kill anywhere from 1000 to 2000 deer in that unit per yr.


Hmmm...so far in the deer collar study adult doe survival rates are at about 87% (a very good survival rate). So, only 13% of your adult doe deer are not surviving and this includes all mortality causes. So, if the total number of deer on Monroe is around 5200 deer that means around 675 does/year are not surviving (again all mortality). IF bucks are surviving at the same rates as does, we are losing around 80 bucks per year to all mortality...(outside of hunting).

...sorry, but based on the evidence 1-I and Iron Bear, but a reduction of 500 hunters from last year will only help increase buck/doe ratios...!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I have been told by the DWR first hand that cause of mortality is not being determined in the doe collar studies. So why you keep referencing that is beyond me.


80 bucks per yr? Are you selling ocean front property in Utah also?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I have been told by the DWR first hand that cause of mortality is not being determined in the doe collar studies. So why you keep referencing that is beyond me.


BS! I have been given the numbers directly from the DWR and from Vance Mumford who is the one in charge of the study...cause of mortality is exactly the information they ARE looking for. You were NOT told that first hand by the DWR....!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

"Like sands through the hourglass"


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> So you tell me, what happens when we get an early snow storm and out of the 600 rifle hunters on the unit, 80% of them become successful


First of all, an 80% hunter success rate is totally unrealistic for any general season Utah deer hunt...most of the LE deer hunts don't even have success rates that high. But, just to appease the "What if" thought...

IF we had an 80% success rate all of a sudden, we would save 400 bucks this year from being killed by hunters because we reduced the number of hunters on Monroe by 500!


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> First of all, an 80% hunter success rate is totally unrealistic for any general season Utah deer hunt...most of the LE deer hunts don't even have success rates that high. But, just to appease the "What if" thought...IF we had an 80% success rate all of a sudden, we would save 400 bucks this year from being killed by hunters because we reduced the number of hunters on Monroe by 500!


Ummm it was about 5-6 years ago when a foot of snow fell on Cove Mountain, a couple days before the rifle hunt. That gave the deer enough time between the time it snowed and the hunt to move out of the high country, I work with someone who went up, and him and 6 of his friends all shot 4 point bucks coming off the hill in the same day. The deer were already on their winter range, or heading there, and now the area where they shot those bucks, has never been the same. It used to have fairly good bucks, but after that winter when it snowed the deer herd, and quality of bucks took a big hit. It can't take another.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I have said for years that one of the problems on the Monroe is that the deer come down into their winter range earlier than in most areas (to me, this is an indication of poor habitat)...because of this the bucks are more vulnerable to hunting. I personally believe that this is the big reason that the buck/doe ratio on the Monroe has been low...I don't disagree with you on that at all.

But, I also believe that by cutting the numbers of hunters on the Monroe down by 500, you are going to see a decrease in bucks killed. Even in those years when the bucks are really vulnerable--like you are talking about--cutting the numbers of hunters back will only help. I think you need to be more patient...give this new plan time to work itself out. If the buck/doe ratio remains low again next year, what do you think will happen? I can guarantee you that more tags will be cut...as for the deer herd as a whole, I think a couple things will happen: 1) habitat improvement projects will start bearing their fruit in the next 5-10 years and 2) coyote removals will start allowing more fawns to reach adulthood.

The truth is that there is no overnight fix...


----------



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

wyoming2utah said:


> I have said for years that one of the problems on the Monroe is that the deer come down into their winter range earlier than in most areas (to me, this is an indication of poor habitat)...because of this the bucks are more vulnerable to hunting. I personally believe that this is the big reason that the buck/doe ratio on the Monroe has been low...I don't disagree with you on that at all.
> 
> But, I also believe that by cutting the numbers of hunters on the Monroe down by 500, you are going to see a decrease in bucks killed. Even in those years when the bucks are really vulnerable--like you are talking about--cutting the numbers of hunters back will only help. I think you need to be more patient...give this new plan time to work itself out. If the buck/doe ratio remains low again next year, what do you think will happen? I can guarantee you that more tags will be cut...as for the deer herd as a whole, I think a couple things will happen: 1) habitat improvement projects will start bearing their fruit in the next 5-10 years and 2) coyote removals will start allowing more fawns to reach adulthood.
> 
> The truth is that there is no overnight fix...


Okay and I do agree, but I would have liked to see the tag numbers dropped to around 800 for the unit. (the cuts coming on the rifle hunt). Or at least put 400 rifle, 400 muzzleloader, and 200 archery. Either way you'll hear people whine. Whether it be because they can't hunt every other year, or there's nothing when they do. I think that in order to get a big enough and a quality enough number of bucks, your going to have to give up opportunity for qualiy. I do realize it will take time, but if your drastic for a couple years I feel the deer herd will bring there numbers up and then you can find a happy medium, from what you did and it dropped the hell out of deer numbers over the last decade, compared to cutting tags and doing everything to get rid of predators for a couple years, you will see a huge increase. The other question in my mind is, who does the DWR answer to, in order to prove they only put out the amount of tags that they say?


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> "Like sands through the hourglass"


I'm sure glad Season 1 is over, it's been going on since Dec. 2010.

Season 2(current) - "Bubba Strikes Back"

Season 3 - "Return of the Big Buck" - can't wait for that one to come out!

Sportsman's Alliance for Big Bucks....anyone? 
Meet at Goofy's, Iron Bear will bring the cougar steaks. 1st order of business: Operation take over UWN.
:mrgreen:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I have been told by the DWR first hand that cause of mortality is not being determined in the doe collar studies. So why you keep referencing that is beyond me.


I believe you when you say that but whomever told you that was either mistaken or misunderstood the conversation. The division (John Shivik) did a big presentation in the Central RAC meeting in February and collared deer mortality was a part of it. I haven't looked but it should be in the minutes. If not I'd be happy to share the powerpoint slides with you.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Since 2009, the Central region has added 1,000 tags, with many of it's units under the 15:100 buck to doe ratio. The DWR is proposing 3,000 more tags within the Central region units over last year. 2011 (13,000 tags) 2012 (16,000 tags) Most of these units inside of the old Central region are under the 15:100 target buck to doe ratios. I hope, no "beg" the WB and RAC to do the right thing and at least cut 20% off the proposed tag numbers on units 18, 19a, 19c, 17a and 16a. This would at least get the total back close to the 13,000 from last year.
Right now, I don't see much concern within the DWR to get the buck numbers up any time soon. It's more important to keep as many hunters in the field as possible, as long as there is a minimum number of bucks to do the breeding in the fall. VERY DISAPPOINTING!


----------



## JHas (Nov 21, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I hope, no "beg" the WB and RAC to do the right thing and at least cut 20% off the proposed tag numbers on units 18, 19a, 19c, 17a and 16a. This would at least get the total back close to the 13,000 from last year.


Did you apply for any of these areas in this years draw?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Since 2009, the Central region has added 1,000 tags, with many of it's units under the 15:100 buck to doe ratio. The DWR is proposing 3,000 more tags within the Central region units over last year. 2011 (13,000 tags) 2012 (16,000 tags) Most of these units inside of the old Central region are under the 15:100 target buck to doe ratios. I hope, no "beg" the WB and RAC to do the right thing and at least cut 20% off the proposed tag numbers on units 18, 19a, 19c, 17a and 16a. This would at least get the total back close to the 13,000 from last year.
> Right now, I don't see much concern within the DWR to get the buck numbers up any time soon. It's more important to keep as many hunters in the field as possible, as long as there is a minimum number of bucks to do the breeding in the fall. VERY DISAPPOINTING!


I see your point with 19a & 19c, but also take into account that the FtoD ratio has one of the higher 3 year averages. If 16a has another down year (in terms of BtoD) I think you will see this unit lose more tags next year. 18 appears to be doing much better over the last 2 years with an okay FtoD ratio so I wouldn't mess with this one that much. I'm a little confused on 17a as the FtoD ratio is high (74) and the BtoD ratio hovers between 19 and 20 over the last 3 years so I wouldn't cut tags in this unit.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Since 2009, the Central region has added 1,000 tags, with many of it's units under the 15:100 buck to doe ratio. The DWR is proposing 3,000 more tags within the Central region units over last year. 2011 (13,000 tags) 2012 (16,000 tags) Most of these units inside of the old Central region are under the 15:100 target buck to doe ratios. I hope, no "beg" the WB and RAC to do the right thing and at least cut 20% off the proposed tag numbers on units 18, 19a, 19c, 17a and 16a. This would at least get the total back close to the 13,000 from last year.


Edit******


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

I know that there have already been 11 pages of discussion, but I just want to urge all of you to take your input on these recommendations to the RAC meetings in April. If you have friends and family that hunt, please encourage them to go as well. Here's a page that summarizes the recommendations as well as the RAC locations, dates and times. If you aren't able to attend the meetings, please contact your RAC members directly.

Also, for those of you who are interested, the Utah Wildlife Board is holding a work session tomorrow at 1 p.m. to discuss some of the recommendations. Board members will not be taking action on any of the agenda items. The meeting is open to the public, but no public comment will be accepted. We are planning to broadcast the meeting, and I'll post a link here tomorrow as soon as the audio feed is live.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Amy said:


> I know that there have already been 11 pages of discussion, but I just want to urge all of you to take your input on these recommendations to the RAC meetings in April


So the Wildlife Board can ignore your comments, your ideas, and the recommendations from the UDWR biologists. Then they can kowtow to the mighty SFW, and do their bidding.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

It was the Wildlife Board who asked us to bring back a more flexible proposal this spring. You can listen to the board members' discussion and motion in the audio of the December 2011 board meeting. The segment where it was discussed runs about 11 minutes (from 18:30 to 29:35 in the audio feed).


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Is this the same Wildlife Board that was told to ignore option #2 by three of the five RACs, and to stay the course that was supposed to be allowed to run for 5 years, who then ignored the RACs and bowed to the mighty SFW and imposed option #2? Is that the Board? And they expect anyone to believe that they want any input?


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Is this the same Wildlife Board that was told to ignore option #2 by three of the five RACs, and to stay the course that was supposed to be allowed to run for 5 years, who then ignored the RACs and bowed to the mighty SFW and imposed option #2? Is that the Board? And they expect anyone to believe that they want any input?


Don't kill the messenger. Amy is just giving info trying to get people involved.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I didn't disparage Amy. I just find it hard to believe that anyone would bother to go to a RAC meeting if they know the track record of the Wildlife Board. They don't want opinions unless they are voiced by cattlemen, woolgrowers, or the SFW.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I didn't disparage Amy. I just find it hard to believe that anyone would bother to go to a RAC meeting if they know the track record of the Wildlife Board. They don't want opinions unless they are voiced by cattlemen, woolgrowers, or the SFW.


I agree with that!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Is this the same Wildlife Board that was told to ignore option #2 by three of the five RACs, and to stay the course that was supposed to be allowed to run for 5 years, who then ignored the RACs and bowed to the mighty SFW and imposed option #2? Is that the Board? And they expect anyone to believe that they want any input?


No, it is not the same Wildlife Board. Rick Woodward, Tom Hatch and Keele Johnson were replaced by John Bair, Calvin Crandall and Michael King, who happens to be an educated wildlife biologist. I suspect the old board would not even have considered these amended buck to doe ratios, let alone proposed them. Now, whether or not that means a big change, I'm not sure, but they don't seem to be so hard wired to SFW, cattlemen, or anyone else. And the RACS have also changed. In any case, it's for sure you won't be heard if you don't speak up, no matter what your view. Numbers, indeed, matter!


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

For those of you who want to have higher buck to doe ratios I say put in for Premium Limited Entry and let the general season people who just want to hunt, well, just let us hunt. Higher buck to doe ratios does nothing for the herd. It is purely a social issue. We have some pretty good PLE areas for those who just want to see bigger antlered deer.


----------



## flinger (Nov 19, 2007)

horsesma said:


> For those of you who want to have higher buck to doe ratios I say put in for Premium Limited Entry and let the general season people who just want to hunt, well, just let us hunt. Higher buck to doe ratios does nothing for the herd. It is purely a social issue. We have some pretty good PLE areas for those who just want to see bigger antlered deer.


Maybe those who want lower ratios should put their money and time where their mouth is and lobby like crazy to get the deer point pool combined or adjusted somehow where the opportunists are not taking *opportunity* away from those willing to wait and have higher ratios.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Here's the 2011 hunter afield numbers:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/pdf/hu ... d_2011.pdf
Right here in the document. It says they will reduce tags on low buck to doe units. 
Now check out the DWR recommended numbers: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... packet.pdf
Units 19a, 19c and 18 are not seeing a reduction in tags at all, even though they are lower than the objectives. 
What really scares me, is that the DWR is propossing to sell all undersubscribed archery tags as muzzleloader and rifle tags. Which will only add to over harvest on many of these units. Especially unit 18, jumping from 340 archery tags to 500. 
Nebo and Bullsnot please do the right thing and propose these three units be reduced by 20% from the current DWR proposal.

Thank, Ridge


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

+1 ridge


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Another thing. Do you guys think that a (hunter to available buck) ratio should be concidered in the formula used in determining tag numbers. I think it should be no lower than a 1:1 ratio but would like to see a 1(hunter) : 2(buck) ratio on the units that are having poor fawn survival ratings. This would be post hunt buck numbers. Leave this years fawns out of the equation. I'm guessing back in the 80s with over 200,000 hunters the ratio was around 1(hunter) per 3(bucks) but I'm only guessing. Any thoughts?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Thoughts?..
Nebo unit,, Recommendations for 2012..

10.500 estimated herd size..( this number is high IMHO ) ..

10 bucks to 100 does during this winters classification counts....

4,400 Recommended deer permits!!!

4+ hunters for EVERY BUCK on the unit!!

Ridiculous!!! :evil:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Goofy, I think many units have more hunter per available bucks and each year as the herd numbers continue to fall that ratio gets worse but some people seem to think that's ok. All the while the habitat the deer is using only gets smaller, so more hunters are condensed into certain areas. Most people hunt traditional areas and will not go anywhere else, no matter how bad the conditions are. Tags need to be cut in these areas, Period!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

The reason the division can get away over selling those tags is because most of the bucks that are left are on private property, golf courses, ect. The division can then say look we still have a 100% pregnancy rate so were not over harvesting the bucks it was a dry year and the bucks were nocturnal, it was a wet year and the deer were spread out ect. They can generate $$$ and the guys that don't have private property to hunt will just be going on a lager size snipe hunt. 

IMHO its all BS biology how things are run now. I actually feel sorry for the average rifle hunter in this state!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't give a rip what the hunter:buck ratio is! It is irrelevant. All that matters is that there are enough bucks to breed the does, and that is NOT 16+:100!! 

BS biology? Come on Scott, you need to break your MM habit and regain your senses!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The deer population being low is NOT because of the number of bucks running around, it is NOT because of the hunter:buck ratios, it is NOT because of 'BS biology'! FACT!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

It does suck going on a snip hunt for deer. It does suck driving around in your truck eating the dust from the 100 trucks in front of you going bumper to bumper all dressed in orange.

This is the main reason im not a rifle hunter in this state. It sucks! I personally believe there should only be about 15,000 rifle tags, 15,000 muzzy tags and 15,000 archery tags. 

Then at least some of the political issues of suck hunting would be being addressed.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> It does suck going on a snip hunt for deer. It does suck driving around in your truck eating the dust from the 100 trucks in front of you going bumper to bumper all dressed in orange.
> 
> This is the main reason im not a rifle hunter in this state. It sucks! I personally believe there should only be about 15,000 rifle tags, 15,000 muzzy tags and 15,000 archery tags.
> 
> Then at least some of the political issues of suck hunting would be being addressed.


I don't know where you have been hunting but in all my years of hunting I have never experienced what you have described on the rifle hunt. I guess that is one of the main reason we see and kill more mature bucks because we see very few hunters.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think the reason you see few hunters is because you have a handicap ticket that allows you a longer season to hunt when the rest of the state cant.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

No, that isn't the case either. My Dad and brothers don't see a lot of people either. The rifle hunt last year then my brother saw three other hunters, but they were along ways off. I haven't been in a wheelchair all my life either. I remember many times on the ML and rifle hunt we pretty much had the whole mountain to ourselves. Of course we hiked and got away from the crowds and we always hauled a few nice bucks out with our horses.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Goofy, I think many units have more hunter per available bucks and each year as the herd numbers continue to fall that ratio gets worse but some people seem to think that's ok. All the while the habitat the deer is using only gets smaller, so more hunters are condensed into certain areas. Most people hunt traditional areas and will not go anywhere else, no matter how bad the conditions are. Tags need to be cut in these areas, Period!


Agreed ,, 100%.

I understand there is some 'rallying' amongst 'average Joe' type guys
to gather at the RAC meeting and protest the recommended numbers..
Demanding tag cuts...................................I Hope this happens.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I think the reason you see few hunters is because you have a handicap ticket that allows you a longer season to hunt when the rest of the state cant.


Plus access to private,,,,,Then says how "great" the Utah general deer hunt is....
What a pile of BS...


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > It does suck going on a snip hunt for deer. It does suck driving around in your truck eating the dust from the 100 trucks in front of you going bumper to bumper all dressed in orange.
> ...


I have hunted the rifle hunt every year since I was 14 (except for two). I have to agree with coyote, I've never experienced things where they were that bad.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Plus access to private,,,,,Then says how "great" the Utah general deer hunt is....
> What a pile of BS...


I wish I knew of this private land that you speak of? :lol: :lol: :lol: Is it for sale?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> No, that isn't the case either. My Dad and brothers don't see a lot of people either. The rifle hunt last year then my brother saw three other hunters, but they were along ways off. I haven't been in a wheelchair all my life either. I remember many times on the ML and rifle hunt we pretty much had the whole mountain to ourselves. Of course we hiked and got away from the crowds and we always hauled a few nice bucks out with our horses.


by the way i'm not trying to make fun of your situation. I don't hold grudges about it either. Just putting that out there for what ever its worth.

I also don't have a problem finding some out of the way places to rifle hunt without seeing a the crowds but they are places that are very hard to get to. This means they suck for my kids, suck for my wife. So it also means if I choose to hunt with a rifle its not a family event or if I do choose to hunt I need to eat dust and expect to not see anything.

Ive been on three rifle hunts over the last three years with friends and they have been the worst hunts ive ever been on when it comes to deer. I cant express how lucky i feel to be able to hunt an area in this state every year that has a good buck to doe ratio and decent numbers. Then to be able to have about an 80% success rate over the last 10 years of hunting it. I am truly lucky and grateful for the opportunity i have been given. I am also saddened when i see it going the way the rest of the state has been run. Thus the reason im a vocal idiot on the net sometimes.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Some of you just want to always state biology facts but deer hunting in this state is very much a social issue and always should remain so. There needs to be a balance of both.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> > No, that isn't the case either. My Dad and brothers don't see a lot of people either. The rifle hunt last year then my brother saw three other hunters, but they were along ways off. I haven't been in a wheelchair all my life either. I remember many times on the ML and rifle hunt we pretty much had the whole mountain to ourselves. Of course we hiked and got away from the crowds and we always hauled a few nice bucks out with our horses.
> ...


It sounds like your friends need to scout new places to hunt. The same place my brother and Dad hunt then my brother's wife killed a 4x4 24 inch and his son killed a 26 inch buck and it's pretty nasty country.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> > Plus access to private,,,,,Then says how "great" the Utah general deer hunt is....
> > What a pile of BS...
> 
> 
> I wish I knew of this private land that you speak of? :lol: :lol: :lol: Is it for sale?


Sorry then,,I'll take that one back if it's NOT the case...

Thought you had access through some gates ,, Accessing FS ground above the private,
from a post a while back?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Some of you just want to always state biology facts but deer hunting in this state is very much a social issue and always should remain so. There needs to be a balance of both.


But we all need common sense. Social issues like hunting the same **** place and never scouting for new areas or road hunting and expecting to see mature bucks next to road doesn't hold much water.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Hunting for most of us is a year round passion. For most people it is a once a year thing. When you take those people and tell them they will not be hunting at all in any one given year you are going to lose them, and there children, and their children...... They are not the hard core, walk a hundred miles, scout things out before the season people. They throw everything in the truck/camper the day before the hunt and head out, but they are the ones who also pay and support hunting. When you lose these people you lose the future of hunting in general.

Some may say let them go, but the more hunters we lose, the more support we lose. Hunting is not always about seeing more bucks or bigger bucks. It is much more than that.
It is something that can bring families together. A kid growing up now is taken in by all the glitz, glamor, and technology. Hunting is a place where all ages can have something in common. We have hunting for LE and PLE in Utah. Do we need to have the whole state managed for LE or PLE? I say no. If you do want the whole state to be managed the way of LE and PLE you will be forcing people away from traditional family hunting and telling everyone that trophy hunting is the only thing that matters. Hunting is so much more than that.

Help keep traditional hunting alive. Not every unit needs to be managed for high buck to doe ratios. I may be selfish wanting to help others keep opportunity, but the true definition of selfish is taking away from others to seek or concentrate on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.

If it was truly about herd health then lets cut tags, but high buck to doe ratios has nothing to do with herd health.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks for the info Wy2Ut!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

horsesma said:


> Hunting for most of us is a year round passion. For most people it is a once a year thing. When you take those people and tell them they will not be hunting at all in any one given year you are going to lose them, and there children, and their children...... They are not the hard core, walk a hundred miles, scout things out before the season people. They throw everything in the truck/camper the day before the hunt and head out, but they are the ones who also pay and support hunting. When you lose these people you lose the future of hunting in general.


You got that right! Most of the not so hard core people are the ones B&Moaning the cant find deer or saying its just not fun. These same ones have their kids in football, basketball, or other sports and never seem to have time to scout. They are the ones eating dust on the roads, ect. There kids are going to fall away from hunting because its just not worth it to them. They rarely have success when it comes to hunting general areas.

To be brutally honest if you want to be a year in year out successful deer hunter on big bucks in Utah or even dink bucks you don't have time for all the crap mentioned above. You will have to be scouting year round. The hard core guy isn't the type of guy that you dont have to worry about going away from the sport because they are hooked for life! They will always go the extra mile and they are very successful.

This is why you do need more then a snipe hunt to keep the less successful guy wanting to hunt.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Back on topic..

How about the 1,900 cow elk permits on Manti?
800 on the North manti alone??

And Plateau antelope,, They've hardly increased buck permits at all yet,
BUT are recommending a 100 doe antelope permits this fall,, What gives?

And PS,, SW just nailed it..Spot on!


----------



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

swbuckmaster said:


> horsesma said:
> 
> 
> > Hunting for most of us is a year round passion. For most people it is a once a year thing. When you take those people and tell them they will not be hunting at all in any one given year you are going to lose them, and there children, and their children...... They are not the hard core, walk a hundred miles, scout things out before the season people. They throw everything in the truck/camper the day before the hunt and head out, but they are the ones who also pay and support hunting. When you lose these people you lose the future of hunting in general.
> ...


And your not going to loose them not having anything to hunt while they're hunting. Kids aren't going to want to keep hunting if you take them out and don't see a deer the entire hunt, its going to be boring to them and they aren't going to want to do it again. I shoot a buck every year I have a tag, I am a hard core hunter and I am still complaining of what I see. I'm in the field daily and I'm still complaining.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Hunting is so much more than just tagging out. Seeing your quarry and tagging out is just icing on the cake. Many times in my life I have been hunting where I had no luck or success and yet those are some of the more memorable hunts. Maybe even you guys can think of at least one memorable hunt or two where you didn't have success, but still had the hunt of a lifetime. 

Hunting success is not always measured by the number of animals you harvest or even see. The memories with family and friends in my opinion are much more fulfilling than harvesting an animal. That said, "An opportunity lost is just that. Lost."


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

goofy elk said:


> And Plateau antelope,, They've hardly increased buck permits at all yet,
> BUT are recommending a 100 doe antelope permits this fall,, What gives?


heres what i know. last july i spent 4 days on the plateau. i saw more bull elk than i saw total antelope, which isnt many. the does i saw, had about 1 fawn per 3 does. theres no way in h3ll that herd is to the point where some does need to be whacked :roll: ive said it before, this state couldnt manage a box of rocks properly... its sad to think these are the same people who are in charge of saving the muledeer herd. we're screwed -)O(-


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

shaun larsen said:


> heres what i know. last july i spent 4 days on the plateau. i saw more bull elk than i saw total antelope, which isnt many.


Funny....so, in 4 days you have a better idea of how many antelope there are than the DWR who flew the unit last year? Hmmm....now that's funny!


----------



## High Desert (Sep 25, 2007)

At a time of falling hunter recruitment and retention, adopting a management strategy that further curtails hunting participation and increases its cost would be short sighted and counterproductive. The single largest constituency for prudent wildlife management is the hunting community. Reducing tags to incrementally increase B ratio disserve this group and undermine its long term viability. 

Much of the proposed deer management change seems driven by selfish, short term interests. Reducing opportunity and raising ever more hurdles so the few remaining hunters who are willing to pay the price and navigate the system can see more and bigger bucks is absurd and shameful. My teenage sons and I now rely on Wyoming big game hunts because drawing Utah tags has become so difficult. If my sons didn’t have me to finance the cost of this and ensure applications were timely submitted, I don’t know if they would continue. Too many hurdles have already been created. They dissuade all but the most tenacious youth from continuing this important cultural heritage. The reality is that most of tomorrow’s avid hunters are the children of today’s casual hunters. If you knock them out the system, you severely limit the pool of future hunters. At some point, the hurdles are simply insurmountable. All the current proposals do is increase the hurdles.

You can’t keep a child hunting when he will only draw a permit every fourth year. You can’t get her to keep applying when the odds are so 
heavily stacked against her each year. The cost, complexity and hassle are too great. Does anyone really expect an 18 or 21 year old to think about applying in February for a permit he won't draw for several years and pay every year to do it? The cost, bureaucratic tangle and unpredictability are too great.

Why would we significantly reduce hunter numbers in order to increase buck/doe ratios by 3 bucks per 100 does. Given statistical variations and the small increase, will hunters even notice the difference? Does anyone really believe that today’s hunters who are dissatisfied now with 15/100 will suddenly be filled with glee hunting an area with 18/100? This group, jaded by magazine-fueled unrealistic expectations, will want ever more cuts because the 18 don’t include enough “170 bucks”, etc. 

I grew up hunting in the Stansbury Mountains when they were literally filled with hunters – you couldn’t find a campsite or ridge without a hunter in the 1970’s – but the herd was robust. For many years now, there have been very few hunters in same area (the campgrounds are nearly vacant) but the deer herd has not noticeably improved as far as I can tell. Obviously, reduced hunter numbers hasn’t made a bit of difference. There are other issues we need to focus on. 

Rather than pandering to a rarely satisfied cadre of trophy hunters that seems only interested in having a Boone & Crockett experience, I suggest the DWR (and policy boards) consider the future – the 14 year old for whom being in the woods, rifle in hand and seeing a forkhorn slipping through the trees will set his hair on end, his heart pounding and his soul towards a life of commitment to wildlife conservation and the continuation of a rich heritage. Don’t destroy their opportunity.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert said:


> At a time of falling hunter recruitment and retention, adopting a management strategy that further curtails hunting participation and increases its cost would be short sighted and counterproductive. The single largest constituency for prudent wildlife management is the hunting community. Reducing tags to incrementally increase B ratio disserve this group and undermine its long term viability.
> 
> Much of the proposed deer management change seems driven by selfish, short term interests. Reducing opportunity and raising ever more hurdles so the few remaining hunters who are willing to pay the price and navigate the system can see more and bigger bucks is absurd and shameful. My teenage sons and I now rely on Wyoming big game hunts because drawing Utah tags has become so difficult. If my sons didn't have me to finance the cost of this and ensure applications were timely submitted, I don't know if they would continue. Too many hurdles have already been created. They dissuade all but the most tenacious youth from continuing this important cultural heritage. The reality is that most of tomorrow's avid hunters are the children of today's casual hunters. If you knock them out the system, you severely limit the pool of future hunters. At some point, the hurdles are simply insurmountable. All the current proposals do is increase the hurdles.
> 
> ...


+100000 good post


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

High Desert said:


> At a time of falling hunter recruitment and retention, adopting a management strategy that further curtails hunting participation and increases its cost would be short sighted and counterproductive. The single largest constituency for prudent wildlife management is the hunting community. Reducing tags to incrementally increase B ratio disserve this group and undermine its long term viability.
> 
> Much of the proposed deer management change seems driven by selfish, short term interests. Reducing opportunity and raising ever more hurdles so the few remaining hunters who are willing to pay the price and navigate the system can see more and bigger bucks is absurd and shameful. My teenage sons and I now rely on Wyoming big game hunts because drawing Utah tags has become so difficult. If my sons didn't have me to finance the cost of this and ensure applications were timely submitted, I don't know if they would continue. Too many hurdles have already been created. They dissuade all but the most tenacious youth from continuing this important cultural heritage. The reality is that most of tomorrow's avid hunters are the children of today's casual hunters. If you knock them out the system, you severely limit the pool of future hunters. At some point, the hurdles are simply insurmountable. All the current proposals do is increase the hurdles.
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Especially the "*rarely satisfied* cadre of trophy hunters" part. It seems like it's never enough. I have a friend who drew a Sportmen's antelope tag a few years ago. He already had several good ones mounted on his walls, but he wanted something bigger. I'm not sure how much he spent scouting, but I know it amounted to about 30 days of going all over southern and central Utah. He finally found a guide whom he paid to show him a record book buck and he made his plans based on that buck. But when the hunt came around, the buck was nowhere to be seen and he ended up taking another big one that was bigger than anything he had. BUT, it wasn't the ONE and to this day he still talks about WASTING that tag. To me, it's a no win situation.

Basically, he's the reason I like to refer to myself as a part-time trophy hunter. My goal is to take a Pope and Young animal of as many species found in Utah as I can, but I need only ONE. I'm not likely going to live long enough to do it, but I certainly don't have the time, money, energy nor desire to try to top the two I already have. Oh, I'll certainly take another big one if he shows, but I'm just going for the food (and fun) on those two and I'll spend a little more time and money on the ones I don't have (currently deer and moose).


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

High Desert, probably the best post I have read on this forum. I am calling for you to be the unofficial spokesman for the average (yet majority) hunter.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

High Desert has written one of the best posts I have ever read concerning our current situation. Anyone, no matter the side of the fence they sit, should be able to comprehend and understand where he is coming from. There really is nothing to dispute, except the mindset- which neither side can change in an internet discussion. The harder we make the process, the more convoluted we make the process, the more people we turn away. 3 bonus/preference point systems for deer hunting, really? Do we need 3 point systems for deer hunting (General, DH, Ltd Entry)? 

The problem is so much bigger than bucks. So much bigger. Mule deer across the West continue to decline in all areas. So much more than bucks, so much more...... 

My post doesn't imply we should increase buck hunting, but that we shouldn't be trying to manage the herds simply for better antlers. Manage the deer for the deer and let hunters use what isn't needed to sustain and/or grow the herds.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> To be brutally honest if you want to be a year in year out successful deer hunter on big bucks in Utah or even dink bucks you don't have time for all the crap mentioned above. You will have to be scouting year round.


What?????

You're an accomplished deer hunter, but why would you want to give novice hunters the impression that all that scouting and exclusive dedication is required when in fact, it isn't even necessary?



High Desert said:


> Why would we significantly reduce hunter numbers in order to increase buck/doe ratios by 3 bucks per 100 does. Given statistical variations and the small increase, will hunters even notice the difference? Does anyone really believe that today's hunters who are dissatisfied now with 15/100 will suddenly be filled with glee hunting an area with 18/100? This group, jaded by magazine-fueled unrealistic expectations, will want ever more cuts because the 18 don't include enough "170 bucks", etc.


I remember listening to hunters moan about the poor hunting (and blame the DWR for it) when I was just a boy. That was in the 1960's. I'm guessing that a lot of hunters need to find a reason, any reason, to explain why they don't punch a tag on a given hunt rather than accept their own shortcomings. It couldn't possibly be dumb luck, either, because that would mean that when they shoot a trophy, that's just dumb luck, too.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Thoughts?..
> Nebo unit,, Recommendations for 2012..
> 
> 10.500 estimated herd size..( this number is high IMHO ) ..
> ...


Don't forget to factor the 13% that don't use their tag (Ridge this may explain part of the descrepancy between your hunters afield vs tag numbers that you mentioned) but this is a fair concern and I will ask how some of the calculations are done, with an open mind, and about the tags numbers set on these units with lower buck to doe ratios. I am confused by the numbers as well. Being a numbers guy...this is the stuff that gets my attention. Great call out Goofy and Ridge.

SW I am also concerned about the doe hunts on the Wasatch Extended (Salt Lake Unit).

I have said all along and I will stand by what I have said and that is if a unit is under the buck:doe ratio objective I will be on the side of tag cuts and caution.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Here is what I know about the Nebo (16a) so far:

2010 
Hunters Afield = 5531
Harvest = 1099
Success Rate = 19.9%

2011
Hunters Afield = 5538
When adding 13% for unused tags this would be like issuing 6357 tags for this unit.

2012 Recommendation
Tags = 4400 + Dedicated hunters. I'm guessing about 200-300 dedicated hunters. I will check that.

This seems to be a pretty big reduction going from 6357 to 4700 tag holders on the Nebo unit. By my math this is basically a 26% tag reduction from 2011 to 2012. What do you think of these numbers goofy? 

I know this doesn't address the buck to hunter ratio concern you had and I'm still digging that up.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks Bull! 

Maybe I haven't seen them or maybe they just haven't been posted yet but do you know when the 2011 deer count numbers will be coming out or where I can find them?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > To be brutally honest if you want to be a year in year out successful deer hunter on big bucks in Utah or even dink bucks you don't have time for all the crap mentioned above. You will have to be scouting year round.
> ...


I guess the point i was trying to say is the harder you work the luckier you get.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Thanks Bull!
> 
> Maybe I haven't seen them or maybe they just haven't been posted yet but do you know when the 2011 deer count numbers will be coming out or where I can find them?


Why do you care when they come out, or where they will be located. They're wrong anyway! This year, instead of using corn, they used peas. How credible is that??


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> ...Their success rates are very low. Meaning I cant remember if they have even taken a buck in the last 10 years. I have friends that have their kids in all sorts of activities, and guess what I cant say any of them or their kids have been successful in Utah with a general buck tag in hand.


dude.

Once again, you're equating the success of a hunt to whether or not someone kills a deer. You need to realize that many of us have extremely successful hunts without killing anything. To many of us, the OPPORTUNITY to get out and hunt is what makes a hunt successful.

further, there are many hunters that dust off the gun and spend a total of about 2 hours in the woods that kill nice deer. I'm sure that those people the spend more time preparing and scouting and videoing and naming and feeding deer all summer long may end up with higher kill-rates that those that don't -- but you cannot discount and leave out the "luck" factor. We all get lucky, and we all have bad luck. It happens. So does ****.

The more guys like you insist that success is measured by the number of points on a deer killed, the worse off the rest of us are.

(OK -- so, you modified your post -- good for you. maybe you're starting to open up a little..)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

PBH here is some words of advise from Benjamin Franklin, "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." It can apply to the area you hunt if you spend enough time in the hills.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

High Desert said:


> At a time of falling hunter recruitment and retention, adopting a management strategy that further curtails hunting participation and increases its cost would be short sighted and counterproductive. The single largest constituency for prudent wildlife management is the hunting community. Reducing tags to incrementally increase B ratio disserve this group and undermine its long term viability.
> 
> Much of the proposed deer management change seems driven by selfish, short term interests. Reducing opportunity and raising ever more hurdles so the few remaining hunters who are willing to pay the price and navigate the system can see more and bigger bucks is absurd and shameful. My teenage sons and I now rely on Wyoming big game hunts because drawing Utah tags has become so difficult. If my sons didn't have me to finance the cost of this and ensure applications were timely submitted, I don't know if they would continue. Too many hurdles have already been created. They dissuade all but the most tenacious youth from continuing this important cultural heritage. The reality is that most of tomorrow's avid hunters are the children of today's casual hunters. If you knock them out the system, you severely limit the pool of future hunters. At some point, the hurdles are simply insurmountable. All the current proposals do is increase the hurdles.
> 
> ...


Worthy of instant induction into the Hall of Fame! :_O=:


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> shaun larsen said:
> 
> 
> > heres what i know. last july i spent 4 days on the plateau. i saw more bull elk than i saw total antelope, which isnt many.
> ...


anyone with common sense that spends a little time on any unit in the state has a better idea of whats going on than the DWR does. i know the area (which is a big area) i saw was over run with goats from 2006-2009. 2010 and 2011 there was hardly an to speak of. cant help but believe the rest of the unit looks about the same...


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

shaun larsen said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="shaun larsen":stkqgaw3]heres what i know. last july i spent 4 days on the plateau. i saw more bull elk than i saw total antelope, which isnt many.
> ...


*anyone with common sense that spends a little time on any unit in the state has a better idea of whats going on than the DWR does*. i know the area (which is a big area) i saw was over run with goats from 2006-2009. 2010 and 2011 there was hardly an to speak of. cant help but believe the rest of the unit looks about the same...[/quote:stkqgaw3]

I won't say there aren't sportsmen out there that don't know units very well because there are. There may be some sportsmen out there that know some units as well as anybody.

But having spent time riding along with biologists on some of the units in the state I can say they spend A LOT of time in the field looking at these units year round and looking at more data on them most of us will ever understand. These guys are very smart, educated, and miss lots of family time to be able to do their job. To say they don't know what is going on is WAY OFF!!!

The Plateau thing has been hashed out over a 1000 times on this site but the simple truth is those goats got pounded by a bad winter (2009-2010). It has been used as an example of DWR blunders but going into that winter that herd was over objective and growing, going into the following spring they were all but wiped out. There is NOTHING anyone could've done to stop it. Plain and simple.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> Don't forget to factor the 13% that don't use their tag (Ridge this may explain part of the descrepancy between your hunters afield vs tag numbers that you mentioned) but this is a fair concern and I will ask how some of the calculations are done, with an open mind, and about the tags numbers set on these units with lower buck to doe ratios. I am confused by the numbers as well. Being a numbers guy...this is the stuff that gets my attention. Great call out Goofy and Ridge.
> 
> SW I am also concerned about the doe hunts on the Wasatch Extended (Salt Lake Unit).
> 
> I have said all along and I will stand by what I have said and that is if a unit is under the buck:doe ratio objective I will be on the side of tag cuts and caution.


Bull, thanks for having an open mind. I just would like some honest answers and some consistancy. Unit 18 should be in the 18-20 ratio group. The Oquirrhs are about 70% private and the the Stansburys are about 40% private and or Wilderness. Anis says they put it into the group of 15-17 ratios because of public input at the open houses. Really? I was there and don't recall an overwelming push for this on unit 18 specifically. A lot of UWC members were there saying they liked the 15-17 ratio in general. Big difference. 
I ask to rethink unit 18 to be in the 18-20 ratio group and again cap the permits this year at 2,000 until buck numbers are increased. 
I have never said the Stansburys are lacking deer. In fact there are a lot of does on the Stansbury Front. Many of them are dry does.(from Biologist) I see a lot of does without fawns. Once again, my concern is that the Stansbury Front is being over hunted. I would guess the buck/doe ratio could be as low as 5:100 or less along the front. I really wished the Oqiurrhs and Stansburys could be two seperate units, with highway 36 being the boundry but that's another discussion. Some can call me a selfish trophy hunter if they want. So be it. Fact is, I just would like to see a reasonable amount of bucks when out hiking along the Stansbury Front. Right now the buck numbers are very low along the front range of the Stansburys. By the way, I do not hunt this area of the unit and work very hard to find where some groups of bucks do hang out.
Also, if a youth looses interest in hunting, I put the blame on the parent or the fact the kid may just not like hunting. There are so many different animals and birds to hunt each fall besides deer. I just don't get that excuse.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Why are some of the elk units that are not below age objectives loosing tags?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Why are some of the elk units that are not below age objectives loosing tags?


Because they are near objective. Expect this to be the trend for the coming years. When they upped the age objectives 2 years ago, this was something that wasn't easily viewed by the average person. I think we will likely see a 300 or so tag reduction in the next few years.

Many units were well over age objective and even after they raised the objective, there were several that were still over a year in surplus. So, the division raises harvest on these units to bring them closer to the average harvest age target. When that target is near, they have to cut tags to maintain the average age. Maintenance = less tags.


----------



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

High Desert said:


> Rather than pandering to a rarely satisfied cadre of trophy hunters that seems only interested in having a Boone & Crockett experience, I suggest the DWR (and policy boards) consider the future - the 14 year old for whom being in the woods, rifle in hand and seeing a forkhorn slipping through the trees will set his hair on end, his heart pounding and his soul towards a life of commitment to wildlife conservation and the continuation of a rich heritage. Don't destroy their opportunity.


Well written High Desert. You expressed my feelings on the subject perfectly.


----------



## shaun larsen (Aug 5, 2011)

bullsnot said:


> The Plateau thing has been hashed out over a 1000 times on this site but the simple truth is those goats got pounded by a bad winter (2009-2010). It has been used as an example of DWR blunders but going into that winter that herd was over objective and growing, going into the following spring they were all but wiped out. There is NOTHING anyone could've done to stop it. Plain and simple.


then if they KNOW for a fact how a unit is doing, why did they go ahead and propose a certain number of doe tags and issue that amount of doe tags for the 2010 season, only to shut down the hunt a month before it started because of extremely low goat numbers? seems like if they knew how things were looking, someone should have realized a little earlier that the herd was in poor condition and not proposed a doe hunt, let alone issue tags...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There are other units, in other (RAC) regions with similar issues like Ridge,SW & I have
pointed out. I've sent E-mails to the board and RAC's on concerns there too.....

Thanks Bull for addressing these issues in the Central region areas...

I believe John Bair will support (general deer) tag cuts as well........GO GET THEM!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> 4+ hunters for EVERY BUCK on the unit!!
> 
> Ridiculous!!! :evil:


[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how do you think this would change if a 3-point or better season were initiated? Ironic that you are so worried about this ratio...


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> There are other units, in other (RAC) regions with similar issues like Ridge,SW & I have
> pointed out. I've sent E-mails to the board and RAC's on concerns there too.....
> 
> Thanks Bull for addressing these issues in the Central region areas...
> ...


John Bair never saw a tag cut he didn't like.

I'll call my shot... Someone will want to cut alot of tags (say 40%) John will say now lets be reasonable a 20% should do fine.

You can fill in any percentage and the results will be the same.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

John Bair is Goofy Elk? Must be...

There's always a place for compromise between emotions and reality.

Perfect scenario = nobody gets exactly what they want, but everybody gets something.

No way in Hell that the DWR recommendations will pass. But because of their work, the Board will pass something that's a lot more favorable than the statewide 18-25 that's currently in place.

I'm also paying attention to the single voice calling for re-examination of statewide objectives in a unit management model.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

shaun larsen said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="shaun larsen":2vclm1es]heres what i know. last july i spent 4 days on the plateau. i saw more bull elk than i saw total antelope, which isnt many.
> ...


anyone with common sense that spends a little time on any unit in the state has a better idea of whats going on than the DWR does. i know the area (which is a big area) i saw was over run with goats from 2006-2009. 2010 and 2011 there was hardly an to speak of. cant help but believe the rest of the unit looks about the same...[/quote:2vclm1es]

Per Teresa at the Southern region office, this last Thursday, March 29th, Jim Lamb and the DWR Monroe/Plateau biologist and another person (I can't remember the name or position, but he wasn't DWR.) made a sighted count of the pronghorn on the unit and physically COUNTED 1,200+ pronghorn. And since they have an established 70% sightability model, they projected that there are a little over 1,700 of the critters there. That's 200+ animals above the objective of 1,500. Thus the credibility of the proposed 100 doe tags! (If they had done it the week before, it should have been 200.) Her response to this debate on the unit with the pronghorn was that pronghorn respond to harsh winters by moving into the trees and they rebound quickly from winterkill. They'll make another count this summer if they have to.

"Only half of what you see"!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I have been saying all along that the doom and gloom pronghorn crowd on the Parker are up in the night...my experience has been that there are still lots of goats. Just not as many as a few years ago when the unit was way over objective...people also forget that this unit is the most productive unit in the state and has been having goats removed and transplanted from the unit--in addition to hunter harvest--for years.

Also, the unit from 2006-2009 was about 1000 animals over objective...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ...people also forget that this unit is the most productive unit in the state and has been having goats removed and transplanted from the unit--in addition to hunter harvest--for years.


State? hell. This herd is one of the most productive herds in the WEST! Which is why so many are transplanted to other areas, and other states!

Also -- keep in mind that the DWR is MANDATED to keep those herds at or under objective. If their counts show the herd is over objective, by law, they have to reduce it. It's the same thing with the Fish Lake elk herd. Hunters get all upset and mad when these herds are reduced, to comply with objectives -- if you really want larger herds, then these objectives need to be changed. How do you do that? You fight the cattlemen and ranchers.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Why are some of the elk units that are not below age objectives loosing tags?
> ...


This is what really frustrates me about the propossed deer numbers on some units under the buck ratios. They (DWR) are propossing more tags than last year on these struggling units, even with a longer season now. It makes no sense. I would like to see some constistancy.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Ridgetop,

These units weren't around last year so how are they propossing more tags than last year?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Ridgetop,
> 
> These units weren't around last year so how are they propossing more tags than last year?


They have estimates from the phone surveys. Better to play on the safe side I think, than keep over hunting a unit and lower the buck numbers even more.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Longfeather said:
> 
> 
> > Ridgetop,
> ...


I see where your going.

This is part of the problem with these smaller sized units, a unit that maybe had good buck to doe ratio's, but struggiing deer populations, is going to get more pressure then if we had stayed with larger regions.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Longfeather said:
> ...


Not the SW Desert unit.


----------

