# 2011 deer herd status, objectives/estimates



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here are the deer units with the objective herd size and the
DWRs 2010 post computer model estimates.........
This will give everyone one a look at what objectives are set at versus
deer numbers that should have been on each unit during the 2011 season.

I'm curious to hear what hunters think about the estimated deer herd size
on the unit/or units, they hunted on this year.....
In your opinions, is the estimated herd size on the unit you hunted this
year more than? less than? or about right to what is being estimated? 

2011 DEER HERD STATUS Updated 4/5/2011

Box Elder , objective 20,000 - post 2010 estimated herd size 17,100
Cache , objective 25,000 - post 2010 estimated herd size 16,500 
Ogden , objective 11,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 9,150
Morgan, So. Rich , objective 12,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 9,900 
East Canyon , objective 7,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 9,100 
Chalk Creek , objective 10,500 -post 2010 estimated herd size 8,500 
Kamas , objective 8,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 5,950 
North Slope, objective 6,200 -post 2010 estimated herd size 6,200 
S. Slope, Yellowstone, objective 13,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 10,000 
S. Slope, Vernal/Diamond ,objective 13,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 12,000 
Book Cliffs ,objective 15,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 7,000 
Nine Mile , objective 8,500 -post 2010 estimated herd size 4,600 
La Sal, objective 18,100 -post 2010 estimated herd size 6,600 
San Juan , objective 20,500 -post 2010 estimated herd size 12,900 
Henry Mountains ,objective 2,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 1,200 
Central Mtns., Manti , objective 38,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 19,900 
Central Mtns., Nebo , objective 22,600 -post 2010 estimated herd size 11,800 
Wasatch Mtns, D Fork, Heber, Timp ,objective 20,600 -post 2010 estimated herd size 18,000 
Wasatch Mtns, Currant Cr. ,objective 15,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 10,000 
Wasatch Mtns,Avintaquin ,objective 3,200 -post 2010 estimated herd size 1,700 
Wasatch Mtns, Salt Lake ,objective 2,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 1,800 
Oquirrh/Stansbury ,objective 10,600 -post 2010 estimated herd size 8,700 
West Desert , objective 11,200 -post 2010 estimated herd size 8,800 
Southwest Desert ,objective 3,200 -post 2010 estimated herd size 1,400 
Fillmore , objective 12,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 9,000 
Beaver ,objective 11,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 10,900 
Monroe ,objective 7,500 -post 2010 estimated herd size 4,800 
Mt. Dutton objective 2,700 -post 2010 estimated herd size 1,800 
Plateau ,objective 25,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 12,500 
Kaiparowits ,objective 1,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 400 
Paunsaugunt ,objective 5,200 -post 2010 estimated herd size 4,900 
Panguitch Lake ,objective 8,500 -post 2010 estimated herd size 8,100 
Zion ,objective 9,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 9,900 
Pine Valley , objective 12,800 -post 2010 estimated herd size 12,600 
STATEWIDE TOTALS ,objective 411,900 , post 2010 estimated herd size 293,700


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

-25% overall statewide from these numbers IMO and just a guesstimate.

It'll be really interesting to see how tag numbers shake out.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

Nice post Goofy. Did you lump the Boulder and Fish Lake units into Plateau? Do you have those individual numbers?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tom, These are the herd estimates that were presented by the DWR when permit
numbers were determined last spring, April/May 2011.

I DONT have the breakdown for Plateau,,It's a BIG area. 
Fish lake, Boulder, Griffin top, Escalante, Thousand lakes, and Parker all part of
the Plateau estimate....................................

I even think the 25K objective could be higher for this massive size area!
12,500 deer spread across all that country equals very few deer indeed!

And an other side note, Packout may know for sure, BUT if I understand these numbers
correctly, They are adult deer ONLY, fawns are excluded.


----------



## kailey29us (May 26, 2011)

IMO the estimate for beaver is way off, they are way high.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I wouldn't even know where to begin. I see a lot of deer in my areas, but there is no way to know how many are there for sure. I guess I don't have any reason to not beleive the DWR's numbers so I'll leave the estimates to the professionals.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Id say they are all BS numbers.

one example
Cache , objective 25,000 - post 2010 estimated herd size 16,500 
Book Cliffs ,objective 15,000 -post 2010 estimated herd size 7,000

Dont know about you but when I go to the bookcliffs there are probably 7,000 deer and you see loads of them all over the place. the division says the cache has more deer then the bookcliffs? I don't think so but that's my opinion. 

I see other areas that look too high as well. In some of those areas you will see 10 times the elk as you do deer but the elk herd estimates are smaller then the deer estimates go figure.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

I have no way of verifying these numbers without knowing the method used to obtain them, and then testing the numbers to the method. 

Depending on where you looked on the Morgan, S Rich, you could easily come to the conclusion that the numbers are too low, or too high. observation is just that, observation. Estimates are the quantification of observations. If someone knows the method used, we could test it.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

drove 450+ miles in two days in the west desert looking for deer this weekend. I doubt there are 8,800 deer in that area either. I also personally saw more coyote and lion tracks then deer tracks. So with 8,800 deer you would think you would at least see a 1000 deer in that many miles or at least a few hundred deer.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> In my humble un-scientific opinion, I would tend to agree that Utah mule deer population is much lower than DWR modeling programs and surveys suggest. Let us just for one moment assume that their statically modeling estimates are close on elk? The DWR estimates Utah's current elk population at around 65,000 elk, give or take 5k. If we assume this as a valid number, and use a little common sense to the equation, then we should be able to extrapolate deer numbers based on elk sightings to give a closer representation of modeling estimates on deer. It has been my experience that for in most of Utah both deer and elk cohabitate much of the state. Now hold on to your cookies for a moment here&#8230;.I know that some of you will say this is like comparing apples to oranges, but I do believe there is a correlation between elk and deer numbers.
> 
> Over the past five or so years, and I hunt and scout in both high alpine and desert regions of the state, I would say that on average I am see about 15 elk to every one deer. In 2009 I would say that I have seen about 25 elk per every one deer sighting. Okay now follow my reasoning here: 1 deer times 65,000/ 15 = an estimate of 4333.3 deer in ratio to the elk estimates at 65k. Now let's just say that I was missing four more deer in my ratio which would push this number to 13,000 deer and then we use a factor of error of say 12. 12 times 13000 equal 156,000 deer in the state of Utah. Based on my un-scientific observations using a large margin of error and then multiplying my data by 12 times, I come up with a total deer population estimate for the state of Utah of approximately 160,000 animals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

bigbr said:


> bigbr said:
> 
> 
> > Elk need twice the forage as a deer to survive and oh yes, elk are primarily grassers and deer are browsers, however they are both competing for the same forage base and this becomes even more apparent on winter range habituate. In my deer model I conclude that elk have a direct correlation to deer numbers and extrapolate based on my common sense and direct observation. I am seeing far more elk on a daily basis in Utah then I am deer and I use this observation to hypothesize my conclusion. I only use observations to support my theories and then ask questions about how and why my observations are any less accurate than our state wildlife agencies conclusions. I am willing to admit that I am wrong, but so far I have not read any sound peer review which would discredit my conclusion. Others in this thread have made similar observations as mine.
> ...


I can get down with this. I can't help but think that higher elk numbers effect deer. But, is it because range is trending towards being more conducive to elk herd growth or simply because elk harvest is suppressed in relation to deer harvest on a lot of our mountain ranges?


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Wow I spent an awful lot of time on the Cache this year. I'm positive that in over 40 days spent on the hill I saw a total of less than 1000 deer. I know I'm not a pro or an educated biologist but 16,500 seems really high. 

It would be interesting to see if you could really count deer on some of these units what amount of money the DWR would be will to bet on their number being correct give or take 10%????

Prepare for the worst, don't hope for the best!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

The Cache is big unit....from I-15 east to the Wyoming border, and from Brigham and Woodruff north to the Idaho line. Think about some of the places it includes; the Wellsville mountains, the Clarkstons, Logan and Blacksmith Fork canyons, the Mount Naomi Wilderness Area, Monte Cristo, the east side of Bear lake, and the Crawford mountains. You can drop 16,500 deer onto the unit and still have a lot of empty space in between.

Big as it is though, winter range is extremely limited. Compared to some of the other areas in the state, an accurate population census is relatively easy because the deer are so concentrated during the winter months. So I trust the DWR's population estimates for the unit.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

Interesting numbers. It seems to me that nearly all the Limited Entry unit areas are well below their objectives, more so than general units. 
Perhaps it's ironic where management is for "mature bucks" that the numbers are low (some units almost -50%)... perhaps it's a sign of things to come statewide under the new management program.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I'll be honest...I don't have a ton of faith in the numbers just because it is impossible in today's world to accurately count free ranging mule deer. But then again we don't have an accurate baseline. Whether you quote mule deer numbers today, 50 years ago, or anything in between the number is speculation. The key though is what trends can you identify from the numbers. I do very much believe our population models accurately tell us what population numbers are doing when looked at over a period of several years.

That's why tag numbers are driven from success rates and buck:doe ratios. If your buck:doe ratio and success rates are climbing then you can issue more tags, if they are falling then you reduce tags. It's simple and it works.

Derek you nailed it right on the head with your observations about LE units. It has been proven that higher buck to doe ratios does NOT improve mule deer productivitiy. The only thing left is to wait for folks to pull thier heads out of the sand and start focusing on other ways to grow more deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Kevin D said:


> The Cache is big unit....from I-15 east to the Wyoming border, and from Brigham and Woodruff north to the Idaho line.


I don't spend a ton of time in this unit but I have done the drive between Tremonton and the Idaho border (on my way to Malad) more times than I can count, including last saturday and in the winter there an an absolute pile of deer on the sides of the highway in the winter, especially when the snow hits hard. They have to come from somewhere. Granted this is on the western edge of the unit.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I can get down with this. I can't help but think that higher elk numbers effect deer. But, is it because range is trending towards being more conducive to elk herd growth or simply because elk harvest is suppressed in relation to deer harvest on a lot of our mountain ranges?


It appears to me to be a change in forage/habitat rather than suppressed hunting of elk. With unlimited archery elk tags, the option of either sex during the archery season, the large number of cow hunts/tags, the additional antlerless elk opportunity during all seasons and spike tags on the LE elk units, it doesn't seem like there is much suppression of hunting them.

But with the older growth forage due to natural wildfire suppression, along with the cheatgrass invasion and pinyon and juniper encroachment among other things, the available forage doesn't have the quality/nutrients in sufficient quantity the deer need to sustain their higher metabolism. Elk eat more, but it doesn't have to be of such high quality. That's why we can feed them hay at Hardware Ranch all winter long and they do just fine, but the deer don't do so well. It all seems to come down to good ol' (meaning new) habitat!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I do not think anyone knows the exact number of deer (maybe not even within 10%), but I do believe that there is a general feel for the overall trends of the herd- fawning ratios, buck to doe ratios, increases/decreases.

I think KevinD made a great post. Sure there could be 16,000+ deer on the Cache unit, but the great majority of us want more. Here is the little I know of the Cache from last year-- Last winter I counted over 700 head in 1 hour, on a 7 mile stretch of road (note- kids and a wife get really frustrated when they are wanting to go ice fishing and dad is stopping every 100 feet to look at mule deer). Earlier that Fall, on the other side of the unit, my friends did thier ranch count and came up with just shy of 400. So in two rather small places, I know of around 1,100 of that 16,000 total. Are there 16 more places within the Cache that have similar numbers?

As for the Nebo, well if there are 10,000 deer then I look at it this way. We had around 100 head on us this past Nov. 100 head in one little sliver of the unit. Are there 100 more herds of 100 deer on the Nebo? I saw over 100 the other day around the South Nephi exit. Then over 100 on the North side of the North Nebo exit. So there are 3 different herds of 100. Are there 97 more herds of 100 across the whole unit? I do not know, but I'd wager there are quiet a few more herds than the 3 I have seen.

So I guess after all that typing I will say I do not know if the numbers are correct or not. I can believe some of those numbers are in the ball park. I put more wieght on the ratio numbers than any herd numbers. No matter what, I'd like to see more deer on 90% of the places I go to, but who wouldn't--? Distribution of deer might be the biggest issue.....


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lol, you guys are right. Im probably just being negative. Funny thing is I literally spend 2 or 3 days a week on that unit and I rarely see a person. But I guess a pile of along the freeway says it all. Maybe all the WY deer on the Crawford and the Idaho deer on the North end may push the number that high??? 

Covering this mess up will not being back our deer!!!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Muley73 said:


> Lol, you guys are right. Im probably just being negative. Funny thing is I literally spend 2 or 3 days a week on that unit and I rarely see a person. But I guess a pile of along the freeway says it all. Maybe all the WY deer on the Crawford and the Idaho deer on the North end may push the number that high???
> 
> Covering this mess up will not being back our deer!!!


Do you ever post anything positive? :lol:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

derekp1999 said:


> Interesting numbers. It seems to me that nearly all the Limited Entry unit areas are well below their objectives, more so than general units.
> Perhaps it's ironic where management is for "mature bucks" that the numbers are low (some units almost -50%)... perhaps it's a sign of things to come statewide under the new management program.


I think the reason the deer numbers are low on the le units is because. The division is forced to actually do accurate surveys, age testing, ect. When the quality or deer numbers decrease they are forced to cut. So with more accurate data the division gets better deer counts.

On the general units they don't care about age or size. Most general units are on life support. Proof being 3 day hunts, low 10/100 buck/doe ratios. Ever decreasing deer numbers. They don't have as accurate data as they do on le units so I personally believe the numbers are over inflated on the general areas.

I do not believe any of the general deer areas are at carrying capacity so increasing the buck numbers wont hurt the deer numbers in a negative way like some on this forum will preach.

Until Utah gets away from 63% rifle tags 20% muzzy tags and 17% archery tags there will be more tag cuts coming! You simply can't issue the most successful weapons the most tags and still have quality with opportunity.

33%,33%,33% is a compromise where you can issue more tags or at least not cut as many tags. If the quality or deer numbers decreases. Its easy to just cut tags evenly across the board!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Judd, you know Muley can never take any positives from anyone but those with whom he fully agrees. Come on Muley, you could have at least went with the CWMUs harboring a large percentage of the deer. At least then you could have been correct...... Thus the distribution problem.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I think the reason the deer numbers are low on the le units is because. The division is forced to actually do accurate surveys, age testing, ect. When the quality or deer numbers decrease they are forced to cut. So with more accurate data the division gets better deer counts.
> 
> On the general units they don't care about age or size. Most general units are on life support. Proof being 3 day hunts, low 10/100 buck/doe ratios. Ever decreasing deer numbers. The don't have as accurate data as the le units so I personally believe the numbers are over inflated.
> 
> I do not believe any of the general deer areas are at carding capacity so increasing the buck numbers wont hurt the deer numbers like some on this forum will preach.


Interesting thoughts SW. I can see your point, but even a 10/100 buck to doe ratio can still adequately breed those 100 does. I also think giving out less rifle tags and increasing lower success rates tags would be a good option (CROSSBOWS to help those displaced rifle hunters) to appease quality and opportunity. However, my definition of quality and opportunity will always be different than the next guy. Quality in my opinion is being out during the hunt with a tag in hand.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

On a side note I spent another 7 hours, and a half a tank of fuel on the front. Looked at immigration canyon, mill creek, parleys, neffs and the point. 

Never seen the deer/ doe numbers this low in my 10 plus years of hunting the front. Never seen the buck numbers this low or the quality this bad either. 

Im going out for three or four more days looking. Maybe ill turn up something worth videoing. Last year at this time I had close to an hour and a half of footage and close to a hundred 4 point bucks. Several gagger bucks being big enough some of you would give your left nut for.

This year I can count on one hand the number of four points worth an arrow and only one gagger buck.
Pretty sad! 

Wish it weren't so but even the front is getting to much pressure imho. Im going to predict nothing will be done to save it from over loving it until its to late. Being a depredation unit and all is no excuse to turn it into alpine slaughter and years of rebuilding. 



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Interesting thoughts SW. I can see your point, but even a 10/100 buck to doe ratio can still adequately breed those 100 does.


I know that 10 mature bucks could breed those does but im on the fence about 10 yearling bucks doing the breeding. In those low buck to doe areas the does mostly get bred later in december. I seen it today. This has two negative affect. It means instead of the does dropping the fawns around the same time it spreads the little ones out longer and it gives the coyotes the edge of catching them. It also means one month later and the fawn goes into the winter with less weight. This can make for higher then normal fawn winter mortality.

I also enjoy being out with a tag but I don't want to hunt a 3 day tag with 90,000 orange hunters looking over yearling bucks. I also don't want to hunt a deer heard on life support. I want a healthy growing herd!

The hardest part of this whole thing is knowing my kids are going to be able to hunt like I was able to when I wad growing up.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I know that 10 mature bucks could breed those does but im on the fence about 10 yearling bucks doing the breeding. In those low buck to doe areas the does mostly get bred later in december. I seen it today. This has two negative affect. It means instead of the does dropping the fawns around the same time it spreads the little ones out longer and it gives the coyotes the edge of catching them. It also means one month later and the fawn goes into the winter with less weight. This can make for higher then normal fawn winter mortality.
> 
> I also enjoy being out with a tag but I don't want to hunt a 3 day tag with 90,000 orange hunters looking over yearling bucks. I also don't want to hunt a deer heard on life support. I want a healthy growing herd!


We are on the same page in terms of the buck/doe and a "mature" buck doing it better. But just think, that little buck will be that much better next year. I've also seen a "mature" buck sit and watch a yearling breed a doe.

Cutting buck tags indirectly can change the doe/fawn population but in my opinion won't change the overall population that much. Eliminating doe tags on a unit where the herd is under the population is mandatory in my mind and directly changes the "important" population numbers. However, *at what point will we ever believe the population numbers?* What does the DWR have to do in order for you to believe them (this goes out to anyone who currently doesn't believe them)?

In my opinion the trend is what is important right now as getting an acutal population count is never going to happen (unless we can convince the does to give birth to the fawns with collars already on them  ).

We are not on the same page about "Quality" as I predicted in my earlier post. I can always move farther away to get away from the pumpkin herd. I can control that and being too crowded has never been a problem in my mind. And if I'm only finding yearlings it sounds like I need to do a better job at finding a mature buck. And after you have done everything in your power to be successful and still come up empty handed that 3/5/9/90 day hunt was quality in my opinion. Therein lies the problem, "quality" and "opportunity" carry different definitions to each person (not to mention our personal experiences are just that and in no way can be classified as scientific data or fact - I'm not even sure they can be qualified as a hypothesis _(O)_ )



swbuckmaster said:


> The hardest part of this whole thing is knowing my kids are going to be able to hunt like I was able to when I wad growing up.


+1


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Your kids will be able to hunt like you did. It will be just once every 3 to 5 years instead!


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

Guys I'm actually a pretty positive guy. But when it comes to the UT deer herds there is not a lot of positive. I'm nothing more than the voice of opposition on this site. I'm ok with that though it keeps me entertained.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

You guys keep bringing up some of the LEs as an example. These LE are limited for a reason. If they were to become general units, there would be a good chance they would fall below the 10:100 ratio within 5 years. 
One unit that really stands out to me is the Zion unit. My inlaws have a ranch on the Zion unit and you should have seen my father in laws mouth drop open when I told him the DWR says the unit is over objective. 10 years ago, you could see hundreds of deer on the drive up to Kolob res. Now you may only see 5 or 6. I've talked to the guys that own land on Smiths Mesa (winter range) and they are seeing very few deer in the winter. I have friends that hunt East Zion and they are only seeing about 1/2 the deer that they used to out that way too. So how are they coming up with these numbers?
Maybe the plots they do their counting on are in traditional wintering areas and the remaining deer are still using these areas as their 1st and only choice to winter on and the DWR are asuming there are more deer elsewhere , when there really is not. Somethings not right. 
Also, if you guys that are good at math, add up the deer totals compared to the buck to doe ratio, compared to the succuss rate, compared to the doe to fawn ratio. They just don't add up.


----------



## fin little (Aug 26, 2010)

Ridgetop I agree with your opinion on the Zion unit. It would be interesting to know how they calculate these units that mix on the winter range . Alot of the wintering deer on the east Zion are Paunsaugunt deer. This must skew the numbers on both units. It would really make buck to doe counts less than accurate on the Zion. They must account for this . Right? The population estamates show the Zion population twice as high as the Pauns. I wonder. They must consider the mix. Right?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

fin little said:


> Ridgetop I agree with your opinion on the Zion unit. It would be interesting to know how they calculate these units that mix on the winter range . Alot of the wintering deer on the east Zion are Paunsaugunt deer. This must skew the numbers on both units. It would really make buck to doe counts less than accurate on the Zion. They must account for this . Right? The population estamates show the Zion population twice as high as the Pauns. I wonder. They must consider the mix. Right?


And some of them may also be coming from the Panguitch Lake unit. All they have to do is cross SR 14 and drop off the cliffs to the south. And since the deer don't know they are supposed to be born, live, breed and die in the same unit, it gets much harder to classify them with any accuracy.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

The more and more I read/investigate into "Population Estimates" I see they are really only there to appease the public/us and no matter how correct/incorrect they are, we will always complain.

However, I still would like to hear thoughts on my question from before:



JuddCT said:


> *at what point will we ever believe the population numbers?* What does the DWR have to do in order for you to believe them (this goes out to anyone who currently doesn't believe them)?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> The more and more I read/investigate into "Population Estimates" I see they are really only there to appease the public/us and no matter how correct/incorrect they are, we will always complain.
> 
> However, I still would like to hear thoughts on my question from before:
> 
> ...


When a guy can go out on a unit the division says has thousands of deer and actually see deer. I don't care what the numbers are that's irrelevant. Just don't want to spend hundreds of dollars in fuel and see a few does. I don't want to go on a three day rifle hunt driving around in the truck with my kids eating the dust from the truck in front of me who is eating the dust from the truck in front if him, ect ect looking for a buck in a deer herd that contains a 10/100 ratio.

I don't care what the numbers are if the deer are trending up wards. I don't want to see this numbers are good one year so let them have a 5 day hunt. Then the next year allow them to have a three day hunt cause they shot the bucks out. These are all clues that there are two many tags issued in those areas.

Id like to see all general areas with a mandatory check in. You don't ever get to hunt again if you don't check in tagged or not. I also want to see a 10 day rifle hunt. This however means you can't issue the amount of rifle tags as they do. Rifle tags need to be cut if you want any sort of quality. Its just like our elk. You can't issue thousands of rifle tags and expect to see quality! You could get rid of the spike hunt and issue more archery tags or even make archery over the counter. Example is Idaho. This could be the same for deer.

Ill compromise with 33%,33%,33% but I want to hunt trending up deer numbers with hard evidence.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

As many has stated, it is impossible to count every deer, so when I see these numbers, I don't get hung up on the numbers them self. What is important is the trends, this we know are accurate. Now for my comment regarding the people who spent "lots" of time in a unit, means nothing to me. I lived in Logan for 6 years and hunted up there quite a bit. There is literally 1000's of acres of forest that is thick as all get out miles away from roads. I could walk one of those canyons and have animals all around me and not know they are there. We can only count, what we see and I am of the opinion we only see a very small percentage of what is out there.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> You guys keep bringing up some of the LEs as an example. These LE are limited for a reason. If they were to become general units, there would be a good chance they would fall below the 10:100 ratio within 5 years.


Ridge you gotta help me on this one....you lost me.

Most LE units went LE because the buck to doe ratios were low and they wanted to bring them back up. Once the buck to doe ratios recovered they just kept it going and never restored tags. You could, not suggesting we should, manage those units as general units and the 15-18:100 buck to doe ratios without a problem. I can't see any logical reason why you couldn't.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> Most LE units went LE because the buck to doe ratios were low and they wanted to bring them back up. Once the buck to doe ratios recovered they just kept it going and never restored tags.


Yes, they went to LE to help the herds recover. No, they are still LE's because the units never recovered. *They are all under quota.*

Managing hunters has NOT brought them back up to the population targets. Its proof right there managing hunters is not addressing the root cause. Its putting a bandage on your arm while ignoring the blood squirting out of an artery.

All of the time, effort and lost revenue spent on this option 2 crap, is just going to put us that much further behind as the root causes are still in effect.

-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> I think the reason the deer numbers are low on the le units is because. The division is forced to actually do accurate surveys, age testing, ect. When the quality or deer numbers decrease they are forced to cut. So with more accurate data the division gets better deer counts.
> 
> On the general units they don't care about age or size. Most general units are on life support. Proof being 3 day hunts, low 10/100 buck/doe ratios. Ever decreasing deer numbers. They don't have as accurate data as they do on le units so I personally believe the numbers are over inflated on the general areas.


Look...some of the things you are concerned about are valid IMHO like perhaps that state of the Wasatch Salt Lake unit. I am personally waiting for the numbers to come in and have been having discussions with the division on the issue. We will keep you updated.

As far as what you wrote above though I can tell you is just plain not true. Yes on LE units buck harvest is tracked much closer and the age of bucks is tracked much closer but these numbers have VERY little to do with population models. The population models are maily driven by fawn:doe ratios, buck:doe ratios, mortality in adult does, mortality in fawns, and other factors. I have tagged along on the classification trips and I can tell that the classification is exactly the same.

The buck:doe ratio classification process is exactly the same on general and LE units. On general and LE units mature bucks are counted as well. The only difference is that biologists will look at inches on a LE units to get a feel for what direction the trophy quality in the buck portion of the herd is going but that has nothing to do with population models.

When the biologists do a fawn:doe ratio classification on LE units it is EXACTLY the same process on general units and that is probably the single biggest driver of the population model. This includes the amount of deer sampled and time spent in the field. The adult doe mortality is measured by deer with collars and they are on gneral and LE units throuhout the state and is another major population model driver.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

DallanC said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Most LE units went LE because the buck to doe ratios were low and they wanted to bring them back up. Once the buck to doe ratios recovered they just kept it going and never restored tags.
> ...


Dallan my comment was specific to buck:doe ratios, not population objectives.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Just don't want to spend hundreds of dollars in fuel and see a few does. I don't want to go on a three day rifle hunt driving around in the truck with my kids eating the dust from the truck in front of me who is eating the dust from the truck in front if him, ect ect looking for a buck in a deer herd that contains a 10/100 ratio.


Maybe the guy needs to switch areas in the future if it is really 10/100. Isn't that exactly what the 30 new units is going to force many to do?



swbuckmaster said:


> Id like to see all general areas with a mandatory check in.


I'm fine with this and think it would be a good idea. Make the hunter check his deer at one of the check stations or region offices to cut down on additional costs.



swbuckmaster said:


> You can't issue thousands of rifle tags and expect to see quality! You could get rid of the spike hunt and issue more archery tags or even make archery over the counter. Example is Idaho. This could be the same for deer.


We really need to stop using the word quality as it means something different to everyone. I'm a little confused on how getting rid of the spike elk hunt (rifle) really changes anything when it comes to archery deer tags being over the counter?



swbuckmaster said:


> I'll compromise with 33%,33%,33% but I want to hunt trending up deer numbers with hard evidence.


I'm okay with changing the current allotment of weapon types, but I think you would either need to include Crossbows into the Archery weapon type or create its own weapon type and give the lost Any Weapon tags as a Crossbow tag (since success rates are so close to archery anyways). This way it makes it easier for those rifle guys/gals to deal with lost rifle opportunity.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> Dallan my comment was specific to buck:doe ratios, not population objectives.


Ah ok. The Books though were to be kept LE until it reached a population objective, not a buck/doe ratio. I dont have references to the original intent of some of the other LE units... but I'm pretty sure on the Book Cliffs.

-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Lots of folks have issues with the spike hunts. The truth is on some units there are as many bulls as there are cows and many of these bulls are dying of old age. How would stopping the spike hunts really help us? If we have even more bulls what effect do you guys think that will have on cows and future herd production. I'll give you a hint.....the chart will look like a huge roller coaster.

SW is right...lots of rifle tags are not conducive to good trophy "quality" animals, well sort of. This is based on the buck:doe ratio targets simply put. If you managed a unit with archery only and 15:100 you still wouldn't have the quality you'd want. Well assuming you put enough archers in the unit to get the job done. If you want better quality if you have to manage at 30 or higher. This is a purely social issue, not a biological one.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

DallanC said:


> bullsnot said:
> 
> 
> > Dallan my comment was specific to buck:doe ratios, not population objectives.
> ...


Gotcha....it just seems silly doesn't it?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > The more and more I read/investigate into "Population Estimates" I see they are really only there to appease the public/us and no matter how correct/incorrect they are, we will always complain.
> ...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I am not sure what the objective of the DOW was in the Book Cliffs but I do know one thing. Back in the 70's and 80's when it was 4pt then 3pt or better there were deer all over the place. Then they opened it up to any buck. That first year of any buck there were more hunters than deer, every 4 wheeler had small 2 and 3pt deer sitting on them. This went on for a few years then it got hard to find a decent buck and you didn't see the does and fawn that you used to see before. Then they closed it down. I remember the last year of the general hunt down there and I ran into some Fish and Game cops and asked them what was going on with the deer herd. The first thing out of their mouths was the drought. This was right after I had hiked out of a canyon that had water running all over the place and the grass was 3' high. They didn't have a clue of what was going on, and I still don't think they do.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Critter said:


> I remember the last year of the general hunt down there and I ran into some Fish and Game cops and asked them what was going on with the deer herd. The first thing out of their mouths was the drought. This was right after I had hiked out of a canyon that had water running all over the place and the grass was 3' high. They didn't have a clue of what was going on, and I still don't think they do.


Which brings us back to JuddCT's questions;
*At what point will we ever believe the population numbers?*
and.
What does the DWR have to do in order for you to believe them?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> > I remember the last year of the general hunt down there and I ran into some Fish and Game cops and asked them what was going on with the deer herd. The first thing out of their mouths was the drought. This was right after I had hiked out of a canyon that had water running all over the place and the grass was 3' high. They didn't have a clue of what was going on, and I still don't think they do.
> ...


I'm just going to answer it the way I see it.

*No matter what population counts say some will believe and some will not based upon their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES!*

It isn't a big deal as long as we can come to some understanding on the the other ratios that are really more important that will establish the real trends.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > Which brings us back to JuddCT's questions;
> ...


Your answer tells it all!!!

However, you are more optimistic than I am regarding the coming to an understanding on the other ratios. This thread and others are full of posts by people who don't believe any or most or some of the DWR's other ratios, figures, counts, classifications, recommendations or solutions depending on their personal experiences or what they have heard from others and I don't expect much of a change. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

It's not that I don't believe their numbers but I just don't understand how they come up with them. I'll use the Zion Unit again. Are they talking about the herd objective relating to what winter range is available or about actual deer numbers that are available during hunting season? There's no question that most people are seeing less deer and bucks than they did 10 years ago but the herd objectives and counts have not changed all that much.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Deer checking stations all over the state are showing downward trends in
buck harvest during the rifle hunts for two years in a row now..
This is one of the reasons for me these numbers don't hold much accuracy.

A couple of examples.
The Cache unit has shown an upward trend in herd estimates for 3 years.
13,700 in 2008, 15,050 in 2009, and estimated 16,500 post season 2010..
Yet the Logan deer checking station numbers were down in 2010, many blamed
it on the weather.....But then this year fell to a record low number of buck checked!

I saw the same thing happen at the Spanish fork canyon checking station,,
I hearing the trend there was good for mature bucks, even higher than normal.
BUT a fall off big time on yearling bucks....which normally would be about 70%+
of the harvest.................There again , most surrounding units showing increases
in total deer herd size,,,,The Manti was the only one that had a slight decrease...

I haven't seen the numbers yet, but I hear the southern and southeastern checking
stations were below normal as-well.........................All of them, 2 years in a row now.

Yet the estimated herd numbers are not reflecting drops in herd size that would
explain the overall drop in hunter success.,,,At least at the checking stations.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am amazed, amazed at how many 'experts' there are who admit they have NO IDEA how population estimates are ESTIMATED! It is SCIENCE, and it DOES work. We can debate until the cows come home on whether they are 100% accurate on ESTIMATES, but what has been proven to be askew is managing deer herds for higher buck:doe ratios does NOT result in higher deer populations. We can look right here at the LE and Premium LE units, we can look at our neighboring states, and....gasp.....we can listen to PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGISTS to see that this does NOT work! As has been mentioned by others, numerous times, the LE units are under POPULATION objectives, despite having buck:doe ratios than what Option 2 is calling for. How can anyone using common sense and reason think that higher buck:doe ratios is an effective way to increase deer herd populations? 

As for people believing the DWR counts at some point; I don't see it ever happening. Call me a cynic, but I have listened/heard/read far too many claims to think its even remotely possible. I hear people tell me all the time the deer herd on the Manti unit are way down, and yet I have more deer on my land than ever. One of my cousins was complaining at a Christmas gathering how there are "no fawns" this year. This same cousin was with me when we helped the DWR push 300+ deer off my land, and heard the DWR say the fawn population was VERY encouraging........


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Pro, your a cynic! :mrgreen: 

P.S., PM sent your way.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Obviously I didn't make the parallel with elk vs deer well or some of you are purposely twisting my words. So here it is again.

There are two many bulls on the le elk units. Bulls need to be killed. Issuing rifle tags to get the job done will kill the top bulls off the unit. Unless you restrict or limit them and allow for spikes to be taken. Now in Idaho they don't have spike bull hunts. The still restrict rifles because the will shoot the quality out. The issue over the counter archery permits on le elk units. So if you don't draw a rifle tag you can still hunt.

Apply this to our general deer and you will have a quality rifle hunt with a mixed age class of bucks. If you don't draw a rifle tag you can still hunt.

I don't know how to explain it another way!

To me having a tag in hand and still having the opportunity to be able to hunt a big buck is a good thing even if I have to use a gay bow. Being a guy that uses a bow I know full well you rarley are successful at taking the best buck off the hill. You end up taking a mix bag of age class bucks. So quality still exists. Opportunity to hunt exist. 

Kapeesh?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Now in Idaho they don't have spike bull hunts. The still restrict rifles because the will shoot the quality out. The issue over the counter archery permits on le elk units. So if you don't draw a rifle tag you can still hunt.


There are spike elk hunts in Idaho.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Tree
Well then if there are spike bull hunts in Idaho im sorry for quoting bs info. I was told there weren't. Care to comment on the rest of my statements? How about switch Idaho with Arizona. Either way its more opportunity for a mature elk then Utah has. It could also work for deer!

For the rest of you guys
Its probably just a pipe dream of mine to see more primitive weapons used to still allow more opportunity to hunt in Utah as a last ditch effort from loss of opportunity, kind of like the immigration canyon ordeal.

I guess I can clearly see the writing on the wall that loads more tag cuts are coming and warranted. When sfw says there are no deer and says the new units will look like the bookcliffs believe me that is what they will look like. 

When all you hear from hunters is how bad the deer hunt sucks and has sucked for the last 10 plus years something has to change. Guess what its going to be your opportunity that changes!

So until some of you guys come to this realization you won't be accomplishing anything with quoting the dwrs bs numbers and saying bucks wont help or grow deer. You will loose more opportunity with this argument because it is turning guys like me away. 

I know over the last few days I sound like one of these lazy, pessimistic, road hunting,trophy hunting inch deer hunters but this is so far from the truth if any of you truly know me. 

Im done for the night. Got to get up early. Going to spend some time in the bookcliffs tomorrow evaluating the deer herd out there. 



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Tree
> Well then if there are spike bull hunts in Idaho im sorry for quoting bs info. I was told there weren't. Care to comment on the rest of my statements? How about switch Idaho with Arizona. Either way its more opportunity for a mature elk then Utah has. It could also work for deer!
> 
> For the rest of you guys
> ...


I've typically been a proponent for more primitive weapons, especially when opportunity is scarce because of limited resource(s). I like how Idaho does their elk seasons. Utah is very unfriendly when it comes to archery, but at the same time I can see why a lot of folks think that bowhunters are constantly asking for things.

Part of the problem we face with changing any of our LE policies is that we've created a monster by what we have done for the past 20 or so years. High point holders with entitlement issues, thirty thousand dollar elk tags that incentivize limiting opportunity and industry that revolves around it all.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

For those that question the DWR's deer numbers, what would be the incentive of an individual area biologist to misrepresent the numbers on his deer population surveys?? Area biologists are detached from the revenue side of the DWR and most have little interest in accounting, that's why they are biologists and not CPA's. So what would be their reason fabricate??

I too am a bit of a cynic. A lot of us sportsman have come to think that it is the responsibility of the DWR to see that each of us kill a deer every year. We view the deer hunt like it is another government entitlement program, that it is the job of the DWR to see that we fill our tags......and they'll be hell to pay if we don't. And even if we are so fortunate as to punch a tag, we *bitch* because the deer wasn't as big as we hoped.

I dunno, but I grow tired of the entitlement mentality that a lot of us seem to have.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> I guess I can clearly see the writing on the wall that loads more tag cuts are coming and warranted. When sfw says there are no deer and says the new units will look like the bookcliffs believe me that is what they will look like.
> 
> So until some of you guys come to this realization you won't be accomplishing anything with quoting the dwrs bs numbers and saying bucks wont help or grow deer. You will loose more opportunity with this argument because it is turning guys like me away.


So who's numbers should we be quoting? And which "biologist's" studies are saying more bucks (higher buck to doe ratios) will help or grow deer? Apparently, you put a lot of faith in SFW's numbers and predictions, and you believe that loads more cuts are warranted, so is that who now has all the answers?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not sure we can compare elk herd dynamics to deer herd dynamics. Another thread suggested that with deer, fawn mortality is like 50% ?? Is elk calf mortality the same? I don't know the answer - just asking the question. If it is different, then the population growth dynamics would certainly be different. 

And it seems too that elk are less susceptible to winter kill than deer. Is that true? If it is, then elk herd numbers would be more stable than deer herds. 

Just thinking out loud here. But it seems that comparing the dynamics of elk vs. deer really doesn't make sense. 

Great thread though. I'm learning and enjoying the discussion.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> There are too many bulls on the le elk units. Bulls need to be killed. Issuing rifle tags to get the job done will kill the top bulls off the unit. Unless you restrict or limit them and allow for spikes to be taken. Now in Idaho they don't have spike bull hunts. The still restrict rifles because the will shoot the quality out. The issue over the counter archery permits on le elk units. So if you don't draw a rifle tag you can still hunt.
> 
> Apply this to our general deer and you will have a quality rifle hunt with a mixed age class of bucks. If you don't draw a rifle tag you can still hunt.
> 
> ...


Well elk and deer are different animals...pun intended. Having said that you have switched from discussing biology to trophy management. I think brainstorming ways to change things up that people will generally accept is a very worthy discussion. I'm not convinced we are doing it the best way we could be from a social aspect.

As long as we all understand this type of change will not help us grow more deer I think it's a great conversation to have. There are certainly things we could look at doing to make people more satisfied with thier hunts.

The BIGGEST challenge we have though is reducing rifle tags in favor of increasing tags for other weapon types. People don't like that idea AT ALL even if you tell them it will increase trophy quality. Can anyone else weigh in?

I very much do believe that archery is the key to increasing or maintaining opportunity while increasing trophy quality, but if people want to continue to hunt with a rifle by and large this change will not happen.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

ridgetop said:


> There's no question that most people are seeing less deer and bucks than they did 10 years ago but the herd objectives and counts have not changed all that much.


This is a very interesting point. I think it's one that deserves further explanation/exploration. Goofy is right too that less deer are hitting the check stations.

This is only a theory but in our tree cam, scout your guts out age are we driving deer/bucks to be more reclusive and weary of humans? Are deer getting harder to hunt in general in response to pressure? Are deer learning to live on private grounds?

It seems like 15 years ago many hunters didn't scout near as much as they do now. It's been very interesting to watch deer in a particular canyon in the central unit year after year. You'll see large bucks in velvet on the side of the road in June but come the archery hunts they disappear and they don't come back until the following summer. I still haven't figured out where they go. You look at Matt's videos and he has to take a stick with him to beat the bucks off of him and he's hitting places where many hunters just don't go.

It seems come winter time (Wasatch Salt Lake excluded SW) the deer come out of the woodwork. I hear this over and over again and why many biologists will say they aren't too concerned. They see the deer after the hunts are over in large numbers.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Kevin hit on something that I would whole-heartily agree with. And that is the sense of entitlement in Utah. I've never seen a state where people have a greater sense of entitlement than in Utah. And I've lived in 7 different states. It permeates everything, from the great education but paying no taxes, to wanting deer around every corner to shoot from the hood of the truck. I've never lived anyplace that expects more of everything, for less investment, than in Utah.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I agree with you Bullsnot. I have seen deer change their behavior over the years and some of what I have seen leaves me scratching my head. a few years back we noticed that many deer would just stay in their bed even after we were 10 to 20 yards away. It wasn't until we made eye contact that they would bolt out with their head low and like a bat out of hell. this year in the unit I hunt I saw more deer than I have ever seen there. They were mostly does with twin fawns and small yearlings but they were there. Indication that bucks are around to breed the does.

I think deer are evolving to cope with hunting pressure. Becoming better at evading humans during the hunt and we as hunters are getting lazier as well. It’s a combination of many factors. Considering the loss of habitat, human encroachment, migration route cutoffs, heavy winters, etc. I think that if deer numbers are close to what the DWR estimates we are in great shape. I would have expected a larger decline. I know many will cry out and say the numbers are wrong and that they don’t believe or trust the DWR. However, just because you don’t see 1000 deer where they used to hang out 15 to 20 years ago doesn’t indicate less deer just lees deer there. As you pointed out… Matt seems to have no issue finding more than he can shake a stick at.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

This thought just popped into my mind and could be entirely off base:

Do archers really want that many more tags? In the future will the archery hunt be referred to the Realtree Camo Patch Hunt (Pumpkin Patch Rilfe Hunt)? We already hear about how archers get messed up by some other guy, are we really okay with adding that many more archers to the GS archery hunt?

I'd be okay with it but would all archers?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Bottom line, the deer just don't have the habitat tat they had in the 50's and 60's. It's difficult to quantify carrying capacity or even objectives because we can't accurately identify range conditions in relation to carrying capacity, no one can. We can do sample analysis in small areas and define forbes and browse that are suitable for deer and plug it in to a speculative formula, but we can't count every plant on the range. It's great to have goals/objectives, but what are they based on and are those numbers really.....uuummm.....real?

it amazes me that people spout of about "suitable habitat" and "plenty of winter range, but no deer" when most don't even know what they are looking at or are looking from afar. Age of plants, plant diversity, species, when and where the specific plants grow, stage of growth, how the canopy effect the under-story, how fire suppression and irresponsible grazing has contributed to plant structure and continues to effect the aforementioned items.

A host of other factors all contribute to creating suitable habitat for deer. Simply looking at the winter range and seeing sagebrush everywhere doesn't mean squat for deer. Same goes for summer range. It is so much more complex than most realize. If a doe goes into winter low on essential nutrients, minerals and fat reserves, which isn't always visible, it effects fetus growth, her own health and the eventual health of the mother and new born fawn. All of these things contribute to higher predation, winter mortality and susceptibility to disease and can be directly traced back to habitat. 

Most of the problems and answers won't be found on the surface.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Kevin hit on something that I would whole-heartily agree with. And that is the sense of entitlement in Utah. I've never seen a state where people have a greater sense of entitlement than in Utah. And I've lived in 7 different states. It permeates everything, from the great education but paying no taxes, to wanting deer around every corner to shoot from the hood of the truck. I've never lived anyplace that expects more of everything, for less investment, than in Utah.


Funny.... I have the same issue in the business world. Many people call me for my consulting services and then turn around and tell me they can get a BYU student to do it for 20% of my quote. They want everything for next to nothing. It does seem to permeate everywhere. Typical story..... Hunters cross paths on a mountain road and one asks the other.

Billy Joe: "Seen any deer?"

Jim Bob: "Nope been driving this road for hours now and noth'n."

Billy Joe: "I hear ya! There just aint no deer out here no more."

Jim Bob: "Yer right. I'm gona go try this other road I know about."

Billy Joe: "Well...good luck"

*Cracks me up.*


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

JuddCT said:


> I'd be okay with it but would all archers?


Honestly I can't help but wonder the same thing. Archery is a great way to get more people out while killing less deer....but there will be more people out on archery hunts. It works well on the Wasatch but I believe that's because of the terrain and keeps all but the most hardcore guys off the mountain for the most part. In areas easier to access crowding will be an issue.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I'm not sure we can compare elk herd dynamics to deer herd dynamics. Another thread suggested that with deer, fawn mortality is like 50% ?? Is elk calf mortality the same? I don't know the answer - just asking the question. If it is different, then the population growth dynamics would certainly be different.
> 
> And it seems too that elk are less susceptible to winter kill than deer. Is that true? If it is, then elk herd numbers would be more stable than deer herds.


From discussions with biologists you are right on Gary. Elk survive very well in Utah, they are very winter hardy and calf mortality is lower than fawn mortality. They are simply a more robust animal and changes in range conditions favor elk more and more. Add to it that they aren't really preyed upon by much other than humans in Utah.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

As long as the changes are primarily being made socially (emotionally), it's a Catch 22! Let's face it, more people want to hunt with rifles because it's easier, less challenging, more traditional, and more universal, than want to hunt with archery or muzzy equipment. And few hunters hunt for biological reasons, ie; to help out the herds.

As a result, we now have 30 general deer hunting units with limited tags, unit by unit archery tags, a higher buck to doe ratio, 13,000 fewer tags with reduced revenue. And none of those tactics will do anything to increase the deer herds, and, in fact, will hinder any increases.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> I think deer are evolving to cope with hunting pressure. Becoming better at evading humans during the hunt and we as hunters are getting lazier as well.


If deer evolved that fast, I think they would have already evolved to recognize moving automobiles as an extreme danger. Just my opinion, but I think it would take several thousand generations of hunting pressure to produce noticeable genetic changes of that sort in deer.

I'd be more inclined to think the changes that both you and I have noticed are due more to the learned behavior patterns that are imprinted on fawns and yearlings, then passed along to subsequent generations. In other words, young deer see other members of the herd regarding hunters as dangerous, so they incorporate that learning into their own behavior patterns and, subsequently, pass them along to the next generation through the same means that they learned it themselves. Through this process, it would only take a few generations to produce noticeable changes in herd behaviors.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

HunterGeek said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> > I think deer are evolving to cope with hunting pressure.
> ...


Too often we mistake adaptation for evolution. I believe 100% that deer _adapt_ to changes in hunting methods over time. HunterGeek describes adaptation almost to the definition.

Since the DWR already requires mandatory reporting for LE hunts, would it really be too much work to institute mandatory reporting for the general hunts as well? Heck, it's all done online anyway. Could you imagine the data that would be generated in just one year? I'd happily take 3-5 minutes to go online & fill something like that out. If they wanted to know an estimate of how many deer I saw total, how many bucks total, how many miles I hiked, granola bars I ate, leaks on trees that I took, I'd tell them that, too... if it would help.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

derekp1999 said:


> HunterGeek said:
> 
> 
> > MadHunter said:
> ...


I think the problem arises with how accurate that information can be. I'll tell a story to explain:

One year I shot a very respectable 4x4 buck as a youth hunter down near LaSal. As we were taking it to the checking station my uncles made me promise not to tell the DWR where it had been shot or that we had seen more bucks over there as it was "our honey hole".

With the 30 new units and tag allotments per unit, don't you think hunters are going to hold their information a little tighter or even purposefully give misleading information hoping it drives hunters away? Just a thought.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be okay with it but would all archers?
> ...


Of course it won't be okay with ALL archers, but the majority of us/them would have no problem with it. Remember the "overcrowding" during the archery hunt issue of a couple of years ago? It wasn't initiated or primarily pushed by the archers.

Additionally, there isn't likely to be much hunter crossover from rifle to archery. It's just too much of a hassle to most rifle hunters. There are some here who have recommended a 33%/33%/33% (archery/muzzy/rifle) split, but I doubt you'd get that many archery or muzzy hunters to move out of the rifle crowd.

Also, more private land is available to spread out archery hunters because most landowners view bowhunting as less invasive, disturbing, destructive and/or dangerous than rifle hunting.

You could double the number of current archery deer tags (from 16,000 to 32,000) and each hunter would still have about 1.45 square miles (930 acres) of public deer habitat to him/herself, while rifle hunters now have about .64 square miles (410 acres). Of course, hunters would never spread out equally, even on these new units, and some places will be more crowded than others, but anyone wanting solitude would be able to find it.

In any case, I don't think archers would see this as much of a problem, I know I wouldn't.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> I think the problem arises with how accurate that information can be....
> 
> ...don't you think hunters are going to hold their information a little tighter or even purposefully give misleading information hoping it drives hunters away?


I've heard the DWR express the same sorts of concerns. There are just enough reasons for hunters to be less than honest, objective, accurate or thorough in their reporting to make the data collected that way a little suspect. Really though, the existing methods for coming up with the statistics might be even more subject to inaccuracies. It might not be bad to collect more hunter-obtained information - if only to use as a check, of sorts, against their current data gathering methods.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

JuddCT said:


> I think the problem arises with how accurate that information can be.


The information that I give to my friends is different than what I've told the DWR when I've filled out the surveys... not that I'm "misleading" my friends. On the few surveys I've filled out it asks for the canyon or area that I harvested the animal... I give that on the survey, but withhold it from some of my friends (especially the sketchy guys that like to run their mouths). Of course you're going to have guys say they saw no deer to "protect" their secret spot... and their obviously concerned about no one and nothing but themselves.

Isn't everybody already squabbling over how accurate the information is anyway? It could be data that would augment, not replace, what they biologists are already doing.

On a side note... think about the questions that are on that survey. Could you imagine having to answer (and honestly hopefully) "How many animals did you wound and not recover?" Holy crap, I think that would be shocking data to everyone involved to see how many bucks are out there just rotting.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

derekp1999 said:


> On a side note... think about the questions that are on that survey. Could you imagine having to answer (and honestly hopefully) "How many animals did you wound and not recover?" Holy crap, I think that would be shocking data to everyone involved to see how many bucks are out there just rotting.


I would be willing to bet that not very many hunters would answer that one correctly.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

JuddCT said:


> Since the DWR already requires mandatory reporting for LE hunts, would it really be too much work to institute mandatory reporting for the general hunts as well? Heck, it's all done online anyway. Could you imagine the data that would be generated in just one year? I'd happily take 3-5 minutes to go online & fill something like that out. If they wanted to know an estimate of how many deer I saw total, how many bucks total, how many miles I hiked, granola bars I ate, leaks on trees that I took, I'd tell them that, too... if it would help.
> 
> I think the problem arises with how accurate that information can be. I'll tell a story to explain:
> 
> ...


Given the fact that so many hunters are pushing for "their" unit, it's more likely that what you fear will happen, especially if they now actually do something to help "their" unit. And their trophy/nontrophy mentality will be a major factor. And, ironically, any misinformation given will be detrimental to their goals no matter what they are. And, unless it involves poaching, I've never known the DWR to ask about or disclose specific honey holes. They may ask about drainages or nearest town, but not coordinates.

I guess I'm the odd man out when it comes to protecting a honey hole to the point of lying. If one of my honey holes gets crowded, I just go to another one.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

All good points being brought up here.

One thing about mandatory reporting on the smaller units. With the units being smaller I think the questions should be easy. You type in your tag number. The division now knows what unit you hunted. They don't need to know which canyon. The next question is did you harvest. Yes/no. Next question how would you rate your hunt on a scale of one to five? Now if you harvested a deer you would then need to check it in so the division can estimate age, and quality. If the average age of the deer drastically decrease then you have a better trigger to decrease or increase tags on any given unit. You also get an average feel from every hunter that hunted the unit. For some people the social part is just as important as the deer itself.

This also gets rid of the swag factor they are using right now. I personally feel if you are getting s mixed bag of deer coming in on a unit it is more health then if people are just bringing in spikes and two points. This would also give hunters a feel of how a particular unit fairs from year to year. Let's face it if tag cuts are coming I don't want to blindly be putting in for a unit that may take me more years to draw. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

ABSOULUTLY RIGHT SW!!

Another Issue I put on the plus side for opt 2, mandatory reporting will work
if they (the DWR) want info on any one OR all the deer units................

I brought this up a long time back, mandatory reporting will work with this new management.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> All good points being brought up here.
> 
> One thing about mandatory reporting on the smaller units. With the units being smaller I think the questions should be easy. You type in your tag number. The division now knows what unit you hunted. They don't need to know which canyon. The next question is did you harvest. Yes/no. Next question how would you rate your hunt on a scale of one to five? Now if you harvested a deer you would then need to check it in so the division can estimate age, and quality. If the average age of the deer drastically decrease then you have a better trigger to decrease or increase tags on any given unit. You also get an average feel from every hunter that hunted the unit. For some people the social part is just as important as the deer itself.
> 
> ...


Your really starting to make a lot of sense lately.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

I'm all for mandatory reporting, smaller units or not, but I'm not sure if I like the idea of tying specific answers to specific hunters. If there were some way to link the reporting to the hunter without linking the specific answers to the report, I think more people would be honest in their reporting, especially regarding the wounding of animals.

I'm not a computer person, but there ought to be a way to put the login and finish on one website while putting the answers on another. Yes?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Wouldn't it also be cool if when the deer are checked in a digital photo be taken so when you apply for any unit you could see what people are harvesting on any general or le unit

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Wouldn't it also be cool if when the deer are checked in a digital photo be taken so when you apply for any unit you could see what people are harvesting on any general or le unit
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


No!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Why not? 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Just got back from an hour of looking at deer from AF Canyon to the P. Saw- One 27" 4x5 -170s, One 4x5 24" -160s, Three 4x4s 20-24" 150-160s, Three 3and 3x4s 18-24", Five larger 2 and 2x3s, Eight spikes and 2 points. Funny how one person's snap shot of an area can look so different than a snap shot from another. And no, this does not mean I am satisfied with the number of deer, but I am sure there are more around than the ones I saw.

I'll pass on the photo of every buck killed idea so we know what the unit produces. The fun of the hunt is finding what is there and hunting it. To each their own though.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Why not?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Because it would be all about the inches, and the units with the most and/or biggest trophies would get hammered with applications and be turned into virtual LE units with impossible odds, nonstop scouting, high priced guide services, high trespass fees, increased horn hunting, and probably increased poaching. I sure would hate to see that happen in any unit holding my honey hole!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it also be cool if when the deer are checked in a digital photo be taken so when you apply for any unit you could see what people are harvesting on any general or le unit
> ...


A-FREAKING-MEN!

Actually, not no, but HELL NO!

This would put the focus even more on the 'trophy' status of the deer herd, while the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th things to focus on should be the 'health' status of the deer herd. And, antler size has NOTHING to do with herd health.

SW, you need to stop hanging out on the 'other' site, its clouding your thought process....
8)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

What i need to do is be able to go out in a 10 day rifle hunt and actually see a buck. 

3 day rifle hunts suck!
10 bucks per 100 does suck! They are all indications something needs to change. 

Seeing 500 orange dudes on every ridge looking through scopes to see if im a buck sucks. 

Road hunting with my rifle while eating the dust of the 100 vehicles in front of me sucks.

If 15000 archery tags for the entire state is too crowded then 20000 for the southern unit is way way way topic many tags!

Pro the guys on the other site can blow me!  I've gone rogue! No special interest group has my undivided attention. At this time im just sick of all the in fighting amongst hunters. I just want a fairs fair deal so the b&moning can stop.

I want to hunt a trending up wards deer herd and im not convinced having a herd of 10 bucks per hundred does is the answer especially when I see spikes and two points doing the breeding in the middle of december.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Another reason for the "Hell No!" is because it would make it even easier for people to skip the normal process of having to figure out where the deer are on their own. Why are so many people always looking for ways to take the joy out of hunting by making it easier?

I mean, doesn't hunting sort of imply actually having to hunt for the deer? I'm of the opinion that shooting a deer is pretty much where the fun part ends — the best part is the work that goes into preparing, scouting, figuring, planning and matching wits against nature. I guess that I'm a firm believer in the journey being more important than the destination.

So no, I don't want pictures of the deer taken in whatever units to be available in a big electronic database for anybody and their dog to call up and gawk at. If big antlers are your thing, take some time, do some research, go scouting with friends, pick up some tips here and there, get in shape, wear out some hiking boots, put it all together and see what you come up with. This new mentality of expecting hunting to be all about finding and killing the biggest set of antlers possible while expending the least amount of effort in doing so seems severely misguided to me.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> What i need to do is be able to go out in a 10 day rifle hunt and actually see a buck.
> 
> 3 day rifle hunts suck!
> 10 bucks per 100 does suck! They are all indications something needs to change.
> ...


You're not alone! You want what most all of us want, including an end to the in-fighting. But the problems, as I see them, lie in the impatience of some who think the biologically/socially (in that order) sound 5 year deer management plan should have shown results in 2 years, not 5. And in the desire of some to make things "fair" according to their perception of fairness. And in the perception that "a quality hunt" means more and bigger trophies or a tag every year, no matter what. And until we can come to some agreements on those issues, I don't see much progress in solving the decline in the deer herds.

We're now locked into an amended plan that expires in December 2013. By then, we'll know more about how Option 2 is doing and, hopefully, we can make any necessary adjustments. In the meanwhile, let's hope we don't lose too many hunters, too many deer or too many friends.

Well, it's time for snacking, board games, TV, hats, and gettin out the noisemakers. Happy, healthy, and safe New Year to one and all!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Most of you agree that a mandatory check in is ok. Then some of you say people will lie so data is crap. There isn't a better way to make it honest then attaching a photo.

There are defiantly plusses and minuses of a data base. I say put the positives and negatives of a survey up on a black board and scratch a few off the one which has the most and make them both even.
So positive survey questions equal the negative ones.

I don't care if the trophy areas get more attention then the rest because if your a trophy hunter then you might have to wait. If your a meat hunter you could just pick a unit that takes less time to draw and go shoot your milk on the lips spike.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Most of you agree that a mandatory check in is ok. Then some of you say people will lie so data is crap. There isn't a better way to make it honest then attaching a photo.
> 
> Yes, there is! I suggested earlier that we separate the questions from the hunter's ID by using two linked websites, one of them showing the hunter's ID so we know he/she reported and the other putting the answers anonymously into a database. And on a general unit, there should be no reason to count inches, so those kinds of questions shouldn't be included or maybe kept to age/mature/yearling questions.
> 
> ...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

SW, glad you aren't a full-blooded mmer...... 

I am NOT in favor of mandatory reporting. It is expensive, is nor more valid than random surveys, and did I mention it is expensive? I am not sure what is gained by mandatory reporting that would/could boost the deer herd population/health. It wouldn't give a clear picture on doe:fawn ratios, fawn mortality rates, and those are the two primary factors that truly matter, yes?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Pro your my bud and all, and you know all I want to see is a growing deer herd.

The division preaches the more data they get the more accurate their models are. So why is everyone against the data is beyond me.

I know full well fawn recruitment and doe survival is the key to improved or growing deer herds. I also know and know you know you can only kill so many bucks before the 3 day hunt goes to a no day hunt. Im not saying we need a bookcliff hunt. That's sfws pipe dream. I know full well that would require 500 tags times 30 units. That's what 15000 tags total?

Not my pipe dream! 

I guess I can see the writing on the wall that the tag cuts are coming. This is why I would like to see them distributed more evenly. I know archery can be used as a tool for increased opportunity and they don't effect the quality like a rifle does. I also know full well despite what the division says about muzzy's being just as effective as a rifle is bs! I can't tell you how many times I hear boom boom boom boom over and over again. With a muzzy this ain't happening. They get one shot! This year on the rifle hunt jerry voided a dude shooting 31 times at a bull on the bookcliffs at a 1000 plus yards until he finally shot it. The bull didn't even know what the crap was going on. This crap ain't happening with a muzzy!

Primitive weapons are the only way you are going to get more opportunity. Getting more guys with muzzy's on your side is the only way you will you will be able to push this agenda. Allowing crossbows might also help get the numbers on your side even though im not personally for them!

Just arguing that bucks wont grow more deer is a loosing argument in my eyes. I can't stand around watching it any more. Sfw is going to wipe there backsides with this plan.

33% 33% 33% tag allocations is a fair deal with the devil in my eyes. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Lonetree said:
> 
> 
> > "controlling" hunters is at the bottom of the list when it comes to mule deer management. Thats hunter management, and if there is a hunter problem, then its warranted. If you have a mule deer problem, you need mule deer management.
> ...


But yes, it is still on the list. Even if it's at the bottom of yours. Now that it has been checked off, let's move on to other things. It's just one piece of the puzzle to get to the big picture.

SW, I agree 100%


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> SW, glad you aren't a full-blooded mmer......
> 
> I am NOT in favor of mandatory reporting. It is expensive, is nor more valid than random surveys, and did I mention it is expensive? I am not sure what is gained by mandatory reporting that would/could boost the deer herd population/health. It wouldn't give a clear picture on doe:fawn ratios, fawn mortality rates, and those are the two primary factors that truly matter, yes?


I'm not sure I buy the too expensive argument, especially long term, partially because it would eliminate the current costs of random surveys and also because it would be ongoing and computer based.

However, you're right about it not giving a clear (or any) picture about doe/fawn ratios or fawn mortality rates or, for that matter, buck to doe ratios. We could probably include sightings/classifications questions in the report, but that's no better than the answers we get on this forum. People see or remember seeing or would report seeing deer based on their hunting methods, time of day, weather, etc, and on their agenda.

I guess we'll just have to continue to count on trained DWR personnel to get some of the data. Shucks!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Lonetree said:
> ...


In other words, now that we have fixed the bottom of the list and have reduced the revenue, reduced the DH volunteer hours, increased the competition for forage between the bucks, does and fawns, added "pressure" to the herds via increased scouting and shed hunting and further upset and divided hunters in the process, let's get on to things that really matter! :roll:


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

swbuckmaster said:


> The division preaches the more data they get the more accurate their models are. So why is everyone against the data is beyond me.


It seems logical to me that more information would/could/should lead to better decision making. I know that logic and good decisions are mythical creatures nowadays... but a guy can hope. 
I don't agree with requiring a submission of a picture and requiring that each animal be inspected might be a bit over the top... but if I had to have my animal inspected I guess I'd do it. I do not drive past a checkpoint driving from my hunting area to my home, so that would be an "extra step" that I'd have to take. I would see no problem with providing a spread measurement or the number of points per antler, they've asked me that on the random survey phone calls that I've received in previous years.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Elk
The excuse that are bucks are some how competing with are does and fawns only holds water if are deer herds are at carting capacity. Which according to the pointy heads at the division "there not"!

I might by your excuse it will increase shed hunting if there is actually a buck worth picking up. But this can be controlled with a shed hunting season like Wyoming has.

The division between hunters is happening because things aren't fair. Equal tags, equal hunting days, ect will control the fighting. Hell it feels like im dealing with my kids. If one thinks its not fair then someones going to cry.

Another thing how come no government agency can run on a budget.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

swbuckmaster said:


> Elk
> The excuse that are bucks are some how competing with are does and fawns only holds water if are deer herds are at carting capacity. Which according to the pointy heads at the division "there not"!
> 
> I might by your excuse it will increase shed hunting if there is actually a buck worth picking up. But this can be controlled with a shed hunting season like Wyoming has.


Then I guess you can relax! In fact, all those problems, real or imagined, won't effect my preferred unit anyway, whichever one it turns out to be, because I'll avoid those kinds of units like the plague. I just used my name instead of yours to ease the shock. Those will be your problems, not mine! And if you think they won't happen, that's fine with me as long as it's fine with you. So go ahead and suggest photos. If it'll work for your chosen unit, it'll certainly work for mine.

And, since all I'm interested in is the number of tags I'm competing for, I'll suggest we hold the general drawings (not the LE or OIL) at the same time as the antlerless drawings which is after the classifications, so we know how many tags are in each unit.


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

elkfromabove said:


> And, since all I'm interested in is the number of tags I'm competing for, I'll suggest we hold the general drawings (not the LE or OIL) at the same time as the antlerless drawings which is after the classifications, so we know how many tags are in each unit.


Novel idea there... I'd like to know what I'm applying for before I apply. I typically hunt with a group & we all sit at a different number of preference points. That'd be beneficial for guys that would like to do a "combo hunt" too if they draw an elk tag for archery or muzzleloader.

I'd also buy SW's 33% shared tag allocation, even though I switched to muzzy to avoid the crowds and reap the benefit of a mid-week opener. I don't think it would really be a huge increase in crowds in "my unit" though since it's primarily private property.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't know about other units but the manti seems about right. I don't know how many deer there are, but from fall 09' to fall 10' to fall 11' it seems we are seeing about 1/2 the deer we did one and two years previous. I keep barking about it, but if your herds are down about 25%, WHY THE HELL ARE WE STILL KILLING DOES? ESPECIALLY LATE SEASON DOES THAT ARE MOST LIKELY PREGNANT? WE NEED 25% MORE DEER GENIUS', PERHAPS THE WAY TO GET THEM WOULD BE QUIT KILLING 2-3 DEER IN EVERY TAG IN THE NAME OF "MANAGEMENT". Yes I know DWR your buck to doe ratio needs to be 18%, but PLEASE don't try and get there by killing enough does to make that number work!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

One reason why, hossblur, is depredation! It isn't just about total numbers, its where the numbers are/aren't during the crucial winter months. 

And SW, I disagree with you on the carrying capacity issue. If a herd is stagnant, that leads me to believe it is at carrying capacity. If it is decreasing, that tells me it is over carrying capacity. Focusing on the number of bucks at this point is nonsensical and a waste of resources. We need to focus on the PRIMARY causes for the stagnant/declining deer populations, and according to every source I can find, the number of bucks in the herd is NOT one of them!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Speaking of "depredation"..
How about they just move the boundary south to the Sanpete/Sevier county line
for the sanpete valley doe and extended elk next year..................

That has worked VERY WELL for removing all the deer/elk from Manti north!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have land in Juab County as well............ :mrgreen:


----------



## BigT (Mar 11, 2011)

What I'm interested in is how in the world the division plans on increasing deer numbers in the La Sal unit from 6600 to 18100. Would they not have to close the area down? That seems highly unlikely that they are ever able to get this done. 

My experience this last year in this unit wasn't really good. In 8 days of scouting and hunting, I saw deer, but not like I used to even 5 years ago. Scouting was much better than hunting. During the hunt, I maybe saw 30 total deer with only two of them being bucks. 

Personally, Im no scientist, but the only way I would think we could increase deer herds in areas such as this would be to stop hunting deer, driving on highways where we might encounter deer, etc. Then hunt cougars, coyotes, and bears down to small numbers. We haven't even seen a problem yet with wolves. What will they do? Does the state ever do anything differently with how to manage deer during bad winters?

Things need changing but I'm not sure this is the answer. I'm much more concerned with the deer herd than I am with buck to doe ratios. If the herd grows the ratio increases. I hate not hunting, and I really think its going to turn into an every other year thing for many of us.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> And SW, I disagree with you on the carrying capacity issue. If a herd is stagnant, that leads me to believe it is at carrying capacity. If it is decreasing, that tells me it is over carrying capacity. Focusing on the number of bucks at this point is nonsensical and a waste of resources. We need to focus on the PRIMARY causes for the stagnant/declining deer populations, and according to every source I can find, the number of bucks in the herd is NOT one of them!


I will agree with you on a stagnant herd or a declining herd being at carrying capacity. Because carrying capacity can be determined by a few things. However my definition of carrying capacity might be different then yours. I believe the reasons the deer are declining isn't because of forage. Its because of predators, man, cats, coyotes.

There are simply to many of them!

Just one example that proves my point. Now ask yourself why in Yellowstone are the elk decreasing? It ain't because of lack of forage! It ain't because of winter kills! Now ask yourself why has the division of wildlife in and around Yellowstone had to cut elk tags back? There used to be alot of opportunity to hunt elk now they have had to cut the tags back. Why?

This is the same thing that is going on with our deer across the west. When predators are on the increase our deer/elk will go down.

You can do all the reseeding projects you want and it wont do any good. The henry mtns is a good example of habitat improvements not helping the deer numbers increase. Last year a friend of mine saw 11 cats durring the bow hunt. Now if your seeing 11 cats without dogs there is a cat problem. He has been going to the henry mtns for probably over 10 years and says he's sees more and more coyotes every year down there. We cannot control coyotes effectively without 1080. We cannot control cats without killing females.

So I guess its no surprise to me why the henry mtns is stagnant or decreasing. Its not because they have poor feed. The whole mountain has been re seeded with an alpha blend! Its not because they have hard winters. Its not because the bucks out compete the fawns for food. Its not because of road kills.

Focusing on the bucks is only a social aspect we both agree on but it does have its limits. Just like the elk tags around Yellowstone had to be cut. I believe this is why we are forced to cut tags in Utah on our deer. kill the coyotes/cougars quit killing does in the name of depredation and our deer will increase. Then we can start to increase our deer tags. Until then you will see our deer herds continue to decrease and tags will also continue to decrease.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Carrying capacity and objective are two entirely different things.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Carrying capacity and objective are two entirely different things.


Thats why I used the word "carrying capacity" multiple times in my post. Im talking about "carrying capacity" and so was pro.

The carrying capacity for deer was much higher for deer when 1080 was present! :shock:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Should carrying capacity also factor in predator numbers? It seems that no matter how good the habitat and forrage are if there are too many predators the area cannot "carry" higher numbers of deer or elk.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Should carrying capacity also factor in predator numbers? It seems that no matter how good the habitat and forrage are if there are too many predators the area cannot "carry" higher numbers of deer or elk.


Yes, but an area can only have more predators then its carrying capacity for a short or limited time. You will then have the predators disperse, or die from starvation. Cycle of life every thing is tied to it.

Look at Yellowstone, the elk numbers are holding at around 7,000 or so elk right now. It has yet to be seen if they will hold at that natural state or not. But you can see what the wolves are doing. They are dispersing naturally into other areas!

Humans are also tied to this life cycle. You have less elk/deer you have less tags! If you factor in the social aspect of hunting we as hunters half to take less of that life cycle pie!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Just one example that proves my point. Now ask yourself why in Yellowstone are the elk decreasing? It ain't because of lack of forage! It ain't because of winter kills! Now ask yourself why has the division of wildlife in and around Yellowstone had to cut elk tags back? There used to be alot of opportunity to hunt elk now they have had to cut the tags back. Why? A couple problems with this theory. 1)The elk herd was/is supplemented during the winter at Jackson Hole, which has artificially propped up the elk population for years. 2)Most 'experts' were of the opinion the elk herd was well over carrying capacity. 3)The wolves have been allowed to grow in much higher populations than originally planned. I am positive there aren't wolves in the thousands roaming Utah suppressing the deer population.....
> 
> This is the same thing that is going on with our deer across the west. When predators are on the increase our deer/elk will go down. Not a cut and dry rule. In many, in fact I contend most, situations the predators increase in population ONLY when their food source(s) increase FIRST.
> 
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Pro i Can't respond to your response on my phone. Not smart enough on how to cut and past. 

Ill rip it to shreds later:grin:


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > And SW, I disagree with you on the carrying capacity issue. If a herd is stagnant, that leads me to believe it is at carrying capacity. If it is decreasing, that tells me it is over carrying capacity. Focusing on the number of bucks at this point is nonsensical and a waste of resources. We need to focus on the PRIMARY causes for the stagnant/declining deer populations, and according to every source I can find, the number of bucks in the herd is NOT one of them!
> ...


Predators cant be the answer state wide. Where I run around, the deer numbers are and have been flat, and lions are scarce(historical comparative). We have a few coyotes(two less in the last month) but they are not out of hand by any stretch. I still see a few foxes, so the coyotes are in no way running the show. And the many, many bobcats we used to have are nil.

So if you have great habitat on the Henrys(SW), the predators are in check(Pro), they are not dieing on the highway, its not winter kill. I have a suggestion as to what it may be, any guesses? The Henrys have flat numbers, not declining numbers, just like the big trend for the rest of the state. With such a low population, 11 lions would make it a defacto predator pit, with marked decline.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I CANT NOT COMMENT ON THE lion situation on the Henry's!
I'll bet my last dollar I'm the only one on this forum that has lion hunted,
and guided MULTIPAL cats off the Henry's range..................

Cat number there peaked around 1994-96,,,,,,,,There were about 20 TOTAL cats there.
WE HAMMERED THEM....At one point, the locals in Hanksville swore we killed them all.
In 2008 and 2009/10 there were ZERO lions harvested on that unit, Finally 2011,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 was killed.

The guy claiming to see 11 was probably bumping into a female with two full grown kittens.
2 or 3 sightings of the same group could add up............................

Believe me, Outfitters are going to the EXSTREAM trying to fill clients lion permits now days,
If there was just one big tom on Mt Ellen, it would be getting pounded by hounds men..


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> Really though, the existing methods for coming up with the statistics might be even more subject to inaccuracies.


Here's the thing. Once your sample size gets large enough, statistically speaking it is extrememly accurate, within a very narrow margin of accuracy compared to a 100% sample size.

What I'm getting at is this.....we can require mandatory surveys for everyone. BUT it will cost us more money to do it (we'd have to provide web, telephone, and snail mail services to get 100%) and we really won't gain much in the way of accuracy from a harvest perspective.

I'm really not trying to be hollier than thou here but knowing what little bit I know about deer classification I'm not sure how you'd even use data if you did survey 100% and ask them all how many bucks, does, etc. they saw. How many of these deer would be double counted? How reliably can people tell the difference between a doe and a fawn? How many people would just throw in a BS number because they don't really care about the survey or have an agenda? I think it would be a mess to ask people how many deer they saw and actually try to generate a count from it and use it to manage deer.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> The division preaches the more data they get the more accurate their models are. So why is everyone against the data is beyond me.
> 
> Primitive weapons are the only way you are going to get more opportunity.
> 
> 33% 33% 33% tag allocations is a fair deal with the devil in my eyes.


It's true that the more accurate data they put in the model, the more accurate it is. But from a statistics standpoint there isn't much that can be gained from100% mandatory harvest reporting compared to today. I know it seems crazy but it is a mathmatical certainty. It's possible to have one fluky scenario but over time it's extremely accurate. If we were to put it in place it would just cost us a bunch more money to validate what we already know. The

I agree 100% that primitive weapons are a MUST for preserving opportunity to hunt big game looking towards the future. The thing is there are a lot of people that simply don't want to hunt with them. They want to hunt with a rifle and socially speaking who's to tell them they are wrong. We know it means less tags and yet they continue with their preference. I'm hoping that as time goes on many rifle hunters will start picking up a bow for one reason or another.

I like the idea of 33% tag split but see paragraph above. It just doesn't fit the current social desires of Utah hunters today. This is an instance where I am defending an idea (that rifle tags should make up the lions share of tag allotments) that I am not necessarily personally in favor of. I am by and large an archery guy but if Utah hunters primarily want to hunt with a rifle then so be it. We just need to give them an incentive to hunt with a bow in the future not forcing them to switch by shifting tag allotments.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I am and always have been a rifle guy. I understand where folks are coming from on the miriad ideas of how to manage HUNTERS with this and that, primative this and that, cut tags here and there, really I do. But dammit! Put the money where it is needed and find out why the heck our fawns are not making it passed the first year! I don't think the average joe hunter would mind terribly to sacrifice a bit if they knew that sacrifice was being done for the betterment of the herds. It's a freaking catch 22 we have gotten ourselves into, and we need to get out of it pretty darn soon! :evil:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> A couple problems with this theory. 1)The elk herd was/is supplemented during the winter at Jackson Hole, which has artificially propped up the elk population for years. 2)Most 'experts' were of the opinion the elk herd was well over carrying capacity. 3)The wolves have been allowed to grow in much higher populations than originally planned. I am positive there aren't wolves in the thousands roaming Utah suppressing the deer population.....
> 
> Pro when im making my points im comparing elk and deer. Because I believe if it works for one species it will work for the other. I know we have talked about this in person before. Example of what im talking about. Why are we fine with hunting spikes elk to extinction and we dont want to hunt spike deer? ect Hope that jogs your brain on what im talking.
> 
> ...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> We just need to give them an incentive to hunt with a bow in the future not forcing them to switch by shifting tag allotments.


I agree


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> I am and always have been a rifle guy. I understand where folks are coming from on the miriad ideas of how to manage HUNTERS with this and that, primative this and that, cut tags here and there, really I do. But dammit! Put the money where it is needed and find out why the heck our fawns are not making it passed the first year! I don't think the average joe hunter would mind terribly to sacrifice a bit if they knew that sacrifice was being done for the betterment of the herds. It's a freaking catch 22 we have gotten ourselves into, and we need to get out of it pretty darn soon! :evil:


I also agree


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It makes me feel good to see so many people worried about why our fawns are not being recruited into the population. It took a long time and a lot of posts on fawns, but it was worth it. Find where the fawns are going and you will discover the problem with 90% of Utah's deer struggles. Get off the buck BS and find where those fawns are going.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Pro when im making my points im comparing elk and deer. Because I believe if it works for one species it will work for the other. I know we have talked about this in person before. Example of what im talking about. Why are we fine with hunting spikes elk to extinction and we dont want to hunt spike deer? ect Hope that jogs your brain on what im talking. I am NOT fine with spike hunting! As you should recall.....
> 
> 1.The elk were also supplemented to keep them from doing damage to personal property.
> Unlike with Utah's deer when damage is done they destroy the does and then wonder why the deer herds are always under objective. I have heard people on this forum say they would like to see Utah do some supplemental feeding outside of private property to avoid damage like Wyoming does. This sounds like a better plan to me then shooting the does. Supplemental feeding does NOT fix anything. It is merely an indicator that there isn't enough winter range to support the existing deer....let alone doubling it like the SFW 'plan' calls for.
> ...





swbuckmaster said:


> The guy that saw the lions this year im sure is or was one of your friends. I wont name his name on this forum because as far as i know he doesn't visit these sites. He is also a guy I wont question. He has put just as many guys on 200+" bucks as you have put guys on 380+" bulls. The only difference is he is still doing it.


 Shoot me a PM who the guy is, you have now peaked my curiosity....



swbuckmaster said:


> You can increase the deer numbers with excess bucks if the deer numbers are under carrying capacity. In this situation the bucks aren't competing with the fawns. All the pointy headed guys with degrees say the deer numbers can go up on pretty much every unit in this state. The deer numbers wont increase that much however because its just a buck.


I must hear/read things 180° than you do, because most of the biologists I have talked to, and read their views, have stated we are at or near carrying capacity on most units. :?:



swbuckmaster said:


> pro I know we are on the same page on most if not all issues concerning this states deer/elk problems because ive met you face to face and we've discussed the issues to death.


I hope so, but some of your comments of late make me wonder.....


----------

