# Email I got....



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Just got this email from a Hoyt employee who apparently got it from Don Peay. Just figured I would share it for clarity's sake. As far as I can tell this isn't violating copyright or privacy, since it was actually emailed to me and its actually something I would normally just delete.... until I saw the name attached to it and figured it might interest some folks.

From: Don Peay [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 6:04 AM
To: Don Peay
Subject: 400,000 Utah Mule Deer - Double today's population a Done Deal

IN the next 2-4 years, Utah will double its current Mule Deer population - probably at current 200,000 - to 400,000 deer.

The recent town meetings have brought STRONG support and commitment from hundreds of sportsmen and business leaders in across Utah. IN the last two nights, the meetings have been also represented by local county commissioners and influential State Senators David Hinkins and Ralph Okerland.

Deer recovery is a VERY HIGH priority for powerful and influential people in Utah. With this commitment, we will achieve our objective.

We have also been in constant communication with top people in Governor Herbert's and US Senator Hatch's office.

SFW has always put its money where its mouth is.

Last night, Bill Bates from the SE DWR office estimated that the Henry Mountains deer herd hit its low of 300 deer, it is now more than 1,500. THAT is 5X. We are just asking - for now a 2X across the state, it CAN AND WILL BE DONE.

Deer populations should increase dramatically, they have the biological potential to double every two to three years.

Three years ago, the SFW Board asked the DWR why herds were stuck in neutral, or declining. And a major study was done to confirm, what we as sportsmen already knew.

It came out in the Richfield meeting that on the Monroe unit best estimate 120 fawns per 100 does are born and survive birth. By September only 40 fawns left. Of those 40 collared fawns, by the next September only 8 yearling deer still alive. Other areas have similar results, low yearling recruitment, at best good adult survival.

We are going out of the deer business with the status quo effort on predators. World renowned habitat efforts will continue, Highways will be fenced with underpasses installed as possible.

But rather than wait two or three more years to get enough Data to now prove it is coyotes, SFW and Big Game Forever, will be calling upon immediate action for major funding and efforts - starting NOW - to reduce coyotes sufficiently to get fawn survival back up to 50-80 fawns per 100 does, and with that, deer populations can double in 2-4 years.

No more excuses. Take no Prisoners. Get it done.

Thanks to all who have come out. A bold prediction. Now we have to go and deliver, and we as always will.

Join us on Jan. 17 in Cedar City, Jan. 18 in Logan, Jan. 30 in Blanding. More town meetings will be scheduled as needed.

WE will need thousands of sportsmen support in the coming few weeks and months to start this effort and then sustain it.

There will be no letting of the gas on coyote control for the next 100 years, or until the cows come home.

Don


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I actually love the fact that he is actually focusing on the fawns/does. However, I don't think it is soelely a coyote problem. I hope some good comes from this and they actually work together with the Biologists to understand where/when/how to apply the coyote killing!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

If we keep having winters like this one. Then I would say yes they can get the deer numbers up. But the got to stop poaching and the cars killing the deer. It like they are going to do some good stuff. Also we need to stop building house in the winter rang. Thanks for sharing that with us Riley.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

HMMMM glad to see that SFW and Big Game Forever are stepping up and putting money where there mouth is. Wonder when the other groups will step up with a plan. (MDF, etc, etc,etc)


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

So if the herd doesn't double to 400,000 in 2-4 years can we vote another group in to handle the "High Dollar Tags" so they can put "THEIR" money where their mouth is? Just a thought.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

pheaz said:


> HMMMM glad to see that SFW and Big Game Forever are stepping up and putting money where there mouth is. Wonder when the other groups will step up with a plan. (MDF, etc, etc,etc)


Pheaz,

I was up your way this last week and I sat and watched some bruiser bucks up in the Timber Lake development for a good two hours one day. I also took the snowmobiles up near Heber Mtn and saw A LOT of deer up much higher than I would expect them to be this year.

How does the Heber Valley look right now? I also watched a lot of bucks/does/fawns over by Red Ledges golf course one night.


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

JuddCT said:


> pheaz said:
> 
> 
> > HMMMM glad to see that SFW and Big Game Forever are stepping up and putting money where there mouth is. Wonder when the other groups will step up with a plan. (MDF, etc, etc,etc)
> ...


Hebers lookin pretty bare this year. Little suprising to see deer at Heber Mtn this time of year but ya they're there. I just hope where the deer are hangin high that a big storm dont trap them up high. Them bruisers in TL hang there year round there dandy bucks. I've been seein alot of deer but not as many as one would think.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing it. 

Wage war on coyotes. Hmmm. Sounds good to me. If we, the human predator, want to have more deer to kill, then we need to eliminate our competition. Simple economic principles at play here. Fair enough. He did point out the habitat improvements and need for fencing and underpasses to reduce loss to vehicles. I gotta say - one of the best things I've seen to come from Peay. I like it.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I called this a few weeks ago...I said if SFW was serious about Mule Deer they would assist in coyote control since all that was really lacking from that program was money. Good on em!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> Interesting post. Thanks for sharing it.
> 
> Wage war on coyotes. Hmmm. Sounds good to me. If we, the human predator, want to have more deer to kill, then we need to eliminate our competition. Simple economic principles at play here. Fair enough. He did point out the habitat improvements and need for fencing and underpasses to reduce loss to vehicles. I gotta say - one of the best things I've seen to come from Peay. I like it.


Remember though these are not new ideas and are currently being done at maximum capacity given the means available. The one thing ALL of these programs lack is money. I'm not impressed with grandstanding AT ALL but I am impressed with the committment to do more to help the cause in the right ways.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SPOT ON!!!!!!

They just hit the nail on the head.. :!: :O||:


----------



## wilky (Jun 19, 2011)

i like the idea but we need people who are going to step up and tke action I will be out every weekend i can taking coyotes out after i get my new rifle, i dont expect to be paid but it would be nice to get something to help with gas prices i saw 3 road killed does on my way to work this morning i am watching the herd near my house i see them most mornings and nights and i have noticed a few coyotes hanging around lately i would love to take them out but cant due to being in city limits and to cloes to the road there is some nice bucks and fawns in the heard and quite a few does


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Peay is once again engaging in populist tripe and emotions in order to increase his and SFW's influence going into the upcoming legislative session. I think he's also wanting to win back the money from former supporters who have abandoned him.

Most everyone agrees that coyotes kill fawns and, likely, a few larger deer, and there's good evidence of coyote predation in some areas actually being a limiting factor in deer populations. The same is true of cougar predation.

Peay's claim of being able to double deer herds in two to four years, however, is absolute, total crap. It's utterly ludicrous — even for him! Even if we manage to eliminate coyotes, there's no convincing scientific data that predicts a large effect on overall deer numbers. Furthermore, even if that data existed, there's no practical way to greatly reduce coyote numbers short of reviving widespread poisoning, which is prohibited by federal regulation.

For over a hundred years this and other western states attempted to eradicate coyotes with little success — and much of that period was during a time where poison bait was legal and used extensively by government trappers. With this in mind, just what is Peay proposing as his "major funding and efforts" to significantly reduce coyote numbers. A fee increase, I assume. Well, coincidentally (or not) the state legislative session is coming up, so before anybody has time to think about this and see the flaws, he wants to ram through some legislation that isn't supported by the biological evidence. In other words, typical Peay crap.

So let's say he lobbies successfully for that fee increase or reallocation of funds, just how does that money get spent? What are the practical steps to kill tens of thousands of coyotes? Giant bounties? A small army of professional hunters flying around in helicopters? Hijacking DWR employees? Is there any evidence whatsoever that this approach will be successful in reducing coyote numbers? No, there is no evidence that pouring money into coyote control will actually result in significant coyote population decreases. The biologists at the DWR have stated repeatedly that it does little good to kill coyotes except during specific times of the year when pairing and litter production can be affected.

Peay is an arrogant and self-aggrandizing bag of wind whose expertise lies not in biology but in raising money, promoting himself and influencing people through rhetoric and pandering to public emotion. The guy's the equivalent of a southern televangelist who works the crowd by guaranteeing to cure the sick with a slap to the forehead followed up by a plea for a sizable donation. Science doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. What matters is stirring up the audience, then proclaiming himself as the savior.

Is this really how we want wildlife policy in this state to be determined? Instead of listening to professional biologists who have dedicated their lives to researching and understanding the complex interwoven relationships between habitat, predator and prey, we defer instead to a pompous windbag whose main goal seems to be enriching himself, expanding his enormous ego, peddling influence, growing big antlers by increasing buck-to-doe ratios, cherry picking science to serve his agenda, magically eliminating coyotes and lurching from one idea to the next before the evidence is in from the previous strategy.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

SPOT ON!!!!!!

Geek just hit the nail on the head.. :!: :O||:

Sorry Randy, you posted that a little early.

I won't say anything about supporters, because I'm impressed when anyone gets off of their butt and does something. Kudos to all who do more than throw stones.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

"But rather than wait two or three more years to get enough Data to now prove it is coyotes, SFW and Big Game Forever, will be calling upon immediate action for major funding and efforts – starting NOW"

Geek got it all right, and there is more. The DWR voted themselves a pay cut, in the form of tag reductions, and legislators have told them "dont come begging from us". But, they did not tell Don that he could not beg. besides the money would be for "deer recovery", not for the loss of revenue from the reduced sale of tags. Why would he be lobbying for money for the DWR?, because he took money from them. Same reason he keeps telling people to support the governor, because he owes him for his WB appointment. This is nothing more than politics.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Again this is grandstanding.....the division has already told us they believe coyotes are a major problem. The division has already put out a report (I posted it in another thread) that reveals the extensive and aggressive coyote program IN PLACE TODAY that includes fixed wing, choppers, and ground crews both on foot and horseback. The report revealed the ONLY limiting factor in the program is CASH MONEY, MUH-LAH, BENJAMINS, DINERO, well you get the point. 

Anybody notice that when you put in for a tag you have the option to donate to coyote control? How many of you have donated? How many people have been saying that habitat and road kill are a big part of the problem? The division is addressing this stuff and they need more funding to succeed. And why is what Don is saying being considered some sort of ground breaking news and now is all of a sudden a battle cry of some sort? I support the idea....good for them for seeing the light and stopping the focus on the buck portion of the herd and focusing on things that actually effect deer numbers....I'm just not a fan of grandstanding.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HunterGeek gets post of the DECADE! 

:_O=: :_O=: :_O=: :_O=: :_O=:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I am curious as to what will spew out of Don's mouth after 3 years have come and gone and there has been little to no impact. Who will he dump the blame on and what new reform will he call for?

I seem to recall SFW gets several million a year from the expo tag drawing. If SFW is really putting it's money where it's mouth why do they not dedicate that money to coyote control? For that matter why is that money not going to the DWR as it should?


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I guess I got the same email, can't be sure because when I saw the sender I deleted it and marked them as a junk sender! :twisted:


----------



## kailey29us (May 26, 2011)

I still think lions do as much or more damage to deer than coyotes. Everyone saw the slide show of the coyotes killing the whitetail. That one deer will feed a pack of coyotes for a week. EACH lion in the state will kill a deer every 9 -14 days. If they kill one more lion each season in each of the 30 units that adds 45 - 50 deer per year per unit, that will add up over a 3 year period. If its 45 - 50 does that are killed by lions how many fawns will that add to the population? Just my .02....


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

15 years ago lions did more damage than yotes,,,,,,But that's not even close anymore.
In fact, Most areas, yotes out kill lions on deer 10 to 1 minimum..

I'm glad to see the DWR and SFW have finally figured this out.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> In fact, Most areas, yotes out kill lions on deer 10 to 1 minimum.


Is that based on personal anecdote and observation or statistical data from controlled studies? Either way, why do you think coyotes would have changed their behavior and preferentially kill deer today when that wasn't the case 15 years back. What do you think are the reasons for the changes? More coyotes? Fewer cougars? Learned behavior as a result of fewer smaller animals, like jackrabbits? What?

From my personal observations, both with livestock and deer, once coyotes become accustomed to preying on something they tend to repeat that behavior and do so whether or not they're hungry. Coyotes, I've noticed, don't necessarily eat the entire animal. In a herd of sheep, for example, they'll frequently kill a dozen lambs or ewes in a night, but only chew on a few of them, often selectively eating just a few internal organs, like the liver or heart.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Randy is pretty much spot on. I can only speak for the Fishlake unit and the Sanpete Valley. Yotes R out of control! They have lost their fear of man on the Fislake Unit.During the archery hunt they would follow ya around and bark.. Never seen that. As for Don Peay and the boys! you get the state wide archery back were it where it belongs..,, get rid of the BAD Press thats followed you around.. I may, Just Maybe support you Guys,,


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well Geek it comes from hunting lions for a living for almost 20 years..
Spending 200 + days a year watching things change..

I've watched lions number fall and coyote numbers explode..

Went from finding lion kills as the normal to , what it is now, finding many , many
more coyote kills, and yote sign , sighting , tracks, to every thing else.....

Tell ya what Geek, when we have good snow, get yourself a good snowmobile and
go lay down tracks up and down every canyon in the Bookcliffs, Manti, Nebo, Fishlake,
Monroe , Pahvant, Wasatch, Ninemile, Anthro, Just to name a few areas I've worked..
See what you find..


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> get rid of the BAD Press thats followed you around.. I may, Just Maybe support you Guys,,


The trouble is that any bad feelings, lost trust and bad press following around SFW is deserved. I won't repeat the distaste I expressed about Peay earlier in this thread, but he's repeatedly demonstrated unsavory qualities that cause me to distrust him and the higher-ups in his organization. I agree that coyotes are a serious problem, but I actually consider Peay and his self-serving lobbying tactics and disregard for science to be a bigger threat that coyotes.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I live in the south unit and being retired, I spend a LOT of time outdoors. I have seen coyote scat increase tremendously, I have seen coyotes chasing adult deer which I had not seen before plus there has been a steep decline in small critters-particularly rabbits indicating to me that coyotes have had to move on to other prey such as deer. Our local sheep flocks are getting pounded by coyotes. You don't need to have an intense university study to make these observations.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

HunterGeek said:


> I agree that coyotes are a serious problem, but I actually consider Peay and his self-serving lobbying tactics and disregard for science to be a bigger threat that coyotes.


I agree! The following quote I made appeared in an article lats spring in the Salt Lake Tribune: "SFW has managed to take away more hunting permits than all the predators and anti-hunters combined!" Think about it, has the anti-hunting crowd managed to reduce hunting permits at all? How many permits has SFW and the policies they have rammed through been cut? Just as I firmly believe this nation, if ever brought down, will be from the inside.....if hunting is ever ended/reduced, it will be due to HUNTERS, not predators, not the anti-hunting crowd, and not Mother Nature!!!!!!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

First off , Don Peay ani't my most favorite person. Do I trust him and his buddies, 
NO..I said it for a few years. Their agenda.. Follow the Money! All people make mistakes. 
I beleive his ego will never let him say HEY!! I Made a mistake!!


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I am with oldfudd, 

If Don gave us some kind of leverage to hold him to his word of doubling the states population in 5 years I would jump on the bandwagon and buy up every Pink SFW nighty and sleep in a different one every night knowing that my money was put to good use. Unfortunately his rhetoric obligates him to NOTHING. As he himself states there is no genuine method to actually know the actual population numbers of the states deer. So how in the world is he going to prove that he single handedly doubled it? 

If he made a promise that he would accomplish such a task with an "or" like "or I will return all of the funds wasted on my destructive brown nosing of high ticket hunters and forfeit my own salary" then I would have a little bit more confidence in what is being said. As it is right now he could be saying that he plans to catch big foot and tie him to a tree and I would have the same confidence that it is not going to happen.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

Why do I think Don Peay wears a tie??? It keeps the foreskin down. This guy is nothing more than a money and power hungry legislative wannabe. I love the fact that he can make promises and everyone jumps on the band wagon. I love the war cry of open your pockets and give to us to kill all these coyotes. Coyote hunting in the state of Utah is free and not regulated. My question is how is opening our wallets to SFW or any other organization going to change that? If you are worried about the problem get off the couch and shoot all the coyotes you can. Does giving all our money to these groups make it a better hunt? I love the fact that Mr Peay who is nothing more than a over paid lobbyist, is bypassing the DWR and going to the Governor and his henchmen to fix a problem that the DWR has already identified and is addressing.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

It is simple business... like a panhandler on the streets in Logan... Sign says "will work for food" but repeatedly I've stopped with an immediate cash job for him, and repeatedly he's declined to actually do any work, instead waiting for the gullible who pull up, toss him a $10 (or more) and drive on. Most don't even pause to think that the guy lives in a nice big house, eats out twice a week, and claims he's being "honest in his dealings with his fellow man"...for those who know what that means.

Why work when people are so willing to throw money at these topics over an emotionally charged claim?


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

You are right it is simple business for Mr Peay-day, he wants to make money off something that is free in the name of saving our deer heard.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

It's an SFW membership drive as far as I am concerned. I still want to know where the expo tag money goes. I at least know it's not predator control.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> It's an SFW membership drive as far as I am concerned. I still want to know where the expo tag money goes. I at least know it's not predator control.


+1 that is the "million's" of dollars question! My guess is a lot of it went to lobby the political higher ups! Which gives SFW an unfair advantage in the political part of our hunting. Then top it off they use our tags to get it done. If it were up to me Id say every organization should get an equal share of those tags!

Thus the reason guys like me dislikes SFW!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Interesting reed from 4 years ago!

DWR say'd 384,000 deer now (2016) and climbing...............:!:


----------



## Rspeters (Apr 4, 2013)

Very interesting


----------



## hemionus (Aug 23, 2009)

He seriously referenced the Monroe coyote study! Those results haven't even been published yet. I know those involved and preliminary results are showing NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COYOTE CONTROL AND NO COYOTE CONTROL on fawn survival. Just like SFW to not use science and biology and use emotion and fear mongering.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Any chance the estimates are inflated to help deliver on this promise from Don?

No, SFW/Don and the DWR are always above board. That would be silly to even speculate. The DWR would never cave to Don in doing something unethical...


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Interesting reed from 4 years ago!
> 
> DWR say'd 384,000 deer now (2016) and climbing...............:!:


I was hoping nobody would bring this up because to be honest, I was very vocal at the time and ridiculed the 400,000 objective as being unattainable and unsustainable. I still doubt that number is sustainable since it can be directly attributed to consecutive years of relatively warm, dry Spring weather.

None the less, if someone would kindly pass the salt and pepper, I've got some crow to eat. 8)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Don also predicted there would be 700 Bighorn sheep on the Stansburys within 10 years after the transplants too.
Even if the die off didn't happen, the herd was far from reaching those numbers.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

What's that saying about blind pigs and truffles?


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

From Don's 2012 email:_ "*IN* the next 2-4 years, Utah will double its current Mule Deer population - probably at current 200,000 - to 400,000 deer." *Emphasis added by me.

*_In 2012 I called BS on this and said they would not hit 400,000 in 4 years. That original statement was a house bet lost by the house. The deer herds were already increasing in 2012, that has its roots in ~2008. Given that mule deer can double their population in 3 generations/5 years that was a very safe bet. Lets parse this out a little further. The original statement was saying we would have 400,000 deer between 2014 and 2016. So at the top end of that date range, we are just shy of making that 400,000 number even though it should have been very easy to hit. They cut deer tags again, increased the killing of coyotes(supposedly a big factor, Ha!), and we had twins dropping all over the place.

So given the most favorable conditions that could be, the DSFWR could just not quite pull off the minimum. Now keep in mind the DWR's own numbers put the statewide population at 330,000 at the time of that email. So what is the actual gain that was seen over that 4 years? We now have 384,000. So we increased the population 54,000 deer. This is hardly a doubling of the population. And such a doubling of the population was absolutely possible given the conditions, but the DSFWR does not know how to grow deer, they only know how to kill them, and suppress their populations.

Example, after "habitat projects" at the Midway WMA, this is what the deer in that area look like:









And Ridgetop already mentioned the 700 sheep that we _should_ have on the Stansburys. THis is what the deer looked like there in 2012:









In another thread about tag numbers it was mentioned that the elk tags on the Cache unit were cut by 50%, there was mention of a shift in age class, etc. blah, blah, blah. Here is what those elk look like:








And here is what the deer look like:









Laminitis: http://rutalocura.com/images/20141019_095209.jpg

We _had_ the opportunity to double the deer population in 2012, but we decided against that, and doubled down on the policies that have brought us declining and suppressed biggame populations of the last 20+ years. Why? Because not only does the DSFWR not know how to grow wildlife and foster hunting, those very things are counter to their political and fiscal status quo models.

Cutting deer tags while the population is increasing, and then adding them back over the next four years is not success, that is bait and switch marketing, like you get at a cheap strip mall jewelry shop.

Adding 13,500 deer a year over four years is not a success, it is not even a start, it is statistical proof of population stagnation. If deer hunting is the best it has been since the '80s like the DSFWR likes to claim, show me deer tags at those same '80s levels.

From 2008 to 2012 we added more deer(60,000/15,000 a year) without a coyote bounty, without unit management, without cutting tags, and with state wide archery. So after we added _better_ and more intensive management our net gains slipped. Why? Why did those gains start to falter as soon as everyone tried to make things _better_.

Because none of any of this, or the DSFWR propaganda, RACs, WB, or Con-orgs grow deer or hunting. If you want to grow biggame, and therefor biggame hunting you have to know not only what drives numbers up, but what drives them down. Science, as laid out in the NAMWC is how that is done, not politics, not fiefdoms, and certainly not what we call "wildlife management".

Without a return to the scientific basis that people like Leopold and the Muries laid the foundation for, hunting will be extinct along with the wildlife that once supported it. It is that science that brought us the greatest gains in wildlife and hunting this Continent had seen since the early 1800s.

I stand by my predictions from four years ago.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

More clarified perspective:

Adding 60,000 deer from 2008-2012, by going from 270,000 to 330,000 is a much bigger deal than adding 54,000 from 2012 to 2016 by going from 330,000 to 384,000. Especially given that we had a decline from 2009 to 2011 of ~20,000. Which means we netted 60,000 but grossed 80,000 deer in that 4 year period prior to _helping_ the situation.

The last four years are just a subpar build, heading into stagnation and an eventual crash.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> What's that saying about blind pigs and truffles?


There's a saying about blind pigs and truffles? really?

I was born and raised on a hog farm and am a Moderator on one of the 13 most popular outdoor forums in Utah and don't know that one.

.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

It might be deaf pigs?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

wyogoob said:


> There's a saying about blind pigs and truffles? really?
> 
> I was born and raised on a hog farm and am a Moderator on one of the 13 most popular outdoor forums in Utah and don't know that one.
> 
> .


Even a blind pig can find a truffle (loosely translated from French) the English equivalent is about squirrels and nuts.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Guys, it's not controlling coyotes that helped the Deer population increase, but an eradication strategy by none other than Al Gore to remove ManBearPig from Utah. 

Seriously are the coyotes in Utah the equivalent of chupa cabras?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Peay and Benson successfully kept chupa cabras out of Utah. It's why we pay BGF mucho tax dollars. Surprised you didn't know that!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Is 384k the real number then? I can certainly see that the numbers in my neck of the woods have roughly doubled especially this time of year as they get close to the highways. Saw many tonight in places where I haven't seen them in 20 years, which I assume to mean that pressure is high, so they are spreading out more than normal.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Huge29 said:


> Is 384k the real number then? I can certainly see that the numbers in my neck of the woods have roughly doubled especially this time of year as they get close to the highways. Saw many tonight in places where I haven't seen them in 20 years, which I assume to mean that pressure is high, so they are spreading out more than normal.


Here is where perception meets reality. Along some road ways, as you get further form the road, the density of deer declines. Along several stretches of State road 39 through Weber and Rich counties this is the case. This is not merely my own perception but the observation of several hunters and our experiences with cameras and scouting for several years. In this case this is because these deer are drawn to the road side mineral licks, so that is where their concentrations are the highest, 300 yards from the road. So if you drive this road at dusk you get the impression that the deer numbers are through the roof, even though that is not really the case.

Another example of this is antelope in Rich county. Several years ago they were in large groups, and pretty predictable. It had been this way for quite a few years. Then it appeared as if their numbers where sharply dropping. Because they were not seen where they had been, or in the numbers that they had been. Closer observation shows that they are dispersing, and heading to higher elevations. There may be as many as there were before, but they are spread over three counties now, in smaller groups, so that gets harder to ascertain. THis has been observed before, 20 years ago, right before deer, elk, moose, and antelope all crashed.

384,000? It is a number that the DWR came to by using counts from the same areas they have always counted, and by the same means that they have always used in those locations. Those individual counts are then modeled, and extrapolated to get us that big 384,000 state wide number. So from a comparative point of view, from year to year, those individual counts by area may well be inaccurate, based on the examples I just gave. But comparatively, in aggregate, from year to year, and over a decade, they do give us an accurate idea of what the overall picture is.

So in the context of what we did between 2008-2012 and what we then did between 2012-2016, they are accurate enough to tell us if the trend line is going up, or down, and how things compare from year to year, and decade to decade. And what they tell us is that we were doing much better both in terms of growing deer, and the opportunity to hunt deer, prior to all of the great management that was put in place in 2012.

Everything I just posted in those pictures, happened 20 years ago as well, right before the bottom fell out. So if you are seeing things that are reminiscent of the early '90s, that is not necessarily a good thing. It is unfortunately, and mostly likely, a bad omen of things to come.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

:mrgreen: Show me it is not. How are those Stansbury bighorns doing?


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Dying from pneumonia contracted from domestic sheep. 8)


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Is that what took out all the deer and elk out there as well?????

Is it the domestic sheep that cause the deer to grow antlers like that??

Maybe you could shed some light on the congenital hypothyroidism, and laminitis those sheep had as well. Maybe just the laminitis? Clue, it is not caused by domestic sheep, or pneumonia.......


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Pesticides! 

Still waiting on my swag...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Pesticides!
> 
> Still waiting on my swag...


Send me pics and GPS coords, and you may well get that. I need to get with someone and draw the last two months of 2015's photo contest, and then we will be handing out all of this swag, hopefully next week: http://westernwildlifeecology.org/service/gear/ We did this for 2014 as well.

Still waiting on one sponsor to ship an item as well.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

We have three threads going on all under the same umbrella!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This one is Laos, one of the others is Cambodia. Proxy battles, the 1980s Afghanistans of wildlife hunting forums.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Elkaholic2 said:


> We have three threads going on all under the same umbrella!


What's your point?


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

We are looking at sheep, deer, elk, pronghorn, moose as if they are isolated events.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Elkaholic2 said:


> We are looking at sheep, deer, elk, pronghorn, moose as if they are isolated events.


From that angle, it is the most efficient way to eat an elephant, or pack a moose out, break it down into small individual pieces. But yeah, forest for the trees seems to be a big part of our troubles in wildlife "management". We are not looking at the big picture, It works far better for some people politically, to do it this way.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Total Utah deer permits:

2011- 80,425
2012- 79,066
2013- 84,600
2014- 84,800
2015- 86,550
2016- proposed, 90,950 deer permits.

When opt 2 began in 2012, there was only a reduction of 1,359 deer permits.

You have to go back to 2008, 91,750 deer permits to find numbers like
we should see this year.


----------



## bossloader (Sep 11, 2007)

sorry it does not make sense,

Based on surveys conducted after last fall's hunts, DWR biologists estimate the state's deer population at more than 384,000 animals

Don says,
IN the next 2-4 years, Utah will double its current Mule Deer population – probably at current 200,000 – to 400,000 deer.

so a double would be 768.000 there is no way the state could feed that many deer I could see an in-cress of 40,000-50,000 but I think his estimate of 200-400 thousand he is giving himself a lot of wiggle room.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Maybe I was reading that statement wrong all along. I believed his statement was double from the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 in 2-4 years. Not that the current herd was estimated between 200,000-400,000 at the time. 

But even you take it that way, this is still unbelievably misleading. 

In 2012, the herd was not estimated at 200,000. Heck, it wasn't even 200,000 in 2011. In fact, Utah's deer herd has never been estimated that low. It hasn't been since 1994 that the herd was even estimated below 250,000, and even then, just slightly under. The winter population estimate in 2012, according to the DWR, was 318,550. So if the current estimate of 386,000 is accepted, we have increased our herd 67,450 deer. Or in terms of percentage, 21%. Now, I know all you have to do is add a "0" on to the end of 21% to make it 210%...and maybe that is the funny math we are using to "double" the deer herd. Bravo, almost 70,000 more deer is a good thing, but it ain't double! 

To double 2011's numbers, we'd need to be at 572,200. To double 2012's numbers we'd need to be at 637,100. 

Finnegan, I think you can put that crow on ice for now. No reason to be eating it.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Look no one is in favor of eliminating as many coyotes as possible as I am but realistically do we know what percentage of the fawn deaths can directly be attributed to coyotes? What data shows that eliminating X% of the coyote population will provide a y% increase in survivability of fawns. Wildlife survivability is dependent on a multitude of factors, some intertwined with each other. Before we devote massive resources to reducing coyotes what is the ROI of the operation, what results will it yield, how do you quantify it. etc etc...data not emotions drive better wildlife management.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

LostLouisianian said:


> Look no one is in favor of eliminating as many coyotes as possible as I am but realistically do we know what percentage of the fawn deaths can directly be attributed to coyotes? What data shows that eliminating X% of the coyote population will provide a y% increase in survivability of fawns. Wildlife survivability is dependent on a multitude of factors, some intertwined with each other. Before we devote massive resources to reducing coyotes what is the ROI of the operation, what results will it yield, how do you quantify it. etc etc...data not emotions drive better wildlife management.


Hey, you there, don't go asking logical questions!! This is Utah Wildlife management.... and you are talking about the Don!

Next question.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Is 384k the real number then? I can certainly see that the numbers in my neck of the woods have roughly doubled especially this time of year as they get close to the highways. Saw many tonight in places where I haven't seen them in 20 years, which I assume to mean that pressure is high, so they are spreading out more than normal.


The latest DWR new release say's yes, More than 384K...

The Utah deer herd has grown by over 100K in the last 4 years.

Link:https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1932-lots-of-deer-await-rifle-deer-hunters.html


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> The latest DWR new release say's yes, More than 384K...
> 
> The Utah deer herd has grown by over 100K in the last 4 years.
> 
> Link:https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1932-lots-of-deer-await-rifle-deer-hunters.html


That's not possible with all the yotes, cougars, no nuts, overbites, underbites, no selenium and deer getting drunk on herbicides it is literally impossible for the deer herd to be growing like crazy.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

No way it's grown 100k in 4 years.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If I shoot a deer on Saturday morning, I'll believe it. If I don't, I won't. My world is very scientific.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> If I shoot a deer on Saturday morning, I'll believe it. If I don't, I won't. My world is very scientific.


nut pics or it didn't happen


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Not a chance the herd has gone from 280,000 to 380,000. I believe it has gone to well over 400,000.

And it isn't because of SFW or the UDWR. It is because Mother Nature has blessed the West with excellent deer growing conditions for the past 6 years. Enjoy it while it lasts.

.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

LostLouisianian said:


> Look no one is in favor of eliminating as many coyotes as possible as I am but realistically do we know what percentage of the fawn deaths can directly be attributed to coyotes? What data shows that eliminating X% of the coyote population will provide a y% increase in survivability of fawns. Wildlife survivability is dependent on a multitude of factors, some intertwined with each other. Before we devote massive resources to reducing coyotes what is the ROI of the operation, what results will it yield, how do you quantify it. etc etc...data not emotions drive better wildlife management.


The real question is: how do we even collect accurate data to answer most of those questions? There are so many variables.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree with Packout on the numbers,
The DWR is being 'conservative' , 'safe', with their numbers.

More like 120k growth, 400,000 plus deer state wide.

It's AWESOME to see the deer filling back into areas that have been void from deer for decades.

I also agree mother nature has played the biggest role in this spike of deer numbers,
BUT,
I also believe predator control, habitat restoration, Hwy fencing, and fewer elk have helped add to deer numbers.

And opt 2 ( hunter management ) gets FULL credit for much improved buck to doe ratios.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hiked with the kids during the morning. Did a loop with no motorized access that was a total of about 4 miles. Tired them out pretty good so we road hunted the rest of the day/evening. 

I not only did not harvest a buck at first light, but I did not see a buck all day. Saw lots of deer, just nothing with antlers. If my highly scientific evidence is accurate, the Wasatch East unit has 0 bucks per 100 does. Thanks a lot Option 2!


----------



## ceedub (Oct 25, 2016)

Packout said:


> Not a chance the herd has gone from 280,000 to 380,000. I believe it has gone to well over 400,000.
> 
> And it isn't because of SFW or the UDWR. It is because Mother Nature has blessed the West with excellent deer growing conditions for the past 6 years. Enjoy it while it lasts.
> 
> .


Pfff! First bit a good weather we have seen in 40 years?

I'm not a climatologist but I'm willing to bet we have had many "good deer weather" spells in the last 40 years. And I don't recall the deer herd ever increasing like it has since option 2 and coyote bounties. Tying cougar tag numbers to deer objectives is also a great thing.

Is the recent weather a good thing? Sure. But we aren't seeing anything weather wise we haven't seen every decade.

And to think that some thought the deer herd was absolutely at capacity and scoffed at the idea of increasing the deer herd by even one deer. As a matter of fact those same folks would tell you that you should only have two buck for every hundred doe because by winter time that evil forked horn had done its job and it was only going to starve out a doe and its fawn.


----------



## Karl (Aug 14, 2016)

goofy elk said:


> The latest DWR new release say's yes, More than 384K...
> 
> The Utah deer herd has grown by over 100K in the last 4 years.
> 
> Link:https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1932-lots-of-deer-await-rifle-deer-hunters.html


The snow has been good lately, especially last year, according to the locals that I have spoken to about it.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Karl, depends on what you mean by "good". Good for the deer, as in fairly low amounts of snow and higher than average summer precipitation? Then yes. But "good" as in water pack/average? for the most part, not so much. I think the extra water in the May-Sept period the past few years with snow fall that hasn't really accumulated deeply throughout the state has been very crucial to the deer population gains. 

The other thing that doesn't seem to get much attention in Utah is the antelope herd. With the exception of the Plateau (too many tags + lots of animals removed for transplants), I have been amazed at the herd growth from north to south, east to west. It doesn't seem to matter much what part of the state, the number of antelope compared to what I remember from the 90s-2000s has been phenomenal! So much of Utah is great antelope country I've always been curious why we can't have numbers like those in Wyoming, Arizona, or New Mexico.


----------

