# 2012 deer unit boundaries are up,,30 units,see maps



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's the link to the new map......

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -05-03.pdf

Dedicated hunter recommended changes...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -05-01.pdf

General recommended changes for 2012...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meeting ... -05-40.pdf

Individual unit boundaries can be found here....

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/meeting-agendas.html


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I wonder what will become of the Wasatch Extended? I did not see any details about this. I really hope they keep it and open it to all bowhunters with a deer tag--it has worked really well so far. It would be a pity to allow rifles/muzzleloaders in that area--That would ruin the unit--it would look like the rest of the state after one season. Of course the residents that live along the benches of SLC would probably not be big fans of the pumpkin army!


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2011)

it looks like to me they worked out the dedicated hunter program in a decent way!


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

I also hope they don't make any major changes to the extended hunt.

But according to all of the option 2 haterS on here wouldn't harvesting more bucks on the wasatch and lowering the buck to doe ratios be the best thing for it?
o-||


----------



## alpinebowman (Sep 24, 2007)

Mrad the best thing to do is imulate the front. The front shows the value of limiting high succes weapons. Many option 2 guys would like to see the archers severly limited when they are the answer.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Thanks for the info Goofy.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Now I still have questions...once you draw a unit for dedicated hunter do you get a tag there for 3 years? Or is it a year by year basis on what unit you can hunt?


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Well I support most of option 2 and increased archery opportunities/lower success rates. Utah just isn't very creative. It is kind of ironic though that the beloved wasatch has some of the highest buck to doe ratios in the state, and healthiest deer herds with some of the ****tiest habitat.

I'm suprised a doe or fawn could survive up there with all of those mean old bucks eating up the winter range and not giving birth.

Just think how good it could be with 6/100 ratio.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

Here's one to throw out just to raise some blood pressure...

If we want to make things fair for every weapon shouldn't rifle and muzzleloader guys get to hunt archery only area? 33,33,33% right? And it's not a saftey issue up there it's a social issue. Big bad guns are scary for the city folk and make loud noises.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2011)

Mrad said:


> Here's one to throw out just to raise some blood pressure...
> 
> If we want to make things fair for every weapon shouldn't rifle and muzzleloader guys get to hunt archery only area? 33,33,33% right? And it's not a saftey issue up there it's a social issue. Big bad guns are scary for the city folk and make loud noises.


im all for it! :mrgreen:


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The difference between the Wasatch extended and most all other units in the state. Ever wondered why Bountiful has so many deer?

An excerpt from a USU article pertaining to finding of their cougar study.

" The cats' primary prey, mule deer, readily wander into human-inhabited areas. Stretches of Redwood Road adjacent to Camp Williams are frequent sites for deer-vehicle collisions and sightings of deer are often reported by residents of the Oquirrh foothills. A question explored by Stoner is whether or not cougars will venture into the same areas.

The answer is yes, they do, but not frequently and, when they do, they're usually out at night, they don't stay long and they avoid humans.

"What we're finding is that cougars don't show a strong tendency to use human-impacted landscapes," he says.

In contrast to other mammals, such as deer, raccoons and bears, which exploit access to food sources left by humans, lions seem especially wary.

"You might expect cougars to follow their quarry into urban areas but that doesn't seem to be the case," Stoner says. "It's possible that it's easier for them to catch their prey in deeper snows at higher elevations and, as long as there's enough prey, there's no incentive to follow deer into risky habitats, such as those along the wildland-urban interface."

Wow thats a shocker. :roll:

A link to the whole article. http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=48263


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Mrad said:


> It is kind of ironic though that the beloved wasatch has some of the highest buck to doe ratios in the state, and healthiest deer herds with some of the **** habitat.


And very limited to no ATV access......... :idea:

Guess it just depends on what one _needs_ to be true.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

And fairly substantial amount private never hurts.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Slamy,,Slam dunk,,,,,,,Skull crazy.........
Where you been??

I wounder what your think;in??..


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

I like what Im seeing wish they could have moved the boundry off Heber Main Street though. Cant wait to hunt the extended unit with my pop gun loven it. On the dedicated hunter does one get the unit they draw every year or is it year by year basis?


----------



## bugleboy1 (Jan 6, 2011)

Maybe it was on there and i'm blind, but does anybody know what is going to happen to the buck/bull combo hunt?


----------



## hunter66 (Apr 23, 2008)

*High Success Weapons???????*

According to the data from DWR archery hunters are about 18% compared to 25% for rifle hunters. So what is the definition of "High Success"?? With todays bows it seems to me (my opinion) there is no "primitive" weapon anymore just those that want to "pretend" to play the "primitive" game. To cut any "I hunt primitive" comments. Those that do hunt primitive my comments are not directed at you, but those that pretend to be primitive with expanding broadheads, 15 pin sights, overdraws, are just 7% less successfull than the pumkin army. I was surprised by the success rate. So I guess to sum it up I agree with 33, 33, 33.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Right now rifle tags out number archery tags nearly 5 to 1(Muzzy tags come out of the rifle pool). Are you suggesting it be reduce to 2 to 1 statewide?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> According to the data from DWR archery hunters are about 18% compared to 25% for rifle hunters.


73,000 buck permits last year, multiplied by a 25% success rate= 24,090 dead bucks. Take the same 73,000 and multiply it by 18%= 13,140 dead bucks. So your argument is that an all archery hunt would keep an extra 11,000 bucks on the hoof each year? Multiply that by 5 years and you have an extra 55,000 bucks on the ground?

Multiply those extra 11,000 bucks by the average 9-11 year life span of a mule deer and you could have an extra 121,000 bucks on the ground every year????

Man, hunter66, you just made the most convincing argument for a switch to all archery that I've ever seen!  Everyone who wanted to could hunt every year, no need for limited entry areas...Holy cow, man, I think you've hit on something big here!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

What's muzzleloader success?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

About the same as rifle.


----------



## c3hammer (Nov 1, 2009)

The 18% for archery also includes does as it is a hunters choice hunt. The actual buck harvest had always been under 7% for archery. Haven't seen that split for the archery deer or elk hunts in a number of years though.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Airborne said:


> I wonder what will become of the Wasatch Extended? I did not see any details about this. I really hope they keep it and open it to all bowhunters with a deer tag--it has worked really well so far. It would be a pity to allow rifles/muzzleloaders in that area--That would ruin the unit--it would look like the rest of the state after one season. Of course the residents that live along the benches of SLC would probably not be big fans of the pumpkin army!


They already allow rifles and muzzys on the Wasatch Front during the general rifle and muzzy seasons! And have allowed them even before the Wasatch Extended was created! I'm sorry to have to remind you folks, but you need to really read the proclamations. I've hunted it with my daughter and sure enough, there is a pumpkin army, but the unit isn't any more ruined because of it than you now see. There are big ones taken off of it every year.

I can't imagine there would be any changes to that archery benefit, but who knows! They've eliminated statewide archery hunting, and there's still talk of shortening the season, so maybe the extended hunts will go too!


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

They allow general rifle deer hunters in the ARCHERY only area? Sweet! I need to get in on some of that.

I know what you're saying, but by in large the best deer hunting is south of I80.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

the map sucked.You could not tell where they was cuting off some of the unites.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

I meant the archery only areas, which is what I consider the extended. I would love to see you park in some neighborhood above Wasatch Blvd the third week of October all decked out in orange with your rifle and start the march up the mountain. I would give ya about 20 minutes until the law shows up. The extended archery (only) is great because of many factors with the top one being being no rifle or muzzle loader. If you want some world class deer hunting with months of opportunity and near unlimited tags make the whole state archery only. Even allow crossbows--it would still be world class. 

I would love it if the archery community and the rifle/muzzy community decided to trade off units--meaning make a unit like the Dutton archery only and make the Monroe rifle/muzzy only. In 5 years the Monroe would still have poor mule deer hunting and the Dutton would be world class mule deer hunting--> with a three month season, open to all archery deer tag holders. Never happen but its fun to think about!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Im all about letting rifle guys have their own unit they can shoot the piss out of and archers can't go in. Same with the muzzys.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Mrad said:


> It is kind of ironic though that the beloved wasatch has some of the highest buck to doe ratios in the state, and healthiest deer herds with some of the **** habitat.


The Wasatch has good hunting no doubt but healthiest herd? I don't know about that. In 2006 they estimated there were 2813 animals on that unit and by 2008 that number was only 1400. Less than HALF in 2 years!! It went up in 2009 to 1650.

We've got to stop measuring herd health by antlers. It's a myth. Looking at population trends it doesn't appear that the Wasatch (archery only) area is doing any better than the rest of the state.

On another note, even from just an archery perspective that unit has one of the lowest success rates in the state. I suspect alot of that is due to the terrain.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

There are units a lot nastier than the Wasatch, but you can use ATVs and guns, which both prove to be a prodigious asset where success rates are concerned.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> here are units a lot nastier than the Wasatch, but you can use ATVs and guns, which both prove to be a prodigious asset where success rates are concerned.


The success I mentioned on the Wasatch is only comparing archery success rates to that unit and others. Just from an archery success rate perspective its towards the bottom of the list.

I wonder if blaming ATV's is too narrow. What about just plain old access into the unit?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Sure, access is fine. If we are talking the archery only portion, there's definitely limited vehicle access. But, even in areas where vehicle access isn't very restricted, ATVs, in my experience, have a far greater range and system of trails than trucks etc.. I am generalizing, of course.

For the most part, the front sees a negligible deer harvest and I would guess that the harvest of does outweighs bucks. 

I have been fortunate enough to manage and improve a few pieces of property for mule deer and it is very apparent that they don't like ATVs. The consequence? Not sure, I'm sure it could be argued from all angles with validity.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

In 2009 there were 35 does and 92 bucks harvested by estimate in the Wasatch archery only area. That's a fairly standard ratio going back to 2000.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Bad guess. :mrgreen:


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I wouldn't mind seeing the units broken down a little more. I feel the Oquirrhs and Stansburys should be hunter managed separately but the 30 units is a good start. I think for most of us we can pick 5 or 6 units that are within an hour of our home.


----------



## Muley73 (Nov 20, 2010)

ridge,
I agree they should be broke down more. That is why the old time biologist had the state broke down into 62 units.

Maybe that is what Jake was getting at when he read the proposal at the WB meeting? :?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I agree with Muley73, back in the day those biologists knew what the hell they were doing, not like the whipersnapers of today! I would take it just a bit farther myself, allowing for even tighter control and management of hunters so that our herds can grow even faster with more, larger bucks for all. Utah could easily work out 103 units, giving hunters the opportunity to have several units to choose from that are closer to home. Of course, there would have to be less hunters so the overall experience could be one to appreciate. I would go as far as to cut tags by 35 or 45 percent from current levels, starting with the rifle tags, then muzzy, and finally archery, with a split ratio of 40-35-25. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any of the real factors that are reducing our herd numbers and health. Life is good! ;-)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> I agree with Muley73, back in the day those biologists knew what the hell they were doing, not like the whipersnapers of today! I would take it just a bit farther myself, allowing for even tighter control and management of hunters so that our herds can grow even faster with more, larger bucks for all. Utah could easily work out 103 units, giving hunters the opportunity to have several units to choose from that are closer to home. Of course, there would have to be less hunters so the overall experience could be one to appreciate. I would go as far as to cut tags by 35 or 45 percent from current levels, starting with the rifle tags, then muzzy, and finally archery, with a split ratio of 40-35-25. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any of the real factors that are reducing our herd numbers and health. Life is good! ;-)


I'm glad you finally came to your senses. 

I'm ok with that ratio, if it meant more total tags given out.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Sorry Ridge, but if you believe anything that has been done will mean more tags given out then you are sorely mistaken. Of course, a few more archery tags would mean guys like you and I will be able to get a tag. Under the current system, the opportunity to hunters will decrease and never return, even if buck number increased by 50%.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Packout said:


> Sorry Ridge, but if you believe anything that has been done will mean more tags given out then you are sorely mistaken. Of course, a few more archery tags would mean guys like you and I will be able to get a tag. Under the current system, the opportunity to hunters will decrease and never return, even if buck number increased by 50%.


Great point, people are tending to ignore this fact. That upper number on the new buck to doe ratio is what scares the hell out of me and the upper limit needs to be lowered to 20 instead of 25 IMO.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

ridgetop, Muley73, and stillhunterman, Dang, you guys are good! Great satire! You had me goin' there until I read your posts a couple of times. It's about time somebody gave us a good laugh on this thread/subject. You might have fooled packout and jahan and others, but you didn't fool me. Thanks!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> ridgetop, Muley73, and stillhunterman, Dang, you guys are good! Great satire! You had me goin' there until I read your posts a couple of times. It's about time somebody gave us a good laugh on this thread/subject. You might have fooled packout and jahan and others, but you didn't fool me. Thanks!


Oops you have been fooled, ridgetop and Muley73 are serious. Now my friend stillhunterman is pulling your leg. :mrgreen:


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

jahan said:


> elkfromabove said:
> 
> 
> > ridgetop, Muley73, and stillhunterman, Dang, you guys are good! Great satire! You had me goin' there until I read your posts a couple of times. It's about time somebody gave us a good laugh on this thread/subject. You might have fooled packout and jahan and others, but you didn't fool me. Thanks!
> ...


I know!! (  ) :lol:


----------

