# The proposed deer hunting changes



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... heard.html


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm voting for option 2,
I think going with the 29 units is best.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I'm voting for option 2,
> I think going with the 29 units is best.


+1 Im blowing up the email addresses of the Wildlife Board and RAC as we speak.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If option 2 is put in as policy, the deer herds will suffer, deer populations will NOT increase, and opportunity will be lost for no biological reason(s). The odds of drawing a rifle/muzzy tag will get much worse, as many of the dedicated hunters and archers will jump into the rifle/muzzy pool as there will be far less incentive to hunt with a bow. What little is left of family hunts will be gone, hunter recruitment/retention will decrease, and general season deer hunting with so go the way of the T-Rex. Other than that, option 2 is great. :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't like Option 1 either, as I see NO biological reason to increase buck:doe ratios from 15:100 to 18:100. Sadly, the DWR is once again attempting to appease everyone, while appeasing no one, and while ignoring sound science. BOTH options are disappointing!


----------



## BIG (Nov 12, 2009)

Option 2 for me as well.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

Sure is lots of details missing from these plans. What about youth? What about Life time license holders in two of the plans? What is the reasoning to limit archers to one small unit?
How are the counts going to be done as deer might not be in one unit in the fall and piled up in another? What's the reason for even doing a DH program? WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO RAISE THE COST OF TAGS? You can't manage every unit to have 18 bucks to 100 doe. It just won't happen. It could take years to get 18 to 100 does in many areas so the number of tags would be reduced far beyond what they are currently proposing. Maybe there should be more focus on some of the other reasons for deer numbers to be low such as all the building being done on winter ranges.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What little is left of family hunts will be gone


IMO this is the worst part of Option 2...........but the reason my family and many others that I know quit doing the "family thing" because most of them have a hard time getting excited to go out when all you see is three two-points and orange in a week of hunting.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

I agree with op #2 also. Az. has managed multiple units for years and have some of the best deer hunting in the west. The 29 units is a good thing.


----------



## Bowdacious (Sep 16, 2007)

I know all you guys b!tch and moan about archery hunters....but PRO is right. With option 2 there is no incentive to archery hunt. Success rates with archery equipment are already low. There is no reason why archery hunters should be limited to 1/29th of the state....NONE! If you rifle and muzzy guys want to hunt smaller portions of land.......then more power to you. Archery will be non-existent in Utah and that will be a SAD SAD day. 

I think the proposed changes are $H!T and should be dealt with as such!

If they want to save deer herds....they should make the whole state ARCHERY with UNLIMITED tags (opportunity for everyone). The season should be from the middle of September and run til January. Maybe they could throw in a muzzy (open sites) somewhere in the middle. o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-|| o-||


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Seems to me that it would give them the option of drastically reducing tags in areas that continually fall below 15/100, giving them permission and reason to basically turn them into premium type LE hunts. Something stinks. 

The problem is the same as it's been for a number of years. Trophy hunters, guides and special interests are superceding the desire of the general public. These people have more reason to be vocal and networks to be heard, this DOES NOT make their opinion and wishes more valid than any one of us, yet they are the ones with the most weight and the ultimate say over tens of thousands of average citzens that enjoy hunting. The minority is once again dictating policy regarding Utah's big game and will continue to do so unless big changes are made.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2010)

i just turned in my 2nd year dedicated tag today. last year, my first year dedicated, i killed a very respectable 3x4. i love to hunt deer and want to hunt every year possible, so this year i was super picky about what deer i wanted to kill, so i would more then likely be able to hunt my 3rd year of the program. i passed up many nice mature bucks this year on all 3 hunts, several of which im kicking myself for not shooting... so help me, if i get screwed this next year because of the new hunt proposal and dont get to hunt my 3rd year im going to be extremely pissed!!! i hunt on one of those unit that is "below objective" on the buck to doe ratio, and i can say truthfully that i think the DWR is blind. i know deer numbers are down across the state, but when im seeing 100+ deer a day, and half of those are bucks, someone is not seeing the whole picture. the deer are there, they just arent looking hard enough. they arent huge bucks, but they are better then nothing!! the whole unit is like that, the deer are still there, you just have to get off the roads and look harder for them! stick to option 1. cut tag numbers, raise tag prices and lets keep deer hunting fun and not turn it into the LE elk hunts! its hard enough to draw a cow elk permit, does anyone think its gonna be any easier to draw a deer permit?? HE!! NO! i would way rather shoot a small 2 or 3 point every or every other year then a 180" 4x4 every 5-10 years.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Kill'em don't stress. Options 1 and 3 do not effect the dedicated hunter program and 2 wouldn't take effect until 2012.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I vote for option 3.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

is there a link to the proposed 29 unit boundaries ?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Option 1 or 3. Micro-management will cost you a decrease in opportunity of 20% in 2012. When buck numbers do not increase enough, you will see additional decreases of 5-20% in future years. All for what? The units are already meeting their buck to doe objectives. 

Micro-management of units which are meeting their buck to doe objectives will only lead to more influence of lobbying. Look at how the vocal minority complained that the Henry Mtns quality is falling. Really? Coming to a unit near you, 3-10 year waits to draw.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> If option 2 is put in as policy, the deer herds will suffer, deer populations will NOT increase, and opportunity will be lost for no biological reason(s). The odds of drawing a rifle/muzzy tag will get much worse, as many of the dedicated hunters and archers will jump into the rifle/muzzy pool as there will be far less incentive to hunt with a bow. What little is left of family hunts will be gone, hunter recruitment/retention will decrease, and general season deer hunting with so go the way of the T-Rex. Other than that, option 2 is great. :roll:


Agree 100%! I have been out the last few days looking for my wife a deer to shoot. We have seen tons of deer. We haven't found a buck for her to shoot yet but with all the hunters we've seen we are still seeing deer. Heres the funny thing we have only road hunted and seen these deer(wife has medical issues). We are going to try some small hikes tomorrow to see how she does. I just can't imagine what hunting is going to be like if they pass option 2. 
To me it sounds more like lets lower tags numbers but raise the price, make everyone choose a small area to hunt give them 5 days and hope they don't shoot anything. 
If you vote for option 2 than your just furthering SFWs agenda to turn Utah into one big, big money ranch. That the only thing thats important is the size of the antlers and the price of the tag. -)O(- ! makes me sick.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ramrod said:


> is there a link to the proposed 29 unit boundaries ?


Think LE elk units and you'll be close. You also will be able to apply for one of the 29 LIMITED ENTRY deer units in just a few short years. :evil:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Packout said:


> Option 1 or 3. Micro-management will cost you a *decrease in opportunity of 20% *in 2012. When buck numbers do not increase enough, you will see *additional decreases of 5-20% in future years*. All for what? The units are already meeting their buck to doe objectives.
> 
> Micro-management of units which are meeting their buck to doe objectives will only lead to more influence of lobbying. Look at how the vocal minority complained that the Henry Mtns quality is falling. Really? Coming to a unit near you, 3-10 year waits to draw.


*READ THIS PEOPLE!*

This is spot on and paints a perfect picture of the future of deer hunting in Utah of Option #2 is put in motion.

Do the math on the 20% reduction, and the additional 5-20% reductions down the road!

Remember, EVERY Limited Entry deer/elk unit started out under the premise of reducing permits to 'help' grow the herd. Those of you who think this won't happen to the general season deer units under option #2 are in denial. O|* :O//:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Option #3 for me, no question!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you want to look at a state that has benefited from a multiple and I mean multiple unit deer hunt take a look at Colorado. When I first moved here in 87 you could pretty much hunt the entire state on your over the counter deer and elk tags. Then around 93 we had a massive winter kill and the DOW went to a total draw for deer and you had to pick the unit. The first couple of years you could only hunt the unit that you put on your application and then once the herds started to come back they started to add multiple units that you could hunt along with the one that you put in for. Granted there are the trophy areas that you can only hunt that unit only but usually the units around it are in the multiple draw units. The herds haven’t made it back yet in a lot of areas but they are getting there. I doubt that I will ever see what they were back in the 60’s or 70’s but they are improving. I know of a lot of hunters that it ticked off when they went to the total draw and one unit only but it helped quite a bit to bring the deer back. 
I know that it is a tough choice for the DOW to make but they need to do something and do it now while there still is a deer herd. I remember the hunts in the 60’s up White River, Spanish Fork Canyon, and the Book Cliffs not to mention a couple of hunts to the Henries for that trophy buck of a lifetime. That along with the 100,000 other hunters that would head out in the 70’s and early 80’s with the Friday before the hunt declared a holiday for school, now that was the time to hunt. Not to mention the traffic jambs up Spanish Fork Canyon along with Daniels and all the traffic going one way on Friday night up to the hills, and then the same traffic jamb going the other direction on Sunday night.. You’ll never see those days again, sad to say.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

ramrod said:


> is there a link to the proposed 29 unit boundaries ?


Theres a link in the link for option 2. Here it is if you can't find it.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/maps/2011_prop ... option.php


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Sorry Critter, but you are selling something that doesn't exist. Since Colorado went to micro-units their deer herds have gown at a SLOWER pace than Utah's during the same period of time! Facts are facts, perceptions be damned.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Prooutdoors, I'll agree that a lot of the untis still need a lot of help but the units around me have been growing quite steadily. As I said I doubt that they will get back to what they were at one time but who knows. The big problem is that something needs to be done and hunters are not going to like what happens one way or another. It is like when Utah went to a total draw system. I know quite a few hunters that hung up their rifles and haven't been hunting since.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

Critter said:


> Prooutdoors, I'll agree that a lot of the untis still need a lot of help but the units around me have been growing quite steadily. As I said I doubt that they will get back to what they were at one time but who knows. *The big problem is that something needs to be done and hunters are not going to like what happens one way or another.* It is like when Utah went to a total draw system. I know quite a few hunters that hung up their rifles and haven't been hunting since.


Why do the hunters have to suffer? Why not work on the other varibles that are leading to the loss of our deer herds? Predators( Iron Bears favorite), hit by vehicles, and I think the biggest one loss of winter range. Why is it the one factor they focus on the hunters?
Its not going to change a thing by implementing these options other than losing oppirtunities and continuing the loss of the deer herds.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

HUNTERS BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR BECAUSE YOU MIGHT THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT ONCE REALITY HITS THEN YOU WILL HATE THE IDEA.

ONCE THESE BIG CHANGES HAPPEN THEN THERE IS NO TURNING BACK.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

**** it, CS I hate to agree with you but I do.   :O•-:


----------



## gitterdone81 (Sep 3, 2009)

Option 3 - Leave it how it is.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> If you want to look at a state that has benefited from a multiple and I mean multiple unit deer hunt take a look at Colorado....
> 
> ...The herds haven't made it back yet in a lot of areas but they are getting there.


I'm taking from your Colorado comparison that you think that these micro units might make the Utah herds rebound. Here's what the UDWR has to say about that line of thought on their question/answer page...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/2011-deer- ... s-faq.html



UDWR said:


> *Why won't any of these options produce a larger deer population?*
> 
> As one of our biologists frequently notes, "Bucks don't have babies." Hunters have communicated that they want to see more buck deer, and all of the 2011 options focus on improving buck numbers. It only takes about 5-10 bucks to impregnate 100 does. Any bucks beyond those initial 5-10 are biologically unnecessary. They are, however, necessary to ensure hunter satisfaction. The DWR is also focused on increasing the general deer population. The agency has partnered with Utah's sportsmen and other organizations to invest tens of millions of dollars in habitat-restoration work over the past five years. Those efforts are now beginning to pay off.


This whole thing just ain't about bigger deer herds at all. It's about more bucks for fewer hunters at a higher price.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Hunters will always get the short stick anymore, they are the easiest ones to target and no matter what they do most of us will continue to hunt. 
I personally think that we as hunters can do more for the deer. While I like a deer steak or roast I have only killed 2 deer in Utah in the last 15 years, and both of them were mature 4x4's after passing up numerous smaller bucks. Every year I listen to other hunters complaining that there are not any big bucks left and all the time they are telling me this they have a spike or a 2 pt on their 4 wheeler, for some reason they don’t know where the bigger ones come from. As far as the cats and bears I remember when you could buy a year long tag for them for a dollar each and hunt them during the deer season also but that isn’t going to happen either. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered on what needs to be done and as I said nobody is going to like the answer.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I have read many of you say in other threads that *WE* all need to sacrifice (*which is total BS*). How many of you will be the first ones to step up to the plate and sacrifice a few years of your hunting for others?


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Option 3. The state is already in 29 units. Close the sub-units down for a year as needed, or put an antler point restriction on the sub-unit. Otherwise leave the rest of the region alone. Get the car-deer problem under wraps. Bring in whitetail and get them going in the farm areas   And lets all enjoy some hunting...


----------



## Royal Retrievers (Nov 24, 2009)

Hopefully everyone can make it to those meetings that are set up in Nov.
* Northern Region — Tuesday, Nov. 9 at 6 p.m. at the Brigham City Community Center (24 N. 300 W. in Brigham City)
* Central Region — Wednesday, Nov. 10 at 6:30 p.m. in the Springville City Multipurpose Room (110 South Main St. in Springville)
* Southern Region — Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 5 p.m. at Beaver High School (195 E. Center St. in Beaver)
* Southeastern Region — Wednesday, Nov. 17 at 6:30 p.m. at the John Wesley Powell Museum (1765 E. Main St. in Green River)
* Northeastern Region — Thursday, Nov. 18 at 6:30 p.m. at the Western Park (302 E. 200 S. in Vernal)


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Anything but Option #2...taking away statewide archery has nothing to do with helping deer herds. What would be entertaining is to see them pick option #2 but keep statewide archery and see how many bows Wilde Arrow sells this next year as opposed to years previous!
Hunters already crowd themselves...this isn't going to change. The 29-unit proposal is just a way of duping people into buying a tag to hunt Morgan County only to find out that there is a whole 50 acres of the county with public access. Option #2 is a stepping stone for state-wide LE deer...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Critter said:


> If you want to look at a state that has benefited from a multiple and I mean multiple unit deer hunt take a look at Colorado. When I first moved here in 87 you could pretty much hunt the entire state on your over the counter deer and elk tags. Then around 93 we had a massive winter kill and the DOW went to a total draw for deer and you had to pick the unit. The first couple of years you could only hunt the unit that you put on your application and then once the herds started to come back they started to add multiple units that you could hunt along with the one that you put in for. Granted there are the trophy areas that you can only hunt that unit only but usually the units around it are in the multiple draw units. The herds haven't made it back yet in a lot of areas but they are getting there.


Yeah...let's take a look at Colorado. IN the space of the time Colorado has switched to limiting deer tags, increasing buck to doe ratios to asinine heights (30+/100 does), and managing on a unit-by-unit basis, their deer herd has decreased from about 800,000 to 400,000. During that time, Colorado has completed studies that show that increasing the buck-to-doe ratios has limited the productivity of their herds and could actually be hurting their herd growth. Hunters can't see the forest for the trees because they go out, hunt, and see a bunch of mature bucks...but, what they don't see, is that the herd in Colorado is plummeting, NOT improving....

....option #2 is the worst option and option #3 is the best!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Or they are counting deer more accurately.

I am totally confident Utah's deer herd counts are way off. The DWR reports 6500 deer on Monroe with an objective of 7500. But is considered one of the most chronically under capacity. I would bet there were less than 4000 deer on that unit. 

Can anyone point me to a chat forum full of Colorado deer hunting discontent? The only other state I ever hear anyone complain about nearly as much is California or maybe Oregon.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Or they are counting deer more accurately.
> 
> I am totally confident Utah's deer herd counts are way off. The DWR reports 6500 deer on Monroe with an objective of 7500. But is considered one of the most chronically under capacity. I would bet there were less than 4000 deer on that unit.


yeah...because you spend lots of time counting, classifying, and studying the deer herds! :roll:

"Sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Colorado and demanded validating surveys to verify numbers of deer. Sportsmen, other interested wildlife stakeholders, and CDOW engaged in a conflict resolution process and designed and implemented an aerial survey to estimate numbers of deer in a specific population whose previous estimated size had been contested by sportsmen....Both aerial survey estimates supported computer-modeled population estimates of 7,000-7,300 deer that had been contested by sportsmen, and all estimates were greater than the sportsmen's estimate of 1,750 deer, determined from their casual observations. After the survey, sportsmen did not accept survey estimates despite their involvement in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the validation survey."
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17173055

Yeah...Colorado sportsmen are just like you--can't see the forest for the trees!


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

Royal Retrievers said:


> Hopefully everyone can make it to those meetings that are set up in Nov.
> * Northern Region - Tuesday, Nov. 9 at 6 p.m. at the Brigham City Community Center (24 N. 300 W. in Brigham City)
> * Central Region - Wednesday, Nov. 10 at 6:30 p.m. in the Springville City Multipurpose Room (110 South Main St. in Springville)
> * Southern Region - Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 5 p.m. at Beaver High School (195 E. Center St. in Beaver)
> ...


they hold these meetings on work nights. it is very difficult for many of the average hunters to make the meetings if it means taking time off work to attend.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ramrod said:


> Royal Retrievers said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully everyone can make it to those meetings that are set up in Nov.
> ...


And, it is very hard for DWR employees to attend on weekend nights because the state won't allow them to work on other nights.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

15 years of less hunting has produced what? 180,000 hunters down to 88,000 has produced what? Now you what to go to smaller units! 

Whats the quote? "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results". 

Get rid of the LE hunts all together. Fix the units that are in the worst shape through management. Pour our time and money into making the states habitat better and we will have hunting that will be outstanding. 

But people will except three piss poor options. That is the part that is the shame.


----------



## Bears Butt (Sep 12, 2007)

Ya 3 seemingly short sighted proposals to choose from. But, it's obvious they are going to pick one of them on Dec. 2nd. My choice is 3, but I can't believe the cost of those tags won't go up in 2012 and very likely the total number of tags will be reduced again in 2012 and then in 2013 etc. Tag costs will raise every other year and we will become used to it happening. Less tags every year, higher costs every other year. That is what my crystal balls shows. Again option 3 seems to be the best of the 3.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> yeah...because you spend lots of time counting, classifying, and studying the deer herds! :roll:
> 
> Yeah...Colorado sportsmen are just like you--can't see the forest for the trees!


I guess instead of business school I should have gotten a degree in WLM at Utah State and my observations would be validated. :roll:

Believe it or not I am an optimist on the matter. This is the first time in 15yr the DWR has been willing to look at a change in Utah's deer management. It should be a opportunity to put some good ideas on the table. I'm not optimistic on the chances of that. I'm in favor of any of the 3 options 2 being my favorite.

I have hunted the same unit for my whole life I will continue to hunt or just fish and take pictures on the same unit for the remaining yrs of my life. At this point the hunting prospects have gotten so dismal on my unit. I see an opportunity for the many passionate and foresighted folks that have the Monroe addiction to gain control of the management of their own unit.

My vision is for Monroe to be a model for the rest of Utah and the west on how to properly manage deer. A dream none the less. But this is the best opportunity I have seen in 30 yrs for the folks I talk to yr in and yr out to mobilize and make a difference.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> I guess instead of business school I should have gotten a degree in WLM at Utah State and my observations would be validated.


Being trained as a professional in the field you are critiquing would definitely be a start, yes. But, for your observations to be validated, you would also have to be working in that field and on that unit and have 50+ years of numbers to support your observations....

....you see, Mr. Bear, the problem with your "observations" is that they are just that and nothing more. They are NOT validated with any kind of support and they are based on anecdotal evidence at best. If you were somehow able to sue the DWR and claim that their numbers were bad, you would lose laughably. Why? Because their numbers are based on the BEST available science out there while your opinions are based on anecdotal evidence and cannot be supported.

Your critiques are akin to a biologist critiquing a doctor's diagnosis of an illness...who do you trust? The person who has been trained and works in the field, or somebody who stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?


----------



## Fishracer (Mar 2, 2009)

Option 1 and 2 are a joke! Anyone who thinks these changes will not hurt the deer heads and hunting are kidding themselves. People want changes. People want more deer. Thats fine, but this is not going to give you that. People who are for these changes are for it just because it means a change, not because it will work. :roll: 
On a side note: Ironbear i dont know you , but everyone of your post makes it seem as if you only care about what will work for the monreo unit and not what will be best for the state and the entire deer heard. Makes it hard to take what you are saying seriously.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

What will happen to the limited entry draw if all units are draw. Will you have to burn the 10 points you have been saving to hunt the Henerys to hunt your home range?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If my doctor gave me advise that led to a demise in my health yr after yr. I would loose confidence in him or her as also. 

Yep, I only really care about Monroe. And worse yet only the deer on Monroe. It's a microcosm for most all of Utah's other units. And the policies I want implemented on Monroe if applied to the rest of the state would benefit as well.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Again, Like Anis and all Biologists have said since the beginning of time.
THE MALE OF THE SPECIES HAS VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH SPECIES POPULATION.

This is nothing more than an attempt to run Utah's General Season Mule Deer hunts like our current clusterF&[email protected] of an elk plan.

You've basically got one group known for wanting to have the opportunity to hunt a Record Book Animal "Once or twice in a lifetime" 

Remember the old saying "If ya just want to kill a bull go to Colorado"??

Well now it's "If ya just want to hunt deer go to Colorado"!!!

Show Up!!! Speak Up!!!


----------



## Twitchell (Apr 14, 2010)

Huntoholic said:


> 15 years of less hunting has produced what? 180,000 hunters down to 88,000 has produced what? Now you what to go to smaller units!
> 
> Whats the quote? "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results".
> 
> ...


Sooooo, are you saying that you wish there were still 180,000 hunters in Utah? WOW. I am sure glad they cut the tags. And I bet alot of others are too........Something to think about..............


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> If my doctor gave me advise that led to a demise in my health yr after yr. I would loose confidence in him or her as also.


A couple of questions: 1)What decisions by the DWR have lead to the "demise" of deer? 2) If your doctor gave you advice to avoid...say, heart disease, and you still had a heart attack, is it the doctor's fault that you had the attack?

It sounds like to me that you need a scapegoat for your problems...have you ever considered the idea that since deer herds have dwindled and decreased all across the Western US that maybe, just maybe, fish and game agencies have had very little impact on deer herds?


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Cmon Iron Bear- Dont you know that only division employees are smart enough to make desicions regarding our deer herds. I mean hell, most of them have been lifelong residents of this state and hunted their entire lives. Your 20+ years experience means nothing to a couple years experience and a degree. Its best to let the professionals make observations for you, and dont you dare ask questions.............. :? just like you should let the United States government tell you what is BEST for you


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1)What decisions by the DWR have lead to the "demise" of deer?


I wont say they have led to the demise of the deer herd......but they certainly have made some stupid decisions in the past IMO.

Like allowing archers to shoot does when are herds were not near objective........Refusing to start feeding programs in a timely manner when deer were up to there briskets in snow and temps were below 0 for weeks (I dont really want to argue with you again on this matter) Allowing elk herds to get way over objective causing direct competition with the Mule Deer on the winter range, Installing a Game Fence (Cache Valley) to keep wildlife off the winter range, maybe they could work a little harder to get signs, fencing, etc. installed on highways with high deer fatality, Encourage predator hunting with bounties, etc. More law enforcment/laws to keep people from hurassing wintering wildlife. Do away with cow hunts that take place during the winter all the while harrassing deer......

These are just a few....


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Refusing to start feeding programs in a timely manner when deer were up to there briskets in snow and temps were below 0 for weeks (I dont really want to argue with you again on this matter)


So, why did you bring up it again, genius? :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I wont say they have led to the demise of the deer herd......but they certainly have made some stupid decisions in the past IMO.


Oh....so, they haven't led to the "demise"? :roll: The funny thing about everything you just mentioned is that there are people out there who would argue the exact opposite...that all of those decisions were good.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ntrl_brn_rebel said:
> 
> 
> > I wont say they have led to the demise of the deer herd......but they certainly have made some stupid decisions in the past IMO.
> ...


Who??? And why have any of those decisions helped the deer herd????


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

The bottom line is the past is the past, cant fix it........but dont tell me that the UDWR has done everything it could and it is not any blame on their part that the herds are were they are at!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

So, the DWR is to blame? Are you serious? So, it is the DWR's fault that fires have been surpressed for years and years and much of our deer habitat is made up of old vegetation?It is the DWR's fault that people have spread invasive species like cheat grass across the West and eliminated native plants that deer rely upon for browse? It is the DWR's fault that winter range for deer has been shrinking and shrinking because of human encroachment? It is the DWR's fault that we don't receive sufficient rain every year or adequate snow but not too much? It is the DWR's fault that livestock management practices have changed and that these changes have impacted deer habitat? It is the DWR's fault that gas, mineral, and oil excavation has "fragmented deer populations" and had a dramatic effect on deer populations? It is the DWR's fault that major roadways have been built--like I-15and I-70--that cut off deer migration routes keeping them from migrating to their historical winter ranges? It is the DWR's fault that deer are killed by the thousands every year on highways? It is the DWR's fault that all across the Western US mule deer populations have been shrinking? Oh really...and here I thought that every state in the US was coming at totally different conclusions and that their conclusions were right. I guess I was wrong... :roll: 

So, does that mean then that the DWR was also to blame when deer populations were exceptionally high in the early 80s?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > 1)What decisions by the DWR have lead to the "demise" of deer?
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> ...but dont tell me that the UDWR has done everything it could and it is not any blame on their part that the herds are where they are at!!


The way you talk, the DWR has done nothing but exploit the herds and decimate them.

One thing that many people fail to realize is that our biologists got into their jobs because they are hunters and fishers, just like us. They certainly didn't get into their field of work for the money. They didn't do it because it's easy either. They did it because they love the animals. Why on earth would they attempt to make decisions that would hurt their own hunting opportunities?!

There are a lot of factors that go into managing our herds. Wildlife Board, RAcs, county, city, and federal government. Special interest groups. General public. Hunters. Non-hunters. Ranchers. Industry. Oil. The list goes on and on. Balancing all of it, and trying to make everyone happy is something that will never be accomplished. It's unfortunate that biology isn't always the number 1 priority with managing our wildlife.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

Well for instance everywhere in at least the "northern region" (I believe it was statewide but only know about the northern region for sure) about eight years ago you could shoot a doe with your archery deer tag. This took place everywhere in the Cache region and I seen many does taken by archers. 

I still am confused as to why a UDWR biologist told me that the feeding program about five years ago should have started sooner. HE STATED, that with the temps, amount of snow it should have happened sooner. Again its not worth arguing as we hashed it out for ten pages or so.....I really dont want to turn this thread into a to feed or not to feed thread. 

I understand that money is always an issue, what about laws similar to wyoming on the winter range???? I dont think that would cost to much- 

What about making one of the most effective ways of killing coyotes easier......Trapping??? Its tough to find a class even offering the furharveter course, what about the 48 hour check requirement, we are the most strict state I know of, making it tough to run much of a trap line. What about insentive programs-Kill 20 coyotes get a free or discounted elk permit, fishing permit or whatever. 

The state could also encourage mutual aid aggreements between county LE officers and division officers to help patrol, same with state parks officers that are not nearly as busy in the winter time.....in Rich County this happens all the time.

These are just some ideas


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> ntrl_brn_rebel said:
> 
> 
> > ...but dont tell me that the UDWR has done everything it could and it is not any blame on their part that the herds are where they are at!!
> ...


Sorry......but I dont believe they want to destroy our herds, or anything like that. It just makes me upset when they project the point and say that "we have done everything in our power to help and there is nothing else we can do".

Furthermore I truley believe that deer are a cash cow for the state of utah, I also believe that numbers can be tweeked and make them look good on paper. I also believe that Utah will never have the balls to shut down a unit like the cache or monroe, no matter how bad buck to doe ratios are. I find it convienient that the projected numbers always fall just above mandatory closure.

The reason I dont believe they will ever reach that point is BS politics (wildlife board, gov., legislature, etc.). Can you imagine what people would do if these units reach the point of mandatory closure, they would be out to lynch the biologists and that is to bad as it is not all their fault. I can only imagine what would happen to the biologists in charge of these units from the wildlife board and state legislature, im sure it could cost them a job. Make no doubt im not mad at anyone personally, just the system and how it functions. I cannot imagine telling your superiors that we are going to have to close down a unit, that would be tough, especially knowing how things operate.

IMO it would be much easier to manage hunting pressure and so forth that is why I am in favor of #2. Im an everyday guy, dont make much money, but love to hunt. I dont trust SFW as far as I can throw them either and Don is a big man.....I dont want to see the state turned into a statewide LE as I do not approve of the elk situation. BUT I believe it will be easier to help suffering units if they are micro-managed. I also do not believe that it will turn into a once every five year hunt, opportunity is better know that it has ever been, maybe not with deer but in the scheme of things think of everything you can hunt in this state. We can speculate for days on how things will truley end up, but Im not convinced its the end of the world if #2 goes into play.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> So, the DWR is to blame? Are you serious? So, it is the DWR's fault that fires have been surpressed for years and years and much of our deer habitat is made up of old vegetation?It is the DWR's fault that people have spread invasive species like cheat grass across the West and eliminated native plants that deer rely upon for browse? It is the DWR's fault that winter range for deer has been shrinking and shrinking because of human encroachment? It is the DWR's fault that we don't receive sufficient rain every year or adequate snow but not too much? It is the DWR's fault that livestock management practices have changed and that these changes have impacted deer habitat? It is the DWR's fault that gas, mineral, and oil excavation has "fragmented deer populations" and had a dramatic effect on deer populations? It is the DWR's fault that major roadways have been built--like I-15and I-70--that cut off deer migration routes keeping them from migrating to their historical winter ranges? It is the DWR's fault that deer are killed by the thousands every year on highways? It is the DWR's fault that all across the Western US mule deer populations have been shrinking? Oh really...and here I thought that every state in the US was coming at totally different conclusions and that their conclusions were right. I guess I was wrong... :roll:
> 
> So, does that mean then that the DWR was also to blame when deer populations were exceptionally high in the early 80s?


Again WYO2UT I didnt say it was all the DWR's Fault at anytime.......you asked to name reasons why they are to blame I did.....everyone knows that somethings are way out of their control....... for the record one more time "THE UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE IS NOT COMPLETLEY TO BLAME FOR DEER POPULATIONS" REBEL.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> It just makes me upset when they project the point and say that "we have done everything in our power to help and there is nothing else we can do".


I've never seen or heard this. Are you suggesting that they (UDWR) have thrown up their hands in the air and quit? I don't believe that is what you are saying...



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Furthermore I truley believe that deer are a cash cow for the state of utah, I also believe that numbers can be tweeked and make them look good on paper. I also believe that Utah will never have the balls to shut down a unit like the cache or monroe, no matter how bad buck to doe ratios are. I find it convienient that the projected numbers always fall just above mandatory closure.


They shut down the doe antelope hunt on the Plateau this year. I know that isn't the deer hunt, but they did shut it down. BUT -- will shutting down a unit actually FIX the unit? Or, is it only a temporary "feel good" solution that doesn't actually correct the problem? Is hunter harvest the problem?



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> The reason I dont believe they will ever reach that point is BS politics (wildlife board, gov., legislature, etc.).


Ahh...but this ISN'T the DWR! The Wildlife Board, Gov., legislature, etc. are all seperate entities, and the DWR has NO control over them. So, how can we blame the DWR for these other entities blunders? Further, isn't it the PUBLIC that asked for the RAC system, and Wildlife Board? Didn't we want to have our say?



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> I can only imagine what would happen to the biologists in charge of these units from the wildlife board and state legislature, im sure it could cost them a job.


Election day is coming up quickly. Who's voting for these idiots in the legislature that are making poor decisions for us?! Who's fault is it that they are in positions of power? Same with the Wildlife Board -- they are politically assigned positions. So, YOUR vote directly affects this! Make your vote count!



ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> IMO it would be much easier to manage hunting pressure and so forth that is why I am in favor of #2. Im an everyday guy, dont make much money, but love to hunt. I dont trust SFW as far as I can throw them either and Don is a big man......


IMO -- option #2 will be the final straw for many hunters. It will be the ruin of the dedicated hunter program (maybe that's good?). It will end many hunters "family" hunting experiences. It would certainly change the way many hunters currently hunt. I'm against it. But that's jut my opinion.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> I've never seen or heard this. Are you suggesting that they (UDWR) have thrown up their hands in the air and quit? I don't believe that is what you are saying...
> 
> They shut down the doe antelope hunt on the Plateau this year. I know that isn't the deer hunt, but they did shut it down. BUT -- will shutting down a unit actually FIX the unit? Or, is it only a temporary "feel good" solution that doesn't actually correct the problem? Is hunter harvest the problem?


No, I dont think they have thrown their hands in the air and quit, far from it, but I have never once, not ever had a biologist tell me that they have made a mistake, that something was a bad idea, NEVER. Its always push blame on something else.....and yes they usually have a valid point that the more serious problems are out of there control, BUT they have made some mistakes.....minor maybe.....but IMO every little bit helps.

No shutting down the unit will not fix the problem.......but it sure as hell isnt going to contribute. I dont think hunter harvest is the problem.....but it does make a difference, minor maybe, but its still a difference.

Do I think that if they would have not killed does years ago on the archery hunt that it would all be different now, no sir, but.....say 200 does were killed a year (im sure it was more) thats a lot of deer eight or nine years later, not enough to rebound the population, but it was something.


----------



## ramrod (Apr 15, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> ramrod said:
> 
> 
> > Royal Retrievers said:
> ...


is this messed up or what.

it would be nice if we could go to any DWR office and attend the meetings live video. many hunters want to be involved, the state should make it easier for us to make the meetings.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> 15 years of less hunting has produced what? 180,000 hunters down to 88,000 has produced what? Now you what to go to smaller units!
> 
> Whats the quote? "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expect different results".


This is spot on! Since this massive reduction in BUCK permits, which was done under the premise of 'saving' the herds, the deer herd is in basically the same state of affairs. Now, we are supposed to believe further BUCK permit reductions and forcing hunters to smaller hunting areas, will be the answer. WHY does anyone buy this???????????????

The same 'sportsmen' who bastardized the elk herd/management want to double down and do the same to the deer herd/management. Look at the big picture people; do you really believe that once the 29 micro-units are implemented they will be content? How long before general season deer units are GONE and we have nothing but limited entry deer hunting and a butt pile of LE deer conservation permits used to fund the "wolf war"?

I know the MODS want politics left out, but I see what is happening to game management strikingly parallel to what is happening to Washington DC. You can bet that whatever we are being told is NOT what will be implemented and has nothing to do with what will be implemented down the road.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have MANY issues with people within the DWR, but to lay even the bulk of the blame for the deer situation on the DWR is, IMO, nonsensical. The Wildlife Board TELLS the DWR what they MUST do. This is NOT my opinion, it is FACT! My biggest complaint with the DWR is their flawed logic of trying to appease the very special interest groups that keep screwing things up when they draft proposals. If they would just focus on the biology and LEAVE the politics to others, maybe we would have a better choice than the 3 offered up right now. The one proposed by the DWR has stuff in it that are meant to appease the special interest groups, but it WILL NOT. All it will do is increase the odds of #2 being implemented, which WILL be a disaster for deer and deer hunters. Option #2 is the first step to statewide Limited Entry deer hunting where deer hunters will be LUCKY to obtain a tag once every 5 years! And, the deer population will NOT benefit one iota, in fact it will likely suffer instead.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

PRO Speaks the TRUTH!!!!!


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

Option number 3!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Leave them at 15, with the possibility of creating recovery units.


----------



## cklspencer (Jun 25, 2009)

How can we be expected to make a decision based on only a small part of the information given? For the UWB to with hold the information until they make their decision is wrong and not the way the system was set up and intended to work.


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

suave300 said:


> Option number 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Leave them at 15, with the possibility of creating recovery units.


I have concerns about these "Recovery" Units. Make them Limited Entry and they will never go back to General hunts. I would rather see the continued use of shorter season lengths on these units with low buck to doe ratios. I hunt one of these Recovery units and feel the shorter seasons the last two years have helped increase the number of bucks and the size of the buck. I know a lot of bucks made it though the three day rifle hunt this past weekend.

Mark


----------



## suave300 (Sep 11, 2007)

MarkM said:


> I have concerns about these "Recovery" Units. Make them Limited Entry and they will never go back to General hunts. I would rather see the continued use of shorter season lengths on these units with low buck to doe ratios. I hunt one of these Recovery units and feel the shorter seasons the last two years have helped increase the number of bucks and the size of the buck. I know a lot of bucks made it though the three day rifle hunt this past weekend.
> 
> Mark


Im not sure they would stay limited entry units. They would be put on the recovery list because they dont have enough bucks. Whereas "LE" have far more more bucks on them than the 15 or 18.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

suave300 said:


> Im not sure they would stay limited entry units. They would be put on the recovery list because they dont have enough bucks. Whereas "LE" have far more more bucks on them than the 15 or 18.


Of course they would. There are huge lobby groups with a significant financial stake in creating new LEs. Look now many new "convention" tags SWF could get if the entire state was LE only. :shock:

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

A big problem with only having a 3 day hunt is that most deer killed during the hunt is durring the first weekend with hunters killing the first buck that they see. So I doubt that a 3 day hunt is going to help that much.


----------



## MarkM (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> A big problem with only having a 3 day hunt is that most deer killed during the hunt is durring the first weekend with hunters killing the first buck that they see. So I doubt that a 3 day hunt is going to help that much.


I agree with you to a point. Most hunter are going to kill the first buck they see no matter what if the season is three days or 9 days. I firmly beleive that it does help. I know for a fact that in the area I hunt there were more deer left after it ended Monday that normal years. I have seen several bucks the last couple days that have made it through where in past years you were hard pressed to see a back right after the rufle hunt. I would rather have shortened seasons than being able to hunt 9 days once every five years.

Mark


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

MarkM said:


> Most hunter are going to kill the first buck they see no matter what if the season is three days or 9 days.


I disagree. If you have 9 days to hunt, you are more likely to pass up that "marginal" buck on opening day, and wait to see if you find something better. However, if you only have 3 days to hunt, that "marginal" buck is going down.

The shorter the hunt, the quicker hunters are on the trigger.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> MarkM said:
> 
> 
> > Most hunter are going to kill the first buck they see no matter what if the season is three days or 9 days.
> ...


I absolutely agree, that is what happens on the bow hunt for me. I passed on several spikes and two points knowing I have a long season, if I would of only had a week or less, I wouldn't of passed.


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

I believe we need to do a couple simple things, leave the regions alone, statewide 3pt or better, offer 50 bucks per coyote bounty, over the counter lion tags, more law enforcement. But nobody can agree on anything so we will bicker and fight and soon we will be limited entry statewide.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I must say something again. 

It would hardly matter it we closed deer hunting down all together. Without addressing other issues. Put you elementary biology caps on and follow me. It is hard to see but by and large for 30yrs we have manged predators to their maximum capacity. Will anyone argue that cougar populations are substantially lower in any unit than they could be? Coyotes? Bear? We don't manage coyotes at all anymore and bear and cougar are managed for trophy potential. Just as the deer and elk have a range capacity so do predators. Deer and elk capacities are based on available browse and graze. Predator capacity is based on available prey. The only reason we don't have more predators in Utah is because we don't have more prey to eat. And as things stand with current policies. In the event of a prey increase we will see and increase in predators. Negating the relief afforded by hunters. So you wont see an increase in overall deer populations with the hunter restrictions we are facing. You will see and overall increase in the size if horn though. Case in point all of Utah's current LE deer units. Most poignantly the Book Cliffs.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

skeptic said:


> I believe we need to do a couple simple things, leave the regions alone, statewide 3pt or better, offer 50 bucks per coyote bounty, over the counter lion tags, more law enforcement. But nobody can agree on anything so we will bicker and fight and soon we will be limited entry statewide.


I agree with everything you said, but three point or better. That will increase the quality of big bucks, but not necessarily numbers or what is best for herd health IMO.


----------



## havnfun (Dec 3, 2007)

I there a option 4 ? :? 

It feels like my choice is the lesser of the 3 evils. I know that something needs to be done and I will try and do my part. Less tags and increased tag prices scare me. Tag costs have only gone up over the years and tag numbers have gone down. I'm afraid that is a trend that will never change. Hunting is already truning into a rich mans sport as it is.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Resident general tag prices went down 4 or 5 years ago.


----------



## SLCMULEY (Mar 14, 2010)

I am also for option 2.
That being said, i do not comprehend the thought process in each scenario having a different # of tag cuts. Each area should have an appropriate # of permits allocated.

I strongly believe the facts they have posted are biased in a way to cut permits (which needs to be done on certain areas) , and increase permit prices (which inevidibly will be done once permit sales go down).
Once the state has become accostomed to a certain revenue I highly doubt they will settle for less.
Keep in mind a few years ago when prices went down they also introduced the mandatory small game liscence. Which in turn generated more fedeeral money turned over to Utah through the Pittman Robertson act.

What happened to the proposal from earlier this year? Why not mix option 2 with the split seasons?
This would relieve pressure on a single weekend, and perhaps allow us to keep the same permit #'s and prices, all the while maintaining the same revenue for the state.

I am not certain of the biology standpoint regarding permits/harvest, and if permit #'s need to be cut then so be it. My only fear is that once we lose the permits it may be tough to get them back.


----------



## Califbowmen (Jul 1, 2008)

IMO keep the 5 management units that exist, stay with 15 bucks to 100 does, stop hunting spike bucks for at least 3 seasons and eliminate spike bull elk hunting on LE units. This should increase the deer herd slowly and stop putting extra stress on the animals by overcrowding due to increased hunting pressure caused by the spike elk hunters.


----------



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

I didn't read all 9 pages of this thread, and its been a while since I've chimed in anywhere so here we go....

I choose option 2, the entire state can't be managed the same, different areas have different needs, and 29 subunits being managed (For archery, muzz, and rifle) would greatly benefit the deer herd. I've never seen less deer (not just buck, but does as well) than I have seen this year. Do they even really exist anymore? I know elk do! Yes 5 to 10 per 100 does will work but everyone wants more bucks and there's no reason we shouldn't aim to produce more and at a better quality. I'm tired of the state the current Utah deer herd is in, tired of being overcrowded on every hunt, and tired of the thought that a deer herd that had more than 10 bucks to 100 does would be a bad thing attitude some of you give off. The deer herd is not in the best of shape otherwise there wouldn't be so much complaining going on.


----------



## miagenboy (Sep 12, 2007)

Wasn't there a deer commitee that supposedly helped with something? There was a whole new deer plan set in place and then all of the sudden a new 3 option plan. What the heck guys! Two years ago there was a plan proposed by a special interest group that all of the sudden sure looks like it is sneaking its way in. I just can't believe this is happening this way. It stinks, stinks, stinks! None of this helps the herds at all!


----------



## Cold Track (Sep 11, 2007)

GET YOUR ASSES TO THE RAC MEETINGS.... You guys that think option two is great are up in the night!


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Of the proposed options: I choose none.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Resident general tag prices went down 4 or 5 years ago.


Not really. They now make you purchase a hunting license as well before you can get your permit. If you hunt many species then it may be cheaper but if you hunt only deer, it costs more now than it did before the changes 5 years ago.


----------

