# Whats wrong with the Book Cliffs



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I was noting the object #s on the Book Cliffs is 15000 deer but estimated herd size hover around 7500 from 01 to 08. Also has 4 million acres as apposed to 442,000 acres on Monroe.

I have no experience on the unit. But just some general #s. 
Book Cliffs 553 acres per deer at 7500 deer. Monroe 58 acres per deer at 7500 deer.

Is the habitat that poor on the Book Cliffs?
What is the estimated Cougar Population? Coyotes?
How many elk to displace deer?
Human activity?
Road Kill?

Check off one factor *Over Hunting.*


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I would guess that the books cliffs carrying capacity is less per acre because of the type of terrain and habitat that exists. Deer can't eat rocks and dirt. 

They do their population counts in the winter as well, I would assume that a portion of the deer are wintering in Colorado, maybe making the numbers skewed?? I dunno....


----------



## jungle (May 10, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> I was noting the object #s on the Book Cliffs is 15000 deer but estimated herd size hover around 7500 from 01 to 08. Also has 4 million acres as apposed to 442,000 acres on Monroe.
> 
> I have no experience on the unit. But just some general #s.
> Book Cliffs 553 acres per deer at 7500 deer. Monroe 58 acres per deer at 7500 deer.
> ...


This same logic is applied to Alaska.

On a per acre basis, Alaska is one of the most unproductive, sterile, desolate game producing regions in western hemisphere.

:shock:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

The Bookcliffs has a lot of great habitat from what I could tell in 2006. There is areas that aren't very productive though. The bookcliffs is managed for 25 to 35/100 buck to doe ratios. Its the same argument that we have stated over and over about antler restrictions. The more bucks you have in the herd then fewer fawns are born every year because bucks are taking up space on the winter range. Thus the deer population growth is slowed down.

If the winter range hold x number of deer then you want more does because they are the ones giving birth to fawns.

Bookcliffs is managed towards quality. It's not over hunted because the tags are limited and it's very easy to see 60 bucks a day.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Ok, 7500 deer est 2500 bucks 5000 doe. Potentially 5000 new fawns. Because that many bucks would have to get to 5000 doe right. :?: So where is this new generation going?
Considerably what does anyone think the break down is? We know its approx 450 hunter harvest.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I would say the Book Cliffs are an argument against AL. Because I would say it was effectively 3pt or better. One variable with Monroe would be hunting pressure.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I will refine my #s 

7500 deer 42 bucks per 100 doe = 3250 bucks and 4350 doe.
Average 50 fawns per 100 doe= 2175 fawns.

So where do they go? Do 2100 deer die of old age per yr on this unit?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Ok, 7500 deer est 2500 bucks 5000 doe. Potentially 5000 new fawns. Because that many bucks would have to get to 5000 doe right. So where is this new generation going?
> Considerably what does anyone think the break down is? We know its approx 450 hunter harvest.


You cannot assume every fawn is going to survive. Look at the doe/fawn ratios for the Bookcliffs.

They have the Bookcliffs split in North and South.

*North*
2007-2008: 46/100 and the post count is 33 fawns to 100 does.
2008-2009: 46/100 and the post count is 18 fawns to 100 does.

*South*
2007-2008: 40/100 and post count is 28 fawns to 100 does.
2008-2009: 25/100 and post count is 18 fawns to 100 does.

The real question is how accurate are these numbers? Many deer winter in Colorado like Treehugger said. The Bookcliffs is a big area and sometimes it would have hard to count deer in the cedars.

Coyotes, lions and bears can be a factor for lower fawn recruitment. It also could be because more bucks on the winter range displacing the fawns.


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

Bears are outrageously high in number in the Book Cliffs. 
Also, you're not taking into consideration all of the feathered deer that get taken from there each year. (tribal permits)


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Bears are outrageously high in number in the Book Cliffs.
> Also, you're not taking into consideration all of the feathered deer that get taken from there each year. (tribal permits)


yeah the bear numbers are very high. I have 8 points for bear. I hope to draw one of these days.

-8/- -8/-


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Sorry I am terrible at quantifying these stats.  

I did notice that the harvest objective on BC for cougar has been at 30 cats per yr for some while but never come close to being met.

How many bear and bear permits?

An indicator the DWR believes cats are limiting deer?


----------



## takem (Feb 6, 2010)

ther is nothing wrong with the book cliffs the roded area is a desert Tirane and the roadless is some of the neatest country iv ever seen with some of the biggest bucks iv ever seen and yes the bear pop is high and they take alot of deer


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron, you have forgotten to include fawns in your numbers again. If there are 7500 deer with a buck:doe ratio of say 30:100 it doesn't mean that three out of every ten deer are bucks, you have to include the fawns in the equation. So, I am just using made up ratios, if the buck:doe ration is 30:100 and the fawn:doe ration is 30:100 you would have 30 bucks in a herd of 160 deer. Same goes for fawns. Using my numbers it would be 1406 bucks, 1406 fawns, and 4688 does.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Thanks Pro, For the clarification.  

Give me a few hrs and I will rehash the BC #s. My guess is this still wouldn't provide a conclusive reason as to why the deer herd hasn't recovered or been able to meet objective.


----------



## adamsoa (Oct 29, 2007)

Have you been out here? I know that the herd has been better but its not that bad
You can see more deer here on a given day then I've seen anywhere else


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

All these numbers of animals per acre means absolutely NOTHING in the real world.
Anyone who knows the Books knows that the majority deer are heavily concentrated in certain areas. Some places it's just absurd how many deer are in there!
I have never been to another place that has so much perfect deer habitat, especially bitter brush, than the Book Cliffs has. There are places you can look for miles and see hundreds or thousands of acres of it.
Yes there are dry desolate places as well, but this is why charts and graffs don't mean squat in the real world. :lol:


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

One big difference: no piute trail on the book cliffs. I am going to guess there is alot less sumertime activity on the books but I am just guessing. Less hunting pressure means less stress on the entire deer herd. I think the book cliffs are great.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Pretty funny thread here,,,,,,Not much wrong with the Books I can think of..

But even better ,,,BC deer wintering in Colorado,,Huh, Not to much of that happening.

And Bears eating lots of deer, That's another good one.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And Bears eating lots of deer, That's another good one.


Are you saying bears don't make an impact of fawn survival in May/June?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

And 10year,,,,TONs of summer time activity. 

85% of the BC has roads and ATV trails EVERYWERE......

Plus the oil wells and exploration going on 24/7,,,,

And them ol cowboys have always got something going on with the cattle.

And Pro,,They have some impact on fawns, But I've had this discussion with Hal Black
a few times,,,,,And for those of you who don't know him, hes lived with BC bears for
25 years ,,,Ask him he will tell you bears have a minimal impacted on deer there at best.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

So do you think there is any relation between increased human activity (both summer camping, atving, etc and fall hunting) and decreases in deer numbers on other places in the state?

Just trying to eliminate the variables.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Pretty funny thread here,,,,,,Not much wrong with the Books I can think of..


Are you serious. :shock: :?

I never been there and I am not a biologist. But the DWR has an herd objective of*15000 deer.* It stands around half that. On paper its in more trouble than Monroe. And they haven't been able to increase the herd one bit over the last 10yrs.

Also it has some important contrasts to a unit like Monroe to help me explore reasons for a deer herd not thriving.

With the minimal input so far it doesn't sound like a habitat issue. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The Book Cliffs, IMHO, are a big example of how antler restrictions and limiting the number of bucks killed does *NOT* help deer populations increase or even stabilize! Hunters continue to make the mistake that if there are big bucks in the herd, the herd must be healthy and all is well.

The Books have some incredible country for sure, and as diverse wildlife as anywhere I am aware of, which may be what is holding the deer population down. A chunk of land can handle only so much, with all the different species including livestock being dependent on it, along with all the human activity year round, and I am not at all surprised the deer population is still waaaay below population objectives.


----------



## archery01 (Feb 4, 2010)

I understand completely that a high buck/doe ratio is not healthy. CS talks about how more bucks compete with fawns on winter range. Well if those bucks were replaced with does would they not compete with the fawns. If a herd is at objective high buck to doe ratio is not good but if the the herd is at half the objective then the bucks should not be competing with the fawns. If this competition is high now what will it be like when the herd doubles.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't think a high buck:doe ratio is hurting the deer population on the Books, but I am saying it sure isn't help it either. Yet, that was the original reason in the first place to make the Books limited entry. Same goes for the Henries, and it is still below original population objectives when it was made limited entry as well. This is why the sell that is coming this summer/fall about 'needing' to go to something resembling limited entry an awful lot to 'save' the deer herds should be stopped dead in its tracks.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

The Book Cliffs highest concentration of deer areas is a lot like putting a haystack out in the desert.
Yeas it might have the acreage, but the prime habitat is very condensed.
I don't care if they can raise the herd size to 20000, the majority will still be concentrated where the habitat is.....naturally.

And i don't care what anyone says, the Book Cliffs were world renowned back when antler point restrictions were in place AND there were more hunters hunting it then than there are now because it was an open unit.
I will argue to anyone till I'm blue in the face (and even that won't stop me) that both the Books and the Henry's severely plummeted, simultaneously i might add, when they removed the restriction and had a three year slaughter of everything that had antlers on both units. I was there and i witnessed it.
The deer herds thrived back then along with predators, then after the hunters wiped out the herds in that three year period, it left high numbers of predators to clean up what was left. This is FACT because they did emergency culling of lions and coyotes on BOTH units prior to them becoming LE units.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SK just hit the nail on the head! Thank you.

The worst thing that ever happened with Utah's deer herds was when they removed
antler restrictions and we lost general season hunting on the Bookcliffs , The Henrys
, Oak Creek ,,,And then got them back as Limited Entry....

We are about to witness this exact same scenario on a state wide scale.

Everyone is so dead set against " other types " of management,,
They'll just go Limited entry.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

skull krazy said:


> The Book Cliffs highest concentration of deer areas is a lot like putting a haystack out in the desert.
> Yeas it might have the acreage, but the prime habitat is very condensed.
> I don't care if they can raise the herd size to 20000, the majority will still be concentrated where the habitat is.....naturally.
> 
> The deer herds thrived back then along with predators, then after the hunters wiped out the herds in that three year period, it left high numbers of predators to clean up what was left. This is FACT because they did emergency culling of lions and coyotes on BOTH units prior to them becoming LE units.


I agree you don't manage deer on per acre basis. I have never been to the Book Cliffs so I have no understanding of the lay of the land. So although the unit consists of millions of acres what percent would one consider prime mule deer or historic mule deer habitat? Has the shrinkage of the herd resulted in little deer in some areas with remaining strong holds or is it an overall thing?

How long did they keep up the pressure on predators? Was it a one season reduction and then let them recover? Or did they sustain low predator population until the herd met objective?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Everyone is so dead set against " other types " of management,,
> They'll just go Limited entry.


That is where you are wrong. Everyone is NOT against 'other' types of management except limited entry. Yes, I do believe antler restrictions would be a band-aid, just as limited entry is, so I am against BOTH. Reducing hunter harvest of bucks will do NOTHING to help the herds get healthier or increase in population. Therefore, they are merely feel-good policies that will restrict hunter opportunity/enjoyment. Until hunters get serious and truly want to FIX the deer herds, this merry-go-round will keep going round and round.

1)Keep working on the habitat
2)Reduce year round human pressure
3)Install more crossings under/over highways/freeways in migration areas
4)Keep predator populations in check

Real solutions take time, anything that is a quick fix isn't a solution. Increase the deer population, and the number of bucks (mature bucks included) will increase. Hunter harvest is about #48 out of 50 on effects on deer population/health.

You want a quick fix to get more older class bucks, close down some of the OHV trails, logging/mining trails, and some roads to motor vehicles during hunting seasons. Give the existing bucks somewhere to escape to. The Monroe has some sort of trail for OHV's on most ridges and through most valleys, where is a buck going to go to escape and live to get bigger? The Books is every bit as bad.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Ironbear, I never read why you only picked the Bookcliffs for being way under objective, but the majority of deer units throughout the state are under objective. There is only 5 areas that are at or above objective.

1. Kaiparowits (I'm not sure about these numbers)
2. Paunsaugant
3. Panguitch Lake
4. Zion
5. Pine Valley

Notice they are all Southern units.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Ironbear-
"How long did they keep up the pressure on predators? Was it a one season reduction and then let them recover? Or did they sustain low predator population until the herd met objective?"

I'm not sure how long they kept the pressure on, but both units were closed for i beleive 3 years, so i'm going to assume they kept the predator pressure on for at least that long. 
The state spent a lot of money on predator control, especially for coyotes. There were helicopter hunting daily.
Does anyone remember those first two years the Henry's reopened?
The bucks were insanely large and people were passing on 200" bucks because they knew they could get 220-230, not to mention there were amazing amounts of medium sized bucks in that 170-180 class.
The book Cliffs high scoring antler growth didn't rebound like the Henry's did, but the buck to doe ratio's certainly did. That part is most likely a genetic issue because there are thousands of bucks there now, but very few of "trophy caliber". It's still a great place to hunt for a person not seeking a 200" buck and just wants a nice deer and a phenominal hunting experience.
But having said that, there ARE over 600 buck tags available for the Book Cliffs, you'll never see it yield monster bucks.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> My son drew the muzzle deer last year in the Books.
> 
> Although we were disappointed in the age class we "weren't" seeing, we had a fantastic week long hunt and saw easy 100 bucks. It seemes like the top end of the age class was about 2 1/2 years old.....and they were thick as flies.
> We passed on at least 50 4x4 bucks hoping to find something with a little more age on it.
> ...


Skull Krazy, I also seen that you posted this a while back. You say that 3 point or better was producing some huge bucks back then, but not now when hunting is more limited than it was before. How is that possible?

I hunted the bookcliffs in 2006, and on opening morning I saw hunters shooting 18 inch 3 points and small 4 points. Those 600 hunters aren't ALL harvesting mature bucks, therefore, more mature would survive another season.

I can also think of several guys killing bucks in the 200 and over class.

When it was 3 point or better more than 600 people were hunting the bookcliffs right? They were all forced to target older class buck so more older class buck would have been harvested. The number of mature bucks killed would have been higher during the 3 point or better.

So how many people hunted the bookcliffs, 1000 hunters, 2000 hunter 3000 hunters etc?

What was the success rate of the 3 point or better? What was the total number of bucks killed?

I can see why the Bookcliffs has a lot of 2 big points than are producing other big 2 points. It all started with 3 point or better restriction. That gene was allowed to be passed down from generation to generation and it's still present today.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think that poaching can be a factor. The two days before I started my hunt in the Bookcliffs with Mossback then a Mossback guide came upon a 5x5 190 buck that was poached out in a field in Nash Wash that morning. He quickly called it in to the DWR.

I hunted 12 days in the Bookcliffs in November. We never saw one fishcop even though a deer had already been poached, and they knew about it. They should have been on the patrol. There was a lot of traffic on those roads in November so it makes you wonder how many deer are poached?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> And i don't care what anyone says, the Book Cliffs were world renowned back when antler point restrictions were in place AND there were more hunters hunting it then than there are now because it was an open unit.
> I will argue to anyone till I'm blue in the face (and even that won't stop me) that both the Books and the Henry's severely plummeted, simultaneously i might add, when they removed the restriction and had a three year slaughter of everything that had antlers on both units. I was there and i witnessed it.
> The deer herds thrived back then along with predators, then after the hunters wiped out the herds in that three year period, it left high numbers of predators to clean up what was left. This is FACT because they did emergency culling of lions and coyotes on BOTH units prior to them becoming LE units


.

I also don't think your taking into account that habitat was probably a lot better versus now. There were fewer elk that mule deer had to compete with on the summer and winter ranges. This can make a huge difference. If the habitat was much better in the 1980's then the carrying capacity would have been a lot higher. The survival rate of fawns would have been higher even with predators.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

A LE unit that still has young bucks and no old ones. And not growing seems to indicate one of two things.

One to many bucks are being harvested by hunters. Not allowing any to get older. Or predators have shortened the average lifespan of deer on the BC. It would be nice to have a sample of age class of doe. If they were also young.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

I dont think you can get a good feel for age or size of bucks from such a small sample of people. You need info from more people before making a judgment like that. Even on a LE the biggest bucks are going to be very smart and hard to find. They will not be seen from the road. I dare bet that 75% of the hunters down there never walk more than 1/2 mile from the road.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Coyote-
"Skull Krazy, I also seen that you posted this a while back. You say that 3 point or better was producing some huge bucks back then, but not now when hunting is more limited than it was before. How is that possible?

My answer-
Hunting is more limited now, but not the killing.
The antler restrictions dramatically impacted the harvest of mature bucks when the unit was open to anyone. As is is now, there's only a 600+ weapons on the unit doing the killing, but the success rate for "killing" is undoubtedly much higher.
A hunter used to go home empty back then when they couldn't successfully find what they needed, now you see hundreds of dead "last day bucks".

The argument of needing mature bucks to do all the breeding is hogwash. A 3 & 4 year old buck can do the task just fine. And just because his rack might not score 180", his son's very well could through the mixed genetics through his mother.

I forgot to respond on the habitat question someone asked.
If anything, the habitat is better today than it was back then through projects by the elk foundation (they purchased major land on the Book Cliffs about 15 years ago) and other oganizations.
As far as anything impacting our herd out there, it's going to be the new highway to link the North side to the south. Wanna talk about major loss due to road kills going right through the best habitat that unit has to offer!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> My answer-
> Hunting is more limited now, but not the killing.
> 
> This doesn't make sense. If the hunting is limited then the "killing" would be limited. Sure the success rates are higher, but they're only killing a certain number of bucks.
> ...


No one said that you need more mature bucks to do all the breeding. It's better to have bucks of all ages. I think it would be great to have at least 30% of the bucks to be mature.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > My answer-
> > Hunting is more limited now, but not the killing.
> >
> > This doesn't make sense. If the hunting is limited then the "killing" would be limited. Sure the success rates are higher, but they're only killing a certain number of bucks.
> ...


I have to argue your point CS.
If someone is going to wait about 9 years to draw their LE tag, i'd guess 90% ARE going to take a deer, two point or not.
Back then you had no choice but to go home empty to try again next year.

You stand correct that no one said anything about age class breeding in this thread, but it has came up numerous times in this same discussion in the past, so i felt i'd bring it back up.....no offense intended.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> I have to argue your point CS.
> If someone is going to wait about 9 years to draw their LE tag, i'd guess 90% ARE going to take a deer, two point or not.


Of course they will. That is why the rifle hunt is around 92%


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> > I have to argue your point CS.
> > If someone is going to wait about 9 years to draw their LE tag, i'd guess 90% ARE going to take a deer, two point or not.
> 
> 
> Of course they will. That is why the rifle hunt is around 92%


Then there's your answer  
I would almost bet my 401K the success rate in the Books was only around 20% when the antler point restrictions were in place, even with say 2000 hunters (just a guess, but i know it was very crowded!). 
Today we have a 92% on a limited qty, or an average of maybe 70% between all three weapons??


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

I still want to hear a logical explaination as to why the antler point restricions were lifted, and not by someone who was not a hunting adult at the time they were in place.
My guess is that it's not that it did NOT work, it's that it worked so well that our herd numbers were too big and there was simply not enough harvest!

This is why i mentioned the age class and breeding, someone said we were killing all the breeder bucks when this was discussed before -_O-


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

So with a 20% rate of 2,000 hunters that would equal 400 deer that were 3 point or better. I believe it was much higher than 20%. Everyone said the hunting was great so the success rate must have been higher I would think. 30% success rate would be 600 bucks 3 point or better which is more than the bookcliffs is now.

I wonder how many guys that drove out to the bookcliffs weren't leaving without a buck during antler restrictions. So they popped a 2 point on the way out.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> So with a 20% rate of 2,000 hunters that would equal 400 deer that were 3 point or better. I believe it was much higher than 20%. Everyone said the hunting was great so the success rate must have been higher I would think. 30% success rate would be 600 bucks 3 point or better which is more than the bookcliffs is now.
> 
> I wonder how many guys that drove out to the bookcliffs weren't leaving without a buck during antler restrictions. So they popped a 2 point on the way out.


Now that i think hard about this i'm almost certain the hunter numbers were more like 4000 rifle hunters back then, there's got to be a place to find that information???

As for people popping two points, yes that did happen. I personally came across a huge 2x2 lying on the ground with 3 holes in him, yet still very much alive. (i put him out of his misery, yes i took that chance). But as far as people just filling tags with 2x2's?? If you have ever been out there during those times, there were check points at every entrance 24-7 during the hunts.
Even at that and if a few slipped through the cracks, look how many yearlings are killed legally now??
This is why i said "I was there.....i saw first hand how the Books and Henry's were wiped out by hunters when they lifted the restriction".
I was on the Henry's the year they lifted the antler restriction during the bowhunt, then went back during the rifle hunt. I was SICK at the amount of 2 points were getting taken, i even saw spikes hanging in trees!
Keep in mind what i said about the high deer numbers, then the extreme low....but where did the predator population go?? It stayed high of course to clean up what was left, causing what the DWR called "emergency closures".

Deer numbers are good on the Books right now, they might not be at the objective per acre they want, but that's absurd to think they can spread deer evenly like peanut butter. 
There comes a time to throw charts and graphs out the window and go back to plain old common sense.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Do we know were the current objective #s came from. Its not on a per acre basis I know that. Is it based on historic deer #s then cut or what? :?


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I was just a boy in the 1980s. I went hunting with my Dad. He never hunted the bookcliffs in the 1980s because there were plenty of other places close to home to hunt.

I remember my Dad and grandpa hunting the Vernon unit when they issued 1,000 LE deer tags several times. The deer numbers were unbelieveable. I remember we looked in one canyon, and I counted close to 30 4 point bucks. There were smaller ones also, but it was just amazing to see them all. I remember seeing large groups of deer everywhere, and there was always atleast 5 bucks or more in the group. I remember hearing shooting in the next canyon and then the deer came through a big pass and it looked like the whole mountain was moving. Then I remember my brother drawing out there the year before it closed and the buck numbers were very low and the overall deer numbers were low.

There was a lot of big 2 points on the Vernon unit also.

The dwr said it was because of blue tongue.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> I still want to hear a logical explaination as to why the antler point restricions were lifted, and not by someone who was not a hunting adult at the time they were in place.
> My guess is that it's not that it did NOT work, it's that it worked so well that our herd numbers were too big and there was simply not enough harvest!


Since I am the same age as you, I feel I am every bit as 'qualified' to state an opinion on antler restrictions. It didn't work as well as many think it did, there are many already stated reasons as to why. It was done away with, not because of "too many deer", but because of wanton killing of yearlings, FEWER mature bucks in the mix, buck:doe ratios the same as pre-antler restrictions. We had more deer back then on just about every unit in the state, not just the 3-point or better units, so there were more bucks on ALL the units back then.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

coyoteslayer said:


> I was just a boy in the 1980s. I went hunting with my Dad. He never hunted the bookcliffs in the 1980s because there were plenty of other places close to home to hunt.
> 
> I remember my Dad and grandpa hunting the Vernon unit when they issued 1,000 LE deer tags several times. The deer numbers were unbelieveable. I remember we looked in one canyon, and I counted close to 30 4 point bucks. There were smaller ones also, but it was just amazing to see them all. I remember seeing large groups of deer everywhere, and there was always atleast 5 bucks or more in the group. I remember hearing shooting in the next canyon and then the deer came through a big pass and it looked like the whole mountain was moving. Then I remember my brother drawing out there the year before it closed and the buck numbers were very low and the overall deer numbers were low.
> 
> ...


Your right coyote, the Vernon used to be very popular for giant bucks.
What has changed out there since the 80"?? Hardly anything at all, very little development out that way over the years, so it's not habitat destruction due to over development. I have heard the "blue tongue" theory for years on virtually every unit in Utah, but that was 20 years ago, and it's not recovered yet? There's obviously still a huge piece of the puzzle missing here.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

There is a whole lot more pinion-juniper on the Vernon unit now than 20 years ago, there is more human activity now than 20 years ago, there is more traffic on the highways than there was 20 years ago.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

1992?


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > I still want to hear a logical explaination as to why the antler point restricions were lifted, and not by someone who was not a hunting adult at the time they were in place.
> ...


I'm not buying the "wanton killing of yearling bucks" theory. 
Granted that did happen, but definately not to a point where it would have any impact at all.
Even if 100 yearling bucks were wasted each year by wanton killings, that is a drop in the bucket as to what is killed today legally.

And yes there were more deer on all the units back then, that's the whole point of this topic and the questions being asked to what has happened since then. 
I also enjoy hunting the SE units. I'd say the deer are still VERY numerous there, but there's very little quality. There sure USED to be!
If the deer were thriving on those two units and people were flocking out there by the thousands due to the quality of older mature bucks, how can anyone argue the fact that it all went down hill following the restriction removal and the three year slaughter that followed??

And if antler restrictions don't work, why do so many other states still use them??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> And yes there were more deer on all the units back then, that's the whole point of this topic and the questions being asked to what has happened since then. Winter kill in the early 90's. A major increase in elk. More OHV trails, more oil/gas activity. Hunters killing bucks is NOT the primary factor, not even a secondary factor for that matter.
> I also enjoy hunting the SE units. I'd say the deer are still VERY numerous there, but there's very little quality. There sure USED to be! I have seen bigger bucks in the southern region the last couple of years than anytime in the last 10 years. The southern/SE regions are doing better the last decade or so than the ones further north do to weather. The huge winter die off two years ago affected the northern herds, but not the southern herds. If/when drought sets in, the southern units will likely suffer more than the northern herds.
> If the deer were thriving on those two units and people were flocking out there by the thousands due to the quality of older mature bucks, how can anyone argue the fact that it all went down hill following the restriction removal and the three year slaughter that followed?? Weather related mortality was by far the biggest factor.
> 
> And if antler restrictions don't work, why do so many other states still use them?? Very few do anymore, and those that do are not getting the desired results.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > And yes there were more deer on all the units back then, that's the whole point of this topic and the questions being asked to what has happened since then. Winter kill in the early 90's. A major increase in elk. More OHV trails, more oil/gas activity. Hunters killing bucks is NOT the primary factor, not even a secondary factor for that matter.
> ...


I will buy a portion of that, but toss out the fact that it was weather related mortality. We're talking the Henry's and Book Cliffs here, both have PRIME wintering habitat. Especially the Henry's, it's entire range is what is considered winter range from top to bottom. That quote came right from the Craig Clyde himself, one of the biologist down there. Even the Book Cliffs are aproximately 75% winter range.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Very little weather related mortality on both the Henry's and Books,,,,,

Even with this years heavier than normal snow there wont be much affect.

Droughts are worse.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

I find it awfully ironic how the good CWMU's in the Northern region made miraculous comebacks after the harsh winter. Even Deseret, Two Bear and Ensign Ranches took fantastic bucks that very next year and they just keep getting better.
Says a lot for "Micro Management", huh?? :mrgreen:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

SK has a great point,,,,CWMUs are just mini limited entry units.
With selective harvest,,,,Very, Very, few spikes or two points ever shot.
It's basically antler restricted.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> SK has a great point,,,,CWMUs are just mini limited entry units.
> With selective harvest,,,,Very, Very, few spikes or two points ever shot.
> It's basically antler restricted.


Budda Bing Budda Boom!! -*|*- 
You nailed my point Goofy!!


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > I still want to hear a logical explaination as to why the antler point restricions were lifted, and not by someone who was not a hunting adult at the time they were in place.
> ...


We might be the same age, but i was hoping someone who has been there and hunted those areas during those times would chime in and offer up their thoughts. 
I'm quite sure you told me one time you had never been to the Henry's before, not sure about the Book Cliffs?? -Ov- 
I want a more isolated theory on what has or is happening on those units, not a comparison at a statewide level.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Every time these topics come up, I pull out a few books and journal entries that have been written about mule deer, My favorite being - Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and management strategies.It's a compilation of studies put together by the WAFWAs and The Jack H. Berryman institute. It has contributions from over 20 biologists over many years of study.

I do this just to compare it with the opinions and links that are posted, mostly for my own learning. If you are interested in mule deer biology and all of the many factors that come into play in managing mule deer for numbers or trophy potential, I highly recommend it.

Here are a few highlights:



> Antler point restrictions do not produce more or larger -antlered deer, only reducing legal harvest through changes in hunt structure will accomplish that goal.


There is a whole section dedicated to antler point restrictions and it basically states that Montana, Idaho, and COlorado all did extensive research on antler restrictions and implemented APR's over many years with negative results, one being the bulk of the post season buck population being 1 and 2 year old bucks. In another chapter it speaks to younger bucks doing all the breeding and points to an accentuated temporal change in heterozygosity, possibly creating adverse effects in genetic diversity.



> Limiting licenses statewide or in selected areas provides managers with a simple way of reducing harvest to effect desired changes in deer herd demographics.





> Haywood et al. (1987) conducted an extensive exploratory regression analysis to detect relationships between hunt design, weather and deer productivity, and they also found that weather was the most important factor.





> Concern has been expressed in some areas that hunting seasons from August through January may be detrimental to deer. Most of the concern is for does not being impregnated when hunts occur during the rut.





> For predator reduction plans to be effective, these programs need to be well planned and implemented _only_ when predation has been documented as being the factor suppressing the mule deer population.


Below refers to predator control as well.


> Most studies we reviewed were relatively short term (3 years), conducted in relatively small areas, and only a few actually demonstrated increase in fawn recruitment and subsequent larger harvest by humans.





> Hunting pressure and predators might be controlled, and favorable weather could permit temporary recovery, *but deer numbers ultimately are limited by habitat quality and quantity.*


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

Thanks Tree, good reads there, But..........
I will never be convinced that a younger age class buck will pass on genes any different than if he was 5 years old or better.
That's like saying i would't have passed on the same genetic at 18 as i do now at 43. Genetics don't change due to age, that's just impossible.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Tree, Thanks for the info on predation studies. 3 yrs isn't enough time IMO.

You wouldn't conclude the effect of the Dixie Harrow projects on Monroe in such a short time. I be willing to bet that the habitat restoration going on is expected to take decades not yrs. Why don't they give that kind of consideration to predation studies?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't believe that's what they are implying and I agree with you. I believe heterzygosity refers to genetic diversity in an individual animal, which has been found to be positively correlated to greater body mass, more body fat and superior antler growth, not a change in genome as a buck grows older.

Before you replied I was going to add that I don't think that this compilation is the end all as far as mule deer studies go, I'm sure there is plenty left to discover and probably other studies that differ, but it's one of the better ones out there, IMO.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

skull krazy said:


> We might be the same age, but i was hoping someone who has been there and hunted those areas during those times would chime in and offer up their thoughts.
> I'm quite sure you told me one time you had never been to the Henry's before, not sure about the Book Cliffs?? -Ov-
> I want a more isolated theory on what has or is happening on those units, not a comparison at a statewide level.


I did however hunt the Fish Lake which was under the SAME antler restrictions as the Henry/Book units. I rode horses mending/building forest service fences and rounding up cattle on both the Fish Lake and the neighboring Manti LaSal. I saw more big bucks on the Manti side of the line. I also hunted both after the restrictions were removed, I saw little difference before/after on either forest. Funny how the deer are doing every but as good on the Fish Lake as on the Manti, even after they opened it up for 'slaughter'. This tells me what is going on, 20+ years later, on the Henry/Books/Vernon is not related to the harvest of bucks. I doubt there is a deer herd that has received more protection from predators, received a more limited permit policy than the Henries, yet the herd still is well below population objectives. This tells me that neither antler restrictions or limited entry impact herd health/population in a measurable amount.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Tree, Thanks for the info on predation studies. 3 yrs isn't enough time IMO.
> 
> You wouldn't conclude the effect of the Dixie Harrow projects on Monroe in such a short time. I be willing to bet that the habitat restoration going on is expected to take decades not yrs. *Why don't they give that kind of consideration to predation studies?*


Just rambling,

Maybe it doesn't make fiscal sense? They obviously have to project what the increase in tag sales, local revenue etc. will be in comparison to what they are shelling out for studies and predator control. As is, tags are all selling out, so the obvious answer to me is that unless they can get more than 35 bucks per deer, there won't be anything major in the works, unless monroe becomes LE and then we all know how 'they' get more than their 35 bucks for those tags, right? :wink: :shock:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Tree, Thanks for the info on predation studies. 3 yrs isn't enough time IMO.
> 
> You wouldn't conclude the effect of the Dixie Harrow projects on Monroe in such a short time. I be willing to bet that the habitat restoration going on is expected to take decades not yrs. Why don't they give that kind of consideration to predation studies?


I agree, and a couple of the cited studies allude to that, but one thing that is conclusive is the impact habitat has on deer populations.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

SK touched on something earlier that speaks to the topic at hand, which is the sporadic density of forbs, grass and shrubs that exist on the book cliffs. There are areas that are absolutely teeming with deer and it is very easy to see why from the amount of abundant nutrition that exists in these areas. The sage and bitter brush is thick and healthy. Other areas of the book cliffs are arid, rocky and almost void of any valuable mule deer nutrition.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > Tree, Thanks for the info on predation studies. 3 yrs isn't enough time IMO.
> ...


http://www.muledeercountry.com/?p=1450



> To manage predators we need to manage our habitat. Habitat is the primary factor we need to concentrate on in maintaining 'good' sustainable populations of mule deer. Believe me, spending money on habitat improvement projects is far better spent than on a quick fix of killing predators.


----------



## skull krazy (Jan 5, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> skull krazy said:
> 
> 
> > We might be the same age, but i was hoping someone who has been there and hunted those areas during those times would chime in and offer up their thoughts.
> ...


Fair enough-
I'm not sure what the herd size objectives are supposed to be on the Henry's, but i still go down there a lot in the spring shed hunting and summer just to look around and i can assure you that mountain is teaming with a healthy deer herd, regardless of what the stats tell us.
I also was on the Book Cliffs two years ago when my son drew a muzzy tag, we were easily seeing and passing 20 4x4 bucks a day.
Even though we didn't see the quality we were hoping for, i swear there were just as many if not more deer than there was back in the 80's.


----------



## takem (Feb 6, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Pretty funny thread here,,,,,,Not much wrong with the Books I can think of..
> 
> But even better ,,,BC deer wintering in Colorado,,Huh, Not to much of that happening.
> 
> And Bears eating lots of deer, That's another good one.


O IM SORY I THOUGHT PREDATORS ATE MEAT AND I GESS IV NEVER SEEN A BEAR KILL A DEER AND THE BOOK CLIFFS ROAD LESS THINK ABOUT IT NO ROAD


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

takem said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty funny thread here,,,,,,Not much wrong with the Books I can think of..
> ...


Food Habits
Black bears are omnivores and opportunistic,
feed-ing largely on vegetation. Seventy to 80% of the black
bear's diet consists of available roots, tubers, bulbs, berries
(especially elderberries and snowberries), succulent leaves
of hardwoods, grasses and nuts such as acorns. As much as
20% of their diet may consist of amphibians, reptiles, small
mammals, fish, ants and other insects. Utah's black bears
feed extensively on carpenter ants in downed timber and the
larvae in ant hills. Another 10% of the bear's diet may be
carrion (flesh from dead animals). Bears, for example, will
readily eat meat from winter-killed animals. Bears are
active at night, feeding generally at dawn and dusk; although
sometimes black bears will feed and travel by day.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

takem said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty funny thread here,,,,,,Not much wrong with the Books I can think of..
> ...


Even the taking of fawns is extremely rare,,,,Bear have to literally step on a new born.
They don't go out of there way to hunt them......

Black Bear
Facts
Black bears don't always live up to their name; their color can vary from white to black and every shade of brown.
Although they're carnivores, meat makes up less than 10 percent of a typical black bear's diet, and much of that is from scavenged carcasses and insects; the rest of its diet is typically nuts, berries, grasses and other plants.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And, black bears are known to target fawns in late May and June, thus impacting deer populations.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

A recent eastern study surprised everyone showing bears killed slightly more fawns than coyotes. The size of the deer herd is the point of this thread. How you kill bucks has little impact on herd size. The bucks are produced by the does and with the small doe herds you just are not going to produce many bucks. The answer is very simple- there are not enough fawns surviving to allow the deer herd to expand. Our fawn to doe numbers are very low often in the teens and twenty percentiles. We probably lose 15% or more of the does each year to various death loses-primarily old age. Since only half the surviving fawns are does, then you need fawn recruitment of 30% or so just to maintain herd size. I am convinced that coyotes are the main fawn killers but it does not matter because predator fawn kills are one factor that can be controlled easier and cheaper than any of the other factors that cause doe death. Look at what the wolf reintroduction has done to the elk herds. Coyotes are to deer what wolves are to elk. We won't get much better buck hunting untill we get the doe herd increased to at least objective numbers.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Even the taking of fawns is extremely rare,,,,Bear have to literally step on a new born.
> They don't go out of there way to hunt them......


Complete rubbish. Bears have learned to hunt, yes hunt, for fawns during the fawning season. I had a long talk with the government trapper on the Dutton about this very subject a couple of years ago. Just as a bear can/will acquire a taste for mutton, they can/will acquire a taste for fawns. I have seen first hand a single bear killing 30+ sheep in one night, I am sure they are more than capable of taking down a week old fawn. Dismissing bears as a legitimate predator that DO impact deer populations is naive and not based on facts/reality.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I do agree 100% that coyotes are by far the worst predator that face yearling deer,,,

And PRO,,I'd like to know how you think bears learn how to hunt fawns when all the
local biologist and especially bear experts like Hal Black have done numerous studies
that differ from your vast knowledge?

Here's a few quotes from studies in Utah.

"Deer fawns are born scentless; they don't have an odor, and predators can't smell them. Also, if you looked at a deer fawn in black and white, their creamy brown coats would be the same shade of color as the new grass and leaves. Add a few spots to their coats and they're well camouflaged."

Because a fawn doesn't have a scent and it's camouflaged so well, hiding the fawn for its first few weeks of life is the best way to protect it from predators. "The fawn's mother will usually move away from the fawn to feed and rest, but she will still remain reasonably close by," Stewart says. "If she senses danger, such as a human, she will leave the area in hopes of luring the 'predator' away from her fawn."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.global-scientific-inc.com/tc ... ckbear.htm


> In the LaSal Mountains of Utah, Smith (1983) found that black bears accounted for 22.7% (5/22) of summer mortality of mule deer fawns.


http://www.jstor.org/pss/3802645
http://www.umaine.edu/cfru/Events/Munsu ... dation.pdf


> Black bears are an established predator on neonatal ungulates


FYI, neonatal ungulates are FAWNS!


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Now your throwing wight tail studies at this??

They did a study in Hobble creek in the 80s with good info over 5 years.
Over that time ,,23.5 % of bear scat gathered did have deer "fawns" in it
at different times but was determined to be less than 1% of the diet.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

That's becouse bears eat a lot of EVERYTHING. That includes fawns.
And does and sheep.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> Now your throwing wight tail studies at this??
> 
> They did a study in Hobble creek in the 80s with good info over 5 years.
> Over that time ,,23.5 % of bear scat gathered did have deer "fawns" in it
> at different times but was determined to be less than 1% of the diet.


Goofy, are you capable of saying that bears will eat fawns? Bears know at which time of year food is more available. Bears know that during the fawning season then fawns are on the menu. Bears will eat berries, nut, grubs etc when they all become available.



> I'd like to know how you think bears learn how to hunt fawns when all the
> local biologist and especially bear experts like Hal Black have done numerous studies
> that differ from your vast knowledge?


A lot of it is instinct and from their mothers. Bears learn where the groceries are. I'm sure bears can smell the placenta when a doe is giving birth.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Listen you clowns,,,,I know bears will eat anything ,,including fawns.

But, for someone coming on here and posting Bookcliff bears are eating a lot of deer,and,
implying its a problem with the deer heard out there is a pile of BS....

I've had many encounters with bears out there,,Most comm-in are gutpiles and dead cattle.
They love that stuff,,But you can go out there every fall and **** near every doe is
packing twins around.............I've been there 15 of out the last 20 years.
Hunting deer, elk , mountain lions,,,,,AND BEARS.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

> *Listen you clowns*,,,,I know bears will eat anything ,,including fawns.
> 
> -_O- -_O- -_O- -_O- :rotfl: :rotfl: You crack me up sometimes, Goofy
> 
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The an article in the new Muley Crazy magazine by Ryan Hatch about the
hard times facing mule deer. I'd say its spot on............


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Clowns? Look in the mirror, it was YOU that first said bears don't eat fawns, now you've changed your story a couple of times. I don't recall anyone saying bears are the sole cause of lower than objective deer populations on ANY unit, just that it is one of MANY factors/hurdles that deer face. I know you are the great defender of lions/bears, due to self-interests, but your claims of how they don't impact deer/elk populations is based on voodoo biology.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Never one place did I post "bears don't eat fawns".........

On page 2 I posted "bears have some affect"...........

I posted bears taking fawn to be more on the rare side than ordinary...I believe that..

Just went through every post ,,,,,Don't see were I "changed my story a couple of times"..

WTF PRO?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Never one place did I post "bears don't eat fawns".........
> 
> On page 2 I posted "bears have some affect"...........
> 
> ...





goofy elk said:


> And PRO,,I'd like to know how you think bears learn how to hunt fawns when all the
> local biologist and especially bear experts like Hal Black have done numerous studies
> that differ from your vast knowledge?
> 
> ...


 -Ov-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I agree with the experts,,,,most fawn's taken by bears are more "randomly" stumbled on..

not hunted as PRO claims.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I agree with the experts,,,,most fawn's taken by bears are more "randomly" stumbled on..
> 
> not hunted as PRO claims.


Which 'experts'? :? :roll:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> The suspicion is that bears have become attuned over time to anticipate the deer fawning period as an opportune moment to obtain much-needed nutrition after a long winter hibernation, say Laine Stowell, a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources research biologist.





> "I think it's a situation where bear have learned that at a certain time of year, when the woods smell a certain way, that there's a food source of fawns out there," Stowell said.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Why don't you look up some of Hal Black's stuff,,,,I'd say he's one of the smartest
bear guy's I know............I'd say he's an expert,,,,and he studies Utah bears.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> On the northeastern fringe of the whitetail's range, both coyote and black bear target newborn fawns during June and July. Most studies show that coyote and bears are about equally responsible for early fawn losses, and together with all the other causes of fawn mortality, fawn crops can be diminished by 50% to 60% by October. High fawn mortality reduces the number of young deer recruited into the population to replace those older deer lost during the past year. Poor recruitment can prevent a deer herd from increasing, and when combined with high adult mortality, can cause a herd to plummet to very low levels


 Do you really think 'Utah bears' are that much different than 'other' black bears? :?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There dose seam to be differences in bears.......I'd love to stay up an debate,,,,,,,

But I've got to load dogs up at 5 am and hunt......


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I have a 7 am date at KSL tomorrow to discuss the new elk proposal, but I never get to bed before midnight. :? Go kill a cat or two! :wink:


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

Pro, are we to expect a story on the news soon? That would be cool.


----------

