Part 2: Loosing Opportunity Makes Me Sick

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-10 AT 04:27AM (MST)[p]Last night on a post I titled: "Loosing Opportunity Makes Me Sick" I promised I would post some information regarding my beliefs concerning hunting pressure and harvest and it's effect on the health of our mule deer herds.

The following is a letter I wrote a while back and sent to a individual I thought might be able to do something about an article published in Utah DWR Magazine. I was and continue to be frustrated with the beliefs expressed regarding the effect hunting pressure has on our mule deer population. I believe carefully controlling hunting pressure is most likely the single most important factor to control if we ever hope to have a mule deer recovery in the Western US and especially Utah. I am confident that those that want to maintain and/or increase opportunity will find plenty of reasons to explain away my beliefs and that's okay, I recognized the consequence of posting this on MM.

Read it if you wish and then do your own research. Apply your own common sense and analyze your own experiences then can decide who is correct. Go to the whitetail deer research sites at Mississippi State Univ, Auburn Univ and others and read their studies. Call the research scientists and ask them questions yourself. A great source for mule deer research is Dr. Terry Messmer at our own Utah State Univ. I'm sure he would be more than happy to share his knowledge and beliefs with anyone that cares to ask.

I would like to add this comment, it has been over twenty years ago that I spoke with Dr. Keith Causey from Auburn University. I have quoted him in my comments, these are to the best of my recollection his remarks, it not my intent to misrepresent him or his research, I'm sure he too would be happy to visit with you if you call him, as I did many years ago.

At any rate, you may wish to scroll to the bottom and read the portion of the Utah DWR Magazine article that discusses mule deer before you read my remarks, it might help put my beliefs in context.

Dear xxxxx,
I don't have any idea who Alan Clark is, hopefully you do. I happened upon this article on Monster Muley this evening and was floored once again with the DWR publishing for public consumption the utter nonsense related to mule deer buck doe ratio issues as it effect's herd?s health and the State's mule deer management logic. It could explain why our mule deer populations continue to languish. It is especially troublesome if Mr. Clarks beliefs represent the DWR?s beliefs with regards to Mr. Clarks article and I would have to assume they do in as much as the article was written for and published in the DWR?s magazine. Mr. Clark states that he teaches students at our Universities these concepts and it could explain why our young biologists continue to recommend the kind of management tools we are still using on mule deer in Utah. My guess is these concepts were taught to Mr. Clark by his professors some thirty years ago and he continues to teach them as fact. What's more the hunting public continues to worry about our declining deer populations and yet continue to argue that buck/doe ratios have little or nothing to do with the condition of our herds and continue to press for more and more buck hunting opportunity believing what they have been told by our wildlife professionals. Is it any wonder we keep hitting a brick wall when it comes to mule deer recovery.

Now then to the matter of Mr. Clarks comments.

While 5 buck per hundred doe may in fact breed 100 does that is only part of a much larger and more important factor when it comes to fawn recruitment and fawn recruitment is sole and single natural factor when it come to mule deer population.

There is little evidence that 5 bucks can find and service 100 does in the few days in November when the doe are in heat, a wild and dispersed herd is much different than a penned group of animals. To the contrary, there is significant evident that 5 bucks or even 10 to 15 cannot bred a 100 does in November. They may by the end of December or January but not by the end of November. November is the linch pin, I'll explain.

A doe that doesn't get bred in Nov. doesn't come in heat again until Dec. A doe getting bred in Dec will fawn in mid-July rather than mid-June or mid-Aug if she's bred in January.

Just to clarify a little for the young folks. When a doe goes into estrus somewhere between about November 10 through November 20, in Utah, she only allows a buck to mate for a period of about 48 to 72 hours. If there aren't enough bucks in the population to mate with her during those few hours, she goes out of estrus and does not come back in for about 29 to 30 days. There is a very narrow window for the ideal breeding period, especially when you consider the consequences of getting breed a month or even two months late.

So what?

According to scientific studies done at Auburn Univ. and Mississippi State back in the 1980's wildlife scientists learned that evolution has caused fawns to be born in mid-June for a very, very, very important reason. In order for a fawn to survive even the most mild winter it needs a maximum percentage of body fat. A fawn?s body fat depends almost entirely on the protein content of their mother's milk during the first two months of it's life. The highest protein comes from the fresh new growth of the forage a wild deer eats during the months of June and July. (Remember this is scientific research, not my research.) A fawn born in mid-July or later get less protein from it's mother's milk than a fawn born in mid-June. This is because the forage is older and drier, thus lowering the protein content of the doe's milk. (Does getting bred in December or January (due to low buck doe ratios would account for why we see so many fawns of different sizes during the deer hunt and later in the rut.) If body fat and bone mass are the key ingredient a deer uses to grow antlers it would also explain why we currently see so many spike bucks, rather than genetic mutants they are simply yearlings that have been starved for protein due to poor protein content in their mothers milk.)

So, while it is true, fawn count in the fall, after the deer hunts are over, can show acceptable fawn recruitment but any fawn born late, that goes into the winter with less than optimum body fat most likely dies or become easy prey for predation in the early spring due to it's weakened condition, caused by late summer birth. So in fact Mr. Clark has not lied but I believe he has only told a small portion of the big picture in his attempt to sell the public on lower buck doe ratios. For all I know Mr. Clark believes exactly what he wrote.

What good does it do the deer herd if every doe gets bred as this article points out but low ratios cause or help to cause disastrous fawn recruitment the following spring. Far too many of the fawns counted in the fall and early winter got a late birth and in reality are the walking dead.

According to Dr. Keith Causey from Auburn Univ. buck doe ratio in the State of Alabama got so low (4 to 6 buck per hundred doe) in the early 1980's that they were recording fawn births in every month of the year.

A question no one has every answered for me is this: Once a doe starts a cycle of giving birth a month late, due to being bred a month late, does she every get back on a normal rut cycle or is she doomed to always come into heat for the first time in Dec rather than in Nov. from that time on? I'm sure someone knows the answer but know one I've ever asked can say for sure.

Lets did another event to the history of Utah?s mule deer decline. During the 1940 and 1950 Utah had so many deer they were over eating their habitat and there was great fear they would eventually starve themselves to death through over population. Utah advertised heavily in California for hunters to come and hunt deer. They claim in the 1950 it was legal to harvest three or four deer a year. During this period the doe to fawn ratios reached as high as 120 fawn per hundred does. Even as last as the 1970 fawn/doe ratios where in the 80/100 range. A huge number things have evolved since this period, as I have pointed out in my last post. However there was change in hunting regulations that may have accidentally caused much of the problem we have today with declining herds.

During the 1950 and 1960 hunters poured into Utah in droves and because it was Utah?s intent to reduce the over all numbers of deer, shooting does was legal. As the late 1960 rolled around the hunter impact on deer numbers was beginning to alarm a lot of the Utah sportsmen. Attempts were made to get the DWR to regulate the deer hunt and stop the harvest of doe deer. They were unsuccessful and it was not until a determined sportsman from Monroe, Utah got himself elected to the State Legislature and threatened the DWR with Legislative law that they relented and Utah went to buck only hunting, with short or no seasons on doe deer. At the time this seemed like it would save our deer herds. Also, during this period of time buck/doe ratios where high because many folks just shot a doe or two for meat and went home happy, leaving a high buck/doe ratio.

However, as the years went on the buck only hunting regulations began to reduce the buck/doe ratio and by the early 1980?s many areas in Central Utah and else where had buck/doe ratios under 4 buck per hundred doe. And our fawn/doe ratios had fallen to as low and 35 to 40 fawn per hundred doe and we were all blaming high predator populations (and to some extent I believe the outlawing of 1080 poison in the 1950 did allow populations of cougars, coyotes and eagles to explode). However I have noticed something else as we have tried to reduce predator populations, especially cougars and coyotes on some of our deer units and it is this: as we have removed large number of predators the fawn recruitment hasn't improved. Why would that be, if they are the sole cause of the decline? Why haven't deer herds rebounded as the predator population goes down? Could it be that the buck/doe ratios have continued to remain too low for timely November breeding and even though predators aren't taking the fawns, they are simply dying for lack of body fat and predators are just consuming them as they drop? Consider how easy it would be for an already weakened fawn, a fawn born in July rather than June to be easy prey during March and April of most winters.

Something besides highways, optics, professional guides is keeping our fawn recruitment unnaturally low. I contend it's low buck/doe ratios. Low buck doe ratios that are a DIRECT RESULT OF OVER HARVESTING THE MALES.

Now, consider the exhaustion factor associated with 5 to 10 bucks racing around for three months attempting to bred a 100 does that are not going out of estrus when they should and then consider how vulnerable those few bucks are to disease, starvation and predation in that exhausted condition, then throw in a drought or a harsh winter every few years.

I'd like to reiterate this point some more if you'll allow me.

In wild populations a low buck doe ratio causes a buck to attempt to bred 2 or even 3 times more does that they would in a natural buck doe ratio of somewhere near 45 to 55 buck for every 50 does. (we can argue 30 to 40, the concepts is the same) It take energy to find, compete for, and service a female. Ever attempt, successful or not drains a little more energy, a little more body fat, a few more bumps and bruises for a buck. Then, to continue this frantic activity on through a colder Dec and maybe even into the dead of winter in January in some cases. It absolutely stacks the odd against a buck's survival chances. In the wild kingdom, a single doe in heat causes every buck in the population to expend energy, so if a single doe goes into Dec or January in heat, every buck that can smell her is on a fast trot to service her. The combat between the bucks is increased because you now have fewer does in heat (because some go bred in November) thereby concentrating the few bucks into a tighter more combative environment. We know that bucks are most vulnerable after a normal rut let alone after a 60 to 90 day frenzy. They are easier prey, they are less tolerate to cold weather conditions in Jan and Feb and if we get a later winter storm, just before green up, their dead, even if they were fat and robust when the rut began.

The last time we fought the DWR's attitude, in public, was when we were pounding them on low buck doe ratios back in 1984 and 1985 and the only evidence they could provide that 5 buck per hundred doe could service all the does was a study that had been done on domestic sheep. Where is the new data that supports Mr. Clark/DWR current statement as per this article.

What makes me crazy is it seems our agency people, who carry with them a assumed mantle of responsibility for integrity and honesty, only tell enough of the facts so as to distort the uninformed person?s understanding of an issue. Even the brightest among us repeat these explanations because they trust what the agencies tell us and do not investigate beyond what's been repeated by others that are either misinformed or deceived intentionally.

I know I'm whining to the wrong person but I am 100% certain that complaining to anyone else would amount to going out on my back porch and screaming at the widow next door. If there is something you can do to correct this belief or this apparent attempt at misrepresentation I would appreciate it.

For all I know Mr. Clark was taught this in college or his supervisor explained it to him. he certainly can not have done any independent research on the subject and still write such an article. I've included part of the article below. The rest of the article is regarding elk so I didn't include it.

DC

HERE IS THE SECTION OF MR. CLARKS ARTICLE THAT MAKES ME CRAZY.

Wildlife Management 101
By Alan Clark - Wildlife Section Chief of Wildlife Review Magazine
Published in Utah DWR Magazine -- Wildlife Review: http://wildlife.utah.gov

I've been a wildlife biologist for more than 30 years, and now my daughter is studying to be one too. She often asks me questions about why we hunt certain species the way we do. I'm frequently asked the same questions when I meet with people at events around the state of Utah or when I speak to a wildlife class at a university.

The interactions have helped me realize that people who are not directly involved in managing wildlife have many questions and assumptions about why we manage wildlife the way we do. I thought it would be interesting to address a few of these questions in this issue of Wildlife Review.

Why do we have separate hunts for buck and antlerless deer?
Management recommendations for Utah's mule deer are directly by the objectives in the Mule Deer Management Plan. The plan sets a population (quantity) objective for a total of 412,000 deer statewide by 2011. The plan also outlines a buck-to-doe ratio (quality) objective that guides the number of bucks (males) versus does (females, or antlerless deer). In most areas of the state, we're managing the herds so the ratio of bucks per 100 does is a minimum of 15 bucks per 100 does when the hunting seasons end in the fall.

To achieve those objectives, there are two types of deer hunts each year. The Utah Wildlife Board, with recommendations from division biologists, sets the number of permits for each of these hunts each year.

The buck-hunting season helps achieve the desired buck-to-doe ratio, while the anterless hunt moves the deer herds toward the total population objective. The reason two hunts are needed is tied to deer biology.

Bucks typically make up less than 15 percent of the total population. Since only five bucks per 100 does are needed to successfully breed all of the 100 does, the number of bucks in the population has little effect on the number of fawns born the next year. Even if half of the bucks in a population were harvested, for example, the total population would only be reduced by 5 to 10 percent.

So even when a total deer population is below objective, and we want that population to grow, we can continue to provide hunting opportunity for the "surplus" bucks in the population with little effect on the growth of the deer herd. For this reason, the buck-hunting season helps us adjust the buck-to-doe ratio, but does not have a major impact on the total population.

The anterless hunt produces a different result. When a doe is taken, both doe and the fawns she would have had in the future are removed for the population, which is a much bigger effect on the total population. For this reason, antlerless hunts are designed to get the total population to our objective.

IT'S NEARLY SUN UP SO I'LL LEAVE THIS WITH YOU FOR NOW, I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR OBSERVATIONS AS WELL.

DC

 

[B_BOP_A_LU_LU]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-10 AT 05:30AM (MST)[p]As I've stated many times in the past,I believe there are at least 18 or more major factors why Mule Deer have never rebounded like the should have in Utah.

Pressuring a struggling Herd from mid August with continuous & overlapped & non-stop hunts right into January is a total bunch of BS!
These Animals get pushed/pressured like no other.

The real sportsmen are out numbered in Utah by the Opportunists,so I don't see any smart changes happening anytime soon,in the last 37 years there ain't been much change,the Deer herd is still struggling,the management is poor & the opportunists are still screaming for more opportunity!

Sometimes it takes change to improve things,smart changes that is.

I still think the Opportunists should set their own types of units up(give them their share of the pie)and let them manage their share as they damn well please,but when they destroy it and they want to horn in on other units that have better management we need to tell them to take a FRICKEN hike!
Sorry hoytme,your share isn't the whole FRICKEN state,go kill your dink bucks & bulls,decimate your piece of the pie with your tactics & be happy with it,but don't come BAWLING like you've done many times in recent years trying to horn in on LE Units thinking it's your GAWD given right to stomp them units out too!

The few smart things I've seen the DWR do in my lifetime that usually took years to accomplish have always been destroyed & wiped out real quick because of the opportunists BAWLING & screaming.

With Utah LE Elk Units being some of the best units anywhere for trophy bull elk anywhere on earth,why the hell would you ever even think of changing/destroying something that can't be replaced?

Now we have people like Pro wanting even lower age objectives than what Our big game Director Anis wants which are already too low.

Start your own units Pro & manage them for a 2-3 year old age objective or whatever you want,I will never once want to interfere with your units,just don't think you're gonna destroy existing LE Units because the sportsmen ain't gonna let you!

When are the True Sportsmen of Utah gonna stand up,band together & tell the Opportunists to kiss our Tail?

EDIT:
Figured I'd best explain my definition of an opportunist:
An individual/group that horns in on an LE Unit/Units to reap quick/easy benefits because he can't steal them from anywhere else and is too Bullheaded to take the time to get his own types of Units started.

 

[hoytme]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-10 AT 08:31AM (MST)[p]Do I take the bait, or swim away? WTH, I'll bite.

First, I had no idea that "real" sportsmen were the 'trophy' hunters who want to ration units and make PUBLIC land(with elk it is 90% of the elk population that Bessy thinks are his) their own little PRIVATE playgrounds. Thanks for clarifying that Mr. Bessy.

Second, can either lumpy2 or lumpy1 explain why Colorado and Nevada deer herds are struggling as much, or more, than Utah's even though they manage for buck:doe ratios of 30:100? Also, the Book Cliffs, the Henry, the Vernon units ALL have buck:doe ratios in excess of 30:100, yet ALL are well under population objectives. The Book Cliffs were shut down for a few years and then reopened as a limited entry unit to supposedly help the HERD rebound in numbers. Yet, close to two decades later, the population is basically where it was when it went limited entry. Same goes for the Henry and Vernon units.

Third, I do agree that constant pressure year round on mule deer is ONE of the limiting factors on mule deer populations. Between hunting them from August through December, recreational use being at very high numbers with OHV's getting into remote areas, the increased popularity of shed hunting, lion/bear and turkey hunts in the spring, and recreational use from late May through August, the deer never get a break. This is a real threat that can be addressed and minimized if we are willing to do something about it.

 

[piper]

I think there is truth to that, it certainly isnt the only explaination for the sad shape of deer herds, but Its very interesting. I can't help but think of the greys river country in Wyoming, where the deer herds are 2/3rds of objective and the game and fish says they haven't hunted does there for years, yet populations still don't bounce back, and even less than severe winters produce plenty of winter kill. one factor they do ignore is the lack of mature bucks and the poor ratio. I think the drying western climate is a big factor, especially in the more arid regions, but that can't explain away all areas, and all problems. I would like to have some of these Wyoming bioligists read up on that research, if they haven't.

 

[destroyer350]

Great post Lumpy, You've made far more sense on the subject than all the rest combined!!!

Since when did al gore have anything to do with mule deer management? global warming! Really?

 

[hossblur]

Just my obsevation but it does seem more and more I see small spotted fawns really late in the summer(august) so I think the late breeding discussed earlier does have some merit to it. We also have to face the facts. Mule deer are experiencing some evolution(both environmental and man caused). With the explosion of elk and there dominance of the winter range we are seeing the picky eating mule deer moved to the fringes of the range causing them to take in less nutrients leading them to starve as late winter comes. Also in this is the development of the foothills, however most of utah is not developed and even here we see mule deer difficulty. We have seen the loss of sagebrush habitat, aspen die off, and now the bark beetle kill off which has affected the high country leaving the deer more exposed to predation and elements. In colorado and Idaho we are seeing the whitetail explosion, whitetail being much more adaptable to various conditions than mule deer. We are also seeing US love these animals to death. We hunt them from august to november and in some cases december. Then we follow them around all winter "scouting". Then we harrass them in the spring shed hunting, then all summer with our trail cams, then august rolls around and they are hunted again. Is there a solution? I truly don't think so, i believe that we pretty much have what we have with mule deer and I really believe that I will see in my lifetime(i am 36) we will see whitetail hunting become the major deer hunt in utah.

As for the "real sportsman" clown, next time you post please include your age and how many kids you have. See hunting in America is about access to all, not the European model you "real sportsman" seek where only the few can participate. Tell me "real sportsman" how you keep your kids interest in hunting when they need 10 plus points to participate in your LE paradise? How do you weed out 70-80% of the rest of us so you can hunt LE every year? How long after that until the other "real sportsmen", you know the extremely wealthy get rid of you lower class LE draw hunters and simply buy all the LE tags they want? Tell me "real sportsman" are the mule deer on the LE units experiencing no problems? Finally "real sportsman" can you explain how we went from deer everywhere and 200,000 plus hunters with no LE units to the explosion of CWMU and LE units and only 90,000 hunters and yet there are fewer deer?

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-20-10 AT 10:18AM (MST)[p]you bet your tail destroyer. Whether you hate Al Gore or not has absolutely nothing to do with fact that the climate in the western US has been drying up, and that drying trend goes right beside mule deer declines.

 

[hossblur]

Will the "real sportsman" also spend a few minutes on how they plan to not age? I guess they will never get sick, or arthritis, or have heart conditions, or cancer or diabetes or anything else that makes OHV or 4x4 access important. Or are all of the old guys/gals, people with illness, veterans with lost limbs, handicapped, etc now also part of the EVIL oppurtunists that must be rounded up and kept away from the "real sportsmen" and their trophy hunting? Funny, but most of us with parents and grandparents that were around in the good ole days when mule deer hunting was at its peak, don't ever hear of them trophy hunting, could it be that killing the biggest and strongest might have an adverse effect on deer herds? Couldn't be, because the "real sportsman" is the alpha male, the biggest, strongest, and smartest, and could never be anything other than beneficial, us "oppurtunists" are obviously the problem, if only we could start those camps out to topaz again for us wouldn't that be great!!!!

 

[jcmuleys]

DC,
I have followed the research that was put together by Stephen Dearais of Mississippi State and Paul Krausman of The University of Arizonia. It was published in 2000. All their research is very similar to what you have researched.
You bring up some very good points and you are right on that good buck to doe ratios are very important. Some of the most healthy deer herds like the San Carlos Apache Reservation have an estimated 53:100 ratio and places like National Parks that are not hunted have an estimated 25-30:100 ratio. Interesting that deer that are not hunted have a lower buck to doe ratio than deer that are lightly hunted. There is research that explains why this happens. One of the stats that i found interesting was in the state of Utah only about 1% of the legally killed male deer are estimated to be 8 years of age.

This a great subject and there is lots of research done on the subject. There is no need to mention anyone's name unless you are going to say something nice. We can all share our thoughts and opinions without getting upset with each other. Sometimes we can agree to disagree and still have a healthy conversation. The bottom line is we all want to have opportunity for ourselves and for our children.
My opinion is that Utah could cut the units smaller like CO has and mange the herds better. Making some more areas better quality and some areas that can support numbers make those areas an area for opportunity.
Jerad

Colorado Hunting Consultants LLC
www.cohunthelp.com

 

[hoytme]

This thread shows what is wrong, IMHO, with game management in Utah. We are managing wildlife FOR hunters, when we should be managing wildlife BY hunters. Until this mindset changes, we will keep going round and round.

 

[2lumpy]

WOW hoytme, I am confused. We been asking the Wildlife Board to reduce hunting pressure since 1984, first we asked them stop allowing us to harvest two deer, one archery deer and one rifle buck. They did, then we asked them to only allow us to hunt one season and they changed the regs. so we had to pick one hunt, (unless we wanted to become a dedicated hunter). Then we asked them to manage for 25 buck per hundred doe per doe State Wide and they gaged and give us 15 and complained about it being too high and to my face they told me, "there is more than one way to increase buck doe ratio" and proceed to issue thousands of antlerless does tags for then next ten years. We asked them to reduce hunting pressure and they limited the tags from 140,000 to 97,000. (In reality the deer hunt had becomes so messed up most of the 43,000 hunters they cut had already stopped hunting out of frustration and protest.) We asked them to go to smaller units so they could manage units to there specific need and they created five Then we told them we wanted shorter seasons and they took us from 11 days hunts, to nine day hunts, then to five day hunts and now we want 3 days hunts. Now deer hunting has become so poor that they have had to lower the age to twelve so they can continue to sell tags, pretending to be worried about loosing hunters to a different lifestyle and they want is to believe hunters have left because of culture change. WRONG. hunters have let hunting because deer hunting has become so frustrating what kid wants to do it. Chasing ghosts doesn't interest them. Give hunters deer herds that provide the kind of experience the Henries, Pauns and even the Book Cliffs provide, ever other year or three, I make you this promise, hunter recruitment issues will disappear quicker than a George mole can dig a hole.

Now the whole 25 years we've been try to save our deer herds by requesting less hunting, some have been demanding more and more and more. And, I'll be darned it they haven't been getting it.

And the over all deer numbers are still crashing. Yet we're still asking for less hunting and your wanting more.

So we're the ones not interested in the deer herd and it's viability?

Now your going to come back and say you got me because we've had all this reduced hunting and the deer herd still hasn't responded so I've made your point, which is killing all the bucks doesn't have any effect on the herd. You;ll say, if it had with all the reduced hunting they would have recovered. WRONG again. We have never got buck doe ratio and fawn recruitment back where it needs to be in spite of these sacrifices because there has been some that haven't helped the system and as Mr. Tom Cat has stated, there are in fact numerous other factors besides buck doe ratio, my point is buck doe ratio is where we have to start, until that piece gets in balance the other 13 fixes won't have the desired effect.


DC

 

[Packout]

Lumpy,

"Give hunters deer herds that provide the kind of experience the Henries, Pauns and even the Book Cliffs provide, ever other year or three,"

Right now, TODAY, some of Utah's general season hunts are a 2-3 year wait. To make units comparable to "the Henries, Pauns, and EVEN the Book Cliffs" would require such cuts in hunting pressure that one could only ever draw a tag every 10 years or so. The Henry Mtns hunt 1 tag for every 30 deer. If Utah has 300,000 deer then that equates to 10,000 tags statewide, sold to residents for $300 a tag.

"Now the whole 25 years we've been try to save our deer herds by requesting less hunting, some have been demanding more and more and more. And, I'll be darned it they haven't been getting it."

What-- we cut permits from 220,000 to 100,000. Hunt length was cut from 11 to 9 days and some cut to 5 days and now all to 5 and 3 days. Yet you say those "demanding more and more and more" are getting more? Really? All these cuts in permits, cuts in days afield, and very few doe permits in the last decade. And the herd is still not rebounding.

You make some decent points (while I never read the article you talk of), then you make some absurd claims. It makes it hard to understand what you really want to say. By the way, I tend to agree with some of what you say on ratios and the shortened hunts. You just loose some credibility when you make claims that are completely false.

But hey, if you get me a Henry Mtns quality tag every "2 to 3 years" then I will buy into whatever you have to say.

 

[2lumpy]

packout,
Your right I'm am a goofy old bugger. That being said, maybe your thinking my claims are absurd because you thinking everything would stay the same and your right if they did but think different for a second. If it takes 10 years to draw a Book Cliffs hunt how long would it take to draw if we had 10 LE units rather than 3. Increasing the number of LE hunts would or could lower the number of years it takes to draw, or so it seems to this absurd, goofy old bugger.

Actually you are right, I think, there was a time when Utah sold somewhere near 220,000 tags but, as I recall, the numbers had dropped down to somewhere near 140,000 when they put the cap on at 97,000. I could be off by a few thousand but the point I was trying to make was a lot of hunters gave up hunting at the time of the cap and a lot more had already given up deer hunting. Maybe I'm still not making sense but in my goofy old mind it supports the point that a lot of hunters gave up hunting for the sake of saving hunting and our deer herds, goofy old bugger that I am. Recall I was responding to an inference that those of us trying to protect declining deer herds were the one hurting the future of hunt.

I've already stated that if you think my posts are convoluted you should hear me in person, but thanks for reminding me so delicately.

packout, lets go hunt something, we'll all get an endorphin boost.

DC

 

[TSX]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-10 AT 05:58PM (MST)[p]I would like to post a little past history for reflection and hopefully for a better future regarding Utah?s deer numbers.

In 1983 and prior years, Utah had a relatively abundant deer population. There were over 200,000 deer permits sold each year with harvest numbers in the 30+ %.

During the years leading up to1983 it was not if I was going to get my 4 x 4 buck it was just which day of the hunt it was going to happen on. In fact, our hunting camp had a rule that you did not shoot anything but 4 points or bigger. The only exception was a heavy 3 point. If someone did take a smaller buck they were kicked out of camp! Even the road hunters were successful back then. It was the best of times, but that was about to change.

Utah had a very severe winter during 1983-1984. I knew the then DWR Central Utah Big Game biologist, Dennis Shirley. Every spring he would organized several spring horse rides to go and check on the condition of the various deer herds and new fawns on the winter ranges before they left for the higher summer grounds.

It was during this 1984 spring ride that he discovered the effects that the severe winter had done. He found dead deer by the hundreds all over the various winter ranges. So much devastation was observed that he cut the all day ride short and returned to Provo where he hired a helicopter. He flew the winter ranges from Provo canyon South to the Manti. He was hopping that what he had observed earlier was an isolated incident. It wasn?t. He stated he observed very few deer that had made it through the winter. When asked how much of a loss there was he gave an estimate of over 50++%! When asked if his report would be sent to SLC he said yes, but it would not change anything and that years hunt would go on as scheduled.

He predicted that the 1984 deer hunt would be a disaster! When the hunt arrived on the Manti our camp never heard a shot until after 9:00 AM opening morning and they were sparse during the rest of the morning. We never saw a buck!

Several went to the checking station up Spanish Fork Canyon on opening day afternoon and stayed into the evening, as well as all day on Sunday to see the game that was checked. The first thing that was obvious on Saturday was not many hunters were checking through with bucks. The DWR said it would be better on Sunday. It wasn?t. All the DWR personnel wanted to see a nice buck come through but nothing was being checked - only spikes and two points as Mr. Shirley predicted.. If a nice 3 or 4 point did come through everybody would stop what they were doing to come and admire. When the hunter was asked what area the buck came from it was always the same - Southern Utah where the severe winter had not had its disaster effect.

The interesting thing was that following the hunt the DWR public relations people spun a report to the media about the very good hunting results just like previous years! Total denial of the serious reality of the situation. Any negative press was not going to happen.

The following year and thereafter 200,000 hunters still tried to find a nice buck to harvest but were again and again poorly successful.

After a few years of this the hunting community started complaining and the number of hunters began to decline as a result. That's when the 12 year olds were allow to start hunting to boost the numbers back up. The DWR P.R. spin gave answerers of: we're in a drought, or the fawn birthrate was low this year, or the deer stayed high in the mountains this year because of the hotter than normal temperatures, or we had early snows making it difficult for hunters to access their favorite hunting area, etc. etc. They were hopping the deer numbers would right and fix themselves. It didn't and hasn't.

Another fact is that the mountain lions nor the other predators did not die off as the deer did in 1983-4. They still had/have plenty to eat. They were not impacted nor did they leave the country. What they have been doing is taking out the new fawns and remaining others. It's that ratio thing they have many and the deer have few.

Back in the pre-1983-4 years there was a sustainable wildlife population with sufficient deer numbers to allow for a balance of nature to be present where the cats (as one significant variable) did not skew the balance to a negative as is the case today. The current deer population is not able to get a head and restore a sustainable population like it was previously. There was a recent MM post (can't find it now to quote him) wherein he stated that in the 1970's his father use to take 20+ cats a year without any problems and then get a nice 4 point buck in the fall. His father could do this because back then the balance of nature was capable of sustaining and supporting both cougars and deer in sufficient numbers, but today it cannot as the deer lose.

Even with the reduction of hunters in the 1990's to its current number of 97,000 the severity of the negative deer numbers still remain.

The DWR still spins a progressive improvement in the buck/doe ratio, as well as the overall deer numbers are up. I disagree. I recall attending a standing room only RAC meeting in Springville where frustrated hunters heard a presentation from a DWR person that stated the deer numbers in the Central Utah area were significantly improving. That did not sit well at all with those in attendance who all disagreed with him and his numbers. When it was asked how he came up with his positive survey numbers it turned that it was not an actual real head count but a statistical formula number based upon a few deer that had been observed. Those in attendance went nuts!

The deer numbers appeared to be improving in the central Utah area when in the early 1990's we had another severe winter that just added to the 1983-4 winter die off and from my observation it has not recovered since.

The current elk numbers are not necessarily out of balance with regard to the cats and other predators as there are sufficient numbers that an unbalance effect from them does not appear to be present. But as many are aware the deer heard numbers are a different situation.

I still ride the same country I hunted back then and observe the same vegetation they ate then still present (plenty to eat); the same water sources they used then are still present but very few deer numbers are observed. I tell my hunting friends It's like the fourth day of creation the day before the animals showed up!

It's a hard reality and one it which many deer hunters would like turned around. There are many inter-playing variables that need serious attention in order to turn this around for the future.

Each year the DWR has a statistically random survey on the previous years success for big game. I have been called off and on as many of you have as well. The interesting fact here is that the DWR already has in place a means to collect this same data from all big game hunters. OIL and limited entry hunters are already required to complete their post-hunt survey and if they don't they are prevented from applying for any other OIL and/or Limited Entry hunts the following year (they should also be prevented from applying for general deer and elk too). So why can't this program be enlarged to include both general deer and elk hunts. Specific on-line harvest questions can be asked such as did you take a buck, how many points on each side, how many does, fawns or other bucks were seen during your hunt, how many days were you afield etc. By doing this a more realistic actual head count could be arrived at instead of an inflated statistical one. The DWR computers can easily track those who have failed to submit their on-line report and then turn those respective names over to the student research callers to go after them in order to have an even more valid report.

I believe that if such a reporting system could be made operational it would open a lot of DWR eyes, as well as the Wildlife Board (we already know what the results will be and it will not be skewed) on the severity of the deer numbers, and the real success rates that the various hunts, e.g. archery, muzzle and rifle have had or have not. Then go to work to fix it!

I agreed with 2Lumpy posts there is no shaft in them and that the first thing to fix is to increase the buck/doe ratio.

Thanks,

TXS

 

[swbuckmaster]

I think the Le units have been the demise of the deer. You look at 1/3 of the state and it wont grow mule deer "to dry". You take the other 1/3 and only let 200 people hunt it. Then cram the last 1/3 of the state with the rest of the 90,000 tards. Then expect any buck to survive is beyond me.

if the hunters were all spread out across the state evenly you could have better buck hunting. especially if you get the ridiculously high age objectives lowered on all the LE units.

I personally think the deer hunting isn't as bad as you guys are saying it is. I can find 4 points on all the general rifle units every year. If I rifle hunted I could tag a 4 point every year but it aint going to happen from the wheeler, truck, or camper. Tards want if easy. tards want 90% success rates with their rifle on trophy bucks from their quads. Ill stick with the current deer system cause it is getting better and i like to hunt every year!

go out and shoot some coyotes cause this is what is affecting the deer. kill them in June. dig out their dens and kill their pups. screw their stinky flea bitten hides they aren't worth a dime anyways and they are easier to call in the summer.

Nets are for fish!!

 

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-10 AT 11:41PM (MST)[p]TXS, thank you for more clearly explaining what I've been trying to say. Your observations are exactly that has taken place and you have explained the consequences very accurately. The one comment I've left out of my posts that sums up the reasons our deer have not rebounded was this:

"The current deer population is not able to get a head and restore a sustainable population like it was previously."

This point is so very insightful and so critical to understand when it comes to the deer issue discussion. Back when deer where at what I call "critical mass" they could and did "out produce" bad winters, dry summers, cougars, coyotes, freeways, archery, muzzleloader and rifle hunters and the 220,000 hunters as well as Mr. Tom Cat"s list of other obstacles they have to over come. Prior to 1984 when the DWR biologists said: "the deer always recover, so quit worrying about them", they believed it was true because, for the previous 45 years it had always been.

And you are absolutely correct on your observations of the habitat in Central and Southern Utah. Urban development has not taken our winter range. The Beaver, Pahvant, Monroe, FishLake, Thousand Lake, Boulder, and Dutton are the core units and they still have nearly every square acre of winter range that they had in 1960. What's more, during the 1950's and 1960's these units where loaded with huge herds of sheep that were a direct competitor with the deer. Today there isn't one sheep where there used to be 20. The range may need improvement but the acreage is still as available, to hold the same numbers of deer, as it did in the early 1980s.

Until we can get control of enough of these issues to allow critical mass to happen we will never have our herds back and the ratios are the place it has to start because even if we all go dig out a coyote den as swbuck has suggested, without enough bucks to service the does, at the right time, killing coyotes will never be enough. Neither will spending huge amounts of money on habitat restoration, if that's all we do.

swbuck, I'm with you on the want to hunt desire, me too, I hate to loose opportunity, that the title of this thread, I wasn't mocking people who want to hunt, I do hate loosing opportunity, but I don't believe the herds are recovering, as you say you do. Maybe there are where you hunt but, in the Cache, in South Central and Southern Utah they are still declining, as they have been doing for far many years.

I have no doubt that you can find a 4 point every year, but what about all the folks that hunt year after year and still rarely take a yearling. I'm not attempting to be sarcastic but truly how many of the 4 points you're seeing in those specific areas you're go into do you believe would be left if all the folks go off the roads and came into the back country? Thankfully they aren't going deep into the back country in as much as the few bucks that are left to do the breeding are the ones you're passing up and the road hunters are not seeing. I'd say be careful what you challenge people to do or we'll kill them all because the only ones left each year are the ones you're leaving back in there. At the present time everything anywhere near a road is dead before the end of October. Don't you agree?

Regarding your coyote comment, I'm right with you partner, kill every deer eating one of those SOBs you can find, and we'll still have way too many.

DC

 

[hossblur]

TSX, perhaps the best post I have seen on mule deer problems in Utah. I too hunt the Manti, in fact before the region split we would hunt the west mtns on the opener, then east mtns on the second weekend. I couldn't help but notice your story about spring horse rides. I know, and you probably do to the "fish cop" in Manti and there is no way this is happening now, in fact if a deer doesn't run down his street in Manti he doesn't see it, so there is no way numbers for his area are correct. The question is why haven't the numbers come back from the 90's, namely 92? I have a hard time believing that there wasn't hard weather in the 50'-70's similar to the big winter in 83. Lumpy is right about fewer sheep and acreages especially out of the northern region, Manti hasn't exactly had a development explosion in the last 30 yrs into the foothills yet that herd is bad to horrible. Also, the southeast unit was under a 5 day hunt for years and that didn't change anything.

A few observations:
1. It does seem that I see a lot of small spotted fawns late in the season, meaning that the does were bred late in the season, Dec. or perhaps even Jan. making those fawns more succeptable to winter than the fawns born earlier.

2. I see cougar tracks everywhere, while I think the houndsmen are chasing a lot of cats, it seems that there aren't enought being taken out.

3. Our DWR are spending WAY to much time in Salt Lake, in meetings, doing paper work, etc. You cannot get a feel for the range, wildlife, and conditions if your in your truck or in town. How many of them did you see in the canyon on opening weekend of the deer hunt? If they weren't there on the busiest day of the year, how often are they there the rest of the year? We need fewer POST grads and a lot more biology grads. If they aren't backpacking and horse riding there ranges they aren't doing the job the way it should be. These people should be the foremost experts on their areas, period, and while they may be nice people, etc., most of us who spend time on the mtn. know a lot more about what is going on then they do and that is UNACCEPTABLE!!! We pay them to do a job, if they don't or can't then they should be replaced!

4. Smaller regions would help, Thistle and Mayfield are in the same region but are vastly different areas, so regs for one area don't help the other, micromanagement would help.

5. Pressure. We hunt in Aug., Sept, Oct, Nov, then photograph the winter range in Jan, Feb, Mar. We Shed hunt all spring, scout June, July, and hunt again in Aug. We harras these animals all year. I don't remember my dad, or grandpa ever talking about shed hunting or winter range scouting. Hunting has become year round and this harrasment in my opinion is hurting the deer.

6. Elk, hard to argue that the explosion of elk hasn't hurt the deer, BUT, I like to hunt elk as well so this one is more tricky.

7. Technology. My dad got a Ruger M77, 270 and it had a 2x7 redfield scope in the mid 80's. That 2x7 redfield was the bomb!!! That flat shooting gun with that SWEET scope was the coolest gun in our camp. Before that he used a .303 British(army surplus). Other than my uncle who had a model 70 '06, most of my family used .30-30, .30-40, or army surplus .06, all of which were open sight. No one owned binoculars. I wouldn't put that 2x7 on my .22 now. I own 10x42 binos, 3x9 scopes are now the minimum. We use range finders, trail cams, topo maps, GPS, we all have 4x4, most of us have atv's. We are more efficient in killing. While the old timers were good hunters, they had to get closer, and shoot open sights. Now we shoot long distances. With the trail cams we scout from home year round. A trophy animal cannot hide, I see them, you see them, everyone know of them, and they are hunted litterally to death(spider bull is the best example). We can't put technology back in the barrel, but it has helped to keep deer numbers down.

 

[Deerlove]

Great post guys, two thing I think could help is More fencing to keep the animals off the road, and require that all dedicated hunters have projects Directly helping the deer. No more proc droping and stamp licking. We need the range improved.

 

[Deersman]

Some really good posts here. Lumpy, TSX sound just like my dad and uncles. I am 35yr old with 3 kids. My boy is 7 and cant wait to get hunting. My family has been hunting out of the same camp for like 90yrs.

Do you favor going to LE deer? A liberal LE program. That allowed for maximum harvest but would maintain herd objectives.

My father has been working on the matter. And has traveled the state in mostly rural areas talking to folks on the matter of deer. One thing he and I have noticed is there is no shortage of folks out there fed up with the system and want change.

My dad hasn't the desire to lead a movement on Mule Deer recovery. But he does have the ability to mobilize 100s if not 1000s of people for the cause. For large support one prerequisite is that the organization offer low to no membership fee. Accept but not solicit donation. This is important because the true motives of all current conservation groups is suspect at best with these down to earth conservative folks.

It sound like several guys on this forum have a good grasp of the situation at hand had would be a great asset to A organisation that came along to take the cause.

 

[piper]

These are some good posts, but the one thing no one seems to talk about is the climate, and things like what does that to the leader growth on plants that mule deer favor? how has the succession of plants been affected? ect. The western US has been drying up ovet the last 3 or four decades. Notice how much wetter the country was during the middle part of the century compared to now, notice how the deer herds increased in many areas soon after the back to back wet years in 83 and 84. When just casually looking at the country, of course it seems the same as it always has been, but I don't think it is.

 

[Deersman]

A couple ideas we like.

Controllable factors:

1. Predation. At this time of Mule deer decline the predator must take a back seat to allow for a recovery. This means heavy predator control and reducing predators from the mix. Probably a 20 to 30yr program. One Idea passed around with great public support to control and reduce coyote populations would be award General season tags and DH hours as bounty for killed coyotes. Example, 5 dog would let you buy a second General season tag. Another would be to increase LE cougar tags and give the same incentive to harvest objective on cougar. Example, Just as the current Harvest Objective tags are available OTC almost yr round. Award deer tags to hunters who harvest a cat on these units with an HO tag.

2. Hunter Harvest. At this time really no viable LE plan resembles a liberal LE deer hunt on any given unit in Utah at this time. (the Deer herd is just to low)Over time this will change. This may be negated by phasing in LE units until they did recover to allow a liberal LE hunt. A liberal LE hunt would look some thing like this. Objective 10,000 deer. Simplified should allow 2500 buck harvests. Ball park 4000 tags. (More than enough) A compromise folks like on the 3pt or better issue is 2 tags one allows any buck and the other allows only 3pt or better.

3. Winter Range. A Sage regeneration program. Example, The Monroe WMU in Marysvale has sat untouched for 30 yrs. Fires and an unmended fence has led to a Cheat grass invasion. This land is absolutely prime and crucial to Monroe's deer herd. If not sage some alternative crop should be in place. This situation is going on in many parts of the state. A reward program for landowners with deer winter range. To foster deer on their property. Conservation $$$s for winter crop for deer.

Their is good "grass roots support" for these ideas. If an organization were to take on these ideas or similar Rural Utah would stand behind them even to the point of making it a political issue.

Fire away!

 

[hossblur]

I agree, we have seen sage die off, aspen die off, and the bark beetle invasion, all of which are natural factors affecting deer, no argument here