Utah Tag #'s

[dh2273]

I drew a Antelope tag for the Boulders this year. Do I understand the process to be that a biologist studies the herd every spring and makes recommendations for tag numbers based on populations and general herd makeup. If that is the case why do we then go through the entire spring and summer and get into the fall and then the first season opens and at that point I get a letter encouraging me to send me tag back in because populations are so low? If populations are down shouldn't we have known that from the spring?
I am absolutely not trying to point blame here and I may be incorrect on this situation but are our biologists really looking closely at the herds every spring or is it a guessing game? Maybe they do not have the manpower or the funding to do it the right way but every year the tag numbers seem to be almost the same in most units. Compare that to Nevada where tags #'s vary a great deal and you wonder if Nevada is really getting out there and evaluating their herds as opposed to utah where sometimes it seems we are just make a guess in setting tag numbers. There may be a number of reasons for this but if it is truly the case then it should receive some attention. Or maybe we have as good a handle on numbers as Nevada and the antelope thing was simply an blip on the radar screen. Can someone offer there thoughts on this subject?

 

[hornkiller]

You should piont finger's and blame them that head of the d.w.r auode has is head up his anise 15 buck's per 100 does ask half the people that hunted the general hunts and see what number's you get and who would you belive?

 

[muzzhunter]

Maybe they just wanted the extra money.

 

[fatherofthree]

I cannot disagree with anything you said. I had an antelope tag as well this year on the plateau. Archery. First time ever even paying attention to stink goats, let alone hunting them. We built blinds in some good spots and got down there and there were hardly any goats at all.

I packed up and never went back despite the fact that I had planned on using about a week of saved vacation. I figured if they are in that rough of shape I do not need to even hunt them, as it would just be worse if I killed one.

I agree, it seems like they use the spring count things to keep the applicants from knowing how many tags there will be (which really sucks when you're trying to draw bonus point tags) but don't really change tag numbers unless the harvest data shows they are over or under objectives (elk I mean).

Seems like the almighty 'spring herd counts' are not even really a factor.

Good post and good points.

 

[treedagain]

kinda hard to do a herd count with your head up your A##

 

[BrowningRage]

Great thread... I too don't understand how they do it...

I personally think that herd numbers that are "counted" should come off of 100% public access... In the Northern Region where we see a lot of private property, tags are allocated based on the total number of deer (They are after all, ALL OURS). However, The "public" does not have access to all of "our" resources. Tag numbers should be limited to deer that the public has public access to. So count the total number of deer, but lets lighten the pressure on those areas where we all have access by reducing the tags alloted... It seems like 80% of the hunters hunt 20% of the land...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[400bull]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-10 AT 10:14PM (MST)[p]Take this for what it is worth. I have an uncle that lives in the Fish Lake Area. He talked with the group that the DWR contracts out to do the count. They told him that they counted the area twice because the DWR did not like the numbers they turned. When the DWR asked them to count it a third time because the numbers could not be correct they told the DWR where to go.

It would appear that the DWR went with the numbers they thought should be on the unit and not the numbers that were counted. Part way through the summer the DWR could not understand why there was not as many animals as they thought they had.

I think this is the problem we are facing with most of the numbers the DWR uses. They don't like the numbers that gets turned in by the biologest or the group they contract out to do the counts so they come up with there own number to make things look better than they are.

400bull

 

[Elliston]

Wait until you guys have wolves. Which you will! It's only a matter of time. You think the draw sucks now. Wait until there is nothing to draw. Then only the Goveror tag will be good. And even the winner of that will complain to no avail.

 

[Verticalslope]

Here is part of my post from the deer thread. This issue on the plateau was also discussed on the sheep, goat, antelope forum. This is the link:

http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID8/4226.html

It was briefly discussed that the old UDWR of getting out and physically counting deer worked better then the new computer generated model of counting deer. We currently have required reporting for limited entry permit holders to obtain current more accurate data then a computer model. Why not require tag holders to go online and enter data or a short form with hunter observation information.

I have done for the turkey's on the Pahvant unit. Why not have us, the hunters report back our observations. Granted it is based on hunters providing accurate information and some may try and fudge the numbers. Would this really be worse then the current computer model of deer numbers. The UDWR reported a 20/100 buck to do ration ont the Pahvan and Beaver unit. If this were the case I would have observed a minimum of five bucks per day for the does I observed during the recent rifle hunt. This was not the case, it was closer to 1/100.

During the 2009 winter I observed several immature bucks breeding does. There appeared to be limited competition for the does and the doe numbers a down drastically. In area that was common to see 100-200 a day during the rifle season, now your excited to see thirty does in a day.