Results of Utah Wildlife Board Mtg.

[CK1]

Forgive my ignorance on this subject but how is it that reducing tag numbers won't positively effect the herd and hunting?

[Tugg]

There's a negligible positive effect regarding population, bucks don't have babies. If there were management units in the state that were below the buck to doe ratios that are considered effective levels to breed all of the doe population, it would positively effect numbers due to breeding or lack thereof, but that's not the case.

As far as hunting goes, it depends on your perspective. If you are a person who only wants to shoot big bucks, it''ll enable you to see a few more bucks and possibly a few bigger bucks when you finally do draw a tag. Based on UDWR survey results, the majority of hunters in the state want the opportunity to hunt more than they want big bucks.

The minority has won, for now.

[sewing]

There's a negligible positive effect regarding population, bucks don't have babies. If there were management units in the state that were below the buck to doe ratios that are considered effective levels to breed all of the doe population, it would positively effect numbers due to breeding or lack thereof, but that's not the case.
The minority has won, for now.

+1

[stillhunterman]

There's a negligible positive effect regarding population, bucks don't have babies. If there were management units in the state that were below the buck to doe ratios that are considered effective levels to breed all of the doe population, it would positively effect numbers due to breeding or lack thereof, but that's not the case.

As far as hunting goes, it depends on your perspective. If you are a person who only wants to shoot big bucks, it''ll enable you to see a few more bucks and possibly a few bigger bucks when you finally do draw a tag. Based on UDWR survey results, the majority of hunters in the state want the opportunity to hunt more than they want big bucks.

The minority has won, for now.

That's a pretty fair summation. I'll go a bit farther and add that HOW this whole thing came down is what we as concerned hunters should be looking at. What the Wildlife Board did (refusing to look at and consider real biological data and what the MAJORITY of hunters in this state want), was a complete farce. This type of dictatorial forced "management" that has nothing to do with the health of the deer herds has got to stop. The huge influence that SFW has had on the Wildlife Board for years is a slap in the face of those who once believed in them, and those that today care for our deer herds and not just inches of antler.

Should we choose to close our eyes to this type of behavior from those whom we trust the health of our wildlife to for the sake of a few more bucks with bigger headgear, well then we deserve what we get. We all want to see more bucks and antlers, but that should certainly NOT come at the expense of the creatures we love to hunt, nor should it be a catalyst that sends our numbers plummeting until, in the end, only the wealthy and influential walk the woods with tags in hand...

[proutdoors]

There's a negligible positive effect regarding population, bucks don't have babies. If there were management units in the state that were below the buck to doe ratios that are considered effective levels to breed all of the doe population, it would positively effect numbers due to breeding or lack thereof, but that's not the case.

As far as hunting goes, it depends on your perspective. If you are a person who only wants to shoot big bucks, it''ll enable you to see a few more bucks and possibly a few bigger bucks when you finally do draw a tag. Based on UDWR survey results, the majority of hunters in the state want the opportunity to hunt more than they want big bucks.

The minority has won, for now.

That's a pretty fair summation. I'll go a bit farther and add that HOW this whole thing came down is what we as concerned hunters should be looking at. What the Wildlife Board did (refusing to look at and consider real biological data and what the MAJORITY of hunters in this state want), was a complete farce. This type of dictatorial forced "management" that has nothing to do with the health of the deer herds has got to stop. The huge influence that SFW has had on the Wildlife Board for years is a slap in the face of those who once believed in them, and those that today care for our deer herds and not just inches of antler.

Should we choose to close our eyes to this type of behavior from those whom we trust the health of our wildlife to for the sake of a few more bucks with bigger headgear, well then we deserve what we get. We all want to see more bucks and antlers, but that should certainly NOT come at the expense of the creatures we love to hunt, nor should it be a catalyst that sends our numbers plummeting until, in the end, only the wealthy and influential walk the woods with tags in hand...

A-FREAKING-MEN!

[The Ox]

I'm sure ill get some flak for this! my opinion ,i think improving buck ratios is going to help the deer numbers! ive been out looking at rutting deer quite a bit these last couple weeks. i must tell you i am very disgusted with what i hae seen! in many cases i seen a very low buck doe ratio. most of what i have seen is small immature forkies being the only bucks around large doe herds whether they can or do breed efficiently i do not know, but i doubt they are effective. i did see some areas that were ok im o on buck numbers and had some good mature bucks breeding but the majority were young and imo not old enough to breed effectively.
i do not think there are enough bucks to breed the does we have. we need to raise the number of bucks imo to raise the fawn crop.

everyone is crying that more bucks does not equal more deer. while in a way it is true and i see what your talking about but your overlooking the fact that bucks breed the does and if a doe is not bred it is a bigger waste of feed than a buck is.. that unbred doe is a worthless feed burner.

i know this is not cattle production and its different but its the same concept. in the cattle industry when you have all your cows in a pasture lets say 200 cows in a 3000 acre pasture and the rancher usually shoots for one bull to 15-20 cows. which is 5-6 bulls per one hundred cows. they do not get 100 percent calf crop. we normally get around0 80-90 percwent on good years. while yes that is only 5-6 per 100 they are in a controlled enviroment have a longer breeding season, they water at the smae place so the bulls and cows are constantyl in contact.
now lets look at deer they have no boundaries, many waters, and many many acres to roam. if there is not enough bucks to spread out to those does than there is gonna be lower fawn crops.i read somewhere it was aaround 60/100 fawn to does and if that is true than 40 does are doing nothing but wasting feed. if they do not breed they are in fact more worthless than good. so if you are having more bucks doing the breeding the chances that those 40 unbred does per 100 go unbred should drop. if only 60% of your breeders are actually breeding its quite counter productive . more bucks = more bred does. more bred does=more fawns. more fawns = more deer. now of course to many bucks is not good either, but if you can find the right balance than i believe it will help raise populations.
this along with habitat restoration would do alot to help the deer herd.

habitat imo is the biggest prob we have.these droughty years have taken a toll on grasses and plants and springs. there is not enough feed or water to support more deer in many areas ...

if the feed is bad and the weather is rough it makes chanes a doe gets bred drop. if there is more feed the deer should in return be healthier if they're healthier they should breed back better. so if major habitat restoration efforts are made. like more fires are allowed to burn and more acres are reseeded. more pinions junipers and sage are eliminated than more feed is obviously grown. its obvious imo, ranchers have figured this out why cant the dwr and other people figure this out.


+ you guys are saying the dwr thinks its a bad idea.... well considering they arent doing a very good a job on our current deer system i think there credibility is 0 anyway!

the cut tags is to increase the buck ratio. after the ratios raise to a more effective number than you will begin to increase tag numbers.
also if you can more accuratley manage and manipulate the healthy amount of tags given to a specific area a i dont see the harm in it.

[firefighterbraun]

Anybody now if they are planning on doing the same 29 regions for the bow hunt or will it be a little different? Don't know why they think they had to mess with the bow hunt since the success rate is so low to begin with.

Don't know if you saw this.

"General-season archery hunters will no longer be allowed to hunt across Utah. Instead, they'll have to hunt on the unit they obtained a permit for."

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-ut ... -2012.html

Yeah I saw that but is it going to be in the same 29 units as the rifle hunt or are they going to do it like last year where they did it out of the 5 regions? I take it that by the sounds of it that it will be out of the same 29 units which sucks bad.

[proutdoors]

Ox, I know what you are saying sounds good, but there is NO evidence that raising buck:doe ratios results in increased deer populations. We have several limited entry units here in Utah to look at, we have neighboring states with much higher buck:doe ratios to look at, and what they show is that there is NO correlation to higher buck:doe ratios and higher deer populations. In fact, the exact opposite is often the case, with higher buck:doe ratios the deer population DECREASES. This is primarily due to having excess bucks take up space on critical winter range that fawns need to survive. A fawn will lose every time to a mature buck when it comes to competing for food. The two main limiting factors to deer populations is fawn RECRUITMENT and carrying capacity. Fawn recruitment is determined by; 1)Habitat quality during the first 21 days after birth, and during the winter. 2)Predators during the first 21 days, and during the winter. Carrying capacity is determined by many factors, NONE of which is a larger number of bucks in the mix. 90% of the focus, if we are serious about wanting more deer, MUST be on higher fawn recruitment and higher carrying capacities (retention). More deer equates to more bucks in the herd, any/all other 'tricks' to get buck numbers up are temporary at best, and detrimental to the herd health as a more often than not result.

IMO, the focus should be on fawn recruitment along with retention of mature deer, and on hunter recruitment along with retention of existing hunters. What the Wildlife Board did last week does NEITHER. It hurts deer recruitment/retention AND it hurts hunter recruitment/retention. Nonsensical.

[The Ox]

pro- i'm not saying having 50 bucks to 100 does like the henries is a good thing i said too many would not be good. 50 is way to many imo. after looking at buck to doe ratios on dwr site seems like 18-22 bucks to 100 does seemed to give the best fawn crops on most years listed. whether the counts the dwr did are accurate is a whole different story.
but even on the henries where 50 bucks too 100 does is usually the case the herd there has grown the last 10 years.

mostly what i am trying to say is raising from 15 to 18 bucks is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact looking at the dwrs fawn /buck/ doe ratios it could actually help fawn crops.

[proutdoors]

pro- i'm not saying having 50 bucks to 100 does like the henries is a good thing i said too many would not be good. 50 is way to many imo. after looking at buck to doe ratios on dwr site seems like 18-22 bucks to 100 does seemed to give the best fawn crops on most years listed. whether the counts the dwr did are accurate is a whole different story.
but even on the henries where 50 bucks too 100 does is usually the case the herd there has grown the last 10 years. The Henry unit has been limited entry for 15 years, and the herd is STILL waaaay under population objective. This, despite having MILLIONS of funding for conservation projects and predator control. As for 18-22 buck:doe ratios being beneficial, I have to ask: Where is an example of this being the case? I am unaware of a deer herd that was struggling with 'low buck:doe ratios (12-15) that suddenly increased due to 'high' buck:doe ratios (18-22), do you have an example of where this has been done?

mostly what i am trying to say is raising from 15 to 18 bucks is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact looking at the dwrs fawn /buck/ doe ratios it could actually help fawn crops. It is indeed a bad thing if there is NO evidence that raising the buck:doe ratio will do NOTHING for increasing deer populations, while at the same time taking away opportunity. Like I have stated, deer recruitment/retention is crucial, but so is HUNTER recruitment/retention. Taking away opportunity for NO BIOLOGICAL reason is a sure fire way of losing hunters and discouraging newbies from ever getting hooked on the sport. And again, I see NO evidence of increasing buck:doe ratios from 12-15 to 18-25 will result in higher fawn recruitment, NONE!