Option #2 passed at RACs,,,3-2

[The Ox]

greater buck to doe ratio will help the deer herd. if there is one 10-12 bucks per one hundred does, including little two points that probably are not very efficient breeders the chances of all your does being bred is slim. right now only 35-45 fawns per one hundred does is what we are avging. but if more buck are able to effiently breed the does well obviously the fawn crop should grow! if there are does not being bred they are even more worthless on a range than a buck is! its common freakin sense people! yes 50 bucks per one hundred does is prob to much but raising the some should help get a better fawn crop!

so in short doe with no fawn is a worthless animal your feeding! what good is a fawnless doe?! absolutely zero for the year!!!! none just a feed burner is it!

more bucks should hellp illiminate the low fawn crop by having more bucks to do the breeding.
lets face it a yearling buck is probabaly to immature to do any breeding realistically imo. how many of those yearling bucks are counted into the current 15 bucktpo 100 does counts. probably a good amount lets say 5 so now you have 10 bucks tryoing to breed 100 does. the realistics of the bucks finding all the does is slim on millions of acres. if more bucks are there the chances go up!

[proutdoors]

How wouldnt raising the buck to doe ratio increase the deer herd. Right now there arent enough mature bucks to breed the does that are there. Seems to me if more does get bred that must mean more fawns will be born therefore more deer? seems like common sense.

I have studied the data from Utah's limited entry units compared to Utah's general season units, and the limited entry units, on average, have LOWER fawn:doe ratios. Same goes for our neighbors to the east and to the south and to the west, ALL have lower fawn:doe ratios than Utah's general season units. Also, people keep pointing to Colorado has the shining example of how micro-managing and high buck:doe ratios is such a success, but this ignores the almost 50% DECLINE in deer population since this became policy. For that matter, Utah's current limited and premium limited entry units were originally created to help the herds 'recover' from low populations, yet 15+ years later EVERY one of them is under population objectives. The Henry unit has a 65:100 buck:doe ratio, but has a LOWER fawn:doe ratio than MOST general season units. The key to population increases in healthy does and healthy fawns, focusing on the bucks in akin to watching the hour hand on a clock when timing a 100 yard dash.

There is NO evidence being offered up where higher buck:doe ratios has resulted in increased populations, but there is LOADS of evidence of higher buck:doe ratios reducing the populations. If anyone has actual studies/data that shows where increased buck:doe ratios has resulted in population increases, I would LOVE to take a look at it/them.

[Goofy Elk]

Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert,
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2

[proutdoors]

We already HAVE unit management. Lets call option #2 what it is: hunter management for the FEW at the expense of the MANY and at the expense of the deer herd.

[IDHunter]

I personally am a trophy hunter. I want nothing but big bucks. I can go years in between tags in Utah just for a chance at a monster. That being said, not every hunter is that way. The long term effects of limiting the number of hunters will eventually limit hunting for everyone. Your wrong if you don’t think politics doesn’t plays a role. The more non-hunters, the more non-hunters voting against hunting. IT WILL HAPPEN if we manage in selfishness.

I'm not so naive to think that the herds should be managed so that I can find big bucks easier. I’ve read all the actual scientific data that shows option 2 as being bad for the herd. I then hear the other side saying option 2 sounds great because I can find big bucks easier so the herd must be healthier. Which one is it? Science, or your opinion? I will ask the same question that’s been asked a thousand times but left unanswered…PROVE YOUR OPINION? If you believe option 2 will help the herd, PROVE IT? Were not reinventing the wheel. Show me where it’s ever worked and I will stand with you? If you can’t, open your eyes, look past your own nose, and see this proposal for what it is.

[Tugg]

Right out of the current Deer Management Plan:

VI. STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Population Management Goal: Expand and improve mule deer populations throughout
the state within the carrying capacity of available habitats and in consideration of other
land uses.
Population Objective: By 2013, increase the statewide mule deer population by 50,000 to an
estimated post-season herd size of 350,000.
Implications: This objective can be accomplished if precipitation returns to normal and through
the implementation of the strategies in this plan. If precipitation does not return to normal and
habitat objectives are not met, it is unlikely the herd will expand beyond the current level of
302,000 deer.
Strategies:
a. Review individual herd unit management plans and revise where necessary to provide
consistency with this plan.

We ARE already managing the deer by units, option #2 is ALL about managing hunters, it has NOTHING to do with deer, deer health, or deer populations!

There is exactly ZERO evidence that shows increasing buck:doe ratios leads to higher deer populations, but there is LOADS of evidence that increasing buck:doe ratios leads to LOWER deer populations. Option #2 is all about the LEAST important portion the the deer herd, the bucks. The key to healthy and growing deer herds in healthy does and healthy fawns. Again, option #2 does NOTHING to obtain/keep healthy does/fawns, NOTHING!

How wouldnt raising the buck to doe ratio increase the deer herd. Right now there arent enough mature bucks to breed the does that are there. Seems to me if more does get bred that must mean more fawns will be born therefore more deer? seems like common sense.

This statement is completely false. The only units in the state that are even close to not having enough bucks to breed does are the 3 under objective units that have restrictions in place to reduce buck harvest. Even where they are at, the buck numbers are still above the necessary number to breed all does.

[Tugg]

Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert,
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2

According to DWR comments, 3 day hunts are a thing of the past. They will now manage the struggling units with limited tag distribution.

[stillhunterman]

Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert,
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2

According to DWR comments, 3 day hunts are a thing of the past. They will now manage the struggling units with limited tag distribution.

Interesting.... Where did you come by this info tugg?

[Tugg]

The northern RAC.

[kallred12]

How about this idea! how about we make an unlimited number of tags, make all the hunts a month long, and let any age person hunt. That would get everyone into hunting. From what some people are saying cutting permits will hurt the deer herd so this must make a stronger herd. problem solved for everyone. oh and the dwr is happy because they get what they want too(money) its science vs opinion