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

Talk anything related to Mule Deer
Sponsored by: http://www.muledeermania.com
User avatar
skysthelimit
Spike
Spike
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:07 pm

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

Post by skysthelimit » Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:28 pm

A few questions about option 2.

-They say dedicated hunter program with turn into a one year program. What happens to those in the middle of their three year program and have paid and contributed hours?

-Wasatch, would they change the archery only area and allow rifles or muzzleloaders south of I 80 to south mountain/point of the mountain?

-No extended Wasatch front unit for archery hunters?

-Whatever is decided these changes come into effect immediately for the 2011 season?

500mag
2 point
2 point
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:19 am
Location: utah

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

Post by 500mag » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:44 pm

how would #2 not help the deer #s (???)
One day I will find the BIG ONE!!

User avatar
derekp1999
4 point
4 point
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: Clinton, UT
Contact:

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

Post by derekp1999 » Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:37 pm

skysthelimit wrote:A few questions about option 2.

-They say dedicated hunter program with turn into a one year program. What happens to those in the middle of their three year program and have paid and contributed hours?

-Whatever is decided these changes come into effect immediately for the 2011 season?
I don't know what would happen to those Dedicated Hunters. It makes me relieved that I decided against trying to get into the program.
I read on the DWR website that changes for Option #2 wouldn't go into effect until 2012, giving the DWR time to figure out logistics for the enforcement of the new regulations.
“The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed.”
-Albus Dumbledore

User avatar
stillhunterman
2 point
2 point
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: SLC, Utah

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

Post by stillhunterman » Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:06 pm

500mag wrote:how would #2 not help the deer #s (???)
It won't help the deer herd numbers because it does not address the deer herd itself, it only addresses hunters and buck numbers. Bucks don't grow deer, and managing hunters does ONLY that, manages HUNTERS and NOT the herd (doe/fawn recruitment).

500mag
2 point
2 point
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:19 am
Location: utah

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

Post by 500mag » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:58 pm

i think for up north we need to stop people from putting houses up the mt side on the deer winter range. that would help a lot
One day I will find the BIG ONE!!

kallred12
Fawn
Fawn
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:34 pm

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

Post by kallred12 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:23 pm

Im not saying what option is better or if any of them are good but I will say something needs to be done and soon (Dropping tag numbers) I went looking for deer tonight and the southeastern is pathetic, saw over 300 does and 3 bucks (a spike a two point and a little four point) This is the rut and I know those three bucks cant breed all those does. Most of the groups with 20 to 40 does didnt have a buck anywhere around. I would be happy to go 3 to 5 years without a tag if the deer herds were better. And i might get alot of flack over this but i dont think any 12 year old kid should be able to carry a gun on a deer hunt, if they want the hunting experience tag along with dad and learn how to hunt ethically. Then when they are 16 and maybe have a little common sense give them a tag. Besides how is it a good hunting experiece for a kid to go hunt his guts out and not even see a buck. I say this from experience trying to get my younger sister and cousins into hunting. Am I off in thinking this way. Give me some feedback!!!

User avatar
stillhunterman
2 point
2 point
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: SLC, Utah

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

Post by stillhunterman » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:44 am

kallred12 wrote:Im not saying what option is better or if any of them are good but I will say something needs to be done and soon (Dropping tag numbers) I went looking for deer tonight and the southeastern is pathetic, saw over 300 does and 3 bucks (a spike a two point and a little four point) This is the rut and I know those three bucks cant breed all those does. Most of the groups with 20 to 40 does didnt have a buck anywhere around. I would be happy to go 3 to 5 years without a tag if the deer herds were better. And i might get alot of flack over this but i dont think any 12 year old kid should be able to carry a gun on a deer hunt, if they want the hunting experience tag along with dad and learn how to hunt ethically. Then when they are 16 and maybe have a little common sense give them a tag. Besides how is it a good hunting experiece for a kid to go hunt his guts out and not even see a buck. I say this from experience trying to get my younger sister and cousins into hunting. Am I off in thinking this way. Give me some feedback!!!
I've had a couple of buds say they have seen a few more bucks than that in the SE areas, but numbers are still down...sad. I believe most concerned hunters are willing to do whatever it takes to help the herd out, so good on you. As for the youth hunting, well it's not like it was when I was growing up. Kids today are so lost in the electronic/communications age that by the time they are in thier teens, interest in hunting has already dwindled considerably. Antelope hunting at that young age offers lots of opportunity, especially in Wyoming. It's fun as heck and will keep the blood boiling for big game.

User avatar
The Ox
Monster
Monster
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: Utah

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

Post by The Ox » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:10 pm

ok i think you guys need to explain to me why micro managment would not be better? serious its a no brainer it would help imo. if the heds are managed more closely its gonna help. region wide is the dumbest thing for the deer herd. i hunt pine valley unit mostly right now im competing for tags with guys that hunt zion or beaver or whatever. deer that have no relations whatsoever. right now even if the herd in a particulare area is hurting they cant really adjust the amount of hunters in the area, one place like pine valley may be over objective while the beaver unit is struggleing and there is no way to cut the amount of hunters on beaver to help keep pressure off the herd., and no way to increase how many hunt on pine valley to help keep deer from starving. i highly doubt we wont get those 13000 tags back the reason they are cutting that manyy in my understanding is to raise buck to doe ratios. if they can mange units more precise i dont see how in the world they cant manipulate things better into improving. like giving fewer tags for a unit that is struggleing or more for over populated units.
my opinion why they dont want to do micro is because the dwr are a bunch of lazy couch potatoes that dont wanna get off there butts to spend more time in the field managing the herds more precise.
so explain how a more closely individually managed unit will not help the deer???? looks and seems like it works in other states.

i hunt four diff units every year sepend about half on one unit, i hate the thought of ahaving to chose one unit but if it helps the deer herd i am all for it!!

User avatar
proutdoors
3 point
3 point
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Tooele County, Utah

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

Post by proutdoors » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:58 pm

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!
The Mind can only serve one Master, either gratitude or despair--but not both.

kallred12
Fawn
Fawn
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:34 pm

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

Post by kallred12 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:56 am

proutdoors wrote: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.

Post Reply
cron