[middlefork]

I once had a DWR employee tell me he thought they should go back to either sex. He figured the meat hunters would shoot the first deer they saw and then be gone. More bucks would survive the hunt.

So all you smart guys tell me how you are going to get an accurate count! Otherwise it is just using somebodies bad numbers to make assumptions.

Don't agree with the DWR? Tell them how to get it done!

 

[Kwalk3]

I once had a DWR employee tell me he thought they should go back to either sex. He figured the meat hunters would shoot the first deer they saw and then be gone. More bucks would survive the hunt.

So all you smart guys tell me how you are going to get an accurate count! Otherwise it is just using somebodies bad numbers to make assumptions.

Don't agree with the DWR? Tell them how to get it done!

Just count the meat poles on the mountain. Multiply that by infinity and throw in a comment about the good ole days and that'll give you an exact count.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Packout]

800,000 is the number some people come up with as what it would have taken to produce the number of deer killed during those years. The State says there were 200,000ish hunters from approx 1960 to 1990. Deer harvest in 1961 was reported around 125,000- but that includes buck and doe harvest. The most bucks harvested came in the early 1980s with a harvest in the low 80,000s - but buck to doe ratios in the single digits on many units.

The 800,000 could be valid or not- I have sat in a couple hundred hours of Mule Deer Management meetings and don't remember seeing legit Buck to Doe ratio numbers for the 1960s. I have seen estimates that put it around 10. For the 1980s- the real numbers I have seen usually falls into the single digits to the low teens.

What people sometimes fail to realize is the fawn retention into the 1980s was far higher due to the complete destruction of predators. Back then, fawns hit the ground and lived. Now fawns hit the ground and die.

I honestly think deer numbers were higher back in the day. I can't say if they were 3 times higher than we have today (from around 300,000 today against 800,000-900,000 from back then). I can say there is no way to attain those numbers again without a war on predators, crossing guards for deer, perfect weather, and range rehab.

Herds are not rapidly growing. How many doe deer are they shooting on the Book Cliffs? On the Pauns? The answer to low deer numbers is not thru buck hunters.....

And if Utah had 800,000 deer then this quote published in the late 1960s "Productivity of Mule Deer on the La Sal and Henry Mountains of Utah" should be of interest from those who came before us--
"During the 1950's, Utah experienced high populations of mule deer, and a general deterioration of the habitat resulted. In an attempt to correct this condition, the Utah State Department of Fish and Game and Federal land management agencies embarked on a program to reduce mule deer and livestock numbers to the carrying capacity of the range. Management tools implemented to reduce deer numbers included building access roads, issuing permits for special hunts, and extending hunting seasons."

The higher number of deer degraded the range. They issued special hunts. Cut access roads into secluded places to KILL the deer. So when guys use those harvest numbers to support their theory on populations back then- maybe the numbers were skewed because the UTFG was trying to kill deer- not grow deer in the 1960s.

..

 

[Iron Bear]

Reporting was worse back in the 60s-90s than it is today. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual human harvest was two or three times what was reported. The thing you all are forgetting or denying (not sure which it is) that there wasn’t 2500 cougar eating 125K deer per year or 1 cougar for every 100 deer back then. Hunters were the primary harvester of deer. And if there is 300,000 deer today there was easily 3 times as many deer in the good old days probably more.

As for sustainability. Funny every other critter using the range has sustained numbers or increased over the last 50 years. Same amount of sheep cattle and more elk. Do you figure cattlemen and sheepherders are sucking hind tit because of weather and habitat loss? I don’t. I figure just like we were told in the early 80’s by a higher up in the dwr at the time. Utah is getting out of the deer business. And it been policy that has steered the deer herd ever since. It’s foolish to believe that the dwr has no control over deer populations and it up to Mother Nature.

 

[Iron Bear]

Mule deer are as tuff as they get. They live at 14,000 ft to sea level. They live in the driest deserts they live up n the marsh. They live in the city they live in the most remote backcountry. They live up in freezing Canada and live in hot Mexico. They will eat all kinds of food to survive and thrive from graze to browse. They will eat garbage literally. They eat fruit and shrubs from your yard they will eat the your dog food if you leave it out. It wasn’t a mule deer but I once saw a video of a deer eating a bird. I’ll guess mule deer occasionally will eat a bird too given the chance. My point is that mule deer are survivors and given the chance thrivers. So I don’t buy the habitat and weather excuse for less deer than yesteryears. I’m fine with the fact that we will never have deer like we had. But don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. It’s not like its because Mother Nature won’t allow for it and the deer population boom starting in the 40s was a perfect storm for deer. Plain and simple it was predator control. Ending the practice in the 70s is the reason for deer not being able to rebound to historically high numbers. Habitat my azz. But it sure has served as a great vehicle to pump money into so called wildlife conservation. You know the millions of dollars DP plays with that you guys hate so much is mostly raised in the name of habitat bs. Utah has pumped more money into habitat in the name of wildlife than any other state hands down. And we don’t have it any better than any one else besides California. But we have pimped out our system to deep pockets and elite that have no interest in your family hunt or you getting a tag every year.

I’m glad studs like Ridge can still find big bucks. It gives me hope that they still do exists. But it’s not like very many guys are seeing that kind of quality. So I don’t agree things are still ok in the deer department. When back in the day I saw good buck from the road during the hunt every year on Monroe. Kinda like hunting the Henry’s or Pauns today. I didn’t have to scout 20 days and hike 60 miles to find a big deer.

Rant over.

 

[Vanilla]

One thing that amazes me about this conversation (not in this specific thread, but the conversation in general) is that many of the people that accept the calculation of 800,000 deer as the gospel truth are the same ones that cry foul on the DWR population estimate modules that are used today. One is scientific, one was a dude saying “X deer were killed, so the population had to be Y.” It was just a flat dumb guess, and it is accepted without question by a subset of people that just bash scientifically backed population modules out of the other side of their mouths.

I simply can’t get over that little nugget.

Wow. Just wow.

(This frustration comes from another forum mostly, not here.)

 

[Catherder]

One thing that amazes me about this conversation (not in this specific thread, but the conversation in general) is that many of the people that accept the calculation of 800,000 deer as the gospel truth are the same ones that cry foul on the DWR population estimate modules that are used today. One is scientific, one was a dude saying "X deer were killed, so the population had to be Y." It was just a flat dumb guess, and it is accepted without question by a subset of people that just bash scientifically backed population modules out of the other side of their mouths.

I simply can't get over that little nugget.

Wow. Just wow.

(This frustration comes from another forum mostly, not here.)

I agree but wouldn't you attribute that to people endorsing whatever set of "facts" most closely match whatever their agenda is on the subject? If the DWR data agrees with their opinion, then it is right, if not, then the old timers estimates and meat pole counts are correct.

We only have to look at the national political situation to see two radically different interpretations of the same objective set of "facts".

 

[3arabians]

One thing that amazes me about this conversation (not in this specific thread, but the conversation in general) is that many of the people that accept the calculation of 800,000 deer as the gospel truth are the same ones that cry foul on the DWR population estimate modules that are used today. One is scientific, one was a dude saying "X deer were killed, so the population had to be Y." It was just a flat dumb guess, and it is accepted without question by a subset of people that just bash scientifically backed population modules out of the other side of their mouths.

I simply can't get over that little nugget.

Wow. Just wow.

(This frustration comes from another forum mostly, not here.)

I agree Niller! I have read up on "the other forum" regarding this topic and it always instigates my gag reflex.

I was fortunate enough to experience my first deer hunt with my own deer permit in 1992. That year was special and appeared to be the peak of the population that I had experienced since the mid 80s. Things went down hill for the deer population right after that and I think everyone can agree. However, since then they have rebounded and that is to the credit of the DWR since they are tasked with managing the deer herd.

Our group suffered through some tough hunts and basked in glory on others between now and then. But IMO these last 4 years have been the best I've seen since 92 regarding deer sightings - bucks included.

My dad doesn't speak to millions of deer everywhere in the 60's and 70's and he was all about deer hunting in those days,but I did get to witness some party hunting back in the day and a deer pole or 2. That seemed like fun!!

I don't buy the doom and gloom about our deer population overall and I'll side with the DWR biologists every time over any social media hard asses about what is really going on with the deer population.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RandomElk16]

Probably completely unrelated to habitat, winter range, deer numbers, etc...

1960: 890K
1970: 1.06M
1980: 1.46M
1990: 1.72M
2000: 2.23M
2010: 2.78M
2020: 3.28M


Here is the Utah human population. Probably doesn't contribute to anything. Carry on.

 

[goofy elk]

What we need are more accurate deer herd 'estament' counts.

The current computer models being used are either flawed or incorrect data is used. One or the other.

Interesting DWR conversations I've had the last month. They have been conducting buck to doe ratios on winter ranges.
They agree with low deer numbers everywhere I've looked.

Spoke with one individual thats on the Bookcliffs study yesterday.
They took a 'range ride' through the cliffs in late November.
This member was on the SE ride.
Went from Sego canyon, Nash wash, Diamond up thru Hay and East canyons. Super low deer counts unfortunately reported.

 

[Brookie]

Seems like the dwr is using the Mark Recapture method for estimating a population. In my controlled science counts, it is always estimated higher than the actual count of the population.

 

[elkfromabove]

One thing about those population numbers that most of you forget about or ignore is the fact that those numbers are taken during the winter AFTER the hunts when there is snow on the ground and the deer are concentrated more and BEFORE much of the "winterkill" happens.

Wildlife has to deal with weather as it happens and often it takes its toll later. In the case of deer populations, it may be in the early spring when the deer are malnourished or ill or weak from the rigors of surviving a cold harsh winter. The does are pregnant and aren't able to get around as well and the bucks (and does) have used up any fat reserves they may have built before the winter. The cougars and coyotes have an easier time preying on yearling big game and weaker adults. The deer are starting to migrate back to spring and summer ranges and that means crossing roads, freeways, fences, human occupied land and habitat that hasn't much new annual growth. Compound that with occasional late winter-like storms that result in cold, wet weather. AND don't forget the long term droughts that degrade habitat over a period of years. "Winterkill" isn't just about snow and ice during the winter. A lot of weather related things happen after the classifications/counts that can mess up the numbers!

 

[OriginalOscar]

I'm 55 and a few observations.
- Deer hunt was a cultural happening every fall. 70's-80's seemed everyone in my world hunted and killed a lot of deer.
- My opinion is there were more last minute and lazy hunters back then. Anyone could buy a tag last minute, box of shells, couple cases of beer, and burritos. Hunt anywhere in the state so people would head out 1st weekend and then 2nd weekend areas along the Wasatch Front got pounded extra hard.
- Grandpa was a sheepman and god bless his soul they pretty much eliminated most predators until the 70's. Deer didn't have many coyotes, lions and bears. Traps, guns, 1080 deadly!!
- We didn't have the foothill sprawl so much better winter range and carryover habitat for deer.
- Hunting is like any hobby. Spend time and effort and you'll do better than average. Utah has great hunting opportunities and many hunters regularly kill good deer and I respect their success.
- Elk are now my critter of choice. Love chasing them and feel blessed Utah still has OTC opportunities. My boy comes home from TX every September for a week bowhunting and then I do rifle or muzzie. Utah elk herds in the 60's -70's were small compared to now and I'd expect the significant increase in elk herds does somehow limit deer herds. Most likely winter range capacity but that's my armchair biologist talking. I'm sure someone can confirm or tell me I'm full of crap.

 

[Critter]

One thing that I would like to ask those that talk about habitat loss. First I'll give you the loss of it in the more metropolitan areas. I'll even give you all the range from Logan down to Nephi along I-15.

But what about the rest of the state? The urban sprawl just isn't there as much as the bigger metropolitan areas. Yes, there are areas such as Cedar City and perhaps Richfield but what about the areas around Loa and Bicknell? Then the area from Helper down HWY 6 then down to Huntington, Castle Dale, and Ferron. You can also throw in both sides of HWY 89.

Sure there are homes built in the foothills but they are spread a ways apart. I don't believe that it is habitat loss in these areas. There is plenty of habitat in those areas, so where are the deer?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

 

[ridgetop]

One thing that I would like to ask those that talk about habitat loss. First I'll give you the loss of it in the more metropolitan areas. I'll even give you all the range from Logan down to Nephi along I-15.

But what about the rest of the state? The urban sprawl just isn't there as much as the bigger metropolitan areas. Yes, there are areas such as Cedar City and perhaps Richfield but what about the areas around Loa and Bicknell? Then the area from Helper down HWY 6 then down to Huntington, Castle Dale, and Ferron. You can also throw in both sides of HWY 89.

Sure there are homes built in the foothills but they are spread a ways apart. I don't believe that it is habitat loss in these areas. There is plenty of habitat in those areas, so where are the deer?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

Most of them are getting hit by cars or eaten by a dogs, cats or bears.
Then there are some areas getting hit by different forms of disease.

 

[elkfromabove]

One thing that I would like to ask those that talk about habitat loss. First I'll give you the loss of it in the more metropolitan areas. I'll even give you all the range from Logan down to Nephi along I-15.

But what about the rest of the state? The urban sprawl just isn't there as much as the bigger metropolitan areas. Yes, there are areas such as Cedar City and perhaps Richfield but what about the areas around Loa and Bicknell? Then the area from Helper down HWY 6 then down to Huntington, Castle Dale, and Ferron. You can also throw in both sides of HWY 89.

Sure there are homes built in the foothills but they are spread a ways apart. I don't believe that it is habitat loss in these areas. There is plenty of habitat in those areas, so where are the deer?

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk

It isn't just the SIZE of the habitat we've lost. We've lost the Quality as well. The drought hits Loa and Bicknell and Helper and Huntington and Castle Dale and Ferron as well. In fact, the Southern Region employees hauled water for the deer in the Punsaugunt last year and the Palmer Drought Severity Index registered ALL of the Southern Region units as D4, the most severe rating. And the area percentages of cheatgrass in most range trend study areas have gone up. Sagebrush is old growth with fewer leaders. Bitterbrush and Mountain Mahogany have been cropped too high for smaller does and fawns. Streams and springs have dried up and riparian areas are being muddied and/or lost. Even soils are not as productive and they used to be. You may not notice these changes, but the deer sure do and they show it!

So, where are the deer? They are where THEY want to be, not necessarily where YOU think they should be. While transplanting the deer on the Parowan Front, we noticed that they would pass up perfectly good feed to get to where we found them at the mouth of Cottonwood Creek where there was little to eat except sagebrush bark. And many of those we moved to the Pahvant went 100+ miles through good range to get back to the Parowan Front where we moved them from. It may not make sense to you or me, but it makes perfectly good sense to them and that's what counts. We have to manage them on THEIR terms, not ours!

 

[Critter]

I always like it when people bring up that the drought is lot of the problem. I remember a DOW employee telling this out in the Book Cliffs one year just after I had hiked out of Willow Creek. He said that there was no water for the animals. He had no idea that the grass down in Willow Creek was 3' high and it had a very nice flow of water going through it.

The same can be said for a lot of the Manti. If you get off of the road and hike a little you will find all kinds of seeps and small ponds all over that mountain, and that is in the driest of years.

 

[Iron Bear]

And apparently the drougt only effects mule deer and jack rabbits. Maybe porcupine too. I don’t see them like I used too. Before droughts and all. Meanwhile drought tolorant elk and turkey have managed to increase in numbers. Cattle and sheep graze allotments haven’t been slashed in the last 50 years.

Hey EFA what did you find killed more of those transplanted deer than anything else? Drought, winter, roads, disease? Oh yah it was cats. Maybe they passed up better feed and headed out to cottonwood because the feel safer out in the open where they can see.

 

[goofy elk]

Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
Still hates cats!

News flash.
There's been an all out war on lion's for over a decade now.

And here's another BS claim.
The DWR is saying there are more mountain lions now than 1990 thru 2010?
Give me a freaking break.
Not even close!

 

[Kwalk3]

Well, Iron Bears hasn't changed.
Still hates cats!

News flash.
There's been an all out war on lion's for over a decade now.

And here's another BS claim.
The DWR is saying there are more mountain lions now than 1990 thru 2010?
Give me a freaking break.
Not even close!

I'd assume, just like a lot of this, that this depends on the area.

Some areas have less, but areas like the Wasatch Front, where the cats don't get hunted in any appreciable number are full of Cats. But of course, if it's not matching up with your narrative as far as what's going on in the areas you hunt it must be bogus right?

I don't doubt that there are fewer cats in the areas you hunt and frequent, but that doesn't necessarily paint a representative picture of lion numbers in the state as a whole.