Utah Wildlife Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So the deer population is doing better. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it just 4 years ago iy was all doom and gloom with the deer population. So have the herds rebounded that fast to justify raising 2k permits for this year than probably another 2k next year. Or does it seam that we are all along the wildlife boards private cash roller coaster
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Hazmat,

4 years ago, there were two hard winters in a row. Fawn survival was low and not enough to replenish the herd. Although females were disappearing too, reducing hunting pressure by general buck hunters was the prescribed medicine. We also got option 2 and a massive reduction in doe tags. A lot of units are now above objective on b/d ratios, population, and are seeing respectable success rates. Proposed increases were based on 3-yr averages, so its not likely we'll see another 2000 tags next year. Personally, I'd like to see the herd grow more and a justification of more tags.

Populations can grow exponentially. It shouldn't be surprising to see a population increase in 4 years with cooperative whether. (Think how big your family would be if you had 4 kids and as many grandkids in the past 4 years, couple that with polygamy.) Its very possible the state will hit its population objectives in the next two years. If we have another hard winter and the average goes down, we'll more likely see a tag decrease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Hazmat,

4 years ago, there were two hard winters in a row. Fawn survival was low and not enough to replenish the herd. Although females were disappearing too, reducing hunting pressure by general buck hunters was the prescribed medicine. We also got option 2 and a massive reduction in doe tags. A lot of units are now above objective on b/d ratios, population, and are seeing respectable success rates. Proposed increases were based on 3-yr averages, so its not likely we'll see another 2000 tags next year. Personally, I'd like to see the herd grow more and a justification of more tags.

Populations can grow exponentially. It shouldn't be surprising to see a population increase in 4 years with cooperative whether. (Think how big your family would be if you had 4 kids and as many grandkids in the past 4 years, couple that with polygamy.) Its very possible the state will hit its population objectives in the next two years. If we have another hard winter and the average goes down, we'll more likely see a tag decrease.
I get the idea behind it but it starting to become to much of a coincidence that it is up then down four years ago and even three years ago. It wasnt just winter kill that was a concern it was roadkill predator kills winter grounds all of wich have been worked. What I am saying is that it is to **** early to pick the fruits from our labor. 3 years ago mule deer dying off in the west was a legitimate concern but now its all forgotten lets wipe some out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,988 Posts
I don't see this as such a bad thing, though I do understand what you are saying. Wasn't the idea behind Option 2 to be able to adjust tag/hunter numbers on individual units in relation to the pop. objectives and B/D ratios?

If I'm not mistaken this was part of the deal/plan when the whole thing was implemented. One of my biggest frustrations seems to be the implementation of an agreed upon plan and then an emotional response to something a year later that just throws it all out the window.

We saw a decline in deer and a corresponding decline in tags. Now, with a lot of help from mild winters, have seen a modest increase in the deer herd in some units and based on that, some units are getting more tags. If applied to the correct units, this modest increase in tags shouldn't have too detrimental of an effect on the growth of the deer herd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
I tend to agree with provider. No one can control the population to the degree Mother Nature can. Weather will always be the controlling factor. As the snow gets deeper it drives the deer lower where they are not only on a limited range but in most cases they are nearer to freeways and rural areas where road kill is much more prevalent. It also concentrates them and weakens them giving all predators a better chance to take them. Around our area here in the south the deer were spread over a much greater range with the lack of snow this winter and in my opinion, from past experience, there was far less road kill. I believe fencing the I 15 corridor here has also helped.
It is a good situation in the sense there will be more deer carrying over but bad situation with the winter range being limited to what it is. Another harsh winter that drives all the deer to the lower ground and there will simply not be enough feed to support them all. The wildlife board, or hopefully to a greater degree, the dwr biologists, need to make the decision to up the number of tags to make sure what range we have isn't destroyed by a herd too large for carry capacity if and when real snow fall returns. We will never have the herds that we had in the past, urban sprawl just won't allow it. The thing I'm happiest about is that I'm not the bad guy that has to adjust the tag numbers. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
The final change for this year is a 2% increase in tags. 1750/84,800. Increases were primarily based on 3 yr average of b/d ratios. The increase is immaterial relative to the size of the herd and previous tag numbers. It's sustainable and can be decreased next year if the numbers drop below objective.

It is a good time to pick the fruit. A 3 yr average above objective is a reasonable measurement for an adjustment.

I'm concerned that trophy minded hunters will continue to suffocate general tags - even when herds are above objective on all metrics for a sustained period of time. I don't want to see a precedence with option 2 where only tag cuts and pessimism are accommodated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
2000 more permits due to the DWR's fandamntastic job of herd management?4 years of mild winters have anything to do with the So called Boom in the Deer populations? 2years 4000 more permits? HOLLY CRAP!! One more winter like 82--83 92---93 Will be right back where we were 6 years ago. Never look a gift horse in the mouth>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,988 Posts
2000 more permits due to the DWR's fandamntastic job of herd management?4 years of mild winters have anything to do with the So called Boom in the Deer populations? 2years 4000 more permits? HOLLY CRAP!! One more winter like 82--83 92---93 Will be right back where we were 6 years ago. Never look a gift horse in the mouth>
Nobody says that the deer population is booming, nor that the increases have come at the hands of the DWR solely. 2000 permits over the entire state is a relative drop in the bucket. The increase is warranted under the plan that was agreed to.

Wildlife management is reactive by necessity.

I don't know anyone who can prognosticate what will happen with weather over the next ten years, but if you do I'm sure the DWR would love to know. Without that crystal ball, we have to go by things we do know such as B/D ratios and population objectives by unit. It's dishonest for some to use these factors as an argument to cut tags, yet when those very same factors get better, they are still unwilling to increase tags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
It's a bad idea to bank deer if you are concerned about a hard winter. What is 2000 more tags if the winter is going to take 90%? Some units are over objective, why wait to increase tags? That makes as much sense as waiting 2 yrs to decrease tags if they are under objective.

I would compromise and get on the 1-2 year waiting period idea, but I have a hard time trusting the tag cutting crowd. Their underlying motivation seems to be push other people out of hunting to make their trophy pursuit easier. They'd just come up with some side show like crowding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I'd be interested in reading the logic behind these statements. Would you care to elaborate?
my logic behind it is the wildlife boards track record this really is only our second year of having respectful deer numbers and already an increase. now hopefully they prove me wrong and can actually do a good job managing this. but I don't see it stopping at 2k. and from all of their winter fly over problems this year that are legit it was a bad year for fly overs. I wish they would have waited a year or two
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
It's a bad idea to bank deer if you are concerned about a hard winter. What is 2000 more tags if the winter is going to take 90%? Some units are over objective, why wait to increase tags? That makes as much sense as waiting 2 yrs to decrease tags if they are under objective.

I would compromise and get on the 1-2 year waiting period idea, but I have a hard time trusting the tag cutting crowd. Their underlying motivation seems to be push other people out of hunting to make their trophy pursuit easier. They'd just come up with some side show like crowding.
call me crazy but if you have a unit with 100 deer and there is 90% kill off that leaves you with 10 deer if you have 1000 deer that leaves you with 100. and with with predators road kill old age etc, I like my chances of the heard rebounding quicker with the latter numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
and my opinions are not coming from a trophy hunter standpoint. I would much rather see the heard get built up to max capacity so I don't have to watch my nephews and soon my daughter sitting home in September and October in the years to come. mule deer are becoming very fragile when it comes to survival I would rather they have waited but it is what it is
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,741 Posts
the deer herd is always at max capacity given their current conditions. They don't grow or decline in numbers "just because". Next year the numbers may be higher and they may be lower. Unless you have some sure fire way that is guaranteed to increase the population next year as compared to now it makes no sense not to increase tag numbers.

They are what they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
the deer herd is always at max capacity given their current conditions. They don't grow or decline in numbers "just because". Next year the numbers may be higher and they may be lower. Unless you have some sure fire way that is guaranteed to increase the population next year as compared to now it makes no sense not to increase tag numbers.

They are what they are.
so fewer tag numbers never play a factor in growing herd numbers
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top