I am sure that someone has brought this up before, why do we not have a extended archery in Utah county? There is need just go up around Alpine, Elk ridge, Salem, Orem these places are loaded with deer.
I knew you would be on top of this! I would get involved in this.proutdoors said:UBA has been working on this for a while now. There are many obstacles to this that must be overcome in order to get the Front 'extended' south. I personally would like to see it go all the way to SR 6.
+1 Makes sense to me.Kevin D said:A close personal friend of mine is one of the biologists that you'd have to convince if you were to extend the archery hunt into Utah county.......and here's what he told me:
First, there is no managerial reason for the extended hunt in Utah county. Taking more animals out of the herd in an area where they often struggle to meet management objectives doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Second, it is feared that extending the hunt into Utah county would take too much pressure off of the Salt Lake county deer herd where the extended archery hunt is needed to keep the deer population in check because of the lack of rifle hunting. Most hunters tend to gravitate towards the easiest areas to hunt and given the choice between the steep faces above Sandy, or the foothills above Alpine and you know where most of the pressure is going to be.
Extending the hunt into Utah county has been presented before and it's not something that has gained a whole lot of support within the Division. Both the Salt Lake and Springville offices have resisted the idea in the past and there is little reason to think circumstances have significantly changed. Sometimes management decisions are based on what best benefits the herd and not on what best benefits the hunters.
Correct. However, it's also true that conflicts between big game and landowners are common and well known in the area, especially around Alpine. These conflicts often result in the deaths of the animals. I submit that an extended archery hunt would reduce those incidental deaths while not resulting in a negligable harvest rate. So it comes down to a matter of which is preferred - toss those road kills into the landfill or allow hunters to harvest those animals for consumption.Packout said:-The Utah County herds have sufficient winter range, as Steep said and we were called "ignorant" for.
-The herd is below objective.
The same is true of the Wasatch. But the key would be the boundary descriptions which admittedly, would have to vary from the Wasatch model. Also remember that the range situation is in rapid flux. For example, the Wasatch extended boundary originally ended at Corner Canyon to preserve the winter range directly to the south and southwest. However, that winter range is quickly disappearing due to continuing development. The best way to move animals to remaining range and establish a necessary buffer between wildlife and human development is the calculated use of bowhunting.Packout said:-Much of the accessible grounds are designated as winter range (why push the deer from where they want them) or private, which can not/should not be accessed.
Correct again. But that hunting pressure is only for a short time and the harvest rate in the area we're talking about (adjacent to population) is very low. As for buck:doe ratios, the DWR is up in the night with those numbers since the Wasatch provides ample evidence of isolated segregation at the time of the counts. What you see depends on what direction you look.Packout said:-The herd receives heavy archery, rifle and muzzleloader pressure and the buck : doe ratios are not above objective.
I'd be interested to see some hard data to prove this. My bet is that the resident deer are very few. The bulk of the deer living within city limits are seasonal migrants. Of course, I've got no data to support my view, either. And as for elk, well, there are no resident elk in city limits, are there?Packout said:-For the most part, the problem deer live within city limits, where no hunting is allowed.
If that's true, (and I'm not so sure it is), average is a human concept and isn't relevant since a single year of heavy snowfall or light snowfall can have a dramatic effect on deer populations.Packout said:-Utah County receives less snow (on average) than Salt Lake, Davis, or Weber Counties and the deer don't seem (usually) to come down into the cities as occurrs on the Extended. No real "Lake Effect" snows, if you will.
I completely agree - not only because it offers a great hunting opportunity, but more importantly because it's good for wildlife. I think we have to focus on the extended hunt as a management tool because if it's just another opportunity for hunters, it will not stand up against public sentiment, particularly if isolated incidents of hunter misbehavior are thrown into the objections.Packout said:We (Yes I hunt the Front) almost lost the Extended because of the problems associated with the hunt. Thanks to Clint, Bill, Travis, etc (even a Chuck-And-Ducker like me, haha) who fought to keep it, we still have this hunt, but is always under constant scrutiny. Lets fight to maintain what we have.