Utah Wildlife Forum banner

What do you think the Wildlife Board should do with mule deer tags for 2016?

  • Increase mule deer tags as recommended

    Votes: 96 64.9%
  • Keep mule deer tag numbers as they currently are

    Votes: 34 23.0%
  • Increase buck to doe ratios

    Votes: 18 12.2%
1 - 20 of 113 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'd like to see everyone that visits this site voice their opinion. Do you support tag increases? Do you think they should remain at current levels? Do you think buck:doe ratios should be increased?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
I'd like to see everyone that visits this site voice their opinion. Do you support tag increases? Do you think they should remain at current levels? Do you think buck:doe ratios should be increased?
I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity. Anyone who can't handle the DWR adding a relatively small amount of general season deer tags (after large population growth) can feel free to stay out of the general season application pool and wait their turn for a LE deer hunt, IMO.

After all, the purpose of general season tags is to manage deer populations, isn't it? If we can do that, and give a lot of people the opportunity to go hunting in the process, why shouldn't we? I'm happy to deal with crowds and the likelihood of smaller deer as a side effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,194 Posts
I voted for an increased Buck/Doe ratio. No matter where you stand on the tag numbers debate, more bucks = more fun!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Although I am not fond of drawing my general season archery deer tag every other year, I would like to see the herds increase a little more. We aren't sure what kind of an effect this winter is going to have on the herds yet. Here in the south, it seems to be ok so far. I would vote status quo one more year.
Why does the DWR implement 5 year plans if they keep changing them and don't give the full 5 years to judge the effects?
Private property cow elk tags, sounds like a pay off to me. Cattlemen are giving the DWR a bad time, so the DWR throws them a bone while all the est of the average sportsmen get the bone.
Just my 2cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity. Anyone who can't handle the DWR adding a relatively small amount of general season deer tags (after large population growth) can feel free to stay out of the general season application pool and wait their turn for a LE deer hunt, IMO.

After all, the purpose of general season tags is to manage deer populations, isn't it? If we can do that, and give a lot of people the opportunity to go hunting in the process, why shouldn't we? I'm happy to deal with crowds and the likelihood of smaller deer as a side effect.
This. We need to give our youth more opportunities so we have someone to pass a legacy on to.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,885 Posts
Pretty straight forward poll.
Sad to see so many people can't simply take 30 seconds, log in and take the poll.
Out of 340 viewer so far only 40 people have taken the poll. That's about 10%.
:cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,753 Posts
Yeah, I dove into the fray there a little bit. Reasonable people can disagree on these kinds of issues, but it doesn't take long to weed out those that literally have no clue what they are talking about and don't understand the issue at all.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,661 Posts
Pretty straight forward poll.
Sad to see so many people can't simply take 30 seconds, log in and take the poll.
Out of 340 viewer so far only 40 people have taken the poll. That's about 10%.
:cry:
You have to figure that out of those 340 people that have viewed the post and 40 people that have taken the poll that those 40 people have visited the thread multiple times to see what others are saying.

I know that I have been here at least 5 or 6 times to look at the added post which add to the post views.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
I would like to see the tag numbers stay where they are for now. I see plenty of people out in the field and seems like the deer are just starting to make a rebound and get a few more bucks back on the unit. So I don't know why the dwr wants to knock the heard back down. Just my 2 cents. I probably would support this change if 40-50% of these added tags went only to youth hunters between 12-16 years old because I believe 20% already go to the youth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
I would like to see the tag numbers stay where they are for now. I see plenty of people out in the field and seems like the deer are just starting to make a rebound and get a few more bucks back on the unit. So I don't know why the dwr wants to knock the heard back down. Just my 2 cents.
Utahyounggun, I'm not necessarily replying to you (since I don't know where you hunt or what kind of action you're taking regarding the proposed tag changes), but I think that many people see what you're seeing, and feel like you do. To them, I would offer this reply:

One thing I hope everyone remembers before they fire off a bunch of angry emails to the wildlife board is that while we have a proposed increase of ~4000 tags statewide, that doesn't mean that tags are going up everywhere. On the unit you hunt, there may not be any change in tag numbers, or any change may be very small (on the order of 50-150 permits for many units, which may result in 20-60 more deer harvested).

Most of us really only hunt one or two general season deer units, so I'm not a fan of people condemning these tag changes all across the state when they may only see what deer numbers are like in one unit (and often a small area within that unit).

I would recommend that everyone take a look at the RAC packet on page 7, and see what changes are proposed for the units you hunt. If you don't think that the tag changes are warranted on the unit you hunt, feel free to express your concern. If you hunt down on the Zion unit, for example, and aren't happy with the extra tags being offered there, go ahead and say so. But please don't try and speak for those of us who hunt other units across the state. Our situations are very different than yours.

I hunt the Wasatch West unit, and we've seen a good bump in tag numbers the last few years. Deer numbers last year were better than I've ever personally seen them. However, the deer hunt last year was as crowded as I've ever seen it as well, and when I heard that more tags were being offered, I was a bit concerned at the prospect of overcrowding and overharvest for the 2016 season. However, I looked at the RAC packet, and guess what? We aren't getting any more tags there for 2016 than we had last year. I feel that the DWR has a handle on the Wasatch West unit, and I'm not concerned. And since I don't know how the deer herds are doing in the rest of the state, I'll leave it to the professionals at the DWR to make the decisions for those units.

Trying to generically label increased tag numbers as "good" or "bad" simply doesn't work on a statewide level. Each area is different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
I support reasonable, science-based tag changes that increase hunt opportunity. Anyone who can't handle the DWR adding a relatively small amount of general season deer tags (after large population growth) can feel free to stay out of the general season application pool and wait their turn for a LE deer hunt, IMO.

After all, the purpose of general season tags is to manage deer populations, isn't it? If we can do that, and give a lot of people the opportunity to go hunting in the process, why shouldn't we? I'm happy to deal with crowds and the likelihood of smaller deer as a side effect.
Couldn't agree more! Mother Nature will always have a greater say in how our deer herds are doing, and if we have an opportunity to get a few more hunters in the field during the boom cycles I say do it. In our area the winter range is taking a hit from the increased herd so we need more harvest or we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
I would like to see the tag numbers stay where they are for now. I see plenty of people out in the field and seems like the deer are just starting to make a rebound and get a few more bucks back on the unit. So I don't know why the dwr wants to knock the heard back down. Just my 2 cents.
Utahyounggun, I'm not necessarily replying to you (since I don't know where you hunt or what kind of action you're taking regarding the proposed tag changes), but I think that many people see what you're seeing, and feel like you do. To them, I would offer this reply:

One thing I hope everyone remembers before they fire off a bunch of angry emails to the wildlife board is that while we have a proposed increase of ~4000 tags statewide, that doesn't mean that tags are going up everywhere. On the unit you hunt, there may not be any change in tag numbers, or any change may be very small (on the order of 50-150 permits for many units, which may result in 20-60 more deer harvested).

Most of us really only hunt one or two general season deer units, so I'm not a fan of people condemning these tag changes all across the state when they may only see what deer numbers are like in one unit (and often a small area within that unit).

I would recommend that everyone take a look at the RAC packet on page 7, and see what changes are proposed for the units you hunt. If you don't think that the tag changes are warranted on the unit you hunt, feel free to express your concern. If you hunt down on the Zion unit, for example, and aren't happy with the extra tags being offered there, go ahead and say so. But please don't try and speak for those of us who hunt other units across the state. Our situations are very different than yours.

I hunt the Wasatch West unit, and we've seen a good bump in tag numbers the last few years. Deer numbers last year were better than I've ever personally seen them. However, the deer hunt last year was as crowded as I've ever seen it as well, and when I heard that more tags were being offered, I was a bit concerned at the prospect of overcrowding and overharvest for the 2016 season. However, I looked at the RAC packet, and guess what? We aren't getting any more tags there for 2016 than we had last year. I feel that the DWR has a handle on the Wasatch West unit, and I'm not concerned. And since I don't know how the deer herds are doing in the rest of the state, I'll leave it to the professionals at the DWR to make the decisions for those units.

Trying to generically label increased tag numbers as "good" or "bad" simply doesn't work on a statewide level. Each area is different.
The unit I hunt has a proposed 400 tag increase and for being out all three seasons last year and seeing the heard making small improvements from years past, I don't think it's what's best for this unit. You are correct though and I can not speak for other units because I don't spend enough time on them to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,885 Posts
You have to figure that out of those 340 people that have viewed the post and 40 people that have taken the poll that those 40 people have visited the thread multiple times to see what others are saying.

I know that I have been here at least 5 or 6 times to look at the added post which add to the post views.
Good point.
It's probably more like 30%, which isn't bad.
I hope there's at least 100 people polled by the end of the week.
That would be a good sampling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,753 Posts
The unit I hunt has a proposed 400 tag increase and for being out all three seasons last year and seeing the heard making small improvements from years past, I don't think it's what's best for this unit. You are correct though and I can not speak for other units because I don't spend enough time on them to know.
400 more tags proposed---So Kamas or Wasatch East, right? You don't have to answer, just going to show the numbers for those curious.

Kamas has a buck/doe ratio on the higher end with 18-20 as the objective. It's three year average is 24.5, with 2015 being at 27.5 buck/doe ratio. It is right at its overall objective for mule deer numbers as well. The objective 8000, and the herd was estimated at 7700 post 2014 season. Post 2015 has not been published that I know of, but I'm guessing those numbers went up. At an overall harvest rate of 24.2% on that unit, you're going to see ~97 more bucks killed.

Wasatch East has a buck/doe ratio objective of 18-20, so on the higher end as well. The three year average is 25.4 with 2015 being at 27.2. The overall deer herd numbers is doing really well. The objective is 18,200. The post-2014 estimate as was 20,000. With the proposed increase in tags, ~107 more bucks will be killed.

Take a look at the numbers and you'll see why these two units alone have almost 1/5 of the proposed increase. Do these numbers suggest an increase is appropriate?
 
1 - 20 of 113 Posts
Top