New Utah General Season Units

I hope this helps the deer herds, I really do. I'll admit I have my doubts though, afraid this will turn the state into even more of a Limited Entry state with it becoming even more difficult to draw a tag. I'm all FOR this and it's fine if the hunting is better or improved when one does draw a tag. If not, I think we need to tweak it and make other changes (I'm sure they will anyway).

I'd like to see them close some units for a few years. Pick the worst 1-3 units in the state and close them for 3 years or so. I'd also like the Rifle hunt to go back to 5 days at least in my neck of the woods anyway.

Be interesting to see what happens, bit of a gamble applying the first year.

I used to hunt 5 of these units on a fairly regular basis, NOT anymore. :)

I'm anxiously awaiting the results in the next couple of years. I'm really hoping to be able see more bucks on the winter range around my house and to be able to take my family for short hikes and see a good balance of bucks and does. To me, this is worth the cost of not hunting every year. Right now, this does not exist on my unit with a very poor buck to doe ratio in many of the more family friendly areas. What I mean by this is... sure, I can hike several miles back into the roughest, steepest stuff on the mountain to find big bucks but I can't take my family back into these areas because of physical reasons.

I kinda have the same concern about making it a lil bit more limited entry. I know down here where I live lots of people come to hunt so it feels like to me that its gonna be having 3 limited entry units instead of just one

I'm wanting to see the outcome of this in Utah as well. If it really helps the heards,and increses buck to doe ratio that much .....it'll be worth the wait for a good unit. There is a couple of deer zones in my state where I wish they would shut down for a couple of years but I don't think it'll ever happen?

I'm afraid this new system will do nothing to help the deer herds, but it will allow the DWR to manage HUNTERS better, and will even bring the buck to doe ratio up in some areas. The declining mule deer populations across the entire west is a major concern for all the various game agencies, and as of yet, they have not been able to reverse the downward trend in mule deer populations, even those states that utilize the "multiple unit" management, such as Colorado.

Hunting mulies has been my passion since I was just a kid, and it nearly breaks my heart to see the populations faltering. I would do whatever it takes to help the herds, even if it meant not hunting for a while. I don't however, back a plan that does nothing to help the deer herds, yet is touted as doing such by those who back its existance, and not by those who actually do the managing.

Is there any talk of reducing tags? I was amazed at the numbers of hunters I saw during the rifle hunt in a couple southern areas. I'd be in favor of shutting down the worst units or cutting tags by at least 75% for several years.

Mularcher I beleive they were talking about cutting tags by 13000. Don't quote me on that but that is what comes to my mind.
Personally I think the state should make all hunters over the age of 18 shoot something 4 point on one side or bigger unless they are holding a management tag. If a hunter is 18 or younger they can take any legal buck as stated in regs right now.
I think this would help the deer herds more than anything the DWR has done to date.

I think the "new" tag numbers is the possibility for not having to cut that many tags (13,000), in large part to the UWC group. Feeling like they will never get them back, might be right on that.

Not sure it will happen, but it's a possibility. I know it's being discussed AGAIN. Kinda crazy talk to me after we just determined all this but oh well.

I don't see this measure doing much to help the long-term health of the our deer herds. It should, however, do a decent job of managing hunters. The real loser in this appears to be the archers...I'm not one, but losing statewide archery has to sting a bit. I don't see how the state can do it any other way under this management strategy though. I'll be curious to see how this ultimately impacts the dedicated hunter program as well.

I'll share a couple of thoughts on why I don't feel this will help the deer herds. Five years ago, I was a big proponant of this, ironically enough it was a conversation with John Baer that initially got me thinking more critically of this strategy.

The biggest factor in all of this is that higher buck numbers will do nothing in the vast majority of units to improve overall deer numbers. There may be a few isolated areas that there are not enough bucks to cover every doe, but most areas have sufficient buck numbers. Research has indicated that a ratio of 5:100 is sufficient, but I would think at least double that number would be ideal. Higher buck to doe ratios is simply a desire by hunters to see more and bigger bucks. The area I have hunted the last few years has easy access and by my anecdotal evidence contained very high buck to doe ratios, although most of the buck were no more than 2 1/2 years old.

There is evidence that suggests that ratios too high can adversly affect population numbers as well. Firstly, if we assume that winter range is a limiting factor and that it can only carry X number of deer, then any number of bucks over what is necessary to breed all the does limits the reproductive vitality of the overall herd. I don't know what all of the limiting factors of Utah's deer herds are nor do I understand what the direct impact of each of those factors is individually, but I do know that our winter habitat plays a large role in limiting herd numbers. I also know that there is a lot less of it and what remains is in far worse condition than it was in the 50's and 60's.

Secondly, previous to the severe winters in '07 and '08 we were planning our first hunting trip to Colorado. During that time I spoke with several biologist in Colorado and had some conversations regarding buck:doe ratios etc. Several of them commented that one of the risks of high buck ratios is increased competition during the rut which often sent the bucks into the winter in poor condition. During mild winters this was OK, but they predicted in a severe winter the die off could be very high. This happened during '07 and to a lesser extent in '08 with many premier areas seeing herd numbers drop more than 40%. While Utah saw herd numbers fall, our collapse was not nearly as significant as Colorado's. I spoke with the same biologists this year and while the herds have stabalized, they have yet to see a rebound despite several mild winters since then. If you look at Utah's LE units the deers herds there do not seemed to have faired any better than those in the general units.

At the end of the day, I'm not a big proponant of this as a herd management strategy, however, I do think it will do a nice job of controlling huting pressure. I'm fortunate in that the areas I generally hunt are no more divided now than they were previously. I'm still just looking at applying in two different areas. I could get behind this more if as part of the change either the preference point pool or the bonus pool was eliminated and all deer units in the state were combined into one pool. I understand this discussion has happend, but I don't believe anything has been decided.

"Mularcher" wrote:Is there any talk of reducing tags? I was amazed at the numbers of hunters I saw during the rifle hunt in a couple southern areas. I'd be in favor of shutting down the worst units or cutting tags by at least 75% for several years.

I agree with you on this. The last couple of years, I've been way disappointed with the number of hunters I've seen in the field. I think the DWR should decrease the number of tags, especially archery tags, or make them unavailable as OTC options. You wouldn't believe how many guys I've talked to, that didn't draw a General Season rifle tag and went and bought a brand new bow, a dozen new arrows and broadheads, and went out "hunting" during the archery hunt. Needless to say, these guys also bragged about "hitting" several bucks and couldn't find them. Shooting more than one animal on one tag, doesn't that define as poaching? Sorry to say it, but I think one of the best things the Division could do, is lessen the amount of hunter pressure on game. Will it make people mad when they don't draw, sure, poaching may go up because of people not drawing tags, I know it's a problem in my area. But my wife and I have talked about it, and we would give up a year of not hunting deer, if it meant larger bucks and more of them. If anyone wants to see what limiting hunters can do, take a camera and a ride down to the Henry Mtns. in UT. You will be impressed.

I guess time will tell how the new system will work, but IMHO, I think they could have done better.

I don't think the increase in buck:doe ratio is going to help the herd a whole lot. It may help the guys that want big antlers, but not the herd. I'd agree with temporarily shutting down some areas or even limiting the weapon types allowed, especially the ones that are already well below objective to get them up to objective... but even then you're only saving bucks if you remove/limit hunters. There are SOOOO many other things that can be done that would make more of an impact: fawn survival, winter range, vehicle interaction, predator control, etc. Some of these are already "hot button" issues, but I think they'd help more than simply having more bucks around.
I do think that it's great that to have better "hunter control" by managing each unit's tags individually. It's a shame the statewide archery is gone, and that in my opinion was a huge plus for the Dedicated Hunter program.

It really messes with me on the bow hunt. Since where I hunt is divided right down the middle. The rifle wouldn't be a problem but they really got me on the bow. So now my bigger question is if I want a bow tag or a rifle tag. Overall I think it might b.e fairly beneficial for the herd. =

"JBird" wrote:It really messes with me on the bow hunt. Since where I hunt is divided right down the middle. The rifle wouldn't be a problem but they really got me on the bow. So now my bigger question is if I want a bow tag or a rifle tag. Overall I think it might b.e fairly beneficial for the herd. =

Beneficial for the herd, I like those words. As previously mentioned by other posters, there are a variety of reasons why our mule deer ACROSS THE WEST or losing numbers. Managing hunters to aliviate some of the concerns is an easy, quick fix. I would be the first person to buy a tag and tear it up if it would help the deer herds. My concern is we need to find out why our fawns are not making it past the first year. It is not a clear cut predator issue, it goes much deeper than that. The natural world of the muley is out of whack and needs some help. Problem is, are we willing to do what it takes to figure things out, then take the steps necessary? The issue goes across ALL boundaries from politics to social issues, and within is not just a single can of worms, but many...

.

I have been thinking lately long and hard about the management plan we have here in Utah. There seems to be a huge flaw in the plan. 18 bucks per 100 doe's sounds great but where is the number per deer per square mile. it seems there is no plan for that. what if a unit has 150 square miles but only has 100 does on it are they really thinking the objective is met when the bucks meet 18 for that 100. CRAZY if you ask me.

A guy that I work with is from Pennsylvania and commented the other day that the number of B&C bucks coming out of PA this year is impressive. He said that the management plan was put into place 8 years ago and they are really starting to see the results.
Interesting what happens if you have the patience to let a plan run its course. ](*,)

"derekp1999" wrote:A guy that I work with is from Pennsylvania and commented the other day that the number of B&C bucks coming out of PA this year is impressive. He said that the management plan was put into place 8 years ago and they are really starting to see the results.
Interesting what happens if you have the patience to let a plan run its course. ](*,)

+1

After talking to several game wardens, Im convinced they have no intention of trying to better manage the Utah Deer herd's. Did you notice they couldn't tell you how many tag's they were selling for any particular unit. It's because they had no idea, they waited for the applications to determine tag numbers for individual units. I have mentioned to several different warden's that I thought this would be a great opportunity to enhance the mule deer population in Utah by reducing tag numbers in a handful of units around the state, then rotating the low tag number units every few years. They had no interest in doing anything, as a matter of fact they were upset with the fact that the changes were made at all. I was told by all of them the only reason it eas changed was because the legislature made them do it because of public pressure. It's my opinion that the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources primary job is to insure enough money comes in each year to pay their salaries and buy them new truck's, Improving Mule Deer populations has never been high on their thing's to do list { just look at our deer population }. While talking to one warden concerning the deer population and my disappointment in tag numbers not being reduced, his reply to me was { well it looks like we are going to be an Elk state }. Like I said, as long as they are being paid it's all good.

Just curious Bucknbolders, how long have you hunted mule deer? Have you been involved in the RAC and WB process?

"stillhunterman" wrote:Just curious Bucknbolders, how long have you hunted mule deer? Have you been involved in the RAC and WB process?

Long enough to know this state's game management plan has failed the mule deer, I have been hunting deer about 35 year's. Yes I have attended RAC meeting's, In my opinion minds have been made up and plans made before you ever get the chance to voice your opinion. It's also my opinion { if I may have one stillhunterman } that the buck to doe ratio is a bunch of bull. The reason being, We have an abundance of wildlife winter range in the state of Utah if you get away from the Ogden to Payson area. I believe deer numbers should be managed to available habitat. If all available habitat isn't being utilized, measures should be taken to increase doe numbers by aggressive predator control,and any any other means necessary to maintain a maximum number of animals for the available range { not kill the buck's down to the poor doe numbers }. Buck to doe ratio means nothing without a maximum number of does per square mile of winter habitat of which we have an abundance of. It's my opinion the root of our fawn population problem is the rabbit. In the last 50 years the rabbit population has been on a steady decrease. Today it's a rare occasion to see one, let alone the hundreds of them you could see at night in our deserts and hill country years ago. I have been tracking deer since I was so small, I had to hold on to my dad's hind pocket to keep up. Through the years their has been a steady increase in the number of coyotes hunting and killing not just fawns, but full sized mule deer bucks. The coyotes numbers are lower than at any time in my lifetime, but their eating habits have changed dramatically. A fawn in today's world doesnt stand a chance when coyotes are forced to eating cedar berries just to sustain life until they can find their next fawn. I could go on for hour's on the complexity of the problem, Times have changed but game management is lagging way behind as usual.

Easy there Bnb...of course you can have an oppinion, we all can :thumb I simply asked a couple of questions to get a bit of a grasp on your background. I had a hunch you have been around the block a couple of times, so no worries.

Unfortunately, a fair number of hunters have the same claims and concerns that you do with regards to the RAC process, and that's truely a shame. It could be a good program if it functioned as inteneded. There have been some personell changes within the RAC's and WB, so my hope is that things will come around and the general hunters will actually be listened to.

I too could go on and on for hours talking about our deer herds throughout the west. Your observation about the low number of rabbits is shared by many, including myself, and I agree yotes are adaptive enough to change prey sourses as needed. Why do you think the rabbit population has taken such a downturn? (Yeah, we all know they are cyclic in nature, but even thier highs aren't as they were before.) Also, which areas of habitat are not being utilized to full potential? I'm really curious about that one. Appreciate your response.

Fawn survival is a high priority right now. So is habitat and road kills. The buck doe ratio is just a way to control hunters and provide a more balanced hunting experience and provide enough bucks to do the breeding and to maintain a reasonable success ratio. (30-40) IMHO. I wished a hunter to avaiable buck ratio would also be used into the equation. Like a 1(hunter) to 2(available bucks).

Agreed. You never know ridge, it may happen sooner than we all think. Times change...

"stillhunterman" wrote:Easy there Bnb...of course you can have an oppinion, we all can :thumb I simply asked a couple of questions to get a bit of a grasp on your background. I had a hunch you have been around the block a couple of times, so no worries.

Unfortunately, a fair number of hunters have the same claims and concerns that you do with regards to the RAC process, and that's truely a shame. It could be a good program if it functioned as inteneded. There have been some personell changes within the RAC's and WB, so my hope is that things will come around and the general hunters will actually be listened to.

I too could go on and on for hours talking about our deer herds throughout the west. Your observation about the low number of rabbits is shared by many, including myself, and I agree yotes are adaptive enough to change prey sourses as needed. Why do you think the rabbit population has taken such a downturn? (Yeah, we all know they are cyclic in nature, but even thier highs aren't as they were before.) Also, which areas of habitat are not being utilized to full potential? I'm really curious about that one. Appreciate your response.

Stillhunterman, During the 1970's while traveling, Trapping, Hounding and Hunting in Utah, There were a huge number of areas throughout the state where mule deer populations were higher by an extreme amount than we are experiencing today. The deserts had huge numbers of mule deer migrate into them in the fall. Areas such as southeastern Utah from Moab all the way too Blanding were full of deer. Today the numbers from Moab through lower lisben valley and on south toward Montecello are sad to say the least. Montacello to Blanding is looking relatively good due to the CWMU management of the area. The south desert, Escalante grand staircase at one time had thousands of deer winter on it that migrated into it from the Bolder mountain and some from as far away as Mt. Dutton and the fish lake range. Today there are few that even make the trip. On our west desert when I was a young man Trapping with my dad, from Garison or Border Inn south down through Indian peak, the Cougar spar, Modena Their were thousands of deer. Today you can travel a long way's and see little. Back in the seventy's a deer migration took place annually in my area. Deer would travel from area's such as Mt. Nebo and go as far west as Nevada. Near the south end of Keg Mountain a migration trail went through cut into the dirt 4 to 6" deep and over a foot wide. During the migration you could see a multitude of new deer every day. Long time wardens such as Bob Tasker can attest to the fact.When I was a boy the I-15 was put in down through Utah. My dad told me at that time it would prove to be detrimental to the mule deer population and I think it has been more than we can understand. Not to say it's all the freeway's fault, but it has been one of the contributing factors. From Santaquin south to St. George thousands of deer wintered for years even after the freeway. Today it's a sad state of affair's. The high country population at one time fed the surrounding desert areas areas with new blood every year. Now populations are so low they don't even utilize the feed from the freeway to the foothills from Santaquin south. Well enough of my moaning. I can only type with two fingers so I better call it a night. I do however enjoy the conversation.

If you find out whats happened to the rabbits and you will have one of the key pieces to solving our mule deer. Rabbits are what I call an indicator species's. In nature everything is linked together you throw out one piece of a puzzle like the rabbit and it will effect another species like our deer, which will in turn affect the top predators like us and coyotes. Indicator species can tell you when something is out of whack if you pay attention to them.

another example of how our indicator species co exist. Lets say you kill all the coyotes and hawks like we did with 1080. You had a population boom with the rabbits and deer. We as hunters didn't have to compete with any other predators so we had it good being able to even hunt does, shoot multiple bucks ect. The lack of predators is what was out of whack in this scenario.

These cycles of life can take decades to stabilize when thrown completely out of whack

Now back to the question why isn't there any rabbits? Could it be we have simple over hunted them or is it something else that has started there decline, weather, poor habitat, disease, ect? There is no way I can even speculate on why the rabbits have disappeared because they are a species that is very prolific but I personally believe there should be a ban or season on shooting jack rabbits until there population goes up.

Which brings me to another point. If a species like the jack rabbit is in the toilet how can anyone say they need to shoot the last one. Its no different then our deer. So when our deer herds are in the toilet how can anyone say they want to shoot the last one. When the prey species goes down so should the predator population. If the predator population goes down the prey species will go up.

I do know one thing. If the greenes wont allow us to manage the predators we wont have a slice of that cycle of life.

Well said swbuckmaster, The thing that I find disturbing is as far as I know, No studies are being conducted to try and determine the cause of the rabbit decline. As sportsmen and women we provide the funding for non-game and game management, where is the management. Its my opinion study areas should be set up, blood drawn from some inside the study area to check for disease, parasites, etc. Range conditions monitored including but not limited too sage brush, grass health and moisture content. The rabbit no longer re-produces the way it did at one time, the pack rat is also on decline throughout the Utah desert. It is in the best interest of everyone to monitor these problem's, but seems to be a concern to only those of us that love to hunt and cherish wildlife and the great outdoors. If anyone is aware of studies being preformed, I would sure love to hear about it.