Option #2 passed at RACs,,,3-2

After last nights vote in Vernal (NE) , Option 2 made a sweep this week
at the RAC meetings in the Southern, South east, and North east regions..

Looks like were headed for individual deer unit management in Utah.
Very similar to Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado.

I've been on the other forums (and a couple RACs) supporting option 2,
I don't really like the lost opportunity for hunters, but, The regional management
they have used since 93 could obviously not working very well.....IMO.
14,589
MuleyMadness
Thanks for the update, doesn't necessarily mean that just because the RACS voted that. BUT your likely correct IMO. I'm just afraid this is going to turn SO. REGION into a limited entry all over the place. Be tough to draw tags IMO.

I'm just not a believer in this, HOPE I'm wrong though.
0
9er
Not sure im a fan either. Sucks that we are gonna lose 13000 tags that we will probably never get back. Sucks that archers wont have the statewide hunt. Sucks that it may mean only being able to hunt every 3-4 years if tags keep getting taken away.

Brett, how was it not hunting this year?? How fun was it tagging along with your other family members with a tag and you were left without? How upset will you be if you dont draw again this coming year? (sorry for putting you on the spot)


How are we gonna keep the young kids involved in this sport if they cant hunt.
0
skysthelimit
Personally I would rather chase better deer on average and hunt every few years and pay a higher fee than hunt every year. I am all for managing a better deer herd. If this is the best possiblilty than i am all for it.
0
9er
"skysthelimit" wrote:Personally I would rather chase better deer on average and hunt every few years and pay a higher fee than hunt every year. I am all for managing a better deer herd. If this is the best possiblilty than i am all for it.
 What is your idea of a better herd? Bigger deer does not necessarily mean a better deer herd.

9er
0
MuleyMadness
If #2 goes through, in a few years I'm afraid things won't improve...might be worse...and people will complain the same if not more. Then they will say we want something different done, the DWR will say this IS what you voted/wanted. And we or some will say I know but we weren't as smart as we thought we were and we were wrong. DWR will say (laughing) we already knew that in the first place. Why do you think we preferred #1.

HOPE I'M WRONG!! (Matter of fact, I'd LOVE to be wrong) AND you can call me out on it if I am, no offense. I'll humbly ask for your apologies. :) [-o<
Brett, how was it not hunting this year?? How fun was it tagging along with your other family members with a tag and you were left without? How upset will you be if you dont draw again this coming year? (sorry for putting you on the spot)
9er you might not like my response, but I had a blast tagging along with my 2 brothers and Dad this year. Always do, hope I always will. I would have preferred to have a tag sure, but I didn't get my 'panties in a wad' when I didn't draw. Sure I was a little disappointed, but hey life goes on. The man upstairs isn't going to ask me how many deer I shot in my lifetime or if I had a tag ever year...but he'll likely ask a few other questions that'll sink in much deeper than a deer tag.

Don't get me wrong, wouldn't mind hunting Mule Deer in heaven. lol
0
9er
Brett, I agree with you on thinking option#2 isnt gonna help the herds.

And what i should of asked was, what if you or family member didnt draw a tag, or didnt draw a tag for 4-5 years and you had no deer hunt to participate it. How would you feel?

ps to brett: Please help my case here, not like your last response lol Im like you, if i know for a fact that either me, my bro or dad could have a tag every year i could probably live, but any wait longer just SUCKS
0
skysthelimit
IMO a better herd is seeing more bucks on the hoof and seeing bigger bucks. That is a better herd. Like i said, I am not sure what the best option for this is. Option two could be harder on our herds than the other two options. I just dont mind paying more or hunting less to have a better hunt and not see orange everywhere i go. I love hunting the front but you drive up little or big cottonwood, parleys or emigration any day in November and there are trucks parked along the entire road. I dont mind sharing the mtn but like i said, i would rather only get to hunt the front every three years and see a lot less people and less pressure than hunt every year. I have hunted colorado and wyoming which imo have done some positive things. Our unit in wyoming we only get to hunt every other year or so. We love it because on average we see much better deer and less people.

Again, maybe option one or three is better for what i want. I am not as familiar with all the options and what the short and long term effects may be on our deer. This is just my opinion.
0
MuleyMadness
IMO a better herd is seeing more bucks on the hoof and seeing bigger bucks. That is a better herd.
 Don't know if it's a BETTER herd, but a more FUN herd. More exciting, more of a cool or wow factor. Awesome, sweet, nice, 'did you see that' factor on bucks. MOST CERTAINLY YES. I'd love it also, not sure it's every really reality like people are wanting it to be or thinking it should/will be though. But I'd love to see bigger bucks, trust me. :)

9er,
ps to brett: Please help my case here, not like your last response
 I was SICK to my stomach cause I didn't draw a tag, vomiting, nausea, headaches, OCD, ADD, crying at night. YES 9er it's been pure MISERY and HORRIBLE. What a rough year and past few months. I WILL NOT make it through next year if I don't draw. lol
Couldn't afford the therapy bills anymore, so medication is taking the sting off now. :)) :))
And what i should of asked was, what if you or family member didnt draw a tag, or didnt draw a tag for 4-5 years and you had no deer hunt to participate it. How would you feel?
 Okay you got me on that one, yea not fun and certainly a bigger problem. I'd still get out and film/photograph. But my family wouldn't. Not so fun, on the bright side I'd call you 9er and we would go find some bucks to film. :)
0
9er
And what i should of asked was, what if you or family member didnt draw a tag, or didnt draw a tag for 4-5 years and you had no deer hunt to participate it. How would you feel?
 Okay you got me on that one, yea not fun and certainly a bigger problem. I'd still get out and film/photograph. But my family wouldn't. Not so fun, on the bright side I'd call you 9er and we would go find some bucks to film. :)[/quote]

Thanks for throwing me a bone!!! lol If this does happen i may learn how to take a decent picture with you teaching me

Whatever happens happens, it will be something we have to deal with. I just hope its best for the deer and not the "Inches" crowd
0
skysthelimit
A few questions about option 2.

-They say dedicated hunter program with turn into a one year program. What happens to those in the middle of their three year program and have paid and contributed hours?

-Wasatch, would they change the archery only area and allow rifles or muzzleloaders south of I 80 to south mountain/point of the mountain?

-No extended Wasatch front unit for archery hunters?

-Whatever is decided these changes come into effect immediately for the 2011 season?
0
Default Avatar
how would #2 not help the deer #s (???)
0
derekp1999
"skysthelimit" wrote:A few questions about option 2.

-They say dedicated hunter program with turn into a one year program. What happens to those in the middle of their three year program and have paid and contributed hours?

-Whatever is decided these changes come into effect immediately for the 2011 season?
 I don't know what would happen to those Dedicated Hunters. It makes me relieved that I decided against trying to get into the program.
I read on the DWR website that changes for Option #2 wouldn't go into effect until 2012, giving the DWR time to figure out logistics for the enforcement of the new regulations.
0
stillhunterman
"500mag" wrote:how would #2 not help the deer #s (???)
 It won't help the deer herd numbers because it does not address the deer herd itself, it only addresses hunters and buck numbers. Bucks don't grow deer, and managing hunters does ONLY that, manages HUNTERS and NOT the herd (doe/fawn recruitment).
0
Default Avatar
i think for up north we need to stop people from putting houses up the mt side on the deer winter range. that would help a lot
0
Default Avatar
Im not saying what option is better or if any of them are good but I will say something needs to be done and soon (Dropping tag numbers) I went looking for deer tonight and the southeastern is pathetic, saw over 300 does and 3 bucks (a spike a two point and a little four point) This is the rut and I know those three bucks cant breed all those does. Most of the groups with 20 to 40 does didnt have a buck anywhere around. I would be happy to go 3 to 5 years without a tag if the deer herds were better. And i might get alot of flack over this but i dont think any 12 year old kid should be able to carry a gun on a deer hunt, if they want the hunting experience tag along with dad and learn how to hunt ethically. Then when they are 16 and maybe have a little common sense give them a tag. Besides how is it a good hunting experiece for a kid to go hunt his guts out and not even see a buck. I say this from experience trying to get my younger sister and cousins into hunting. Am I off in thinking this way. Give me some feedback!!!
0
stillhunterman
"kallred12" wrote:Im not saying what option is better or if any of them are good but I will say something needs to be done and soon (Dropping tag numbers) I went looking for deer tonight and the southeastern is pathetic, saw over 300 does and 3 bucks (a spike a two point and a little four point) This is the rut and I know those three bucks cant breed all those does. Most of the groups with 20 to 40 does didnt have a buck anywhere around. I would be happy to go 3 to 5 years without a tag if the deer herds were better. And i might get alot of flack over this but i dont think any 12 year old kid should be able to carry a gun on a deer hunt, if they want the hunting experience tag along with dad and learn how to hunt ethically. Then when they are 16 and maybe have a little common sense give them a tag. Besides how is it a good hunting experiece for a kid to go hunt his guts out and not even see a buck. I say this from experience trying to get my younger sister and cousins into hunting. Am I off in thinking this way. Give me some feedback!!!
 I've had a couple of buds say they have seen a few more bucks than that in the SE areas, but numbers are still down...sad. I believe most concerned hunters are willing to do whatever it takes to help the herd out, so good on you. As for the youth hunting, well it's not like it was when I was growing up. Kids today are so lost in the electronic/communications age that by the time they are in thier teens, interest in hunting has already dwindled considerably. Antelope hunting at that young age offers lots of opportunity, especially in Wyoming. It's fun as heck and will keep the blood boiling for big game.
0
The Ox
ok i think you guys need to explain to me why micro managment would not be better? serious its a no brainer it would help imo. if the heds are managed more closely its gonna help. region wide is the dumbest thing for the deer herd. i hunt pine valley unit mostly right now im competing for tags with guys that hunt zion or beaver or whatever. deer that have no relations whatsoever. right now even if the herd in a particulare area is hurting they cant really adjust the amount of hunters in the area, one place like pine valley may be over objective while the beaver unit is struggleing and there is no way to cut the amount of hunters on beaver to help keep pressure off the herd., and no way to increase how many hunt on pine valley to help keep deer from starving. i highly doubt we wont get those 13000 tags back the reason they are cutting that manyy in my understanding is to raise buck to doe ratios. if they can mange units more precise i dont see how in the world they cant manipulate things better into improving. like giving fewer tags for a unit that is struggleing or more for over populated units.
my opinion why they dont want to do micro is because the dwr are a bunch of lazy couch potatoes that dont wanna get off there butts to spend more time in the field managing the herds more precise.
so explain how a more closely individually managed unit will not help the deer???? looks and seems like it works in other states.

i hunt four diff units every year sepend about half on one unit, i hate the thought of ahaving to chose one unit but if it helps the deer herd i am all for it!!
0
proutdoors
Right out of the current Deer Management Plan:
VI. STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Population Management Goal: Expand and improve mule deer populations throughout
the state within the carrying capacity of available habitats and in consideration of other
land uses.
Population Objective: By 2013, increase the statewide mule deer population by 50,000 to an
estimated post-season herd size of 350,000.
Implications: This objective can be accomplished if precipitation returns to normal and through
the implementation of the strategies in this plan. If precipitation does not return to normal and
habitat objectives are not met, it is unlikely the herd will expand beyond the current level of
302,000 deer.
Strategies:
a. Review individual herd unit management plans and revise where necessary to provide
consistency with this plan.
We ARE already managing the deer by units, option #2 is ALL about managing hunters, it has NOTHING to do with deer, deer health, or deer populations!

There is exactly ZERO evidence that shows increasing buck:doe ratios leads to higher deer populations, but there is LOADS of evidence that increasing buck:doe ratios leads to LOWER deer populations. Option #2 is all about the LEAST important portion the the deer herd, the bucks. The key to healthy and growing deer herds in healthy does and healthy fawns. Again, option #2 does NOTHING to obtain/keep healthy does/fawns, NOTHING!
0
Default Avatar
"proutdoors" wrote:Right out of the current Deer Management Plan:
VI. STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Population Management Goal: Expand and improve mule deer populations throughout
the state within the carrying capacity of available habitats and in consideration of other
land uses.
Population Objective: By 2013, increase the statewide mule deer population by 50,000 to an
estimated post-season herd size of 350,000.
Implications: This objective can be accomplished if precipitation returns to normal and through
the implementation of the strategies in this plan. If precipitation does not return to normal and
habitat objectives are not met, it is unlikely the herd will expand beyond the current level of
302,000 deer.
Strategies:
a. Review individual herd unit management plans and revise where necessary to provide
consistency with this plan.
We ARE already managing the deer by units, option #2 is ALL about managing hunters, it has NOTHING to do with deer, deer health, or deer populations!

There is exactly ZERO evidence that shows increasing buck:doe ratios leads to higher deer populations, but there is LOADS of evidence that increasing buck:doe ratios leads to LOWER deer populations. Option #2 is all about the LEAST important portion the the deer herd, the bucks. The key to healthy and growing deer herds in healthy does and healthy fawns. Again, option #2 does NOTHING to obtain/keep healthy does/fawns, NOTHING!
 How wouldnt raising the buck to doe ratio increase the deer herd. Right now there arent enough mature bucks to breed the does that are there. Seems to me if more does get bred that must mean more fawns will be born therefore more deer? seems like common sense.
0
The Ox
greater buck to doe ratio will help the deer herd. if there is one 10-12 bucks per one hundred does, including little two points that probably are not very efficient breeders the chances of all your does being bred is slim. right now only 35-45 fawns per one hundred does is what we are avging. but if more buck are able to effiently breed the does well obviously the fawn crop should grow! if there are does not being bred they are even more worthless on a range than a buck is! its common freakin sense people! yes 50 bucks per one hundred does is prob to much but raising the some should help get a better fawn crop!

so in short doe with no fawn is a worthless animal your feeding! what good is a fawnless doe?! absolutely zero for the year!!!! none just a feed burner is it!

more bucks should hellp illiminate the low fawn crop by having more bucks to do the breeding.
lets face it a yearling buck is probabaly to immature to do any breeding realistically imo. how many of those yearling bucks are counted into the current 15 bucktpo 100 does counts. probably a good amount lets say 5 so now you have 10 bucks tryoing to breed 100 does. the realistics of the bucks finding all the does is slim on millions of acres. if more bucks are there the chances go up!
0
proutdoors
"kallred12" wrote:How wouldnt raising the buck to doe ratio increase the deer herd. Right now there arent enough mature bucks to breed the does that are there. Seems to me if more does get bred that must mean more fawns will be born therefore more deer? seems like common sense.
I have studied the data from Utah's limited entry units compared to Utah's general season units, and the limited entry units, on average, have LOWER fawn:doe ratios. Same goes for our neighbors to the east and to the south and to the west, ALL have lower fawn:doe ratios than Utah's general season units. Also, people keep pointing to Colorado has the shining example of how micro-managing and high buck:doe ratios is such a success, but this ignores the almost 50% DECLINE in deer population since this became policy. For that matter, Utah's current limited and premium limited entry units were originally created to help the herds 'recover' from low populations, yet 15+ years later EVERY one of them is under population objectives. The Henry unit has a 65:100 buck:doe ratio, but has a LOWER fawn:doe ratio than MOST general season units. The key to population increases in healthy does and healthy fawns, focusing on the bucks in akin to watching the hour hand on a clock when timing a 100 yard dash.

There is NO evidence being offered up where higher buck:doe ratios has resulted in increased populations, but there is LOADS of evidence of higher buck:doe ratios reducing the populations. If anyone has actual studies/data that shows where increased buck:doe ratios has resulted in population increases, I would LOVE to take a look at it/them.
0
Goofy Elk
Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert,
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2
0
proutdoors
We already HAVE unit management. Lets call option #2 what it is: hunter management for the FEW at the expense of the MANY and at the expense of the deer herd. :-$
0
IDHunter
I personally am a trophy hunter. I want nothing but big bucks. I can go years in between tags in Utah just for a chance at a monster. That being said, not every hunter is that way. The long term effects of limiting the number of hunters will eventually limit hunting for everyone. Your wrong if you don’t think politics doesn’t plays a role. The more non-hunters, the more non-hunters voting against hunting. IT WILL HAPPEN if we manage in selfishness.

I'm not so naive to think that the herds should be managed so that I can find big bucks easier. I’ve read all the actual scientific data that shows option 2 as being bad for the herd. I then hear the other side saying option 2 sounds great because I can find big bucks easier so the herd must be healthier. Which one is it? Science, or your opinion? I will ask the same question that’s been asked a thousand times but left unanswered…PROVE YOUR OPINION? If you believe option 2 will help the herd, PROVE IT? Were not reinventing the wheel. Show me where it’s ever worked and I will stand with you? If you can’t, open your eyes, look past your own nose, and see this proposal for what it is.
0
Default Avatar
"kallred12" wrote:
proutdoors wrote:Right out of the current Deer Management Plan:
VI. STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Population Management Goal: Expand and improve mule deer populations throughout
the state within the carrying capacity of available habitats and in consideration of other
land uses.
Population Objective: By 2013, increase the statewide mule deer population by 50,000 to an
estimated post-season herd size of 350,000.
Implications: This objective can be accomplished if precipitation returns to normal and through
the implementation of the strategies in this plan. If precipitation does not return to normal and
habitat objectives are not met, it is unlikely the herd will expand beyond the current level of
302,000 deer.
Strategies:
a. Review individual herd unit management plans and revise where necessary to provide
consistency with this plan.
We ARE already managing the deer by units, option #2 is ALL about managing hunters, it has NOTHING to do with deer, deer health, or deer populations!

There is exactly ZERO evidence that shows increasing buck:doe ratios leads to higher deer populations, but there is LOADS of evidence that increasing buck:doe ratios leads to LOWER deer populations. Option #2 is all about the LEAST important portion the the deer herd, the bucks. The key to healthy and growing deer herds in healthy does and healthy fawns. Again, option #2 does NOTHING to obtain/keep healthy does/fawns, NOTHING!
 How wouldnt raising the buck to doe ratio increase the deer herd. Right now there arent enough mature bucks to breed the does that are there. Seems to me if more does get bred that must mean more fawns will be born therefore more deer? seems like common sense.
 This statement is completely false. The only units in the state that are even close to not having enough bucks to breed does are the 3 under objective units that have restrictions in place to reduce buck harvest. Even where they are at, the buck numbers are still above the necessary number to breed all does.
0
Default Avatar
"Goofy Elk" wrote:Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert,
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2
 According to DWR comments, 3 day hunts are a thing of the past. They will now manage the struggling units with limited tag distribution.
0
stillhunterman
"Tugg" wrote:
Goofy Elk wrote:Here is why I see option 2 as a better option,,,
Lets take the southern region for example.

Monroe is the only CURRENT recovery unit = shortened seasons..

We have other units in southern region boundaries with buck to doe
ratios RIGHT ON THE EDGE of falling UNDER 15 to 100 and becoming
recovery units,,,,,,,,,,,,AND, it would surprise me at all if they fall
into a R/U situation next year....Here are the 3 year averages..

Beaver 15.1 bucks to 100 does
Boulder 15.8 bucks to 100 does
Dutton 16.7 bucks to 100 does

So, if these units fall below 15 per 100 they will become recovery units..

If we don't change , and continue regional hunting, there is a possibility
Monroe, Beaver, Boulder, and Dutton could have 3 DAY RIFLE HUNTS!!!

Push a ton of hunters on to Panguitch lake, Fillmore, SW Desert,
Fish lake,,,,,,were there will be 9 day rifle hunts...
Bringing buck to doe ratios DOWN on those units...

The answer to this problem ,,,,,Unit management, Opt.2
 According to DWR comments, 3 day hunts are a thing of the past. They will now manage the struggling units with limited tag distribution.
 Interesting.... Where did you come by this info tugg?
0
Default Avatar
The northern RAC.
0
Default Avatar
How about this idea! how about we make an unlimited number of tags, make all the hunts a month long, and let any age person hunt. That would get everyone into hunting. From what some people are saying cutting permits will hurt the deer herd so this must make a stronger herd. problem solved for everyone. oh and the dwr is happy because they get what they want too(money) its science vs opinion
0
IDHunter
"kallred12" wrote:How about this idea! how about we make an unlimited number of tags, make all the hunts a month long, and let any age person hunt. That would get everyone into hunting. From what some people are saying cutting permits will hurt the deer herd so this must make a stronger herd. problem solved for everyone. oh and the dwr is happy because they get what they want too(money) its science vs opinion
 Brilliant! lol The last time I saw an argument that profound was when my six year old daughter threw her last temper tantrum.

You can't really believe that the DWR is only concerned with money? You can't beleive that those who opposed option 2 think that unlimited tags is the better option? Can you?
0