The big wildlife picture
swbuckmaster
10/21/08 10:23pm
::wel Here are some interesting things to think about
Elk management hunts don’t work because Utards don’t know what a management bull looks like. But mule deer management hunts will work “huh”
State wide archery deer hunts suck and create over crowding but state wide elk hunts don’t “huh”
Spike deer suck says nearly every hunter in Utah but spike elk hunts are awesome “huh”
If rifle hunters are restricted to I.E Le type units, Wasatch front, then buck deer and bull elk thrive, and if rifle hunters have a free for all like the general season deer then quality suffers.
If rifle hunters are let loose in masses then everything dies. If archery hunters are let loose in masses then they screw each other up and things live to a rip old age. “Wasatch Front”
I just don’t understand the logic. I feel like I am listing to someone talk out of both sides of their mouth and it is confusing me.
Here is one thing I do know “history repeats itself”
1. So if state wide archery for deer creates over crowding then we also need to fix state wide elk before it becomes a problem
2. If people in Utah don’t want to kill spike deer they also don’t want to kill spike elk.
3. If people kill bulls that are broken on management hunts then they will kill bucks that are broken also. Especially if they allow them to hunt them in the dates that are being proposed.
Lets not play this circle jerk anymore lets get a system together that allows sound management.
I say some where in the middle of all this bickering there is a solution.
Manage game with rifles and manage hunter’s opportunity with archery.
Create Micro management areas in Utah. If there is a deer/elk area that sucks cut rifle tags and increase archery tags. Give more incentive to pick up a bow, Ie rut hunts, longer season, and yearly tags. Switch people in a positive way to a lesser effective weapon. Then when an area increases in deer numbers slowly increase rifle tags.
Quality and quantity best of both worlds. The only problem is?????
Elk management hunts don’t work because Utards don’t know what a management bull looks like. But mule deer management hunts will work “huh”
State wide archery deer hunts suck and create over crowding but state wide elk hunts don’t “huh”
Spike deer suck says nearly every hunter in Utah but spike elk hunts are awesome “huh”
If rifle hunters are restricted to I.E Le type units, Wasatch front, then buck deer and bull elk thrive, and if rifle hunters have a free for all like the general season deer then quality suffers.
If rifle hunters are let loose in masses then everything dies. If archery hunters are let loose in masses then they screw each other up and things live to a rip old age. “Wasatch Front”
I just don’t understand the logic. I feel like I am listing to someone talk out of both sides of their mouth and it is confusing me.
Here is one thing I do know “history repeats itself”
1. So if state wide archery for deer creates over crowding then we also need to fix state wide elk before it becomes a problem
2. If people in Utah don’t want to kill spike deer they also don’t want to kill spike elk.
3. If people kill bulls that are broken on management hunts then they will kill bucks that are broken also. Especially if they allow them to hunt them in the dates that are being proposed.
Lets not play this circle jerk anymore lets get a system together that allows sound management.
I say some where in the middle of all this bickering there is a solution.
Manage game with rifles and manage hunter’s opportunity with archery.
Create Micro management areas in Utah. If there is a deer/elk area that sucks cut rifle tags and increase archery tags. Give more incentive to pick up a bow, Ie rut hunts, longer season, and yearly tags. Switch people in a positive way to a lesser effective weapon. Then when an area increases in deer numbers slowly increase rifle tags.
Quality and quantity best of both worlds. The only problem is?????
14,206
9er
The ONLY way the state will be able to ensure higher buck/doe ratios statewide is to limit the number of hunters in the field...that is not an option. People frequently reference Colorado as a great success story...in part I would agree. Look at the facts though...they have a deer herd double the size of Utah's and issue the same number of tags each year. The LE units in the state are full of mature deer because there are very few tags issued on those units by comparison. I don't know anybody that wants to see the "success" of Utah's elk herds replicated with deer.l
To summerize:
1) Not everyone is looking for a "book" buck. A trophy is in the eyes of the man or woman that harvests the animal.
2) Excluding one class of outdoorsman for another is NOT the answer. Limiting overall harvest numbers\tags must be looked at. Additionally, the number of doe/cow tags, branched antler tags, spike only tags, etc must be balanced in order to achieve and maintain #3 (below).
3) You MUST keep a decent buck to doe ratio...or better yet, mature buck to mature doe ratio. Other factors like population/meta-population numbers and size of these populations, fawn mortality vs birth rates, etc MUST also be taken into consideration. With an imbalaced population, you allow inferior genes/alleles to overtake or "pollute" a population. (If you allow only healthy, mature bucks to be taken without keeping the OVERALL population in check, you create an excellent opportunity for lesser bucks....bucks that are NOT healthy or have inferior genes, to breed and pass thier genes/alleles throughout the herd. With a proper mature buck to mature doe ration, this scenario is lessened considerablely)
4) Just my opinion, but to try to manage a public unit like a Texas trophy ranch is not only unrealistic but near impossible.
These are just my opinions. However, to say that "bowhunters" are the answer or to say that "Rifle hunters should be used for management" and "Bow hunters for trophy potential" is pretty descriminatory. Additionally, to try to manage a population by doing nothing more than limiting the number of hunters is pretty shortsighted without also taking many other things into consideration. (some listed above...but not all inclusive)
I saw several NICE bucks taken and a bunch of little ones also.
But yes the good ole days are gone.
As far as the over crowding of archery hunters in southern utah, anybody that has been doing it for at least 10yrs or so can tell you that the archery hunt is getting to be like the rifle hunt. You used to be able to go out and not see anybody at times. Ever since peoples odds have dropped of getting a rifle tag they went and picked up and bow and started watching the outdoor channel to get some tips on calling in a white tail and headed for the hills. :) Which is fine. We all have that right. Anyway thats my .02.
Good comment.
I'm sure your right this IS the mind set of some, but if you think this is the mindset of all your DREAMING. I'm from here and don't have that mindset and never have.
I took up bowhunting for several reasons, close encounters being one. I had heard it was a lot of fun and was LESS crowded. My 1st year, I was shocked at the amount and shear numbers of bowhunters. I had to laugh at the less-crowded comment because I saw just as many bowhunters that first year as I did on the rifle hunt.
Are all areas like this? NO, but some are.
So my honest question is PRO, how many years have you bow-hunted the southern region? And how many years of the last 10 have you bow hunted here? And no I'm not whining, just pointing out my experience. I was there in the field. But I'll admit my experience in bow-hunting is limited to the past 6 years.
And what's the definition of 'overcrowding' anyway? And by the way, this is NOT a comment being negative toward bow-hunters. I saw BOAT loads of rifle hunters this year also and have nothing against either one or type of weapon used.
More bowhunters in 1983 then now huh? Coming from amount of tags issued, or because we had more deer thus a lot more tags given? Just curious
Is the only reason it's a problem is because people think/perceive of overcrowding down south. And is it true or not??
I just have to put in my 2 cents . I live and hunt in Colorado. I hunt one area and one area only. Mainly because its close to home and I hunt alone (just dont have a hunting partner). Anyway since the start of the deer license by 'draw only' program I have to wait 6 years to get a tag ](*,) . That is a long wait. Having said that I must point out that different Game Management Units (GMU) have different quotas for deer. Some units a Tropy Only for ellk and require many, many years to get a tag. Colorado manages the GMUs based on the condition of the herd. The number of licenses are adjusted for each type of weapon used and are based on the effectiveness of that weapon and the condition of the herd in a given GMU. This applies for both deer and elk.
Where elk are concerned some units are draw only becouse of the number of elk in that area and the number of hunters wanting to hunt that GMU. Others are general over the counter, bull only licenses. For example the GMU that I hunt is draw only for cow elk, either sex for archery, and bull only for the 2nd and 3rd firearm season. I should point out that the cow season is 3 months long and over laps the 2nd and 3rd firearm bull only. In addition a bow can be used,instead of a rifle, during the rifle season.
I would also point out that Colorado sells its left over draw licenses over the counter on a first come first served basis. So if you dont draw for the area that you wanted you can still get a license of an area that did not meet its quota. I could hunt deer and elk every year with a firearm (I use both firearm and bow) if I wanted to travel a bit.
Overall I think the CDOW is doing a great job of managing the heard. If a herd is managed for the benefit of the heard then ALL hunters benefit.
" To many hunters with any type weapon (firearm, bow, spear or otherwise)in a given area will result in to few animals. By the same token to few hunters will equal to many animals and the herd suffers."
I think that, as hunters, we should stop the 'firearm vs bow' clique mentality and start thinking of the benefit all hunters bring to the animals we hunt. If we want to hunt we must focus on the welfare of the animals we hunt. We are only one link of the food chain, lets not shakel ourselves.
Brett, the DWR has pulled data and even shared it at past RAC's that show "over-crowding" is NOT an issue. Again, rifle/muzzy hunters are not restricted to regions because of "over-crowding", they are restricted to regions to prevent over-HARVEST! Which is a whole other ball game.
You were hunting Elk not deer. :) Just messin with ya.
What data does the DWR have? I've seen the SFW poll on statewide tags and most wanted to keep it the same.
Here is some interesting data from the survey I did here on MuleyMadness.
64% of those taking my survey live in Central or Northern Utah
15.35% live in Southern Utah
52.48% voted to eliminate Statewide archery in favor of picking region.
44.55% voted NO keep the same
28.71% Felt there was 'overcrowding' in their area.
40.10% Felt NO 'overcrowding' in their area.
I find it kind of interesting and a bit odd that 2/3 of the hunters don't even live in Southern Utah and this was THEIR responses.
What think ye?
Your telling me it's all "PERCEPTION" are we really that dumb, naive, political, or just don't care (???)
Again I'm not against Statewide archery at all, or even picking regions...but if it happens again I'd like to see it limited to just 7 days.
Just my 2 cents, not that it matters much. :)
I'll see if I can find the pdf file from the DWR on the number of hunters in each region.
In your survey, how many of those that live in the northern/central regions hunt the southern in comparison to their "own" and the southeast? I am not surprised most hunters live in those regions, that is where most of the people in Utah live, but they all can't hunt the central region!
Of that 52.48% that voted to eliminate Statewide archery, how many where ARCHERS?
28.71% "felt" there was 'overcrowding', compared to what?
Yes, I do believe many in the hunting community are like the rest of society. They see what they want to see, or merely repeat what cousin Ted says. How many that say it is 'overcrowded' know the actual number of hunters in 'their' area? How many of the 'crowd' are recreational folks, rifle hunters scouting, dedicated hunters? How many care why/where/how the people are on 'their' mountain, but only care that they are on 'their' mountain?
Like I said, in 1983 I went on my first bow hunt. There were MORE archers in the field then than even possible in 2008. But, there were a lot less atv crowds enjoying the mountains in 1983, in fact it was rare to see one at all back then. Now it's rare to be in the hills and NOT see one. I drove through Marysville several times this summer/fall, the whole town in being built around the atv craze. The economy is directly linked to the number of people from all over the WORLD coming into their little town and riding atv's on PUBLIC land on some of the best deer/elk country on the planet during archery season. Add in the 4900+ dedicated hunters in the southern region, rifle/muzzy LE hunters scouting, local families enjoying the last week ends of summer in the mountains, archers who bring their family/friends along who then ride atv's up and down the trails. That adds up to an awful big crowd, with only a SMALL percentage of it being actual bow hunters. The fact that the deer in the southern unit are doing better than most of the state says the archers are NOT making a negative impact on the deer herd down there, which should be the ONLY factor in deciding to do away with statewide archery, for the good of the deer herd, not a few hunters who don't want 'foreigners' on 'their' mountain!
Can you querry your survey results to determine of those surveryed who hunted with a rifle vs a bow. I would be willing to bet that very few archers thought eliminating statewide archery was a good idea. I also wager that rifle hunters felt the opposite by a wide margin. I am a rifle hunter so please don't chalk my analysis up to being an elitist archer.
I believe in order to truely resolve the frustration hunters are feeling it is going to be necessary to look outside of our own universe. I give a lot of credit to Bart for being one of the few who has been able to really do this. I know what his preferences are and I appreciate his wilingness to look at the whole picture. The constant bickering of archery vs rifle or trophy vs opportunity is not helping to solve any problems and only creates enmity among a group of folks that really need to rely on one another.
But your right, I'm sure the majority of archers wouldn't say that.
Planning on the Central RAC...probably all I will get to this year.
I came up with my plan from experience in the field.
Rifle areas have few bucks and the front has tons.
So my simple mind thinks what is the difference?
The front doesn’t allow rifle hunters
The front has no winter range
The front has high buck to doe ratios
The front has high age class of bucks
The front has younger age bucks
The front has over the counter tags
You can hunt the front every year
You can hunt the front for 4 months
You can hunt the front in the rut
The front is as good as any LE unit in the state
Rifle areas have winter range
Rifle areas can hunt with rifles
Rifle areas have 5 day hunting seasons
Rifle areas are over crowded with orange
Rifle areas have low buck to doe ratios
Rifle areas have lower age class bucks
Rifle areas typically suck by what nearly every one on these forums keep saying. I will disagree. Cause I seem to keep finding big bucks on rifle areas.
So I thought how could you merge the good with the bad or how could you make a “compromise” and come up with a plan on a general unit where you could have more bucks, more older age bucks, and more opportunity
You can’t argue bow hunters affect deer numbers because I will through the front up for proof that it does not. You can issue ten times the tags for bow hunters as you can for rifle hunters. This is the opportunity part of my plan. In my plan you could still apply for a rifle tag first but when you don’t draw you can purchase a bow tag and still hunt. Win win opportunity.
The only way you can increase big bucks in an area is by habitat, and cutting tags back. One is good but takes years, and one is bad because it takes opportunity. I am all for opportunity. I am also for quality. My plan is the only plan out there that will offer both. The DWR proposal doesn’t have anything that will help our deer herds. You guys that said the deer hunt this year sucked will say the same thing next year and probably the next. However I will still have my opportunity at huge bucks for 4 months so I will still be happy.
I honestly hope everyone one this site had as good a hunt as I did. I wish everyone could have a chance to draw down or aim at the type of bucks I have taken year after year. Utah is an awesome state for hunting despite what most people think.
When the state starts issuing spike tags, the 50,000 plus people putting in for a chance at a bigger bull will be getting the shaft. They will have to cut the big bull tags
Here is the proof
The boulder which has spike tags issues half the big bull tags as the Dutton which doesn’t have spike tags. There are nearly 80 rifle tags on the Dutton alone. That is a lot of rifle opportunity and this unit keeps on putting out big bulls.
There isn’t a need to have more spike tags in this state. There is a need to release more big bull tags. We have always been told when we grow more elk/deer on these LE units they will release more tags. Well the division lied, they punked us.
What is next they will say no more big buck tags you have to hunt take a spike
O ya they already did. They punked us with a deer management tag.
So what makes the DWR think management tags didn’t work for elk but they will for deer?
I think its time for this type of circle jerking mentality to stop.
The only reason people think spike tags are great and management tags don’t work is people are jealous of a guy that shoots a branch antlered bull. A bull is a bull in the bull to cow theory. Manage deer/elk for helthy herd and you will always have high end and low end elk/deer. You will just have to hunt a little harder for them.
I am sorry but IMHO you are the type of guy that has his head in the sand
You can’t kill 70% of the recruitment every year and expect to give out as many big bull tags as they do now. It simply won’t happen. A bull is a Bull and doesn’t matter how big the horns are.
The DWR is caught between special interest groups, and a herd at population objective.
We don’t need to do this circle jerk again. All you have to do is see a unit that has spike hunts. The Wasatch unit does and the average bull is around 300 inches. Some of you guys might think this is awesome. I think it sucks.
Under my plan you would have more opportunity, protect the larger age class, and expand the bottle neck.
Archery is the solution for managing hunter opportunity, without hurting quality. Further giving out more big bull tags for rifle hunters.. Arizona proves this every year. It gives out ten times as much opportunity every year and still kills 400” plus bulls
There are bigger things to worry about in this state!! LOOK at the bigger picture. You guys are about to get punked!!
I say lets compromise for the good of the herds!!!!!
If statewide archer doesn’t work for deer, antelope, it sure as heck won’t work for STATE WIDE RIFLE SPIKE.
You simply cannot have everyone hunting in the same spot. History proves this! They close down the bookcliffs open it up and everyone in the state is their opening morning with their bang sticks and the deer get slaughtered.
What do you think will happen next year on opening morning of the spike hunt?
These failed policies and all this circle jerking has got to stop.
Micro managing is managing hunters not deer. It may/may not spread hunters out more, but that just means fewer families can hunt together and that some will be forced to hunt unproductive areas, other wise there would be hunters there already. Why do we need the DWR to 'spread' hunters out? If you are in a crowded area and you don't like it , MOVE to another area, what a concept. :-k
[/quote]
hmm good idea why didnt i think of that :thumb ](*,) considering everywhere is crowded!!!!and i try to find non crowded aresas! wow what a genius!...nevada sure produces some great bucks every year with micro managing o wait so does colorado! micro managing is managing deer herds and hunters actually! it breaks up deer herds so they can be managed to there needs. southern region is such a vast area what might work in some areas wont in others. there are a lot more deer up on the mountain than out on the desert. by micro managing you can say ok pinevalley unit gets x amount of tags while zion unit gets x amount of tags instead of saying the whole southern unit gets x amount of tags!i hunt many different areas and would be greatly affected by it but if there was less crowding it would be nicer
If you focus all the harvest on the mature bucks, MORE mature bucks will be killed.
FWIW, having higher buck:doe ratios will HURT the overall herd growth. I can refer to Colorado, which is held up as an example of 'success' for deer management for some strange reason, their deer herd as grown at a SLOWER rate that Utah's since they went to micro managing. Utah should NEVER manage the general season areas as 'trophy' areas, you want to smoke a mature buck WORK for it, or draw a LE tag. I saw several bucks that went over 170 this year in the southern region. I was within bow range of most of them, I was also 1+ mile of the road, go figure.
Killing does to boost buck:doe ratios is NOT managing deer, that is insanity!
i have oppurtunity on several mature bucks every year as well! the guy i hunt with killed a 175 inch buck last year abnd a 29 3/4 wide,187 incher this year i killed a 6 year old stag buck this year, i miss a couple of 160+ class bucks every year
i missed a 24 inch 4 pt this year that would have gone 160+ and it was with 4 other mature bucks on opening morning of the archery hunt.
there is some damn good quality genees around here that never get to potential because the dumb young bucks get killed before they can!! there is not very much potential the way the hunts are now to get 200+ inch bucks. and i dont put in for the le deer hunts becuase i can because i wanna hunt elk.
i know guys that hunt colorado every year that are from utah there are tags available every year for hunters there!
I'm glad you admit you are for decreasing opportunity. Now, please explain how that will help anything? If there are more deer, there will be more bucks. Increasing bucks by limiting tags does NOT 'fix' the problem of low deer numbers, in fact the higher the buck:doe ratio the fewer does there are to have fawns thus HURTING the population numbers and thsu reducing the number of new bucks recruited into the herds. The only ways to increase the number of bucks and do it so that it is a FIX and not a band aid is to improve habitat, decrease roadkill, and keep predator loses at a minimum. Reducing hunter harvest of the buck population does NOT solve the problems our deer herds are facing.