Utah Deer Hunt Options
dahlmer
11/2/10 11:22am
I have been looking over the proposed changes from the DWR and have been weighing the advantages/disadvantages of each. I'm curious to see what other opinions are and why. I'll not prejudice this by posting my opinions until later.
Option #1
Unit-based management, hunting in five regions
DWR biologists manage deer according to Utah's deer management plan, which requires the state's deer units to have an average of 15–25 bucks per 100 does. Under this option, the DWR would continue its unit-based management and add a new regional management goal of 18 bucks per 100 does. As part of this option, the DWR would:
Maintain its unit-based approach to deer management.
Continue to offer regional hunting.
Remove a unit from the regional hunt — and designate it a recovery unit — if it averaged fewer than 12 bucks per 100 does. A recovery unit would not return to the regional hunt until it averaged at least 15 bucks per 100 does.
Decrease a region’s permit numbers if the region averaged fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does. Permits would not be restored until the region returned to an average of at least 18 bucks per 100 does.
Maintain the current three-year Dedicated Hunter Program
Continue to allow archers to hunt statewide
Continue to allow Lifetime license holders to choose a region
Of the three options under consideration, Option #1 is the DWR's preferred option.
Advantages
Allows biological management on a unit level
Gives hunters more flexibility in where to hunt (five larger regions vs. 29 smaller units)
Makes it easier for families and groups to hunt together
Offers fewer law-enforcement challenges
Does not require changes to the Dedicated Hunter Program
Disadvantages
Relies on hunters to evenly distribute themselves (hunting pressure could be high in popular areas)
Leaves some units with fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does
May result in the loss of approximately 7,000 permits
May require an increase in deer permit fees
Option 2
Unit-based management, hunting in 29 units
This option would require the DWR to manage each of the state's general-season deer units for a minimum of 18 bucks per 100 does. It would also require a switch to unit-based hunting. There would be 29 general-season hunting units. As part of this option, the DWR would:
Maintain its unit-based approach to deer management.
Likely require all hunters to hunt on individual units.
Decrease the number of permits for a unit if it averaged fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does. Permits would not be restored until the unit returned to at least 18 bucks per 100 does.
Modify the Dedicated Hunter Program into a one-year program.
Wait until 2012 to implement these changes.
Advantages
Allows the DWR to more precisely manage general-season units
Allows the DWR to more evenly distribute hunting pressure
Ensures that all units will eventually have at least 18 bucks per 100 does
Improves harvest-data collection
Disadvantages
Limits a hunter to one general-season unit
Makes it more difficult to draw a permit for some units (reduces the likelihood of hunting every year)
Makes it harder to hunt as a family or group
Requires Dedicated Hunters to draw a unit, and changes the program into a one-year program
Poses law-enforcement challenges (more boundaries to enforce and patrol)
May result in the loss of approximately 13,000 permits
Will likely require an increase in deer permit fees
Option #3
Modified version of Option #1
There are only a few differences between Option #3 and Option #1. Under Option #3, the DWR would continue its unit-based management strategy, but there would be a regional management target of 15 bucks per 100 does. (This is different from the 18 bucks per 100 does listed in Option #1). Advantages and disadvantages would remain the same, with a couple of exceptions. This option might result in the loss of approximately 3,000 permits, and it would not require the DWR to raise deer permit fees.
Option #1
Unit-based management, hunting in five regions
DWR biologists manage deer according to Utah's deer management plan, which requires the state's deer units to have an average of 15–25 bucks per 100 does. Under this option, the DWR would continue its unit-based management and add a new regional management goal of 18 bucks per 100 does. As part of this option, the DWR would:
Maintain its unit-based approach to deer management.
Continue to offer regional hunting.
Remove a unit from the regional hunt — and designate it a recovery unit — if it averaged fewer than 12 bucks per 100 does. A recovery unit would not return to the regional hunt until it averaged at least 15 bucks per 100 does.
Decrease a region’s permit numbers if the region averaged fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does. Permits would not be restored until the region returned to an average of at least 18 bucks per 100 does.
Maintain the current three-year Dedicated Hunter Program
Continue to allow archers to hunt statewide
Continue to allow Lifetime license holders to choose a region
Of the three options under consideration, Option #1 is the DWR's preferred option.
Advantages
Allows biological management on a unit level
Gives hunters more flexibility in where to hunt (five larger regions vs. 29 smaller units)
Makes it easier for families and groups to hunt together
Offers fewer law-enforcement challenges
Does not require changes to the Dedicated Hunter Program
Disadvantages
Relies on hunters to evenly distribute themselves (hunting pressure could be high in popular areas)
Leaves some units with fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does
May result in the loss of approximately 7,000 permits
May require an increase in deer permit fees
Option 2
Unit-based management, hunting in 29 units
This option would require the DWR to manage each of the state's general-season deer units for a minimum of 18 bucks per 100 does. It would also require a switch to unit-based hunting. There would be 29 general-season hunting units. As part of this option, the DWR would:
Maintain its unit-based approach to deer management.
Likely require all hunters to hunt on individual units.
Decrease the number of permits for a unit if it averaged fewer than 18 bucks per 100 does. Permits would not be restored until the unit returned to at least 18 bucks per 100 does.
Modify the Dedicated Hunter Program into a one-year program.
Wait until 2012 to implement these changes.
Advantages
Allows the DWR to more precisely manage general-season units
Allows the DWR to more evenly distribute hunting pressure
Ensures that all units will eventually have at least 18 bucks per 100 does
Improves harvest-data collection
Disadvantages
Limits a hunter to one general-season unit
Makes it more difficult to draw a permit for some units (reduces the likelihood of hunting every year)
Makes it harder to hunt as a family or group
Requires Dedicated Hunters to draw a unit, and changes the program into a one-year program
Poses law-enforcement challenges (more boundaries to enforce and patrol)
May result in the loss of approximately 13,000 permits
Will likely require an increase in deer permit fees
Option #3
Modified version of Option #1
There are only a few differences between Option #3 and Option #1. Under Option #3, the DWR would continue its unit-based management strategy, but there would be a regional management target of 15 bucks per 100 does. (This is different from the 18 bucks per 100 does listed in Option #1). Advantages and disadvantages would remain the same, with a couple of exceptions. This option might result in the loss of approximately 3,000 permits, and it would not require the DWR to raise deer permit fees.
6,508
So I agree with them, #1 is preferred. There is still more than could and should be done, but we are only given 3 choices.
How many of you are DH??? Do you still like the program? If you aren't anymore, why not?
I'm currently not, but might try and get back in next year.
First, I think it will help them manage the amount of deer in particular areas MUCH better. And second, it would drastically reduce the hunting pressure, which is what I feel would make for a better opportunity and experience. I've hunted the souther region all of my life and feel that most areas have great potential, but too many people hunt all in the same area. I don't think it is a good thing to have more people in an area than there is deer to kill. A little dispersion of hunters would be a great thing.
Of course, people will be butt-hurt that they can't hunt their old family haunts every year, but I think that that is the way hunting is going to be. Not that I am happy about it, but it's just reality. The popularity of hunting is tenfold of what it was "back in the day".
I'll gladly pay a few more bones for a tag, because I support the management of the deer herd in Utah.
Cut the tag numbers, split up the general units. That's my 2 cents.
oakbrush
I just looked at the short versions of each option and I guess my first choice is #1.
We went out, hunted hard, and had a handful of opportunities. I guess I'm not convinced we need to make it harder for folks to go hunting (or get a tag) so that people can see them from their 4 wheelers when they do go.
My $.02
Think about it...
With option #2 I see this happening...
1. 29 units creates LESS opportunity. So lets say you have your favorite honey hole or couple of top areas to hunt. Maybe there in the same unit, maybe not. So the first couple of years you might have less pressure, less people, better chance at a good buck (Iassume that's why you want this option). How many years will this last??? Very few IMO. Heck after a couple of years EVERYONE will know which unit is good/better or best. Heck don't most people ALREADY know this? Then MOST people will apply for this unit, your odds of drawing this area/unit will drastically decline...thus making it a LIMITED ENTRY unit. When you do draw, as stated they still only manage it for 18 bucks per 100 does. If it went higher than this they would INCREASE tags to the area (still lots of pressure or high tag numbers) for areas holding the greatest population of deer. People on the rifle hunt, hunt areas with the most deer and best chance at seeing deer/bucks. How will this change in a 29 unit system? Won't they be giving the most tags to the unit with most deer. COURSE they will.
I just don't get it, I used to think this was a good idea also. BUT NOT ANYMORE.
2. Decreases your odds of family and friends hunting with you (I realize a lot of you/us don't care about this...but many still do and don't want to hunt alone).
3. DWR won't hire anymore Law-enforcement to manage these areas, unless you want to pay more money. So basically it's status quo or worse for law enforcement in 29 areas.
4. Is there still a statewide archery tag for option #2? I doubt it.
I think both of you guys UTmonsterslayer and oakbrush consider yourselves Trophy hunters correct? You guys are picky, want BIG bucks or better opportunities at them. The problem is most hunters IMO are not. They of course would like to see them, but if it has horns they WILL SHOOT. So I assume you guys would be okay with only drawing your favorite unit every ___ years versus hunting every year or other year.
Help me out here, be blunt and brutal I can take it. No offense, I want changes also for the better. But unfortunately this is a BUSINESS and it's all about the mighty DOLLAR. They refuse to look at it anything other way, they have MONEY at the center of the matter and won't take a pay cut. Not saying they need to, but if the pressure is TO GREAT, the NUMBER OF TAGS IS TO GREAT. Plain and SIMPLE LOGIC. So CUT tags, that's less pressure.
What ever happened to all the proposals last fall? How come those aren't still on the table?
We can only handle one thing at a time I suppose. lol
P.S.- I had no tag this year, but hunted 2 full days on Rifle hunt in one of the most populated areas in southern utah, it's was a ZOO with people. We still had a great hunt, more LUCK than skill I'm afraid. But we did see bucks, both small and NICE bucks. Missed a couple of opportunities and so did a lot of other folks. SEVERAL nice bucks were taken. It was a good hunt and year for us in ZOO land. This is one of the best herds in the state though, go to other areas I realize this is NOT THE CASE. And this area won't last either, if we continue the slaughter. :)
Just some thoughts, go ahead a let me have it. I think I'm humble enough to be convinced otherwise with sound logic, data, etc.
CAR collisions are doing major damage also. Predators (coyotes on fawns, and Cougars Mainly on any deer).
Habitat is a big problem in many areas also, not so much in other areas.
Hunters kill lots of bucks each year, but that's the plan so no problem there. The wounding of animals, poor shots, ethics, lack of tracking etc. gets under my skin. Found 3 different skulls in a VERY populated hunting area this year in 2 days of hiking. 2 2-points and a spike. Cougars get them or hunters couldn't find them on the rifle hunt last fall??
I get tired of hearing about youth and hunter recruitment also. If you can't make the FATHER of the house happy with hunting THAT is the problem. He certainly won't take his kids, so good hunting for adults is the key to keeping YOUTH involved. If Dad's not, kids don't stand a chance. Fathers would LOVE to see their kids kill and rather them than him, but if the hunting STINKS are many say it does...well why would Dad try?
I realize you CAN'T and WON'T please everyone with any proposal. Not saying we SHOULD try to either, it's impossible. But lets talk TRUTH here, with sound logic and DATA. Studies, the real answers not just opinions. Yes everyone has one, but they vary greatly so what is/are the BEST answers ideas. And WHY and how do you come to this knowledge/conclusion?
K I'll shut up now.
I agree with you on several points. I respect your passion for muledeer and I know you know how important muley hunting is to me. I have to be honest with you, I am perfectly fine with how the deer hunting is in the "area" that we hunt. The buck to doe ratio is right where the state is shooting for(18-20 bucks per 100 doe). And if the hardcore guy wants to put in the work, big bucks can be found. Also if someone wants a 2 point for the freezer, they are plentiful. But, it is starting to slip a little now, and that is because everyone has heard the news and it is getting crowded. and it will contiue to slip until it gets bad again and the people start to seek out new 'good' spots.
The DWR has no idea how many people hunted the "area" this year, or how many bucks were killed for that matter. Nobody has to report on what they shot, where they hunted, how big it was, etc. I hunted both Colorado and Nevada this year and they both asked for a post hunt survey. Nevada actually requires it or you don't get to put in for the draw next year. Utah can't even do that. So how the heck do they know how the herd is doing. And we all have heard how those winter counts are done. A wild ass guess at best. They try with those phone surveys but a lot hunters don't tell the truth and only a small percent of hunters are called and they use that as an average for the rest of the hunters that they didn't call.
I don't know the best solution, but I see it as just simple math. If you know how many hunters are going into an area before deer season, you have a pretty good idea of what you will have after the hunts are done(based on average success rates). Now you can actually manage the deer herd. Deer are doing good, well we can add some more tags. Deer doing not so good, take some away. Have mandatory harvest reporting that can be done online. No harvest report done, no application allowed the following year. Is sure seems like you could manage the deer better.
The main thing is we don't want to give up anything and that is where the problem lies. The Division doesn't want to give up the income. And the hunter like you (me too) do not want to be restricted or not get to hunt every year. This all could be fixed if us and the DWR could give a little on this, but we want our tag, and the DWR needs thier money.
No other state has huge units like Utah that allows hunters to go anywhere over thousands of square miles. Never understood why people want to roam far and wide. You are actually more successful if you concentrate on one area and learn it well, but whatever. Then they don't even seem to care where everyone was or how many deer got hammered in each area. Doesnt' make sense. Just saying something needs to happen. Don't know if smaller units are the solution or not, but I would like to try.
oakbrush
One thing to think about with Option #2. If they break out the units into 29 smaller units I'm afraid the temptation to turn the best of them into LE units will be too great. When they closed Strawberry for elk they said they would open it back up when it recovered. Instead they took a great elk hunting place and turned it into a LE hunt and give the spike left overs to the general public. This makes them more money. I know it produces better animals in the long run, but for how many people?
Maybe the argument is over quantity and/or quality.
I don't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers, just thinking out loud so please don't take this wrong. There are trophy deer out there on public land and there are plenty of shots for non-trophy hunters. Where is the data your talking about that supports these measures? How many hunters are complaining about the quality of the deer hunt? I'm not trying to come off as vindictive, I'm honestly curious about the reasons for all this.
I guess I'm always suspicious that it comes down to money and control with these gov departments.
I like your passion also and thanks for the feedback your SPOT ON with many things. I can't understand why EVERY SINGLE TAG IN THE STATE isn't reported on every year. Makes ZERO sense to me. This is SO EASY TO DO, crap I could create it myself and I'm not a computer programmer.
It COULD be done and SHOULD be done IMO. All it would take is seconds to complete and an internet connection. If it's not completed you can't apply of a point or tag the following year, it's really that simple. Or something similar to this.
The random phone calls, and emails polling certain folks are nice but NOT ENOUGH. We need accountability from all IMO.
Agreed the 29 units would give better data like you mentioned, however that's the only real value I see coming from them. Worse odds of drawing, LE type units because of difficulty of drawing. I all for improvement and change as long as that's the end result, I just don't want to see things get worse or shoot ourselves in the foot and 'fly off the cuff' because everyone is complaining. Hope these decisions are SOUND is all I'm after.
Why not have the Mandatory online POLL ask what sub-unit (29) the deer was taken from, although the state is still 5 Regions hunted. Just show them the map in the poll and ask them to select the area the harvest was made.
Agreed makes sense to me, never hunted anywhere but the Southern Region myself.
First and foremost, none of these plans address the primary issue...a struggling and under objective deer herd. The DWR states this fact with the three proposals:
"With the board's input, the DWR has identified three options that could increase the number of buck deer in Utah. These options address hunters' concerns about not seeing enough bucks, but they will not produce larger deer herds. Other aspects of Utah's deer management program are focused on increasing the deer population."
So the point of all of this? To increase buck numbers. None of these proposals serves any other purpose. They are designed solely to appease a loud minority of trophy hunters.
In my discussion with friends and associates, I have found that most who are hardcore trophy hunters support option 2, while those who tend to fall more in the category of opportunist support option 3. I find the only truely valuable tool that can be derived from option 2 is that better and more complete data can be collected...other than that it fails on every level and serves only to reduce hunting opporunity and discourage hunting heritage. As has pointed out by others it will ultimately lead to statewide limited entry hunting. No hunting unit, deer or elk, in Utah has ever become less restricted once opportunity has been reduced. The track record for the state firmly establishes this and I see no reason to believe this time will be any different. Also, for those who state that this will have little impact for those who hunt one or two areas...the proposed units would split and area I have regularly hunted right down the middle of the ridge we hunt on.
The deer herds in Utah have gone from 310,000 in 2001 to 268,905 in 2004, back to 318,451 in 2006 and back down to 273,100 post hunt in 2008. The two declines coincide with drought and hard winters and the deer have shown reasonable recovery in many areas. Interestingly, enough the herds have improved most dramatically in areas where a large focus has been made in terms of habitat. Perhaps no unit has seen more money expended towards habitat than the Henrys and deer herds have soared from 570 in 2001 to 1500 in 2008. Conversly, it seems the units that have suffered the worst are those that have had late doe hunts. For example the Currant Creek area has fallen from 15,000 deer in 2001 to 8,100 in 2008. This unit has had several late season doe hunts designed primarily to raise buck to doe ratios. This is idiocy at its best (or worst) however you want to look at it.
If trophy hunters want that opportunity I believe they should have it and in fact they do. If the state want to address the divide between those who seek opportunity and those who seek horns they can institute one concept that will begin to address the issue. Stop being the only state in the country that runs to different draw systems. Eliminate either the preference point system or the bonus point system for deer and allow hunters to choose for themselves how they want to hunt and how long they are willing to wait to do it.
If the state is serious about improving deer herds then protect the does which are the lifeblood of the herds and protect the fawn which are the future of the herds. This can best be done via habitat improvement and protection, predator management, and highway fencing. Furthermore, as hunters we can do our part by viewing deer from a distance during the difficult winter and early spring months. Please leave the deer alone and give them the best chance we can to survive.
Anyway, sorry for the long rant...these are my thoughts.
We can't be apathetic any longer. Can you imagin what it would be like if a couple thousand hunters showed up at the WB meeting?? One loud clear voice...that's what we need right now... This foolishness of managing for hunters and NOT the health of the deer herd will be the end for us all. PLEASE SHOW UP AT THE RAC'S AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, AT THE WB MEETING!