57 8 



Yearbook of Agriculture 1949 



ment has been the basis of manage- 

 ment ever since. The board has au- 

 thorized the sale of permits on the 

 basis of the best estimates of number 

 and what the herd would produce. 

 Experience has shown, however, that 

 the estimates of both herd numbers 

 and productivity have been conserva- 

 tive and that for several years the herd 

 was larger than the number provided 

 for in the agreement. 



By 1929, opposition to killing cows 

 was lessening. A hunt for 300 elk of 

 either sex was authorized, and 140 

 bulls and 101 cows were killed. Since 

 1929, special permits have been issued 

 regularly for elk of both sexes. There 

 is now little or no general opposition 

 to shooting cow elk. In places where 

 hunters must make a choice, the de- 

 mand for permits to kill cows exceeds 

 that for permits to kill bulls. 



Twenty-one special hunts have been 

 conducted on the Nebo range since 

 the first hunt in 1925. The areas on 

 which the hunting has been permitted 

 have varied. The ratio of sexes au- 

 thorized to be killed has been adjusted 

 from year to year so as to maintain a 

 balanced and healthy herd. The suc- 

 cess of hunters has been about 90 

 percent. 



The outstanding result of this flexi- 

 ble form of management is that ap- 

 proximately 600 elk remain on the 

 Nebo range this despite the fact that 

 4,397 animals have been removed by 

 sportsmen, 173 have been trapped by 

 State officials and transplanted to new 

 ranges, and 219 have been killed on 

 farm by wardens to prevent damage 

 to crops. Under such a management 

 program over a 35-year period, the 

 original plant of 48 elk has increased 

 twelvefold and produced 4,789 elk. 



THE MULE DEER also were creating 

 an acute situation in the early 1930's. 

 Efforts of the State Fish and Game 

 Department and sportsmen for the pre- 

 vious two decades had been directed to 

 the production of more deer. That 

 there could be too many deer was as 

 hard to comprehend as it had been to 



realize that there were too many elk. 



Does were still legally protected un- 

 der the "buck law." Killing bucks only 

 could not regulate numbers. No one 

 had the authority to take corrective 

 action. The most serious result of this 

 inaction, from the standpoint of wild- 

 life management, was that the winter 

 game ranges were being seriously over- 

 browsed and permanently damaged by 

 the excessive number of deer. Winter 

 losses also were becoming alarmingly 

 heavy. 



The Board of Elk Control had effec- 

 tively managed the elk herds for 6 

 years. In March 1933, the legislature 

 amended the law, changed its name, 

 and extended its powers. 



The new committee was designated 

 the State Game Refuge Committee 

 and Board of Big Game Control. It had 

 five members representatives of cattle 

 and horse breeders, wool growers, 

 sportsmen, the Forest Service, and the 

 State Fish and Game Director, who 

 was chairman. Their acts were to have 

 the full force and effect of law. 



The new board was authorized to 

 define more accurately the boundaries 

 of the game preserves and regulate 

 travel on them ; to designate additional 

 refuges for big game; and to conduct 

 investigations, as a basis for designat- 

 ing special hunting seasons and areas 

 and the number and sex of big-game 

 animals to be killed. Thus, adequate 

 authority to handle the mule deer 

 problem was provided. The exercise of 

 this authority, however, was another 

 matter. 



Public resistance to any reduction in 

 the deer herds became apparent at 

 hearings of the board in 1934. After 

 lengthy discussions, the board au- 

 thorized the issuance of 1,600 special 

 permits for antlerless deer for 3 over- 

 stocked areas. In consequence, posters 

 and editorials all over the State 

 pleaded, "Don't shoot the does!" Al- 

 though threatened with injunctions, 

 the board stood by its decision. But 

 only 728 of the 1,600 permits were sold. 

 The public had not learned that the 

 preservation of the deer depended 



