Managing Utah's Big-Game Crop 



upon the proper harvest of the surplus. 



Education as to actual conditions 

 and the need for action had been in- 

 sufficient. Sportsmen were invited to 

 visit overbrowsed winter ranges to see 

 for themselves that when the numbers 

 of animals and their food supply were 

 out of balance nature took wasteful 

 corrective measures. The carcasses of 

 deer under the high-lined and de- 

 pleted browse convinced most of them 

 that the winter food supply was in- 

 sufficient and that something had to 

 be done. 



Some agreed that the herd had to 

 be reduced to prevent waste of ani- 

 mals, preserve the food supply of the 

 deer, and utilize the surplus. Others 

 thought that the way out was to pro- 

 vide additional feed; among them 

 were individuals who attributed most 

 of the damage to the range to grazing 

 by sheep and cattle. They suggested 

 that all the forage on the winter game 

 ranges be reserved for the deer. Still 

 others believed "hard winters" were to 

 blame, and the trouble could be cor- 

 rected by feeding hay to carry the deer 

 over winter. 



Trained range men were convinced 

 that the most serious grazing problem 

 grew out of the competition of deer 

 against deer for the limited amount of 

 winter forage, rather than deer against 

 livestock. 



Supplemental winter-feeding pro- 

 grams appealed to the public as a hu- 

 mane and logical procedure. Game 

 administrators started to do so on sev- 

 eral areas, but the deer continued to 

 die even where they were fed various 

 kinds of hay and concentrates. 



It became obvious that the program 

 had serious faults, and an attempt was 

 made to check on what was happening 

 and the possibility of improving the 

 methods or rinding new and suitable 

 foods. In a study, Supplemental Win- 

 ter Feeding of Mule Deer in Northern 

 Utah, it was shown that winter losses 

 of nearly 20 percent occurred from 

 malnutrition even during average win- 

 ters, despite the intensive supplemental 

 feeding of a variety of feeds on the 



579 



crowded areas. On the other hand, 

 heavy winter losses were shown to be 

 abnormal among mule deer wherever 

 enough native forage was available. On 

 the basis of these investigations, it was 

 recommended that hunting removals 

 be sufficient to reduce the population 

 to the carrying capacity of the winter 

 range on all areas where supplemental 

 feeding appeared necessary. 



Despite some continued opposition, 

 the board went ahead with special 

 hunts of antlerless deer and deer of 

 either sex on the problem areas. The 

 special hunts have been held every 

 year since 1934, except 1936 and 1937. 

 Under this program, more than 150,- 

 000 deer have been taken by sports- 

 men, besides the regular buck kill. 



At public hearings by the board, 

 conducted annually in different parts 

 of the State, all interested persons have 

 opportunity to voice their opinions. 



The hearings are followed by an ex- 

 ecutive session in which the problems 

 of individual game herds and local 

 viewpoints are considered. In the man- 

 agement of big game and range, the 

 board has the help of three specialists, 

 and representatives of the Forest Serv- 

 ice, Bureau of Land Management, and 

 the Utah State Fish and Game Depart- 

 ment, who make detailed field investi- 

 gations and coordinate information 

 obtained through census and forage- 

 utilization surveys conducted coopera- 

 tively by local game wardens, forest 

 officers, and graziers. The board then 

 formulates the hunting program. 



The effectiveness of the program of 

 regulated hunting is illustrated by a 

 comparison of the Kaibab Plateau deer 

 herd of Arizona with the Fishlake For- 

 est deer herd of Utah. After 20 years 

 of protection, the Kaibab herd reached 

 an estimated peak of nearly 100,000 

 deer. Because of opposition, hunting 

 was not permitted until the peak year 

 of 1924, and then only a few hundred 

 animals were taken. In the years im- 

 mediately following 1924 thousands of 

 deer died of starvation the direct re- 

 sult of cumulative range depletion. 



A similar upward trend in deer 



