NO RANCHING The decline of Mule Deer????

3

338snipetac

Guest
Had this thought for a while, what do you all think? Obviosly mule deer numbers are down. Would the decline of cattle numbers have anything to do with deer numbers? Here's my theory, and proof at least proof that i believe in. Would the decline in ranching public land take away resources that deer need to survive? I say yes, some may disagree, but ranchers maintain tanks and drinkers that is vital to a deers survival in some areas. Take the strip for example,while the game and fish have alot of trick tanks the ranchers also haul water for summer and maintain the dirt tanks to hold water. If this wasn't done do you think the bombers on the strip would exist like they do now. Also ranchers treat dirt tanks with betonite or "soil sealers" so they will hold water in certain areas. Now since NAFTA was signed by BLOW JOB BILL CLINTON, beef prices plummeted and the ranchers got out. Also ranching leases have been reduced of diappered. I've been in some unbelivable mule deer country in the southeastern general utah unit, that in the past whoppers were shot, but were heavily ranched, but now no cattle no deer, nothing. True the million pumpkins dont help, but there where a ton of hunters back in the day too. But i've hunted the general units for years and i see very few hunters where i hunt. Now there are only unmaintaned tanks with NO water, and feed everywhere, and NO deer. I hunted Utah last year and it rained over an inch one night with fash flooding. The next day saw many dry tanks, i could see where the water went over the bank but it soaked it all up over night. I sat and pondered what if????? So what if these tanks were maintained every 4-5 years with betonite or soil sealers??
I've treated my own old tanks in some remote areas that now have deer there, that didn't before. This is my proof, it cost me $250 dollars per tank. the sealer will last 10 years if properly installed. Now i have a honey hole that only the deer and I only know about!!!!! So what are your thoughts.
 
I've heard this argument before. My first question is where are there some public areas in southern utah where cattle aren't run? I haven't noticed the shortage.

I think there is some merit to what you say in isolated instances; however, I've also seen the opposite occur.

I think part of the reason the Wasatch Front is as good as it is despite heavy pressure is there is no livestock. There is really good feed there. The hunting is surprisingly good around salt lake when there are a few mild winters in a row.

Regarding water, there are a lot of springs that wildlife never get access to because it is piped at the source. There are some remote canyons that would be really good if a trickle of water was in the bottom, but the water is piped out into the valley.

I think the main thing ranchers do to help is preditor control.

One last thought. The only reason there isn't a thriving elk herd in the Vernon area is because the ranchers will not allow it. Elk started taking hold a few years ago and the ranchers moaned. The DWR had a hunt to wipe out the cows.
 
In the eastern plains of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, ranchers do so much for deer, elk and antelope. They provide the water sources. Many ranchers have miles of pipelines, windmills and reservoirs that hold water where there previously was no water. They also provide feed, especially in the form of alfalfa and wheat. Mineral supplements are also used by wildlife. Ranchers also control invasive species like Canada thistle and leafy spurge that are detrimental to wildlife.

Ranchers are not perfect, but there's a lot more habitat with them than without them.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-12-09 AT 11:49AM (MST)[p]
>
>
>"Ranchers are not perfect, but there's
>a lot more habitat with
>them them than without them."

That is the truth right there. In most of N. AZ there would be no deer and elk period if not for the tanks that were built years ago. No doubt that cattle compete with wildlife but without the cattle there would be no game in alot of places.
 
The country I hunt also had much more cattle and way more deer back in the 70's.
Lot's more sage hen also.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
There were way more deer EVERYWHERE in the 70's than there are today. Habitat degredation and loss of crucial winter range is probably one of the biggest reasons. Not because of public land grazing being reduced. Urban sprawl is what is killing our deer herds.
 
The big game in the mojave national preserve have and are suffering greatly from a lack of water since the ranchers were forced out....the ranchers installed and maintained those water sources for decades....deer are being affected the most.


great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
Mule deer populations peaked during the late 50's and early 60's due mostly to grazing from livestock. Grazing impacted the habitat in ways as to be benefical to mule deer more than other big game animals. As grazing has declined/changed the impacts have been proportional to the decline in mule deer populations in many parts of the west. Not only is this because of less water being available but also cattle grazing keeps back undesirable plants/forage which in turn allows for beneficial forage to be more plentiful for mule deer. Habitat loss due to development is also a major factor in deer population declines and to a small part so are predators.

PRO

www.oddiction.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-12-09 AT 06:14PM (MST)[p]Cattle hoof prints allowed the seeds of benifical plants to take root, not to mention fertilizer.
 
Cattle provide NO benifit to mule deer and deer find water without windmills and tanks.
 
Bull. You find Antelope, Mule Deer and Elk now in area's where there use to be NO water because the Ranchers have put in tanks for water for the cattle. Now they drink from the tanks and are able to hold ground in area's where there was little to no water.
 
It's interesting that one school of thought on here believes elk are the reason mule deer are declining. Now we are learning that the lack of domestic cows grazing on the land is the reason for mule deer decline.

Everytime I think I've heard it all on this website, I get another surprise!!!
 
>Cattle hoof prints allowed the seeds
>of benifical plants to take
>root, not to mention fertilizer.


That's a good one. Your right, cheatgrass and noxious weeds love exposed soil from excessive trampling. Who knew there were so many Range Specialists and Wildlife Bios on this site...
 
LAST EDITED ON May-13-09 AT 11:28PM (MST)[p]If any of you are interested in the soil sealer product I use, check out.
www.seepagecontrol.com

The point of this thread had little to do with cattle, except that with cattle came water resources for all wildlife. I guess if we all got paid to maintain every tank like a rancher, mule deer would be more plentiful in "those" areas that lacked water. Yes there are pros and cons to cattle, but i think there are more pros than cons, where water is crucial, especially in juniper/canyon country like the strip, or desert country. I'll search for the post of a 205 gross typical that my brother shot in 13b in 2004. There was NO natural water sources within 25 miles in any direction. This buck totally relied on a water source that was kept up by a rancher that raised cattle.
 
Well the Anti-Cattle rancher will never be swayed by the water thing. You do have apoint where there is water deer and other game we show up WITHOUT a water source you will have no deer period.
It don't matter if it's a spring or a water tank, water is the lifeline of deer in marginal area, The fact that it hold deer is because of water.
Mojave is a Great EXp: they moved out the cattle and the RANCHER and let alot of water sources dry up and now the deer are in a Big time hurting way.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
Now back to the post Yes if more of the dirt tanks was treated they would help the deer.
I know a guy who did a tank down around Yucca Valley(very little water before) and he got some really nice deer coming into his place now and the pond has water in it all year around.
Did he do it just for the deer Yep but the side benefits was all the Quail,Chuckar and Dove.
Plus he does kill a coyote or two.


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
its rarely as simple as some think, after thousands of years of plant and animal evolution people grazed millions of domestic cattle on pristine western range land, the great basin,mohave desert,sonora desert, Rocky Mnt foothils, its all different and it all got impacted differently, in the great basin the cattle overgrazed the native grasses and many brush species took over, wet winters, predator control, and mule deer numbers skyrocketed, a lot of things happened to cause them to decline, and they declined steeply and fast. plant succession is a big factor,the brush species have declined, 2/3s of the great basin is now dominated by non-native cheat grass. its complicated, but the whole western ecosystem and its productivity will never be the same because of the many millions of non native grazing animals, what native wildlife the land can support changes over time.
 
I am going to have to agree with the original post while cattle and deer do compete for some amount of food cattle are mostly grazers and mule deer are mostly browsers...there has been studies showing that light to moderate (controlled grazing) of cattle has actually improved mule deer habitat not to mention what some people have posted about creating artificial water sources in dry areas...IMO ranching is not only beneficial to mule deer, but ranchers are also maintaining the land, despite what many people think range conditions are actually improving in many areas...
 
There was a pretty good thread about this about a month or so ago. It is a highly debated issue. If you are going to get into a debate about this with the educated crowd you have to understand the prevailing ecological "philosophy." I highlight the word philosophy because even though the educated crowd always bash the average hunter for a lack of scientific evidence of their philosophies, prevailing ecological philosophy is full of theory- particularly when it comes to historical aspects of this issue before 1960 or so.

You can recognize the "educated" because they all fall right in suit with the most basic ecological philosophies taught at the universities. Before white man everything was "pristine," then came the introduction of "non-native" species which changed the ecological balance eventually leading to the decline in wildlife.

I personally believe there are some flaws with this prevailing ecological philosophy, and until some of the biologists etc. get the nerve to challenge some of the prevailing theories of their field, we will not make significant progress on this issue.

It is true that the ranges were overgrazed in the late 19th and early 20th century. White men brought millions of cattle in and just turned them loose, and they grubbed the ranges to the ground. But one of the illusions is that these ranges were "pristine" to start with. I believe there is historical evidence to support that this is not true. Many of these areas- particularly the ones that are most controversial today were extremely arid regions. Yes the cattle beat them to death, but there wasn't as much there to start with as many people think.

As the cattle began to take their toll, it became evident that something needed to be done. This introduced the range improvement era. For much of the first half of the 20th century millions of acres of range land underwent large scale improvement projects which included burning, chaining, logging and reseeding. This not only curbed the damage that was being done by the cattle, but improved range conditions beyond their original native productivity. In doing so, not only did the cattle benefit, but wildlife did as well- swelling beyond the native capacity and resulting in the huge wildlife population of the 60's that we all dream about.

Then came the introduction of the extreme environmental movement which taught that all influence of man is bad and everything should be returned to its natural state. Gradually range improvements were abandoned and productivity decreased paving the way for cutting grazing permits.

The problem is that by curtailing production by cutting range improvement programs, it is not only the cattle that are loosing it is the wildlife as well.

What hunters need to understand is that the extreme environmentalist theory (which by the way is now pretty much common theory- even among many hunters)really doesn't result in the large wildlife populations of the 60's.

We as hunters need to decide. Do we want to follow the extreme environmentalists down the road of "native tranquility" which will result not only in fewer cattle but fewer deer as well. Or do we want to "pull our heads out of our ____" and realize that the wildlife numbers we all dream of were the result of a government/rancher partnership which indisputably produced the largest wildlife numbers ever seen. That is a fact.
 
That is an opinion. Not a fact. Just because I dont agree with putting as much cattle on public land as possible dont lump me in with the "extreme enviros". You dont have to be a rocket scientist or to look to far to find thousands of documented reports and studies of the damaging effects that public land grazing has had in the west. The high desert regions are very fragile ecosystems, takes them years and years to recover from over-grazing. Water sources are scarce, I get sick of seeing stream beds trampled and crapped in. The greatest obstacle our deer herds have now is lack of habitat. Winter range is disappearing at an alarming rate. Urban sprawl is everywhere. That is what is hurting our deer herds. Go back and look at areas where the deer use to winter back in the 70's and 80's. Nothing but neighborhoods now.
 
Yes and no uwhunter.I have a intamate knowledge of about 250 sections of decent mule deer country were there is almost no browes, so the cattle are in direct competition with the deer. The deer in this area seek the pastures least grazed by cattle, usually were the ranchers will winter cattle making for some tough times before the green grasses of spring. While water development is certainly a plus for all wildlife many ranchers I know turn off power and windmills after they move cattle out of that pasture leaving the tanks dry. Some ranchers treat the range better than others and yes there are many variables on this topic.I like ranchers and wish I was one but I still maintain that cattle provide No benifit to Mule deer. I will also state that in my little corner of the world there would be more and bigger deer without cattle.
 
Read Piper above. Sums it up pretty well. As for anyone who tells me that I am an "extreme enviro" just because I don't want to see the land used and abused at the expense of wildlife, I don't really have a comment. I'm one of those fools who got an education in this subject, so I guess it's too late for me, I've already been brainwashed.
 
My intention with this post is about ranching and that with it comes water resources for deer and other wildlife, In "those" areas that do not have natural water resources. If you dont believe this go hunt the strip or desert southwest, you will thank every rancher you see out there. Especially if you wack a 200 incher that was drinking out of his tank!! If we want our deer herds to grow, we have to manage the land that is left and make the best use of it. I also dont mind the cattle, I have to eat too!
 
I should stay out of this, but I have spent a great deal of time on the AZ. Strip. I have made many friends among the ranching community. They are great people, and their familys have ranched there for years.
As far as permanate water sources go, the BLM and the Arizona Deer Association, have put in and maintained the vast majority
of the permanate water sources on the AZ Strip. Forgive me, the ADBSS has maintained and developed many of the AZ strip waters.
So you see, ranchers and wildlife have benifited from wildlife
water projects. Paid for by wildlife dollars and built by sportsmans sweat.
Been there, done that.
Steve Cheuvront
 
I'd much rather see some cattle grazing on public land than a subdivision...skipbuck, thats a lot of land maybe the reason you see more deer on pastures without cattle is simply because the deer don't get bothered when they are on land that is not being used at the time
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom