History of Muledeer

[cantkillathing]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-28-10 AT 06:10PM (MST)[p]Okay in my neck of the woods, which is the abajo unit or san juan area. Back in the late 40's early 50's there were not many mule deer almost non existing, if you seen a track you followed it out and shot the deer. My grandpa Wilbur Laws was a government trapper back then, he got a government grant to purchase a $150.00 worth of beef and back in the late 40's that was alot of beef. Anyway they purchased the beef to strychnine (which is poison) it, they then flew all over the san juan area dropping chunks of strychnine beef from a plane to kill off coyotes and the remaining wolf. There was no lion or bear back then, only coyote and very few wolf. Anyhow after doing this in about 8-10 years there were mule deer all over the county, so many that you could hunt 3 deer.
Since then predators started to rise, bear and lions started to come in the area and grow, coyotes began to rebound. Mule deer started to dwindle little at a time, so little that it wasn't noticed yet. And now we are sitting back scratching our heads wondering where the mule deer have gone, We blame hunters and to many hunters, but yet have we blamed the predators.
The DNR have lied about mule deer numbers, they state that on the abajo unit there is over 13,500 deer, which is a crock of crap, everyone that lives here and spends time on the abajo knows that there isn't even half this number or a quarter this number. They also lie about the amount of bear in our area. So they over exaggerate the deer, and under expose the bear and lions. I had 2 trail cameras out and I have thousands of pictures of elk, hundreds pictures of bear, and 1 mule deer picture.
It is time that the division listens to the 200,000 mule deer hunters, and quit listening to the 200 houndsmen and start killing some bear and lions, and get agressive with the coyotes as well. It worked back in the late 40's, why wouldnt it work now.

 

[iliveinthewoods]

Well done, your history is pretty accurate... The main problem is that the government has outlawed the use of poison to kill animals, that includes cyanide, stryknine, and 1080...

The 60's was the best hunting time this state has ever had... But there were a few things that are different between then and now, there was hardly any elk, and now that is the moneymaker... Seems to be all that the division of wildlife cares about...

But something needs to change, I agree with that!

 

[brutus]

I couldnt agree more. my uncle ran sheep and lived on cedar mt. in the panguitch unit for most of his life in the summers and wintered from milford to panaca. His father told of when they first started to run sheep on the mt. they very rarely saw a deer, then the sheepmen started trapping and baiting for coyotes and lions in summer and winter.Pretty soon you had the 60s and 70s hay days.It wasnt just quincadance (sorry if the spellings off).My uncle said that he could drive from cedar to caliente after a snow and not cross a coyote track. Thats impressive. IMO it seems as if the divison has put elk above deer for sometime now.Just go to a rack and listen, if an elk unit even gets close to the 6 on a 6-7 age objective unit they want cut tags. They dont even want to start to fix a deer unit unless it gets down to 12/100 on a 18/100 unit.Then open it when it hits 15/100.

 

[mevertsen]

cantkillathing -

I am a houndsmen, though I have no interest in the issues in Utah, as I have not been there, and never hunted it.

We have the same issue going on here - everyone is blaming the predators for the mule deer decline. Problem is, we are sitting at about "avearage" for recorded history as far as mule deer numbers go. We don't have the numbers we had in the 80's, and not in the 60's I am sure.

We have been killing more lions per decade than the previous decade since the late 60's when lions became a game animal in NV. This was also the time that California lost lion hunting for good, and most other states jumped on board to put a restriction on them in fear of loosing it in their states also.

NV now has the best kept records of lions killed from anywhere.

Now for the issue - deer numbers down -

In the 80's - we had

1 million people in the state
fewer horses
fewer elk
fewer sheep (wild)
more cattle
more sheep (domestic)
more water (rain)
more bitterbrush
fewer fires
lower speed limits
fewer "ranchettes" and people living in prime wintering range or travel corridors


now we have -

3 million people
tons of horses
tons of elk
tons of sheep (wild)
less cows
less sheep (domestic)
less bitter brush
more fires (no winter range)
higher speed limits
and people wanting to own there piece of the pie on 40 acres of paradie, then ##### when the deer eath their flowers, and ##### again when they find lion tracks along the back fence.

Bottom line is this - we cannot simply blame predators for the "deer decline"

There have been too many variables that have changed since the hayday, and we cannot do anything to get it back. It is too late

The commissioners here are trying to get the lion listed as a non protected animal here. That is bad news, and the HSUS actually showed up at the last meeting threatening a law suit if they do, which will shut down lion hunting for good.

If there is no record of the lions being killed - then who is to say how many we have, and that they aren't endangered - I am sure you can't tell me how many there are if they aren't being recorded.

I also offer this to people who complain about the lions - go get a tag and kill one, its pretty tough actually, and you will learn a lot doing it too.

Later,

Marcial

 

[ELKOHOLIC]

mevertsen, What makes you think know one is keeping track of Lion harvest? A quite search will yield you all the harvest info for utah you ever needed.

 

[mevertsen]

I am not saying that Utah is not keeping track of harvest. They have good records as well.

What my point was, is that in NV, the commissioners are trying to get the lion put to an "un protected" status, or a furbearer status. If that is the case, unless its a furbearrer, it would eliminate the recording of lion kills.

That is why the HSUS has stepped in and threatened a law suit to shut down lion hunting - if the take them from being a game animal.

That is what happened in California in the 1960's. There was no record of how many were being killed. No one knew for sure. So a proposition came up, and the lion season got shut down because the bleeding hearts thought they were endangered because of the propoganda b.s.

Then the other western states took notice and made the lion a game animal to make sure they were being recorded when killed.

So, if we go back to the land of poisoning them (which can't happen by law), or otherwise making them a varmint, then no one will know how many are being killed, and now one will know how many there are.

So all it takes is a few bleeding hearts, a good propoganda ad, a few voters to bite, and a liberal judge, and voila, we have no more lion hunting.

Utah, and all of the other western states are in the same boat, and have the same threat against them. Anti hunting groups are watching, and they know how greedy we (as deer hunters) are, and that we NEED to kill a deer to satisfy our thirst for blood.

So if lions get protected, and can't be hunted, then we would have a problem.

I have never said lions don't kill deer.

They do, I have found evidence of that myself. But, like I said, I am not educated on Utah specifically, so don't know that deal over there with winter range, fires, etc, ect, and comment on that.

What I do know is that things have changed, people have changed, and we have to be very careful with how we approach the carnivore situation, becasuse there are enough people out there to shut it down.

We also need to make sure we can do what's possible to minimize the effects of other mortalities.

For example, there has just been completed a major project on highway 93 north of Wells, which is the wildlife crossing. I am interested to see what the fawn survival rate is next spring with those in, and hopefully fewer deer being hit by cars.

I also believe that we need to do what we can to get habitat in better shape, or protect what we have. That includes water (horses drink a lot). If deer have no cover, or cover is limited, then the predators are going to be right where the deer are. If cover is abundant, and deer are spread out, they have a much better chance of survival.

I have also noticed that where I see wild sheep, I see very few deer. I think there is a direct relationship there as well, and lions LOVE sheep, however sheep are thriving??

Any way, enough of my soap box.

Later,

Marcial

 

[cantkillathing]

Marcial, I appreciate your houndsmen opinion, but like I said there is a record in the late 40's and early 50's that they got ride of predators and the deer herd thrived. We did not have lions and bears, they atleast didn't see any or see evidence of them back then i.e. tracks and lion kills. History has shown what worked back then, and you and the houndsmen will continue to argue that the predators have no major impact on the mule deer. So why don't we do a trial. Here in the southeast corner of the state of Utah, we have the Lasal mtns. the abajo mtns. and the elk ridge unit. Now the Lasal Mtns. and elk ridge have low fawn production, and the highest bear population. Why not sale a bear tag to every deer hunter and lets shoot some bear, reduce bear population by 70% and see if the fawn production goes up. My bet is that fawn production will go up. Higher some major trappers and hit the coyotes as hard as we can, higher about 20 trappers for this area and trap every coyote possible. my bet is fawn production will go up. Its going to be impossible to get rid of every predator without poison so by giving unlimited tags will only get rid of a high percent of them, but not all of them. Keep the lion hunt going and let whoever wants to hunt them go and hunt them, we will never get rid of all of them. Do major predator control and my bet is we will see what happened in early 60's, more deer.

 

[mevertsen]

cantkillathing -

That seems like a good idea - kill a whole bunch IN A SMALL AREA, and see what happens.

Problem is - lions have a large home range, not sure about bears.

They have done the same thing here in NV. We have predator control projects. One just finished where the control unit (no specific project) ended with a better faw ration than the project unit! (adjacent unit)

The same thing is happening in Unit 014 in western NV. I have looked at the numbers (you can look on www.ndow.org, and see the big game status book with the fawn ratios), and the fawn ratios are no higher in the project area then they are in the control area (within a few points, negligible anyway).

In order for predator control to work, it has be be a constant, long term, dedicated approach. You can't just say, lets go kill some bear and cats for 3 years and see what happens. Not gonna make a difference. Their ranges are too big.

And I sure don't like the idea of hiring a bunch of trappers to do the job hunters should be doing.

How about spreading education about trapping and getting the hunters involved rather than hiring people to kill the coyotes for us.

I thought the DWR already screwed things up over there?


I also see these pictures where people kill a nice tom and say "I just saved X number of deer!" Nice thought, but not really.

All that person did was let two (or more) kittens survive a little longer to eat the deer the tom is no longer eating.

Later,

Marcial

 

[mevertsen]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-10 AT 09:16AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-29-10 AT 08:14?AM (MST)

One more thought just popped into my head also.

Everyone keeps bringing up the 60's (here its the 80's)

There is a LOT different that the 60's. Ranchers were actually in the field, and probably shot every coyote they saw on sight. Lions too I imagine. Ranchers had their own dogs to protect their work. People cared about what was going on.

I know around here, there are a lot of places that are broken up from the big ranches, and the owners are not even around. It seems people have no interest in the land, and people just don't care as much.


I guess what I am saying is that 1960 was 50 years ago. I already stated some of the reasons in a prior post, and believe it or not, some of it does relate to predator control.

Things have changed, and we will never be like we were in the 60's. People will never be the same. We will constantly have bleeding hearts saying don't kill anything. We will always have people saying predators are a problem and we need to kill, but don't kill any themselves.

We won't be able to use most poisons, certain traping techniques, etc, etc, etc. Luckily in NV, we have a WS which can use airplanes for depredating coyotes, and can also use traps for depredating lions on livestock. Unfortunately, as I stated before, lions have such a large range, that when you kill one, you allow for others to move right in.

We also have areas that people won't or can't lion hunt, just because of the way the country is. California and Oregon have no hounds for lion hunting or no lion hunting period, and we have a constant supply of cats. At the same time, NV has a constant supply of people. That adds to the problem as well.


Everyone has a solution to the problem, but no one has any action on the solution. Everyone else's idea is good, as long as its not being put to use.

Later,

Marcial