USU Deer feeding research results 2001-2007

[huntin50]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-28-11 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-28-11 AT 12:00?PM (MST)

Results from 101 female mule deer collared along the foothills of Logan Utah.

34 percent of the deer that died were killed by vehicles.

33 percent were listed died of malnourshment

4 percent predation

4 percent birthing problems

2 poaching "doe's"

5 percent age related

19 percent unknown, but not vehicle collisions.

This past year only 21 deer were checked into the Logan Canyon check station. Last year in the 3 day hunt 48 deer were checked in. Winter survial fawn loss were very high.

An example that hunting has little effect of over all deer numbers.

1. Weather. Both extremes winter and droughts,habitat quality, green up etc.

2. Cars

3. coyotes

4. cougars

The above factors are the main factors why our deer are not recovering. We can make a difference in some.

Hunting is a tool to control buck to doe averages. I saw 7 does last night and everyone had a fawn which is good news. When hunters say they should close the season down for 5 years thinking it will bring back the deer herd, they are misinformed.

A few big bucks are roaming the hills. Few, is the sad thing.

 

[huntin50]

Another thought about the mortality from this deer study.

34 of the 101 collared deer were killed by cars. That seems like a very large number. The deer were trapped on the foot hills near Logan. More remote areas like the Book Cliffs likly don't have many vehicle deer kills. I know Idaho collared some deer and have done some studies on mortality.

I wonder how many deer are killed each year in Utah by cars? I know Prism was counting road kills at one time. Any thoughts.

 

[BowHuntr]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-31-11 AT 09:29AM (MST)[p]Thanks for posting the study results. I'm glad the DWR and UDOT have collaborated on obtaining a more accurate number of just how many deer we lose to vehicle collisions on some of our highways/freeways.

I don't think it stops there though. I would like to see results from similar studies, where the collared deer are not right on top of a highway/freeway.

I think different areas have different problems, whether it's bad winters, predators, loss to vehicles, loss of quality habitat/poor quality habitat, competition for space and resources with elk, over hunted, or a combination there of.

Also, I never hear anyone take into account that harvest may be impacting a population, if the population has dipped below a certain threshold.


BowHuntr

 

[msy]

Was it 34 does died from cars, or 34% that died, died from cars.

Are we to assume all the does have died?

 

[muleybeast]

That is so horrible...Its a wonder any deer are left.

 

[257Tony]

>Was it 34 does died from
>cars, or 34% that died,
>died from cars.
>
>Are we to assume all the
>does have died?
There were 101does so its the same thing.

 

[BrowningRage]

The question about 34% killed by vehicles by MSY is a good question...

First, it is important to know if there were a total of 101 deer collared, or 101 collared-deer were killed...?? If 101 deer were collared, and only 25 actually died, that changes everything about the stats above...

That would mean that 34% by vehicles is 9 deer
33% by malnutrition is 9 deer

...and so on and so on...

So the study must have accounted for 101 collared-deer that were killed... That makes better sense to me...

The study was still performed on deer that frequent a populated area, in which case, the numbers are skewed from more remote areas (like the Book Cliffs, as has been mentioned)

I am glad they are trying new research methods and putting some work into solving deer population problems. I'd like to see more of this study as well as others like it across the state...

Also, how can anyone say that closing down hunts for any number of years wouldn't help the population..?? If they had closed it down last year, there would have been 21,000 more bucks this year... Just sayin...


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

 

[huntin50]

The deer study was conducted between 2001-07.
34 out of 101 deer were killed during that time period by cars.

If I read the study corect all 101 deer,(does)died during that period.

The few bucks that were saved by having a 3 day hunt last year, a large percentage of them winter killed in Northern Utah. We need enough bucks to breed the does in their first cycle. I think we have enough bucks. The sad thing is we have very few deer. People will continue driving cars. We can try to keep predators down and hope for good weather.

I think the Book Cliffs and other remote areas problems are predators. Southern Utah deer herds don't winter kill as much.

The two bucks our family shot this year had a ton of fat. The deer are in very good shape going into this winter.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[elkun]

thanks for the info. good job...

 

[slcmuley]

So if I'm reading this correctly it took 6 years for all 101 does to die?
What is the typical lifespan for a deer in No. Utah? At what age were the deer collared?
Craving a few more statistics.

Great post, thanks for the info.

 

[huntin50]

I'm sorry I'm too much of a red neck to post a link. Google USU deer study and Chris Peterson and you will see the article about the study

It is interesting research.

 

[Muleynitro17]

I know I will be going and buying feed this year to put out for the herds. I think it's time we start giving back instead of taking. It doesn't cost much to put some feed out and could go a long ways in helping out. Too many people take and are not willing to give back. Time to help them out....

 

[DRHORNHUNTER]

I helped collar about 20 deer in SE Idaho a few years back. 15 fawns and 5 does. I can't remember but I'll try to find out for sure but I think the fawns all died that winter. Coyotes and winter kill from feed. I think the stress of net capture was the biggest culprit but..... What was amazing was how far some of the does migrated the following summer.

 

[cabinfever]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-11 AT 11:37AM (MST)[p]"An example that hunting has little effect of over all deer numbers."

Last I checked, Utah issues very few doe tags and I'd bet these does in the study were never hunted.In contrast, collar 100 buck fawns in an area with fewer roads and I'd wager the mortality results will be entirely different. Winters and vehicles may kill a lot of deer in logan but that aint the case here in southern Utah. We harvest far to many yearling bucks down here.

Great study, however, I would like to see similar studies across the state and than action taken to lower mortality.

 

[w2u]

Hunting has very little effect on overall deer numbers because the majority of hunting is on bucks. Bucks do not have fawns. So, the only real effect hunting has on a mule deer population is the ratio of bucks to does. In a mule deer population, it only takes about 5 bucks to breed 100 does. So, biologically speaking, any bucks above that 5/100 number are "extra"--the only real service they do for the population is make it more appealing to hunt.

So, when people make comments that closing down a unit to hunting would save the unit X number of deer/bucks and help the population, they are speaking from a very naive point of view. The truth is that as hunters we are predators...and our predation will only negatively affect the deer population if our predation is additive mortality to the deer. So, in other words, it is very possible that our predation on a mule deer population is entirely compensatory. That is to say that nature may very well compensate for any animals we didn't shoot or harvest if a unit is closed down by finding a different means to eliminate animals--like winter kill, different predators, etc.

The mistake most hunters make when talking about limiting deer tags or closing down deer units to help build a population is that they are really only saving bucks...bucks that might compete with does and fawns for limited food and habitat. So, if a deer unit is at or near carrying capacity, carrying those "extra" bucks could actually limit or hurt a deer population's ability to increase because those same bucks that we would be saving by not harvesting would be out competing the reproductive portion of your herd. This is a scary thought...and exactly what has happened in Colorado where tough winters have put a killing on the does and fawns. Sure, they have a lot of mature deer running around, but they have lost about half their deer population since they severely cut down on tags...

 

[DRHORNHUNTER]

The thing I noticed about the collaring these fawns was they were all too small going into the winter. Still milking mama and not going to make a long hard winter which we did. One or two months to young which would lead you to believe there aren't enough big bucks to get er done. And after all these died the effect is being seen losing entire generation of deer. Just my two cents

 

[GLEDEASY]

Interesting study and obviously an interesting topic as of lately concerning our deer herds. There have been a lot of great points brought up by many. We are all passionate about the situation because we love hunting and want our herds to be doing well. I have always thought that winter and road kill directly attributed to the main reasons for the decline (which the study shows). That does not say that there aren't other reasons for the decline as well but their affects are small. In my opinion the reason people say they are seeing fewer buck, or deer in general, is in result to hard winters and not due to over hunting. The majority of the deer die as fawns hence population goes down, but there are still enough buck roaming the hills to do their part in restoring the population. Without ranting on and on I agree with a post stated above, time to give back. Try not to stress the deer while out in the hills and take a bag of feed in the process.

 

[w2u]

Interestingly, a similar research project is underway on several units in the state including one on Monroe Mountain.

I spoke with Vance Mumford (DWR biologist for Monroe) about deer survival on Monroe last spring about their results...
According to Vance the current collar study showed in 2009/2010 that adult survival of deer is very good (86%) but that fawn survival was not (27%). The cause of death of the fawns can be broken down to 48% of the fawn mortality was simple winter mortality, 29% of the fawn mortality was linked to predation, 5% was linked to road kill, and 19% was unknown. He also mentioned that the predation numbers were compounded due to a dry growing season the previous summer. In other words the fawns came into the winter smaller than normal and then had to deal with a severe winter and late spring. Because of this high rate of mortality we saw far fewer yearling bucks during the hunt this past year (2010).

During the winter of 2011, only 2 fawns died and no adults--1 fawn from coyote predation and 1 road kill. He felt like last winter had very good survival because last summer was a great growing season and the fawns went into the winter in great shape. The same could be said about this upcoming winter.

He also mentioned that most research shows that when the deer herd is producing lots of fawns and habitat is productive then the predators have a small effect on deer populations. However, for the past 3 years we have had poor fawn production with less then optimum habitat conditions on the Monroe. With these current conditions the predators (coyotes and cougars) can have an effect. I think the coyotes are likely having a greater effect than the cougars. Coyotes often take a large portion the fawn from birth to a few months of age.

Interestingly, as a result, the DWR has raised the cougar harvest objective to 12 cougars on Monroe and they are starting intensive coyote control.

 

[w2u]

>The thing I noticed about the
>collaring these fawns was they
>were all too small going
>into the winter. Still milking
>mama and not going to
>make a long hard winter
>which we did. One
>or two months to young
>which would lead you to
>believe there aren't enough big
>bucks to get er done.
> And after all these
>died the effect is being
>seen losing entire generation of
>deer. Just my two cents
>

This, again, is based on the theory that does will not breed with smaller bucks until the second estrous. The problem with this theory is that there is no evidence to back it up. I would contend that fawns born late under good habitat conditions will still have enough time to build fat storage enough to survive a harsh winter. I would also contend that does will breed with the biggest baddest buck available--whether that buck is a scrawny 2-point or a massive mature 4-point. Does not bred during the first estrous are probably similar to couples who struggle getting pregnant when they want...they continue trying month after month until it happens.

 

[w2u]

>
>The mistake most hunters make when
>talking about limiting deer tags
>or closing down deer units
>to help build a population
>is that they are really
>only saving bucks...bucks that might
>compete with does and fawns
>for limited food and habitat.
>So, if a deer unit
>is at or near carrying
>capacity, carrying those "extra" bucks
>could actually limit or hurt
>a deer population's ability to
>increase because those same bucks
>that we would be saving
>by not harvesting would be
>out competing the reproductive portion
>of your herd. This is
>a scary thought...and exactly what
>has happened in Colorado where
>tough winters have put a
>killing on the does and
>fawns. Sure, they have a
>lot of mature deer running
>around, but they have lost
>about half their deer population
>since they severely cut down
>on tags...


...and in Nevada, in fact the following is an excerpt from Nevada?s Annual Report:

?The 2008 post-season buck ratio was again one of the highest on record at 31 bucks/100 does. Though this may be good news for the lucky Nevada deer applicants that are able to draw a tag, it is also a liability. With so many bucks in the population, they are directly competing with does and fawns for limited quality forage and thermal cover on winter range and are likely contributing to decreased body condition in does and fawns. This likely increases winter fawn mortality and decreases fawn production the following summer.?

In the past 10-15 years, Nevada?s deer herd has gone from around 125,000 animals to just over 100,000. Their buck to doe ratio has doubled. That means their doe herd has shrunk by over 20% while buck numbers have increased by almost 80%. Nevada hunters wait 3-8 years to draw lesser quality units. They have a 40-50% success rate, of which 40-50% are 4 point bucks. So Nevada hunters are waiting 3-8 years for a 20-25% chance to shoot a 4 point buck AND carrying that may bucks is hurting their overall herd.

 

[buckmstr]

Thanks for posting info good read...huntin50 what happened to hutin100...Did you turn the big 50

 

[huntin50]

I lost my log in password Bruce. I used to hunt or plan for hunts about 100 days a year. I needed a new password and I decided on huntin50. I only hunt or plan hunts maybe 50 days a year. There will be some SFW meetings in many towns during the next two months. In Logan on Dec 5th we will have a meeting for inputs/ideas to help our deer herd FYI. Anyone is welcomed.

 

[buckmstr]

Greg, make sure you post the location and the time for the Dec 5th discussion.

 

[huntin50]

The Logan meeting is Mon Dec 5th at Lundahls Building Systems
2005 N 600 W Suite C at 7 PM. Agenda is update on the Grey wolf introduction and input on ideas to help our deer herd.

 

[brutus]

w2u, I hope they make a unit jus for you and the rest of your biologicaly sound buddies with 5/100 buck/doe ratio to hunt. Then you guys can have exactly what you want and can show everyone how great a biologicaly sound herd is to hunt. In case you forgot hunters pay the bills for the DWR and sportmens group to function and the last time i checked the units with the highest buck/doe ratio had the most hunters applying to hunt them. I guess a unit with 5/100 buck/doe ratio would accomplish exactly what you wanted and thats a tag every year cause youd be the only one applying to hunt it.

 

[MEEW]

Great study. My questions is UNTIL WE ARE AT CARRYING CAPACITY...WHY CAN'T WE HAVE 25 BUCKS PER 100 DOES, THEN HUNTERS ARE HAPPY AND THE DOES GET BRED WHEN THEY SHOULD? Competition for forage and habitat is not adversely harmed until we have too many animals. We are a long ways from having too many deer, bucks or does. With all the new fires, and habitat improvement projects, we have the habitat, just no deer.

 

[w2u]

>w2u, I hope they make a
>unit jus for you and
>the rest of your biologicaly
>sound buddies with 5/100 buck/doe
>ratio to hunt. Then you
>guys can have exactly what
>you want and can show
>everyone how great a biologicaly
>sound herd is to hunt.
>In case you forgot hunters
>pay the bills for the
>DWR and sportmens group to
>function and the last time
>i checked the units with
>the highest buck/doe ratio had
>the most hunters applying to
>hunt them. I guess a
>unit with 5/100 buck/doe ratio
>would accomplish exactly what you
>wanted and thats a tag
>every year cause youd be
>the only one applying to
>hunt it.


A few things: 1) I never said I wanted a unit with 5/100 buck/doe ratio...I just said that biologically that is all that is needed. I would also say that anything above 20/100 on a unit that is low on herd size is really biologically stupid because you are putting your herd at serious risk. 2) Who gives a ##### about the herd anyway, right? As long as a bunch of antler lovers can chase big bucks, who cares what the consequences may be? It is your line of thinking that is ruining states like Colorado and Nevada...3) In case you forgot, hunter survey after hunter survey shows that more hunters place hunter opportunity higher than hunt quality. So, if hunters are paying the DWR bills and hunters should get what hunters want, we should be giving lots of tags out and keeping buck/doe ratios low....BECAUSE that is EXACTLY what hunters have said they wanted.

 

[w2u]

If we are NOT at carrying capacity, why aren't there more deer? Your hinting that the reason is because does are not being bred at the right time. I disagree. I think most does are being bred at the right time. Personally, I think we are at carrying capacity; otherwise, we would have more deer and our populations would be growing.

 

[huntin50]

w2u,

You have many good points. However, I don't believe we are at carrying capacity in most units in Utah. I think the amount of predators, road kills, and other factors are making it very difficult for the over all deer population to meet objectives. We have moderate winter kills every few years, and car and predation don't let us recruit more does and fawns.

I agree and believe most does are being bred early enough. We just don't have enough does producing to recruitment. In areas with less roads and winter kill, I think deer numbers should rebound with predator management.

 

[kilbuc]

w2u........your comments are spot on!!

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"