Deer Pop. Estimates & Thresholds....Overlooked?

BowHuntr

Active Member
Messages
276
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-12 AT 02:01PM (MST)[p]I just wanted to share some thoughts, and maybe get some input from some of you out there on this topic. In all the meetings and discussions I've been apart of, I rarely hear anyone talk about this. I realize that mule deer populations are a sensitive topic, with lots of people having different ideas on what's best for our deer herds. If we may....please...lets keep it constructive. I know that's difficult for some.

From my experience, deer populations are difficult to estimate, as most everyone knows. Unfortunately we have to rely on people to collect data and input that data into a model, which generates a number. That number is only as good as that data that went into the model. So after years and years of inputting inaccurate data into a model, you would expect to have inaccurate numbers as a result.

Goofyelk made a post with the latest population estimates by unit. I think it's safe to say that a large majority of hunters would disagree that these numbers do not reflect what we see on the ground in some areas.

If tags are being based off these inaccurate numbers, how much impact are hunters having on the population?

Is this another factor that is contributing to declines of our deer populations? It seems to get very little attention. Over-estimated population sizes, which equates to issuing more tags than the herd can handle. How is there no concern in some of these units, that hunters are having a direct impact on populations?

In other words, in a given year a sub-population of deer experiences mortality from predators, vehicle collisions, malnutrition(tough winters/droughts), competition for resources, fences, loss/degradation of habitat, and hunters.

It's thought that a population has a threshold point, or a point where taking animals from a population directly impacts their survivability. In other words there are no "excess" deer that would have died anyway. These "excess" deer are the deer we get the opportunity to hunt every year.

So, lets say that three of these factors (predators, vehicles, degradation of habitat) have impacted a population to their threshold point. On top of that we send out 10,000 hunters to hunt this population. The loss of deer through hunter harvest is having a direct impact on survivability.

Is this a problem in every unit? Probably not, but I would dare say that it is a problem in some. I realize that every unit has different variables impacting populations. It would be nice to see the division implement a couple control units, that might give them a better idea of how that specific deer population responds.

I realize that tag sells = revenue, and that is probably why the division has never addressed this as a potential issue. At least not that I'm aware of.

Any thoughts or ideas?

Thanks

BH
 
Excellent post!
This is exactly why I support option 2, every unit is different.
And starting with CORRECT herd estimates is critical..



4aec49a65c565954.jpg
 
The entire state of nevada is a control unit and the deer numbers there continue to decline slowly or are just staying the same.There are some units that I am sure virtualy have no road kill, no winter range home building,and the deer numbers still are just stable or at low numbers compared to the 80s.
Remove some predators,cheat grass,pinyon/juniper,wid horses and get some rain and I am sure the numbers would go up.
 
The one thing i would agree with too an extent with the UWC crowd is over hunting is not the top factor driving the mule deer decline BUT it is the easiest factor to control.

Highway mortality, predators, and pj incroachment are factors that IMO drive the mule deer decline in most units not in that order, each unit has different rankings on those three.

Heres what I see, highway mortality is a tuff one to fix or slow down as there is more and more traffic all the time and under/over passes are expensive and to be affective have to be placed all up and down I15 and many other highways. Fencing the highways only limits the amount of winter range the deer can access and thus caps the deer herd at that population "wich is what I think has happened to alot of the herds along I15".

Predators is an easier issue to fix with bountys and tag allocation but unless poison and trapping for all predators "lions and bears included" is allowed there will never be a quick fix to that problem.

PJ encroachment/ habitat loss is a hard fix without being able to let fires burn. Bullhogging is a good idea but very expensive compared to burning without risk of wiping out houses. Without controlling the first two habitat loss is irrealavent.

If all these problems could be fixed "prob never going too happen" then we could have more tags. But since that aint happening any time soon lowering tags is the easiest way to control what we can, and limit the amount of stress on deer herds.

I get that some on here think that if the buck/doe ratio was 5-10 bucks/100 does that there would be less bucks competing for food but what I dont think they realize is the deer herd aint coming back to what it was in the 60s-80s because of factors that cannot be controlled. So I dont think 18 bucks/100 does is going to cause any damage.

The fact is all herds are struggling but if you look at the dwr population model more herds with sub par buck/doe ratios are stuggling more than ones with higher buck/doe ratios. IMO its because these herds had worse conditions that already set the herd back do to predators or highway deaths or habitat loss or all three and got overhunted on top of it wich set the buck/doe ratio back.

30 units can help curve this so that if a certain herd gets hurt do to any of the factors against it the tags can be cut accordingly so as to not be one more thing to negatively impact them until they get back on their feet.
 
Until someone in the big office finally admits they are putting out to many tags for to few deer the herd will continue to decline. Also, the DWR claims to much road kill, and habitat loss yet continue to have doe hunts. I am having a hard time figuring out their logic. The deer are declining yet we continue to kill doe, which are the same deer getting killed on the roads and by predator. Please tell me how doe hunts and handing out way to many permits are helping increase the deer herd. If no one can tell me how this will increase the herd then would it not make sense to decrease both of them.
 
There are so many factors involved in the current mule deer decline that it would be impossible to list them all in a short post. For all of us who want deep cuts in tags..not likely if dwr has any imput, they simply dont want to bite the hand that feeds them. Kill more predators? possible but still not a major factor IMO, Lions are the most damaging and the cat population is not overly high,Coyotes get a few fawns but when the fawns are so few they are likely to starve. SFW says they can get our herd back by killing more coyotes, that might be beneficial but not the cure all. Simply put we will never see deer numbers exceed 250,000 no matter what period. I would love to be wrong but the entire scope of the problem that we are facing will not reverse itself in favor of the mule deer. In addition to the above mentioned issues, fire suppression, aspen decline,sage decline, absence of logging, population growth, highway mortality,technology of all types,elk population growth...you can go on and on and on. I simply cannot see where we can increase the deer herd all that much. you cannot stockpile deer either, if populations do rise history has shown that drought or bad winters will take the surplus. I continue to do what I can to help..but is it enough? Is it ever enough? Those of us who got to see and hunt the 60's and 70's can only hope that our kids and grandkids will be able to at least occasionally have SOME opportunity to HUNT muleys. Anything more than that will be an unexpected pleasant suprise. I may get ripped for this post but I am just callin it the way I see it.

Dik and chin in the dirt
 
Dikndirt---I think your post is a lot closer to fact that anyone would like to admit. The makeup of the mulie is not like the whitetail that can live in a person's back yard and thrive. I'm fearful that in a generation or two the mule deer will not be around in big enough numbers to support a hunting season in a lot of areas. I sure hope I'm wrong.
 
I share your concern dikdirt but disagree on a couple points.

One although I know it seems futile and like it cannot get better I look to CO where things were bad for a while because of overhuntingand then they had a bounce back that made it the current best state as a mule deer destination even though it has taken a recent hit it's still the best game in town. With the drop the CDOW has seemed to learn from past mistakes and although it might be less than necessary they have dropped tag numbers to help herds rebound without the money being the primary concern.

Second I have read the statement "You cannot stockpile deer" here many times and I disagree. The gunnison valley in CO in 2006 when I first hunted there was at a very high population and it was said on 54 the buck to doe ratio was 60:100 and from what I saw that is an accurate count. The winters of 07&08 clobbered the herds with record snow levels and took somewhere around 65 percent of the herd (according to a warden I talked to this year and from my view it seemed accurate). Some would say that was the surplus or stockpiled animals and that is why they say you cannot stockpile the deer but I say the herd would simply have been kept at or near the current level for the years prior to the hard winters and all that great hunting missed and then the hard winters would have hit and best case scenario it took numbers to current levels, worst case scenario it drops lower than now. Also IMO the large number of stockpiled deer is a ton of fun to hunt and when the winter or drought does hit and get them only the hardiest survive, strengthening the herd.

IMO there is no proof that a burgeoning herd that is at carrying capacity in the average year suffers any worse overall for instance final number after die off of surplus versus a low beginning number of smaller herd that will still suffer loss in a bad year, IMO the small herd will still suffer big loss in a bad year making the numbers even worse.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!
 
We can talk all we want, but until the Wild life Board get enough guts to shut units down and cut tags and make smaller units so they can manage them better our deer is in real trouble until they do this-----Its all up to the Board. We all know the deer herd is way low and isn't it sad.
 
Wildlife board believes the numbers that the DWR gives them...
Everyone that gets out in the field knows that the numbers that the DWR has posted is way to high, about 40% to high.

We need better way to count the muledeer, the old way does not work anymore.
 
"40% to high" could not have stated that any better. From goofyelks earlier post the numbers on the units in southern UT I hunt there numbers of alive deer seem about 40% to high maybe more. Pretty damn sad.
 
Good points Huntindad, But you cant really compare colorado to Utah and some of the other western states in decline. Colorado has always had the very best muley habitat and genetics. You only need to check the record books to see this. Almost the entire state is productive muley habitat. They also have a much better system of game management especially mule deer management. They also have a huge elk population that they manage for opportunity and revenue. My post was mainly concerning utah and the problems we have here and IMO we will never compare to colorado in total overall mule deer hunting.
 
There is an old documentary named Bucks, Bucks Bucks that might provide you a little different perspective or understanding of the potential Utah has for mule deer numbers. Some body was going to try to put it out on uTube. Don't know if it every got put out there.

DC

Utah Mule Deer
1,200,000 - 900,000 = 300,000 TO GO
BRING IT ON
 
In 2011, they issued 87,000 tags.


Pulled right off of the UDWR's site.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/2011_general_season_permits.pdf


It's extremely frustrating that Utah has and continues to put in so much effort in things like: Habitat restoration, fencing highways, killing predators, etc..

Yet we are hunting a hugely over-estimated population of deer, which is no-doubt hampering our efforts to increase populations in many areas throughout the state.

BH
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-12 AT 11:59PM (MST)[p]Justin,
Do you know if those numbers include Dedicated Hunters and Lifetime license holders? I haven't stayed up to speed with UT lately--seems like a lost cause.

My opinion is that Utah has backed themselves into a corner financially by having such limited elk hunting. They've created a situation where a huge portion of the revenue is generated from general deer licenses and they can't sell more elk tags because of the expectation the hunting public has to maintain quality bull elk hunts throughout the state. So to continue to function they need to sell a lot of deer tags and charge dearly for quality buck and bull tags.

I think all the state wildlife agencies need MORE revenue (geared toward more law enforcement/field biologists to reduce poaching and increase on the ground presence), but given the current situation the only financial options I can see for UT are to stay the course with mild tag cuts and watch the deer circle the drain OR cut tags substantially along with doing every single other thing that can be changed for the better and raise prices.

Even if the UTDWR, SFW, BGF, MDF, etc do everything right and everything within their power, the climate conditions are going to have to be favorable (especially the amount and timing of moisture) for a minimum of 5 years to see a positive turn-around in the deer. From what I saw in a few parts of western CO and eastern UT this past year we'll be starting our second or third year in a trend toward improved range conditions but we'll still need to avoid another big winter kill.

On another note, I'd like to see the lost deer hunting opportunity replaced with tightly controlled but greatly expanded elk hunting opportunity for branch antlered bulls similar to CO's lower end draw units on some of UT's elk units. I think a lot of guys would be pretty pleased to chase 5 and 6 point bulls in exchange for giving the deer a break. By having a 4 or 5 point restriction on top of limited but liberal tag numbers there would still be a good 300-330+ potential. The top few high demand trophy units should remain unchanged to suit those who want to have a chance for a 400" bull instead.
 
Sounds like hunters in every unit agree that the deer counts are way to high. If board believes them and continues to issue tags by the numbers DWR gives them, nothing will change. Why build fences, improve habitat for something they do not care enough about to step up and take care of. If there are no deer in an area for hell sakes shut it down. Noboby, except those who want a tag every year are going to be against that. Here we all are trying to tell the DWR that we are willing to not even hunt to help the problem, yet they won't listen, pretty sad.
 

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