Mule Deer Transplanting

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
11,448
OK, so I got an email and posted it in the Utah forum, but wanted to share this here in the Mule Deer forum for discussion. Please, don't turn this thread into a belly-ache, complain thread about SFW.

So, what do you guys think, can mule deer be successfully transplanted or are they too weak to adapt?
It appears SFW is helping to fund a study to find out if it'll work. I say GREAT JOB SFW!!! Rather than just cutting tags, let's explore ways to better the herd and increase size. There are probably lots of little things like this that can be tried, and something might just be the magic bullet that will make a big difference.

What do you guys think about Mule Deer Transplants?

Again, please don't turn this into an SFW thing.

------------------------------------------

SFW Deer Transplant Research Project

SFW has committed over $100,000 in 2012 to a research project with Utah DWR to improve survival of transplanted mule deer. This project is part of a multi-year venture that will help determine the best time to capture and release mule deer to allow for optimum survivability of mule deer in connection with mule deer transplants. There are some who feel that transplanting mule deer does not work. This effort creates the groundwork to provide successful alternatives to simply killing mule deer in areas where removals are recommended. By funding this important project, SFW continues to show its commitment not only to increasing mule deer populations in low-density deer areas, but also to provide solutions to recover deer herds across Utah.

------------------------------------------


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 07:53PM (MST)[p]If we were talking about whitetails and the way they can adapt to just about anything, I would say they would have a good chance. I will still say to go for it and that way there will be nobody bashing the SFW for at least not trying. I assume they would have to do it in an area where the deer would be able to live in a fairly small area all year around. If they had to migrate to winter range at any distance, I think it would be a total failure since migrating is pretty well ingrained in an animal at birth.
 
Take the expo $ and put it toward something proven, maybe a fencing project, roads are the killers imo.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 08:17PM (MST)[p]I think the effort is worth a try in the way they want to attempt it- with a soft release. Give the transplant a go and see what happens.

I do fear it will be hard on deer which have migrated to specific areas over years. I think about the bucks we hunt over time (antlers are easy to recognize) in Region G. Those bucks migrate 20-50 miles to the same winter ranges and then right back to the exact same beds in the high country. You take that deer from its range and turn it out on MT Dutton- how will it respond? Will it know where to go and when?

I think they would be better off trying to move non-migrating deer such as in Bountiful and UT County. Those deer have never really migrated and would be better suited to release into areas which don;t require extensive migration and the ingraining associated with a migrating herd.

Lots of I thinks there, which doesn't mean much.
 
Hard to say imo. Im thinking they can figure out a solution to give better survival rates. keep deer in similar habitats i think it can work. take a mtn deer and put it in a desert habitat it will never work! desert deer to mtn habitat wont work. but keep it close and i think it can work
 
Pretty sure this is the commitment discussed at the mule deer meeting about the does on the Parawan Front winter range. If I understand right, instead of issuing all 150 tags, some will be converted and then included in the COR as part of the project to see if relocation can be made successful. If so, its a win / win / win / win. Success could mean amazing things for mule deer in all Western States!
 
Mule deer are very habitat specific and compared to other wildlife (including elk, whitetail, and sheep), have a harder time adapting to new locales. Huge gamble IMO.

Eldorado
 
It's been done many times in many states with little success. give it a shot and try new methods, see what gives. A hundred grand isn't much for such an important experiment. It will take a couple of years or more to get enough data to either put this issue to bed, or revamp it.
 
Mule deer live in every conceivable habitat out there.

Desert to swamps, city to bfe from 14,000 ft to sea level. As far north as Canada and south into Mexico. Heavy forest to baron ground. They live everywhere. And to say they are less adaptable then any other species is just plain wrong. Especially when they enjoy a dispersal far greater then just about any other species in north america.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-03-12 AT 09:27PM (MST)[p]Deersman---You are talking a completely different angle when you start talking transplanting them compared to what you're talking about. Sure they live in all those different habitats and the animals that are in each of those different habitats might as well be another species because you aren't going to transplant ones from entirely different areas and expect them to adapt to totally different habitat and prosper. It just isn't that easy and if you had looked at all the attempts that have been made I don't think you would have made your post.
 
I would say give it a try. Like has been stated, the mule deer from the Kiabab were transplanted to Santa rosa island. A lot of good that did since they have now been exterminated. Instead of having a doe hunt on the kaibab, I would like to see them transpalnted to 13 a and 13 b here in az.
 
Maybe transplanting young deer would work better. I would guess a large percentage of what they move will die, but I'm sure that would be taken into consideration.
It would sure be nice to be able to move a hundred head of does from a trouble area, rather than kill them.
Cost will be an important factor too.....cost per animal moved....and cost per animal moved that survives more than 1 year.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
I think they'd be better off spending the cash on habitat restoration. Chain the old sage and some pj and replant. At the rate plants grow around here it wouldn't take long until the area would support those deer.
 
Before it has any chance for sucess you have to know if the area they will be transplanted into can support more deer. If it can then why has the herd not expanded to carring capacity on its own? Simply pulling animals from a herd that has exceeded its carrying capacity and plopping them down in an area that has not will not work unless some action is first taken to fix the issue of why the herd was low. If its habitat then the habitat needs to be fixed. If it predators then lower the predators. If it cars then build crossings. This is not like transplanting deer on to Santa Rosa island or transplanting Yellowstone elk. Those where transplants into areas where either the animals never existed or the herds had been entirely wiped out. Most if not all areas in Utah still have herds they are just dramatically low.

A worthy study I suppose but not the solution to the problem in my oppinion.
 
Transplanting will work, you will see that the will adapt and follow the other deer to their new winter range. I would like to see the DWR sell Transplant Tags, and move the other 150 does, instead of just killing them, make this a big project.
 
Discussion from the Wildlife Board Meeting on this starts at 3:29:00. Follow this link and then drag the the line over to the correct time. They don't issue transplant tags but it sounds like they are going to remove plenty of them (200 total) to give the range time to grow and focus on working on some replanting projects at the same time that SFW does their two tier transplant study. Lets hope for some success!!!!

WB Meeting Audio:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board_minutes/audio/12-05-03.mp3
 
I think right now we are pretty much talking about the Panguich does. These deer would be a good herd to experiment with. Take every thing you catch, don't mess around trying to separate out Bucks and Dry does.

There are plenty of bioligist with all different types of ideas about whether this sort of thing will work. Find one with a positive attitude and use him exclusively for the project.

Here is some of my ideas I brought up from another post.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
"klbzdad, Interesting thred and info. For about $20,000 in materials you could fence off three 5 acre catch pens that would work for at least three seasons.

Set them up in late fall in the heavy use areas of the winter ground and start baiting and provide water inside the trap. Put the haul trailers in place at the same time so as to condition the deer to to the whole set up.

Trailers should be some what padded and blacked out. When conditions are best catch as many as you can. Take them over to the Minerals or the Bald Ridges area . They would not be in the trailer much more than 2 hours. Plenty of low level habitat with the same kind of feed they are used to.

Find a can do type bioligist if you really have to have one and 20 or 30 volunteers. Forgo all the probing, testing, tagging, tranquilizing, and quarantining. Throw a cup of sheep dye on there back and let them go.

If it works keep on doing it, if it don't then start blasting.

No need moving the freeway."
 
Move them to Mt Dutton ( Horse Valley & Bull Rush ), it needs alot more deer, about one hour drive.
 
Survival rates are low, but the survival rates on doe tags are zero. Can you actually capture mule deer and move them without having to do massive testing and handling? I think there are better ways to spend the money, but if someone can come up with an effective transplant system, this could be another tool to help herds that have unusual circumstances (disease, winterkill, unusally high hunting success, etc).

I agree with mulecreek, if there are deer in an area and the densities are low, there is an environmental problem that needs to be solved. Predators, feed, water, escape cover all must be addressed. I've never seen an ideal mule deer environment with no mule deer.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-12 AT 02:07PM (MST)[p]>I agree with mulecreek, if there
>are deer in an area
>and the densities are low,
>there is an environmental problem
>that needs to be solved.
>Predators, feed, water, escape cover
>all must be addressed. I've
>never seen an ideal mule
>deer environment with no mule
>deer.


The Knowles on the other side of Cedar Mountain would be a small example. It would be nice if the animals we're talking about harvesting from would just move down there. In fact, there was a lop and scatter project just done South of Panguitch Lake for that very reason with excellent winter habitat around the Sage Hen Hallow tract. So from 143, Mammoth Highway, to 14 and down to 89 that area is perfect for winter range but is under utilized.
 
Well they should of started with transplanting the deer they slaughtered off Santa Rosa Island in December! That could have been a good test since they were sentenced to death anyways. Gotta love California politics!
 
>Maybe transplanting young deer would work
>better. I would guess a
>large percentage of what they
>move will die, but I'm
>sure that would be taken
>into consideration.
>It would sure be nice to
>be able to move a
>hundred head of does from
>a trouble area, rather than
>kill them.
>Cost will be an important factor
>too.....cost per animal moved....and cost
>per animal moved that survives
>more than 1 year.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com



cost yes! You should know by now how many people would donate by now with your years in this field!!
 
Regarding the Parowan Front does, the current plan, per the Wildlife Board meeting, is to still keep the 150 permits and also transplant 100 in 2 different sessions, 50 in December 2012 and 50 in March 2013. The reason for the different times is to see how well they do and whether or not the timing makes a difference. They will also collar them all with a GPS collar for further research on the causes of mortality and for the prevention of spreading diseases (CWD). They will also take various samples to check for various diseases, parasites, diet, body composition, etc. This truly will be as much or more of a study than just a transplant. I suspect that this will probably happen for the next few years until we can find more of a solution for transplanting than we have so far. Personally, I think this is a good approach because we remove 250 deer which is closer to the number the DWR and BLM would like and it gets us closer to a more permanent long term solution. If we can get to a substantially higher transplanting survival rate, the DWR will likely approve it and the the funds will be easier to manage for everyone.

As to the reasons for the current low survival rate, there are a lot of things to consider. I certainly don't know all the details, but I do know that there is a lot more to it than just capturing the number you want removed and hauling them off to wherever you think you could use them. Mule deer are indeed habitat specific, and more so, it seems, than most other big game species. Their delicate digestive system, their social structure, their migration habits, their bedding patterns and their ability to avoid predators and humans are all geared to their "home" habitat. When you take that away, they have a difficult time adjusting. Add to that the social competition from resident deer and it becomes even more of a challenge.

When you consider the success of the Santa Rosa Island transplant, keep in mind there were no predators capable of taking deer, no resident deer, a moderate climate, no need for migration, few humans/hunters, few roads, no high speed vehicles, and a confined area. It's a much different situation now.

Maybe some of those challenges can be overcome with more research, but it won't be easy and will certainly take a while. In the meanwhile, (and probably afterward as well.) we still have to remove some of those mouths by killing them, because the costs of transplanting the number we need to remove is prohibitive. IMHO, of course.
 
There is a lot of study and work being done by the Utah State University on this. They have been doing studies in the past and have some movement of deer that they have had in their studies. There is much studys that have been done since the transplants that were done years ago. Some deer years ago were put on the Henries when the deer were almost non existant there. Many survived. Lots of new studies have been done and hopefully with these studies the transplants well be successful. At least they are not going into this blind. Lots of pre work and studies are being done to help make it a success.
 
I hope it works.

I personally wouldn't put any money into it. The reason being we won't be tranplanting into areas where mule deer are not established. We will be transplanting into areas where the herd is "suffering." Sure that makes sense after a hard winter that wipes 'em out, but most people seem to believe the declines are inexplicable. Just throwing a bunch of deer into an area where the established herd can't make it doesn't sound like a good answer.

We need to figure out fawn recruitment if we are to effectively go to another level.
 
Seems to me the danger for the Mule Deer is going to be during the capture/handling process. Healthy MD released into decent MD habitat will probably do OK.
 
>Seems to me the danger for
>the Mule Deer is going
>to be during the capture/handling
>process. Healthy MD released into
>decent MD habitat will probably
>do OK.

Actually, the opposite is true. There is only a small lose in the capture itself, though some of the later deaths may be due to capture injuries or stress. But the real problems start upon the release.

Maybe this is a poor analogy, but can you imagine rounding up fifty of your neighbors at random and hauling them off to live in New York City or even to a nearby Utah town of the same elevation and size. What'll happen? And this is just with a species that has the ability to reason, that has highly developed communication skills, knows something about the destination, has a sense of compassion for others of it's kind, knows the relationships of the "neighbors", etc. Deer have none of those things. Add to that the biological challenges, especially of the rumenant digestive system, and you have an idea what the deer have to overcome.
 
Panguitch Lake, Mt Dutton, Beaver, Monroe ars all the same, the deer will do just fine. When we buy 100 head of cows in Richfield and put them on the south end of the Beaver they do mingle with the other cows and follow them off the range in the fall to ranch, the deer will do the same.
 
>Panguitch Lake, Mt Dutton, Beaver, Monroe
>ars all the same, the
>deer will do just fine.
>When we buy 100 head
>of cows in Richfield and
>put them on the south
>end of the Beaver they
>do mingle with the other
>cows and follow them
>off the range in the
>fall to ranch, the deer
>will do the same.

Great! Just contact the DWR, BLM, FS, SFW, and Dr. Randy Larson with that information and we're good to go. UWC and others, I'm sure, will be more than happy to help with the project.
 
This is a feel good project, but I wonder how effective it will be? I think we are putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. If you had to choose the best way of filling a leaky bucket would you choose to pour more water into it or to fix the leaks in the bucket? To me dumping more deer into areas that don't seem to be able to maintain numbers is like pouring more water into a leaky bucket and expecting it to stay full. We have to get at the root causes of why we don't recruit new animals into the populations (i.e. fix the leaks in the bucket). Growing and maintaining deer populations has more to do with habitat, roads, predators, weather, elk, etc. than anything else.

That being said, if we go ahead and do this I hope I am wrong and it works like a miracle and all the transplanted deer survive for years and have big healthy triplets every spring.


Dax

There is no such thing as a sure thing in trophy mule deer hunting.
 
>This is a feel good project,
>but I wonder how effective
>it will be? I
>think we are putting a
>band aid on a gunshot
>wound. If you had
>to choose the best way
>of filling a leaky bucket
>would you choose to pour
>more water into it or
>to fix the leaks in
>the bucket? To me
>dumping more deer into areas
>that don't seem to be
>able to maintain numbers is
>like pouring more water into
>a leaky bucket and expecting
>it to stay full.
>We have to get at
>the root causes of why
>we don't recruit new animals
>into the populations (i.e. fix
>the leaks in the bucket).
> Growing and maintaining deer
>populations has more to do
>with habitat, roads, predators, weather,
>elk, etc. than anything else.
>
>
>That being said, if we go
>ahead and do this I
>hope I am wrong and
>it works like a miracle
>and all the transplanted deer
>survive for years and have
>big healthy triplets every spring.
>
>
>
>Dax
>
>There is no such thing as
>a sure thing in trophy
>mule deer hunting.

You're correct about the leaky bucket, but the real reason for most mule deer transplants now is the removal of the deer from overused range and the releasing is pretty much an afterthought. In fact, it becomes part of the challenge.

You're right also about the habitat, weather, etc. but that takes time and the deer removals (hunts and transplants) will give us the time.
 
Ahhh... someone actually thinking!!!!!!

"The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle." General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, US Army
"Most men go through life wondering if they made a difference, Marines don't have that problem." President Ronald Regan
 
Would prefer it to doe tags. However, other than as a depredation tool(no lethal) it will never be a fix for the lack of total population. Its not like some other state has so many deer they will trade for something(like we do with other species).


When they came for the road hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the oppurtunists I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for the public land hunters I was not one so I said nothing. When they came for me there was no one left to say anything!
 

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