Mule Deer Population Dynamics: Issues and Influences

[BigGameHunter24816]

The link is to a document prepared by Nevada biologists on mule deer which brings light to a lot of the topics MM'er discuss.... thought it was worth sharing.

http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/muledeer.pdf

 

[AZWALKER]

Good read, thanks for posting. I hope some of our local armchair biologists take the time to read this.

"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

 

[mmwb]

Most of the arm chair biologist will discount what they disagree with as lack of competence on the part of the professional biologists.

 

[Packout]

Here is an interesting release from NV for 2012.

Mule Deer ? After the second consecutive year of a modest increase in Nevada?s mule deer population estimate, a series of factors are contributing to NDOW?s increased tag quota recommendations in many areas. Some of these areas have been growing rapidly with commensurate increases in their buck ratios, some of those same areas experienced significant tag reductions last year allowing for increases in the buck ratios. Further exacerbating the issue, many of those same areas had exceptionally high production AND recruitment due to a favorable 2010-11 winter, good summer, and very mild 2011-12 winter. Nevada continues to maintain one of the highest post-hunt buck ratio objectives in the country with many areas well over 30 bucks per one hundred does. The 1980s have been regarded by many as the ?hay day? for mule deer in Nevada. Therefore, for comparative purposes, harvest strategies from the 1980s are considered relative to those used today.

Buck ratios in the 1980s ranged in the low to mid 20s per 100 does. Today, Nevada?s quota recommendations are extremely conservative and if approved would result in a post-hunt buck ratio of 30.

Bucks typically comprised roughly 26% of the population in the 1980s, today bucks comprise approximately 32% of the population.
Of the available bucks in our deer population in 2011 we harvested around 21.5%. In the mid 1980s we harvested up to 36% of our bucks.

In 2011, Nevada?s post hunt buck ratio objectives were nearly 50% higher than post-hunt buck ratio objectives in the 1980s.

Unnecessary quota reductions in 2011 of 25% in most areas of the state, exaggerated an already overly conservative process and resulted in the highest post hunt buck ratio ever observed.
Nevada currently possesses a population of 112,000 mule deer with 35,000 bucks. In 1985 there was an estimated 155,000 deer with 44,000 bucks. Today?s higher buck ratios can sustain a higher level of harvest because a much higher percentage of the population is bucks.

Higher percentages of bucks in the herd do not equate to higher quality deer OR herd growth, but may in fact limit fawn recruitment via competition for limited winter range in some areas.

We should not continue to stockpile bucks when there are limited benefits to buck quality and likely detrimental effects on recruitment and herd size associated with doing so.

At the current statewide average of approximately 38% hunter success and 42% 4 point or better, it's important to understand that a 10 tag increase does not equate to 10 dead 4-point bucks as many hunters may imagine. For each 10 tags issued, the average result will be 4 dead bucks with 1 and in some cases 2 being 4-points or better. 20 tags typically results in close to 7 dead deer, on average 3 of which should be 4-points or better.

In the case that social carrying capacity (the maximum number of hunters that is socially acceptable in the field) is significantly lower than the biological carrying capacity, the value of continuing to conduct aerial surveys in those areas should be carefully evaluated.

http://www.ndow.org/about/news/pr/2012/April/2012_quota.shtm

 

[AZWALKER]

"Higher percentages of bucks in the herd do not equate to higher quality deer OR herd growth, but may in fact limit fawn recruitment via competition for limited winter range in some areas."

I've been screaming it and most just ignore it, more bucks do not make a healthy herd but some will just not get it. How many damn times have we heard "They need to cut tags"? Cut tags in a buck only harvest areas... to help the herd grow..... really!?!?!?!

Of course this great topic will go largly ignored because there is too much fact and biology involved.


"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

 

[flinger]

Interesting to read how old sagebrush is not very good for deer because of digestibility issues, even if protein levels are similar. Needs to be young sage or young bitterbrush which will allow for better leader growth which is what the deer need. Maybe that drought that killed off lots of old sagebrush was a good thing which now allows for more younger sage to take its place. Of course I'm speaking from my armchair.. Thanks for the good reads.

 

[SMELLYBUCK]

I like the phrase "stock piling bucks". That is all we are really doing when we cut buck tags. So many trophy hunters wax eloqent with making their biological case. It's far more an issue of now or later than biology.

 

[theox]

>Interesting to read how old sagebrush
>is not very good for
>deer because of digestibility issues,
>even if protein levels are
>similar. Needs to be
>young sage or young bitterbrush
>which will allow for better
>leader growth which is what
>the deer need.
>Maybe that drought that killed
>off lots of old sagebrush
>was a good thing which
>now allows for more younger
>sage to take its place.
> Of course I'm speaking
>from my armchair.. Thanks
>for the good reads.

exactly the reason we need fires and we need to use spike on sage and we need to cut sage. ive said it a million times deer are not eating the sage. if they were we would have a million plus deer with all our sage.

 

[tx_packmule]

>exactly the reason we need fires
>and we need to use
>spike on sage and we
>need to cut sage. ive
>said it a million times
>deer are not eating the
>sage. if they were we
>would have a million plus
>deer with all our sage.
>

it'll help a lot if everything goes right or is done one small tract at a time. If precipitation doesn't follow, no one wants to take the heat for that disaster. Quite a few folks in or state experienced that with the drought and fires of the past cpl years.

 

[mmwb]

So true. While deer do eat sage, along with several hundred other different plants, it is a minor contributor to the overall diet if the deer have the better choices.

 

[BPKHunter]

I think it's interesting how 100's of responses come from any of the SFW or Predator posts, but when someone posts a very well documented history and explanation of what has happened to mule deer, that I believe is applicable well outside of just Nevada, we only have 9 responses.

Come on all you uneducated experts that say the biologists are all just idiots or agents of the anti's, let's hear your take on why it's all simple and no one else get's it......

I think the points in this paper show the complexity of how the factors are unfortunately stacked against the mule deer and how impossible getting the hay day's back will ever be.

Yes it will be very important to keep predators in check, and to not overharvest does at the wrong time, but it makes a very compelling case that most states don't have the carrying capacity, based on forage, that they used to and simply can't rebound unless Mother Nature allows all the stars to align for many years running. Even if we do the habitat work to bring the plant succession that allowed for the favorable conditions from the early 1900's, it will take 20-30 years to see the significant benefits. At best in the meantime we can expect More and Less lean years relative to the the good times.

 

[klbzdad]

+100000000

 

[tx_packmule]

>Come on all you uneducated experts
>that say the biologists are
>all just idiots or agents
>of the anti's, let's hear
>your take on why it's
>all simple and no one
>else get's it......
>

I'll play, but don't think they're idiots, they just have their hands tied. People can forget inflated populations, biologists should forget inflated populations of "heydays" and focus on the CC of winter range and improving winter range and transition areas.....and shooting off competition and predators. It would require a lot of money spent on supplemental protein feeding stations and planted foodplots/crops/fertilizer with irrigation systems, but the more dependent animals are on people, the easier they are to manage. I'm 100% positive there will be a lot of people disagree with this concept, but it's just an idea to throw out there.

 

[BPKHunter]

tx_pack:
I assume your opinion is based on your experience managing private property for whitetails?

Do they have similar diet's?

I'm not a fan in any way of deer farming, but I find it interesting there are plenty of whitetail and elk "high fence" operations, but Mule deer so I wonder if they respond?

 

[tx_packmule]

BPK,

Your assumption would be correct.

As browsers they have very similar diets. As far as protein consumption goes, they'll hit it when they need it and won't when they can get what they need from natural browse. For instance, our places and buddies' places in West Tx have now seen consumption skyrocket as does are starting to domino. Fences are going up like crazy for them in West TX and MX and they are producing some studs. It shouldn't have to come down to that though, the same principles can be administered without the fences. Not sure how it would do in regards to CWD, but best case scenario is it would put controls in place for research; I just know despite all the feeding we, Texans,l the state has had no documented cases of it.

I'm not too awful big on the put & take operations and trying to alter genetics with transplants, but I do like catering to deer and fixing up properties to get the most out of them; and I'm personally too cheap to get a HF built and there's always a good chance the deer will slip off properties and others will shoot them and for the past 2 years I've really hoped one particular deer would do that so someone can shoot him before he dies of old age... it didn't happen though so waiting to see if he's still kicking or how much further he's declined.

 

[Kirby]

Good read. Wish more people would take the time to read it and ask questions about what they don't understand.


When in doubt, floor it.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you find a big stick.

 

[AZWALKER]

Other researxh that has been done shows that deer can handle predation if there is good forage. That cannot however handle less/poor forage and predators. Predators are much easier to control than mother nature. Yes, there are many many factors that contribute to the decline in number but we need to control what we can control. We can't make it rain but we can kill predators. I do realize though that its different when you throw winter range deer in the mix but all that tells me is they need to burn out the old sage brush and get new stuff growing while they are doing intensive predator management. And... We as hunters need to quit screaming for less buck tags! If depts are going to fix this, they need all the revenue they can get.

"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

 

[Zeke]

>Other researxh that has been done
>shows that deer can handle
>predation if there is good
>forage.

The deer who was killed by the predator doesn't handle it so well...... but it is part of nature.
We certainly don't miss a few that are killed by predators IF we have more than a few to begin with.

Zeke

 

[AZWALKER]

It is nature but... Is it nature when you throw hunters in the mix? No hit on you but that's what the antis want. They want the natural balance restored as if we aren't here so they can eliminate hunting. Why do you think they want wolves and lions? Their true motivation is eliminating hunters then eventually the need for guns.

Some may not like this but I'm gonna be real here. There's only room for one top predator and if its between me and coyotes, lions or wolves, I vote for me. Right now the west cannot sustain mule deer with the current number of predators. If we want to continue to keep our position as top predatorsn we need to eliminate the competition or drastically reduce it. If we dontn mule deer numbers will eventually dwindle to nothing is some areas. What the antis won't accept is we are part of nature, just as much as the 4 legged versions. They want hunters to appear as aliens when we aren't, we are part of the ecosystem. If its between me or a coyote that eventually kills that deer, I want it to be me or another hunter, let the coyote die. I know its sounds harsh but its just reality.

These are the choices we have to make right now. Until we get moisture and stop fire supression, we will have to remove predators or lose our tags.

"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

 

[Zeke]

Oh, you missed my point but I agree with your last post 100%. If it's between me or a pred, I'll take me.
You're the one who said herds could stand predation. My comment was if you were the deer who fell victim to predation whould you stand for it? Probably not.
I agree 100% with you. I would rather have some surplus to hunt than have the predators kill all the young before they can grow up. Roads, fences, predators, hunter harvest etc all must be managed. Hunters are certainly managed and so should the other things which affect herds.
Zeke

 

[AZWALKER]

My bad Zeke, I must have misundertood you. I get what you're saying.

I'm all for having a fair balance of predators but we must include ourselves as top predator in that equation. We also have to be willing to pay for the removal of predators and take part in it. And we need to stop putting these fires out unless they threaten homes.

"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

 

[mevertsen]

AZ Walker - you mentioned killing off the old sage and letting new stuff grow. Good concept really. Problem is most of the winter range in NV that gets burned turns into cheat grass monocultures for several years, even with good planting. For example area 6 has about 1.5 million acres burned over the last few years. There is some Kosha in there now, but it just keeps burning, and can't recover fast enough for the deer. The winter range is limited severly, and no matter how many predators are killed, that winter range is only going to allow a certain amount of animals to survive to spring. Look at 92-93. Several years of drought followed by a severe winter and it wiped out most of the deer in the area - before the real big burns.

 

[AZWALKER]

I have to admit, I tend to be one dimentional in my thinking sometimes. I live in AZ and we don't have the need for "winter range". When discussing these topics I forget what other states have to deal with in that aspect. In a winter range situation, carrying capacity takes on a whole new meaning. You could completely remove predators and still not have enough forage for the deer. Shoot, where I hunt, a deer could live its entire life in one square mile if it had cover food and water and weather would have zero impact.

In Nevadas situation, it might take the tedious process oof physically removing old sagebrush instead of burning it. I can't imagine how that could be done on the scale needed to actually have an impact. I di know that thinning of pinion/juniper stands could have a positive effect. We need to do that here in AZ as well and do. The Arizona Elk Society just did a big project a couple weekends ago where they went in and removed a lot of PJ.

Lately it feels like throughout the west, if deer had 3 things they could handle and still have healthy herds, they gotta deal with 4 things. Whether its down here in the desert or up in the mountains, there's that one kicker that is making it too hard on the deer. In my area its coyotes, in some areas its winter range and in some areas in something else but everywhere we look its something. I can sit here and pound my chest about predators and that might apply where I hunt but just up the road its something different. I guess the only real solution is for as many of us as possible to get educated about what is happening in our own little corner and help our depts with that specific issue. We're going to have to micro-manage our local herds. The problem is, I don't think participation would be sufficient. In a perfect worls, you would have sportsmen that concentrated the efforts in their own areas, worked with the wildlife managers for that area and found the funding to deal with their local issues. I'm sure that is happening in some areas but I positive its not consistant across mule deer country in the west. It also boggles my mind how some sportsmen are so completely dogmatic in their approach to deer management. "Close down units, lower buck tags..." Blah blah blah... Educate yourselves and stop forcing the depts to manage you instead of the flipping deer! That's all I have to say about that.



"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

 

[tx_packmule]

Cutting back can help out a lot if the numbers aren't there. The goal is to maintain CC and be able to shoot to keep things in check, not shooting anyway and praying for a rebound. We have to deal with coyotes like no other and the habitat they have to live in makes it impossible to put a noticeable dent in them, to combat it, prey saturation needs to occur and the fawns need to all be hitting the ground at about the same time.