A bigger problem for Mule Deer

[lostinOregon]

I have been around for years, but mostly lurk instead of posting. I have been watching the SFW/MDF and conservation group debate heating up for the last several years. I am hoping to get folks to think a little bit about a bigger picture. The economy is our biggest enemy right now, let me explain.

As all of you know we have been in a long term depression for a lack of better terms. As a result of this continued depression I have notices that several states are increasing their tag numbers even though the numbers don't support the increase. Only one state that I have observed responded to the bad winter of 08 and that is Colorado, and many of you debate if it was enough.

The economy has affected the states ability to affectively manage game properly. So, most states run on a 2 year budget cycle. In the past, before the depression, generally speaking, taxes kept pace with increases in personal services. Personal services are usually about 70% of an agencies budget because people are the most expensive line item. So to maintain a current service level, (CSL) agency budgets have to increase anywhere from 8 to 12 percent in this economy.This increase has outpaced tax increases with unemployment at such a high level we have reached a breaking point for most state agencies. Health care and retirement costs are the biggest drivers. The retirement systems of the states are not currently funded at 100% due to the stock market not returning historical investment percentages and everyone knows about the health care debate. States are working on reducing benefits associated with employee costs but it won't be enough. Oregon initieated furlough days, cuts to retirement systems and pay part of your healthcare so that is not the whole solution.

State fish and game agencies generally compete for their funds in the legislature against schools, economic developement and human services. Wildlife doesn't compete in that environment. We blame the state agencies but there is no way they are going to beat the lobbys for school, business and the social welfare system. Watch your legislative session this year in your home state. Watch the bus loads of kids that the schools send to the legislature each year as part of their marketing campaign.

So the only option left is to cut services, or increase revenue, hence the tag increases and the fleecing of non-residents across the west. Didn't Arizona just raise there elk quotas which have been conservative over the years. What happened in Nevada last year on the deer tag numbers. Did Wyoming adjust tag numbers after the bad winter of 08? Should I conintue, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming.....

IMHO opinion this is trend is going to continue until the economy improves. I am not optimistic as forecasts show a slow increase over time, but not the boom that is needed.

So when we debate if SFW is going to keep getting the tags for the expo, I can tell you they will because it is tied into politics and economic development now. The business world of SLC has their fingers in the tag pie now because of the motels, tourism in the city associated with the expo. No going back now, no matter what. Who are the legislators going to listen to, a non resident or a business that throws in a campaign contribution to the legsilator that keeps the tags at the Expo in SLC. We as hunters are the most un-organized lobby out there in the political world.

I know this will be controversial but our biggest ally in the political world in protecting wildlife is landowners. They are organized across the west and can get things done. As an example the Colorado land owner voucher program which will increase their allotment this year int he legislature even though we post until we are blue in the face about how outragous this is. We should allign with the groups that have the same agenda as we do.

So, when tags continue to increase, not supported by the resource or at a level that doesn't allow a healthy herd what is the solution. It will be 37 below in Gunnison this week. Is the winter range in good enough condition to sustain the deer if this continues? I am sure that MDF and groups are too busy counting how many tags they have instead of preparing to step in if needed. I have lost faith that the conservation organizations are transparent and are in it for the right reasons, mule deer.

SFW, MDF, RMF are too busy fighting each other to pay attention to the big problem. A divided hunting community is the easiest to conquer.

Please look down the road 10 years and tell me how we are going to save mule deer. I am passionate about mule deer and each year I get more and more concerned about their future. Thanks for listening, good luck in the draws,

Rich

 

[elkun]

the mule deer are gone, they are not coming back, if we have the number of mule deer we have to day, in ten years, we will have done a hell of job, for them,,,

 

[Pcjr21]

I'm not old enough to know what it was like hunting the western states in the 80's and have only hunted in a general tag and or real easy draw areas. I spend a lot of time doing the research and hunt where the area biologist tell me the deer are. One of the areas I hunt in Idaho the biologist tell me the deer population is great but the other hunters and locals tell me there are no deer, and to many hunters! But for the life of me I can't seem to find all the hunters and I'm seeing lots of deer!
What I'm getting at is I think part of the problem "at least where I have hunted" is the presser on the deer has changed. More road hunters, guys area not getting off the road to find the deer, why would the deer be where all the roads and hunters are. In Utah where I hunter there were hunters all over the mountain top to bottom and it forced the deer to move more, so you seen more deer. Another thing is the AG land, in northers California there is so much food and water down low the the deer are not up high where they used to be at all and the population is great! The deer are smart why live up high, when you are safer down low in the private with no presser. Maybe it's just me and I don't know what it used to be like. To me if the biologist tells me the population is good and I'm not seeing deer i just move to where people are not hunting. For a bunch of guys on public ground, general tags, little out of state experience, we have done real well. But maybe it's not are effort, or research, maybe it's luck year after year! O and stop killing the small bucks!

 

[rockymtnhunter]

I've been hunting muleys since the late '60's and here are my observations/opinions in terms of what's happened to deer herds in Utah (and throughout the West generally):
1. Direct loss of habitat, esp. crucial winter range - I'm stunned when I seen how much habitat has been lost - just look at places like Summit County, Park City/Jordanelle, Heber Valley, Strawberry, Duchesne, Uintah Basin, and on and on.
2. Indirect loss of habitat and disturbance/harassment due to ORV-ATV use - this is my biggest frustration when hunting 'cuz I see and hear ATV's everywhere - deer are hard pressed to find undisturbed habitat. This has been a huge negative change during the past 10-20 years. It's no coincidence that most of the high quality hunting areas in Utah are also the most remote and undisturbed (Henry's, Book Cliffs, Paunsagunt) or the Arizona Strip in AZ. We unwittingly sacrificed quality hunting in the name of easy access made possible by our technology.
3. Too many permits issued, even in the face of declining herds in the name of maintaining revenue ($$$). Hunters need to be the first to support bringing harvest levels in line with sustainable deer herds.
4. A number of hard winters & drought over the past 30+ years (and then combine this with 1, 2 and 3 above) and deer get a quadruple whammy.
5. And then we think that predators like coyotes are the main problem with deer herds- IMO only because 1 to 4 above have created the prerequisite conditions for predators to further
drive down herds.

 

[provoflyfisher]

Excellent points rockymthunter! I agree with each and every well articulated point you made. But would add loss of habitat due to both human encroachment, in the areas you mention, as well as 50 years of wildfire suppression. A lot of older class browse needs to be replaced with more nutritional younger plants and too much pinyon/juniper is taking over essential winter feeding areas.

 

[accubond]

Couldn't agree more with posts 3 and 4!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never has and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[3blade]

You could add restricted logging as well.

 

[G1]

I have stated this before but I will keep saying it. In Oregon we need to "let the dogs out". Mountain lions are the number one reason here in my area that deer are declining so rapidly (but there are some very close other causes as well). The other reason is high elk numbers competeing for the same winter range food source. A friend pointed it out that when all other options are exhausted they will compete for the same forage base. In cases of deep snow, elk can reach higher and thus have a wider forage base in deep snow than deer. It would not take many days for a deer to starve coming out of a low food value year. I also feel that logging would spread out the animals, with so much food on the ground logging increases the avaialble food base and also creates trails which are easier to navigate than 2 feet of snow. The winter range would be expanded artificially and then have less stress. I think that in the pre-anti logging era we had deer numbers that were artificially inflated thus now we are seeing what the winter range can really support (high elk numbers and low deer numbers). Fire has been argued to be a benefit, but when an area is totally charred there is nothing to eat, thus a significant loss of habitat and an over crowding of another area. When a burn regrows they appear to over grow to where the food is rank and hard to get through with little food value. One other benefit of logging is that when done correctly it "opens" the canopy and allows more small plants to grow thus increasing food value for every thing. When I go into the woods I see areas that are over grown with zero food (no grass, shrubs etc). People who say I shot a 24" buck and so did my buddy and we saw a bunch of small bucks need to consider that in Oregon deer can be 24" at three years old, these are not mature bucks. How many true white faces are you seeing? I have deer in my back yard and have began to realize that these deer are younger than I imagined and change a great deal in the first four years of their life as far as antlers are concerned. I hope somebody in charge of game management will read this and help our deer out before it is to late.

 

[elkassassin]

I'll have to agree with most of what's Posted above!

"""THE DEER HERD IS NOT COMMING BACK"""!

You hear that?

Even if it did come back a little You'd have the DWR with $$$ Signs rolling in their Eyes!

Then You'd have the Opportunists Screaming their Heads off for more Tags because they seen some DINK/PISSCUTTER 3 & 4 Points that somehow survived all the Damn Hunts that go on for Months!

GREEDY BASTARDS!

I could Easily Post 30 Reasons why the Mule Deer Ain't coming Back,most TARDS Blame one thing & one thing only when in Reality it's a big combination of reasons/things!

I'd truly like to know how many Bucks in the General Units are taken that are the Ripe old age of 4 years old or better?

REMEMBER TARDS,Mule Deer Bucks don't make it to their Potential until a few years after they wipe the Milk off their Lipps!






"""Supporting Speed Limits doesn't make You Anti Car"""

No & You'll never Fix STUPID or WACKO'S by changing Gun Laws You Dumb BITTCH!

 

[Pcjr21]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-13 AT 11:54PM (MST)[p]Asking a question- reflecting off above post from Oregon.
Again I have only been old enough to hunting out of state since the 2002, but do you think that the areas can winter larger populations of deer? From some of the areas I have seen, the areas that can hold the bigger winter herds do and the areas that can't don't. I know that's what the biologist would also say. " if the population in his unit is good in his opinion."
So what can we do, if all the AG land that can help winter deer has not changed and the only other factor for wintering ground is urban development. It seams like one Min. I hear people say they are worried about winter feed and the next the populations are to small? Are we partly doomed because of the expansion of the west and will never have the room to winter large herds? I like everyone want more deer, I just like to generate good talking points from what someone from the other side would ask. Sometimes I come off as being on the wrong side of the issue but maybe I just like to argue!

 

[Pcjr21]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-13 AT 00:12AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-13 AT 00:06?AM (MST)

>LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-13
>AT 11:54?PM (MST)
>
>Asking a question- reflecting off above
>post from Oregon.
>Again I have only been old
>enough to hunting out of
>state since the 2002, but
>do you think that the
>areas can winter larger populations
>of deer? From some of
>the areas I have seen,
>the areas that can hold
>the bigger winter herds do
>and the areas that can't
>don't. I know that's what
>the biologist would also say.
>" if the population in
>his unit is good in
>his opinion."
>So what can we do, if
>all the AG land that
>can help winter deer has
>not changed and the only
>other factor for wintering ground
>is urban development. It seams
>like one Min. I hear
>people say they are worried
>about winter feed and the
>next the populations are to
>small? Are we partly
>doomed because of the expansion
>of the west and will
>never have the room to
>winter large herds? I like
>everyone want more deer, I
>just like to generate good
>talking points from what someone
>from the other side would
>ask. Sometimes I come off
>as being on the wrong
>side of the issue but
>maybe I just like to
>argue!



My own opinion, we are out of winter ground and can not keep every animal. IMHO on my own question, is to kill off the white tail, I think they will be the next biggest threat to mule deer in places like idaho. Not only will they fight for food they will I breed with the mule deer and we will lose the genetics of the mule deer!

One thing about out of staters is we don't drive all the way to are spots to kill little bucks and that is another part of a solution!

 

[tx_packmule]

Rich,
I don't know if there's a feasible solution to significantly improve the mule deer herds. Today?s management practices are all about trying to find balance between competing species and to improve one herd means you've got to weed out their competition. I don't see people getting onboard with the idea of wiping out the elk population. There?s only so much winter range and it isn't a true numbers game when it comes to the CC of that habitat, since consumption to maintain is a percentage of body weight.

Gunnison looked to be prepping for another disaster from the looks of Blue Mesa. Cold weather is going to increase the calorie intake and not sure there was enough moisture for the nutrition needed to be there, but luckily the numbers aren't there like they once were and a lot of the bucks are too young to be heavily involved in breeding to get the weight pulled off of them going into the high stress time. There was also a lot of cattle in the area last I checked and that's not going to help anything.

Since you mention SFW, RMEF, MDF, etc., the money generated from tags should have never been allowed to leave the G&F departments. There?s a strong demand for those tags, no reason to have to take a hit on them by letting some other group do what a G&F dept. could do themselves.

****I don't think vehicle traffic and quad traffic plays a heavy factor in anything (excluding them getting hit on highways) these deer don't know any different and animals adapt to things like that. If they cared a whole lot they'd avoid towns and highways like the plague, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Demand has surpassed supply by a long shot and there's no way to shrink that margin. Everyone knows when that happens the price is supposed to go up, but that line of thinking would get met with stiff opposition. To counter that, bump up something that isn't as noticeable to the pocketbook. Let's go with habitat stamp increase of $10-15 collected from all applicants. Hunters might not like that, so let's spread that out to others. How about a APR (Annual Public Recreation) stamp for those who wish to enter public land to hike, jog, ride bikes, etc. of $20; those folks play a part in messing up the roads too. (That stamp would be covered by the cost of habitat stamp for those who have purchased it)

The biggest problem trying to manage for the public is the public. What needs to happen and what does happen aren't always the same things because you still have to play politics and keep up public relations. You can't manage properly while trying to please everyone and not have the ability to change things up midstream.

David

 

[rockymtnhunter]

To all - good questions and discussion. I agree that sound & sustainable timber mgt(i.e logging) is part of the solution, if there is ever to be one (BTW I have a forestry degree and worked for the USFS in UT, AZ & WY) so hopefully I know a little bit about such things...same for fire mgt - fire is an effective mgt tool for maintaining & improving deer habitat, but over-aggressive & unneeded (in some instances) fire suppression over the past 70-80+ years has resulted in loss of diverse deer habitat. And competition between deer & elk is also a factor but I'm not sure exactly how - but elk populations have generally gone way up while deer populations have steadily declined in the past 20-30 years - so there must be a correlation. I guess I agree to disagree regarding ATV use...all I know is that deer are displaced away from their habitat by the noise, development of ATV trails/roads, the movement, and the accompanying human activity that follows ATVs. And maybe deer can tolerate it when they have habitat available to them to escape to or hide, but that is less and less the case.

Regarding the thoughts about agricultural lands (if I understood it right) providing suitable habitat in place of public non-ag lands -- I agree that both ag and non-ag lands are needed for healthy sustainable deer herds, but I think there are times when this is problematic and here's why...

In most of the West, ag lands tend to be lower elevation and privately-owned (and that's OK). These lands also tend to be crucial winter range - and crucial winter range is the critical habitat bottleneck for deer herds in most places. In fact, so critical that the relationship between deer herd size and crucial winter range is almost 1:1, meaning if the area of crucial winter range is reduced by 50%, then the deer herd is reduced by 50% think about that you seen how much winter range has been lost over the past 40-50 years - no surprise to me that deer herds have crashed in may areas. Availability of summer range is seldom a limiting factor on deer herds.

But another consequence is often that ag lands allow little, if any, public access. In many cases deer (& elk) may be found on higher elevation public lands during the summer/early fall, but then are pushed onto the lower elevation private ag lands by hunter pressure (which tend to be have more hunters and resultant disturbance/pressure then private lands). Thus oft times deer/elk become unaccessible to public land hunters.

In many places in the West lack of public access to public lands is a major problem - unfortunately there are instances where privately-owned lands block or restrict access to public lands. But hunters should work with private landowners to address this issue. Here in MT many large ranches adjacent to public lands are being purchased and then locked up for use as private "game preserves" along with the adjacent public lands because these landowners will not allow public access across the ranch to the public lands. This happened to one of my favorite elk hunting areas this year. Anyway, public access is probably a whole different topic.

 

[k22hornet]

Lots of issues affect mule deer, most of which have been mentioned.

I think predators have a huge influence on deer numbers. Back in the 1960's, and earlier, predators were shot on sight. Mountain lions were turned into a big game animal with a season and harvest quotas here in Colorado back in 1965. The result is more big cats, now estimates are between 3-5,000. The estimate is one cat kills one deer per week, so that works out to 260,000 deer killed in Colorado each year just by lions.

Coyotes are another factor, with their numbers increasing due to trapping being all but banned in Colorado. A member of a predator hunting site claims his game camera was set up in view of a coyote den and the coyote parents bought 18 different deer fawns to the den one year.

When the predators were killed on the Kaibab Plateau in the early 1900's the deer herd grew rapidly, and with no hunting being allowed, they soon outgrew the available food.

 

[G1]

Having read the responses there are a few things that I would like to point out, first hug a rancher. Every time one of these old family ranches goes down a developer buys it and divides the land into as small of an area as he can and builds houses. Thus an area that held 100 deer now holds 20. In my area there was the most cattle and logging and people when we had the most deer (60's). As the cow numbers out on the forest have decreased so has the deer number. Places where cows have been removed there are few to no deer now and you only have giant weed patches. Cows keep the rank browse cleared out and make available much more tender shoots, I used to work an alotment and the deer followed the cattle. Most ranchers here feed the cattle in the winter and the winter range is open to the deer. While the cows are out in the summer the deer are in the fields, then the cows come home and the deer go to the winter range. The last problem that was shown to me by a wildlife bio is that winter range damage is coming in the form of elk. The elk are on the winter range now from the middle of August to May before the snow lets some of them move. 1/3 of the elk never leave the winter range now. Do the deer a favor and shoot an elk! I do. I do not like animal preserves, as they result in mobs of wildlife that end up doing more damage than cattle could ever think of. The people who buy the land and create this only keep the hunters from hunting animals they have paid to hunt. I do not want the government to gain the power to tell me what I or anybody else has to do with out my consent, so that is a problem for which I do not have a solution (animal hoarding). As for access fees I am very opposed. Timber receipts are supposed to pay for road maintenance. Maybe close the roads if they are not able to be maintained? My question is if we are the ones paying for the opportunity to have wildlife and as gained from this post people have a very good grasp on the problems why is nothing done? Call your state senator and your local bio and tell him what you think, repeatedly (not one phone call but one phone call a month). It has worked for me. I think the solution for muledeer lies with the hunters, we just need to stop hunting long enough to help the deer.

 

[rockymtnhunter]

How 'bout this for a (partial) solution - I know it's radical & off the wall and probably most people will puke on it, but maybe it's worth thinking about...

Utah now has 30 deer hunting units - what if out of every ten year period, each unit was "rested" for 3 years? meaning no hunting in that unit for 3 consecutive years? Isn't that what was done with the Book Cliffs and Henry's in the mid-late '90's? I think it would look something like this just for simplicity...
2014: 1,2,3 closed; 4 thru 30 open...
2015: 2,3,4 closed; 1 and 5 thru 30 open...
2016: 3,4,5 closed; 6-30 & 1,2 open...
2017: 4,5,6 closed; 7-30 & 1-3 open...
2018: 5,6,7 closed; 1-4 & 8-30 open...
2019: 6,7,8 closed; 1-5 & 9-30 open...
2020: 7,8,9 closed; 1-6 & 10-30 open...
2021: 8,9,10 closed; 1-7 & 11-30 open...
2022: 9,10,11 closed; 1-8 & 12-30 open...
2023: 10,11,12 closed; 1-9 & 13-30 open...
2024 and beyond: follow the rotation thru all 30 units...

Of course it would take 30 years to rest each of the 30 units which is a long-term commitment - but maybe only the problematic units (ones that are seriously below population objective/buck:doe ratio/fawn survival) would be put into the 3-year rest/rotation cycle.

Does it mean less permits? Yes...
Does it work? I don't know...
Would it increase herd size? Probably not, if it is the only management tool used - but I believe that other mgt tools could be implemented in conjunction with this...

Your thoughts?

 

[tx_packmule]

That method could work, but it all depends on what the actual problem is. If there's not enough winter range to support what's currently there and the fawn recruitment rates are very low, then there's not enough being shot. You want to be able to keep the bucks stacked in age classes and the does young.

 

[travishunter3006]

I like the idea of resting units but the actual implementation of it would be extremely hard on the budget.

I beleive that there is less to do with hunter #'s ie, permits sold, than the other 100 things listed above as problems.


If the coyote bounty program is effective, if the lion polulation can be managed properly and sufficient winter ground be had for the deer I believe tere would not be a need for unit closures.


It is my opinion (and a bad one at that) that we are in what is called a "predator pit" and in the current situation it is nearly impossible to exit this "pit" without an incredible/substantial predator reduction. We would need to focus on the predators that kill the most deer; Coyotes, lions, etc.


For anyone interested in the predator pit here is a link:http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=3045



I like the ideas posted above and just wanted to add my input.

 

[travishunter3006]

part of the link in my previous post...


?I don't think in a lot of places we've gotten to that [predator pit scenario] yet, although in one study we saw some of that. On a 2,000-acre property in northeast Alabama they did a reduction in their deer density, and they expected to see this rebound that you typically see. They didn't see it. They just ended up with fewer deer. We went in and did a coyote removal, and we saw recruitment rates?fawns entering the population at 5 to 6 months of age?jump from .4 before the coyote removal up to 1.2 fawns per doe. In another study we did coyote removal in southwest Georgia, and it went from .45 to .9 fawns per doe.

 

[hossblur]

The deer have only 2 problems. Genetics, and US.

Genetically, mule deer are week. They are great breeders, they are poor eaters, they WERE migratory. All of which makes them susceptable to population loss in modern Utah(west).

More importantly, US. And not because of ATVs. Not because of road hunting. They are suffering because of the absolute love of horns. My family (extended) are sheep people. My dad lived on the Manti for while. My uncle lived up there herding for years. They let their sheep feed to the dirt(not being evil, just the way things were done). Deer were poached, both by herders and by a lot of people feeding their families. Deer were shot for target practice. Deer were mass killed in an attempt to save crops that were fragile in the arid west. I would bet more were killed off season, then were killed in season. Then the hunt came. Everyone in our family had tags(grandma, aunt, cousins, etc). Friday before the hunt was a parade. We killed every buck we could, "uncle whoever will tag it". Sunday was a skinning party at grandmas, then we went home and came back for the next weekend. THIS IS HOW IT WAS.

Now what was different? After the second weekend, we left the deer alone. We didn't chase them all winter watching them. We didn't chase them all spring looking for sheds(most of the horns that came with the deer we killed were thrown away, (can't eat horns). We didn't chase them all summer "scouting". However, most importantly, we were VERY ineffective. No one in my family had binos. No one had spotting scopes. My uncle was the first to get a rifle scope(weaver on the pre64). Of our group my uncle had that 06', one uncle had a 30-30, one had a snubby little remington .308. Early on grandpa rented 06' from the armory, cousins rocked 30-30, dad used a .303 british. They were all open sighted. All shot the cheapest ammo they could find. Yes we killed a lot of deer, but i can't help but wonder how many simply walked past us for every one we killed. An early poster hit it I think, but only partially. The reason the most remote areas are the best areas is because the deer are left alone. The henrys became great not because suddenly the habitat changed. Not because suddenly there wasn't any predators, simply because they were left alone. Mule deer are hermits, leave them alone and they will do good, harrass them year round and we get what we have now.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-19-13 AT 09:19AM (MST)[p]"Mule deer are hermits, leave them alone and they will do good, harrass them year round and we get what we have now."

I don't know if "hermit" is the correct word to use in describing the mule deer, but they sure don't thrive around civilization like the whitetail that can literally flourish in your back yard!

 

[lostinOregon]

I have been busy for a few days. Some great suggestions. I believe habitat loss, just not from development but cheat grass and juniper encroachment along with predators, poaching and vehicle crashes are the big obstacles.

There was a study done in central Oregon and more deer were lost to poachers, traffic crashes and predators than hunters. With the funding crunch the divisions are facing few dollars are going to these priorities. The amazing thing was the amount of does killed by poachers, just not bucks.

I would love to have the conservation groups focus on these priorities instead of tag grabs, conventions, and salaries. I have often thought when I retire I would run a conservation group that only funded priority programs like mentioned above with no one getting a salary.

Having states manage for opportunity with buck to doe ratios from 8 to 14 bucks per hundred does does nothing for making sure that the proper age class of bucks are represented in the herd. I don't care how many bucks per does a unit has, I want a herd that has all age classes of bucks represented.

Thanks for everyone's input

Rich

 

[tx_packmule]

The problem with managing for opportunity is that it's not exactly a form of management. 14 bucks to 100 does is crap (for lack of a better word). The bucks have a hard enough time reaching maturity and filling out classes without hunters and vehicles coming into the equation. Even studies done on our hearty whitetails indicate that. EX of natural mortality through age classes based on 100 bucks: buck fawn 46%, 1.5 37%, 2.5 7%, 3.5 20%, 4.5 1%, 5.5 6%....so at 6 only 24/100 will still be alive and the majority of bucks will die between Dec-March. No matter how good of browse they have they are going to allow themselves to get pulled down, even bucks in breeder pens voluntarily will quit eating and drop weight when they know the rut should be kicking in. The deer are needing to put on weight again during the time period when browse is at its worst, so really what needs to happen is those deer need to have supplemental feed available for them and narrower buck ratios to be able to fill out the classes.

 

[k22hornet]

This past Wednesday, I was coyote hunting around Kremmling Colorado, and noticed that every place I saw elk, there were no deer, not even deer tracks. When I saw deer, there were no elk around, again, not even tracks.

Anybody else notice this?

This could be a simple matter of browse, that elk and deer eat different foods, so they are found in different winter habitats.

I have read studies that have alluded to the competition between elk and deer on the winter grounds, but have not read any studies that were definitive on the subject.

If the elk are indeed 'bullies', I may have to resign myself to shooting more elk!