Deer Transplant.

cantkillathing

Very Active Member
Messages
1,453
I remember when I suggested that we should do a deer transplant instead of killing those deer above Bountiful Utah and I believe I got ripped into by proutdoors, and by bobcatbess that it was a stupid idea and never would work....

So is transplanting deer worth it yet? I believe the study is going well and showing promising results thus far,,,knock on wood... I hope that this study will continue to go well.
 
I hope it pan's out good would love to see a plan work out great for a change.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>I remember when I suggested that
>we should do a deer
>transplant instead of killing those
>deer above Bountiful Utah and
>I believe I got ripped
>into by proutdoors, and by
>bobcatbess that it was a
>stupid idea and never would
>work....
>
>So is transplanting deer worth it
>yet? I believe the
>study is going well and
>showing promising results thus far,,,knock
>on wood... I hope
>that this study will continue
>to go well.

You sure the F##k never heard that from bobcatbess!

Don't Relate me to PRO!

You know Damn Well I don't PRO'mote killin Does!

Will somebody Please TransLocate 75,000 head of Deer to the Uinta Basin?







The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!:D
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-13 AT 10:05PM (MST)[p]"You sure the F##k never heard that from bobcatbess!

Don't Relate me to PRO!

You know Damn Well I don't PRO'mote killin Does!

Will somebody Please TransLocate 75,000 head of Deer to the Uinta Basin"

ROTFLOL.... You have the cats tail a twitchen now!!!!

Bessy:

If they transplanted any deer to the Basin, Pro would be asking for a Cull Hunt!!!
 
Transplanting deer has been really tough in the past. It would be cool if it could ultimately be done at a cost that is tolerable. The current transplant is incredibly expensive and technical it sounds and would never be worth it if the cost couldn't come way down. However, if they can get it to work, then figure out how to cut the cost of doing it, we might have something.

It's just one small move of many that need to happen to keep the deer herds healthy and strong.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-13 AT 10:51PM (MST)[p]Founder,
It is funny that everyone says the same thing:

"It has been tough in the past" NOT TRUE.

Show me one study on Deer Transplant that indicates it did not work.
Find one Utah FG guy that has been involved in a deer transplant that did not work.

They have said for years..this will not work for Mule Deer, but they cannot point to anyone every trying, we bought into that load of crap.

Ask Texas, Idaho, California and New Mexico how it has worked.

It will work, and is working.
 
Well cant!

I said for Years & Years you couldn't Slaughter Does in their Winter Grounds & not Kill Deer from all over the Basin!

UDWR Turns Animals in to $$$!

Proper Management would'of beat the Cost of TransLocating by a Long Shot!

It Ain't Feasible to TransPlant Deer,Hell Sakes Everybody knows that!

But it Surely Beats a 'Doe Shooter' Hunt anyday!

I'm sure somebody Will Chime in & say:You don't have a Wildlife Degree,You're not a Biologist,etc,etc!

Yup,You're Right,And I sure the HELL don't think you need to be to see the Light!

The General Utah Deer Herd SUCKS!

Several TARDS for some reason think the New Deer Management has Helped GEEZUS!

Not even a Year in to it yet!

If it Helps,this will take Years to know,not a few weeks or a few Months for GAWDS Sakes!

I guess if this TransLocating doesn't work the SFW/PEAYDAY will get their Asses Chewed Once again?





The Dew I had for Breakfast wasn't Bad so I had one more for Dessert!:D
 
You have to ask the question of why was the deer herd down in the area you want to transplant them to in the first place. If the area cannot support more deer than it currently has for whatever reason, then flying in more deer will not help in the long run. THe areas and species that have succesfully been transplanted worked becasue the area they went ot could support more animals. Santa Rosa island for one. Other species that worked, moose, sheep, elk to the eastern US, wolves, worked becasue the area was suitable and flying them in helped speed up the eventual migration into the area.

Flying in more deer because an area has a depressed herd due to poor habitat, too many roads, over hunting, too many predators, etc. will not solve anything other than make a few people feel like they are doing good and support the jobs a few biologists that get to follow deer around for a year or two.

In my opinion it is a stupid idea and a waste of money and resources that should be spend on solving the underlying problem.

Now continue on with the discussion on bobcat, elkassassin or whatever he is calling himself this year.
 
"You have to ask the question of why was the deer herd down in the area you want to transplant them to in the first place. If the area cannot support more deer than it currently has for whatever reason, then flying in more deer will not help in the long run. THe areas and species that have succesfully been transplanted worked becasue the area they went ot could support more animals. Santa Rosa island for one. Other species that worked, moose, sheep, elk to the eastern US, wolves, worked becasue the area was suitable and flying them in helped speed up the eventual migration into the area.

Flying in more deer because an area has a depressed herd due to poor habitat, too many roads, over hunting, too many predators, etc. will not solve anything other than make a few people feel like they are doing good and support the jobs a few biologists that get to follow deer around for a year or two.

In my opinion it is a stupid idea and a waste of money and resources that should be spend on solving the underlying problem."


Mulecreek,

There is usually a lot more that goes into a deer transplant than just throwing some deer out on the ground and seeing if they make it. Most of the time biologists will allready have habitat management plans to implement allong with harvest changes.
 
If the habitat is well managed and a good predator balance is in place then deer will thrive all on their own and do not require transplanting to bolster the herd. Transplanting may be a good idea if there is a complete absense of seed stock of some barrier exists to stop the deer herd from spreading. I doubt that the areas they are transplanting deer have great habitat and a correct predator balance in place already since from what everyone who has an opinion on Utah deer has said the only place that exists is AI. If 10 years from now the deer herd is thriving in the areas they are transplanting deer then I will gladly eat my words. I am not too worried about that. This is a bandaid on a bullet wound. The problems with mule deer in all western states is so much deeper than any one of us realizes. This will solve nothing. It will cost alot however.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-13 AT 08:58AM (MST)[p]"If the habitat is well managed and a good predator balance is in place then deer will thrive all on their own and do not require transplanting to bolster the herd."

Correct. But there are places where the heards have been damged so badly that you can either wait 30 years for the herd to come back on its own, or you can transplant and speed that up 20 years. You yourself in this very post stated ten years is your measuring stick for success. Sometimes the DNR is doing this to speed up results so that people like you are satisfied.

" Transplanting may be a good idea if there is a complete absense of seed stock of some barrier exists to stop the deer herd from spreading. I doubt that the areas they are transplanting deer have great habitat and a correct predator balance in place already since from what everyone who has an opinion on Utah deer has said the only place that exists is AI."

AI does not have proper ballance at all.

" If 10 years from now the deer herd is thriving in the areas they are transplanting deer then I will gladly eat my words. I am not too worried about that. This is a bandaid on a bullet wound. The problems with mule deer in all western states is so much deeper than any one of us realizes. This will solve nothing. It will cost alot however."

Oh no I realize how deep those problems are. Why do you think I am so hated by so many on this website right now. I am the one guy here letting you all know the entire system is a failure. If you think that the system isn't broken completely look at the Colorado Gov tag arguement on these forums. You literaly have a croud of people arguing over how to kill one single deer and calling it a conservation issue.
 
If they need to get rid of some deer because they are a problem in the area for traffic and agricultural reasons, this might work. Should we just go shoot them up? The areas that they are moving the deer to, might be a good area. Just because it has little deer right now doesnt mean its a bad area. Maybe it had a bad winter kill, a bad drought year, to many predators, ect. They claim they addressed some of the issues before they did the transplant. I hope it works out. Try to stay positive about it.
 
True habitat improvement takes decades. The herds will expand as the habitat improves. Are the transplants taking place in areas where the improvement projects have been taking place for at least 10 years? If so why have the deer not rebounded along with those improvements. I agree the state does things like transplants to satisfy people. That is the problem. I do not believe they have solved the underlying problem. I picked 10 years, you could make it 1, 2, 5, 10 , 20, 30 etc. Regardless of the timeframe this is a temporary fix and nothing more.

Does AI have large dieoffs from over-population? I dont know but I am sure others more knowledgeable than you and I could answer that. The state has introduced the most easily controlable predator, man. I would say that is the most beneficial predator to have on an island.

You are so hated on this website for a variety of reasons. I for one do not hate you. I disagree wholeheartedly with you on some issues but also appreciate the different point of view. States are scrambiling to fix the deer herd issues and try to have a content customer, hunters, but they are not sure what to do. What you end up seeing is flock shooting in the hopes that someone hits the target. Transplants are just another shot at the flock in the hopes that they hit something.
 
Is it reasonable to assume we will not have another bad winter kill soon, or another drought, or predators? Yes, it is. This is the problem. We will consistantly have droughts, snow, predators. The herds are at sustainable levels unless we can fix snow, rain and coyotes.
 
"True habitat improvement takes decades."


True habitat improvement can take centuries or a matter of minutes. It depends on what the habitat improvement is.
 
I am good friends with one of the biologists in this state and he was excited as hell to get this transplant done. These are is exact words he said to me that day. The reason the division has not done many transplants with mule deer in the past is because all the old timer biologists said they would not work so they never did them. He then said all the young biologist that work for the dwr want to try them and said with knew tech advances they all think they will work. So its the old guys in the division that do not want these transplants, because they say it wont work. Hopefully this will work, and we can start using it all the time.
 
Mulecreek,

You have many valid points, and you may be spot on. However, I disagree with you. They have been doing habitat improvement and predator control in this area for many years. I know they stepped up the predator control before this transplant. There is plenty of habitat and little to no chance of winter die off. I agree that we need to find out what the reason is for the current deer numbers in the area, because they have been declining. If they just transplant the deer and leave them, with no further study, then all of this is probably worthless. We may find out a lot more about the problem with the deer herd because of this study. They have gps'd the deer and are studying the reasons they are dieing. 2 have been poached. Right there is a bonus to this study. Maybe they will find out people are shooting the deer out of season. Maybe they will come up with some other reason they are dieing off. Will this trans locating deer make a huge difference? Maybe or maybe not, but it is a study and hopefully we will get answers good, bad or ugly. I think it is money well spent, and will give us more answers to why this deer herd is declining than anything. I hope it is a success. I also think with drop nets in areas like bountiful, or around someones haystack, that trans locating problem deer can be done much more cost effective. Catching them with a helicopter in the future is not cost effective.
 
Coyoteslayer,

I hope that I am wrong as well. However,I think what the study will show is that some will die from poor food source, some from 4 legged predators, some from hunting, some from roadkill, some from winter kill, some from drought and some from poaching. No groundbreaking news. As a matter of fact I seem to remember seeing a post just the other day that showed this to be the case. I am not sure how knowing that 2 died from poaching fixes anything. Is this news to anyone? Did we not think poaching was a problem before? If two deer that have gps collars and a team of biologists following them every second of the day can be killed by poachers how is the DNR going to stop that? All this study will show is that some will also die from flying. Not sure that was a cause of death before.

I know it sounds like I am a cynical SOB, because I am, and I really hope I am wrong. The G and F and Oil and gas developers in western Wyo captured a bunch of deer several years ago and fitted them with collars. This was to study the migration habits of deer on the winter range in the Pinedale Anticline. The results were very interesting and provided some neat information on the habits and locations of the deer but ultimately the herd continues to decline. It did help provide information on the locations that the deer crossed hwy 191 but all you had to do before was see where the bodies were piled up to know where they crossed.
 
You are probably right, they will find that so many die from predators, etc. etc. No 2 being poached does not tell us much, but what if my the end of the year that 2 turns into 30. Then I would say that tells us a lot of what the problem is in that area. 30% of deer being shot illegally would put a dent in the deer herd. What if they find that 50% are being killed by predators, then we know where the problem is. etc. etc. Will it be one major thing, probably not, but I feel it is a start in the right direction. SFW/BLM have done some major habitat improvement where I live, and I am not seeing the benefits from habitat improvement alone, as you have mentioned, we have to find a cause. Hopefully this study will help. Nothing else seems to be working at this point. I am not sure where spending $250,000 would have been spent more wisely. To me this study is not just a trans location study, but a study on the deer already in the area.
 
>You are probably right, they will
>find that so many die
>from predators, etc. etc.
>No 2 being poached does
>not tell us much, but
>what if my the end
>of the year that 2
>turns into 30. Then
>I would say that tells
>us a lot of what
>the problem is in that
>area. 30% of deer
>being shot illegally would put
>a dent in the deer
>herd. What if they
>find that 50% are being
>killed by predators, then we
>know where the problem is.
> etc. etc. Will
>it be one major thing,
>probably not, but I feel
>it is a start in
>the right direction. SFW/BLM
>have done some major habitat
>improvement where I live, and
>I am not seeing the
>benefits from habitat improvement alone,
> as you have mentioned,
>we have to find a
>cause. Hopefully this study
>will help. Nothing else
>seems to be working at
>this point. I am
>not sure where spending $250,000
>would have been spent more
>wisely. To me this study
>is not just a trans
>location study, but a study
>on the deer already in
>the area.

This thread is interesting, but misses or mis-assumes several points.

1) While it will be great to see an increase in the survival numbers of the transplanted deer, this transplant will not solve the real problem at hand which is, per DWR, BLM and NRCS and as confirmed by SFW and UWC, the rapid degradation of the winter range on the Parowan Front. We're studying the deer in the release area, but where's the study and/or improvement of the recovery of the capture area habitat?

2) Per the DWR, the 102 deer transplanted represent only 20% of the number of mouths needed to be removed each year for the next 3 to 5 years in order for the degradation to stop and the habitat recovery to take place, even with improvements. 500 per year is the ideal number and the 102 transplanted does and the 150 does hunted/killed is only 1/2 of that.

3) The $2,500 per captured/monitored deer is coming from SFW's own funds, not from the Conservation tag monies nor from the hunting public, nor from DWR. Until the DWR starts to carry that expense, the debate about the costs shouldn't be an issue, although that $250,000 would buy a lot of bitterbrush seed, which would be long-term.

4) The money isn't the only obstacle. Time and volunteer manpower are also issues. This transplant took 4 1/2 days and if you times that by 5 to get to the 500 deer needed, you'll end up with 22 1/2 days. It also took about 15 to 20 hands-on volunteers. I guess you could have two setups going on at the same time, but that presents some problems as well, ie; two helicopters in the air, two processing setups, double the number of trailers, two state wildlife biologists, 30 to 40 volunteers, etc.

Of course, if the success rate improves on the release site, then there will be more public support for further transplants which will benefit the capture sites. But I personally don't see that eliminating all doe hunts. There is simply no way, so far, to transplant ALL problem deer.
 
May have been said already but the real percentage of success won't be know for a minimum of 1 year, more likely 3-5 years.

Personnally I think if that money was spent on habitat improvement or the purchasing of wintering grounds vs being developed they'd get more for their money.

Mntman

"Hunting is where you prove yourself"


Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?
 
Darkcloud with a name like yours its hard to stay positive lol. I agree with your post.
 
I understand that we need habitat, and that there is an issue with the habitat at the capture site. I also know that total elimination of doe hunts will never be feasible. However, at the trans location site there has been a decline of deer in the area, and it is not to habitat. In my opinion there is great habitat in this area. This area has been seeing a steady decline in deer #'s. Why not try to find the underlying problem with this deer study. They may find the underlying problem that will translate to many areas in the west. Habitat is a concern and we need more of it, but areas with great habitat are losing deer numbers also. If an answer is not found,the deer numbers are going to keep decreasing.

Is this study the answer? I hope so, but probably not. At least, I feel like they are trying to find answers.
 
>I understand that we need habitat,
>and that there is an
>issue with the habitat at
>the capture site. I also
>know that total elimination of
>doe hunts will never be
>feasible. However, at the trans
>location site there has been
>a decline of deer in
>the area, and it is
>not to habitat. In my
>opinion there is great habitat
>in this area. This
>area has been seeing
>a steady decline in deer
>#'s. Why not try to
>find the underlying problem with
>this deer study. They
>may find the underlying problem
>that will translate to many
>areas in the west. Habitat
>is a concern and we
>need more of it, but
>areas with great habitat are
>losing deer numbers also.
>If an answer is not
>found,the deer numbers are going
>to keep decreasing.
>
>Is this study the answer?
>I hope so, but probably
>not. At least, I
>feel like they are trying
>to find answers.

Whatever the outcome, we will indeed learn something. It reminds me of Edison's search for the proper light bulb filament. He just kept trying to find out which ones DIDN'T work until he found one that did! I'm sure it isn't the end of doe hunts, but I'm just as sure it isn't the end of transplant either!
 
those of us who grew up in the 60's and even into the 70's know how much we have intruded upon deer habitat. There were a few Jeep trails but nothing like wheeler trails today. We never knew what cheat grass was. We had a few fires but today the whole country burns and cheat grass ravages. Thirty years of pro cattle agency management changed the land drastically. Deer habitat sacrificed for a tenderloin at the local eatery. "Climate change" a dirty word in Utah ....we bury our heads in the sand but it exists and Utah is at it's forefront. We live in a fragile land. Slight changes in the weather brings devastating change to our watersheds and ecosystems. If you haven't noticed the pine beetle has had it's way. We now have these super storm events that erode the land. The uneven pattern of drought and flood. Then there are just a heck of alot of us fighting over fewer tags. Now for some reason you expect the DWR who fell asleep for decades to suddenly know the answers and to fix the situation pronto. Not going to happen. Hopefully we can collect some data the old fashion way with these young kids at the DWR doing some science with hard data. Hopefully we will get the politicians and radicals out of the way. Hopefully we understand that the costs will be higher for real data. Hopefully we will have the guts to take a stand against the heroic cattleman.
In Utah it will never happen. So there ya go... lots of hopefuls against a lot of uncontrollable factors. Lets do the best we can with what we have. It's a pretty great state. We have time to save a few things. However, if Herbert and your local politicians get a hold of it. It will have two new signs: for sale and private property. And that cloud of smoke won't be from a muzzleloader.
 
Grizzzzz the cattlemen are not the problem! LMAO! On our range we have spent our own money and time on developing water holes in places with no water. if not for us elk and deer would not be living on much of our range. WE spent 800+ dollars per year just pumping water to one pasture from a private well 5 miles away. we have miles and miles of pipelines that run around our range watering your deer! I am sorry but cattle are not the problem! there might be a bad apple or two here and there but i can assure you the majority of cattlemen are not the problem! IN fact the range is in far better condition right now than 100 years ago in the west!

I think you are fooling yourself by blaming cattlemen! deer thrived from 1950-1980 cattle were heavily there! ill tell you what else was happening in that time! 1. fire suppression began heavily in the late 60s early 70s. P/j encroachment has severely depleted water sources as a 10 ft tall juniper can consume 40-70 gallons of water a day( do the math for water consumption) nothing grows in dense juniper stands( feedwise) 2. predators were heavily managed back then with poisons etc, why .... because there were more sheep ranchers back then and they lost a lot of sheep to preds. think about this. in the terms of just mtn lions, 1 lion+.= 1 deer a week=52 deer a year. if 1000 lions live in this state (thats 33 lions per unit on 30 units which seems feaseable) = 52000 deer a year dead to lions. not sure how many fawns and mature deer are killed by coyotes a year, but lets say each coyote kills 5 fawns a year, and lets say 10000 coyotes int the state( just guessing) there is 50000 more dead deer to coyotes, so if 1000 lions and 10000 coyotes live in this state and those numbers are correct 100,000 deer dead to predators alone. ( just showing how easily predators can be a major impact). so on almost every unit you can count on the 2 above things being major impacts. the problems with fire suppression leaves dry springs, no feed, and no new regrowth that fire brings.
3. on some units the 1971 wild horse and burro act creted a problem for deer as well, an unmanaged animal that eatsssss alottttt! aums for horses =1.25, cow=1 elk =.67. so on say the sw desert unit, with the amount of elk and especially the horses the deer stand no chance.
4. in utah, I-15 was built in the 60s the poor placement on vital winter grounds caused a lot of stolen winter range for deer in these area.
5.thousands of vehicle accidents with deer
6. too many tags given out by the dwr!

these 6 reasons above and you want to blame the ranchers!!!

good call!
 

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