Mule deer & predator study

[cabinfever]

I came across a very interesting article on the affect predators have on mule deer. I'm not a biologist, but this study made since and gave me every reason to believe that predators have a major affect on the decline of our mule deer. Read it and be your own judge.
http://www.muledeer.org/news/PSA-AZ.html

Mike

 

[Bura Nut]

Mike, this study and its results have been in AZGFD's hands for some time and the existing director for some reason is scared to make the right decision and dramatically reduce predators in AZ. The Arizona Deer Association has pounded AZGFD with requests to dramatically increase predator harvests and the admininstration does not want to act upon the info THEY gathered.....anyway, the study is pretty obvious, kill more predators and you get more deer. Sure hope other states look into this study and follow the logical steps to increase their herds.......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[cabinfever]

Allen

Its pretty sad when they have the biological data to support that predators indeed have a major affect on the decline of mule deer,yet they are not willing to do anthing about it. Sounds like the biologists did their job and now its time the the dwr did theirs.

Mike

 

[nvmuley]

We have all had this discussion before. State wildlife departments will just not seriously consider predator control on a large enough scale for long enough to make a difference. "Politicaly correctness", "social acceptance" (we won't kill one animal just to make more of another animal for hunters to shoot) and "the cost" of doing it are why. If it's ever going to happen, private guys will have to do it. While mule deer have been on a general decline all over the public lands of the west, we have some of the highest predator populations in our lifetimes. Sure some areas have lost winter range, some areas have lost habitat dues to fires and juniper encrochment, some areas have more elk competing with deer, but what about the areas that have suffered none of the above habitat lose? They still seem to have greatly decreased deer herds compared to the late 80's. What areas don't have greatly decreased deer herds? How about the Jicarilla Reservation (lots of predator control, compare deer numbers to areas outside the reservation), and large tracts of private lands (predator control paid for by cattle and sheep associations) What's been the response of most game departments? Raise tag fees to cover lost revenues because of reduced tag numbers.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[txhunter58]

I think you are on to the right track. Politicos don't have the fortutude for a government solution to predators, and yet, it is legal in most states to kill coyotes. Why don't private hunters organize and take care of the problem. May be the only way to get it done.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[MuskegMan]

The State of Alaska (my home state) has tried many times recently to reintroduce aerial pretador (wolves) control. Every time, the greenies start squealing and the down-south greenies threaten a toursim boycott. The State always folds and we end up with no predator control.

"The only good wolf is a dead wolf" (Muskegman's motto #1)
"Shoot 'em first, ask questions later" (Muskegman's motto #2)

What are AZ's most serious predator threats? Coyotes #1? I would think cougars would be #1. Poachers #2?

 

[nvmuley]

I don't think the conservationists even understand the repercusions of their own logic on this issue. Many are camera buffs and most are lacking in any real wildlife viewing skills (outside of national parks) since they mostly are big city folks. You would think they would like more observable wildlife around to see and take pictures of. A friend of mine is a retired Alaskan guide and trapper. The gory tales he can tell of wolves/bears and moose. Disembowlment and crippling and then just waiting around for dinner to die. I've read that Montana expects to cancel the late season elk hunt soon if not next year, on the Yellowstone migration. The herd has gone from about 19,000 animals to about 8,000. One of the wolf packs has 20+ animals in it! Can you imagine what moose must feel like when they come after them! (Imagine a gang of 20+ thugs with knives after you.)
----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[P_Shooter]

I've been watching quietly for some time without saying anything on this site. Most of the time I don't appreciate the language that is used by many of the posters, but this topic is as about good as it gets on MM. I believe all of the responses thus far have been insightful and have helped to shed further light and understanding on this important issue.

The report itself relates cold, hard facts from a prolonged study showing how mule deer numbers may be increased. We speculate all the time on how it might be done, but here is clear evidence regarding how it could be done.

I hope this study from Arizona is circulated as widely as possible, and hopefully the Utah DWR will take note. I see the possible political incorrectness of pushing for the increased culling of some species (i.e., mountain lions and coyotes), but there are many arguments supporting the idea that mule deer are Utah's most important game species.

I doubt that open season will be declared on mountain lions any time in the near future, but what about the UDWR allowing a hunter to pay an additional fee for a cougar tag when he applies for his hunting tag? That way, if he see a cougar while out trying to fill his deer, elk, etc. tag, he is legal to harvest the cat.

Something to think about.

 

[kurtski25]

If these two species evolved together for millions of years, why are mule deer still here? If coyotes have such a "major" impact on mule deer they would've made the species extinct long ago.
I know Dr Krausmann and he's a very respected biologist and I believe his study, but I'm sure there are other variable here.
I guess my 2 cents is that there are more important issues at hand than killing coyotes. Don't get me wrong if you want to shoot some coyotes then have at it, but if you're doing it to save mule deer I think there's much better ways to improve their populations. Controlling loss of wintering areas (urban sprawl), and I really think roads (highways generally) have a large impact on mule deer populations. A friend of mine conducted a study on coyotes in Montana. One area they killed coyotes and another they didn't. Initially there were some benefits to killing coyotes, but in the end the populations were about the same in both areas. He did note that about 3-5 fawns were killed a year in his 'non-coyote killing' area. He also noted 12-18 deer killed per year on the highway next to the study site.
I don't mean to offend anyone, but it just seems to me their are bigger issues to mule deer than coyotes.

Ski

 

[catmando]

I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but they have been pounding the predators and particularly the lions here in Utah for several years now. But for some odd reason the numbers are not bouncing back as predicted.....

WHY????

Couldn't have anything to do with the drought, road kills or too many permits being issued?????

On I-89 between Fairview and Gunnison over 600 road kill pick ups this winter. Road kills IMO are worse than any predator damage could ever dream of doing....

Think about when the deer numbers began to decline on the Nebo. 83-84. Geeezzz, isn't that when they started running coal trucks up H-28, 24-7 from Salina canyon to Nephi. Imagine that.....

Just something else to think about.....

 

[cabinfever]

Thanks for all the responses. Based on this predator research I'm a believer in predator control.
For those who think predators don't play a major role in mule deer decline, how come Browse, Bumble Bee, and Commanche went from being limited entry units in the 80's and 90's to being basicly void of deer. They ended up opening these units back up to the general public after it got so bad. Boy that really helped out the problem. A few years back I talked to a guy who hunted deer in the browse unit and said he saw more lion tracks than deer tracks. 15 yrs ago browse was right up there in quality with the paunsguant. So what happened to all the deer? I know they aint getting killed on the freeway, these areas haven't been over hunted, the drought hasn't had any more effect on this unit than it has neighboring units. In some units, like the ones I mentioned above, I believe predators are the main problem, in other units its probably a combination of problems.

Mike

 

[Cowkiller]

Right now in many areas of Colorado the deer populations are at full carrying capacity and trophy bucks are common. This is in spite of very large and virtually uncontrolled coyote populations. We can't even trap anymore. Coyotes in certain cicumstances can depress deer populations. Those circumstances are more the exception than the rule.

Wildlife agency predator control costs a lot of money. The coyotes bounce back the next year. Usually the money would be far better spent on numerous other things, habitat purchase, pinyon-juniper control, law enforcement and game crossings for highways are just a few.

 

[idhunters]

There is no question that killing predators alone will not solve the mule deer issue....but it is one of 3 or 4 major issues I see in the population decline.

Think about the 1960's and 1970's. Predator control was widely used, and in fact a Nevada study called it an "unfathomable" amount of control. Simply put, federal agencies spent a great deal of time, effort and money targeting predators. I remember the fed helicopter landing in our field to get my dad and go fly the desert gunning coyotes. I remember stockman lacing carcasses with poison (1080) and every predator in the area (hawks, eagles, cougars, coyotes, etc) that ate the carcass died. I remember $100 coyote hides and neighbors who would shoot 40 or 50 dogs a year. None of this occurs anymore. Hides are worthless. In the 1970's the Idaho fish and game changed the classification of the cougar from a predator with no regulated season and a bounty paid to a "big game" animal requiring tags and season. In addition, because of larger and more widespread elk population, predators now have alternate prey and are not as prone to population declines in sync with mule deer populations.

With all these changes, there is simply no argument that predators are playing a much larger role in mule deer predation than in the past.

Is this the only problem and will eliminating predators magically bring back the deer? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! It is just one piece of the puzzle.

All that being said, it is my opinion that predator control must be increased and used as one tool to help the herds.

Along with predator control we need to improve habitat, we need God to make it rain, we need to do a better job with deer crossings on roads and we need to preserve critical migration corridors and winter ranges from development. And as hunters we need to kill fewer deer until the herd population can be stabilized and start to grow.

 

[BOWHNTG]

I've hunted the area around that enclosure going on 10 years now both archery and rifle and I have to tell you, dogs aren't the biggest problem. You may see one or two throughout the course of a season but they are usually ears back low running to avoid the lead shower storm coming their way. And yes, there are a few cats, I've taken two in those 10 years and have come across a few kills here and there but nowhere near enough sign to impact the population the way it is being described. I can't explain the fawn survival rate but, the population density decline as a whole can be explained the last weekend of October when every deer that even looks like it has an antler sticking through the skin has a burning slug pumped into it's side by the 100's of excess hunters that unit has. The very people who are paying for these studies are predators too. Get a few of those Wile E. Coyotes to scratch a $10,000 dollar check to G&F and they'd no longer be part of the problem. It's herd mismanagement plain and simple. Tag allocation is no longer based on how many animals but what the budget is for the coming year.
A far more accurate survey would be to close the 3-bar down completely for a few years and see how inside the enclosure stacks up to the outside...I'll bet the numbers come out a lot closer......

 

[kurtski25]

I agree with you Idhunter. Killing some predators to stablize herds wouldn't hurt, but I believe there are more urgent issues with roads, habitat and urbanization than predators.

 

[nvmuley]

Without a doubt habitat is the number one reason determining if an area has many deer or not. If the deer have no home (food, shelter, space) they don't exist. But at the same time high predator numbers can greatly influence how fast deer herds recover from bad winters, drought conditions, etc. I believe the new term used by biologists is "predator pit". The predator population remains high during these servere winters, in fact its a winter kill buffet! The predators keep taking their normal diet but it comes from a greatly reduced herd and really hampers recovery of the herd. What used to take 3-4 years recovery time now takes 10 plus years and counting. Its precisely when a deer herd is stressed and at low levels due to drought, winter kill etc that predators have the greatest effect on keeping deer numbers down. Here's something to think about: We all talk about carrying capacity of the habitat, but always with respect to forage (brush, browse and grass) for grazing animals. How about carrying capacity for predators?? !! They need their "browse", i.e. deer meat. Why don't game departments think of predator populations the same way they do ungulates? Predator numbers can be at high levels, close to carry capactiy of the available food. Why shouldn't they be culled to reduce their population? Now for some plain facts, coyotes have to be reduced by 2/3rds of their population every year to really make any noticeable reduction in their numbers! That massive of a control effort is just not going to fly in today's world. Here's some numbers I took directly from a bilogists study in the western great basin in eastern CA and western NV in 1998 (Western Great Basin, California. Bleich and Taylor) 168 adult deer were monitored, 27 males and 141 females. 13 males and 54 females died. 83% of the female mortality was from predation, human-induced mortality was 4.8% and malnutrition was 12.2%. Greater than 70% of the female deer mortality on the winter range was from mountain lions. 70% of the females!!! Now count the fawns they were carrying. It's seems easy to see why deer numbers don't rebound very fast in areas where predators are near carrying capacity. Any way this is getting to be along post. The studies are out there if you want to read them. Now doing something about turning things around is the tough part.
----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.

 

[DallanC]

>Think about when the deer numbers
>began to decline on the
>Nebo. 83-84. Geeezzz,
>isn't that when they started
>running coal trucks up H-28,
>24-7 from Salina canyon to
>Nephi. Imagine that.....

83 was also when we had the MASSIVE winterkill... do you not remember the sandbagging of State Street in SLC when all that snow melted and formed a river???


>Just something else to think about.....

Uh huh...


-DallanC
www.HuntingNut.com

 

[txhunter58]

kurt said: If these two species evolved together for millions of years, why are mule deer still here? If coyotes have such a "major" impact on mule deer they would've made the species extinct long ago.

Because left to their own devices, predator and prey reach a steady state. If we give predators a free reign, the mule deer will not become extinct, but there will be no need for any human hunters.

Fact: Predators lower the numbers of mule deer that people can hunt, sometimes significantly.

If we have a major winter kill, game agencies can and do lower the number of tags issued. However, predators have a field day in wintering grounds, and with their then large numbers, keep populations from bouncing back quickly

catmando said: "I don't know if anyone is paying attention, but they have been pounding the predators and particularly the lions here in Utah for several years now. But for some odd reason the numbers are not bouncing back as predicted....."

Give us some figures to back up your claim (numbers of predators taken for the last few years) and what percentage of the predator populations do these reductions represent.

Not one person here is saying that predators are the only problem, but the are a significant problem. There are also one of the things we can control if we want to. Urban sprawl is going to be extremely hard to stop, highways are going to continue to be built, and drought is not within our control. It is easy to say these are the "main" problems, but what can you do about them? There are many habitat things we can do and are doing, but there is only so much that can be done there.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[catmando]

If you want the stats, go read them on UDWR's web page. Look how many lions they have been taking compared to ten years ago.

Quite a few more without a rebound in deer numbers.......

 

[dutch]

cowkiller,
the coyote population is controlled on and around my land, with a .270.

Just think, the environmentalists want wolves back and hunting outlawed on all these other precdators to 'balance' nature. Sorry but what ever species you have it must be controlled. What happens when you get too many mice? Disease, homosexuality, etc. Ha! sounds like the human race.


Ok, new reality show. These environmentalists want to be with nature, ok fine. Heere is the kicker though, YOu put them on like 1500 acres of enclosed land which they don't know at first. The goal is to live in the wild with NOTHING except the clothes on their back. Then you release 3-5 grizzly bears in the enclosure with no other animals for food, other than your basic rabbits, squirrels, skunk etc. give the hippies something to eat and hump.
Whoever survives the grizzlies after 2 weeks gets the prize. We'll see how they feel about predators after going through that, if they make it.

 

[kurtski25]

I think there's a lot that can be done for mule deer. Just for starters, we as hunters should insist that the Dept of Transportation in our states look at migration routes and build appropriate crossing areas (tunnels or ramps). They don't want to do this because it costs money. If we join local clubs we can assist them in buying critical winter ranges for elk/deer. We've all seen what the RMEF has done for elk, we can hope some organization comes about to help mule deer. We can also help state agencies build guzzlers, water catchments to hold water in summer range to assist through drought years.
In my statement I said I don't believe "coyotes" are a big problem. Lions are a major predator on deer and they always have been...always will be. I live in Cody and we've got about every form of deer predator in North America (grizz, wolves, cougar).
I truly believe if you've got good habitat predators are not a major problem because they're a equilibrium that reached between the predators and prey. I'm not against predator hunting in some cases it's very necessary to recover some species, but I still believe there are more important factors for mule deer recovery.