LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-12 AT 02:01PM (MST)[p]I just wanted to share some thoughts, and maybe get some input from some of you out there on this topic. In all the meetings and discussions I've been apart of, I rarely hear anyone talk about this. I realize that mule deer populations are a sensitive topic, with lots of people having different ideas on what's best for our deer herds. If we may....please...lets keep it constructive. I know that's difficult for some.
From my experience, deer populations are difficult to estimate, as most everyone knows. Unfortunately we have to rely on people to collect data and input that data into a model, which generates a number. That number is only as good as that data that went into the model. So after years and years of inputting inaccurate data into a model, you would expect to have inaccurate numbers as a result.
Goofyelk made a post with the latest population estimates by unit. I think it's safe to say that a large majority of hunters would disagree that these numbers do not reflect what we see on the ground in some areas.
If tags are being based off these inaccurate numbers, how much impact are hunters having on the population?
Is this another factor that is contributing to declines of our deer populations? It seems to get very little attention. Over-estimated population sizes, which equates to issuing more tags than the herd can handle. How is there no concern in some of these units, that hunters are having a direct impact on populations?
In other words, in a given year a sub-population of deer experiences mortality from predators, vehicle collisions, malnutrition(tough winters/droughts), competition for resources, fences, loss/degradation of habitat, and hunters.
It's thought that a population has a threshold point, or a point where taking animals from a population directly impacts their survivability. In other words there are no "excess" deer that would have died anyway. These "excess" deer are the deer we get the opportunity to hunt every year.
So, lets say that three of these factors (predators, vehicles, degradation of habitat) have impacted a population to their threshold point. On top of that we send out 10,000 hunters to hunt this population. The loss of deer through hunter harvest is having a direct impact on survivability.
Is this a problem in every unit? Probably not, but I would dare say that it is a problem in some. I realize that every unit has different variables impacting populations. It would be nice to see the division implement a couple control units, that might give them a better idea of how that specific deer population responds.
I realize that tag sells = revenue, and that is probably why the division has never addressed this as a potential issue. At least not that I'm aware of.
Any thoughts or ideas?
Thanks
BH
From my experience, deer populations are difficult to estimate, as most everyone knows. Unfortunately we have to rely on people to collect data and input that data into a model, which generates a number. That number is only as good as that data that went into the model. So after years and years of inputting inaccurate data into a model, you would expect to have inaccurate numbers as a result.
Goofyelk made a post with the latest population estimates by unit. I think it's safe to say that a large majority of hunters would disagree that these numbers do not reflect what we see on the ground in some areas.
If tags are being based off these inaccurate numbers, how much impact are hunters having on the population?
Is this another factor that is contributing to declines of our deer populations? It seems to get very little attention. Over-estimated population sizes, which equates to issuing more tags than the herd can handle. How is there no concern in some of these units, that hunters are having a direct impact on populations?
In other words, in a given year a sub-population of deer experiences mortality from predators, vehicle collisions, malnutrition(tough winters/droughts), competition for resources, fences, loss/degradation of habitat, and hunters.
It's thought that a population has a threshold point, or a point where taking animals from a population directly impacts their survivability. In other words there are no "excess" deer that would have died anyway. These "excess" deer are the deer we get the opportunity to hunt every year.
So, lets say that three of these factors (predators, vehicles, degradation of habitat) have impacted a population to their threshold point. On top of that we send out 10,000 hunters to hunt this population. The loss of deer through hunter harvest is having a direct impact on survivability.
Is this a problem in every unit? Probably not, but I would dare say that it is a problem in some. I realize that every unit has different variables impacting populations. It would be nice to see the division implement a couple control units, that might give them a better idea of how that specific deer population responds.
I realize that tag sells = revenue, and that is probably why the division has never addressed this as a potential issue. At least not that I'm aware of.
Any thoughts or ideas?
Thanks
BH