>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.