Nevada 2009 Draw

It sucks that NDOW changed the non-ressy Rocky Mtn Bighorn tag from an area that contain 190 class rams to an area that has 145-170 class rams. Unless someone who has the same number of points as I have moved from Nevada, I'll be the top non-ressy point-holder for 2009 (like my 14 points really matter with 3500 other people in the draw).
 
You can blame that change along with others on Gerald Lent and his crew. They also changed the elk season for the non resident in area 16 from the September hunt dates to November. These changes were done solely to restrict the non resident from hunting the trophy hunts. You can expect more changes that will effect the non resident in the future. The rumor mill has it that some of the members that would oppose Lent's proposals will not be re appointed.
Lent's agenda is to remove the mountain lion from a game species to a predator with a bounty. That will open the door for all the tree huggin anti hunters to file lawsuits. You can thank Quinn for appointing Lent and he will appoint others like him soon.
Wes
 
Correction: You can thank current Governor Jim Gibbons for appointing Lent and Company. Look for those types of appointments to continue.
 
Nv
Your right. I don't know why the heck I wrote Quinn. I think Lent is bad news for all hunters
Wes
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-09 AT 06:42PM (MST)[p]Nevada is a mixed up state in regards to politics, been that way for years, nice country,mostly good people, but what a mess, Im only one behind max on non resident rocky points, but its a tough draw, I hope they will have it in 102 next year, thats a wishful guess, I wouldn't think its a conspiracy against nonresidents getting high scoring sheep, but maybe it is?
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-09 AT 10:37PM (MST)[p]I hope they are successful in reducing the statewide lion numbers.
If we have 3500 lions statewide, cutting that number in half will add over 87,000 more deer to the statewide deer herd in a year. That is based on 1750 lions eating 50 deer a year each. A generally accepted, conservative figure. I bet anyone here would like a better chance at drawing a tag?
Lions kill the breeding does. That reduces deer herds pretty rapidly.
Just look at the lost deer tag sales from last year to the tags issued in 1988. Over 13,000 less deer tags. We have the ability to actually MANAGE wildlife to benefit hunters. Think of the missed recreation hours, the young hunters that do not get to hunt. The hunters we loose each year because they get discouraged. The NDOW looses over $611,000 in deer tag sales alone compared to 1988 tags sales. Not to mention the thousands of sportsman dollars collected for sheep transplants, only to have lots of those sheep eaten by lions. Yes, lions have spot in Nv and they will always be there. But wouldn't it be better to have more deer, more sheep and antelope than we currently have and a few less lions?
Even guides with lion dogs should rejoice at having more deer and more deer hunters as clients. Both hunt pay about the same to guides.
Little by little hunters loose ground every year. At some point, when do you say enough is enough and fight, as America's true conservationists, for what is right?
Conservation was always defined as "the wise use of a natural resource". Today it seems to mean "hands off."

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
Trying to draw the conclusion of lions being the cause of the decline of Mule Deer in Nevada is a little off base. In 1988, the West had benefited from several good years of moisture. Following that, it was a severe drought period. With the numbers of deer at a historic high, and the habitat conditions deteriorated from drought the conditions were ripe for a die-off. The winter of 1992-1993 was a devastating one. Surveys indicated as high as 60% losses in some herds of NE Nevada. The population has never recoverd because of the enormous fires of the past decade. The simple fact is due to the loss of critical winter range, the deer herds will never be what they were in 1988.

I'd be willing to bet that you could remove every lion from area 6 and the deer herd would never rebound to the 1988 levels. Over a million acres of winter range is now nothing but cheat-grass.

I'm all for keeping lion populations in check, but to place the sole blame on predation for lower herd numbers in Nevada doesn't make sense.
 
I was thinking about this last night while trying to sleep, there are lots of subtle but noticable changes in plant life that have occurred in Nevada over the last 30 plus years, I have noticed them, the first really dry year was 76, 79 was extremely cold and dry,80 very dry, then both 83 and 84 were super wet, lakes appeared in the desert valleys, plants were revived, a few fairly easy winters later and deer were really on the rebound, by the mid to late 80s central Nevada had dried up and the deer were starting to decline, a few years later Northeast Nevada followed, subsequent years until now have been hotter and drier with a few wet ones once in a while, the hotter summers have probably caused a lot of the changes. In my observation weather is by far the biggest thing driving mule deer populations, killing half the lions off and having 87 thousand more mule deer is really quite laughable, did Colorado kill half their lions recently before the deer boomed? no, did lions cause the population to fall last year? no, its the weather that makes most of the difference in the dynamics of mule deer populations.
 
I have read the two posts above and I understand the points being made. They are same reasons made by fish and game departments for decades now.
Now a few comments to keep things in perspective. Please bear with this post.
It seems as though each generation of humans has to experience things first hand before they believe things. This is true because most peoples historical perspective on the world begins with their lifetime. Just the way we humans are genetically wired.
Secondly, once people take a stand on a topic, they seem to be willing to defend that point of view to the end. This predator issue is one of those topics. Do some research on the topic. Keep an open mind.
We had drought, we had fires, we had summers with no rain and we had terrible cold winters with deep snows back in the 1950's, the 1960's and the 1970's and some bad ones in the 1980's. I know this because I lived through them. The deer survived. They evolved in this climate. They deal with drought, they deal with winter as best they can. Some years they prospered, some years they had big die offs. But we always had way more deer than currently we have. Herds rebounded fast because the herds rebuilt quickly. One doe had two fawns. Next year more than double the does of the previous year and two fawns each. Just play with the math and see the rebound of the deer herd with low levels of predation.
In 92-93 we had a bad deer die off. We also had very high levels of all predators. That is major reason the deer herds never rebounded quickly to pre-die off levels. In past decades deer would rebound in 3-5 years to pre-die off levels. That is just the way it happened. Predator biologists have a name for this, "predator pit". Predator survival in those deer die-offs because of deep snow and cold is very high. The predators have 'groceries" everywhere! It is buffet for them. The deer have their fawns and a high percentage get killed. Fawns mainly by coyotes, bobcats, and lions and the adults mainly by lions. The breeding population never gets the chance to rebound.
There was 15 year study done on the Kings River deer herd in CA. The deer population went from 25,000 to around 5,000. (these numbers ball park and from my memory) The conclusion was the deer herd would never rebound due to the extremely high predation put on them by the lions, coyotes and bobcats. This is fact and just ignored. As are so many studies with this conclusion.
Yes habitat is top of the list. You have to have habitat to have the animal. But predation has been proven to trump the habitat card. You can have excellent habitat and very low levels of deer if the deer are being eaten.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-09 AT 12:05PM (MST)[p]I meant to include this lion data in the post.

Western Nevada lion kills.

1968 to 1987 - One road kill lion. 20 years.

1988 to 1996 - 8 lions killed in western Nevada. 9 years of data and lions are moving into western Nevada. They are overpulated in CA since they have 100% protection and can not be hunted.

1997 to 2004 83 lions killed in western nevada. This is not a misprint! Our deer herds here are hammered. One friend found 7 dead deer near water.

To say this level of predation has no impact defies common sense.


----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-15-09 AT 01:38PM (MST)[p]You have some good points and I imagine the relatively small deer herds in western Nevada are quite vulnerable to the predator pit. I would bet The big wet winters of the 50s and 60s were a lot of the reason forage was so good during that era, I know growing up in N.eastern Nevada I can see the changes in forage conditions, some due to fires and some of the country has just plain dried out, There are lots of antelope in many areas that didn't have any twenty or thirty years ago and they weren't transplanted, that should say something, not to dismiss predators as a problem, but I really think the big migratory deer herds in N.eastern Nevada have a lot of underlying forage and habitat problems that will keep them from coming back to their former numbers.
 
>1997 to 2004
>83 lions killed in western
>nevada. This is not a
>misprint!

Wow, I would have expected that number to be higher. From 2004 to 2007, there were 1,351 lions killed in Colorado. We're lucky to have a single deer left.
 
>This thread is starting to read
>like a Hunters Alert newsletter.
>

This information is just that, information. Analyze it as you will.
I am not affiliated with Hunters Alert in any many shape or form. Just a guy that likes to hunt and would like to see more game available for future generations to hunt. The hunting fraternity lifestyle is being challenged on many fronts today.
I think your comment shows a bias that is harmful to hunting in general. That is, it puts personality ahead of science and turns hunter against hunter. That is why I made the comments on peoples egos getting involved, once people take a stand on a topic. I am aware of the tensions between the group you mentioned and other conservation groups in the state. I try to overlook those personalty conflicts and reach my own conclusions based on what I see in the field. I think the data should stand and be examined on it's own merits. That is all.



----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
>>1997 to 2004
>>83 lions killed in western
>>nevada. This is not a
>>misprint!
>
>Wow, I would have expected that
>number to be higher.
>From 2004 to 2007, there
>were 1,351 lions killed in
>Colorado. We're lucky to
>have a single deer left.
>

That was from one county in NV that had essentially no lions before the influx. Not a statewide take. Colorado must have at least 4-5 times the mule deer of NV, maybe more? It is a percentage thing. If lion densities are comparable, taking 50 deer out of a large population does not reduce the deer herd the same as taking 50 deer out of a small population of deer.
New Mexico had it's population of desert bighorn sheep endangered by lion predation. Control of the lions was necessary.
Alaska had to do wolf control to save some moose populations.
Again, lot's of studies have shown this to be the case. Nevada now does predator control if needed prior to releasing bighorns.
Predator management is viable and important in the overall scheme of wildlife management.
----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-09 AT 08:58AM (MST)[p]If you have an interest in gathering more information: type in "predators, lions, mule deer" in a google search and you will find many links to read. It is an issue with many faces. Well informed research will lead to well informed opinions

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
>If you have an interest in
>gathering more information: type in
>"predators, lions, mule deer" in
>a google search and you
>will find many links to
>read. It is an issue
>with many faces. Well informed
>research will lead to well
>informed opinions


I don't need to gather more information to have a well-informed opinion. A poster above mentioned, and your article reiterates, that there are many problems facing mule deer populations in the west. Some people choose to key in on only one issue, though (as your recommended search shows). If you have an interest in gathering more information, search google for "mule deer" "habitat loss", or "mule deer" "noxious weeds", or "mule deer" elk competition. It is an issue with many facets.
 
nvmuley,

Sorry if my comment was out of line.

There are a few things said here I would like to comment on.

First off I think Mr Black's article is well written and much more comprehensive than most. However as you stated "once people take a stand on a topic, they seem to be willing to defend that point of view to the end". Mr Black only pointed to predators as one of the causes of mule deer decline. The rest of the article goes unnoticed in your posts. You are defending only one point of view out of his entire article.

You also stated: "If we have 3500 lions statewide, cutting that number in half will add over 87,000 more deer to the statewide deer herd in a year. That is based on 1750 lions eating 50 deer a year each. A generally accepted, conservative figure. " This statement was what struck me as sounding like Hunters Alert. The old deer-a-week theory doing simple math always gets people riled up. That's what it is intended to do. However is it accurate? I doubt it. Not across and entire age distribution of lions in a population. Some might eat a deer a week. Some won't. Saying this formula is "accepted and conservative" is a stretch. The "87,000 more deer" statement is an over simplification in my opinion. Predation is not always additive mortality. Sometimes it is compensatory meaning some of the animals that are killed by predators would have died from some other cause. Alternative prey is also substituted for the deer-a-week. One of the most important prey species in Nevada is mustang colts. I don't see them becoming extinct.

My point is simply this. Predation is definitely a piece of the puzzle here. However I think it is more of a symptom of a larger, much more complex set of problems. Habitat, human encroachment, traffic, wildfire, vegetative succession, predators, competition, weather, and no doubt many other things are causing the deline in mule deer numbers. To say you can remove more lions and have more deer is minimizing the rest of the things. Fixing only one of those problems won't bring the deer back. They all need to be addressed.

Honestly, if we had a wholesale reduction in predator numbers right now there is a possibility that, while you may see a short term increase in deer numbers, you could also see a subsequent catastrophic crash afterward. Do some research on the Kaibab after the predators were removed. If you still don't have the habitat and you remove the predator it could be a disaster. Maybe not, but the whole thing shouldn't be over simplified.

Aggressive predator removal on a prescription basis may be a useful tool. But not on a statewide, wholesale basis. My comment about HA was directed at statements like some of those above which cause what I would call predator hysteria. That group tends to prey on (pardon the pun) hunters emotions by throwing around such statements as 87,000 deer a year could be saved. 87,000 deer in one year? Added to a fragile ecosystem like we have in most of Nevada? Now that IS scary.
 
NVbighorn,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
Yes, I agree that predators are only a part of the west wide decline in mule deer numbers. In some areas they are a small part of the equation and in some areas they are a very large part of the reason for the decline.
A general pattern I have seen is that men with a lifetime of in the field experience seem to place predators higher on the list of the reasons for the decline. These men would be ranchers, government trappers, even private trappers that spend almost every day outdoors all winter long and see the changes in deer populations over decades. I think this experince over decades is very important. Guys with in the field experince just since say 1990 have no past personal memory to draw from. their personal data back starts with 1990.
What are Idaho hunters experiencing with the wolf's impact on deer and elk herds? Not good from things I have read on this website. Idaho also had lions impact CA bighorns in remote areas. Nevada has done predator control to rebuild antelope herds in the NW part of the sate. With positive results.
Men with lot's of "book learning" and less in the field experience, seem to generally place predators lower on the list of reasons for the deer decline. Sure, there are many reasons for the deer decline. Some of these other reasons are huge when dealing with localized deer herds. I posted the predator numbers to start a discussion on a topic that is often downplayed in today's PC world as being a major contributing factor that seems to be able to 'trump" some of the other reasons. No matter how much rain or snow or how great the habitat, a large over population of predators can have a huge impact. I have read what an over population of mule deer did to the Kaibab forest. It is a classic example and taught to all wildlife biologists.
Look at it this way, mule deer are to lions what browse is to mule deer. If mule deer can over populate and damage habitat, then why cannot lions over populate and damage their food source? the mule deer. That seems logical to me. Maybe it's not?
Yes, the '87,000 deer figure was an over simplification but it was done to toss a number out there of the POSSIBLE impact. Same for the 50 deer a year killed by lions. It may be high and may be low. Lions are wired and evolved to hunt deer sized animals. So even if deer populations are low, they continue to pursue deer. And they will kill chukar, cottontail, jackrabbits, packrats and porqupines in their endless pursuit for deer.
The 15 year study done on the Kings River in CA also throws out a lot of the territorial and space requirements generally given for lions. They greatly overlaped ranges and shared habitat. So lion populations may be much more than many states estimate.
For a healthy deer herd, I do believe most predation would be additive mortality. A big exception would be a terrible winter with lot's of snow and very cold conditions. In those conditions as mentioned above, a banquet winter for all predators when that happens.
Yes, all the issues need to be addressed that are contributing to the mule deer decline. But, a priority scale needs to be made based on the real impact that each one has and funds should be direct to those with the greatest impact. the most bang for the buck. I see habitat that is just as great now as it was in 1980 and it has half of the deer. In some cases less than half. To prioritize the wrong factors will result in wasted time and below expected results.
The bottom line for me is that the wrong issues SEEM to have been prioritized for going on 16 years. I see no real, substantial changes in the field. Maybe it's time to re-prioritze the list.
I arrived at this conclusion with my own field observations and my own thought process. It is not based on what one group said or what one man has said. I do not see the results in the field. With normal years of precipitation, I see no change in the deer herds. With drought years I see no change in the deer herds. We had about 240,000 deer in 1988 and about 114,00 now.
Anyway, a few more thoughts from the field, not from the board room.




----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-09 AT 12:37PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-09 AT 12:16?PM (MST)

I did read the link you posted. I have two other links that I was going to post that draw somewhat different conclusions.
But, we could go back and forth and turn this into a college thesis,, lol :)

I have enough lifetime experience to draw from to be somewhat skeptical of what I read. I do not take it as gospel, but read between the lines.
If I believed much of what was written without applying my own "lifetime filter" of experiences: I probably would visit the PETA and the HSUS websites and that would cause me me to quit hunting, give up my guns, send my savings to them and devote the rest of my life to rescuing pets and wild horses. But I know better.
In the end, predators do eat other animals, sometimes more than they should. Just like deer can over eat their rangeland and our government can spend to much money :)
Hunters today try to stay under the radar and do their thing. They love the outdoors and the animals. I know what an outcry animal right groups make every time predator control is talked about. They are a powerful political group that no game department or wildlife organization wants to take on. Hunters would be trashed by the mainstream news media. And that will ultimately determine the direction game departments are forced to take and what they can say about their official policy on topics. Wildlife management is really bio-politics.


----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
I'm in no way trying to convince anyone that predators don't eat big game. Believe me I am all for taking out predators under certain circumstances. I just don't personally believe they are anything more than one smoking gun in this case. But the murderers still got away with all the other weapons. I think you have a very interesting and very valid viewpoint on all this. I apologize for the Hunters Alert comment.

I have a somewhat jaded opinion of Hunters Alert. I don't think they are good for Nevada, Nevada's mule deer, the Department of Wildlife or hunters in general. I do not think their abrasive, narrow minded approach to big game in Nevada will result in any more deer than a broader approach.

As for field experince I think I have enough myself to draw my own conclusions. I wasn't born yesterday and all my experience does not come from book learning, although enough of it does to blend real life with board room politics.

As you say, we could go back and forth all day posting links to literature and arguing opposing views. And in the end we would both still be married to our own opinion and willing to defend it to the end. I respect your opinion and your loyalty to it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-09 AT 03:33PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-09 AT 03:31?PM (MST)

Yes, likewise. It has been a good conversation. I hope guys that have not read much on the topic picked up a point or two :)

In closing. I would say for me, the bottom line is results. Theories can be bounced back and forth. Debated until forever. Lot's of things in life sound good, especially on paper. Time will test those theories. Some will prove out better than others.

An example might be a small business. It has to have results. They need to make a profit or they close their doors.
I hold fish and game departments to that same standard. A bottom line to prove the theories being followed as policy, are producing. In 1988 we had 240,000 deer. In the 1992-93 winter we had a bad die off. Should we only have about 114,000 deer now?
If we follow a given strategy for 16 years, (since the die off) one that is claimed to be the correct one, should we see some positive change in the deer herd?
If not, should we correct the path a bit?




----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
Predator control....It is needed, but think "time specific, site specific". nvmuley and NVBIGHORN should both understand this concept.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
DWALTON,
You already got your slam, so you should just give up and give me a chance at the sheep. Hope all is well buddy.
Dusty
 
Nope, I thought it was a requirement to put your state in your name. You're from Missouri aren't you bryMOore? Or is it Oregon? brymoORe? :)
 
Here is a link to an ongoing study being done in Arizona.

http://www.gardnerfiles.com/3-g Arizona 3-Bar Study.pdf

It would be interesting to know what the age of the bucks doing the breeding inside the enclosure is. I am convinced that the lack of mature bucks available to breed does during the first estrus cycle is a significant contributing factor to predation on fawns. Besides the issue of later birth resulting in smaller, weaker fawns going into winter, the fact that the birthing period gets extended from May through July without question results in a higher percentage loss of fawns to predation than would occur if all fawns were born in late May-early June.

I think the most surprising part of the study is the results obtained during the severe drought year in 2002, not only in fawn survival rates, but in overall population densities as well. The enclosure was built in 1970, so this study area has now been providing data for more than 30 years. I am constantly amazed by the "habitat is all that matters" guys, who ignore the results of more than 30 years of research in this area.

I thought the point about elk providing an alternative source of prey for Cougars, which allowed Cougar populations to remain high, was the first logical basis for the claim that increasing elk herds will reduce mule deer populations. Here is Oregon, where we no longer have many Mule Deer, but lots of Cougars and decent numbers of elk, I am not sure I am willing to give up the elk, even if that would reduce the Cougar population.

I think the lesson that should be learned from Colorado, which increased it's mule deer population from 475,000 to 610,000 between 1998 and 2007, is that increasing buck ratios, and the number of mature bucks available to do the breeding, can be a primary factor in improving mule deer populations. The tough nut to crack for most states is how do you replace the lost income from tag sales that will result from reducing buck harvest?

If we are still around as a country 100 years from now, and anybody cares about this stuff at that point, I would guess the history of Mule Deer (extinct species) will point to mismanagement and over reliance on habitat factors as a primary cause of their going extinct. Without question, there are areas where habitat is the controlling factor in present day mule deer populations, but in many parts of the West, the habitat is sufficent to support much larger populations than currently exist. Nothing will change until we accept that reality, and focus our time and resources on the other factors that are actually responsible for current low population levels.

I apologize for this being long, tend to get carried away about this stuff. I also think that Nevada is probably the state where habitat has the biggest impact on mule deer populations, particularly in drought years.

Scoutdog
 
Can I be adopted into Nevada Residency, because I would add it to my name if I could get resident odds to hunt sheep...in a heartbeat!! How about Nevadalittlebighorn? That works for 1 in 9 odds, right?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20201001_182413.jpg
IMG_0865.jpeg
FB_IMG_1647229308285.jpg
2022.jpeg
FB_IMG_1639847126641.jpg
703958A0-8484-4AB7-AAB0-D428273AA483.jpeg
467FF615-B133-433B-BABB-05568E3A9880.jpeg
Last Day Colorado Stud
IMG_6818.jpg
1101201318.jpg
20211010_101044.jpg
0DA19788-946D-4342-BEDE-6AAD1546D887.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom