LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12 AT 11:23PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Apr-22-12
>AT 02:55?PM (MST)
>
>>something is really wrong if it
>>is going to take decades
>>to fix' who do you
>>think should get tarred and
>>featherd for this. dwr. blm?
>>
>
>
>Whoever put I-15 where it currently
>runs. Try tarring and
>feathering them! Had that
>nice little stretch of commerce
>been put where biologists suggested
>and most people wanted it
>in the first place (closer
>to Lund) then a bunch
>of deer wouldn't be hurting
>themselves and to be honest,
>we'd have a really successful
>unit that would actually play
>host to a higher b/d
>ratio without much argument even
>from me. Hell, the
>effect of better placement of
>that freeway would have benefited
>multiple units along its path
>and even would have fiscally
>worked out in the long
>run for communities not to
>mention I personally wouldn't throw
>up a little in my
>mouth when someone used the
>phrase "abundant mule deer".
>So, NOPE...again its not the
>farmer, BLM, DWR, SFW, UWC,
>COYOTES, LION, TIGER, and BEARS.
> Its encroachment and the
>fact that there are too
>many mouths to feed because
>there is a stretch of
>freeway that limits them to
>a tiny stretch of winter
>range that is getting hammered.
> ANY wildlife biologist with
>moxy and knowledge of this
>area in question that has
>set foot and toured the
>ground there will agree.
>The dry does and even
>a couple productive ones need
>to go. Its a
>hated and unpopular thing to
>say and I hate to
>be the jerk to say
>it, but we need to
>get ahead of the inevitable.
> Actions, not finger pointing.
> Thank you for asking
>a very valid question.
I'll be even more of a jerk by repeating what the DWR and BLM reps and Lynn Kitchen, the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) District Conservationist (the person klbz couldn't remember) told us. 150 removed/killed/translocated deer isn't enough to even stop the RATE of decline, let alone reverse it. We've had 150 doe tags on this hunt for the last 4 years and it just keeps getting worse. 150 is the highest politically correct number the DWR thought they could get through the system, but they actually need 400+ per year for the next few years in order to give the habitat time to begin to recover and for the deer to establish new feeding habits with new water sources, cover and/or plantings. And even then it may take more than 150 each year to keep up. We were told that any tag increase recommendations would have to come from the sportsmen, not from them. Whether you would consider that a cop-out, I don't know, but they have to play politics more than we do in order to get the financing they need to do their jobs.
Now, one other thing we haven't mentioned is that the high fence isn't just next to the freeway. In places, it also goes inward (east) towards the mountain to protect some of the agricultural fields. So the deer not only don't have quality natural forage, they also don't have much of the home grown stuff either.
Underpasses/overpasses? We're talking about a 25 mile stretch of
freeway at about $1.3 million per each underpass/overpass. And all we'd be doing is moving the problem to the other side of the freeway because there isn't much natural forage there either. It's now homes and fields.
Translocating? That's a possibility, but it isn't successful enough to merit a DWR expense of about $1,000 per animal at the capture site. SFW has offered to pursue this option, but since it isn't approved by the DWR, they'd have to come up with the money outside of the 90% of conservation tag revenues going back to the DWR or DWR approved projects. However, if that happens, I'll be one of the first in line to help.
Controlled fires? Also possible, but first off, lots of paperwork considering there is private land there and now, lots more homes. Second, cheatgrass fires burn hotter and more often than natural grass and brush fires and destroy more sagebrush and sagebrush seeds. Third, WE GOT WIND, LOTS OF WIND in that valley area and fires are tough to control. Fourth, we were told that area is in a rain shadow and doesn't get as much rain as we think because of the mountains to the west, so any new growth from the fires takes longer to get established and by the time some of the desirable stuff comes up the cheatgrass is already in full swing sucking up the moisture.
Bottom line, if we don't have to kill all those does, so much the better, but the alternatives aren't looking very good.
As I told some RAC's and the Wildlife Board, we can either make a tough decision and deal with this problem on our terms now or continue what we're doing and let nature deal with it on her terms later.
PS. Personal Opinion!