$1,000 EA to transplant deer???

heartshot

heartshot

Very Active Member
Messages
2,474
Why does it take $1,000 to trasplant each doe. That is a lot of money. Give me a permit to use a tranquilizer gun and I'll be happy to do it myself for $1,000 a pop. It would make the $50 coyote bounty look like nothing. If I do 5 at a time the $5K would more than make up for my gas.

If they would simplify the process it could be done for way less money. Now days they would turn a simple doe transplant into enough work and data gathering to satisfy a doctorate thesis project.
 
It's more than a grand for each deer from beginning to end. Do you know what is involved??
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-18-12 AT 10:14PM (MST)[p]>Pick me I know the answer.
>IT'S A BUNCH OF STATE
>WORKERS.

Lol now thats funny

avatar_2528.jpg
 
I think there is definitely a market for deer transplant specialists. You will probably kill a bunch before you get it right. Its largely an untested field and someone is going to have to experience the trial and error. The demand is there. I promise you that you will consider far more expenses than gas before you are seasoned in your new job. Make the time and money commitment and you'll do great.
 
The "stress related" mortality rate is above 30% for elk and bighorn sheep. Deer would probably not fare much better.

Bad idea at ANY price.

"I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and
sh!t a better argument than that!"
 
Takes 5 government workers to do the job of one person.At least 2 to make sure he's doing it right,and 2 more to make sure they are watching him correctly.$1k per deer is probably a conservative estimate!!
 
I disagree nickman, although not cost effective and it sucks to lose any of them it is still effective. If it wasn't we wouldn't have wild sheep populations in all the places we do and much of Kali's elk herd wouldn't exist. There are places in mule deer country that could use the deer that are removed by killing in some urban areas, even if it's only 70% of them.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
Bill,

I wished translocation of mule deer worked with a 70 percent success rate, but it doesn't. If they (DWR) could figure out a way to do it with even 40 percent success I would be all over it. Hubby says he doesn't know of any good success of mulies translocated in free ranging areas here in the west, but he doesn't know everything, hahaha. Do you have some info on successful translocations?
 
>I disagree nickman, although not cost
>effective and it sucks to
>lose any of them it
>is still effective. If it
>wasn't we wouldn't have wild
>sheep populations in all the
>places we do and much
>of Kali's elk herd wouldn't
>exist. There are places in
>mule deer country that could
>use the deer that are
>removed by killing in some
>urban areas, even if it's
>only 70% of them.
>
>Bill
>
>Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
>the creed of
>ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
>
>
>You have enemies? Good. That means
>you've
>stood up for something, sometime in
>your life.
>
>
> - Winston Churchill
>
70%? Not even close! The survival rate of translocating mule deer is only 3%-5%. You can't compare the transplanting of mule deer to any of the other big game in Utah or any other state because of their migration and highly structured habits, their fragile rumen (digestive) system, their social structure and their stress levels. That's the reason mule deer are never part of the wildlife exchanges with other states, or haven't you noticed? Mule deer don't do well enough to be considered in these exchanges.

As far as the places they could go, either there are mule deer there already or they're not. If mule deer are already there, any new ones disrupt the social structure of the residents and are not welcomed and are driven off. Plus they have their own social structure disrupted and they scatter. If deer are not there already, there's a reason for that and it may not have a viable solution, so any translocated deer will suffer the same fate of any deer that naturally tried to move in.

Bottom line, translocating mule deer will cost you about $20,000+ per surviving animal. That's an expensive deer even if it turns out to be a trophy buck. (Yes, they translocate young bucks as part of the mix.)

Unless SFW or someone else comes up with some new technology and/or methods in their proposed attempt to translocate some of the deer on the Parowan Front, I don't think we'll see much of it in the future.
 
I think from all that I've read that elkfromabove pretty much has nailed it on moving mule deer to any extent like you guys are talking about. They are not nearly as adaptable as whitetails or other critters and that's one of, if not, their biggest problems!
 
Relocating animals can be very expensive and always seem easy and cheap at first glance, but once you start looking at it you quickly realize it can get expensive fast. Here are some things that you need to think about and can add up quickly. I am just dumping my thoughts here so I apologize for lack of cohesive thinking. How many animals do you want? Time of year? What method are you going to use to capture them (Helicopter net gun, collapsible net, deer drive, darting, baited trap? Where are you going to hold them? How far are you going to transport them? Blood work for disease testing (needs to be expedited if moving them across state lines, last thing you want is to move animals and later find out they had a particular disease), parasite testing, health check.

A dart gun behaves more like archery equipment so you are not going to have very long shots. Dart guns are single shots, what drugs are you using (opioids), certified to use opioids? Some of the drugs are very expensive (several hundred dollars per dart and once loaded in the dart are pretty much good for a day or two and then can start to break down and lose effectiveness), then you have the reversal drug (can also be expensive). Now you dart the deer it runs off through the trees, you need to give it time to go down (if the dart actually hit the target and injected the drugs). You now have to spend time to find the deer. Most times they can be found relatively quickly but sometimes they just are plain hard to find. Are you going to have a vet with the darter or is the deer being transported back to central processing. How many people are darting or is it one person doing it. You are going to want to minimize the time deer (or any ungulate) are in the trailer. Most times you want it to be a one day operation so you are not holding animals very long. One day operations usually involve a helicopter (can capture larger number of animals in a shorter period of time). Helicopters run about $1,000 an hour (you pay transport cost to get the helicopter there and back to the helicopter home in addition to actual flight time). How many days did you schedule the helicopter in case of weather. How many people were scheduled to help and how long can they stay in case of weather.
Lets say you are a excellent darter and you get 3 animals in a portion of the day. That includes finding the animal, hopefully they all went right down next to the road and did not run over the hill into a hole. Once you have that deer are you just going to throw it in the back of the truck or are you going to take it to the trailer, how are you going to get it to the truck (throwing it over your back is not going to help it as they are susceptible to bloating) how far are you from the trailer? Is it getting hot out? Cold out? Raining? Many drugs affect the ability of animals to thermoregulate and they can basically die of exposure or overheating. The list is endless.

So you want to move deer to a different area that does not have as many deer. You have to ask yourself why that area does not have more deer? If there is a reason it does not have many deer what makes you think dumping more deer will change that. You have now moved an animal into an area it is completely unfamiliar with that apparently the local deer are not doing well enough to fill what you believe are voids. Animals have been moved around and some times it works and some times it does not. Usually the most successful moves have been putting a species back into historic range that is currently unoccupied but suitable for them. Or in putting them on islands or areas outside their historic range and they take advantage of the new area be it from lack of predators, excellent habitat, etc. In a nutshell there are lots to look at outside of driving around and shooting a dart at a doe.

Just my random thoughts

Joe
 
Relocating animals is never as successful as it would seem it should be. When doing ADC work, I tell people I won't relocate a trapped animal. The odds are stacked against the critter for all the reasons listed above. Plus, when problem animals are involved you are just relocating the problem. Better to euthanize the animal and be done with it. If they don't want it euthanized, they will have to get someone else to deal with the problem.

Better to create the environment where our herds can thrive than to try to shuffle them around. That of course leads back to the same debates, arguments, and smack downs that have been going on here for years.
 
I have volunteered for an antelope capture before, in 2008. If I remember right, the cost that Nevada Bighorns Unlimited was paying the helicopter crew, was $250 PER ANIMAL. That does not include fuel for the NDOW trucks, transport time about 300 miles, one way, wages for the NDOW employees, etc. I heard elk were $600 each, and sheep, the crew was getting paid $1000 each.

That is a lot of money. It is not easy, it is not cheap, and it is not 100% survival. Sheep and antelope do well, deer DO NOT.
 
I guess I didn't account for all the resident biologists when I gave my numbers,all I did was use nickmans number for mortality, an assumption I know.

I think it is less of a biological issue than a funding issue, and therefore all of the govt. bios tell us it won't work. A little paranoid I know but I don't have a ton of faith in what I hear from them on any issue.

An example?

Well I hesitate to even mention it because it never seems to count here or anywhere withso many knowledgeable game managers but.... Santa Rosa island and Catalina Island off the coast of Kali.

3-5% survival? Really? So of the thirty deer originally taken to Santa Rosa one pregnant do must have made it?

I think red tape and govt. bureaucracy are what stop it from success as much as any biological reason, I mean if the deer from the Kaibab even survived the long trip to Santa Rosa island in the 1920's or so it's probably because they were trapped, loaded ,moved and released rather than tranquilizer darted, poked tested given shots,collared flown by helicopter then released maybe? I may have even missed a few steps in today's process, but probably not in yesteryears process, heck I may have even over complicated it!

I don't have specific scientific data because most of the data I have read is put out by DOWs that want to collect money not spend it and I don't give it much cred.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
Yeah, you're right Bill, lot's of red tape, T's to cross, I's to dot, etc. And that is for any state to do it. Can't really compare it to SR island either, for a few reasons. SFW has committed to trying this out on a soft release basis, but the details are yet to be worked out. Will be interesting to see what they can come up with, especially using latest techno stuff. Doesn't really matter which DNR you look up, they all have pretty much the same data. I wish SFW the best is their efforts.



www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
So if we have an area that needs deer removed and the dwr issues 100 permits we have 100 dead does. If we translocate 100 deer and only 5 survive (5%) that is 5 more than would have survived. If the 5 that survived are does they will have fawns and then will likely become 10 fawns plus the 5 does we already had so now we have 15 deer that we would not have had with a doe hunt. these same deer will continue to reproduce over time and our herd will benefit. So with our state being below objective, really below objective I see no reason why we would not translocate deer because it would increase our herd size.
 
pm---So the surviving 5 does are going to all have twins on average to get 10 meore deer on the ground? Do you really think that any big number of people will get behind a scenario that will cost thousands of dollars per animal to relocate on the slim chance that what you mentioned will happen, even if the 5 became 15?
 
So if deer transplants are not successful how many did they transplant to Santa Rosa island, and why were they doing so well? I get that most islands don't have large predators but i really don't know much about that herd. Was it one of the only big success stories in deer relocating and now one of the biggest disasters given current circumstances?
 
I guess I needed to be more clear. My mortality figures were based on dead animals in the first 30 minutes of the capture process.

Post 13, by DFG biologist Joe Hobbs,(one of the few sane voices in the California Dept of Fish & Game) is the definitive answer.

As regards Santa Rosa Island, that entire operation was done by horseback and cattle trucks, then ferried to the island. If the facts were known, I would bet that had a ton of loss as well.


"I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and
sh!t a better argument than that!"
 
Hey if I am not mistaken just about every single elk in the lower 48 were from transplanted stock at one time or another except Jellystone, including here W Idaho.
 
BPKH---Mule deer are not anything like elk as far as trying to transplant them or in the way they can adapt to a new place like elk do.
 
From what Tuleelk has stated above, i value his knowledge greatly, and from what i know of that has gone on in the past, maybe the only real consideration to transplant deer from one area to another is if the area getting the infusion, was historically deer holding country but the herd, for one reason or a dozen, became completely non-existant.

Off the top of my head, i don't know any such areas YET. If many of the country's muley herds continue to decline at the rate they are though, it might not be too long until this type of action is warranted.

As for Doe hunts on concentrated winter grounds that generally carry few deer to be found while they are in their other seasons habitat. Sounds like crazy talk. Compensate the farmer-rancher, build him fences around his hay stacks, give him some tags, but don't kill the breeders of a whole area because there are too many deer in a guys fields during the winter.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Makes sense on the numbers nickman, like I said I made an assumption.

The fact that the deer were transported and transplanted in the way they were makes it seem as if there should be an answer to mortality. To just close the door on it and dismiss it makes no sense.

I think you are probably right on mortality on the island nickman but everything I read says it was an orignal stock of 30 muleys and 30 roosies. I assume it was that many that survived the transplant. I find it hard to believe they would have started with a thousand animals (assuming a 3 percent survival) to get those thirty.

Mule deer aren't elk or whitetails or sheep, we get it. There has to be some progress to be made here. When we dismiss it or any other single possible method of improving the way we manage mule deer, we lose!

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 
huntindad is right about Santa Rosa. Moving muleys also works in Texas. The reason is because the deer have all the resources they need within a small area. They don't have to migrate between summer and winter range. They basically stay in the same general location at the same elevation year round. The intermountain west is different due to the large migrations between seasonal ranges, and as far as I know every time it has been attempted in the intermountain west it has failed. Elkfromabove got it spot on.
 
>So if we have an area
>that needs deer removed and
>the dwr issues 100 permits
>we have 100 dead does.
> If we translocate 100
>deer and only 5
>survive (5%) that is 5
>more than would have survived.
> If the 5 that
>survived are does they will
>have fawns and then will
>likely become 10 fawns plus
>the 5 does we already
>had so now we have
>15 deer that we would
>not have had with a
>doe hunt. these same
>deer will continue to reproduce
>over time and our herd
>will benefit. So with
>our state being below objective,
>really below objective I see
>no reason why we would
>not translocate deer because it
>would increase our herd size.
>
By the same token, that $100,000 that it took to save those 15 deer, could have been better spent improving the habitat with guzzlers, plantings, fencing, etc. and would save many more than 15 deer. And you also have to remember that without that habitat improvement, you're gonna hafta do it again next year, and the next, and the next. And the numbers will increase as it continues to deteriorate.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, but I see no reason why we would translocate deer because it would divert resources we could better use to increase our herd size.
 
I will admit that from time to time transplanting animals has worked (obviously from where some herds are today -Santa Rosa Island- elk in the west, and tule elk which is a great example of transplanting animals). The first several attempts at relocating tule elk killed every single one (cowboys on horseback, roping, etc). There are basically several phases of possible mortality with wildlife in the entire capture process. Initial mortality (bad dart hit, broken neck or any injury during actual capture attempt), then you have the potential for capture myopathy, bloat, exposure, heart failure, etc. Next is post release mortality. Many animals may have sustained some type of injury during capture and now this inhibits their ability to find food, water, etc. Capture related stress can stil affect animals at this point. Even not knowing the terrain can lead to death. I had an elk walk off a 200 foot cliff a couple days after release.
Animals can be moved but there will be mortality and if you do not pay attention to why past releases failed you are doomed to repeat it. Animals put into a new area do not know where the esacape cover is, food is, water is, good fawning ground, the list goes on. This is all exaggerated with a migratory herd. Elk are pretty good at encorporating others into the group. The exception seems to be adult bulls. Tule elk have done great because we are either relocating them into brand new areas with no other elk to compete with or augmenting existing elk groups which are not at carrying capacity (and trying to diversity the low genetic variation). Tule elk are pretty much non migratory and have mild weather so many times they have done well.
Many deer attempts have failed over the past and one should look at those failures to see why they did not work. It always sounds like a good idea but if the scenario you are setting up has been tried numerous times and failed you have to ask what is different this time? If I am putting these animals here do I think they will actually survive or is it strictly a feel good scenario and I am hoping for the best? Why are the population of animals currently here not doing well?
Every day I drop a hammer on my foot it hurts,I have to ask myself why I keep dropping the hammer on my foot. Something has to change, either I move my foot or drop a sponge. I have no clue as to the specifics of this particular transplant, I am just trying to add some information and things to think about to people who may not know what is involved. We keep records of all animals captured, where they went, survival rates, etc. We have gotten fairly good at it. But to do it and do it right with the animals welfare in mind does not come cheap. You have to plan for the worst, maybe I only need two people (if everything goes well) but I bring four in case that animal gets in a situation I need more people to deal with. To not be prepared for such events is asking for trouble. I look at it like "what could possible go wrong" and many times it does.

My quick thoughts

Joe
 
It is interesting that you can find whatever information you want.
Read the results of this study...sound like deer relocation worked.

For instance, translocations designed to reduce the density of deer in the
source habitat implicitly assume high post-release survival of translocated deer in the
release habitat (i.e., deer were translocated in lieu of hunting surplus animals).
Establishing self-sustaining populations at unoccupied sites seems relatively successful.
 
Tulelk and Sage make the best point. The times that transplants have worked for any species is because the area that needed animals had either a physical barrier that kept that species from getting there or had a controllable reason why the species was goen to begin with. Elk are the prime example. They were hunted to demise. The relocations from Yellowstone were done after controls were placed on hunting. The other conditions for sucess were already in place. low predators and habitat. Santa Rosa deer is another good example. There was a physical barrier that kept deer from getting there.. Once that was removed the other conditions were alreay in place for it to be a success. Moose and sheep relocations have been successful due to the relatively low numbers of animals which generates a low reporductive rate. This makes expansion of the species a much slower process. Transplanting animals speeds that up.

Just transplanting deer into an area that has a deminishing herd will not solve the problem unless the reason for the shrinking herd is solved. Since this is such an unknown in many areas the probable success is low. Deer are also much more prolific breeders, similar to elk. If conditions are right then transplants to boost a herd are not needed.
 
Tule, mulecreek, elkfromabove all give great insight.

That said, the thought process of putting the animals into a smaller enclosure (similar to an Island) and then releasing them may work. But it will only work in areas where the deer do not migrate much and if the area can support more deer. I say they can give it a go if they use their own money to fund the transplant.

One concern is trans-locating disease with the animals. There is speculation that some of the die-offs from Utah bighorn transplants occurred when one group of bighorns carried a strain of disease they were immune to, but infected the existing population.

Bowhunt- Were those whitetails or mule deer? If mule deer, were the transplanted deer migratory or localized?
 
Hey Joe - What about the transplant of Rocky Mountain Mule Deer into the New York and Providence Mountains in the 40's? Those deer were transported by rail into some of the most gawdawful habitat on the planet, yet they still survive today and give CA hunters the chance at some real trophies. (By the way, I think you, personally, do a great job for the hunters in CA and I wish everyone in the agency was more like you. You certainly have an uphill battle every day in that state and if it wasn't for you and a few other dedicated folks, the wildlife would really be in trouble. It sure would be nice to get the people behind a deer plan and mountain lion plan like you have working the elk plan.)

I thought the guys in UT were suggesting translocation rather than killing the deer. You have an area that had a bad winter kill, a bout of disease, an unusually successful hunting season, poor population planning or bad management but has the habitat to support the deer, why not spend the money for translocation instead of collect the money for doe tags?
 
I can not speak for other agencies as I do not know the particulars for what is being talked about or the history of what they have tried or not tried. Transplants have worked, just need to look at the situation you have and make an informed decision if it is worth the time and resources. Could the money and time been used to fix another problem? Every situation is different. Moving animals has its place and time. That is the call for those who know the particulars for any given plan. Just another bit of information, whenever we capture animals to relocate, apply radio collars, etc. We have to have a capture plan signed by those above us (and our veterinary staff for wildlife safety aspects)and it entails all the details of why we are doing it, who is doing it, where are we doing it, how we are going to do it, emergency information, nearest hospital, firestation, (you get the picture), directions to them,etc. If we are using drugs we contact them ahead of time and let them know what we are doing and which drugs we are using. Some of the drugs are lethal to humans if we get them on our skin (one drop). I do not have a dog in this fight and am only trying to give some more information so everyone can make a decision or at least a opinion with a bit more background. Good luck in the draw!

Joe
 
Breed them like WT behind fence and dump them out on winter range. They won't go far if they don't feel they have to, kind of like a lot of the current MD population.
 
Thanks for your input tuleelk it is informative and humble in that you don't try to act as if you have all the answers and don't close the door on the possibility of finding a way.

Bill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've
stood up for something, sometime in your life.

- Winston Churchill
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_7360.jpeg
IMG_0540.jpeg
IMG_0288.jpeg
8D718CCE-0300-4857-B971-2412A5D1A537.jpeg
6870F21F-9830-4528-B0A5-C435D6B693B3.jpeg
Cool Euro Mount Setup
3878B399-E5FE-4DF2-A9E0-3A658C8CF128.jpeg
P1180113.JPG
AE6E65E1-2346-42F1-9109-0B7026BED49D.jpeg
art's deer.jpg
8ADB348F-B8A7-4800-B2C6-0F27D15A34D0.jpeg
65E6EA60-F2B7-4891-835D-F258D93A65B9.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom