Largest mule deer study in state

Founder

Founder Since 1999
Messages
11,447
[font size=+1]What's your thoughts?[/font]

I got email about this article yesterday. It's about the mule deer study taking place in Wyoming. Quite interesting. Do you guys think it's money well spent? Will we ultimately understand why the herd is struggling?

I found this to be interesting.............
Most pregnant females in the Wyoming Range Herd deliver an average of two fawns each year, but the number of fawns alive three or four months later dropped by about half, Monteith said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[font size=+1]Largest mule deer study in state looks at fawns and predators[/font]

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_272c4d6c-c319-555c-ade2-9b38ecc5963b.html

9244557b3866694d9image.jpg


Western Wyoming?s mule deer numbers continue to shrink.

What were once iconic herds in the tens of thousands are now struggling populations. But before researchers can figure out how to bring them back, they first need to know why they have declined.

And it all starts with fawns, said University of Wyoming research professor Kevin Monteith.

?It's accepted that if we want to grow more mule deer, we need to grow more fawns,? Monteith said. ?Hence the focus on those guys.?

Monteith and other researchers are in the middle of one of the largest mule deer studies ever completed in Wyoming looking at fawn survival in the Wyoming Range. He has already started measuring the health of the moms, now he and other researchers are tromping through Wyoming?s mountains and prairies to track the hours-old babies to understand, in part, what role predators are playing on their future.

***

The overall study, now in its second phase, is called the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Project. It follows in the footsteps of the larger Wyoming Range Mule Deer Initiative that started in 2010. With the initiative came a handful of common questions by hunters, recreationists and researchers about what could be causing the decline, Monteith said.

Fingers pointed in all directions. Some blamed poor plant conditions creating less food. Others blamed predators. Some talked about overhunting.

The answers, Monteith knew, could only come through science.

?I think the idea of having the various data sets relative to fawn survival are critical,? said Joshua Coursey, president and CEO of the Muley Fanatics Foundation. ?Those data sets look at if fawns live or die, and if they die, what are the reasons. If it's predation we now have the science behind it to understand that.?

Various groups including the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust, Muley Fanatic Foundation, the Animal Damage Management Board and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department helped pay for the roughly $1.5 million study. More money is still needed to finish the final year and a half.

The first phase of the project looked at mule deer response to oil and gas development, identifying migration corridors between summer and winter ranges and assessing winter food conditions. All of that is helping researchers understand how many mule deer the habitat can support.

It took two years and most of the researcher?s time was studying adult mule deer and plant health.

?Phase 2 is to really disentangle and separate and identify the relative roles of habitat, nutrition and predation on fawn survival and cause of mortality,? Monteith said.

Researchers started with what they knew: pregnancy rates are high, but fawn recruitment into the overall population is low. Most pregnant females in the Wyoming Range Herd deliver an average of two fawns each year, but the number of fawns alive three or four months later dropped by about half, Monteith said.

The researchers wanted to know why.

To track the fawns, Monteith, a PhD student and other researchers and volunteers trapped does the Wyoming Range this March and implanted the pregnant ones with tiny radio transmitters. When the radio transmitters fall out of their birth canals, they give off a signal.

For most of June, the team is tracking down the signals to find newly-delivered fawns. The captured ones they fit with tracking collars that expand as the fawns grow, and take body measurements.

Researchers will track the fawns throughout the summer. If the signal changes to indicate a mortality, scientists find it and determine cause of death ? a process one researcher calls fawn CSI.

***

But simply recording the number of fawns killed by black bears or mountain lions doesn't tell the whole story, Monteith said.

Tracts of land can only support certain numbers of fawns because of the quality of the food, weather, and other variables. As an example, if 30 percent of fawns are going to die in a specific herd regardless of predators, and if black bears kill 15 percent, removing all black bears won't necessarily improve fawn survival rates, Monteith said.

If black bears are found to kill 45 percent, on the other hand, then perhaps increasing bear quotas would help.

The first portion of the study helped show the health of habitat, and now researchers will combine it with the mortality information.

Taking all aspects of deer life into account will help wildlife managers such as the Game and Fish Department better manage herds, said Gary Fralick, a Game and Fish wildlife biologist based out of Thayne and Big Piney.

?If predation is limiting fawn survival, or is having a great impact on fawn survival, then we need to know and understand which species of predator, whether coyotes, mountain lions or black bears might be having the greatest impact. The department then may consider adjusting hunting seasons for those species,? Fralick said. ?On the other hand, if we are finding fawns that are in poor conditions because perhaps the does weren't able to produce sufficient milk to nourish them, we can figure out what to do in the birth sites to improve the type of plant to improve condition of does.?

It's on-the-ground research that will hopefully result in practical ways to help mule deer, which is why the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust became involved, said Steve Meadows, vice chairman of the organization.

?That mule deer herd in the Wyoming Range is a state treasure,? Meadows said. ?It's one of the greatest mule deer herds in North America, and to see it in decline has been discouraging. I for one wanted to see our Game and Fish and other NGOs and agencies do whatever they can to change that trend line.?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com on Facebook!
 
I think these kind of studies will put us the path to understanding the multiple variables and hopefully mover toward action based on evidence, rather than speculation. I am glad to see Wyoming investing in this.
 
I honestly think it would lead to more speculation. Seem to be casting a broad net and may not have variable control groups to compare results to in order to have anything conclusive.
 
While the study may help, it also contradicts that the Utah DWR just posted about people finding fawns. According to the article by Utah DWR, fawns are born scentless as a defense against predators. When these researchers pick up the fawns and attach collars to them, they are putting a scent to them, therefore making them easier for predators to find.

The article from the Utah DWR also said that "If you get too close, the scent you leave could draw a predator to the animal." and "I don't know if the predators are curious or if they've learned that humans can lead them to food. But if you've just gotten close to a fawn, you'll lead the predator right to it."

Hopefully this is not the case, because it would increase fawn fatalities and give false data.

I'm no doctor, nor do I have all the facts, but these guys may be causing more harm than actually helping.

You can see the article by the Utah DWR here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1670-what-to-do-if-you-find-a-fawn.html
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-18-15 AT 12:29PM (MST)[p]CO has been studying mulie mortality and population decline for over a decade. I doubt a state line makes much difference to deer, so the CO work should be mostly applicable to the WY problem. As far as I know, CO has not published results of their study. Still, researchers can talk to each other, probably avoid expensive duplication of research, have factual conclusions for the state Wildlife Commissions to ignore.

I found this: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Commission/2014/June/ITEM17-MuleDeerIssuesSynthesis.pdf
 
Elk duds, if I remember right, the uncompahgre research done a decade ago showed coyotes being the number one determining factor in fawn mortality. Hopefully someone can find that link.
 
Enough studies. Its time to put hoots on the ground and get projects done. Colorado has a continuing study going on elaborating off of an Idaho study showing spring bear predation on fawns and poor nutritional health of the does to be of significance. They had several meetings throughout NW Colorado speaking about both states findings. In response Colorado has increased bear hunting opportunities and have begun working with ranch owners on developing burn plans to improve grazing range for livestock which will have a trickle down affect on wildlife. I get tired of study after study after study and every chance I get preach how its time to table all the studies and move to the implementation phase. So my thoughtbis that Wyoming is wasting their time.


"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-18-15 AT 06:18PM (MST)[p]Studies and science with their nuances are still the more likely to answer questions and lead to solutions. It surely will be more credible than a number of folks who fancy themselves as wildlife biologists because they killed a couple of deer and/or made a few field observations. Hunters and wildlife appreciators should support these efforts. We will likely find solutions through good science.
 
Founder,

You asked, "Do you guys think it's money well spent?"

Thanks for the post. It is a great question. Unfortunately, at the core of truly accurate science is the ability to isolate the factor which is being studied from all other variables. This tends to be much easier in a laboratory environment than in the real world.

Truly honest scientists will go out of their way to point out potential biases which exist in the design of their studies. Unfortunately, brutal honesty about potential biases generally exposes the reality of how little we actually can prove by following strict scientific principles- particularly in real world scenarios, because there are so many variables involved it often becomes impractical to truly isolate one variable.

But the pressure to "prove" something is very high, so it's tempting for many scientists to gloss over potential biases in order to please the stakeholders who support them, and the scientific community, in my opinion, has done a poor job of holding scientists accountable to strict scientific standards when it comes to potential biases.

Unfortunately, what tends to happen is these potential bias gaps are conveniently filled in by the researchers opinion creating what is known as "researcher bias". Often times this researcher bias is overlooked if other scientists who critique the study share the same opinion as the researcher.

In the end truly scientific research that can actually "prove" something beyond any doubt is quite rare- particularly in a real world scenario. Research should be studied carefully- even if it has been peer reviewed, and the vast majority of it should be taken in the light that it is not likely infallible. People should be very careful not to completely abandon common sense without thoroughly reviewing the study for potential biases. Traditionally, the scientific community has been trusted with that responsibility, but, in my opinion they have abused that trust over and over by proclaiming research findings infallible when obvious biases exist. This is often the result of political, philosophical or financial pressure.

So, to answer your question- "Do you guys think it's money well spent?", the answer is it is highly dependent on the true integrity of the researchers and the peer reviewers and whether or not they are pushing an agenda of some kind.

Wildman

"Hoss you convinced me what day are we packing up and leaving this Mormon hell hole for California?"- coondog 5/13/15
 
Zekers, read your post and googled that study, which is referenced in the links I posted above among many others.

This one summarizes the report to CO legislature in 1999, after that study ended: http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

From page 19 of that report is this caption:
Figure 11. Although several studies demonstrate that coyotes kill considerable numbers of mule deer and
that predation can affect deer numbers locally, no studies have demonstrated that coyote predation has
caused entire deer herds to decline or have prevented herds from increasing.

My conclusion after reading all these reports is is that the main factor impacting fawn survival is poor quality habitat. In deteriorated habitat, all predators (not just coyotes) killed more fawns than in higher quality or restored habitat. So predators killing a higher percentage of fawns is a symptom of poor habitat, not the cause of deer decline. The causes and remedies for poor habitat are discussed @ length in the research.



Anyone reviewed this research and reached other conclusions?
 
Tainted, biased, whatever. Most studies point to the same two things, predation and poor habitat. Kill coyotes until the habitat is improved enough to support all the critters. If this study is the one that creates enough momentum to start an action plan, then the money was well spent. Otherwise, it was just an expensive public funded doctoral thesis.


"You can fly a helicopter to the top of Everest and say you've been there. The problem with that is you were an a$$hole when you started and you're still an a$$hole when you get back.
Its the climb that makes you a different person". - Yvon Chouinard
 
I absolutely agree with caveman. What happened to the cries of biologists to never go near or touch a newborn animal. The mother will abandon it etc. The picture shows this guy and he doesn't even have any gloves on??? So have we been lied to or are these guys being clowns?
 
Great question! One thing is for sure. If we ever know the true answer there will be no need for further studies. I bet some biologists already know the answers.
 
It's a great cause to allocate time and money for these types of studies, however, the bulk of the resources need to be used in implementing projects that we already know will help mule deer. We know coyotes are a big problem. We need to wage a serious war on coyotes here in the west.I found multiple fawn causalities while out shed hunting this year;more than normal. I have already found a few this summer. A friend of mine hunts lions in this area, and having hunted with him, I can tell you lions are not a big problem, at least in this area. We need to get more serious about winter range habitat. I like to see predator and habitat projects run simultaneously with these studies. What we need is more action, and fewer studies.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-15 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]I think this subject has been studied to death. Let's implement some prescribed burns to improve browse and cover and get after coyotes and bear.
 
Yotes should be on smaller prey, those numbers fluctuate on rainfall like crazy, same with fawns. The issue with touching fawns is you can't say what will happen with them. Does will walk on on untouched fawns as a means of self preservation, some just aren't good mothers, some are great. A lot of variables at hand.

Winter range is important bc does should be around it during the crucial times in fetal development. Competing with other species isn't good, lower nutritional value isn't good. A burn with no rain could be a disaster, so what do you do. Fly it and fertilize it ahead of rains in the late Summer/Fall? Cut numbers down on all species to remove tags and competition? Quite the predicament when managing for the public and people's differing agenda.
 
While there are some interesting things coming from this study. The 1.5 million would have been better spent purchasing winter range that will not be developed. I could have told them the problem for half that price. Right now the biggest enemy is cars & loss of winter range. I have a little video on you tube with some of my thoughts. Mule deer on the WY range.
 
I understand that everyone will always argue money. What's it going too, where it's being spent and so on. My opinion is if we don't use it and spend it then we as hunters will not have a future. It's sad but (I) think that anything and everything should and needs to be done to try and get a hold on this, so my sons and his kids will be able to enjoy hunting, and seeing wildlife like I love to do.
 
Having been involved with many different conservation groups throughout the past 2 decades, I have seen first-hand how all this works. At least, I have formed an opinion about studies based on what I have observed over that period of time.

Studies are only worthwhile if you use that information to actually DO SOMETHING. Most of the time( in my experience), the money allocated for the study helps the grad student obtain info for their thesis more than it helps any wildlife.

Predators eat deer. Winter and vehicles kill deer. Poor vegetative health translates to unhealthy does that either abort their young or cannot sustain them after they are born. Don't we already know that?

For example, the D.E.E.R. study currently underway in SW Wy. This study is supposed to give us information on whether or not elk and deer can co-exist on the same range( as well as other data). Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that elk displace deer in most instances? If these scientists find that elk do indeed displace deer, are we going to start killing more elk? Won't the elk hunters complain about that?? And rightfully so!!

So after the study is done, then you have another study. Then another. Pretty soon all you have is a bunch of studies. The pile is already pretty tall! Wildlife professionals and universities love this stuff. They make another study to throw on the pile and get their name on it to be revered by their peers. While mule deer continue to decline...

Just my opinion...
 
its only well spent money if it results in a plan of action.
In Utah this study wouldn't amount to a squirt of piss cause
Most of the state is convinced that bucks give birth and you
Grow herds by carrying excess bucks.

I've been a huge proponent of fecundity data for years. Which is
Basically what this study is. I further believe that it ain't enough to
Just add more fawns, the fawns need to be productive which requires
Nutrition and an environment conducive to breeding.




"The State of Utah has not given BGF anything.
They have invested in BGF to protect their
interests."
Birdman 4/15/15
 
Utah has similar studies going on, the Monroe is one example. They are doing it the same way, using implants and collaring.
 
I remember Kevin Montieth, he was working for the California Fish and Game, before it was the California Fish and Wildlife. He was a college kid doing his thesis, he was working on the same kind of project in the Eastern Sierra about 8
or 10 years ago. He followed the does with collars back into the wilderness for the summer, he found that the black bears where a bigger preditor on the deer than the mountain lion. After the study the then DFG logged in the info and let the politicians sort it out. Hope that Wyoming has the balls to listen to there hired help! They didn't in Cali!

Brownie
 
"After the study the then DFG logged in the info and let the politicians sort it out. Hope that Wyoming has the balls to listen to there hired help!"

You hit the nail on the head. We could have a million studies saying coyotes, lions, bears, wolves etc. lower wildlife numbers, but if the politics don't support it, it doesn't matter.

Wildman

"Hoss you convinced me what day are we packing up and leaving this Mormon hell hole for California?"- coondog 5/13/15
 
>

>
>
>
>Predators eat deer. Winter and vehicles
>kill deer. Poor vegetative health
>translates to unhealthy does that
>either abort their young or
>cannot sustain them after they
>are born. Don't we already
>know that?
>

The study shows most does having twin fawns. That would lead me to believe the does are getting good nutrition during winter.

The accepted number of deer that lions kill, is one deer-per-lion-per-week. Colorado has between 3-5,000 lions, so, that would equate to about 200,000 deer-per-year killed just by lions. Throw in coyotes, bears, Golden Eagles, cars, etc. and things can be tough out there for deer.

The largest Mule Deer herd in the nation, in NW Colorado, has declined from 105,900 in 2005, down to about 32,000.

WE know reducing predator numbers works, anyone remember the Kaibab Plateau? Between 1907 and 1939, 816 mountain lions, 20 wolves, 7388 coyotes and over 500 bobcats were reportedly killed. By the mid-1920's, they deer herd was estimated at 100,000 (up from 4,000 pre-1905).

I enjoy coyote hunting a great deal, but, hey, I can't get them all by myself. I need some help out there.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-15 AT 08:17PM (MST)[p]Sounds like a huge waste of money. Here's the reason Wyoming mule deer are declining. This is what Wyoming's winter range looks like.

5830newsetc12.jpg
 
That picture just about says it all. Then include the fifty deer I have seen hit by cars just since June 1 and the future is not very good for the muley and those of us who love them. But lets keep hunting them like it was still the good old days in Wyoming.
 
Certainly is a interesting picture, but since this is a science thread, I have to call you on using a sample from a population to represent the whole population. I know it's tempting and very effective politically (and very commonly misused even by supposed scientists), but in truth it is one picture and can't automatically be assumed that it represents the whole- that's just research principles 101. But, I can't blame you. It has been represented as "science" for so long most people believe that is what science is.

Wildman

"Hoss you convinced me what day are we packing up and leaving this Mormon hell hole for California?"- coondog 5/13/15
 
Wildman, water is wet.

I'll be patiently waiting for your scientific argument. Also while you're at it, can you please explain to us the positive effects these gas and oil fields are having on Mule deer, Antelope and Sage Grouse.

Also WM, i know you're a Utard and I don't know how old you are, but remember the good ole days in SW Wyoming when you could go blast 4 Sage Grouse in no time and just go buy Antelope tags OTC? Now you can walk for hours and never see a SG and lope tags are getting just as hard to draw as premium deer tags.
Ironically the good ole days was just before the gas and oil boom. Hmmm, do you have any scientific research 101 principles explaining this?
 
shotgun,

Didn't mean to be argumentative. It just kind of hit a nerve, because it's pretty typical of supposed science to abuse statistical principles by doing biased sampling and claiming the biased samples represent the whole. Nothing personal.

The reality is, most arguments- even many supposedly scientific ones- are little more than opinions. But, in my opinion, the sad state of our wildlife- as well as many other things related to federal land- is the result of misguided environmental philosophies which have infiltrated public land management policies and have resulted in constipated policies which do very little to manage land to it's potential. Of course, that's just my opinion.

But, if you want a few facts that would seem to support that argument, all you have to do is look at the inverse relationship between the rise of wacko environmental land "management" policies and the decline of our deer herds.

Disclaimer: For all of you predator control people out there, the above statement does not imply that I don't believe increased predator control would be a good thing for our wildlife numbers.

Wildman

"Hoss you convinced me what day are we packing up and leaving this Mormon hell hole for California?"- coondog 5/13/15
 
Glyphosate

I think the crap came out in 1974 and they spray more and more of it every year. It causes all sorts of birth defect in animals and humans. It screws with their reproductivity and gives them thyroid problems. Causes other problems as well.

They spray the crap in farmers fields, ski resorts, power lines and along the side of the roads for weed control. Its one of the main ingredients in round up.

Deer herd started to decline in the 80's and is still declining.

here is a link to get you started
http://rutalocura.com/files/CFH_SYMPTOMS_IN_MULE_DEER.pdf
 
If you have an unhealthy population of deer, rabbits, antelope ect you will have higher depredation problems. Predators aren't the root cause of the problem though they just benefit from it.


avatar_2528.jpg


Why is this site the worst out for browsing with
a phone or posting with a phone?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom