S
scoutdog5
Guest
Getting back to Don's post, these seem to me to be the relevant points that should be discussed.
1. Since 2002, Utah has spent 80 million dollars on habitat improvement projects.
2. Since 2002, Utah has spent 45,000,000 dollars on road improvements designed to reduce deer by mortality by autos.
Those are huge number numbers in todays world. As a comparison, 80,000,000 equals four years funding for Oregon's Wildlife Division, salaries, benefits, exenses, trend counts, research, overhead, management, everything.
So, the only question that really matters, from what I can see as a non-resident who has not yet hunted in Utah, what did you get for the money?
Here are the mule deer population stats since 2002:
2002.........280,350 deer
2003.........267,780 deer
2004.........287,905 deer
2005.........297,425 deer
2006.........318,451 deer
2007.........302,430 deer
2008.........273,700 deer
2009.........301,700 deer
2010.........293,700 deer
2011.........286,100 deer
Utah's management objective used to be 425,000, but I see it has been lowered to 411,000.
So, after 9 years and 125 million dollars, population is about the same as when this all started, and is on a downward trend.
Don also stated that he expected they would spend another 10 million, I assume on habitat improvement projects in 2012. Given the numbers above, WHY? Isn't this a prime example of continuing to do the same thing, and expecting a different result?
There is a relatively simple truth that seems to get ignored in all these conversations. Forget, buck ratios, fawn survival, predation etc. The key to population growth is what is happening with breeding females. If breeding females increase, over time populations will increase. If breeding females decrease, populations will decrease. Or another way to look at is if mortality of breeding females exceeds recruitment of breeding females, the population will decline. It really does not matter what the cause of the mortality is. To grow a deer population, production has to exceed mortality, not at the fawn level, but at the breeding doe level.
Across the west, far and away the most effort and money has gone into habitat improvement over the past 20 years. The result of all that time an effort has NOT been an increase in populations. The only logical conclusion that can be reached from this is that habitat is not a primary cause of the failure of recruitment of breeding does to exceed mortality.
It seems to me that, rather than continuing to spend huge amounts of money across the entire state with no results, Utah would be smart to do the following:
1. Pick one unit where populations are well below objective, but not completely in the toilet, and close all deer hunting for five years. Do nothing else, no habitat improvements, no road projects, no predator control, etc.
2. Pick a second unit and focus all habitat funds on that unit. Do nothing else, keep tag numbers and seasons the same, no road projects, no predator control, etc.
3. Pick a third unit and focus on coyote control. Spend whatever it takes to dramatically lower coyote numbers. Do nothing else on this unit.
4. Pick a fourth unit, and focus on enforcement to eliminate poaching. Do nothing else on this unit.
5. Pick a fifth unit, and focus on cougar control. Get rid of them as much as possible on this unit. Do nothing else. This one is the trickiest, since Cougars from surrounding area will move into the vacated territory, but given the blame Cougars are getting, needs to be included.
At the start of the 5 years, do whatever it takes to get solid trend count numbers, buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios, total population, etc. No estimates, no computer generated numbers, get out and do the counts, do them several times if necessary, but get good starting baseline numbers so you have something to measure against.
Each year, do the same extensive counts to get valid numbers to measure what is happening. At the end of the 5 years, you will have a wealth of information that will help you determine where your money can best be spent. If none of the populations increase under those 5 schemes, I think it would be fair to say that there is nothing we can really do about declining mule deer populations. I would guess, however, that one or two of those will show some very positive results, while the others will accomplish nothing.
I would guess you can fund the whole thing with the 10 mil you are going to spend in 2012. Bank the next four years funds til you know what works, then you can really go after it on a statewide basis. For example, if closing hunting makes a big difference, use the money to fund the department while they greatly reduce tags.
The truth is, we don't know why all of our money and efforts has not been successful. The only way to solve that is to isolate individual solutions, and measure the results.
Scoutdog
1. Since 2002, Utah has spent 80 million dollars on habitat improvement projects.
2. Since 2002, Utah has spent 45,000,000 dollars on road improvements designed to reduce deer by mortality by autos.
Those are huge number numbers in todays world. As a comparison, 80,000,000 equals four years funding for Oregon's Wildlife Division, salaries, benefits, exenses, trend counts, research, overhead, management, everything.
So, the only question that really matters, from what I can see as a non-resident who has not yet hunted in Utah, what did you get for the money?
Here are the mule deer population stats since 2002:
2002.........280,350 deer
2003.........267,780 deer
2004.........287,905 deer
2005.........297,425 deer
2006.........318,451 deer
2007.........302,430 deer
2008.........273,700 deer
2009.........301,700 deer
2010.........293,700 deer
2011.........286,100 deer
Utah's management objective used to be 425,000, but I see it has been lowered to 411,000.
So, after 9 years and 125 million dollars, population is about the same as when this all started, and is on a downward trend.
Don also stated that he expected they would spend another 10 million, I assume on habitat improvement projects in 2012. Given the numbers above, WHY? Isn't this a prime example of continuing to do the same thing, and expecting a different result?
There is a relatively simple truth that seems to get ignored in all these conversations. Forget, buck ratios, fawn survival, predation etc. The key to population growth is what is happening with breeding females. If breeding females increase, over time populations will increase. If breeding females decrease, populations will decrease. Or another way to look at is if mortality of breeding females exceeds recruitment of breeding females, the population will decline. It really does not matter what the cause of the mortality is. To grow a deer population, production has to exceed mortality, not at the fawn level, but at the breeding doe level.
Across the west, far and away the most effort and money has gone into habitat improvement over the past 20 years. The result of all that time an effort has NOT been an increase in populations. The only logical conclusion that can be reached from this is that habitat is not a primary cause of the failure of recruitment of breeding does to exceed mortality.
It seems to me that, rather than continuing to spend huge amounts of money across the entire state with no results, Utah would be smart to do the following:
1. Pick one unit where populations are well below objective, but not completely in the toilet, and close all deer hunting for five years. Do nothing else, no habitat improvements, no road projects, no predator control, etc.
2. Pick a second unit and focus all habitat funds on that unit. Do nothing else, keep tag numbers and seasons the same, no road projects, no predator control, etc.
3. Pick a third unit and focus on coyote control. Spend whatever it takes to dramatically lower coyote numbers. Do nothing else on this unit.
4. Pick a fourth unit, and focus on enforcement to eliminate poaching. Do nothing else on this unit.
5. Pick a fifth unit, and focus on cougar control. Get rid of them as much as possible on this unit. Do nothing else. This one is the trickiest, since Cougars from surrounding area will move into the vacated territory, but given the blame Cougars are getting, needs to be included.
At the start of the 5 years, do whatever it takes to get solid trend count numbers, buck/doe ratios, fawn/doe ratios, total population, etc. No estimates, no computer generated numbers, get out and do the counts, do them several times if necessary, but get good starting baseline numbers so you have something to measure against.
Each year, do the same extensive counts to get valid numbers to measure what is happening. At the end of the 5 years, you will have a wealth of information that will help you determine where your money can best be spent. If none of the populations increase under those 5 schemes, I think it would be fair to say that there is nothing we can really do about declining mule deer populations. I would guess, however, that one or two of those will show some very positive results, while the others will accomplish nothing.
I would guess you can fund the whole thing with the 10 mil you are going to spend in 2012. Bank the next four years funds til you know what works, then you can really go after it on a statewide basis. For example, if closing hunting makes a big difference, use the money to fund the department while they greatly reduce tags.
The truth is, we don't know why all of our money and efforts has not been successful. The only way to solve that is to isolate individual solutions, and measure the results.
Scoutdog
