>Those who wish to participate in
>March can contact the Volunteer
>Services Coordinator, Blaine Cox,
[email protected]
> He can let you
>know the details and make
>sure you have the paperwork
>(liability release, etc.) to allow
>you to participate. If
>you can't get hold of
>him, give Teresa Griffin, Wildlife
>Program Coordinator a call at
>(435) 691-0638, or
[email protected]
>
>This particular program isn't to supplement
>the herds down on the
>release area per se, but
>is more of a study
>to determine if this particular
>way of doing trans-location will
>work any better than previous
>ways tried. The DWR
>didn't want to fund the
>same thing over again since
>they have been unsuccessful on
>many other trans-locations, so SFW
>said they would pay for
>it. Hopefully the BYU
>study will be successful.
>Not sure how it differs
>from other trans-locations, other than
>the testing for CWD and
>the afterward followup study.
>Will be interesting for sure.
>
>
>
>
www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
This study will be a more in-depth study with monitoring and the control group tactics. The TV spot indicates that not all of the does were collared, but they were, and with one of two different types of collars. On type is a GPS that tracks the movement of the deer for a given amount of time and then automatically drops off to be picked up and studied more in depth later. Of course, if the deer quits moving (dies) per the GPS System, the collar will be picked up and the site/death studied. The other is a locator type collar that will be monitored twice a week from aircraft or ground vehicle and will be picked up only if/when the deer dies. (A different signal sounds if there's no movement for 8 hours.) Also, a control group of 50 resident (Pahvant) does were also collared with the same two collar ratio, so we can compare the mortality rates and causes between the "new" deer and the resident deer. To tell the difference, the transplanted deer were ear tagged with a bright yellow tag.
There was also is a predator (coyote) kill that removed 25 coyotes. I have no idea whether or not that will make a difference, but it was something they wanted to find out.
Also, they wanted to find out how a hard release will factor into future transplants. A hard release is capturing and processing an animal and then loading them into a trailer for immediate release without corraling them either at the capture site or the release site to allow them to "adjust"(a soft release).
Also, the March transplant will come into play with the study because they wanted to find out if there is a survival rate difference before the winter vs after the winter.
Finally, the 30 does yesterday were sedated, but the 21 today were not because they wanted to see if that made a difference. (FWIW, they took 21 today instead of 20 because one of the does was injured in the capture (sharp rock) and they needed to have another doe in the trailer to get her up and moving after they sewed up the injury and/or to replace her if she didn't make it.)
There may be other things I missed because I don't know if the actual test procedures changed at all, but that's the basics.
Also FWIW, this transplant was an agreeable compromise between the DWR, BLM, UWC, SFW and NRCS. On a range ride with the involved parties to study the area, the DWR proposed two doe hunts in this area, one 100 does and another 50 does because of the damage the deer were/are making to the winter range. They actually wanted to remove 400-500 deer, but they felt that only 150 would be acceptable to the public and sportsmen. UWC felt that we should keep (or increase) the tag numbers and let the youth have the tags. BLM and NRCS were neutral. SFW brought up the transplant in lieu of the hunts but the Division reps said they probably couldn't go along with it because all previous mule deer transplant attempts were virtually unsuccessful and not cost effective with a 5% (or less) one year survival rate. After discussing it for some time, all parties agreed to keep the 150 doe hunt and not increase it and to have the transplant in lieu of an increase in tags. That way, we would still have the hunt, the transplant, and would remove 250 deer which was closer to the number needed. The conditions were that SFW pay for the transplant, BYU would get involved with the study, DWR would provide the technical hands on biologists and UWC would help support it by working with the general public. And whoopie, that's the way it happened!
Now, whether or not this is successful to the point we can eliminate all doe tags including depredation and nuisance tags, we will learn some new things and it will get us closer to that point. In the meanwhile, we may have to accept some doe hunts and/or come up with some more money for further studies, but this is certainly a start!