Deer/pronghorn decline

[Oak]

Interesting to look at the long term trend graphs in the Executive Summary at the link. Doesn't bode well for hunter opportunity in the future.

Link to full story

RELEASE: NEW REPORT DETAILS DECLINE OF DEER, PRONGHORN IN COLORADO, WYOMING

Populations trends are declining for mule deer and pronghorn antelope herds on both sides of the Colorado-Wyoming border and herds may not be able to fully recover unless federal and state agencies act to protect core habitats, according to a report released today by the National Wildlife Federation.

“We are seeing a slow, inexorable decline in populations of both species and a corresponding decline in hunting opportunities in both states,” said Steve Torbit, NWF’s regional executive director. “If we are to maintain our native deer and pronghorn populations and our hunting traditions, land managers and wildlife agencies need to address the landscape-wide impacts that undermine the habitat vitality wildlife relies on.”

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which has jurisdiction over almost all of the West’s vast federal lands, has management responsibility that stretch across state lines and over the interior Rocky Mountain West.

“The BLM must recognize the cumulative, landscape-wide impacts of its decisions and that a lease or permit granted in one area or state can directly result in added stress to migrating game herds in an adjacent state,” Torbit said. “The needs of wildlife over the entire landscape need to be fully factored in before permits for oil, gas, wind farms, agricultural practices or any other human activity are permitted.”

The report, “Population Status and Trends of Big Game along the Colorado/Wyoming State Line,” was prepared by veteran wildlife biologists John Ellenberger and Gene Byrne. Rather than look at only the most recent data, Byrne and Ellenberger analyzed wildlife agency statistics collected over the past 30 years, including population, hunter harvest and hunting license trends.

Statistics for game management units in both states were reviewed in an area roughly bounded by Interstate 80 on the north, the Green River to the west, U.S. Highway 40 on the south and Laramie, WY and Walden, Co on the east.

“The information we analyzed clearly shows steady population declines in both states for many of the deer and pronghorn herds that we examined,” Ellenberger said.

“We are concerned that at some point, the resiliency of these herds to recover will be lost, creating a situation where we can only expect further declines,” Ellenberger explained. “It is our professional opinion that federal land managers need to consider the full impact their decisions about development will have on our native wildlife or we risk further declines in our wildlife resources.

“Evaluations of impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat need to be performed at the landscape level, not just localized impacts,” Ellenberger said.

Both Torbit and Ellenberger emphasized that a growing body of peer-reviewed research has shown that the cumulative impacts of energy development, human population growth and agricultural practices have limited the natural resiliency of the habits wildlife need to survive. When natural factors such as periodic drought or disease affect a herd, the human impacts pile on top of each other, becoming “additive.” The result can be cumulative, potentially long-term declines.

“When there is a drop in the density of animals in an area that usually results in an increase in the productivity of a herd and the recruitment of young animals” Ellenberger explained. “”If that doesn’t occur, then there are serious issues with habitat limitations.”

For wildlife managers, “low recruitment” means that too few young animals are surviving to adulthood. Typically, populations of deer, pronghorn and other native species recover quickly to herd declines caused by drought or changes in habitat as soon as that specific factor is removed. For example, in the area in and around Yellowstone National Park in the late 1980s, the big-game populations suffered dramatic declines due to severe drought and the largest fire in the park’s recorded history. But within two years, the game populations were increasing thanks to adequate moisture and flourishing habitat.

Some area residents have suggested that predators such as coyotes are the reason for declines. But, who has worked extensively in both Wyoming and Colorado, emphasized that pronghorn and mule deer herds have always lived with predators.

“These game herds evolved with five different predators: wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, mountain lions and coyotes, and they still thrived,” Torbit noted. “We now have only three of these predators along the border with grizzlies and wolves no longer present.

“What’s changed are the intense demands we are placing on Western landscapes,
Torbit explained. “It appears that the new predator is the increased development and other human activity that has picked up pace over the past several decades.

“Mule deer and pronghorn are now experiencing 40-acre spacing of gas drilling pads and thousands of miles of roads and pipelines. Too often, decisions have been made on individual projects while the impacts are occurring on a much broader scale.”

Torbit said he fears mule deer and pronghorn populations may follow the steady decline of greater sage grouse that has been widely documented by wildlife researchers.

“Forty years ago a hunter could see hundreds of sage grouse in a single day,” Torbit recalled. “But due to landscape-wide factors, the sage grouse population has suffered a slow, inexorable decline and so has sage grouse hunting.

“As a Westerner, biologist and hunter, I don’t want to see that same decline occur in our mule deer and pronghorn,” Torbit said.

NWF biologists have met with BLM officials and the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish to present and discuss the new analysis of deer and pronghorn herds. A series of public meetings is scheduled in communities within the study area in Wyoming and Colorado.

“Ultimately, it will be up to all of who value our wildlife herds to urge federal and state agencies to make decisions that will protect our wildlife resource,” Torbit said. “The future of our hunting heritage and the billions of dollars wildlife brings to the region’s economy are at stake.”

 

[mhungerford]

But yet they extended the season for antelope and increased the number of tags that were given out for the areas around Laramie. As for the deer herd around Laramie i would say it has taken a hit but not a large one.

 

[BuzzH]

What areas have extended antelope seasons?

I also dont see any increases in antelope tags in the areas around Laramie either.

Look at the demand index's from 2005 compared to 2011...I dont see any increases in tag numbers, but I do see declines.

 

[npaden]

Some area residents have suggested that predators such as coyotes are the reason for declines. But, who has worked extensively in both Wyoming and Colorado, emphasized that pronghorn and mule deer herds have always lived with predators.

Who's this But guy and why do we care what he says?

Some of those linear graphs seem pretty sketchy to me. Unit D-1 had 3 flat years followed by slight growth for 5 years and it is showing as decreasing significantly according to the linear graph.

I'll agree that with the big harvest drop and the big drop from the early 1990's in that unit it is far below expectations, but it looks to be increasing to me instead of sharply decreasing like they are showing with the linear graph.

 

[mhungerford]

Area 44 and Area 45 have extended season Oct 1-14. in area 45 you may hunt into Oct. south of hwy 130. and area 44 i believe it is just extended for doe fawn thru the 14th of Oct. i was wrong on the tag increase there was a drop in the number of both buck and doe fawn tags in area 45. the season was extended.

 

[BuzzH]

I've got the regs right in front of me...unit 45 is only open south of hwy 130 from the 1st-14th of Oct. for both bucks and does.

I dont see anything listed for unit 44 being open longer.

The doe/fawn quota in 45 is 500...same as last year.

Unit 44 is 250 each for buck and doe tags, same as last year.

Both units had more tags issued in past years (since 2005).

 

[mhungerford]

okay like i said i was wrong on the increase in number of tags! I just went and got the regs and only area 45 has an extended season. you can hunt from oct. 1-14. south of hwy 130. sorry for the mistake. not like anyone else has ever posted mis information on here!!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Its not important about this years regs.

I'd guess the deal in 45 has more to do with about 95% of unit 45 being private than anything else.

The take-away message is that Oaks article is right on the money, even around Laramie. Less tags and less animals means less hunting opportunities.

 

[mhungerford]

i would agree with you after reading a lilttle more information and looking at some figures.

 

[recoil junky]

All your Wyoming antelope are in Moffat County Colorado. ON MY 40 ACRES!!!!!!

If anything the antelope numbers have risen here around Craig and deer numbers have declined although the number of tags for antelope NEVER go up. I have 6 antelope points in a 4 point area and I draw a deer tag every year GO FIGURE!!!

RJ

 

[Oak]

Some of those linear graphs seem pretty sketchy to me. Unit D-1 had 3 flat years followed by slight growth for 5 years and it is showing as decreasing significantly according to the linear graph.

I'll agree that with the big harvest drop and the big drop from the early 1990's in that unit it is far below expectations, but it looks to be increasing to me instead of sharply decreasing like they are showing with the linear graph.

Yes, the population is increasing very slightly with the huge decrease in hunter harvest. Notice that they are currently harvesting less than 75 deer a year in that DAU compared to over 700 deer/year in the late 80's. What that suggests is that there are other factors that are suppressing growth of that population. When you reduce hunter harvest by 90% and see minimal growth in the population, there must be something else that is limiting to that herd. The paper is suggesting that it may be manipulation/degradation of the habitat.

 

[npaden]

I agree Oak, and the numbers for sure support what you are saying.

I just don't think they needed to try to use smoke and mirrors to make it look even worse with the linear graph showing to be going dramatically down even though the population has stabilized and is even increasing slightly.

Just not sure where they are coming up with that linear graph. It sure isn't a moving average. Looks to me like someone just kind of eyeballed it and then drew it wherever they felt like.

 

[sneakem]

Funny especially in the baggs units that deer and antelope #'s took a dive about the start of the atlantic rim drilling project for 2000 wells in crucial winter habitat. Throw in a few crappy winters and increased human activity...strange that #'s went down. Good thing is they want more wells and to add more wind energy projects to disturb the little remaining winter areas.... Who cares if we have animals to hunt so long as these companies line their pockets with $$$$ off our public lands...

The areas that are decreasing in population usually experience very cold, long winters with marginal habitat at best. Long distance winter migrations usually 30+ miles from summer habitat. Animals have a hard enough time surviving in the best of conditions with out the destruction of crucial winter habitat....

 

[Oak]

I just don't think they needed to try to use smoke and mirrors to make it look even worse with the linear graph showing to be going dramatically down even though the population has stabilized and is even increasing slightly.

Just not sure where they are coming up with that linear graph. It sure isn't a moving average. Looks to me like someone just kind of eyeballed it and then drew it wherever they felt like.

No eyeballing...it's a simple linear regression. This might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

 

[the nikster]

Regression is a step back. I would prefer a more accurate depiction of real data. I was just wondering the other day why we have so few antelope in Idaho. I remember seeing MANY more as a youth. I decided loss of habitat, increased hunter success/access, domestics, disease, bad weather have all come together to reduce the population. Could the same be said elsewhere?

 

[Oak]

How would you like the data to be depicted?

I was just wondering the other day why we have so few antelope in Idaho. I remember seeing MANY more as a youth. I decided loss of habitat, increased hunter success/access, domestics, disease, bad weather have all come together to reduce the population. Could the same be said elsewhere?

Are you suggesting that there may be other factors at work? Looks like the authors of the paper agree with you.

Wildlife managers have know for years that a variety of factors are responsible for the condition of big game populations throughout the west as well as the area addressed in this report. Severe winters, extended drought, loss of habitat to development and noxious weed invasion are just a few of the factors that can have detrimental impacts on big game populations.

 

[the nikster]

If I'm wrong, correct me, but linear regression pretty much shows the trend overall but leaves out the highs and lows and can dismiss recent trends. For me it is similar to BMI-a tool to help analize data but not necessarily applicable in EVERY case. My simple mind is easier to wrap around a simple graph with ups and downs.
I am suggesting there are many, many factors coming together and simply addressing one or two may not be enough. So I guess I agree with the authors at least partially. Am I wrong to assume we agree?
Aside... I was driving through Wyoming and then through long valley in Idaho. I thought Long Valley was ideal antelope country but I've not seen an antelope there ever-although I see them all around there.

 

[Oak]

It shows the trend, yes. But it is typically displayed on top of the actual data, so that you can still make inferences like npaden did. You can see that there has been a slight increase in the population recently by looking at the graph.

Here is the population graph that npaden referred to:

And here is the corresponding hunter harvest for the same period:

Yes, we do agree that there may be other factors at work. Do you agree that the trend is disturbing, despite the very minimal increase in population in recent years? I think the important take-home message is that herds are not rebounding when hunter harvest is reduced to nearly zero. That implies that other factors are at work that are reducing recruitment and survival. The problem I see is that some people are not willing to look at all potential causes.

 

[the nikster]

Absolutely disturbing!! I would expect numbers to increase much more given the lack of hunter harvest.
So harvest has not reversed the decline, Do you know what the plan is going forward? Except minimally we cannot create habitat. What other factors can we effect? Personally, I would love for hunting to be able to resume at former levels but the focus needs to be on survivability first so that we can harvest later. But I must confess, I am over my head in deep water here. I am not a biologist, nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night.

 

[Oak]

Except minimally we cannot create habitat. What other factors can we effect?

I guess we could protect the habitat that is still there, and we can improve habitat in some cases.