Feeding Elk and Deer to Survive Winter

[Nameless Range]

I know there are a lot of problems with feeding elk and deer to help them survive winters - like the spread of disease. But I am starting to feel that in limited instances it may be a good idea. My reasons being:

• I don't buy the "let nature take its course" argument. We have built highways and cities in most of the historical wintering grounds of the mountain west
• Sure, winter kill happens, but what if a winter is a not a 10 year winter(like a 10 year storm), but a 100 year winter? As in, a winter like we have never seen since the North American Model was implemented. Somewhat analogous to the fires of 1910. We know what can happen in nature, it just isn't likely to happen in a given lifetime and hasn't in ours. It can take half a decade, if not more for populations to recover from a "normally bad" winter kill. Imagine a more extreme scenario.
• I'm not convinced that you couldn't have a near total die off if one of these "100 year winters" occurred.
• Would it not be worth it to supplement feed in one of these outlier winters to save a decade or more of hunting in a given area?

I'm not saying we are having one of those winters now and I am not saying I have a hardline position on this. And I'm not saying I support annual supplemental feeding or even feeding during a 10 year winter. But what about those 100 year winters that would impact deer and elk populations in a way that has not occurred since we filled our western valleys up with interstates and cities? I'm interested in other's takes when it comes to those 100 year winters.

The forecast is offering a bit of hope where I live, but even so, I think a chunk of the local deer population is already dead. Here are some pronghorn not acting like pronghorn in a struggle to survive.

 

[elkduds]

Wildlife agencies and biologists have done winter feeding in many different settings and circumstances. Thus, they have experience and that dirty word, "research" to use in deciding when, where and how to feed. There is @ least one citizen-led feeding effort going on now in CO, which prompted or coincided w CPW starting feeding and closing human interference w game on winter range this winter. https://www.gofundme.com/save-gunnison-wildlife. I think the citizens' action pressured CPW to take steps in the CO example. So IMO wildlife agencies know the pros/cons of feeding, have limited budgets, respond to political pressure to do what is right sooner rather than later.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ask yourself more questions:

1.) What happens to the habitat if there is a significant die off?

2.) Does existing habitat allow for current numbers?

3.) Did we rip up and develop the winter habitat for 5 & 10 acre horse ghettos and did that reduce the actual carrying capacity for available habitat?

4.) At what point do we just say we can develop everything and treat wildlife like livestock so we can shoot them?

 

[Nameless Range]

Ask yourself more questions:

1.) What happens to the habitat if there is a significant die off?

2.) Does existing habitat allow for current numbers?

3.) Did we rip up and develop the winter habitat for 5 & 10 acre horse ghettos and did that reduce the actual carrying capacity for available habitat?

4.) At what point do we just say we can develop everything and treat wildlife like livestock so we can shoot them?

1. Habitat may recover from overuse, or it may not be overused. I’m sure there would be a change.

2. In some instances habitat could allow for more, in some less. For argument’s sake, let’s say that habitat allows for current numbers 99 years out of 100. The one year being a catastrophic weather event that renders the habitat insufficient for current numbers.

3. Certainly. I would guess in many of those scenarios, that “horse ghetto country” is the secondary option, since the migrating to “unplowed streets of Helena country” was an option taken off the table 50 years ago.

4. There is certainly a threshold. Wyoming is feeding them every year. Are elk livestock in Wyoming? I am asking if maybe we should have the option on the table for one or two events a century. I acknowledge the slippery slope here.

I admit that the effect of a terrible kill on hunting is what is driving my thoughts here. But what I am not sure about, and what I don’t think others are sure about, is whether or not a 100 year or greater winter would force us into a “back from the brink” scenario all over again, since we have never seen one occur in under the North American Model and with modern western development being what it is. I don’t know whether such a winter would do the damage I’m talking about. Maybe there is no reason to worry about such a scenario. Like I said earlier, we know 1910 happened, but say we didn’t, would we think it possible that 3 million acres could burn to the ground in a day and a half? Is there something analogous that could occur to deer and elk when it comes to winterkill? I don’t know if there is or what it would look like.

 

[James Riley]

Always lost in this mess is the scavengers. Nobody ever thinks about the scavengers. Yeah, yeah, I know they can over-populate due to a good feast, and yeah, yeah, I know they don't fill our freezers, and yeah, yeah, I know you can't legally shoot vultures, but still, no one ever thinks about them freezing and starving. It's all about Bambie and the big rack.

 

[macnshana]

Always lost in this mess is the scavengers. Nobody ever thinks about the scavengers. Yeah, yeah, I know they can over-populate due to a good feast, and yeah, yeah, I know they don't fill our freezers, and yeah, yeah, I know you can't legally shoot vultures, but still, no one ever thinks about them freezing and starving. It's all about Bambie and the big rack.

Interesting. Certainly a view worth contemplating. Kinda like the wolf activists saying wolves are more important than elk. Are we saying deer and elk are more important than scavengers? Or are they all equal when numbers are kept in check? Who decides what "numbers" are to low and to high? Biologists? I think the mule deer doe numbers in North Eastern Utah discredits the true knowledge of some biologists.

 

[squirrel]

A bit of flexibility in "policy" would be a nice start. Of course the government agencies are the bench mark for such... All winter ranges are not equal. In CO the lower CO river is an "open funnel" habitat, except for that little subdivision called Grand Junction. The Gunny and Middle park are closed funnels, the water may escape (barely) but deer that can't float class 4 whitewater are stuck. Maybe a lower threshold than 30% could apply to those types of habitat?

After you watch a few thousands die you can easily see that if you dither and procrastinate until 30% are dead- even if the trigger is accurately assessed: and its not, at best it is an optimistic guess. (followed by weeks of meetings and position CYA discussions) you are guaranteed to watch another 20-30% follow. The angle of declination isn't steep and the recovery angle given harsh conditions resembles a flat line. Meanwhile the highways and trains just keep splattering them by the dozens as they lethargically stand there waiting to be smashed.

Better food- of course... better distribution, yep

Maybe CPW could be of help on the better food, distribution would be better handed off to locals.

Another huge change would be to enact emergency restrictions on speeds of cars and trains for a few months- can't imagine it happening though.


Of course those who spend all their money on boots and can't afford a little elbow room could push for HOA type covenants dealing with less deadly types of fencing, using a carrot approach rather than the big stick of forced compliance. Very few people enjoy the sight of starving deer, use it to enact changes.