How to decimate a mule deer herd: A case study in Wyoming

[Oak]

WyoFile Link

The neighboring Upper Powder River mule deer herd (different from the Powder River Herd in Sawyer’s study) experienced an even more dramatic change. There, biologists were tallying just 26% of the 18,000-animal goal. The commission slashed the objective in half, so now the herd’s roughly half the targeted size.

Not a single outfitter nor any member of the public formally weighed in. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission received no written comments, and only Brimeyer stood at the mic during the November meeting.

“Given the status of mule deer in Wyoming and the changes we’re seeing in places like Powder River, it’s kind of surprising that people didn’t provide a little bit more opinion,” Brimeyer told WyoFile.

 

[rogerthat]

Why do the bios slash the objective when a population crashes?

Edit: looks like the commission slashed the objective. Still same question, why?

 

[Big Fin]

I read that earlier today. Very depressing. And hard to find answers.

This chart from the article pretty much tells it all.


If one charted Nevada's mule deer population trends, the chart would look even worse, way worse. And I suspect the same could be said for mule deer in most places where they were once far more abundant.

 

[WapitiBob]

Why do the bios slash the objective when a population crashes?

Edit: looks like the commission slashed the objective. Still same question, why?

Well, in Washington state they reply that "perhaps the objective was too high."

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I read that earlier today. Very depressing. And hard to find answers.

This chart from the article pretty much tells it all.
View attachment 307262

If one charted Nevada's mule deer population trends, the chart would look even worse, way worse. And I suspect the same could be said for mule deer in most places where they were once far more abundant.

CA

 

[375H&H]

I live, work, and hunt in these areas and one thing that I cannot believe was left out (unless I missed it) was the amount of mule deer doe harvest. I have seen and had many family, extended family, and friends hunt ranches over the last 10 years where they take in excess of 200 animals off EACH RANCH (whitetail, mule deer, and antelope) with most being does. These ranches are around 5k acres each. Productive ranches yes, but not very large.

The first few years things were great. Animals everywhere and no noticeable changes. The last year they hunted these ranches the kill was down below 80 animals each ranch. The last 3 years the landowner declined saying there aren’t enough animals for doe harvest (wonder why).

I am not sure but it seems immediately stopping doe mule deer harvest is an obvious first step, and struggle to see why it wasn’t mentioned. I have personally talked with Tim Thomas about the impact over the last 13 years on doe harvest and how landowners got carried away with it. Some even kept the whitetail take for their families but let others blast away non stop at mulies.

Take unit 23 for example. It has fluctuated between and been as high as 1600 doe tags since 2010. A lot of the ranches east of Sheridan saw most of those hunters as they are away from town, could hunt multiple species, and could have a great hunt. How many years can you have a quota of over 1000 does with most being killed as mule deer before we see a problem?

Sorry for the rant, but it’s sickening seeing everything else blamed EXCEPT the slaughter of does that has been observed firsthand over the last 13 years.

 

[ismith]

Montana: Hold my beer!

 

[rtraverdavis]

I am not sure but it seems immediately stopping doe mule deer harvest is an obvious first step, and struggle to see why it wasn’t mentioned.

Maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds like they did end all doe hunting. From the article:

“The state agency has already taken the biggest step in its power to help both herds, ending all doe and fawn hunting.”

 

[rtraverdavis]

Another quote from the article:

“There’s no doubt that a lot of our grassland and a lot of shrublands were way more productive [for mule deer] in the 1950s than they are now,” Heffelfinger said. “It’s something that’s hard to point to and say, ‘Look at that problem,’ because it’s just such a slow, long-term change. But it’s real and it’s pretty widespread.”

I’ve heard this a lot. Besides the obvious—development, roads, traffic, general human disturbance—could someone explain what those differences are? Here in central Oregon we certainly have a cheat grass and juniper encroachment problem. What else has changed to make the landscape less productive for mule deer? Thanks in advance.

 

[Bigjay73]

A 20 year drought hasn't helped. Combine drought, cattle grazing and bad winters and you have a nice recipe for declining mule deer numbers.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Until herd objective is reached (the old objective, not this floating guess):

-Shut the doe seasons down.
-End public land cattle grazing.

 

[shb]

Another quote from the article:

“There’s no doubt that a lot of our grassland and a lot of shrublands were way more productive [for mule deer] in the 1950s than they are now,” Heffelfinger said. “It’s something that’s hard to point to and say, ‘Look at that problem,’ because it’s just such a slow, long-term change. But it’s real and it’s pretty widespread.”

I’ve heard this a lot. Besides the obvious—development, roads, traffic, general human disturbance—could someone explain what those differences are? Here in central Oregon we certainly have a cheat grass and juniper encroachment problem. What else has changed to make the landscape less productive for mule deer? Thanks in advance.

Winter range valleys full of housing developments

Protection and increase of predators

More traffic - (roadkill season is 24/7/365)

 

[antlerradar]

Until herd objective is reached (the old objective, not this floating guess):

-Shut the doe seasons down.
-End public land cattle grazing.

Public land was grazed by cattle much harder in the 50's and 60's. Part of the issue for mule deer is that less cattle grazing tends to give advantages to grassland species that favor elk more than mule deer. More grass, fewer forbes and shrubs is not a recipe for more mule deer.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Public land was grazed by cattle much harder in the 50's and 60's. Part of the issue for mule deer is that less cattle grazing tends to give advantages to grassland species that favor elk more than mule deer. More grass, fewer forbes and shrubs is not a recipe for more mule deer.

Interesting, would like to know more. Do cattle prefer the grasses and thus give forbs/shrubs a better opportunity to grow with less competition for resources? Or is it a matter of heavy grazing preventing grasses from becoming as dominant that choke out the forbs/shrubs?

 

[BigHornRam]

Interesting, would like to know more. Do cattle prefer the grasses and thus give forbs/shrubs a better opportunity to grow with less competition for resources? Or is it a matter of heavy grazing preventing grasses from becoming as dominant that choke out the forbs/shrubs?

Heavy grazing doesn't allow the grasses to go to seed, and over time the grass species thin out, giving less competion to the shrubs. I would think that over grazing, would be hard on the forbs as well, but I'm not an expert on the subject.

 

[SAJ-99]

Public land was grazed by cattle much harder in the 50's and 60's. Part of the issue for mule deer is that less cattle grazing tends to give advantages to grassland species that favor elk more than mule deer. More grass, fewer forbes and shrubs is not a recipe for more mule deer.

The part I can’t reconcile (probably from lack of knowledge) is that whitetail are fine and they focus more on forbes too. I have seen whitetail in prime mule habitat. I suspect that it is because the proliferation of water tanks and irrigation ditches for cattle?

 

[Hunting Wife]

Public land was grazed by cattle much harder in the 50's and 60's. Part of the issue for mule deer is that less cattle grazing tends to give advantages to grassland species that favor elk more than mule deer. More grass, fewer forbes and shrubs is not a recipe for more mule deer.

I agree with this 100%.

A major reason for this is the dramatic increase in nonnative invasive plants, especially grasses, that have essentially resulted in monotypic stands of invasive grass across the west. Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, cheatgrass and Japanese brome…there are millions of acres where the forb/shrub component has been severely reduced or even eliminated due to competition from invasives. That’s very bad for mule deer. If we eliminate disturbance (cattle grazing quite often), this invasion accelerates in grassland ecosystems. I’m not saying overgrazing isn’t a problem, particularly on public. But there’s a reason the highest quality prairie and grasslands that I have personally ever seen are typically found on private working lands. They sure as hell aren’t found on idle ground.

Changes in weather patterns and precipitation abundance and timing aren’t helping the native plants hang on, either. That’s resulted in changes to plant communities and succession that affect all types of habitats mule deer use.

Back in the day, deer could migrate to better foraging grounds when weather events or forage quality weren’t optimal, but I think we all know by now the enormous barriers impacting migration corridors that exist on the landscape today. Not to mention the losses of high quality winter range to migrate to in the first place.

Those changes in weather patterns are also driving changes in disease emergence and spread. As we see climactic shifts, we’ve got expansion of parasites and vector-borne diseases (EHD for example) that aren’t good news for deer either.

The relative weight of all of these factors, and others, likely varies among different populations but I suspect the range wide decline of mule deer is much more a factor of “death by a thousand cuts” than any single variable alone. Folks like to get all wrapped around the axle over single issues (it’s the predators! It’s the habitat!), but it just isn’t that simple.

 

[375H&H]

Maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds like they did end all doe hunting. From the article:

“The state agency has already taken the biggest step in its power to help both herds, ending all doe and fawn hunting.”

You are right, they did mention “stopping” doe/fawn hunting, but hardly if at all cited it as a major factor in the decline. They focused on the interstate, CWD, coal bed methane, grazing, etc but never dove into the doe harvest.

In 2023 there were still 300 doe tags valid for mule deer in 23/26 which directly affect the Powder River deer herd near I90 that was studied. Moving in the right direction but disingenuous to say it has all been stopped.

You almost messed up a good rant I had haha

 

[fowladdict]

Anyone have the elk herd trends for this area?

 

[Wild Bill]

I agree with this 100%.

A major reason for this is the dramatic increase in nonnative invasive plants, especially grasses, that have essentially resulted in monotypic stands of invasive grass across the west. Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, cheatgrass and Japanese brome…there are millions of acres where the forb/shrub component has been severely reduced or even eliminated due to competition from invasives. That’s very bad for mule deer. If we eliminate disturbance (cattle grazing quite often), this invasion accelerates in grassland ecosystems. I’m not saying overgrazing isn’t a problem, particularly on public. But there’s a reason the highest quality prairie and grasslands that I have personally ever seen are typically found on private working lands. They sure as hell aren’t found on idle ground.

Changes in weather patterns and precipitation abundance and timing aren’t helping the native plants hang on, either. That’s resulted in changes to plant communities and succession that affect all types of habitats mule deer use.

Back in the day, deer could migrate to better foraging grounds when weather events or forage quality weren’t optimal, but I think we all know by now the enormous barriers impacting migration corridors that exist on the landscape today. Not to mention the losses of high quality winter range to migrate to in the first place.

Those changes in weather patterns are also driving changes in disease emergence and spread. As we see climactic shifts, we’ve got expansion of parasites and vector-borne diseases (EHD for example) that aren’t good news for deer either.

The relative weight of all of these factors, and others, likely varies among different populations but I suspect the range wide decline of mule deer is much more a factor of “death by a thousand cuts” than any single variable alone. Folks like to get all wrapped around the axle over single issues (it’s the predators! It’s the habitat!), but it just isn’t that simple.

Hit that one on the head. Very well said.