MT Mule Deer Symposium

[The Hedgehog]

JLS/Lawnboy - regarding posts way back. Bart, I did hunt the bridgers in the late 80s. And honestly, I've had better hunts this year, last year, and going back many years in many different MT places, than I did in the Bridgers back then. Just my own days.. not any data to back that. I haven't actually hunted for deer there since it's went to permit. It snowed really hard a few years back the day after season closed and I spent 3 mornings just driving the west base of the mountains glassing. Not impressed, but I did see one enourmous typical, just above the Howes place that was a true 190+ heavy giant. It's too small of a range and too many people/houses around to really expect it to be a giant buck mecca, unless they restrict permits to next to nothing.

As for the Gravellies, take a look at the hunting pressure these days and going back even 10-20 years. Good God. Rocket science isn't required there.

Biggest buck I saw this year was while scouting MT goats. No deer hunters. I looked in that area for 4-5 full days and couldn't find him, though I saw lots of deer tracks (circling my tent no less while I was out hunting) - into November. Tough hunting. He was a 180+ no doubt. I saw another 180+ in Billings this year, corner of Shilo and Central. I also had 4 mule deer in my backyard today.. and yes, I'm in the center of town.

I was hunting mule deer in Montana and it was great. I can't wait until the guys that want to glass bucks from the trucks like in the good old days want to close the season or go special draw everywhere. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Papa-Zulu]

No one has answered Lawnboy's question, which was "How do you grow browse species?" My only response would be by selective burning, but that is just a guess. I am not a range manager.

I haven't shot a mule deer buck since 1996 in Nevada, but I've hunted them on-and-off since the early 1960s. Along with lots of other people, I wish someone had answers in restoring their numbers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Along with lots of other people, I wish someone had answers in restoring their numbers.

Here's one: Quit doing this:

 

[BuzzH]

No one has answered Lawnboy's question, which was "How do you grow browse species?" My only response would be by selective burning, but that is just a guess. I am not a range manager.

Along with lots of other people, I wish someone had answers in restoring their numbers.

You can plant browse species, you can also increase them through various treatments, fire being one.

I bet 1-pointer could give suggestions and methods of all kinds of ways.

But, again, how do we know browse is the problem?

After reading Erics post again, I think he's really on the right track in that you must identify the HERD SPECIFIC problems/limiting factors.

There is no question that different things are impacting individual herds. What the problems and solutions are for deer in Nevada...is probably way different than those in Washington, which are likely much different than those in Nebraska.

Mule deer and associated habitat they use are extremely diverse across their range.

 

[Papa-Zulu]

Ben, your point is well-taken. However, there are areas in the West that are largely unchanged from what they were 30 or 40 years ago, but mule deer numbers are still down. Gas wells and subdivisions are easy to recognize, but I think the problem goes a lot deeper than that.

 

[Big Fin]

If we are going to improve the plight of the mule deer we must begin to manage biologically...not by popular opinion....wildlife managment should not be a popularity contest. This may mean that we must give up something to attain a greater good for the resource...something has to give if we are going to see a healthy structure of our mule deer herds in Montana....I look at it this way...I could not manage a ranch in SE, SW, NW, Montana the way I manage the ranch here in NE Mt....just does not work... wildlife is no different..this is a very diverse state, there should be very diverse management approaches w/ wildlife, as the deer here in NE Mt face different issues than the ones in SW Mt....yet our state is pretty much blanket managed(excepting a few LE areas)......to me it's a funny thing, prior to the winter of 2010 I would see more antlelope here in Reg. 6 than I did mule deer...and antelope are on a permit?? I am not advocating a permit system, but eventually we will be there, as a finite resource can not handle infinite pressure. I want to stave off the permits as long as we can...but in order to do that we must be PRO-ACTIVE in managment.

Eric - I agree with everything in that post.

So, in our part of the state, public land habitat improvement is going to be the biggest game changer. In your part of the state, it seems habitat improvement on private lands is going to be the big issue.

From the hunter side, I will be the first to admit, there is no consensus from our side, as to what is the problem. Ask 100 hunters and you get 25 different answers as to what they see as a problem and you get 100 different answers to what they see as the solution.

Seems the outfitter community is not too different in their inability to find a common voice, either. I hear you talking about biology and herd management, which I agree with, then I read Paul Ellis promoting all the phony economic issues related to archery elk hunting that have nothing to do with biology, rather are counter to the biology. Add to that the MOGA sponsored bills and their legislative friends introducing bills to again raise non-resident permit numbers even higher, when I think we all agree that more pressure is not the solution, and most likely not at all a biologic-based idea.

Point being, the state is diverse as you mention. And, as much as one would think the hunters would all be on the same page and the outfitters would all be on the same page, that is just not the case.

If I was King for a day, the solution would look a lot different. We would raise resident fees and start acquiring/using the best biological data to accomplish what the majority of hunters, guided or unguided, want as the final outcome. We would eliminate a lot of doe tags, possibly restricting mule hunting in some areas until population objectives were met. Not for the sake of growing big deer, but for the sake of having a healthy abundant herd of diverse age classes.

Most every Block Management cooperator would be encouraged to have walk-in only hunting. Only the main arterial roads on large public land areas would be open during the November rut. I would decouple the non-resident big game combo license and make it a deer or an elk license, not both. I would try to redirect harvest more towards whitetails in areas where they can withstand it (cental/east) and protect them more in areas where they cannot (west/northwest).

I would invest more habitat money in areas currently in limited entry to measure the results of habitat improvement in a more controlled setting as is the case of these limited units. Before I went to more limited hunting, I would learn what is, or is not, working in those units.

I would get rid of mountain lion quotas and lion trophy areas, protecting lion numbers nothing more than a female subquota needed to prevent a lawsuit that we are shooting too many cats. In order to grow a trophy tom, we need to have a very large lion population, which requires a lot of deer served up as feed.

I would NOT have the state do any predator control, whether lions, coyotes or wolves. If hunters are concerned about predation, then we need to get off our collective asses and do something about it. I would allocate money to other programs that will have lasting effect.

Predator control compared to habitat conservation is like renting a house versus buying a house. All data shows that, and the sooner we get hunters to get off that notion and the waste of energy and money predator control represents, the quicker solutions will come.

I would change our license structure to be like most other states. You would buy a license first, then you would get your tags on top of that. To apply in MT, you would need to buy a non-refundable license, the same as I pay in NV, AZ, ID, etc.

Solving these problems is going to be expensive. I would raise resident fees to be in the average of Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. I would then index it for inflation to get rid of the stupid arguments we have with legislators every decade when a fee increase is needed. Residents would be mad, but as you said, it is not a popularity contest. And as Buzz said, solving these problems requires money.

I would confront Federal land agencies about their management actions. I would work with them whenever I could, but I would also use whatever tools I might have as a boot in the butt, in instances where they are not fulfilling their obligations.

But, since I am not King for a day, and never will be, all of my drivel is just that, drivel.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Papa-zulu - I'm on 21st and the deer came from you're direction! Here's the one I saw on Shilo in Billings too...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, your point is well-taken. However, there are areas in the West that are largely unchanged from what they were 30 or 40 years ago, but mule deer numbers are still down. Gas wells and subdivisions are easy to recognize, but I think the problem goes a lot deeper than that.

I think Randy and Eric are correct in that each herd will have it's distinct challenges. However, if we do not look at the larger picture when it comes to climate change, how we use winter habitat and how we approach the challenge of energy development specifically on public land, we will never begin to reverse the decline.

As with all things, there's the site specific answer, and then there's the bigger picture. Keeping a narrow focus and ignoring the larger aspects of what is occuring related to habitat won't help us.

 

[Jon Boy]

Papa-zulu - I'm on 21st and the deer came from you're direction! Here's the one I saw on Shilo in Billings too...

I used to live on shilo and monad, seen some good ones there...then I moved across the street from msub on mnt view and saw the biggest non typical ive ever seen in my back yard....figures

 

[Eric Albus]

fin, there is a lot of merit in what you suggest. I would not do away w/ the predator control though. I do not think that you can call/hunt coyotes hard enough to impact them...harder they are hunted the larger the litters....one trapper I know right now told me that numbers of yotes are so good that he is not getting very many pups...which means there is not much pressure on the coyote population....

I can not post the web address, but look up "the kiabab deer incident, myths, lies, and scientific fraud"...it is a great study done on the kiabab irruption in the 20's....same thing happend in the Missouri Breaks in the 40's...coyotes were posioned and the mule deer population irrupted.(not saying that this is a good thing, as we certainly do not need thousands of deer)


ben...loss of habitat is not the problem in Eastern Mt.

 

[belly-deep]

I think Randy and Eric are correct in that each herd will have it's distinct challenges. However, if we do not look at the larger picture when it comes to climate change, how we use winter habitat and how we approach the challenge of energy development specifically on public land, we will never begin to reverse the decline.

As with all things, there's the site specific answer, and then there's the bigger picture. Keeping a narrow focus and ignoring the larger aspects of what is occuring related to habitat won't help us.

Explain the climate change thing...Old Mexico gives me the impression that warm temps and dry winters are good for growing big deer

 

[Ben Lamb]

Explain the climate change thing...Old Mexico gives me the impression that warm temps and dry winters are good for growing big deer

These links can explain it better than I can:

http://www.seasonsend.org/documents/Elk Mule deerWAFWA.doc

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/mule_deer_wafwa.pdf

 

[Big Fin]

Explain the climate change thing...Old Mexico gives me the impression that warm temps and dry winters are good for growing big deer

Ask the Nevada biologists/hunters, what warm temps and dry winters have done for them. Whether we call it climate change, warm winters, whatever, it has pretty much ruined millions of acres of Nevada's best wintering ranges, bringing mule deer carrying capacity down from 250,000 in the mid-1980's to about 150,000 now.

It has resulted in huge expansion of pinion-juniper plant communities choking out former browse/communities. Resulted in much larger and hotter fires that have resulted in massive expansion of cheatgrass, a non-native plant with almost no wildlife value, replacing summer range browse and winter range sage.

The Nevada bios are convinced that overall climate change trends are having a big impact on mule deer habitat, and therefore mule deer numbers, in their state. Hopefully if those climate trends go back to where they were in the 1940s-1970s, the mule deer in Nevada will follow.

 

[belly-deep]

Ask the Nevada biologists/hunters, what warm temps and dry winters have done for them. Whether we call it climate change, warm winters, whatever, it has pretty much ruined millions of acres of Nevada's best wintering ranges, bringing mule deer carrying capacity down from 250,000 in the mid-1980's to about 150,000 now.

It has resulted in huge expansion of pinion-juniper plant communities choking out former browse/communities. Resulted in much larger and hotter fires that have resulted in massive expansion of cheatgrass, a non-native plant with almost no wildlife value, replacing summer range browse and winter range sage.

The Nevada bios are convinced that overall climate change trends are having a big impact on mule deer habitat, and therefore mule deer numbers, in their state. Hopefully if those climate trends go back to where they were in the 1940s-1970s, the mule deer in Nevada will follow.

Trophy-wise, Nevada is better than its ever been. Opportunity-wise, it sucks.

Climate change makes sense as a cause of poor winter range. Old Mexico grow 'em big, but doesn't grow many.

None of that seems to be a factor in the NW where I grew up and where drathhaar is talking about. As he said, everything is growing in and choking out the browse. Also, I believe predators are a factor up there, even if you guys think differently.

 

[cowboy]

I agree something needs to be done. I also would guess it would take a lot of time and money for a lot to get accomplished. Time is not something I'm willing to wait for.

So here is a suggestion that will not take a lot of time and money and it has been suggested by others. I will suggest that doe tags in certain areas not be reduced but cut to ZERO and done immediately with no biology study.

We all talk about using biology based data and when I talk to various biologists about why there are any doe tags being issued I get a bunch of star gazing. If biology based data shows this than we have more of a problem than we thought.

Not to detract on another species but F&G are still issuing doe antelope tags in 700 and the antelope population is as low as it can get with any hope of having the ability to rebound. Now the No Dak G&F flat out shut their season down and that's just a stones throw from our few remaining antelope.

 

[Papa-Zulu]

Big Fin: You have answered my question better than anyone I have talked to.

Cowboy: The managers in Region 7 of southeast Montana have always been brainless with their quotas and doe permits. Region 7 has operated like an entirely different state for as long as I can remember. This all started with a management culture initiated by a wildlife manager back in the '70s. He is long since retired but his "missionaries" live on.

 

[Big Shooter]

Fin...I somewhat agree with the habitat thing, but in a way I don't and I'm not trying to stir chit. I'll use our own place a an example. We have great habitat including plenty of sage (browse), an abundance of cover (gumbo breaks and so on) and acres of alfalfa, wheat, hay barley, millet and plenty of other forage. I don't hunt it for the simple reason that some guys from Missoula have hunted it for 30+ years so I leave it alone. They maybe take 2 deer a year off of it......and not real picky either. That's just off of the north part which is probably....18,000 acres. So not a bunch of ground, but a decent amount. We could grow some great deer, but......hey wonder off during the rut. They go back and forth between us and the neighbors, who allows too much hunting in my opinion. My point is, I think that the habitat (I'm talking strictly the eastern part of the state as I know the western part is a whole different monster), is still great and hasn't changed, but yet the quality still suffers. "Suffers" is probably a strong word but the quality isn't as good as it could be, with minimal pressure. I still think (know) the rut has a lot to do with it. Not DIY hunters, not outfitters, nothing but the rut.

Shoots....I'm watching a movie and I will deal with your arrogance later.

 

[Eric Albus]

greenhorn...you are right about us having the most aggessive coyote killin' machine on the planet...which is why are 630 & 670 have decent doe:fawn ratios..

ben, read "kiabab incident, myths, lies, and scientific fraud"....I have seen this same thing happen here in Reg. 6...after the high fur prices of the 70's with everyone and their dog gunning coyotes from supercubs...we had an irruption,

 

[Ben Lamb]

greenhorn...you are right about us having the most aggessive coyote killin' machine on the planet...which is why are 630 & 670 have decent doe:fawn ratios..

ben, read "kiabab incident, myths, lies, and scientific fraud"....I have seen this same thing happen here in Reg. 6...after the high fur prices of the 70's with everyone and their dog gunning coyotes from supercubs...we had an irruption,

Here's the link:
http://westinstenv.org/wibio/2010/01/20/the-kaibab-deer-incident-myths-lies-and-scientific-fraud/

There's a lot more going on in this than just predator control, Eric. The area was closed to hunting and they removed a large number of livestock as well so that there was no competition for forage. Are you advocating elimination of livestock grazing on public lands to grow deer?

Kay has a hard-on for killing predators and is widely known for fudging the facts to fit his world view. I respect Dr. Kay, but I rarely find other biologists who agree with him. Much like the pro-wolf biologists, Dr, Kay leaves out key components of his research. In this instance - the reduced competition by domestic livestock and the lack of hunting.

I don't think he paints a very complete picture.

Here's my experience:

From 2003 - 2007 I was on the Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board. We worked on these issues as a collective of livestock producers, outfitters, conservationists and hunters. What we found out repeatedly is that unless you eradicate coyotes under intensive management for extremely long periods of time, you will not have much effect. We tried coyote control on the Whiskey Mountain Bighorn Sheep herd to no effect. We tried it in the Gas Hills region of Central WY for mule deer and pronghorn to no effect.

Simply put - if you want to engage in predator control, specifically coyote control, you're looking at millions of dollars a year, with extremely limited impact. Once the control is let off, you get an over-abundance of coyotes. You also eliminate the alpha pair that establishes home ranges keeping other younger coyotes out. Those established pairs help regulate the population over time, creating a much more stable predator-prey relationship. A lot of research done my Dr. Steven Horn of the University of Wyoming has led the way to more holistic management of Coyotes for a lot of producers, which in turn has led to less predation on calves, and on wildlife. 'Yotes are primarily predators of smaller species (rodents, rabbits, etc). 'Yotes are also part of the cyclic nature of wildlife.

Less forage = less prey = less coyotes. As with all things in nature, the effects are not immediate. These troughs and waves do not correspond on the timeline acceptable to hunters and outfitters. They just happen regardless of our desires.

Here's a more in-depth look at what CO did regarding coyote control and Piceane basin in the 80's:

Subsequently, we studied the effects of coyote control on fawn survival during winter. Mortality rates of fawns were documented for 4 years before coyote control was started and compared to mortality rates for the following 3 years during which 218 coyotes were killed (1.3 coyotes/mi 2/yr). If coyote predation was a major factor limiting deer, fawn survival was expected to increase during the periods when coyotes were killed. If food shortage was a major factor, fawn mortality rates were not expected to change during periods when coyotes were controlled. It was anticipated that the mortality rates would not change but deaths from coyote predation would decline and be replaced with deaths from other causes. Prior to coyote control (1981-82 through 1984-85), an average of 83% of the fawns died during winter. Coyote predation on deer fawns varied from year to year, accounting for 49-77% of the total winter fawn mortality. Winter fawn mortality during years when coyotes were controlled averaged 76% and was not significantly different from mortality rates during years when coyotes were not controlled (Fig. 12). Decreases in fawn deaths due to coyote predation were largely offset by increases in starvation rates.

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mdreport.pdf

The reality is this: The more pressure you put on coyotes, the more times per year bitches go into estrus. The more times they go into heat, the more litters they have. The more litters they have, the larger the population becomes. The larger the population becomes, the larger the impact they have on anything.

The war on coyotes that we've waged over the last 150 years has been won, but not by us. We've managed to create such an unstable situation that we now have coyotes in the entire continental United States. Out of that population, only one state had coyotes illegally introduced: Georgia.

It just doesn't work long term. And we need to be looking at the long term rather than short term fixes that blow up and backfire later on.

Kill all the song dogs you want. It's great sport and if you think you're helping deer fine, but don't ask me to fund scientifically and biologically flawed management practices with my license dollars.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree that coyote control is not effective.

Lions, whole different deal. They dont prey primarily on rodents.