MT Mule Deer Symposium

[Ben Lamb]

I agree that coyote control is not effective.

Lions, whole different deal. They don't prey primarily on rodents.

Agreed. We know we can severely impact lion populations. Same with bears & wolves. Completely different set of critters with completely different biology.

But again, if we're not looking at the whole picture, we're only addressing symptoms, not the disease, so to speak.

 

[Eric Albus]

I agree w/ that assesment Ben. To control a coyote population is to costly...and putting a lot of pressure results in larger litters...amazing animal, the coyote.

To the livestock issue, if removal of cattle had a significant impact then the CMR should be loaded up w/ deer. Cattle are grazers and mule deer browse...so overgrazing in some cases is beneficial to browse species of flora. I am not promoting overgrazing, but again there is a happy medium between overgrazing and undergazing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree w/ that assesment Ben. To control a coyote population is to costly...and putting a lot of pressure results in larger litters...amazing animal, the coyote.

To the livestock issue, if removal of cattle had a significant impact then the CMR should be loaded up w/ deer. Cattle are grazers and mule deer browse...so overgrazing in some cases is beneficial to browse species of flora. I am not promoting overgrazing, but again there is a happy medium between overgrazing and undergazing.

I agree. I think that we've seen a lot of instances where elk in particular will select areas grazed by livestock due to the regen of grasses. The key is to do it with an eye towards sustainability. I am not opposed to grazing on public lands, if done properly.

As for CMR - I think you have to look at what impact livestock grazing has on sagebrush. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Overgrazing of livestock leads to soil erosion which leads to poor growth of forbs, etc.

 

[Eric Albus]

ben, the grazing on the CMR has been reduced to next to nothing and to nothing in some areas. The problem w/ old growth sagebrush is that it has little to no protein. It needs controlled burning in areas to rejuvenate and reinvigorate the plants. One of the ranches that I have the priviledge to hunt has done some clipping of old growth sage brush that was 4-5 foot tall....pretty neat to see benefits for the wildlife on that 10 acre patch, the tender shoots coming off the old plants are apparently more palatable, and nutritious as deer browse this patch pretty regularly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

ben, the grazing on the CMR has been reduced to next to nothing and to nothing in some areas. The problem w/ old growth sagebrush is that it has little to no protein. It needs controlled burning in areas to rejuvenate and reinvigorate the plants. One of the ranches that I have the priviledge to hunt has done some clipping of old growth sage brush that was 4-5 foot tall....pretty neat to see benefits for the wildlife on that 10 acre patch, the tender shoots coming off the old plants are apparently more palatable, and nutritious as deer browse this patch pretty regularly.

When I last visited with CMR folks, it sounded like they were looking at some controlled burns to do just that. Any idea if that's moved forward?

100% with you on old sage. Multi-age communities are a benefit not only to deer, but to sage grouse, etc. Healthy habitat = abundant wildlife.

 

[Toadslayer]

Here's one: Quit doing this:

That's where most of the biggest mulie bucks are these days.
Nice job bringing in the left wing garbage propaganda to the discussion, Ben.

 

[Bambistew]

I pulled these numbers from the on-line F&G harvest data. Take them for what their worth...

Looks like MD harvest is down 40% over the last 10 years. Also, hunter effort is up 12%. Meaning hunters are spending more time to kill fewer deer.

I doubt anything will change. It's Montana after all, change only happens when it's too late.

I also included a harvest rate per week of the rifle season. There was only 2 years worth of data, but I remember reading a study done a while back that mirrored what I have up. The last 2 weeks of the season are really no different than the first 3. We're not killing a disproportionate number of deer the last 2 weeks, just killing 40% of them...

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's where most of the biggest mulie bucks are these days.
Nice job bringing in the left wing garbage propaganda to the discussion, Ben.

It's called winter range. Without it, You don't the Wyoming Range mule deer herd. With that development,you only have 40% of what used to be there.

Nothing liberal or conservative about the truth.

 

[shoots-straight]

That's where most of the biggest mulie bucks are these days.
Nice job bringing in the left wing garbage propaganda to the discussion, Ben.

Do you have any data to back that up?

 

[Big Fin]

That's where most of the biggest mulie bucks are these days.
Nice job bringing in the left wing garbage propaganda to the discussion, Ben.

Toad - I am hardly a left winger, but I am going to ask, "Why is it that whenever someone points out the impacts of oil and gas on wildlife, you get all wound up? You in the oil and gas industry?"

Seems hard to argue against the mountains of data that show what has happened to mule deer in western Wyoming upon serious disruption of their winter range by oil and gas exploration. Same for what the biologists in western North Dakota are saying.

Not saying we don't all use/need oil and gas, but the data shows the impact it has. As hunters, if we don't advocate for better ways to extract it, who will? After all, historically hunters have seen it as our job to speak out on behalf of wildlife and habitat.

There are better ways to do it. The oil and gas industry claims there are good ways, but when you go to Wyoming, you don't see any of those supposed "wildlife-friendly" ideas in action. You just see site after site, stacked in like an industrial zone, with roads, pads, ponds, etc. in every square mile.

If, as you say, that is where most the biggest mulie bucks are these days, I believe you might be correct in Wyoming, given there are fewer and fewer public land places in Wyoming that are not heavily impacted by oil and gas. Where else would a mulie buck go to get away from it?

 

[shoots-straight]

I pulled these numbers from the on-line F&G harvest data. Take them for what their worth...

Looks like MD harvest is down 40% over the last 10 years. Also, hunter effort is up 12%. Meaning hunters are spending more time to kill fewer deer.

I doubt anything will change. It's Montana after all, change only happens when it's too late.

I also included a harvest rate per week of the rifle season. There was only 2 years worth of data, but I remember reading a study done a while back that mirrored what I have up. The last 2 weeks of the season are really no different than the first 3. We're not killing a disproportionate number of deer the last 2 weeks, just killing 40% of them...

+1. People will kill a buck regardless of when the season opens. I'm not one of those though. Haven't killed a mule deer in 20 years. Might have to fix that next year.

 

[Toadslayer]

Toad - I am hardly a left winger, but I am going to ask, "Why is it that whenever someone points out the impacts of oil and gas on wildlife, you get all wound up? You in the oil and gas industry?"

Seems hard to argue against the mountains of data that show what has happened to mule deer in western Wyoming upon serious disruption of their winter range by oil and gas exploration. Same for what the biologists in western North Dakota are saying.

Not saying we don't all use/need oil and gas, but the data shows the impact it has. As hunters, if we don't advocate for better ways to extract it, who will? After all, historically hunters have seen it as our job to speak out on behalf of wildlife and habitat.

There are better ways to do it. The oil and gas industry claims there are good ways, but when you go to Wyoming, you don't see any of those supposed "wildlife-friendly" ideas in action. You just see site after site, stacked in like an industrial zone, with roads, pads, ponds, etc. in every square mile.

If, as you say, that is where most the biggest mulie bucks are these days, I believe you might be correct in Wyoming, given there are fewer and fewer public land places in Wyoming that are not heavily impacted by oil and gas. Where else would a mulie buck go to get away from it?

I am in the energy industry that is in the middle of the oil and gas..uranium. I see HUGE mule deer bucks everyday right among all the wells and all those roads. And you may be correct about they have no where else to go, but I think it stems from the lack of hunting pressure in those areas. The roads, pipelines and all those well areas are seeded with high quality grasses that feed many deer and I think help sustain them through some pretty nasty winters.
As far as getting worked up about oil and gas all the time, it was more about getting worked up about a cheap shot picture that was posted that brought absolutely nothing to the discussion, but only to swipe at the energy industry and to drag the discussion back in the gutter and not make a headway on finding any common ground about bringing back a robust mule deer population.

Toad

 

[Ben Lamb]

Get that sand out of your crack. I wasn't taking a swipe at the industry, I was talking about unbridled development on the backs of others.

The Anticline development has caused a 60% reduction in the overall size of that herd. That same scenario has played out throughout the west. If the industry feels guilty about that, then maybe they should have tried to find common ground with hunters rather than use the last administration as a steamroller when it came to winter drilling concerns.

 

[belly-deep]

+1. People will kill a buck regardless of when the season opens. I'm not one of those though. Haven't killed a mule deer in 20 years. Might have to fix that next year.

Utah has chopped their seasons down so much that hunter hysteria hits for the few days of general season that remain...no forkie is safe...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Today on Battle Ridge, Bridger Mountains, where there are many coyotes, the tracks and sign around the chewed up mule deer leg were those of a mountain lion. Just one anecdotal report from a guy who wants more lion predator control in areas where mule deer populations are in decline. My two cents also supports less grazing in the Bridgers and an improved program to promote mule deer forage.

 

[Toadslayer]

Cause i could just return fire with this picture

 

[BuzzH]

Hey Toadslayer,

Top it...

 

[Toadslayer]

Every one needs a road to it.

 

[BuzzH]

That isnt Wyoming...try again.

And for the record, before you start chirping "it could be Wyoming", Wyoming has some of the most restrictive regulations regarding wind-farms in the U.S.

Just sayin'...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Cause i could just return fire with this picture

Yep. And if poorly sited, They can have huge impacts to wildlife. It's all about an adequate regulatory mechanism that respects all uses and favors none.