MT Mule Deer Symposium

[JLS]

That in conjunction with production may be helpful in explaining the reduced amount of fat/condition of cow elk going into winter. IIRC from the link you provided that is a key factor in calving success. Something's causing the reduction in condition and I'm far from convinced that 7 days earlier green up is the culprit. My guess is there's more 'meat' already fleshed out on that subject that's just not listed on the report synopsis on the website or that I did look close enough to find it.

Poorer forage quality in the summer time during lactation can lead to poor body condition going into the rut. As a result, you'll see lower conception rates relative to animals with average to above average body condition. Animals that are in a state of declining body condition will also have a lower conception rate. I don't know what kind of body condition these animals are in, but that could be part of the equation also.

I would like to read the entire study.

 

[muleguy]

western MT

The biggest problem with MD in western Montana in the body condition when they go thru the check station!

 

[1_pointer]

Poorer forage quality in the summer time during lactation can lead to poor body condition going into the rut. As a result, you'll see lower conception rates relative to animals with average to above average body condition. Animals that are in a state of declining body condition will also have a lower conception rate. I don't know what kind of body condition these animals are in, but that could be part of the equation also.

I would like to read the entire study.

I understand that and I agree. However, this is all the website lists as to the quality or amount of forage:

The low pregnancy rate of migrants appears to be caused by warmer and drier growing seasons and faster green-up disproportionately affecting their high-elevation summer range (which we can see via satellite imagery for the period 1989-2009).

Warmer and drier data:

They go on to state that the data shows a correlation between calving success and body condition going into the fall. This infers that some of the cause is due to summer range forage conditions. If those conditions as such are leading to lower body condition going into fall, they are also probably low during lactation. Which as you correctly stated could have an impact on calving success.

What I would like to see are graphs like those for climate for both forage quality and amount to see if those things have changed over time as well. IMO, they are inferring that it has, but I have not found any data/reports on their website stating they have looked into that. (One of their publications that is In Press may shed more light on that, but I'll have to wait and see) A possibly helpful way to collect that data would also be to do so throughout the season and not only annually. This may help to answer the question, if it really exists, of forage quality during lactation or other times of the elk reproductive cycle. The problem with getting this type of data is that it is quite expensive and labor intensive. Similarly, it's all but impossible to retroactively collect. They were able to tease out greenup dates from old aerial/satellite imagery but that is very hard for forage quality/amount. It might be possible to create a model to estimate that, but at a minimum it would take quite a few years of ground data collection to validate the model to do it retroactively.

As Ben is apt to say, especially regarding coyotes, "Show me the science!"

 

[1_pointer]

Ben- I was doing a bit of thinking about this discussion lastnight and I think I need to be a bit more clear on my reluctance to accept the "poorer forage conditions" due solely to the graphs of climate data as support for that statement. In a previous life, I helped advice folks on grazing issues. Looking at those two graphs and imagine that the trend lines are going in the opposite direction; that they are mirror images of what they now depict. It would mean that the climate is wetter and cooler. From that one could infer that there is more forage being produced, agree? Would you support an land use plan admendment or grazing decision that would increase AUMs based solely on that information? I know it would be tough to defend that in an administrative court. Thus, why I am hesitant to accept those graphs as proof. That said, this appears to be a very well-rounded effort at looking into the problem and I would be surprised if they haven't looked into some of the issues I've brought up. That and I'm a pessimist when it comes to models... FWIW...

PS- Is it hard to tell that I like talking about these types of subjects???

 

[noharleyyet]

PS- Is it hard to tell that I like talking about these types of subjects???

...one can hardly tell that you were a art history graduate.

 

[1_pointer]

...one can hardly tell that you were a art history graduate.

The really funny part about that comment is that one of my undergrad minors was in "Classics", specifically Greek and Roman art and architechture! The joys of a Liberal Arts education...

 

[noharleyyet]

The really funny part about that comment is that one of my undergrad minors was in "Classics", specifically Greek and Roman art and architechture! The joys of a Liberal Arts education...

Yes, I remember that thread.

 

[shoots-straight]

Poorer forage quality in the summer time during lactation can lead to poor body condition going into the rut. As a result, you'll see lower conception rates relative to animals with average to above average body condition. Animals that are in a state of declining body condition will also have a lower conception rate. I don't know what kind of body condition these animals are in, but that could be part of the equation also.

I would like to read the entire study.

Of the elk in the upper Root study. The elk on East Fork of the Root preg tested close to 100%. While the elk on the West Fork preg tested around 70%. That could be a big difference when you throw in a lot of predators.

 

[JLS]

1 Pointer,

The body will prioritize certain biological functions when an animal is under nutritional stress. Lactation is one of the higher priority functions, so if a cow has a calf and has poor forage, she's obviously going to be declining in body condition while she's lactating. Her ability to come into estrous and conceive is at a lower biological priority when she's lactating. Her endocrine system will undergo some specific changes that will basically keep her from ovulating.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben- I was doing a bit of thinking about this discussion lastnight and I think I need to be a bit more clear on my reluctance to accept the "poorer forage conditions" due solely to the graphs of climate data as support for that statement. In a previous life, I helped advice folks on grazing issues. Looking at those two graphs and imagine that the trend lines are going in the opposite direction; that they are mirror images of what they now depict. It would mean that the climate is wetter and cooler. From that one could infer that there is more forage being produced, agree? Would you support an land use plan admendment or grazing decision that would increase AUMs based solely on that information? I know it would be tough to defend that in an administrative court. Thus, why I am hesitant to accept those graphs as proof. That said, this appears to be a very well-rounded effort at looking into the problem and I would be surprised if they haven't looked into some of the issues I've brought up. That and I'm a pessimist when it comes to models... FWIW...

PS- Is it hard to tell that I like talking about these types of subjects???

While I have my own thoughts regarding what's occuring and how to fix it, I think it's important to have a well rounded discussion on the topic, which is why I'm glad people smarter than I have jumped in.

This discussion is a lot more fruitful than "kill all the predators," which simply placates a lazy mind.

 

[Carrion Carrier]

In my area, creating a by-permit-only system has really helped create a fantastic mule deer district. I know this isn't working everywhere. I think we need to fund studies to get a better handle on what is causing the mule deer decline.

 

[1_pointer]

While I have my own thoughts regarding what's occuring and how to fix it, I think it's important to have a well rounded discussion on the topic, which is why I'm glad people smarter than I have jumped in.

This discussion is a lot more fruitful than "kill all the predators," which simply placates a lazy mind.

I'd be curious as to your thoughts, unless they are not "well-rounded"...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'll need a large glass of Jameson's before i answer that. Try to get to it this evening.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'd be curious as to your thoughts, unless they are not "well-rounded"...

I think climate change is having a larger impact than people realize. Until we start looking more closely at nutritional content of available forage, increased temperatures and changing distribution patterns, we can speculate all we want that wolves, lions, bears and coyotes are the problem, even fund the eradication efforts that SFW, et al espouse and never get herds back.

Habitat loss is the second largest factor in the overall decline of mule deer. Exurban sprawl. Energy development on public lands, etc mean that there is less room for large herds of mule deer. Mule deer seem to be a hell of a lot kore delicate than whitetail, and as such, show declines earlier due to external factors quicker than other species.

Third is over-harvest, at least in MT. Between hunter demand for antlerless opportunity, landowner tolerance, FWP's reluctance to cut b-tags, we've shot the chit out of mule deer in MT. That doesn't explain the decline in other western states, of course. I think then we look back at the habitat and it's functionality.

In order to conserve and grow mule deer on the habitat we have left I think we need to do some critical thinking in terms of how development on public and private land occurs, fund studies that look at forage quality, reduce hunter opportunity on mule deer, look for ways to transition off of fossil fuels, and get back to the root of conservation- we exist for the animals' sake, not they for us.

[/Nomex engaged]

 

[1_pointer]

Not much I disagree with there. However, I don't share your level of concern/skepticism of climate change.

My grad school advisor was a long-time professor and is VERY well respected in the field of range science/ecology especially for the Intermountain West. I had a few conversations with him in regards to the decline of mule deer and about their habitat. Couple of things he felt were large problems for mule deer were improved range conditions and lack of vegetation treatments. The 'better' range conditions of today favor grass and forbs over brush. This isn't a huge help to mule deer, but is to elk and attributed the increase in elk since the '60s partly due to this. Up to the early '60s the BLM alone was doing veg treatments (of the type that are all but impossible to pull off today) on about 1 million acres. He felt that these types of treatments and especially their scale was very good for the mule deer. Much of the brush that was relied on in the winter was of younger age classes, therefore more nutritious. Just thought I'd toss those ideas out there...again.

IME for No. Utah, development has been a BIG issue. Yes some of it's on public land, but mostly its the population and housing boom. Lots and lots of very good winter range have been lost forever.

So, I think we can definitely agree that for the most part it is habitat amount and quality to which I believe should be prioritized in that order. I will let you and Al Gore deal with that other thing...

 

[JLS]

Couple of things he felt were large problems for mule deer were improved range conditions and lack of vegetation treatments. The 'better' range conditions of today favor grass and forbs over brush.

About 10 years ago I was discussing declining mule deer numbers with a now retired higher up in Idaho Fish and Game, and he directly mentioned this also.