MT Mule Deer Symposium

[JLS]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...SRj1GE4FyHJ7Dhh2IgSrZJw&bvm=bv.41229759,d.cGE

Here's a summary of some pretty extensive research on how much coyotes affect mule deer population dynamics.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric, I like your thinking about finding the "middle ground." 'Just not sure how that can be done, but it's worth alot of discussion. The thing I dislike about the schedule you offered is that it looks like a formula that will eventually morph Montana into Colorado ... and eventually, "choose your weapon."

I know, I know, I'm a spoiled old lifelong Montana hunter who has just had an abundance of opportunity forever. Try not to blame me.

 

[Eric Albus]

JLS, I could not open the link you gave....what is the condensed version of that set of data? I have looked at several studies on coyotes and their percieved effect on a prey population....and agree w/ the assesment of most studies....the thing that most studies fail to take into account is the volume of other prey species available to the coyotes...like jackrabbits and cottontails...I can count on one hand the number of jackrabbits and cottontails I saw in the hills this fall.....hmm..wonder what that wiley coyote is eating?

 

[Eric Albus]

str8arrow, i had an idea thrown out at me today....what if we had 15-20 of the best thinking folks that attended the "mule deer symposium" meet, a face to face talk, along w/ Jeff H. Ron A. and Quentin K. show up....see if we can not find someplace in the middle that we can meet and then attempt to sell it to all parties concerned? I bet that I know some folks that could help facilitate a meeting like that.

 

[JLS]

Predation Effects
Relationships between deer populations and predator populations are complex yet poorly
understood. Each time mule deer populations have declined in Colorado and other western states,
predation has been implicated as a potential cause for the decline. Yet, given the current state of
knowledge about mule deer populations and predation, the only certainty is that predators kill and
eat mule deer (Fig. 11). The evidence concerning the effects of these predatory activities on the
performance of mule deer populations is much less clear, partly because there are few well
designed experiments to examine responses of mule deer populations to predator control.
20
The relationship of a mule deer population to its food supply is a critical factor governing the
impacts of predation. When mule deer numbers are at or near the food production capacity of
their habitats, deer numbers are unlikely to increase when predators are removed. In contrast,
when severe winters or other natural calamities temporarily drop mule deer numbers well below
the food producing potential of their habitats, it is theoretically possible for predators to keep deer
numbers depressed for long periods of time. Under these circumstances, reduction in predator
numbers can result in a substantial increase in the size of the deer population. Evidence from past
studies, nonetheless, fail to demonstrate that deer herds increase when predators are removed. At
least part of the problem with earlier studies was that they often lacked control areas or were
conducted on small study areas where applicability of results to entire deer herds was questionable.
Predator Control Study in the Piceance Basin of Northwestern Colorado: 1981-1988:
Here in Colorado, we studied the mortality rates of mule deer fawns and adult does in the
Piceance Basin area west of Meeker, Colorado beginning in 1981. We found fewer than 40% of
fawns born each year survived the entire year while annual survival rates of does ($1 year of age)
continually exceeded 85%. Fawns and does differed markedly in their abilities to survive each
year, particularly during winter. The ability of fawns to survive from year to year had much
greater impacts upon the growth rate of the deer population than the survival rates of does.
Although both circumstantial and experimental evidence implicated food shortages as the major
cause of low fawn survival, coyotes were responsible for the deaths of many fawns which perished
during the winter months.
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/mi2/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.
Recent Studies of the Effects of Coyote Control on Mule Deer Populations:
Montana - Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks initiated studies in 1997 to assess the benefits of
coyote control to pronghorn and mule deer populations in central Montana. Coyote control was
conducted on one herd unit, and not on 2 adjacent units. Mule deer and pronghorn population
21
Figure 12. Fawn mortality was studied in the Piceance Basin of northwestern Colorado before and after
coyote control. Mortality rates before coyote control were slightly higher than after coyotes were controlled,
but the difference was not statistically significant.
responses from the unit where coyotes were controlled were compared to those where coyotes
were not controlled. Coyotes were killed via aerial gunning from helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft and snaring. During the first 2 years of study (1997 and 1998), nearly 200 coyotes were
killed, 68% from helicopter gunning, 21% from fixed-wing aircraft gunning, and 11% from
snaring. Aerial gunning required slightly more than 1 hour of aircraft time per coyote killed at a
cost of approximately $225 per hour. Although pronghorn populations increased on the unit
subjected to coyote control, they also increased in one area where coyotes were not controlled and
decreased in the other. Ratios of fawns per 100 mule deer does on areas where coyotes were
controlled did not differ from areas where coyotes were not controlled and deer populations
declined across all 3 areas. Researchers summarized the early results of the project by
commenting, “It would appear, that to this point, the killing of coyotes in HD 530 has had little
positive affect (sic) on mule deer fawn:doe ratios or populations.”
Utah - Beginning in 1997, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources began implementing coyote
management plans to increase deer numbers in herd units where: 1) mule deer herds were 50% or
more below herd objectives, 2) where winter ratios of fawns per 100 does were 50:100 or lower,
and 3) where populations were not increasing. Fawn production and survival, as indexed by winter
ratios of fawns:100 does, seemed to increase in these units during 1997 and 1998 when coyotes
were being controlled compared to 1995 and 1996 when coyotes were not controlled. However,
when the Utah data were subjected to statistical analyses, ratios of fawns:100 does increased over
time regardless of whether or not coyotes were controlled (Fig. 13). An alternative explanation for
the observed increase in ratios of fawns per 100 does is favorable weather. The past 4 winters
22
Figure 13. In Utah, 15 mule deer herds were selected for coyote control to increase fawn survival. Coyotes
were controlled in 1997 and 1998, but not in 1995 and 1996. Although the ratio of fawns per 100 does
increased over time, this increase could not be attributed to coyote control.
have been unusually mild in both Utah and Colorado and one would expect deer populations to
increase following mild winters.
Any inferences to the effectiveness of coyote control based on this study will be controversial
because the experimental design was incomplete. Ordinarily, areas where coyotes were controlled
would be paired with similar units without coyote control to adequately separate the effects of
controlling coyotes from possible effects of weather. In this study, if we were to assume the data
are perfect predictors of mule deer responses to coyote control, increasing ratios of fawns per 100
does from 43 (1995 levels) to 69 (1998 levels) would have required the removal of over 500
coyotes per year.
Idaho - Idaho Department of Fish and Game initiated a study in 1997 to assess the effects of
coyote control on mule deer populations. In their experiment, predators (primarily coyotes and
mountain lions) were controlled in several deer herd units. Deer responses in coyote control units
were compared to herd responses in similar units where no predator control occurred. Adult does
and fawns on all herd units were equipped with radio transmitters and used to compare mortality
rates of deer on coyote control units with those units where coyotes were not controlled.
After 2 years of study, mortality rates of adult does and fawns in areas where predators were
controlled were not different from areas where predators were not controlled. Coyote numbers in
spring were reduced significantly by coyote control, but by fall coyote numbers had rebounded to
levels comparable to herd units where coyotes were not controlled. Although coyotes were
23
responsible for fewer fawn deaths in herd units where they were controlled, overall, fawn mortality
did not decrease because more fawns died from starvation even in mild winters. The studies are
ongoing, but preliminary results indicate that deer populations have not benefitted from predator
control.
New Mexico - Deer biologists from the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in northern New Mexico
reported that mule deer numbers increased from 1991 through 1999 (Fig. 14a) and attributed much
of that increase to aggressive predator control programs. However, most of the increase in deer
counted each year can be accounted for by the number of hours flown while counting them. For
example, in winter 1990-91, 2024 mule deer were counted during 50 hours of aerial counting
effort. In contrast, 6719 mule deer were counted during winter 1996-97 with 117 hours of aerial
counting effort. When number of deer counted is related to the number of hours flown per count,
nearly 70 additional deer are counted for every 1 hour that count time is increased, and counting
time is the only variable that is consistently correlated with temporal increases in deer numbers
(Fig. 14b). When the number of coyotes killed each year is related to the ratio of fawns per 100
does the following year, killing 800 coyotes per year is predicted to increase the fawn:doe ratio by
only a single fawn per 100 does (Fig. 14c). The results from the Jicarilla Apache Reservation are
further confounded because, in addition to coyote control, biologists improved deer habitats in
several areas and greatly increased law enforcement effort to reduce mule deer poaching losses.
Coyote control, habitat improvement, counting effort, increased law enforcement, climate effects,
etc. collectively influenced mule deer numbers and ratios of fawns per 100 does. There is no way
to unravel their combined effects to reliably assess the effects of any one of these factors acting
alone. Despite all of these efforts to improve deer populations, fawn:doe ratios on the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation (Fig. 14d) are s

 

[belly-deep]

Rather than go to restrictive hunting seasons and limited permits, why not try what other states are doing? Here is my idea(and it will work, for a while)....Archery season Sept. 1 thru Sept 30....Rifle season Oct. 5 thru 25(i could concede thru 29)...then muzzle load season(no in-lines, no scopes) from Nov. 1-10, then Nov. 12 Bow season thru Dec. 15...... License for each season...MORE revenue for the Dept....less impact on the resource... WIN-WIN...

I wish some hunters from Idaho would speak up on this issue.

Idaho used to have a system similar to that in MT. Most units were general tags and the seasons ran through the rut.

From what Idaho hunters tell me, people got greedy over big bucks and pushed for an October season and more LE units.

What occurred was that Idaho hunters really didn't kill any more big deer than before. The LE units locked a ton of hunters out of their favorite country and concentrated them into the remaining general areas. While the October season probably did result in more big bucks surviving, the hunters didn't actually kill any more big deer than before because October is the toughest month to kill a big muley in.

I like our long general seasons. It gives hunters who get off their fat azzes a chance to hunt hard for a good buck. I'll take more days in the field (hard work) over easier hunting any day, but then again, I didn't vote for Obama either.

 

[JLS]

The formatting didn't come out quite right, but I wasn't going to take the time to fix all of it.

The link opened for me? It downloads a PDF when you click it. There's a lot more info in the article.

 

[JLS]

There's no doubt that LE units will produce bigger deer on average than OTC units. I don't know what the mystery is, but there are LE units here in WA that don't produce big bucks at all. Some of the biggest deer come out of OTC units near the North Cascades where access is very difficult (physically)

There is a unit that is right across the Snake River from Idaho's unit 18, which produces tremendous deer. The WA side, nothing outstanding. 18 is LE, the WA side OTC. Access is easier in WA.

Outside of the length of hunting season, ease of access is one of the biggest factors there is in my opinion.

 

[belly-deep]

Outside of the length of hunting season, ease of access is one of the biggest factors there is in my opinion.

I agree 100%.

 

[Straight Arrow]

what if we had 15-20 of the best thinking folks that attended the "mule deer symposium" meet, a face to face talk

The Mule Deer Symposium group was heavy on the outfitter side, but I agree with what you suggest. A good balance of FWP, outfitters, landowners, sportsmen, and perhaps wildlife advocates (no wolf nuts though) might be able to come up with viable approaches to be then vetted, analyzed and eventually presented to the Commission.

 

[Badlandcat]

Time to give my .02.
Every year I cruise over to NoDak to hunt Muleys and will take a 6.5 to a 10.5 year old deer every year(gun or bow). Some years their antlers are big and some years not(going downhill).
The season is short and all units are LE and the places I target is where the hunters don't or can't go. The public land is just about as good as the private land(barring center pivots) and I feel after 37 years of hunting there the main reason for that is that there is no general season on the Muleys during rut. JMO

 

[theat]

I personally really like Montana's long seasons. It would be nice to see more big antlered bucks, but I hunt more for the enjoyment of the hunt itself than the trophy. Shorter seasons=less time in the woods hunting. I would much rather go to a 4 point or better restriction than shorter seasons.

Another thing that I don't quite understand...I was under the impression that killing bucks has a very small impact on reproductive rates and fawn recruitment. True? If so, then doe tag numbers remaining the same the length of the season and hunting bucks during the rut should have very little impact on the overall herd numbers.

Obviously hunting the rut makes it easier to find large bucks, but if these bucks can't be found during the rest of the season and they tend to get smarter with age, wouldn't that mean many of these bucks will die of old age and no one will have the chance to hunt them?

One easy "step in the right direction" to increasing mule deer numbers...no more doe tags.

 

[belly-deep]

Obviously hunting the rut makes it easier to find large bucks, but if these bucks can't be found during the rest of the season and they tend to get smarter with age, wouldn't that mean many of these bucks will die of old age and no one will have the chance to hunt them?

That is exactly what has happened in Idaho.


On another note, why does MT have to follow other states' management styles?

Why can't there be one western state with a general rut season? You can always make a trip to another state to hunt if you really believe they have a better management model.

 

[Big Shooter]

Badlandcat....Ding! Ding! Ding! "We have a winner"! You are exactly right! But....(there is always a but), they have limited the hell out of those tags over there for residents and non-residents. When I was growing up over there, it was about every two years you could draw a mule deer tag in those good units. Now, I think the last year my dad drew a resident tag it took him 8 years. But....get a load of this bit of info. A buddy of mine over there told me that at the Big Buck Contest in Dickinson, a 201 7/8 won...............seventh!!!!!!! I hate those contests, but I was blown away when I heard that. So that tells me that two states that border us and the country to the north can produce better deer than we can with just a little season management.

 

[cowboy]

I personally really like Montana's long seasons. It would be nice to see more big antlered bucks, but I hunt more for the enjoyment of the hunt itself than the trophy. Shorter seasons=less time in the woods hunting. I would much rather go to a 4 point or better restriction than shorter seasons.]


Just a comment on this from another angle. I have hunted an area for elk for many years that was one of the first units to go BROW TINE ONLY.

The members of the camp that I participated (and myself) thought this was the greatest idea that we ever heard and were 100% in favor of it.

Forward to many years later: Hell things got worse. We can blame it on a lot of factors. Drought conditions, increase in predators, too many cow tags etc. etc. but one of the things that I personally observed was that we were putting 100% of the pressure on what we were trying to increase.

You would be totally in awe at the number of spikes or non brow tine bulls that we found over the years that were left to rot. Antlers-Bang-oh chit- better get otta here. All you had to do was watch the magpies and you knew what had happened.

During the bow season it is not uncommon to see a half dozen cows with the herd bull being a spike or non brow tined bull- now who do you think is doing the breeding?

This is still going on to this day as it is a pack in back country area and the quality is no better or worse after many years of being brow tine only.

For every action - there is a reaction.

 

[Eric Albus]

I read part of the study about coyotes....here is the deal though...I do not trust most wildlife agencies to tell the truth about anything.

Here is what I have seen first hand. When coyote numbers are high fawn recruitment is low. Coyotes can/do kill adult deer also, anytime they want/need to. Here at home where we have an aggressive Gov't trapper our coyote numbers are kept pretty well in check. Hence our doe:fawn ratio's and overall mule deer herd is fairing pretty well. In Reg. 7 I see a lot of coyotes and a poor doe:fawn ratio, until I get near a ranchers buildings....the does that live close to humans have fawns...coincidence?... Another observation that I have made is how nervous the deer become when they hear a coyote howl...another coincidence?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I read part of the study about coyotes....here is the deal though...I do not trust most wildlife agencies to tell the truth about anything.

Here is what I have seen first hand. When coyote numbers are high fawn recruitment is low. Coyotes can/do kill adult deer also, anytime they want/need to. Here at home where we have an aggressive Gov't trapper our coyote numbers are kept pretty well in check. Hence our doe:fawn ratio's and overall mule deer herd is fairing pretty well. In Reg. 7 I see a lot of coyotes and a poor doe:fawn ratio, until I get near a ranchers buildings....the does that live close to humans have fawns...coincidence?... Another observation that I have made is how nervous the deer become when they hear a coyote howl...another coincidence?

Eric,

While you and I might be awfully close when it comes to how we manage hunters for deer, I think we're pretty far apart on how we get to increased quality.

After spending a decade working on predator issues across the west I can honestly say that I've not seen any instances where increased predator control for coyotes has done anything other than keep sheepmen happy. We tried it in WY for Bighorns, pronghorn and deer - with no positive results either long term or short term.

Unless people are looking at the entire picture, including climate, dorught, forage, etc, you will never grow more deer. Placing the low doe:fawn numbers on coyotes ignores the decade long drought we've had (with a couple of severe winters and springs). Green up occurs earlier, leaving less forage for pregnant or nursing critters. That effects how well fawns survive more than coyotes. If the fawn doesn't have the strength to outrun the coyote, it'll get eaten. We both know that.

We both also know that wildlife populations are cyclical. As you mentioned, we've been at the bottom end of smaller prey species populations like rabbits, etc. Without that buffer, and with poor habitat conditions, you could see more predation on fawns by 'yotes. Sure. but the predation is the symptom, not the disease.

I had that same conversation with Mac that you did yesterday about getting folks to sit down and talk. I think it's a good idea. I'm not willing to sacrifice opportunity for increased quality, but I think we can have both.

That means we need to look at the One Montana survey, and see what we can do to increase the quality of Block Management. We all know what the sideboards are on both sides of this issue.

No transferable tags for outfitters or landowners, no forced access to private property. I'm happy to sit down with anyone who wants to work through this instead of push the Utah model or the Alberta model. Montanans have been leaders in wildlife management in the past because we work together. Let's start that again.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, I can concur on some of your points...but will not concede what I know as fact. Coyotes are hammering the fawn/yearling segement of the mule deer population. Yes, there are certainly other factors....but in Reg. 7 the only place that you find a doe w/ twins is in my ranchers backyard...in the hills away from people there are about 2.5-3 fawns per 10 does....and coyotes are out of hand. I am looking at the whole picture, habitiat where I guide in Reg. 7 is outstanding....nothing has changed in the last 10 years...except the coyote population is about 10x's higher.....drought, last year was the first dry year in the last 10 where I hunt in SE MT....winter has been a non-factor there as well... there are good antelope populations on the ranches as well....but low fawn numbers there as well...not as bad as the mule deer doe:fawn ratio though....why is that? well, the goats migrate, and where they are in the spring appartently the coyotes are not as thick....along w/ other unknow variables I will assume...so, a declining doe:fawn ratio, and I am seeing more coyotes than ever(shot 18 from my pickup during season), most I saw in a day was 14(more yotes than fawns that day).

How to get quantity and quality....not easy, but doable. Bow season Sept. 1-29, muzzleloader(no in-lines no scopes) season Oct. 1-10, Rifle season 11-Nov. 4 , Bow season again Nov. 5-30, more tags for FWP to sell(hence more $$) more opportunity for the resident hunter...less impact on the resource (win-win-win). I am not set in stone on this kind of structure, but something along these lines is certainly workable...and maybe it would not work forever, but is worth looking into....eventually we will have to many people and to finite a resource...then it will be pick your season/weapon, and eventually we will be at permits for rifle hunting....the great thing about attempting to be pro-active is that we get to permits a lot further down the road than if we just sit on our thumbs and do nothing(like is going on now).


Now onto the season settings....

 

[cowboy]

What's with the proposal of a muzzle loader season? Maybe we ought to think about the cross bow guys and then the spear chuckers etc etc.

Eric: I applaud your overall approach but let's stay sensible. Some of us just don't agree with following the Colo. way of split seasons to appease everyone. Montana is Montana.

I've hunted region 6 and 7 every year for many years and agree with most everything you have stated but the last thing I ever want to see in Montana is "choose your weapon".

 

[Eric Albus]

cowboy, do you know why the other states have gone to "choose your weapon/season"....they have to many hunters...Montana will be there, eventually....we are close right now...wildlife and the places they inhabit are finite...the resource can not handle infinite pressure....hence permits in many other states, restrictive season, ect.....My fear is that if we do not begin to look at doing something, split seasons may stem off the permits for years...or not...pick your season/weapon may stave off the permits...eventually it will be permits, unless humans start succombing to EHD like the whitetail on the Milk did....