Mule Deer Population trends

[rtraverdavis]

In 2009 here in Oregon we began the Mule Deer Initiative, which identified five management units which formerly held thriving deer populations that were now struggling. The plan of the Initiative was to implement a five-pronged strategy to increase the struggling deer herds to identify which methods were most effective for each specific area. The five methods were habitat management, predator management, disturbance/harassment management (seasonal TMAs and closures), increased anti-poaching efforts, and population management (higher scrutiny of the numbers and types of hunts available in each specific area with the object to increase buck:doe and fawn:doe ratios). At each five-year check-in since the Initiative began the efforts have shown to be a success, though not as drastic as we would hope—the MDI is working.

A summary of the latest MDI five-year check-in with links to each of the studies: https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/mule_deer/mdi.asp

But, to maintain these efforts and expand them to other units is expensive, and completely dependent on maintaining/increasing ODFW’s budget. To @Oak ’s point about needing all hunters on board, this means increasing license fees, which is something that many resident hunters absolutely whine and squeal about as if they’re going to have to take out a second mortgage to afford a tag. It is beyond frustrating that some cannot connect the dots between wanting better herd health and better hunting and the actual effort it will take to achieve those goals.

 

[CycleFishHunt]

In general, HMPs a very good at identifying the issues influencing population dynamics at the DAU level. What they are not good at as currently written is developing strategies to address declining populations. If I were to summarize the typical HMP it would look something like this:

• Our previous population objective was X.
• Ten years later, our population is X - Y.
• The reasons for this decline include A, B, C, D, and E.
• Due to reasons A, B, C, D, and E, our new population objective will be X - Y.

There is no development of a plan to reverse these trends. I would argue that that HMPs contain more hunter management strategies than deer or deer habitat management strategies.

Awesome, and informative post, thanks!

I’ve wondered about missed HMPs, so thanks for the answer!

To what degree could CWP (or other states’ agencies) manage the things that need to be managed to remedy the decline?

Looking at the list of factors land use, drought, etc. CWP seems (to me) have little control there.

Recommendations would be nice, of course. But would it not then be up to hunters to then advocate for those things?

 

[Oak]

To what degree could CWP (or other states’ agencies) manage the things that need to be managed to remedy the decline?

Looking at the list of factors land use, drought, etc. CWP seems (to me) have little control there.

Recommendations would be nice, of course. But would it not then be up to hunters to then advocate for those things?

I came up with the following list of issues from a quick scan through my post.

• Trail development/recreation
• Residential/road development
• Energy development
• Livestock and feral horse overgrazing
• Fire suppression
• Noxious/invasive weeds
• Disease
• Drought

All but the last two are permitted or may be managed by some level of federal, state, or local governments. When there is a permitting process or a NEPA process there is an opportunity for public engagement.

First, the state DNR could more forcefully advocate for the resource beyond "recommendations" if the administration chose to do so. This is especially true for federal land management issues. Second, yes, it takes hunters advocating for the resource. See the last bolded sentence in my last post.

 

[DFS]

I came up with the following list of issues from a quick scan through my post.

• Trail development/recreation
• Residential/road development
• Energy development
• Livestock and feral horse overgrazing
• Fire suppression
• Noxious/invasive weeds
• Disease
• Drought

All but the last two are permitted or may be managed by some level of federal, state, or local governments. When there is a permitting process or a NEPA process there is an opportunity for public engagement.

First, the state DNR could more forcefully advocate for the resource beyond "recommendations" if the administration chose to do so. This is especially true for federal land management issues. Second, yes, it takes hunters advocating for the resource. See the last bolded sentence in my last post.

Your last post is spot on and more true is your last bolded sentence in the post before.You think the newbies that Randy and company have created understand that or care? They want tags in their pocket, demand was pumped well before the supply was even considered. Now we have game agencies kicking out as many tags as possible. Cwd is the “science” to justify it. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[old270hunter]

Here is California. Not sure where it is after 2015.

View attachment 227474

I can't speak to CA statistics, but I sure can speak to what I've seen. Deer numbers are tanking in CA regardless of what is published by the DFG. On the coast in Los Padres NF, in the Sierras on the 395 corridor, and in the mountains surrounding Los Angeles/OC, Bakersfield, those numbers are way down. It's almost an odd day I see a deer in any of my travels or on varmint hunts. In the past few years, I've seen several bears, dozens of pigs, plenty of Tule Elk, lot's of Turkeys and even a big kitty cat. But only a couple handfuls of deer, and that was completely reversed 25-30 years ago. Now I am sure there are deer in the honey holes I have hunted over the years, but I stopped bothering to hunt deer in this state about 10 years ago. I can assure that at least in the Central and Southern half of the state, deer are tanking, bears are a more common sighting in the back country and hills, and the mountain lion numbers are growing unchecked.

 

[lynlan1819]

Nevada Mule deer populations have dropped drastically in the last 10 years.

 

[antlerradar]

I came up with the following list of issues from a quick scan through my post.

• Trail development/recreation
• Residential/road development
• Energy development
• Livestock and feral horse overgrazing
• Fire suppression
• Noxious/invasive weeds
• Disease
• Drought

All but the last two are permitted or may be managed by some level of federal, state, or local governments. When there is a permitting process or a NEPA process there is an opportunity for public engagement.

First, the state DNR could more forcefully advocate for the resource beyond "recommendations" if the administration chose to do so. This is especially true for federal land management issues. Second, yes, it takes hunters advocating for the resource. See the last bolded sentence in my last post.

Some of those issues apply in SE Montana, some do not.
The biggest issue we have is five weeks of excessive lead poisoning during the breeding season.
My bet is excessive lead poisoning is an issue in the rest of the west also.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

Some of those issues apply in SE Montana, some do not.
The biggest issue we have is five weeks of excessive lead poisoning during the breeding season.
My bet is excessive lead poisoning is an issue in the rest of the west also.

My point exactly, drop some of the season’s, kill off some nuisance elk in winter

 

[Deleted member 52098]

You think the newbies that Randy and company have created understand that or care? They want tags in their pocket

The more these conversations happen here - and in other forums, coffee shops, bars, etc - the more people will understand. I’m one of those “newbies” and as a result of this healthy dialogue, rescinded my doe tag yesterday.

Had I been more aware of the scope of this problem, I never would have applied in the first place. But that takes more people talking about it, writing articles, blog posts, etc. It’s what lead me to stay glued to this thread, and then deep dive off of HT into research.

I would also argue that newer hunters do care, a lot… (maybe too much) about what all of you life long hunters have to say. Most of us didn’t have hunting mentors growing up and sadly, started way late. So these message boards and forums - and their awesome members - become our de facto mentors.

 

[JLS]

Even some of the old salts fail to grasp issues.

There is a lot of nuance to mule deer population trends. Be cautious about a one size fits all mindset, to include all doe tags are bad.

 

[squirrel]

I came up with the following list of issues from a quick scan through my post.

• Trail development/recreation
• Residential/road development
• Energy development
• Livestock and feral horse overgrazing
• Fire suppression
• Noxious/invasive weeds
• Disease
• Drought

All but the last two are permitted or may be managed by some level of federal, state, or local governments. When there is a permitting process or a NEPA process there is an opportunity for public engagement.

First, the state DNR could more forcefully advocate for the resource beyond "recommendations" if the administration chose to do so. This is especially true for federal land management issues. Second, yes, it takes hunters advocating for the resource. See the last bolded sentence in my last post.

All dabble on the fringes, quit killing them and they'll do fine, or at the least drastically better. As Antler radar says the issue is lead poisoning, eliminate the high velocity lead.

Here we went from

Plan A, kill 'em all to

Plan B Kill a few (but ever increasing as politics $ took over) to

Plan C Kill em all plus a few more...

Plan B lasted approximately 12 years with issues towards the end as hunter demands took their toll with the printer.

The results were positively amazing, and of absolutely no importance at all to the CPW.

You want big bucks stop killing small and medium bucks, you want lots of deer quit killing the does. You want to be pissed off go to a CPW meeting and tell them what you want.

We went from forkies and 18" 3 points breeding and controlling groups of 50+ does. Plan A


To 170" bucks circling as satellite bucks as 185"+ had control of groups of 10-20 does (but tons of those doe herds the bucks kept them broken up). Plan B

To forkies and spikes controlling groups (very few groups) of 20-30 does.

"Hey that doe just mounted another doe".
"Nope he just moved his ears, it's a buck, shoot!"


You want this? Quit shooting for 10 years. You'll be amazed. You don't even have to quit just curtail heavily.

 

[BuzzH]

Even some of the old salts fail to grasp issues.

There is a lot of nuance to mule deer population trends. Be cautious about a one size fits all mindset, to include all doe tags are bad.

Agree in general, but many doe mule deer hunting is killing the wrong deer in the wrong places. IME, about 1 out of 20 doe mule deer hunts make any kind of sense.

 

[Oak]

All dabble on the fringes, quit killing them and they'll do fine, or at the least drastically better. As Antler radar says the issue is lead poisoning, eliminate the high velocity lead.

Here we went from

Plan A, kill 'em all to

Plan B Kill a few (but ever increasing as politics $ took over) to

Plan C Kill em all plus a few more...

Plan B lasted approximately 12 years with issues towards the end as hunter demands took their toll with the printer.

The results were positively amazing, and of absolutely no importance at all to the CPW.

You want big bucks stop killing small and medium bucks, you want lots of deer quit killing the does. You want to be pissed off go to a CPW meeting and tell them what you want.

We went from forkies and 18" 3 points breeding and controlling groups of 50+ does. Plan A


To 170" bucks circling as satellite bucks as 185"+ had control of groups of 10-20 does (but tons of those doe herds the bucks kept them broken up). Plan B

To forkies and spikes controlling groups (very few groups) of 20-30 does.

"Hey that doe just mounted another doe".
"Nope he just moved his ears, it's a buck, shoot!"


You want this? Quit shooting for 10 years. You'll be amazed. You don't even have to quit just curtail heavily.

View attachment 227593

If you keep reducing your objective you’ve gotta keep shooting them.

 

[SaskHunter]

You want this? Quit shooting for 10 years. You'll be amazed. You don't even have to quit just curtail heavily.

View attachment 227593

Limiting doe quotas, shortening the season by removing November/rut hunts and having an antler restriction would improve the mule deer population considerably.

You don't even need to stop the hunt, just stop plugging mule deer when they're at their most vulnerable; the rut.

Those who shoot forkies won't stop on their own, put a restriction on points and limit the season. Over a few seasons you will go from shooting dinks and forkies being the norm, to 130inch+ deer which is considerably better than what most are getting now. I don't think there is apetite from any F&G to completely stop a hunt to improve antler size, adding restrictions and restructuring a season is the more realistic approach. Montana will never be Saskatchewan, hunter/population size and season structure will always prohibit that.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

at least Texas has implomented age and antlEr restrictions
“”

SPECIAL ANTLER RESTRICTION​

An experimental antler restriction for mule deer bucks :

• a legal buck deer is defined as a buck with an outside antler spread of the main beams of 20 inches or greater.
• any buck for which the outside spread of the main beams is less than 20 inches is NOT legal to harvest.
• any buck with at least one unbranched antler (e.g., spike) is NOT legal to harvest, unless the outside spread of the main beams is at least 20 inches in width.

The average ear-tip to ear-tip spread of mule deer bucks standing in the alert position is 21 inches, as shown in the buck illustrations. The outside spread is estimated in a similar manner; however, the measurement is taken by using the outside spread of the main beams, as shown by the black arrows/dotted lines below. TPWD requests hunters to voluntarily present the entire head (intact) of any buck mule deer harvested in the experimental antler-restriction counties to a designated check station to help assess the experimental antler-restriction regulation.

 

[JLS]

Feel good measure at best.

 

[mtmuley]

Montana ain't Texas. mtmuley

 

[DFS]

at least Texas has implomented age and antlEr restrictions
“”

SPECIAL ANTLER RESTRICTION​

An experimental antler restriction for mule deer bucks :

• a legal buck deer is defined as a buck with an outside antler spread of the main beams of 20 inches or greater.
• any buck for which the outside spread of the main beams is less than 20 inches is NOT legal to harvest.
• any buck with at least one unbranched antler (e.g., spike) is NOT legal to harvest, unless the outside spread of the main beams is at least 20 inches in width.

The average ear-tip to ear-tip spread of mule deer bucks standing in the alert position is 21 inches, as shown in the buck illustrations. The outside spread is estimated in a similar manner; however, the measurement is taken by using the outside spread of the main beams, as shown by the black arrows/dotted lines below. TPWD requests hunters to voluntarily present the entire head (intact) of any buck mule deer harvested in the experimental antler-restriction counties to a designated check station to help assess the experimental antler-restriction regulation.

Eastern Montana doesn’t have an antler restriction problem or even a deer problem but we do have a hunter problem. Western Montana has a development/habitat problem, in a different thread I pitched restoring Gallatin bitterroot valleys etc etc etc back to their natural habit. Didn’t gain much traction. I guess people like the development more than wildlife. They sure will weigh in on fixing eastern Montana though.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Limiting doe quotas, shortening the season by removing November/rut hunts and having an antler restriction would improve the mule deer population considerably.

You don't even need to stop the hunt, just stop plugging mule deer when they're at their most vulnerable; the rut.

Those who shoot forkies won't stop on their own, put a restriction on points and limit the season. Over a few seasons you will go from shooting dinks and forkies being the norm, to 130inch+ deer which is considerably better than what most are wgetting now. I don't think there is apetite from any F&G to completely stop a hunt to improve antler size, adding restrictions and restructuring a season is the more realistic approach. Montana will never be Saskatchewan, hunter/population size and season structure will always prohibit that.

Quality Deer Management programs in the States have verifiable years of data and yes, it works to build big bucks. I’ll add to that a lot of QDM data in USA has remarkably little influence from predators. My opinion is that predators can assist in QDM by way of reducing CWD.

I looked at a 2017 provincial CWD map and Saskatchewan has CWD up to about the latitude of Christopher Lake whereupon the reports get real thin or absent. Sure as shit youse got more wolves, lions, bears about North from there than South to the border, right? Reckon Saskatchewan may want to consider the predators as assets to build healthier herds. In the States we’re left to hypothesize because we extirpated predators and have become dependent on hunting to manage mule deer populations. Which I too agree have fallen and not due to over harvest.

 

[SaskHunter]

I looked at a 2017 provincial CWD map and Saskatchewan has CWD up to about the latitude of Christopher Lake whereupon the reports get real thin or absent. Sure as shit youse got more wolves, lions, bears about North from there than South to the border, right? Reckon Saskatchewan may want to consider the predators as assets to build healthier herds. In the States we’re left to hypothesize because we extirpated predators and have become dependent on hunting to manage mule deer populations. Which I too agree have fallen and not due to over harvest.

That's because the forest fringe/Boreal Forest starts there. The mule deer population there is negligible and there is no mule deer hunting season to collect samples from.

As for predators such as bears and wolves, they stick to the limits of the forest fringe for the most part. Very rarely will you get a pack of wolves go down South and no thank you very much in terms of bringing some down there.