Thriving elk, struggling deer: Coincidence? New research suggests not
- Thread starter marksjeep
- Start date
This is a great question and I think is a largely overlooked aspect. A longtime friend and biologist in SW MT and I had a lengthy discussion one day about this topic.
Are elk thriving because range conditions now favor elk over deer? I think it’s highly likely they have.
Are the deer skinnier because there are elk nearby? Or are they skinnier because of changes in the plant communities that no longer favor deer?
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Cumulative effects. All of the above.
I wouldn’t say those things are being overlooked, but realistically how can someone design a cause-effect study that captures all the wide-scale habitat changes that happened years ago, before people even realized they were impacting deer?
Some of the stuff Monteith’s lab is doing (and has done) with deer and nutrition can in some ways help us look back and make sense of some of this. Universities have a little more flexibility but when agencies do studies they’re tied to looking for management implications and direct actions that can result from them. Game agencies can’t directly alter weather or wide-scale development/land management outside of making recommendations.
Long-term habitat changes are huge (i.e., last 100+ years). Think back historically when wildlife were being brought “back from the brink.” Range-wide fire suppression for instance favored an increase in browse across many areas—for a time—which would then have favored deer. We all but wiped out many predators across the west. As a result, populations may have “boomed” beyond what may have been normal under more natural ecological cycles (“good ol’ days,” anyone?).
Now we have winter range development. Conifer encroachment. The war on sagebrush that has only recently slowed down due to sage grouse nearly being listed. Fences, highways. Summer range degradation from years of fire suppression (i.e., too much conifer and late-stage succession), or huge wildfires. Weeds. Increased year-round recreating. No more extensive predator control (note: I am not in favor of predator control as a means to affect deer pops; we couldn’t and shouldn’t effectively do it at the scale needed, now, to have long-term effects, but I can’t deny that the levels we did them long ago didn’t have an impact). In many areas responsible livestock grazing can be beneficial for wildlife, but many areas there’s overgrazing and its large-scale impacts and that sucks too. Feral horses and burros. Climate change and years of drought with crazy bad winters sprinkled in for spice. All of these taken together spells trouble for deer, and very few we can really do much (realistically) to immediately alter.
Elk populations have expanded across many areas over the last 10, 20, 50+ years. They are larger and have a much wider diet breadth than deer. They are more capable (and apt) to move away from unfavorable conditions (poor habitat, hunting/predator pressure) than many deer. They can better navigate obstacles—deep snow, fences, roads, downfall after fire, etc. Those things don’t directly impact deer per se but allow them to thrive or at least better persist in areas where deer more likely struggle. But, given their diet breadth and tendency to hang in larger groups, they can consume the prime deer forage (especially spring/early summer forbs before they then switch to grasses, which deer don’t). That would directly impact deer.
There was research like 10+ years ago in ID looking at fecal glucocorticoids (stress hormones) in mule deer and found that deer sharing winter range with elk had higher levels of stress hormones than ones that didn’t. I’ve seen an example of a cow elk stomping mule deer fawns to death that were too close to her newborn calf (obviously not a common occurrence with population-level impacts but “competition” doesn’t get more direct than that).
Elk/deer competition concept and studies aren’t new, but what Kevin does with his research is show what’s going on under the hood and how it matters to deer: not just the groceries but the body fat that comes from it. (Buzz, if what Monteith is doing is bogus, I look forward to seeming your rebuttal published in the same journal his work ends up in.)
A lot of these things managers can’t affect, but elk management is one (they can attempt at least). I didn’t read this as an all-out let’s-exterminate-elk-for-deer but as WY-might-try-some-experimental-reductions-to-see-if-that-helps. Isn’t that what we want biologists and managers to do?
I wouldn’t say those things are being overlooked, but realistically how can someone design a cause-effect study that captures all the wide-scale habitat changes that happened years ago, before people even realized they were impacting deer?
Some of the stuff Monteith’s lab is doing (and has done) with deer and nutrition can in some ways help us look back and make sense of some of this. Universities have a little more flexibility but when agencies do studies they’re tied to looking for management implications and direct actions that can result from them. Game agencies can’t directly alter weather or wide-scale development/land management outside of making recommendations.
Long-term habitat changes are huge (i.e., last 100+ years). Think back historically when wildlife were being brought “back from the brink.” Range-wide fire suppression for instance favored an increase in browse across many areas—for a time—which would then have favored deer. We all but wiped out many predators across the west. As a result, populations may have “boomed” beyond what may have been normal under more natural ecological cycles (“good ol’ days,” anyone?).
Now we have winter range development. Conifer encroachment. The war on sagebrush that has only recently slowed down due to sage grouse nearly being listed. Fences, highways. Summer range degradation from years of fire suppression (i.e., too much conifer and late-stage succession), or huge wildfires. Weeds. Increased year-round recreating. No more extensive predator control (note: I am not in favor of predator control as a means to affect deer pops; we couldn’t and shouldn’t effectively do it at the scale needed, now, to have long-term effects, but I can’t deny that the levels we did them long ago didn’t have an impact). In many areas responsible livestock grazing can be beneficial for wildlife, but many areas there’s overgrazing and its large-scale impacts and that sucks too. Feral horses and burros. Climate change and years of drought with crazy bad winters sprinkled in for spice. All of these taken together spells trouble for deer, and very few we can really do much (realistically) to immediately alter.
Elk populations have expanded across many areas over the last 10, 20, 50+ years. They are larger and have a much wider diet breadth than deer. They are more capable (and apt) to move away from unfavorable conditions (poor habitat, hunting/predator pressure) than many deer. They can better navigate obstacles—deep snow, fences, roads, downfall after fire, etc. Those things don’t directly impact deer per se but allow them to thrive or at least better persist in areas where deer more likely struggle. But, given their diet breadth and tendency to hang in larger groups, they can consume the prime deer forage (especially spring/early summer forbs before they then switch to grasses, which deer don’t). That would directly impact deer.
There was research like 10+ years ago in ID looking at fecal glucocorticoids (stress hormones) in mule deer and found that deer sharing winter range with elk had higher levels of stress hormones than ones that didn’t. I’ve seen an example of a cow elk stomping mule deer fawns to death that were too close to her newborn calf (obviously not a common occurrence with population-level impacts but “competition” doesn’t get more direct than that).
Elk/deer competition concept and studies aren’t new, but what Kevin does with his research is show what’s going on under the hood and how it matters to deer: not just the groceries but the body fat that comes from it. (Buzz, if what Monteith is doing is bogus, I look forward to seeming your rebuttal published in the same journal his work ends up in.)
A lot of these things managers can’t affect, but elk management is one (they can attempt at least). I didn’t read this as an all-out let’s-exterminate-elk-for-deer but as WY-might-try-some-experimental-reductions-to-see-if-that-helps. Isn’t that what we want biologists and managers to do?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Anyone that believes killing elk on little mountain is going to save or recover mule deer there is delusional.
Habitat conversion is the primary issue, livestock is the issue, roads are the issue, invasive plants are the issue, feral horses are the issue, drought is the issue.
Kill every elk in south central Wyoming...deer aren't going to do any better. But hey, there will be a published journal article.
I wish the look Monteith took under that hood wasn't always to kill the living shit out of one species or another to "save" them. Don't change the oil, tear out the pistons right off...
Habitat conversion is the primary issue, livestock is the issue, roads are the issue, invasive plants are the issue, feral horses are the issue, drought is the issue.
Kill every elk in south central Wyoming...deer aren't going to do any better. But hey, there will be a published journal article.
I wish the look Monteith took under that hood wasn't always to kill the living shit out of one species or another to "save" them. Don't change the oil, tear out the pistons right off...
WanderWoman
Well-known member
What I also got from the article was that yeah, elk removal may not be the solution there, as deer have always “under-performed” in that area. But they were looking at trying it elsewhere.. at least that’s how I read it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
How's that mule deer population boom going in the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat? Remote country, designated wilderness, great winter range on the east and south sides of it. Hardly any outfitters anymore, very little resident hunting pressure. Early succession favoring high quality browse. If elk were the problem, and drastically reducing their numbers was the solution, I'd expect some world class mule deer hunting there.
Is that the case? Not only no, but hell no.
Oh, but it will work on little mountain because if we remove elk, deer body fat will increase 2% and all will be right with the world of mule deer.
Fire up those rifles, we got elk to slaughter.
Oh, and yeah, I read that too about trying it elsewhere...that's the scariest thing in that article.
Last edited:
Agree with both of these points.
At a certain point I think it’s time to realize mule deer opportunities simply cannot meet demand, and it’s time to go elk and/or whitetail deer hunting.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Makes too much sense and doesn't fit the agenda to knock the crap out of elk in Wyoming to save mule deer.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
What are talking about? Everything is great in Montana! We are doing great!! Mule deer are great!!! Best management in the lower 48 and survey says not to change
Thinking out loud, I wonder how this plays into the rose petal theory of deer populations?
Good point they are knocking it out of the park. Nothing can be done in Montana. But shooting every living critter for 50 years hasn’t controlled cwd wiping elk out hasn’t increased mule deer. Maybe we are missing something. Maybe someone should do a case study on that.What are talking about? Everything is great in Montana! We are doing great!! Mule deer are great!!! Best management in the lower 48 and survey says not to change
BuzzH
Well-known member
With these drastically reduced elk numbers in NW Montana, how long do I have to wait before Montana starts issuing 2 buck mule deer tags again?
When can I expect these booming mule deer populations?
When can I expect these booming mule deer populations?
BuzzH
Well-known member
If we have to have shitty mule deer hunting, its only fair we also have shitty elk, whitetail, and pronghorn hunting too.
We have to kill them, it's for their own good.
From what I’ve been told for the last 20 years things should be improving shortly.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Boy after reading that article I was not impressed. As well as the trend line is not evident what so ever to me. Setting up a model of that data set could be generally what you want it to be imo. Monteith is very respected so must be more to that data set than presented. I would definitely want to be more convinced of the data before taking that to the real world for trials. Honestly I didn’t see where they really have anything to use yet from the study. They need to keep working on it. No offense to the dr. Correlation is not causation.
BuzzH
Well-known member
It seems everything from the good Dr. Kevorkian is pretty easy, kill everything off.
The GF bought into his pronghorn theory of kill off more bucks.
The GF bought into the kill any excess bighorn sheep ewes, before they die of something else.
The GF is about to buy off on kill as many elk as you can.
I'm not convinced, far from it actually.
The GF bought into his pronghorn theory of kill off more bucks.
The GF bought into the kill any excess bighorn sheep ewes, before they die of something else.
The GF is about to buy off on kill as many elk as you can.
I'm not convinced, far from it actually.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
Yeah I love science and data but it really needs to be strong and convincing before it is implemented. Lives are at stake…literally
Yeah let’s make sure we manage wildlife with science unless of course we don’t like it
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
That’s not my opinion at all. Do you think this science looks strong and convincing? It didn’t appear that way to me whatsoever. That was all I was saying
Edit: I’m all for slaughtering the timber carp if it really will help the mule deer.
