Tough Winter

[belly-deep]

I don't know the numbers (natural mortality, hunter harvest, etc.), but I find that very hard to believe.

Whether you want to believe it or not, mother nature still has the final say in things.

Then how do you explain the deer hunting in the 60's? Most western states had a rut hunt, and you could buy multiple buck tags in many places. Yet deer harvests, both by sheer numbers and B&C animals peaked back then. Why? The environment was ideal during that window of time.

Right now the only way we can reliably grow B&C animals is to restrict the hunting pressure. The human element is the only part of the equation that we can control. Unfortunately, it is only part of the equation, and a lot of other things go into determining our game populations.

 

[1_pointer]

Why? The environment was ideal during

Could it have been due in large part to the human influence on the habitat at that time, along with other MANagement decisions? I think so.

 

[mdunc8]

My main point is that we shouldn't jump the gun and advocate closing season down early when a big snowfall hits because it may just winter kill most of the animals hunters would have taken.

True, you can't predict what the winter will bring with much precision (although they were expecting an above average snowpack this year), but we do have the ability to control hunting mortality to some of the extent, which allows managers to better manipulate population levels rather than leave both harvest and weather to chance.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a better hunting experience over the next few years by sacrificing the ability to drive my lazy arse over to Ennis and shoot a five point and two cows in 15 minutes like some people I know.

 

[mdunc8]

Whether you want to believe it or not, mother nature still has the final say in things.

Then how do you explain the deer hunting in the 60's? Most western states had a rut hunt, and you could buy multiple buck tags in many places. Yet deer harvests, both by sheer numbers and B&C animals peaked back then. Why? The environment was ideal during that window of time.

Right now the only way we can reliably grow B&C animals is to restrict the hunting pressure. The human element is the only part of the equation that we can control. Unfortunately, it is only part of the equation, and a lot of other things go into determining our game populations.

Sure, mother nature controls how stochastic the population is and to some extent the number of animals (as we're seeing this year with antelope), but I think it's fair to say we have more influence over carrying capacity than any natural variable (except wolves of course). You don't think the fact that there were half as many people hunting out West had anything to do with the age/size structure of wildlife populations? I doubt many ranchers gave to cents about what their animals scored in 1950. What about the amount of fencing? Or roads? Or trains? Or water withdrawals? We're responsible for how things work around. Maybe not completely, but I'd put my money on us screwing things up more times than mother nature.

 

[belly-deep]

Could it have been due in large part to the human influence on the habitat at that time, along with other MANagement decisions? I think so.

You are 100% right however that has nothing to do with the topic of the environment vs. hunter harvest as to game populations. We're not talking about how man affects the environment. We're talking about how hunter kills and environmental conditions differ in the way they impact game populations.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I never said the FWP had incorrect quotas, infact I said that I'm not in favor of lifting any limits the FWP has in place right now.

My main point is that we shouldn't jump the gun and advocate closing season down early when a big snowfall hits because it may just winter kill most of the animals hunters would have taken. Also, we shouldn't try and build populations up too high above what the winter range could support during a tough year because they just might come crashing down.

Gotcha, but what if the current population objective is artificially low due to landowner tolerance and predation? Not disagreeing with your point, but I think other factors come in to play besides just the weather.

That is not exactly true, infact the opposite is true in certain situations. Mother nature won't let a herd grow beyond what its winter range will support for very long. If you get a couple of easy winters, game populations might get abnormally high, but nature will correct itself in short order.

If you let a population get really big and a tough winter comes along, then you're in trouble. The animals will eat all of the food up by mid-winter and really die off. Enough food to winter 1000 animals will winter 1000 animals and while there may be deaths, it won't be from lack of forage. But enough food to winter 1000 will not winter 2000 animals and the whole 2000 of them will be starving at some point before spring comes.

I'm not saying that this is occuring right now to those antelope, but my point is that just because an animal is running around at the end of hunting season, it doesn't mean that it will be doing the same thing when the season opens the next fall.

True, although there are a number of areas that are already seeing artificially low numbers for other reasons, and then you throw a tough winter on top, and you end up with significant winter kill as well. Man dictates what the herd size will be, we left the ebbs and flows of natural selection and populations well behind when we decided to set objectives, etc.

 

[belly-deep]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a better hunting experience over the next few years by sacrificing the ability to drive my lazy arse over to Ennis and shoot a five point and two cows in 15 minutes like some people I know.

My whole point is that the 5 point and the two cows you spared could be dead by the end of the next blizzard.

Not a good reason to prematurely close a season down.

What if you had a bank account that would return to a balance of $10 every so often--only you couldn't really predict when. Would you let that account get up over $500 very often? No, you wouldn't. You'd spend the money occasionally because it is the safe thing to do.

All I'm saying is our game animals aren't made of iron and we shouldn't get too carried away with building a population that is already at a healthy level.

 

[belly-deep]

Man dictates what the herd size will be, we left the ebbs and flows of natural selection and populations well behind when we decided to set objectives, etc.

I still say ma nature holds the trump card.

How about this winter? I would chalk that up in nature's column.

How about some southern and eastern states where as hard as wildlife agencies try, they are still way above whitetail deer objectives? I'll give that one to nature too.

We can do all kinds of things, but when the environmental factors are ideal (or horrible), there is very little we can do about it.

 

[1_pointer]

You are 100% right however that has nothing to do with the topic of the environment vs. hunter harvest as to game populations. We're not talking about how man affects the environment. We're talking about how hunter kills and environmental conditions differ in the way they impact game populations.

IMO/E mans effects on the habitat directly impact game populations. Again, IMO, that is why we saw the herds of mule deer in the '60s that you alluded to. It was more due to the impact man had, even though mostly inadvertantly, than through weather impacts during that same time period.

 

[mdunc8]

My whole point is that the 5 point and the two cows you spared could be dead by the end of the next blizzard.

True, but what are the chances of that happening? Survival for elk, eliminating wolves from the equation, is typically quite high after the first year. It's been what, 15 years, since we (or I should say "you" since I haven't been here that long) had a really tough winter? I'll take my chances with them surviving the winter rather than watch a parade of trucks on 84 packed full of whole elk.

You're bank account example is just what happened with everyone's stock portfolio. I'm betting those people with real jobs and disposable income (I am not one) are dumping money back into their 401k's or Walmart stock after loosing boatloads the last few years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I still say ma nature holds the trump card.

How about this winter? I would chalk that up in nature's column.

How about some southern and eastern states where as hard as wildlife agencies try, they are still way above whitetail deer objectives? I'll give that one to nature too.

We can do all kinds of things, but when the environmental factors are ideal (or horrible), there is very little we can do about it.

As for over objective states, access and loss of hunters in general help play a role in that as well as nature.

Nature has the big hand, absolutely, and often times reminds man that she is in control. But comparing states like Missouri or others that are over objective have fewer people in general able to harvest.

At any rate, I absolutely agree with the last statement.

 

[mdunc8]

I still say ma nature holds the trump card.

How about this winter? I would chalk that up in nature's column.

How about some southern and eastern states where as hard as wildlife agencies try, they are still way above whitetail deer objectives? I'll give that one to nature too.

We can do all kinds of things, but when the environmental factors are ideal (or horrible), there is very little we can do about it.

I need a break to actually get something done after this one, but will return for more later. Growing up and hunting in Virginia I have first hand experience with eastern deer herds. Where people are free to hunt (i.e., national forest), there aren't deer running around everywhere. The major problem is urban sprawl. There are neighborhoods popping up all over the place. We had some of the biggest deer I've ever seen in our backyard, but I'm not about to go shoot one and then go drag it out from underneath my neighbors swing set. Before Columbus showed up with all his buddy's and started screwing things up, there weren't nearly as many deer running around the woods (which is what most everything was before we starting dropping trees to grow corn and build pretty houses).

 

[mdunc8]

We can do all kinds of things, but when the environmental factors are ideal (or horrible), there is very little we can do about it.

Sure there is. Just feed them like Wyoming does

 

[belly-deep]

IMO/E mans effects on the habitat directly impact game populations. Again, IMO, that is why we saw the herds of mule deer in the '60s that you alluded to. It was more due to the impact man had, even though mostly inadvertantly, than through weather impacts during that same time period.

Growing up and hunting in Virginia I have first hand experience with eastern deer herds. Where people are free to hunt (i.e., national forest), there aren't deer running around everywhere. The major problem is urban sprawl. There are neighborhoods popping up all over the place. We had some of the biggest deer I've ever seen in our backyard, but I'm not about to go shoot one and then go drag it out from underneath my neighbors swing set.

Those are still environmental conditions. Simply, a deer's environment is the place it lives in...nothing more. It may live in a place that is severly altered by humans, but that is still its environment.

In the 60's we had low predator numbers, good forage, low elk numbers, etc. Those all combined to make for a good environment for the deer, and so they thrived.

In areas of urban sprawl, sure you have humans everywhere...but you also have an environment where the winters are mild, the predator numbers few, and many places for the deer to escape hunting pressure.

To game populations, it doesn't matter who made the predator numbers few, what makes the climate mild, or why the deer can escape hunting pressure...the deer only care that they can do those things.

 

[mdunc8]

In areas of urban sprawl, sure you have humans everywhere...but you also have an environment where the winters are mild, the predator numbers few, and many places for the deer to escape hunting pressure.

Please don't tell me your claiming the deer living the cushy life in the suburbs of Roanoke, Virginia are the result of mother nature. I could empathize with your previous arguments, but now you're talking crazy.

 

[Breaks Runner]

From a few hours ago. There's been a little bunch of about 75 head out just a few miles west of town on the north side of Highway 2. This is all I could find of them today.

Willow Creek Road.

My backyard on the edge of the Milk River.

 

[mdunc8]

Breaks, were numbers down for you guys as much as they were in Region 7 last year? I remember them mentioning reducing doe tags in Region 7, but I don't remember hearing anything up in your neck of the woods.

 

[belly-deep]

Please don't tell me your claiming the deer living the cushy life in the suburbs of Roanoke, Virginia are the result of mother nature. I could empathize with your previous arguments, but now you're talking crazy.

I'm not telling you that...re-read the post if it helps you.

 

[mdunc8]

Whether you want to believe it or not, mother nature still has the final say in things.

Suburbs and mother nature are not synonymous

 

[belly-deep]

Suburbs and mother nature are not synonymous

Given good habitat and good weather, game populations rise quickly

Given bad habitat and bad weather, game populations get wiped out quickly

How is that not mother nature?

From the whitetail deer's perpective, are suburbs really bad habitat? I know it is not the kind of habitat that nature lovers such as you or I would like to see them in, but from the deer's perspective it is just fine. Think about it, what is a deer's goal in life? To stay alive and reproduce. You mentioned seeing a big buck in your back yard in Virginia...why was he big and why was he there?

Now before you try and twist my words into something like "we should build suburbs all over the west because they are good deer habitat" let me explain that I am certainly not advocating for that.