Mule Deer Initiative for WA State

[Wacenturion]

Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown.  Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well.  In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans.  Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat.  Homes built on prime winter ground.  Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers.  Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season.  Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times)  Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive.  Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place.  We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors.  We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good.  How do manage against this?  You can't stop people from building or recreating.  You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road.  You can't blame it all on hunting.  Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.   

Lot of good points............glad I'm old too...

[Wacenturion]

less tags sold..off season hound hunts for cougar.Permits to bait bears with strict details on bait and clean sites..

Predators may be the number one problem, but hunter harvest is easier to manage.

Soo lets mess with everyone and make them change rather than address the underlying predator and habitat issues.  Also add extra complexity for Hunter and more load on wdfw staff to administer.
 
Sounds like a great idea, take my guns too since crazy people use them to kill people...

Sorry don't mean to attack you personally, You are far from the only person to have this idea.
But the "have to do something" because it is easier solutions bother me as they don't solve problems, just mask them to everyone's long term detriment.  I deal with it at work too, one dept does double work because another dept manager not want to hold his workers accountable.

 And some of this is what I was hitting on.

 The "have to do something" idea, especially with hasty decisions based on "Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?" is not thinking the situation through, let alone addressing my earlier question of "is there a problem in the first place?"

 There are three mind sets, mule deer numbers are fine, mule deer numbers are declining and I'm not sure which/I don't know.

 On one hand you have WDFW's Mr. Fitkin, strongly behind the wolves and saying the mule deer numbers are in good shape, here are more late permits to show you I mean what I say.

 Then there are those like MDF's Mr. McKinley, that believe there is a issue in Washington with decreasing mule deer numbers.

 The third is self explanatory

 Obviously, one of these is BS, and before we go any further in voluntarily giving away more of our hunting, we had better all figure out which one is legit and deal with that first!

 

[James]

While this may not be a popular opinion here on this forum, I want a game plan that is based off of well executed scientific studies.  This is of course because I am a man of science myself.  In my discussions with wildlife bio’s the biggest issue with this is cost.  They don’t have the funding to obtain the data to put together a comprehensive plan for mule deer, just pieces here and there.  Of course there is always the difficulty of surveying blacktails as well…

Anecdotally I am concerned about migration corridors and tree encroachment.  The areas I hunt migratory mule deer, it is obvious that the caring capacity of the environment is not the limiting factor and wintering grounds don’t seem to have changed much in the last 20 years, but the number of extra houses, roads, traffic, etc. in-between the two has substantially increased. Obviously cars kill deer every year and that is a pretty quantifiable number, but I would be interested to know if the ones that don’t get hit are at higher risk for winterkill and predation because of the obstacles they face.

In Baker California they have tons and tons of underpasses and directing fences just for migrating desert Tortoises, you would think we could put some effort into that for ungulates, assuming of course it is significantly impacting the population.

[bearpaw]

Probably get a lot of disagreement, BUT I think the habitat/predator effect on mule deer is way overblown.  Frankly, in the late 50's early sixties with the exception of wolves there were considerably more predators (Mt. Lions, coyotes and bears) than there are now. In the more remote summer habitat lions and bears were quite common (at least in Utah, a major mule deer state and pretty good study of long term mule deer management) Herds were doing very well.  In the mid 60's when herds began to decline the state put an emphasis on habitat restoration and cleared thousands of acres of winter habitat of non browse vegetation (junipers and other evergreens) in an effort to create better winter browse. Results: negligible.
Bottom Line-the major reason for mule deer decline is humans.  Not just hunters, but the overall impact of a much bigger population intruding upon mule deer habitat.  Homes built on prime winter ground.  Better highways leading to higher road kill numbers.  Year around off road recreation not only during the harsh winter period, but during the early fawning season.  Hunting seasons that extend from late August into (and sometimes thru) December. (not just deer hunting, but, as an example, a late fall/winter turkey hunt that chases deer from prime wintering ground at times)  Big game management always seems to be reactive instead of proactive.  Case after case can be cited where late hunts, antlerless hunts take place one year and the next year theres either a total closure or prohibitive permit system put in place.  We always seem to wait until the horses are out before we close the barn doors.  We watch herds decline with hunters reporting seeing less and less deer, but it's ok-the buck/doe ratio is good.  How do manage against this?  You can't stop people from building or recreating.  You can't stop highways from being built and keep more cars off the road.  You can't blame it all on hunting.  Guess I'm glad in a way to be old, I don't have many answers for these new problems.   

I am not sure I buy there are less predators than the 50's ...I think we have more predators now than back then ..Especially now that we do not have a general hound hunting season ..I do not care what the Bio's think or know ..I am very sure there are predators that never see man and have no way of being counted by Bio's who anyone else that thinks they know so ....

There were a lot of houndsmen back then,  less people sure but most of the logging roads were open too.   Wasn't the "close all the roads" mentality.
I wasn't around in the 50's though so I can't argue if there were more or less predators back then.



...But I do know we got our fair share of predators now!

I knew and/or hunted with some of the cougar bounty hunters from the 50's. (Cougar Sam) Sam Miller, Bert Edwards, Leo Bruce, to name a few. Most are dead now but they told me about how hard they had to hunt to find cougars and that they had to go back into the mountains to find cougars in those days. When I started hunting cougars in the 70's it was all we could do to find 1 legal cougar (of any sex) in a week when hunting 20 hours a day looking for tracks. By the 90's I offered 3-day guaranteed hunts and we averaged finding 5 tracks per day and would higrade for the best cougar. Then the greenies passed their initiative and since cougars have been even further under managed. I can cover the same country today (with the exception of Ferry County where the tribe hunts cougars with dogs and they aren't quite as over populated) and often find a dozen cougar tracks in a day of looking in Stevens County.

Today the countryside is so saturated with cougars, there are cougars living within 1 mile of most towns in northeast Washington and WDFW knows that too because they have to respond to cougar complaints regularly on the edge of most of these towns.

WDFW admitted in the Colville wolf meeting this spring there are likely 4000 cougar in WA, they used to say there were 2000 cougar in WA, then they said likely 3000 cougars for several years, now it's 4000 cougars. Studies have shown that cougars eat 25 to 50 deer per year, do the math. 2000 more cougar means 50,000 to 100,000 more deer are being eaten today than when we had half as many cougars. If anyone thinks all these cougars are eating grasshoppers and squirrels they are sadly mistaken. We find deer kills all the time made by cougars and I can tell you from my experience and from studies, mule deer is the preferential food for cougars, where there are mule deer cougar will focus on them.

The other biggest predator problem in my region is coyotes, since trapping was eliminated the tool box for reducing the coyote population is very limited, coyote numbers have exploded and they are impacting fawn survival in their first year of life and even impacting adult deer survival at times, especially during hard winters. Currently coyote contests are one of the best tools we have for controlling coyote numbers, but the greenies are working on eliminating that tool too. Anyone who has spent much time watching coyotes has likely seen how 2 or 3 coyotes will work adult deer to get them, I've watched it numerous times, it's truly an organized hunt almost like you read about with wolves but on a smaller scale. Many people have also seen how coyotes seek out small fawns in the summer. The problem is that there are so many coyotes this is all happening far more often.

Don't get me wrong, I love predators, I love hunting predators, they are fascinating critters. But unmanaged numbers of predators overly impact all our other wildlife. As wolves multiply the impacts will likely be even greater as we have seen in many areas of other states. I'm also not saying that habitat is not important, but currently there are not even enough mule deer to find many on the existing winter range in NE Washington that is gated to keep everyone out all winter/spring. That in itself tells me that winter range is not the #1 limiting factor. 

[bearpaw]

I would like to reiterate:

Isn't the WDFW formulating the next 3 year plan, I don't think we have much time?

I think we need to know more about the study from Dan, at least some preliminary indicators if the study isn't completed, we also need a rough draft of the mule deer plan, and we need to remember that to gain support the plan/initiative will have to be palatable to hunters, if you go into this with ideas that are unpopular with most hunters the initiative will be harder to sell to the Wildlife Commission.

There are usually several ways to accomplish any goal. If we know the science we can do some polls on this forum to quickly figure out what management ideas to address the science will be opposed by most hunters or accepted by most hunters, then we have a better idea of which management proposals to include in the initiative. My thought is that a comprehensive mix of ideas to address the issue in each region of the state will likely work best.

[baldopepper]

I'm certainly not any position to debate those numbers and I suspect Bearpaw is correct.  BUT, I think the bottom line in this state is that any management plan has to work around the fact that the majority of voters in this state are not going to support any program that allows the taking of more Mt. lions or bears and, in fact, is likely to become more restrictive. Coyotes don't seem to receive the same greenie support as lions, wolves and bears, but I don't suspect we'll ever see the use of poisons again-which are undoubtedly the most effective way to control them. (geeze-they won't even let them use poison on pigeons in Seattle when they are crapping on the heads of workers).  The environmentalists are here to stay and to think we'll ever go back to hunting being managed by and for hunters is a pipe dream.  Any management plan has to take into consideration  the huge block of voters who want to arm chair quarterback game management.  We can cry and complain all we want, but that won't help develop a plan that works.  None of us like it, but to ignore the impact of these people would be a mistake.

[bearpaw]

While this may not be a popular opinion here on this forum, I want a game plan that is based off of well executed scientific studies.  This is of course because I am a man of science myself.  In my discussions with wildlife bio’s the biggest issue with this is cost.  They don’t have the funding to obtain the data to put together a comprehensive plan for mule deer, just pieces here and there.  Of course there is always the difficulty of surveying blacktails as well…

Anecdotally I am concerned about migration corridors and tree encroachment.  The areas I hunt migratory mule deer, it is obvious that the caring capacity of the environment is not the limiting factor and wintering grounds don’t seem to have changed much in the last 20 years, but the number of extra houses, roads, traffic, etc. in-between the two has substantially increased. Obviously cars kill deer every year and that is a pretty quantifiable number, but I would be interested to know if the ones that don’t get hit are at higher risk for winterkill and predation because of the obstacles they face.

In Baker California they have tons and tons of underpasses and directing fences just for migrating desert Tortoises, you would think we could put some effort into that for ungulates, assuming of course it is significantly impacting the population.

In all due respect, Idaho said they had the data and did a major mule deer initiative which in all truthfulness is for the most part ineffective at this point after several years but in another 5 years hopefully we will see some obvious results. I think a major problems slowing results is the failure of IDFG to admit coyotes impact deer numbers, more winter feeding is needed during harsh winters, and the continued harvest of doe mule deer, of course this is my opinion but I think it bears merit when you consider all the facts known about deer management. There is a lot of good info regarding mule deer and habitat but I really think Idaho needs to broaden the scope of their initiative to be more effective.

More info here about the Idaho Mule Deer Initiative: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/mdi

[bearpaw]

I'm certainly not any position to debate those numbers and I suspect Bearpaw is correct.  BUT, I think the bottom line in this state is that any management plan has to work around the fact that the majority of voters in this state are not going to support any program that allows the taking of more Mt. lions or bears and, in fact, is likely to become more restrictive. Coyotes don't seem to receive the same greenie support as lions, wolves and bears, but I don't suspect we'll ever see the use of poisons again-which are undoubtedly the most effective way to control them. (geeze-they won't even let them use poison on pigeons in Seattle when they are crapping on the heads of workers).  The environmentalists are here to stay and to think we'll ever go back to hunting being managed by and for hunters is a pipe dream.  Any management plan has to take into consideration  the huge block of voters who want to arm chair quarterback game management.  We can cry and complain all we want, but that won't help develop a plan that works.  None of us like it, but to ignore the impact of these people would be a mistake.

Everyone is saying we need to manage by the science, even the greenies say that but they try to manipulate the science using biologists on their payroll and by infiltrating the ranks of WDFW and USFS. Unless WDFW takes a stand on the science we will continue to see erosion of wildlife numbers and hunting to satisfy greenie agenda. I think we need to look at the science available from all western agencies and then consider how to manage based on the available science and stand by that. To simply give in and say we have too many greenies to manage by the best science first is not correct, most people simply want wildlife managed by the science, we need to get a well thought out initiative together that hunters will support, the wildlife commission will support, and the masses will support it if it is based on the science.

[huntnphool]

I'm certainly not any position to debate those numbers and I suspect Bearpaw is correct.  BUT, I think the bottom line in this state is that any management plan has to work around the fact that the majority of voters in this state are not going to support any program that allows the taking of more Mt. lions or bears and, in fact, is likely to become more restrictive. Coyotes don't seem to receive the same greenie support as lions, wolves and bears, but I don't suspect we'll ever see the use of poisons again-which are undoubtedly the most effective way to control them. (geeze-they won't even let them use poison on pigeons in Seattle when they are crapping on the heads of workers).  The environmentalists are here to stay and to think we'll ever go back to hunting being managed by and for hunters is a pipe dream.  Any management plan has to take into consideration  the huge block of voters who want to arm chair quarterback game management.  We can cry and complain all we want, but that won't help develop a plan that works.  None of us like it, but to ignore the impact of these people would be a mistake.

BINGO!

[bobcat]

I think there are two things that could be done to improve mule deer numbers and that most people would agree with: 1) restoration/improvement of habitat and 2) reduce harvest by hunters.

Number two certainly wouldn't be popular with many hunters, but I don't think they could argue that it wouldn't be beneficial.

And of course it's pretty hard to say better habitat isn't a good thing.

Reducing predators is a good idea but not likely to ever happen in this state.

[baldopepper]

Bearpaw I couldn't agree more with what you are saying.  My point is that somehow we must offer an olive branch to the reasonable (if there are and I think there are) environmental groups out there, sit down and try to work out a plan that can be presented to management to implement.  As it stands now we force managers to attempt to mediate the opposing sides and both sides seem to make it into a winner take all situation.   Frankly, given the two choices they are going to go everytime with the side that represents the most votes-I think none of us are so naïve as to not see that. Logic and good science have always proven to take a back seat vote counts. With your recent committee work I suspect you may have met some so called "greenies" who might be willing to sit down and help work out an honest, science based proposal that we might not all love, but could live with.

[bearpaw]

Bearpaw I couldn't agree more with what you are saying.  My point is that somehow we must offer an olive branch to the reasonable (if there are and I think there are) environmental groups out there, sit down and try to work out a plan that can be presented to management to implement.  As it stands now we force managers to attempt to mediate the opposing sides and both sides seem to make it into a winner take all situation.   Frankly, given the two choices they are going to go everytime with the side that represents the most votes-I think none of us are so naïve as to not see that. Logic and good science have always proven to take a back seat vote counts. With your recent committee work I suspect you may have met some so called "greenies" who might be willing to sit down and help work out an honest, science based proposal that we might not all love, but could live with.

Nothing wrong with meeting in the middle on issues, but what I hear is people throwing in the towel before any negotiating begins, that is not good negotiating. I say go into negotiations with supporting evidence/good science, show how the extremist groups are incorrect, build confidence with the masses on how to have robust populations of all wildlife, and then end up in the middle somewhere with a plan where everyone benefits. 

[lamrith]

Cutting Hunter harvest just feeds more predators and will not help overall.  Lowering doe harvest?   We get one deer a year per Hunter, how is it other states allow a buck and multiple does per Hunter and still have deer everywhere?  Habitat improvement and strong predator control will likely reap the greatest benefit vs investment.

[Bigshooter]

Cutting Hunter harvest just feeds more predators and will not help overall.  Lowering doe harvest?   We get one deer a year per Hunter, how is it other states allow a buck and multiple does per Hunter and still have deer everywhere?  Habitat improvement and strong predator control will likely reap the greatest benefit vs investment.

There isn't a state that doesn't have decreasing mule deer numbers.  Get on any hunting forum and guys from every state say less doe's need to be killed to improve numbers.  I think in the next couple years you will see ID end general season youth doe hunts because of declining deer numbers.  And it will happen because of hunters.

[baldopepper]

Bearpaw I couldn't agree more with what you are saying.  My point is that somehow we must offer an olive branch to the reasonable (if there are and I think there are) environmental groups out there, sit down and try to work out a plan that can be presented to management to implement.  As it stands now we force managers to attempt to mediate the opposing sides and both sides seem to make it into a winner take all situation.   Frankly, given the two choices they are going to go everytime with the side that represents the most votes-I think none of us are so naïve as to not see that. Logic and good science have always proven to take a back seat vote counts. With your recent committee work I suspect you may have met some so called "greenies" who might be willing to sit down and help work out an honest, science based proposal that we might not all love, but could live with.

Nothing wrong with meeting in the middle on issues, but what I hear is people throwing in the towel before any negotiating begins, that is not good negotiating. I say go into negotiations with supporting evidence/good science, show how the extremist groups are incorrect, build confidence with the masses on how to have robust populations of all wildlife, and then end up in the middle somewhere with a plan where everyone benefits. 

Well put!  It is a tall mountain to climb, but for sure you can't get to the top without trying!